Community of Inquiry design decisions across disciplines

This multiple case study explored the differences in online course design across disciplines using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework as a lens. While the CoI framework was developed to be generic, research on the CoI and disciplinary differences has called for changes to the framework, yet none of the studies have considered the instructors’ design decisions. Twelve cases were selected to represent the four disciplinary categories per Biglan’s framework (1973): hard-applied (n = 3), soft-applied (n = 3), soft-pure (n = 3), and hard-pure (n = 3); each case was a combination of instructor/teaching assistant and course, allowing us to deeply examine the course design elements and juxtapose the implemented design with the instructors’ reasoning behind their design decisions. Data sources consisted of pre-interview surveys, semi-structured interviews, and online course observations. A general case analytic strategy and a cross-case synthesis technique were employed to (a) construct case descriptions informed by the CoI framework and (b) compile and analyze patterns both within and across disciplines. The results indicated that CoI was a fit across all four disciplinary areas, regardless of instructors’ intention to purposefully design for a CoI. However, differences were observed in how indicators were applied within disciplines potentially due to differing values and emphasis of each discipline and individual instructor. This study has implications for both research and practice. Further research is needed to consider meaningful strategies for each CoI presence that are aligned with specific disciplinary practices while simultaneously updating the indicators traditionally used to represent the framework. The examples of different CoI indicators resulting from this research offer many useful possibilities for instructors to consider.