COI Framework

I have spent the last year studying this framework as a central part of my dissertation direction. Therefore I am not sure how I can give any fresh approach that will be an interesting post! My point of view is that the COI is an interesting framework but I do not think that it is by any means a complete view of learning or a complete view of what is needed to create a perfect learning environment. However, that does not mean that it is not a useful framework. There are without questions elements of truth, and it provides some constructs that are useful for some measurement and discussion of learning experiences and environments.

For my research, the framework, and accompanying measurement instrument is helpful in defining constructs that help me to identify strengths and weaknesses in the model of learning that I am developing. The framework gives me a common language that I can use to discuss elements and principles of my model. In this instance I am using the COI framework to help me analyze the benefits and issues of my model, and to hence improve the model.

The COI could also be used as a framework for designing instruction. However, I would recommend that if it is to be used as a model for design, that a designer first establish that the assumptions within the framework match their own assumptions about learning. For example, the framework is named "Community of Inquiry" which gives me the immediate impression that the framework assumes that learning is a thing to do with inquiry. It is not named the community of instruction for a reason. I am personally a little shy of claiming that learning is one thing or another in its essence, or even that it should be one thing or another. I would rather concentrate on given objectives, and student context, motivations, demographics and so forth to determine design constraints. In my mind learning can be different things in different situations and I do not like making categorizations that force design and research down one particular road.

Anyway, after using the framework as part of my research, what I think I have discovered is that there is something major missing from its underlying principles. I feel that the framework omits the principle of humanness. COI mentions community and presence, but seems to do so in a mostly functional manner. What I am trying to say is that the framework seems to suggest that if students do certain things, or converse in certain ways, or if teachers structure their course in certain ways then all is well. There does not seem to be any room for what students are "like" or what instructors are "like" and the nature of communication between real people. The care and concern of a teacher, or the natural empathy and care from one student to another are not process, function, or structural constructs. They are mostly about ways of "being". My particular bias is that good human qualities, or ways of being, are incredibly powerful and necessary to create a great learning environment that has the power to create longer term learning and appreciation for learning and the people involved in the learning environment. I believe that human to human mentoring and empathetic motivational power is perhaps the most powerful element of useful learning experiences especially when one of the learning objectives is to affect change and personal human nature progression. Skills can be learned without the humanness I am describing, that is true, but there seems to be something valuable missing from the world when people are not picking up and assimilating the traits of other (hopefully better) people.

All this being said, I would probably not use the COI as a framework for the design of instruction as it does not account from the kind of human connections and ways of being that I think are important, but I would certainly use elements of the framework that I do think for the most part provide a useful template.