wk 3 discuss critical

Earlier this week in the article, “

Interrogating Students’ Perceptions of Their Online Learning Experiences With Brookfield’s Critical Incident QuestionnaireLinks to an external site.

,” you examined Stephen Brookfield’s discussion on the benefits of using the CIQ in teaching, including trust building between learner and instructor, learner critical reflection, and personal development for the teacher. You then completed the CIQ provided in the Week 3 Study.

For this discussion, post your professional and respectful answers to the five questions within the CIQ:

At what moment in the course this week did you feel most engaged with what was happening?
At what moment in class this week were you most distanced from what was happening?
What action that anyone (teacher or student) took this week did you find most affirming or helpful?
What action that anyone took this week did you find most puzzling or confusing?
What about the class this week surprised you the most? (This could be about your own reaction to what went on, something that someone did, or anything else that occurred.)

Interrogating students’ perceptions of their online learning
experiences with Brookfield’s critical incident questionnaire

Liam Phelan*

GradSchool and Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Newcastle,
New South Wales, Australia

(Received 23 April 2011; final version received 30 November 2011)

This article discusses whether the very act of accessing online students’ experi-
ences of teaching may itself foster students’ sense of belonging to a learning
community. The article reports and reflects on the application of Brookfield’s
critical incident questionnaire (CIQ) in postgraduate courses delivered online in
2008–2010 through the University of Newcastle in Australia. The anonymous
CIQ is designed in part to access students’ views of teaching practice, and was
deployed as part of an ongoing interest in quality teaching. The article makes
recommendations for deploying the CIQ in online learning spaces and concludes
with some reflections on unexpected opportunities thoughtful CIQ deployment
may provide. The practice of sharing students’ anonymous responses may have
helped to foster students’ sense of a shared learning community. This may be
particularly valuable in an asynchronous online learning context where students
are typically geographically isolated from one another.

Keywords: reflecting on teaching; tertiary teaching and learning quality; Brook-
field’s critical incident questionnaire; online learning communities

Introduction

This article deals with accessing online postgraduate students’ experiences of teaching
practice, and explores whether the very act of seeking students’ perspectives may
foster students’ sense of belonging to learning communities (Rovai, 2002). To access
students’ experiences, I used an amended version of Brookfield’s critical incident
questionnaire (CIQ) (1995), inspired by Brookfield’s four lenses framework for
developing critical reflection on teaching practice. One of Brookfield’s four lenses is
students’ perspectives, and the CIQ is designed to access students’ experiences of
teaching. However, the act of using the CIQ has raised the possibility that thoughtful
CIQ deployment may itself constructively contribute to fostering a sense of
community (Rovai, 2002) among cohorts of students engaged in online learning, an
increasingly prevalent form of adult education delivery (Dawson, 2006). A sense of
community is understood to support learning outcomes and student satisfaction of
learning experiences (Black, Dawson, & Priem, 2008; Lear, Ansourge, & Steckelberg,
2010). The notion of learning or classroom community is consistent with currently
prevalent socio-constructivist education practices, which emphasize learning as a
social and interactive activity (Dawson, 2006, p. 153; Levine Laufgraben & Shapiro,

*Email: liam.phelan@newcastle.edu.au

Distance Education
Vol. 33, No. 1, May 2012, 31–44

ISSN 0158-7919 print/ISSN 1475-0198 online
� 2012 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.667958
http://www.tandfonline.com

2004). Learning was recognized as a social activity long before the advent of online
education (Lear et al., 2010, p. 72), and conceptualizing learning as a social and inter-
active activity provides a rationale for fostering a sense of community in online
cohorts: “the development of an online learning community is an important approach
to enhance the learning of online students” (Tu & Corry, 2001, p. 245).

Rather than reporting on the design and results of an intended research project,
this article reports on activity undertaken to support high-quality teaching through
reflection on practice. As such, this article is perhaps more reflective in style than it
would otherwise be. Even so, the outcomes reported here may be of interest to
scholars of classroom community and online teaching and learning. The first section
briefly introduces and reviews (a) the CIQ, its context and rationale for use, and (b)
the literature on learning communities. I then describe the deployment of the CIQ
in an online learning context at the University of Newcastle in Australia. Some stu-
dents’ responses to the CIQ in two sets follow. Firstly, responses as anticipated,
given the purposive use of the CIQ (i.e., to access students’ perspectives of teach-
ing). Secondly, responses suggesting thoughtful CIQ deployment may itself contrib-
ute to fostering a sense of community. Later sections discuss the implications of the
results, with particular attention to the second set of student responses, and
conclude the article.

Brookfield’s CIQ and learning communities

Brookfield’s CIQ

Critical reflection on teaching practice offers enhanced teaching and learning prac-
tice informed by values in a conscious and systematic way (Brookfield, 2006b;
Hedberg, 2009; Tripp, 1993; Woods, 1993a). The term critical “is deeply perverse
in the plurality of connotations and interpretations (some of them contradictory) it
provokes” (Brookfield, 2005, p. 11). Critical reflection, as used by Brookfield
(1995), refers to developing awareness of the assumptions that lie behind teaching
practice. Brookfield (1995) explicitly named critical reflection as “inherently
ideological” and “morally grounded,” and tied it to values of “justice, fairness and
compassion” and democratic processes (pp. 26–27).

In seeking to reflect critically on teaching, Brookfield (1995) advocated “look
[ing] at what we do from as many unfamiliar angles as possible” (p. 28). Brookfield
(1995) drew on Tripp’s discussion of critical incidents (1993) and Woods’ discus-
sion of critical events (1993b) to refer to incidents that are understood to be impor-
tant, and that invite reflection, which can reveal hidden assumptions practitioners
may hold in relation to their teaching and their students’ learning. “Critical inci-
dents are vivid happenings that for some reason people remember as being signifi-
cant” (Brookfield, 1995, p. 114). CIQs are deployed in part to provide access to
students’ view of teaching practice. This is consistent with Brookfield’s students’
eyes lens (1995), one of four lenses useful for systematic critical reflection on teach-
ing (pp. 28–39).

Insights achieved through use of this students’ eyes lens complement those gen-
erated through the colleagues’ experiences lens, valuable because colleagues offer
another set of eyes: a trusted, alternate, and expert perspective on teaching practice.
The autobiographies as teachers and learners lens is valuable because it encour-
ages teachers to put themselves in the role of the other; that is, draw on teachers’
own earlier student experiences. The theoretical literature lens is useful to identify

32 L. Phelan

generic elements of teaching practice and so enable articulation of teaching
experiences (Brookfield, 1995, pp. 28–39).

The CIQ is designed to be used weekly for the term of an adult education
course. Students are allocated the last 5–10 minutes of a class to complete the CIQ
anonymously. After class, the lecturer briefly reviews students’ responses and draws
out themes (Brookfield, 1995, p. 116). The following week, at the beginning of
class, the lecturer shares with students common themes drawn from their responses.
The lecturer may refer to individual comments also. If the lecturer chooses to make
changes to teaching on the basis of students’ responses, these changes are also
explained. The lecturer may also re-explain or re-justify aspects of the course design
and conduct that may not be changed.

The CIQ is a valuable tool to support critical reflection on teaching practice. It
is a qualitative tool, designed for repeated use, and designed to reveal assumptions
about teaching practice that, upon exposure and reflection, can allow for better qual-
ity teaching. The primary purpose of the CIQ is to assess student critical thinking,
so as to allow reflection on the part of teachers in support of continued professional
development (Gilstrap & Dupree, 2008, p. 410). In the next section, I shift focus to
learning communities, in order to later link the two literatures.

Learning communities

Learning communities—individuals who come together for the purpose of learning—
support learning through reducing attrition, promoting critical thinking skills, and
facilitating achievement of learning goals (Dawson, 2006, p. 154). Learning (or class-
room) communities support collaborative learning, which “enhances the active
exchange of ideas within small groups and increases interest among the participants,
but also promotes critical thinking” (Tu & Corry, 2001, p. 258). The argument that a
sense of community supports learning outcomes and student satisfaction of learning
experiences is common in the literature (e.g., Black et al., 2008; Dawson, 2006; Lear
et al., 2010; Ni & Aust, 2008; Vlachopoulos & Cowan, 2010). Classroom community
is an aspect of both face-to-face (FTF) and distance learning environments.

Attention to building community in online learning spaces is important in part
because “in distance education programs … it is a “sense of community” that attracts
and retains learners” (Rovai, 2002, p. 199). Previously, Rovai (2000) drew on
McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) earlier and broader work on communities to define
classroom community specifically as a psychological community characterized by:

A feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one
another and to the group, that they have duties and obligations to each other and to
the school, and that they possess a shared faith that members’ educational needs will
be met through their commitment to shared goals. (Rovai, 2000, p. 287)

Rovai (2000), Rovai (2002) and Rovai and Whiting’s (2005) discussion is
specifically of distance education contexts, such as online learning, also referred to
as asynchronous learning networks (ALNs).

Yet the literature on the importance of community for learning in the online
space is not exclusively supportive of this argument. Lapointe and Reisetter (2008)
suggested that a majority of, but not all, students who value online learning also
value opportunities to interact and be part of a learning community. A minority of
students who value online learning value the flexibility and independence it offers,

Distance Education 33

and have little interest in engaging with peers. This led Lapointe and Reisetter
(2008) to suggest that the existence of a minority of students not seeking the
opportunity to interact with peers raises questions about the manner and extent to
which exchanges are usefully required of students in online learning environments.

The online learning context varies from the traditional (i.e., FTF) tertiary educa-
tion context in important ways (Conrad & Donaldson, 2004; Dillon, Wang, & Tearle,
2007). My own experience in teaching on campus and online since 2004 also attests
to this. Although students in online classes learn content and report satisfaction with
their learning similarly to students in FTF settings, students in each context report
“decidedly different learning experiences” (Reisetter, Lapointe, & Korcuska, 2007,
p. 55). Yet while there are differences between FTF and online learning contexts,
Brookfield (2006b) warned against simply accepting the (double) “caricature” of
online education as “an alienating, disembodied process in contrast to the warmth
and fluidity of bodies gathered together in face-to-face classrooms” (p. 210).

Asynchronous discussion board interaction remains the most common form of
interaction in online learning spaces (Sharpe & Pawlyn, 2009). Rovai’s classroom
community scale (CCS) measures discussion board exchange volumes to provide a
quantitative measure of sense of community among cohorts of students engaged in
learning in ALNs (2002). Dawson further developed Rovai’s CCS (2002) to demon-
strate “the existence of a significant relationship between student frequency of com-
munication and sense of community” (Dawson, 2006, p. 160). Other researchers
have made similar efforts to link sense of community with students’ online activity,
as logged by online learning management systems such as Moodle and Blackboard
(e.g., Black et al., 2008).

Students’ interaction with course content, with peers, and with the instructor sup-
port students’ development of a sense of community, and this in turn supports learner
engagement (Lear et al., 2010). Learners’ exchanges, their engagement, and their
sense of community may even constitute a virtuous spiral; that is, a self-reinforcing
process that supports achievement of learning goals. Findings linking student
exchanges, student persistence, and achievement are consistent with this (e.g., Morris,
Finnegan, & Wu, 2005).

In the next section, I describe the deployment of Brookfield’s CIQ in an online
context (1995). As noted above, my purpose was to access students’ perspectives
on my teaching, in the context of an interest in teaching excellence. However,
responses suggest CIQ deployment may also present an opportunity to foster
students’ sense of belonging to a learning community in the online space.

Deploying Brookfield’s CIQ in the online learning space

CIQs can be used and adapted in various ways (Adams, 2001; Gilstrap & Dupree,
2008). The second edition of Brookfield’s The Skillful Teacher (2006b) includes dis-
cussion of using the CIQ in online learning environments. However, a recent and
comprehensive literature review (Keefer, 2009) identified only one published study
that refers to the CIQ being used in an online context (Glowacki-Dudka & Barnett,
2007). In this article, I draw on the experience of deploying the CIQ since 2008
through two core courses delivered online through the University of Newcastle, as
part of the Master of Environmental Management and the Master of Environmental
and Business Management. The discussion in this article is informed by use of the
CIQ over several years, but data included in this article are all from one use of the

34 L. Phelan

CIQ in 2010, deployed toward the end of the first week of Sustainability and
Ecosystem Health (Albrecht, Evans, & Phelan, 2007/2010), offered in second
trimester (late May to mid August). The CIQ was deployed purposively (Burnham,
Lutz, Grant, & Layton-Henry, 2008); that is, as appropriate to the research aim,
which was to access student experiences during the first week of trimester—the
earliest and perhaps most bewildering stage of an online course, particularly for
students new to an online learning context. The single (rather than repeated) use of
the CIQ is a variation on the intended weekly use for which the CIQ is designed.
Other surveys or questionnaires may have also been suitable.

The standard CIQ is worded for use in an FTF learning situation. The wording
of the CIQ questions as used in FTF learning contexts has been amended by vari-
ous authors for varied reasons (see Brookfield, 2006a; Keefer, 2009; Taylor, n.d.).
Using the CIQ in an asynchronous online education delivery context required rela-
tively simple modification to question wording to refer to a specific course module
week (i.e., week 1) rather than a particular class period. Brookfield’s (1995) stan-
dard CIQ questions refer to an on-campus, in-class learning period; for example,
the standard wording for question 1 is as follows: “At what moment in class this
week did you feel most engaged with what was happening?” (emphasis added).
These standard questions were modified as follows:

• Question 1: At what moment in this week’s discussion did you feel most
engaged with what was happening?

• Question 2: At what moment in this week’s discussion did you feel most dis-
tanced from what was happening?

• Question 3: What action that anyone (whether instructor or fellow student)
took in this week’s discussion did you find most affirming and helpful?

• Question 4: What action that anyone (whether instructor or fellow student)
took in this week’s discussion did you find most puzzling or confusing?

• Question 5: What about this week’s discussion surprised you the most? (This
could be something about your own reactions to what went on, or something
that someone did, or anything else that occurs to you.)

Brookfield (2006b, p. 198) has provided a similar rewording of the standard
CIQ questions for online use.

The online courses in which the CIQ has been deployed are delivered via the
Blackboard learning management system (LMS) used at the University of Newcas-
tle, and structured around 12 learning modules. Each module runs for one week,
with students and the lecturer making contributions to the course discussion board
across the week.

The CIQ was made available to students enrolled in online courses through the
surveys area in each Blackboard course site. Participation was voluntary and anony-
mous. Asynchronicity in the course overall was reflected in the period during which
the CIQ was made accessible for student responses: during the final two days and
until two days after the period for which a sense of the student experience was
being sought, that is, week 1.

However, respondent anonymity through surveys in the Blackboard LMS can be
partially compromised where respondents do not all complete a survey simulta-
neously. Blackboard updates its records in Gradebook of who has completed a
survey as students complete the survey. In theory, a user with instructor privileges

Distance Education 35

(i.e., a lecturer) could repeatedly check to see when Gradebook records a student as
having completed the survey, then download the results from Gradebook, thereby
attributing the single set of responses to a particular student. As well as being
unethical and counter to the purpose of CIQ deployment, in practice this would be
a highly effort-intensive and time-consuming activity. Nevertheless, it remains a
possibility.

In deploying the CIQ online I advised students that Blackboard’s functioning
allowed this theoretical possibility, committed publicly to ensure students’ ano-
nymity, and did not seek to identify individual student responses. An alternative
approach that ensures anonymity of individual students’ responses would be to
establish a dedicated CIQ discussion board within Blackboard set up to allow
anonymous postings. This is the approach taken by Glowacki-Dudka and Barnett
(2007). However, responses would be visible to all students as soon as they were
posted, perhaps influencing subsequent students’ responses. Additionally, respon-
dents could also in theory post multiple responses to each question. Alternatives
outside the Blackboard LMS include online surveys. It is perhaps worth keeping
in mind that the CIQ is designed not as a basis for a research project, but to
quickly and easily provide an opportunity for critical reflection in the course of
teaching.

Students were advised their responses to the CIQ would be collated and shared
among the cohort, together with my reflections on themes drawn from aggregated
students’ responses. Students were also advised why this would be done: in the
interests of transparency. Giving students access to their own and peers’ responses
demonstrates responses have been faithfully recorded through the process. The
purpose of the second step, that is, sharing my reflections (standard for CIQ
use—Brookfield, 1995, pp. 116–117) is to show students that their responses truly
constitute feedback: their responses are received and acknowledged, and I have
considered them in my ongoing facilitation of their learning experience. I am of
course not obliged to act on any responses. I may or may not choose to do so. In
either case, some explanation for my decision in the context of learning objectives
and course structure may be helpful for students.

Responses and reflections

I begin this section by reviewing some anticipated students’ responses before
exploring responses that suggest the potential for thoughtful CIQ deployment to
contribute to fostering community in the online learning space. Of the 50 stu-
dents enrolled at the end of the first week, 27 students provided responses to
the CIQ, a response rate of 54%. The CIQ has five questions, and so 27
respondents generated 135 individual responses (including two respondents leav-
ing a total of three questions unanswered). As is common in use of the CIQ in
FTF learning contexts (Adams, 2001; Brookfield, 1995), responses reported vari-
ation, including frequent contradiction, in student experiences of the same class.
In this section, I draw predominantly on qualitative data analysis (Bryman,
2008) to demonstrate the richness and variation of students’ experiences and
illustrate the possible link between thoughtful CIQ deployment and classroom
community. I also provide a limited quantitative analysis in order to indicate
how widely felt students’ comments are. In order to draw on both qualitative
and quantitative analyses I have categorized students’ responses. Categories are
indicated in the text.

36 L. Phelan

Anticipated responses

Student responses to the CIQ deployed in the online learning space in this instance
are diverse, similar to what might be expected from use of a CIQ in an FTF
learning context (Adams, 2001; Brookfield, 1995). In this section, I note some stu-
dent responses to the CIQ that may be unique to use of the CIQ in an online con-
text. Additionally I note some reflections informed by student responses.

Diversity in responses showed important differences in experiences of the first
week of trimester between students new to online learning and ongoing students.
The following three responses are indicative of potential variation in student experi-
ences based in part on whether or not students are new to online learning. The
responses are to question 2, “At what moment in this week’s discussion did you
feel most distanced from what was happening?” The first two responses below con-
trast with the third:

This is my first subject as an online student, and I was very apprehensive before the
Blackboard opened up, as I had no idea what I was supposed to be doing. (Student 1)

At the start of the week, simply due to the fact that I was trying to work out how the
system worked, as well as the dynamics of the group. (Student 2)

I have used the BB [Blackboard] before and as a result did not feel distant at all.
Front end loading [i.e., early provision of] information assisted with this nice and
early. (Student 3)

Students’ responses also highlight issues that may appear mundane but clearly
are important with regard to the potential for student engagement; for example,
the importance of receiving course materials on time (three respondents (11%)
providing four individual responses) as well as familiarization with Blackboard
software and online learning culture generally (12 respondents (44%) providing
19 individual responses). The following is also a response to question 2, “At what
moment in this week’s discussion did you feel most distanced from what was
happening?”:

When people started discussing technicalities to do with the topics on Blackboard, and I
had not even done introductory reading. [P]erhaps this is because [I] haven’t yet received
my textbook or perhaps [I] did not start my research early enough. Also because this is
my first online course I am still generally confused about how it all works.

Thus, the CIQ has been very useful for accessing a sense of students’ varied
experiences of the first week of an online postgraduate course.

Sharing my reflections on students’ responses is also important, to show stu-
dents my interest in their responses. This is my reflection, shared with collated
anonymous students’ responses to question 3, “What action that anyone (whether
instructor or fellow student) took in this week’s discussion did you find most
affirming and helpful?”:

Seems to me many folks find the opportunity to engage with others to be a source of
affirmation in what for some at least is a new and somewhat daunting environment. I
like the reference to an “open culture”—this is how I want the course to be, so I’m
glad there’s a report that it’s being experienced that way. In terms of practicalities, the
importance of me providing timely responses to folks is not a surprise (it seems to me

Distance Education 37

sometimes that “good practice” and “good manners” can overlap greatly!), and it’s
good to have that message coming through strongly.

Sharing my reflections on students’ responses demonstrates to students that their
comments have been received and considered.

An unanticipated opportunity: a contribution to fostering community?

Use of the CIQ on which this article reports raises the further question of the reflex-
ive influence of the act of employing the CIQ itself in furthering group develop-
ment or a sense of a shared learning community. A sense of community can be
important for learning outcomes (Dawson, 2006; Lear et al., 2010; Morris et al.,
2005). It may be particularly important in the online context, where students are
geographically dispersed, vulnerable to isolation, and likely never physically in the
company of each other, or that of the lecturer, at any time during the learning
experience.

Almost all students (26 respondents (96%) providing 50 individual responses)
provided responses to CIQ questions that underscore the importance of exchanges
and communication between students and between students and the lecturer, toward
feeling comfortable in the online learning context. The following are examples of
responses to question 1, “At what moment in this week’s discussion did you feel
most engaged with what was happening?”:

I felt most engaged during the introductions. The responses were all very friendly, and
I felt like part of a peer group very quickly.

I felt most engaged halfway through the week. I felt that there were a number of con-
sidered responses provided. In addition, I enjoyed watching how the discussions
evolved.

I think the whole first week was full of information exchange where … everyone[’s]
view was different but the concept was same. So I feel I enjoyed and discussed the
whole week as different folks gave their views [at] different time[s].

Started Friday but was feeling more confident Saturday afternoon after opening and
reading just about everything on line.

The introductions discussion board was a great way to engage everyone straight off.
Was great to read everyones [sic] responses and see what a diverse group there is even
though we are not sitting in a physical room to learn together.

Just reading the others responses helped. As this is my first University experience [it
is] all … a bit daunting.

The following are responses to question 3, “What action that anyone (whether
instructor or fellow student) took in this week’s discussion did you find most
affirming and helpful?”:

[T]he [dedicated discussion board] where people posted questions about how the
course works and what they are confused about in terms of course structure, assess-
ment etc. This helped me understand a bit more about how it all works.

38 L. Phelan

When a fellow student replied to what I’d written on Bb and said that she found it a
useful point.

Welcome from [the lecturer] was really nice, and particularly getting everyone to
introduce ourselves.

There are a number of my classmates who are very involved with the discussion
process—personal greetings, responses, getting to know you, making connections. It
feels like there are some old hands at the online game who know how to make it work
well. I am extremely happy to be part of this group, and enjoying it immensely.

I felt that it was a combination of everyones [sic] perspective [sic] that helped to
affirm points. Different ways of thinking about things.

The exchange of information from folks [sic] experience[s] and their view[s were]
very helpful.

Those that responded directly to anothers [sic] questions/comments. There were some
good points of true interaction rather than one way communication.

I feel that the … questions and responses [posted to the dedicated discussion board]
are very helpful. Whilst I have not as yet submitted a response, I have been able to
look through these and my answers have generally been answered before I have
needed to ask.

I liked the way some students (obviously those who have completed a good few
modules) took the lead on the discussions. I thought this was good and what might be
more helpful is if the course leader explained how students can and should use the
discussion board as online learning is new to many students.

Students’ responses made positive reference to active engagement in communi-
cation (20 respondents (74%) providing 25 individual responses), as well as to the
act or experience of observing others communicating (22 respondents (81%) provid-
ing 43 individual responses). Some respondents (nine respondents (33%) providing
14 individual responses) also referred positively to becoming aware of the diversity
of peers’ perspectives.

However, the data also contain some contradictory findings on the relationship
between the volume of exchanges and students’ sense of community, at least in the
first week of an online course. As noted above, 26 of 27 respondents provided CIQ
responses that underscored the importance of exchanges with peers and the lecturer
toward feeling comfortable in the online learning space. Of those 26, six respon-
dents (22% of all respondents, providing eight individual responses) also made ref-
erence to the high volume of online exchanges as being a barrier to their
engagement. The following two responses (to CIQ questions 1 and 5) illustrate this:

[I]t did become intimidating trying to be involved when there were so many discus-
sion threads advancing quickly.

Probably same as question three, it is my second semester and there is a difference in
the more senior students and how they interact in the online student environment, their
confidence comes through. This is good but for the new student it can be a little
daunting, afraid to give their views. It will wear off though;o)

Distance Education 39

The basis for this finding is extremely limited. Nevertheless, it may suggest
greater complexity to the relationship between discussion board exchange volumes
and cohorts of online students’ sense of community than may be identified through
a purely quantitative analysis, as suggested by Dawson (2006). It may be that
attention to qualitative aspects of discussion board exchanges (e.g., discussion
participation, content, structure, timing, and evolution) will complement and
enhance quantitative analyses, and so provide a more nuanced understanding of the
relationship between discussion board interaction and online students’ sense of
belonging to a learning community.

Discussion

Deploying the CIQ has been helpful in accessing students’ perspectives on teaching
in the first week of an online course, consistent with Brookfield’s (1995) four lenses
approach to critical reflection on teaching practice. In some instances students’ vol-
untary, anonymous responses confirm existing hunches about what is important to
supporting students’ engagement in learning; for example, the timeliness of replies
to student queries by email or posted to the dedicated discussion board on the
course Blackboard site (six respondents (22%) providing six individual responses).
The importance of the immediacy of lecturer communication to students in online
learning contexts has been discussed in the literature (e.g., Ni & Aust, 2008).
Responses also showed important differences in experiences of new and ongoing
students.

Other results are perhaps more surprising. For example, the strength of the feel-
ing of destabilization reported by students whose hard copies of course materials
arrived late reinforced the absolute importance of something that could easily be
underestimated; that is, the timely delivery of course materials (three respondents
(11%) providing four individual responses).

Deploying the CIQ online has also raised the question of the impact of the
deployment exercise in fostering a sense of community among student cohorts. This
may be an additional and not previously considered benefit of using the CIQ,
unique to its deployment in an online environment. Brookfield (1995, pp. 118–123)
has identified five benefits of CIQ use, that is, that it can (1) provide alerts to disas-
ter, (2) promote learner reflection, (3) legitimize diverse teaching practices, (4) build
trust in the classroom, and (5) suggest possibilities for teacher development.

In the single study identified in the literature that reports on use of the CIQ in
an online context, Glowacki-Dudka and Barnett (2007) used the (unmodified) CIQ
in part to track group development (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) for
cohorts of students over the terms of two online adult education courses, through
Tuckman’s (1965) and Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) sequence of forming, storm-
ing, norming, performing, and adjourning. Glowacki-Dudka and Barnett’s (2007)
focus was on the impact of CIQ use in accordance with its design; that is, support-
ing students’ critical reflection on their learning, rather than the reflexive effect of
the act of deploying the CIQ to potentially foster a sense of community in a student
cohort.

However, using the CIQ online has suggested an unintended and additional
benefit for students: an unexpected contribution to a shared sense of belonging to a
learning community. The act of engaging students in the CIQ, that is, announcing
the CIQ, making the CIQ available, having students complete the CIQ, then reflect-

40 L. Phelan

ing on student responses, and finally sharing anonymous student responses together
with my reflections, fosters community in two ways.

First, by structuring a conversation between students and lecturer, CIQ
deployment invites additional student interactions, beyond those directly related to
specified learning activities (e.g., assessment tasks). There is a strong relationship
between the volume of students’ interactions and their sense of community (Dawson,
2006). The act of employing the CIQ as described in this article requires communi-
cation exchanges of students consistent with those referred to in students’ CIQ
responses as important to their sense of participating in and belonging to a learning
community. Employing the CIQ requires communication from the lecturer to
students (an email and a Blackboard announcement on Thursday of week 1, and a
reminder announcement on the Monday of week 2), inviting voluntary and anony-
mous participation. Students’ responses in turn spark reflections from the lecturer.
Lastly, sharing the collated student responses and lecturer’s reflections provides
students with access to their peers’ reporting of their experiences, as well as the
lecturer’s reflections on students’ responses. This was announced on Thursday of
week 2, shared via a dedicated discussion board, and viewed 38 times by students
during the one-week period the board was available (i.e., Thursday of week 2
through Wednesday of week 3). In short, CIQ deployment supports meaning and
ongoing conversation between students and lecturer.

Second, and more fundamentally, an ongoing conversation between students and
lecturer about course structure and functioning may facilitate students’ capacity to
conceptualize and value learning as an interactive activity. The content of CIQ-
anchored discussion may encourage an appreciation of learning as an interactive
activity in students who have not previously considered learning in such terms. As
noted earlier, socio-constructivist understandings of learning are prevalent in the lit-
erature. However, not all students will necessarily be attuned to this perspective,
and instead value flexibility and independence in online learning, and not the poten-
tial for interaction with peers (Lapointe & Reisetter, 2008). Thus the CIQ, by virtue
of its focus on critical reflection and its facilitation of an openly and inclusively
iterative approach to course management, may also offer the opportunity for stu-
dents who are not so disposed, to reflect on the possibility and value of engaging in
learning as an interactive activity.

Fostering community is not a specific aspiration of the CIQ as commonly used,
and is additional to the five benefits of CIQ use claimed by Brookfield (1995, pp.
118–123). However, it may be particularly useful for supporting learning outcomes
and student satisfaction in the online space, where students are typically geographi-
cally dispersed, vulnerable to isolation, and unlikely to ever be physically in the
presence of their peers and lecturer.

Conclusion

This article has reported on online deployment of Brookfield’s CIQ with the aim to
access students’ experiences of the first week of an online postgraduate course.
Successful deployment of the CIQ in an online learning environment confirms
Glowacki-Dudka and Barnett’s (2007) experience that the CIQ is usable in an
online context, albeit with some simple and minor amendment in this instance. Use
of the CIQ via the Blackboard LMS has revealed the potential in practice for
students’ anonymity to be vulnerable to compromise in the course of their participa-

Distance Education 41

tion in a CIQ or any other survey. This article has also noted alternatives to using
Blackboard’s survey feature for online CIQ deployment.

Even though the CIQ is designed for repeated use toward deeper interrogation
of assumptions behind teaching practice, even the limited use of the CIQ in an
online context described in this article has helpfully confirmed some expectations of
students’ experiences and revealed more unexpected aspects also. Brookfield (1995)
argued that “the most fundamental meta-criterion for judging whether or not good
teaching is happening is the extent to which teachers deliberately and systematically
try and get inside students’ heads and see classrooms and learning from their point
of view” (p. 35). Online learning is a relatively new but increasingly prevalent
format for tertiary education (Black et al., 2008). This suggests there is merit in
tertiary teaching staff deploying the CIQ (or similar tools) to seek access to student
perspectives of online teaching.

The very act of employing the CIQ online may have the unexpected and reflex-
ive benefit of fostering the creation of a shared learning community for students in
two ways. First, the act of engaging students in the CIQ, that is, announcing the
CIQ, then making the CIQ available, having students complete the CIQ, then
reflecting on student responses, and finally sharing anonymous, collated student
responses and my (the teacher’s) reflections on responses with the group overall,
may have contributed to the creation of a sense of a shared learning community in
the online space simply through facilitating an increased volume of student
exchanges. Second, and more deeply, an ongoing conversation between students
and lecturer about course structure and functioning may facilitate students’ capacity
to conceptualize and value learning as an interactive, social activity. Fostering com-
munity is not a specific aspiration of the CIQ as commonly used, and is additional
to the five benefits of CIQ use claimed by Brookfield (1995, pp. 118–123). How-
ever, repeated use of the CIQ, for which it was designed, across the term of a
course may amplify the CIQ’s contribution to fostering a sense of community and
so support learning outcomes and student satisfaction in online environments, where
students are typically geographically dispersed, vulnerable to isolation, and unlikely
to ever be physically in each others’ presence, or in the presence of the lecturer.

Notes on contributor
Liam Phelan is the Teaching and Learning Coordinator and a Senior Lecturer with
GradSchool at the University of Newcastle. His research interests include online learning
communities, assessment, complexity theory, political economy, climate change, and
sustainability.

References
Adams, K. L. (2001). The critical incident questionnaire: A critical reflective teaching tool.

Exchanges. Retrieved from http://www.calstate.edu/itl/exchanges/
Albrecht, G., Evans, G., & Phelan, L. (2007/2010). ENVS6525 Sustainability and ecosystem

health (course outline). Callaghan: University of Newcastle.
Black, E. W., Dawson, K., & Priem, J. (2008). Data for free: Using LMS activity logs to

measure community in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 65–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.03.002

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. D. (2005). The power of critical theory for adult learning and teaching.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.

42 L. Phelan

http://www.calstate.edu/itl/exchanges/

Brookfield, S. D. (2006a). The classroom critical incident questionnaire. Retrieved from http://
www.stephenbrookfield.com/Dr._Stephen_D._Brookfield/Critical_Incident_Questionnaire_
vfiles/CIQ

Brookfield, S. D. (2006b). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in
the classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burnham, P., Lutz, K. G., Grant, W., & Layton-Henry, Z. (2008). Research methods in poli-

tics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Conrad, R.-M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2004). Engaging the online learner: Activities and

resources for creative instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dawson, S. (2006). A study of the relationship between student communication interaction

and sense of community. The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 153–162. doi: 10.1016/
j.iheduc.2006.06.007

Dillon, P., Wang, R., & Tearle, P. (2007). Cultural disconnection in virtual education. Peda-
gogy, Culture & Society, 15, 153–174. doi: 10.1080/14681360701403565

Gilstrap, D. L., & Dupree, J. (2008). Assessing learning, critical reflection, and quality
educational outcomes: The critical incident questionnaire. College & Research Libraries,
69, 407–426. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/

Glowacki-Dudka, M., & Barnett, N. (2007). Connecting critical reflection and group devel-
opment in online adult education classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, 19, 43–52. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
index.cfm

Hedberg, P. R. (2009). Learning through reflective classroom practice. Journal of Manage-
ment Education, 33, 10–36. doi: 10.1177/1052562908316714

Keefer, J. M. (2009). The critical incident questionnaire (CIQ): From research to practice
and back again. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Adult Education Research Confer-
ence (pp. 177–182). Chicago, IL: National Louis University. Retrieved from http://www.
adulterc.org/Proceedings/2009/proceedings/keefer

Lapointe, L., & Reisetter, M. (2008). Belonging online: Students’ perceptions of the value
and efficacy of an online learning community. International Journal on E-Learning, 7,
641–665. Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/pubs/ijel/

Lear, J. L., Ansourge, C., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Interactivity/community process model
for the online education environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6,
71–77. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/index.html

Levine Laufgraben, J., & Shapiro, N. (2004). Sustaining and improving learning communi-
ties. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.
Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6–23. doi: 10.1002/1520-6629

Morris, L. V., Finnegan, C., & Wu, S.-S. (2005). Tracking student behavior, persistence, and
achievement in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 8, 221–231. doi:
10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.06.009

Ni, S.-F., & Aust, R. (2008). Examining teacher verbal immediacy and sense of classroom
community in online classes. International Journal on E-Learning, 7, 477–498.
Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/pubs/ijel/

Reisetter, M., Lapointe, L., & Korcuska, J. (2007). The impact of altered realities: Implica-
tions of online delivery for learners’ interactions, expectations, and learning skills. Inter-
national Journal on E-Learning, 6, 55–80. Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/pubs/ijel/

Rovai, A. P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks.
The Internet and Higher Education, 3, 285–297. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00037-9

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The
Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197–211. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00102-1

Rovai, A. P., & Whiting, M. J. (2005). Feelings of alienation and community among higher
education students in a virtual classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 8,
97–110. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.03.001

Sharpe, R., & Pawlyn, J. (2009). The role of the tutor in blended e-learning: Experiences
from interprofessional education. In R. Donnelly & F. McSweeney (Eds.), Applied
e-learning and e-teaching in higher education (pp. 18–34). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.

Distance Education 43

http://www. stephenbrookfield.com/Dr._Stephen_D._Brookfield/Critical_Incident_Questionnaire_files/CIQ

http://crl.acrl.org/

http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/index.cfm

http://www.adulterc.org/Proceedings/2009/proceedings/keefer

International Journal on E-Learning (IJEL)

http://jolt.merlot.org/index.html

International Journal on E-Learning (IJEL)

Taylor, P. J. (n.d.). Critical incident questionnaire. Retrieved from http://www.faculty.umb.
edu/pjt/CIQ

Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgement. New
York, NY: Routledge.

Tu, C.-H., & Corry, M. (2001). A paradigm shift for online community research. Distance
Education, 22, 245–263. doi: 10.1080/0158791010220205

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin,
63, 384–399. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/bul/index.aspx

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited.
Group and Organization Studies, 2, 419–427. doi: 10.1177/105960117700200404

Vlachopoulos, P., & Cowan, J. (2010). Reconceptualising moderation in asynchronous online
discussions using grounded theory. Distance Education, 31, 23–36. doi: 10.1080/
01587911003724611

Woods, P. (1993a). Critical events in education. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
14, 355–371. doi: 10.1080/0142569930140401

Woods, P. (1993b). Critical events in teaching and learning. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

44 L. Phelan

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/pjt/CIQ

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/bul/index.aspx

multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users

may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ wk 3 discuss critical ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!