As this is my first draft of this paper, I welcome feedback and specifically would appreciate knowing: if my summary is too brief; if my critique section is ‘meaty’ enough; and if the paper is cohesive in flow. Additional suggestions for improvement are warmly accepted. Thank you in advance. Angela
In this paper, I will provide a brief summary of the article, “Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education” by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2001), as well as offer my personal critique of the article and also my key insights and reflections to the applicability of the research in terms of professional practice.
Summary:
This article provides a description of the development of a practical tool to assess the cognitive presence of learners within an online learning computer conference. As the authors state, learning has both a reflective (private) and collaborative (public) quality. This research attempts to assess the reflective component of cognitive presence (critical thinking) with the view of critical thinking as a process rather than a product.
The article follows a logical sequence: first introducing readers to the overall intention of the study (“assessing the nature and quality of critical discourse...”p.17), then both explaining and relating key concepts such as cognitive presence, cognitive thinking and practical inquiry.
The study sample consisted of three one-week discussions from two graduate level online courses. Using the CoI to frame the research, the authors use a practical inquiry model as a means to guide the methodology used in the study. Through content analysis the discussions were categorized into message-level units. The authors then chose descriptors which were aligned with the cognitive thinking process as follows:
Two graduate students deciphered the messages and coded them into the descriptive categories. While engaged in the coding process, the graduate students helped to refine the tool and their subsequent results were evaluated for interrater reliability.
The findings of this research provided some insight into the process of cognitive thinking within the selected collaborative online courses. Results of the study showed that discussions mainly focussed on the initial phases of the cognitive thinking processes: triggering event (8%) and exploration (42%), while surprisingly few messages focussed on the deeper learning phases of the cognitive thinking process: integration (13%) and resolution (4%). The authors provide some explanation into the findings and suggest that particular attention be paid to the facilitation of online courses in order to support and encourage learners to express their deeper cognitive thinking processes.
This research could be considered as ground-breaking in that it initiates the development of a tool to analyze cognitive presence, a challenging undertaking as reaffirmed by the authors.
Critique:
The article was, generally, cohesive in guiding the reader through this investigative research piece. As the reader, I appreciated the way in which the authors thoroughly explained the interrelated terms cognitive presence, cognitive thinking process and practical inquiry, specifically the phases of the practical inquiry model.
At times, I found myself unclear as to the focus of the study. To me the research question not clearly defined. Several times the authors had stated their “focus” and I had to re-read portions of the article in order to get clarification.
While the literature referenced in the article supported most of the points made, I did find that in areas previous research was only briefly acknowledged (ex. “The conceptual framework for this study is described in a previous paper” p. 2) and I found myself yearning for a more thorough explanation of the relevance of the cited references. What might be helpful as well is literature to support these initial findings from a pedagogical AND andragogical perspective which could assist in making the findings more relevant and appealing to a broader audience. I also felt that some fundamental exploration into the concept of online learning communities, specifically as they relate to the collaborative component mentioned in the discussion regarding “educational learning experience is both collaborative and reflective” (p.18) could provide additional depth.
In addition, I question whether the CoI framework which was used as the foundation for this study is only applicable to “computer conferencing in higher education” (p. 2) as is intimated by the authors.
The authors are forthright in explaining some of the shortcomings of this study: mainly small sample size and subjective categorization of data by graduate student coders. I also questioned the coders’ ability to “refine the protocol as they coded” (p. 10). Not having conducted research myself, I am wondering if this somewhat skewed the results by using slightly different coding schemes.
Some practical application of the initial findings (ex. “The complexity and challenge...in an asynchronous text-based environment necessitates skilled facilitation” (p.14) could be suggested as an area of further exploration. For example, what kind of facilitation in terms of methods and tools elicit greater cognitive presence, especially at the integration and resolution stages of practical inquiry may be helpful.
Reflection:
In the explanation provided in Assessing Cognitive Presence, the authors suggest that assessment of critical thinking is subjective (“judged”). To me, this intimation poses a problem in that it suggests that others gauge the extent to which thinking has occurred. However, if critical thinking is thought of as a process, then how could another person gauge where in that process another might be. I believe it depends on how much and how easy it is for the individual to express himself.
I appreciated how critical thinking was differentiated between process and product. Previous to reading this explanation I thought of critical thinking as a process solely. This created a bit of discourse for me as I believed cognitive presence to be more of a product or end result of the actions (processes) one took to express their cognitive thinking.
Perhaps most relevant for me is the intertwining quality of the CoI framework. While this research explores the cognitive presence specifically, it has obvious implications for both teaching presence and social presence. To me, the low number of responses in the integration (tentative) and resolution (committed) phases of practical inquiry, could suggest that particular attention is paid to developing activities and tools that focus not solely on the initial processes (triggering event and exploration) but also on the phases that relate more to deeper learning: integration and resolution, in order to enhance cognitive presence. Summarily, the study really reinforced the CoI framework as a valuable resource for understanding and facilitating learning. As well, developing opportunities which encourage the learners (social presence) to articulate transformative learning (deeper learning) should be acknowledged.
This research is encouraging and applicable to my role as an educator. Specifically it serves as a solid reminder for me to pay attention to planning, developing and actively facilitating opportunities that enable deeper learning for participants. While my journey into implementing blended learning has just begun, I will consider these implications in my redesign project for this course.
Conclusion:
The authors acknowledge that determining the quality of critical thinking (cognitive presence) is challenging. However, this investigative research has initiated a process that could potentially facilitate, particularly for instructors, a greater understanding of the processes of cognitive presence. This in turn has the potential to enhance program development that would ultimately improve cognitive presence within the online learning environment.
The development of a community of inquiry appears fundamental in facilitating cognitive presence. As this research suggests, the active participation of both learners and instructors in evolving discussion beyond exploration to encourage dialogue regarding integration and resolution is essential in “the achievement of some larger purposes” (p.6).
Reference:
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), 17-23.
