So here is my article critique - a bit lengthy, which is usual for me. I suspect I could trim some of the article summary details. I am also not sure that I tied it to my own intended application clearly enough - it's in my head, but possibly not in my writing.

Critique of
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 17-23.

Garrison, Anderson, and Archer begin with a brief mention of the Community of Inquiry an immediately moves to examining the element of cognitive presence. Their thorough and well-reasoned discussion of critical thinking and practical inquiry with a focus on higher-order thinking processes. They assert that “Critical thinking is both a process and an outcome” (p. 2). It is as an outcome that we most often assess critical thinking; using the products created as a measure of the abilities, skills, and dispositions leading to their creation. This study focuses on examining critical thinking as a process, with reference to the practical inquiry model previously developed by the authors. This model includes the interaction of the shared world of discourse and the private worlds of reflection as learners make sense of knowledge and experience. The fours stages of inquiry are identified as:
• Initiation phase, in which a triggering event focuses on an issues, dilemma, or problem arising from experience
• Exploration phase, in which learners alternate between private reflection on, and collaboration for the exchange and questioning of information
• Integration phase, in which reflection and collaboration continue as learners evaluate and apply information
• Resolution phase, in which ideas are tested in an attempt to resolve the issue, dilemma, or problem.
(pp. 4-5)

The main purpose of the study was to determine whether a Community of Inquiry, particularly regarding cognitive presence, could be created and reflected in an on-line environment. Focusing on the practical inquiry model, they sought to identify the dialogue characteristics of the four phases of Practical Inquiry, particularly to determine if integration and resolution, which are frequently considered the “higher-order thinking” phases, could be and were demonstrated in online dialogue. This was done through an analysis of the transcripts of text-based discussion board dialogue to find evidence of the cognitive phases. To enable the coding of messages, a set of descriptors, indicators, and examples were developed for each of the fours phases. These are included in tables in the report. It is challenging to deduce the thinking process behind what is written by discussion participants. As noted, “observers view only that subset of cognitive presence that the participants choose to make visible in the conference. . . . which means that the transcript of the conference is a significantly less-than-complete record of the learning that has taken place within the community of inquiry” (p. 7 – emphasis added). The written messages likely reflect the final outcome of more than one phase of inquiry, a statement also true of oral dialogue in face-to-face discussions, although verbalizing of ‘in-process’ ideas is not uncommon.

In fact, the issue that some indicators may be characteristic of more than one phase was addressed during the development of coding categories. Where ambiguity arose, coders were advised to “code down (i.e., to the earlier phase) if it is not clear which phase is reflected; and code up (i.e., to the later phase), if clear evidence of multiple phases is present” (pp. 9-1). The choice of unit to be coded was a factor in being able to do so. Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer (n.d.) previously explored a number of options, including sentence, paragraph, and message level units. The message level unit was chosen for this study, not only for the manageable number of units it would provide, but because this level is one of discrete postings, in which control of the length and content lies with author, not the coders. Furthermore, the inclusion of an entire message provides context that may aid in coding decisions.

Three one-week exchanges were analyzed for this study, with the first two being used to refine the coding process. All three weeks were drawn from graduate course of thirteen weeks duration.
(this is in a table in my word document)
Sample #1 -
Workplace learning course: 14 participants – including instructor and 2 students moderators;
51 messages
Sample #2 - Health promotions course: 7 participants – including instructor; 20 messages
Sample # 3 - Health promotions course: 5 participants – including instructor; 24 messages

To determine interrater reliability, both applied Holsti’s (1969) coefficient or reliability (CR) and Chen’s (1960) kappa (k) were used. The results were:
CR = .45, .65, and .84 k = .35, .49, and .74
As the results for the first two weeks, while the coding process was being refined, yielded low reliability indicators, they reported only the results for the final week. The messages from that week were determined to be in the following phases:
Trigger 8%
Exploration 42%
Integration 13%
Resolution 4%
Clearly, the largest portion of messages were exploratory in nature, suggesting a minimum of higher-order thinking in evidence. The authors offer three possible reasons for this:
Higher-order thinking may not have been a goal of that week’s dialogue
Computer conferencing may not enable manifestation of higher-order thinking
The practical inquiry framework may not be an appropriate tool for evaluating text-based dialogue

In their conclusion, they acknowledge that the course structure is a significant factor, and that if expectations of higher-order thinking are not present, they will likely not be presented. This leads to consideration of the role of the instructor (teaching presence) in ensuring that dialogue is purposeful and focused.

Although there was minimal evidence of higher-order learning, it was not nonexistent, leading the authors to conclude that computer mediated communication can provide opportunities for higher-order thinking. They also affirm their belief in the appropriateness of the practical inquiry model, with this study to serve as “a map of the territory intended to provide direction for future research” (p. 15) into the effectiveness of online communication as a forum for higher-order thinking.

Researchers did take up this challenge, both those involved in this study and others. Subsequent studies have indicated greater levels of integrations and resolution (Meyer, 2003; Vaughan & Garrison, 2005), although with a continued emphasis on exploration. Only analysis of additional posting periods of the same course would indicate whether the week selected for coding was anomalous in its composition. My own experience with online courses suggests that the integration and resolution phases are more frequently required in assignments. In some courses, the discussions were intentionally structured to help students explore ideas to be developed in individual written submissions. Other factors may also need to be investigated, such as whether the instructor communicated expectations of higher-order thinking to students and participated in discussions so as to prompt them to do so. Analyzing the messages by participant may also reveal whether all, or only select, students were operating at more advanced phases, or even if all students participated equally. If is conceivable that a few participants were eagerly seeking additional information and ideas, artificially inflating the proportion of exploratory messages.

In spite of the additional studies undertaken, Swan, Richardson, Ice, Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, and Arbaugh (2008) contend that “Cognitive presence may be the least researched and understood of the three presences, yet it is cognitive presence that goes to the heart of a community of inquiry” (p. 3). They postulate that additional studies suggest that teaching presence plays a major role in the manifestation of the phases of learning in online dialogue through course design and facilitation of discourse (Shea. Li, & Pickett, 2006). Designing outcomes that covey expectations of higher-level thinking and prompting appropriate responses are important instructor functions (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Meyer, 2003). Shea and Pickett (2006) deduce that instructor participation in discussions “contributes more to the equation than measures of effective instructional design and organization” (p. 185). Because of this significant role, we may wonder whether it is possible to examine cognitive presence in isolation from teaching presence.

The role of social presence may also need to be considered in evaluating the level of cognitive presence. Swan, Richardson, Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, and Arbaugh (2008) remind us of its importance, stating “It becomes the requirement, then, of instructional designers and online instructors to foster opportunities for students to feel comfortable conversing, participating and interacting online” (p. 8). We must know if a sufficient level of trust has been created among participants for them to risk sharing their tentative hypotheses and to open them to testing by others (Meyer, 2003). Their creation of a measurement tool which surveys participants’ responses for all three presences suggests the validity of studying them jointly.

As I pondered the implications of this and subsequent studies, I found it interesting that the number of messages in this public forum was greatest for exploration, which is designated within the private world in the Practical Inquiry model. This would suggest that exploration is conducted through discourse, in the shared world. I also wondered if course design intended for reflection and resolution to be reflected in individual assignments, linking it with the private world and reflection. Should “discourse” and “private world” be exchanged in position in the model to convey this?

While investigation began with looking into whether online learning can and does support cognitive presence, subsequent related studies moved to examining the strengths of using online learning to promote inquiry. It has clearly been acknowledged that online dialogue is an effective tool for developing critical inquiry, and the current question regards its strengths and how best to employ them. Some notable observations include “linking comments to earlier statements and bringing in outside knowledge” (Meyer, 2003, p. 58) and the democratic nature of online dialogue where all have equal opportunity to participate (Swan, Richardson, Ice, Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Arbaugh, 2008), particularly for those less likely to contribute in face-to-face discussions. Before this study, Garrison (1997) had already considered the potential of online dialogue for its ability to act as a memory aid for participants, and to “allows time for reflection and, thereby, facilitates learners making connections amongst ideas and constructing coherent knowledge structures” (p. 5).

Such exploration of cognitive presence continues to evolve, as Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2005) have moved to exploring three levels in the “of three different approaches to learning: deep, surface, and achievement approaches” (p. 137), making a significant observation that a participant may be “engaged vicariously by following the discussion, reflecting on the discourse, and actively constructing meaning individually” (p. 144). Again, the vital role of teaching presence is acknowledged as students vary their approach in response to course and activity expectations.

This study clearly forged the groundwork for others since, and reading it provides some important context to how the measurement of cognitive presence in discussions evolved. The use of the message-level unit and concern over rater reliability reflect an effort to focus on reliability and replicability. Although the sample in this study is small, the development of a criteria for coding provided a solid foundation for other research studies that have led to investigation of the more effective use of asynchronous communication.


References

Garrison, D. R. (1997). Computer conferencing: The post-industrial age of distance education. Open Learning. 12(2), 3-11.

Garrison, D. R. and Arbaugh, J.B.. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet & Higher Education. 10(3), 157-172.

Garrison, D. R. and Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education. 19(3), 133-148.

Meyer, K.A. (2003), Face-to-Face versus Threaded Discussions: The Role of Time and Higher-Order Thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (3), 55-65.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R., and Archer, W. (n.d.).Methodological Issues in Analyses of Asynchronous, Text-Based Computer Conferencing Transcripts. University of Alberta. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://communitiesofinquiry.com/files/MethPaperFinal.pdf

Shea, P., Li, C.S. and Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet and Higher Education, 9 (3), 175-190.

Swan, K., Richardson, P., Ice, P., Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M., and Arbaugh, J.B., (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. e-mentor. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/_xml/wydania/24/543.pdf

Vaughan, N. and Garrison, D.R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. Internet & Higher Education. 8(1), 1-12.