I am taking a few steps back to re-evaluate effective facilitation techniques for social learning practice networks. In this post, I am taking a closer look at the Practical Inquiry Model (draft, 2004) based on the following source:

Practical Inquiry Model

Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2004, Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education

Relevant Quotes:

“…from a process perspective it is assumed that acquiring critical thinking skills would

be greatly assisted by an understanding of the process. Moreover, it is assumed that facilitating the process of higher-order learning online could be assisted through the use of a tool to assess critical discourse and reflection.”

(Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2004, pg. 3)

I have read a lot about critical discourse and reflection but would like to dig deeper to identify what the key elements are and how they could be applied to a loosely organized social networking environment such as ELGG. The authors of this article were referring to the use of CMC (Computer Moderated Conferences) through online asynchronous text-based forums.

“Practical inquiry is grounded in experience but includes imagination and reflection leading back to experience and practice” (Dewey 1933). (in article, cited from page 3)

I am quite interested in using the Practical Inquiry Model for facilitating connective writing among adult literacy learners. I have recognized through experience that many of the learners I work with require opportunities to express their ideas through self-sponsored writing.

Might the application of this model be appropriate for adult literacy learners? Could online discussions be successfully managed and facilitated for fundamental level learners? What would be the unique challenges?

Triggering Event (8% of transcripts’ responses)

1.      Issue, dilemma or problem that emerges directly from experience

2.      The instructor facilitates critical inquiry by explicating communicating challenges or tasks, and by initiating, shaping, and, in some cases, discarding potentially distracting triggering events.

Important topics for discussion among literacy learners might include job and career options, ways of saving or stretching one’s money, nutrition and health, family and culture, etc.

Exploration (42% of transcripts’ responses – highest number of responses)

1.      Learners participate and engage in sense-making by shifting their focus “…between

their own  private, reflective worlds and the social exploration of ideas among peers.”

2.      Learners are required to perceive or grasp the nature of the problem, and then move to a fuller exploration of relevant information.

3.      Sense-making done by learners through iteratively moving between the private and shared worlds (between critical reflection and discourse).

4.      Learners become more selective on relevance of ideas to the issue or problem through brainstorming, questioning, and exchange of information.

5.      Participants share their insights and contribute relevant information

I can see that a dramatic challenge that would arise for a group of adult literacy learners is variable confidence of voice – many might be unsure that what they have to contribute will be welcomed and accepted. Others might be silent, reluctant to contribute. Others might be wary, waiting to see what others will contribute; still others will mirror the messages they think their instructor is modeling. Addressivity and transparency becomes significant concerns. A great number of challenges arise in facilitating a circle of participants whose previous experiences have required their compliance and silence. Gaining participants’ trust and encouraging their confidence to speak and express themselves without first seeking the instructor’s permission is crucial. Currently, the self-paced model of instruction short-circuits the rationale for self-sponsored writing. Few learners will write for an audience of one (their instructor). There needs to be a precedent in place for discussions among adult literacy learners to flourish. I wonder if such precedents exist.

The model presented here suggests a predominantly teacher-led inquiry, highly structured and based on one instructor working for a select period of time with a cohort of learners all participating at the same time on the same tasks.

Integration (13% of transcripts’ responses)

1.      Learners begin to construct meaning and “…assess the applicability of ideas in terms of how well they connect and describe the issue or event under consideration.” Pg. 4

2.      Learners move repeatedly between reflection and discourse

3.      This phase is difficult to detect for instructor because “…evidence of the integration of ideas and the construction of meaning must be inferred.” (pg. 4)

4.      This phase requires active instructor involvement to “…diagnose misconceptions, to provide probing questions, comments, and additional information in an effort to ensure continuing cognitive development, and to model the critical thinking process”.

Resolution (4% of transcripts’ responses)

1.      Thought experiments and consensus building

2.      Progression to the fourth phase requires clear expectations from instructor and opportunities to apply newly created knowledge

I found this phase very hard to conceptualize, to see in my own mind what it consists of.

What are the artifacts for analysis? How do resolution activities demonstrate themselves to students and their instructors?

Assessing Cognitive Development

-          Authors suggest using heuristic models of assessment judged by participants

-          Assumption and expectation that learners within community of practical inquiry interact by questioning one another, demanding reasons for beliefs, and pointing out consequences of each other’s ideas;

-          Promote dialogic writing among participants

-          Significant confusion by coders to distinguish exploring and integration phases

-          Authors suggested that the number of responses involving integration were lower because this activity “… requires time for reflection to synthesize information. It also may be more risky to offer tentative solutions or hypotheses in that their ideas may be rejected.” (pg. 13)

-          Authors speculate that the facilitation and the course design did not encourage discourse among participants to engage in activities such as the testing of ideas and resolution.

I wonder if the Practical Inquiry Model is strongly tied to intellectual traditions within a Eurocentric culture. Questioning, probing, judging, criticizing, and persuading are culturally sensitive in some cultures so that facilitating these activities might clash with the ways of other cultures.