Vol. 31 No. 1 (2016)
Research Articles

Critical Thinking in Online Educational Discussions Measured as Progress through Inquiry Phases: A Discussion of the Cognitive Presence Construct in the Community of Inquiry Framework

PDF HTML ePub
  • Jens Breivik
Jens Breivik
UiT - The Arctic University of Norway
Bio

Published 2016-07-22

Keywords

  • Community of Inquiry,
  • cognitive presence,
  • construct validity

How to Cite

Breivik, J. (2016). Critical Thinking in Online Educational Discussions Measured as Progress through Inquiry Phases: A Discussion of the Cognitive Presence Construct in the Community of Inquiry Framework. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 31(1). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/970
Copyright Notice

Abstract

The development of critical thinking is a rationale for higher education and an important aspect of online educational discussions.  A key component in most accounts of critical thinking is to evaluate the tenability of claims. The community of inquiry framework is among the most influential frameworks for research on online educational discussions.  In this framework, cognitive presence accounts for critical thinking as progress through the following phases of inquiry: triggering event, exploration, integration, and solution. This article discusses the cognitive presence construct as a tool for measuring critical thinking. The article traces the philosophical inspirations of the community of inquiry framework and discusses the construct validity of the cognitive presence construct. Empirical findings enabled by the framework are briefly reviewed and discussed. The author argues that since the cognitive presence construct only to a limited degree addresses the discussants’ evaluation of a claim’s tenability, the construct possesses weaknesses for assessing critical thinking in discussions. In making this claim, the article contributes to methodological and theoretical discussions about research on critical thinking in online educational discussions.

Le développement de la pensée critique est une justification pour l'enseignement supérieur et un aspect important des discussions éducatives en ligne. Un élément clé dans la plupart des comptes rendus de la pensée critique est d'évaluer la validité des revendications. Le cadre de référence Community of Inquiry se trouve parmi les cadres de référence les plus influents pour la recherche sur les discussions éducatives en ligne. Dans ce cadre de référence, la présence cognitive représente la pensée critique sous forme de progrès pendant les phases suivantes de l'enquête : événement déclencheur, exploration, intégration et solution. Cet article traite du construit de la présence cognitive comme un outil pour mesurer la pensée critique. L'article retrace les inspirations philosophiques du cadre de référence Community of Inquiry et discute de la validité conceptuelle du construit de la présence cognitive. Les résultats empiriques activés par le cadre de référence sont brièvement examinés et discutés. L'auteur fait valoir que, puisque le construit de la présence cognitive aborde l'évaluation des participants à une discussion de la validité d’une revendication, seulement à un degré limité, le construit possède des faiblesses pour évaluer la pensée critique dans les discussions. En faisant cette revendication, l'article contribue aux discussions méthodologiques et théoriques au sujet de la recherche sur la pensée critique dans les discussions éducatives en ligne.

PDF HTML ePub

References

  1. Akyol, Z., Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2009). A response to the review of the Community of Inquiry framework. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 123-135.
  2. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183-190. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005
  3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
  4. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a Community of Inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
  5. Bailin, S., & Siegel, H. (2002). Critical thinking. In N. Blake, P. Smyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education. Blackwell Publishing.
  6. Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. S.-k. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
  7. Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22. doi:10.1007/bf02505022
  8. Clark, D., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343-374. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7
  9. Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (2015). Introduction. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education.
  10. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6-28. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005
  11. Dewey, J. (1909/1997). How we think. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publ.
  12. Dewey, J. (1920/1971). Reconstruction in philosophy. Boston: Beacon Press.
  13. Dewey, J. (1933/1986). How we think (rev. ed.) The later works: 1925–1953: Vol. 8: 1933. Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press.
  14. Dewey, J. (2007). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Sioux Falls, SD: NuVision.
  15. Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10.
  16. Ennis, R. H. (1991/2015). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 31-47). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
  17. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research Findings and Recommendations.
  18. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. doi:10.1016/s1096-7516(00)00016-6
  19. 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.
  20. Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.
  21. Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century. New York: Routledge.
  22. Garrison, D. R. (2013). Theoretical foundations and epistemological insights of the Community of Inquiry. In Z. Akyol & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), Educational communities of inquiry theoretical framework, research and practice. Hershey: Information Science Reference, IGI Global.
  23. Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2015). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 66-71. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.001
  24. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the Community of Inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 5-9.
  25. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 1–8. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.11.001
  26. Gašević, D., Adesope, O., Joksimović, S., & Kovanović, V. (2015). Externally facilitated regulation scaffolding and role assignment to develop cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 53-65. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.006
  27. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  28. Habermas, J., & Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: 2: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. London: Heinemann.
  29. Ho, C.-H., & Swan, K. (2007). Evaluating online conversation in an asynchronous learning environment: An application of Grice's Cooperative Principle. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 3–14. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.11.002
  30. Horzum, M. B., & Uyanik, G. K. (2015). An item response theory analysis of the Community of Inquiry Scale. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2).
  31. Hyytinen, H. (2015). Looking beyond the obvious: Theoretical, empirical and methodological insights into critical thinking. PhD thesis delivered to University of Helsinki.
  32. Jézégou, A. (2010). Community of Inquiry in e-learning: A critical analysis of the Garrison and Anderson model. Journal of Distance Education, 24(3), 18–27.
  33. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
  34. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1).
  35. Kleven, T. A. (2008). Validity and validation in qualitative and quantitative research. Nordic Studies in Education, 28(03).
  36. 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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.06.002
  37. Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2014). New exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis insights into the Community of Inquiry Survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 39-47. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.06.002
  38. Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0099
  39. 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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.12.002
  40. Lipman, M. (1991/2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  41. Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. S. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  42. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
  43. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualtitative differences in learning – II: Outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 115-127. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x
  44. McCormick, N. J., Clark, L. M., & Raines, J. M. (2015). Engaging students in critical thinking and problem solving: A brief review of the literature. Journal of Studies in Education, 5(4), 100-113.
  45. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741-749. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741
  46. Moore, T. (2011). Critical thinking: Seven definitions in search of a concept. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 506–522. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.586995
  47. Moore, T. J. (2011). Critical thinking and disciplinary thinking: A continuing debate. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 261-274. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2010.501328
  48. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79-106. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
  49. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61(0), 59–76. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.013
  50. Næss, A. (1953/2005). The selected works of Arne Naess: Vol. 1: Interpretation and preciseness: A contribution to the theory of communication. Dordrecht: Springer.
  51. Poce, A., Corcione, L., & Iovine, A. (2012). Content analysis and critical thinking. An assessment study. Cadmo.
  52. Redmond, P. (2014). Reflection as an indicator of cognitive presence. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 46-58.
  53. Rorty, R. (1986). Introduction. In Dewey: The later works: 1925–1953: Vol. 8: 1933. Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press.
  54. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5-18. doi: 10.1007/bf02504769
  55. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 105–126. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9007-3
  56. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in Communities of Inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19-48.
  57. Shea, P. (2010). A re-examination of the Community of Inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 10.
  58. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a Communities of Inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017
  59. Shea, P., Hayes, S., Smith, S. U., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Pickett, A., . . . Jian, S. (2012). Learning presence: Additional research on a new conceptual element within the Community of Inquiry (Coi) framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 89–95. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.002
  60. Shea, P., Hayes, S., Uzuner-Smith, S., Gozza-Cohen, M., Vickers, J., & Bidjerano, T. (2014). Reconceptualizing the Community of Inquiry framework: An exploratory analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 23(0), 9-17. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.002
  61. Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., . . . 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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.002
  62. Siegel, H. (1988/2013). Educating reason. Routledge.
  63. Siegel, H. (2012). Education as initiation into the space of reasons. Theory and Research in Education, 10(2), 191–202. doi: 10.1177/1477878512446542
  64. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2011). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297–323. doi: 10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5
  65. Swan, K., Garrison, D., & Richardson, J. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The Community of Inquiry framework. Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  66. Toulmin, S. (1958/2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  67. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003
  68. Weltzer-Ward, L. (2011). Content analysis coding schemes for online asynchronous discussion. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(1), 56-74.
  69. Xin, C. (2012). A critique of the Community of Inquiry framework. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 26(1).
  70. Zydney, J. M., deNoyelles, A., & Kyeong-Ju Seo, K. (2012). Creating a Community of Inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 58(1), 77-87. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.009