Internet and Higher Education 25 (2015) 53–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Internet and Higher Education

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

David A. Wicks a,⁎, Baine B. Craft b, Geri N. Mason c, Kristine Gritter a, Kevin Bolding d

a School of Education, Seattle Pacific University, 3307 3rd Ave West, Seattle, WA 98119, USAb School of Psychology, Family, and Community, Seattle Pacific University, 3307 3rd Ave West, Seattle, WA 98119, USAc School of Business and Economics, Seattle Pacific University, 3307 3rd Ave West, Seattle, WA 98119, USAd Engineering Department, Seattle Pacific University, 3307 3rd Ave West, Seattle, WA 98119, USA

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 206 281 2367.E-mail address: dwicks@spu.edu (D.A. Wicks).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.0011096-7516/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Accepted 19 December 2014Available online 27 December 2014

Keywords:Faculty Learning CommunityBlended learningOnline learningCommunity of Inquiry

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

© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The growth of blended and online learning is well documented inthe literature. An annual survey (Allen & Seaman, 2014) reported that7.1 million college students took at least one online course during thefall of 2013, a dramatic increase from the 1.5 million students in 2002.Faculty respondents to a 2006 survey (Kim & Bonk, 2006) expected avast majority of university courses to be offered in a blended formatby 2013. However, many faculty seem unsupportive or unprepared tomake this transition, with one-third of chief academic officers reportingthat their faculty perceive online learning outcomes as inferior to thosefacilitated by face-to-face instruction (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Despitereservations by both faculty and administrators in developing andimplementing such courses, reasons for growth in blended learningpopularity are numerous and include decreased dropout rates andhigher grades when compared to face-to-face student data from a pre-vious year (Lopez-Perez, Perez-Lopez, & Rodriguez-Ariza, 2011). Givensuch benefits, faculty support may increase if they have pedagogicalstrategies thatworkwithin blended course aswell as support for profes-sional development in order to succeed in creating blended courses.

For example, Kim and Bonk (2006) found that faculty membersweremore concernedwith understanding online pedagogy than under-standing the technology required to teach online, a change from anearlier survey. While this finding is encouraging, it presents a newchallenge as most distance learning theories focus on structural issuesrather than teaching and learning (Garrison, 2000). One exception isthe Community of Inquiry (CoI) theoretical framework (Garrison,Anderson, & Archer, 2001). This framework has been used in instruc-tional design to enhance learning outcomes in both online and blendedcourses. CoI provides a framework for facilitating meaningful onlinelearning through three interdependent elements: social presence,teaching presence, and cognitive presence (Garrison et al., 2001). Assuch, CoI provides a framework fromwhich to educate faculty on issuesrelevant to teaching and facilitating blended courses, as well as provid-ing 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 fac-ulty how to improve their blended pedagogy. For example, workshopsand informal mentoring are common training formats (Allen &Seaman, 2011), but may not be adequate for understanding complexonline pedagogy. Faculty Learning Communities (FLC) may be moreeffective in providing faculty with a deep understanding of onlinepedagogy topics (Cox, 2004; Vaughan & Garrison, 2006). FLCs are

54 D.A. Wicks et al. / Internet and Higher Education 25 (2015) 53–62

designated groups of interdisciplinary faculty with similar levels ofexpertise in the area thatwork together on a yearlong collaborative pro-ject 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 andsenior faculty to collaborate on scholarly activities (Cox, 2004).

1.1. Blended learning

Although the term “blended learning”was rarelymentioned in printprior to 2000 (Bluic, Goodyear, & Ellis, 2007), the concept is not a newone for teaching and learning. A form of blended learning occurred inthe United States in the 1920swhen some students, especially those liv-ing in rural communities, completed high school, prepared for trades,and took university courses by participating in both correspondenceand face-to-face instruction (Rose & Ray, 2011). Recently, however,blended learning formats involving online learning have become in-creasingly popular in higher education. From 2002 to 2008 numbersof university students taking online coursework increased from 9% to22% 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 oftraditional learning with Web-based online approaches” (Motteram &Sharma, 2009, p. 90). Blended learning is characterized by three fea-tures: 1) personal contact with an instructor, 2) the use of electronicallydelivered learning objects, and 3) the blending of these two in order tomeet learning targets (Hoffman & Miner, 2008). More specifically, theSloan Consortium defines a blended course as a combination of face-to-face and online delivery, with 30% to 79% of the content delivered on-line, resulting in fewer face-to-face meetings (Allen & Seaman, 2014).

In recent years, the strengths of blended learning have been heavilydocumented. For example, blended learning reduces face-to-face time,has been shown to be preferred by faculty members, creates the possi-bility for more student collaboration and self-directed learning, offersopportunities for instructors to observe situated learning in environ-ments similar to the job market, and offers more control of learning tostudents (Rose & Ray, 2011). Although promising, the aforementionedstrengths seem to be influenced by several factors. For example, blend-ed learning has the potential to increase student participation in collegecourse work (Jones & Sze Lau, 2010) if students are self-directedlearners with the ability to troubleshoot technical and comprehensionchallenges (Rose & Ray, 2011). Similarly, although blended learninghas a positive effect in reducing dropout rates in higher education andimproving grades (Lopez-Perez et al., 2011), this has been shown tobe dependent on students' age, background, and class attendance aswell as blended learning activities.

Successful blended learning is a synergy between in-class and onlinelearning (Cottle & Glover, 2012). The technology used in blendedcourses affords flexibility and a-synchronicity that serves the learningstyles of diverse learners (Albion & Redmond, 2006). For example, on-line learningwithin a blended format creates space for instructors to de-vote in-class time to creating engaging learning environments andexplicit instruction. The online environment can provide a means bywhich to more efficiently increase or review student's knowledge ofcourse content prior to class. The social spaces provided in online com-munities have demonstrated that metacognition, where students con-struct meaning and confirm knowledge in the presence of peers, hasthe potential to increase during online student discussions (Akyol &Garrison, 2011a,b). However, as noted previously, research shows thatsome students struggle with the increased responsibilities of onlinelearning formats, especially if they are new learning environments forthose students (Albion & Redmond, 2006). In other words, if studentsand institutions are to benefit from developing and implementingblended courses, these courses should be developed with the use ofrigorous pedagogical structures by a well-informed faculty.

1.2. Community of Inquiry

It has become clear in recent years that technology is expandingpedagogy (Dede, 2009), however sound teaching pedagogy meansthat technology must support pedagogy. The Community of Inquiryframework encompasses three facets of learning in order to capturethe major factors that affect critical thinking and meaningful studentlearning in online environments. In doing so, it provides a useful contextfor evaluating a blended course which is, by definition, incorporatingonline elements to enhance learning and serve a greater variety oflearning needs.

The Community of Inquiry encompasses three elements that are es-sential 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 stu-dents' needs. More specifically, the instructor must develop curriculum,facilitate learning activities, and deliver content through direct instruc-tional methods as needed. In an optimal learning environment,according to the CoI framework, students are given opportunities forcollaboration and to reflect on their learning. Second, cognitive presencecan be defined as “the extent towhich learners are able to construct andconfirmmeaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a criticalCommunity of Inquiry” (Garrison et al., 2001, p. 11). Operationally, cog-nitive presence can be defined through the practical inquiry model,whereby students are able to define a task or problem, explore informa-tion to address the task or problem, make sense of the task or problemby integrating points of view addressing the task or problem, and testplausible solutions (Garrison, 2011). Finally, social presence can beused to help establish a community of learners by minimizing feelingsof isolation students may feel when learning online. Strong socialpresence can help students feel safe to share ideas and collaboratewith others on course content.

The impacts of the three elements of CoI have beenwidely studied inrecent 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 presenceindicators strongly inform student perception of learning success andpersistence in online programs as well (Boston et al., 2009). Both socialpresence and cognitive presence are influenced by teaching presence(Garrison et al., 2010). The role of different disciplines in this structureand the potential effectiveness of a blended course format on theseoutcomes across disciplines have been explored little, however.

Most of the current research on CoI outcomes in blended learninguses case study design, survey instruments for single courses, or com-parative studies of online and face-to-face learning contexts withinthe same discipline (Bluic et al., 2007). This exploratory case studyencompasses six disciplines in order to compare social, teaching, andcognitive presence across disciplines and explore how students per-ceive community in a blended learning environment. By studyingblended learning within a group of faculty of varying disciplines, re-searchers are able to look at the outcomes of a blended classroomthrough the perspectives of multiple disciplines and levels of courses.Studying blended learning using mixed-methodology and with aninterdisciplinary approach as done in this study is largely new terrain.

Within the Faculty Learning Community (FLC), six disciplines wererepresented: Engineering, Psychology, Curriculum and Instruction,Nursing, Economics, and Instructional Technology. Each member inde-pendently designed the blended learning strategies for their respectivecourses, resulting in awide spectrum of pedagogical applications reflec-tive of the various disciplines of participants. According to Akyol et al.(2009), the shape of disciplinary knowledge, whether constructivistor objectivist in nature, also affects student perceptions in a CoI. Inprevious research, the CoI framework best adapted itself to applieddisciplines where the course content was more constructivist in nature

Table 1Demographic information (N= 74).

Characteristic Statistic

Mean age 21GenderMale 43%Female 57%Student statusFull time 94%Part time 4%ResidenceOn campus 55%Commuting 45%Work statusFull time 5%Part time 64%None 31%

55D.A. Wicks et al. / Internet and Higher Education 25 (2015) 53–62

and learners were expected to develop solutions to problems throughinteractionwith other learners, comparedwith disciplines of amore ob-jectivist nature (Arbaugh, Bangert, & Cleveland-Innes, 2010). In onestudy of an applied discipline, students in blended learning reportedhigher levels of learning than students in an online only group, suggest-ing that at least some face to face contact with a teacher is an importantaspect of a course (Collopy & Arnold, 2009).

McLoughlin (1999) notes that online components of instruction aremore likely to work for students if learning style of students, culturalvalues, and tasks that go beyond literal comprehension of texts to devel-op deep learning are implemented in the design. Beyond course design,successful learners in blended learning or traditional higher educationenvironments are more aware of their learning and situational needsand select strategies to adapt to changing needs and learning environ-ments (De George-Walker & Keeffe, 2010). This means that choices inlearning strategies must be explicitly available to students, includingthe choice to participate in the social dimensions of the course (socialpresence), whether in person or online, in order to facilitate their ownlearning. Prior technological skill may also affect learning in a blendedlearning environment.

1.3. Faculty Learning Community

A Community of Practice (CoP) formswhen a group of learnersmeetregularly to collaborate to construct and improve knowledge about atopic they care about (Wenger, 2011). CoPs are successful when “partic-ipants work in groups to solve authentic problems; participants haveshared learning goals; knowledge is emergent and experts in thegroup are facilitators; group members operate at varying levels of mas-tery; there is a commitment on the part of groupmembers to participa-tion in the community” (Cowan, 2012, p. 12). A Faculty LearningCommunity (FLC) is a specific type of Community of Practice. To partic-ipate in an FLC, professors typically apply to participate and are selectedby a facilitator or program coordinator. This group of professors com-mits to work together and individually on projects related to a specifiedtopic. The group is typically made up of a mixture of senior and juniorfaculty. Through an application process, members were selected forthe blended learning Faculty Learning Community who shared peda-gogical and epistemological objectives, but who varied in their previouslevels of experience with designing online components for courses. Aculture of commitment to the community was established throughparticipation incentives, including an iPad, and a shared curiosityaround enhancing efficiency and learning in the respective courses.

Previous research found that an FLC is an effective professionaldevelopment structure that encourages and supports faculty as theyexplore new teaching practices, such as blending their instruction(Cox, 2002). Vaughan and Garrison (2006) found that the use of anFLC provided faculty with a support group and the motivation to com-plete their projects. Faculty in their study utilized participation in anFLC to resolve both pedagogical and technical questions. One majorchallenge with FLCs is effective facilitation, as the role “differs fromwhat are perhaps more familiar roles of content expert, lecturer, chair-person, or traditional leader” (Ortquist-Ahrens & Torosyan, 2009, p. 29).Cox, Richlin, and Essington (2012) described the ideal facilitator as arespected teacher-scholar, knowledgeable about Scholarship of Teach-ing 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 neverparticipated in an FLC before and was not always clear of his role.While two-thirds of the FLC had experience teaching online, no onehad taught a blended course. The FLC spent the first three months ofthe year-long exploration teaching each other about blended learningbest practices by reading and discussing Garrison and Vaughan's(2011) book alongwith various articles on the topic of blended learning.Participants usedwhat they learned about course design to begin creat-ing blended courses to teach in an upcoming term. Those with Learning

Management System(LMS) experience shared online syllabi and courseactivities. Those with screen capture experience shared how they usedself-produced video clips in their courses. One member used web con-ferencing software to create screencasts which gave us an opportunityto compare and contrast the benefits of different digital tools. Althoughparticipants used the same tools for themost part, each professor madethe decision for his/herself. Not having a blended learning expert forcedthe faculty to rely on each other for guidance and support. The results ofthis study include a report of issues thatmay have been the result of lessthan ideal facilitation.

This exploratory case study sought to examine the following ques-tions through the use of an FLC and CoI framework: First, do studentperceptions, measured by the CoI framework, affect learning outcomesin blended courses? Second, does the blended learning experiencevary by discipline and/or faculty member? The study explored howCoI outcomes differed across courses/disciplines in order to betterunderstand differences between disciplines, instructors, and studentperceptions. Third, do faculty members benefit from exploring newpedagogy as a Faculty Learning Community and in what ways? Howdoes this experience of learning to design blended learning courses inan FLC differ for faculty participants? To explore this aspect of the casestudy, faculty members were surveyed about their experiences.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Student participants

There were 74 student participants in the study. These participantswere from four (i.e., Engineering, Nursing, Psychology, and Economics)of the six courses included in the study as students from two courses didnot complete the measures (i.e., Education and Educational Technolo-gy). The participants had a mean age of 21 years old, slightly over halfwere female (57%), and 94% of themwere full time students. Of the stu-dent participants, 64% reported working part time, and 31% do notwork. The remaining 5% of students reported working full time whileenrolled in the university. Just over half of the students live on campus(55%) with the remainder commuting to campus for classes (seeTable 1).

2.2. Faculty participants

Six faculty participated in the FLC as ameans bywhich to learn aboutblended learning, design and implement a blended learning course. Fac-ulty participated by reading related texts, discussing blended learningapproaches, providing feedback on course design, etc. As such, the FLCprovided each faculty member an equivalent background in blendedlearning pedagogical strategies prior to commencing blended courseinstruction. Faculty participants in the FLC differed in the teachingdisciplines represented, rank and teaching experience, gender, the

Table 2Demographic data on FLC participants.

Teaching discipline Gender Academic rank

Educational technology Male Assistant professorEconomics Female Assistant professorPsychology Male Assistant/associate professorNursing Female Assistant professorEducation Female Assistant professorEngineering Male Associate professor

56 D.A. Wicks et al. / Internet and Higher Education 25 (2015) 53–62

level and size of the courses taught, and the blended learning ap-proaches taken. Key demographic data on the faculty participants isshown in Table 2. One-half of the participants were female; one-halfwere male. A clear majority of the professors were at the Assistantrank,with oneAssociate and onewho received a promotion to Associatewhile participating in the FLC exploratory case study. While this meantthat many of the participants were newer professors, with new ideasand energy, it also meant that the experience and wisdom of morehighly-ranked professors was largely missing from the group. Themost striking aspect of the demographic data is the large diversity ofteaching disciplines represented, which enhanced the variety of boththe techniques used and the settings in which they were deployed.

In addition to the varied backgrounds of the participants, the coursestaught by the FLC members also represent a wide spectrum of charac-teristics and blended learning techniques, as can be seen in Table 3.Class sizes ranged from 10 students up to 50 students, enabling partici-pants to compare how teaching and management techniques work in avariety of class sizes.Moreover, faculty chose a variety ofmixes of onlineand face-to-face time. While most courses were taught with a mix ofaround 30% online and 70% face-to-face, one course was only 20%online, and one was 70% online. Finally, while there were severalcommonly-used blended teaching techniques, no two courses usedthe exact same mix of techniques. Specifically, four of the six coursesused recorded screencasts, a mainstay of blended learning. Likewise,four courses used student or team blogs to provide communication forthe blended portion of the curriculum. Two instructors made use ofstudent-authored videos, which allowed students to video themselvesor classmates practicing techniques taught in the class. These wererounded out by one each of online laboratory experiments and discus-sion groups. The variety of techniques used allowed community partic-ipants to learn new techniques as well as, for the more commonly usedmethods, compare how different implementations of the same tech-nique worked in different classroom settings. For example, the use ofvideo in the courses differed depending on the course. Where theCognitive Psychology course used video as a means by which to relatecourse content such as types of memory, the Nursing course usedvideo as a means by which to teach a specific task or skill such as howto use a needle.

Overall, an important and successful aspect of the FLC was the het-erogeneity of the group in several different areas. Clearly this provideda healthy variety of ideas and approaches, which led to a good interplayamongparticipants.More subtly, the fact that therewasno “in” groupor“right” approach, as well as no subject matter expert in blended learn-ing, meant that all participants felt welcome to be themselves and trynew approaches without fear of breaking from any set curriculum or

Table 3Characteristics of blended courses taught and techniques used.

Classsize

Percentageonline

Blended techniques

45 30% Recorded screencasts, student blogs50 25% Recorded screencasts, student videos35 30% Online quizzes, student blogs, online experiments10 30% Student videos, student blogs20 70% Recorded screencasts, student blogs, discussion groups20 20% Recorded screencasts

pedagogical method. Together these characteristics led to a verycollegial and productive atmosphere that produced a very successfulcommunity experience. However, given the aforementioned differ-ences, results from this study should be read as exploratory and indica-tive of fruitful directions for future experimentation.

2.3. Materials

Data were collected about the student participants through threesurveys: a demographic questionnaire, the Blended Course Student Sur-vey (Garrison & Vaughan, 2011), and the Community of Inquiry Survey(Arbaugh et al., 2008). The demographic questionnaire collected demo-graphic data such as age, gender, marital status, work status, ethnicity,academic standing, employment and enrollment information, and GPAestimates. The Blended Course Student Survey (BCSS) asked questionsabout the blended components of the course in detail. The Communityof Inquiry Survey asked questions about three elements of learningcommunities which have been shown to have high internal consistencyestimates of reliability: social (α = 0.91), cognitive (α = 0.95), andteaching presence (α=0.94) (Arbaugh et al., 2008). Datawas collectedabout faculty participants through two surveys: the Faculty LearningCommunity Survey and the Faculty Interview Questions (Garrison &Vaughan, 2011)

The Blended Learning Student Survey was identical to the instru-ment used by Garrison and Vaughan in their 2008 study, found inthe fifth appendix (Garrison & Vaughan, 2011). The purpose of thistwenty-one question survey instrument is to measure student experi-ence in a blended course format. The first seven questions of the surveycollect additional demographic information about the participants, in-cluding year in school, student status, number of courses taken, resi-dence on or off campus, and work status. Following these generalquestions, the survey questions evaluate the interaction in the course,the role of the university in the course, and the student's overall experi-ence in the blended course. The questions evaluating interactions with-in the blended course asked participants to evaluate the quality andquantity of interactionswith fellow students and instructors. The surveyinvites participants to evaluate the university's role in identifying thecourse as blended and providing resources for a blended course, andthen, to evaluate their experience in terms of workload, satisfaction,and willingness to enroll in another blended course. On this inventory,it is important to note that the inventory is reversed scored such thatlower scores on items 8 through 16 corresponded to higher participantsatisfaction. The final questions of the survey (questions 17–21) areopen-ended and invite qualitative responses, particularly on what themost/least effective aspects of the blended course were.

The Community of Inquiry Survey, also used by Garrison andVaughan (2011), evaluates three dimensions of a learning environ-ment: teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. Thissurvey instrument is comprised of thirty-four questions, segmentedinto the three dimensions given. Teaching presence is evaluatedthrough questions 1–13, with subsections for design and organizationof the course, facilitation, and direct instruction. These questions focuson the communication, guidance, and feedback from the instructor ofthe course. Questions 14–22 investigate the social presence within thecourse in terms of affective expression, open communication, andgroup cohesion developed within the course. Participants were askedhow well they got to know their fellow students in the course, howcomfortable theywerewith those peers, and towhat level collaborationwas successful. The third and final section of the survey (questions23–34) focused on cognitive presence and asked participants to eval-uate the triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolutionphases of the practical inquiry process in the blended course.

Feedback from faculty members in the FLC was collected throughtwo surveys: the Faculty Learning Community Survey and the FacultyInterview Questions (Garrison & Vaughan, 2011). In order to capturefeedback on the experience, the FLC members designed the Faculty

Fig. 2. The frequency of responses for the least effective characteristics in blended courses.

Fig. 1. The frequency of responses for themost effective characteristics in blended courses.

57D.A. Wicks et al. / Internet and Higher Education 25 (2015) 53–62

LearningCommunity Survey based on agreed upon objectives for collec-tive feedback. The assessment from Garrison and Vaughan (2011) wasincorporated into this survey. The purpose of this self-survey was to as-sess experiences in the learning community. Questions were based onthe things the group identified as objectives they hoped or anticipatedachieving through participation in the FLC. This opportunity was usedto document each member's motivation for joining the community, in-dividual perceptions of the helpfulness of joining the community, andthe learning opportunities of being members. In particular, questionswere dedicated to assessing the value of peer evaluation provided bythe learning community. This included addressing the likelihood ofimplementing blended learning apart from the group, the perceivedbenefit from sharing instructional technologies, the effectiveness ofmember support of each other, and the influence of the learning com-munity on the external credibility of the endeavor. Questions wereincluded about the usefulness of the iPad and technological support aswell.

2.4. Procedures

As a group of colleagues, faculty participants came together in orderto support each other in the creation and exploration of methods toincrease dynamic learning and interaction within their courses inexchange for physical seat time in the classroom. In addition, facultyparticipants sought to explore the extent towhich there are disciplinaryboundaries to the concept of blended learning, and to investigatethe process of doing so as an FLC. A supplemental goal (not addressedhere)was to build and document a set of best practices for implementingblended learning within an existing course.

In order to accomplish these objectives, an FLC was formed. Thiscommunity met monthly to design the blended aspects of the courses,share and critique ideas, and report on the success or failure of methodsas implementation took place. In addition, feedback was collected fromthe students enrolled in the blended courses to analyze aggregately andexplore the potential disciplinary boundaries to blended learning. Theprocedure was to take a traditional, face-to-face course and blend it sothat at least 30% of the learning was outside of the classroom. The sur-veys for both faculty and students were administered once during thefinal week of the courses. The two faculty surveys were combined intooneweb-based questionnaire and completed individually by the facultyparticipants. Results were compiled and distributed to the group forreview and analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Student results

3.1.1. Qualitative resultsQualitative responses were collected through the blended course

student survey, used by Garrison and Vaughan (2011). When analyzingthe content of the qualitative responses, the approach of Garrison andVaughan was followed, grouping responses into the categories usedby these authors. This process was subject to the discretion of the re-searcher designated to categorize the responses. No detailed descriptionof the responses within each category was given by Garrison andVaughan. The responses most frequently given by students arehighlighted here, according to the categories used, and accompaniedby brief descriptions of the types of responses sorted into thosecategories.

Out of 74 respondents, the aspects noted by students as “most effec-tive” (according to the BCSS) were a greater degree of interaction withother students and instructors (31%), online resources (22%), flexibility(11%), new ways of learning (10%), and variety of assessment (10%).Students citing greater degree of interactionwith other students and in-structors mentioned learning from their fellow students and gettingmore individual attention from instructors. Online resourcesmentioned

as most effective were particular to the course taught, such as lecturevideos and online study materials or programs. A small percentage ofthe respondents (11%) appreciated the flexibility of the timing of thecourse and required submissions, allowing them to study at their ownpace and work around busy schedules. Most frequently mentionedwithin the “new ways of learning” category was the ability to learnfrom peers and classmates, and variety of assessment referred mostlyto the effectiveness of having more variety in learning and assessment,rather than to particular methods introduced (see Fig. 1).

The aspects of the blended courses that were “least affective” fromthe students' perspective were group work (16%), the online compo-nent (10%), the lack of blended learning (16%), and the self-directedlearning approach (18%). Students finding group work the least effec-tive component of the course reported internal group dysfunction, sug-gesting management of group dynamics may be an issue. Studentsreporting the online component as least effective most frequently re-ported physical symptoms associatedwith long hours looking at a com-puter screen: headaches, tired eyes, etc. One also reported internetconnectivity was a problem. Seven of the responses within the “lack ofblended learning” category described the time outside of the classroomin the blended course as a “day off.” Students reporting the self-directedlearning approach as least effective submitted comments indicating thatthey did not feel it was their responsibility to teach themselves, ratherthan that they did not learn from doing so (see Fig. 2).

3.1.2. Quantitative results

3.1.2.1. Community of Inquiry. Previous studies have shown the Commu-nity of Inquiry Survey (CoI) to be a valid and reliable measure (see

Table 5

Table 4Corrected item-total correlation for each item on the blended course student survey with the blended course student survey total.

Item Blended course studentsurvey total

8. What was your primary reason for choosing this blended learning course .419a. How would you describe the amount of interaction experienced with other students in this blended learning course .279b. How would you describe the amount of interaction experienced with the instructor in this blended learning course .6510a. How would you describe the quality of interaction experienced with other students in this blended learning course .5210b. How would you describe the quality of interaction experienced with the instructor in this blended learning course .7411. Blended learning courses are sufficiently identified and expectations made clear in the university course calendar .6312. The university provides sufficient resources for this specific blended course .5213. Given the opportunity I would take another blended learning course in the future .8114. Overall, I am satisfied with this blended learning course .8515. Compared to your other courses was this workload in this course − .07916. How would you describe the relationship between online and in class learning in this course .64

58 D.A. Wicks et al. / Internet and Higher Education 25 (2015) 53–62

Arbaugh et al., 2008 for review). In the current study, coefficient alphafor the Community of Inquiry Survey was .72. In addition, coefficientalpha for the subscales were calculated, and they were as follows:Teaching Presence was .94, Social Presence was .79, and CognitivePresence was .89. These values are consistent with previous researchusing the CoI.

3.1.2.2. Blended course student survey. Given the recent development ofthe Blended Course Student Survey and dearth in literature assessingthe reliability of the BCSS, an item analysis was conducted on responsesfrom the BCSS to assess students experience in the blended learningcourse. Items 1 through 7 measure demographic information, and assuch, these items were not included in the item analysis. Items 8through 16 (11 items) from the BCSS were summed to create BlendedCourse Student Survey Total scale. The initial item analysis for thescale revealed that items 8 through 16 were significantly correlatedwith the BCSS total score with the exception of item 15 (r = .053,p= .66), “Compared to other courses was this workload in the course”(see Table 4). As such, item 15 was removed. The revised 10 item scalerevealed only one item-total correlation less than .30, “How would youdescribe the amount of interaction experienced with other students inthis blended learning course.” However, this item was retained givenits relevance to the other nine items. The revised 10 item scale wasnamed “Blended Course Student Survey Total (BCSST).” Coefficientalpha for the BCSST was .84; however, this value might be an overesti-mate of the population alpha due to the use of the same sample foritem analysis and reliability.

Fig. 3. Scatterplot between BCSS total scores and CoI total scores.

3.1.2.3. Regression analysis for the Community of Inquiry and blendedcourse student survey total. A linear regression analysis was conductedto determine the prediction of the CoI from the BCSST. The analysisrevealed that the BCSSTwas a statistically significant predictor of scoreson the CoI, R2 = 0.27, F(1, 71) = 26.14, p b 0.05 (see Fig. 3).

3.1.2.4. Course differences. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used todetermine the difference in CoI and BCSST scores between courses.The following four tests revealed statistically significant differences(see Table 5 for descriptive statistics). First, an ANOVA was used to de-termine the difference in total scores on the CoI between the fourcourses (i.e., Engineering, Nursing, Psychology, and Economics). TheANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in total scores onthe CoI, F(3, 69)=9.31, p b 0.05 (see Fig. 4). Post-hoc using a BonferroniAdjustment revealed a statistically significant difference between scoresfrom the Psychology and Economics courses, p b 0.05.

Second, anANOVAwas used to determine the difference in scores onthe Teaching Presence subscale of the CoI between the four courses(i.e., Engineering, Nursing, Psychology, and Economics). The ANOVA re-vealed a statistically significant difference in Teaching Presence scoreson the CoI, p b 0.05. F(3, 69) = 12.6, p b 0.05 (see Fig. 5). Post-hocusing a Bonferroni Adjustment revealed a statistically significant differ-ence between Engineering and Nursing (p b .05), Engineering andEconomics (p b .05), Psychology and Nursing (p b .05), and Psychologyand Economics (p b .05).

Descriptive statistics for scores on the CoI total, CoI teaching presence subscale, cognitivepresence subscale, and BCSS total between courses.

M SD SEM

CoI totalEngineering 138.50 5.45 2.72Nursing 106.33 6.66 3.84Psychology 134.41 16.15 3.11Economics 113.64 19.56 3.13

CoI teaching presence subtotalEngineering 58.75 3.3 1.65Nursing 39 8.5 4.93Psychology 55.37 6.59 1.27Economics 43.69 10.16 1.63

CoI cognitive presence subtotalEngineering 47.5 3.11 1.56Nursing 39.67 3.51 2.03Psychology 46.59 6.65 1.28Economics 40 7.85 1.26

BCSS totalEngineering 18.75 3.59 1.8Nursing 29.33 7.57 4.37Psychology 21.59 5.98 1.15Economics 33.13 7.44 1.19

Fig. 6. Mean difference in CoI cognitive presence subscale scores between courses.Fig. 4.Mean difference in total CoI scores between courses.

59D.A. Wicks et al. / Internet and Higher Education 25 (2015) 53–62

Third, an ANOVA was used to determine the difference in scores onthe Cognitive Presence subscale of the CoI between the four courses(i.e., Engineering, Nursing, Psychology, and Economics). The ANOVArevealed a statistically significant difference in Cognitive Presencescores on the CoI, F(3, 69) = 5.03, p b 0.05 (see Fig. 6). Post-hoc usinga Bonferroni Adjustment revealed a statistically significant differencebetween scores from the Psychology and Economics courses, p b 0.05.

Finally, an ANOVAwas used to determine the difference in scores onthe Blended Course Student Survey Total between the four courses(i.e., Engineering, Nursing, Psychology, and Economics). The ANOVA re-vealed a statistically significant difference in Blended Course StudentSurvey Total between the four courses, F(3, 69) = 17.22, p b 0.05 (seeFig. 7). Post-hoc using a Bonferroni Adjustment revealed a statisticallysignificant difference between Engineering and Economics (p b .05)and Psychology and Economics (p b .05).

3.1.2.5. Year in school. An ANOVA was used to determine the differencein scores on the Teaching Presence subscale of the CoI betweenstudents' Year in School (see Table 6 for descriptive statistics). TheANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in Teaching Pres-ence scores on the CoI between students' Year in School, F(3, 69) =3.31, p b 0.05 (see Figs. 8 and 10). Post-hoc using a Bonferroni Adjust-ment revealed a statistically significant difference between First andFourth year only, p = .025.

Fig. 5. Mean difference in CoI teaching presence subscale scores between courses.

3.1.2.6. Residence.An Independent Samples t-testwas used to determinethe difference in scores on the BCSS total between student living oncampus (M = 30.15, SD = 8.62, SEM = 1.36) and student thatwere commuting (M = 25.45, SD = 8.41, SEM = 1.46) (see Fig. 9).The t-test revealed a statistically significant difference in BCSS totalscores between residence, t(71) = 2.34, p = 0.022.

3.2. Faculty results

In response to the Faculty Learning Community Survey and the Fac-ulty Interview Questions, faculty participants identified the importanceof participating in a learning community while designing blendedcourses. When asked what was valuable about the Faculty LearningCommunity, four responses emerged. First, members of the FLC foundthe exchange of ideas and technology tips useful. Second, the benefitof multi-user trial and error allowed mistakes made by one memberof the community to be both a learning opportunity and avoidable forother members. Results also showed that the peer pressure of commu-nity expectations was useful, and that being amember of the communi-ty was fun.

The peer review aspect of the community was valuable in severalways. First, prior to the experience within the FLC, only one of thesix members reported that she would have sought peer review forcourse design outside of her own department; furthermore, only two

Fig. 7.Mean difference in BCSS total scores between courses.

Fig. 9.Mean difference in BCSS total scores between participants' residence.

Table 6Descriptive statistics for CoI teaching presence subtotal between year in school.

M SD SEM

First 45.28 11.9 2.38Second 45.29 11.16 2.98Third 51.21 8.73 2Fourth 54.13 7.02 1.81

60 D.A. Wicks et al. / Internet and Higher Education 25 (2015) 53–62

participants reported that they strongly agreed they would seek peerreview for course design within their own department (see Fig. 11).The FLC provided the opportunity and comfort to seek and offer peer re-view outside of each participants' own department. Four of six partici-pants agreed (1) or strongly agreed (3) that the peer support wasvaluable during the design and implementation of the blended course(see Fig. 12). Of all six participants, none disagreed that the peer supportwas valuable in their overall experience with a blended course. Finally,all participants agreed (3) or strongly agreed (3) that the academic ac-countability provided by the FLCwas valuable during the design and im-plementation of the blended course (see Fig. 13). Of all six participants,none disagreed that the academic accountability of the community wasvaluable in their overall teaching presence within their blended course.

After participating in the survey the FLC designed, several potentialimprovements stood out for a replication of the project. The improve-ments agreed upon by most group members were additional account-ability check-ins between monthly meetings, accountability partners,and improved planning and documentation. Accountability improve-ments take two forms. The first is to have additional check-in times be-tweenmonthly meetings. The group experience provided cohesion andsupport duringmeetings, but there was little contact and accountabilitybetween meetings, and output for deadlines was consequently oftenrushed. This lack of interaction between group members outside ofthe community space made progress on community learning and pro-jects disjointed. The second opportunity to enhance accountability isto form partnerships within the group for checking in and working onprojects together.

Other areas of improvement include planning and documentation.Assigning discussion topics/questions before each meeting would pro-vide additional focus tomeetings, aswell as a concrete area for prepara-tion ahead of time. Furthermore, establishing a timeline early for projectoutputs will allow for better preparation and more time to improveproject quality.

Documentation is crucial to project success, and there are manyalternatives that can be effective. The FLC members discussed, but did

Fig. 8.Meandifference inCoI teaching presence subscale scores between participants' yearin school.

not implement, the idea of keeping a shared blog space to documentideas, experiences, and progress. Although this idea was not imple-mented by the learning community in this exploratory case study, it isrecommended that a shared documentation space for interactiverecording and discussion of the nuances of the project's progression,successes, and failures be used.

4. Discussion

4.1. Blended learning

Results from this exploratory case study provide insight into threeareas pertaining to students' experience with the blended learningcourses. However, it should be noted that students in the courses aswell as the courses themselves varied widely (see Student and FacultyParticipants). As such, results from the current study would beinterpreted as exploratory or as a case study. First, CoI is both relatedto and can predict changes in student's experience in blended learningcourses. This interpretation can be seen in responses on the CoI andBCSST. More specifically, as students' total scores on the CoI increased,indicating an increase in perceived community among students

Fig. 10. This figure shows the students' year in school with respect to the course.

Fig. 13. The value of academic accountability from the Faculty Learning Community.Fig. 11. The value of peer review from the Faculty Learning Community.

61D.A. Wicks et al. / Internet and Higher Education 25 (2015) 53–62

throughout the course, scores on the BCSST decreased, indicating great-er satisfaction with the course. In other words, by working to facilitate aCoI within blended courses, instructors should see an increase in stu-dent satisfaction within the blended course, regardless of discipline.This finding is consistent with past research where CoI has beenshown to be an effective framework for both online and blendedcourses (Garrison et al., 2001).

Second, differences in the student's experience in blended learningcourses vary depending on the discipline of the course. This differenceis evident both in the analysis of responses for the CoI as well as theBCSST. Students in the Engineering and Cognitive Psychology coursesseem to be more satisfied with their experience of the blended formatin terms of the total CoI scores as well as the Teaching Presence andCognitive Presence Scores on the CoI. On the BCSST, students in thePsychology and Engineering classes reported greater satisfaction withthe blended course. These results are consistent with past researchwhere students reported differences in the experience in online coursescontingent on the course discipline. For example, Arbaugh et al. (2010)found that CoI seemed to be more beneficial for students in applied

Fig. 12. The value of personal/emotional support from the Faculty Learning Community.

courses. This is consistent with the finding in that both the Engineeringand Cognitive Psychology course had applied components to the course.In the Engineering course, for example, students spent the majority ofthe quarter designing and building rather than discussing mathematicsor physics in a pure form.

Two alternative explanations for the difference in students' experi-ence across disciplines are: 1) the difference in course instructors and2) the difference in students. That is, it could be that differences in stu-dents' experiences in the blended courses do not reflect differences indisciplines but simply a difference in the course instructor or in thestudents taking the courses. As mentioned in the methods section (seeTable 2), instructors in this project ranged in background such as rank.Given this, it could be that factors such as personality, rapport, tenure,etc. could explain differences on the CoI and the BCSST. Due to thesmall sample size (i.e., six faculty), it is difficult to gaugewhat, if any, dif-ference in students' reportswere due to differences in faculty. However,given this potential effect, future research should be designed to deter-mine if certain characteristics of the instructor influence the success of ablended course format.

The results show that not all students benefit equally from theblended format. In particular, students' year in school and place ofresidence have an effect on the CoI and BCSST (see Figs. 8 & 9) in thiscase study. In terms of students' year in school, we found that juniorsand seniors seem to benefit most from a blended format. According tostudents' reports on the CoI as well as the BCSST, ratings were highestfor the Engineering and Cognitive Psychology students, whichwere pri-marily juniors and seniors. Consistent with this finding, seniors acrossall disciplines rated Teaching Presence on the CoI higher than freshmanor sophomores. This effect is not surprising in that older students wouldpotentially be more flexible in learning styles, possibly more self-directed learners, and benefit more from the collaborative assignments(cf., Cox, 2004;DeGeorge-Walker & Keeffe, 2010; Holley &Oliver, 2010;Rose & Ray, 2011). A study designed to specifically capture age-relateddifferences is an important next step in this research.

In addition to year in school, results suggest that students whowerecommuters reported greater satisfaction on the BCSST than those livingon campus. This effect is also not surprising in that blended and otheronline teaching has the greatest potential to impact learning for com-muters. That is, the flexibility in scheduling, time on task, asynchronouselements of the course, the collaborative assignments, all seem tofacilitate a better learning environment for students dealing with thechallenges of not always being on campus, working one or more jobs,meeting other students, etc. (cf., Albion & Redmond, 2006; Bostonet al., 2009).

62 D.A. Wicks et al. / Internet and Higher Education 25 (2015) 53–62

4.2. Faculty Learning Community

In addition to assessing students' experiences of blended learning inthe classroom, another goal of the current project was to explore poten-tial benefits to using an FLC when implementing new pedagogicalstrategies (i.e., blended learning) and incorporating new technologiesin the classroom. Similar to past studies (e.g., Cox, 2002; Vaughan &Garrison, 2006), faculty in the current study reported that the FLC wasbeneficial on many levels. For example, faculty reported that the FLCwas beneficial in that it provided a venue in which to receive practicaladvice on successful methods for blending as well as motivation andsupport when the application of blended learning strategies wentpoorly.

While faculty in the current study reported that aspects of the FLCwere beneficial, a major concern with the FLC was a lack of regular dia-log or accountability between FLC meetings as well as a clear prepara-tion or documentation leading up to FLC meetings. This issue speaksto the necessity of effective facilitation within the FLC as described byCox et al. (2012). More specifically, if a FLC is going to be successful,the structure, objectives and manner of communication of the FLCmust be considered carefully.

5. Conclusion

This study found evidence that student perceptions of the CoI maybe useful in determining differences in students' blended learning expe-riences. This may be useful in helping students determine whether ablended course is a good fit for their learning. The study also foundthat the perceived differences in blended learning experiences variedby discipline. This difference may be a result of differences betweenstudents, such as their age, or differences between instructors. A secondresearch outcomewas that FLCs are a useful form of professional devel-opment when correctly implemented. Faculty benefit from participa-tion in an FLC by receiving helpful advice on promising practices andencouragement from peers when experiencing challenges within theirblended courses. FLCs are less successful when there is a lack of dialogbetween meetings or when the facilitator does not provide adequatepreparation for face-to-face meetings.

In light of the results from the current exploratory case study, twopotential directions for future research are suggested. First, the implica-tion that students' experiences of Blended Learning courses differedbetween several factors must be systematically studied. For example,first year students had a different experience of the Blended Learningcourse from fourth year students. Therefore, in order to determinewhen a Blended Learning strategy will be most effective, researchshould be designed to assess the effects of student characteristics onBlended Learning. Second, where the use of an FLC was advantageousin many ways to faculty in the current study, faculty reports from thecurrent study also indicate that further research designed to determinebest practices for designing and implementing an FLC is warranted.

References

Akyol, Z., Arbaugh, J.B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D.R., Ice, P., Richardson, J.C., et al.(2009). A response to the review of the community of inquiry framework. TheJournal of Distance Education, 23(2), 123–136.

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D.R. (2011a). Assessingmetacognition in an online community of in-quiry. Internet & Higher Education, 14, 183–190.

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D.R. (2011b). Understanding cognitive presence in an online andblended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deepapproaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233–250.

Albion, P.R., & Redmond, P. (2006). Returning the favour: Using insights from onlinelearning to enhance on-campus courses. Retrieved from http://eprints.usq.edu.au/archive/00000935/01/Alvion_Redmond_Returning_the_favour_pdf

Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States,2011. Babson Survey Research Group.

Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States.Babson Survey Research Group.

Arbaugh, J.B., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and thecommunity of inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. Internet and HigherEducation, 13, 37–44.

Arbaugh, J.B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S.R., Garrison, D.R., Ice, P., Richardson, J.C., et al.(2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of thecommunity of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internetand Higher Education, 11(3), 133–136.

Bluic, A.M., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R.A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choicesin studies into students' experiences of blended learning in higher education.Internet & Higher Education, 10, 231–244.

Boston,W., Diaz, S.R., Gibson, A.M., Ice, P., Richardson, R., & Swan, K. (2009). An explorationof the relationship between indicators of the community of inquiry framework and re-tention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1), 3–19.

Carter, D. (2008). Online enrollment jumps 13 percent. E-School News, November 17.Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/news-by-subject/research/index.cfm?i-56046

Collopy, R.M.B., & Arnold, J.M. (2009). To blend or not to blend: Online and blended learn-ing environments in undergraduate teacher education. Issues in Teacher Education,18(2), 85–101.

Cottle, N.R., & Glover, R.J. (2012). Teaching human development: A case for blendedlearning. Technology & Teaching, 38(3), 205–208.

Cowan, J.E. (2012). Strategies for developing a community of practice: Nine years of lessonslearned in a hybrid technology education master's program. TechTrends, 56(1), 12–18.

Cox, M.D. (2002). The role of community in learning: Making connections for your class-room and campus, your students and colleagues. In G.S. Wheeler (Ed.), Teaching &learning in college: A resource for educators (pp. 1–38) (Elyria, OH).

Cox, M.D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions forTeaching and Learning, 5–23.

Cox, M.D., Richlin, L., & Essington, A. (2012). Faculty learning community planning guide.Kalamazoo, MI: Info-Tec.

DeGeorge-Walker, L., & Keeffe,M. (2010). Self-determined blended learning: A case studyof blended learning design. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(1), 1–13.

Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910),66–69.

Garrison, D.R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: Ashift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Openand Distance Learning, 1(1), 1–17.

Garrison, D.R. (2011). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer,W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, andcomputer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education,15(1), 7–23.

Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationshipsamong teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of thecommunity of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 31–36.

Garrison, D.R., & Vaughan, N.D. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Framework,principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hoffman, J., & Miner, N. (2008). Real blended learning stands up. Training andDevelopment, 62(9), 28–31.

Holley, D., & Oliver, M. (2010). Student engagement and blended learning: Portraits ofrisk. Computers & Education, 54, 693–700.

Jones, N., & Sze Lau, A. (2010). Blending learning: Widening participation in highereducation. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(4), 405–416.

Kim, K., & Bonk, C.J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in highereducation: The survey says. Educause Quarterly, 29(4).

Lopez-Perez, M.V., Perez-Lopez, M.C., & Rodriguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning inhigher education: Students' perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers& Education, 56(3), 818–826.

McLoughlin, C. (1999). Culturally responsive technology use: Developing an on-linecommunity of users. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 231–243(Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet15/mcloughlin.html).

Motteram, G., & Sharma, P. (2009). Blending learning in a web 2.0 world. InternationalJournal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 7(2), 83–96.

Ortquist-Ahrens, L., & Torosyan, R. (2009). The role of the facilitator in faculty learningcommunities: Paying the way for growth, productivity, and collegiality. LearningCommunities Journal, 1(1), 29–62.

Rose, R., & Ray, J. (2011, July). Encapsulated presentation: A new paradigm of blendedlearning. The educational forum. Vol. 75. (pp. 228–243). Taylor & Francis Group (No. 3).

Vaughan, N., & Garrison, R. (2006). A blended faculty community of inquiry: Linking lead-ership, course redesign, and evaluation. Canadian Journal of University ContinuingEducation, 32(2), 67.

Wanstreet, C.E., & Stein, D.S. (2011). Presence over time in synchronous communities ofinquiry. The American Journal of Distance Education, 25, 162–177.

Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction.