Using the Community of Inquiry Framework

to Inform Effective Instructional Design

Jennifer C. Richardson, J. Ben Arbaugh, Martha Cleveland-Innes,

Philip Ice, Karen P. Swan, and D. Randy Garrison

Introduction

In the United States, 4.6 million students took at least one online course during fall
2008, a 17% increase from the previous year. US schools offering these courses have
seen increases in demand for e-learning options, with 66% and 73% of responding
schools reporting increased demand for new and existing online course offerings,
respectively (Allen and Seaman 2010). Indeed, online learning, at least at the higher
education level, has advanced from an interesting experiment to “the new normal”
(Davidson and Goldberg 2009) in a relatively short amount of time. Moreover, indi-
cations are that online learning is more engaging than face-to-face learning and that
students learn more online as a result. The National Survey of Student Engagement
(NSSE 2009), which in 2008 tested technology questions with 31,000 students at 58
institutions, for example, found significant positive correlations between the use of
course management systems and high-tech communications in college courses and

J.C. Richardson, Ph.D (*)

College of Education, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
J.B. Arbaugh, Ph.D
College of Business, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Oshkosh, WI, USA
M. Cleveland-Innes, Ph.D
Centre for Distance Education, Athabasca University, Athabasca, AB, Canada
P. Ice, Ed.D
American Public University System, Charles Town, WV, USA
K.P. Swan, Ph.D
Center for Online Learning, Research and Teaching, University of Illinois Springfield,
Springfield, IL, USA
D.R. Garrison, Ed.D
University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

L. Moller and J.B. Huett (eds.), The Next Generation of Distance Education: 97
Unconstrained Learning, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-1785-9_7,
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
98 J.C. Richardson et al.

Fig. 1 Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework

all the NSSE engagement indicators. In addition, a recent meta-analysis of empirical

studies comparing online and face-to-face learning commissioned by the US
Department of Education (Means et al. 2009) revealed that students who took part or
all of their classes online outperformed colleagues who took solely face-to-face
classes. The authors of this study report that their findings hold across variations in
students, institutions, implementations, and disciplines.
Clearly, online learning deserves more serious and more rigorous study. While
researchers have been relatively successful in identifying the properties of suc-
cessful online learning environments (Aragon 2003; Cleveland-Innes, Garrison &
Kinsel 2007), a more in-depth analysis requires a theoretical framework that illumi-
nates the complexities of online learning. One model that has gained a good deal of
attention is the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework developed by Garrison et al.
(2000). The CoI framework is a collaborative constructivist model of online learn-
ing processes that can inform both research and practice. It assumes that effective
online learning requires the development of a learning community (Rovai 2002;
Shea 2006; Thompson and MacDonald 2005) which supports the meaningful
inquiry and deep learning that is the hallmark of higher education (Dewey 1938).
The CoI framework views the online learning experience as a function of the
relationship between three elements: social presence, teaching presence, and cogni-
tive presence (see Fig. 1). The term “presence” was deliberately chosen to distin-
guish the CoI framework from Moore’s (1989) “interactions” which involve
particular actors. In the CoI model, the presences are viewed more as functions that
are shared among the instructor, students, and course materials. Social presence
refers to the development of an online environment in which participants feel
socially and emotionally connected with each other; cognitive presence describes
the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sus-
tained reflection and discourse; and teaching presence is defined as the design,
facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the realization of
meaningful learning.
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 99

This chapter examines the development, application, and predictive potential of

the CoI framework for course design. First, we present the conceptual development
and supporting research for each of the CoI’s three elements. Each of these discus-
sions will be followed with the presentation of survey items recently developed to
empirically operationalize the model and some preliminary results from studies that
have used this new instrument. The chapter concludes with some recently emerging
research areas for extending the CoI framework and their potential implications for
online course design: epistemological and behavioral differences between academic
disciplines, applications of emerging technologies, and instructor characteristics
and future roles.

Conceptual Foundations of and Research on the CoI Framework

Social Presence

Social presence, the degree to which participants in computer-mediated communica-

tion feel affectively connected one to another, is the longest researched of the three
presences in the CoI framework, predating the creation of the CoI model by 2 decades.
Short et al. (1976) originally coined the term “social presence” to refer to the differing
capacities various media have for transmitting nonverbal and vocal cues for communi-
cating the affective and emotional (social) aspects of learning interactions. They
hypothesized that users of communication media are in some sense aware of the degree
of social presence of each medium and tend to avoid using particular interactions in
particular media. Specifically, users avoid interactions requiring a higher sense of
social presence in media that lack such capacity. Social presence, they contend, “varies
among different media, it affects the nature of the interaction and it interacts with the
purpose of the interaction to influence the medium chosen by the individual who
wishes to communicate” (Short, Williams & Christie 1976, p. 65).
Research by Gunawardena (1995) and Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) moved
the definition of social presence from its original focus on the capacities of the
media involved to one that focused more on individual perceptions; in other words,
the concept of “social presence” evolved to “the degree to which a person is per-
ceived as ‘real’ in mediated communication” (Gunawardena and Zittle 1997, p. 8).
They thus argued that social presence was more a matter of individual perceptions
than an objective quality of the medium, and so the concept of “social presence”
evolved to the notion of individual perceptions more common among online educa-
tors today. A number of studies followed which identify the perception of interper-
sonal connections with virtual others as an important factor in the success of online
learning (Mays 2006; Muirhead 2001; Richardson and Swan 2003; Swan 2002; Tu
2000; Wallace 2003). By influencing interpersonal interaction within an online
course, instructors can affect student attitudes and performance (Hirumi 2002,
2006) as cited in York, Yang & Dark 2007). Correspondingly, research has shown
that online courses that lack meaningful interaction and/or a sense of presence can
100 J.C. Richardson et al.

contribute to a sense of isolation, unsatisfying learning experiences, and high dropout

rates (Aragon 2003; Moore and Kearsley 2004).
It is this sense of “social presence” that Garrison et al. (2000) incorporated into
the CoI model. Their research team (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer 2001)
looked for evidence of social presence in the transcripts of online discussion. They
identified three categories of social presence indicators based on research on
immediacy in face-to-face interactions (affective responses, cohesive responses,
and interactive responses) and developed coding protocols using these indicators.
Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer (2001) established the indicators as reliable
in a pilot content analysis of two online class discussions and documented the use
of such indicators to project social presence in text-based online communication.
Although the elements of social presence have been variously defined and the indi-
cators and categories updated to reflect academic purposes (Garrison, Cleveland-
Innes & Fung 2004), we define them as affective expression, where learners share
personal expressions of emotion, feelings, beliefs, and values; open communica-
tion, where learners build and sustain a sense of group commitment; and group
cohesion, where learners interact around common intellectual activities and tasks
(Vaughan and Garrison 2006). From a methodological perspective, the three cate-
gories of social presence (personal/affective projection, open communication, and
group cohesion) are used to operationalize the concept.
Richardson and Swan (2003) examined students’ perceived social presence and its
relationship to their perceived learning and satisfaction with course instructors. They
found all three variables highly correlated, and a regression analysis showed that
42% of the variability in perceived learning was predicted by perceived social pres-
ence. Picciano (2002) investigated perceived social presence, interactivity, and learn-
ing among students enrolled in an online course and found strong correlations among
these variables. While he initially found no correlations between these variables and
actual performance on tests or written assignments, he discovered that, by dividing
students into groups perceiving low, medium, and high social presence, there were
significant differences; students in the high social presence group scored higher than
the medium, and the medium group outscored the low social presence group.
Social presence has an indirect effect on teaching presence by setting the envi-
ronmental conditions for higher learning; research has shown that social presence
acts as a mediating variable between teaching presence and cognitive presence
(Garrison, Cleveland-Innes & Fung 2010; Shea and Bidjerano 2009). Social pres-
ence affects perceived learning and persistence (Akyol and Garrison 2008; Ice, Swan,
Diaz, Kupczynski & Swan-Dagen 2010) and a climate that supports questioning,
reflection, and critical discourse.

Teaching Presence

Perhaps, the most significant issue is whether social presence is really a necessary
precursor of cognitive presence. Most researchers in this area agree that it is, with the
caveat that social presence must be directed toward learning outcomes (Garrison 2007).
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 101

Garrison, Anderson & Archer (2000) contended that while interactions between
participants are necessary in virtual learning environments, interactions by them-
selves are not sufficient to ensure effective online learning. These types of interac-
tions need to have clearly defined parameters and be focused toward a specific
direction, hence the need for teaching presence. They describe teaching presence as
the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive social processes for the purpose of
realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes.
Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer (2001) conceptualized teaching presence as
having three components: (1) instructional design and organization, (2) facilitating
discourse (originally called “building understanding”), and (3) direct instruction.
Although recent empirical research may generate a debate regarding whether teach-
ing presence has two (Shea 2006; Shea and Bidjerano 2009) or three (Arbaugh and
Hwang 2006) components, the general conceptualization of this CoI element has
been supported by subsequent research (Arbaugh, Bangert, & Cleveland-Innes 2010;
Ke 2010; LaPointe and Gunawardena 2004; Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, & Pelz
2003; Stein, Wanstreet, Calvin, Overtoom, & Wheaton 2005).
The design and organization aspect of teaching presence has been described as
the planning and design of the structure, process, interaction, and evaluation aspects
of the online course (Anderson et al. 2001). Some of the activities comprising this
category of teaching presence include re-creating PowerPoint presentations and lec-
ture notes onto the course site, developing audio/video mini-lectures, providing per-
sonal insights into the course material, creating a desirable mix of and a schedule for
individual and group activities, and providing guidelines on how to use the medium
effectively. These are particularly important activities since clear and consistent
course structure supporting engaged instructors and dynamic discussions has been
found to be the most consistent predictor of successful online courses (Ke 2010;
Swan 2002, 2003). Of the three components of teaching presence, this is the one
most likely to be performed exclusively by the instructor. These activities are for
the most part completed prior to the beginning of the course, but adjustments can be
made as the course progresses (Anderson et al. 2001).
Facilitating discourse was conceptualized as the means by which students are
engaged in interacting about and building upon the information provided in the course
instructional materials (Anderson et al. 2001). This component of teaching presence
is consistent with extensive findings supporting the importance of participant interac-
tion in online learning effectiveness (An, Shin & Lim 2009; Arbaugh 2005b; Arbaugh
and Benbunan-Fich 2007; Hratsinski 2008; Ke 2010; Sherry et al. 1998). This role
includes sharing meaning, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement, and seek-
ing to reach consensus and understanding. Therefore, facilitating discourse requires
the instructor to review and comment upon student comments, raise questions, and
make observations to move discussions in a desired direction, keep discussion moving
efficiently, draw out inactive students, and limit the activity of dominating student
posters when they become detrimental to the learning of the group (Anderson, Rourke,
Garrison & Archer 2001; Brower 2003; Coppola, Hiltz, & Rotter 2002; Shea,
Fredericksen, Pickett, & Pelz 2003).
Finally, direct instruction was defined as the instructor provision of intellectual
and scholarly leadership in part through the sharing of his/her subject matter
102 J.C. Richardson et al.

knowledge with the students (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer 2001).
Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer (2001) also contend that a subject matter
expert, and not merely a facilitator, must play this role because of the need to diag-
nose comments for accurate understanding, injecting sources of information, and
directing discussions in useful directions, thereby scaffolding learner knowledge to
raise it to a new level.
In addition to the sharing of knowledge by a content expert, direct instruction is
concerned with indicators that assess the discourse and the efficacy of the educa-
tional process. Instructor responsibilities are to facilitate reflection and discourse by
presenting content, using various means of assessment and feedback. Explanatory
feedback is crucial. Instructors must have both content and pedagogical expertise to
make links among contributed ideas, diagnose misperceptions, and inject knowl-
edge from textbooks, articles, and web-based materials.
The simultaneous roles of discussion facilitator and content expert within teach-
ing presence go beyond early contentions that online instructors needed merely to
transition from a role of knowledge disseminator to interaction facilitator. Teaching
presence contends that for online learning to be effective, instructors must play both
roles (Arbaugh and Hwang 2006; Ke 2010; Shea and Bidjerano 2009). Also, teach-
ing presence’s emphasis on design and organization should positively impact student
satisfaction with the Internet as a delivery medium. If there is no set of activities, no
timeline, no protocol, no format for course materials, and no evaluation criteria, chaos
will ensue in the online environment (Berger 1999; Hiltz and Wellman 1997).
Design and organization provide the context for which discourse and direct instruc-
tion have meaning.

Cognitive Presence

Cognitive presence, as conceptualized in the CoI framework, has its genesis in the
work of Dewey (1933) and his notion of scientific inquiry. For Dewey, inquiry was
at the core of a worthwhile educational experience. The development of the cogni-
tive presence construct by Garrison et al. (2001) is grounded in the critical thinking
literature and operationalized by the Practical Inquiry Model (Fig. 2) which draws
on and represents a slight truncation of Dewey’s model.
The Practical Inquiry Model is defined by two axes. The vertical axis reflects the
integration of thought and action, reflection, and discourse. The horizontal axis rep-
resents its interface. The extremes of the horizontal axis are analysis and synthesis.
These are points of insight and understanding (Garrison et al. 2000). The model also
distinguishes four phases of pragmatic inquiry—triggering, exploration, integration,
resolution—which the CoI model identifies as the elements of cognitive presence.
As conceptualized in the CoI model, cognitive presence begins with a trigger-
ing event in the form of an issue, problem, or dilemma that needs resolution. As a
result of this event, there is a natural shift to exploration, the search for relevant
information that can provide insight into the challenge at hand. As ideas crystal-
lize, there is a move into the third phase, integration, in which connections are
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 103

Fig. 2 Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison et al. 2001)

made and there is a search for a viable explanation. Finally, there is a selection and
testing of ideas (through vicarious or direct application) leading to resolution.
Consistent with Dewey’s rejection of dualism, the phases should not be seen as
discrete or linear. However, in an actual educational experience, they are very dif-
ficult to label, as those that have used this model to code transcripts will attest
(Garrison et al. 2001).
In the CoI framework, cognitive presence is defined as the extent to which learn-
ers are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and dis-
course (Garrison et al. 2001) and operationalized as the presence of its elements, the
four phases of practical inquiry. Researchers have found ample evidence of practical
inquiry in online discussions; however, initial studies revealed that most postings in
online discussion forums were concentrated at and rarely moved beyond the explo-
ration phase (Kanuka and Anderson 1998; Luebeck and Bice 2005; Meyer 2003,
2004; Murphy 2004; Garrison and Arbaugh 2007; Shea, Hayes, Vickers, Gozza-
Cohen, Uzuner, Mehta, Valchova, & Rangan 2010).
Various explanations for the lack of integration and resolution in online discus-
sions have been offered. One idea concerns the nature of the assignments and
instructional direction provided (Garrison and Arbaugh 2007; Akyol and Garrison
2008). Indeed, studies in which students were challenged to resolve a problem with
explicit facilitation and direction provided found that students did progress to reso-
lution (Meyer 2003; Murphy 2004; Shea and Bidjerano 2008). These findings sug-
gest that learner maturity and self-efficacy may be key factors in reaching higher
levels of inquiry, prompting recent calls for the incorporation of “learner presence”
into the framework (Shea and Bidjerano 2010). Another explanation suggests that
practical inquiry might be initiated in discussion but reach integration and/or resolu-
tion in other parts of a course (Archer 2010). Finally, it is sometimes the case that
convergent thinking, hence resolution, is not the desired outcome. Literary under-
standing (Langer 1990), for example, focuses on exploration and integration.
104 J.C. Richardson et al.

The CoI Survey

Due to the work of these researchers, the appropriateness of measuring the three
types of presence exclusively by transcript analysis has increasingly come into ques-
tion (Garrison and Arbaugh 2007; Shea and Bidjerano 2009). Therefore, efforts to
develop supplemental or alternative measures for these constructs are underway.
Most recently, the development and validation of a CoI survey instrument (see
Appendix) by researchers utilizing the model has confirmed the reliability of the CoI
framework and its interrelated but separate presences (Swan, Shea, Fredericksen,
Pickett, Pelz, & Maher 2000). The CoI survey consists of 34 agreed upon and statis-
tically validated items that operationalize the concepts in the CoI model (Arbaugh,
Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, Shea, & Swan 2008). It can and is
being used for continued exploration of concepts in the model and in online learning
in general, and is sustaining an ongoing research agenda that supports generaliza-
tions across institutions and specific studies (Boston, Diaz, Gibson, Ice, Richardson,
& Swan 2009; Shea and Bidjerano 2009). The CoI framework and survey can also
be used to inform design research on the efficacy of the use of new media and
emerging Web 2.0 technologies in online courses (Garrison and Akyol 2009; Ice,
Curtis, Philips, & Wells 2007; Ice, Swan, Diaz, Kupczynski, & Swan-Dagen 2010;
Shea and Bidjerano 2009).
The CoI survey may also be used for practical purposes—to guide design ele-
ments ahead of time or to evaluate their success in supporting the development of an
online CoI, once implemented—in that items in the survey provide insights into
the necessary practice-based requirements of each presence (Ice 2009a, b).

Cognitive Presence Items in CoI Survey

If one assumes that responses to the 12 cognitive presence items in the CoI survey
provide a reasonable snapshot of the thinking and learning processes occurring in an
online course, then it is clear that these items can be used to evaluate course designs
relative to their support for the development of cognitive presence. It is also clear
that one can design to them. For example, the triggering event items suggest that
designers must provide learners with interesting problems, discussion questions,
and task-related activities to engage them in the inquiry process. The resolution
items suggest that such problems, discussions, and/or activities need to be authentic
and linked to the learners’ practice for them to stay engaged through to resolution.
Similarly, the exploration items point to the importance of providing learners with
opportunities to brainstorm and discuss issues and ideas, encouraging them to use
and search for information to support their inquiries and positions. The integration
items can be used to develop activities that require reflection, the integration of
ideas, and the development of explanations and problem solutions.
In any case, it can be argued that the elements of cognitive presence as defined in
the CoI framework provide a reasonably complete catalog of the thinking and learn-
ing processes that take place in a collaborative constructivist environment. As such,
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 105

they can be used to guide course design and implementation and to evaluate
how successful design and implementation are in eliciting cognitive presence.
Thus, instructional designers and/or course instructors who want to foster open
communication can focus on providing opportunities for students to become com-
fortable conversing, participating, and interacting in online course discussions and
can measure their success in so doing using the three related CoI survey items.

Social Presence Items in CoI Survey

By supposing that the nine social presence items included within the CoI survey
provide a reasonable representation of the necessary and relevant social interactions
necessary in online courses for effective learning, we can use them to evaluate course
designs and related implications. For example, Boston et al. (2009) used the CoI
instrument as a means to examine student retention in online courses. Correspondingly,
we can also use the indicators or items to design effective online courses. While the
activities presented as suggestions may overlap among the three categories, following
are some suggestions for designers. When designing for affective expressions, design-
ers should consider including initial course activities to encourage the development
of swift trust, such as introductory and short content-related videos, places for student
and peer interaction (e.g., “meet your classmates” and “study lounges”), real-time
communications (e.g., chat, collaborative whiteboards, interactive video), or social
software (e.g., blogs, wikis, YouTube, Flickr, MySpace, Second Life). For open com-
munication, designers should require discussion participants to respond to their class-
mates postings, make participation in discussion a significant part of course grades
(e.g., if we value the discussion, students will value it), consider how to explicitly
introduce students to the unique nature and learning potential of online discussion,
establish rules of Netiquette, and incorporate journaling or blogging so that students,
peers, and instructors can interact on an individual and personal basis. Finally, for
group cohesion, activities in addition to those already mentioned can include the
development and integration of community building activities and collaborative
activities such as problem-solving tasks, projects, and small group discussion.

Teaching Presence Items in CoI Survey

Understanding the application of the teaching presence items to practice is critical

for realizing effective outcomes in online courses. In work by Staley and Ice (2009),
the importance of the instructional design and organization construct was found to
be directly related to the resolution phase of cognitive presence. This research dem-
onstrated a clear relationship between adequately setting forth expectations and the
ability of students to readily achieve higher-order thought outcomes. In related
work, the importance of robust instructional design and organization was found to
be particularly important with respect to those new to online learning and certain
ethnic minorities (Kupczynski, Davis, Ice, & Callejo 2008).
106 J.C. Richardson et al.

With respect to facilitation of discourse, it is important for instructors to remain

true to the conceptual foundation of the CoI and ensure that their actions during the
discussion process be in alignment with a collaborative constructivist paradigm.
When instructors’ actions deviate from this premise and align more closely with an
objectivist orientation, research has demonstrated that students do not engage as
frequently in higher-order thought processes. Rather, when learning takes on an
objectivist orientation, with commensurate lack of constructivist instructor interac-
tion, students perceive outcomes in much more quantifiable terms and a lack of
higher-order thought is prevalent (Akyol, Ice, Garrison, & Mitchell 2010). However,
insuring such outcomes may require a significant institutional commitment as
instructors who do not have significant experience in online teaching may not under-
stand appropriate techniques for applying a constructivist approach (Phillips, Wells,
Ice, Curtis, & Kennedy 2007). Program evaluations assessing the impact of using
the CoI as a training tool have illustrated that when institutions apply adequate
resources to faculty awareness and training initiatives, increased perceptions of
resolution, overall student satisfaction, and faculty satisfaction manifest quickly
(Powell and Ice 2010).

Research Findings on the CoI

A good deal of important research on online learning has utilized the CoI frame-
work. For example, research has found that perceptions of social presence are linked
to student satisfaction in online courses (Gunawardena and Zittle 1997, Tu and
McIsaac 2002; Richardson and Swan 2003), as well as to students’ perceived and
actual learning from them (Walther 1992; Gunawardena 1995; Picciano 2002;
Richardson and Swan 2003). It suggests that, while social presence alone will not
ensure the development of critical discourse in online learning, it is extremely dif-
ficult for such discourse to develop without a foundation of social presence (Celani
and Collins 2005; Garrison and Cleveland-Innes 2005; Molinari 2004).
Liu, Gomez, & Yen (2009) conducted a predictive quantitative research design to
examine the predictive relationships between social presence and course retention,
as well as final grade in community college online courses. The results of their study
suggest that social presence is a significant predictor of course retention and final
grade in the community college online environment. They recommended “actions
for community colleges and online educators to improve the likelihood of student
success in an online learning environment including early identification of at-risk
students and effective interventions such as building effective blended learning pro-
grams and developing integrated social and learning communities” (p. 173).
Boston et al. (2009) explored the relationship between indicators of the CoI
framework and student persistence at a fully online university (n = 28,877). Their
findings demonstrated a significant amount of variance (18%) in student reenroll-
ment (with whether a student returned to studies in the semester subsequent to com-
pleting the survey) that could be accounted for by indicators of social presence.
They suggest that students attending fully online universities seek social interaction
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 107

primarily online. As a result, faculty may need to redesign their curriculum to

provide opportunities that allow students to engage with one another online. As
educators continue to develop interventions to promote retention, they should pay
particular attention to how the institution encourages interaction among its
students.
Researchers in the field have also documented strong correlations between learn-
ers’ perceived and actual interactions with instructors and their perceived learning
(Swan et al. 2000; Jiang and Ting 2000; Richardson and Swan 2003), and between
all three elements of teaching presence and student satisfaction and perceived learn-
ing in online courses (Shea, Pickett, & Pelz 2004). Teaching presence has been
shown to be linked to the development of a sense of community in online courses
(Shea, Li, Swan, & Pickett 2005), and the body of evidence attesting to the critical
importance of teaching presence for successful online learning is quite large
(Garrison and Cleveland-Innes 2005; Meyer 2003; Murphy 2004; Swan and Shih
2005; Vaughan and Garrison 2006; Wu and Hiltz 2004).
Due in part to the creation of the CoI survey, recent studies have begun to exam-
ine the three types of presence simultaneously. These studies have found support
for the coexistence of the three presences and their ability to predict course out-
comes (Arbaugh 2008; Bangert 2009; Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung 2010;
Ke 2010; Nagel and Kotze 2010; Shea and Bidjerano 2009). These studies gener-
ally have supported earlier arguments that teaching presence is a foundational ele-
ment for the development of both social and cognitive presence, and progressing to
more advanced stages of cognitive presence is challenging but possible (Archibald
2010; Ke 2010; Shea and Bidjerano 2010). These studies also suggest that the pre-
dictive ability of the framework may extend beyond text-based learning environ-
ments to more immersive online learning environments such as Second Life
(Burgess, Slate, Rojas-LeBouef, & LaPrarie 2010; Traphagan, Chiang, Chang,
Wattanawaha, Lee, Mayrath, Woo, Yoon, Jee, & Resta 2010). Such supportive find-
ings and extensions of the CoI framework raise questions regarding other charac-
teristics that may influence and be influenced by the framework with resulting
implications for course design. In the next section, we will discuss three such areas:
(1) fostering of meaningful inquiry and deep learning, (2) integrating emerging
educational technologies, and (3) considering academic disciplines of varying
epistemological and behavioral educational practices.

Emerging Design Topics for CoI Integration

Fostering Meaningful Inquiry and Deep Learning

Recent research utilizing the CoI survey identifies teaching presence as a necessary
prerequisite for the development of social and cognitive presence (Shea and
Bidjerano 2008). From this perspective, researchers that are focusing on the CoI
have developed a different lens from which to view the framework in terms of
108 J.C. Richardson et al.

instructional design approaches. Specifically, a set of seven instructional design

principles were developed based on utilizing the three subcategories of teaching
presence—design, facilitation, and instruction—to support the development of
social and cognitive presence (Garrison 2009):
1. Design for open communication and trust
2. Design for critical reflection and discourse
3. Create and sustain a sense of community
4. Support purposeful inquiry
5. Ensure that students sustain collaboration
6. Ensure that inquiry moves to resolution
7. Ensure assessment is congruent with intended learning outcomes
The activity components listed above move the idea of an online CoI into con-
crete activity plied by online instructors. These activities cluster around design and
organization, direct instruction, and facilitation. We do not discount the valued con-
tribution of instructional designers; in fact, this support for online instructors in
higher education is likely to become more prevalent as technology becomes more
complex. In any case, the instructor remains the central voice in the design and is
the organizer or manager of the course as it unfolds. Direct instruction and facilita-
tion are integrated into design and organization activities as the need arises through-
out the course.
In this time of early adoption of online learning, instructors also perform the job
of orienting students to the role of online learner. Students require new skills to be
competent online learners, playing with learner activities from f2f environments
and trying new ones. Online learner skills include the ability to be socially and cog-
nitively present (Garrison and Cleveland-Innes 2005) by interacting with others,
sharing experiences and demonstrating exploration, and integrating and applying-
content knowledge. This requires the ability to overcome limitations in social and
academic interaction caused by a lack of visual and verbal cues available in face-to-
face learning. This interaction is central to the creation of an online CoI and all it
subcomponents. Without this skill, not matter what the instructor does, understand-
ing content and constructing knowledge will be limited to what one can foster on
one’s own (Picard 1997; Rice 1992).
Activities that support student adjustment to online environments may play a dual
role in the support of key activities in the development of a CoI. An online CoI
emerges out of the presentation of teaching, social and cognitive presence on the part
of students and instructor, such that meaningful inquiry and deep learning occur.
Collaborative constructivism is the philosophical foundation of the CoI framework,
grounded in the research on deep and meaningful approaches to learning (Cleveland-
Innes and Emes 2005; Garrison, Anderson & Archer 2000). An inquiry approach to
learning offers the process of thoughtful consideration as an outcome as well as
knowledge gains: “If we turn from normal academic practice to the inquiry paradigm
of academic practice, we note that there is no longer a need to inculcate a set of sub-
stantive beliefs disguised as ‘knowledge.’ Instead, students are asked to accept in a
tentative, provisional way the methodology of inquiry” (Lipman 1991, p. 144).
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 109

Deep learning reflects the intention to extract meaning through active learning
processes such as relating ideas, looking for patterns, using evidence, and examining
the logic of argument. While resting first on personal intention, deep learning is
fostered through modeling, expectation, debate, and appropriate assessment
(Entwistle 2000). For Lipman (1991) and Garrison et al. (2001), collaborative con-
structivism leading to deep learning occurs most readily in a learning community.
This, then, is the first order of development for an online instructor. In order to do
this, the following design components must be considered.
Design for Open Communication and Trust. Little has been studied as much or as
thoroughly as the modern concept of community and the changes occurring in
human community based on social organizational changes and technology. In exten-
sive research, Bruhn (2005) determined that community forms through the links
created between the individuals in that community. In order for these links or rela-
tionships to form, the opportunity for open communication expressed in a trusting
or safe environment, course design must make these opportunities available (Swan
and Shih 2005; Tu and McIsaac 2002). Open communication and trust are functions
of teaching presence (Cleveland-Innes et al. 2009) and, in particular, teacher behav-
ior (Shea, Li, Swan, & Pickett 2005; Shea and Bidjerano 2009).
Design for Critical Reflection and Discourse. For online learning to become a sound
educational environment, course activity must be designed to require interaction
activity beyond “undirected, unreflective, random exchanges and dumps of opin-
ions” (Garrison et al. 2000, p. 15). Like open communication, this cognitive engage-
ment is dependent upon teaching presence (Cleveland-Innes et al. 2009;
Cleveland-Innes, Vaughan, & Garrison 2010) and well-defined, agreed-upon roles
for students and instructors (Rourke and Kanuka 2007). It is critical reflection and
discourse that move students through the full process of practical inquiry. To accom-
plish this, course design must include a “means for reducing structure and increas-
ing dialogue so that learners may move from being simply recipients of knowledge
to actively embracing and working with objective knowledge to make it their own”
(Lauzon 1992, p. 34) such that critical thinking may emerge (Bullen 1998). Course
design must include interaction activities that are both dialogic (Gunawardena et al.
2001; Pena-Shaff and Nicholls 2004) and dialectic (Nussbaum 2008). Without both
types of supported interaction, critical debate and cognitive resolution will be
limited.
Create and Sustain a Sense of Community. Early definitions of community were
based on geography, referring to a group who existed in a particular place. It holds
the necessity of interaction among community members around a mutual purpose,
an awareness of their commonalities, and some common rules of operation. Long
before Hillery, Durkheim (1933) noted the shortcomings of defining community
based solely on geography: “To be sure, each of us belongs to a commune or depart-
ment, but the bonds attaching us become daily more fragile and more slack. These
geographical divisions are, for the most part, artificial and no longer awaken in us
profound sentiments” (pp. 27–28). Mutuality has become a defining characteristic
of community: “Community is a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling
110 J.C. Richardson et al.

that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’
needs will be met through their commitment to be together” (McMillan and Chavis
1986, p. 9).
To garner this commitment in a short-term online community as part of a temporary
learning environment requires careful planning and implementation, as productive
online learning communities do not emerge spontaneously (Wood 2003). In a position
of authority and leadership, an online instructor must respond to students such that
they feel part of a purposeful CoI and learning. Meaningful discourse and reflection
should be modeled and rewarded with encouragement and acknowledgment. This
must go beyond just the instructor–student dialogue to student-to-student dialogue—
watch for it, support it, and remind them to engage in deep and meaningful discussion.
The instructor must foster a dynamic relationship between students and the commu-
nity they support (Moisey, Neu, & Cleveland-Innes 2008).
Whether online or otherwise, “education is best experienced within a community
of learning where competent professionals are actively and cooperatively involved
with creating, providing, and improving the instructional program” (Sonwalkar,
Flores, & Gardner 2010, p. 37). Building community online requires usual elements
of building community: leadership, rules of operation, social norms, and relation-
ships among community members (Kim 2000; Paloff and Pratt 1999). The stronger
the ties between the members of the community, the more salient and engaged the
community. The development of an online community, with required support for
earners adjusting to their new role, requires thoughtful and deliberate action on the
part of those engaged in the creation and facilitation of online courses (Willment
and Cleveland-Innes 2002).
Ensure that Students Sustain Collaboration. Facilitation goes beyond support for
community to sustaining collaboration within that community. It is not simply the
community itself that fosters learning but collaborative, constructivist activities
within the community that is most important. These activities foster and sustain
community, but most importantly, this is where knowledge is shared and developed.
Facilitating this collaboration can be achieved by requiring group activities and col-
laborative interaction through discourse and debate.
Support Purposeful Inquiry. Instructors have the opportunity to support purposeful
inquiry by making desired outcomes explicit (hence purposeful) and posing critical
questions (to encourage inquiry). The Practical Inquiry Model identifies four phases
in the inquiry process (Garrison et al. 2001): definition of a problem or task, explo-
ration for relevant information/knowledge, making sense of and integrating ideas,
and testing plausible solutions. All of these occur in an environment of reflection
and discourse, analysis, and synthesis.
Ensure that Inquiry Moves to Resolution. Progression through the inquiry cycle
requires well-designed learning activities, facilitation, and direction. Although the
online CoI recommends acceptance of the open and tentative nature of knowledge,
moving students toward intellectual resolution, at least temporarily, is highly desired.
Early research of practical inquiry in online environments found little evidence of
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 111

students moving to the resolution phase (see for example, Fahy, Crawford, & Ally
2001). This highlighted the issue, and further research has been done.
Integration and Resolution are More Demanding than Exploration. Meyer (2003)
suggests that increased time for reflection is required and that faculty may have to
insist that resolution be achieved. What is now supported by research is that the role
of the instructor, and the activities that instructor requires of students, will either
move students toward resolution or not: “When questions specifically asked stu-
dents to engage in practical applications, discussions did progress to the synthesis
and resolution phase” (Garrison and Arbaugh 2007, p. 162).
Ensure Assessment is Congruent with Intended Learning Outcomes. Assessment
activities reveal what is valued and shape how students approach their learning.
Evaluation consistent with the intention to engage in meaningful inquiry shows a
positive effect on deep approach to learning across time (Cleveland-Innes and Emes
2005; Andrews et al. 1996). In other words, if students are evaluated by recall of
facts without application or critique, students will resist approaches that encourage
critical discourse and reflection. They will expect the instructor to simply present
the content in a timely and clearly structured manner. Deep approaches to learning
are associated not only with appropriate assessment but teaching presence in the
form of facilitation and choice (Entwistle and Tait 1990). Assessment shapes the
quality of learning and the quality of teaching. In short, students do what is rewarded.
For this reason, one must be sure to reward activities that encourage deep and mean-
ingful approaches to learning. Feedback can be effectively provided in a face-to-
face or online context. Online discussion boards are one mechanism. Summative
evaluation, on the other hand, is about assessment of competence. Summative
assessment makes a judgment, based on quantitative and qualitative data, about
achievement related to intended learning outcomes. If the intended learning out-
comes are deep and meaningful learning, then assessment must be based on assign-
ments that encourage critical thinking and inquiry. Such assignments can be analysis
of case studies, article reviews, and individual or collaborative projects.
Grading collaborative assignments is more complex. Tensions and inequities
may arise in terms of individual contributions. For this reason, consideration should
be given to having students work collaboratively to a point but then submitting indi-
vidual assignments based on different perspectives or components of a larger prob-
lem. Even though students submit individual assignments, the group may, for
example, do a collaborative presentation with a grade assigned for the group
(Cleveland-Innes et al. 2010).

The CoI and Emerging Technologies

From the earliest forays into online learning, critics of the medium have contended
that because interactions occur in a disembodied form, a lack of nuance can lead to
loss of meaning for participants (Bullen 1998). As such, it is argued that asynchronous
112 J.C. Richardson et al.

learning is not sufficiently rich in the socially mediated practice that Vygotsky
(1978) described as necessary to construct knowledge. However, this narrow inter-
pretation of Vygotsky discounts the ability of learners to conceptualize “being” as
anything other than a physical construct.
The ability of a medium to fully support interpersonal communication was ini-
tially termed social presence by Short et al. (1976), who proposed that the inability of
low bandwidth media to transmit verbal and nonverbal information directly impacted
the degree to which presence was perceived. Researchers familiar with online discus-
sion forums, however, not only contested this notion, arguing that presence was a
perceptual not a physical quality (Gunawardena and Zittle 1997; Walther 1992), but
also appropriated the term “social presence” in their research (Anderson et al. 2001;
Swan 2002). Following this premise, considerable research has been conducted illus-
trating that high degrees of social presence, as well as teaching and cognitive pres-
ence, can be achieved in text-based environments (Akyol et al. 2009).
As learning technologies have proliferated over the last few years, the ability to
enhance each of the three presences has dramatically increased. However, for prac-
titioners, this proliferation has also created considerable ambiguity in selecting and
implementing effective solutions. Here, the CoI survey has proven to be extremely
useful as it provides a means for testing the efficacy of new technologies against
normative online techniques and pedagogical strategies.
After initial work on the efficacy of audio feedback, Ice (2008) used the CoI
survey to compare a multi-institutional sample in which participants provided audio
feedback to samples in which text-back feedback was utilized. Analysis clearly
demonstrated gains in all three presences and statistically significant gains on four
teaching presence, one social presence, and two cognitive presence survey items.
Emerging work by Greivenkamp, Stoll, & Johnston (2009) using Adobe Captivate
to capture both the visual and auditory components found students more effectively
contextualize mixed medium feedback, with significant gains in cognitive presence,
findings later validated in a larger study by Ice, Swan, Diaz, Kupczynski, & Swan-
Dagen (2010).
In separate work, Ice (2009b) used the CoI to design a rubric around the explora-
tion, integration, and resolution elements of cognitive presence to assess differences
in desktop versus software as a service (SaaS) document creation tools. In this study,
SaaS word processors were found to increase instances of indicators at all levels,
with gains in resolution with SaaS being over two to one as opposed to when desk-
top word processors were used.
With respect to Rich Internet Applications (RIAs), Bain and Ice (2009) adminis-
tered the CoI survey to students exposed to thematically similar content in both
static and dynamic formats (including RIAs). Though the sample size was small
(58), the findings revealed significant gains on 18 of the 34 indicators. Interestingly,
there was also a decrease in two of the items for the dynamic format group. As such,
the CoI has provided significant insight into both the strengths and weaknesses of
this general class of technologies.
As noted earlier, there are initial studies that examine the applicability of the CoI
in Second Life. Albeit with a sample of ten learners, Burgess, Slate, Rojas-LeBouef,
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 113

& LaPrarie (2010) found that respondents rated the Second Life environment highly
for each of the three types of presence. In a comparative study of 12 learners using
Second Life and text-based synchronous chat in an online course, Traphagan,
Chiang, Chang, Wattanawaha, Lee, Mayrath, Woo, Yoon, Jee, & Resta (2010)
found no differences between the mediums for social and teaching presence but
found that learners demonstrated higher levels of cognitive presence in synchronous
chats. They found differences in cognitive presence because participants were able
to establish collaborative discourse patterns and got used to the tools during chat ses-
sions, whereas Second Life’s user interface and visual info were difficult to use and
distracting. Considering that participants in this study were first time users of Second
Life, there is at least the potential that relative learner experience with the technology
may have confounded these findings. These initial studies suggest that there is poten-
tial for the CoI framework to be generalizable to immersive learning environments.
While supporting research is certainly needed, the CoI survey instrument has
proven very beneficial in the above studies. Systematic utilization of this methodol-
ogy can significantly reduce uncertainty regarding the efficacy of implementing
new technologies and associated costs. From a pedagogical perspective, there is
also a great deal to be gained from exploration of areas in which promising imple-
mentations can be used to enhance the potential of online learning.
Having an emerging theoretical framework such as the CoI to guide instructors
and institutions on the introduction of new technologies may prove both beneficial
and efficient. The historical instructional design and technology literature is replete
with examples of how “the next big thing” in instructional technology arrives before
we fully understand how to use the current “big thing” effectively (Saettler 1990).
Indeed, if anything, potential new applications are likely to mushroom during the
next decade, potentially rendering current tools obsolete (Ice 2010). Therefore, a lens
from which emerging technologies can be seen for their contribution to the learning
environment, such as the CoI, rather than merely their technological sizzle can help
educational providers make more informed and efficient adoption decisions.

Disciplinary Differences and the CoI Framework

A third area of potential integration with the CoI with implications for design deci-
sions is epistemological and behavioral differences in learning and education across
academic disciplines. To date, the literature on disciplinary differences has had little
influence on the online learning literature. Historically, researchers and practitioners
of online learning have, for the most part, tended to treat course content as a constant
(Arbaugh 2005a) and seek approaches to online learning effectiveness that are appli-
cable regardless of discipline (Gorsky and Caspi 2005; Helmi, Haynes, & Maun
2000). In response to increasing interest in the integration of content and pedagogi-
cal knowledge (Mishra and Koehler 2006), discipline-specific applications of tech-
nology to education (Neumann, Parry, & Becher 2002), and Wallace’s (2003) call
for research on subject matter effects in online learning, researchers are beginning to
114 J.C. Richardson et al.

Table 1 Academic discipline categories and selected characteristics

Level of paradigm development
Emphasis on
application Hard Soft
Pure Cumulative; atomistic (crystalline/ Reiterative; holistic (organic/
tree-like); concerned with universals; river-like); concerned with
resulting in discovery/explanation. particulars; resulting in under-
Examples: Mathematics, Physical standing/interpretation. Examples:
Sciences Humanities, Social Sciences
Applied Purposive; pragmatic (know-how via Functional; utilitarian (know-how via
hard knowledge); concerned with soft knowledge); concerned with
mastery of physical environment; enhancement of (semi-) profes-
resulting in products/techniques. sional practice; resulting in
Examples: Engineering, protocols/procedures. Examples:
Architecture Education, Nursing
Sources: Arbaugh, Bangert, & Cleveland-Innes (2010), Becher (1994), Biglan (1973a, b), Neumann
(2001), Neumann Parry, & Becher (2002), Smith, Heindel, & Torres-Ayala (2008)

examine the influence of disciplinary effects on course outcomes. In a study of

courses conducted at the University of South Florida between 2002 and 2007, Smith,
Heindel, & Torres-Ayala (2008) found substantial variation across disciplines in the
usage of various components of the Blackboard course management system. They
found that the use of document creation, dropbox, and messaging tools increased
markedly in courses from applied disciplines, such as Engineering, Nursing, and
Education, and declined markedly in courses from pure disciplines, such as Natural
Sciences, Humanities, and Mathematics. In another recent study, Hornik, Sanders,
Li, Moskal, & Dziuban (2008) examined data from 13,000 students in 167 courses
from 1997 to 2003. Using Kuhn’s (1970) model of paradigm development to frame
disciplines, they found that student grades were higher and withdrawals were lower
for subjects with high paradigm development, such as the hard sciences, nursing,
and health services, than for those subjects with less fully developed paradigm
development, such as the social sciences, humanities, information systems, and
political science. Such variance in course design, conduct, and outcomes suggests
that disciplinary perspectives warrant much further consideration when contemplat-
ing the development of an online business education program.
With scholarly roots in the sociology and history, researchers have been studying
disciplinary differences in higher education for about 40 years (Kuhn 1970; Lohdahl
and Gordon 1972; Thompson et al. 1969). Although much of this literature is devoted
to identifying and examining sociological and behavioral differences across disci-
plines (Becher 1994; Becher and Trowler 2001; Hativa and Marincovich 1995;
Lattuca and Stark 1994; Shulman 1987, 2005; Smeby 1996), to date, epistemologi-
cal differences have been the primarily adopted characteristic from this literature for
use in other educational research. One of the more popular epistemological frame-
works for distinguishing differences between academic disciplines was developed by
Biglan (1973a). Biglan’s framework categorizes academic disciplines based on their
positioning along three dimensions: (1) the existence of a dominant paradigm, (2) a
concern with application, and (3) a concern with life systems. These dimensions
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 115

have come to be operationalized as hard/soft, pure/applied, and life/nonlife, respec-

tively. Although recent research seeks to revive interest in the life/nonlife dimension
(Arbaugh et al. 2010; Laird, Shoup, Kuh, & Schwartz 2008), most of the subsequent
research using Biglan’s framework has focused on the paradigm dominance and
emphasis on application dimensions. A representation of these dimensions and the
characteristics commonly associated with them is presented in Table 1.
Hard disciplines are characterized by coalescence around dominant paradigms.
In other words, scholars in these fields have general agreement regarding “how the
world works.” Conversely, soft disciplines are characterized by having multiple
competing paradigms available as possible explanations of their phenomena of
interest. Pure fields place more attention on knowledge acquisition, whereas appli-
cation and integration receive stronger emphasis in applied fields.
“Hard, applied, nonlife” disciplines call for progressive mastery of techniques in
linear sequences based upon factual knowledge. Students in “hard, applied” disci-
plines are expected to be linear thinkers. Teaching activities generally are focused
and instructive, with the primary emphasis being on the teacher informing the stu-
dent (Neumann 2001; Neumann, Parry, & Becher 2002). Emphasis on factual knowl-
edge, and by extension examinations, extends from “hard, pure” to “hard, applied”
disciplines, although problem-solving will be emphasized more in the “hard, applied”
disciplines. Therefore, quantitatively oriented assignments and examinations are the
primary means of assessing student learning (Neumann 2003). Conversely, teaching
in “soft, applied, life” disciplines will be more free ranging, with knowledge building
being a formative process where teaching and learning activities tend to be construc-
tive and reiterative, shaped by practically honed knowledge and espoused theory.
Students are expected to be more lateral in their thinking. As is the case in the field
of education, scholars of educational practice in these disciplines are encouraged to
refer to class participants as learners rather than students (Johnson and Johnson
2009). In the softer disciplines, essays and group projects dominate, and self-assess-
ments are common (Neumann 2003). Because of the emphasis on developing practi-
cal skills, there is a greater need for constructive informative feedback on assessments.
Emphasis on widely transferrable skills will be greater in “soft, applied” disciplines
than “hard, applied” ones, as will reflective practice and lifelong learning.
These epistemological and pedagogical differences between disciplines suggest
that courses in these areas should be designed differently for delivery in online and
blended environments. However, such differences often are not factored into discus-
sions of the design of online and blended courses. In fact, the contemporary instruc-
tional design literature often notes how discipline-related issues are to be left to
“subject matter experts” (Dempsey and Van Eck 2002; Merrill 2001). Consideration
of such disciplinary differences also carries implications for the broader application
of the CoI framework. For example, consider how disciplinary differences may
impact the prioritization of the components of teaching presence. With the emphasis
on factual knowledge associated with “hard” disciplines, instructors should place
more emphasis on direct instruction than facilitating discourse. Conversely, instruc-
tors in “soft” disciplines should place more emphasis on facilitation. Course design
and organization would remain a priority in either setting, but the focus of design and
organization efforts may change. Instructors in “soft” disciplines would focus on
116 J.C. Richardson et al.

refining expectations for participation and “netiquette,” while instructors in hard

disciplines would focus more on the design and presentation of content. Considering
the increasing importance being attributed to the role of teaching presence in foster-
ing social presence, such implications suggest, at minimum, that there will be disci-
pline-based differences in the development of social presence, or even that the
requirement of social presence for successful online learning may turn out to be
discipline specific.
Disciplinary differences also may have direct implications for research into cog-
nitive presence. The lack of progression to higher stages of cognitive presence in
online learning has long been mentioned as a cause for concern. Although some of
these concerns may be alleviated by expanding measures of cognitive presence
beyond course discussion transcript analysis (Garrison and Arbaugh 2007; Shea and
Bidjerano 2009; Shea et al. 2010), could it also be that at least some of this lack of
progression may be discipline-related? “Applied” disciplines by definition are seek-
ing to link their courses and content toward application, whereas such an orientation
is a lesser priority in “pure” disciplines (Neumann 2003; Stark 1998). In fact, recent
preliminary research suggests such differences in attainment of cognitive presence
may exist (Arbaugh et al. 2010; Shea et al. 2010). Therefore, online teaching and
learning researchers should be giving increased attention to the integration of disci-
plinary effects and the CoI to provide educators insights into the effective design of
their courses.

Appendix: Community of Inquiry Survey Items1

Teaching Presence

Design and Organization

1. The instructor clearly communicated important course topics.

2. The instructor clearly communicated important course goals.
3. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learn-
ing activities.
4. The instructor clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learn-
ing activities.

Facilitation

5. The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement

on course topics that helped me to learn.

1
Based on a 5-point Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and
5 = strongly agree.
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 117

6. The instructor was helpful in guiding the class toward understanding course
topics in a way that helped me clarify my thinking.
7. The instructor helped to keep course participants engaged and participating in
productive dialogue.
8. The instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped
me to learn.
9. The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this
course.
10. Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among
course participants.

Direct Instruction

11. The instructor helped to focus discussion on relevant issues in a way that helped
me to learn.
12. The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and
weaknesses.
13. The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion.

Social Presence

Affective Expression

14. Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the
course.
15. I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants.
16. Online- or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social
interaction.

Open Communication

17. I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium.

18. I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions.
19. I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants.

Group Cohesion

20. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still main-
taining a sense of trust.
21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants.
22. Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration.
118 J.C. Richardson et al.

Cognitive Presence

Triggering Event

23. Problems posed increased my interest in course issues.

24. Course activities piqued my curiosity.
25. I felt motivated to explore content-related questions.

Exploration

26. I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this

course.
27. Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me resolve content-
related questions.
28. Discussing course content with my classmates was valuable in helping me
appreciate different perspectives.

Integration

29. Combining new information helped me answer questions raised in course

activities.
30. Learning activities helped me construct explanations/solutions.
31. Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamen-
tal concepts in this class.

Resolution

32. I can describe ways to test and apply the knowledge created in this course.
33. I have developed solutions to course problems that can be applied in practice.
34. I can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or other non–class
related activities.

References

Akyol, Z., Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K.
(2009). A response to the review of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Distance
Education, 23(2), 123–136.
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 Networks, 12(3–4), 3–22.
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 119

Akyol, Z., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., & Mitchell, R. (2010). The relationship between course socio-
epistemological orientations and student perceptions of the community of inquiry. The Internet
and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 66–68.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States
2009. Wellesley, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on stu-
dents’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers in Education, 53, 749–760.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a
computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
Andrews, J., Garrison, D. R., & Magnusson, K. (1996). The teaching and learning transaction in
higher education: A study of excellent professors and their students. Teaching in Higher
Education, 1, 81–103.
Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 57–68.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2005a). How much does “subject matter” matter? A study of disciplinary effects in
web-based MBA courses. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 57–73.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2005b). Is there an optimal design for on-line MBA courses? The Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 4, 135–149.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Does the community of inquiry framework predict outcomes in online
MBA courses? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9, 1–21.
Arbaugh, J. B., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the com-
munity of inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education,
13, 37–44.
Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2007). Examining the influence of participant interaction
modes in web-based learning environments. Decision Support Systems, 43, 853–865.
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., Shea,
P., & Swan, K. (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), 133–136.
Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses? The
Internet and Higher Education, 9, 9–21.
Archer, W. (2010). Beyond online discussion: Extending the community of inquiry framework to
entire courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 69.
Archibald, D. (2010). Fostering the development of cognitive presence: Initial findings using the
community of inquiry survey instrument. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2),
73–74.
Bain, B., & Ice, P. (2009, October). Using RIA’s to enhance student engagement and cognitive
outcomes. In Paper presented at Adobe MAX 2009, education preconference symposium, Los
Angeles, CA.
Bangert, A. W. (2009). Building a validity argument for the community of inquiry instrument. The
Internet and Higher Education, 12, 104–111.
Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19,
151–161.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Berkshire, UK:
Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Berger, N. S. (1999). Pioneering experiences in distance learning: Lessons learned. Journal of
Management Education, 23, 684–690.
Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. The Journal
of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203.
Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and
output of university departments. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204–213.
Boston, W., Diaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2009). An exploration
of the relationship between indicators of the community of inquiry framework and retention
in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 67–83.
120 J.C. Richardson et al.

Retrieved October 6, 2009 from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/index.asp?op0=OR

&filter0%5B%5D=1296.
Brower, H. H. (2003). On emulating classroom discussion in a distance-delivered OBHR course:
Creating an on-line community. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2,
22–36.
Bruhn, J. G. (2005). The sociology of community connection. New York, NY: Springer.
Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education.
Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 1–32. Retrieved June 21, 2010 from http://cade.athabas-
cau.ca/vol13.2/bullen.html.
Burgess, M. L., Slate, J. R., Rojas-LeBouef, & LaPrarie, K. (2010). Teaching and learning in
second life: Using the community of inquiry (CoI) model to support online instruction with
graduate students in instructional technology. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2),
84–88.
Celani, M. A. A., & Collins, H. (2005). Critical thinking in reflective sessions and in online inter-
actions. AILA Review, 18, 41–57.
Cleveland-Innes, M., & Emes, C. (2005). Principles of a learner centered curriculum: Responding
to the call for change in higher education. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 35(4),
85–110.
Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D. R., & Kinsel, E. (2007). Role adjustment for learners in an
online community of inquiry: Identifying the challenges of incoming online learners.
International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 2(1), 1–16.
Cleveland-Innes, M., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2010, June). Design in online and blended
learning. In International conference on blended learning, Webinar.
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical
roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems,
18(4), 169–189.
Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dempsey, J. V., & Van Eck, R. N. (2002). Instructional design on-line: Evolving expectations. In
R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology
(pp. 281–294). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (rev ed.). Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Durkheim, E. (1933). The division of labor in society. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.
Entwistle, N. J. (2000). Approaches to studying and levels of understanding: The influences of
teaching and assessment. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and
research (pp. 156–218). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences
for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19, 169–194.
Fahy, P. J., Crawford, G., & Ally, M. (2001). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference
transcript. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved
September 20, 2006 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/36/73.
Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching pres-
ence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72.
Garrison, D. R. (2009). Roles of authentic activities for online learning. In 2009 Conference on
distance teaching & learning, Madison, WI.
Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, A. (2009). The role of instructional technology in the transformation of
higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 19–30.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment:
Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and
computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education,
15(1), 7–23.
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), 157–172.
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 121

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning:
Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online com-
munities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 8(2). Retrieved September 1, 2004 from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v8n2/
v8n2_garrison.asp.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring relationships among teach-
ing, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry frame-
work. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36.
Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2005). Dialogue: A theoretical framework for distance education instruc-
tional systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 137–144.
Greivenkamp, D., Stoll, C., & Johnston, H. (2009, April 21). Demystifying invisible processes
using mediated feedback. In Paper presented at the 2009 teaching and learning with technology
conference. Retrieved July 25, 2009 from http://www.itap.purdue.edu/tlt/conference/presenta-
tion.cfm?propid=133.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collab-
orative learning in computer teleconferences. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147–166.
Gunawardena, C. N., Carabajal, K., & Lowe, C. (2001, November). Multi-faceted evaluation of
online learning environments. In Roundtable discussion at the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology (AECT) 2001 international conference, Atlanta, GA.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a
computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education,
11(3), 8–26.
Hativa, N., & Marincovich, M. (Eds.). (1995). New directions for teaching and learning—Disci-
plinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Hirumi, A. (2002). Interactivity in distance education: Current perspectives on facilitating e-learning.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), v–viii.
Hirumi, A. (2006). Hirumi, Analyzing and designing e-learning interactions, C. Juwah, Editor,
Interactions in online education implications for theory & practice, Routledge Publishing,
New York (2006), pp. 46–71.
Helmi, D. G., Haynes, G., & Maun, C. (2000). Internet teaching methods across the disciplines.
Journal of Applied Business Research, 16(4), 1–12.
Hiltz, S. R., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom.
Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 44–49.
Hornik, S., Sanders, C. S., Li, Y., Moskal, P. D., & Dziuban, C. D. (2008). The impact of paradigm
development and course level on performance in technology-mediated learning environments.
Informing Science, 11, 35–57.
Hratsinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers in
Education, 51, 1755–1765.
Ice, P. (2008, April). The impact of asynchronous audio feedback on teaching, social and cognitive
presence. In Paper presented at the first international conference of the Canadian Network for
Innovation in Education, Banff, AB.
Ice, P. (2009a). Using the community of inquiry framework survey for multi-level institutional
evaluation and continuous quality improvement. Sloan-C Effective Practices. Retrieved August
30, 2009 from http://www.sloan-c.org/node/1931.
Ice, P. (2009b). Using online collaborative document editors to enhance student satisfaction and
cognitive presence outcomes. Sloan-C Effective Practices. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from
http://www.sloan-c.org/node/1243.
Ice, P. (2010). The future of learning technologies: Transformational developments. In M. F.
Cleveland-Innes & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), An introduction to distance education: Understanding
teaching and learning in a new era (pp. 137–164). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ice, P., Curtis, R., Philips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance
teaching presence and students’ sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
122 J.C. Richardson et al.

Networks, 11(2). Retrieved May 6, 2010 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/JALN/

v11n2/v11n2_ice.asp.
Ice, P., Swan, K., Diaz, S., Kupczynski, L., & Swan-Dagen, A. (2010). An analysis of students’
perceptions of the value and efficacy of instructors’ auditory and text-based feedback modalities
across multiple conceptual levels. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1),
113–134.
Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (2000). A study of factors influencing students’ perceived learning in a
web-based course environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications,
6(4), 317–338.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social inter-
dependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construc-
tion. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–75.
Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students.
Computers & Education. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.013.
Kim, A. (2000). Building community on the Web: Secret strategies for successful online communities.
Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Kupczynski, L., Davis, R., Ice, P., & Callejo, D. (2008). Assessing the impact of instructional
design and organization on student achievement and organization in online courses. International
Journal of Instructional Design and Distance Learning, 5(1), 3–16.
Laird, T. F. N., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., & Schwartz, M. J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep
approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49,
469–494.
Langer, J. A. (1990). The process of understanding: Reading for literary and informative purposes.
Research in the Teaching of English, 24(3), 229–246.
LaPointe, D. K., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2004). Developing, testing, and refining a model to
understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in computer-medi-
ated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83–106.
Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (1994). Will disciplinary perspectives impede curricular reform?
Journal of Higher Education, 65, 401–426.
Lauzon, A. (1992). Integrating computer instruction with computer conferencing: An evaluation of
a model for designing online education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(2),
32–46.
Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, S., Gomez, J., & Yen, C. (2009). Community college online course retention and final grade:
Predictability of social presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 165–182.
Lohdahl, J. B., & Gordon, G. (1972). The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of uni-
versity graduate departments. American Sociological Review, 37, 57–72.
Luebeck, J. L., & Bice, L. R. (2005). Online discussion as a mechanism of conceptual change
among mathematics and science teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 21–39.
Mays, T. (2006). Theoretical perspectives on interactivity in e-learning. In C. Juwah (Ed.),
Interactions in online education (pp. 9–26). New York, NY: Routledge.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal
of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based
practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington,
DC: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
Merrill, M. D. (2001). Components of instruction toward a theoretical tool of instructional design.
Instructional Science, 29, 291–310.
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order
thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65.
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 123

Meyer, K. A. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Four different frames of analysis. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 101–114.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.
Moisey, S., Neu, C., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2008). Community building and computer-mediated
conferencing. Canadian Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 15–42.
Molinari, D. L. (2004). The role of social comments in problem-solving groups in an online class.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 89–101.
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2004). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Muirhead, B. (2001). Interactivity research studies. Educational Technology & Society, 4(3), 108–112.
Retrieved January 20, 2005 from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2001/muirhead.html.
Murphy, E. (2004). Identifying and measuring ill-structured problem formulation and resolution in
online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(1),
5–20.
Nagel, L., & Kotze, T. G. (2010). Supersizing e-learning: What a CoI survey reveals about teaching
presence in a large online class. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 45–51.
Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education,
26, 135–146.
Neumann, R. (2003). A disciplinary perspective on university teaching and learning. Access and
Exclusion, 2, 217–245.
Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts:
A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 405–417.
NSSE. (2009). National survey of student engagement: 2008 results. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Center for Postsecondary Research.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and litera-
ture review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359.
Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in
Computer Bulletin Board (BBS) discussions. Computers in Education, 42, 243–265.
Phillips, P., Wells, J., Ice, P., Curtis, R., & Kennedy, R. (2007). A case study of the relationship
between socio-epistemological teaching orientation and instructor perceptions of pedagogy in
online environments. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Teacher
Education, 6, 3–27.
Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and perfor-
mance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.
Powell, K., & Ice, P. (2010, January). Using the community of inquiry framework for faculty
assessment and improvement of online courses. In Paper presented at the 8th annual Hawaii
international conference on education, Honolulu, HI.
Rice, R. E. (1992). Contexts of research in organizational computer-mediated communication. In
M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication. New York, NY: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to
students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
7(1). Retrieved June 1, 2004 from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v7n1/index.asp.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the
content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education, 12(1), 8–22.
Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 2, 105–126.
124 J.C. Richardson et al.

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet

and Higher Education, 5, 197–211.
Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing. (Reprinted in 2004).
Shea, P. J. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online learning environ-
ments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1). Retrieved June 15, 2006 from
http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v10n1/v10n1_4shea_member.asp.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2008). Measures of quality in online education: An investigation of the
community of inquiry model and the next generation. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 39, 339–361.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster
“epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers in Education,
52, 543–553.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-
regulation, and the development of communities of inquiry in online and blended learning
environments. Computers in Education, 55, 1721–1731.
Shea, P. J., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A preliminary investigation
of “teaching presence” in the SUNY learning network. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.),
Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream (pp. 279–312). Needham, MA:
Sloan-C.
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., Valchova, A., & Rangan,
P. (2010). A re-examination of the community of inquiry framework: Social network and con-
tent analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 10–21.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in online asyn-
chronous college courses: The role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 9(4), 59–82. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/
v9n4/v9n4_shea.asp.
Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2004). Enhancing student satisfaction through faculty
development: The importance of teaching presence. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements
of quality online education: Into the mainstream (Vol. 5, pp. 39–59). Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
Sherry, A. C., Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1998). Assessing distance learners’ satisfaction with
instruction: A quantitative and a qualitative measure. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 12(3), 4–28.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication. London,
UK: Wiley.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
Smeby, J.-C. (1996). Disciplinary differences in university teaching. Studies in Higher Education,
21(1), 69–79.
Smith, G. G., Heindel, A. J., & Torres-Ayala, A. T. (2008). E-learning commodity or community:
Disciplinary differences between online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 11,
152–159.
Sonwalkar, N., Flores, J. G., & Gardner, M. (2010). Designing for quality and measuring quality
in online learning: Where are we today and where do we need to go? Boston, MA: United
States Distance Learning Association.
Staley, J., & Ice, P. (2009, August). Instructional design project management 2.0: A model of
development and practice. In Paper presented at the 25th annual conference on distance teach-
ing and learning, Madison, WI.
Stark, J. S. (1998). Classifying professional education programs. Journal of Higher Education, 69,
353–383.
Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Calvin, J., Overtoom, C., & Wheaton, J. E. (2005). Bridging the
transactional distance gap in online learning environments. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 19(2), 105–118.
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design 125

Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction.
Education Communication and Information, 2(1), 23–49.
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore
(Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction (pp. 13–45). Needham,
MA: Sloan-C.
Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowl-
edge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 389–413.
Swan, K., & Shih, L.-F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course
discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136.
Thompson, J. D., Hawkes, R. W., & Avery, R. W. (1969). Truth strategies and university organiza-
tion. Educational Administration Quarterly, 5(2), 4–25.
Thompson, T. L., & MacDonald, C. J. (2005). Community building, emergent design and expect-
ing the unexpected: Creating a quality eLearning experience. The Internet and Higher
Education, 8, 233–249.
Traphagan, T. W., Chiang, Y.-H. V., Chang, H. M., Wattanawaha, B., Lee, H., Mayrath, M. C.,
Woo, J., Yoon, H.-J., Jee, M. J., & Resta, P. E. (2010). Cognitive, social, and teaching presence
in a virtual world and a text chat. Computers in Education, 55, 923–936.
Tu, C. H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory
in CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23(1), 27–37.
Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online
classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.
Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2006). How blended learning can support a faculty development
community of inquiry. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(4), 139–152.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. London, UK: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, R. M. (2003). Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions
among teachers and students. Education, Communication and Information, 3(2), 241–280.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer mediated interaction: A relational perspec-
tive. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90.
Willment, J., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2002, May). Towards an emerging transactional model of
facilitation for on-line teaching and learning in higher education. In Workshop at the
International Council for Open and Distance Education/Canadian Association for Distance
Education Conference, Calgary, AB.
Wood, R. (2003). Connecting for success: Effective strategies for building online community in the
Cyber-classroom. Retrieved August 10, 2010 from http://www.ipfw.edu/as/tohe/2001/Papers/
ebersole/.
Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal
of Asynchronous Learning. 8(2), 139–52.
York, C., Yang, D., & Dark, M. (2007). Transitioning from face-to-face to online instruction: How
to increase presence and cognitive/social interaction in an online information security risk
assessment class. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 3(2),
42–52.