In November’s Digital Education Reading Group, we were once again joined by Leonard Houx, who guided us through a rich exploration of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, its intellectual roots, and its critiques. The conversation ranged widely, from Deweyan pragmatism to MOOCs, autodidacts, cognitive load, micro-credentials and the realities of designing for diverse learners.
Below is a summary capturing the key themes that emerged from the discussion.
Origins and purpose of the Community of Inquiry framework
Leonard began by introducing the Community of Inquiry, developed by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (1999), as a conceptual model for understanding online educational experiences. Designed originally to analyse discussion board interactions, the framework centres on three “presences”:
- Cognitive presence: construction of meaning through sustained discourse
- Social presence: ability to project oneself as a “real person”
- Teaching presence: design and facilitation of learning experiences
Leonard also traced the framework’s philosophical roots to John Dewey’s ideas of inquiry as a social, reflective and collaborative process, as well as influences from telecommunications research on the concept of social presence.
Strengths and influence: Why CoI became so dominant
The CoI has become one of the most widely cited frameworks in online learning research. Leonard highlighted several reasons for its durability. It offered a:
- shared language for analysing online learning environments
- way to express concerns about what could be lost in the move online
- tool for coding transcripts and evaluating depth of learning
- low conceptual or operational barrier to entry.
And as a framework it did not, at leat initially, appear to commit teachers to any particular style of teaching.
This led to reflection on how frameworks shape practice, even when their original scope (e.g., discussion forums) may not align with contemporary learning ecosystems.
Critiques of CoI: Methodological, conceptual, and practical
Leonard’s overview of Cindy Xin’s (2012) critique sparked substantial discussion. Three issues stood out:
1. Methodological challenges
Coding real human dialogue into discrete categories (e.g., exploration, clarification) is inherently problematic. Utterances often serve multiple purposes simultaneously.
2. Conceptual ambiguities
The authors define cognitive and social presence in terms of ability rather than actual demonstration which is a mismatch with the claim that “presence” requires communication. This raises questions about what can meaningfully be observed or measured.
3. Problems of emphasis
Xin argues that CoI frames community-building primarily around emotion and cohesion, whereas real academic discussions often thrive on play, shared purpose, and recognition of contributions which are more akin to a sports team than a social club.
These critiques encouraged a wider questioning of whether CoI remains fit for purpose in today’s heterogeneous, multimodal digital learning environments.
Implications for MOOCs, microcredentials, and independent study
A significant part of the discussion focused on whether CoI can meaningfully apply to self-paced, asynchronous models, where learners may not interact at all.
- Microcredentials and MOOCs, particularly those with rolling enrolment, lack the shared temporal and social structure assumed in CoI.
- Analytics show that peer-review tasks often halt learner progression, raising questions about the value and design of collaborative tasks.
- Participants debated whether avoiding social interaction in MOOCs limits inclusion, or instead reflects learner preference, confidence, cultural norms, or neurodiversity.
- We also explored the distinction between “engineered” community (e.g., required discussion posts) and emergent community (e.g., the highly active BSc Computer Science Slack channel), noting that perceived value and instructor presence often determine engagement.
These reflections highlighted tensions between designing for social learning and recognising the legitimacy of solitary or self-directed approaches, such as the example of autodidacts like Malcolm X.
Diversity, disciplinarity, and universal design
The group noted that learning is discipline-specific: what counts as meaningful discussion in mathematics differs from what is needed in social sciences, arts, or professional practice. Attempts to impose uniform pedagogical structures can flatten disciplinary nuance.
Discussions also highlighted:
- The limits of Universal Design for Learning when designers inevitably create through the lens of their own learning preferences
- The risk of reinforcing inequities if course structures primarily support learners already confident with independent study
- The cognitive load challenges that arise when activities are expected to address all “presences” simultaneously without adequate scaffolding
Overall, we emphasised the need for flexibility and multiplicity, rather than reliance on a singular model of social engagement.
5 key takeaways
- CoI remains influential but was designed for a narrower context. Its assumptions may not translate neatly to today’s diverse digital learning environments.
- Critiques highlight deep methodological and conceptual challenges, especially around measuring presence and coding dialogue.
- Learners vary significantly in how and whether social interaction supports their learning; frameworks must accommodate this diversity.
- Emergent communities (e.g., student-driven spaces) often foster richer interaction than designed or mandated discussion tasks.
- Pedagogy must respect disciplinary differences. A single model of inquiry or community cannot serve all subjects or learner groups
Thank you
A warm thank you to Leonard Houx for an insightful and thought-provoking session that sparked one of the most wide-ranging discussions we’ve had this year. We also welcomed Lee-Anne Kruger to her first meeting. Thank you for joining us, and we hope to see you again.
This summary was co-written with generative AI, drawing directly from the session transcript.
