You are here:

Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Scaffold Online Tutoring

, , , Beijing Normal University

IRRODL Volume 18, Number 2, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press


Tutoring involves providing learners with a suitable level of structure and guidance to support their learning. This study reports on an exploration of how to design such structure and guidance (i.e., learning scaffolds) in the Chinese online educational context, and in so doing, answer the following two questions: (a) What scaffolding strategies are needed to design online tutoring, and (b) How should different levels of scaffolding intensity be emphasized in different stages of online tutoring in such educational contexts? A model for online tutoring using the Community of Inquiry framework was developed and implemented in this study. It focused attention on both the critical role of the tutor in online learning and the importance of scaffolding in online tutoring. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to collect data, including questionnaires, interviews, and content analysis. In considering the variation of scaffolding throughout the online course, results showed that: (a) As long as a high degree of social presence is established in the initial phase, scaffolds for social presence can be withdrawn gradually throughout the course; (b) High-intensity teaching presence is much more important in the mid-phase of the course than in other phases; (c) “Discourse facilitation\u201d should be emphasized for teaching presence in the mid-phase, while “direct instruction\u201d scaffolding is needed in the last phase; and (d) The greatest need for scaffolding of cognitive presence occurs in the final phase of the course.


Feng, X., Xie, J. & Liu, Y. (2017). Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Scaffold Online Tutoring. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved March 26, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Amiel, T., & Reeves, T.C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology& Society, 11(4), 29-40.
  2. Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd Edition). Edmonton, Alberta: Athabasca University Press.
  3. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1--17.
  4. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25.
  5. Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. International Review of Research in Open& Distance Learning, 12(5), 40-56.
  6. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J.G., Moos, D.C., Greence, J.A., & Winters, F.I. (2011). Adaptive content and
  7. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J.G., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability
  8. Bennett, S. & Marsh, D. (2002). Are we expecting online tutors to run before they can walk? Innovations in Education& Teaching International, 39(1), 14-20.
  9. Berge, Z.L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22-30.
  10. Branon, R.F., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education. Techtrends, 45(1), 36-36.
  11. Chen, C.C., Wu, J., Yang, S.C., & Tsou, H.-Y. (2008). Importance of diversified leadership roles in
  12. Chism, N.V.N. (1998). Developing a philosophy of teaching statement. Essays on Teaching Excellence, 9(3), 1-2.
  13. Daele, A., & Docq, F. (2002, May). Le tuteur en ligne, quelles conditions d’efficacité dans un
  14. Denis, B., Watland, P., Pirotte, S., & Verday, N. (2004, June). Roles and competencies of the e-tutor. In Networked learning 2004: A research based conference on networked learning and lifelong
  15. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? 61-91.
  16. Dixon, J., Crooks, H., & Henry, K. (2006). Breaking the ice: Supporting collaboration and the
  17. Feng, X. (2012). Scaffolding facilitates inter-school collaborative learning: A case study in China. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 5(1), 45-62.
  18. Garrison, D.R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of
  19. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
  20. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2003). A theory of critical inquiry in online distance education. Handbook of distance education, 1, 113-127.
  21. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: a retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 5-9.
  22. Garrison, D.R., & Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.
  23. Goga, M. (2012). Training e-tutors in Romania: Validating the theory. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on e-Learning, 174.
  24. Guldberg, K., & Pilkington, R.M. (2007). Tutor roles in facilitating reflection on practice through online discussion. Educational Technology& Society, 10(1), 61 – 72.
  25. Guo, E., Gilbert, S., Jackman, J., Starns, G., Hagge, M., Faidley, L., & Amin-Naseri, M. (2014, June). Statics tutor: Free body diagram tutor for problem framing. In S. Trausan-Matu, K.E. Boyer, M.
  26. Junus, K., Sadita, L., & Suhartanto, H. (2014). Social, cognitive, teaching, and metacognitive presence
  27. Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers& Education, 55(2), 808-820.
  28. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective
  29. Maddix, M.A. (2012). Developing online learning communities. In M.A. Maddix, J.R. Estep, & M.E.
  30. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
  31. Pilkington, R.M., & Walker, S.A. (2003). Facilitating debate in networked learning: Reflecting on online synchronous discussion in higher education. Instructional Science, 31, 41-63.
  32. Rourke, L, Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71.
  33. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 105–126.
  34. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19−48.
  35. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
  36. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.
  37. Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London: Routledge Falmer.
  38. Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
  39. Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
  40. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge
  41. Schindler, L.A. & Burkholder, G.J. (2014). Instructional design and facilitation approaches that
  42. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster
  43. Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., Valchova, A., & Rangan, P.(2010). Are-examination of the community of inquiry framework: social network and content analysis. Internet& Higher Education, 13(1–2), 10-21.
  44. Simpson, O. (2002). Supporting students in open and distance learning (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
  45. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M.J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research& Development, 53(4), 5-23.
  46. Wishart, C., & Guy, R. (2009). Analyzing responses, moves, and roles in online discussions. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5(1), 129-144.
  47. Wong, L.-H., Chin, C.-K., Tan, C.-L., & Liu, M. (2010). Students’ personal and social meaning making in a Chinese idiom mobile learning environment. Educational Technology& Society, 13(4), 15-26.
  48. Zhang, L., & Yao, L. (2013). Research on ecological governance of online learning forum. E-Education Research, 7, 22-26,52 186

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact

Also Read

Related Collections