Cleary, Y. (2021). Fostering communities of inquiry and connectivism in online technical communication programs and courses. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281620977138
Article 2 Title: Fostering Communities of Inquiry and Connectivism in Online Technical Communication Programs and Courses
Broad Topic: The author is interested in exploring Connectivism principles in two Technical and Professional Communication (TPC) programs. One program is online, and the other is being taught in a hybrid modality. Her purpose in describing these programs is to explore peer engagement activities with the hope to foster various Communities of Inquiry (COI). Two different peer engagement activities are then described in their development, deployment, and evaluation.
Theoretical frameworks used to ground the piece: As with the other articles in my current and prior investigations, Siemens (2005) article serves as the foundational piece in describing connectivism. Also, the following articles played an important role in the author’s framework concerning Connectivism and CoI: 1) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer referencing in higher education by Garrison et al. (2000), 2) Downes’ (2008) article Places to go: Connectivism and connective knowledge, 3) Stenboms’ 2018 systematic literature review titled A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry Survey, 4) Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? by Kop & Hill (2008), and 5) Dialogue and connectivism: A new approach to understanding and promoting dialogue-rich networked learning by Ravenscroft (2011).
Seminal constructs or concepts in the article: The author lays out a comprehensive literature review where she details the main tenants of connectivism and how the defining principles can influence the learner to seek information “dynamically rather than seeking to acquire fixed knowledge; furthermore, the learner’s ability to make decisions and prioritize is highlighted” (p. 14). These principles, summarized and shortened for brevity, are: Learning occurs via diversity of thought and connecting specialized information nodes; nurturing connections is needed to facilitate learning and a capacity for wanting to learn is paramount; decision-making and current information is key in learning activities; and the ability to form connections and differentiate information affects the learning landscape. Due to the interconnected nature of connectivism, the author states that the CoI framework is a valuable tool in “online learning design and has amassed theoretical and empirical support. It is, thus, a relevant tool for developing and analyzing, especially online, learning environments” (p. 15). This framework incorporates three types of “presence” that are vital for learning to occur: 1) teaching presence- activities developed by the teacher to support learning, 2) social presence- the learning environment and how students interact with their peers, and 3) cognitive presence- how learners construct meaning and build knowledge domains. Both CoI and connectivism rely on interaction as a main driver in the online educational experience and further highlight the need for peer related activities within the learning community.
Broad research or theory objectives including hypotheses, propositions, etc.: As mentioned above, the purpose of the article is to showcase two examples in which the researcher incorporates a connectivist mindset in online writing programs. She states that, “research into online writing instruction (OWI) contexts acknowledges the importance of community. Principle 11 of the Conference on College Composition and Communication’s (CCCC) position statement on OWI links online communities with student success. Recent OWI scholarship has also explored the CoI framework” (p. 16). With the framework established, the author states that she is interested in creating a connectivist mentality and supporting a CoI among learners in the MA Technical Communication program she now heads. The purpose of this mindset is to “help learners to build networks and to use those networks as an explicit and implicit learning strategy. Networking is an essential skill, regardless of whether learning takes place primarily online or on-campus” (p. 17). Three stages are included in creating a peer-activity in which the learner takes precedence: 1) Development- strategies are planned and outlined, 2) Deployment- the instructor and student learn together on the peer activity, and 3) Evaluation- both parties are involved in evaluating and determining the improvement proves. The following section explains the two examples that follow the aforementioned organizational principle.
Research methodology: The first example is titled Fostering Connectivism Through an Academic Workshop and the second is Developing a CoI Through a Peer Review Activity. Both examples follow the Develop, Deploy, and Evaluate stages and were started in 2014. The MA in Technical Communication and E-Learning (the course in which these examples are being implemented) has approximately 30 new students annually. For the purpose of this investigation, I will break down both examples by stages with a summative paragraph describing the work that was conducted.
Example 1- Fostering Connectivism Through an Academic Workshop
- Development- The author consulted with various board members and institutional members and was granted approval to run the course in an online format. Strategies were developed and research was conducted that led her to conclude that “an intensive face-to-face socialization workshop was essential preparation for learners” (p. 18).
- Deployment- All students were required to attend a campus event in which enrollment, library tours, student counseling, and campus tours were conducted. The purpose of this event was to connect learners to the university and ensure that they were not forgot about within the college communal atmosphere. She additionally created a separate orientation for the online community in which the virtual learning environment is introduced, the program is discussed, communication tools are established, and an overall sense of what to expect is discussed. “The workshop also, crucially, provides scope for learners to ask questions and to provide feedback. After the workshop, the whole group has lunch together” (p. 19).
- Evaluation- Feedback was given in the form of student comments and analyzing data from the virtual learning environment (VLE) site. Comments mentioned were “collaborations and friendships that began at the workshop and continued throughout the program, and most refer to the essential information they assembled regarding how to interact and access materials online” (p.19). In terms of quantitative data, the site had over 2,000 visits in the 2018-2019 year with almost 100 messages and 1,500 views in the forums.
Through this immersive environment, the students were able to interact with their peers and develop learning communities to assist throughout their time at the university; both of which promote a connectivist setting.
Example 2- Developing a CoI Through a Peer Review Activity
- Development- The author, while teaching a course in which the students conduct a research proposal and write their findings, decided to use peer feedback as a way to promote working together to achieve a viable proposal. Some of the statements utilized were: The instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to learn, getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course, and the instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to learn. “This activity also exploits principles of connectivism, by enabling learner to recognize diverse opinions, to acknowledge one another as information sources, to acknowledge the peer group as a node that facilitates learning, and to see connection within and across peers’ proposals” (p. 23).
- Deployment- The author then deployed peer-review guidelines in which the students were to engage with other students and list ways in which their proposal could be improved. Communication guidelines were also established, and constructive criticism was encouraged. At the end of the activity, the instructor, acting as the SME, post comments.
- Evaluation- In 2018, the author found that most graduate students enjoyed the activity while most groups posted more than the required number of messages and continued to use the forum to discuss their projects with their peers (thus fostering a CoI and connectivist mentality).
Findings, implications, conclusions: The author found that both activities utilized principles of connectivism and inquiry to develop learning within a group of students. Networks were also established in the socialization workshop that could lead to higher levels of course completion by enabling a learning environment. Learner engagement and satisfaction was addressed in the second example in the form of constructive feedback and peer-assessment groups. The author states that, “gathering feedback about interventions enables instructors to update activities and provides a solid basis for curricular improvements” (p. 27).
Prescriptive and descriptive contributions: For our field in Learning Technologies, the author embarked on many of the principles that we use in the distributed program. Our annual meeting incorporates networking and course overviews, and many of the courses that I have taken use a form of peer review to engage our classmates and get to know their research interests. The medium of technology is present, and the instructors encourage us to search various information sources when we are conducting desk research that lays the groundwork for field research. Much of the philosophy is similar which allows the learner better decision-making abilities, technological engagements, and networking capabilities (all of which highlight the theme of connectivism).
Critique of ideas and research: In both activities, the author is highlighting a connectivism theme, yet much of the learning that is occurring also incorporates constructivism (social learning with peers), behaviorism (modeling in that the learners use the guidelines set forth by the instructor prior to engaging in peer feedback), and cognitivism (the information that is presented is appropriately processed by the individual and the output is their choice moving forward). This argument is not new in that several critiques point to connectivism being a combination of more grounded learning theories and that more outcomes need to be measured before being declared a learning theory.
Relevant gaps and research opportunities: The following questions could be asked of the prior two examples going forward:
- In terms of the connectivism theory, how do these activities establish information nodes?
- As it relates to feedback, what technology is being used to understand the issues?
- How is the social workshop different from the orientation that most students have to attend? What learning component is being taught?
- Would it also help to incorporate a foundational technology lesson to help students navigate the VLE?
- How would you better access the feedback from students moving forward? What is being presented to leadership that allows this form of course design to continue?
- Could a CoI be applied to other types of courses? Would connectivism be applicable for a mathematics course? Would information networks and diversity of opinion apply to a field that has been firmly established?