Vol. 34 No. 2 (2019)
Research Articles

Conceptual Failures of the Community of Inquiry Framework

PDF HTML
EPUB
  • David Annand
David Annand
Athabasca University

Published 2020-01-24

Keywords

  • Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework,
  • CoI survey,
  • higher education,
  • online learning,
  • social-constructivist paradigm,
  • objectivist-rational paradigm
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Annand, D. (2020). Conceptual Failures of the Community of Inquiry Framework. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 34(2). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1133
Copyright Notice

Abstract

The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework is critiqued by examining differing assumptions of reality between the objectivist-rational and social-constructivist paradigms. The conclusion is that the CoI framework emerges from an objectivist-rational paradigm, not a social-constructivist one. As a result, the framework’s underlying premise that sustained, contiguous communication is necessary for effective learning to occur is called into question. This needs to be empirically tested. Additional weaknesses of CoI research carried out to date are examined and directions for future research are suggested. The types of questions that could be pursued in CoI research have been inadvertently limited by unchallenged assumptions that may mistake predominant practice for preferred. Overall, the value of the CoI framework as an adequate explanatory model for learning in online higher education needs to be more critically examined.

PDF HTML
EPUB

References

  1. Anderson, T, & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80-97. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890/1663.
  2. Author, (2011). Deleted for peer review.
  3. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S., Garrison, R., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 133-136. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1096751608000250.
  4. Cho, M.-H., Kim, Y., & Choi, D. (2017). The effect of self-regulated learning on college students' perceptions of community of inquiry and affective outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 10-17. https://0-www-sciencedirect-com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/science/article/pii/S1096751617301677.
  5. Cho, M. H., & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 123 – 140. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2342.
  6. Choy, J. & Quek, C.L., (2016). Modelling relationships between students’ academic achievement and community of inquiry in an online learning environment for a blended course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4); 106-124.
  7. https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/viewFile/2500/1375.
  8. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990) Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00988593.
  9. Eastmond, D.E. (1995). Alone but together: Computer conferencing in adult education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  10. Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  11. Garrison, D. R. (2012). Article review – Social presence within the Community of Inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 250-253. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1184/2099.
  12. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(3), 87–105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1096751600000166.
  13. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conference in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08923640109527071.
  14. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal 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. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1096751609000591.
  15. Hilliard, L. P., & Stewart, M. K. (2019) Time well spent:
  16. Creating a community of inquiry in blended first-year writing courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 41, 11-24. https://0-www-sciencedirect-com/science/article/pii/S1096751618300836.
  17. Ho, C. H., & Swan, K. (2007). Evaluating online conversation in an asynchronous learning environment: An application of Grice's cooperative principle. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 3-14. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ796891.
  18. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Banaan-Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and computer mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ512278.
  19. Karunananyaka, S., Rajendra, J., Ratnayake, U., & Naidu, S. (2016). Peer-facilitated discussions to enhance OER-based e-learning. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 11, pp. 90-104. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309097309_Peer-facilitated_discussions_to_enhance_OER-based_e-learning
  20. Kim, C., Park, S., & Cozart, J. (2014). Affective and motivational factors of learning in online mathematics courses. British Journal of Educational Technology 45(1), 171-185. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01382.x.
  21. Knowles, M. (1983). Andragogy: An emerging technology for adult education. In M. Tight (Ed.), Adult learning and education (pp. 53-79). Kent, England: Croom Helm.
  22. Kozan, K. (2016). A comparative structural equation modeling investigation of the relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence. Online Learning 20(3), 210-227. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/654.
  23. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  24. Maddrell, J. A., Morrison, G. R., & Watson, G. S. (2017). Presence and learning in a community of inquiry. Distance Education, 38(2), 245-258. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1147461.
  25. Makri, K., Papanikolaou, K., Tsakiri, A., & Karkanis, S. (2014). Blending the Community of Inquiry framework with learning by design: Towards a synthesis for blended learning in teacher training. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 12(2), 183-194. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1034393.
  26. Mathieson, K., & Leafman, J. S. (2014). Comparison of student and instructor perceptions of social presence. Journal of Educators Online, 11(2 SPEC. ISSUE). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1033262.
  27. Miller, M. G., Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Zygouris-Coe, V. (2014). A confirmatory factor analysis of teaching presence within online professional development. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1030535.
  28. Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., Wendt, J., Whighting, M., & Nisbet, D. (2016). The predictive relationship among the Community of Inquiry framework, perceived learning and online, and graduate students’ course grades in online synchronous and asynchronous courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 18-35. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2203/3683.
  29. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2008). Measures of quality in online education: an investigation of the community of inquiry model and the net generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(4), 339–361. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190.
  30. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers and Education, 55(4), 1721-1731. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131510002095.
  31. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2013). Understanding distinctions in learning in hybrid and online environments: An empirical investigation of the Community of Inquiry framework. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 355-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011.584320.
  32. Stenbom, S. (2018). A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 39, 22-32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109675161730235X.
  33. Wendt, J. L., & Nisbet, D. L. (2017). The role of perceived learning and Communities of Inquiry in predicting international students' course grades in computer-mediated graduate courses. Journal of Research in Education, 27(1), 1-23. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1142364.
  34. Wicks, D., Craft, B. B., Lee, D. D., Lumpe, A., Henrikson, R., Baliram, N., Bian, X., Mehlberg, S., & Wicks, K. (2015). An evaluation of low versus high collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 19(4). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1079582.pdf.
  35. Yussiff, A-S., Ahmad, W. F. W., & Mustapha, E. E. (2018). E-collaborative learning experience, interdependencies of presences and learning outcomes: Evidence of mediating and moderating effects. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 29(1), 23-41. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJBIS.2018.094001.