Spring/Summer 2009

Once again I have some considerable catching up to do since my last posting. At the end of March this year I attended the National Centre for Academic Transformation Conference in Orlando. The conference was very useful but it was also a welcomed trip to the sun after a particularly long cold winter. It was made even more enjoyable as my daughter Sabrine joined me and we got out to do some golfing. Sabrine just turned 13 yrs old but is a very good golfer (7 hdcp).

This summer I was honored to give the keynote presentation at the The Fourth International Blended Learning Conference at the University of Hertfordshire in the UK. My presentation can be view at: http://www2.herts.ac.uk/fms/documents/teaching-and-learning/blu/conference2009/Elluminate%20Recordings%20from%20Blended%20Learning%20Conference%202009.pdf

I was also pleased to be invited to the 25th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning in Madison, Wisconsin in August. I think the highlight of the conference for me was the keynote presentation from Dr. Michael Moore with regards to the history of distance education and the watershed events in the mid 1980s with regard to the acceleration of scholarship in the field. In this regard, I would like to note that Marti Cleveland-Innes and myself have a book on distance education due out this fall. It addresses the current state of distance education in the context of developments associated with online and blended learning. We argue that we are entering a new era of distance education very much shaped by collaborative communities of learners which, in turn, challenge the core independence assumption inherent to traditional distance education. The question is whether distance education will be transformed or will it eventually reach an evolutionary dead-end?

Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (in press). An introduction to distance education: Understanding teaching and learning in a new era. London: Routledge.

In closing let me note that Norm Vaughan and I will be doing an online workshop on blended learning for Jossey-Bass in October. Norm and I were also invited to speak at the the E-Learn--World Conference on E-Learning in Vancouver in October on the topic of blended learning. However, I was very pleasantly surprised to hear that I had been been selected to be the recipient of the 2009 Sloan-C Award for Most Outstanding Achievement in Online Learning by an Individual. This was a great honor but given the timing of the presentation I had to cancel out of the E-Learn Conference. This was not a major issue as I know Norm will do just fine without my input.

Finally, I would like to say that I am working with my colleagues Phil Ice and Zehra Akyol on an exploratory study of meta-cognition using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. The guiding question is what role does metacognition play in the developmental dynamics (constructing meaning and confirming understanding) of a community of inquiry. More specifically, we will be exploring the relationships between meta-cognition and each of the presences (social, cognitive and teaching) in the CoI framework. So much for now.
RG

Books, CNIE Conference

Well I once again have got around to the infrequent updating of my blog. To begin, I want to note that Norm Vaughan and I received the Frandson Book Award for our recently published book – Blended Learning in Higher Education (Jossey-Bass) from the University Continuing Education Association (USA). We were very pleased to have the book recognized so soon after publication. Norm received the award in New Orleans. I was not able to attend as I had a previous commitment to attend AERA in New York. It would appear that the book has attracted considerable interest.


Keeping on the topic of books, I am pleased to say that Marti Cleveland-Innes and I have had a book proposal accepted by Routledge. It is titled: An introduction to distance education: Understanding teaching and learning in a new era. This will be an edited book with contributions from the leaders in distance and online learning who are responsible for mapping the direction of these two fields of study and practice. As with most books, it will take some time before we see this in print.

During this academic year I have been working with a visiting doctoral student, Zehra Akyol, who is from the Middle East Technical University in Turkey. She has been researching two courses offered by Norm Vaughan. The courses were delivered fully online in the fall and then in a blended learning format in the 2008 winter term. This provided an opportunity to do a comparison of the two approaches using the Community of Inquiry to frame the research and help interpret the findings. We have had one paper accepted for publication and are working on a second. The title of the first paper is: The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. The second paper will focus on the comparison of online and blended approaches.

Zehra, Norm and I did presentations on these topics at the Canadian Network for Innovation in Education (CNIE) 2008 International Conference. Zehra did a great job presenting some interesting and complex data (she is second from the right in the picture below). The others are, from the left, Phil Ice, Karen Swan and Peter Shea.



Another important development reported at the CNIE Conference was a presentation on the development, validation and application of the Community of Inquiry Instrument with Phil Ice, Karen Swan, Peter Shea, Marti Cleveland-Innes and myself. The first picture has me at the podium with Phil, Marti, Karen and Peter from left to right. The second picture has us reacting to an obviously very funny comment from Peter.

Finally, Marti Cleveland-Innes, Karen Swan, Phil Ice and I did a CNIE pre-conference workshop titled: Community connections: Implementing three presences in an online community of inquiry. Again, left to right, we have Phil Ice, Karen Swan, myself, and Marti Cleveland-Innes.

Slides of these presentations can be found at: http://communitiesofinquiry.com/presentations

I recently had the privilege to participate in a collaborative research project to develop and validate a Community of Inquiry research instrument. Members of the team, in alphabetical order, are Ben Arbaugh, Marti Cleveland-Innes, Sebastian Diaz, Phil Ice, Jennifer Richardson, Peter Shea, Karen Swan and myself. The team was led by Phil Ice and early results of our work were presented at the Sloan-C Conference in Orlando in November. A three factor solution with oblique rotation was presented. All variables loaded cleanly on the expected factor/presence. This suggests a stable instrument that could be used in a variety of studies, including large scale inter-institutional or cross-disciplinary studies. A second Community of Inquiry presentation followed immediately after the instrument validation presentation that explored various theoretical research issues associated with the framework. This was led by Marti Cleveland-Innes and Karen Swan. Finally, I was involved in a third presentation led by Norm Vaughan on the topic of blended learning and student engagement. We reported on the evaluation of blended course redesign at the University of Calgary. Norm and I also had the pleasure of having supper with Erin Null (picture above), an Associate Editor at Jossey-Bass, who worked with us in the development of our book Blended Learning in Higher Education. All in all it was an interesting and successful conference.

Summer Activities

I made a conscious decision this summer not to take on any writing or presenting responsibilities. The reason was to spend time with my 11 year old daughter. We spent considerable time on the golf course and she participated in tennis and basketbal camps. This was one of the best summers for both of us. My daughter won a coaching award at the basketball camp and a golf trophy in the club junior championships - I could not have been prouder.

Now that summer is just about done I have begun work on another manuscript. I had been doing some reflection on the field of distance education as result of a book project I am doing with Marti Cleveland-Innes and having recently read the Handbook of Distance Education edited by Michael Moore. It occurred to me that there is a real need to understand developments in online learning and how they might differentially apply to distance and higher education. In short, it would seem that the scholarship of distance education has reached an evolutionary dead-end with the paradigmatic focus on independent study. That is not to say that distance education will become extinct, but I believe its practice will be constrained by this historical premise. In Moore's Handbook it would seem that most of the prominent distance education scholars hold very much to the independent study principle in the face of the Internet and communications technology. Those scholars who have historically advocated for the importance of two-way communication, discourse and collaboration, have not had a significant foothold in the scholarship of distance education. However, their work has been adopted by those in the emerging field of online learning. This is evidenced by the growing online learning research using the Community of Inquiry Framework. I hope to present a draft of this paper at a conference this winter. I anticipate that it will precipitate some strong reaction from some scholars and practitioners in open and distance education.

Now back to my administrative responsibilities and a meeting with my Provost.

Community of Inquiry and Cognitive Presence

Norm Vaughan and I have been teaching the first offering of a course focusing on the topic of blended learning delivered through a blended approach. In this course the students had an interesting online discussion with regard to the role of discussion with regard to cognitive presence. The comment was - "I don't necessarily agree that meaning is always confirmed through reflection and discourse. I definitely think reflection is an important part but I think meaning can and is constructed without discourse. " The role of discourse in an educational environment is a very important and complex issue.

My quick response was that constructing personal meaning may be constructed without discourse but deep learning often is based on shared understanding and some form of confirmation. I asked the students to recall the cognitive presence or practical inquiry model (http://www.communitiesofinquiry.com/) and noted that the shared world (ie, discussion) is particularly present at the exploration and resolution phases. That is, discourse is helpful and necessary respectively for both meaning making and confirming or testing through application. While we can construct meaning through reflection based on activities such as reading, listening or viewing, there are advantages for discourse to help in the exploration and integration of ideas. On the other hand, confirmation most definitely requires some engagement with the shared world. In educational environments, confimation of meaning (i.e., understanding) is most often and practically accomplished vicariously through discourse.

Our next challenge in this course is how we design a blended learning course that ensures that students not only construct but confirm meaning.

Current Research

I thought it might be useful to talk a little about several research projects I am involved with. The first is a review article of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework that I co-authored with my colleague, Ben Arbaugh. The reference is:
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (in press). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education,
As the title indicates, the article provides a comprehensive review of the literature associated with the CoI and discusses areas and issues that need further research. This article should be particularly useful for graduate students and others who are new to conducting research using the CoI Framework. It will be out in the next issue of the I&HE.

I also want to mention that a group of researchers in the US and Canada are collaborating in the development and validation of a standardized instrument that reflects the Community of Inquiry Framework. We are moving into the second iteration of data gathering and factor analysis to refine the items. Although we have had very encouraging results to date, we expect this will be an ongoing process. The results of our work will be presented at the next Sloan-C ALN Conference in Orlando in November. If others are interested in using the latest version of the questionnaire, please feel free to contact me.

I have also been collaborating with Dr. Marti Cleveland-Innes on a SSHRC research project using the CoI Framework to guide us in the study of higher order learning in an online CoI. While there have been several publications that have resulted from this work, one that might have general interest is:
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.
We have just begun work on a book proposal exploring developments to teaching and learning approaches in distance education.

Lastly, I would like to mention that my co-author of our book "Blended Learning in Higher Education", Norm Vaughan, is also the lead author of a book in the works (with myself) on professional development for online teaching and learning (both published by Jossey-Bass). Norm has lead our professional development team in supporting blended learning course redesign at the University of Calgary and did his doctoral dissertation on the same topic. He is recognized as a leading expert in the area of professional development for online and blended learning. An article that may interest others is:
Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2006). How Blended Learning Can Support a Faculty Development Community of Inquiry, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(4), 139-152.

My Journey

Thirty five years ago I completed a Master’s degree in educational technology with a specialization in computer applications in education. For younger readers, this was before the introduction of the microcomputer. I used mainframe computers, teletype machines and slide projectors to teach a senior physics lesson and to research computer-assisted learning.

Despite my enthusiasm and my belief at the time that technology could enhance the learning experience, deep down I knew the educational community was far from adopting such innovations. There was not enough dissatisfaction with what was the current approach to teaching, nor was there sufficient recognition of the importance for students to be fully engaged in the learning process. This was certainly the case in higher education where the lecture was the undisputed teaching model. Educators viewed technology as an evil that would dehumanize the educational process. Students would have to learn from machines – the ultimate form of sterile, behaviorist educational design. The consensus was that teachers would be unemployed and education as we knew it would be destroyed. Sadly, at the time, this was not considered hyperbole. Educators were not ready to question their assumptions about learning and approaches to teaching.

Since my early experiences with educational technology, two things have changed. Firstly, with the proliferation of communications technologies and the Internet, there is the realization that society has evolved and technology is at the center of this change; or, at least, a grudging acceptance that the clock cannot be turned back. I will not attempt to list the advances in technology and how they have changed society. The one thing I will say, however, is that ironically higher education has been most resistant to technological advances. Yes, technology has to a degree transformed administration and research; but communications technology has had only marginally influenced teaching and learning, the one area that has resisted mightily the advances of communications technology – until now.

The second significant factor for change within higher education is a growing discontent with the quality of the educational experience. The deficiencies of the traditional classroom lecture have been exposed as a result of growing class sizes and have been targeted by the students themselves. These are the students who go home and connect with their friends on the Internet. The Internet and chat rooms have displaced the telephone as the first medium of communication. In this virtual world they share music, video, games, and gossip, not only with one person, but with a group of friends. The students have created communities where they feel welcomed and connected. Their ability to access, communicate and express themselves is limited only by their imagination. Community for young people entering higher education today is very different from the traditional classroom lecture hall, where ironically, students are most often superficially connected and the experience subtly isolating.

As a result of not wanting to be labeled a “techie”, I completed a doctorate in adult and higher education. I was determined to never be seduced by technology and, conversely, to ensure that innovation be driven by sound educational theory and outcomes. This time has arrived; questions about, and dissatisfaction with, conventional classroom methods have compelled educational institutions to take a hard look at their approaches to teaching and learning. As a result, it is becoming clear to all concerned that solving educational problems will be disruptive and require technological innovation. Although innovation is required, it is essential that we carefully examine the traditional values and approaches of face-to-face learning experiences.

Educational institutions must address changing expectations associated with regard to the quality of the learning experience and the wave of technological innovations. Educators are questioning traditional approaches and whether they are achieving the high levels of learning promised. There is growing evidence and sentiment that the lecture is not effective in providing a deep and meaningful learning experience. Those who have grown-up with interactive technology are beginning to reject the traditional lecture. Students are questioning the information transmission approach of large lectures. Students are demanding a relevant and engaging learning experience, with increasing tuition costs.

It is past the time for educational institutions recognize the untenable position of holding on to past practices that are incongruent with the needs and demands of a knowledge society. In higher education the leaders have the challenge to position their institutions for the 21st century. They must provide students with an opportunity to engage their professors and peers in critical and creative reflection and discourse – the conventional ideals of higher education. The past is the future if we examine the ideals of higher education and recognize the need to critically examine current practices in higher education and the potential of communications technology to support intense, varied and continuous engagement in the learning process. There is the opportunity to revisit and regain the ideals of higher education with the adoption of approaches where dialogue and debate are valued. The premise of this book is that the greatest possibility of recapturing the ideals of higher education is through blended learning redesigns. Blended learning provides us with a “back to the future” scenario.

Administration, faculty and students in higher education know there has to be change. Most recognize that the convergence of the classroom and communications technology has the potential to transform higher education for the better. However, blended learning is more than enhancing lectures. It represents the transformation of how we approach teaching and learning. It is a complete rethinking and redesign of the educational environment and learning experience. Blended learning is a coherent design approach that openly assesses and integrates the strengths of face-to-face and online learning to address worthwhile educational goals. When blended learning is well understood and implemented, higher education will be transformed in a way not seen since the expansion of higher education in the late 1940s. The challenge now is to gain a deep understanding of the need, potential, and strategies of blended learning to approach the ideals of higher education.

The purpose in this course and in our book is to explore the concept of blended learning in a comprehensive yet coherent manner. To borrow from the European ODL Liaison Committee (2004), the challenge is to “create order in the confused ‘panacea concept’ of ‘blended learning’ by distinguishing between innovative and merely substitutive use of ICT [information and communication technology] …” Several key points are recognized in this statement. The first is the need for order. The second point is the recognition of the complexity of a deceivingly simple concept. Thirdly, blended learning is fundamentally different and is not simply an add-on to the dominant approach. These particular challenges shape the content of this course and the book we use to guide our learning activities.