Introduction

The aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting widespread adoption of blended and online learning have necessitated a rapid and radical rethinking of the teaching-learning transaction. The pandemic resulted in a forced test of the potential of blended and online learning. The possibilities and constraints associated with these approaches to learning were put to the test unfairly in many ways since many educators lacked a research-based framework to guide the redesign of their courses and programs.

The key was to provide guidance and support to educators to migrate their curriculums and activities to an online learning environment. The enormity of this challenge and the associated time constraints quickly became apparent. The tragedy was that faculty were too often left to their own devices or simply offered superficial teaching tips without a coherent understanding of the possibilities of an effective teaching-learning transaction online. Opportunities for both social and cognitive presence needed to be developed to facilitate effectively interpersonal relationships and intellectual discourse.

In this confusion, the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison, 2017) attracted considerable attention. This framework offered a coherent representation of and approach to online learning. For this reason, educators have turned to the CoI framework to provide perspective and guidance (Chiroma et al., 2021; Smadi et al., 2021a). The CoI framework has been a widely studied and adopted framework for blended and online education (Yu & Li, 2022). Considering the rapid developments in learning online, there is a growing need for a theoretical grounding of approaches and practices. In this regard, the CoI framework provides a map and rationale to rethink and migrate teaching and learning online. We need to look beyond technology and focus on the pedagogical assumptions and principles of practice associated with collaborative online learning.

We believe that the way forward is to adopt blended face-to-face and online learning. To us, this is the most obvious path to the acceptance and adoption of online learning. Blended learning (BL) is not new and has gained significant traction in higher education. We argued more than a decade ago that blended learning “is emerging as the organizing concept in transforming teaching and learning while preserving the core values of higher education” (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, p. 143). This was based upon the ability to fuse the distinct capabilities of synchronous and asynchronous communication shaped by the CoI framework. Research has strongly supported this argument (Kintu et al., 2017). Moreover, the reality is that most classrooms in higher education have adopted BL approaches (Graham, 2019; Johnson, 2019). In addition, such approaches resonate with faculty when they understand the educational possibilities. The flexibility of BL approaches provides distinct advantages for teachers as well as students. Interestingly, as “blended learning” becomes the norm in higher education, the term itself is becoming moot as most traditional classrooms integrate online and face-to-face learning to various degrees.

The focus of this book is on the practical application of the CoI framework to the design, facilitation, and direction of blended courses and programs in higher education. We are guided in this quest by our previous books, Blended Learning in Higher Education (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008) and Teaching in Blended Learning Environments (Vaughan et al., 2013).

In our first book, we defined blended learning as “the organic integration of thoughtfully selected and complementary face-to-face and online approaches and technologies” (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, p. 148). We described how blended learning provides an opportunity to redesign fundamentally how we approach teaching and learning in ways that institutions of higher education might benefit from increased efficacy, convenience, and efficiency. In our second book, we provided further guidance on the design, facilitation, and direction of a blended course or program by using the following seven principles derived from the teaching presence sphere of the CoI framework (Vaughan et al., 2013, p. 17):

• Plan for the creation of open communication and trust.
• Plan for critical reflection and discourse.
• Establish community and cohesion.
• Establish inquiry dynamics (purposeful inquiry).
• Sustain respect and responsibility.
• Sustain inquiry that moves to resolution.
• Ensure that assessment is congruent with intended processes and outcomes.

Feedback from the publication of our previous books indicated that the unique feature of our work was the provision of a coherent framework in which to explore the transformative concept of blended learning. This book builds upon our previous work with an increased focus on designing, facilitating, and directing collaborative blended learning environments by emphasizing the concept of shared metacognition. Garrison (2018) describes shared metacognition as the awareness and management of one’s learning in the process of constructing meaning and creating understanding associated with self and others. More specifically, Garrison and Akyol (2015a, p. 68) define the shared metacognition construct as including “two interdependent elements: self and co-regulation of cognition . . . [each exhibiting] a monitoring (awareness) and a managing (strategic action) function.”

Content and Organization

This book begins with an overview of blended learning, the CoI framework, including the three overlapping presences (cognitive, teaching, and social), research related to shared metacognition, and how this concept is in dialogue with Indigenous ways of knowing. We then provide a description of how shared metacognition and the three components of teaching presence (design, facilitation, and direction) have been used to revise our seven principles of blended learning:

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

The first two principles relate to the design and organization of a blended course. In Chapter 2, we focus on designing for relevance so that students have a sense of curiosity about and connection to the learning outcomes for a blended course. We provide design strategies and examples such as the creation of an online needs assessment survey, an online discussion forum to share experiences relevant to the course learning outcomes, the use of blogs and concept maps to help students set their own learning goals for a course, and design considerations for student group work.

Chapter 3, on facilitation, is connected to the third and fourth principles. Facilitation is the central activity in an educational Community of Inquiry for developing shared metacognition through the interactions among students and teacher. Facilitative actions, by “both the students and the teacher, create the climate, support discourse, and monitor learning. In the act of facilitation learners connect with each other, engage with the content, are cognitively present as intellectual agents, and carry out all actions central to the development and maintenance of the learning community” (Vaughan et al., 2013, p. 46). In essence, the teacher is responsible for modelling the growth and development of shared metacognition in a course by creating and sustaining constructive learning relationships. Creating a sense of community and collaboration is key to helping students develop their capacity for co-monitoring and co-managing their inquiry (i.e., shared metacognition). Unfortunately, studies indicate that many students in higher education have little formal experience working in groups (Chang & Brickman, 2018). This chapter provides activities and resources for helping students to learn how to work successfully in groups and to take responsibility for and control of the process of inquiry.

Chapter 4, on direct instruction, is not about lecturing. Direct instruction is about ensuring that students achieve the intended learning outcomes of a course or program and is related to the fifth, sixth, and seventh principles. It is an essential ingredient of any formal educational experience in order to help students learn how to learn by monitoring and managing their learning collaboratively (shared metacognition). It has been shown that students expect structure and leadership in higher education courses, and the roles and responsibilities for direct instruction should be shared by all members of a Community of Inquiry (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). The focus of direct instruction is on rigour. In a higher education course, this can 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 “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 a “gentle nudge” to integrate and apply those ideas in course assignments and everyday life. This chapter provides examples, activities, and resources to create applied and challenging course assignments.

Chapter 5, on assessment, is related directly to the seventh principle. In a blended learning environment, diagnostic, formative, and summative forms of assessment can be integrated to support student learning. For example, this chapter demonstrates how pre-class activities can utilize diagnostic forms of assessment to help students gauge their prior knowledge and experience with course concepts. With regard to in-class (synchronous) activities, ideas are shared about how formative and peer assessment techniques can be used to explore and understand further the key concepts. Finally, we describe out-of-class (online) summative assessment activities such as the use of blog posts and video presentations to obtain feedback from external experts. The chapter also includes a section on evaluating the effectiveness of blended courses.

Chapter 6 highlights the type of collaborative leadership required to initiate and sustain an institutional blended learning program. The chapter provides examples of successful blended learning initiatives in higher education as well as a detailed description of how to use the CoI framework (Garrison, 2017) to design, facilitate, and direct a faculty development program for blended learning.

The Conclusion discusses next steps and future directions for applying the CoI framework to blended courses and programs in higher education by demonstrating how our seven principles of blended learning can be seen as in dialogue with Indigenous ways of knowing. There has been a shift from an individual to a more collaborative approach to learning (Kromydas, 2017), accelerated from our perspective by the COVID-19 pandemic. The historical ideal of education was to learn in collaborative Communities of Inquiry, which can foster the growth and development of shared metacognition (Lipman, 1991). The Maori of New Zealand refer to this concept as 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. Hattie and Yates (2014, p. 14) refer to this process as visible teaching and learning, “when teachers SEE learning through the eyes of their students and when students SEE themselves as their own teachers.”

Conclusion

The primary audience for this book is composed of faculty and graduate students in higher education interested in quality teaching in blended learning environments. The secondary audience is composed of education technology professionals, instructional designers, teaching and learning developers, and instructional aides: that is, all those involved in the design and development of the media and materials for blended learning. Other audiences include higher education administrators, educational researchers, and government officials interested in issues of quality education. Although we focus primarily on blended learning in higher education, the collaborative constructivist principles here can be adjusted easily for application in the K–12 environment and the workplace.

1. Conceptual Framework