Posted to Diigo 01/16/2012

    • the CoI theoretical framework is essentially incompatible with traditional distance education approaches that value independence and autonomy over collaborative discourse in purposeful communities of inquiry (Garrison, 2009)
    • the explanatory value of a CoI approach depends on the educational purpose and context
    • it is very difficult to achieve deep understanding without discourse
    • While this may be accomplished through Socratic dialogue or in a one-to-one tutorial with a qualified instructor, it is totally impractical in most educational contexts (especially scalable distance education)
    • Discounting SP is to discount the importance of critical discourse in a connected, knowledge based society
    • It is also difficult to see how one gains metacognitive awareness and ability without sustained discourse and feedback (Akyol & Garrison, 2011). This may well be one of the great weaknesses of independent study and didactic approaches.
    • The CoI is a generic theoretical framework that must be viewed as a means to study collaborative constructivist educational transactions – be they in online, blended or face-to-face environments
    • The validation of this framework would also suggest that it can also be used as a rubric to test for functioning communities of inquiry
    • I think one of the main problems with CoI research is the tendency to consider every online/blended learning environment is a true community of inquiry design when, in fact, there is little teaching, cognitive or social presence (students are reliant on independent activities and tests)
    • the categories of SP are open to refinement but are not necessarily compatible with independent (or informal) learning activities and should not be critiqued from this perspective
    • revised definition of SP “as the ability of participants to identify with the group or course of study, communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop personal and affective relationships progressively by way of projecting their individual personalities” (Garrison, 2011, p.34)