The Community of Inquiry makes use of cookies. By continuing, you consent to this use. More information.
D. Randy Garrison
April 22, 2021

In a previous editorial I had addressed the challenge of designing a collaborative inquiry that goes beyond simple interaction to achieve deep and meaningful learning (Editorial 18). On this topic I want to draw attention to a study that focused on a subtle but crucial aspect of interaction in a collaborative learning experience. A study by Scott Mehall (2021) looked at “purposeful interpersonal interaction (PII) ... for identifying high quality interpersonal interactions which are demonstrated to lead to better student outcomes” (p. 1). Scott’s findings “demonstrated that greater PII does generally lead to greater student satisfaction and perceived learning [but there is] ... evidence of apoint of diminishing returns” (p. 1). He concludes that “PII does appear to be an important component of the OL [online learning] experience, and instructors and course designers can utilize these findings to create course designs with satisfactory levels of PII” (p. 9). While further research is called for, these findings help to inform best practices in terms of “satisfactory levels of PII, while decreasing extraneous interactions” (p. 9).

Of particular interest for me is the juxtaposition of PII with personal social interaction (PSI). It was noted that, in part, the amount of PSI (Social/Rapport Building Designs for Interaction) “was the highest correlated element with mean student satisfaction and the second highest with mean perceived learning ... [and] appears to be the most important form of interaction (Mehall, 2021, p. 8). This is consistent with work I did with Dr. Marti Cleveland-Innes in an article that we subtitled “Interaction is not Enough” (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). The insight is recognizing the importance of both purposeful and social interaction. Our conclusion was that “simple interaction, absent of structure and leadership, is not enough. We need to have a qualitatively richer view of interaction” (p. 145). In this work we emphasized the importance of purposeful interaction or critical discourse to achieve deep and meaningful learning outcomes; however, it is important to emphasize that this is not separate from establishing a secure social climate that makes possible open communication.

Some time ago I had offered the idea of purposeful communication as a refinement to the social presence construct to distinguish personal from academically purposeful communication and address the interdependency between social and cognitive presence (Garrison, 2011). I argued that a “community of inquiry must be both inclusive and critical” while balancing the social and academic elements of a quality learning environment (Garrison, 2017, p. 37). The original definition of social presence focused largely on socio-emotional communication. For this reason, I felt there needed to be greater emphasis on purposeful or academic discourse and a clear connection to cognitive presence. I therefore revised social presence to emphasize purposeful communication. This was grounded in research that demonstrated the importance of group cohesion and productivity for shared identity regarding the purpose of the group that took precedence over interpersonal bonds as group cohesion and community developed. The goal is to facilitate discourse by creating a climate of trust through social interaction that will in turn provide the environment for purposeful interaction leading to intended academic goals. Purposeful interaction can be appreciated from the perspective of cognitive presence and the inquiry process but requires a climate that encourages open communication. These forms of interaction are in fact necessarily interdependent and mutually reinforcing in a successful collaborative learning environment.

Mehall (2021) has provided evidence that purposeful interaction is associated with perceived learning and satisfaction. I have also noted that purposeful interaction is associated with cognitive presence and the inquiry process. This brings me to another recent research article that explores this issue from a complementary perspective. A study by Lim and Richardson (2021) explored CoI presences and perceived learning outcomes and found that “cognitive presence showed the most powerful predictive effects on students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction” (p. 1). Of particular note considering the previous discussion is that this “can be promoted through the facilitation of higher level discussion prompts“ (p. 11). That is, perceived learning outcomes is facilitated through higher level discussion. Logically following this the authors go on to say that “this research also confirmed that teaching presence is an important factor for predicting students’ perceived learning and satisfaction [and] that teaching presence is essential to successful learning experiences for online learning students” (p. 11). This provides further evidence of the importance of purposeful interaction by way of “higher level discussion prompts” and the link to teaching presence in a quality educational experience.

The conclusion is that purposeful interaction or discourse is associated with the quality of discussion and successful learning outcomes. Moreover, this supports our earlier position that “interaction is not enough” (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). At the time we argued that interaction alone is not a guarantee that learners will be engaged in deep and meaningful inquiry directed toward intended outcomes. While social presence creates an environment for open communication, it is purposeful discourse that shapes the quality of cognitive development and the optimal functioning of a community of inquiry. Critically, social presence has been shown to be a mediating variable regarding cognitive and teaching presence (Editorial 20). More specifically, purposeful discourse describes the overlap between social and cognitive presence - all of which is predicated upon teaching presence reflected by the design, facilitation, and direction of the inquiry process.


Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (2nd edition). London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.

Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice (3rd edition). London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.

Lim J., & Richardson, J. C. (2021). Predictive effects of undergraduate students’ perceptions of social, cognitive, and teaching presence on affective learning outcomes according to disciplines. Computers & Education, 161, Article 104063.

Mehall, S. (2021). Purposeful interpersonal interaction and the point of diminishing returns for graduate learners. The Internet and Higher Education, 48, 100774.

Anastasios Katsaris · 3 years ago
Thank you professor.


D. Randy Garrison
Professor Emeritus, University of Calgary
D. Randy Garrison is professor emeritus at the University of Calgary.Dr. Garrison has published extensively on teaching and learning in adult, higher and distance education contexts. He has authored, co-authored or edited fifteen books; 94 articles; 68 book chapters; 40 conference proceedings; and more than 100 academic presentations. His major books are: Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice (3rd Edition); Garrison, D. R. (2016). Thinking Collaboratively: Learning in a Community of Inquiry; Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles and guidelines; Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching-learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Curriculum vitae



Community of Inquiry Research: Two Decades On
D. Randy Garrison
May 1, 2024
A decade after the publication of the seminal article describing the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000), we provided a personal perspective concerning its development and

New book: The Design of Digital Learning Environments: Online and Blended Applications of the Community of Inquiry
Stefan Stenbom
January 31, 2024

Shared Metacognition and the Emergence of AI
D. Randy Garrison
November 1, 2023
Artificial intelligence brings increasing attention to critical thinking and discourse. From an educational perspective, my rationale is that the community of inquiry framework, whose

Social Presence Reconsidered
D. Randy Garrison
October 3, 2023
My previous editorial addressed the generic nature of the CoI framework. Given the relevance and validity of the CoI framework in face-to-face settings, this editorial considers the

CoI Framework in Face-to-Face Environments
D. Randy Garrison
August 1, 2023
I think it is safe to say that the general perception of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework is that it is specific to an online or at best blended learning environment. The reality
The Community of Inquiry is a project of Athabasca University, Mount Royal University, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, and the Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, as well as researchers and members of the CoI community.