CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 73Online and Blended LearningVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research from 2000 to 2019

Open access
Sadaf, Ayesha, Wu, Tong, Martin, Florence·2021·Computers and Education Open
DOI 10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100050
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This systematic review synthesized research on cognitive presence– the process of collaborative knowledge construction–in online learning to identify trends from two decades (2000 to 2019) of scholarship. A total of 30 articles on cognitive presence were analyzed to gain deeper understanding of the current state of research and identify the gaps in literature. The distribution of publishing years, countries, instructional setting, disciplines, research methods, data collection and data analysis methods, research topics and cognitive presence phases were reviewed. The review shows that the majority of the studies were carried out in higher education in the United States and Canada within the field of education. More than half of the studies used quantitative research methods, of which discussion transcripts were the prominent method for data collection and content analysis was used the most to analyze data. Research focus of these studies was mainly on instructional strategies and learning outcomes in the online courses. Among instructional strategies, reflection on practice, case-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and peer facilitation were most researched strategies. For learning outcomes, levels of cognitive presence (triggering, exploration, integration, and resolution), critical thinking, and interaction were examined the most. In addition, the frequency of students' contributions to online discussion were categorized using the Practical Inquiry Model and revealed that the highest contributions fell within the exploration and integration phases with a small percentage in triggering and resolution phases of cognitive presence. These results provide insights for educators, researchers, and instructional designers into the cognitive presence research trends to improve the quality of online learning.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100050

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hybrid learning models in healthcare education often present challenges related to reduced cognitive and social presence.

    “Hybrid learning models in healthcare education often present challenges related to reduced cognitive and social presence.”

    From Intentional Grouping: Impacts on Cognitive and Social Presence in a Hybrid Classroom (2025) · cites this paper as Sadaf et al., 2021

    Section 4.3 discusses a communication gap in online learning and identifies blended learning as a topic studied in the review. Section 4.1 says few reviewed studies examined healthcare settings. The paper does not establish that hybrid healthcare education often reduces cognitive and social presence. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Cognitive presence is often hindered in online environments due to reduced direct interaction with instructors and peers.

    “Cognitive presence, which involves the extent to which learners can construct and confirm meaning through reflection and discourse (Garrison et al., 2001), is often hindered in online environments due to reduced direct interaction with instructors and peers (Sadaf et al., 2021).”

    From Intentional Grouping: Impacts on Cognitive and Social Presence in a Hybrid Classroom (2025) · cites this paper as Sadaf et al., 2021

    Section 4.3 says interaction among instructors and students is important for cognitive presence and describes a communication gap between learners and instructors in online environments. It does not establish that cognitive presence is often hindered by reduced direct interaction with both instructors and peers. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Park H, Shea P. A review of ten-year research through co-citation analysis: Online learning, distance learning and blended learning. Online Learning 2020;24(2): 225-44.
  2. Garrison D. E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice. 3rd ed. London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis; 2017.
  3. Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education 2001;15(1):7-23.
  4. Chen Y, Lei J, Cheng J. What if online students take on the responsibility: students' cognitive presence and peer facilitation techniques. Online Learning 2019;23(1): 37-61.
  5. Costley J. The effects of instructor control on critical thinking and social presence: Variations within three online asynchronous learning environments. Journal of Educators Online 2016;13(1):109-71.
  6. Molnar AL, Kearney RC. A comparison of cognitive presence in asynchronous and synchronous discussions in an online dental hygiene course. American Dental Hygienists' Association 2017;91(3):14-21.
  7. Alavi SM, Taghizadeh M. Cognitive presence in a virtual learning community: An EFL Case. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education 2013;27(1).
  8. Archibald D. Fostering the development of cognitive presence: Initial findings using the community of inquiry survey instrument. The Internet and Higher Education 2010;13(1-2):73-4.
  9. Gibbs WJ. Visualizing interaction patterns in online discussions and indices of cognitive presence. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 2006;18(1):30-54.
  10. Galikyan I, Admiraal W. Students' engagement in asynchronous online discussion: The relationship between cognitive presence, learner prominence, and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education 2019;43:100692.
  11. Redmond P. Reflection as an indicator of cognitive presence. E-Learning and Digital Media 2014;11(1):46-58.
  12. Wu H, Gao J, Zhang W. Chinese EFL teachers' social interaction, socio-cognitive presence in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology 2014;18(3):228-54.
  13. Hosler KA, Arend BD. The importance of course design, feedback, and facilitation: student perceptions of the relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence. Educational Media International 2012;49(3):217-29.
  14. Lee SM. The relationships between higher order thinking skills, cognitive density, and social presence in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education 2014;21: 41-52.
  15. Rolim V, Ferreira R, Lins RD, Gǎsević D. A network-based analytic approach to uncovering the relationship between social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education 2019;42:53-65.
  16. Schrire S. Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science 2004;32(6):475-502.
  17. Gunawardena CN, Lowe CA, Anderson T. Analysis of global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research 1997;17(4):397-431.
  18. Henri F. Computer conferencing and content analysis. In: Kaye A, editor. Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers. London: Springer-Verlag; 1992. p. 117-36.
  19. Yang D, Richardson JC, French BF, Lehman JD. The development of a content analysis model for assessing students' cognitive learning in asynchronous online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development 2011;59(1): 43-70.
  20. Sadaf A, Olesova L. Enhancing cognitive presence in online case discussions with questions based on the practical inquiry model. American Journal of Distance Education 2017;31(1):56-69.
  21. Chen HL, Chang CY. Integrating the sop 2 model into the flipped classroom to foster cognitive presence and learning achievements. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 2017;20(1).
  22. Garrison DR, Cleveland-Innes M, Fung TS. Exploring causal relationshipsamong teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education 2010;13(1-2):31-6.
  23. Gašević D, Adesope O, Joksimović S, Kovanović V. Externally-facilitated regulation scaffolding and role assignment to develop cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education 2015;24:53-65.
  24. Arbaugh JB. Does the community of inquiry framework predict outcomes in online MBA courses?. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9; 2008.
  25. Redstone AE, Stefaniak JE, Luo T. Measuring presence: A review of research using the community of inquiry instrument. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 2018;19(2).
  26. Richardson JC, Maeda Y, Lv J, Caskurlu S. Social presence in relation to students' satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 2017;71:402-17.
  27. Caskurlu S, Maeda Y, Richardson JC, Lv J. A meta-analysis addressing the relationship between teaching presence and students' satisfaction and learning. Computers & Education 2020;157:103966.
  28. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 2009;151(4):264-9.
  29. Garrison DR. Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction 2003;4(1):47-58.
  30. Olesova L, Slavin M, Lim J. Exploring the effect of scripted roles on cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. Online Learning 2016;20(4):34-53.
  31. Wang YM, Chen VDT. Essential elements in designing online discussions to promote cognitive presence-A practical experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 2008;12:157-77.
  32. Morueta RT, López PM, Gómez ÁH, Harris VW. Exploring social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry to perform higher cognitive tasks. The Internet and Higher Education 2016;31:122-31.
  33. Shea P, Bidjerano T. Cognitive presence and online learner engagement: A cluster analysis of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 2009;21(3):199.
  34. Darabi A, Liang X, Suryavanshi R, Yurekli H. Effectiveness of online discussion strategies: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education 2013;27(4): 228-41.
  35. Darabi A, Arrastia MC, Nelson DW, Cornille T, Liang X. Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: A comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2011;27(3):216-27.
  36. Swan K, Ice P. Preface: The community of inquiry framework ten years later: Introduction to the special issue. The Internet and Higher Education 2010;13(1-2): 1-4.
  37. Akyol Z, Garrison DR. Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education 2011;14(3):183-90.
  38. Rourke L, Kanuka H. Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education 2009;23(1):19-48.
  39. Bangert A. The influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of online critical inquiry. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 2008;20(1): 34-61.
  40. Stein DS, Wanstreet CE, Glazer HR, Engle H, Johnston RT, Simons SM, et al. Creating shared understanding through chats in a community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education 2007;10:103-15.
  41. Garrison DR, Arbaugh JB. Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education 2007;10 (3):157-72.
  42. Oh EG, Huang WHD, Mehdiabadi AH, Ju B. Facilitating critical thinking in asynchronous online discussion: comparison between peer-and instructor- redirection. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 2018;30(3):489-509.
  43. Kanuka H, Rourke L, Laflamme E. The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology 2007;38(2): 260-71.
  44. Kovanović V, Gašević D, Joksimović S, Hatala M, Adesope O. Analytics of communities of inquiry: Effects of learning technology use on cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education 2015;27: 74-89.
  45. Oriogun PK, Cave D. Using code-recode to detect critical thinking aspects of asynchronous small group CMC collaborative learning. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 2008;7(3):208-26.
  46. Oriogun PK. Detecting aspects of critical thinking by cleaning online message transcript through code-recode. American Journal of Distance Education 2009;23 (1):34-50.
  47. Kanuka H, Garrison DR. Cognitive presence in online learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 2004;15(2):21.
  48. Vaughan N, Garrison DR. Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. The Internet and Higher Education 2005;8(1):1-12.
  49. de Leng BA, Dolmans DH, Jöbsis R, Muijtjens AM, van der Vleuten CP. Exploration of an e-learning model to foster critical thinking on basic science concepts during work placements. Computers & Education 2009;53(1):1-13.
  50. Gregori E, Torras E, Guasch T. Cognitive attainment in online learning environments: matching cognitive and technological presence. Interactive Learning Environments 2012;20(5):467-83.
  51. Garrison DR, Cleveland-Innes M. Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education 2005;19 (3):133-48.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sadaf, A., Wu, T., & Martin, F.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
Corresponding author
Sadaf, Ayesha
ORCID
Venue
Computers and Education Open
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
2
Pages
100050
ISSN
2666-5573 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100050
OpenAlex
W3202986754
Cited by
73
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Computers and Education Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
cognitive presence, online learning, collaborative knowledge construction, online forums, reflective practice, case-based learning, inquiry-based learning, peer facilitation, critical thinking, student interaction, teaching methods, learning outcomes, higher education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review