- Email: [email protected]
Beyond online discussions: Extending the community of inquiry framework to entire courses
Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 69
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Internet and Higher Education
Beyond online discussions: Extending the community of inquiry framework to entire courses Walter Archer ⁎ Faculty of Extension, University of Alberta, 2-254 Enterprise Square, 10230 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, AB, Canada T5J 4P6
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Accepted 20 October 2009
a b s t r a c t A research group at the University of Alberta is attempting to apply the Community of Inquiry framework to all components of courses, rather than only the online discussion component. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Community of inquiry Cognitive presence Service-learning
1. Introduction The use of the Community of Inquiry framework has been largely restricted to analysis of online discussions. A notable exception is the application of the framework to the wider context of blended learning in Vaughan and Garrison (2005) and Garrison and Vaughan (2008). However, a research group now centred at the University of Alberta is attempting to make use of the CoI framework to analyze critical thinking in entire courses, even those that do not contain online elements. The course is the standard unit within which student learning is fostered and measured in higher education; perhaps it is also a logical field of application for the CoI framework. The initial impetus for this broadening of the CoI framework was the relative scarcity, in online discussions, of instances of the Integration and Resolution/Application phases of the cognitive presence cycle. This scarcity was noted in the initial paper on the cognitive presence element of the framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001) and in many subsequent publications by various authors. Our hypothesis is that we have been looking for these phases in the wrong place. Rather than putting the effort required for achieving these higher levels of thinking into their meagerly rewarded contributions to online discussions, students reserve their best thoughts for the term papers and other course assignments for which they receive a larger portion of their course grade. Our initial exploratory studies have tended to confirm this hypothesis. More generally, perhaps it is unreasonable for us to expect that all phases of the Practical Inquiry cycle will be equally prevalent in all components of a course. Triggering Events seem to be strongly present in instructor-generated materials such as assignments and “seed questions”
⁎ Tel.: +1 780 492 4906; fax: +1 780 492 6735. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1096-7516/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.005
in online discussion forums. We have abundant evidence, from many studies, that the Exploration phase is very heavily represented in online discussions; this is also the case in face-to-face discussions (Vaughan & Garrison, 2005, as well as our own exploratory studies). Our exploratory studies have shown a strong representation of the Integration phase in longer student writings such as term papers and journals. While we expected that service-learning journals, related to student experience in the “real world,” might show more of the Resolution/Application phase, our exploratory studies have failed to confirm this hypothesis. We are now beginning to analyze work produced by students engaged in practica, where they have more ability to apply their knowledge, as compared to the essentially observer role of students in service-learning placements. Needless to say, this attempt to broaden the scope of the CoI framework entails a new look at the overall rationale for the framework, as well as renewed methodological quandaries. However, we feel that the time has come to build outwards from the firm base established by the many researchers who have applied this framework in the context of online discussions.
References 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., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 1−12.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Internet and Higher Education
Beyond online discussions: Extending the community of inquiry framework to entire courses Walter Archer ⁎ Faculty of Extension, University of Alberta, 2-254 Enterprise Square, 10230 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, AB, Canada T5J 4P6
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Accepted 20 October 2009
a b s t r a c t A research group at the University of Alberta is attempting to apply the Community of Inquiry framework to all components of courses, rather than only the online discussion component. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Community of inquiry Cognitive presence Service-learning
1. Introduction The use of the Community of Inquiry framework has been largely restricted to analysis of online discussions. A notable exception is the application of the framework to the wider context of blended learning in Vaughan and Garrison (2005) and Garrison and Vaughan (2008). However, a research group now centred at the University of Alberta is attempting to make use of the CoI framework to analyze critical thinking in entire courses, even those that do not contain online elements. The course is the standard unit within which student learning is fostered and measured in higher education; perhaps it is also a logical field of application for the CoI framework. The initial impetus for this broadening of the CoI framework was the relative scarcity, in online discussions, of instances of the Integration and Resolution/Application phases of the cognitive presence cycle. This scarcity was noted in the initial paper on the cognitive presence element of the framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001) and in many subsequent publications by various authors. Our hypothesis is that we have been looking for these phases in the wrong place. Rather than putting the effort required for achieving these higher levels of thinking into their meagerly rewarded contributions to online discussions, students reserve their best thoughts for the term papers and other course assignments for which they receive a larger portion of their course grade. Our initial exploratory studies have tended to confirm this hypothesis. More generally, perhaps it is unreasonable for us to expect that all phases of the Practical Inquiry cycle will be equally prevalent in all components of a course. Triggering Events seem to be strongly present in instructor-generated materials such as assignments and “seed questions”
⁎ Tel.: +1 780 492 4906; fax: +1 780 492 6735. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1096-7516/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.005
in online discussion forums. We have abundant evidence, from many studies, that the Exploration phase is very heavily represented in online discussions; this is also the case in face-to-face discussions (Vaughan & Garrison, 2005, as well as our own exploratory studies). Our exploratory studies have shown a strong representation of the Integration phase in longer student writings such as term papers and journals. While we expected that service-learning journals, related to student experience in the “real world,” might show more of the Resolution/Application phase, our exploratory studies have failed to confirm this hypothesis. We are now beginning to analyze work produced by students engaged in practica, where they have more ability to apply their knowledge, as compared to the essentially observer role of students in service-learning placements. Needless to say, this attempt to broaden the scope of the CoI framework entails a new look at the overall rationale for the framework, as well as renewed methodological quandaries. However, we feel that the time has come to build outwards from the firm base established by the many researchers who have applied this framework in the context of online discussions.
References 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., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 1−12.