Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 95 Factors that influence cognitive presence: A scoping review Sandhya Maranna University of South Australia John Willison University of Adelaide Srecko Joksimovic, Nayana Parange, Maurizio Costabile University of South Australia The gradual shift to online modes of learning in higher education institutions over the past 2 decades accelerated drastically on a global scale between 2020 and 2022. Students and educators, who have initially grappled with the shift, have now become accustomed to online teaching; however, there are concerns about the quality of learning that has resulted. To enable a sustainable and effective online pedagogy, educators may need to learn about fostering higher-order thinking skills, which can be challenging even for experienced educators. To conceptualise effective online pedagogy, the community of inquiry (CoI) framework emphasises cognitive presence (CP), which focuses on the higher-order thinking process. The CoI is the most widely researched framework in online pedagogy, yet contemporary CoI literature lacks collective evidence of factors that influence CP. This scoping review of the CoI literature explores the factors that influence the higher-order thinking that is indicative of CP. Inclusion criteria included evidence of CP in online learning contexts and published between January 2000 and March 2022, providing a total of 121 studies. Results suggest that teaching presence, structure of learning activities and student characteristics all influence CP. Implications for practice or policy: • Higher education students enrolled in online courses should be taught how to learn effectively in an online mode. • Online course educators must embed learning tasks that foster self-regulation and higher-order skills in students. • Online course design should include authentic tasks for students to apply new knowledge to real-life scenarios. • Educators must be offered ample professional development activities to build their skills in online pedagogy. • Institutions should encourage translation of online educational research to practice. Keywords: online learning, cognitive presence, higher-order thinking, community of inquiry, scoping review Introduction Since early 2020, higher education institutions were forced to accelerate the delivery of learning content in blended or fully online modes as a contingency plan in response to the pandemic. During this process, the challenge revolved around implementing online learning at a massive scale and scrambling to embed technology-assisted learning. For some universities, especially in nations with developing economies, this required high levels of innovation and adaptation because their pre-pandemic focus was primarily face-to- face (Mataniari et al., 2020). In other universities, infrastructure and practice for online courses existed but needed to be drastically upscaled (Boggs et al., 2021). In the literature, there is a sense in some universities and disciplines of online provision being an emergency temporary measure that should be abandoned once conditions return to normal (Nordmann et al., 2020). However, considering online learning as a short-term setback has not been conducive to maximising potential gains of the technology-mediated development of higher-order thinking skills in students (Nordmann et al., 2020). Implementing online learning tasks to help students to develop higher-order thinking skills should be prioritised. Several studies have investigated and proposed strategies for engaging students in higher-order thinking processes, although not specific to the online mode. For example, Chi and Wylie (2014) proposed the ICAP framework, where they predicted Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 96 various levels of student engagement based on the type of learning activities. This research agenda has been expanded to report on challenges in translation to practice (Chi, 2021; Chi et al., 2018). They found that professional development of teachers targeted at enhancing cognitive engagement in students was essential to address some of the gaps in the translation of educational research to practice. Online teaching and learning, whether part of a systematic development or a contingency, needs to have an evidence-based pedagogy underpinning it. Treating contingent adaptation to online mode as a suboptimal alternative to face-to-face teaching minimises the opportunities to deliver a curriculum which fosters development of higher-order thinking skills (Nordmann et al., 2020). In a similar way, treating systematic shift to online teaching as a cost-reduction strategy can impair the potential benefits of development of students’ higher-order thinking skills. However, the demands of facilitating higher-order thinking processes in the online mode poses pedagogical challenges even for experienced educators. The necessity to innovate has created opportunities to champion the development of higher-order thinking in an online mode to allow for a legitimate, constructive and sustainable format for acquiring higher education. The most widely researched and quoted framework in online learning is the community of inquiry (CoI) proposed by Garrison et al. (2000), deriving its principles from Vygotsky’s (1962) social constructivist theory. The CoI continues to influence researchers globally in the current enviroment (Ononiwu, 2021; Padayachee & Campbell, 2022). The CoI framework identified three interdependent dynamic elements required for a successful educational experience in the context of online learning in higher education (Garrison et al., 2000). The three elements are teaching presence (TP), social presence (SP) and cognitive presence (CP), with phases identified for each. TP is defined as “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes to realise personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 5). TP consists of three phases, namely design and organisation, facilitating discourse and direct instruction (Garrison et al., 2000). SP is defined as “the ability of CoI participants to project themselves socially and emotionally as real people within their communication medium” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89). CP is defined as “the extent to which participants in any particular configuration of the CoI can construct meaning through sustained communication” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89). CP can be considered as the main outcome of higher education (Garrison et al., 2000). CP focuses on higher-order thinking processes and is described to have four phases according to the model of critical thinking (Garrison et al., 2001). The first phase is the triggering event, where a problem is identified, thus initiating the inquiry process. The second phase is exploration, where students explore relevant information and brainstorm ideas, either as individuals or in collaboration with peers. The third phase is integration, where students construct meaning from generated ideas and share these within the community. The fourth phase is resolution, where students apply or defend potential real-world solutions to the problems with new ideas. The integration and resolution phases are considered to require higher-order thinking (Garrison et al., 2001). In our review, CP refers to students’ CP, unless otherwise stated. CP is considered the most challenging element to facilitate, develop and measure in online courses (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). To the best of our knowledge, in the context of research conducted on the CoI framework, there is limited literature on collective strategies for understanding factors that influence CP. Although CP has been researched to a significant extent within the CoI literature, most studies investigate specific contexts with varied aims restricting universal applicability. For instance, Beckmann and Weber (2016) found that including discussion starters, such as multimedia videos, enhanced CP. Ononiwu (2021) focused on discussion forums as a learning tool, while Gorsky et al. (2012) researched CP in a blended environment. Further, the existing reviews on CP focused on issues such as building online communities, rather than on factors that influence CP. For example, Fiock (2020) reviewed the CoI and summarised the importance of creating communities in online learning. Rourke and Kanuka (2009) reviewed over 200 reports that cited the CoI framework and found that only five investigated student learning. They suggested future research to make prescriptions for online learning. Darabi et al. (2013), while examining CP and higher-order thinking in students in a meta-analysis, stated that only eight studies from 2000 to 2010 examined higher- order thinking. There is no single CoI study that can provide a generalised resource of the factors that influence higher-order thinking. Therefore, we determined that the purpose of this scoping review was to understand factors that influence students’ CP in online contexts within the CoI literature. Strategies that can be generalised to a wider teaching practice in this context will be reported. The findings from this review will serve as a resource for strategies to promote higher-order thinking skills in higher education online learning contexts. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 97 Methods Scoping reviews are used to summarise literature as they are suited to addressing broader questions beyond those related to the specific effectiveness or intervention. They contribute to evidence-based practice by examining a broader area to clarify key concepts and reporting on the types of evidence that inform practice in the field (Peters et al., 2015). Unlike a systematic review, scoping reviews are designed to provide an overview of the existing evidence regardless of quality. Hence, a formal assessment of methodological quality of the included studies is generally not performed (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010; Peters et al., 2015). Given the paucity of evidence, the variable quality of the studies conducted prior, and the relevance of the current review to the pre- and post-COVID eras, we conducted a scoping review to map and extract relevant factors contributing to CP. In the light of quality of evidence, we used a five-stage (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010; Peters et al., 2015) rigorous approach to enable transparency and replication of search strategy and to increase the reliability of search findings. In the first stage, we identified the research question by clarifying the purpose and linking the questions. In the second stage, we conducted a comprehensive literature search. In the third stage, we selected relevant studies by using a team approach, followed by charting the data in the fourth stage. In the final stage, we collated the results and distilled the implications for teaching practice. To address the limitations of previous research as elaborated above, specifically in relation to the challenges with researching CP, we identified the following research question to guide the search: “What are the factors that influence CP within the CoI literature?” We propose to answer the objectives of the question from the extracted data and provide implications for teaching in the context of enhancing CP, which requires higher-order thinking. We followed the 3-step search strategy to ensure consistency in search terms across all databases. In the first step, we performed a limited search of key concepts on the ERIC database. We applied the population concept context (PCC) framework (Peters et al., 2015) to determine key concepts (Figure 1): post- secondary education, CP and online learning. We then performed screening of keywords in the abstract and key terms to compile a list of synonyms, or alternate terms. In the second step, we conducted a comprehensive search of all identified search terms in ERIC, ProQuest Central, SCOPUS, PsycInfo and Web of Science databases. Inclusion criteria were studies that (a) present original (primary) research, analysing CP in online learning (b) published in 2000 (after the CoI framework was published), until 13 March 2022 (second search date) and (c) published in English in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings. We have registered the search protocol for the ERIC database as an open access data set (Maranna, 2021). In the third step, we identified relevant studies in Google Scholar and the list of CP papers (Athabasca University, 2019). We exported the final list of studies from each database to EndNote and de- duplicated for screening. We conducted the initial search on 11 November 2019, followed by a second search on 13 March 2022 to include recent studies. Participants Post-secondary or post-high school or higher education students enrolled in either undergraduate, postgraduate, masters or doctoral studies Concept CP in the literature that has studied the CoI as the overarching framework Context Studies that involve online learning environments, including online education, distance learning and electronic learning Figure 1. The PCC framework to determine key concepts The search terms identified 456 studies. The manual search identified 25 studies. After removing duplicates, five reviewers screened the title and abstracts of 209 studies based on the inclusion criteria. After excluding 66 studies, 143 studies underwent full-text screening. Full-text screening was performed by two reviewers, with an agreement of 84%. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. After excluding 38 studies, we included 105 studies for data extraction. We completed the screening of title and abstracts and the full- text screening using the Covidence review software (https://www.covidence.org/). In the second search, we identified 40 studies after removal of duplicates. After excluding 24 studies, we added 16 studies to the review (total: 121 studies). For the process for article selection (Figure 2), we followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (extension for scoping reviews) (PRISMA-ScR) https://www.covidence.org/ Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 98 statement (Tricco et al., 2018). We charted the data in Microsoft Excel sheets to include authors, year of publication, title, journal, country of study, sample size, study design and factors supporting CP. Figure 2. Selection of studies following the PRISMA-ScR statement (Peters et al., 2015; Tricco et al., 2018) Results and discussion Results are represented as text and tables. The scoping review yielded 121 studies. For brevity, only those findings relevant to answering the research question “What are the factors that influence CP within the CoI literature?” are presented. Three major themes were derived: (a) role of TP that influences CP, (b) structure of learning activities that influence CP and (c) student characteristics that influence CP. These will be discussed below. Unless stated, there were no disagreements with the following findings. Role of TP that influences CP Overall, 41% of studies (n = 50) found that TP played a key role in supporting students to develop CP and suggested that online educators should create an atmosphere of trust, facilitate open communication and be attentive to students’ learning needs. In the CoI, the online educator acts firstly as the designer of the educational experience, including planning, evaluating and certifying competence; second, as facilitator and co-creator of a social environment conducive to active and successful learning; and finally, as content expert to scaffold learning experiences by initially providing direct instruction (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 5). However, 8.6% of studies (n = 10) recommended that ample opportunities for professional development (PD) should be available for educators to fulfill the above TP roles. Factors that enhance CP in each of these TP categories are summarised in Table 1. Studies identified through database search (n = 456) Additional studies identified through other sources (n = 25) Studies after removal of duplicates & screened for title & abstract (n = 209) Studies excluded based on inclusion & exclusion criteria (n = 66) Full-text studies assessed for eligibility (n = 143) Full-text studies excluded (n = 38) 17 reviews 17 irrelevant aims 3 not CoI 1 not higher education Id e n ti fi c a ti o n S c re e n in g E li g ib il it y In c lu d e d Studies included for data extraction (n = 105) Studies identified through second search (n = 40); excluded (n = 24) Total final studies included (n = 121) (105 + 16) Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 99 Table 1 TP factors that influence students’ CP Specific role of TP in enhancing CP Studies in the review that concur Instructional design & organisation • Consideration of student context, degree programme & level of study Arbaugh, 2007; Roulston et al., 2018; Sadaf & Olesova, 2017 • Mapping course objectives to learning outcomes Structuring the objectives to enhance conceptual understanding Cho & Tobias, 2016; Moreira et al., 2013 • Consistent organisation of the course structure Hosler & Arend, 2012; Ice et al., 2011 • Clear, explicit instructions by the facilitator to students on expectations & online activities & due date reminders B. Chen et al., 2017; Choy & Quek, 2016; Stodel et al., 2006 • Co-teaching by staff, for a lower student-teacher ratio & for the range of expertise contributed by multiple educators Abbitt et al., 2018 • Provide an integrated working space, with easy-to- use platforms & minimising workload of mechanical activities, e.g., providing direct links for textbooks Gunbatar & Guyer, 2017; Kilis & Yildirim, 2018; Kozan, 2016 • Guide students how to learn online & help them develop skills in learning strategies & explain the importance of collaborative learning B. Chen et al., 2017; Junus et al., 2019; Moreira et al., 2013; Stein et al., 2007 Facilitation • Facilitate conditions for active student participation, create a climate in which all students feel included, monitor students’ progress & address learning gaps Choy & Quek, 2016; Clarke & Bartholomew, 2014; Garrison et al., 2010; Saadatmand et al., 2017; Tan et al., 2020 • Allocate more time for students to interact with cognitively complex tasks; create authentic reasons for students to collaborate earlier in the semester for meaningful interaction to occur Sadaf & Olesova, 2017 • Motivate students to develop their learning trajectory & to engage in additional research Choy & Quek, 2016; Miller et al., 2019 • Set high expectations for students by progressing from simple to more complex tasks to enhance self-efficacy Daspit et al., 2015 • Increase opportunities for peer mentoring, study groups & peer facilitation to reduce the perception of being isolated to self-learning & enhanced CP through group cohesion Daspit et al., 2015; Dona et al., 2014; Garrison et al., 2010; Jimoyiannis et al., 2013; Tan et al., 2020 • Provide collaborative, peer-reviewed activities for students to shift focus from an individual perspective to that of a community Chen et al., 2017; Johnson, 2017; Kanuka & Garrison, 2004; Kucuk & Sahin, 2013; Nagel & Kotze, 2010; Stodel et al., 2006 • Provide opportunities for brainstorming Alman et al., 2012; Baytiyeh, 2018; Chen et al., 2017; Jimoyiannis et al., 2013; Johnson, 2017; Stover & Pollock, 2014 • Purposeful group formation to improve learning by gaining new perspectives Alman et al., 2012; Miller et al., 2019 Direct instruction • Scaffold learning experiences Rolim et al., 2019; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009a • Provide exemplars & grading rubrics B. Chen et al., 2017; Stodel et al., 2006 • Share experiences & ask probing questions Clarke & Bartholomew, 2014 • Provide constructive feedback that would lead to a new understanding of content Daspit et al., 2015 • Group feedback & further clarification from the facilitator despite learning the theory through videos & other resources Akyol & Garrison, 2011; le Roux & Nagel, 2018 • Timely response and/or feedback by the online educators to student doubts Cho & Tobias, 2016; d’Alessio, Lundquist et al., 2019; Gillingham et. al., 2020; Gorsky & Blau, 2009; Kucuk & Sahin, 2013; Zydney et al., 2012 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 100 Structure of learning activities that influence CP Online learning activities, either in the form of assessment tasks or discussion forums, were found to be predominant themes that influence CP. Further, tasks that facilitated application in authentic contexts (19% of studies; n = 23), enabled a guided-inquiry approach (7.4% of studies; n = 9), aligned with learning goals (6.6% of studies; n = 8) and promoted peer-sharing (12% of studies; n = 15) were found to be strong influencers for learning in the integration and resolution phases. A strong relationship to the integration and resolution phases was found with linking tasks that seek authentic application of newly learnt skills to real-world contexts and problem-solving projects. Authentic topics lead to exploring the tasks, appreciating diverse perspectives, creating solutions and applying solutions to their work. Students should be encouraged to share their own experiences of authentic learning experiences, reflect on them and develop new or deeper knowledge (Kilis & Yıldırım, 2019). A guided- inquiry process for learning tasks, which involves working within a framework, is better than open inquiry, which can be perceived as unstructured and vague for students (Gunbatar & Guyer, 2017). Analysing threaded discussions against critical thinking frameworks provided more direction for assessments and encouraged students to integrate their ideas and resolve problems (Meyer, 2003; Schrire, 2006). Examples of some of the frameworks used in various studies are Bloom’s taxonomy (Dona et al., 2014), problem- based learning (Gašević et al., 2015; Tirado-Morueta et al., 2016), diagnostic reasoning activities (Posey et al., 2014) and inquiry-based learning (Chanprasitchai & Khlaisang, 2016). Intentional use of higher-order learning approaches, where students were given opportunities to demonstrate autonomy, leadership and decision-making, helped develop CP (Posey et al., 2014; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009b). Alignment of learning tasks to learning goals is a key aspect for enhancing CP (Akyol et al., 2009b; Hosler & Arend, 2012; Kilis & Yildirim, 2019; Krzyszkowska & Mavrommati, 2021; Miller et al., 2019; Saadatmand et al., 2017). CP was represented as dependent on the nature of assessments and their alignment with learning. Embedding activities and assessments that encourage peer collaboration enhanced CP by allowing team-based collective decision-making. Examples include wikis (Jimoyiannis & Roussinos, 2017; Stodel et al., 2006), synchronous online case presentations (Posey et al., 2014) and double peer review, where each student reviews others’ work as well as gets their work reviewed (Nagel & Kotze, 2010). The studies cited under assessments were considered as summative unless stated (Table 2). The role of discussion forums in sustaining online learning is a major focus in the CoI. Asynchronous discussion was investigated in 25% (n = 30) of studies and was found to be beneficial for knowledge- construction, allowing time for reflection (Ke, 2010; S. M. Lee, 2014; Mehri & Izadpanah, 2017; Stein et al., 2007; Wang & Chen, 2008). Supporting this, Y. Chen, Gao et al. (2019) found that asynchronicity enabled flexible access to discussions and promoted passive engagement. Ononiwu (2021) suggested that they provide shy learners a chance to participate in the learning process. It also brings out the best in learners as they can respond to questions and discussions more reflectively as opposed to the random approach of face-to-face discussions. However, Stover and Pollock (2014) argued for not restricting to asynchronous discussions alone. Synchronous discussions were investigated in 5.8% of studies (n = 7). Collaborative group learning discussions with sharing of solutions (Dona et al., 2014; Posey et al., 2014) and small-group synchronous discussions (Stover & Pollock, 2014) were found to help students to gain different perspectives and to brainstorm ideas. Overall, a combination of synchronous discussions to enable brainstorming and asynchronous discussions to enable reflective thinking is proposed. The findings mapped under discussion strategies (see Table 2) were a combination of learning tasks and assessments, either summative or formative as they were not made explicit in the studies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 101 Table 2 Strategies for designing learning activities to enhance CP Learning activities Studies in the review that concur Assessment strategies • Authentic tasks related to individual practical experiences. Life experience through case study analysis to foster higher phases of knowledge construction through the application of content & personalisation Akbulut et al., 2022; B. Chen et al., 2017; Choy & Quek, 2016; Feng et al., 2017; Gikandi, 2021; Sadaf & Olesova, 2017; Swart, 2017; Wright, 2014 • Re-design & connect assignments to enable the regular application of knowledge & skills from theory to practice, making the assignment more authentic, relevant & applicable for students Finch & Jefferson, 2013; Kumar et al., 2011 • Scaffolding of assessments & questioning Feng et al., 2017 • Extend assessments to analyse knowledge transfer to new situations Lajoie et al., 2006 • Use questions that have prompts for exploring, explaining, searching or designing an intervention rather than questions that assessed facts or controversies Olesova et al., 2016 • Case studies, with challenging & reflective tasks, where students are required to demonstrate, creativity & critical reflection, make the learning process cognitively complex Akyol et al., 2009b; Choo et al., 2020; Gikandi, 2021; Gillingham et al., 2020; Kilis & Yildirim, 2019; Krzyszkowska & Mavrommati, 2021; Stover & Pollock, 2014 Discussion forum strategies • Align the theme of discussions to the learning outcomes, to support knowledge construction & to build a discussion culture among students Makri et al., 2014; Swart, 2017 • Discussion forums with consistent requirements & settings, integrated into several phases of the course as compulsory learning tasks, promotes critical thinking & group reflection Junus et al., 2019; Ke, 2010; Lajoie et al., 2006 • Schedule discussions in the core teaching period Makri et al., 2014 • Careful structuring of initiating questions & time of questioning of online discussion forums Akyol & Garrison, 2011 • Include discussion starters, such as multimedia video statements, images or podcasts Junus et al., 2019 • Educators to contribute to discussions to keep it focused & unbiased Hosler & Arend, 2012; Varnhagen et al., 2005 • Group discussions on authentic content Akbulut et al., 2022 • Integrate discussion topics with work-placement schedule • Graded discussion forums with modelling & guidance on ways to participate Arbaugh, 2013 Padayachee & Campbell, 2021 • Design discussion questions using strategies such as scenario-based, scaffolding & role play Darabi et al., 2011; DuBois et al., 2019; Gašević et al., 2015; C. J. Liu & Yang, 2014 Student characteristics that influence CP Students with prior experiences with online learning, collaborative learning and an ability to appreciate feedback from others, tended to have an advantage to enhance their CP, whereas those with lesser experience depended more on TP to initiate their learning process (Archibald, 2010). Experienced students perceived a sense of belonging to a learning community (Shea & Bidjerano, 2009a). Student’s self- directedness to recognise the ongoing need for additional knowledge was found to enhance CP (Baytiyeh, 2018; Chanprasitchai & Khlaisang, 2016). Students’ self-regulation, motivation, skill of identifying, hypothesising, integrating knowledge and proposing solutions to problems, promoted their learning at the integration and resolution phases (Daspit et al., 2015; Shea et al., 2013; Weerasinghe et al., 2012). Study context, age and year level were all identified as important student-related variables which influence their perception of CP (Hilliard & Stewart, 2019; Roulston et al., 2018). Kovanović et al. (2019 investigated the role of learning strategies and concluded that selective users achieved similar learning success as engaged users. Selective users are those who demonstrated highly focused and strategic use of online tools, such as video lectures and graded assessments, and utilised discussions in a passive manner, by viewing other students’ postings rather than actively contributing. Engaged users demonstrated active course participation and deep approaches to learning (Kovanović et al., 2019). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 102 Implications for teaching practice With the global demand for online learning, it is timely to think beyond the mere implementation and emergency adaptation to online mode. Sustained delivery of curriculum that influences higher-order thinking must be prioritised. Our review consisted of 121 studies published from January 2000 to March 2022, with 61% (n = 74) published in or after 2014. Results indicate that teaching presence, structure of learning tasks and student characteristics influence CP. A summary of strategies for assessments, discussion forums and learning tasks to promote CP was collated. Based on the insights derived, the following five recommendations are put forth for educators to consider in their teaching practice in the context of enhancing CP in the online mode. Higher education students enrolled in online courses should be taught how to learn effectively in the online mode Firstly, guiding students how to learn online and to model how to participate in online learning activities should be prioritised. This is especially crucial in the foundational courses of a degree programme, enabling students to develop self-regulation and take responsibility of their own learning needs. This will then lead to less handholding as the student progresses to higher levels of learning. As with the challenges that educators encounter in implementing learning tasks to develop higher-order thinking skills, students are also challenged while adapting to active learning strategies. Moreover, students must also learn to quickly adapt to the multitude of online platforms, specific to educational institutions. These challenges are compounded when students transfer between institutions. The nature of learning tasks as designed by individual educators usually is context specific. Therefore, providing worked exemplars and modelling expectations can act as a catalyst for students to explore existing content and set them up with skills for creating new knowledge. Similarly, explaining the significance of peer interaction and reflective thinking to students can enable the development of higher-order thinking skills. Online educators must embed learning tasks that foster self-regulation and higher-order skills in students Guiding students with explicit instructions in the early stages of a degree programme or a course can foster self-regulatory skills in the long term. Swan et al. (2009) found that where students were challenged to resolve a problem and explicit facilitation and direction was provided, students demonstrated higher-order thinking. This is evident in instances with the scaffolding of tasks to promote higher-order thinking, where TP can be gradually withdrawn, enabling the students to take responsibility of their own learning goals. It should be noted that although all the studies in our review encompass the CoI framework, results suggest that this framework offers flexibility for adapting other critical thinking frameworks. This can accomplished mainly through learning tasks which are designed based on those frameworks. Similarly, it can be argued that frameworks not included in our review, such as the ICAP (Chi & Wylie, 2014) or the research skill development framework (Mataniari et al., 2020; Willison, 2018), can be adapted with the CoI elements to enhance higher-order learning. Online course design should include authentic tasks for students to apply new knowledge to real-life scenarios Online teaching mode was long considered unsupportive for students to demonstrate knowledge application and test real-world application of knowledge (Garrison, 2007). Garrison (2007) further observed that the main reason for students not being able to test their knowledge in real-world situations could be the lack of appropriately designed authentic learning tasks for this to occur. Similarly, online discussions tend to be meaningful only if students perceive the relevance of participation in their learning outcome. Along with the overall course design, individual tasks such as discussion with peers must be designed to be purposeful and intentional to generate the desired learning outcomes. For example, questioning students on how they would apply what they learned from a task to their own profession could initiate an authentic critical thinking process. Similarly, discussions organised around arriving at solutions or the completion of assessments based on real-life application are more likely to enhance CP. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 103 Online educators must be offered ample professional development activities to build their skills in online pedagogy Student progression through higher-order thinking requires facilitation from educators. However, it can be challenging for educators to manage the multi-faceted responsibilities of TP in an online environment. The challenges for educators who have been predominantly involved in face-to-face teaching and unfamiliar with online pedagogies are that it requires them to shift to a facilitator role and develop the skills to design and implement appropriate tasks that enable students to achieve outcomes. Educators with prior experience in online pedagogy can contribute to a sustainable approach through a collaborative and iterative process. In this review, TP emerged as a significant contributor to developing CP. One of the key implications for teaching practice clearly includes supporting educators in adapting to online pedagogical approaches. Educators must be offered ample opportunities for professional development in online teaching strategies alongside institutional support for adapting and using emerging technology (Capra, 2014; Johnson, 2017; Ling, 2007; Miller et al., 2019). Professional development can help to facilitate cyclical reflective activity by online educators and to provide support and training in online teaching and building skills in course design and facilitation. Professional development is also considered essential to support online inquiry planning and ongoing monitoring. Institutions should encourage translation of online educational research to practice Institutional support through funding educational research may help to address the gap in translating research to practice to a certain extent. This funding can provide critical impetus to the educators involved. Additional institutional supports that focus on developing and sustaining an innovative pedagogical mindset to enhance teaching and learning practices in online delivery is also essential. In situations where educators have successfully designed the appropriate strategies to promote development of higher-order thinking skills, it is crucial for such individuals to sustain engagement in evidence-based improvements to course design. It should be noted that in most circumstances, only a single or perhaps a couple of strategies can be piloted. It should also be noted that educators must engage in a reflective iterative process to make enhancements in subsequent iterations of the course. For example, an educator may need a few iterations to strike a balance between synchronous and asynchronous activities to achieve the desired learning outcomes. Limitations of this scoping study Because our review focused on the CoI framework and CP, all included studies conform to the CoI literature only. It can be argued that the included studies appear to agree about the aspects they address and therefore can be perceived to have less divergent views. Although we followed a comprehensive search strategy, it was limited to five databases and is likely that all relevant literature may not be identified. To keep within the scope of this article, methodological quality of the included studies has not been evaluated. Conclusion In this scoping review, factors that influence CP have been examined. Our findings provide an understanding of the various factors that support students to develop CP in online learning, which, support the development of higher-order thinking processes. Careful consideration of the findings will help enhance the course design and learning tasks. The findings further suggest that a holistic approach for online learning that integrates intentional learning, collaborative problem-solving, deep personal reflection, and real-world application of knowledge is necessary for fostering CP in students. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the Australian Government Research Training Program fee offset scholarship that enabled the primary author to conduct this work with the other authors. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 104 References *Asterisks indicate studies in the scoping review. *Abbitt, J. T., Watt, S. J., & Boone, W. J. (2018). A comparison of independent and collaborative instructional models in a blended graduate teacher education program. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 16(1), 1–20. https://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/16.1.1.pdf *Akbulut, M. S., Umutlu, D., Diler, O. N. E. R, & Arikan, S. (2022). Exploring university students’ learning experiences in the COVID-19 semester through the community of inquiry framework. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1050334 *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(3-4), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v12i3.72 *Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14, 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005 *Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009a). Development of a community of inquiry in online and blended learning contexts. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1834–1838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.324 *Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009b). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(6), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.765 *Akyol, Z., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). The impact of course duration on the development of a community of inquiry. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820902809147 *Alavi, S. M., & Taghizadeh, M. (2013). Cognitive presence in a virtual learning community: An EFL case. Journal of Distance Education, 27(1). http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/818 *Alman, S. W., Frey, B. A., & Tomer, C. (2012). Social and cognitive presence as factors in learning and student retention: An investigation of the cohort model in an iSchool setting. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 53(4), 290–302. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43686922 *Almasi, M., Zhu, C., & Machumu, H. (2018). Teaching, social, and cognitive presences and their relations to students' characteristics and academic performance in blended learning courses in a Tanzanian University. Afrika Focus, 31(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.21825/af.v31i1.9038 *Al-Nuaimi, A. I. M. (2017). Examining community of inquiry model in influencing e-learning usage among female students. International Review of Management and Marketing, 7(1). https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/irmm/article/view/3728 Anderson, 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. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1875/706 *Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). An empirical verification of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 73–85. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1738/570 *Arbaugh, J. B. (2013). Does academic discipline moderate CoI-course outcomes relationships in online MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Education, 17(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.10.002 *Arbaugh, J. B., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the community of inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.006 *Archibald, D. (2010). Fostering the development of cognitive presence: Initial findings using the community of inquiry survey instrument. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 73–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.001 Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Athabasca University. (2019). Cognitive presence papers. Retrieved November 13, 2019, from https://coi.athabascau.ca/publications/cognitive-presence/ *Baytiyeh, H. (2018). Progreen online engineering diploma in the Middle East: assessment of the educational experience. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(2), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1359240 https://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/16.1.1.pdf https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1050334 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v12i3.72 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.324 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.765 https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820902809147 http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/818 http://www.jstor.org/stable/43686922 https://doi.org/10.21825/af.v31i1.9038 https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/irmm/article/view/3728 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.10.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.001 https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 https://coi.athabascau.ca/publications/cognitive-presence/ https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1359240 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 105 *Beckmann, J., & Weber, P. (2016). Cognitive presence in virtual collaborative learning: Assessing and improving critical thinking in online discussion forums. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 13(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-12-2015-0034 Boggs, H., Forero-Hernandez, P., Laboissiere, M., & Neher, K. (2021, February 15). Scaling online education: Five lessons for colleges. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/scaling-online-education-five-lessons- for-colleges *Burgess, M. L., Slate, J. R., Rojas-LeBouef, A., & LaPrairie, K. (2010). Teaching and learning in "second life": Using the community of inquiry (CoI) model to support online instruction with graduate students in instructional technology. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.12.003 *Cakiroglu, U. (2019). Community of inquiry in web conferencing: relationships between cognitive presence and academic achievements. Open Praxis, 11(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.3.968 *Capra, T. (2014). Online education from the perspective of community college ctudents within the community of inquiry paradigm. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38(2-3), 108– 121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2014.851949 *Chanprasitchai, O. A., & Khlaisang, J. (2016). Inquiry-based learning for a virtual learning community to enhance problem-solving ability of applied Thai traditional medicine students. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(4), 77–87. http://www.tojet.net/articles/v15i4/1549.pdf *Chen, B., deNoyelles, A., Patton, K., & Zydney, J. (2017). Creating a community of inquiry in large- enrollment online courses: An exploratory study on the effect of protocols within online discussions. Online Learning, 21(1), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.816 *Chen, Y., Gao, Q., Yuan, Q., & Tang, Y. (2019). Discovering MOOC learner motivation and its moderating role. Behaviour and Information Technology, 39(12), 1257–1275. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1661520 *Chen, Y., Lei, J., & Cheng, J. (2019). What if online students take on the responsibility: Students’ cognitive presence and peer facilitation techniques. Online Learning, 23(1), 37–61. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1348 Chi, M. T. H. (2021). Translating a theory of active learning: An attempt to close the research‐practice gap in education. Topics in Cognitive Science, 13(3), 441–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12539 Chi, M. T. H., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., Levy, R., Li, N., McEldoon, K. L., Stump, G. S., Wylie, R., Xu, D., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1777–1832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626 Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 *Chiroma, J. A., Meda, L., & Waghid, Z. (2021). Examining emergency remoteteaching using the community of inquiry framework: Lecturer experiences in a Kenyan university. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 17(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.20211001.oa17 *Cho, M.-H., & Tobias, S. (2016). Should educators require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2342 *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. TechTrends, 64(1), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00444-9 *Choy, J. L. F., & Quek, C. L. (2016). Modelling relationships between students' academic achievement and community of inquiry in an online learning environment for a blended course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2500 *Clarke, L. W., & Bartholomew, A. (2014). Digging beneath the surface: Analyzing the complexity of educators' participation in asynchronous discussion. Online Learning, 18(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i3.414 *Crosta, L., Manokore, V., & Gray, M. (2016). From an online cohort towards a community of inquiry: International students' interaction patterns in an online doctorate program. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 14(2), 45–57. https://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/14.2.1.pdf https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-12-2015-0034 https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/scaling-online-education-five-lessons-for-colleges https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/scaling-online-education-five-lessons-for-colleges https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.12.003 https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.3.968 https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2014.851949 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.816 https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1661520 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1348 https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12539 https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626 https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.20211001.oa17 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2342 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00444-9 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2500 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i3.414 https://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/14.2.1.pdf Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 106 *d’Alessio, M. A., Lundquist, L. L., Schwartz, J. J., Pedone, V., Pavia, J., & Fleck, J. (2019). Social presence enhances student performance in an online geology course but depends on instructor facilitation. Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(3), 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1580179 *d’Alessio, M. A., Schwartz, J. J., Pedone, V., Pavia, J., Fleck, J., & Lundquist, L. L. (2019b). Geology goes Hollywood: Building a community of inquiry in a fully online introductory geology lecture and laboratory. Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(3), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1578467 *Darabi, A., Arrastia, M. C., Nelson, D. W., Cornille, T., & Liang, X. (2011). Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: A comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00392.x Darabi, A., Liang, X., Suryavanshi, R., & Yurekli, H. (2013). Effectiveness of online discussion strategies: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.837651 *Daspit, J. J., Mims, T. C., & Zavattaro, S. M. (2015). The role of positive psychological states in online learning: Integrating psychological capital into the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Management Education, 39(5), 626. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1052562914564980 *de Leng, B. A., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Jöbsis, R., Muijtjens, A. M. M., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2009). Exploration of an e-learning model to foster critical thinking on basic science concepts during work placements. Computers & Education, 53, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.012 *Dona, E., Stover, S., & Broughton, N. (2014). Modern languages and distance dducation: Thirteen days in the cloud. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.91273 *DuBois, B., Krasny, M. E., & Russ, A. (2019). Online professional development for environmental educators: strategies to foster critical thinking and social interactions. Environmental Education Research, 25(10), 1479–1474. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1564247 *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 Distance Learning, 18(2), 162–188 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i2.2362 *Finch, J. L., & Jefferson, R. N. (2013). Designing authentic learning tasks for online library instruction. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(2), 181–188 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.10.005 Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a community of inquiry in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 135–153 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.3985 *Gallego-Arrufat, M.-J., & Gutiérrez-Santiuste, E. (2015). Perception of democracy in computer- mediated communication: participation, responsibility, collaboration, and reflection. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.957270 Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1737/569 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, 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6 Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23 https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071 *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 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2 *Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002 *Gašević, D., Adesope, O., Joksimović, S., & Kovanović, V. (2015). Externally-facilitated regulation scaffolding and role assignment to develop cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 24, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.006 *Gikandi, J. W. (2021). Enhancing e-learning through integration of online formative assessment and teaching presence. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 11(2), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.2021040104 https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1580179 https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1578467 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00392.x https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.837651 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1052562914564980 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.012 https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.91273 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1564247 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i2.2362 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.10.005 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.3985 https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.957270 https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1737/569 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6 https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.006 https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.2021040104 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 107 *Gillingham, K., Eggleton, K., & Goodyear-Smith, F. (2020). Is reflective learning visible in online discussion forums for medical students on general practice placements? A qualitative study. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 32(4), 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2020.1730184 *Gorsky, P., & Blau, I. (2009). Online teaching effectiveness: A tale of two educators. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.712 *Gorsky, P., Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2012). A comparison of non-mandatory online dialogic behavior in two higher education blended environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 55– 69. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v16i4.268 *Gunbatar, M. S., & Guyer, T. (2017). Effects of inquiry types on states related to community of inquiry in online learning environments: An explanatory case study. Contemporary Educational Technology, 8(2), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6193 *Hilliard, L. P., & Stewart, M. K. (2019). Time well spent: Creating a community of inquiry in blended first-year writing courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 41, 11–24 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.11.002 *Hosler, K. A., & Arend, B. D. (2012). The importance of course design, feedback, and facilitation: Student perceptions of the relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence. Educational Media International, 49(3), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.738014 *Ice, P., Gibson, A. M., Boston, W., & Becher, D. (2011). An exploration of differences between community of inquiry indicators in low and high disenrollment online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(2), 44–69. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v15i2.196 *Jimoyiannis, A., & Roussinos, D. (2017). Students’ collaborative patterns in a wiki-authoring project: Towards a theoretical and analysis framework. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 9(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-05-2016-0034 *Jimoyiannis, A., Tsiotakis, P., & Roussinos, D. (2013). Social network analysis of students’ participation and presence in a community of educational blogging. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 10(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/17415651311326428 *Johnson, C. (2017). Teaching music online: Changing pedagogical approach when moving to the online environment. London Review of Education, 15(3), 439–466. http://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.3.08 *Joksimovic, S., Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Adesope, O., & Hatala, M. (2014). Psychological characteristics in cognitive presence of communities of inquiry: A linguistic analysis of online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.03.001 *Junus, K., Suhartanto, H., Suradijono, S. H. R., Santoso, H. B., & Sadita, L. (2019). The community of inquiry model training using the cognitive apprenticeship approach to improve students’ learning strategy in the asynchronous discussion forum. Journal of Educators Online, 16(1) 1–17. https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2019.16.1.7 *Kanuka, H., & Garrison, D. R. (2004). Cognitive presence in online learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(2), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940928 *Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers & Education, 55(2), 808–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.013 *Kilis, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2018). Investigation of community of inquiry framework in regard to selfregulation, metacognition and motivation. Computers & Education, 128, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.032 *Kilis, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2019). Posting patterns of students’ social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence in online learning. Online Learning, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1460 *Kovanović, V., Gašević, D., Joksimović, S., Hatala, M., & Adesope, O. (2015). Analytics of communities of inquiry: Effects of learning technology use on cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.06.002 *Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Hennis, T., de Vries, P., Hatala, M., Dawson, S., Siemens, G., & Gašević, D. (2019). Examining communities of inquiry in massive open online courses: The role of study strategies. Internet and Higher Education, 40, 20–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.09.001 *Kozan, K. (2016). The incremental predictive validity of teaching, cognitive and social presence on cognitive load. Internet and Higher Education, 31, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.003 https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2020.1730184 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.712 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v16i4.268 https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6193 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.11.002 https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.738014 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v15i2.196 https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-05-2016-0034 https://doi.org/10.1108/17415651311326428 http://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.3.08 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.03.001 https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2019.16.1.7 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940928 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.032 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1460 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.06.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.09.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.003 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 108 *Krzyszkowska, K., & Mavrommati, M. (2020). Applying the community of inquiry e-learning model to improve the learning design of an online course for in-service teachers in Norway. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 18(6), 462–475. https://doi.org/10.34190/JEL.18.6.001 *Kucuk, S., & Richardson, J. C. (2019). A structural equation model of predictors of online learners’ engagement and satisfaction. Online Learning Journal, 23(2), 196–216. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1455 *Kucuk, S., & Sahin, I. (2013). From the perspective of community of inquiry framework: An examination of facebook uses by pre-service teachers as a learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 142–156. http://www.tojet.net/articles/v12i2/12214.pdf *Kumar, S., Dawson, K., Black, E. W., Cavanaugh, C., & Sessums, C. D. (2011). Applying the community of inquiry framework to an online professional practice doctoral program. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 126–142. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i6.978 *Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2014). Adapting the community of inquiry survey for an online graduate program: Implications for online programs. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.59 *Lajoie, S. P., Garcia, B., Berdugo, G., Marquez, L., Espindola, S., & Nakamura, C. (2006). The creation of virtual and face-to-face learning communities: An international collaboration experience. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.2190%2F1G77-3371-K225- 7840 *Leader-Janssen, E. M., Nordness, P. D., Swain, K. D., & Hagaman, J. L. (2016). Students’ perceptions of an online graduate program in special education for emotional and behavioral disorders. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(4), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416637411 *Lee, R., Hoe Looi, K., Faulkner, M., & Neale, L. (2021). The moderating influence of environment factors in an extended community of inquiry model of e-learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1758032 *Lee, S. J., & Nuatomue, J. N. (2021). Students’ perceived difficulty and satisfaction in face-to-face vs. online sections of a technology-intensive course. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 19(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.2021070101 *Lee, S. M. (2014). The relationships between higher order thinking skills, cognitive density, and social presence in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.12.002 *le Roux, I., & Nagel, L. (2018). Seeking the best blend for deep learning in a flipped classroom – viewing student perceptions through the Community of Inquiry lens. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018- 0098-x Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(69). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 *Ling, L. H. (2007). Community of inquiry in an online undergraduate information technology course. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 153–168. https://doi.org/10.28945/207 *Liu, C. J., & Yang, S. C. (2014). Using the community of inquiry model to investigate students’ knowledge construction in asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(3), 327–354. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.3.d *Liu, Y., & Jernigan, J. (2013). Ecological analysis of EFL learners’ online communication. Journal of Language and Literature Education, 2(8), 9–22. *Makri, K., Papanikolaou, K., Tsakiri, A., & Karkanis, S. (2014). Blending the community of inquiry framework with learning by design: Towards a synthesis for blended learning in teacher training. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 12(2), 183–194. https://academic- publishing.org/index.php/ejel/article/view/1690/1653 Maranna, S., Parange, N., Joksimovic, S., & Costabile, M. (2021). Developing higher levels of cognitive presence in online learning in higher education: A scoping review [Data set]. Open Science Framework. https://osf.io/agcn9/ *Marshall, J., Hauze, S., Denman, P., Frazee, J., & Laumakis, M. (2017). An analysis of online course ratings using the community of inquiry theoretical framework, following instructor participation in San Diego State University's Course Design Institute. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 26(3), 249–269. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/173250/ https://doi.org/10.34190/JEL.18.6.001 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1455 http://www.tojet.net/articles/v12i2/12214.pdf https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i6.978 https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.59 https://doi.org/10.2190%2F1G77-3371-K225-7840 https://doi.org/10.2190%2F1G77-3371-K225-7840 https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416637411 https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1758032 https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.2021070101 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.12.002 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0098-x https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0098-x https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 https://doi.org/10.28945/207 https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.3.d https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejel/article/view/1690/1653 https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejel/article/view/1690/1653 https://osf.io/agcn9/ https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/173250/ Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 109 Mataniari, R., Willison, J., Hasibuan, M. H. E., Sulistiyo, U., & Dewi, F. (2020). Portraying students critical thinking skills through research skill development (RSD) framework: A case of a biology course in an Indonesian university. Turkish Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.28 *Mehri, S., & Izadpanah, S. (2017). The effect of computer-mediated communication tools in online setting on Iranian EFL learners’ teaching, social and cognitive existence. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(5), 978–985. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0805.20 *Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i3.1845 *Miller, M. E., Newton, K., Stover, S., Miller, B., & Buttolph, J. (2019). Comparing delivery methods of an introductory nutrition course using the community of inquiry. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 52(4), 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2019.09.007 *Moreira, J. A., Ferreira, A. G., & Almeida, A. C. (2013). Comparing communities of inquiry of Portuguese higher education students: One for all or one for each? Open Praxis, 5(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.5.2.50 *Nagel, L., & Kotze, T. G. (2010). Supersizing e-learning: What a CoI survey reveals about teaching presence in a large online class. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.12.001 *Nazir, M., & Brouwer, N. (2019). Community of inquiry on Facebook in a formal learning setting in higher education. Education Sciences, 9(1), 10–33. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010010 Nordmann, E., Horlin, C., Hutchison, J., Murray, J.-A., Robson, L., Seery, M. K., & MacKay, J. R. D. (2020). Ten simple rules for supporting a temporary online pivot in higher education. PLOS Computational Biology, 16(10), e1008242. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008242 *Olesova, L., Slavin, M., & Lim, J. (2016). Exploring the effect of scripted roles on cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. Online Learning, 20(4), 34–53. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i4.1058 *Ononiwu, C. (2021). Role of online discussion forums in enhancing users’cognitive skills. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 9(3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP2103307O *Oriogun, P. K. (2009). Detecting aspects of critical thinking by cleaning online message transcript through code-recode. American Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640802661694 *Padayachee, P., & Campbell, A. L. (2021). Supporting a mathematics community of inquiry through online discussion forums: towards design principles. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(1), 35–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1985177 Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050 *Posey, L., Davis, S., Briggs, L., & Sheingold, B. (2014). Communities of inquiry in online nurse practitioner education. Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 10(10), e77–e86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2014.08.016 *Rambe, P. (2017). Spaces for interactive engagement or technology for differential academic participation? Google Groups for collaborative learning at a South African university. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9141-5 *Rolim, V., Ferreira, R., Lins, R. D., & Gǎsević, D. (2019). A network-based analytic approach to uncovering the relationship between social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.05.001 *Roulston, K., Pope, E., Paulus, T., & deMarrais, K. (2018). Students’ perceptions of learning about qualitative inquiry in online contexts. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(3), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1475921 Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 23(1), 19–48. http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/474 *Saadatmand, M., Uhlin, L., Hedberg, M., Åbjörnsson, L., & Kvarnström, M. (2017). Examining learners’ interaction in an open online course through the community of inquiry framework. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 20(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2017-0004 https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.28 https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0805.20 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i3.1845 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2019.09.007 https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.5.2.50 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.12.001 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010010 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008242 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i4.1058 https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP2103307O https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640802661694 https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1985177 https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2014.08.016 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9141-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.05.001 https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1475921 http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/474 https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2017-0004 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 110 *Sadaf, A., & Olesova, L. (2017). Enhancing cognitive presence in online case discussions with questions based on the practical inquiry model. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1267525 *Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.006 *Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2008). Measures of quality in online education: An investigation of the community of inquiry model and the net generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(4), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.2190%2FEC.39.4.b *Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009a). Cognitive rpesence and online learner engagement: A cluster analysis of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9024-5 *Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009b). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007 *Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2012). Learning presence as a moderator in the community of inquiry model. Computers and Education, 59(2), 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.011 *Shea, P., Hayes, S., Smith, S. U., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Gozza-Cohen, M., Jian, S.-B., Pickett, A. M., Wilde, J., & Tseng, C.-H. (2013). Online learner self-regulation: Learning presence viewed through quantitative content- and social network analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 427–461. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1466 *Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., Valchova, A., & Rangan, P. (2010). A re-examination of the community of inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.002 *Song, J. (2021). Redesigning a foreign language class based on the community of inquiry model: Students’ learning success and satisfaction with an online course. The Korean Language in America, 25(1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.5325/korelangamer.25.1.0029 *Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Glazer, H. R., Engle, C. L., Harris, R. A., Johnston, S. M., Simons, M. R., & Trinko, L. A. (2007). Creating shared understanding through chats in a community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.02.002 *Stodel, E. J., Thompson, T. L., & MacDonald, C. J. (2006). Learners’ perspectives on what is missing from online learning: Interpretations through the community of inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v7i3.325 *Stover, S., & Miura, Y. (2015). The effects of web conferencing on the community of inquiry in online classes. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 26(3), 121–143. *Stover, S., & Pollock, S. (2014). Building a community of inquiry and analytical skills in an online history course. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(3), 393–403. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/history/279 Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning. Information Technology and Constructivism in Higher Education, 43–57. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-654-9.ch004 *Swart, R. (2017). Critical thinking instruction and technology enhanced learning from the student perspective: A mixed methods research study. Nurse Education in Practice, 23, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2017.02.003 *Thabethe, N., & Reddy, S. (2021). Community-based learning in higher education: A portal for knowledge production in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Education, 84, 186–203. https://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i84a10 *Tan, H. R., Chng, W. H., Chonardo, C., Ng, M. T. T., & Fung, F. M. (2020). How chemists achieve active learning online during the COVID-19 pandemic: Using the community of inquiry (CoI) framework to support remote teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2512–2518. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00541 *Tirado-Morueta, R., Maraver-López, P., Hernando-Gómez, Á., & Harris, V. W. (2016). Exploring social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry to perform higher cognitive tasks. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.004 *Tirado-Morueta, R., Maraver-López, P., Pérez-Rodríguez, A., & Hernando-Gómez, Á. (2020). Exploring social network structure patterns suitable to the community of inquiry model moderated by the task. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(2), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119845695 https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1267525 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.006 https://doi.org/10.2190%2FEC.39.4.b https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9024-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.011 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1466 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.002 https://doi.org/10.5325/korelangamer.25.1.0029 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.02.002 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v7i3.325 https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/history/279 https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-654-9.ch004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2017.02.003 https://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i84a10 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00541 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.004 https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119845695 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(4). 111 Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., & Weeks, L. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 *Tseng, H. (2020). An exploratory study of students’ perceptions of learning management system utilisation and learning community. Research in Learning Technology, 28. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2423 *Van Der Merwe, M. (2014). Community of inquiry framework: Employing instructor-driven measures in search of a relationship among presences and student learning outcomes. International Journal of Learning Technology, 9(3), 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2014.065754 *Varnhagen, S., Wilson, D., Krupa, E., Kasprzak, S., & Hunting, V. (2005). Comparison of student experiences with different online graduate courses in health promotion. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2X60F Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and word. In L. Vygotsky & E. Hanfmann, & G. Vakar (Eds.), Thought and language (pp. 119–153). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-007 *Wang, Y.-M., & Chen, V. D.-T. (2008). Essential elements in designing online discussions to promote cognitive presence: A practical experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3), 157– 177. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1690/523 *Wicks, D., Craft, B. B., Lee, D. D., Lumpe, A., Henrikson, R., Baliram, N., Bian, X., Mehlberg, S., & Wicks, K. (2015). An evaluation of low versus high-collaboration in online learning. Online Learning, 19(4), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i4.552 *Weerasinghe, T. A., Ramberg, R., & Hewagamage, K. P. (2012). Inquiry-based learning with and without facilitator interactions. The Journal of Distance Education, 26(2). http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/download/779/1406 *Weyant, L. E. (2013). Designing online management education courses using the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 12. https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/131523.pdf Willison, J. W. (2018). Research skill development spanning higher education: Critiques, curricula and connections. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 15(4), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.15.4.1 *Wright, P. (2014). “E-tivities from the front line”: A community of inquiry case study analysis of educators’ blog posts on the topic of designing and delivering online learning. Education Sciences, 4(2), 172–192. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci4020172 *Zydney, J. M., Denoyelles, A., & Seo, K. K-J. (2012). Creating a community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous discussions. Computers and Education, 58(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.009 Corresponding author: Sandhya Maranna, sandy.maranna@unisa.edu.au Copyright: Articles published in the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) are available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Authors retain copyright in their work and grant AJET right of first publication under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please cite as: Maranna, S., Willison, J., Joksimovic, S., Parange, N., & Costabile, M. (2022). Factors that influence cognitive presence: A scoping review. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 95-111. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7878 https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2423 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2014.065754 https://doi.org/10.21432/T2X60F https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/11193-007 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i4.552 http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/download/779/1406 https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/131523.pdf https://doi.org/10.53761/1.15.4.1 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci4020172 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.009 mailto:sandy.maranna@unisa.edu.au https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7878 Introduction Methods Results and discussion Role of TP that influences CP Structure of learning activities that influence CP Student characteristics that influence CP Implications for teaching practice Higher education students enrolled in online courses should be taught how to learn effectively in the online mode Online educators must embed learning tasks that foster self-regulation and higher-order skills in students Online course design should include authentic tasks for students to apply new knowledge to real-life scenarios Online educators must be offered ample professional development activities to build their skills in online pedagogy Institutions should encourage translation of online educational research to practice Limitations of this scoping study Conclusion Acknowledgements References