Role of instructional technology in the transformation of higher education

Article

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.

Keywords

Collaborative constructivism Collaborative leadership Community of inquiry Instructional technology Teaching presence Cognitive presence Social presence Web 2.0 

References

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching-learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Hastings, N. B., & Tracey, M. W. (2005). Does media affect learning: Where are we now? TechTrends, 49(2), 28–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howard, A. B. (2004). American studies and the new technologies: New paradigms for teaching and learning. Rethinking History, 8(2), 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
  22. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Maloney, E. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(18), B26.Google Scholar
  24. Merrill, M. D. (2002). Effective use of instructional technology requires educational reform. Educational Technology, 17(2), 13–18.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Nworie, J. (2007). Academic technology in higher education: Organizing for better results. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(1), 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. Reigeluth, C. M., & Joseph, R. (2002). Beyond technology integration: The case for technology transformation. Educational Technology, 17(2), 9–12.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group environments: The role of social identity. Behavior & Information Technology, 24(2), 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saettler, P. (2004). The evolution of American educational technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution? Educational Technology, 17(2), 71–75.Google Scholar
  39. Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science, 32, 475–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.
  42. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Toronto: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. 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.
  44. Swan, K. (2002). Building communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication and Information, 2(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139–152.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teaching & Learning CentreBiological Sciences Bldg, Room 539B University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Computer Education & Instructional TechnologyMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations