Vol. 35 No. 1 (2020): Special Issue on Technology and Teacher Education
Special Issue

The Community of Inquiry Framework: Future Practical Directions - Shared Metacognition

Norman Vaughan
Mount Royal University
Jessica Lee Wah
Mount Royal University
Published October 30, 2020
How to Cite
Vaughan, N., & Lee Wah, J. (2020). The Community of Inquiry Framework: Future Practical Directions - Shared Metacognition. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education / Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 35(1). Retrieved from https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1154


Abstract: Metacognition is a required cognitive ability to achieve deep and meaningful learning that should be viewed from both an individual and social perspective. Recently, the transition from the earliest individualistic models to an acknowledgement of metacognition as socially situated and socially constructed has precipitated the study of metacognition in collaborative learning environments. This metacognitive construct was developed using the Community of Inquiry framework as a theoretical guide and tested applying qualitative research techniques by way of developing a metacognition questionnaire. The results indicate that in order to better understand the structure and dynamics of metacognition in teacher education programs; we must go beyond individual approaches to learning and consider metacognition in terms of complementary self- and co-regulation that integrates individual and shared regulation. This research study examines this shared metacognition framework and the use of digital technologies in the 3rd year of a Canadian Bachelor of Education program. Teacher candidates completed both the Shared Metacognition and Community of Inquiry surveys. The results indicate that a teacher must use digital technologies to intentionally design, facilitate, and direct a collaborative constructive learning environment in order for students to learn how to co-regulate their learning (shared metacognition).

Keywords: action research, student engagement, shared metacognition, Community of Inquiry (CoI), mixed method, teaching presence

Résumé: La métacognition est une capacité cognitive requise pour réaliser un apprentissage profond et significatif qui doit être considéré à la fois d'un point de vue individuel et social. Récemment, le passage des premiers modèles individualistes à une reconnaissance de la métacognition comme socialement située et socialement construite a amené à étudier la métacognition dans les environnements d'apprentissage collaboratif. Cette construction métacognitive a été développée en utilisant le cadre de la communauté d'enquête comme guide théorique et testée en appliquant des techniques de recherche qualitative en développant un questionnaire sur la métacognition. Les résultats indiquent que pour mieux comprendre la structure et la dynamique de la métacognition dans les programmes de formation des enseignants, nous devons aller au-delà des approches individuelles de l'apprentissage et considérer la métacognition en termes d'autorégulation complémentaire et de corégulation qui intègre la régulation individuelle et partagée. Cette étude de recherche examine ce cadre de métacognition partagé et l'utilisation des technologies numériques en 3e année d'un programme canadien de baccalauréat en éducation. Les enseignants candidats ont répondu aux sondages sur la métacognition et la communauté d'enquête. Les résultats indiquent qu'un enseignant doit utiliser les technologies numériques pour concevoir, faciliter et diriger intentionnellement un environnement d'apprentissage constructif collaboratif afin que les élèves apprennent à coréguler leur apprentissage (métacognition partagée).

Mots clés: engagement étudiant, métacognition partagée, Community of Inquiry (CoI), présence enseignante


  1. Alton-Lee, A. (2003, June). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). New Zealand Ministry of Education.
  2. Ann & Sandy Cross Conservation Area. (2020). Website. http://www.crossconservation.org/
  3. Asad, K. (2013). Understanding the pareto principle (the 80/20 rule). Website. https://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-pareto-principle-the-8020-rule/
  4. Chang, Y., & Brickman, P. (2018). When group work doesn't work: Insights from students. CBE life sciences education, 17(3), ar42. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-09-0199
  5. Chick, N. (2015). Metacognition: Thinking about one’s thinking. Vanderbilt University-The Centre for Teaching. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/metacognition/
  6. Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper and Row.
  7. Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice (3rd Edition). Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
  8. Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2015a). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 24, 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.001
  9. Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2015b). Corrigendum to ‘Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry.’ Internet and Higher Education, 26, 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.001
  10. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 133–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
  11. Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
  12. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. http://cde.athabascau.ca/coi_site/documents/Garrison_Anderson_Archer_Critical_Inquiry_model.pdf
  13. Hattie, J. & Yates, G.C.R. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  14. Knowles, M. S. (1986). Using learning contracts. Jossey-Bass.
  15. Kromydas, T. (2017). Rethinking higher education and its relationship with social inequalities: past knowledge, present state and future potential. Palgrave Communications 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0001-8
  16. Likkel, L. (2012). Calibrated peer review: Essays increase student confidence in assessing their own writing. Journal of College Science Teaching. 41(3), 42–47. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/88988/
  17. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press.
  18. Littky, D. & Grabelle, S. (2004). The big picture: Education is everyone's business. ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).
  19. Nakoda Elementary School. (2020). Website. https://www.nakodaschool.ca
  20. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  21. Regier, P. (2014, September 15). Using technology to engage the non-traditional student. EDUCAUSE Review, September/October, 2014, 70–88. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/9/using-technology-to-engage-the-nontraditional-student
  22. Rodgers, D. (2017, August 2). Learning from failure: 6 Short edtech case studies you need to read [Blog post]. Schoology Exchange. https://www.schoology.com/blog/learning-failure-6-short-edtech-case-studies-you-need-read
  23. Stringer, E.T. (2014). Action research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  24. Telus SPARK Science Centre. (2020). https://www.sparkscience.ca/
  25. Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge. Penguin Books.
  26. The Compass. (2020). Tim Horton’s Children’s Ranch. Website. https://thethcompass.com/camps/tim-horton-childrens-ranch/
  27. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
  28. University of California at Los Angeles. (2019). Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) tool. http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/Home
  29. Vaughan, N.D., Cleveland-Innes, M. & Garrison, D.R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Athabasca University Press. http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120229