Promoting community and collaboration: Models underpinning an academic professional learning

Abstract

During the pandemic, the pivot to emergency remote teaching highlighted the depth and extent of inequalities, particularly in relation to access to resources and literacies, faced by higher education institutions. Imported solutions that failed to take into consideration the constraints and cultures of local contexts were less than successful. The paucity of practitioners with blended and online learning design experience, training and education grounded in diverse contexts made local design for local contexts difficult to carry out. Although there is substantial research and guidance on online learning design, there is an opportunity to create a text deliberately oriented to practice. Further, online learning design, as a field of practice and research, is strongly shaped by research, experiences and practices from a hegemonic centre (usually in the Global North, where peripheries also exist). While many of the textbooks written from this perspective are theoretically useful as a starting point, the disjuncture between theory and practice for practitioners in less well-resourced contexts where local experiences are invisible, can be jarring. This book aims to create a space for learning designers whose voices are insufficiently heard, to share innovative designs within local constraints and, in so doing, reimagine learning design in a way that does not reproduce the binary power relations of centre and periphery.

Full text

12
Promoting community and collaboration: Models
underpinning an academic professional learning
Greig Krull & Nazira Hoosen
DOI:10.59668/279.10555
Ethic of Care Critical Digital Pedagogy Community of Inquiry academic professional learning
Chapter in brief
This chapter examines the theoretical frameworks and models that underpin the design and
facilitation of an academic professional learning short course at a research-intensive public
university in South Africa. These principles for learning design and facilitation can be applied in a
variety of learning contexts to promote community and collaboration. The “Facilitating Online” short
course is facilitated through the adoption of an “ethic of care” perspective that promotes modelling,
dialogue and the adoption of a critical digital pedagogy stance. The design and facilitation of the
course is underpinned by the Community of Inquiry framework for online and blended learning that
talks to the importance of three pronounced presences: teacher, social and cognitive. In our view,
learning is a social phenomenon that manifests through collaboration between facilitators and
participants. We focused on the establishment of a digital community to create safe spaces for
learning to occur. Throughout the course, the need for active and responsive facilitation is
emphasised. This is modelled for participants to encourage adoption within their own courses and
for their own students. The chapter contributes a view of how frameworks and models can be used
to inform the learning design and facilitation of courses that emphasise the importance of
community and collaboration within a local institutional context.
Introduction
The University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in Johannesburg, South Africa, is a traditional residential university. The
University’s 2020–2024 Teaching and Learning Plan (Wits, 2019) recognised the need for more flexible and digital
learning opportunities in response to changing contexts.With the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 forcing a transition to
223

emergency remote teaching and learning, as described in Hodges et al. (2020), the need for learning design proficiency
among academics working as university teachers became imperative.
Despite substantial investment in learning design expertise and structures at Wits University, there remains an
overriding tendency in current design processes to focus on the content and associated technologies. Very little
emphasis is placed on the role of the facilitator. Furthermore, many academics are unfamiliar with learning models and
frameworks within blended and online learning spaces. Since 2018, the Wits Centre for Learning and Teaching
Development, in collaboration with teaching staff within the institution, has reconceptualised an Open Education
Resource (OER), the Facilitating Online short course. The focus of this course is to support the professional learning of
academics to be able to promote community, collaboration and an openness to diverse voices in learning spaces. The
aim is to remind academics of the humanising aspect of learning and teaching with technology, and in so doing adopt a
human-centred pedagogy (Karakaya, 2021). A critical digital pedagogy stance is foregrounded, as too often the digital is
privileged at the expense of critical pedagogy (Morris & Stommel, 2018).
This chapter argues that learning can be a social process and that through careful and considered design and
facilitation, community and collaboration can be promoted in online and blended learning environments. Two
frameworks are provided the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison et al., 2000) and an “ethic of care” perspective
(Bali, 2020; Noddings, 2012) that can be used in the design and facilitation of courses to promote community and
collaboration. The chapter begins by describing the context, learning design approach and evolution of the short course.
It then reviews the frameworks that underpin the design and facilitation of the course, particularly the taking of a critical
digital pedagogy stance, the use of the Community of Inquiry framework and the adoption of an ethic of care
perspective. The learning design implications are discussed before providing a set of recommendations for academics
and learning designers.
Context
Wits University is a public, urban, residential university in Johannesburg, South Africa. It can be considered to be on the
periphery, as it is located in the Global South. As a research-intensive university, academic focus and incentives are
primarily related to research output rather than teaching and learning. We have found limited focus on learning and
teaching in general and limited focus on learning design in particular. This has led academics to grapple with limited
online identities and agency depletion around innovating in learning and teaching. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
university was slowly transitioning to a blended learning approach. The pandemic necessitated rapid acceleration of
this approach. To support the transition, Wits offered the Facilitating Online short course, an eight-week, fully online
offering, creating an opportunity for academics to consider their transitioning and emergent identities as they move into
more digital learning and teaching spaces.
The Facilitating Online short course was adapted from an openly licensed OER that makes use of active and
experiential approaches to learning and teaching. The OER was developed at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in
South Africa (Carr et al., 2009), published under a creative commons attribution, and has been adapted in other higher
education contexts (Mallinson & Krull, 2015). As an OER, the course could easily be adapted according to the needs of
the local institution. While both UCT and Wits are research-intensive and compete with the Global North in terms of
rankings, the use of locally developed OER represents a shift in practices that enable access to multi-layered knowledge
and a heterogeneity of identities and interpretations. We recognise that within higher education, there are questions
around voice, power and authority (Freire, 1972) that aim to dismantle knowledge conceptions that reproduce
hierarchies and support the wider need for decolonisation in the South African higher education sector. Decolonisation
within the context of South African higher education refers to a deconstruction of Eurocentric standards,
epistemologies, social practices, symbols, marketised systems and institutions, thereby capturing the agency of the
current collective (Heleta, 2016).
Due to the previous apartheid dispensation in South Africa, higher education symbolised a system that was designed
for an elite minority who retained cultural and economic capital as well as their social standing and superiority due to
224

inherited wealth. The move from an elitist South African higher education system to a massified system raised the need
for widened access. One of the approaches to dealing with this challenge is to use design principles that support
innovative open education practices (Cronin, 2017). The use of OER is one form of open practice that enables provision
of materials associated with free costs, ease of use and freedom to reuse (Conole & Brown, 2018). These principles
align with the open access practices described in the Statement on Open Access to Research Publications in South
Africa set forth by the National Research Foundation in 2015.
We support education as a “public good”, which needs to be shared openly through collegiality, in line with the principles
of the open education movement (Conole & Brown, 2018; Cronin, 2017; Veletsianos, 2015). We recognise that open
education practices “are shaped by social, cultural, economic, and political factors” (Veletsianos, 2015, p. 202) and are
aware that the technologies used to support openness are influenced by the values and assumptions of learning
designers. The intention for choosing this OER was to start with a tried and tested resource, instead of “reinventing the
wheel”. Adapting an OER made it easier to start from a solid theoretical and experiential base, while also
(re)conceptualising the learning activities for contextual relevance.
The Facilitating Online course
This section describes the course structure as well as any adaptations made to the original UCT course. It also
describes the process of building community through surfacing different voices.
Course description and adaptations
The Facilitating Online short course is a professional learning course for academics. Based on the principles of
fostering playful yet reflective online learning communities (Carr et al., 2009), the purpose of the course is to assist
academics in developing an awareness of the skills and specific toolsets available to support online facilitation. The
course foregrounds designing and facilitating online activities through the use of an appropriate combination of
technologies (Armellini & Aiyegbayo, 2010; Conole & Brown, 2018). Within this approach, the use of technologies for
learning and teaching purposes requires content specialisation and grounding in pedagogy (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
The Facilitating Online short course consists of approximately 100 notional study hours and spans eight weeks. It is
offered twice a year and each iteration is different, owing to continuous improvement by a rotating group of co-
facilitators and the varying needs and experiences of each iteration’s participants. This is aligned with the view of
seeing good learning design as being primarily about redesign (Armellini & Aiyegbayo, 2010). Typically, there are three
to four co-facilitators and a maximum of 25 participants. The participant-to-facilitator ratio is purposefully kept low to
support the creation of a learning community in a short timeframe. Participants are required to complete a series of
weekly (asynchronous) activities and participate in a weekly live (synchronous) session. Each week builds on the focus
of supporting the creation of online learning communities, aligned to specific themes. Table 1 provides a summary of
the course model.
Table 1
Facilitating online short course model
Week Theme Short description
0 A short pre-course engagement to become familiar with the course information and environment.
1 Arriving Participants “arrive” and navigate the online space, introduce themselves and evaluate their facilitation capabilities.
2 Conversing Participants consider how to work together to form a learning community through getting to know each other,
creating shared goals and discussing how to facilitate engagement.
3 Facilitating Participants practice using key strategies and skills for online facilitation.
225

Week Theme Short description
4 Creating Participants consider issues of diversity and inclusion and create an authentic learning activity.
5 Applying Participants reflect on their course experiences and learnings and create plans to continue learning after the course.
6 Consolidating Participants work on their ePortfolios to consolidate their learning.
7 Showcasing Participants showcase their e-portfolios and receive feedback.
Over time, the course was reconceptualised to be more relevant to the specific and evolving needs of academics at
Wits. This highlights the need for contextualised learning design. While the principles of the original course remained
the same, three aspects were modified.
Flexibility
The first change was around enabling greater flexibility (as a part-time course) in terms of when participants were
required to complete activities and engage in discussions. In the Wits context, some participants compounded their
workload to complete it at the end of the week while discussions by other participants had been concluded in the
preceding week. The course coordinators elected to provide greater flexibility while allowing participants to engage
anytime, anywhere through meaningful discourse.
ePortfolio
The second change focused on a summative assessment component, based on the authentic assessment principles
put forward by Herrington et al. (2014). The authentic assessment principles promoted by Herrington et al (2014)
include assessments that are complex and collaborative, have real-world relevance, take place continuously and show
evidence of work activity. The final assessment took the form of developing and showcasing an ePortfolio that
consolidated and added to the activities completed each week. The ePortfolio comprised a short background of the
participant, a synthesis of weekly reflections, a professional learning plan extending beyond the course, a consolidation
of course research completed and a sample of learning activities designed. Peer assessment, together with facilitator
reviews, served as a feedback mechanism. The ePortfolio was then showcased at the end of the course, resulting in an
increase in the notional hours of the course.
Mentor-mentee
The third aspect focused on a mentor-mentee relationship. Each participant was paired alongside a facilitator who also
acted as a mentor for a group of participants. The aim was to provide more personal assistance and support, as well as
more general advice for participants. These changes reflect the need to redesign the course to suit participants’
workloads and contexts as a form of critical practice. Table 2 provides a summary of the adaptations.
Table 2
Summary of course adaptations
Category Original (UCT) Adaptation (Wits) Implications
Pacing Limited flexibility in
activity completion
Greater flexibility in activity completion Enable participation when suitable to cater for busy
workloads
Assessment Formative
assessment only
Inclusion of an ePortfolio as a
summative assessment (including an
increase in course notional study hours)
Participants use their learnings from weekly activities to
build an ePortfolio that is showcased at the end of the
course, enabling a cumulative and authentic approach to
assessment
226

Category Original (UCT) Adaptation (Wits) Implications
Mentoring N/A Establish mentor-mentee relationships Greater support for participants to foster relationships and
communities that extend beyond the course.
Incorporating voices from the community
The short course afforded us the opportunity to incorporate different voices from the university community. These
voices were incorporated in three ways. The first was to rotate the co-facilitators of the course each year among various
members of the Centre for Learning and Teaching Development and faculty Teaching and Learning Units. Secondly, we
invited previous participants to be facilitators in the next course iteration so that their voices emerged through co-
facilitation. Thirdly, engagement in course evaluations (by participants) and focus group reviews (by facilitators) after
each course iteration allowed for consolidation of feedback that was taken into consideration for the next iteration of
the course.
Aligned with the cry for decolonised education (Heleta, 2016), another focus for the course was to highlight the need for
(and benefit of) embracing diversity and inclusivity. By enacting and conceptualising liberatory forms of conscious and
adaptive material (OER) and facilitation (through co-facilitation and enactment of critical practices) in the online space,
we coupled openness with critical digital pedagogic practice. This conceptualisation in turn supported conscientisation
and critical thinking skills that course participants could use to connect to the lives of their students, irrespective of the
learning environment.
While attempting to foster the idea of working collaboratively in a community (which does not form organically unless
there is a shared objective and a safe space with common interests), the course made it possible for participants to
become a community when practices were shared. This aspect links the importance of pedagogy while emphasising
community; a community in which participants openly drew from one another through decisions around tool selection,
how to facilitate, how to support the lived realities of their students, and so forth. In this way, participants were
reminded of the humanising aspect of technology integration through the course facilitators enacting a critical digital
pedagogy that transitioned participants’ thinking and engagement while creating spaces for democratic participation in
the online space.
Creating a safe and empowering course environment
An important aspect of the course was to provide a safe environment for participants to develop trust with the
facilitators and each other. This was achieved in several ways. Firstly, facilitators acted in an authentic manner by
sharing their own experiences and vulnerabilities in the live sessions and online discussions. Facilitators were open
about the mistakes they made and where they could improve their design and facilitation skills. This encouraged
participants to feel safe enough to do the same.
Secondly, there were two introductory activities at the start of the course where participants and facilitators had to
introduce themselves (one of which was in video) and get to know others. Participants also needed to complete a pre-
course introductory survey about their skills and experiences and share some (limited) personal information about
themselves. An activity in Week 1 was designed for participants to reach out to another participant (not known before
the course) who shares some identified commonality. Participants received constructive feedback from facilitators for
virtually every activity, either through the live sessions, online discussions, or mentor-mentee interactions. While there
were structured weekly activities, some space was left in the course for additional topics that participants wanted to
explore.
During Weeks 3 and 4, as participants transitioned from being participants to co-facilitators in the course, they had to
jointly facilitate a discussion forum or live session where they selected the topic for discussion. This encouraged
participants to bring in their own perspectives and experiences, while practising their facilitation skills in a safe space.
227

Acting as mentors, facilitators support and motivate participants to succeed. Through reflection activities, participants
were encouraged to discuss how they were feeling and what they felt was working or not working well in the course.
Frameworks underpinning the Facilitating Online short course
The learning theories, frameworks and models that underpin the design and facilitation of the Facilitating Online course
are discussed in this section.
Critical digital pedagogy stance
A critical digital pedagogy stance was adopted throughout the course, as it exposes power differentials, inequalities
and dominance (Freire, 1972), even when the digital dimension is integrated into learning and teaching (Morris &
Stommel, 2018). In line with this approach, the focus was on identifying learning design principles and approaches that
could be used to support achievement of the desired outcomes of the course. . As the idea of enacting critical digital
pedagogy manifests through the facilitation of the course, we focus on the individual in the collective exchange of ideas
in participative groups (Stommel, 2014).This stance was due to a need for “intimate pedagogy” instead of automated
“embodiment”, as our belief is that critical digital pedagogy is a habitus at its nucleus (Pryal, 2010). This enactment was
further strengthened through normalising conversation and dialogue at the core, so that educational technology could
be integrated in a humanising way at the periphery.
Community of Inquiry framework
Many educators venture into teaching blended or online courses without a solid understanding of how learning in this
environment is different to traditional in-person learning. This impacts on the learning experiences of students in these
courses.
In the higher education sector, community is seen as essential to supporting discourse and collaborative learning
(Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). The Community of Inquiry framework emerged from the textual interactions within online
courses in higher education (Garrison et al., 2000). The aim of this framework is to design and facilitate a learning
environment that will support meaningful collaboration and purposeful inquiry. A community of inquiry involves
“questioning, reasoning, connecting, deliberating, challenging, and developing problem-solving techniques” (Lipman,
1991, as cited in Garrison et al., 2000, p. 91). The Community of Inquiry framework is based on socio-constructivist
approaches to learning in higher education (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Figure 1 provides an overview of the
framework.
Figure 1
Overview of the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison et al., 2000)
228

Cognitive presence is “the extent to which the participants in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry are
able to construct meaning through sustained communication” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89). It focuses on higher-order
thinking processes that occur across four phases: a triggering event, exploration, integration and resolution (Garrison et
al., 2001). An educational community occurs within a broader social-emotional environment. Social presence is “the
ability of participants in the Community of Inquiry to project their personal characteristics into the community, thereby
presenting themselves to the other participants as ’real people’” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89). Relevant cognitive and
social presence requires the presence of a teacher. Teaching presence consists of “the design of the educational
experience” and “the sharing of the facilitation function” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 90). The design of the educational
experience includes “the selection, organization, and primary presentation of course content, as well as the design and
development of learning activities and assessment” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 90). The role of the teacher is to facilitate
discourse and reflection by “presenting content, questions and proactively guiding and summarizing the discussion as
well as confirming understanding through various means of assessment and feedback” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 102).
Within online and blended learning, the Community of Inquiry framework has attracted the attention of many scholars
and practitioners (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). The framework has been used in different settings and scholars have
continued to test and enhance the framework (see Garrison et al., 2010; Stenbon, 2018). Over time, several authors have
suggested additional presences should be incorporated into the framework, including emotional and learning presence
(Kozan & Caskurlu, 2018).
The ethic of care perspective
In addition to the use of the Community of Inquiry framework in the course, we adopted an ethic of care perspective
which emphasised modelling and dialogue. Central to the ethic of care perspective is “listening, dialogue, critical
thinking, reflective response, and making thoughtful connections among the disciplines and to life itself” (Noddings,
2012, p. 771). In this context, a caring relationship exists between a teacher and a student, which involves a teacher
being attentive to the expressed needs of the student and, after listening and reflecting, requires a response that
229

maintains the caring relation. This caring relation underpins the work teachers do (Noddings, 2012). Noddings (1988)
proposes a model of moral education, consisting of: modelling, dialogue, practice and confirmation. Using this
approach, a teacher can model caring through a perspective that is broader than academic achievement. Teachers
model patterns of intellectual activity as well as patterns of interacting with others. Open dialogue ensures the
development of trust and maintaining caring relations. Practice in caring creates opportunities for students to practice
their learning in a safe space, to engage with other students (peer interactions and group work), support each other, and
reflect. Confirmation involves trust and continuity, to affirm students through knowing them and by encouraging
“responsible self-affirmation in their students” (Noddings, 1988, p. 222). The ethic care perspective emerged more
strongly globally as a response to the challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic (Bali, 2020; Karakaya, 2021).
Discussion
As this is a professional learning short course for academics, the distinction between facilitator and participant is a
small one. The distinction is further blurred during the course as participants are encouraged to take on more active
facilitation roles. The course is a work-in-progress. Through ongoing reviews that bring in different voices and critical
practice, the course is updated with each iteration, based on participant feedback through a course survey and a
facilitator focus group conducted after every iteration. This emphasises a redesign approach to learning design.
The course is guided by models and frameworks that highlight the importance of establishing digital learning
communities that promote collaboration and an openness to diverse voices. Using an ethic of care perspective ensures
that facilitators model the types of practices that they would like to see participants adopting. It also ensures
continuous dialogue between participants and facilitators in the synchronous and asynchronous activities. An ethic of
care perspective ensures that care is demonstrated in the course philosophy and design, and in how it is facilitated. It
can also be demonstrated by going beyond the professional interactions by caring at the personal level (Bali, 2020).
Facilitators are encouraged to show their vulnerabilities and share about themselves in an authentic manner to
encourage participants to feel safe enough to do the same. Aligned with a view that learning does not take place
without reflection (Loughran, 2002), the final activity in each week is a reflection activity. Participants are also required
to synthesise their reflections at the end of the course.
The course aims to support academics to transition from classroom to online learning environments. Participants are
also sensitised into the online course space through the use of Salmon’s (2004) five-stage model that scaffolds
structured activities and support in a new learning environment. This is underpinned by the establishment and
interconnection between the three presences of the Community of Inquiry framework: cognitive, social and teaching
presence (Garrison et al., 2000). This is done in a way that supports a holistic view of learning and teaching in higher
education. For example, fostering a sense of willingness to understand the people around you, knowing how to choose
appropriate technological tools and how to apply learning design principles. This goes beyond the focus of a specific
professional learning short course for academics, extending these learning design considerations and principles to
courses throughout the university.
The move to greater use of digital learning and teaching environments brings about the emergence of transitioned
identities and diverse voices. This includes the voices of the course designers, facilitators, participants and (indirectly)
students. From ongoing discussions with participants after course completion, many academics continue to question
their learning and teaching assumptions and practices, transitioning their identities from “being” to “becoming” (Barnett,
2009). The focus on encouraging diverse voices within the course sometimes results in challenges for facilitators, but
these are also opportunities for learning. For example, a previous participant with strong views severely disrupted a live
session. However, this incident forced the facilitators to look at the particular topic through a different lens and to
identify with the lived experiences and context of this participant. By adopting an ethic of care perspective, it became a
learning experience for both participants and facilitators.
Aligned to the Community of Inquiry framework, a key principle in the design and facilitation of this course is a strong
initial focus on creating a community, and then only focus on the learning. This requires the creation of safe spaces and
230

building trust to support learning once these aspects are in place. As part of this, the facilitators open up about their
own experiences and vulnerabilities, which in turn encourages participants to do the same, thus promoting a sense of
community and collaboration. In addition to the foregrounding of social presence, aspects of the cognitive and teaching
presences are also explored.
As many academics experienced during the rapid transition to emergency remote teaching and learning during the
COVID-19 pandemic, establishing social presence online could be challenging. While this may occur more naturally in
an in-person setting, it may not occur online without facilitators establishing the appropriate environment and support
mechanisms to enable participants to establish this presence. In previous iterations of the course, many participants
came in to complete the required activities without wanting to engage with other participants. Accordingly, the course
requires that facilitators highlight the importance of social presence in higher education and encourages the adoption
of principles of community building. One of the great joys associated with facilitating this course is seeing the
continuation of some of these connections once the course is complete as well as the development of new
communities of practice between participants and their own networks.
The intersection between theory and practice is complex. This chapter has highlighted just a few of the frameworks
available to support the design and facilitation of learning. Many academics rely on their own expertise and experience
in approaching learning design, but the use of models and frameworks can provide a theoretical grounding to design
and facilitation. These frameworks are also brought into discussions around their impact upon learning and teaching
practices. The use of theoretical aspects may not be appreciated if these do not manifest in practice. Perhaps there is
too little action or embodiment of changing practices taking place.
Recommendations
This section highlights several recommendations for learning design emanating from the discussion. Our central
recommendation is that learning design needs to be thought of holistically to include the facilitation of courses.
Considerations for how courses are facilitated are as important as how courses are conceptualised and designed. This
is something that academics do not often consider as their focus is often on course design. Enabling academics to
enhance their active and responsive facilitation skills can help to improve learning design generally.
Many academics moving into online and blended learning environments are unfamiliar with available theories and
frameworks. We recommend that academics and learning designers engage with the theories and frameworks
discussed in this chapter to ensure a solid theoretical basis. Additionally, there are other frameworks that can be
utilised for learning design that are beyond the scope of this chapter. These frameworks and models can be applied to
improve the design and facilitation of courses in higher education. We recommend that an activist stance be enacted to
use theory to guide practice, to foreground the practicality to make sense of the theories so we meet the needs of our
students.
Aligned with the elements of the Community of Inquiry framework, we recommend an intentional focus on the
formation of learning communities to create safe spaces and build trust among participants. This can be supported by
facilitators sharing their experiences and vulnerabilities, and in so doing encouraging participants to do the same. It
also requires facilitators to get to know their participants. Once these social presence elements are in place, there are
supports for learning to take place.
The adoption and promotion of OER support the incorporation of resources and ideas created in different contexts and
the incorporation of different voices. By adapting an OER created at another South African university, the practices of
openness and sharing are encouraged across higher education institutions. In order to promote contextually
appropriate good learning design and facilitation practices, we further recommend the adoption of open education
practices and a focus on reflective practices.
231

Conclusion
Within a South African higher education context, we have shared our voices as learning designers and facilitators who
provide learning and teaching support to academics. This chapter has shared how particular models or frameworks can
be used to influence the design and facilitation of online and blended courses. The adoption of the Community of
Inquiry framework, an ethic of care perspective and a critical digital pedagogy stance can inform learning design and
facilitation processes that promote collaboration and community. In particular, the adoption of the ethic of care
perspective required us to be responsive to participant needs and their contexts, by, for example, paying attention to
their workloads and identities. The adoption of the Community of Inquiry model enabled us to first establish social
presence that then empowered learning to take place. To promote community and collaboration, we believe that the
social aspect needs to be emphasised in online and blended learning spaces. We have argued that learning design
needs to be considered holistically, which includes how courses are facilitated. This is an area upon which future
research can expand. We have illustrated these principles through an example of the design and facilitation of a specific
professional learning short course for academics. Adapted from an OER, this online facilitation short course for
academics encourages a transition in thinking and learning and teaching practices. We have further argued for greater
adoption of open education practices to support learning design in higher education that encourages adaptation for
local needs. Finally, the chapter has affirmed that learning design is not static; it needs to be flexible to the contexts of
students and requires a continuous focus on (re)design.
232

References
Armellini, A., & Aiyegbayo, O. (2010). Learning design and assessment with e‐tivities.
British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41
(6), 922–935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01013.x
Bali, M. (2020).
Pedagogy of care: Covid-19 edition
. Reflecting Allowed. https://blog.mahabali.me/educational-
technology-2/pedagogy-of-care-covid-19-edition
Barnett, R. (2009). Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum.
Studies in Higher Education, 34
(4), 429–
440. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902771978
Carr, T., Jaffer, S., & Smuts, J. (2009).
Facilitating online: A course leader’s guide
. University of Cape
Town.http://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/7495
Conole, G., & Brown, M. (2018). Reflecting on the impact of the open education movement.
Journal of Learning for
Development, 5
(3), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v5i3.314
Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education.
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
,
18
(5), 15–34.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096
Freire, P. (1972).
Pedagogy of the oppressed
. Penguin.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in
higher education.
Internet and Higher Education, 2
(2-3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-
6
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
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and
social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework.
Internet and Higher Education,
13
(1-2), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
Heleta, S. (2016). Decolonisation of higher education: Dismantling epistemic violence and Eurocentrism in South Africa.
Transformation in Higher Education 1
(1), 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/the.v1i1
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In J. M. Spector, D. M. Merrill, J. Elen, &
M. J. Bishop (Eds.),
Handbook of research on educational communications and technology
(pp. 401–412).
Springer.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020).
The difference between emergency remote teaching and
online learning
. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-
remote-teaching-and-online-learning
Karakaya, K. (2021). Design considerations in emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: A human-
centered approach.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 69
, 295–299.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09884-0
233

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009).
What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9
(1),
60–70.
Kozan, K., & Caskurlu, S. (2018). On the nth presence for the Community of Inquiry framework.
Computers & Education,
122
, 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.010
Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching.
Journal of Teacher
Education, 53
(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001004
Mallinson, B., & Krull, G. (2015). An OER online course remixing experience.
Open Praxis, 7
(3), 263–271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.3.195
Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2018).
An urgency of teachers: The work of critical digital pedagogy
. Hybrid Pedagogy.
National Research Foundation. (2015).
Statement on Open Access to Research Publications from the National
Research Foundation (NRF)-Funded Research
. https://www.nrf.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NRF-Open-
Access-Statement.pdf
Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements.
American Journal of
Education
,
96
(2), 215–230.https://doi.org/10.1086/443894
Noddings, N. (2012). The caring relation in teaching.
Oxford Review of Education, 38
(6), 771–781.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.745047
Pryal, K. R. G. (2010). Intimate pedagogy: The practice of embodiment in university classrooms.
Assuming Gender
,
1
(2),
62–77.https://ssrn.com/abstract=1754015
Salmon, G. (2004).
E-moderating: The key to online teaching and learning
. Routledge.
Stenbon, S. (2018). A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry survey.
Internet and Higher Education
,
39
, 22–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.06.001
Stommel, J. (2014).
Critical digital pedagogy: A definition
. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/critical-digital-
pedagogy-definition
University of the Witwatersrand. (2019).
Wits learning and teaching plan: 2020-2024
.
https://www.wits.ac.za/media/wits-university/learning-and-
teaching/documents/Wits%20Learning%20and%20Teaching%20Plan%202020-2024.pdf
Veletsianos, G. (2015). A case study of scholars’ open and sharing practices.
Open Praxis, 7
(3), 199–209.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.3.206
234

This content is provided to you freely by EdTech Books.
Access it online or download it at https://edtechbooks.org/ldvoices/community_and_collaboration.
235

236