Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 60–65

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Internet and Higher Education

A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement and

course redesign
Norman D. Vaughan ⁎
Department of Education & Schooling, Mount Royal University, 4825 Mount Royal Gate SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T3E 6K6

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The purpose this article is to describe an institutional initiative created to support faculty engaged in blended
Student engagement course redesign. This Inquiry Through Blended Learning (ITBL) program adapted Garrison, Anderson, and
Blended learning Archer's (2000) Community of Inquiry framework in order to provide faculty participants with a guided
Faculty development
inquiry process for discussing and reflecting on key redesign questions, exploring blended learning from a
Community of inquiry framework
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.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction engaged learners that “an explicit consensus about what we actually
mean by engagement or why it is important is lacking” (p. 3). One of
Over the past decade, there has been an increased focus on the the earliest research studies to make the connection between the term
topic of student engagement in higher education in light of rising engagement and learning was by Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) who
tuition costs and concerns about student success and retention rates stated that “Perhaps the strongest conclusion that can be made is the
(Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005). During this time there least surprising. Simply put, the greater the student's involvement or
has also been a rapid growth in the number of courses offered in a engagement in academic work or in the academic experience of
blended learning format in which some face-to-face time is replaced college, the greater his or her level of knowledge acquisition and
by online activities (Arabasz, Boggs, & Baker, 2003). The purpose of general cognitive development” (p. 2). A decade later, Edgerton
this article is to describe an institutional program designed to address (2001) highlighted the need for students to “engage in tasks” that
the quality of the educational experience. This is a case study of an discipline specialists perform in order to really understand the
institutional strategy to significantly shift teaching and learning from concepts of the discipline (p. 32).
an essentially passive lecture approach to an engaged and collabora- In 1998, The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) was
tive one. The focus is on a blended learning redesign program entitled developed as a “lens to probe the quality of the student learning
Inquiry through Blended Learning (ITBL). experience at American colleges and universities” (NSSE, 2007, p. 3).
This article begins with an overview of student engagement and The NSSE defines student engagement as “the time and energy
blended learning, followed by a description of the ITBL program, the students devote to educationally sound activities inside and outside of
methods used to evaluate the redesigned courses created through this the classroom, and the policies and practices that institutions use to
initiative, the findings, related discussion, and conclusions. induce students to take part in these activities.” This conception of
student engagement is grounded in several decades of prior research,
and particularly in four key conceptual studies: Pace's (1980) “quality
1.1. Student engagement of effort” concept, Astin's (1999) theory of student involvement,
Chickering and Gamson's (1999) principles of good practice in
A review of the literature on student engagement in higher undergraduate education, and Pascarella and Terenzini's (2005)
education suggests that this term means different things to different causal model of learning and cognitive development. From these
people (Barkley, 2009). Bowen (2005) in an article entitled “Engaged studies, five properties or benchmarks of effective educational
Learning: Are We All on the Same Page?” observes that despite the practice have been identified, specifically:
emerging emphasis on engagement as evidenced by the number of
vision statements, strategic plans, learning outcomes, and agendas of 1. Active and collaborative learning
national reform movements striving to create engaged learning and 2. Student interactions with faculty members
3. Level of academic challenge
⁎ Tel.: +1 403 440 5587; fax: +1 403 440 7744. 4. Enriching educational experiences
E-mail address: [email protected]. 5. Supportive campus environment.

1096-7516/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.007
 N.D. Vaughan / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 60–65 61

The NSSE framework was selected to evaluate the courses that blended (face-to-face and online learning) support encapsulate the
were redesigned for blended learning through the ITBL program. The teaching presence. Fig. 1 illustrates how this community of inquiry
rationale for using this framework was to align the ITBL initiative with model can be adapted for a blended faculty development initiative.
an institutional campaign to improve student engagement and
success on campus. 2.2. Inquiry process

1.2. Blended learning Cognitive presence is the element in the CoI framework that is
most basic to success in higher education. Cognitive processes and
Blended learning is often defined as the combination of face-to- outcomes should be the focus of an educational community of inquiry
face and online learning (Williams, 2002). Ron Bleed, the former Vice and, thus, social and even teaching presence are facilitators of the
Chancellor of Information Technologies at Maricopa College, argues learning process. Garrison and Anderson (2003) state that “cognitive
that this is not a sufficient definition for blended learning as it simply presence means facilitating the analysis, construction, and confirma-
implies “bolting” technology onto a traditional course, using technol- tion of meaning and understanding in a community of learners
ogy as an add-on to teach a difficult concept or adding supplemental through sustained discourse and reflection” (p. 55).
information. He suggests that instead, blended learning should be In the CoI model, cognitive presence is closely linked to the
viewed as an opportunity to redesign the way that courses are concept of critical thinking derived from Dewey's (1933) reflective
developed, scheduled and delivered in higher education through a thinking and practical inquiry model. Practical inquiry is grounded in
combination of physical and virtual instruction, “bricks and clicks” experience and integrates the public and private worlds of the learner
(Bleed, 2001). The goal of these redesigned courses should be to join (Dewey, 1933). Based on this definition, Garrison et al. (2000) have
the best features of in-class teaching with the best features of online developed a practical inquiry model to guide the analysis of cognitive
learning to promote active, self-directed learning opportunities for presence in an educational experience that is mediated by computer
students with added flexibility (Garnham & Kaleta, 2002). conferencing. The four categories of this practical inquiry model –
This sentiment is echoed by Garrison and Vaughan (2008) who triggering event, exploration, integration and resolution –have been
state that “blended learning is the organic integration of thoughtfully used to describe and examine the inquiry process in the ITBL program.
selected and complementary face-to-face and online approaches and
technologies” (p. 148). At the heart of blended learning redesign is the 2.3. Triggering event
goal to engage students in critical discourse and reflection. The
objective is to create dynamic and vital communities of inquiry where A triggering event was described by Garrison et al. (2000) as a
students take responsibility to construct meaning and confirm “state of dissonance or feeling of unease resulting from an experience”
understanding through active participation in the inquiry process. (p. 21). Discussions with faculty members indicated that the
Blended learning can be an opportunity to fundamentally redesign triggering event for participation in the ITBL program was the
teaching and learning approaches in ways that realize increased motivation to redesign an existing course to improve student learning
effectiveness, convenience, and efficiency. and faculty satisfaction. This desire presented the opportunity to
The goal of the ITBL program was primarily to redesign make one's implicit assumptions about a particular course, explicit.
undergraduate courses for blended learning. The next section of this The ITBL course redesign process was initiated through a formal call
article describes the blended community of inquiry approach used to for proposals to participate in a blended faculty CoI. The application
support this initiative. process was designed so that professors were provided with the CoI
framework and the necessary support to begin reflecting about their
2. Inquiry Through Blended Learning existing course and for constructing initial plans for the redesign
process.
The focus of inquiry in the ITBL program was on the connection The ITBL application form consisted of three parts: project detail,
between one's teaching practice and student learning. The potential project evaluation and sustainability plans, and a proposed budget. A
exists in such a professional development program for faculty
members to make a transformational shift in their approach to
teaching from one of disseminating information to one of creating
learning environments where students co-construct knowledge
through interactions with the professor, their peers and the course
content (Vaughan, 2004a). The role of technology shifts from the
packaging and distribution of content to being used as a “tool set” to
enable students to communicate and collaboratively construct their
own knowledge. Sands (2002) suggests that technology can be a
powerful catalyst to questioning one's curriculum and pedagogy.

2.1. Blended community of inquiry framework

Garrison, Anderson, and Archer's (2000) community of inquiry (CoI)

framework was used to guide the inquiry process in the ITBL program.
The model is based on a collaborative constructivist perspective of
education, the integration of “personal reconstruction of experience and
social collaboration” (Garrison & Archer, 2000, p. 11). There are three
core elements of this framework: social, teaching, and cognitive
presence.
When this model is applied to a faculty development context, the
focus of cognitive presence becomes an inquiry into teaching practice
(Vaughan, 2004b). The ability of the community to support and Fig. 1. Blended faculty community of inquiry — presences (adapted from Garrison et al.,
sustain this inquiry forms the social presence. The opportunities for 2000).
62 N.D. Vaughan / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 60–65

series of brown-bag lunches and one-on-one application consultation perspective. This process took place over an extended period of time
sessions were also provided to ensure that faculty were clear about and the activities were developed based on the feedback from the
the course redesign focus of the program and the expectation that initial project meetings and in collaboration with the faculty
they become active participants in the blended faculty development participants. These ITBL program activities were designed to provide
CoI. As part of this process, faculty members were encouraged to take participants with experience and expertise in the areas of curriculum
a community or team approach toward the redesign process in their design, teaching strategies, and educational technology integration.
applications. These teams often consisted of a group of professors who The curriculum design sphere involved the creation of a course
taught the selected course as well as teaching assistants, graduate outline or syllabus for the blended learning course. This document
students and others who provided course related support (e.g., became the “blueprint” for the redesign process. In terms of teaching
subject area librarians). strategies, the ITBL program provided opportunities for participants to
Once the successful ITBL applicants were informed of their awards, develop experience and skills with online discussions, group work
an initial project meeting was scheduled that included the project and computer-mediated assessment practices. The educational
team and representatives from the institution's teaching and learning technology integration component involved the acquisition of
centre, library and information technology department. The purpose strategies and skills for managing a course website and trouble
of this meeting was to clarify the project goals, timelines, roles, and shooting basic student technology issues.
responsibilities for those involved in supporting the redesign process. The ITBL program used a range of communication and information
This meeting also helped to identify professional development technologies to support the exploration phase. For example, Adobe
support needs and requirements for the project team members. This Presenter was used to create brief audio presentations to help the
information was then used to shape the type of activities and participants prepare for upcoming face-to-face sessions, to explain
resources that were incorporated in the ITBL program. online activities, and to summarize key course redesign concepts.
As a follow-up to this meeting, the project teams were encouraged Faculty research and travel commitments meant that not everyone
to post a summary message to a discussion board in a website that could attend each of the regular face-to-face sessions. In order to
was constructed for the ITBL program. The messages described the overcome this challenge, Elluminate Live!, a web-based synchronous
course redesign goals for the projects, the action plans, and any communication tool, was used to record the face-to-face sessions for
questions related to the redesign process. Besides helping to clarify future use. Elluminate Live! was also used to support “virtual” project
the course redesign process, this posting allowed the other members meetings when team members were off campus.
of the ITBL cohort to begin to learn more about each other's projects. In addition, faculty mentors (professors with previous blended
This discussion-forum posting process also provided the first hands- learning experience) and students were included in the ITBL
on opportunity for the participants to interact as students with the discussions. The students provided the all important perspective of
learning management system that in most cases was used in their the learner (the target audience for the redesigned courses) and the
own projects. faculty mentors were able to pass on their “lessons learned” from
The first face-to-face ITBL cohort meeting was designed to build direct experience with inquiry and blended learning courses. Previous
upon the discussion-forum postings in order to allow the participants participants of the ITBL program have stressed the importance of
to further discuss their course redesign questions and to trigger new conducting these discussions in both face-to-face and online formats
ideas and perspectives about teaching and learning. This process was (Vaughan & Garrison, 2005). The face-to-face sessions, with their
facilitated by selectively placing the participants into small groups so physical presence and sense of immediacy, helps to establish the
that they could interact with people from other project teams. Three rhythm for the community, while the online discussion forums allow
questions were used to stimulate the discussion: for reflective thoughts and comments to be captured and archived as
project related resources.
1. What is your definition of blended learning and how will this
concept be operationalized in your course redesign project?
2.5. Integration
2. What will be the advantages (for both students and professors) of
your course redesign?
The third category of practical inquiry is integration, which
3. What do you perceive will be some of the challenges you will
involves reflecting upon how new information and knowledge
encounter with your project? (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008)
discovered can be integrated into a coherent idea or concept (Garrison
An instructional design or teaching specialist was placed at each et al., 2000). A common challenge for participants in the ITBL program
table in order to help guide the small group discussion and to record was the transition from the exploration to the integration phase.
the key points. These discussion summaries were then posted on the Many faculty members were comfortable sharing, discussing and
ITBL website as a resource and “touchstone” to stimulate further debating course redesign concepts but often a greater effort was
online discussion. required to transfer these new ideas into practice. One strategy used
The ITBL experience revealed that the initial face-to-face cohort in the ITBL program involved getting faculty to regularly present
meetings are very important for establishing the blended faculty CoI project artifacts, such as their course outline or an assessment activity,
(Vaughan & Garrison, 2006). Through the discussions in these to the rest of the community. This forced the ITBL participants to make
meetings, the community members realized they were not alone in redesign decisions and to create course related resources. This “show
experiencing a particular course redesign issue or concern. This and tell” process also allowed faculty members to get valuable
shared understanding and the physical presence of the meetings very feedback from their peers about the artifact. In addition, opportunities
quickly lead to a sense of “trust and risk taking” in the group. were provided to pilot portions of redesigned courses with students
who could provide insightful comments about the usability and
2.4. Exploration educational value of a learning activity or resource.
In order to further support the integration phase, a series of
The second category of the practical inquiry model is exploration, individual project meetings were conducted outside of the regular
characterized by “searching for clarification and attempting to orient ITBL cohort activities. These meetings were facilitated by an
one's attention” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 21). The exploration phase of instructional design or teaching specialist who was assigned to a
the ITBL program consisted of a series of integrated face-to-face and specific project based on her or his areas of expertise. The frequency
online experiential learning activities that allowed the participants to and scope of these meetings depended on the needs of each individual
become immersed in a blended learning environment from a student's project. Although the larger cohort meetings provided opportunities
 N.D. Vaughan / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 60–65 63

for participants to be exposed to a diversity of ideas, the focus of these 3.1. Faculty interviews
meetings was on “getting things done”. Project development work
and milestones were reviewed at each meeting with tasks and A semi-structured post-course interview was conducted with the
“deliverables” assigned for the subsequent meeting. faculty members and teaching assistants responsible for each of the
redesigned courses by the author. The interviews were digitally
2.6. Application/resolution recorded and then transcribed in Microsoft Word by a research
assistant for thematic analysis.
The resolution of the dilemma or problem is the fourth category of The purpose of these interviews was to provide the instructors
the practical inquiry model. Garrison and Anderson (2003) suggest with an opportunity to reflect on what worked and didn't work in
that the results from the resolution phase often “raise further their blended courses and what “lessons learned” they could take
questions and issues, triggering new cycles of inquiry, and, thereby, forward for the next iteration of the redesigned course.
encouraging continuous learning” (p. 60). The application and
resolution phase of the ITBL program involved the implementation 3.2. Student surveys
and evaluation of the course redesign project. This is the phase that is
often overlooked in professional development programs. In many One of the goals of the evaluation process was to survey the largest
programs, faculty members receive support for the design and number and widest range of students enrolled in the redesigned ITBL
development of their projects but the implementation stage takes courses. In order to achieve this objective, the student surveys were
place after the program has been completed. Thus, professors are left paper-based and conducted in-class at the end of each semester. A
on their own to struggle through the initial implementation of their research assistant administered the surveys and then entered the data
course redesign, and, in most cases, little or no evaluation is into Microsoft Excel for statistical and thematic analysis.
conducted to determine the effectiveness of the project from either The questions for the surveys were derived from the National
a student or faculty perspective (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and focused on three of the five
To overcome these deficiencies the ITBL cohort was maintained benchmarks; active and collaborative learning, student interactions
throughout this phase and the participants were encouraged to engage with faculty members, and level of academic challenge. Table 1
in the process of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). In illustrates the key questions that were asked for each category.
order to facilitate this process, a discussion about SoTL was conducted The rationale for including only three of the NSSE benchmarks in
in one of the early face-to-face ITBL cohort meetings. These conversa- the student surveys was that the questions related to enriching
tions involved ITBL faculty mentors with previous SoTL experience educational experiences and supportive campus environment focus
who demonstrated their research study processes and results. on how students' perceive the entire institution rather than on just a
Faculty members were encouraged to engage in the SoTL process single course experience. Recently, a classroom based version of the
from the outset of their ITBL projects. By applying for institutional NSSE has been developed (CLASSE — Classroom Survey of Student
ethics approval at the beginning of the course redesign process, Engagement), which utilizes questions similar to the ones used in the
project teams were able to collect data in the form of surveys, ITBL program (Ouimet & Smallwood, 2005).
interviews, and focus groups from students, professors and teaching
assistants who had been involved in past iterations of the course. 4. Findings
Several project teams also obtained data regarding student grades
and withdrawal/failure rates for comparison with the traditional Nine redesigned courses were implemented in the fall 2006
sections. The collection and analysis of this data allowed the project semester. For each of these courses faculty members and teaching
teams to make informed course redesign decisions, such as the assistants participated in post-course interviews and students
proper selection and integration of face-to-face and online learning completed the paper-based surveys at the end of the semester.
activities.
Although each course redesign project had its own specific SoTL 4.1. Faculty interviews
needs and research study design, institutional ethics approval was
also received for the entire ITBL program so that a common set of data Faculty members and teaching assistants for all nine of the
could be collected for each of the project implementations. Analysis of redesigned courses participated in post-course interviews. They
this data was used to inform future offerings of the redesigned courses indicated that one of the key benefits of these blended learning courses
and to create an institutional course redesign inventory that could be was that the redesign process provided them with an opportunity to
used for academic program planning. The evaluation techniques are experiment with new teaching strategies and tools. In essence, the ITBL
outlined in the next section of this article. program was a catalyst for rejuvenating their teaching practices. With
regard to students' learning, the faculty members perceived that
3. Methods of evaluation students were more engaged with the course concepts.
In terms of challenges encountered with the redesigned courses, all
Faculty interviews and student surveys were the primary methods faculty participants indicated that initially they experienced an
used to evaluate the blended learning courses redesigned through the increased workload. One faculty member commented this was “short
ITBL program. term pain for long term gain” as she hoped the design and organization

Table 1
Student course redesign survey — NSSE benchmarks and related questions.

NSSE benchmark Active and collaborative learning Student interactions with faculty members Level of academic challenge

Key questions How often have you: How often have you: How much has your coursework emphasized:
• Worked with classmates outside of class • Received prompt feedback from your instructor • Memorizing facts
• Worked with other students during class • Communicated via email with your instructor • Judging the value of information or arguments
• Contributed to an online discussion • Discussed ideas outside of the class with your instructor • Applying concepts to practical problems
• Made a class presentation • Worked on extracurricular activities with your instructor • Analyzing ideas, information, theory
• Contributed to a in-class discussion • Synthesizing ideas, information, theory
64 N.D. Vaughan / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 60–65

Table 2
Experimental linguistics course — constructive alignment of course learning outcomes, assessment activities and use of technology.

Learning outcomes Assessment activities Web 2.0 technologies

Lecture component Article critique assignment Social bookmarking

• Understanding of the cognitive, neuropsychological, • Student groups selected an article to critique each week • The Del.icio.us application used for students to
and social processes that underlie language abilities • Weekly online discussions about the articles — moderated by posted annotated links to peer reviewed journal
these student groups articles
• Groups then make a class presentation based on an analysis & Wiki
synthesis of the online discussion • The WikiSpaces tool used for students to
• Summary of the online and face-to-face discussions posted to a collaboratively create and post their discussion
collaborative web space summaries

Lab component Research assignment Mashups

• First-hand experience with methodologies used • Individual experiments redesigned to become team based • Google Maps and Stats-Canada Mapping tools
to study language behavior • Data collection required outside of class time used to analyze and present research findings
• Teaching team (faculty member and graduate teaching assistant)
demonstrated and discussed their current research in the lab
component

of future course iterations would not be so time intensive. Other needed to be more intentional with regard to designing, organizing,
challenges included student “push back” and resistance to taking greater facilitating, and directing the teaching presence component of the
responsibility for their learning and technology issues, such as server community of inquiry process. In order to achieve this goal, an
problems with the learning management system. attempt was made by the redesign team (faculty member, graduate
Based on their initial course redesign experience, faculty members student, and instructional designer) to constructively align the
emphasized the importance of designing, developing, and sustaining a learning outcomes, assessment activities and use of technology in
strong sense of teaching presence in their blended learning courses. her course. The faculty member responsible for the course was
They indicated for the next iteration of their redesigned courses that satisfied with the learning outcomes but decided to redesign the two
they would provide a more explicit and involved student orientation major assessment activities in order to provide students with greater
to inquiry and blended learning in order to create a learning opportunities to collaboratively construct their own knowledge
environment that encourages critical reflection and discourse through frameworks about key course concepts. A variety of Web 2.0
open communication and trust. The faculty participants also stressed technologies were selected to support these activities. Table 2
that they would focus more on modeling and facilitating disciplinary demonstrates the alignment between the learning outcomes, assess-
inquiry processes rather than on just delivering content in order to ment activities and use of technology for the Experimental Psycho-
nurture and develop a community of approach in their courses. With linguistics course.
regard to assignments, several faculty members commented that they These new assessment activities were implemented during the
would incorporate team-based project work that required students to winter 2007 semester and at the end of the term, students in this new
collaboratively move through an inquiry process from an initiation iteration of the course completed the identical paper-based survey that
(i.e. triggering event) to resolution phase. In addition, these faculty
participants highlighted the importance of making sure that the
assessment of these group assignments was congruent with the
course learning objectives.
Faculty members were also asked in the interviews to identify
what they had learned from their experience in the ITBL program.
They stressed the importance of taking a community rather than a
solo inquiry approach to redesigning courses for blended learning,
asking for help when needed, being open to new ideas about teaching
and learning, and engaging in critical discourse and reflection with
other faculty members.

4.2. Student surveys

For the fall 2006 semester, there were 241 completed student
surveys, with a return rate of 76%. Half of the respondents were first-
year students and 78% were female. The initial results were mixed but
student surveys conducted in a second iteration of one of the ITBL
program courses suggest that course redesign for blended learning is
an on-going process.
This third year Experimental Psycholinguistics course originally
consisted of three, 50 minute lecture periods per week. For the fall
2006 semester, the course had been redesigned for a “labatorial”
format. Students met once a week for a 120 minute time block that
combined a lecture and lab component. The focus had been on a
structural rather than pedagogical redesign and the initial survey
results indicated that students perceived a low level of active and
collaborative learning for the redesigned course.
After reviewing the student surveys and consulting with other Fig. 2. Student perceptions of the level of active and collaborative learning in the fall
members of the ITBL program, the faculty member decided that she 2006 and winter 2007 sections of the PSYC467 course.
 N.D. Vaughan / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 60–65 65

Table 3 5. Conclusion
Experimental psycholinguistics course — student success and retention.

Final course grades Fall 2006 Winter 2007 In conclusion, course redesign for blended learning is a very
challenging process, especially when undertaken in isolation by a
A 57% 82%
B 28% 12% single family member. For this reason, a blended community of
C 0% 6% inquiry approach was emphasized in the ITBL program. Without the
Withdrawal/failure 15% 0% systematic and sustained support of a professional development
community, individual faculty members often make course redesign
decisions that do not harness the transformative potential of blended
had been used in the fall 2006 semester. There were approximately an learning. As well, without current and reliable evaluation data, both
equivalent number of students in both sections of the course (35). faculty and senior administration will not have the information to
There were no observable differences between the levels of sustain the support and resources for blended course redesign.
student to faculty interaction in the two course sections. Students
reported that they usually received prompt feedback and communi- References
cated via email with the course instructors. Similarly, there were no Arabasz, P., Boggs, R., & Baker, M. B. (2003). Highlights of E-learning support practices.
differences between the level of academic challenge in the two Educause Center for Applied Research Bulletin (pp. 9).
sections of the course. Students perceived a fairly high level of Astin, A. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Development, 49(5), 518−529.
academic challenge in both iterations of the Experimental Psycholin- Barkley, E. F. (2009). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San
guistics course. Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
However, significant improvements were found in active and Bleed, R. (2001). A hybrid campus for a new millennium. Educause Review, 36(1),
16−24.
collaborative learning (Fig. 2). Changes in student perceptions
Bowen, S. (2005). Engaged learning: Are we all on the same page? Peer Review, 7(2),
regarding the degree of active and collaborative learning in the 4−7.
course appear to correspond with the redesigned assessment Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1999). Development and adaptations of the seven
activities. For example, students in the winter 2007 section may principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for
Teaching & Learning, 80, 75−82.
have perceived they were more frequently working with peers during Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (rev. ed.). Boston: D.C. Heath.
and outside of class time because this was a requirement for both the Edgerton, R. (2001). Education White Paper. Report prepared for the Pew Charitable
article critique and research assignments. These assignments also Trusts, Pew Forum on Undergraduate Learning. Washington, DC.
Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology
required students to make class presentations and to facilitate in-class Today, 8(6) [Online]. Available: http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham.htm
discussions. The slight decrease in the contribution level to online Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for
discussions could be due to the fact that students received weekly research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text-based
participation marks for their online postings in the fall 2006 but not in environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher
the winter 2007 semester. Education, 11(2), 1−14.
Perry (1970) indicates that student satisfaction is a poor measure Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching and learning:
A framework for adult and higher education. Oxford: Pergamon.
of course effectiveness as students can initially be frustrated with
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education. San
course experiences that challenge their existing cognitive frame- Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
works. That said, students were much more satisfied with the winter Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in
college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2007 version of the course. Over 75%, for example, agreed strongly
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2007). Experiences that matter: Enhancing
with the statement “I am satisfied with this course”, as compared with student learning and success —Annual Report 2007. Bloomington, IN: Center for
50% in the fall version. In the open-ended survey questions, students Postsecondary Research.
indicated the most effective aspect of the course was the sense of Ouimet, J. A., & Smallwood, R. A. (2005). CLASSE— The class-level survey of student
engagement. Assessment Update, 17(6).
community that was developed through the redesigned assessment Pace, C. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher
activities. One student stated that this was the first course where she Education, 2, 10−16.
had not only learned the names of her fellow students but also had Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights
from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
actually made real friends through the course experience. Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
Most importantly, students in the winter version of Experimental research, 2nd Ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Psycholinguistics course were much more successful than students in Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A
scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
the fall class. While the number of students in the two sections of the Sands, P. (2002). Inside outside, upside downside: Strategies for connecting online and
course is too small to make any significant statistical claims, it is face-to-face instruction in hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6)
interesting to compare the grade distributions and retention rates in Online. Available: http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/sands2.htm
Vaughan, N. D. (2004a). Investigating how a blended learning approach can support an
the fall and winter semesters (Table 3). inquiry process within a faculty learning community. Unpublished doctoral
Table 3 demonstrates there was a greater percentage of students in dissertation, University of Calgary.
the second iteration of this blended learning course who received an A Vaughan, N. D. (2004). Technology in support of faculty learning communities. In M. D.
Cox & L. Richlin (Eds.), Building Faculty Learning Communities: New Directions for
grade and that none of the students in winter 2007 section withdrew
Teaching and Learning, No. 97 (pp. 101−109). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
or failed the course (100% retention rate). This increased student Vaughan, N. D., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended
success and retention could potentially be attributed to the redesign faculty development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1−12.
of the assessment activities to foster higher levels of active and Vaughan, N. D., & Garrison, D. R. (2006). How blended learning can support a faculty
development community of inquiry. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(4).
collaborative learning in the course. Future studies will be required to Williams, C. (2002). Learning on-line: A review of recent literature in a rapidly
explore this relationship in more detail. expanding field. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(3), 263−272.