An investigation into the community of inquiry of blended classrooms by a Faculty Learning Community

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Community of Inquiry is predicative of students’ experiences in blended courses.

  • Facilitation of Community of Inquiry within a blended course may lead to an increase in student satisfaction with the course.

  • Differences in a student’s experience in blended learning courses may vary depending on the discipline of the course.

  • Faculty benefit from participation in a Faculty Learning Community by receiving helpful advice on promising practices.

  • Faculty benefit from participation in a Faculty Learning Community by receiving encouragement when facing course challenges.

  • Faculty Learning Communities are less successful when they lack dialog between meetings.

Abstract

A Faculty Learning Community (FLC) comprised of six professors representing different disciplines came together to study, develop, and teach blended learning courses. As an FLC, the researchers sought to evaluate student perceptions of the blended learning courses, measured using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) survey, and how these differed across the courses taught. In addition to this objective, a secondary objective of how the experience of learning to design blended learning courses in an FLC differed across the faculty was also explored. This exploratory case study found evidence to suggest that student perceptions of a blended course, as measured by the CoI framework, can be used to determine differences in students' blended learning experiences. The results of the study also suggest that perceived differences in blended learning experiences varied by discipline, highlighting an important area for future research experiments. An additional research outcome was that an FLC may be a useful form of faculty development when correctly implemented. For example, participating faculty benefited from participation in an FLC when they received helpful advice on promising practices and encouragement when experiencing instructional or technical challenges.

Introduction

The growth of blended and online learning is well documented in the literature. An annual survey (Allen & Seaman, 2014) reported that 7.1 million college students took at least one online course during the fall of 2013, a dramatic increase from the 1.5 million students in 2002. Faculty respondents to a 2006 survey (Kim & Bonk, 2006) expected a vast majority of university courses to be offered in a blended format by 2013. However, many faculty seem unsupportive or unprepared to make this transition, with one-third of chief academic officers reporting that their faculty perceive online learning outcomes as inferior to those facilitated by face-to-face instruction (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Despite reservations by both faculty and administrators in developing and implementing such courses, reasons for growth in blended learning popularity are numerous and include decreased dropout rates and higher grades when compared to face-to-face student data from a previous year (Lopez-Perez, Perez-Lopez, & Rodriguez-Ariza, 2011). Given such benefits, faculty support may increase if they have pedagogical strategies that work within blended course as well as support for professional development in order to succeed in creating blended courses.

For example, Kim and Bonk (2006) found that faculty members were more concerned with understanding online pedagogy than understanding the technology required to teach online, a change from an earlier survey. While this finding is encouraging, it presents a new challenge as most distance learning theories focus on structural issues rather than teaching and learning (Garrison, 2000). One exception is the Community of Inquiry (CoI) theoretical framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001). This framework has been used in instructional design to enhance learning outcomes in both online and blended courses. CoI provides a framework for facilitating meaningful online learning through three interdependent elements: social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence (Garrison et al., 2001). As such, CoI provides a framework from which to educate faculty on issues relevant to teaching and facilitating blended courses, as well as providing a framework within which faculty can create blended courses.

In addition to having a rational framework for course development, if blended courses are to increase in number and to be effective, thoughtful professional development is needed to effectively teach faculty how to improve their blended pedagogy. For example, workshops and informal mentoring are common training formats (Allen & Seaman, 2011), but may not be adequate for understanding complex online pedagogy. Faculty Learning Communities (FLC) may be more effective in providing faculty with a deep understanding of online pedagogy topics (Cox, 2004, Vaughan and Garrison, 2006). FLCs are designated groups of interdisciplinary faculty with similar levels of expertise in the area that work together on a yearlong collaborative project around a specific topic related to teaching and learning (Cox, 2004). This format provides opportunities for sustained investigation of topics, community building among members, and opportunities for junior and senior faculty to collaborate on scholarly activities (Cox, 2004).

Although the term “blended learning” was rarely mentioned in print prior to 2000 (Bluic, Goodyear, & Ellis, 2007), the concept is not a new one for teaching and learning. A form of blended learning occurred in the United States in the 1920s when some students, especially those living in rural communities, completed high school, prepared for trades, and took university courses by participating in both correspondence and face-to-face instruction (Rose & Ray, 2011). Recently, however, blended learning formats involving online learning have become increasingly popular in higher education. From 2002 to 2008 numbers of university students taking online coursework increased from 9% to 22% of enrolled students (Carter, 2008). During the fall term of 2013, 33.5% of college students took an online course (Allen & Seaman, 2014).

Blended learning can be defined as “the integrated combination of traditional learning with Web-based online approaches” (Motteram & Sharma, 2009, p. 90). Blended learning is characterized by three features: 1) personal contact with an instructor, 2) the use of electronically delivered learning objects, and 3) the blending of these two in order to meet learning targets (Hoffman & Miner, 2008). More specifically, the Sloan Consortium defines a blended course as a combination of face-to-face and online delivery, with 30% to 79% of the content delivered online, resulting in fewer face-to-face meetings (Allen & Seaman, 2014).

In recent years, the strengths of blended learning have been heavily documented. For example, blended learning reduces face-to-face time, has been shown to be preferred by faculty members, creates the possibility for more student collaboration and self-directed learning, offers opportunities for instructors to observe situated learning in environments similar to the job market, and offers more control of learning to students (Rose & Ray, 2011). Although promising, the aforementioned strengths seem to be influenced by several factors. For example, blended learning has the potential to increase student participation in college course work (Jones & Sze Lau, 2010) if students are self-directed learners with the ability to troubleshoot technical and comprehension challenges (Rose & Ray, 2011). Similarly, although blended learning has a positive effect in reducing dropout rates in higher education and improving grades (Lopez-Perez et al., 2011), this has been shown to be dependent on students' age, background, and class attendance as well as blended learning activities.

Successful blended learning is a synergy between in-class and online learning (Cottle & Glover, 2012). The technology used in blended courses affords flexibility and a-synchronicity that serves the learning styles of diverse learners (Albion & Redmond, 2006). For example, online learning within a blended format creates space for instructors to devote in-class time to creating engaging learning environments and explicit instruction. The online environment can provide a means by which to more efficiently increase or review student's knowledge of course content prior to class. The social spaces provided in online communities have demonstrated that metacognition, where students construct meaning and confirm knowledge in the presence of peers, has the potential to increase during online student discussions (Akyol and Garrison, 2011a, Akyol and Garrison, 2011b). However, as noted previously, research shows that some students struggle with the increased responsibilities of online learning formats, especially if they are new learning environments for those students (Albion & Redmond, 2006). In other words, if students and institutions are to benefit from developing and implementing blended courses, these courses should be developed with the use of rigorous pedagogical structures by a well-informed faculty.

It has become clear in recent years that technology is expanding pedagogy (Dede, 2009), however sound teaching pedagogy means that technology must support pedagogy. The Community of Inquiry framework encompasses three facets of learning in order to capture the major factors that affect critical thinking and meaningful student learning in online environments. In doing so, it provides a useful context for evaluating a blended course which is, by definition, incorporating online elements to enhance learning and serve a greater variety of learning needs.

The Community of Inquiry encompasses three elements that are essential for successful learning: teaching presence, cognitive presence, and social presence (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung, 2010). First, teaching presence means that the course instructor is attentive to students' needs. More specifically, the instructor must develop curriculum, facilitate learning activities, and deliver content through direct instructional methods as needed. In an optimal learning environment, according to the CoI framework, students are given opportunities for collaboration and to reflect on their learning. Second, cognitive presence can be 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). Operationally, cognitive presence can be defined through the practical inquiry model, whereby students are able to define a task or problem, explore information to address the task or problem, make sense of the task or problem by integrating points of view addressing the task or problem, and test plausible solutions (Garrison, 2011). Finally, social presence can be used to help establish a community of learners by minimizing feelings of isolation students may feel when learning online. Strong social presence can help students feel safe to share ideas and collaborate with others on course content.

The impacts of the three elements of CoI have been widely studied in recent years in online and blended learning environments. For example, high levels of cognitive presence, as indicated by higher order learning, can be observed in blended learning classes (Akyol & Garrison, 2011b). Cognitive presence is highly correlated with social presence in learner-led synchronous contexts (Wanstreet & Stein, 2011). Social presence indicators strongly inform student perception of learning success and persistence in online programs as well (Boston et al., 2009). Both social presence and cognitive presence are influenced by teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2010). The role of different disciplines in this structure and the potential effectiveness of a blended course format on these outcomes across disciplines have been explored little, however.

Most of the current research on CoI outcomes in blended learning uses case study design, survey instruments for single courses, or comparative studies of online and face-to-face learning contexts within the same discipline (Bluic et al., 2007). This exploratory case study encompasses six disciplines in order to compare social, teaching, and cognitive presence across disciplines and explore how students perceive community in a blended learning environment. By studying blended learning within a group of faculty of varying disciplines, researchers are able to look at the outcomes of a blended classroom through the perspectives of multiple disciplines and levels of courses. Studying blended learning using mixed-methodology and with an interdisciplinary approach as done in this study is largely new terrain.

Within the Faculty Learning Community (FLC), six disciplines were represented: Engineering, Psychology, Curriculum and Instruction, Nursing, Economics, and Instructional Technology. Each member independently designed the blended learning strategies for their respective courses, resulting in a wide spectrum of pedagogical applications reflective of the various disciplines of participants. According to Akyol et al. (2009), the shape of disciplinary knowledge, whether constructivist or objectivist in nature, also affects student perceptions in a CoI. In previous research, the CoI framework best adapted itself to applied disciplines where the course content was more constructivist in nature and learners were expected to develop solutions to problems through interaction with other learners, compared with disciplines of a more objectivist nature (Arbaugh, Bangert, & Cleveland-Innes, 2010). In one study of an applied discipline, students in blended learning reported higher levels of learning than students in an online only group, suggesting that at least some face to face contact with a teacher is an important aspect of a course (Collopy & Arnold, 2009).

McLoughlin (1999) notes that online components of instruction are more likely to work for students if learning style of students, cultural values, and tasks that go beyond literal comprehension of texts to develop deep learning are implemented in the design. Beyond course design, successful learners in blended learning or traditional higher education environments are more aware of their learning and situational needs and select strategies to adapt to changing needs and learning environments (De George-Walker & Keeffe, 2010). This means that choices in learning strategies must be explicitly available to students, including the choice to participate in the social dimensions of the course (social presence), whether in person or online, in order to facilitate their own learning. Prior technological skill may also affect learning in a blended learning environment.

A Community of Practice (CoP) forms when a group of learners meet regularly to collaborate to construct and improve knowledge about a topic they care about (Wenger, 2011). CoPs are successful when “participants work in groups to solve authentic problems; participants have shared learning goals; knowledge is emergent and experts in the group are facilitators; group members operate at varying levels of mastery; there is a commitment on the part of group members to participation in the community” (Cowan, 2012, p. 12). A Faculty Learning Community (FLC) is a specific type of Community of Practice. To participate in an FLC, professors typically apply to participate and are selected by a facilitator or program coordinator. This group of professors commits to work together and individually on projects related to a specified topic. The group is typically made up of a mixture of senior and junior faculty. Through an application process, members were selected for the blended learning Faculty Learning Community who shared pedagogical and epistemological objectives, but who varied in their previous levels of experience with designing online components for courses. A culture of commitment to the community was established through participation incentives, including an iPad, and a shared curiosity around enhancing efficiency and learning in the respective courses.

Previous research found that an FLC is an effective professional development structure that encourages and supports faculty as they explore new teaching practices, such as blending their instruction (Cox, 2002). Vaughan and Garrison (2006) found that the use of an FLC provided faculty with a support group and the motivation to complete their projects. Faculty in their study utilized participation in an FLC to resolve both pedagogical and technical questions. One major challenge with FLCs is effective facilitation, as the role “differs from what are perhaps more familiar roles of content expert, lecturer, chairperson, or traditional leader” (Ortquist-Ahrens & Torosyan, 2009, p. 29). Cox, Richlin, and Essington (2012) described the ideal facilitator as a respected teacher-scholar, knowledgeable about Scholarship of Teaching and Learning literature, possessing strong communication skills, and a community builder, but not necessarily a subject matter expert.

The facilitator for the FLC in this exploratory case study had never participated in an FLC before and was not always clear of his role. While two-thirds of the FLC had experience teaching online, no one had taught a blended course. The FLC spent the first three months of the year-long exploration teaching each other about blended learning best practices by reading and discussing Garrison and Vaughan's (2011) book along with various articles on the topic of blended learning. Participants used what they learned about course design to begin creating blended courses to teach in an upcoming term. Those with Learning Management System (LMS) experience shared online syllabi and course activities. Those with screen capture experience shared how they used self-produced video clips in their courses. One member used web conferencing software to create screencasts which gave us an opportunity to compare and contrast the benefits of different digital tools. Although participants used the same tools for the most part, each professor made the decision for his/herself. Not having a blended learning expert forced the faculty to rely on each other for guidance and support. The results of this study include a report of issues that may have been the result of less than ideal facilitation.

This exploratory case study sought to examine the following questions through the use of an FLC and CoI framework: First, do student perceptions, measured by the CoI framework, affect learning outcomes in blended courses? Second, does the blended learning experience vary by discipline and/or faculty member? The study explored how CoI outcomes differed across courses/disciplines in order to better understand differences between disciplines, instructors, and student perceptions. Third, do faculty members benefit from exploring new pedagogy as a Faculty Learning Community and in what ways? How does this experience of learning to design blended learning courses in an FLC differ for faculty participants? To explore this aspect of the case study, faculty members were surveyed about their experiences.

Section snippets

Student participants

There were 74 student participants in the study. These participants were from four (i.e., Engineering, Nursing, Psychology, and Economics) of the six courses included in the study as students from two courses did not complete the measures (i.e., Education and Educational Technology). The participants had a mean age of 21 years old, slightly over half were female (57%), and 94% of them were full time students. Of the student participants, 64% reported working part time, and 31% do not work. The

Qualitative results

Qualitative responses were collected through the blended course student survey, used by Garrison and Vaughan (2011). When analyzing the content of the qualitative responses, the approach of Garrison and Vaughan was followed, grouping responses into the categories used by these authors. This process was subject to the discretion of the researcher designated to categorize the responses. No detailed description of the responses within each category was given by Garrison and Vaughan. The responses

Blended learning

Results from this exploratory case study provide insight into three areas pertaining to students' experience with the blended learning courses. However, it should be noted that students in the courses as well as the courses themselves varied widely (see Student and Faculty Participants). As such, results from the current study would be interpreted as exploratory or as a case study. First, CoI is both related to and can predict changes in student's experience in blended learning courses. This

Conclusion

This study found evidence that student perceptions of the CoI may be useful in determining differences in students' blended learning experiences. This may be useful in helping students determine whether a blended course is a good fit for their learning. The study also found that the perceived differences in blended learning experiences varied by discipline. This difference may be a result of differences between students, such as their age, or differences between instructors. A second research

References (36)

  • I.E. Allen et al.

    Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States

    (2014)
  • A.M. Bluic et al.

    Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students' experiences of blended learning in higher education

    Internet & Higher Education

    (2007)
  • W. Boston et al.

    An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the community of inquiry framework and retention in online programs

    Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks

    (2009)
  • D. Carter

    Online enrollment jumps 13 percent. E-School News, November 17

  • R.M.B. Collopy et al.

    To blend or not to blend: Online and blended learning environments in undergraduate teacher education

    Issues in Teacher Education

    (2009)
  • N.R. Cottle et al.

    Teaching human development: A case for blended learning

    Technology & Teaching

    (2012)
  • J.E. Cowan

    Strategies for developing a community of practice: Nine years of lessons learned in a hybrid technology education master's program

    TechTrends

    (2012)
  • M.D. Cox

    The role of community in learning: Making connections for your classroom and campus, your students and colleagues

  • Cited by (52)

    • Using the community of inquiry framework to support and analyse BYOD implementation in the blended EFL classroom

      2022, Internet and Higher Education
      Citation Excerpt :

      To address this concern, the implementation of BYOD underpinned by a robust framework for the design of effective learning environments warrants more investigation. The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework was originally proposed to characterise elements critical to successful educational experience and outcomes in online learning (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999) and has also been applied in blended learning contexts (e.g. Wicks et al., 2015; Zhang, 2020). Drawing on collaborative constructivist principles, CoI identifies three important and interdependent elements: cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence.

    • EVIDENCE-BASED COLLABORATIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE ONLINE DESIGN AND PRACTICE

      2024, The Design of Digital Learning Environments: Online and Blended Applications of the Community of Inquiry
    • Andragogical leadership and technology in the future of adult education

      2023, Handbook of Research on Andragogical Leadership and Technology in a Modern World
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text