Introduction

Learner interactions in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environmentshave been argued to promote meaningful learning through intellectual stimulation and exchange of ideas (Agudo-Peregrina, Iglesias-Pradas, Conde-González, & Hernández-García, 2014).  However, learner collaboration as such does not guarantee co-construction of knowledge and does not necessarily result in higher-order cognitive processing (Admiraal, Lockhorst, Wubbels, Korthagen and Veen, 1998; Dillenbourg, 2002; Lockhorst, Admiraal, Pilot, & Veen, 2002). Given the complexity of knowledge construction and the increased recognition of its social nature requiring dynamic learner-learner interaction, more qualitative accounts of co-learning (Romero, López, Luna, & Ventura, 2013) are necessary to bring to light how knowledge is “developed, carried forward, and passed on through interaction and collaboration” (Buckingham Shum & Fergusson, 2012). 

Cognitive engagements of students

One of the best-examined theoretical frameworks for the analysis of online interaction (Gašević, Adesope, Joksimović, & Kovanović, 2015) is the community of inquiry model that supports higher-order learning through the interaction of its three components: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001). Learner cognitive presence (Garrison et al., 2001) is defined as the degree to which “learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry” (p. 11) and is operationalized through four progressive phases of the model of practical inquiry: 1) triggering event, 2) exploration, 3) integration, and 4) resolution (Garrison et al., 2001, Garrison & Anderson, 2003). Triggering event initiates critical inquiry through posing a question/problem observed or experienced that learners can relate to from their own experience or previous studies. Exploration is the phase of understanding the essence of the question/problem and “searching for relevant information and possible explanations” (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 59). The third phase, integration, is a highly reflective phase that constructs meaning from the information shared in the exploration phase. The final phase of practical inquiry is the resolution of the question/ problem through direct or mental modeling of solutions.

Research on the knowledge construction of individual learners in a community of inquiry is limited, with most of the existing studies focusing on the number of instances of the four phases of cognitive presence described above in entire groups (Gašević et al., 2015). Moreover, as repeatedly reported (Shea et al., 2010), cognitive presence tends to stay at its lower levels, i.e., triggering and exploration.

Objective of this study

As it is the level of individual engagement in discourse that functions as a key indicator of meaningful learning (Romero et al., 2013; Wang, Wen, & Rosé, 2016), this study proposes to examine the nature and quality of individual learner cognitive contributions to the creation of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service teacher education. It intends to explore the distinct patterns of interactions through which co-construction of knowledge takes place in two different communities: a newly formed community of learners (first-year student-teachers), and a community of learners with established social ties (second-year student-teachers). The study will provide a qualitative account of the actualization of the different phases of cognitive presence in the two communities and investigate the relationship between the level of learner cognitive contribution and actual learning gains. The study answers the following research questions. RQ1: What levels of individual cognitive presence characterize co-construction of knowledge in online discussion forums in different communities of learners? RQ2: How are different levels of individual cognitive presence related to learning gains?  

References Admiraal, W. F., Lockhorst, D., Wubbels, T., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Veen, W. (1998). Computer-Mediated communication in teacher education: Computer conferencing and the supervision of student teachers. Journal of Learning Environment Research, 1, 59–74. Agudo-Peregrina, Á. F., Iglesias-Pradas, S., Conde-González, M. Á., & Hernández-García, Á. (2014). Can we predict success from log data in VLEs? Classification of interactions for learning analytics and their relation with performance in VLE-supported F2F and online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 542–550. Buckingham Shum, S., & Ferguson, R. (2012). Social Learning Analytics. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (3), 3–26. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we sup- port CSCL? (pp. 61-91). Heerlen, the Netherlands: Open Universiteit Nederland. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E–Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer. 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), 7–23. Garrison, D.R., & Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. Gašević, D., Adesope, O., Joksimović, S., & Kovanović, V. (2015). Externally facilitated regulation scaffolding and role assignment to develop cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 53-65. Lockhorst, D., Admiraal, W. F., Pilot, A., & Veen, W. (2002). Design elements for a CSCL environment in a teacher training programme. Education and Information Technologies, 7, 377 – 384. Romero, C., López, M.-I., Luna, J.-M. & Ventura, S. (2013). Predicting students’ final performance from participation in on-line discussion forums. Computers & Education. 68, 458-472. Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., … Rangan, P. (2010). A re-examination of the community of inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 10-21. Wang, X., Wen, M. & Rosé, C. P. (2016). Towards Triggering higher-order thinking behaviors in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 6th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK'16), Edinburgh, UK.