20 Years of the Community of Inquiry Framework

Abstract

The Community of Inquiry framework is a collaborative-constructivist process model that describes the essential elements of a successful online higher education learning experience. This history column entry briefly describes the 20 years of progress in the framework. The column is divided into two decades, first, explaining the establishment of the framework from 2000-2009. Second, discussing the use of the instrument to measure the dimensions of the Community of Inquiry and criticism to the framework from 2010-2019. Finally, current work and future directions are provided.

Full text

COLUMN: HISTORY CORNER
20 Years of the Community of Inquiry Framework
Daniela Castellanos-Reyes
1
#Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2020
Abstract
The Community of Inquiry framework is a collaborative-constructivist process model that describes the essential elements of a
successfulonline higher education learning experience. This history column entry briefly describes the 20 years of progress in the
framework. The column is divided into two decades, first, explaining the establishment of the framework from 2000-2009.
Second, discussing the use of the instrument to measure the dimensions of the Community of Inquiry and criticism to the
framework from 2010-2019. Finally, current work and future directions are provided.
Keywords Community of Inquiry .Distance education .Cognitive presence .Social presence .Teaching presence
Increasing numbers of enrollments in online academic programs
in the late 1990s prompted researchers to explore and establish
the essential elements of effective higher education experiences
in online environments. Colleagues at the University of Alberta
in Canada, Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer
asserted that asynchronous computer-mediated learning, known
today as online learning, would provide opportunities for com-
munication between students and their instructor. At the time, it
was thought that computer-mediated learning would cut out all
types of interactions. To explore the potential opportunities for
communication between students and instructors, transcribed
online discussions were observed, which resulted in the design
of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Rourke et al.
1999;Garrisonetal.2000,2001; Akyol and Garrison 2013).
The CoI framework is a collaborative-constructivist process
model that describes the essential elements of a successful on-
line higher education learning experience rooted in Dewey’s
educational philosophy and social constructivism (Garrison
2017). This framework includes three elements called
presences: cognitive presence (CP), social presence (SP), and
teaching presence (TP).
CP assumes critical thinking as the goal of any educational
experience (Garrison et al. 2000). CP refers to the extent to
which learners can construct knowledge through discourse
and reflection (Swan and Ice 2010). However, learners in online
environments need more than CP to be part of a community of
inquiry. Lack of connectedness and limited collaboration was a
critique of computer-mediated communication. To refute this
critique, SP encourages a collaborative online learning environ-
ment. SP is defined as the ability of learners to feel affectively
connected with peers and perceived their full personality
through computer-mediated communication (Garrison et al.
2000;SwanandIce2010). Garrison et al. (2000) found that
learners build collaboration channels using the affordances of
the technology available to make meaningful learning. SP was,
in the end, what set asynchronous computer-mediated learning
apart from just consuming content.
Critical thinking and collaboration do not always take place
spontaneously. A third element is often needed to help facilitate
and to assume managerial responsibilities: Teaching presence.
The instructor played that role in one-room pioneer schools
(Anderson et al. 2001). When other formats were introduced
(e.g., online learning), managerial tasks became a shared re-
sponsibility between the instructor and students. TP is then
defined as “the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive
and social processes”(Anderson et al. 2001,p.5),andinclude
peer-to-peer learning, to support learning (Swan and Ice 2010).
First Decade 2000–2009: Establishment
of the Framework
Garrison et al.’s(2000) foundational work was followed by a
series of papers expanding on each presence, their relation-
ship, and interdependences (Rourke et al. 1999;Garrisonetal.
*Daniela Castellanos-Reyes
casteld@purdue.edu
1
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00491-7
Published online: 24 March 2020
TechTrends (2020) 64:557–560

2001;Andersonetal.2001). The theoretical relationship
among the three presences is represented in the CoI
Framework Model, with each presence characterized by an
overlapping circle (See Fig. 1). The framework became a ro-
bust guideline for researchers to use content analysis to ex-
plore transcripts of online courses (e.g., Oriogun 2009; Shea
et al. 2010; Tirado-Morueta et al. 2016) as well as for instruc-
tors to make informed educational decisions (Stenbom et al.
2012; York and Richardson 2012; Zydney et al. 2012).
After a decade of use, Garrison et al. (2010a)publisheda
retrospective paper that summarized the evolution of the CoI
framework and the three presences. They concluded that
learners were not achieving high levels of critical thinking in
online discussion boards due to course design. Regarding SP,
they found that it changes over time within a course. Akyol and
Garrison (2008) explained that SP focused on open
communication and affective expression and is very important
at the beginning while group cohesion tends to be more
important later in the course. The authors also acknowledged
the increasing significance of TP as a substantial influence on
SP and CP. Additionally, Garrison and Arbaugh (2007)demon-
strated that TP, SP, and CP influenced student satisfaction, per-
ceived learning, and sense of community.
Second Decade 2010–2019: The Instrument
and Criticism
Although the CoI framework existed already for half a decade,
it wasn’t until 2008 that researchers developed a 34-item in-
strument, which was found to be “a valid, reliable, and effi-
cient measure of the dimensions”of the CoI framework
(Arbaugh et al. 2008, p. 133). Then, researchers shifted from
working mainly on content analysis of online discussion
transcripts to surveying online learners using the CoI instru-
ment. The validation of the instrument did not wait.
Researchers found supporting evidence of the three different
constructs (Díaz et al. 2010;Swanetal.2008). The CoI in-
strument has been applied for multiple purposes since its pub-
lication in 2008. In a comprehensive systematic review,
Stenbon (2018) summarizes the purposes with which re-
searchers have used the CoI instrument: “to explore a single
learning environment, to examine differences using the CoI
survey, to observe relationships among the different elements
of CoI and their relationships with other data, and to address the
reliability and/or validity of data using the CoI survey”(p. 25).
Moreover, researchers confirmed causal relationships and
correlations among the presences and with other variables
when applying the instrument (Stenbom 2018). TP scores
significantly predict CP and SP perceptions (Garrison et al.
2010b; Gutiérrez-Santiuste et al. 2015; Lin et al. 2015). Lin
et al. (2015) found that CP positively affects training effec-
tiveness. It is worth noting that the majority of applications
have been done in American and Canadian contexts. The main
reason is likely to be that the original language of publication
is English. Nonetheless, translation of the instrument into
Spanish is available in the CoI website (https://coi.
athabascau.ca/coi-model/coi-survey/).
Researchers had also criticized the CoI framework. Rourke
and Kanuka criticized that learners do not achieve meaningful
learning in the CoI (2009). Zehra et al. (2009) responded that the
CoI is a process framework that informs on the instructional
methods instead of the learning outcomes. Another critique is
that the CoI framework needs additional components to be more
meaningful as a framework. Researchers suggest the existence
of an extra presence but have not achieved consensus on which.
Suggested additional components are learner presence (Shea
et al., 2012), emotional presence (Cleveland-Innes and
Campbell 2012), and autonomy presence (Lam 2015). None
of the additional constructs to the three presences have been
validated as of yet (Kozan and Caskurlu 2018).
The Now and Future of the Framework
The CoI framework is one of the most extensively used frame-
works in online teaching and learning (Richardson et al. 2017;
Stenbom 2018; Jan et al. 2019). However, researchers are
encouraged to build on developing work with K-12 (Harrell
and Wendt 2019), industry (Bage 2018), and blended learning
environments (Duncan and Barnett 2009). Furthermore, in-
vestigation on disciplinary differences (hard vs. soft) using
the CoI framework is necessary (Richardson et al. 2012). It
is diversification and replication that creates a firm
understanding of the field. The CoI framework provides
guidance for both research in online teaching, and design of
online learning experiences. For instance, Fiock (2020)made
Fig. 1 CoI Framework (adapted from Garrison et al. 2000). Used with
permission
558 TechTrends (2020) 64:557–560

a practical guide to design online courses based on the CoI
framework that aligns with Sorensen and Baylen’s(2009)
good practice principles. It is time for us to move from making
sense of what an efficient online experience is to designing
such experience.
References
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of
inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression
and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Network, 12(3), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.
24059/olj.v12i3.66.
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Educational communities of inquiry:
Theoretical framework, research and practice. IGI Global. https://
doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-2110-7.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Journal
of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P.,
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community
of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of
Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet and
Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iheduc.2008.06.003.
Bage, L. (2018). Satisfaction with online learning options in the insur-
ance industry: Does mindfulness play a role [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. University of Pennsylvania.
Cleveland-Innes, M., & Campbell, P. (2012). Emotional presence, learn-
ing, and the online learning environment. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 269–292.
Díaz, S. R., Swan, K., Ice, P., & Kupczynski, L. (2010). Student ratings of
the importance of survey items, multiplicative factor analysis, and
the validity of the community of inquiry survey. Internet and Higher
Education, 13(1–2), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.
11.004.
Duncan, H., & Barnett, J. (2009). Learning to teach online: What works
for pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 40(3), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.40.3.f.
Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a community of inquiry in online courses.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
21(1).
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a
text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher educa-
tion. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking,
cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance educa-
tion. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010a). The first decade of
the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and
Higher Education, 3,5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.
003.
Garrison,D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of
inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet
and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iheduc.2007.04.001.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010b). Exploring
causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence:
Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework.
Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002.
Garrison, D. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of
inquiry framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315667263
Gutiérrez-Santiuste, E., Rodríguez-Sabiote, C., & Gallego-Arrufat, M. J.
(2015). Cognitive presence through social and teaching presence in
communities of inquiry: A correlational-predictive study.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 349–362.
Harrell, K. B., & Wendt, J. L. (2019). The impact of blended learning on
community of inquiry and perceived learning among high school
learners enrolled in a public charter school. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 51(3), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15391523.2019.1590167.
Jan, S., Vlachopoulos, P., & Parsell, M. (2019). Social network analysis
and online learning in communities in higher education: A system-
atic literature review. Online Learning, 23(1), 249–265. https://doi.
org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1398.
Kozan, K., & Caskurlu, S. (2018). On the nth presence for the
Community of Inquiry framework. Computers and Education,
122(March), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.
010.
Lam, J. Y. C. (2015). Autonomy presence in the extended community of
inquiry. International Journal of Continuing Education and
Lifelong Learning, 8(1), 39–61.
Lin, S., Hung, T. C., & Lee, C. T. (2015). Revalidate forms of presence in
training effectiveness: Mediating effect of self-efficacy. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 32–54.
Oriogun, P. K. (2009). Detecting aspects of critical thinking by cleaning
online message transcript through code-recode. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08923640802661694.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999).
Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer
conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71.
Rourke, L.,& Kanuka, H.(2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A
review of the literature. International Journal of E-Learning &
Distance Education, 23(1), 19–48.
Richardson, J. C., Arbaugh, B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Ice, P., Swan, K., &
Garrison, R. (2012). Using the Community of Iquiry framework to
inform effective instructional design. In L. Moller & J. Huett (Eds.),
The next generation of distance education (pp. 97–125). Springer.
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social pres-
ence in relation to students’satisfaction and learning in the online
environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71,
402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001.
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R.,
et al. (2010). A re-examination of the community of inquiry frame-
work: Social network and content analysis. Internet and Higher
Education, 13(1–2), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.
11.002.
Sorensen, C., & Baylen, D. M. (2009). Learning online: Adapting the
seven principles of good practice to a web-based instructional envi-
ronment. In A. Orellana, T. L. Hudgins, & M. Simonson (Eds.), The
perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching (pp.
69–86). Information Age Publishing.
Stenbom, S. (2018). A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry
survey. Internet and Higher Education, 39(June), 22–32. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.06.001.
Stenbom, S., Hrastinski, S., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2012). Student-
student online coaching as a relationship of inquiry: An exploratory
study from the coach perspective. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Network, 16(5), 37–48.
Swan, K., & Ice, P. (2010). The community of inquiry framework ten
years later: Introduction to the special issue [special section].
559TechTrends (2020) 64:557–560

Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.003.
Swan, K. P., Richardson, J. C., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes,
M., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of
presence in online communities of inquiry. E-Mentor, 24(2), 1–12.
Tirado-Morueta, R., Maraver-López, P., Hernando-Gómez, Á., & Harris,
V. W. (2016). Exploring social and cognitive presences in commu-
nities of inquiry to perform higher cognitive tasks. Internet and
Higher Education, 31, 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.
2016.07.00.
York, C. S., & Richardson, J. C. (2012). Interpersonal interaction in
online learning: Experienced online instructors’perceptions of
influencing factors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network,
16(4), 83–98.
Zehra, A., Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D. R.,
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2009). A response to the review of
the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Distance
Education, 23(2), 123–136.
Zydney, J. M., Denoyelles, A., & Kyeong-Ju Seo, K. (2012). Creating a
community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study
on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous dis-
cussions. Computers and Education, 58(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.009.
Publisher’sNoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
560 TechTrends (2020) 64:557–560