Exploring Students’ Learning Experience and Engagement in Asynchronous Learning Using the Community of Inquiry Framework through Educational Design Research

Abstract

Students’ learning experience and their engagement in online learning environments are becoming increasingly important as blended learning grows more prevalent in tertiary education. In this study, asynchronous lectures for applied sciences courses, offered to polytechnic students of Applied Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Science at Nanyang Polytechnic, were designed using the Community of Inquiry framework. Students’ perceptions of their learning experience and cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement in asynchronous lectures were determined through a survey study. The results showed that students were engaged and had positive learning experiences. Through an educational design research methodology, this survey study also determined and provided design features important for designing asynchronous lectures. Further research could explore the possibility of expanding the scope of the research to other institutions with students of different cultural backgrounds, learning preferences, and learning abilities.

1. Introduction

Blended learning, a mix of online and face-to-face learning, has gained much attention and interest [1] as it develops self-directed, passionate, and lifelong learners. Significant attention has been placed on blended learning globally in recent years due to the COVID-19 pandemic. With schools and institutions pivoting to and retaining blended learning after the COVID-19 pandemic [2,3], it is important to ensure that students are engaged while receiving meaningful learning experiences while they are learning in blended learning environments.

There are several definitions [4] and models of blended learning based on implementation [1], and the flipped classroom model is the most used approach. This is the approach that our institution, Nanyang Polytechnic, employs as the main model, where “technology (is used) to invert the traditional teaching environment by delivering lectures online as homework and opening up the class period for interactive learning” [5]. Since students are required to acquire knowledge online before face-to-face sessions and asynchronously, the asynchronous lecture materials must be interactive and engaging to create a meaningful learning experience. In this study, we focus on the asynchronous lecture component of blended learning. The use of asynchronous lectures in a flipped classroom approach is beneficial because students can complete the asynchronous lectures at their own pace, which enables optimal learning as the interactive elements integrated into the asynchronous lectures could increase students’ engagement through active learning [6,7,8].

With a shift from the didactic, teacher-centric approach—which focuses on the banking model of education [9]—to the student-centric approach, the learning environment is as important as the content. It was previously reported that some students found online and/or blended learning challenging [10,11] due to the influx of information from multiple sources [12]. Students’ perceptions of asynchronous learning in applied sciences are varied, hence, the design of the asynchronous online learning component is important to the enhancement of learning perception and effectiveness [8,13].

1.1. Theoretical Framework

The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Figure 1) by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer is a theoretical framework that considers the cognitive presence (CP), social presence (SP), and teaching presence (TP) crucial for creating a meaningful online learning experience for students [14]. This framework is one of the most dominant frameworks and has been described as “the ideal and heart of higher education” [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. CP refers to building students’ knowledge and problem-solving skills through the construction and conceptualization of their learning. During learning, social interaction, affectivity, and cohesiveness hold equal weightage and their importance is emphasized by the social presence. Finally, TP focuses on teachers’ instructions and their facilitation of learning, and the design of the course. The CoI framework has been reported in many different contexts [16] and the validity of the CoI instrument [21,24,25] makes both the framework and the instrument suitable for the evaluation of students’ online learning experience.

Arbaugh et al. compared the use of the CoI framework in applied and pure disciplines [26]. Due to the constructivist approach of the CoI framework, it is more pertinent to applied disciplines. The study also concluded that the development of applicable knowledge is emphasized by using the inquiry method. Since learning through inquiry is important in applied sciences, the use of the CoI framework is suitable. In applied sciences, CP is crucial as students need to use their knowledge to explore and connect existing ideas, to create new ideas, and to solve problems. This is aligned with the categories within the CoI framework (Figure 1). Collaboration is also essential in applied sciences as complex problems require expertise from multiple disciplines. This is emphasized by the social interaction, communication, and emotional expression within SP. Finally, TP is essential in the facilitation of learning and acquiring of knowledge which is needed for CP and SP.

The three-dimensional model of student engagement suggests that engagement is a multi-dimensional construct consisting of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement [27]. Cognitive engagement refers to students’ involvement in the learning tasks, including self-regulation as well as building connections with new knowledge. This form of engagement is not readily observable, as students who appear disengaged could in fact be cognitively engaged as they think and conceptualize the knowledge they have learnt. On the other hand, examples of behavioral engagement such as participating in class activities and completing learning tasks on time are readily observed. Finally, emotional engagement deals with students’ feelings and perceptions about learning. An emotionally engaged student is passionate about learning and curious about the learning content. Students’ engagement in asynchronous learning is important as it can minimize transactional distance—a psychological and communication space between the instructor and learner during asynchronous learning [28]. Additionally, Berry reported that higher levels of engagement correspond to better learning [29].

1.2. Research Purpose and Questions

Online chemistry learning has been reported [8], but the use of CoI in chemistry education has not been extensively reported [7,30,31,32]. There are even fewer studies on the use of CoI in pharmacy education [33,34]. Previously, we reported students’ collective perception of asynchronous lectures via the CoI framework, and the relationship with the students’ learning performance [35]. The results showed that the students’ perception was positive and there was a weak but positive relationship with their learning performance. However, there are some limitations to the previous study. Students’ learning performance is affected by both the design of the asynchronous lectures and their face-to-face classroom learning. Also, the study was only focused on one field of chemistry. Hence, to determine the applicability of designing asynchronous lectures based on the CoI framework, other contexts should be considered. In addition, more negative perceptions from students with regards to online learning of chemistry were reported [8]. Hence, it is imperative to improve the quality continuously to ensure the effectiveness of the learning environment.

With these research gaps, this study aims to extend previous studies involving Chemistry and Pharmacy courses [7,8,30,31,32,33,34]. Additionally, the study also aims to determine whether the design features for designing asynchronous lectures can enhance students’ engagement by minimizing transactional distance [28] in an asynchronous learning environment. This study would provide insight into the design features of asynchronous learning, specifically asynchronous lectures, through the following research questions (RQs):

• RQ1: What are students’ perceptions of the asynchronous lectures developed based on the CoI framework for different applied science courses?
• RQ2: What are students’ perceptions of engagement in the asynchronous lectures developed based on the CoI framework?
• RQ3: What design features are important for designing asynchronous lectures that are perceived positively and engage students?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methodology

Educational design research is defined as “the systematic analysis, design and evaluation of educational interventions with the dual aim of generating research-based solutions for complex problems in educational practice, and advancing our knowledge about the characteristics of these interventions and the processes of designing and developing them” [36]. The educational design research approach was used as the methodology for this study [37]. This is suitable, as one of the aims (RQ3) is to derive design features for educators who are looking to implement asynchronous lectures with a positive impact on student engagement. The process started with preliminary research of the literature (Figure 2). Based on the context and needs analysis regarding providing students with a meaningful and engaging educational experience, the CoI framework [14] was selected as the theoretical framework, and the three-dimensional model of student engagement was selected for use in asynchronous learning [38]. Each phase consists of the design, implementation, and evaluation or assessment of the learning activity (asynchronous lecture). This iterative cycle is a key feature of educational design research, and it allows for the improvement of the asynchronous lecture design and to derive design features for asynchronous lectures.

An Organic Chemistry course was selected for phase 1 of the study. Students’ perceptions of asynchronous lectures were studied during this phase. Based on the previously reported evaluation results obtained from phase 1 [35], design features were derived and implemented in other contexts to assess their applicability to other courses for phase 2. The same cycle (design, implementation, and evaluation) was employed for phase 2. At the end of phase 2, the evaluation was conducted as an assessment, as it concludes part of the study (RQ1) to determine the students’ collective perception of asynchronous lectures and their learning experience. Based on the results from phase 2, design features of asynchronous lectures could be further enhanced during the design stage in phase 3. The same cycle was conducted, and in the final assessment, the study focuses on students’ engagement (RQ2). With the results from the three phases, design features were derived (RQ3).

2.2. Participants

Participants in this study were 17–19-year-old students with mixed abilities studying at the School of Applied Science, Nanyang Polytechnic. The selection of participants was via a non-random convenience sampling method as students come from the respective diploma courses and classes, and participation in the study was voluntary.

Table 1. Number of participants, diploma programmes, and courses involved in each of the phases of the study.

Phase	Sample Size	Diploma Programme	Course
1	44	Diploma in Medicinal Chemistry	Organic Chemistry
2	65	Diploma in Applied Chemistry	Analytical Chemistry
		Diploma in Pharmaceutical Science	Pharmacy Practice
		Diploma in Pharmaceutical Science	Pharmacotherapy I
3	64	Diploma in Applied Chemistry	Organic Chemistry

summarizes the number of participants, diploma programmes, and courses involved in this study. Phase 1 of the study involved 44 first-year students who were enrolled in an Organic Chemistry course. Phase 2 involved 65 first- and second-year students enrolled in three different courses. Phase 3 involved 64 first-year students enrolled in an Organic Chemistry course.

2.3. Instruments

A survey was used to measure students’ perceptions. For phases 1 and 2, a 30-item modified CoI instrument [21] was used to measure the students’ perception of the asynchronous lectures. From the original CoI instrument, four items were removed due to their irrelevance to this study. The items removed were “the instructor clearly communicated important course goals”, “the instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn”, “the instructor helped to focus discussion on relevant issues in a way that helped me to learn” and “I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants”. To minimize the possibility of obtaining neutral responses due to the lack of attention to the survey items [39], a 4-point Likert scale, 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), was used instead of the original 5-point Likert scale. Despite the modification of the scale, the CoI instrument with a 4-point Likert was validated according to previous studies [21,24].

For phase 3, engagement was viewed as a multi-dimensional construct with three types of engagement: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement [27,38,40]. The 14-item instrument [41] used in this phase included five items each for behavioral and emotional engagement from the Engagement Versus Disaffection with Learning Measure, along with a 4-point Likert scale, 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true) [42]. The remaining four items for the cognitive engagement were taken from the Metacognitive Strategies Questionnaire [43].

In all three phases, two unstructured items—“What is/are the feature(s) in the asynchronous lectures that helped you learn? Why?” and “What is/are the feature(s) in the asynchronous lectures that didn’t help you learn? Why?”—were included. Students’ qualitative responses would provide deeper insight into the design features. Additionally, students were not briefed on the design features as the authors did not want to limit their responses.

2.4. Data Collection

Approval from the NYP Institutional Review Board (protocol code SCL-2020-005) was obtained before the study and students’ implied consent was obtained before data collection.

RQ1 and RQ2 of the study focused on determining students’ perception of the asynchronous lectures using the respective survey instruments mentioned. A cross-sectional approach was used where the data was only collected once at the end of the asynchronous lectures. This approach was selected as it can collect data with regards to students’ current and immediate perception. Based on the results obtained for RQ1 and RQ2, the authors derived design features for designing asynchronous lectures.

3. Results

3.1. Phase 1—Prototyping the Design Features

The asynchronous lectures were designed based on the CoI presence and categories (Figure 1) to provide a meaningful, educational learning experience [14]. A total of 44 responses were received for this phase of the study and the mean scores for each item were calculated (

Table 2. Survey items of the three CoI presences and the mean scores for phase 1 (n = 44).

CoI Presence	Code	Survey Item	Mean a (SD)
Cognitive presence (CP)	CP1	Problems posed increased my interest in course issues.	3.18 (0.69)
	CP2	Course activities piqued my curiosity.	3.36 (0.69)
	CP3	I felt motivated to explore content related questions.	3.27 (0.66)
	CP4	I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this course.	3.36 (0.57)
	CP5	Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me resolve content related questions.	3.41 (0.62)
	CP6	Online discussions were valuable in helping me appreciate different perspectives.	3.20 (0.67)
	CP7	Combining new information helped me answer questions raised in course activities.	3.25 (0.61)
	CP8	Learning activities helped me construct explanations/solutions.	3.50 (0.55)
	CP9	Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in this class.	3.55 (0.50)
	CP10	I can describe ways to test and apply the knowledge created in this course.	3.27 (0.50)
	CP11	I have developed solutions to course problems that can be applied in practice.	3.30 (0.51)
	CP12	I can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or other non-class related activities.	3.45 (0.55)
Social presence (SP)	SP1	Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course.	3.20 (0.73)
	SP2	Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction.	2.93 (0.50)
	SP3	I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium.	3.41 (0.58)
	SP4	I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions.	3.27 (0.59)
	SP5	I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants.	3.30 (0.51)
	SP6	I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still maintaining a sense of trust.	3.09 (0.71)
	SP7	I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants.	3.20 (0.63)
	SP8	Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration.	3.32 (0.67)
Teaching presence (TP)	TP1	The instructor clearly communicated important course topics.	3.77 (0.42)
	TP2	The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities.	3.73 (0.50)
	TP3	The instructor clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning activities.	3.68 (0.47)
	TP4	The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding course topics in a way that helped me clarify my thinking.	3.70 (0.51)
	TP5	The instructor helped to keep course participants engaged and participating in the course learning activities.	3.75 (0.49)
	TP6	The instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to learn.	3.80 (0.41)
	TP7	The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course.	3.61 (0.54)
	TP8	Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants.	3.55 (0.63)
	TP9	The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses relative to the course’s goals and objectives.	3.50 (0.63)
	TP10	The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion.	3.57 (0.62)

^a Based on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree).

). The mean responses ranged from 2.93 (SD = 0.50) to 3.80 (SD = 0.41). The item with the lowest mean response is related to social presence (social interaction). This is within expectations, as the asynchronous lectures are completed individually with almost no student–student interaction [44]. Despite being the item with the lowest mean value, it still gained a positive response. This could be due to the presence of the asynchronous discussion platform (Padlet) embedded to encourage student–teacher and student–student interaction. Other on the hand, the highest mean score is related to instructional management. Novice learners seemed to prefer to follow a specified learning sequence (program control) to help keep them on task and to scaffold their learning.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the three CoI presences and the learning experience (n = 44).

	Mean a (SD)
Cognitive presence	3.34 (0.48)
Social presence	3.22 (0.45)
Teaching presence	3.67 (0.43)
Learning experience	3.41 b (0.39)

^a Based on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree). ^b Collective responses for the three CoI presences.

shows the collective mean responses for each of the respective CoI presences. Students’ perception of the overall learning experience (LE) was determined through the average mean scores of the three presences. This method of determining the perception of the learning experience was also reported previously [20]. The mean score of 3.41 for the learning experience meant that students had a meaningful learning experience with the asynchronous lectures.

The survey also included qualitative questions to determine design features which helped or did not help students when they learn asynchronously. Design features that were welcomed included practice questions with worked solutions, the clarity of the instructional videos, and the chunking of the information or video. Students provided feedback that they did not like the absence of face-to-face opportunities to ask questions when they were struggling with the materials, despite having access to the discussion platform, Padlet, within the learning platform.

3.2. Phase 2—Applicability of the Design Features

With the results obtained in phase 1, the CoI framework and categories were extended to three other applied science courses (Table 1). Similar data collection and analysis approaches were used. A total of 65 responses were collected for phase 2 (

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the individual survey items, three CoI presences, and learning experience for phase 2 (n = 65).

CoI Presence	Item Code	Mean a (SD)	Mean b (SD)	LE Mean c (SD)
Teaching presence (TP)	TP1	3.62 (0.49)	3.53 (0.67)	3.31 (0.71)
	TP2	3.55 (0.61)
	TP3	3.74 (0.44)
	TP4	3.66 (0.57)
	TP5	3.57 (0.61)
	TP6	3.57 (0.73)
	TP7	3.42 (0.86)
	TP8	3.35 (0.84)
	TP9	3.43 (0.75)
	TP10	3.42 (0.81)
Social presence (SP)	SP1	3.29 (0.80)	3.15 (0.80)
	SP2	2.95 (0.99)
	SP3	3.14 (0.88)
	SP4	3.15 (0.71)
	SP5	3.34 (0.69)
	SP6	3.11 (0.79)
	SP7	3.20 (0.77)
	SP8	3.02 (0.78)
Cognitive presence (CP)	CP1	3.14 (0.68)	3.26 (0.66)
	CP2	3.15 (0.75)
	CP3	3.09 (0.70)
	CP4	3.22 (0.70)
	CP5	3.40 (0.63)
	CP6	3.22 (0.70)
	CP7	3.34 (0.69)
	CP8	3.42 (0.61)
	CP9	3.38 (0.55)
	CP10	3.29 (0.63)
	CP11	3.31 (0.58)
	CP12	3.18 (0.68)

^a Based on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree). ^b Collective responses for the items in each CoI presence. ^c Collective responses for the three CoI presences.

). The mean responses ranged from 2.95 (SD = 0.99) to 3.74 (SD = 0.44). Similar to phase 1, the same item related to social presence (social interaction) had the lowest mean response. The item with the highest mean response is related to clear communication of due dates. Although the item with the highest mean response differs from phase 1, the item with the highest mean response still belongs to the teaching presence category.

The collective mean responses for each of the CoI presences and the overall learning experience were also high. This indicates that the design features based on the CoI framework were successfully extended to other applied science courses, which provides insight to RQ1. The concurrence of results in both phase 1 and 2 also corroborates that the design features are important for designing asynchronous lectures that are perceived positively by students, providing insight to RQ3.

Qualitative feedback from the students had some common themes. Similar to phase 1, they liked that the materials (videos) were chunked and bite-sized. Students also mentioned that the interactive activities (i.e., drag-and-drop) and self-assessments (i.e., MCQ formative quiz) at the end of each asynchronous lecture helped reinforce their learning. One comment mentioned that the discussion platform, Padlet, allowed peer learning. This feedback further strengthens the design features required for a positively perceived asynchronous lecture. On the contrary, a handful of students mentioned that having to constantly click through the asynchronous lecture was troublesome.

The independent samples t-test revealed that the difference in the mean responses between phases 1 and 2 has limited practical significance for the three CoI presences and the learning experience, possibly due to the small sample size of the study. For TP, the mean responses between phase 1 (M = 3.67, SD = 0.43) and phase 2 (M = 3.53, SD = 0.67), t(106) = 1.98, p = 0.167. For CP, the mean responses between phase 1 (M = 3.34, SD = 0.48) and phase 2 (M = 3.26, SD = 0.66), t(107) = 1.98, p = 0.416. For SP, the mean responses between phase 1 (M = 3.22, SD = 0.45) and phase 2 (M = 3.15, SD = 0.80), t(105) = 1.98, p = 0.513. Finally, for LE, the mean responses between phase 1 (M = 3.41, SD = 0.39) and phase 2 (M = 3.31, SD = 0.71), t(107) = 1.98, p = 0.274.

3.3. Phase 3—Student Engagement and Design Features

To provide further insight into RQ3 in terms of students’ engagement in asynchronous lectures, phase 3 investigates students’ perceptions of engagement in asynchronous lectures. A total of 64 responses were collected for phase 3 (

Table 5. Survey items for the three dimensions of engagement, and mean scores for phase 3 (n = 64).

Engagement	Survey Item	Mean a (SD)	Mean b (SD)
Behavioral engagement (BE)	I tried hard to do well in this module.	3.58 (0.50)	3.52 (0.43)
	In this module, I worked as hard as I could.	3.53 (0.56)
	I attempted the questions in the e-learning lecture.	3.52 (0.69)
	I paid attention to the e-lecture.	3.48 (0.53)
	When I studied for this module, I listened very carefully to the e-lectures.	3.47 (0.62)
Emotional engagement (EE)	When I study for this module, I felt good.	2.83 (0.75)	3.18 (0.51)
	When I worked on a question during the e-lecture, I am more interested in the content.	3.03 (0.78)
	The e-lecture and the activities (questions/drag-and-drop interaction) were fun.	3.33 (0.64)
	I enjoyed learning new things.	3.31 (0.69)
	When I worked on a question during the e-lecture, I feel more involved in learning.	3.41 (0.66)
Cognitive engagement (CE)	I was engaged with the topic while going through the e-lectures.	3.19 (0.66)	3.17 (0.45)
	I put in a lot of effort when I study for this module.	3.39 (0.66)
	Online learning has improved my learning significantly.	2.67 (0.78)
	Online learning gives me more time to solve problems and learn at my own pace.	3.42 (0.64)

^a Based on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = not at all true; 4 = very true). ^b Collective responses for the items in each dimension of engagement.

). The mean responses ranged from 2.67 (SD = 0.78) to 3.58 (SD = 0.50). The lowest mean response was related to cognitive engagement and whether the asynchronous lectures improved their learning significantly. This could mean that students are not building strong connections with the new content. However, this does not necessarily mean that the students are not acquiring the knowledge, but it could be that the improvement in their learning was not as significant as they wanted. The highest mean response is related to behavioral engagement where students are participating and working hard to do well in the asynchronous lecture. This shows that students are motivated to complete the asynchronous lectures. In general, students are positively engaged in all three dimensions, with mean responses of more than 3.

Similar qualitative feedback was given during this phase of the study. Students liked the practice questions with worked solutions, the clarity of the materials, the chunking of the information or video, and the interactive activities. This further enhances our understanding of design features that motivate students to learn in an asynchronous environment.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

This study aimed to determine the applicability of the design features of asynchronous lectures, designed based on the CoI framework, in various contexts (RQ1); to discern students’ engagement during the asynchronous lectures (RQ2); and to derive design features that can be shared with other educators looking to develop their asynchronous lectures (RQ3).

Phases 1 and 2 revealed that the prototype design features were well received by the students and were able to be applied in different contexts. A mixed-method design was employed to better understand the quantitative results. The high mean responses for teaching presence were supported by the features that the students liked. One of the features that was well received by students is the chunking of materials (TP: instructional management and direct instruction), which supports the development of metacognitive regulation through the planning of learning schedules (goal setting) [45]. Due to the asynchronous nature of the learning, face-to-face interaction is lacking. This is reflected both in the mean responses for social presence and in the students’ feedback. The inclusion of a discussion platform helped mitigate the lack of opportunities for students to clarify their doubts and provided a space for social interaction between students and teachers.

Phase 3 further extends the study to understand students’ engagement in asynchronous lectures. Through the three-dimensional model of student engagement, the mean responses for behavioral engagement were the highest. Behavioral engagement relates to students’ motivation in learning, such as completing learning tasks readily. Hence, with higher engagement, students’ motivation is enhanced, leading to better learning [29]. The features that engaged students were also the features that earned positive perceptions.

One of the limitations of this study is the use of a cross-sectional approach where there is only one point of data collection. The data could be narrow, and has limitations if it were to be generalised. To minimize this limitation, the asynchronous lectures are designed based on the validated CoI framework, hence, data obtained from the cross-sectional approach would be valid. Additionally, the study expanded its scope to include multiple contexts, which increases the generalisability of the results. Another limitation is that the study is confined within one institution and in one country. Future research could explore the possibility of expanding the study to other institutions and other countries with different cultural backgrounds and student profiles.

Through this study, design features (Figure 3) based on the CoI framework and the three-dimensional model of student engagement were derived (

Table 6. CoI presences, categories, and design features.

CoI Presence	CoI Categories	Design Features
Teaching presence (TP)	Instructional management	Educators arrange the asynchronous lecture content, incorporating a collapsible menu to propose the learning sequence and enable students to monitor their progress in learning (program control). More adept students have the option to learn according to their preferred sequence (learner control).
	Building understanding	Educators oversee and support the discussion platform, employing interactive activities such as drag-and-drop exercises to actively involve less participative students.
	Direct instruction	Educators produce video recordings, segmenting them into concise intervals of 15–20 min per video. These recordings feature voiceover explanations of concepts, supplemented with annotations as needed.
Social presence (SP)	Emotional expression	While this category may not be explicitly featured in the asynchronous lectures, it has the potential to be incorporated into the discussion platform.
	Open communication	Educators need to establish a secure learning environment, particularly within the discussion platform. All students and teachers should follow general rules and maintain positive online etiquette, characterized by mutual respect and encouraging tones.
	Group cohesion	The discussion platform, such as Padlet, is integrated to facilitate interactions between students, and between students and teachers.
Cognitive presence (CP)	Triggering event	At the commencement of the asynchronous lecture, a trigger, such as a brief video or image related to the topic, is incorporated. This trigger serves to captivate students’ attention, pique interest, and evoke a sense of curiosity about the subject, encouraging them to delve deeper into the topic.
	Exploration	Supplementary resources sourced from the internet are integrated to offer students alternatives for gaining a better understanding and seeking clarification. This inclusion also enables them to broaden their knowledge of the topic.
	Integration	After each video, straightforward interactive activities like drag-and-drop, matching, and multiple-choice questions are provided to assist students in consolidating their learning. These activities aim to help students integrate information and knowledge into a cohesive understanding of the concept.
	Resolution	At the conclusion of each sub-topic, questions are posed to enable students to apply the concepts they have learned. Students are encouraged to independently attempt these questions before referring to video presentations featuring worked solutions accompanied by voiceover explanations.

). These features help educators create asynchronous lectures that provide students with meaningful and engaging learning experiences. Educators are strongly recommended to incorporate all three CoI presences, based on design features stated in Table 6, to ensure interaction (student–student, student–teacher, student–content) [44], which engages students and decreases transactional distance in asynchronous learning [28].