Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Role of instructional technology in the transformation of higher education

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is argued in this article that the convergence of collaborative constructivist ideas and emerging instructional technologies are transforming higher education. The article begins with an overview of instructional and communications technology and how this technology is being used in the service of either sustaining or transforming teaching and learning in higher education. Next, the idea of collaborative constructivist approaches to teaching and learning are explored and the case for a guiding framework is made. The Community of Inquiry framework is briefly described and assessed from a theoretical and practical level. Finally, the discussion turns to the nature and importance of institutional leadership if instructional technologies are to transform the quality of the teaching and learning experience in higher education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education. doi:10.10160j.iheduc.2008.05.22.

  • Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duderstadt, J. J., Atkins, D. E., & Van Houweling, D. (2002). Higher education in the digital age: Technology issues and strategies for American colleges and universities. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eraut, M. (1994). Educational technology: Conceptual frameworks and historical development. In T. Huse’n & P. T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R. (in press). Communities of inquiry in online learning: Social, teaching and cognitive presence. In C. Howard, et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance and online learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

  • Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching-learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grineski, S. (1999). Questioning the role of technology in higher education: Why is this the road less travelled. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferencing. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2–3), 147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, N. B., & Tracey, M. W. (2005). Does media affect learning: Where are we now? TechTrends, 49(2), 28–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, A. B. (2004). American studies and the new technologies: New paradigms for teaching and learning. Rethinking History, 8(2), 277–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works. Change, July/August, 27–35.

  • Kesim, E., & Agaoglu, E. (2007). A paradigm shift in distance education: Web 2.0 and social software. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 66–75. Retrieved February 23, 2009 from: http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde27/pdf/article_4.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, E. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(18), B26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2002). Effective use of instructional technology requires educational reform. Educational Technology, 17(2), 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. A., & Xu, Y. J. (2007). A Bayesian analysis of the institutional and individual factors influencing the faculty technology use. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 184–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, E. (2004). Identifying and measuring ill-structured problem formulation and resolution in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(1), 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, J., & Bigum, C. (2007). Bounded and unbounded knowledge: Teaching and learning in a Web 2 world. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 76–86. Retrieved February 23, 2009 from: http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde27/pdf/article_5.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nworie, J. (2007). Academic technology in higher education: Organizing for better results. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(1), 105–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.

  • Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Joseph, R. (2002). Beyond technology integration: The case for technology transformation. Educational Technology, 17(2), 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A. (2007). A history of instructional design and technology. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 17–34). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group environments: The role of social identity. Behavior & Information Technology, 24(2), 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saettler, P. (2004). The evolution of American educational technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salinas, M. F. (2008). From Dewey to Gates: A model to integrate psychoeducational principles in the selection and use of instructional technology. Computers & Education, 50(3), 652–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution? Educational Technology, 17(2), 71–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science, 32, 475–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, P., & Bidjeramo, T. (2008, March). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

  • Shea, P., Li, C., Swan K., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous college courses: The role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4). Retrieved May 1, 2008 from: http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v9n4/v9n4_shea.asp.

  • Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Toronto: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, K. (2008). The case for hands-on education. Strategy+Business, 52. Retrieved September 22, 2008 from: http://www.strategy-business.com/press/article/08303?gko=d1e76-1876-27125602.

  • Swan, K. (2002). Building communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication and Information, 2(1), 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, K. (2003). Developing social presence in online discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 147–164). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, K., & Shih, L.-F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2006). How blended learning can support a faculty development community of inquiry. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(4), 139–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139–152.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Teaching & Learning Centre, Biological Sciences Bldg, Room 539B University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, T2N 1N4, AB, Canada

    D. R. Garrison

  2. Computer Education & Instructional Technology, Middle East Technical University, 06531, Ankara, Turkey

    Zehra Akyol

Authors
  1. D. R. Garrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zehra Akyol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. R. Garrison.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garrison, D.R., Akyol, Z. Role of instructional technology in the transformation of higher education. J Comput High Educ 21, 19–30 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9014-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9014-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation