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
  • D. Randy Garrison
Chapter

Abstract

The Community of Inquiry (CoI) model views the online learning experience as a function of the relationship between three elements: social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence. The proposed panel and chapter will focus on how the CoI framework can be used to guide the design and implementation of online courses through the explication of measures verifying the CoI. In addition, factors external but influential to the model—technology, disciplinary differences, and the role of the online instructor—are reviewed.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States 2009. Wellesley, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.Google Scholar
  5. An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers in Education, 53, 749–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Arbaugh, J. B. (2005b). Is there an optimal design for on-line MBA courses? The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Arbaugh, J. B., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the community of inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Archer, W. (2010). Beyond online discussion: Extending the community of inquiry framework to entire courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Bangert, A. W. (2009). Building a validity argument for the community of inquiry instrument. The Internet and Higher Education, 12, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Berkshire, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Berger, N. S. (1999). Pioneering experiences in distance learning: Lessons learned. Journal of Management Education, 23, 684–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. Retrieved October 6, 2009 from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/index.asp?op0=OR&filter0%5B%5D=1296.
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Bruhn, J. G. (2005). The sociology of community connection. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. 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.athabascau.ca/vol13.2/bullen.html.
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Celani, M. A. A., & Collins, H. (2005). Critical thinking in reflective sessions and in online interactions. AILA Review, 18, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cleveland-Innes, M., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2010, June). Design in online and blended learning. In International conference on blended learning, Webinar.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (rev ed.). Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
  38. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Durkheim, E. (1933). The division of labor in society. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19, 169–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.
  43. Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72.Google Scholar
  44. Garrison, D. R. (2009). Roles of authentic activities for online learning. In 2009 Conference on distance teaching & learning, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities 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.
  51. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2005). Dialogue: A theoretical framework for distance education instructional systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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/presentation.cfm?propid=133.
  54. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer teleconferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147–166.Google Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hativa, N., & Marincovich, M. (Eds.). (1995). New directions for teaching and learning—Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  58. Hirumi, A. (2002). Interactivity in distance education: Current perspectives on facilitating e-learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), v–viii.Google Scholar
  59. 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.Google Scholar
  60. Helmi, D. G., Haynes, G., & Maun, C. (2000). Internet teaching methods across the disciplines. Journal of Applied Business Research, 16(4), 1–12.Google Scholar
  61. Hiltz, S. R., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.Google Scholar
  63. Hratsinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers in Education, 51, 1755–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.Google Scholar
  65. 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.
  66. 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.
  67. 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.Google Scholar
  68. 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 Networks, 11(2). Retrieved May 6, 2010 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/JALN/v11n2/v11n2_ice.asp.
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.Google Scholar
  71. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–75.Google Scholar
  73. Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers & Education. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.013.
  74. Kim, A. (2000). Building community on the Web: Secret strategies for successful online communities. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.Google Scholar
  75. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  76. 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.Google Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Langer, J. A. (1990). The process of understanding: Reading for literary and informative purposes. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(3), 229–246.Google Scholar
  79. 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-mediated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (1994). Will disciplinary perspectives impede curricular reform? Journal of Higher Education, 65, 401–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. 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.Google Scholar
  84. Lohdahl, J. B., & Gordon, G. (1972). The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. American Sociological Review, 37, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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.Google Scholar
  86. 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.Google Scholar
  87. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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.Google Scholar
  89. Merrill, M. D. (2001). Components of instruction toward a theoretical tool of instructional design. Instructional Science, 29, 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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.Google Scholar
  91. Meyer, K. A. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 101–114.Google Scholar
  92. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Moisey, S., Neu, C., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2008). Community building and computer-mediated conferencing. Canadian Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 15–42.Google Scholar
  94. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2004). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  97. 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.
  98. 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.Google Scholar
  99. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Neumann, R. (2003). A disciplinary perspective on university teaching and learning. Access and Exclusion, 2, 217–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. NSSE. (2009). National survey of student engagement: 2008 results. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  104. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  106. Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in Computer Bulletin Board (BBS) discussions. Computers in Education, 42, 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 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.Google Scholar
  108. Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  109. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.Google Scholar
  110. 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.Google Scholar
  111. 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.Google Scholar
  112. 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.
  113. 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.Google Scholar
  114. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. (Reprinted in 2004).Google Scholar
  117. Shea, P. J. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online learning environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1). Retrieved June 15, 2006 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v10n1/v10n1_4shea_member.asp.
  118. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 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.Google Scholar
  122. 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 content analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Shea, P., Li, C. S., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous 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.Google Scholar
  124. 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.Google Scholar
  125. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication. London, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  127. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  128. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Smeby, J.-C. (1996). Disciplinary differences in university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 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.Google Scholar
  132. 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 teaching and learning, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  133. Stark, J. S. (1998). Classifying professional education programs. Journal of Higher Education, 69, 353–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education Communication and Information, 2(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 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.Google Scholar
  137. Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 389–413.Google Scholar
  138. 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.Google Scholar
  139. Thompson, J. D., Hawkes, R. W., & Avery, R. W. (1969). Truth strategies and university organization. Educational Administration Quarterly, 5(2), 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Thompson, T. L., & MacDonald, C. J. (2005). Community building, emergent design and expecting the unexpected: Creating a quality eLearning experience. The Internet and Higher Education, 8, 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 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.Google Scholar
  145. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. London, UK: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  146. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 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.Google Scholar
  149. 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/.
  150. Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning. 8(2), 139–52.Google Scholar
  151. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer C. Richardson
    • 1
  • J. Ben Arbaugh
    • 2
  • Martha Cleveland-Innes
    • 3
  • Philip Ice
    • 4
  • Karen P. Swan
    • 5
  • D. Randy Garrison
    • 6
  1. 1.College of Education, Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.College of Business, University of Wisconsin-OshkoshOshkoshUSA
  3. 3.Centre for Distance Education, Athabasca UniversityAthabascaCanada
  4. 4.American Public University SystemCharles TownUSA
  5. 5.Center for Online Learning, Research and TeachingUniversity of Illinois SpringfieldSpringfieldUSA
  6. 6.University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations