Conclusion

Indigenous Ways of Knowing

As cited in our Introduction, Wilson (2012) indicates that the ability to collaborate is linked to the origin of human intelligence and evolution. Humans have an innate ability to share their thoughts through communication that allows the group to accomplish more than the individual can alone. The era of COVID-19 has demonstrated to us that, when we collaborate at an international level, we can solve global problems. The hope is that we can now apply these global strategies of collaboration to other pressing issues, such as the climate crisis.

In the context of higher education, the historical ideal has been to learn in collaborative communities of inquiry, which can foster the growth and development of shared metacognition (Lipman, 1991). This has been demonstrated by Indigenous communities over time throughout the world. We would now like to summarize how our seven principles of blended learning align with Indigenous ways of knowing.

Our first principle involves designing for open communication and trust in order to create a blended learning community. This principle addresses the need to establish a social presence to support open communication and the development of cohesive group identity. The primary goal is to create a climate that encourages and supports open communication through a sense of belonging and trust. This principle aligns directly with the Canadian Inuit concept of tunnganarniq, which involves fostering a good spirit by being open, welcoming, and inclusive (Government of Nunavut, 2007). Storytelling is a common Indigenous practice to create such a learning environment. Everyone has stories to tell, and storytelling can contribute to key social presence elements such as inclusion, connection, and the beginning of a class community (Health Foundation, 2016). In addition, Blackfoot Elder Little Bear (2012) indicates that the power of storytelling is that, each time we tell or hear a story, we learn something new. It is an upward spiral of learning.

The second principle is designing for critical reflection and discourse to support inquiry. This principle focuses on cognitive presence, and we discussed the challenge of “pathological politeness” when trying to apply this principle in practice in regard to peer feedback. Garrison (2017, p. 53) documented how students often are unwilling to disagree with or challenge each other in a higher education course, especially in online discussion forums, since they do not want to offend or hurt anyone’s feelings, a sense of “pathological politeness.” To overcome this issue, the Lil’wat First Nation of Vancouver Island emphasizes the importance of cwelelep (Sanford et al., 2012). This concept recognizes the need sometimes to be in a place of dissonance and uncertainty so as to be open to new learning. In a broad sense, this concept is similar to Piaget’s (1975) notion of cognitive dissonance, which Piaget suggested led to knowledge acquisition through assimilation to and accommodation with our existing mental frameworks.

Our third principle is the importance of establishing community and cohesion in a blended course. This principle is associated with social presence and focused on group identity and cohesion through open communication. For students to be socially present, they must have the opportunity to interact with each other. Again the challenge is that many students in higher education have limited experience and guidance with how to work collaboratively in a group. It is crucial that the teacher provide the students with guidance and opportunities to learn how to collaborate effectively in a group. We discussed Tuckman’s (1965) five stages of group development, which in many ways align with the Indigenous Medicine Wheel that consists of four quadrants. Some teachers have begun to introduce this framework in their blended and online courses in order to emphasize multicultural ways of knowing and resilience in group settings (Bell, 2014).

The fourth principle is establishing the dynamics of inquiry in a blended course, which relate to the cognitive presence sphere of the CoI framework, derived from Garrison et al.’s (2000) PI model. Facilitation is necessary to set in motion and guide the dynamics of inquiry. In a blended environment, integrated face-to-face and online learning opportunities can allow for increased interaction, timely reflection, and continuous debate, all of which help to support the process of inquiry. As we discussed, the challenge for many of us in higher education is that we have been conditioned to focus on an individual, linear approach to learning and thus find it difficult to adapt to a cyclical and iterative approach to inquiry. We illustrated how the PI model aligns with the Anishinaabe Medicine Wheel framework for education (Bell, 2014). Both models consist of four interconnected quadrants that students move through in a cyclical nature. The key for us as educators is to demonstrate explicitly to our students the cyclical and interconnected nature of inquiry.

Our fifth principle involves sustaining respect and responsibility for collaboration. This principle is associated with social presence responsibilities. It focuses on sustaining a supportive environment and addressing issues that can undermine the group’s trust and sense of belonging. Recall that social presence is concerned with open communication, group cohesion, and interpersonal relationships. The Canadian Inuit refer to an analogue of this principle as inuuqatigiitsiarniq, which involves respecting others, developing relationships, and caring for people (Government of Nunavut, 2007). The Inuit indicate that this is a lifelong disposition that needs to be reinforced throughout one’s educational journey.

The sixth principle is about sustaining inquiry that moves to resolution and shared metacognitive development. The principle addresses issues of cognitive presence. It concerns scholarly leadership and is associated with critical discourse, reflection, and progression through the phases of practical inquiry. This principle involves the teacher and peers “nudging” fellow students forward in their academic studies (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). This can be seen to aligns with the Lil’wat First Nation of Vancouver Island concept of celhcelh, in which people are responsible for their own and others learning, always seeking collaborative learning opportunities and support (Sanford et al., 2012).

Finally, our seventh principle ensures that assessment is aligned with learning outcomes and growth for all students in a blended course. In regard to this principle, we indicated that a report by the International Commission on the Futures of Education (2021) advocates that assessment needs to evolve from a mode of compliance to a process of shared goal setting, which leads to growth and development for all students. This approach to assessment can be seen as possessing an affinity with Indigenous perspectives. Claypool and Preston (2011) state that Euro-American-centric practices of assessment focus on written quizzes, tests, and exams, which primarily promote cognitive development via rational, linear, and accountable activities. They suggest that this approach to assessment is focused largely on meeting curricular outcomes, and it tends to neglect the physical, emotional, and spiritual domains of students. Marule (2012) suggests that effective assessment from an Indigenous perspective utilizes practices that include the cognitive domain but focus equally on physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual growth and development.

Conclusion

For a blended course, it is important to design and scaffold learning activities that support shared thinking and learning (shared metacognition) with an ethic of care (socio-emotional presence). Please keep in mind that the creation of a learning community takes time, and thus metacognitive awareness and patience are important.

Facilitation is most critical in the earliest stages of a blended course, and direct instruction becomes more important as the complexity and cognitive load of a task or an assignment increase. Our experience suggests that facilitation is necessary to set in motion the dynamics of inquiry, but direct instruction is required when techniques of facilitation do not move along the process of inquiry in a timely manner to the integration and resolution/application phases.

Remember that the teacher is the learning leader for a Community of Inquiry. Similar to a captain’s responsibility for moving a ship forward, the teacher needs to “nudge” students to move beyond exploration to the integration and resolution phases of inquiry. As with facilitation, there is a delicate balance with direct instruction. Too much or too little direction from the teacher will affect adversely the engagement of students and their willingness to assume metacognitively teaching presence responsibilities.

In a blended Community of Inquiry, digital technologies can be used to create a triadic approach to assessment. Self-, peer, and teacher feedback techniques should be an integrated process rather than a series of isolated events in order to help students develop shared metacognitive awareness and strategies.

Finally, the CoI framework is available to support and sustain changes across multiple levels in education organizations. Engaging faculty in Communities of Inquiry that rest on collaborative processes not only supports changes to the student experience through course redesign but also offers a model of shared, collaborative, and collegial knowledge and skill development. The same process of leading collaboratively using a CoI approach can create an organizational culture in which leadership is a shared responsibility. We submit that collaborative leadership across all levels of an organization is key to the successful adoption of blended learning in higher education. This type of leadership engages individuals across an organization, engendering commitment and confidence in blended approaches to learning. It begins with creating blended faculty Communities of Inquiry in which faculty learn through experience the essence of collaborative inquiry and the shared leadership required to make it happen.