Chapter 1 | Conceptual Framework

Blended Learning

Since the publication of our book Teaching in Blended Learning Environments (Vaughan et al., 2013), there has been an increase in the types of and the terms for course modalities in higher education (Skrypnyk et al., 2015). Pelletier et al. (2021, p. 16) comment “that until recently higher education has, for the most part, been evolving its way forward—sometimes enthusiastically, sometimes hesitantly—in its adoption of online and blended course models.” However, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated this evolution, forcing higher education to become inventive and create an array of new course models to cope with a truly unique situation. Especially challenging was the fact that many of the blended models crafted in response to COVID-19 had to be modified almost on the fly, according to the ebbs and flows of the pandemic. Pelletier et al. (2021, p. 16) indicate that “higher education now uses a wide and diverse spectrum of course models—so diverse, in fact, that the terminology can be confusing.” Irvine (2020, p. 42) adds that “on today’s higher education campus, there are likely a dozen new terms being used to describe different configurations around the modality of courses. Modality typically refers to the location and timing of interactions. What used to be a simple binary of face-to-face or online has now become so extremely complex that our ability to understand each other is impaired.” In response to this confusion over nomenclature, a study conducted during the pandemic found that “students continue to want face-to-face classes more than any other learning environment, with a majority preferring either completely or mostly face-to-face” (Gierdowsk et al., 2020 “Key Findings” section). A research report on blended learning by Jooston and Weber (2021) also stresses a student preference for courses that combine face-to-face and online learning opportunities. The findings in this report were almost identical to those of a similar research study conducted in New Zealand (Brown et al., 2021) and those of another one in Australia (Cuesta Medina, 2018).

Johnson (2021) eloquently describes the importance of blending campus-based and online learning for students in order to prepare them for future life opportunities. In addition, Gordon (2021) emphasizes that institutions need to realize that “one size does not fit all,” that each course or each program needs to find its own unique integration and balance of face-to-face and online learning in order to achieve student success and satisfaction.

This book retains the definition of blended learning that we put forward in Blended Learning in Higher Education (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, p. 148) as “the organic integration of thoughtfully selected and complementary face-to-face and online approaches.” By “organic,” we mean that it is grounded in practice. By using the term “thoughtfully,” we indicate a significant rethinking of how we should approach the learning experience.

With regard to a thoughtful approach, we expressly exclude enhancing traditional practices that do not significantly improve student engagement. That said, we do not want to restrict innovative blended learning designs by providing strict parameters for the percentage of time spent face-to-face or online. We have chosen to provide a qualitative definition that distinguishes blended learning as an approach that addresses the educational needs of the course or program through a thoughtful fusion of the best and most appropriate face-to-face and online activities. The key is to avoid, at all costs, simply layering on activities and responsibilities until the course is totally unmanageable and students do not have the time to reflect on the deeper meaning and engage in discourse for shared understanding. Twigg (2003) refers to this as the course-and-a-half syndrome.

Blended learning is the inspiration of much of the current innovation, both pedagogically and technologically, in higher education. By “innovation,” we mean significantly rethinking and redesigning approaches to teaching and learning that fully engage students. The essential function of blended learning is to extend thinking and discourse over time and space. Higher education is fraught with considerable rhetoric about the importance of engagement. Still, most institutions’ dominant course mode remains delivering content through either the lecture or self-study modules. Blended learning is specifically directed at enhancing engagement through the innovative adoption of purposeful online learning activities. The strength of integrating face-to-face synchronous communication and text-based online asynchronous communication is powerfully complementary for higher educational purposes.

The goal of blended learning is to bring them together in ways that challenge students academically, not possible by either mode individually. There is a distinct multiplier effect when integrating verbal and written modes of communication. An added benefit is that blended learning sustains academic communication over time. Moreover, students have time to reflect and respond thoughtfully. Finally, though there are significant administrative advantages in blended learning designs (e.g., access, retention, campus space, and teaching resources), the focus here is on the quality of the learning experience made possible through blended approaches.

In the next section, we explore the ideas of engagement and academic inquiry central to the ideals of higher education. These ideas are inherent to learning communities and provide the foundation for implementing blended learning. Learning communities provide the conditions for discussion, negotiation, and agreement in face-to-face and online environments with virtually limitless possibilities to connect to others and information. It is such a community that we describe next and that frames the principles that shape this book.

The Community of Inquiry Framework

An educational Community of Inquiry is a group of individuals who engage collaboratively in purposeful critical discourse and reflection to construct personal meaning and confirm mutual understanding (Garrison et al., 2022, “CoI Framework” section). The CoI theoretical framework was derived from higher education literature. It is a generic educational model applicable to any number of educational contexts and modes of communication. Although it has been used to study and design online educational experiences, it is just as applicable to collaborative and meaningful face-to-face inquiry. For this reason, it is effective in designing blended learning environments (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Vaughan et al., 2013). Moreover, the CoI framework is considered a pivotal contribution and turning point for distance education (Bozkurt, 2019).

The three key elements or dimensions of the CoI framework are social, cognitive, and teaching presence (see Figure 1.1). It is at the convergence of these three mutually reinforcing elements that a collaborative constructivist educational experience is realized. Social presence creates the environment for trust, open communication, and group cohesion. Cognitive presence has been defined as “the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry” (Garrison et al., 2001, p. 11). It has been operationalized through the developmental phases of inquiry: triggering events, exploration, integration, and resolution. The third and cohesive element, teaching presence, is associated with the design, facilitation, and direction of a Community of Inquiry. It is the unifying force that brings together the social and cognitive processes directed to personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile outcomes. Research studies have demonstrated that a high level of teaching presence is a good predictor of student success and satisfaction in a blended or online course (Shea et al., 2010; Torras & Mayordomo, 2011; Zhang et al., 2016; Zhao & Sullivan, 2017).

Shared Metacognition

As we have described, there has been an increased focus on the topic of student engagement and access to higher education. To address these issues, Littky and Grabelle (2004) advocate a curriculum redesign that stresses relevance, relationships, and rigour (the three Rs of engagement). It has been suggested that such a redesign would enable students to engage meaningfully in sustained learning experiences that can lead to a state of optimal flow. Csíkszentmihályi (1997, p. 9) defines “optimal flow” as “the mental state of operation in which the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing by a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity.”

Recently, the focus in higher education has shifted from an individual approach to a more collaborative approach to learning (Kromydas, 2017). At the core of meaningfully engaged inquiry is the concept of metacognition, simply “thinking about one’s thinking” (Chick, 2013, para 1). Metacognition is key to learning how to learn. It means increasing awareness of the learning process and taking responsibility for controlling that process (Garrison, 2017). Metacognitive approaches to learning start with understanding and engaging where possible in designing and planning the learning experience.

Consistent with this approach, Garrison and Akyol (2015a) have developed a shared metacognition construct integral to the CoI framework (Garrison et al., 2000). Shared metacognition exists at the intersection of the cognitive and teaching presence constructs of the CoI framework and goes to the heart of a deep and meaningful educational learning experience. We must therefore understand shared metacognition and its role in a Community of Inquiry. The following list provides a sample of CoI categories and indicators.

Source: Garrison et al. (2000).

In terms of understanding shared metacognition and its role in a Community of Inquiry, the premise is that developing metacognitive awareness and ability is core to becoming an effective inquirer. Metacognition generally has been accepted as consisting of two components: awareness of the inquiry process (monitor) and implementation strategies (regulation). Awareness allows students to monitor and manage/regulate actively the inquiry process. In short, metacognition awareness and implementation abilities provide the knowledge and strategies to monitor and manage effective inquiry. Most importantly, in a collaborative learning environment, awareness and implementation techniques are developed through critical discourse and the requirement of participants to explain and justify their thinking to themselves and others. The approach to developing a viable metacognition construct for collaborative learning environments is to subsume self and shared regulatory functions within a single construct. This shared metacognition construct (Garrison, 2017; Garrison & Akyol, 2015a, 2015b) reflects the dynamic dimensions of self and co-regulation, each exhibiting a monitoring (awareness) function and a managing (strategic action) function (see Figure 1.2).

To explore the practical implications of shared metacognition for a blended course, we need to begin with the construct of teaching presence.

Teaching Presence

Introducing a phenomenon as complex as teaching presence in a blended learning context is a daunting task. Beyond discussing teaching with technology, it requires explicating, examining, and describing a new approach to teaching in a new era of higher education. We see that changes needed in higher education are now emergent: “Neither the purpose, the methods, nor the population for whom education is intended today . . . bear[s] any resemblance to those on which formal education is historically based” (Pond, 2002, “Introduction” section). These changes include a new way of conceiving of and offering both teaching and learning.

We focus here on the teaching presence construct since evidence is growing that points to the importance of teaching presence for the success of a Community of Inquiry (Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Arbaugh, 2008; Eom, 2006; Shea et al., 2005; Taghizade et al., 2020). The conceptual framework that we offer requires new and expanded ways of thinking about the roles of teacher and student. Blended learning provides expanded possibilities and difficult choices for the teacher and students in a Community of Inquiry. Teaching presence is distributed but not diminished within the learning community since the importance and challenge are magnified in blended environments. Teaching presence is enhanced when students become more metacognitively aware and are encouraged to assume increasing responsibility for and control of their learning. Much attention needs to be focused on teaching presence if we are to create and sustain the conditions for higher-order learning.

The issue of shared responsibility suggests that each student in a Community of Inquiry must take on some responsibility for social, cognitive, and teaching presence. This is why the third element of the CoI framework is labelled teaching presence and not teacher presence. It is not just the teacher who is responsible for social and cognitive presence issues. All students in a collaborative learning environment must assume varying degrees of teaching responsibility depending on the specific content, developmental level, and ability. From a cognitive presence perspective, the teacher and students must be prepared to clarify expectations, negotiate requirements, engage in critical discourse, diagnose misconceptions, and assess understanding. Students must also be aware of and active in social presence cultivation and ensure that all feel that they belong and are comfortable contributing to the discourse while simultaneously respectfully challenging ideas.

The pioneering innovation of virtual communication and community places both teacher and student in new ways of engaging, interacting, and contributing to learning. The challenge is that simply providing opportunities for interaction and collaboration does not ensure that students will approach their learning in deep and meaningful ways. The engagement of students in blended learning environments constitutes multiple roles and responsibilities. This multiplicity creates complexity since students must assume varying degrees of responsibility to monitor and regulate the dynamics of the learning community. This is consistent with the very nature of a Community of Inquiry with shared academic goals and processes.

Moving beyond the premise of shared responsibility, we must consider requirements embodied in the art of teaching in a blended learning environment. Teaching presence must be in the service of the learning objectives of the subject while attending to the needs and capabilities that students bring to the experience. However, the ways in which the role of effective teaching is crafted in blended learning environments are different and more complex. Our intention in this book is to create a clear picture of the role of effective teaching in blended higher education that will create the conditions for deep and meaningful learning. As this occurs, there will be shifts in terms of what is done in the community as well. As we illuminate and reconstruct the teaching process in higher education through the creation of blended learning communities, we must also examine the assumptions of teaching. This includes practices common to all teaching approaches in higher education, the new roles for teacher and student that emerge from these changes, the principles appropriate to the combination of teaching face-to-face and online, and the relevant changes to assessment strategies.

Principles

Principles are essential to translate theoretical frameworks into coherent practical strategies and techniques. Principles become even more valuable in coping with the complexities of integrating the potential of new and emerging communications technology. A principled approach to teaching that arises from a sustained Community of Inquiry takes us beyond the traditional lecture all too common in higher education. The principles that shape this book and give structure to teaching presence encourage students to assume greater responsibility for and control of their educational experience.

Collaborative constructivist approaches are more than interaction and engagement. The educational methods needed today represent purposeful collaboration to resolve an issue, solve a problem, or create a new understanding. The educational process outlined in this book is situated within the context of a learning community focused on purposeful inquiry in which students collaboratively assume increased responsibility and control to resolve specific problems and issues.

The seven principles that shape this book are derived deductively from the CoI theoretical framework. The principles are organized around the three sub-elements or categories of teaching presence: design, facilitation, and direction. For each of these three functions and areas of responsibility, we address the elements of social and cognitive presence. Considering the complexity of a collaborative blended learning experience, considerable care and thought must be devoted to design, facilitation, and direction. The following principles provide a guide to creating and sustaining purposeful Communities of Inquiry (see Figure 1.3).

The seven principles are as follows:

1. 1. Design for open communication and trust that will create a learning community.
2. 2. Design for critical reflection and discourse that will support inquiry.
3. 3. Establish community and cohesion.
4. 4. Establish inquiry dynamics (purposeful inquiry).
5. 5. Sustain respect and responsibility for collaboration.
6. 6. Sustain inquiry that moves to resolution and shared metacognitive development.
7. 7. Ensure that assessment is aligned with learning outcomes and growth for all students.

The first two principles speak to the social and cognitive challenge of designing a collaborative blended learning experience. The next two principles address the social and cognitive concerns associated with facilitating a Community of Inquiry. The last three principles deal with the social, cognitive, and assessment responsibilities of directing and leading an educational experience to achieve the desired outcomes. These seven principles comprise the first step in providing specific practical guidelines for the design, facilitation, and direction of a collaborative Community of Inquiry in a blended context.

Indigenous Ways of Knowing

As the authors of this book, we are Canadians of European background and thus do not have first-hand experience with Indigenous concepts of learning. Despite this lack of personal experience, we would like to investigate, highlight, and honour Indigenous ways of knowing in light of our seven principles of blended learning. This will take the form throughout the book of providing resources on and references to the work of Indigenous scholars and educators.

To begin, Wilson (2012) indicates that the ability to collaborate is linked to the origin of human intelligence and evolution. Unfortunately, education systems have not always honoured and celebrated students’ ability to collaborate. Wolf (2010), in his influential book Europe and the People without History, contrasts the Euro-American-centric focus on individual ways of knowing with certain more collaborative Indigenous ways of knowing.

The essence of teaching presence and our seven principles is the reciprocal nature of teaching and learning. This is illustrated in the Maori of New Zealand’s concept of ako, which means to both teach and learn (Alton-Lee, 2003). Ako recognizes the knowledge that both teachers and students bring to learning interactions, and it acknowledges how new knowledge and understanding can grow out of shared learning experiences. Within the Canadian context, Indigenous cultures have embraced collaborative approaches to learning for centuries.

For example, on the eastern coast, the Mi’kmaw Nation of Nova Scotia has developed a “two-eyed seeing” process in order to weave collaboratively Indigenous and Western ways of knowing: that is, “to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous ways of knowing, and to see from the other eye with the strengths of Western ways of knowing, and to use both of these eyes together” (Bartlett et al., 2012, p. 335). The Mi’kmaw Nation further indicates that the mind is like a parachute since it works only when it is open to new ideas and ways of knowing.

On the northern coast, the Inuit of Nunavut believe that we learn collaboratively not only from each other but also with and from our natural environment. Based upon this belief, they have developed an educational framework that they refer to as Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ). This framework consists of the following eight principles derived from extensive consultations with their Elders (Government of Nunavut, 2007):

• • Inuuqatigiitsiarniq—respecting others, relationships, and caring for people
• • Tunnganarniq—fostering good spirit by being open, welcoming, and inclusive
• • Pijitsirniq—serving and providing for family or community or both
• • Aajiiqatigiinniq—decision making through discussion and consensus
• • Pilimmaksarniq or pijariuqsarniq—development of skills through practice, effort, and action
• • Piliriqatigiinniq or ikajuqtigiinniq—working together for a common cause
• • Qanuqtuurniq—being innovative and resourceful
• • Avatittinnik kamatsiarniq—respect and care for the land, animals, and environment

In addition, on the western coast, the Lil’wat First Nation of Vancouver Island (Sanford et al., 2012) has articulated its own six principles for collaborative learning. They emphasize that learning should benefit the entire community and not just the individual. They also acknowledge that there is a felt energy when a common purpose emerges for a group and that we should seek spaces of stillness and quietness for learning to unfold.

We would like to emphasize that throughout this book we will use resources from and references to Indigenous scholars and educators to investigate, highlight, and honour how Indigenous ways of knowing might align with our seven principles of blended learning.

Conclusion

Our challenge now is to explore how these principles can be used to design, facilitate, and direct blended learning experiences. We will examine systematically strategies and techniques that fuse face-to-face and online learning to create purposeful blended Communities of Inquiry in the support of deep and meaningful approaches to teaching and learning. We need to uncover the strengths and weaknesses of face-to-face and online experiences as we consider each of these principles. We will do so in subsequent chapters that focus on the design, facilitation, direction, and assessment of blended learning experiences.