I really liked the formulation of Lipman (1991), arguing that education is inquiry. He suggested that “The community of inquiry is perhaps the most promising methodology for the encouragement of that fusion of critical and creative cognitive processing known as higher-order thinking” (Lipman, 1991, p. 204). Vaughan et al. (2013) draw on Lipman’s insights on the community of inquiry (CoI) to explain what a community of inquiry could work and look like in blended digital-physical teaching environments. The pivotal idea at the basis of CoI is that “higher education is both a collaborative and an individually constructivist learning experience” (Vaughan et al 2013, p. 2) and that the teaching presence is a cohesive element that drives the design, facilitation and direction of the CoI.
The cognitive presence, that is the process through which individual learners are able to construct and create meaning through the CoI, is operationalized through the progressive phases of inquiry (defined by Vaughan et al. as “a triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolution” p.3).
The cognitive presence is enabled through the creation of a favourable social environment of trust, openness and collaboration (social presence). The role of the teacher, i.e. the teaching presence, is fundamental for the success of a community of inquiry. In blended learning contexts, the responsibility of the teaching presence is even more challenging, because although virtual communication and community requires both teacher and student to engage, and take responsibility for the three types of presence, cognitive, social, teaching. Something that really struck me while reading the chapter was the following passage: “The challenge is that simply providing opportunities for interaction and collaboration does not provide assurance that students will approach their learning in deep and meaningful ways. The role of learner in blended learning environments constitutes multiple roles and responsibilities. This creates role complexity, as participants must assume varying degrees of responsibility to monitor and regulate the dynamics of the learning community.” (P.14)
I think that Gilly Salmon’s scaffolding model is a very good guide on how to operationalise the principles of the CoI. The principles of good blended learning should of course guide all phases of the scaffolding model, but some are particularly important in each phase, as I have tried to outline in the table below.
This is a conceptual starting point I will keep in mind when planning my future teaching activities.
| 5 stages model for online leaning (salmon 2013) | Principles of good blended learning (Vaughan et al 2013) |
| 1. Access and motivation | |
| 2. Online socialisation | 1. Plan for the creation of open communication and trust.
3. Establish community and cohesion. |
| 3. Information exchange | 4. Establish inquiry dynamics (purposeful inquiry). |
| 4. Knowledge construction | 2. Plan for critical reflection and discourse.
5. Sustain respect and responsibility. |
| 5. Development | 6. Sustain inquiry that moves to resolution.
7. Ensure assessment is congruent with intended processes and outcomes. |
References
Salmon, G (2013) The Five Stage Model [Homepage]
Vaughan et.al. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry