1128023
research-article2022

ALH0010.1177/14697874221128023Active Learning in Higher EducationMinosky et al.

Article

The impact of course format
on student perceptions of the
classroom learning environment
and teamwork

Active Learning in Higher Education
1­–16
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221128023
DOI: 10.1177/14697874221128023
journals.sagepub.com/home/alh

Shayna A Minosky

Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Canada

Michael Wiechers

Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Canada

Leonardo Landaverde-Umana
Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Canada

Abstract
Traditionally, education has been largely delivered in an in-person format; however, an increasing number
of courses are being delivered entirely online or with a blend of online and in-person components. These
formats differ along various dimensions, such as the quantity and quality of interpersonal interactions and
connections, which will likely lead to different student experiences. Using a sample of 200 undergraduate
student responses from an online survey, we compared five different course formats (in-person, synchronous
online, asynchronous online, blended with alternating weeks and blended exam only) on students’ perceptions
of various elements of their learning environment, including teaching presence, cognitive presence, social
presence, sense of community and teamwork. A between groups ANOVA demonstrated significant
differences for seven of the eight variables examined. In each case, the in-person format was rated the most
positively and the blended exam only format tended to receive the poorest ratings. Overall, our results
suggest that live interaction among students, and between students and instructors, whether it is from an
in-person format or a blended alternating format, appears to be linked to more positive perceptions of the
social learning environment.

Keywords
blended learning, community of inquiry, in-person learning, learning environment, online learning,
teamwork, undergraduate students

Corresponding author:
Shayna A Minosky, Department of Psychology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 12666 72 Avenue, Surrey,
BC V3W 2M8, Canada.
Email: shayna.minosky@kpu.ca

2

Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

Traditionally, education has been largely delivered in an in-person format; however, an increasing
number of courses are being delivered entirely online (synchronously or asynchronously) or with
a blend of online and in-person components (Harmon and Jones, 1999; Thai et al., 2020), especially in response to COVID-19 in early 2020 when there was a sudden and forced shift to mandatory online learning. Whether a student takes a course in an in-person, online or blended format
will have an impact on their learning experiences as these formats vary along several dimensions,
such as flexibility, use of technology and quantity and quality of interpersonal interactions and
connections (Horspool and Lange, 2012). While previous studies have compared different course
formats on student perceptions of the learning enviornment (LE), the findings have been mixed
(Blau et al., 2017; Chen and Chiou, 2014; Horspool and Lange, 2012; Khodabandelou et al., 2017;
Lafortune and Lakhal, 2020) and we found no studies that compared more than three course formats at a time. The purpose of this study was to compare five different course formats on undergraduate students’ perceptions of the LE.
The five course formats we compared were in-person, synchronous online, asynchronous
online, blended with alternating weeks and blended exam only. In-person formats are defined as
the traditional format in which students attend a weekly class in which they are present at the university with their instructor and peers. Synchronous online formats have some, if not all, of the
course content delivered live during a virtual session in which the instructor and students will meet
during a scheduled class time via an online platform. Asynchronous online formats deliver all
course content asynchronously, through required readings, lecture slides and/or videos, and there
is very little, if any, interaction among peers and between students and the instructor. In an alternating blended format, students will alternate each week between the course content being delivered
in-person or online (in either a synchronous or asynchronous format). Finally, in a blended exam
only format, students may first attend an in-person orientation to the course, but all content is delivered online, most commonly asynchronously and students will only attend in-person sessions to
write exams.

Community building and the community of inquiry framework
A sense of community is built within a classroom when students develop a feeling of membership
and belonging with their instructor and peers (Yuan and Kim, 2014). Building a strong sense of
community has many academic benefits, including increased levels of participation and deep
learning, while also having social benefits, such as an increased ability to manage stress and a
greater sense of overall well-being (Berry, 2019). In addition, researchers have found that strong
feelings of community support knowledge exchange, learning, attachment to group goals and better cooperation and satisfaction with group efforts (Romiskzowski and Mason, 2004; Rovai, 2002a;
Rovai and Ponton, 2019; Yilmaz, 2016).
The Community of Inquiry (Col) framework is one of the most popular models used in online
LEs (Warner, 2016). The model was first developed by Garrison et al. (1999) and it proposed that
for deep learning to occur in an online LE, there must be three presences in the classroom: teaching
presence, social presence and cognitive presence (Cleary, 2021). Social presence refers to the ability of learners to portray themselves—socially and emotionally—as real and true people in the LE
(Berry, 2019). Social presence is developed through the process of identifying with the community
through active and intentional communication that fosters a sense of trust and by developing social
relationships (Kreijns et al., 2014). Research has shown that social presence is a key predictor in
learning and the level of social presence in a classroom has a direct impact on both the quality of
interactions and positive learning outcomes (Bickle et al., 2019). Teaching presence refers to the
ability of the instructor to facilitate connections in the classroom using activities or interactions

Minosky et al.

3

that support both learning and the development of a sense of community (Cleary, 2021; Rovai,
2007). Cognitive presence is the ability of students to establish meaning through collaboration and
reflection (Garrison et al., 1999). It also reflects an instructor’s ability to facilitate learning that
creates opportunities for student reflection, critical thinking and dialogue. If cognitive presence in
the classroom environment is strong, it will result in students feeling like they worked together
towards a shared goal (Berry, 2019). Overall, these three presences combine to foster a sense of
community within the classroom (Berry, 2019).
The CoI framework has been effectively applied to online (Rubin et al., 2013), blended (Akyol
et al., 2009; Berry, 2019) and face-to-face environments (Lafortune and Lakhal, 2020; Warner,
2016). Rubin et al. (2013) applied the framework to online instruction to better understand how
the software used in an online course can impact online learning. Results indicated that the technology used was important in facilitating the three presences of a community of inquiry. The
authors also found that the ease of finding course materials in a learning management system
significantly impacted levels of teaching presence and student satisfaction. Berry (2019) applied
the CoI framework to a blended synchronous course format and investigated the strategies that
faculty used to build a community within an online course. Four strategies for community building were identified: reaching out to students often and early, limiting the amount of lecture time
and increasing discussion, using multiple technical features of the virtual classroom to encourage
discussion and allocating class time to share personal and professional updates. Akyol et al.
(2009) applied the framework to both an online and a blended course format with the intention of
studying the differences in how a community of inquiry develops within these environments.
They found that while both course formats successfully developed each presence, there were
developmental differences in the presences between the two formats. For social presence, affective expression was found more prominently in online courses compared to blended courses and
group cohesion was found more prominently in blended courses. For cognitive presence, results
found that the integration phase was the most frequently reported phase for both formats; however, this phase was found more frequently in the blended format compared to online format,
while the exploration phase was found more frequently in the latter. Akyol et al. (2009) also found
that students in a blended course had significantly higher perceptions of teaching presence compared to students in an online course.
Other researchers have successfully applied the CoI framework to face-to-face environments
(Lafortune and Lakhal, 2020; Warner, 2016). Warner (2016) applied the COI framework to a course
structured around matrixed teams, which involved students being assigned specific roles within a
team while also collaborating with individuals across groups who shared their role. Warner found
that both participation in the class and the quality of written work increased after implementing a
community inquiry-based approach to the course. Lafortune and Lakhal (2020) conducted a study
in which a course was taught with one group attending via the internet while another group of
students participated in-person. They found significant differences between the two formats for
only one of the presences, teaching presence, with the students in the face-to-face setting perceiving a higher level of teaching presence compared to the online group.

Teamwork in educational settings
Teamwork is a common activity in educational settings and involves small groups of students
(commonly 2–4 students) working together on a common goal or task. These team-based activities can range from small group discussions during a single class to substantial projects that
may last several weeks to an entire semester. Through teamwork, students are able to enhance
their learning and develop important interpersonal skills through their interactions with their

4

Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

peers (Adams and Hamm, 1994). There are numerous benefits of teamwork, including improved
academic performance (Gabbert et al., 1986; Roseth et al., 2008), increased exposure to varied
experiences and perspectives (West, 1996), the development of trust (Feitosa et al., 2020) and
improved mental health and social competence (Strom and Strom, 2011). Despite these benefits, not all students like working in teams. In a study exploring university students’ attitudes
towards teamwork, Hillyard et al. (2010) found that all participants had engaged in teamwork
at some point in their schooling with nearly 50% of their sample reporting that almost all their
courses had a teamwork component. Only about half of their sample felt that working in teams
enhanced their learning and that their peers were prepared for working on the project.
Discouragingly, only 15% reported that all members of the team contributed equally to the team
project and one-third reported that their teamwork experience had been mostly positive.
Showing lowered motivation and effort during a team project (known as social loafing) is common when students work in teams (Karau and Williams, 1993) and levels of social loafing may
be impacted by the way a course is delivered and the opportunities that students have to interact
with one another.
Teamwork in both online and in-person formats share similar characteristics, including making
equal commitments, sharing ideas and responsibilities, sharing the desire in getting to know their
team members (Saghafian and O’Neill, 2018) and instance of social loafing and free-riding (Konak
et al., 2019) However, there are also important differences between online and in-person formats.
One, individuals taking part in online teamwork and classes show a much weaker sense of connectedness among team members (Rovai et al., 2005; Saghafian and O’Neill, 2018). Two, weaker
communication and lower levels of individual accountability have been described as negative factors experienced by individuals involved in online teamwork learning (Tseng and Yeh, 2013).
Three, knowledge sharing has also been shown to be challenging in online formats due to the scattering of knowledge among geographically distributed team members in the absence of traditional
face-to-face interactions (Alsharo et al., 2017). Finally, trust among virtual team members has been
noted as a challenge due to the absence of proximity between team members (Alsharo et al., 2017).
Despite these challenges of online group work, one advantage that has been noted is an efficiency
in task-oriented discussion during team meetings with students being able to accomplish their
goals in a shorter time frame (Saghafian and O’Neill, 2018). Students believed that solely focussing their discussions on their assigned groupwork would allow them to have more time to focus
on their studies.

Purpose of the present study
In this study, we aimed to further apply the CoI framework to varying class formats (in-person,
blended-alternating, blended-exam only, asynchronous online and synchronous online) and explore
potential differences among these class formats in the three Col presences, sense of community,
and perceptions of teamwork among an undergraduate student sample. The key research questions
addressed in this study were:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Are there differences in the sense of community (connections and learning) among the five
class formats?
Are there community of inquiry presence (teaching, social, cognitive) differences among
the five class formats?
Are there differences in attitudes towards teamwork among the five class formats?
Are there differences in perceived social loafing among the five class formats?

Minosky et al.

5

Methods
Participants
Undergraduate students were recruited for this study via MTurk, Reddit, survey exchanges and our
university’s subject pool within the psychology department. A total of 128 respondents were initially recruited through MTurk by posting the study on the MTurk site and paying participants $1
for their participation. After data cleaning and removing invalid responses (i.e. failed attention
checks and incomplete surveys) we were left with a total of 52 usable respondents from this source.
A total of 172 respondents were recruited through the other three avenues by posting a description
of the study and a link to the online survey on each site and after data cleaning we retained 117
respondents. Students recruited through our university’s subject pool received bonus credit for
their participation and no compensation was provided to participants recruited through Reddit and
the survey exchanges. At the conclusion of the survey, participants were asked if they would be
willing to complete the survey a second time for a different class format (if they were taking multiple classes in multiple formats). A total of 65 participants consented to completing the survey a
second time and after data cleaning (i.e. incomplete surveys, completing survey again for same
course format) we had 31 usable responses. Overall, this gave us a final sample size of 200. Of
these 200 responses, 64 represented an in-person course format, 49 an asynchronous online format,
31 a synchronous online format, 31 an alternating blended format and 24 a blended exam only
format. One respondent did not indicate a course format and had to be removed. See Table 1 for
descriptive statistics for the participants in each of these class formats.
Table 1. Participant demographics for the five course formats.
In-person
(n = 64)

Asynchronous
online (n = 49)

Age—M (SD)
27.67 (9.10) 24.75 (6.60)
Gender
Female—n (%)
36 (56)
29 (59)
Male—n (%)
18 (28)
7 (14)
Other—n (%)
1 (2)
1 (2)
Missing—n (%)
9 (14)
12 (25)
Ethnicity
White—n (%)
28 (44)
13 (27)
South Asian—n (%)
11 (17)
13 (27)
Southeast Asian—n (%)
4 (6)
5 (10)
Other—n (%)
12 (19)
5 (10)
Missing—n (%)
9 (14)
13 (27)
International student
Yes—n (%)
16 (25)
6 (12)
No—n (%)
39 (61)
31 (63)
Missing—n (%)
9 (14)
12 (25)
Programme
Psychology—n (%)
26 (41)
26 (53)
Other—n (%)
18 (28)
10 (20)
Missing—n (%)
20 (31)
13 (27)

Synchronous Alternating
Blended exam
online (n = 31) blended (n = 31) only (n = 24)
23.96 (8.14)

27.77 (9.09)

24.33 (5.31)

15 (48)
8 (26)
2 (6)
6 (19)

15 (48)
10 (32)
1 (3)
5 (16)

16 (67)
5 (21)
0 (0)
3 (13)

14 (45)
5 (16)
1 (3)
5 (16)
6 (19)

12 (39)
6 (19)
4 (13)
4 (13)
5 (16)

5 (21)
7 (29)
3 (13)
6 (25)
3 (13)

12 (39)
13 (42)
6 (19)

12 (39)
14 (45)
5 (16)

6 (25)
15 (63)
3 (13)

7 (23)
15 (48)
9 (29)

7 (23)
13 (42)
11 (35)

12 (50)
5 (21)
7 (29)
(Continued)

6

Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

Table 1. (Continued)
In-person
(n = 64)
Year of study
First—n (%)
Second– n (%)
Third—n (%)
Fourth—n (%)
Fifth or higher—n (%)
Missing—n (%)
Courses
1–3—n (%)
4 or more—n (%)
Missing—n (%)
Employment
Not employed—n (%)
 Part-time
(1–29 hours) —n (%)
 Full-time
(30+ hours) —n (%)
Missing—n (%)
Country
Canada—n (%)
USA—n (%)
Other—n (%)
Missing—n (%)

Asynchronous
online (n = 49)

Synchronous Alternating
Blended exam
online (n = 31) blended (n = 31) only (n = 24)

2 (3)
14 (22)
19 (30)
15 (25)
4 (6)
9 (14)

5 (10)
10 (20)
9 (18)
6 (12)
7 (14)
12 (25)

5 (16)
5 (16)
8 (26)
4 (13)
3 (10)
5 (19)

2 (7)
4 (13)
7 (23)
11 (36)
2 (7)
5 (16)

0 (0)
6 (25)
8 (33)
4 (17)
3 (13)
3 (13)

34 (53)
21 (33)
9 (14)

21 (43)
16 (33)
12 (25)

12 (39)
13 (42)
6 (19)

19 (61)
7 (23)
5 (16)

11 (46)
10 (42)
3 (13)

11 (17)
27 (42)

12 (25)
16 (33)

3 (10)
14 (45)

3 (10)
11 (35)

3 (13)
10 (32)

17 (27)

8 (16)

8 (26)

12 (39)

8 (33)

9 (14)

13 (27)

6 (19)

5 (16)

3 (13)

33 (51)
16 (25)
5 (8)
10 (16)

32 (65)
3 (6)
0 (0)
12 (24)

11 (35)
8 (26)
6 (19)
6 (19)

12 (39)
13 (42)
1 (3)
5 (16)

14 (58)
6 (25)
1 (4)
3 (13)

Psychology was the only programme with at least 5% representation in each of the course formats.

Measures
Classroom community. The 20-item Classroom Community Scale (Rovai, 2002a) assessed participants’ sense of community in their classroom. This scale is composed of two subscales—connectedness and learning—with 10 items in each subscale. A higher score on the connectedness subscale
refers to a greater feeling of social belonging within the classroom. A higher score on the learning
subscale indicates a greater sense of social connection in the joint pursuit of learning and meeting
educational goals/expectations. Participants responded to each item using a five-point scale ranging from ‘Strongly Agree’ to ‘Strongly Disagree’. Coefficient alpha for the connectedness subscale
was 0.85 and for the learning subscale was 0.70.
Community of inquiry. The 35-item Community of Inquiry Survey (Arbaugh et al., 2008) was used
to assess the three dimensions of cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence. The
cognitive presence subscale consists of 12 items with a higher score indicating that students perceive the course content in their course format engaging. The social presence subscale consists of
nine items with a higher score indicating a greater sense of feeling like a real person within the
environment. The teaching presence subscale consists of 13 items with a higher score indicating

Minosky et al.

7

a greater level of planning and involvement by the course instructor. Participants responded to
each item using a five-point scale ranging from ‘Strongly Agree’ to ‘Strongly Disagree’. Coefficient alpha for each subscale was as follows: cognitive presence = 0.91, social presence = 0.88,
teaching presence = 0.93.
Attitudes towards teamwork. The 14-item Teamwork Expectations and Attitudes Measure (Justus et al., 2021) assessed student perceptions of how effectively they worked together with
their peers on a group-based task or project. A higher score on this scale indicates a more positive perception of their team and its functioning. Participants responded to these items on a
5-point scale ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. Coefficient alpha for this
scale was 0.96.
Social loafing. The 6-item Social Loafing scale (Dommeyer, 2007) assessed whether an individual
in a group was idling during a group project. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater perception of social loafing among team members. Participants responded to these items using a
7-point scale ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. Coefficient alpha for this
scale was 0.94.
Course satisfaction. A single 7-point rating scale item was used to measure students’ overall satisfaction with their course: ‘Overall, how satisfied are you with this course?’. Responses to this item
ranged from ‘Not at all satisfied’ to ‘Totally satisfied’.

Procedure
After receiving ethical approval from our university’s research ethics board, data was collected
anonymously and online using Qualtrics. Data was collected between October 17 and December
10, 2021, which covers the middle to end of the semester. Prior to accessing the survey, students
provided electronic consent. Next, students indicated the course format and course they were
completing the survey for. They then completed the five dependent variable measures in the
following order: Classroom Community Scale, Community of Inquiry Instrument, the single
satisfaction item, the Teamwork Expectations and Agreement Measure and the Social Loafing
Scale. Finally, participants completed a set of demographic questions. At the end of the survey,
students were asked if they would be willing to complete the survey again for a second course
format. If no, the survey ended. If yes, they were asked to indicate the second course format and
class and then complete the five dependent measures a second time. MTurk participants were
then awarded compensation for their participation and students from the subject pool were
awarded bonus credit. Students recruited via Reddit and survey exchanges did not receive any
compensation.

Analysis
Between groups ANOVAs were used to examine differences among the five class formats for each
research question. Prior to these analyses, normality was assessed by examining Q-Q plots and
homogeneity of variance was assessed using Levene’s test. If the homogeneity of variance assumption was met, a Tukey post hoc tests was used if the ANOVA was statistically significant. If this
assumption was violated, a Welch correction was used for the overall ANOVA and a Games-Howell

8

Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

post hoc test was used if the ANOVA was statistically significant. Effect size was calculated using
eta-squared, with 0.01 indicating a small effect, 0.06 a medium effect and 0.14 a large effect
(Cohen, 1988).

Results
While moderate departures from normality were found for the teaching presence, cognitive presence and TEAM scales, Blanca et al. (2017) have demonstrated that ANOVA is robust to such
violations. The assumption of homogeneity was met for all of the scales, with the exceptions of the
social presence and TEAM scales. A Welch correction and Games-Howell post hoc test was used
to account for these violations.
Next, we conducted a series of between-groups ANOVAs to compare the five different
course formats on the eight aspects of the LE. See Table 2 for the means, standard deviations
and ANOVA results for these analyses. As seen in this table, seven of these variables showed
statistically significant differences with medium to large effect sizes. For the connectedness
scale, a post-hoc Tukey analysis revealed that in-person courses facilitated significantly more
social connection between students in the classroom compared to courses using a blendedexam (t(194) = 3.19, p = 0.014), online-asynchronous (t(194) = 7.09, p < 0.001) and online synchronous format (t(194) = 4.39, p < 0.001). In addition, the blended-alternating course format
significantly facilitated more social connection compared to the online asynchronous course
format (t(194) = 4.11, p = 0.001). There were no statistical differences between the other course
formats (p = 0.138–0.949). For the learning scale, the post-hoc analysis revealed that the inperson format was rated higher than the blended-exam format at fostering the interactions and
feelings that make students feel that their educational needs are being met by the course
(t(194) = 3.98, p = 0.001). There were no statistical differences between the other course formats (p = 0.069–0.995). For the teaching presence scale, follow-up analyses indicated that inperson course formats had significantly higher levels of teaching presence compared to courses
that used a blended exam format (t(194) = 3.86, p = 0.001). There were no statistical differences between the other course formats (p = 0.069–1.000). For the cognitive presence scale,
follow-up analyses revealed that the in-person course format also had significantly higher
levels of cognitive presence than courses using a blended-exam (t(194) = 4.47, p < 0.001),
online-synchronous (t(194) = 2.85, p = 0.038) and online-asynchronous format (t(194) = 3.38,
p = 0.008). There were no statistical differences between the other course formats (p = 0.120–
1.000). For the social presence scale, a post-hoc Games-Howell analysis indicated that courses
that used an in-person format had higher levels of social presence compared to courses using
a blended-exam (t(35) = 2.91, p = 0.047), online-synchronous (t(57) = 2.83, p = 0.048) and
online-asynchronous course format (t(79) = 4.76, p < 0.001). There were no statistical differences between the other course formats (p = 0.095–0.978). For the single-item on overall
course satisfaction, a post-hoc analysis found that course satisfaction was lower in the blended
exam format compared to both the in-person course format (t(193) = 3.90, p = 0.001) and
online-asynchronous formats (t(193) = 2.99, p = 0.026). There were no statistical differences
between the other course formats (p = 0.095–0.978). For the TEAM scale, a follow-up GamesHowell post-hoc test indicated that students held more positive attitudes towards teamwork in
an in-person course format compared to the online asynchronous course format (t(74) = 3.00,
p = 0.030). There were no statistical differences between the other course formats (p = 0.109–
1.000). Finally, for the social loafing scale, there were no statistically significant differences
among the five course formats.

0.53
0.38
0.52
0.61
0.50
1.27
0.59
1.66

3.77a,b,c
4.13a
4.20a
3.80a,b,c
4.02a,b,c
5.68a
3.91a
4.09

3.19b
3.91
3.80
3.42b
3.63b
5.29
3.58
3.98

M

SD

M
0.67
0.33
0.86
0.64
0.61
1.55
0.72
1.23

SD

Synchronous
online

In-person

a-dMeans with the same superscript in the same row differ significantly.
*Rated on a 7-point scale. All other variables rated on a 5-point scale.

Connectedness
Learning
Teaching presence
Social presence
Cognitive presence
Course satisfaction*
TEAM
Social loafing*

Scale

2.95c,d
3.95
3.89
3.09c
3.62c
5.41b
3.46a
3.56

M
0.61
0.40
0.73
0.91
0.74
1.40
0.88
1.41

SD

Asynchronous
online

3.53d
3.99
3.83
3.55
3.70
5.29
3.88
4.03

M
0.65
0.49
0.78
0.72
0.67
1.60
0.66
1.60

SD

Alternating
blended

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and ANOVA results for eight dependent variables by course format.

3.31a
3.77a
3.55a
3.31a
3.36a
4.33a,b
3.50
4.25

M
0.68
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.63
1.61
1.03
1.68

SD

Blended exam
only

13.97
4.64
4.60
7.13
6.25
3.85
3.37
1.12

F

<0.001
0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.005
0.011
0.349

p

0.22
0.09
0.09
0.13
0.11
0.07
0.07
0.02

η2

Minosky et al.
9

10

Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

Discussion
The formats in which courses are being delivered for undergraduate students is increasingly
expanding and changing, due in large part to advances in technology, but, also more recently, in
response to COVID-19 and the mandated online learning that was put in place for a time. Thus, in
addition to the traditional in-person format, students can take courses that have various online elements—ranging from fully online to blended formats (Harmon and Jones, 1999; Thai et al., 2020).
In this study, we compared five course formats—in-person, synchronous online, asynchronous
online, alternating blended and blended with in-person exams—on students’ perceptions of the LE
and teamwork.
In first looking at patterns among the means for the LE variables, the in-person class format was
rated highest on all variables, except for social loafing. The alternating blended format was rated
second highest on nearly all variables. This is noteworthy as it is only these two class formats that
have the teaching of content, and interaction among peers and instructors, occurring in person, in
some, or all, of the classes, suggesting that this live interaction may be an important element of a
positive LE. The blended exam only format tended to be the lowest rated format, with the asynchronous online format also receiving lower ratings. These two formats likely had the least interactively among students.
In general, all variables across all formats were rated above the midpoint of the scales. The only
exception to this was the asynchronous online format for the connectedness variable, indicating the
students in this class format did not perceive a strong sense of community with their peers.

Perceptions of the learning environment
In looking at the results of our LE variables, we found that in-person courses facilitated a greater
sense of social belonging compared to courses that used a blended-exam, online-asynchronous or
online synchronous format and that courses that used a blended-alternating approach facilitated
more social connection than courses using an online asynchronous format. These results make
sense considering that in-person and blended alternating courses have the most live interaction
amongst individuals, and, as noted by Rovai (2002b), one key reason that classroom communities
can be weak is because of a lack of interaction. Previous literature also suggests that a blended
alternating approach is effective at supporting a strong community in the classroom (Chen and
Chiou, 2014). Interestingly, Chen and Chiou (2014) found that those in a blended environment
reported a stronger sense of community compared to students in a face-to-face environment. They
explained this may be because the blended students were spending more time in online discussions,
which allowed the students to express their ideas, discuss progress and connect with each other in
an alternative way. While we did not find a difference between blended-alternating and in-person
formats, it is encouraging to see that the blended-alternating approach can support a sense of community and promote feelings of belonging for students. Thus, not only do students retain the advantage of social connection during the in-person sessions, they also have the advantage of added
flexibility during the online sessions every second week. For the learning subscale, we found that
the in-person format, compared to the blended exam format, was better at fostering the interactions
that make students feel connected during their joint pursuit of learning and satisfying their educational needs (Rovai, 2002a). This means that students taking an in-person course are being provided the opportunity to interact with each other in a meaningful way that satisfies their educational
needs, while the blended-exam format is failing to provide these interactions, likely given that the
only time students interact with one another in class is during an exam session when students are
likely to be stressed.

Minosky et al.

11

In looking at the results for cognitive, social and teaching presence, we found class format differences for all three. Both cognitive and social presence was rated higher for in-person formats
compared to blended-exam, online-synchronous and online-asynchronous course formats. For
cognitive presence, this suggests that in-person courses appear to be better at allowing students to
establish meaning through collaboration and allow teachers to better create opportunities for reflection, critical thinking and dialogue (Garrison et al., 1999). This is likely due to the in-person courses
make it easier to collaborate with other students and allowing students to more freely engage in
reflection and critical thinking as they cannot just hide behind a screen. Being in the classroom
likely forces students to participate in this process more actively. For social presence, our findings
were in line with Zhan and Mei (2013) who found that face-to-face courses have higher levels of
social presence compared to online courses. Zhan and Mei (2013) suggested these findings are due
to students being able to directly interact in a face-to-face environment and also use body language
which could increase the level of perceived social presence. Kim et al. (2011) have found that
interactivity is a significant predictor of social presence. In contrast to our findings, Lafortune and
Lakhal (2020) did not find any significant differences in the level of social presence between students attending the synchronous class session in-person versus online. Therefore, there is also
evidence that online environments may also be able to facilitate similar levels of social presence to
that of an in-person course.
Teaching presence was found to be higher for students in the in-person courses compared to the
blended-exam format. This means that in-person courses appear to be better at allowing teachers to
effectively facilitate connections in the classroom, through activities or interaction, that supports
students in learning and developing a sense of community (Cleary, 2021; Rovai, 2007). While
previous literature has found differences in teaching presence between online and in-person formats (Akyol et al., 2009; Lafortune and Lakhal, 2020), we did not find this in our study. One
explanation for the lack of difference could be that teachers have become better at facilitating connections and implementing activities that support learning in an online environment and developing a sense of community (Cleary, 2021; Rovai, 2007). It is possible that the differences found
previously between online and in-person (e.g. Akyol et al., 2009; Lafortune and Lakhal, 2020)
could have been a result of lack of experience or knowledge on how to facilitate the connections or
activities that lead to high levels of teaching presence. It is also possible that with the pandemic and
prolonged shift to online learning students have become more used to being online and teachers
have become more effective at teaching online.
For overall course satisfaction, students in blended-exam courses reported lower satisfaction
than both students in in-person courses and asynchronous courses. We think this is due to the fact
that the blended-exam format had significantly lower levels of all three of the community of inquiry
presences compared to in-person formats. The blended-exam format likely lacked the interactions
needed to foster a sense of community within the classroom. This is consistent with a study by
Ocker and Yaverbaum (2001) who also showed students expressed greater satisfaction in an inperson setting compared to an asynchronous setting. While an asynchronous format provides
greater flexibility for students, having to come to campus for exams in the blended exam format
likely served as an additional source of stress for students given that their fully asynchronous counterparts were able to complete exams online (and likely in an open book format).

Perceptions of teamwork and social loafing
In examining student perceptions of teamwork across the five different course formats, students
taking in-person courses reported more positive attitudes towards working effectively as a team
compared to the asynchronous online courses. This could likely be due to the increased proximity

12

Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

of team members as these two course formats differ the greatest in terms of live interactions, and
level of interaction has been shown to influence the team members accountability for accomplishing goals (Alsharo, 2014). In a study conducted by Konak et al. (2019), students believed that
teamwork in online settings did not replicate the experience in in-person settings. It was also
believed by these students that having teamwork online was unnecessarily complicated compared
to having it in person. Indeed, these negative attitudes may stem from further issues such as communication and trust (Tseng and Yeh, 2013).
Social loafing showed no significant differences among the class formats; all formats reported
the presence of some social loafing. These results are consistent with those of Konak et al. (2019)
who developed a conceptual model that investigated the relationships among students’ engagement, attitudes towards teamwork, teamwork self-efficacy and interest. These authors also found
that online and in-person course formats faced similar percentages of social loafing and free riders.
Furthermore, they noted that the main difference in themes between the two formats was their
perceptions of teamwork; students believed that online teamwork was not comparable to in-person
teamwork, which ultimately altered their learning experience. Furthermore, students also believed
that working collaboratively in an online environment was not reflective of real-life scenarios
(Konak et al., 2019).
To reduce social loafing, various strategies have been mentioned. One, George (1992) stated
that individuals contributing to a collaborative task should consider increasing task significance,
task meaningfulness and contribution. Second, increasing the exchange of information such as
skills or expertise between group members as well as learning from prior mistakes and initiating
constructive team discussions has been noted as effective in reducing social loafing (Gabelica
et al., 2022). Finally, investing time to develop a team strategy that facilitates familiarity among
team members as well as decreasing the number of team members in a group have also been mentioned by various authors (Buchs et al., 2016; Gabelica et al., 2022).

Limitations and future directions
There are some limitations of this study that need to be mentioned. One, for the two versions of the
blended class formats, it is unknown whether the online sessions were synchronous or asynchronous, or a combination of the two. Additionally, for the synchronous and asynchronous class formats, there is still likely variability in how these classes were delivered. Two, students in this study
responded to the survey questions based on a variety of different courses, instructors and at different points in the semester and these factors likely have an impact on their learning experiences and
perceptions of the classroom environment. Future research could look to explore this topic under
more standardised conditions or to further investigate the impact of these extraneous factors in
course content, delivery method and teaching. For example, a study by Fiock et al. (2021) demonstrated the impact of the instructor on teaching presence among sections of the same course taught
by different instructors. Third, these results are largely based on the findings from a single institution of undergraduate students. While MTurk was used to recruit participants to increase the generalisability of the findings, challenges in the quality of the MTurk data (e.g. bots, failed attention
checks) resulted in most of this data needing to be discarded. Future research may also want to
replicate these findings within a graduate student population. These two populations differ in their
educational experiences in terms of breadth of content covered, workload, expectations, which
could impact their perceptions of the LE. Fourth, these results are based on the self-reported student perceptions of the LE and may not fully reflect their actual behaviours in the classroom. Fifth,
for the 31 participants (16% of the sample) who completed the survey twice, including them in the
analysis does represent a violation of the independence assumption. However, analyses conducted

Minosky et al.

13

without these 31 participants produced similar results. Finally, as the focus of our study was mostly
on social outcomes, future research may want to examine the impact of course format on learning
outcomes.

Conclusion
As we transition away from social distancing and isolation, it is important to remember that we, as
humans, are social animals and social interaction is important for our health and mental well-being
(Snyder-Mackler et al., 2020). In support of this, Nitschke et al. (2021) found that increased social
connectedness during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with reduced feelings of stress and
anxiety, and that having larger social networks was linked with greater social support. One way to
help students develop their social networks is through interactions with their peers and instructors.
Through the comparison of five different instructional formats on a variety of LE variables, we
have demonstrated that students who were in classes that typically have higher levels of interaction
(i.e. in-person formats) report more engagement, higher satisfaction and a greater sense of community and presence in their classes. This suggests that there may be an important sense of connection that students develop with their peers and instructors during in-person interactions that may
not be fully replicable in online classroom environments. Tharayil et al. (2018) outline a number
of strategies for promoting interactions and mitigating resistance to active learning within the
classroom.
Based on the results of this study, the level of interactions appears to influence students’ motivation and perceptions of the social elements of the LE. Building a stronger sense of connection has
both academic benefits, including increased levels of participation and deep learning, as well as
social benefits, such as increased rapport, a greater ability to manage stress and a greater sense of
overall well-being (Berry, 2019). Greater motivation and engagement are also linked to a greater
likelihood of completing a course or degree programme (Xerri et al., 2018). Relatedly, the two least
interactive class formats—blended exam only and asynchronous online—were rated the most
poorly on many of the LE variables we examined. This suggest that instructors should potentially
consider avoiding these latter two course formats in favour of formats that have more engagement
and interaction. Overall, we would recommend that instructors give preference to in-person formats over fully online formats given that this format appears to promote the greatest sense of
belonging and interaction for students. While fully in-person format had the most positive ratings
of the LE overall, the blended alternating approach was also well-received by students and could
be another strong option for instructors. The advantage of the blended approach is that it incorporates both live interaction during the in-person sessions, which helps to promote social presence
(Lafortune and Lakhal, 2020), but also maintains some flexibility for students during the online
sessions, which is often reported as a key advantage of online courses (Thai et al., 2020).
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors received funding for this project from a Teaching and Learning Innovation
Fund Grant from Kwantlen Polytechnic University.

ORCID iD
Shayna A Minosky

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4403-3061

Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online

14

Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

References
Adams DM and Hamm M (1994) New Designs for Teaching and Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Inc.
Akyol Z, Garrison DR and Ozden MY (2009) Development of a community of inquiry in online and blended
learning contexts. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 1(1): 1834–8.
Alsharo M, Gregg D and Ramirez R (2017) Virtual team effectiveness: The role of knowledge sharing and
trust. Information Management 54(4): 479–90.
Alsharo MK (2014) Knowledge sharing in virtual teams: The impact on trust, collaboration, and team
effectiveness [ProQuest information & learning]. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The
Sciences and Engineering 74(9B(E)).
Arbaugh JB, Cleveland-Innes M, Diaz SR, et al. (2008) Developing a community of inquiry instrument:
Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The
Internet and Higher Education 11(3–4): 133–6.
Berry S (2019) Teaching to connect: Community-building strategies for the virtual classroom. Online
Learning 23(1): 164–83.
Bickle JT, Hirudayaraj M and Doyle A (2019) Social presence theory: Relevance for HRD/VHRD research
and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources 21(3): 383–99.
Blanca MJ, Alarcón R, Arnau J, et al. (2017) Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema
29(4): 552–7.
Blau G, Mittal N, Schirmer M, et al. (2017) Differences in business undergraduate perceptions by preferred
classroom learning environment. Journal of Education for Business 92(6): 280–7.
Buchs C, Gilles I, Antonietti JP, et al. (2016) Why students need to be prepared to cooperate: A cooperative
nudge in statistics learning at university. Educational Psychology 36(5): 956-974. https://doi.org/10.10
80/01443410.2015.1075963
Chen BH and Chiou HH (2014) Learning style, sense of community and learning effectiveness in hybrid
learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments 22(4): 485–96.
Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analvsis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
Cleary Y (2021) Fostering communities of inquiry and connectivism in online technical communication programs and courses. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 51(1): 11–30.
Dommeyer CJ (2007) Using the diary method to deal with social loafers on the group project: Its effects on
peer evaluations, group behavior, and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Education 29(2): 175–88.
Feitosa J, Grossman R, Kramer WS, et al. (2020) Measuring team trust: A critical and meta-analytical review.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 41(5): 479–501.
Fiock H, Maeda Y and Richardson JC (2021) Instructor impact on differences in teaching presence scores
in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 22(3):
55–76.
Gabbert B, Johnson DW and Johnson RT (1986) Cooperative learning, group-to-individual transfer, process
gain, and the acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies. The Journal of Psychology 120: 265–78.
Gabelica C, De Maeyer S and Schippers MC (2022) Taking a free ride: How team learning affects social loafing. Journal of Education & Psychology 114: 716–33.
Garrison DR, Anderson T and Archer W (1999) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education 2(2–3): 87–105.
George JM (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of
Management Journal 35(1): 191–202.
Harmon SW and Jones MG (1999) The five levels of web use in education: Factors to consider in planning
online courses. Educational Technology 39(6): 28–32.
Hillyard C, Gillespie D and Littig P (2010) University students’ attitudes about learning in small groups after
frequent participation. Active Learning in Higher Education 11(1): 9–20.
Horspool A and Lange C (2012) Applying the scholarship of teaching and learning: Student perceptions,
behaviours and success online and face-to-face. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37(1):
73–88.

Minosky et al.

15

Justus BJ, Rusticus SA, Stobbe BLP, et al. (2021) Using the teamwork expectations and attitudes measure
(TEAM) to assess student perceptions of working in teams [Poster]. In: 2021 annual meeting of the
national council on measurement in education, virtual.
Karau SJ and Williams KD (1993) Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.
Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes 65(4): 681–706.
Khodabandelou R, Ab Jalil H, Ali WZW, et al. (2017) Presence and perceived learning in different higher
education blended learning environments. In: Blended Learning: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and
Applications. Hershey: IGI Global, pp.615–27.
Kim J, Kwon Y and Cho D (2011) Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes
in distance higher education. Computers & Education 57(2): 1512–20.
Konak A, Kulturel-Konak S and Cheung GW (2019) Teamwork attitudes, interest and self-efficacy between
online and face-to-face information technology students. Team Performance Management 25(5): 253278. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-05-2018-0035
Kreijns K, Van Acker F, Vermeulen M, et al. (2014) Community of inquiry: Social presence revisited.
E-Learning and Digital Media 11(1): 5–18.
Lafortune AM and Lakhal S (2020) Differences in students’ perceptions of the community of inquiry in a
blended synchronous delivery mode. Canadian Journal of learning and Technology 45(3): 1–19.
Nitschke JP, Forbes PAG, Ali N, et al. (2021) Resilience during uncertainty? Greater social connectedness
during COVID-19 lockdown is associated with reduced distress and fatigue. British Journal of Health
Psychology 26(2): 553–69.
Ocker RJ and Yaverbaum GJ (2001) Collaborative learning environments: Exploring student attitudes and
satisfaction in face-to-face and asynchronous computer conference settings. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research 12(4): 427–48.
Romiszowski A and Mason R (2004) Computer-mediated communication. In DH Jonassen (ed), Handbook of
Research on Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed.). New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum,
pp.402–36.
Roseth CJ, Johnson DW and Johnson RT (2008) Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin
134: 223–46.
Rovai A, Wighting MJ and Liu J (2005) School climate. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 6(4):
361–74.
Rovai AP (2002a) Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet and Higher
Education 5(3): 197–211.
Rovai AP (2002b) Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education 5(4): 319–32.
Rovai AP (2007) Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education 10(1): 77–88.
Rovai AP and Ponton MK (2019) An examination of sense of classroom community and learning among
African American and Caucasian graduate students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 9(3):
77–92.
Rubin B, Fernandes R and Avgerinou MD (2013) The effects of technology on the community of inquiry and
satisfaction with online courses. The Internet and Higher Education 17: 48–57.
Saghafian M and O’Neill DK (2018) A phenomenological study of teamwork in online and face-to-face student teams. Higher Education 75(1): 57–73.
Snyder-Mackler N, Burger JR, Gaydosh L, et al. (2020) Social determinants of health and survival in humans
and other animals. Science 368(6493): eaax9553.
Strom PS and Strom RD (2011) Teamwork skills assessment for cooperative learning. Educational Research
and Evaluation 17(4): 233–51.
Thai NTT, De Wever B and Valcke M (2020) Face-to-face, blended, flipped, or online learning environment?
Impact on learning performance and student cognitions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 36:
397–411.
Tharayil S, Borrego M, Prince M, et al. (2018) Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning.
International Journal of Stem Education 5(1): 7–16.

16

Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

Tseng HW and Yeh HT (2013) Team members’ perceptions of online teamwork learning experiences and
building teamwork trust: A qualitative study. Computers & Education 63: 1–9.
Warner AG (2016) Developing a community of inquiry in a face-to-face class: How an online learning framework can enrich traditional classroom practice. Journal of Management Education 40(4): 432–52.
West M (1996) Handbook of Work Group Psychology. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Xerri MJ, Radford K and Shacklock K (2018) Student engagement in academic activities: A social support
perspective. Higher Education 75: 589–605.
Yilmaz R (2016) Knowledge sharing behaviors in e-learning community: Exploring the role of academic selfefficacy and sense of community. Computers in Human Behavior 63: 373–82.
Yuan J and Kim C (2014) Guidelines for facilitating the development of learning communities in online
courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 30(3): 220–32.
Zhan Z and Mei H (2013) Academic self-concept and social presence in face-to-face and online learning: Perceptions and effects on students’ learning achievement and satisfaction across environments.
Computers & Education 69: 131–8.

Author biographies
Shayna Minosky is a psychology instructor at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Her research interests include
the learning environment, student and faculty rapport, teamwork, teaching perspectives, and scale development and validation.
Michael Wiechers is a recent psychology graduate from Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Leonardo Landaverde-Umana is a recent psychology graduate from Kwantlen Polytechnic University.