The Community of Inquiry makes use of cookies. By continuing, you consent to this use. More information.
ASSESSMENT OF CoI REVISIONS
D. Randy Garrison
June 1, 2018

For those interested in the theoretical aspects of the CoI framework let me draw your attention to an inventory and assessment of proposed CoI revisions provided by Kozan and Caskurlu (2018). They review articles that argue for either including new dimensions of existing presences or adding distinctly new presences. Before examining this article let me say that it moves the discussion forward with regard to a previous editorial that I posted October 20, 2017 titled Other Presences. At that time I argued that when considering refinements and revisions particular attention needs to be given to addressing issues of congruence with assumptions and values of the framework (integrity) and the long standing principle of scientific parsimony (simplicity) of the framework.

Kozan and Caskurlu first identify studies that suggest significant revisions to the CoI framework. Furthermore, they make a clear distinction between two types of suggested CoI revisions - (1) those that essentially argue to refine an existing presence with additional dimensions; and (2) those that argue for new presences in addition to the original three presences. Using this classification the identified studies were coded in terms of their specific contributions and insights. What interested me the most was the discussion after the description of each study's suggested revisions. The authors looked at the “theoretical counter-arguments against the proposed new presence types or dimensions” (p. 113). In this regard they suggested that revisions need to consider the theoretical underpinnings of the CoI framework and need evidence where suggestions are significantly different to the existing framework and thereby constitute “separate and meaningful contributions” (p. 113).

Kozan and Caskurlu provide a broad map and possible directions for future theoretical research with regard to refining and possibly expanding the framework. In this regard, however, I would argue the greater potential is to focus on refining the presences with the possibility of expanding dimensions while preserving the relative simplicity of the existing framework. Expanding the number of presences must be approached with considerable caution as it will inevitably undermine the simplicity of the tripartite framework. I strongly believe that expanding the number of presences will inevitably create unmanageable complexity and confusion. In addition to refining the specific presences, another approach is to explore the intersection of the existing presences. An example of this is the work we have done with the shared metacognition construct that defines the intersection between cognitive and teaching presence (Garrison & Akyol, 2015a, 2015b). This approach refines the framework while maintaining its integrity by building on the premise of the inseparability of personal and shared experiences and explaining the dynamic of thinking and learning collaboratively.

In this regard, I believe that most of the suggested revisions identified by Kozan and Caskurlu do not recognize the core premise embedded in each presence with regard to both the individual and shared experiences of a collaborative learning experience. It is when attempts to separate responsibilities of teacher and learner (participants are both teacher and learner in a truly collaborative learning experience) that the integrity of the framework is violated. This fusion of teaching and learning is not easy to get one's mind around but is central to Dewey's philosophy.



REFERENCES

Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2015). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for the community of inquiry framework. (Developing a shared metacognition construct and instrument: Conceptualizing and assessing metacognition in a community of inquiry.) Internet and Higher Education, 24, 66-71.

Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2015). Corrigendum to ‘Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry.’ The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 56.

Kozan, K., & Caskurlu, S. (2018). On the Nth presence for the Community of Inquiry framework. Computers & Education, 122, 104-118.




CONTRIBUTE A RESPONDING EDITORIAL


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

D. Randy Garrison
Professor Emeritus, University of Calgary
D. Randy Garrison is professor emeritus at the University of Calgary.Dr. Garrison has published extensively on teaching and learning in adult, higher and distance education contexts. He has authored, co-authored or edited fifteen books; 94 articles; 68 book chapters; 40 conference proceedings; and more than 100 academic presentations. His major books are: Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice (3rd Edition); Garrison, D. R. (2016). Thinking Collaboratively: Learning in a Community of Inquiry; Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles and guidelines; Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching-learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Curriculum vitae


EDITORIAL KEYWORDS



RECENT EDITORIALS

Shared Metacognition and Regulation Response
D. Randy Garrison
August 8, 2022
It is with some ambivalence that I draw your attention to an article that highlights arguable opportunities for improvement of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Shea, Richardson, & Swan, 2022). The focus of this article is on social ...

Collaborative Inquiry and Asynchronous Discourse
D. Randy Garrison
July 4, 2022
The purpose of this post is to explore the connection between collaborative inquiry (cognitive presence) and asynchronous discourse. As noted in a previous post ( Editorial 34 ), collaborative inquiry is increasingly being

Faculty Development and the Community of Inquiry
D. Randy Garrison
May 6, 2022
The focus of this short post is to highlight the essential role of faculty development and the role of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework in supporting faculty moving to online and blended learning. It has become apparent during the COVID ...

Automatic Detection of Social Presence
D. Randy Garrison
March 4, 2022
Several years ago, I provided an introduction to the role of learning analytics in the context of the Community of Inquiry framework and how we might facilitate collaborative learning through the automatic monitoring of discourse and tracking the ...

CoI Instrument Validation
D. Randy Garrison
November 25, 2021
My goal here is to simply draw your attention to a study that provides a comprehensive overview of Community of Inquiry (CoI) instrument studies directed to confirmation of the original CoI three-factor structure (
The Community of Inquiry is a project of Athabasca University, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, and the Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, as well as researchers and members of the CoI community.