Setting and Participants
This virtual writing retreat was held as part of department-wide faculty development in a large university-affiliated children’s hospital comprised of four campuses in Houston and San Antonio, Texas. Our traditional in-person writing retreat, developed by one the authors over the course of 25+ years for various in-person venues (classrooms, presentations, workshops, retreats) and for diverse learners (Ligon, Turner and Thammasitboon, 2017; Ligon, Weinstein and Thammasitboon, 2017; Ligon, Elizondo and Thammasitboon, 2019), incorporates writing pedagogy theory (Kinneavy, 1969; Kinneavy, 1971, 1980), personal experiences, and a proven framework (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2000). More specifically, we used Kolb’s experiential learning cycle as a framework to underpin the instructional process (Kolb, 1984; Kolb, Boyatzis and Mainemelis, 2001, 2010; Kolb and Kolb, 2009).
Design and Implementation
After exploring different technologies to determine what would best meet our requirements for holding virtual communications, we decided to use Zoom© videoconferencing software (Zoom Video Communications, Inc.) for several reasons: it is institutionally supported, most faculty are familiar with it, and it includes interactive tools that are ideal for stimulating engagement (e.g., breakout rooms, chat).
Theoretical Frameworks and Applications
We applied the three inter-related elements of the CoI framework--social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2000; Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2010)—to the original curriculum, structured according to Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (Ligon, Turner and Thammasitboon, 2017; Ligon, Weinstein and Thammasitboon, 2017; Kolb, Boyatzis and Mainemelis, 2001, 2010; Kolb and Kolb, 2009) to guide the reconfiguration for virtual presentation. In Figure 1, we illustrate our conceptual model and practical applications of Garrison’s CoI framework to the creation and delivery of a virtual writing retreat. The three elements of the Community of Inquiry—Social Presence, Cognitive Presence, and Teaching Presence—are both “stand alone” and interdependent, with the first two focusing primarily on the learners’ experience and the last on instructors’ responsibilities.
Figure 1: The Conceptual Model and Practical Applications to Creating a Community of Inquiry for a Virtual Writing Retreat

(Adapted with permission from D. Randy Garrison (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2000).
Social Presence is defined as “the ability of participants in the community of inquiry to project their personal characteristics into the community, . . . [thereby] facilitating the process of critical thinking carried on by the community of learners” (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2000). Positive social interaction is key to providing a successful learning experience, especially in a lengthy meeting such as our writing retreat. Interactive and respectful discourse offers learners a sense of belonging and importance, powerful and influential drives (Baumeister and Leary, 1995), even when restricted to two or three sentences. By keeping the sessions semi-casual, we established a relaxed yet professional environment.
Teaching via video conferencing platforms requires different levels of concentration to engage one another (Jiang, 2020; Daigle, 2020) and places strains on one’s social presence that are more taxing than those presented in traditional social exchanges (Roberts, 2020). To establish a pleasant social climate and ‘ethical appeal’ (Kinneavy, 1969; Kinneavy, 1971, 1980), we began the retreat by introducing ourselves and briefly describing our backgrounds and areas of expertise.
To set boundaries that facilitate building healthy relationships and environments (Cloud and Townsend, 1992), we explained a few housekeeping rules of etiquette, such as to be mindful of background interference and other possible interruptions, and encouraged participants to refrain from muting their mics. Although using mics could be counterintuitive for some participants, it is the best practice to induce engagement according to the founding developer of one of the world’s most successful remote and distributed open-source software, WordPress (Mullenweg, 2020).
During the presentation itself, we implemented numerous social engagements (e.g., time for participants to share ideas, reflect on the material presented, take notes, and interact with the workbook handouts) to complement the didactic component. The breakout room option allowed for formation of small groups to discuss the material that had been presented didactically, using different forms of prompts (e.g., reflection, case study, debate, think-pair-share).
The chat feature, monitored by one of the facilitators, allowed participants to comment, question, and request explanations without interrupting the didactic presentation or distracting other participants. In some cases, the facilitator responded directly; in others, the questions were integrated into the presentation so all the participants benefited from the input. It picked up momentum and further strengthened the sense of having a CoI, providing a sense of participation and individual importance.
One of the features that we decided not to use is the recording option, as we aimed to create a psychologically safe space in which participants could discuss freely without feeling conscious about being recorded.
Cognitive Presence is defined as the “extent to which the participants in a particular configuration of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication” (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2000). To ‘set the stage’ for learning, we distributed a brochure with the titles of topics to be covered, e-mailed respondents in advance with a course outline, and solicited questions/ideas in advance. Given that we had already used Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (Kolb, Boyatzis and Mainemalis, 2001, 2010) to design the curriculum, we made only minor reconfigurations to create the cognitive presence through ‘triggering event,’ ‘exploration,’ and ‘integration of knowledge’ (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2001).
We strategically interwove various experiential options with the didactic presentations, using case studies or shared experiences (triggering event) to activate prior knowledge. Participants explored new knowledge through individual or small group exercises prior to reconvening for integration of knowledge with the didactic presentation. For instance, in an asynchronous exercise on ethics of publication, we had participants list all potential authors for a given project on a provided worksheet. We then presented the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) requirements for authors, had the participants reflect on the lists they had made and place a check mark beside the names of individuals who met those criteria, and explained how to deal with the individuals who do not qualify. For a synchronous exercise, we used a case study (a real-life problematic experience with order of authors) to trigger discussions in small groups as they sought to determine, especially, first and senior authors; debated in a large group about appropriate order of authorship; and summarized lessons learned and recommendations.
The retreat was undergirded by a PowerPoint presentation and am accompanying workbook that includes the slides in thumbnails and provides supportive materials (e.g., full articles, website links) and templates. The latter serves as a take-home resource guide to reinforce the didactic presentation with materials that cannot be covered within the time constraints of the retreat.
Virtual workspace platforms (e.g., Google Doc, Google Slides, Microsoft Team) were used to enhance this cognitive presence wherein all team members could work on an activity simultaneously during the session.
Teaching Presence includes the selection, organization, and primary presentation of course content, as well as facilitation “to support and enhance social and cognitive presence for the purpose of realizing educational outcomes” (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2000). We initially did a thorough review of the original PowerPoint presentation to ascertain what portions were relevant to or conducive for instruction on the virtual platform. The workbook was adjusted for a virtual audience, and all teaching materials were made available to the learners via a readily accessible institutional ‘box.’ To ensure that all the material is covered in a logical and smooth context while allowing ample time for social engagement and collaboration, we created an exacting time schedule for each topic. Each facilitator had a copy of the schedule and followed it carefully.
Each author assumed various roles: presenter, facilitator, encourager, mentor. Pratt’s five teaching perspectives (Pratt, 2002) were informative, as each of the facilitators comes from a different background with different teaching styles, priorities, and perspectives, and helped us provide a strong complementary presence. One of the authors has more expertise using the virtual platforms and agreed to oversee the entire retreat to eliminate overlap or confusion that might occur if the responsibility is passed around from one presenter to the next. By appreciating our differences, we were able to complement one another and model a strong social presence.
We evaluated the retreat using a brief survey on teaching effectiveness at the end of the session and a follow-up survey on application to practice approximately one month later. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation).
The study was approved by the institutional review board at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.