Fostering Communities of Inquiry

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?

Connected Teaching and Learning

Barnett, J., Mcpherson, V., & Sandieson, R. M. (2013). Connected teaching and learning: The uses and implications of connectivism in an online class. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 685-698.

Article 1 Title: Connected teaching and learning: The uses and implications of connectivism in an online class

Broad Topic: The authors are exploring the use of connectivism by implementing the theory in an online program at a Canadian university. The instructor employed a new paradigm in that he had the students teach one module of their choosing during the course. The results are discussed, coded, and salient points are discussed that provide important information pertaining to the practice of Connectivism.

Theoretical frameworks used to ground the piece: Multiple works are referenced throughout the article but the following are the most influential as it relates to the authors task: 1) Siemens and Downes seminal article on connectivism, as well as supporting articles by the theorist, 2) Ireland’s article titled Situating connectivism, 3) Dunaway’s Connectivism: learning theory, and pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes, and 4) Mackey & Jacobson’s Reframing information literacy as metaliteracy.

Seminal constructs or concepts in the article: The article refers to the traditional approaches to teaching and learning as the canonical methods. These methods, behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism could not explain the types of learning that was occurring as technologies emerged; hence, a new approach was needed to explain the experiences garnered in the virtual environment. “Students with the ability to direct their own learning, pulling information from a variety of human and other resources, were not necessarily operating in behaviorist or cognitivist frameworks. Furthermore, their learning had more to do with the integration and critical analysis of, and contribution to, disparate resources than simple existential constructions of meaning. So, constructivism could not precisely explain such learning, either” (p. 685). Due to this breakdown in knowledge construction, connectivism emerged as a way to explain learning within a networked environment. As it relates to education, “connectivism incorporates many of the understandings of the canonical approaches. We can glimpse a facet of behaviorism in the connectivist requirement that to know something, one must be able to do it; it shares the notions of neural networks with cognitivism; and it supports the group and community notions of social constructivism and transformational teaching” (p. 686).

Broad research or theory objectives including hypotheses, propositions, etc.: The implication of connectivism within the educational environment is the purposeful connections that are established and accessible. Learning adds to these connections which can create change within the established network. Strong and fast connections are pertinent to the learner, yet it is important that “links to older sources are not lost as new links are made. The world may know more every day, but it does so only if it holds onto its history” (p. 688). In terms of this article, the authors posit that due to the connectivist nature, the participants, and the instructor both own and share information collectively. This means that the instructor needs to evaluate the connections they have established and determine their strength as it relates to the importance in terms of the material being taught. Simply put, connectivism as a teaching method is not a “stand and deliver” methodology. It is more of an influential method of facilitating connections within the class network. “Most of all, teaching becomes the process of helping students and society to critically examine connections in their courses and in their present and future lives” (p. 689).

Research methodology: The purpose of the article is to implement connectivism within a course at a university in Canada. The instructor, and 17 students, were tasked with teaching one module of the course. This created 18 week-long modules for a ten-week course; so, for some weeks, two modules were offered (see screenshot below of the course calendar). The authors’ goals were threefold in that they wanted 1) to describe this particular course as a model of connectivism in itself, 2) to make inferences based upon our evolving understanding about connectivism as a learning model, and 3) to analyze the implications of this course as a learning model through the lens of our experiences in it. “In order to create both trustworthiness and authenticity in the data collection, we decided to chat online with each other in a series of online conversations over the course of two months and these conversations would comprise the data collected” (p. 691). From these conversations, the data emerged, and each researcher coded the data alone while making a dictionary of the codes created. This allowed them to then compare their work with one another and create a list of codes that represented their thoughts on the course experience.

Findings, implications, conclusions: Four main ideas emerged from the data: Learning theory; course content, context, or progress; student experience; and instruction. For the sake of brevity, the following statements sum up the authors’ findings as it relates to each idea:

  • Connectivism as a learning theory occurs across both brains and artificial intelligences; learning occurred as a group working together; top-down approach may be better in certain situations due to the amount of knowledge the instructor possess; democratic network of learning.
  • Course content was decided on the instructor wanting to implement a social networking form of teaching; a lot of planning went into design; student apprehension; student flexibility.
  • Students’ experience was described as comfortable due to the personal experience it provided; voicing opinions was appreciated; time-commitment requirements were needed; unsure on how their design and teaching would go; discussion forums were lively.
  • The instructor experienced a loss of control due to the course design; share power; need institutional freedom for a pure connectivist course to work.

Prescriptive and descriptive contributions: In terms of application, this attempt at implementing a pure connectivist course design was encouraging. The instructor yielded his authority and prior knowledge construct in order to test out a group-led form of education. Essentially, the instructor merged his role with that of that student and “shared power for content definition and creation as well as course moderation with the students enrolled in the course” (p. 696). Through this attempt, students were able to experience a different role by moderating discussions and creating relevant background material. One point to note was that for this experience to be “more” connectivist in nature, the students/instructor could have negotiated on which topics were to be taught, the value in which the connections established, as well as establishing a learning community for those who wanted to participate after the course.

Critique of ideas and research: A critique that could be leveled against this idea is the lack of structure or organization that is likely to arise when attempting this process with more complicated courses. I believe there is always a need for a top-down approach when it comes to dispersing information, i.e., sharing wisdom so to speak. If every course were to follow a democratic approach similar to what the article referenced, then much of the course content would be haggled and debated throughout the academic semester with little progress toward knowledge consumption. The idea of having students teach certain materials is appealing and would provide a different perspective for all parties. However, I think that a de facto leader (teacher) should provide a stabilizing and structuring presence throughout the course.

Relevant gaps and research opportunities: In particular, future researchers should focus on the following questions when deciding whether to implement Connectivism in their classroom:

  • If content is decided collectively, who decides the assessment portion of the course?
  • Would formative assessment hold more weight in this design than summative? Is the process more important than the result?
  • Is there room for a pure connectivist experience in which the content is determined as the nodes are established?
  • Is learning in general the goal or is network establishment via searching the point of such a theory?

Connectivism for Writing Pedagogy: Strategic Networked Approaches to Promote International Collaborations and Intercultural Learning

Vas, R., Weber, C., & Gkoumas, D. (2018). Implementing connectivism by semantic technologies for self-directed learning. International Journal of Manpower, 39(8), 1032–1046. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-10-2018-0330

Broad Topic: As with the other topics, this paper covers the connectivism theory and how it can be applied cross-culturally through three learning experiences.

Theoretical frameworks used to ground the piece: George Siemens and Stephen Downes’ 2005 initial paper on connectivism is the foundational educational theory. Also, the authors draw inspiration from the following articles: 1) An evaluation of structural model for independent learning through connectivism theory and web 2.0 towards students’ achievement, 2) Using connectivism theory and technology for knowledge creation in cross-cultural communication, 3) Study on college English teaching interaction and teaching practice based on connectivism from the neurocognitive perspective, and 4) Intercultural rhetoric and professional communication: Technological advances and organizational behavior. These articles form the basis for the researcher’s guiding principle in that learning is guided via a range of technologies and, in keeping with the technological times, a new learning theory that capitalizes on this trend is needed.

Seminal constructs or concepts in the article: Referencing Siemens’ and Downes’ paper, the founding authors created six stages of connectivist learning: Awareness & receptivity, Connection forming, Contribution & involvement, Pattern recognition, Meaning making, and Praxis. These six stages form the nexus of how connectivism works with learning. In Stage 1, students acquire basic skills, then begin to learn, use, and acquire new tools in their newly formed personal networks (Stage 2). Stage 3, Contribution & Involvement, students become more comfortable in their networks and make their presence known to others; essentially, a more noticed connection. Stage 4 involves the student being an active contributor, while Stage 5 sees the learner forming opinions and determining the meaning of patters. Lastly, Stage 6 is a reflective process in which the student is actively reengaging and recreating their personal networks to best suit their learning needs. The core of connectivism revolves around knowledge being distributed across networks and that learning happens when students are able to transverse those established networks. “The role of technology in connectivism is to be enablers of new opportunities—by opening doors and creating pathways to new information sources and maintaining those connections” (p. 3). The researchers’ purpose in creating the Trans-Atlantic and Pacific Project (TAPP), describing Personal Learning Networks (PLN’s), and Fabric of Digital Life (Fabric), is to highlight the success of incorporating networking in a writing pedagogy. Through these examples, their hope is to establish research-based practices that employs the connectivist learning principle.

Broad research or theory objectives including hypotheses, propositions, etc.: The learning theory, connectivism, was born out of the technological and networked environment that has existed since the late 80’s. Founded in 2005, this theory states that learning is enhanced through society and technology. Patterns to learning are formed and learning is directly influenced by the networks that are established throughout society. The “node” that the learner connects with is a deciding factor in what information is established and how information flows. In this article, the authors are instructors who teach writing and communication. Their purpose in designing the soon to be mentioned projects, was to “examples gather attention on theory-driven practices in our local contexts that take advantage of available tools and resources. Our goal is to use these experiences as a basis for promoting connectivist learning, mindfully designed and carefully deployed” (p. 5).

Research methodology: In this study, the researchers showcased the success of connectivism is three areas of evidence-backed practice: Trans-Atlantic and Pacific Project (TAPP), Personal Learning Networks (PLN), and the Fabric of Digital Life (Fabric). TAPP emphasized multiple stages in the connectivist theory by allowing students to partner with students at a university in Spain. Through oral presentations, reflections, and establishing commonalities, students were able to form connection nodes, establish connections via a chosen technology, learn about different viewpoints, and finally unify their thoughts by reflecting on their experience. In the PLN example, “student development of visualizations of their individual learning networks provides a means to both document their awareness and receptivity to connections and also begin to sort and filter the enormous flows of information available” (p. 11). The instructors allowed the students to design a visualization as a way to introduce themselves to their Spanish partner. The differing designs emphasized Stages 4 & 5 in the connectivism process by allowing the students to focus on the connections they formed via a diagram. Through learning networks, the students were able to witness firsthand the construction and facilitation of connectivism. Lastly, the students utilized a digital archive and increased their knowledge on digital literacy and by determining what contributions would be accepted onto the platform. This allowed the students to further examine the interconnected networks that broadened their learning experience by reflecting on the awareness needed in making decisions that affect their learning.

Findings, implications, conclusions: The researchers concluded that through the aforementioned examples, the students gained an intercultural competence in collaborating with other nationalities, formed new connections, and learned from their communication on how to best proceed with their course assignments. Also, by growing their learning network, the students were able to decipher and filter through flows of information that illustrated their unique cultures and individuality. This allowed the students to reflect on their purposeful connections and taught them the value of modifying connections as they deemed fit. Finally, when working with the digital archive known as Fabric, students were able to modify and contribute content that increased their digital literacy and showcased their understanding of emerging patterns in a networked society.

Prescriptive and descriptive contributions: While connectivism as an educational theory is still being debated, the researchers were able to demonstrate three evidence-based practices that, according to the six stages of connectivist learning, met the required threshold. I also felt like the teacher’s methodology of requiring oral presentations and reflections were a great way to determine competency and learning outcomes. The students were able to demonstrate problem-solving and critical thinking skills in a cross-cultural learning environment that demonstrated learning “on the fly” instead of traditional assessments. In terms of learning technologies, this methodology is similar to defending one’s portfolio or presenting a paper and/or original research. By engaging in the aforementioned communicative practices, they further increased their connections and learned to expand their social circles; both of which are important when pursuing a career. The students learned the value of networking in a global society, formed their own opinions, and contributed to a learning environment all while engaging the resources around them.

Critique of ideas and research:  As it relates to this article, my critique would point to the principle in which the research stands upon; connectivism. As with other learning theories that are well-established, connectivism does not have a well-founded literature in which to compare the different practices that it might apply. Similarly, it could be argued that this theory is not really a theory and merely should serve as a supporting role to other established paradigms. I do agree that learning occurs via networked systems, and I appreciate the founding researchers work in creating a theory to explain our digital age, yet I think that instead of creating new theories of learning we should potentially integrate the ones we have. Could we not take the best of constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism, social learning, connectivism, etc., and produce a theory that is relevant to the age in which we live? Why must we deconstruct in order to mesh with our new reality?

Relevant gaps and research opportunities: Connectivism requires the students to be motivated and self-directed in the pursuit of knowledge. Well, I have witnessed (and been guilty myself) students who need the teacher to drive the course content while holding the learner responsible for the knowledge that is attempting to be shared. Be it formative assessments or recitation of speeches, there exists a place in education for a top-down approach. Secondly, the rise of MOOCs in the mid 2010’s is very applicable to this theory. Content is organized and distributed via a network and the student is largely responsible for driving the knowledge engine. The jury is still out as to whether MOOCs will persist in the future (though they haven’t fared very well as of now). I suppose a full-on approach to testing this theory would be to apply it directly to a fully online course. While we have seen evidence-based practices in terms of projects (as witnessed in this investigation), it would be interesting to apply the six stages to multiple courses that are being taught online and see how the learner responds. Would they direct their learning towards their interests, or flounder without direction?