Adaptation of Activity Theory Framework for Effective Online Learning Experiences: Bringing Cognitive Presence with Teaching and Social Presences in Online Courses




Designing Online Course, Activity Theory, Models for Online Learning, Community of Inquiry


The study logic is constructed on offering online courses can be seen a new way of enhancing a cognitive presence besides teaching and social presences of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model. Creating and enhancing cognitive, teaching, and social presences require an innovation for teachers during planning, implementing, and evaluating their online courses. As teachers develop their own expertise in teaching online, so hopefully they contribute to enhance cognitive, teaching, and social presences for effective online learning. This study reviews models for online learning experiences and propose a new model by adapting activity theory in the online learning management context. This study presents a framework aims to adapt activity theory to present how to design, develop, implement, and evaluate online courses that enhance a cognitive presence besides teaching and social presences. This study suggest to consider objects as online learning experiences with cognitive presence, teaching presence, social presence since enhancing cognitive presence, teaching presence and social presence means to reach learning outcomes of the course besides matching the required qualifications of higher education.

Author Biography


Aytac Gogus is dean of the Faculty of Education and a professor of Educational Sciences at Istanbul Okan University, Turkey. She received her PhD degree in Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation (IDD&E) in 2006 and her MA in May 2001 at Syracuse University, USA. She received MS in Mathematics from the Middle East Technical University in January 1999, and BSc in Mathematics from Gazi University in June 1994. She has 5 years of teaching experiences in K-12 and 20 years of teaching experiences in higher education in both Turkey and USA. She published a book called “Teachers’ Voice”, 15 book chapters, and many articles in SSCI indexed journals that are cited in the literature.


AAC&U. (2011). LEAP vision for learning: Outcomes, practices, impact, and employers’ views. Washington, D. C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC & U).

Abbitt, J. T., & Boone, W. J. (2021). Gaining insight from survey data: an analysis of the community of inquiry survey using Rasch measurement techniques. Journal of Computing in Higher Education.

Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments. Advance online publication.

Affouneh, S., Salha, S., N., & Khlaif, Z. (2020). Designing quality e-learning environments for emergency remote teaching in coronavirus crisis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 11(2), 1—3.

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3), 3–22.

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233–250.

Anderson, T. (2011). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd Edition). Edmonton, AB: AU Press.

Anthony, A.B. (2012). Activity theory as a framework for investigating district-classroom system interactions and their influences on technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(4), 335–356.

Author 2006

Author 2008

Author 2015

Author 2021

Ayebi-Arthur, K. (2017). E-learning, resilience, and change in higher education: Helping a university cope after a natural disaster. E-Learning and Digital Media, 14(5), 259—274.

Basilaia, G., Dgebuadze, M., Kantaria, M., & Chokhonelidze, G. (2020). Replacing the classic learning form at universities as an immediate response to the COVID-19 virus infection in Georgia. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology, 8(III).

Basharina, O. K. (2007). An Activity Theory Perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2): 82-103. http://

Bosch, C. (2016). Promoting Self-Directed Learning through the Implementation of Cooperative Learning in a Higher Education Blended Learning Environment. Johannesburg, SA: Doctoral dissertation at North-West University.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press/National Research Council. Retrieved from:

Caskurlu S., Maeda Y., Richardson J. C., & Lv, J. (2020). A meta-analysis addressing the relationship between teaching presence and students’ satisfaction and learning. Computers and Education, 157, 1-16.

Choo, J., Bakir, N., Scagnoli, N. I., Ju, B., & Tong, X. (2020). Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to understand students’ learning experience in online undergraduate business courses. Tech Trends, 64(1), 172-181.

Chung, C. J., Hwang, G. J., & Lai, C. L. (2019). A review of experimental mobile learning research in 2010–2016 based on the activity theory framework. Computers & Education, 129, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.010

Cojocariu, V.M., Lazar, I., Nedeff, V., & Lazar, G. (2014). SWOT analysis of e-learning educational services from the perspective of their beneficiaries. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1999—2003.

Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: a panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. doi: 10.1177/0047239520934018

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Retrieved from

Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R. (eds.) (1999). Perspectives on Activity Theory: Learning in Doing Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

EQF. (2006). The European qualifications framework (EQF): A new way to understand qualifications across Europe. European Commission. – IP/06/11

Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. Rogers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Distance Learning (2nd ed., pp. 352–360). IGI Global.

Garrison, R. (2021). Teaching presence meta-analysis. Retrieved August 5, 2021 from

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

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.

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.

Gedera, D. S. P., & Williams, P. J. (2013). Using Activity Theory to understand contradictions in an online university course facilitated by Moodle. International Journal of Information Technology & Computer Science, 10(1), 32–41.

Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Harb, J., & Krish, P. (2020). Cognitive Presence in a Blended Learning Environment at Jordanian Universities. Arab World English Journal, 11 (1) 44- 51.

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review.

Jonassen, D.H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79.

Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4-29.

Lee, J. W. (2020). The roles of online instructional facilitators and student performance of online class activity. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(8), 723-733.

Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Lindberg, R., & Brown, R. D. (2020). A model for effective asynchronous online discussion within the community of inquiry framework. Journal for Research and Practice in College Teaching, 5(1), 126-153.

Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2020). Facilitation matters: Instructor perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies in online courses. Online Learning Journal, 24(1), 28-49.

Meyer, K. A., & Wilson, J. L. (2011). Online journal of distance learning administration (vol. IV, no. I). University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center.

Morrison, D., & Morrison, D. (2003). Using activity theory to design constructivist online learning environments for higher order thinking: A retrospective analysis. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 29(3), Canadian Network for Innovation in Education. Retrieved December 4, 2020 from

Mwanza, D., & Engeström, Y. (2005). Managing content in e-learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 453–463.

Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Peña-Ayala, A., Sossa, H., & Méndez, I. (2014). Activity theory as a framework for building adaptive e-learning systems: A case to provide empirical evidence. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 131–145.

Picciano, A. G. (2017). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online Learning, 21(3), 166-190. doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P. et al. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigit Sci Educ 2, 923–945.

Richardson, J., & Alsup, J. (2015). From the classroom to the keyboard: How seven teachers created their online teacher identities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 142-167. doi:

Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Shambaugh, N. (2010). Using Activity Theory to Guide E-Learning Initiatives. In Cases on Successful E-Learning Practices in the Developed and Developing World: Methods for the Global Information Economy (pp. 259-274). IGI Global.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2: 1–9.

Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing Knowledge. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Lulu Press.

Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4), 289—306.

Tull, S. P. C., Dabner, N., & Ayebi-Arthur, K. (2017). Social media and e-learning in response to seismic events: Resilient practices. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 21(1), 63-76.

Yakubu, N., & Dasuki, S. (2021). Emergency online teaching and learning in a Nigerian private university: an activity theory perspective. In UKAIS 2021 Annual Conference. UK Academy for Information Systems.

Wang, C.X. (2020). CAFE: An instructional design model to assist K-12 teachers to teach remotely during and beyond the Covid-19 Pandemic. Tech Trends 65, 8–16.

Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2007). A conceptual framework based on activity theory for mobile CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 211-235.





Section II