Skip to main content

Principles of Blended Learning: References

Principles of Blended Learning
References

  • Show the following:

    Annotations
    Resources

  • Adjust appearance:

    Font
    Font style
    Color Scheme
    Light
    Dark
    Annotation contrast
    Low
    High
    Margins
  • Search within:
    • Notifications
    • Privacy
  • Project HomePrinciples of Blended Learning
  • Learn more about Manifold

Notes

table of contents
  1. Cover
  2. Introduction
  3. 1. Conceptual Framework
  4. 2. Design and Organization
  5. 3. Facilitation
  6. 4. Direct Instruction
  7. 5. Assessment
  8. 6. Leading Collaboratively
  9. Conclusion
  10. Appendix A: Blended Learning Design Process
  11. Appendix B: Community of Inquiry: Teacher Self-Assessment and Exploration Tool
  12. Appendix C: Community of Inquiry: Student Self-Assessment and Exploration Tool
  13. Appendix D: Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument
  14. Appendix E: Shared Metacognition Questionnaire
  15. References

References

  1. Absolon, K. (2019). Indigenous wholistic theory: A knowledge set for practice. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 14(1), 22–42.
  2. Ahrensmeier, D., Donev, J. M. K. C., Hicks, R. B., Louro, A. A., Sangalli, L., Stafford, R. B., & Thompson, R. I. (2009). Labatorials at the University of Calgary: In pursuit of effective small group instruction within large registration physics service courses. Physics in Canada, 65(4), 214–216.
  3. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3), 3–22.
  4. Alberta Regional Consortia. (2022). Empowering the spirit: Sharing through story. https://empoweringthespirit.ca/sharing-through-story/
  5. The Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2022). Professional growth plans. https://www.teachers.ab.ca/For%20Members/ProfessionalGrowth/Pages/Teacher%20Professional%20Growth%20Plans.aspx
  6. Ali, D. (2017). Safe spaces and brave spaces: Historical context and recommendations for student affairs professionals. NASPA Policy and Practice Series. https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/Policy_and_Practice_No_2_Safe_Brave_Spaces.pdf
  7. Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis June 2003. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.
  8. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  9. Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Does the community of inquiry framework predict outcomes in online MBA courses? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9, 1–21.
  10. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a Community of Inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136.
  11. Asad, K. (2013). Understanding the pareto principle (the 80/20 rule). Better Explained. https://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-pareto-principle-the-8020-rule/
  12. Austen Kay, A. (2021, August 26). How online mindfulness training can help students thrive during the pandemic. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/how-online-mindfulness-training-can-help-students-thrive-during-the-pandemic-166264
  13. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  14. Bambino, D. (2002). Critical friends. Redesigning Professional Development, 59(6), 25–27. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/critical-friends
  15. Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(10), 331–340.
  16. Bashovski, M. (2021, September 28). Building classroom community, even when we’re all alone. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/building-classroom-community/
  17. Bell, N. (2014). Teaching by the medicine wheel: An Anishinaabe framework for Indigenous education. EdCan Network. https://www.edcan.ca/articles/teaching-by-the-medicine-wheel/
  18. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
  19. Biggs, J. (1998). Assumptions underlying new approaches to assessment. In P. Stimson & P. Morris (Eds), Curriculum and assessment in Hong Kong: Two components, one system (pp. 351–384). Open University of Hong Kong Press.
  20. Bjerke, M. B., & Renger, R. (2017). Being smart about writing SMART objectives. Evaluation and Program Planning, 61, 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.12.009
  21. Blackboard. (2022). Blackboard learning management system. https://www.blackboard.com/
  22. Blogger. (2022). Blogger. https://www.blogger.com/
  23. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R.(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. David McKay.
  24. Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001
  25. Bonk, C., Kim, K., & Zeng, X. (2004). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings. In C. J. Bonk, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 550–568). John Wiley & Sons.
  26. Borup, J., West, R. E., & Thomas, R. (2015). The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9367-8
  27. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. http://www.education.uts.edu.au/ostaff/staff/publications/db_28_sce_00.pdf
  28. Bozkurt, A. (2019). From distance education to open and distance learning: A holistic evaluation of history, definitions, and theories. In S. Sisman-Ugur & G. Kurubacak (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning in the age of transhumanism (pp. 252–273). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8431-5.ch016
  29. Brame, C. (2013). Just-in-time teaching (JiTT). Center for Teaching, Vanderbilt University. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/just-in-time-teaching-jitt/
  30. Brigham Young University. (2022). Concept mapping. https://ctl.byu.edu/tip/concept-mapping
  31. Brown, C., Datt, A., Forbes, D., Gedera, D., & Hartnett, M. (2021). Report: University students online learning experiences in COVID-times. https://studentonlinelearningexperiences.wordpress.com/
  32. Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The world café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  33. Brown, M. (2021, October 19). Integrative leadership: A necessary ingredient for Dx. EDUCAUSE Review, 40–43. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/9/integrative-leadership-a-necessary-ingredient-for-dx
  34. Brown, S. (2004). Assessment for learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 81–89. https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/3607/1/
  35. Burns, R. (1785). To a mouse. Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43816/to-a-mouse-56d222ab36e33
  36. Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of Indigenous education. Kivaki Press.
  37. Caldwell, J. (2021, May 11). Effectively moving away from traditional proctored exams in first-year physics courses. BC Campus News. https://bccampus.ca/2021/05/11/effectively-moving-away-from-traditional-proctored-exams-in-first-year-physics-courses/
  38. Canvas. (2022). Canvas learning management system. https://www.instructure.com/canvas
  39. Carnegie Mellon University. (2022). Sample group project tools. https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/teach/instructionalstrategies/groupprojects/tools/index.html
  40. Carriere, J. (2010). Editorial: Gathering, sharing and documenting the wisdom within and across our communities and academic circles. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 5(1), 5–7.
  41. Chang, Y., & Brickman, P. (2018). When group work doesn’t work: Insights from students. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(3), ar42. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-09-0199
  42. Chiang, F.-K., & Wu, Z. (2021). Flipping a classroom with a three-stage collaborative instructional model (3-CI) for graduate students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6330
  43. Chick, N. (2013). Metacognition. Center for Teaching, Vanderbilt University. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/metacognition/
  44. Chiroma, J. A., Meda, L., & Waghid, Z. (2021). Examining emergency remote teaching using the community of inquiry framework: Lecturer experiences in a Kenyan university. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 17(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.20211001.oa17
  45. Clark, C., Wittmayer, A., Noone, D., & Selingo, J. J. (2021). The hybrid campus. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/public-sector/post-pandemic-hybrid-learning.html
  46. Clase, K. L., Grundlach, E., & Pelaez, N. J. (2010). Calibrated peer review for computer-assisted learning for biological research competencies. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38(5), 290–295.
  47. Claypool, T. R., & Preston, J. P. (2011). Redefining learning and assessment practices impacting Aboriginal students: Considering Aboriginal priorities via Aboriginal and Western worldviews. Education, 17(3), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/e683152011-019
  48. Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, R., & Kinsel, E. (2007). Role adjustment for learners in an online community of inquiry: Identifying the challenges of incoming online learners. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 2(1), 1–16.
  49. Cleveland-Innes, M., & Wilton, D. (2018). Guide to blended learning. Commonwealth of Learning. http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/3095
  50. Cmap. (2022). CmapTools. https://cmap.ihmc.us/cmaptools/
  51. Coggle. (2022). Coggle application. https://coggle.it/
  52. Conrad, D., & Openo, J. (2018). Assessment strategies for online learning. Athabasca University Press. https://www.aupress.ca/books/120279-assessment-strategies-for-online-learning/
  53. Costa, A. L., & Kalick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49–51.
  54. Crow, J., & Murray, J.-A. (2020). Online distance learning in biomedical sciences: Community, belonging and presence. In P. Rea (Ed.), Biomedical visualisation: Advances in experimental medicine and biology (Vol. 1235). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37639-0_10.
  55. Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperPerennial.
  56. Cuesta Medina, L. (2018). Blended learning: Deficits and prospects in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3100
  57. Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148.
  58. deNoyelles, A., Zydney, J. M., & Chen, B. (2014). Strategies for creating a community of inquiry through online asynchronous discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 153–166. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no1/denoyelles_0314.pdf
  59. Desire2Learn. (2022). Brightspace learning management system. https://www.d2l.com/
  60. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Heath.
  61. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
  62. Entwistle, N. (2003). Concepts and conceptual frameworks underpinning the ETL project. Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Project, Higher and Community Education, School of Education, University of Edinburgh. https://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport3.pdf
  63. Eom, S. (2006). The role of instructors as a determinant of students’ satisfaction in university online education. In R. Koper (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 985–988). IEEE Computer Society.
  64. Eom, S. B., & Arbaugh, J. B. (Eds.). (2011). Student satisfaction and learning outcomes in e-learning: An introduction to empirical research. Information Science.
  65. Fernandez, A. A., & Shaw, G. P. (2020). Academic leadership in a time of crisis: The coronavirus and COVID-19. Journal of Leadership Studies, 14(1), 39–45.
  66. Flipgrid. (2022). Flipgrid video discussion application. https://info.flipgrid.com/
  67. Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 50th anniversary edition. Bloomsbury Academic.
  68. Garrison, D. R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Online Learning Journal, 10(1), 25–34. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1768
  69. Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. L. Rogers, G. A. Berg, J. V. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice, & K. D. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed., pp. 352–355). IGI Global.
  70. Garrison, D. R. (2016). Thinking collaboratively: Learning in a community of inquiry. Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
  71. Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
  72. Garrison, D. R. (2018). Shared metacognition. Community of Inquiry Blog. http://www.thecommunityofinquiry.org/editorial16
  73. Garrison, D. R. (2019). Implementing shared metacognition. Community of Inquiry Blog. http://www.thecommunityofinquiry.org/editorial19
  74. Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2015a). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 24, 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.001
  75. Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2015b). Corrigendum to ‘Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry.’ Internet and Higher Education, 26, 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.001
  76. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Routledge/Falmer.
  77. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
  78. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 7–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
  79. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 133–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
  80. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Vaughan, N. D. (2022). Community of inquiry survey. Community of Inquiry. https://coi.athabascau.ca/coi-model/coi-survey/
  81. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
  82. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education. Jossey-Bass.
  83. Gierdowsk, D. C., Brooks, D. C., & Galanek, J. (2020). Supporting the whole student. EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/student-technology-report-supporting-the-whole-student/2020/technology-use-and-environmental-preferences
  84. Gooblar, D. (2021, March 24). Our slimmed-down pandemic pedagogy. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/our-slimmed-down-pandemic-pedagogy
  85. Google. (2022a). Google docs. https://docs.google.com/
  86. Google. (2022b). Google forms. https://www.google.ca/forms/about/
  87. Google. (2022c). Google jamboard. https://jamboard.google.com/
  88. Google. (2022d). Google meet video conferencing application. https://meet.google.com/
  89. Google. (2022e). Google sites. https://sites.google.com/
  90. Google. (2022f). Google slides presentation application. https://www.google.ca/slides/about/
  91. Google. (2022g). Google sheets. https://www.google.ca/sheets/about/
  92. Gordon, N. (2021). A permanent pivot to online learning, or will universities bounce back to normal? Academia: Letters. https://www.academia.edu/50331191/A_permanent_Pivot_to_online_learning_or_will_universities_bounce_back_to_normal
  93. Government of Nunavut. (2007). Inuit qaujimajatuqangit education framework. https://www.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/files/Inuit%20Qaujimajatuqangit%20ENG.pdf
  94. Government of Ontario. (2016). The learning conversations protocol. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/learning_conversations.pdf
  95. Graham, C. R. (2019). Current research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehl (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (4th ed., pp. 173–188). Routledge.
  96. Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2006). School leadership and management. Models of Successful Principal Leadership, 26(4), 371–395.
  97. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
  98. Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. R. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge.
  99. The Health Foundation. (2016). The power of storytelling. https://www.health.org.uk/newsletter-feature/power-of-storytelling
  100. Hedberg, J., & Corrent-Agostinho, S. (1999). Creating a postgraduate virtual community: Assessment drives learning. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 1093–1098). Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education. http://www.editlib.org/p/7040
  101. Hesterman, S. (2016). The digital handshake: A group contract for authentic elearning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 13(3), 1–24.
  102. Hite, S. (2020, May 20). How the world café model can enhance online discussion. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-how-the-world-cafe-model-can-enhance-online-discussion/2020/05
  103. Houle, C. O. (1954). The evening college. The Journal of Higher Education, 25(7), 362–399.
  104. Hyper Island. (2022). IDOARRT meeting design. https://toolbox.hyperisland.com/idoarrt-meeting-design
  105. International Commission on the Futures of Education. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707
  106. Irvine, V. (2020). The landscape of merging modalities. EDUCAUSE Review, 4, 40–58. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/10/the-landscape-of-merging-modalities
  107. Iseke, J. M. (2010). Importance of Métis ways of knowing in healing communities. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 33(1), 83–97.
  108. Johnson, E. (2021, July 13). Digital learning is real-world learning. That’s why blended on-campus and online study is best. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/digital-learning-is-real-world-learning-thats-why-blended-on-campus-and-online-study-is-best-163002
  109. Johnson, N. (2019). National survey of online and digital learning: 2019 national report. http://www.cdlra-acrfl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2019_national_en.pdf
  110. Jooston, T., & Weber, N. (2021). Planning for a blended future: A research-driven guide for educators. Every Learner Everywhere. https://www.everylearnereverywhere.org/resources/planning-for-a-blended-future/
  111. Joubert, J. (1842). Pensees. http://www.doyletics.com/art/notebook.htm
  112. Kalman, C., La Braca, F., & Sobhanzadeh, M. (2020). Comparison of labatorials and traditional physics labs. 2020 American Society for Engineering Education Virtual Annual Conference.
  113. Kantor, B. (2018). The RACI matrix: Your blueprint for project success. CIO. https://www.cio.com/article/2395825/project-management-how-to-design-a-successful-raci-project-plan.html
  114. Kent, S. (2016). Threshold concepts. University of Calgary, Taylor Institute of Teaching and Learning. https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/TI%20Guides/Threshold_Concepts_Guide.pdf
  115. Kintu, M. J., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: The relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(7), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4
  116. Knowles, M. S. (1986). Using learning contracts. Jossey-Bass.
  117. Kritik. (2022). Kritik: Peer assessment platform. https://www.kritik.io/
  118. Kromydas, T. (2017). Rethinking higher education and its relationship with social inequalities: Past knowledge, present state and future potential. Palgrave Commun, 3(1), 1–12. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0001-8#citeas
  119. Lambrev, V. S., & Cruz, B. C. (2021). Becoming scholarly practitioners: Creating community in online professional doctoral education. Distance Education, 42(2), 561–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2021.1986374
  120. LearnAlberta. (2008). Assessment in mathematics. https://www.learnalberta.ca/content/mewa/html/assessment/types.html
  121. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press.
  122. Littky, D., & Grabelle, S. (2004). The big picture: Education is everyone’s business. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  123. Little Bear, L. (2012). Traditional knowledge and humanities: A perspective by a Blackfoot. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 39(4), 518–527. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6253.2012.01742.x
  124. Loureiro, M. J., Pombo, L., & Moreira, A. (2012). The quality of peer assessment in a wiki-based online context: A qualitative study. Educational Media International, 49(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.703426
  125. Lucidspark. (2022). Lucidspark virtual whiteboard. https://lucidspark.com/
  126. Lyryx. (2022). Lyryx learning system. https://lyryx.com/
  127. Manitoba Education. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind. Government of Manitoba. https://digitalcollection.gov.mb.ca/awweb/pdfopener?smd=1&did=12503&md=1
  128. Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The Experience of Learning (pp. 39–58). Scottish Academic Press.
  129. Marule, T. O. (2012). Niitsitapi relational and experiential theories in education. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 35(1), 131–143.
  130. Menti. (2022). Mentimeter. https://www.menti.com/
  131. Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49, 373–388.
  132. Microsoft. (2022). Microsoft PowerPoint presentation software. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/powerpoint
  133. Mitchell, L., Campbell, C., Rigby, R., & Williams, L. T. (2021). Giving students an eDGE: Focusing on e-portfolios for graduate employability. The Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 12(2), 316–331. https://ojs.deakin.edu.au/index.php/jtlge/article/view/1036/1415
  134. Miro. (2022a). Introducing Miro concept map. https://miro.com/aq/ps/concept-map/
  135. Miro. (2022b). IDOARRT: Lead effective meetings. https://miro.com/miroverse/idoarrt-lead-effective-meetings/
  136. Miro. (2022c). Hybrid collaboration field guide. https://miro.com/blog/hybrid-collaboration-field-guide/
  137. Molenda, M. (2015). In search of the elusive ADDIE model: Performance improvement. Performance Improvement, 54(2), 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21461
  138. Moodle. (2022). Moodle open-source learning system. https://moodle.org/
  139. Morin, R. (2016). First Nations instructional leadership for the 21st century. SELU Research Review Journal, 1(2), 61–72.
  140. Mount Royal University. (2022). Subject guides. https://library.mtroyal.ca/subjects
  141. MS Teams. (2022). Microsoft Teams group chat software. https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/microsoft-teams/group-chat-software
  142. Mulford, B., Kendall, D., Edmunds, B., Kendall, L., Ewington, J., & Silins, H. (2007). Successful school leadership: What is it and who decides? Australian Journal of Education, 51(3), 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410705100302
  143. Novak, G., Patterson, E. T., Gavrin, A. D., & Christian, W. (1999). Just-in-time teaching: Blending active learning with web technology. Prentice Hall.
  144. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools Rev 01–2008. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. http://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/pdf/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf
  145. Onodipe, G., & Ayadi, M. F. (2020). Using smartphones for formative assessment in the flipped classroom. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 23, 1–20. https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/193065.pdf
  146. Padlet. (2022). Padlet. https://padlet.com/
  147. Palalas, A., Karakanta, C., Mavraki, A., Drampala, K., & Krassa, A. (2020). Mindfulness practices in online learning: Supporting learner self-regulation. The Journal of Contemplative Inquiry, 7(1), 247–278.
  148. Pappas, C. (2014, June 14). Instructional design models and theories: Inquiry-based learning model. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/inquiry-based-learning-model
  149. Parrott, H. M., & Cherry, E. (2011). Using structured reading groups to facilitate deep learning. Teaching Sociology, 39(4), 354–370. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0092055X11418687
  150. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Eleftheria Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
  151. Peergrade. (2022). Peergrade online platform. https://www.peergrade.io/
  152. Pelaez, N. (2002). Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 26, 174–184. http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/26/3/174.
  153. Pelletier, K., Brown, M., Brooks, D. C., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Arbino, N., Bozkurt, A., Crawford, S., Czerniewicz, L., Gibson, R., Linder, K., Mason, M., & Mondelli, V. (2021). 2021 EDUCAUSE horizon report: teaching and learning edition. https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2021/4/2021hrteachinglearning.pdf
  154. Piaget, J. (1975). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. University of Chicago Press.
  155. Picciano, A. G. (2021, May). COVID-19 and higher education’s future: Issues of technology and governance. National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions. 12(2), 1–13. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/jcba/vol12/iss1/2/
  156. Pischetola, M. (2021, September 30). Teaching novice teachers to enhance learning in the hybrid university. Postdigital Science and Education, 4, 70–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00257-1
  157. Plante, K., & Asselin, M. E. (2014). Best practices for creating social presence and caring behaviors online. Nursing Education Perspectives, 35(4), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.5480/13-1094.1
  158. Poll Everywhere. (2022). Poll everywhere. https://www.polleverywhere.com/
  159. Pond, W. K. (2002, Summer). Distributed education in the 21st century: Implications for quality assurance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(2), 1–7 https://ojdla.com/archive/summer52/pond52.pdf
  160. Popplet. (2022). Popplet for education. https://www.popplet.com/
  161. Price, E., Goldberg, F., Robinson, S., & McKean, M. (2016). Validity of peer grading using calibrated peer review in a guided-inquiry, conceptual physics course. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 2(2), 1–12. https://journals.aps.org/prper/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020145
  162. Primera. (2019). Give voice to your students—Use world café. Primera Courses: Fostering Changes. https://www.erasmuspluscourses.com/blog/give-voice-to-your-students-use-world-cafe
  163. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  164. Reeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.2190/GYMQ-78FA-WMTX-J06C
  165. Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness. (2022). RITE services. University of Central Florida. https://digitallearning.ucf.edu/impact-evaluation/rite-services/
  166. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1 (2002) 1–21. https://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/2002-1
  167. Ryan, T. (2021). Designing video feedback to support the socioemotional aspects of online learning. Education Technology and Research Development, 69, 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09918-7
  168. Sá, M. J., & Serpa, S. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to foster the sustainable development of teaching in higher education. Sustainability, 12(20), 2–16. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8525
  169. Salhab, R., Hashaykeh, S., Najjar, E., Wahbeh, D., Affouneh, S., & Khlaif, Z. (2021). A proposed ethics code for online learning during crisis. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(20), 238–254. https://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jet/article/view/24735
  170. Salzer, R. (2018). Smartphones as audience response systems for lectures and seminars. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 410, 1609–1613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-017-0794-8
  171. Sanchez, C. E., Atkinson, K. M., Koenka, A. C., Moshontz, H., & Cooper, H. (2017). Self-grading and peer-grading for formative and summative assessments in 3rd through 12th grade classrooms: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(8), 1049–1066. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000190
  172. Sands, P. (2002). Inside outside, upside downside: Strategies for connecting online and face-to-face instruction in hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6). 13–21.
  173. Sanford, K., Williams, L., Hopper, T., & McGregor, C. (2012). Indigenous principles informing teacher education: What we have learned. In Education, 18(2), 1–12.
  174. Schein, E. J. (2011). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In J. M. Shafritz, J. S. Ott, & Y. S. Jang (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (7th ed., pp. 349–358). Wadsworth.
  175. Schoology Exchange. (2017). Learning from failure: 6 short edtech case studies you need to read. https://www.schoology.com/blog/learning-failure-6-short-edtech-case-studies-you-need-read
  176. Schrage, M. (1995). No more teams: Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration. Currency Doubleday.
  177. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.
  178. Shanker, S. (2014). Broader measures for success: Social/emotional learning. Measuring what Matters, People for Education. https://peopleforeducation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MWM-Social-Emotional-Learning.pdf
  179. Shea, P., Li, C. S., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous college courses: The role of teaching presence. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4), 59–82.
  180. Shea, P., Vickers, J., & Hayes, S. (2010). Online instructional effort measured through the lens of teaching presence in the community of inquiry framework: A re-examination of measures and approach. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3). 127–154. https://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/915
  181. Singapore Management University. (2022). The SMU challenge (previously ACE). https://accountancy.smu.edu.sg/accounting-challenge-ace
  182. Sketchboard. (2022). Sketchboard virtual whiteboard. https://sketchboard.io/
  183. Skibba, K., & Widmer, M. (2021). Blended faculty community of inquiry transforms online teaching perceptions and practices. In C. Dziuban, C. Graham, A. G. Picciano, & P. D. Moskal (Eds.), Research perspectives in blended learning (3rd ed.) (pp. 93–126). Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
  184. Skrypnyk, O., Joksimović, S., Kovanović, V., Dawson, S., Gašević, D., & Siemens, G. (2015). The history and state of blended learning. In G. Siemens, D. Gašević, & S. Dawson (Eds.), Preparing for the digital university: A review of the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning (pp. 55–92). Athabasca University Press.
  185. Slido. (2022). Polling application. https://www.sli.do/
  186. Smadi, O., Chamberlain, D., Shifaza, F., & Hamiduzzaman, M. (2021a). Fast and furious shift to online education requires pedagogy transformation. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal, 27(5), 47–49.
  187. Smadi, O., Chamberlain, D., Shifaza, F., & Hamiduzzaman, M. (2021b). Factors affecting the adoption of the community of inquiry framework in Australian online nursing education: A transition theory perspective. Nurse Education in Practice, 55 (August), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103166
  188. Smart Sparrow. (2022). What is learning design? https://www.smartsparrow.com/what-is-learning-design/
  189. Sobhanzadeh, M., & Zizler, P. (2021). Selective assessment in introductory physics labatorials. The Physics Teacher, 59, 114–116. https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0003465
  190. Stockdale, D., Parsons, J., & Beauchamp, L. (2013). Instructional leadership in First Nations schools. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 36(1), 95–149.
  191. SurveyMonkey. (2022). SurveyMonkey. https://www.surveymonkey.com/
  192. Taghizade, A., Hatami, J., Noroozi, O., Farrokhnia, M., & Hassanzadeh, A. (2020). Fostering learners’ perceived presence and high-level learning outcomes in online learning environments. Education Research International, 2020, Article ID 6026231, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6026231
  193. Taylor Institute. (2022). Learning module: Critical reflection. https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/resources/module/critical-reflection
  194. Teaching Learning Support Services. (2016). Report on the blended learning initiative. University of Ottawa. https://saea-tlss.uottawa.ca/en/innovation-research/strategic-research-impact-assessment/initiatives-implemented
  195. TED-Ed. (2022). How do I create TED-Ed lessons? https://help.ted.com/hc/en-us/articles/360005307714-How-to-create-a-TED-Ed-Lesson
  196. Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge. Penguin Books.
  197. Theodora, R. (2019). Five reasons why you should love group work. Ontario Tech University. https://blog.ontariotechu.ca/five-reasons-why-you-should-love-group-work
  198. Thistlethwaite, J. (2006). More thoughts on “assessment drives learning.” Medical Education, 40(11), 1149–1150.
  199. Thomas, C., & Brown, B. (2021). Formative assessment strategies to support group work. Education in the North, 28(2), 134–155. https://www.abdn.ac.uk/education/research/eitn/journal/653/
  200. Torras, M. E., & Mayordomo, R. (2011). Teaching presence and regulation in an electronic portfolio. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2284–2291.
  201. Toulouse, P. (2016). What matters in Indigenous education: Implementing a vision committed to holism, diversity and engagement. People for Education.
  202. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.
  203. Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving quality and reducing costs: Designs for effective learning. Change, 35(4), 23–29.
  204. University of Arizona. (2022). Writing an article critique. https://writingcenter.uagc.edu/writing-article-critique
  205. University of Calgary. (2022). Blended and online learning resources. https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/resources/blended-online-learning
  206. University of California Los Angeles. (2019). Calibrated peer review tool. http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/Home
  207. University of Central Florida. (2022). Blended learning toolkit. https://blended.online.ucf.edu/2011/06/07/building-your-course/
  208. University of Ottawa. (2022) Blended tool box. https://saea-tlss.uottawa.ca/en/teaching-technologies/documentation/teaching-technologies
  209. University of Waterloo. (2022a). Concept mapping tools. https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-teaching-excellence/teaching-resources/teaching-tips/teaching-tips-educational-technologies/all/concept-mapping-tools
  210. University of Waterloo. (2022b). Making group contracts. https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-teaching-excellence/teaching-resources/teaching-tips/developing-assignments/group-work/making-group-contracts
  211. University of Western Ontario. (2022). Western active learning spaces (WALS). https://wals.uwo.ca/
  212. University of Wisconsin—Madison. (2022). Blended learning toolkit. https://blendedtoolkit.wisc.edu/design/
  213. University of Wisconsin—Stout. (2022). Creating and using rubrics for assessment. https://www.uwstout.edu/academics/online-distance-education/online-professional-development/educational-resources-rubrics/creating-and-using-rubrics-assessment
  214. Vaughan, N. D. (2010). A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement to course redesign. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 60–65.
  215. Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Investigating how digital technologies can support a triad-approach to assessment in higher education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(3), 1–22. https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26309
  216. Vaughan, N. D. (2014). Student engagement and blended learning: Making the assessment connection. Education Sciences, 4(4), 247–264. http://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/4/4/247
  217. Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Athabasca University Press. https://www.aupress.ca/books/120229-teaching-in-blended-learning-environments/
  218. Vaughan, N. D., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1–12.
  219. Vaughan, N. D., & Garrison, D. R. (2006). A blended faculty community of inquiry: Linking leadership, course redesign and evaluation. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 32(2), 67–92.
  220. Vaughan, N. D., & Lee Wah, J. (2020). Community of inquiry: Future practical directions—shared metacognition. International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education, special issue on Technology and Teacher Education, 35(1). 1–25. http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1154
  221. Vimeo. (2022). Livestream video application. https://livestream.com/
  222. Waghid, Z., Meda, L., & Chiroma, J. A. (2021). Assessing cognitive, social and teaching presences during emergency remote teaching at a South African university. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 38(5), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-01-2021-0006
  223. Weebly. (2022). Create your own website. https://www.weebly.com/
  224. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Backward design. In G. Wiggins & J. McTighe (Eds.) Understanding by design (pp. 13–34). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
  225. Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2015). Embedding formative assessment: Practical techniques for K12 classrooms. Learning Sciences.
  226. Wilson, E. O. (2012). The social conquest of Earth. W.W. Norton.
  227. Wise, A. (2020). Online discussion student facilitation guidelines. Harmonize. https://info.42lines.net/online-discussion-student-facilitation-guidelines-drwise
  228. Wix. (2022). Free website builder. https://www.wix.com/
  229. Wolf, E. (2010). Europe and the people without history. University of California Press.
  230. Woolley, A., Malone, T. W., & Chabris, W. (2015, January 15). Why some teams are smarter than others. The New York Times, 5. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/opinion/sunday/why-some-teams-are-smarter-than-others.html
  231. WordPress. (2022). WordPress. https://wordpress.com/
  232. World Café Conversations. (2022). The world café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. http://www.theworldcafe.com/
  233. Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, Critical Perspectives, 18(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719154
  234. Yeh, S. S. (2009). The cost-effectiveness of raising teacher quality. Educational Research Review, 4(3), 220–232.
  235. YouTube. (2022). YouTube video sharing application. https://www.youtube.com/
  236. Yu, Z., Li, M. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of community of inquiry in online learning contexts over twenty-five years. Education and Information Technologies 27, 11669–11688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11081-w
  237. Zhang, H., Lin, L., Zhan, Y., & Youqun Ren, Y. (2016). The impact of teaching presence on online engagement behaviors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(7), 887–900.
  238. Zhao, H., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2017). Teaching presence in computer conferencing learning environments: Effects on interaction, cognition and learning uptake. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 538–551.
  239. Zoom. (2022). Zoom web-conferencing application. https://zoom.us

Annotate

Previous
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). It may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes, provided that the original author is credited.
Powered by Manifold Scholarship. Learn more at
Opens in new tab or windowmanifoldapp.org