I recently read Brookfield’s, “A Political Analysis of Discussion Groups: Can the Circle Be Unbroken?”. Brookfield has worked diligently on the topic of critical analysis as a tool for learning. (Brookfield, 2000, 1001)I found this an interesting take on how people feel about themselves through the examples he provided as vignettes. Brookfield’s vignettes provide this pattern of emotional reactions to discussion groups, which revealed these patterns of uncertainty, low-self esteem, and power struggles in discussions intended to be learning opportunities.  I really had to think about this article. He put out his feelings and perspective, and I found them to be invalid, based on my ” linear form”  of logic! I concluded, they were his feelings, and I cannot control them with my behavior. His feelings are built on his past experiences, and I cannot possibly know all the triggers to his different emotional states. This is a revelation of a problem and conclusion I didn’t like. I cannot control another person’s feelings, but is ignoring them the most human and beneficial choice?

Incidentally, maybe these feelings resulted in having motivated him to become an authority, to voice his perspective as a PhD. My point is I can’t control his feelings, those are for him to figure out, reflect upon, and understand himself, instead of seeking things outside of himself to validate who he is, from my perspective. This concept is not my own, but is based in philosophical ideas; Buddhism and Yoga, which I have read and learned about throughout my life. But these personal philosophies also believe in compassion. It has taken me time to understand how to apply these philosophical ideas, holistically and philosophically, to what I can do and how I can help with feeling of uncertainty in learning. What I can do to help, is respect his feelings on the topic, and ask why he made the choices he made, and say it’s okay! Let’s learn about the choices, and grow from it, “not just move forward”.  A bit of empathy was needed. I feel a lot of people are being maladroit on how to take criticism and how to offer it, while being kind. And no one has really been able to explain it to me over the years, which has hurt and ended a lot relationships I enjoyed in my life! And possibly caused me to miss out on opportunities. And criticism has a really bad rap!

So, I decided to explore this topic and share my ideas on how a distance educational environment provides the an environment to learn. And how to NOT be maladroit, and build humanistic patterns with criticism; both receiving and giving. This approach to criticism, may fit more effectively in courses associated with liberal arts, communications, marketing, group collaboration, and others. Basically, anywhere concepts can be critically analyzed, reflected on, and your “perspective or opinion” needs to be delivered. Skills such as speech, writing, visual arts, marketing, negotiation, and more. Unfortunately, I have to leave it up to you, the reader, to apply this creatively, outside my given examples. My examples come from my experience writing Critiques for the first time in World Campus’ Online Adult Education courses. Yes, a quick plug and a thank you to the Adult Ed instructors and instructional designers to helping me experience a transformational perspective.

Types of Criticism

There are three types of criticism in our daily lives. Wait! Yes, THREE!
Well, three that I found, and that made a lot of sense to apply in this context. Lastly, I will apply them to a distance education setting and explain the reason distance education environments allows for criticism of all types to become a form of “transformational learning” in action! A big “maybe” on the transformational learning aspect as it is such a debate and ambiguously defined theory.

Criticism: the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing : the act of criticizing someone or something.

Criticism has a bad rap and even the definition exemplifies the negative social perspective. And yes, I myself feel crummy when I receive criticism or become criticized. After all, I am deconstructing the definitions of criticism, as a way to cope with the dilema I have found. I chose this specific definition because of two words, “person or thing”.  This is what we need to identify and categorize criticism with to achieve a learning opportunity.  Differentiating the destructive and projected components from the positive form of constructive criticism start the changes to my perspective. The other perspective is a humanistic approach of connecting to others and viewing myself as being more than the sum of my actions and knowledge.

Here are the three types:

Constructive Criticism:

performed with a compassionate attitude towards the person qualified for criticism.

Constructive Criticism is the expression of disapproval and the noting of problems and faults in a “thing”. I am not sure how you compassionately deliver criticism? Is this with a kind tone of voice,  a smile, an empathetic story of how you learned not to make the error you are denoting. Do we all feel bad when someone points out something done wrong? WAIT! Does this means an aesthetically appealing person has a greater chance of delivering criticism than a not so aesthetically appealing person? But I will get back to this delivery of constructive criticism. For now, how to recognize the different types.

Here is the key point for me! The deliverer is NOT responsible how another person’s feels, as they are NOT in control of the other person. And I honestly, don’t want a person to control my feelings or manipulate me, i.e. behavioral psychology. This concept of criticism and control makes me think of  a creepy pod people movie. I would hope to be respected enough to be spoken to, even if I “don’t get it” at the given moment. But, the “thing” being criticized is NOT the person. If evidence of more efficient, productive, or positive intent to do something is offered, because the “thing” is not done as well, is NOT a reflection on the person, but a step in learning something. I hate to point this out, but this is the test of a person’s state of openness to learning. And the fact any learning scientist will tell you, learning is ubiquitous. I suspect, but have no evidence, those who engaged in more learning situations with positive reinforcement as the method associated with constructive criticism upon the delivery, have more positive perspectives on criticism. Maybe this is a future research question?

Examples of real constructive criticism my professor gave me this semester:

• “This is an interesting analysis of the article. It is good you drew on the institution’s mission statements. In terms of the parameters of the paper assignment, the paper provides 1 of the 2 expected article analyzes. Furthermore, you do not identify which aspect of the Brookfield article you are drawing upon in your analysis. The paper also has writing errors which I think could be fixed with more careful editing..”
• “You provide a very good critique of both articles. You do a particularly good job in providing a close, critical analysis of the article. The only weakness in the paper is a number of minor writing errors throughout.”

Destructive Criticism:

performed with the intention to harm someone, derogate and destroy someone’s creation, prestige, reputation and self-esteem. Destructive Criticism is directed at the “person” and NOT the “thing”.

This becomes complicated, because people use the “thing” as instrument in criticising a person. Often, destructive criticism is delivered with constructive criticism and becomes hard to dissociate from, because of the negative “aesthetic impact” associated in the mixed message.

Examples of destructive criticism:

• “Your idea in the paper isn’t correct.”
• “The ideas behind this paper are interesting, now let me tell you the topics you should have written about. “
• “I am not impressed with this analysis, did you put any thought into this?”
• “Did you read the articles assigned, because your critique has no relation to them.”
• “I think this could be done better, try better on the next assignment.”

These examples of destructive criticism are providing no rational for the opinion or standards with which one can achieve or learn from. The statements are belittling, degrading, and pandering to the person, without offering the means to improve or learn. Yes, pandering, because you can say any of this in the sweetest voice, and it is NOT offering practical solutions for the learner to follow. Also, telling people what you would do, belittles your work or ideas. These comments are showing disapproval of a person, and is destructive criticism. The idea of modeling behavior is crucial to recognize, here. You don’t want people to repeat this behavior. Why, because seeing a problem and seeing a solution is a good pattern in learning. This prevents us from seeing a problem as a roadblock in our journey to learn. This is where teaching may become an issue, because we are overworked or maybe too tired to consciously avoid the pattern of destructive criticism!  Without providing a solution or way to reach a solution, you are not allowing a person to learn a pattern of “problem have a solution” or the pleasure of feeling accomplished with themselves. Also, this is very different from pointing out a problem, which is not a bad thing either. Identifying a problem or an “annoyance” is a step to creativity and innovation. Because if you don’t see a problem, how do we create a solution! And some solutions need to be collaborative, they are just too big to solve alone. If you don’t know a solution say so, and ask if collaborating is the start to a solution. Feeling bad and seeking avoidance, kills collaboration and kills potential creativity. (Ignite your everyday creativity MOOC, 2018)

Incidentally, I think this is why adaptive learning platforms are so valuable. The learner cannot blame a person, because the correction is not coming from a person, but a machine or object. And an effectively designed curriculum in an adaptive learning platform, is providing alternative teaching media, and providing items to help a learner to learn the correct answer in a variety of ways. This works really well in the “hard sciences”. But let me not bring in my ideas of technology as a mediating solution to our social interactions. People seeking these solutions are engaging in a form of avoidance. We are talking about humanistic approaches to criticism. My main point is, destructive criticism targets the person, without a solution.

Projected Criticism:

“Projected criticism is an emotional, negative reaction to something you’ve said or done. If someone rants about how irresponsible you are, it’s because something you did emotionally threatened them. Projected criticism is simply a projection of a person’s psyche. It’s the result of envy, insecurity, or anger. It should always be ignored.” (Connor, 2014) This is more of an observation of how we, as people, may react negatively to criticism. I have not found this anywhere else, but I felt this observation was worth adding to the discussion. And to clarify, we shouldn’t ignore this reaction. This reaction means something is up with this person, but what? And engaging in projected criticism is perpetuating destructive criticism.

This third form of criticism occurs and perpetuates the negative social aspect of criticism; projected criticism. Often when working with people and sharing ideas in collaborative groups, constructive criticism occurs. As a step in the creative brainstorming process, we should hold back criticism or discussing pros and cons at this time. Then evaluate the ideas later. This allows a safe place for ideas to occur. (Ignite your everyday creativity MOOC)

Unfortunately, a learner will still recognize the critical evaluation of their idea later. Once again, I remind us, you are NOT in control of another person’s feelings, but in control of your own feelings. Notice I recognize the two sides here. Not recognizing and controlling your feelings during collaborative processes, and reacting negatively towards others results in what Connor calls, projected criticism. The negative emotional reactions to any form of criticism, because we do not discern the constructive criticism from the destructive criticism, due to the aesthetic impacts from prior learning experiences. This can be dangerous to creating a positive group learning experience. Maybe this is why sometimes we hate working in groups?

A personal note; since I brought up empathy. If someone is showing empathy towards you, and attempts to help solve problems or explore those problems, and you engage in projecting negative feelings or criticisms to the person attempting to empathize or collaborate with you, there is negative reinforcement occurring to a kind behavior. And we ask why some people just stop helping people? Sorry for the tangent.

Delivering Criticism

We are responsible in one very important way, and this has taken me along time to learn and understand this life lesson. We are responsible to know when and how to deliver criticism, but not how a person feels about the criticism. When we attempt to deliver criticism or the need, becomes the difficulty. This is what I have learned.

Schein, addresses anxiety and fear as a major component in organizational learning. And this is maybe a large part of how this “darkside of learning” occurs in organizations. (Coutu, 2002) Is this fear and anxiety rooted partly in this mixed feeling about criticism? But how do we deliver criticism without the bad feelings and to alleviate the fear and anxiety?  We start by respect their feelings and validate the work done. This is positive reinforcement of the effort and helps continue the learning process. But we use email and I am not there to talk to the person, and feel them out? Or this is an online discussion, and can’t read their reactions?

A mentor of mine, a Harvard D.Ed  [yes I am name dropping, LOL!] told me once to “ask the problem” in the form of a question, “why did you decide on this?”. But I was never good at this, because, I failed the other step, to validate what was done, and I don’t think she recognized this step in her process to convey this to me. I did my part and heard her, when she criticized my approach with people, years ago! This idea of get it done, check a task off, no time to waste, too stressed to deal with the other person, can cause problems with our everyday relationships, and ripple through our work and productivity. This is the approach I have observed in the delivery of constructive criticism, positively reinforcing “effort and learning”, while avoiding destructive or mixing constructive and destructive criticism, when given to me over the years. I react intuitively, differently to the different forms of criticism.

Steps to Delivery Constructive Criticism:

1. Step 1: Validate the effort! Why? Because effort is a behavior worth the positive reinforcement.
2. Step 2: Ask about the person’s decisions or reasons for choosing the action, which is the (problem, mistake, issue) you are noticing?
3. Step 3: Ask for permission to collaborate? Very, very important, because your asking permission and making an agreement that this is no longer just their work, and clarifies if the learner is open and receptive. If they say no to your request, there is NO agreement or negotiation, walk away and reproach later, especially to achieve collaboration and trust. This give them time to think as why you requested to collaborate with them and reflect on the material.
4. Step 4: Offer a different perspective, and ask them about their thoughts on the perspective. This is contingent on agreeing to collaborate, or are open to the constructive criticism. Make sure they know it is a different perspective offered, and not a more valid one. “Let me know why you missed 1 of the 2 expected article analysis? Do we need to worry about this?” Projecting your opinion or perspective as “more important” is difficult to avoid if you are the boss, but is expected as an instructor. But remember, is it more import if you to encourage effort, learning, and work?
5. Step 5: No one owns the idea. If you both agreed to collaborate and share in the end product. But if the person who put in the most effort needs to take credit, let them. Ideation is important, but the labor is more important. This is has been a tough lesson for me in collaborative settings.
6. Step 6: Do not share what you noticed outside of the two of you. This is gossip, (casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true.) Why is this unconfirmed as true, because it is one perspective and you both agreed to collaborate on the work. If you point out to someone the problem the other person missed, you are engaging in destructive criticism. And no worries, I think we have all done this, we are only human. Hi, I am human… Point is to put in effort to try to do better. This effort is the necessary energy in “transformative learning”, and a responsibility of the learner, I think. There is a time and place for discussing a pattern of learning and behavior, work evaluations, conveying issues with your boss, mostly if destructive criticism or project criticism becomes a serious issue, and you want help resolving dynamics. This is not gossip, but reflect on your motives or how you can work to personally make situations better.

Don’t use the “Sandwich” method in delivery criticism (Von Bergen, et al, 20114). Recent studies find the method creates confusion and distrust. The consistent delivery of criticism conveys starting with positive, and being left with positive, but placing the constructive criticism in the middle removes the validity of the constructive criticism, which may be associated with negative feelings of self worth. Basically, this provides a bit of an emotional rollercoaster with one’s self esteem. The confusion of what was said, is interpreted as distrust. Consistency is one method to convey “trust”.

Brookfield’s article offers several recommendation to face-to-face group discussions, which inspired and lead to modification I included as part of the steps to delivering constructive criticism, above. (2001, p. 222-224)

1. Ground rules for discussions.
2. Constantly researching the group’s experience or discussion.
3. Exercising teaching power to change relations of power is important in increasing opportunities in participation.

I find similarities in my steps with Brookfield’s recommendations. (2001, p. 222-224) Establishing ground rules is the same as establishing social etiquette, and having an agreement between each other. As anyone engaging in any form of critical analysis, debate, or discussion, we should all do as Brookfield states, constantly research the group or the other person’s experience. This is difficult in a heated discussion. Temper our passions, to avoid destructive or unintended projected criticism.

However, I find some uneasiness with the perspective of his recommendations. His perspective of power, and implication of a teacher using their role to disempower one student to provide equality in a discussion, isn’t a collaborative perspective. We shouldn’t need to struggle for power if there is an existing agreement or established “ground rules for discussion”. In a C0I, I reason, the roles shift. (Garrison, 2001; Tusler, 2017) Additionally, Brookfield recommends a teacher constantly evaluates the group experience, but I recommend we all take responsibility. But doing this is very difficult. So, how do we make this not a power struggle and more collaborative. Marcella Borge found delegating responsibilities to members in a group helpful. This delegation of responsibilities and establishment of establishing initial agreements is recommended in practitioner circles, too! (Kline, 2018) Learner directed discussion activities have been used in discussion groups, and maybe done more often. The other option, is to delegate co-responsibility to a learner, thus mediating the perception of power in the discussion. For example asking learners to rotate, in a discussion group, to initiate questions weekly, summarize the week, or highlight important points throughout the discussion. In a work setting, one-on-one with a person, is a different scenario.

Applying Criticism to Distance Education

Finally, how does criticism apply to distance education? First, we use Criticism as an assessment activity, most often with a rubric as the tool for comparative analysis. Also, thinking critically is a caloqual buzzword, criticism is a component of Bloom’s Taxonomy, and Critical Thinking is a form of analysis in education. Brookfield offers some great guidelines for critical analysis. (Brookfield, 2000)

Second, distance education is often asynchronous, and not face-to-face. This lack of synchronicity is when distance and the reduction of dialogue, becomes so beneficial.  You now have time to reflect on the criticism you received or take more time on how you deliver your criticism. Time is a major component in learning (Falk & Dierking, 2000), but also in following the steps on delivering criticism, I offered. The opportunity to edit posts and responses is being given with more time for online learners and instructors. The process of formulating an idea, organizing, and then editing the written composition allows for a learner to develop or seek ways to deliver constructive criticism on a subject or in a discussion response.

Another theoretical view, in a Community of Inquiry (Garrison, 2001), the social presence of a group is also a culture of interaction. In practice, as instructional designers and recommended through Quality Matters, we instruct online learners to abide by etiquette guidelines provided at the beginning of a course as a best practice. Establishing this “social etiquette” is providing cultural guidelines for establishing an agreement. Without the agreement, we as online learners are unconsciously struggling with cultural guidelines in email and discussion posts with the instructor and fellow peers. We wait for patterns of behavior in the community, test boundaries, or stay silent. With an agreement or a declared expectation, the “online social etiquette”, online learners understand we are to examine ideas and not insult the person. But, if we as instructional designers and instructors provide this agreement vaguely, then we are all “in the dark”. Maybe teaching constructive criticism and learning the types of criticism, and providing a more comprehensive process evaluating and delivering criticism, especially in the discussion board, is needed. There is an aspect of writing a Critique, which Brookfield or anyone else has never brought to my attention. I recently recognized this in my course feedback, and suddenly found this recommended by Jen the Pen, while searching for images.

I share with you my feedback, which lead to understanding my perspective transformation:

“This is a very good paper. It is really a well written critique in that you show both why you disagree with the author and provide counter arguments to backup your disagreement while also showing how his one-sided argument is actually helpful in advancing one’s, and your own, thinking on learning.” (Thank you, Dr. Holst for the kind feedback.)

Not too shabby! But enough of me tooting my own horn. We should do this sometimes. But to humble myself, I got a “C” on the first critique, I ever wrote, and I think the professor should have been harder on me! But guess what he did? He gave me constructive criticism, and encouraged my effort, and wrote what I did wrong, based on the assignment guidelines. The first example of constructive criticism is a modified version of my first feedback.  I was able to ruminate
or reflect, and I wasn’t bothered, but trying to understand how to write more effectively. What my professor describe in this last feedback example, can be summed up simply; I wrote diplomatically!

This is an important concept, diplomacy. Dealing with people in a “sensitive and effective” way, helps the discussion and dialogue continue. And when this continues, we have opportunities for learning. In our Adult Education course, we deal with heated subjects, race, prejudice, culture domination, oppression, social justice and change. We are here to understand perspectives, which means continued dialogue. In my model, time is a factor. In an online course, time is a valuable tool. Furthermore, the one role of the instructor is to assess the change in a student through the entire course, and assess their growth from start to the end. With these subjects, we all want to solve issues in one conversation, but transformational learning feels instantaneous, because of the “moment of realization”, but I suspect there are seeds of knowledge planted over time, which grow and culminate for this moment to occur. This my reflection on this blog experience. And, this growth, may even appear slowly in our behavior, but who is with us 24/7 to observe and note the transformation other than ourselves?

Transforming into a Diplomat

Incidentally, I use Transformational learning in Mezirow’s context of “perspective transformation”; “recognizing their culturally induced dependency roles and relationships and the reasons for them and take action to overcome them.”(Mezirow, 1981, p.7) Sure sounds like me learning to write diplomatically and not, “you are wrong” or “that is a problem and here is the evidence, is me transforming my perspective. I have had many issues within relationships and never understood how to overcome them. This was the first time, I have realized my role in relationships and reasons for them. Most important, I now understand how to take action to change my actions. Basically, delivering criticism, well, is learning to be diplomatic. 

Why is this important? Because, this may lead to a more comprehensive or holistic and creative or innovative solutions, because we have better relationships between each other to collaborate more effectively.

I want to share one important connection and what I wrote about in the final critique. Schein describes a darkside of organizational learning, the anxiety aspect of learning. I categorize this as a negative aesthetic we associate with social learning situations or group learning. He claims survival and learning anxiety occurs in organizational cultures. And all learning results from anxiety and fear. I don’t disagree with him, as these are negative reinforcement cycles from different aspects of our life, and are a huge influence as an aesthetic component layered on our learning experiences. However, Schein doesn’t recognize positive aesthetic impacts or pleasurable learning forms of learning, but maybe he views this as the absence of anxiety. However, this would be contentment or peaceful state of happiness. Furthermore, Schein speaks about the emergence of the “innovative learner”, as part of a learner’s way to cope with the anxiety. It feels good to learn something new; the sense of accomplishment one gets. Additionally, he focuses on the reactions of the culture and group around the innovative learner. Schein describes, the group feels nervous and envious, and may emerge from fear of job loss due to poor performance or knowing something.(Coutu, 2002) This perspective gives some understanding to group thinking, too. But, I will digress and ask, should the group be fearful of change? I don’t want to view life in fear. Change is unsettling, because we don’t know what is happening. What do we trust, when we don’t know something? Maybe the “innovative learner”, Schein describes has not learned to be diplomatic with their ideas? Just like the coworkers feeling envious and fearful haven’t reflected on why they are upset when receiving criticism or someone knowing more than them is part of the discussion. And of course, heads of organizations are responsible to understand why employees are fearful, and if they really want fear as a motivation in work. Some organization intentionally engage in this fear and competition, since the results come so quick. However, positive reinforcement is much better for long term results. (Daniels, et. al. 2011)  Both taking criticism and giving is a tough process to learn, and the negative associations are even harder to unlearn.

Unsolicited advice!

I recommend taking a more positive perspective to constructive criticism. Constructive Criticism when exchanged in a collaborative group is working towards a common goal. Focus on this group goal or purpose, and negotiating rules and goals is a great start for any environment. Reflecting on the group goal helps the group move forward, meaning we all succeed together. We should all try to agree on a common goal. There is that agreement concept! At the individual level, being forced to learn and going through anxiety is a form of adaptation both Schein and Piaget describe differently. (Coutu, 2002; Piaget, 1952). As adults we can choose to learn through pleasure, and who doesn’t want to have fun in a group. Simply put, attempts at being positive is hard work, when you feel really bad with any form of criticism. But the effort towards being positive is well worth it.

Clarification: This doesn’t apply to a person who is going through long term health or issues. Recovering and bouncing back is whole other subject, resilience.

To sum it up

To recap, criticism can be a good thing! Constructive Criticism helps us learn and is a form of  analysis, assessment and instruction all-in-one. Some necessities are; the learner has to be open to learning, learners must understand and be willing to reflect on their feelings about receiving criticism, everyone needs to NOT deliver “projected criticism”. And as a reminder, learning is ubiquitous, even when we are in the role of instruction. Furthermore, my hope is in understanding how positive “Aesthetic Impacts” on the socio culturally learned perception of criticism occurs, will bring more awareness and positive learning events in online discussions and learning in general. All and all, Distance Education provides an opportunity to implement time for reflection with hopes of achieving a “perspective transformation“. Furthermore, if this approach is learned in online discourse, maybe this cultural shift away from anxiety and fear of criticism, could be encourage in our everyday life. I hope we all would work towards delivering constructive criticism, receive criticism positively, view it as a valuable tool to learn, and learn to be more diplomatic.

References

Brookfield, S. D. (2000). The concept of critically reflective practice. Handbook of adult and continuing education, 33-49.

Brookfield, S.D. (2001). Political analysis of discussion groups: Can the circle be unbroken? Power in Practice: Adult Education and The Struggle for Knowledge and power in Society (pp. 206-225). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Connor, G. (2014, March 28). The 2 Types of Criticism. Retrieved on from https://connorgrooms.com/2-types-of-criticism/.

Coutu, D.L. (2002). Edgar Schein: The anxiety of learning – the darker side of organizational learning. Retrieved from https://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/edgar-schein-the-anxiety-of-learning-the-darker-side-of-organizationallearning

Daniels, A. C., Tapscott, D., & Caston, A. (2011). Bringing out the best in people. Findaway World LLC.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Altamira Press.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education. American Journal of Distance Education. Retrieved from  http://cde.athabascau.ca/coi_site/documents/Garrison_Anderson_Archer_CogPres_Final.pdf

“Ignite your everyday creativity.” [week 4: Creative Process; annoyances]. MOOC offered by the State University of New York. Retrieved on March 8, 2018 from https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/academic-integrity/10/todo/8323

Kline, M. (2018, March). Collaborative Leadership and Engagement: A Leader in Every Chair. Session presented at the meeting of Creativity Conference XV, Sarasota, Florida.

Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: Lessons from the evaluation of a theory. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 73(2-3), 105-115.

Tusler, Donny. (2017, March 3). Medium. What is the most important component of a Community of Inquiry? Retrieved from https://medium.com/@dktguy/what-is-the-most-important-components-of-a-community-of-inquiry-426b569c3f2c

Piaget, J., & Cook, M. T. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International University Press.

Von Bergen, C. W., Bressler, M. S., & Campbell, K. (2014). The sandwich feedback method: Not very tasty. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 7, 1.

Wexley, K. N., & Nemeroff, W. F. (1975). Effectiveness of positive reinforcement and goal setting as methods of management development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(4), 446.