Content uploaded by Martha Cleveland-Innes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martha Cleveland-Innes on Sep 02, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Facilitating Cognitive Presence
in Online Learning:
Interaction Is Not Enough
D. Randy Garrison
The Learning Commons
The University of Calgary
Martha Cleveland-Innes
Centre for Distance Education
Athabasca University
This study assessed the depth of online learning, with a focus on the
nature of online interaction in four distance education course designs.
The Study Process Questionnaire was used to measure the shift in stu-
dents’ approach to learning from the beginning to the end of the
courses. Design had a significant impact on the nature of the interac-
tion and whether students approached learning in a deep and meaning-
ful manner. Structure and leadership were found to be crucial for on-
line learners to take a deep and meaningful approach to learning.
Interaction is seen as central to an educational experience and is a primary
focus in the study of online learning. The focus on interaction in online
learning emerges from the potential and properties of new technologies to
support sustained educational communication. Communication and
Internet technologies provide a high degree of communicative potential
through asynchronous interaction design options (Garrison and Anderson
2003). From an access perspective, participants are able to maintain en
-
gagement in a community of learners when and where they choose.
Notwithstanding the widely recognized potential of new and emerging
communications technology to connect learners, until recently much of the
research of collaborative online learning focused on egalitarian possibili
-
ties. Educators were quick to seize the possibility of a more democratic ap
-
133
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, 19(3), 133–148
Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Correspondence should be sent to D. Randy Garrison, The Learning Commons, The
University of Calgary, Biological Sciences Building, Room 530L, Calgary, AB, Can
-
ada T2N 1N4. E-mail: garrison@ucalgary.ca
proach to education as a reaction to the traditional passive, controlling na
-
ture of much of higher education. However, concerns about the lack of
physical presence focused early attention on understanding the social con
-
text or presence of online learning. Participation and belonging were to be
valued first and foremost. In essence, online forums were chat rooms where
participation was the primary goal.
The purpose of an educational experience, whether it is online,
face-to-face, or a blending of both, is to structure the educational experi
-
ence to achieve defined learning outcomes. In this context, interaction must
be more structured and systematic. A qualitative dimension is introduced
where interaction is seen as communication with the intent to influence
thinking in a critical and reflective manner. Some have argued that in
higher education, it is valuable and even necessary to create a community
of inquiry where interaction and reflection are sustained; where ideas can
be explored and critiqued; and where the process of critical inquiry can be
scaffolded and modeled. Interaction in such an environment goes beyond
social interaction and the simple exchange of information. A community of
inquiry must include various combinations of interaction among content,
teachers, and students (Anderson and Garrison 1997; Moore 1989).
Interaction in Distance Education
Moore (1989, 1990) was one of the first to focus on interaction issues in
distance education. He identified transactional distance as consisting of di-
alogue (i.e., interaction) and structure (i.e., design). Moore (1989) ex
-
panded on the dialogue variable and defined three core types of interaction:
learner–teacher, learner–content, and learner–learner. Dialogue or interac
-
tion was recognized as a crucial variable in a distance education environ
-
ment, which was not necessarily the case with an industrial design ap
-
proach. Moore’s work precipitated growing interest in issues around
interaction in a distance or online learning context. Others accounted for all
possible combinations of interaction based on teacher, learner, and content
variables (Anderson and Garrison 1997).
To capitalize on the potential of online learning for educational purposes,
a qualitative shift in the nature of the interaction must be considered. Garri
-
son, Anderson, and Archer (2000) provided a model of a community of in
-
quiry that mapsand defines educational presence. A community of inquiry is
more than a social community and more than the magnitude of interaction
among participants. A community of inquiry is the integration of cognitive,
social, and teaching presence. Considered together, the three presences ad
-
134
FACILITATING COGNITIVE PRESENCE
dress the qualitative nature of interactive inquiry consistent with the ideals of
higher education. To appreciate interaction and the quality of learning out
-
comes, one must understand how cognitive, social, and teaching presence
come together to create a purposeful community of inquiry.
An interactive community of learners is generally considered the sine
qua non of higher education. However, interaction is not a guarantee that
students are cognitively engaged in an educationally meaningful manner.
High levels of interaction may be reflective of group cohesion, but it does
not directly create cognitive development or facilitate meaningful learning
and understanding. Interaction directed to cognitive outcomes is character
-
ized more by the qualitative nature of the interaction and less by quantita
-
tive measures. There must be a qualitative dimension characterized by in
-
teraction that takes the form of purposeful and systematic discourse.
Interaction and Presence
Picciano (2002) made a distinction between interaction and presence.
Interaction carries with it few conditions with regard to the nature of the
communication and influence. Interaction by itself does not presume that
one is engaged in a process of inquiry and cognitive presence exists. An ed-
ucational experience sets a qualitative standard perhaps best reflected by
the model of a community of inquiry. A community of inquiry integrates
cognitive, social, and teaching elements that go beyond social exchanges
and low-level cognitive interaction (Garrison and Anderson 2003). Rovai
(2002) found a “positive significant relationship between a sense of com
-
munity and cognitive learning” (328).
Although the natural and appropriate inclination is to first direct interac
-
tion efforts to establishing social presence and creating interrelationships,
this is only a precondition for a purposeful and worthwhile learning experi
-
ence. Teaching presence is important for the creation and sustainability of a
community of inquiry focused on the exploration, integration, and testing
of concepts and solutions. This has been shown to be true in informal pro
-
fessional development forums, where there is considerable discussion but
most of it is of a social nature with only a low level of cognitive exchange
(Kanuka and Anderson 1998). This also holds true in more formal aca
-
demic settings where there is a growing body of research showing that the
quantity of interaction does not reflect the quality of discourse (i.e., cogni
-
tive presence) as measured by the progression through the phases of the
practical inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer 2001; Meyer
2003; Pawan et al. 2003).
135
GARRISON AND CLEVELAND-INNES
Understanding interaction for the purposes of inquiry is complex. More
-
over, students are not always prepared to engage in critical discourse, espe
-
cially if this is in an online learning environment (Angeli, Valanides, and
Bonk 2003). This was congruent with the finding of Garrison and Cleve
-
land-Innes (2004) in that the greatest student adjustment to online learning
was most directly associated with issues of interaction—both socially and
cognitively. Interestingly, in this study, establishing social presence was
more heavily shaped through peer interaction. With regard to successful
higher-order learning, however, Garrison and Cleveland-Innes concluded
that teaching presence in the form of facilitation is crucial in the success of
online learning.
There is considerable literature pointing to the relation between teaching
presence and perceived learning (Jiang and Ting 2000; Pawan et al. 2003;
Picciano 2002; Shea, Pickett, and Pelz 2004; Swan 2001). Swan (2001)
concluded that “interaction with instructors seemed to have a much larger
effect on satisfaction and perceived learning than interaction with peers”
(322–323). More specifically, Angeli, Valanides, and Bonk (2003) studied
the quality of online discourse and with low-level mentoring found that
only “7% of the replies were justified opinions and claims” (37). Similarly,
Wu and Hiltz (2004) reported that online discussions are related to per-
ceived learning but varied according to instructional approach. They stated
that the instructor’s role is crucial to effective online discussions and “more
online guidance, more structured discussion topics and considerable time
devotion are required for instructors” (149). Finally, Hay et al. (2004)
found in a study comparing online and traditional courses that “instruc
-
tor-to-student interaction was the stronger of the two interaction measures
[student–student the other] in terms of predicting effectiveness for both
types of delivery” (200). The primary reason is that instructors are more
concerned with fulfilling interaction needs.
Interaction and Critical Discourse
Accepting that interaction is not equivalent to critical discourse or suffi
-
cient for sustaining a community of inquiry, what then do we know about
teaching and cognitive presence in terms of influencing quality learning
outcomes? Synthesizing some of the literature, it would appear that critical
discourse and teaching presence have some common features. The first is
that if students are to reach a high level of critical thinking and knowledge
construction, the interaction or discourse must be structured and cohesive
(Aviv et al. 2003; Pawan et al. 2003; Thomas 2002; Wu and Hiltz 2004).
136
FACILITATING COGNITIVE PRESENCE
The design feature of successful online courses demonstrates structured
discourse that facilitate clear discussion threads, avoid disjointed mono
-
logues, and move the discussion through the phases of inquiry (levels of
thinking). Another important feature found in the literature is clearly de
-
fined roles (Aviv et al. 2003; Garrison and Cleveland-Innes 2004; Hiltz and
Turoff 1993; Meyer 2003; Tagg and Dickenson 1995). Here we find the
leadership role of the instructor to be powerful in triggering discussion and
facilitating high levels of thinking and knowledge construction.
Deep and Surface Learning
Levels of thinking and knowledge construction are learning process
goals across delivery methods in education. Higher-order learning emerges
in a community of inquiry. The concept of approaches to learning (com
-
monly referred to as deep and surface learning) and related models (Biggs
1990, 1998; Entwistle 1991, 1993) provide a framework for understanding
the complex web of relations between learning context and learning pro-
cesses that result in particular outcomes for individual students. The instru-
mentation from this model was used to evaluate the conditions under which
deep learning emerges in online education. Approaches to learning are
both a process that carries a student through the learning environment and
an outcome resulting from a student’s engagement with the learning envi-
ronment. Social and academic interaction in learning environments,
whether online or face-to-face, has a demonstrated impact on the approach
to learning and outcomes (Cleveland-Innes and Emes 2005).
“Approaches to learning” emerge from the combination of student moti
-
vation and strategies for learning. Students employ varying degrees of three
different approaches to learning: deep, surface, and achievement ap
-
proaches. In a deep approach to learning, material is embraced and di
-
gested in the search for meaning. Surface learning employs the least
amount of effort toward realizing the minimum required outcomes. Surface
learners are motivated to complete the task rather than assimilate the learn
-
ing. Achievement approaches to learning are reflected by an orientation to
the external reward for demonstrating learning. Strategies for the achieve
-
ment orientation focus on the activities that will result in the highest marks.
All students are capable of employing any of the three approaches and
do so as required by the learning environment; they choose strategies
deemed to be most effective based on the requirements in the environment.
Students can move from one approach to another and do so in response to
the climate and requirements of the course. Without question, a deep ap
-
137
GARRISON AND CLEVELAND-INNES
proach to learning is the approach to foster in higher education. The mas
-
tering of material through detailed attention to the intricacies, substance,
and limits of a subject area leads to improved academic performance (see,
in particular, Svensson 1977).
Much has been written about teaching practice leading to deep ap
-
proaches to learning in higher education (e.g., Ramsden 1992; Trigwell,
Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999). Contextual factors such as workload and
time constraints, type of learning evaluation, the opportunity for
metacognition, the shift of learning management to the students them
-
selves, and instructor explanation, enthusiasm, and empathy have all been
indicated in the development of deep learning.
Method
The study was conducted from January 2003 to April 2004. It adminis-
tered the Study Process Questionnaire to the online course participants
(seventy-five students participated) to measure changes in how graduate
students choose to strategize their learning in a particular learning setting.
These can be either deep, surface, or achievement approaches to learning.
Students were asked to complete the questionnaire in reference to the
course in which they were currently engaged. Scoring of the instrument in-
tegrates motivation and activity relating to all three approaches (i.e., a score
for the amount of each approach used by the student is documented at each
test). The questionnaire was administered via e-mail and provided predata
and postdata on student approaches to learning. Norms for this instrument
reference undergraduate students only, so they were not used as a point of
comparison for this study. This instrument demonstrates internal consis
-
tency and coefficients of alpha that ranged from .51 to .81 (Biggs 1987).
Questionnaires were delivered electronically via e-mail and returned to re
-
search assistants the same way.
Courses for this study were purposively chosen based on level of inter
-
action and variation in instructor presence. In addition, core courses nor
-
mally taken early in each of two programs were selected to include the
greatest number of novice online learners and across programs to eliminate
program bias. Four courses were chosen involving a total of seventy-five
students. All courses were delivered using a combination of print and on
-
line conferencing. The online conferencing component provided the op
-
portunity for student–instructor engagement and group interaction. Re
-
quired conference participation was used for assessment in two courses,
whereas it remained a voluntary activity in the others.
138
FACILITATING COGNITIVE PRESENCE
The four treatment groups varied from each other in the following ways
(see Table 1). In Course A, students critically analyzed readings in small
groups with very little instructor involvement. Course B had students re
-
spond to text “lectures” individually but with little instructor involvement.
However, both Courses A and B graded for participation and as a result
there was quantitatively substantial online discussion. Course C had volun
-
tary participation with considerable instructor engagement and presence,
but students moderated their own discussion in various forums. It should be
noted this was a survey course of the history and foundations of distance
education and, therefore, there was less need or opportunity for critique
and debate. Course D was designed with deep approaches in mind. There
was a high level of instructor engagement with the students in and out of the
conferences. There were only four conferences and participation was not
required. However, the instructor was heavily involved and questions were
posed to generate ongoing and thoughtful responses. Also, the assignments
required reflection and thought. There was a purposeful shift to the nature
(critical reflection) of the interaction as compared to quantity of postings.
Findings
The course variable acts as a surrogate for type and level of interaction,
and instructor involvement, in online conferences. Time refers to the differ-
ence in approach to learning from the start of the course to the end of the
course. Based on the theory of approach to learning, the context of the
learning environment should influence the way students approach their
learning. In an engaging, instructive, and influential learning environment,
a change in approach to learning should occur. As this sample represents
graduate level study, which normally involves higher-order learning, an in
-
crease in deep learning is the change most likely to occur.
The instrument documents activity in all three approaches: deep, sur
-
face, and achieving. The possible score range is fourteen to seventy. In
139
GARRISON AND CLEVELAND-INNES
Table 1. Instructional Differences Across Groups
Course A
N = 32
Course B
N = 11
Course C
N = 13
Course D
N = 19
Instructor involvement Low Low Medium High
Level of overall interaction High Medium High Low
Reflective assignment
requirements
Medium Medium Low High
these data, surface approach has an actual range of sixteen to fifty-six; deep
approach actual range is forty to sixty-nine; achievement approach
twenty-seven to sixty-one. It is expected that scores across all approaches
will vary as students become familiar with the learning environment in
which they are currently engaged. In higher education, a deep approach is
the desired approach. Deep scores should be the highest and increase over
the length of the education experience.
A two-way repeated measures Analysis of Variance was used to deter
-
mine the interaction between time and course for this sample. The be
-
tween-subjects variable is course (Courses A, B, C, D). The within-sub
-
jects variable is time (Time 1 and Time 2). The results of the interaction
between course and time, for each approach to learning, are presented in
Table 2.
The difference between approach to learning at Time 1 and Time 2
across courses is significant in one case, that of deep approach to learning
(p = .05). Graphic depictions of change in approach to learning over the
length of the semester provide patterns of difference across courses (see
Figures 1–3).
Discussion
It is clear from these results that the shift in how students approached
their study is strongly influenced by the design and teaching approach. It
appears that teaching presence contributes to the adoption of a deep ap-
proach to learning and that interaction by itself does not promote a deep ap
-
proach to learning. Courses A and B, which had little or no instructor in
-
volvement, showed either no shift or a drop in approaching learning in a
deep and meaningful manner (see Figure 1). Deep approaches to learning
for Course C (considerable interaction but no critical discourse) showed
scores that were relatively low and remained that way throughout the
courses. Interestingly, Course C had considerable instructor engagement
but showed no shift to a deep approach. From an instructional design per
-
140
FACILITATING COGNITIVE PRESENCE
Table 2. Analysis of Variance
Approach to
Learning Source d.f. F Sig.
Surface approach Time × course 3, 72 1.421 .244
Deep approach Time × course 3, 72 2.706 .050
Achievement approach Time × course 3, 72 1.291 .284
spective, the content and expectations (i.e., task demand) of the course sim-
ply did not require a deep approach. However, Course D was specifically
designed to encourage deep approaches to learning through focused criti
-
cal discourse and participants clearly showed a significant shift to a deep
approach to learning.
The surface approach graphs for all the courses did not show any signifi
-
cant shifts (see Figure 2). Although not significant, the findings show a
shift to an achievement approach for Course C (see Figure 3). Keeping in
mind that an achievement approach is one that reflects the management of
activities to achieve the highest grade, this approach to learning would be
consistent with Course C conditions.
The findings are consistent with the literature discussed previously in
that the nature of the interaction and teaching presence are crucial for deep
approaches to learning. This suggests that the quality of interaction (i.e.,
critical discourse) must be a specific design goal and interaction facilitated
and directed in a sustained manner if deep approaches to learning are to be
achieved. To be clear, social interaction is necessary to establish relation
-
ships and to create a secure climate that will provide the foundation for a
141
GARRISON AND CLEVELAND-INNES
Figure 1. Deep Approaches to Learning
deep and meaningful educational experience. However, social presence ap-
pears to be directly associated with the magnitude of interaction. There is
evidence for this in Course D, a course in research methods, where partici
-
pants demonstrated a move toward a deep approach to learning. In Course
D, interaction with social content was not encouraged beyond brief intro
-
ductions in the first conference. The first conference was a presentation by
students of their experiences with the course topic, and the setting of objec
-
tives for content and skill mastery in the course.
Further conferences were designed to have participants “act as if” they
were in the role of researcher, and respond to issues and challenges of
knowledge validation and creation from that perspective. Social identity as
an individual student was bypassed as the students worked with the mate
-
rial from a different perspective. Dialogue focused entirely on the subject
matter and student perspectives on use, misuse, and application of sub
-
ject-matter knowledge or expertise.
What is critical to note here is that although education is certainly a so
-
cial phenomenon, there is a much larger purpose of acquiring and extend
-
ing societal knowledge. Social interaction and presence may create the
142
FACILITATING COGNITIVE PRESENCE
Figure 2. Surface Approach to Learning
condition for sharing and challenging ideas through critical discourse, but
it does not directly create cognitive presence or facilitate a deep learning
approach. High levels of learning are dependent less on the quantity of in
-
teraction than on the quality, or substance, of interaction. That is, social
presence may be a necessary but insufficient precondition for creating a
community of inquiry and encouraging deep approaches to learning.
Teaching presence must be available, either from the facilitator or the
other students, to transition from social to cognitive presence. Angeli,
Valanides, and Bonk (2003) found that without adequate mentoring or fa
-
cilitation, interaction “was mostly an exchange of personal experiences and
did not support well-supported reasoning” (31). Not surprisingly, in this
situation the online conference failed to sustain interest and engagement.
Pawan et al. (2003) stated emphatically that “without instructor’s explicit
guidance and ‘teaching presence,’students were found to engage primarily
in ‘serial monologues’” (119). That is, participants share experiences or
opinions without connecting to other contributions. Similarly, Wu and
Hiltz (2004) found that the quality of online discussions could be improved
with more structure and guidance.
143
GARRISON AND CLEVELAND-INNES
Figure 3. Achievement Approach to Learning
It appears that interaction does not necessarily translate into critical dis
-
course and the integration of ideas into meaningful constructs. This was ev
-
ident in Course C. Although social interaction (i.e., presence) may be a
very helpful precondition, interaction for cognitive success (i.e., high lev
-
els of learning) depends on structure (i.e., design) and leadership (i.e., fa
-
cilitation and direction). However, success is not automatic—there is an
adjustment period (Garrison and Cleveland-Innes 2004; Ruberg, Moore,
and Taylor 1996). Students must be provided structure and leadership to
become engaged and responsible for approaching learning in a deep man
-
ner. Although space does not permit exploration here, we have been dis
-
cussing issues of dialogue/interaction (including teacher–student) and
structure that is not dissimilar to Moore (1989, 1990).
Meaningful engagement does not simply correspond to sending lots of
messages. It may mean that a student is engaged vicariously by following
the discussion, reflecting on the discourse, and actively constructing mean-
ing individually. Ideally, interaction would be required to confirm under-
standing. However, students may be cognitively present while not interact-
ing or engaged overtly. This reveals another challenge in understanding the
qualitative nature of interaction in an online context.
Understanding a complex concept such as interaction must be viewed
from a comprehensive perspective. The community of inquiry framework
defines the context that can support quality interaction and deep learning.
A deep approach to learning must consider all three elements of the com-
munity of inquiry: social, cognitive, and teaching presence. The findings
here suggest that neither social presence alone nor the surface exchange of
information can create the environment and climate for deep approaches to
learning and meaningful educational exchanges. Quality interaction and
discourse for deep and meaningful learning must consider the confluence
of social, cognitive, and teaching presence—that is, interaction among
ideas, students, and the teacher. Teaching presence provides the structure
(design) and leadership (facilitation/direction) to establish social and cog
-
nitive presence (i.e., community of inquiry). The community of inquiry
model has proven to be a useful framework to analyze and understand in
-
teraction in an online educational environment.
Practical Implications
From a practice perspective, we must go beyond social interaction and
“serial monologues” if we are to understand the complexity of interaction
consistent with deep and meaningful approaches to teaching and learning.
144
FACILITATING COGNITIVE PRESENCE
The challenge we face is how we design and facilitate online learning expe
-
riences to create the cognitive presence consistent with deep meaning and
understanding. We focus this brief exploration of teaching interventions on
issues of structure (i.e., design) and leadership (i.e., facilitation and direc
-
tion). It is useful to note that design, facilitation, and direction are the three
categories of teaching presence provided by Garrison and Anderson
(2003). Together they provide valuable guidelines for creating and sustain
-
ing cognitive presence in an online educational environment.
From a design and organizational perspective, our findings suggest de
-
fining clear expectations and selecting manageable content, structuring
appropriate activities (collaborative and individual), and conducting as
-
sessment congruent with intended goals: the fostering of a deep approach
to learning. In terms of facilitating discourse, it is important to first pro
-
vide clear participation requirements in terms of length, content expecta
-
tions, and timeliness (Pawan et al. 2003). Next, it is important to provide
engaging questions, focus discussion, challenge and test ideas, model ap-
propriate contributions, and ensure that the discourse is progressive. The
central focus must be on students creating meaning and confirming un-
derstanding. Sustained teaching presence that encourages participation,
but is not teacher centered, is crucial. It is not educationally desirable or
reasonable from a time-management perspective to have the teacher re-
spond to each comment. But it is crucial that the teacher moderate and
shape the direction of the discourse.
Finally, in any educational context, one can expect instances in which di-
rect instruction is required to achieve deep and meaningful learning. That
is, there will be times when specific ideas need to be offered, a student
needs help, and the discussion needs to be summarized. The goal in deep
learning is to move discussion from exploration to integration and then to
resolution (Garrison and Anderson 2003).
Conclusion
The findings here suggest that simple interaction, absent of structure and
leadership, is not enough. We need to have a qualitatively richer view of in
-
teraction. There is a strong need to study the qualitative nature of online in
-
teraction in terms of teaching and learning approaches. The position here is
that the reflective and collaborative properties of asynchronous, text-based
online learning is well adapted to deep approaches to learning (i.e., cogni
-
tive presence). Further study is very much needed to understand the nature
of online interaction that will support high levels of learning.
145
GARRISON AND CLEVELAND-INNES
References
Anderson, T. D., and D. R. Garrison. 1997. New roles for learners at a dis
-
tance. In Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses
for quality outcomes, ed. C. C. Gibson, 97–112. Madison, WI: Atwood
Publishing.
Angeli, C., N. Valanides, and C. Bonk. 2003. Communication in a
Web-based conferencing system: The quality of computer-mediated in
-
teractions. British Journal of Educational Technology 34 (1): 31–43.
Aviv, R., Z. Erlich, G. Ravid, and A. Geva. 2003. Network analysis of
knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks 7 (3): 1–20.
Biggs, J. B. 1987. Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn,
Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
———. 1990. Teaching: design for learning. In Teaching for effective
learning, ed. B. Ross, 11–26. Sydney: HERDSA.
———. 1993. What do inventories of students’ learning processes really
measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology 63:3–19.
———. 1998. What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning in
the ’90s. Higher Education Research and Development Society of
Australasia Newsletter. Auckland, New Zealand.
Cleveland-Innes, M., and C. Emes. Inpress. Social and academic interac-
tion in higher education contexts and the effect on deep and surface
learning. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
Entwistle, N. J. 1991. Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learn
-
ing environment. Higher Education 22:201–204.
———. 1993. Teaching and learning in an expanding higher education
system. Edinburgh: Moray House.
Garrison, D. R., and T. Anderson. 2003. E-Learning in the 21st century: A
framework for research and practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
Garrison, D. R., T. Anderson., and W. Archer. 2000. Critical inquiry in a
text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education.
The Internet and Higher Education 2 (2–3): 87–105.
———. 2001. Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer
conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance
Education 15 (1): 7–23.
Garrison, D. R., and M. Cleveland-Innes. 2004. Critical factors in student
satisfaction and success: Facilitating student role adjustment in online
communities of inquiry. In Elements of quality online education: Into
146
FACILITATING COGNITIVE PRESENCE
the mainstream. Volume 5 in the Sloan C Series, ed. J. Bourne and J. C.
Moore, 29–38. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Hay, A., M. Hodgkinson, J. W. Peltier, and W. A. Drago. 2004. Interaction
and virtual learning. Strategic Change 13:193–204.
Hiltz, S. R., and M. Turoff. 1993. The network nation: Human communica
-
tion by computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jiang, M., and E. Ting. 2000. A study of factors influencing students’ per
-
ceived learning in a Web-based course environment. International Jour
-
nal of Educational Telecommunications 6 (4): 317–338.
Kanuka, H., and T. Anderson. 1998. Online social interchange, discord, and
knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education 13 (1): 57–74.
Meyer, K. A. 2003. Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of
time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Net
-
works 7 (3): 55–65.
Moore, M. G. 1989. Three types of interaction. The American Journal of
Distance Education 3 (2): 1–6.
———. 1990. Recent contributions to the theory of distance education.
Open Learning 5 (3): 10–15.
Pawan, F., T. M. Paulus, S. Yalcin, and C. Chang. 2003. Online learning:
Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Lan-
guage Learning and Technology 7 (3): 119–140.
Picciano, A. G. 2002. Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction,
presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchron-
ous Learning Networks 6 (1): 21–40.
Ramsden P. 1992. Learning to teach in higher education. London: Kogan
Page.
Rovai, A. P. 2002. Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and
persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher
Education 5 (4): 319–332.
Ruberg, L. F., D. M. Moore, and C. D. Taylor. 1996. Student participation,
interaction, and regulation in a computer-mediated communication en
-
vironment: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computer Re
-
search 14 (3): 243–268.
Shea, P. J., A. M. Pickett, and W. E. Pelz. 2004. Enhancing student satisfac
-
tion through faculty development: The importance of teaching presence.
In Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream. Volume 5
in the Sloan C Series, ed. J. Bourne and J. C. Moore, 39–59. Needham,
MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Svensson, L. 1977. On qualitative differences in learning III: Study skills
and learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology 47:233–243.
147
GARRISON AND CLEVELAND-INNES
Swan, K. 2001. Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satis
-
faction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance
Education 22 (2): 306–331.
Tagg, A. C., and J. A. Dickenson. 1995. Tutor messaging and its effective
-
ness in encouraging student participation on computer conferences.
Journal of Distance Education 10 (2): 33–55.
Thomas, M. J. W. 2002. Learning within incoherent structures: The space
of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
18:351–366.
Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and F. Waterhouse. 1999. Relations between
teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning.
Higher Education 37:57–70.
Wu, D., and S. R. Hiltz. 2004. Predicting learning from asynchronous on
-
line discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 8 (2):
139–152.
148
FACILITATING COGNITIVE PRESENCE
