A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement and course redesign

Vaughan, Norman D. “A Blended Community of Inquiry Approach: Linking Student Engagement and Course Redesign.” Internet & Higher Education 13.1 (2010): 60-5.

Vauhan, N. (2010). A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement and course redesign. Internet & Higher Education, 13, 60-65.

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to describe an institutional initiative created to support faculty engaged in blended course redesign. This Inquiry Through Blended Learning (ITBL) program adapted Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s (2000) Community of Inquiry framework in order to provide faculty participants with a guided inquiry process for discussing and reflecting on key redesign questions, exploring blended learning from a student perspective, integrating the new experiences and ideas, and then applying this knowledge through the implementation of a course redesigned for blended learning. An overview of the ITBL program, the methods used to evaluate the redesigned courses, the findings, and conclusions are presented in this article.

Summary
This study’s aim is to work toward education being “engaged and collaborative” and away from “an essentially passive lecture approach” (60). The literature review sums up to say that more student engagement equals more learning.

Vaughan lists five effective parts to an education (based off of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

1. Active and collaborative learning

2. Student interactions with faculty members

3. Level of academic challenge

4. Enriching educational experiences

5. Supportive campus environment

Blended learning in this article is explained by Bleed (2001) “as an opportunity to redesign the way that courses are developed, scheduled and delivered in higher education through a combination of physical and virtual instruction” and utilizing the best features of both in-class and online (as cited in Vaughan, 2010, 61)

The specific goal of this study was to help teachers transition their view of teaching from one of distributing information to “creating learning environments where students co-construct knowledge through interactions with the professor, their peers and the course content” (Vaughan, 2010, 61). The study uses the Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s (2000) framework. (I will try to post a copy of the diagram later.) Before reconstructing the courses, the team met together with the teaching and learning center, library and IT. They asked three key questions based off of Garrison & Vaughan (2008).

1. What is your definition of blending learning and how will this concept be operationalized in your course redesign project?

2. What will be the advantages (for both students and professors) or your course redesign?

3. What do you perceive will be some of the challenges you will encounter with your project? (as cited in Vaughan, 2010,p. 62).

The group also met with both professors and students who had been involved in blended learning courses before to learn more about the processes from them. Many ideas are often discussed within groups working on blending learning projects and to help transfer these ideas into reality, the members created project artifacts often to show the other members of the group. This was helpful for creating content and they were able to get suggestions from the other group members.

There were 9 blended courses that were evaluated through faculty interviews and student surveys. The faculty interviews showed that the process of redesign allowed teachers “to experiment with new teaching strategies and tools” and “was a catalyst for rejuvenating their teaching practices” (63). All faculty reported a heavier workload at the beginning, which was described as “’short term pain for long term gain’” (63).

The student surveys looked at three of the five NSSE aspects, which included active and collaborative learning, student interactions with faculty members, and level of academic challenge. The fall 2006 semester had 241 students take the survey. It is interesting to note that half of the respondents were first year students and 78% were female. From the fall 2006 to the winter 2006 semester, the active and collaborative learning components increased, the level of online discussion decreased (although this is most likely due to the fact that students no longer received online discussion points), and the student success rates in the course were higher.