OCL and Communities of Inquiry

1. Can you see the difference between ‘Open Collaborative Learning’ and ‘Communities of Inquiry’? Or Are they really the same model with different names?
     Collaborative Learning, as particular form of constructivist theory, was originally called computer-mediated communication. Now it is called Online Collaborative Learning theory. Students are incouraged to work online to create their own knowledge where a teacher plays an active role as part of that learning community.
     Community of Inquiry, in my opinion, is a complimentary, or sub-method, of Collaborative Learning where students can share imperial evidence, practice implications, and share, agree/disagree in their opinions.
     The only difference I see is that Open Collaborative Learning works better in smaller groups. Communities of inquiry can work well for large groups as well because the more individuals ingage in purposeful critical discourse, the faster they can confirm mutual understanding or come to the same conclusions. In Collaborative Learning, the students do not have to form mutual understanding. They can form their knowledge non-stop, without Collaborative conclusion.
2. Do you agree that either of these models can be applied just as successfully online as face-to-face?
    The Community of Inquiry presents a process of creating a deep and meaningful (collaborative-constructivist) learning experience through the development of three elements: social, cognitive, and teaching presence. All three elements can be applied just as successfully online as they do face-to-face. Social element and teaching presence do not always happen simultaneously, but the collaboration can happen overtime.
3. Do you see other strengths and weaknesses with the models?
    Beacause neither of these theories scale easily, the classroom discussions (face-to-face and online) might require more time to gain necessary knowledge and assessment bases.
4. Is this common sense dressed up as theory?
     Honestly, I am not sure... It seems to me that a constructivist theory alone has enough and adding two more sub-theories could be a simple common sense.