Community of Inquiry Framework

Abdulrahman Alamri
University of North Texas
Introduction
As a result of the remarkable increase of online learning in the last few
years not only in the United States but also in many countries across the
world, the question of how instructors can teach effectively and how students
can learn effectively in an online environment through mediated technology
has emerged. It is important to consider the existing appropriate frameworks
that have the potential to reform the relationships among members of the
online community, and to have insightful knowledge about the huge number
of courses providing higher education. The Community of Inquiry is a
framework that has been recognized recently as a common model for online
courses by Canadian researchers (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000). The
nature of the Community of Inquiry is that of a collaborative constructivist
model, and its theory of learning and teaching is related to the notion of
practical inquiry proposed by John Dewey (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer,
2010, p. 6). Knowledge is considered as embedded within a social context in
online courses. Further, the pedagogy behind online discussion forums
assumes that students will work and learn in collaboration together, not
independently as in traditional distance education. The Community of Inquiry
is an advanced model designed to define, describe, and measure three

important principle elements together as well as to support the development

of online learning communities. Instructors and learners together are formed
into an online community environment involving three intersecting and
overlapping presences: the teaching presence, the social presence, and the
cognitive presence (Akyol & Garrison, 2014, p. 4). The model, illustrated
below, suggests that the online learning experience unfolds in the interaction
of these presences (Figure 1).
When online courses have a strong community of inquiry, learners are
expected to participate effectively in discussions, perceive more clearly what
they have learned, be more satisfied with the learning experience, and have
greater retention (Rubin, Fernandes, & Avgerinou, 2013, p. 48). Below, I
discuss each presence in detail.

Fig. 1. The Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer,

2010, p. 6).

Element
Teaching Presence
Social Presence

Cognitive Presence

Category

Indicators

Design & Organization

Facilitating Discourse
Direct Instruction
Open Communication
Group Cohesion
Personal/Affective Content

-Setting Curriculum & Methods

-Shaping Constructive Exchange
-Focusing and Resolving Issues
-Learning Climate/Risk-Free
Expression
-Group Identity/Collaboration
-Self Projection/Expressing
Emotions
-Sense of Puzzlement
-Information Exchange
-Connecting Ideas
-Applying New Ideas

Triggering Event
Exploration
Integration
Resolution

Fig.2. Operational Definitions of the Presences (Akyol & Garrison, 2014, p. 4).
1- Teaching Presence: Teaching presence is defined as the design,
facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of
realizing

personally

meaningful

and

educationally

worthwhile

outcomes, (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001, p. 5).

learning
Teaching

presence is an essential concept that plays an important role of satisfaction,

learning,

and

creation

of

community

online

(Kumar,

Dawson,

Black,

Cavanaugh, & Sessums, 2011, p. 127). It includes a number of activities that

develop both Cognitive and Social Presence as well as other instructional
activities that may occur outside the discussion forums, such as designing
course materials and providing feedback. For instance, designing materials
for courses that contain assignments involving activities of engagement,
critical thinking, or problem solving may lead to a positive way of success and
to the provision of cognitive presence or may lead to a limiting of cognitive
presence (Rubin, Fernandes, & Avgerinou, 2013, p. 48).

The teacher is

involved in this presence as a leader who sets and prioritizes tasks as

learning goals, structures activities, solves problems, facilitates work,

provides information, and gives feedback and is concerned with achieving his
goals with his students. Also, students perception of the instructors behavior
can be observed through the course outcomes (Rubin, 2013, p. 120).

The

teaching presence consists of three categories which build the community:

design and organization such as setting the curriculum as well as methods,
which may include creating PowerPoint presentations, planning mixed and
individual activities, providing guidelines on how to use the technology
media, and developing audio/video; facilitation of discourse such as shaping
constructive exchanges; and finally direct instruction such as focusing and
resolving issues (Akyol, & Garrison, 2014, p. 4). Rourke and Kanuka (2009)
found in a review of 252 articles related to the Community of Inquiry model
that teaching presence is comprised of two or three dimensions; respectively,
these are directed facilitation and instructional design, or instructional design,
direct instruction, and discourse facilitation. In the absence of teaching
presence, student discourse is very poor. They found also that teaching
presence is related positively to social presence (p. 22).
2-Social Presence: Social presence is one of most significant elements in
improving

instructional

effectiveness

and building

sense of

online

community. It has been defined as the degree to which participants in

computer-mediated

communication

feel

effectively

connected

to

one

another (Mayne & Wu, 2011, p. 111). Social presence can be described as
the strength of the emotional connection, and as the social relationships
among the learners of a class or between instructor and learners in the

environment of the learning community. This presence has three components:

identification with a learning community such as group identify and
collaboration, open communication in a trusting environment such as creating
a learning climate and risk-free expression, and the development of
interpersonal relationships such as self-projection and expressing emotions
(Rubin, 2013, p. 120). The original component of affective expression can be
framed as the development of interpersonal relationships; the amount of
affect expressed in a group discussion forum may be viewed as a set of
actions that individuals take to develop relationships. Social presence is
considered as a complicated process where a positive contributor to acquiring
a sense of social presence stems from the process of feeling connection to
and socialization with a particular group. Instructors in the online environment
may face some challenges in creating a sense of effective communication
because of the missing physical body, facial expressions, body language, and
eye contact (Plante, & Asselin, 2014, p. 220). The instructor therefore has a
role to play in impacting the degree of social presence through the way that
they design their assignments, such as using group activities, as well as by
means of teaching activities such as creating informal discussion areas, and
through various other teaching behaviors (Rubin, 2013, p. 119). Rourke and
Kanuka (2009) concluded that there is a correlation positive between social
presence and students satisfaction with online learning. Also, they found that
collaborative learning activities play an important role in the development of

social presence. They found that participants attend to different aspects of

social presence as online discussion matures (p. 22).
3- Cognitive presence: This presence is considered the core of the course
and is grounded in critical thinking (Hosler & Arend, 2012, p. 219). Social
cognitive presence has been defined as the extent to which learners are able
to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse
(Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p. 161). As an affective presence in terms of the
practical inquiry model, cognitive presence develops in four hierarchical
stages: (1) a triggering event which means that some problem or issue has
been identified for further inquiry; (2) exploration, which mean that learners
explore the issue, both in an individual setting and corporately by discourse
and critical reflection; (3) integration, which means that learners build
meaning from the ideas developed during exploration; and the last phase, (4)
resolution, which means that learners apply the newly gained knowledge to
educational contexts or workplace settings (Garrison, & Arbaugh, 2007, p.
161). This presence is likely the most challenging to study and develop in
online courses. Cognitive presence is considered to involve individual
differences in terms of learner motivation, the time learners dedicate to their
class work, self-regulation, and self efficacy (Rubin, 2013, P. 121). Cognitive
presence relies upon the instructor in terms of the instructional design that is
involved in the creation of online activities, leadership, and course structure.
Also, there can be some situational factors that may support or hinder
learning; students should participate, whether publicly or privately, in order to

achieve deep learning (Kumar, Dawson, Black, Cavanaugh, & Sessums, 2011,
p. 128). Even though earlier research has focused primarily on online and
hybrid courses because of their relevance, the concept of cognitive presence
can be applied also in face-to-face classes (Hosler & Arend, 2012 , p.219).
The main goal of this model is to provide a conceptual framework that may
provide order, heuristic understanding, and a particular methodology for
studying the potential and effectiveness of online learning and teaching,
along with the sustainability of a community of inquiry (Garrison, Anderson, &
Archer, 2010). Rourke and Kanuka (2009) found that highest percentage of
students' contributions to online discussion courses is categorized in the
lowest level of cognitive presence (between 41% and 53% of all postings); the
smallest percentage is categorized in the highest level (between 1% and
18%).

Instructional activities influence the types of contributions that

students make in online discussions. For instance, web quests are related to
high levels of cognitive presence and invited experts with low levels (P.21).
Literature review
England (2012) suggested steps for building an online community of
inquiry with participant-moderated discussion. This model was applied toward
a first unit of teaching English language proficiency to a group of students
with a focus on cognitive and teaching presence. Instructions on cognitive
presence suggest that instructors start discussion by asking motivating
questions or posting relevant problems related to the topic. The first phase is
the triggering event, and the teaching phase involves presenting content or

questions. The second phase is exploration, which means that the instructor
should keep participants going in the discussion by encouraging them to
share ideas, think critically, and explore questions related to the topic, and
the instructor should continue responding to participants. The teaching phase
involves facilitating discourse by encouraging, acknowledging, or reinforcing
participants as they contribute, thus promoting the discussion. Phase four is
the resolution, which means that the instructor should also encourage
participants to find solutions with real life applications. Teaching is facilitating
discourse through acknowledging students and encouraging them to
participate. Phase three of cognitive presence is integration, which means the
instructor should start and moderate the discussion by integrating the ideas
shared by the group. The teaching phase is the discussion, seeking to find
consensus and identifying aspects of agreement. The last phase is the
resolution, which leads to the conclusion of the unit by highlighting the new
ideas and solutions, as well as the application constructed by the discussion.
The teaching phase leads to a summarizing discussion (England, 2012, p.
111).
Kumar, Dawson, Black, Cavanaugh, & Sessums (2011) conducted a
study to examine the implementation of the community of inquiry framework
in relation to teaching and learning in online courses. The participants were
16 students in the first year of a doctoral program. The study evaluated
courses that they took during the first year through its instrument. Courses in
the program used both synchronous and asynchronous forms through open

source learning management systems (LMS), Moodle, and Google groups to

manage social and cognitive presence outside of the coursework. The
instrument aimed to measure three components of three presences and
included open-ended questions: Faculty Instruction and Feedback
represented teaching presence; Support, Learning Environments, and
Community-Building represented social presence; and Application of Learning
represented cognitive presence. Results indicated that students were satisfied
with the teaching and cognitive presence. About 75% of the students agreed
that they were satisfied with the technical and administrative support that
was provided to them during first year. About 94% of the students agreed
that their expectations were met during the first year, and 67% of the
students agreed that the faculty members were the main strength of the
courses. However, social presence was difficult to foster in online
environments through the Google groups, the Inquiry groups that were
created for this purpose. Only 25% of the students were satisfied with the use
of Google Groups. However, about 86% of the students were satisfied with
the learning management system (LMS). Students envisioned the groups as
an unstructured way for promoting community building via student
interaction. The weaknesses of this study were related to the participants
number, to not using specific courses, to the challenges associated with
asynchronous or synchronous interactions that should be analyzed across
courses, and to the use of only the quantitative method. The strengths of this

study were related to the students ability to apply and practice what they
had learned (Kumar, Dawson, Black, Cavanaugh, & Sessums, 2011).
Liu & Yang (2014) conducted a study in Taiwan using the community of
inquiry model to examine students' knowledge construction in asynchronous
online discussions. The purpose of these discussions, in the Information Ethics
course (IE), was to increase learners abilities to understand ethical
knowledge in order to perceive ethical conflicts that may arise in the
information field. Participants were 36 fourth-year undergraduate students
(27 males, 9 females). The study was over 18 weeks of an online information
ethics course and investigated four types of discussion: topics theory
exploration, life experience discussion, case-based discussion, and debate.
The study looked into the students relationships with three presences: the
social, cognitive, and teaching presences. The methodology was analysis of
students message posts, the teachers reflection notes, and a survey of the
students. The asynchronous communication, a discussion of each type of
ethics, lasted for one month. The teacher read each students postings,
provided feedback, and then reflected on the course design before moving on
to the next issue. Each student had to make at least four postings for each
theme of discussion. Students on average made 27 postings; the highest
number was 84, and the lowest was 6 postings. The research design was
mixed method to measure the cognitive , teaching , and social presences
within the Community of Inquiry model through the content analysis of
students asynchronous discussion, which consisted of open-ended discussion

dealing with introductory concepts of life practices or experiences. The casebased discussion method also offered questions for discussion and analysis,
and there were debate discussions in which students were asked to either
support or oppose a point of view on an issue and to justify their positions.
The teacher encoded and analyzed the content. Theory exploration
represented the lower-level of cognitive process, while life experience and the
debate topics presented spanned across the higher and lower levels, and the
last type was case study, which was geared toward the higher-level cognitive
processes. The study also used a survey to gather information about the
participants perceptions about online discourse. The results indicated that
the discussion types were significantly related to cognitive presence, which
was represented by most of the postings (n = 788, 74%); social presence
followed (n = 108, 10.2%). The results also included the students perceptions
of the course which were represented by students Self-evaluation of their
participation (Mean =3.54), Learning effectiveness (Mean=4.11) and Course
comprehension (4.02). It seems that the students were satisfied with open
and simple discussions of concepts at the introductory phase. Without
assistance, students face difficulty in responding to the introductory phase of
issues that have no connection to life experience in order to reach a high
level of knowledge construction. There were also discussion types that were
not related to teaching presence (n = 44, 4.16%). The results also indicated
that the students level of knowledge construction was best for topics related

to life experience, which accounted for 38%, and case-study 42.8% within the
category of high-level analysis.
Shea & Bidjerano (2013) carried out a quantitative method study to
investigate the impact of two types of online environments (hybrid vs. fully
online) based on the Community of Inquiry model constructs. The participants
were 723 students in a private college in Northeastern U.S. The survey was
designed to reflect indicators of the three presences in the Community of
Inquiry model. It consisted of 42 items on a Likert scale for the purpose of
investigating and explaining differences among online environments. The
instrument was designed to measure TP, teaching presence; CS,
communication students; CP, cognitive presence; CI, communication
instructor; and AC, affective communication. All of the faculty teaching full
online and hybrid courses in the university undergo the same training for
qualification and have validated outcomes. By using a separated hierarchical
multiple regressions method, the study controlled for the students character
variables (gender, age, educational level, student workload status, student
employment status, and experience of online environments). Outcomes from
the assessment of the five constructs (TP, CP, AC, CL, and CS) indicated that
there is a significant positive effect on student ratings of TP, Teaching
presence, of two types F=(8.537)=5.03, P<0.001). Students tendency to
rate their teachers behaviors significantly higher was a factor in their
perception of their own learning on one hand, and in their feeling socially
connected with other students on the other. The results also showed that age

was significant, with older students producing higher rating on all of the five
constructs. Those with more experience in fully online courses rated AC
(affective communication) and open communication significantly higher as
compared with those having less experience. The affect of educational level
on CP (cognitive presence) was consistent regardless of the type of course.
Interaction was measured through One-way ANOVA, and the result indicated
that interaction level had an effect on AC (affective communication) and open
communication for students. Social presence was also found to play an
important role in terms of there being a relationship between students
characteristics and students perceptions of TP (Teaching Presence) and CP
(Cognitive Presence). Further, the results suggested that students in hybrid
course environments rate their instructors TP (Teaching Presence) behaviors
more highly. These results indicate that the quality of instructors TP
behaviors is s significant predictor of Social and Cognitive Presence.

Akyol, Vaughan, & Garrison (2011) conducted a study to examine the

impact of hybrid course time for two different courses, long term and short
term, in terms of development of a community of inquiry. Participants were 16
(7 males and 9 females) graduate students enrolled in the 13 week (long
term) course, and 20 (5 males and 15 females) students enrolled in the 6
weeks (short term) course. The study used two types of methodology, which
were transcript analysis and a survey. Transcript analysis was used to code
and explore students postings in relation to three presences: social, teaching,

and cognitive. The survey was used at the end of each course meeting. The
results of the social presence transcripts indicated that open communication
messages were the majority of postings for both courses (long and short
term), which was important for students to create cohesive social presence.
The results of the Independent samples t -Test indicated a significant
difference between the short term and long term for affective communication
(t (34)=5.074, p=0.000), and group cohesion (t(34)=4.554,p=0.000). The
reason might be that students found themselves with a long time to make
personal expressions leading to emotion, value, feelings, and beliefs.
Cognitive presence was analyzed in terms of its discussions. The t-Test was
significant for exploration (t (34)=-2.505,p=0.017), integration
(t(34)=2.095,p=0.044), and resolution (t (34)=2.276,p=0.029). By contrast,
students didnt reach the highest level of cognitive presence in the short term
course. The reason might be that the duration of short-term course disabled
students abilities to reach a higher level of critical inquiry. Regarding
teaching presence, the results found that the facilitating discourse category
was give a higher percentage in the long-term course, whereas the number of
messages that were coded as reflecting the direct instruction was higher in
the long-term course. It might be the case that students want to move on to
the integration phase, and they intend to start sharing knowledge from new
sources. Regarding the survey results, 15 students completed the survey of
both courses. Teaching presence was higher than the other presences for
both courses. Also, satisfaction was found higher in the short- term course

than in the long-term course. The reason may be that the time and duration
of the short-term course were optimal for students to be focused on task and
to cohere as a group.

Kucuk & Sahin (2013) conducted mixed method research to investigate

the development of the community of inquiry framework in two different
formats, in face-to-face and blended learning environments, in order to
understand students academic achievement, satisfaction, motivation, and
success. The study consisted of 109 undergraduate students . The course was
delivered in both face-to-face format (the control group) and blended format
(the experimental group). The research involved an experimental pretest and
posttest design with a control group. Moreover, the study used a content
analysis of the discussions posted by Facebook users to measure the
frequencies and percentages for each category within the Community of
Inquiry teaching, social, and cognitive presences. Further, this research used
tools to gather data, which included an achievement test, a motivation
survey, a satisfaction survey, and a community of inquiry survey. T-Test
results of the posttest for academic success indicated that there was no
significant difference between face-to-face and blended courses (t=.700,
p>0.05). The result also did not indicate any significant differences for the
intrinsic goal orientation, control of learning beliefs, extrinsic goal orientation,
task value, and test anxiety categories for students motivation between
blended and face-to-face courses. However, the t-test indicated a significant

difference for self-efficacy for the learning and performance category of

students motivation between face-to-face and blended courses (t=2.356,
p<0.05). Students in the control group ( X =42.45) had higher levels of selfefficacy for learning and performance than the ones in the experimental
group ( X =39.06). Regarding the community of inquiry, results indicated that
there is a significant difference between face-to-face and blended courses in
terms of group cohesion (t=2.064, p<0.05). The mean values indicated that
group cohesion was more frequent in the blended course ( X =11.57) than in
the face-to-face course ( X =10.74). This might mean that the students in the
experimental group were more anxious at the beginning of the course
regarding the educational use of Facebook and blended learning. Also, the
results found a significant difference between face-to-face and blended
courses in terms of exploration (t=2.030, p<0.05). The mean values for this
indicate that the level of exploration was higher in the blended course (X
=12.29) than in the face-to face course ( X =11.43). The reason might be that
the students in blended learning had the responsibility to achieve their
project individually or collaboratively through sharing their experience and
knowledge to complete the project. The research also used Facebook as a tool
to acquire data for analysis. Five hundred eighty postings by students were
coded. The highest number of postings was for cognitive presence, whereas
teaching presence was indicated in the lowest number of postings (13%),
which implies that students considered teaching presence as the
responsibility of the teacher only. In the social presence category, the highest

number of messages was in open communication (50.5%). In the cognitive

presence category, exploration received the highest coding (58.9%). In the
teaching presence category, the majority of messages were direct instruction
(43.4%).

Limitations: The Community of inquiry Framework has limitations. We

noticed that there is a greater focus on online environments than on face-toface settings and a tendency to measure higher education rather than any
other educational settings, and the methodology focuses on exploration of
attitudes instead of on teaching bioethics. Also, this framework has limitations
in relation to the understanding of imparted knowledge. We aim to use it for
diverse settings in the future such as settings in which students with disability
are a component of the student population.
In conclusion, the community of inquiry is a framework that seeks to
present a conceptual orientation that provides order, heuristic understanding,
and a particular methodology for studying the potential and effectiveness of
the online environment for both learning and teaching settings, along with the
sustainability of a community of inquiry. Moreover, the community of inquiry
has been considered by recent research as an advanced model, being
designed to define, describe, and measure three important principle elements
together as well as supporting the development of online learning
communities. This framework is useful as a guide for teachers to create

effective, meaningful, and engaging activities in an online environment

community.
Suggested Methodology:
As the initial prototype of this project, a mixed-methods quantitative
and qualitative study can be used to investigate the community of inquiry
framework. Participants will be both faculty at UNT and students with
disabilities who have taken online courses. Students with disabilities
represent a component of the higher education population which includes
individuals with all types of disability (blindness, deafness, autism, learning
disabilities, ADHD, communication disorders, behavior disabilities, intellectual
disabilities, and others). We aim to understand the natural relationships and
communication in an online environment community. Based on the research
that we have found, this study will be one of the first attempts to investigate
how faculty members teach, how students learn, and how students
perceptions of their independent settings affect course outcomes including
teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. It is important to
investigate instructor behavior in relation to the three elements of cognitive,
social, and teaching presence, and the effect of these presences on learner
satisfaction.
We will create a survey to study faculty and student perceptions of
online course implementation and components that correspond to teaching
presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. How does communication
affect student satisfaction, what is the role of technology in online instruction,

and what are the strengths and weaknesses of the Community of Inquiry in
the courses? We will create an electronic survey for the quantitative design
method, and will then semi-unstructured interviews of selected participants
including both instructors and students with disability will be conducted. The
semi-structured interviews will be used to understand how faculty and
students perceive the online courses and how they interact by means of
technology through the Learning Management System in particular to explore
differences in relation to each other.
References
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2014). 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 Networks, 12(3), 3-22. Retrieved
from
http://repositorio.ub.edu.ar:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/2256/EJ837483.pdf?
sequence=1
Akyol, Z., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). The impact of course duration on the
development of a community of inquiry. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3), 231246.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a
computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2).
England, L. (Ed.). (2012). Online language teacher education: TESOL perspectives. Routledge.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework:
Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157172.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry
framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 5-9.
Hosler, K. A., & Arend, B. D. (2012). The importance of course design, feedback, and
facilitation: Student perceptions of the relationship between teaching presence and
cognitive presence. Educational Media International, 49(3), 217-229.

Kucuk, S., & Sahin, I. (2013). From the perspective of community of inquiry framework: An
examination of Facebook uses by pre-service teachers as a learning environment. Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 12(2), 142-156.
Kumar, S., Dawson, K., Black, E. W., Cavanaugh, C., & Sessums, C. D. (2011). Applying the
community of inquiry framework to an online professional practice doctoral program. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 126-142.
Liu, C. J., & Yang, S. C. (2014). Using the community of inquiry model to investigate students'
knowledge construction in asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 51(3), 327-354.
Mayne, L. A., & Wu, Q. (2011). Creating and measuring social presence in online graduate
nursing courses. Nursing education perspectives, 32(2), 110-114.
Plante, K., & Asselin, M. E. (2014). Best practices for creating social presence and caring
behaviors online. Nursing Education Perspectives, 35(4), 219-223.
Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature
(Winner 2009 Best Research Article Award). International Journal of E-Learning &
Distance Education, 23(1), 19-48.
Rubin, B. (2013). Measuring the community in online classes. Online Learning: Official Journal
of the Online Learning Consortium, 17(3).
Rubin, B., Fernandes, R., & Avgerinou, M. D. (2013). The effects of technology on the
Community of Inquiry and satisfaction with online courses. The Internet and Higher
Education, 17, 48-57.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2013). Understanding distinctions in learning in hybrid, and online
environments: an empirical investigation of the community of inquiry
framework. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 355-370.