Towards Understanding Threads as Social and Cognitive Artifacts for Knowledge Building in Online Learning
Learning scientists have indicated that one way to support knowledge construction in asynchronous threaded discussions is to provide means by which critical discourse can be supported. However, studies that seek to understand critical discourse in online learning tend to focus on the outcomes of threads or examine threads in aggregate. In order to understand the pedagogical processes by which knowledge construction can be initiated and sustained, we examined patterns of social, cognitive, and teaching presences influencing the development of pivotal notes (notes that trigger knowledge construction) Evidence suggests that exhibiting high levels of cognitive presence tends to lead quickly to knowledge construction, whereas the other presences do not. Research directions are suggested to better understand these processes. Purpose and Perspective The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison, Anderson, Archer, 1999) is a prominent theoretical framework in online learning literature that focuses on the pedagogical processes by which deep and meaningful discourse can be supported at the intersection of three elements: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence. The CoI model has roots in socio cognitive theory and argues that "[i]n an environment that is supportive intellectually and socially, and with the guidance of a knowledgeable instructor, students will engage in meaningful discourse and develop personal and lasting understandings of course topics" (Rourke Kanuka, 2009, p. 21) Critical discourse is at the core of this model and it is based on Toulmin's (1958) model of argumentation and Ausubel's (1961) model of meaningful learning. According to the CoI model, social presence refers to the ability of participants to project their personal characteristics into the community through three types of communicative actions: affective, cohesive, and interactive responses. Teaching presence refers to the responsibilities of the instructor with respect to instructional design, discourse facilitation, and direct instruction (Garrison et al. 1999) Cognitive presence is "the extent to which the participants in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication" (ibid. p.12) and it is identified through four cognitive events: triggering, exploration, integration, and resolution. In tandem, the three presences are believed to support and sustain critical discourse that leads to knowledge construction. However, the literature suggests that discussions in online learning environments typically lack support for critical discourse (Hewitt, 2005) preventing critical thinking and knowledge construction (Rourke Kanuka, 2007) The majority of contemporary online courses employ asynchronous threaded discussions, providing individuals an opportunity to reflect on their insights while reacting to and engaging with each other (Hewitt, 2005) Threads provide individuals an opportunity to reflect, exchange ideas, and negotiate perspectives, and have been found useful in supporting students in collaboration and exploration (Oztok, 2012) Nevertheless, due to lack of scaffolding and cognitive guidance inherent in threads (Suthers, Vatrapu, Medina, Joseph, Dwyer, 2008) along with the impersonal nature of online environments (Oztok Brett, 2011) individuals may feel disconnected or disoriented (Hewitt, 2005) preventing them from synthesizing the group discussion. Thus, lack of social, cognitive, and instructional guidance for supporting collaborative learning in asynchronous threaded discussions creates further obstacles for collaboration, meaning making, and knowledge construction. Critical discourse is of recurring concern in the online learning literature (Hewitt, 2005; Zingaro, 2012; Zingaro Oztok, 2012) That said, much of the research examines aggregate patterns of critical discourse at the class level (e.g. Zingaro, 2012; Zingaro Oztok, 2012) Since knowledge construction is not a compiled outcome but rather a collaborative process, this prior work fails to explore the precursors for engendering critical thinking in the first place. We argue that understanding the relationship of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence to the process of knowledge construction can inform our understanding of the ways that knowledge construction can be supported and sustained. This research therefore explores the role of the three presences (social, cognitive, and teaching) in the CoI model in the process of knowledge construction. Methods and Data Sources In order to understand the pedagogical processes by which knowledge construction can be initiated and sustained, we examined the patterns of social, cognitive, and teaching presences that may create or support the necessary conditions and qualities for "pivotal notes" explained in detail below. To this end, we analyzed threads in which individuals collaboratively constructed knowledge, identified pivotal notes in those particular threads, and coded the categories of social, cognitive, and teaching presences that exist in precursor notes. We followed inter rater consistency measures from past work in the area (anon, 2012) Cronbach's alpha for our presence coding schemes was 0.83. Data is gathered from a fully online graduate education course from Fall 2012 (N=13) offered at a large North American research university. The course comprised twelve modules, each corresponding to one week, in which students discussed weekly readings. Each week, one or two students acted as moderators. They facilitated discussion throughout the week, kept discussions on track, offered a summary of the week's issues, and overall provided opportunities for sustained discourse, increased interaction, and rich discussions. The Interaction analysis model (Gunawardena, Lowe, Anderson, 1997) is employed for examining the process of knowledge construction. It is based on socio cultural learning theories and is specifically developed for analyzing asynchronous threaded discussions. The model conceptualizes knowledge construction as a process of negotiation in which meanings, perspectives, and perceptions play important roles. While not strictly sequential, the interaction analysis model suggests five phases through which knowledge construction occurs: 1) sharing and comparing of information, 2) discovery and exploration of dissonance or inconsistency among participants, 3) negotiation of meaning of knowledge co construction, 4) testing and modification, and 5) phrasing of agreement and applications of newly constructed meaning (Table 1) Recently, Wise and Chiu (2011) have built on the interaction analysis model and defined pivotal notes as those notes in which knowledge construction processes are triggered. A pivotal note is a note within a threaded discussion that initiates new segments of discussion, possibly leading to higher level discussion and knowledge construction. Table 1: Summary of Interaction Analysis Model. Based on (Gunawardena et al. 1997) adapted from (Wise Chiu, 2011) Phases Description Example