Content uploaded by D. Randy Garrison
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by D. Randy Garrison on Aug 06, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Kanuka and Garrison
1
Journal of Computing in Higher Education
Spring 2004, Vol. 15(2), 30-?.
Cognitive Presence in
Online Learning
Heather Kanuka
D. Randy Garrison, Professor
Learning Commons
University of Calgary
ABSTRACT
THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY was to advance understand
ing of how to facilitate higher levels of learning when using
asynchronous text-based Internet communication technology.
The framework used to guide this study is based on the community
of inquiry model developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000).
Crucial methodological constructs congruent with this model and
higher-order learning were identified. They are discourse, collabora-
tion, management, reflection, monitoring, and knowledge construction.
Using a focus group interview, the results of this study reveal that
these methodological constructs are consistent with, and supportive
of, the facilitation of higher levels of learning in an asynchronous
text-based Internet environment. (Keywords, online learning, higher
levels of learning, critical thinking, methodological constructs, com-
munity of inquiry)
COGNITIVE PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING
2
INTRODUCTION
THE WIDESPREAD ADOPTION OF THE INTERNET into the
learning process has made the concept of “online learning” com-
monplace in many, if not most, higher education institutions
around the world. There has been much speculation that the integra-
tion of asynchronous Internet technology is reshaping higher educa-
tion in significant ways (Imel, 2001). An examination of the current
literature reveals much discussion about the ability of Internet com-
munication tools to facilitate critical, creative, and complex thinking
skills in this postindustrial era of technologically enhanced higher
education. The nature of asynchronous Internet communication tech-
nology may be such that high levels of thinking, such as critical
thinking, can be facilitated; but online written communication is a
very different type of learning experience than face-to-face.
To date there have been few empirical studies on the use of
asynchronous text-based Internet communication technologies and their
ability and/or effectiveness to facilitate higher levels of learning. Even
if it is shown that asynchronous Internet communication technology
can engender higher levels of learning, much remains to be under-
stood about implementing online learning activities that facilitate the
development of a meaningful and worthwhile educational experience.
In particular, many learning strategies that are effective at facilitating
higher levels of learning in face-to-face environments do not translate
as effectively to an asynchronous text-based Internet environment. For
example, in face-to-face contexts, educators have hailed small group
discussions as the instructional method “par excellence,” for its abil-
ity to facilitate critical thinking (Brookfield, 1990). However, emerg-
ing empirical research reveals that online discussions do not neces-
sarily support higher levels of learning. The most likely reason for
this appears to be a lack of understanding about how communities of
learners are formed online, and how interactions that result in higher
levels of learning are designed for and facilitated in online learning
activities.
Kanuka and Garrison
3
Empirical research indicates that the use of group discussions can
often result in keeping both instructors and learners in their comfort
zones, resulting in missed opportunities to expand learners’ thinking
and learning in significant ways (Collette, Kanuka, Blanchette, &
Goodale, 1999). Similarly, research also indicates that online discus-
sions typically result in a trivialized (e.g., sharing, comparing, and
agreeing) group conversation (Klemm & Snell, 1996). Thus, while
online discussions have considerable potential to facilitate higher
learning (Garrison & Anderson, 2003), they are, in and of themselves,
not necessarily effective at supporting critical, creative, and complex
thinking skills. If higher levels of learning are to be achieved in online
environments, there is a need to expand our perspectives of teaching
and learning beyond the “sharing and comparing” of opinions in online
group discussions. Learners must be provided opportunities to not only
discuss what they have learned, but also apply what they have learned.
This requires that educators possess knowledge of and skills in the
use of educational methods and learning strategies, as well as an
understanding of how to use Internet communication media as a
learning and teaching platform. Many postsecondary educators who
use Internet communication media in the learning process do not have
such knowledge and skills, and they could benefit from using a frame-
work that guides them in facilitating higher levels of online learning.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: COMMUNITY OF
INQUIRY
THE FRAMEWORK used to guide this study is based on the
theory of community of inquiry developed by Garrison, Ander-
son, and Archer (2000). This framework identifies the elements
that are crucial prerequisites for successful higher educational expe-
riences. Effective educational experiences are embedded within a
community of inquiry, comprised of teachers and students. An as-
sumption underpinning this theory is that effective learning—or ac-
COGNITIVE PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING
4
tivities that facilitate higher learning—occurs within a community and
the interaction of three core elements: social presence, cognitive
presence, and teaching presence. When text-based asynchronous In-
ternet communication—or commonly referred to as “online learning”
–is used for educational purposes in higher education settings, it is
possible to create a community of inquiry and higher levels of learn-
ing. The element in this model that is central to successful higher
education learning experiences is cognitive presence. Cognitive pres-
ence is the extent to which learners are able to construct meaning
through sustained communication. Moreover, cognitive presence is the
key element in critical thinking, a necessary element for higher levels
of thinking and learning. Social presence, a second core element of
the model, is the ability of the students to project their personal
characteristics into the community. The importance of this element is
to support cognitive presence through indirect facilitation of critical
thinking carried on by the community of learners. Teaching presence
is comprised of two functions: the design of the educational experi-
ence and facilitation of the learning activities. This element reflects
the creation, integration, and facilitation of both cognitive and social
presence.
While cognitive and social presence are essential elements in the
facilitation of higher levels of learning, whether or not it is achieved
depends on the presence of a teacher or facilitator of the learning
activities. When online learning is ineffective, it is usually because
there has not been effective teaching presence with appropriate lead-
ership and direction by the facilitator (Hiltz & Turoff, 1993). While
it is clearly possible to create and sustain a teaching presence in an
online environment, the nature of Internet communication technolo-
gies presents unique challenges to the development of an effective
teaching presence. Moreover, student activity is influenced by the
instructor’s behavior. Indeed, research reveals that the presence of an
instructor who models critical discourse and offers constructive cri-
tiques is crucial to facilitating higher learning in online settings (Fabro
& Garrison, 1998).
Kanuka and Garrison
5
There are educational methods that can be facilitated in an online
environment that influence cognitive presence. These methods include
designing and delivering learning strategies that account for effective
amounts of content dissemination, moderation style, group size, and
that skillfully capitalize on specific characteristics of Internet commu-
nication media. An example of capitalizing on a particular character-
istic of Internet communication technology includes the frequency and
time lag between postings, which provides learners opportunities for
reflection.
While critical discourse in face-to-face settings is generally an
accepted learning strategy that supports higher levels of learning (such
as critical thinking), it is not entirely clear how to support critical
discourse in online environments. What we do know, however, is that
creating the conditions to facilitate higher learning in text-based
environments is vague and largely based on tacit knowledge. There
is little guidance as to learning strategies that can create and sustain
the conditions necessary to facilitate higher levels of learning in an
online environment. Further research to extend our knowledge of online
learning transactions that result in meaningful and worthwhile learn-
ing outcomes is becoming critical.
Using the practical inquiry model (Garrison & Anderson, 2003),
we argue that cognitive presence is necessary for higher learning, such
as critical thinking. A higher level of learning is a holistic multi-
based process that is associated with a triggering event. The trigger-
ing event is followed by perception, deliberation, conception, and
warranted action. Figure 1 illustrates the relationships among the
elements of cognitive presence.
As Figure 1 illustrates, critical thinking is not solely a reflective,
personal, and internal process. Rather, it is an iterative relationship
between the personal and shared worlds. Specifically, worthwhile
learning experiences should consider the student’s personal world
(reflective and meaning focused), as well as the shared world (col-
laborative and knowledge focused). This reflects a collaborative
constructivist perspective on teaching and learning (Garrison & Ar-
cher, 2000) emphasizing the construction of meaningful and worth-
COGNITIVE PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING
6
while knowledge, and it is seen as an essential aspect of cognitive
development.
The first category of cognitive presence illustrated in the model
(lower left quadrant) is a state of dissonance or feeling of unease
resulting from an experience. This category is described as a trigger-
ing event and the indicator is a sense of puzzlement. The second
category (upper left quadrant) is that of exploration in a search for
information, knowledge, and alternatives that might help to make sense
of the problem. This is where there is an extensive search and ex-
change of information. The third category (upper right) is associated
with connecting ideas and integrating the information and knowledge
into a coherent concept. The fourth category is the resolution of the
issue or problem and the application of the ideas or solution.
Using the practical inquiry model for cognitive presence (see
Figure 1), we identify three external and three internal methodologi-
cal constructs essential to create cognitive presence for the purpose
of facilitating higher levels of learning. More recently, educational
Figure 1. Practical inquiry model for cognitive presence (adapted
from Garrison etal. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 1-9.
Kanuka and Garrison
7
literature has focused on the assumption that a worthwhile learning
experience must consider the learner’s personal world (internal) as
well as the shared world (external) (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer,
2000). The external constructs identified here are discourse, collabo-
ration, and management, while the internal constructs are reflection,
monitoring, and knowledge. The question, however, is how can these
constructs and associated activities be used to facilitate higher learn-
ing in an online environment?
Using this theoretical framework, the purpose of this study was
to advance an understanding of learning strategies that facilitate higher
levels of learning when using asynchronous text-based Internet com-
munication technology.
FOCUS GROUP
AFOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW was used to collect data.
Focus groups can be used for exploration and confirmation,
both of which were aims of this study. As such, a focus group
interview was deemed the most appropriate method.
The focus group interviews were designed to stimulate an in-depth
exploration of learning strategies that can facilitate learning in an online
environment. The group interview was structured using the practical
inquiry model for cognitive presence (see Figure 1). The interview
process was guided by the three external and the three internal
methodological constructs considered to be essential to create cogni-
tive presence and facilitate higher learning. Table 1 provides a list of
the internal and external constructs, as well as descriptions of each.
The group interview began with the presentation of the constructs
to the focus group participants (see Table 1). Participants were then
asked to consider the following two questions: (a) Do you agree with
the constructs presented? (probe: if not, why not?); (b) What strat-
egies can be applied that facilitate higher levels of learning when using
asynchronous text-based Internet communication technology? It was
COGNITIVE PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING
8
also indicated that consensus was not required or necessary and the
constructs were open to additions or deletions. By providing focus
group members an environment in which they could consider their
own views in the context of the other group members, we hoped to
gain insight about the conditions for facilitating the constructs.
PARTICIPANTS
The focus group was comprised of ten carefully selected, well-
informed and experienced individuals from a large research-based
Table 1.
Internal and External Methodological Constructs
Construct Brief Description
Discourse Meaningful understandings created in the learning process
should proceed through a guided reasoned discourse, rather
than intuition.
Collaboration Interactive participation can be described as the use of
interactive participation learning strategies to facilitate ac tive
intellectual participation between the learners , the instructors,
and the subject matter.
Management Teachers and learners should take control of le arning tasks to
ensure expectations are realized and that activities are
meaningful, authentic, and challenging.
Reflection Learning should be characterized by thoughtful mediation or
contemplation that uses the powers of the mind to conceive
ideas and/or draw inferences resulting in the expression of
carefully considered thought expressed through critical
dialogue.
Monitoring Learners need to metacognitively e valuate their abilities,
assess the task at hand, and determine where to focus their
efforts to make the learning process personally meaningful.
Knowledge The learning process should require learners to compare,
classify, induce, deduce, analyze, abstract, synthesize, a nd
evaluate to make sense of the data or information presented.
Kanuka and Garrison
9
university in Western Canada who had the potential to provide in-
sights about facilitating the teaching and learning process in a text-
based asynchronous Internet environment. A requirement to be a group
member was related education (such as a Masters degree in Instruc-
tional or Educational Technology) and related experience in facilitat-
ing online instruction in a higher education setting.
FINDINGS
THE FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW proved to be an effective
method for this study. In particular, the group interview was
a convenient way to accumulate the individual knowledge of
group members, which resulted in insights that would have been
difficult to obtain with other research methods. The group interview
for this study provided a forum for the respondents to react to, and
build upon, the responses of other group members. In a prior study
on which this investigation builds (Kanuka, 2002), a survey instru-
ment did not yield the data that resulted from the synergistic effect
of the focus group setting. The themes from the focus group inter-
view emerged as relatively consistent, with similar shared views
between group members on the topic of strategies that facilitate higher
levels of learning. All focus group participants agreed that the con-
structs represented the necessary elements to facilitate higher learn-
ing. While some divergence of opinion occurred between individual
group members, there was overall consensus regarding the strategies
that can be used to facilitate learning. The following discussion pro-
vides a broader description of the findings for learning strategies on
each of the constructs presented to the focus group participants.
DISCOURSE
For this construct, the focus group participants agreed that if online
discourse is to be effective, then instructors must take an active role
and assist, or guide, the discussions. One example provided for how
to achieve this was through posing questions of emerging relevance.
COGNITIVE PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING
10
If relevance is not integrated into the discussion, as was noted by a
participant, learners just want to compare and contrast (i.e., just post
comments for visibility or marks) and not engage in the difficult
process of constructing knowledge. Another focus group participant
stated that sustainability is a problem. In particular, when an instruc-
tor enters the online discussion there is a tendency to stop the dis-
cussion. Alternatively, when instructors only observe the discussion,
students tend to accuse them of “not being there”—due to the lack
of visual presence in online learning environments. Similarly, an
observation was also shared that postsecondary instructors tend to have
a rather formal writing style, as opposed to conversational styles in
face-to-face classroom settings. Many learners can be “put off” by the
formality of the instructor’s responses.
Discourse is most often used when the instructor has a specific
pedagogical objective and usually wants to explore the nature of a
complex problem followed by investigating alternative solutions.
According to Brookfield (1990), guided discourse is often viewed as
the most effective instructional method available to adult educators;
this view is in keeping with the focus group data. There are a variety
of reasons why this is considered to be an effective method, which
include its ability to be inclusive, democratic, respectful of learners,
as well as its ability to facilitate problem solving skills, concept
exploration, and attitude change (Brookfield, 1990).
The literature on how successful discourse is facilitated in face-
to-face settings has argued that the effectiveness rests on whether or
not instructors have the necessary skills to guide and moderate the
discussion. According to Taylor, Marienau, and Fiddler (2000), if the
discourse is too global and abstract, learners will give unoriginal and
standard type responses. To avoid this, Brookfield (1989) argues that
instructors should require learners to reflect on their experiences, using
a “critical incident” (e.g., case history) format followed with discus-
sion in order to explore new meanings. According to Taylor et al.
(2000), also problematic for many instructors trying to facilitate guided
discourse is finding the right level of difficulty with learners who
have “similar levels of maturity and responsibility, though they need
Kanuka and Garrison
11
not be matched with regard to depth of knowledge or experience” (p.
303). In addition, instructors must ensure there is sufficient time to
develop momentum (which is required for higher levels of learning),
followed by bringing closure with resolution. Thus, to be effective—
as well as to guard against inattentive participants or those unwilling
or unable to participate fully and contribute equally—instructors need
to design discourse where the purpose is clearly articulated with
accountability and assessable outcomes. “Learners need to know in
advance the criteria for a quality discussion so they can assess how
well they are accomplishing the goal. This means carefully articulat-
ing demonstrable results that can be used as criteria” (Taylor et al.,
2000, p. 303).
The literature on facilitating online discourse reveals comparable
findings. For example, comparative studies by Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff
(1986) report similar outcomes and quality in online versus face-to-
face discussions. Research has also revealed that online discourse
suffers from many of the same problems as face-to-face discussions.
A study by Phillips, Santoro, and Kuehn (1988), for example, found
that online discourse is often ineffective because of the instructors’
inability to moderate. This brings attention back to the need for
instructors to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to facilitate
discourse, whether face-to-face or online. Sufficient research has
revealed that an instructor with moderating skills can provide oppor-
tunities to support reasoned discourse and sustain critical dialogue in
online learning environments.
COLLABORATION
The focus group participants agreed that interactive participation
can be effectively facilitated through the use of asynchronous text-
based Internet communication software (e.g., WebCT and FirstClass)
and group work. Comments revolved around the belief that collabo-
rative group project work should be in small online group discussion
forums, where students can generate solutions, share and critique each
others’ proposed resolutions, prioritize solutions, and make collabo-
rative judgments.
COGNITIVE PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING
12
These views are in agreement with research indicating that one
of the most effective means to facilitate higher levels of learning is
through collaborative group processes where learners are required to
think critically, creatively, and integratively (Klemm & Snell, 1996).
Studies reviewed by Chambers (1992) in the area of learning theory
indicate that, in general, learners learn faster and retain more if they
collaboratively interact. Research by Gokhale (1995) revealed that
collaborative learning facilitates higher levels of learning, and in
particular, critical thinking. Zirkin and Sumler (1995) conducted a
major review of literature on the use of computers in distance edu-
cation and arrived at the same conclusion. Their review also revealed
that interactivity was a common element to learner success. Specifi-
cally, “the more interactive the instruction, the more effective the
outcome was likely to be” (Zirkin & Sumler, 1995, p. 100). They
further identified the key ingredients with the interaction as (a) the
availability of the instructor, whether face-to-face or through com-
puter mediated communication, and (b) the intellectual engagement
of the student with the content.
MANAGEMENT
Focus group members agreed that establishing where to focus
efforts—or engage in self-management—can be effectively facilitated
through online collaborative projects where students take increased
control of learning activities. Another example provided by a focus
group member suggested students develop an online group project
and present the project to the larger community where their feedback
guides them in their assessment of where their efforts need to be
focused. It must be noted, though, that one participant cautioned that
the planning process should be more specific in the online classroom
and goals and objectives need to be articulated in a clear and concise
fashion.
The literature on self-management of online group learning is in
agreement with these suggestions. Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski, and
Rasmussen (1996), for example, maintain that collaborative learners
need to articulate their ideas and be able to identify not only their
Kanuka and Garrison
13
own strengths, but also those of others. They also need to define the
learning goals and have a holistic view of how their activities will
relate to these goals. Likewise, Jonassen et al. (1999) argue that the
Internet’s easily accessible and vast resource base offers self-regu-
lated learners an unparalleled source for information. Moreover, “the
intentionality is enhanced when a group of learners is committed to
the same goals . . . here are a number of projects that have main-
tained students’ focus by supporting collaborative meaning making
among groups of learners” (Jonassen et al., 2000, p. 37).
REFLECTION
All focus group members agreed that requesting learners to re-
flect using online conferencing software encourages many learners to
express their views and opinions carefully. Specifically, asynchronous
text-based Internet conferencing software results in reflective delib-
eration because of the posting’s permanency and availability for oth-
ers to view, refer to, and quote.
Laurillard (2002) and others (e.g., Garrison & Archer, 2000;
Garrison & Anderson, 2003) have articulated the need for reflective
deliberation in academic learning. According to Laurillard, there are
two ways to construct knowledge: through experiencing phenomena
(real life experiences) and through reflecting on abstracted phenom-
ena (academic knowledge). If the process of knowledge construction
is to be effectively facilitated through academic knowledge, it must
be meaningful to the learners; information is made meaningful through
reflecting on the relevance to one’s world. Yet it is impossible for
most instructors to present learners with unique and personally rel-
evant phenomena that are grounded in each of their learner’s worlds.
Given these constraints, instructors typically present information
through rhetorical discourse and text (descriptions of phenomena). In
turn, learners must then be able to reflect on the abstracted material
presented and make it relevant to their own worlds. To do this, learn-
ers must be able to generalize and transfer abstracted information, act
on it, and then reflect on their actions. Their reflections must be
articulated through language and presented for reasoning, evaluation,
COGNITIVE PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING
14
feedback, and improvement. Hence, both teaching and learning are
rhetorical activities.
Based on this argument, the process of meaning making in aca-
demic environments must be about how to conduct reflective rhetori-
cal activities, which requires skill in using language effectively and
persuasively. Instructors must begin this process by using language
in ways that help their learners make meaningful relationships be-
tween their worlds and the material presented. When abstracted phe-
nomena are presented using language that is effective and persuasive,
it facilitates the relevancy, thereby creating the conditions for learners
to make meaning of the information presented. Alternatively, learners
must be able to clearly articulate their position, arguments, and in-
terpretation—or reflectively deliberate—on the phenomena presented.
MONITORING
The focus group participants determined that self-assessment, in
collaboration with the instructor, can facilitate the process of setting
standards of excellence. Rubrics were suggested as an effective strat-
egy to facilitate self-assessment. In formal and credentialed settings,
a rubric is often constructed as an instructor-led self-assessment tool
(Jonassen et al., 1999). Essentially a rubric is a self-assessment tool
that is particularly effective in evaluating criteria that are complex
and subjective, and it can be an important tool for effectively facili-
tating self-assessment. In specific terms, a rubric is a carefully de-
signed ratings chart that is drawn up jointly by the instructor, learn-
ers, and, when possible, practitioners.
Taylor et al. (2000) describe the self-assessment process as in-
volving “a range of different practices in which learners take respon-
sibility for making their own judgments about their work” (p. 64).
Typically, the process requires learners to work in collaboration with
their instructor, practitioners, and peers; isolated and individual evalu-
ation exercises do not foster self-assessment skills.
The benefits of self-assessment have been cited as an active
approach that involves the learners in understanding and formulating
the criteria used for judgment which, in turn, improves the quality of
Kanuka and Garrison
15
learners’ work and, more importantly, helps learners to assume greater
responsibility for their own learning. The rationale supporting this
assumption is that “learners engage in the process of questioning what
counts as good work, thus becoming involved with deeper questions”
(Taylor et al., 2000, p. 65). According to Boud (1995), self-assess-
ment can be used to self-monitor and check process, promote good
learning practices (learn how to learn), self-diagnose and self-remediate,
practice alternatives to other forms of assessment, improve profes-
sional or academic practice, consolidate learning over a range of
contexts, review achievements as a prelude to recognize prior lean-
ing, and achieve self-knowledge and understanding.
It is important to mention that some participants had concerns
with having learners set standards of excellence. These concerns are
in keeping with the literature on self-directed assessment. Crowe
(2000), for example, cites three major ethical issues in assessment of
this nature: (1) learner readiness, (2) evaluation credibility, and (3)
power issues. To resolve these issues, Crowe suggests a middle ground
that combines traditional assessment techniques with self-directed
assessment techniques, such as triangulated assessment.
KNOWLEDGE
Focus group participants noted that it is important for learners to
make sense of information presented, or to “construct knowledge.”
How best to facilitate this, resulted in a suggestion to have students
extrapolate data to design additional experiments and test hypotheses
from the initial data. This was confirmed by other group members
who expressed that from the day we are born, we continuously seek
to make sense of what goes on around and within us. According to
Tayor et al. (2000), as we grow, this meaning making process takes
on more complex forms including testing conclusions, making judg-
ments, examining feelings, exploring perspectives, assigning signifi-
cance to ideas, and noticing the importance of what had seemed
inconsequential. Bruner (1990) maintains that we make sense of our
environment from experiencing phenomena and interpreting those
experiences based on what we already know, reasoning from them,
COGNITIVE PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING
16
and reflecting on the experiences and the reasoning. As such, an
essential aspect of meaning making is to critically reflect on the process
of meaning making itself.
CONCLUSION
THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY was to advance understand-
ing of how to facilitate higher levels of learning with asyn-
chronous text-based Internet communication technology. The
primary goal was to structure and explore external (discourse, col-
laboration, and management) and internal (reflection, monitoring, and
the construction of knowledge) constructs. The results of this study
reveal that the identified methodological constructs are consistent with
the facilitation of higher levels of learning in online settings. We
suggest that combinations of internal and external constructs are
important and even necessary for higher levels of learning.
The focus group interview used in this study proved to be a
powerful way to collect data and gain insights into the complex is-
sues of facilitating higher levels of learning. However, it needs to be
stressed that while interviewing a group of experts on a focused topic
provided insights to advance our understandings on this complex
phenomena, the focus group members do not represent feedback from
a randomly selected population. As such, the conclusions drawn from
this investigation should not be generalized to other, larger popula-
tions. There is a need to further investigate these results with a larger
and more diverse group of participants.
Kanuka and Garrison
17
REFERENCES
Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London: Kogan Page.
Brookfield, S.D. (1989). Facilitating adult learning. In S.B. Merriam & P. Cunningham
(Eds.), Handbook of adult education in the United States. SanFrancisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Brookfield, S.D. (1990). Using critical incidents to explore learners’ assumptions.
In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A
guide to transformative and emancipatory learning (pp. 173-193). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Chambers, J.A. (1992). The learning revolution: electronic classrooms. Interactive
Learning International, 8(4), 291-195.
Collett, D., Kanuka, H., Blanchette, J., & Goodale, C. (1999). Learning technologies
in distance education. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta.
Crowe, J.L. (2000). Evaluation of adult learners: Ethical issues. New Horizons in
Adult Education, 14(3), 4-10.
Fabro, K.R., & Garrison, D.R. (1998). Computer conferencing and higher-order
learning. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 7(1), 41-54.
Garrison, D.R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework
for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching-
learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Gokhale, A.A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of
Technology Education, 7(1). Retrieved June 18, 2003, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/
ejournals/JTE/v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html
COGNITIVE PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING
18
Hiltz, S.R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making:
Communication process and outcome in face to face versus computerized confer-
ences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225-252.
Hiltz, S.R., & Turoff, M. (1993). The Network Nation: Human communication via
computer, revised edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Imel, S. (2001). Learning technologies in adult education. Myths and Realities. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, No. 17. Retrieved
September 12, 2002, from http://ericacve.org/docs/mr00032.pdf.
Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L., & Wilson, B.G. (1999). Learning with Technology.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jones, B.F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1996). Plugging in:
Choosing and using educational technology. Washington, DC: Council for Educa-
tional Development and Research North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Retrieved June 18, 2003, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/edtalk/toc.htm.
Kanuka, H. (2002). A principled approach to facilitating diverse strategies for web-
based distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 71-87.
Klemm, W.R., & Snell, J.R. (1996). Enriching computer-mediated group learning
by coupling constructivism with collaborative learning. Journal of Instructional Science
and Technology, 1(2). Retrieved June 18, 2003, from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/
e-jist/docs/old/vol1no2/contents.htm
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework
for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). NY: Routledge/Falmer.
Phillips, G.M., Santoro, G.M., & Kuehn, S.A. (1988). The use of computer-mediated
communication in training students in group problem-solving and decision-making
techniques. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 38-51.
Taylor, K., Marienau, C., & Fiddler, M. (2000). Strategies for teachers and trainers:
Developing adult learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zirkin, B., & Sumler, D. (1995). Interactive or non-interactive? That is the ques-
tion!!! An annotated bibliography. Journal of Distance Education, 10(1), 95-112.
Kanuka and Garrison
19
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Heather Kanuka is Associate Director and Assistant Professor of the
Learning Commons at the University of Calgary, Canada. The Learn-
ing Commons provides services to the university community for faculty
development teaching and learning, distance delivery, and multimedia
and video production.
D. Randy Garrison is the Director of the Learning Commons at the
University of Calgary. He is also a full professor in the Faculty of
Education. He served as Dean of the Faculty of Extension at the Uni-
versity of Alberta from 1996 to 2001. Dr. Garrison has published
extensively on teaching and learning in distance, higher, and adult
education contexts. Author's present address: Learning Commons,
Biological Sciences Bldg,, Rm. 515, University of Calgary, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4 E-mail: Garrison@ucalgary.ca
