The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework is a social constructivist theory introduced by Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer in 2000. It has become influential in recent years as it was designed to be specifically applicable to both online and blended learning environments, especially relevant to educators currently responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the interactive infographic above, and in what follows here, I look to explore some examples of the practical application of the three associated presences.
Cognitive Presence
Cognitive Presence is the foundational concept of a CoI that is most closely associated the direct learning of the participants. It’s important for an educator to foster an environment in which deep and meaningful learning can occur. The goal here is to encourage learners to be actively considering their own learning. There are a number of activities to be employed to foster cognitive presence. Please be sure to click on the icons listed under that heading in the infographic to learn more.
Social Presence
The concept of Social Presence in a CoI relates to the members’ ability to project an image of a real person in the community. This presentation of what Kimmons and Veletsianos (2014) would have described as an Acceptable Identity Fragment provides learners with an opportunity to make genuine human connections in an online learning environment, which in turn foster effective discourse, leading to greater learning. The educator’s responsibility then is to create an environment where the opportunity for this identity presentation is possible.
Teaching Presence
Teaching Presence is the foundation that supports both social and cognitive presence. While anyone in the community can and should take responsibility for the development of teaching presence, this role primarily lies with the educator. It’s the educator’s goal here to build the structure for the learning community and present themselves as a guide and a partner in learning, which acts as a catalyst for greater social and cognitive presence development.
Conclusion
In summary, much of the work to create the learning environment and the execution of the orientation to that environment lies with the educator. However, once in place, and the foundation for community development has been laid, the educator’s role should shift into that of a facilitator or guide, allowing learners to take ownership of their learning. It is in this environment, one based on a shared responsibility, does deep and meaningful learning take place.
References
Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2014). The fragmented educator 2.0: Social networking sites, acceptable identity fragments, and the identity constellation. Computers & Education, 72, 292–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.001
I’ve recently begun a course on course facilitation in an Online Learning Environments (OLE). The purpose of this post is to explore my initial thoughts on the subject before getting into the meat of the course. I’ll likely write another post near the end to compare against this one and see if and how my perspective on the subject has changed.
Three Initial Thoughts
I think three of the core elements of a well facilitated online course are course design, teaching presence, and the educator’s social presence. To begin, the design of the course so that learners know what to do, can access what they need when they need it, and know how to access help is hugely important. If the educator can build the course in such a way as to provide learners with these needs, already their experience will be improved. Following the development of the course, the educator needs to be present. This can be achieved in many different ways, but the goal is for learners to have a general understanding that the educator is available for them to guide, assist, and answer questions as necessary. Finally, it’s important for the educator to be socially present. This is to develop a persona online by presenting the impression of a real, approachable, and relatable individual. There’s much more to course facilitation, but I think these are likely the three most important elements.
Two Questions
Two questions I have regarding the facilitation of a course in an OLE concern time and learner management. First, as I begin to learn more and more about how to effectively facilitate a course in an OLE, the list of responsibilities on the educator’s shoulders grows longer and longer. Teaching effectively is always a time consuming enterprise, but I’m beginning to wonder, how can an educator realistically manage all the recommended elements of an effective online course (or likely, many) without having the task completely take over that individual’s life? Second, considering the huge amount of responsibility already on the educator’s plate, how can they be sure to make themselves aware of any learners who need help, and communicate with them on a personal level, before it’s too late?
One Analogy
When I think about effective course facilitation in an OLE, I think it’s well represented by the image at the top of this post. I like that the focus in the image is literally on the learner. The educator is present, but standing back and observing. He’s ready to step in if necessary to help, but giving enough room for the learner to experience the task and learn from success or failure. This is perhaps a little on the nose, but when I saw the picture I thought it represented the relationship well.
The past eight weeks have been really great. I’ve been enrolled in a course that’s given me the opportunity to put much of the theory I’ve learned in the past year to practical use. Learning the theory has been fascinating and I’ve loved every moment of it, but until now, I’ve rarely had the opportunity to put my new knowledge to use. The structure of this course has allowed me to build a resource which I can make use of immediately in my practice, which has been awesome. The purpose of this post is to reflect on my experiences while going through that process.
Shortly after determining a problem to solve using a resource, I engaged my students in a group interview as part of the Empathize stage of the Design Thinking process (https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/getting-started-with-design-thinking). This stage of the process was valuable, as it introduced my learners’ priorities, frustrations with the current resource, and their recommendations on how they would like to see this type of resource executed. Some of these lessons reinforced my existing understanding (such as the efficacy of the flipped classroom and value of learners’ time) while others I hadn’t considered (such as how an accessibility concern, like colour blindness, impacts a learner’s experience with software). I made use of these insights by comparing them to the literature on instructional design and learning theory, which informed my design moving forward. This experience was hugely valuable. I almost certainly would not have approached building this resource in the manner I did, If I had not first consulted with the end users of the tool. I definitely see the value in the Empathize phase and plan to make use of it in the future, when time and the opportunity present themselves.
I’ve received quite a few recommendations on how I can improve on the first draft of my resource. For example, it was suggested that I include approximate time commitments for my learners for each module. This is a great idea and aligns super well with the request from my learners to show respect for their time. I plan to include this in the introduction to each module. It was also suggested that I include written transcripts for each of the three included videos for those people who would prefer to learn by reading the content. This is a great point which I really should have considered on my own. Finally, it was also recommended that I build a facilitator’s guide on what to include in the prescribed synchronous session. This was something I had considered, but hadn’t gotten around to completing, so will definitely add that to my list of to-dos.
One final step I would like to take before putting the finishing touches on the resource and call it complete, is to present it to my learners to get their feedback. This is my last week with them before they take a break leading up to the beginning of the fall semester, and I would like the rest of the class to have this available for them at the beginning of the year. Depending on the feedback to get from it, I will either make revisions to make it more effective, or will move on to the next skill for which a similar resource will be applicable… and keep on building them.
In conclusion, this was a great experience. I was able to apply my knowledge of instructional design, learning theory, and media production to build a pretty solid evidence based resource. I’m happy with how it’s turned out so far and I’m looking forward to putting it to use.
As educational institutions begin to explore online and blended learning delivery models in some earnest, mostly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, it behooves us to explore the impact of those environments on the learner. One area of interest to me is the nature of how the learner’s identity as an individual and professional is developed through engagement with their peers in an Online Learning Environment (OLE) and how that impacts learning. The paper that follows looks to explore that subject through the lens of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. Topics to be covered include a brief description of CoI, the development of learner identity in a CoI, the impact of identity and community on learning, negative implications of community building, CoI facilitation, and an analysis of the suitability of Discord for such facilitation.
The CoI framework was introduced in 2000 by D. Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer and “assumes that learning occurs within the Community through the interaction of three core elements… cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence” (p. 88). These three presences work in unison and overlap with a goal of achieving deep and meaningful learning. Cognitive presence was described by Garrison et al. as “the extent to which the participants in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication” (p. 89). This definition indicates the critical importance of discourse in this framework and how community exploration develops understanding. Social presence is defined as “the ability of participants in the Community of Inquiry to project their personal characteristics into the community, thereby presenting themselves to the other participants as “real people”” (p. 89). As we will explore later in this paper, learners have an element of control over how those other participants perceive them as individuals and how that perception can both positively and negatively impact learning. Finally, as described by Fiock (2020), teaching presence reflects the educator’s responsibility for instructional design, facilitating discourse, and providing direct instruction. This puts the educator in a position to have influence over the nature of the environment in which discourse occurs, the nature of the discourse, and the topic of discussion. The remainder of this paper will explore the way in which identity in a CoI is developed, how that impacts learning, and the educator’s responsibility in that process.
Learners will develop an identity in a CoI through the interpretation of their actions and communications by their fellow community members. Through a learner’s interaction with their peers, the chosen words, attitude, and presentation help build a concept of that person in the minds of those who interpret those behaviours (Shaffer, 2021). Considering that idea, Kimmons and Veletsianos (2014) coined the term Acceptable Identity Fragment (AIF) to describe the portion of an individual’s identity they choose to present in a given context in an OLE. This AIF is not a full representation of the individual, but simply the fragment of themselves they choose to share through social presence in a CoI that suits the current context. Having said that, as Lowenthal and Dennen (2017) observed, while the learner may choose how to present themselves, they do not have complete control over how that presentation is interpreted by community members. As a result, the identity developed in the minds of community members may not be an accurate representation of the identity the original learner has created for themselves. This can lead to an incongruence, and in a kind of feedback loop, the learner in turn, may shift their own understanding of their identity through the responses from those people in the community who the learner perceives as having power and authority (Yeung & Martin, 2003). With that in mind, it is fair to conclude that the identities of most, if not all members of the community, are impacted by the involvement in the discourse associated with a CoI. It is in this environment that learners in a higher education context begin to shift their identities towards their chosen profession. For example, Lowenthal and Dennen (2017) went on to observe that “students in an organic chemistry class may be starting to form their identities as research scientists, or physicians” (p. 138). Equally likely, the student may begin to distance themselves from the discipline and choose a different route. Either way, it can be argued that this identity development will have an impact on the participant’s learning outcomes.
One of the ways in which identity impacts learning outcomes is through the development of a common identity as a member of the CoI. Learners who consider themselves a member of a CoI build a level of trust and think more positively about their fellow ingroup members than they would otherwise. Daniel and Schwier (2011) argued that people who share a common identity as community members are likely to “develop norms or protocols to sustain that level of trust” (p. 46). Additionally, Gaertner and Dovidio (2007) asserted that individuals are more likely to attribute positive characteristics to the personality of ingroup members than they would to those outside the group. That trust then, has an opportunity to lead to a more cooperative environment where members are more inclined to challenge one another’s ideas as opposed to simply being polite. In an OLE that lacks trust, participants in a discourse are more conscious of posting content that may offend peers, leading to “some banal conversation” (Stodel et al., 2006, p. 8). That challenging of ideas can lead to a greater cognitive presence, in that the participant is exposed to varying perspectives which can help them reframe their understanding of a particular topic. Swan and Shih (2005) observed that students who were exposed to those varying perspectives had a tendency to be more open to different ideas, which helped them better develop their own perspective. Therefore, it can be argued that being a contributing member to a discourse in a CoI where members share a common identity is beneficial to learning. But what are the negative outcomes to building such a community?
On the other side of the argument, a lack of alignment between the learner’s identity and the norm of the community can result in a reduction in social presence, diminishing their capacity to participate in effective discourse, which in turn negatively impacts cognitive presence. As Hodgson and Reynolds (2005) illustrated, the forces that bring a community together to strengthen the group “usually entails subjugation to its core values and norms of behaviour, and to deviate from these in resisting assimilation is to run the risk of becoming marginalized in order that the integrity of the community is preserved” (p. 16). I have observed this both in my own practice as an educator and in my experience as a student. In either case, those who struggle to connect with the majority of the community or make a comment which is misinterpreted, or otherwise received poorly by the majority, are likely to communicate less frequently in the future. The negative impact of such marginalization, posited by Phirangee and Malec (2017), is the reduction of that learner’s ability to participate in the discourse and “benefit from… shared meanings and understandings” (p. 163), reducing the value of the course for that individual. In an effort to avoid the likelihood of this marginalization, educators should encourage learners to recategorize their ingroup constructs to include all members of a CoI. In what Gaertner and Dividio (2007) called the Common Ingroup Identity Model, group members are encouraged to consider what traits members share, rather than what separates them, with a goal of seeking a commonality amongst all participants. An example in the context of an OLE could be a group of students coming together in a CoI from a variety of cultural backgrounds, increasing the likelihood of different perspectives on course content. The educator, in this example, might encourage learners to rethink their concept of group membership in such a way that includes all members, rather than excluding a minority, represented as a hierarchy in Figure 1. An opportunity, in higher education, might be to consider their common developing group identity as professionals in training; something they likely all share. Gaertner and Dovidio (2007) asserted that this recategorization into a superordinate group could shift the attitudes toward previous outgroup members “to become more positive through processes involving pro-ingroup bias” (p. 115). They went on to suggest that it is possible for individuals to maintain their co-existing subgroups and retain their individuality and unique perspectives while recognizing their membership to the superordinate group. The goal here would be to increase the likelihood of all learners recognizing the validity of their own membership in the CoI and that of their peers, with a hope of increasing the quality of the discourse for everyone. The next step then, is to discuss the method in which the educator can design a course in order to facilitate this community development.
Figure 1
Hierarchy of an Individual’s Groups
Note. As we ascend this inverted pyramid, the size of an individual’s group increases to include more people. While the individual may consider commonalities between members of those in superordinate groups, the individual’s membership of the subgroups is not changed, thereby maintaining their unique perspective and experience.
*Labels for stages in this figure are chosen to illustrate the point but could be different based on the individual in question.
Teaching presence can influence the development of a CoI through the introduction of a Social Networking Site (SNS), in an effort to foster both casual and academic discourse. One of the core tenets of teaching presence in a CoI is the educator’s responsibility for designing the learning environment to facilitate discourse (Garrison et al., 2000). Of the many tools suggested by Johnson and Altowairiki (2017) to prepare for facilitation, two that pertain to this discussion are the selection of appropriate technology and the development of a climate for social interaction. With the first of these in mind, technology introduced into instructional design should be done with a sense of intentionality, being conscious of what affordances and complications it brings to the learning environment. Morris (2018) suggested approaching the selection of technology with a beginner’s mind and that “the most critical stance we can take as educators is to assume we know nothing and become profoundly observational” (“A Call for Critical Instructional Design” section, para. 12). Additionally, Clarke (1994) argued that while media does not directly impact teaching methods, it does impact the efficiency, accessibility, and cost of those methods. So, we should not quickly choose the most popular tool, nor the least expensive, but rather evaluate each on the instructional value they bring to the OLE; including, in this context, how it facilitates discourse and affords learners the opportunity to present an AIF. In terms of the second of Johnson and Altowairiki’s suggestions, development of a climate for social interaction, the educator should look to foster an environment to facilitate both casual and academic discourse amongst learners. Kanstantinou and Epps (2017) observed that “casual interactions… can significantly enhance the student experience and help them meet learning objectives” (p. 133). Therefore, in the selection of a SNS, considerations should include how it allows both learners and the educator opportunities to communicate emotions and humour in an effort to increase social interaction (Boyce, 2021). As a SNS that meets all these needs, Discord appears to be a strong choice.
Discord is well suited for community and learner identity development, but also has some drawbacks that should be considered before implementation. To begin, since Discord was developed for the purpose of casual interaction and community building in the video game world, its design and tools make it well suited to do the same for education (Skains, 2021). The primary advantage Discord maintains over other SNS is the affordance for learners to maintain various AIFs and control how, when, and if CoI members interact with them. One of the problems associated with sites such as Facebook for this purpose, is that only a single account per user is permitted and “is a community where people use their authentic identities” (Facebook, 2021). This policy introduces the possibility of what Dennen and Burner (2017) referred to as context collapse. In their own words, Dennen and Burner explained that “context collapse occurs when multiple social settings come together in the same online space” (p. 175). In an educational setting, this might occur when a learner is participating in academic discourse on a platform such as Facebook when, intentionally or otherwise, their fellow CoI members are exposed to more personal content on the platform. Dennen and Burner went on to argue that while this collapse can have positive impacts, such as the building of social capital in the community, it can also “cause discomfort and lead to identity-narrowing behaviours” (p. 176). Similarly, Kimmons and Veletsianos (2014) observed that some students prefer to keep certain qualities of their identity to themselves, lest they be misinterpreted by the learning community. The benefit of Discord is that it allows for multiple user accounts and the ability for learners to create independent AIFs for each community in which they participate, leaving the control over identity presentation in the learner’s hands. On the negative side, much like other independently owned social networks, Discord’s (2020) approach to data privacy allows them very few restrictions, so educators should ensure learners are informed of the nature of this policy so they can make informed consent. As a result, it is inadvisable that the usage of such a platform be made mandatory for course participation and alternatives should be made available for those learners who opt out.
In summary, it appears as though participation in a CoI, facilitated through an OLE has an impact on the identity development of learners. That development in turn has an impact on the learning outcomes of community members, in so much as learner identity influences social presence, which has a direct influence on cognitive presence. The educator, who is responsible for the design of the learning environment, the selection of technology, and the facilitation of discourse has a direct influence over the circumstances in which the learner develops their identity. Additionally, the choice of technology should not be made based simply on the popularity of the platform, but what value it brings to the learning environment and how its structure impacts learner experience and development. As educational institutions consider continuing with online and blended learning models where appropriate, following the COVID-19 pandemic, it would be wise to consider how to design instruction with the learner’s identity development in mind.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088
Daniel, B., & Schwier, R. A. (2011). Analysis of Students’ Engagement and Activities in a Virtual Learning Community. International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 2(4), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.4018/jvcsn.2010100103
Dennen, V. P., & Burner, K. J. (2017). Identity, context collapse, and Facebook use in higher education: Putting presence and privacy at odds. Distance Education, 38(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322453
Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a community of inquiry in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 134–152. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.3985
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2007). Addressing Contemporary Racism: The Common Ingroup Identity Model. In C. Willis-Esqueda (Ed.), Motivational Aspects of Prejudice and Racism (1st ed., Vol. 53, pp. 111–133). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73233-6_5
Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Hodgson, V., & Reynolds, M. (2005). Consensus, difference and “multiple communities” in networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507052000307768
Johnson, C., & Altowairiki, N. (2017). Developing Teaching Presence in Online Learning Through Shared Stakeholder Responsibility. In Handbook of Research on Innovative Pedagogies and Technologies for Online Learning in Higher Education (pp. 151–177). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1851-8.ch008
Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2014). The fragmented educator 2.0: Social networking sites, acceptable identity fragments, and the identity constellation. Computers & Education, 72, 292–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.001
Konstantinou, G., & Epps, J. (2017). Facilitating online casual interactions and creating a community of learning in a first-year electrical engineering course. 2017 IEEE 6th International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2017.8252317
Lowenthal, P. R., & Dennen, V. P. (2017). Social presence, identity, and online learning: research development and needs. Distance Education, 38(2), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1335172
Phirangee, K., & Malec, A. (2017). Othering in online learning: An examination of social presence, identity, and sense of community. Distance Education, 38(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322457
Shaffer, D. W. (2021). Operationalizing identity: Studying changing selves in experimental learning environments. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2021.1878993
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), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v7i3.325
Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2019). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Online Learning, 9(3), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v9i3.1788
Yeung, K.-T., & Martin, J. L. (2003). The looking glass self: An empirical test and elaboration. Social Forces, 81(3), 843–879. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2003.0048
Over the past several weeks, I’ve been collaborating with Jean-Pierre Joubert, Vanessa Tran, and Eric Yu on a critical inquiry into the development of a Community of Inquiry (CoI) on a Social Networking Site (SNS) such as Discord. It’s been a really interesting pursuit and I’ve learned a lot about the nature of a CoI, its strengths and weaknesses, and the benefits and drawbacks of facilitating this framework through a SNS.
The CoI framework, developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) consists of a group of learners coming together with a common goal of building new knowledge and/or skills. There are three main foundational constructs associated with a
CoI, which are Cognitive Presence, Social Presence, and Teaching Presence. These constructs work in unison and overlap with a goal of deep and meaningful learning for participants. Considering the inherent social nature of a CoI, this framework works well when facilitated on a SNS as the built-in affordances of a platform such as Discord allow for a combination of casual and academic discourse, but there are also concerns.
Throughout our inquiry, our group identified a series of issues associated with introducing a SNS into academics including accessibility, data privacy, identity development, and whether or not to make it mandatory for a course. Not all students will have access to the chosen SNS, or may not be comfortable (or indeed permitted) to use it. As a result, mandatory use for such a system outside the official institution’s learning management system is not recommended. Additionally, third-party platforms including Discord rarely answer to anyone but themselves in terms of their responsibility with user data (Discord, 2020). With that being the case, informed consent should be sought from learners when making use of this type of tool. Finally, since learners develop their professional identities when interacting with a CoI, the educator should be cautious of the implications of the possible collision between personal and academic identity fragments online (Dennen & Burner, 2017; Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2014; Lowenthal & Dennen, 2017).
While I’m still working on my final conclusions on this subject, it’s been a fascinating discovery and I look forward to applying it to my practice.
References
Dennen, V. P., & Burner, K. J. (2017). Identity, context collapse, and Facebook use in higher education: Putting presence and privacy at odds. Distance Education, 38(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322453
Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2014). The fragmented educator 2.0: Social networking sites, acceptable identity fragments, and the identity constellation. Computers & Education, 72, 292–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.001
Lowenthal, P. R., & Dennen, V. P. (2017). Social presence, identity, and online learning: research development and needs. Distance Education, 38(2), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1335172
In exploring the effectiveness of using Discord as an educational teaching tool, our team also investigated on how to create a deep and meaningful learning environment using Community of Inquiry (CoI). A framework that includes Teaching, Social, and Cognitive presence, developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999).
Learning Experience and Approach to Critical Inquiry
Our approach to our critical inquiry began with each team member selecting an element of CoI to specialize in and examine in detail. We found a significant body of research articles supporting CoI and a few with dissenting arguments. Having said that, there were fewer blog posts and articles about using Discord for educational purposes. However, we found several new YouTube videos of educators using Discord as a teaching tool as well as facilitating an online class in 2020 and 2021. Despite some success finding examples of Discord’s use for education, we were unable to find an active learning event in which our team could participate. Instead, we have settled on a conference paper by Konstantinou and Epps (2017) describing their use of Discord in a first-year electrical engineering course. Used in conjunction with a video on using Discord for distance learning/group work (Geoinformatics, 2020), we are able to review not only Discord’s use, but also data regarding outcomes and student experiences. We are currently researching arguments for and against using social media for education to present a more critical review.
Background Reading and Lessons Learned
For our background reading, we began by exploring CoI in great detail. The foundational structure of CoI includes cognitive, teaching, and social presence. According to Anderson et al. (1999), cognitive presence is a vital element of critical thinking and deep, meaningful learning. It is a process to create a sense of puzzlement for the learners, exchange information, allowing them to connect with the ideas, and then apply the new ideas. Additionally, when the objective is higher-order cognitive learning, text-based communication is preferred. Next, as described by Garrison et al. (2000), teaching presence consists of two main functions: educational design and the facilitation of discourse. It is the role of the educator in a COI to design and build the environment in which discourse can take place, and then also moderate and encourage positive and effective communications leading to practical inquiry. Finally, Garrison (2009) described social presence within a CoI as being required to identify with, develop relationships within, and purposefully communicate with a particular community. Interestingly, group identification within the community, rather than strong personal bonds between individuals, appears to be of more importance in ensuring a cohesive and collaborative group. With that in mind, instructors should purposefully create productive, efficient, and meaningful discussions with students. Interaction should go beyond the traditional question-and-answer structure, but use strategies of problem-based, project-based, and debate prompts to help increase the interaction to higher levels pertaining to the three presences (deNoyelles et al., 2014).
Questions to Pursue
While we have thus far been encouraged by the available tools and positive responses to the use of Discord in an educational setting, as presented by Epps and Konstantinou (2017), there are still some subjects to pursue in order to have a deep understanding of the impact of its application. Despite the assertion in their privacy policy that they are “not in the business of selling your information” (Discord, 2020), they maintain the right to share user data with a host of third-party organizations. Accessibility is also a concern, due to possible geographical restrictions for international users, and a lack of tech support provided by educational institutions. Additionally, as Discord would be supplementary to an officially supported LMS, its use in a course could not be mandatory, leading to some students being excluded from the discourse. Finally, how student identity is either supported or restricted on this platform could impact a student’s social presence and engagement in a course. Further research on these topics is required.
Overall, as we investigate and examine each element of CoI in detail and gaining greater knowledge of how Discord can be utilized as a digital teaching tool to facilitate casual interactions and create a deep and meaningful learning community. Our team is now ready to outline our approach to conducting a critical inquiry into CoI and Discord. We invite you to comment and let us know which of the five challenges for Discord you resonate with.
References
Anderson, T., Archer, W., & Garrison, D. R. (1999). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Konstantinou, G., & Epps, J. (2017). Facilitating online casual interactions and creating a community of learning in a first-year electrical engineering course. 2017 IEEE 6th International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2017.8252317
Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of Inquiry in Online Learning. In Encyclopedia of Distance Learning, Second Edition (pp. 352–355). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-198-8.ch052
Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
As part of my on-going education in learning technology, I’m currently at the beginning of a deep dive into research surrounding the development of student and educator identity in an Online Learning Environment (OLE), examined through the lens of a Community of Inquiry (COI). I’m specifically interested in how this might be achieved through the adoption of a community building platform called Discord. Discord was launched in early 2015 as a platform designed to create online communities for video game users and is “just now realizing it may have stumbled into something like the future of the internet” (Pierce, 2020, para. 4).
This platform allows for robust interactions between participants including text chat, voice, and screen sharing moderated through granular permission controls and divided into topics controlled through communities (referred to on Discord as “servers”) and discussions (referred to as “channels”). How might the use of a Social Networking Site (SNS), like Discord, impact the development of student and educator online identities to facilitate social, teaching, and cognitive presence in a COI, and how might that both positively and negatively impact learning?
A few areas of concern related to identity development in an OLE are context collapse, miscategorization, and othering. Dennen and Burner (2017) asserted that context collapse occurs when two or more separate identity fragments converge, either intentionally or otherwise. An example of this might occur when a student has developed a personal identity on an SNS and is then required to use it for educational purposes, forcing the collision of both the personal and student identities. This collision could have both positive and negatives outcomes. One negative outcome could be a possible identity miscategorization. Lowenthal and Dennen (2017) observed that while we can communicate qualities of our identity online, we do not have complete control over its development and interpretation by others. As a result, a student’s identity can be interpreted differently than how they see themselves which can result in a reduced social presence. Finally, othering, is the concept of isolating individuals from discourse as a result of their incongruence with the dominant ideas of the community. This can negatively impact social presence, as Phirangee and Malec (2017) observed, when learners can’t identify with the majority of their classmates and may find themselves with a reduced capacity to interact with the learning community.
It’s been my observation with my exploration of Discord, that it may be well positioned to reduce the likelihood of the aforementioned concerns surrounding online identity. Primarily, as it provides infrastructure which can be used to maintain separation between personal and educational identity fragments, through the use of servers and multiple accounts, it may reduce the possibility of context collapse. This fragment separation may also reduce miscategorization and othering, but I need to explore this further.
I would love to hear your feedback on what I’ve explored so far and any possible questions or recommendations you may have.
References
Dennen, V. P., & Burner, K. J. (2017). Identity, context collapse, and Facebook use in higher education: Putting presence and privacy at odds. Distance Education, 38(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322453
Lowenthal, P. R., & Dennen, V. P. (2017). Social presence, identity, and online learning: research development and needs. Distance Education, 38(2), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1335172
Phirangee, K., & Malec, A. (2017). Othering in online learning: An examination of social presence, identity, and sense of community. Distance Education, 38(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322457
Pierce, D. (2020). How Discord (somewhat accidentally) invented the future of the internet. Protocol. https://www.protocol.com/discord
Now that I’ve come to the end of a course on change leadership in digital learning environments, I’m inclined to look back on how my perspective has shifted throughout the process. For the most part, throughout my career, I’ve been a very independent worker. I’ve often held positions, including my current role, which require very little supervision, and my interactions with coworkers is largely transactional. As a result, I’ve spent surprisingly little time thinking about leadership outside of the context of those in supervisory positions over me. When I worked with Patrick Guichon, Mike MacKay, Jonathan Carpenter, and Cheryl-Haley Nix at the beginning of this course on a blog post on leadership attributes, it was from that personal supervisory perspective that I initially approached it (Carpenter et al., 2021). I pictured what qualities I would value in someone in a managerial position to whom I would report.
Now, in hindsight, I recognize that leadership is so much more than managing people or supervising. It’s not only about motivating people to see how their work benefits the success of the organization in addition to their own personal objectives, but how they can frequently be the same thing. When individuals can be provided the insight that their own personal goals align with the goals of the organization, those individuals are motivated into action. As a result, as someone who looks to move into more of a leadership position following my current studies, I need to better understand the motivations of my colleagues and how I can assist them in achieving success. I need to think more about my place in the organization, as a part of the whole, rather than an individual working toward a unique goal.
It was my pleasure to recently work with Cheryl-Haley Nix, Jonathan Carpenter, Michael MacKay, and Patrick Guichon on the development of a toolkit to be used to guide decision making in the implementation of educational technology in resistant organizations. Feel free to watch the above video for an introduction, then take a look at the following PDF to get a more in depth look.
I was recently involved in a project to increase engagement in an upcoming learning space, currently under construction at my place of work. The idea was to increase awareness of the space and the philosophy behind its existence and planned use. I was temporarily teamed up with a small group of colleagues from various areas of the college to develop the engagement plan under the leadership of a manager more closely associated with the learning space.
While the engagement plan we developed showed promise, our recommendations to secure resources for its execution were never really considered and the resulting plan was never executed. Looking back, having explored some of the literature on change implementation and project management, I now recognize that while we got some elements of the planning process right, there are some ways I would have approached this project differently.
To begin on a positive note, we did a good job of identifying the main stakeholders of the project and those who would benefit from being more engaged in the learning space. We spent a lot of time considering who I now understand Murray-Webster and Simon (2006) would have called Saviours; those people who, once engaged, would act as the project’s cheerleaders. We developed a profile of their interests, motivations, and connection to the college. That profile was then used to build an interactive program to be delivered through Zoom which would build awareness of the space, deliver actionable instructional tools, and engage participants in a series of collaborative exercises. Additionally, while we didn’t officially complete what Watt (2014) identified as a feasibility study, we did consider what resources those people who would execute the project would require to move forward, and made the appropriate recommendations. Unfortunately, those recommendations were not seriously considered, and it was this that led to the project’s failure.
On the other hand, there was much we could have done better. We did not have what Watt (2014) would have described as a critical path; a plan for the project including timelines identifying steps to be completed or risk holding up the entire project. If we had taken the time to develop this path and followed it closely, almost certainly we would have recognized much earlier that nothing regarding the acquisition of the necessary resources was being done. Another mistake we made was to not determine quantitative objectives that would have determined successful implementation of the project, as Watt recommended. While the project didn’t get to the point where those quantitative objectives could have been measured, if it had, we would have eventually run into problems trying to measure the project’s success. Having said all that, the largest downfall of our project, in my estimation, which led to its failure was our leader’s lack of understanding of the system in which we were working. Conway et al. (2017) observed that a leader has to have a strong understanding of their system in order to arrive at the most appropriate solution for the problem. Our leader’s lack of such an understanding is what led to our recommendations to acquire resources being ignored and when it was time for our small team to step back and hand off the project for implementation, there was no one in a position to hand it to.
I look forward to making use of the skills I’ve recently learned about change leadership and project management. I will have countless projects ahead of me and I will increase the likelihood for their success if I take a little more time to take a systematic approach.
