Chapter 4 | Direct Instruction

Teaching presence is not possible without the expertise of a pedagogically experienced and knowledgeable teacher who can identify worthwhile content, organize learning activities, guide the discourse, offer additional sources of information, diagnose misconceptions, and provide conceptual order when required. These are direct and proactive interventions that support an effective and efficient learning experience.

—(Garrison, 2017, p. 76)

Direct instruction is not about lecturing; rather, it is about scholarly and pedagogical leadership. It is an essential ingredient of any formal educational experience in order to help students learn how to take responsibility collaboratively to monitor and manage their learning (shared metacognition). It has been shown that students expect structure and leadership in higher education courses, and the roles and responsibilities of direct instruction should be shared by all members of a Community of Inquiry (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). Individual and collaborative metacognition serves to guide the process of inquiry and to encourage timely progression toward learning goals. Direct instruction is about ensuring that students achieve the intended learning outcomes of a course or program, and it is related specifically to the fifth principle, sustain respect and responsibility for collaboration, and the sixth principle, sustain inquiry that moves to resolution and shared metacognitive development.

The fifth principle is associated with social presence responsibilities. This principle 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. Maintaining an open and cohesive Community of Inquiry requires a sensitive and sustained focus on the intended learning outcomes (identification with the purpose of the course). Sustaining the climate, being committed to the purposeful collaborative process, and developing interpersonal relationships are the essence of this principle. During the process of facilitation, the initial challenge is to establish these properties of a Community of Inquiry. Once established, the ongoing challenge is to ensure that they are sustained and to address issues that can undermine the climate that mediates academic discourse.

The sixth principle addresses issues of cognitive presence. This concerns scholarly leadership and is associated with critical discourse, reflection, and progression through the phases of Practical Inquiry. Direct instruction is tasked specifically with ensuring systematic and disciplined inquiry. Sustaining purposeful inquiry includes several overlapping responsibilities. They include providing students with ongoing feedback and academic direction. The overriding responsibility of direct instruction is to ensure that students move through the phases of inquiry and do so in a timely manner. This was one of the challenges revealed in the early research on the CoI framework (Garrison, 2017). In addition to task design deficiencies, it was found that direct instruction was lacking in terms of moving to the resolution phase. Ensuring progression to that phase in the context of collaborative inquiry requires that students maintain a focus on the task, which requires resolution, and that issues are resolved quickly.

The focus of direct instruction is also on rigour (Littky & Grabelle, 2004). A higher education course should involve students in completing a challenging problem, task, or assignment that forces them to confront different perspectives and new ways of thinking. This process involves the teacher in “nudging” the students forward in their academic studies (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). For example, students are often content to share and discuss ideas with each other but require encouragement to integrate and apply those ideas in course assignments and everyday life.

We have indicated in previous chapters that teaching presence in a blended Community of Inquiry is developmental and collaborative. As a semester or unit of academic studies progresses, it is important that students share and assume more of the responsibilities for its design, facilitation, and direction. Unfortunately, as we have seen in previous chapters, students often lack the experience and self-confidence to take on these roles. For example, in a recent study by Vaughan and Lee Wah (2020), students in an educational technology course reported finding it difficult to challenge their peers’ strategies and perspectives (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2).

The Likert-type scale for this figure demonstrates that students had a range of comfort levels with challenging their peers. With regard to strategies related to direct instruction, students commented specifically on work ethic and quality of work. Several of the students quoted the Pareto principle (Asad, 2013) in which 20% of the group does 80% of the work: “Usually one or two people ended up doing the work while other group members didn’t do anything” (Student blog 11). In terms of quality, one participant commented that “being able to trust others and their level of work is something I found difficult. I always want to try to strive for perfection (even when unattainable), so if I feel others are not as invested or do not put in as much work/effort, it makes me upset” (Student blog 52).

A bar graph illustrates that 53% or the majority of students found it difficult or uncomfortable to challenge the strategies of their peers. — Figure 4.1
Challenging the Strategies of My Peers

The students in Vaughan and Lee Wah’s (2020) study also commented on the challenge of negotiating different perspectives during group work (see Figure 4.2). For example, one participant stated that “sometimes it can be difficult to cooperate with others that have different ideas and values. However, this is still a valuable experience” (Student blog 13). Another student explained how overcoming this type of challenge can be an important learning experience: “I had some group members that were quick to shut down others’ ideas without backing up why. This was frustrating and at times hard to deal with, but it taught me to speak up and skills to positively work through an uncomfortable situation” (Student blog 33).

Garrison (2017, p. 53) has also 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.” In this chapter, then, we focus on providing guidelines, examples, activities, and resources that teachers can use to help students gain experience and self-confidence with direct instruction in a blended Community of Inquiry.

A bar graph illustrates that 54% or the majority of students found it difficult or uncomfortable to challenge the perspectives of their peers. — Figure 4.2
Challenging the Perspectives of My Peers

Cyclical Nature of Inquiry

“We teach how we were taught” is a common saying, and many of us in higher education focus on an individualistic, linear approach to learning and therefore find it challenging to adapt to a cyclical and iterative approach to inquiry. In the previous chapter, “Facilitation,” we discussed how Garrison et al.’s (2000) Practical Inquiry model aligned 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.

In the CoI framework (Garrison, 2017), the PI model is interconnected with social and teaching presence. The Medicine Wheel involves balancing one’s spiritual, physical, emotional, and mental capacities (Toulouse, 2016). Shanker (2014, p. 1) states that, “instead of seeing reason and emotion as belonging to separate and independent faculties (the former controlling the latter), they [a multitude of researchers] argue that social, emotional and cognitive processes are all bound together in a seamless web.” This recognition of interconnectedness as a primary concept in learning and emotional development is central to some Indigenous views of education (Carriere, 2010; Iseke, 2010). The key for us as educators is to demonstrate explicitly to our students the cyclical and interconnected nature of inquiry.

Inquiry-Based Assignment Guidelines

It is important for teachers to model and provide guidelines for the process of inquiry. In this regard, we should remember that inquiry-based learning is not a specific technique but a process that requires metacognitive awareness to enhance intellectual engagement and deep understanding (Pedaste et al., 2015). An inquiry-based approach to learning encourages students to

• develop their questioning, research, and communication skills;
• collaborate outside the classroom;
• solve problems, create solutions, and tackle real-life questions and issues; and
• participate in the creation and amelioration of ideas and knowledge.

We recommend the use of Garrison et al.’s (2001) PI model to direct the process of inquiry. Recall that this model is based upon the cognitive presence element of the CoI framework (Garrison, 2017) and involves four phases of inquiry: triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolution.

In online discussion assignments, students can use the PI model to self-code their forum posts in order to help them develop their metacognitive awareness and strategies related to direct instruction. For example, they can label their posts as a triggering event, an exploration, an integration, or a resolution comment.

It is important to remember that this is a dynamic model that moves iteratively between reflection (deliberation) and discourse (action) and does not necessarily occur in a linear format. However, for metacognitive awareness and inquiry-based assignments, the four phases can be presented to students in the following format.

1. Triggering event: Clarify and define the questions for inquiry.
2. Exploration: Explore different perspectives and probe various situations and contexts.
3. Integration: Conduct analyses and provide descriptions.
4. Resolution/application: Communicate findings, in writing or verbally, using various forms of digital technologies. Reflect on the information and knowledge obtained.

In addition, Pappas (2014) has developed the following principles to help direct an inquiry-based assignment.

• Students are at the centre of the entire process, whereas teachers, resources, and technology are adequately organized to support them.
• All learning activities revolve around cognitive-processing skills (metacognition).
• Teachers observe the learning process in order to learn more about their students and the process of inquiry-based learning. Teachers intervene only to help students resolve misunderstandings and potential conflicts.
• Emphasis should be placed on helping students to assess the development of their cognitive-processing skills and conceptual understanding and not on the actual content of the field.

In higher education, inquiry-based assignments usually can be classified as one of the following four formats.

• Confirmation inquiry: Students are given a question, as well as a method, for which the result is already known. The goal is to confirm the result. This enables students to reinforce already established ideas and to practise their investigative skills.
• Structured inquiry: Students are given the question and the method of achieving the result, but the goal is to provide an explanation already supported by the evidence gathered during and through the investigative process.
• Guided inquiry: Students are given only a question. The main goal is to design the method of investigation and then test the question itself. This type of inquiry is not typically as structured as the previously mentioned forms.
• Open inquiry: Students must form their own questions, design investigative methods, and then carry out the inquiry itself. They must present their results at the end of the process.

Inquiry-based assignments can give teachers the opportunity to allow students to explore problems and scenarios fully so that they can learn from not only the results but also the process itself. They are encouraged to ask questions, explore their environments, obtain evidence that supports claims and results, and design convincing arguments regarding how they obtained their results.

Guidelines for Group Work

As highlighted in the Vaughan and Lee Wah (2020) study, students often express concerns about the division of labour and the quality of the process and product. In terms of the division of labour, students referred to the Pareto principle (Asad, 2013), according to which 20% of the group does 80% of the work. For example, one or two students end up doing the work while other group members contribute little or nothing. Moreover, in terms of quality, students commented on the challenge of being able to trust others and their level of work. It is important to provide students with guidelines to help them learn collaboratively to lead and direct their group work processes. We recommend the use of the following guidelines and frameworks for group work.

Group Learning Contracts

Group learning contracts can be used to direct group work. This can be a useful tool for helping students to plan and complete collaborative inquiry-based project work. These contracts also allow students to take active roles in setting the tone for group interaction and can help to “motivate ownership of learning” (Hesterman, 2016, p. 5).

We recommend dedicating class time to the creation of a group learning contract. This way the teacher lets the students know that it is an important activity that merits time and attention. First, give the students time to reflect on and write down what they like and do not like about working in a group. Prompt them to consider their past experiences working in a group. What went well? What didn’t go well? What contributed to the group’s success or failure? What are their strengths when it comes to working collaboratively, and what is something that they would like to improve? Second, ask the students to sit down with their group members and share what they have written as a springboard to their discussion of ground rules and roles.

These contracts should be constructed by the students and reviewed by the teacher for constructive feedback and suggestions for modification. Both the students and the teacher should sign the final version of the learning contract. It then serves as an outline for the project and a tool to aid in the process of assessment. Modification of the learning contract might become necessary as the learning experience progresses. Modified contracts also should be approved and signed by both the students and the teacher. Failure of a student to meet the contract obligations can result in expulsion from the team. The following box is a sample learning contract adapted from the work of Knowles (1986).

In addition, both the University of Waterloo (2022b) and the Eberly Center at Carnegie Mellon University (2022) provide excellent examples of group learning contracts for use in higher education.

The ADDIE Model

The ADDIE model is an instructional design framework developed at Florida State University in the 1970s for the US military (Molenda, 2015). The model consists of the following five phases: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. This framework can be modified to guide an inquiry-based group project.

• Analysis: Start with a series of questions in order to clearly understand the goal and the context of the group work (triggering event).
• Design: Create a blueprint for the group project (exploration).
• Development: Develop and pilot the materials and resources for the group project (integration).
• Implementation: Present or implement the group project (application).
• Evaluation: Reflect on the group project process and create recommendations (resolution).

To use the ADDIE model effectively, we recommend that the teacher create groups with five student members. Each student is responsible for directing as well as reporting on the progress and completion of one of the five ADDIE phases. This allows all group members to take on a leadership role.

A RACI Matrix

A RACI matrix is a framework for defining and documenting roles and responsibilities for a group project (Kantor, 2018). Knowing exactly who is responsible, who is accountable, who needs to be consulted, and who must be kept informed at every step can significantly improve the quality of the group work process. RACI is an acronym for responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed.

• Responsible: This is the person responsible for performing and completing the task.
• Accountable: This is the person ultimately accountable for the task being done in a satisfactory manner. The accountable person must sign off on the work that the responsible person produces.
• Consulted: These are the people whose input is used to complete the task; communication with this group must be of a two-way nature.
• Informed: These are the people informed about the status of the task; communication with this group is of a one-way nature.

Once the student groups are formed, they collaborate to create a RACI matrix in an application such as Google Docs (Google, 2022a) or Google Sheets (Google, 2022g). This RACI matrix for an inquiry-based assignment indicates the project activities and deliverables and clearly illustrates the responsibilities for each group member for each task.

Product Activities/Deliverables	Project Sponsor	Student 1	Student 2	Student 3	Student 4	Student 5
Create project charter	C	A	C	I	R	I
Create project plan/Gantt chart	I	A	R	C	R	I
Create business requirements	C	I	A	I	C	R
Create gap analysis	C	R	R	A	I	C
BPMN diagrams	I	R	C	C	A	C
Create recommendations	I	C	I	R	I	A

R = responsible, A = accountable, C = consulted, I = informed

This RACI matrix format shows all the tasks assigned to each student. This ensures that there is only one person accountable for any one task to avoid confusion. Typically, the list of objectives is in the left-hand column with the group member names across the top. Each work package is assigned to the appropriate project team member. The chart aids in communication among the project team members. In the example above, a Gantt chart is a bar chart that illustrates a project schedule and BPMN is the acronym for Business Process Modeling Notation, which is an open standard to diagram a business process.

Unfortunately, as Burns’s (1785) poem about a mouse reminds us, “the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray” (seventh stanza). Even with the use of these guidelines for group work, conflict can arise inevitably. Initially, it is important to attempt to have the students resolve their own conflicts, but it is crucial that the teacher address these situations directly and resolve conflicts where necessary (Garrison, 2006). For example, the teacher can help to negotiate expectations or correct a student who is out of line (e.g., excessive or flaming online posts). It is important not to get involved directly in all these situations and mediate in a manner that encourages the students to address and resolve their own conflicts. If a conflict continues to escalate, then it is important to remind students in higher education that they must adhere to the institution’s code of student conduct. We recommend placing a link in your blended course outline to your institution’s code so that students are clear about the policy and the process for dealing with misconduct.

Conclusion

The teacher is the primary but not sole leader in a Community of Inquiry. Similar to a captain’s responsibility for moving a ship forward, the teacher needs to encourage 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 adversely affect the engagement of students and their willingness to assume metacognitively the responsibilities of teaching presence. Direction in a Community of Inquiry is grounded in shared metacognition. That means being aware of intended goals and managing progression toward intended learning outcomes. Participants in a learning community must not only be aware metacognitively of the process of inquiry but also share thoughts regarding the positive development of collaborative inquiry. That is, learners must be prepared to offer direction that will move the discourse through to resolution in a timely manner. Consistent with the previous comments, metacognitively informed direction includes a strong assessment component, the focus of the next chapter.

5. Assessment