1. Moving Toward Pedagogical
Change: Faculty, Teaching with
Technology and Leadership
COHERE 2012 Calgary
Dr. M. Cleveland-Innes
Athabasca University
1

2. The argument
“All the teaching development and technology training possible
will not yield the teaching change required in the 21st century,
even for the most motivated, until the context changes, such
that teaching is a central focus, rewarded and supported in
ways that it has not in the past .” SSHRC proposal 2011
COHERE 2012 Calgary
2

3. Pedagogical Development
Embedded
material
COHERE 2012 Calgary
Learning theory +
Technology
X Factor
3

4. Pedagogical Development
1. Plan for the creation of open communication and trust
2. Plan for critical reflection and discourse
3. Establish community and cohesion
COHERE 2012 Calgary
4. Establish inquiry dynamics (purposeful inquiry)
5. Sustain respect and responsibility
6. Sustain inquiry that moves to resolution
7. Ensure assessment is congruent with intended processes
and outcomes
4

5. Post-industrial
Characteristicseducation, and its role in society.
• understaning of the purpose of
Education is fundamentally characterized by a quest for improving
the human condition. It is to overcome social and economic
challenges, resolve inequities, promote societal power and prowess
and allow for individual development.
Schofield, 1999
• ….. the newly emerging society requires an education system that
COHERE 2012 Calgary
takes advantage of the democratization and contestation of
knowledge and promotes technological and cross-cultural
citizenship.
Bloland, 2006
• a network of interacting individuals and partnerships
• flexibility, boundary openness
• dispersed complexity, variability
• concerted, collaborative action through relationships
• central support 5
• Adapted from Bennett, 2002

6. Post-industrial Structures
In 2020, higher education will not be much different from the way it is today.
While people will be accessing more resources in classrooms through the use
of large screens, teleconferencing, and personal wireless smart devices, most
universities will mostly require in-person, on-campus attendance of students
most of the time at courses featuring a lot of traditional lectures. Most
universities’ assessment of learning and their requirements for graduation will
be about the same as they are now.
COHERE 2012 Calgary
OR
By 2020, higher education will be quite different from the way it is today.
There will be mass adoption of teleconferencing and distance learning to
leverage expert resources. Significant numbers of learning activities will move
to individualized, just-in-time learning approaches. There will be a transition to
“hybrid” classes that combine online learning components with less-frequent
on-campus, in-person class meetings. Most universities’ assessment of
learning will take into account more individually-oriented outcomes and
capacities that are relevant to subject mastery. Requirements for graduation 6
will be significantly shifted to customized outcomes.

7. Leadership Strategy
COHERE 2012 Calgary
7

8. Leadership Strategy
……an entrepreneurial culture is emerging in
education, and that multiple leadership strategies
are required to embed this new culture and make
the resulting changes to organizational structures
and processes. This context is critical to our
COHERE 2012 Calgary
considerations of leadership in education, made
even more interesting by changing technology and
other societal changes.
Latchem, C., & Hanna, D. E. (2001). Leadership in open and flexible learning. In C. Latchem & D. E. Hanna (Eds.),
Leadership for 21st century learning: Global perspectives from educational innovators (pp. 53-62). Oxon, UK: Routledge
8

9. Leadership Strategy
(The higher education leader) All those involved in education of
the 21st century will exhibit strong character, well-developed
personal skills and the ability to create and communicate vision
(Garrison & Vaughan 2008). In addition to these personal traits,
(this new leader) these people will be willing and able to 1.
COHERE 2012 Calgary
manage change and innovation 2. listen to and assist
stakeholders, maintaining and enhancing relationships between
the institution and relevant partners, 3. embrace the realities of
network environments and 4. ensure transformation to a new
model of teaching and learning. (Cleveland-Innes & Sangra,
2011).
9

10. Leadership Strategy
To what extent is the transition to blended
and online learning in higher education,
where is does or could occur, following
leadership models for 21st century post-
COHERE 2012 Calgary
industrial society?
10

11. Uncovering the dark spots

12. Some interesting references
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand: Online
Education in the United States. Newburyport, MA: The Sloan
Consortium.
Atkinson, M.P. (2001). The scholarship of teaching and learning:
Congress 2011 CSSHE
Reconceptualizing scholarship and transforming the academy.
Social Forces 79(4), 1217-1229
Blau, J.R. & Goodman, N., eds. (1995). Social roles & social
institutions. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Cleveland-Innes, M. & Garrison, D. R. (2010). An introduction to
12
distance education: Understanding teaching and learning in a
new era. New York: Routledge.

13. Cleveland-Innes, M. & Garrison, D.R. (2009). The role of learner
in an online community of inquiry: Instructor support for first
time online learners. In N. Karacapilidis (Ed.), Solutions and
innovations in web-based technologies for augmented learning:
Improved platforms, tools and applications. p. 167-184. Hershey,
PA, USA: IGI Global.
Cleveland-Innes, M., Sangra-Morer, A., & Garrison, R. (October,
Congress 2011 CSSHE
2008). The art of teaching in an online community of inquiry: The
online teacher as bricoleur. Paper presented at 5th European
Distance Education Network Research Workshop, Paris, France.
Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2009). Frequency and types of
instructor-interactions in online instruction. Journal of
Interactive Online Learning 8(1). Retrieved September 28, 2010
from www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/8.1.2.pdf 13

14. Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty
productivity: Implications for institutional policy and decision
making. The Journal of Higher Education 73(1). Retrieved
September 23, 2010 from
http://202.198.141.77/upload/soft/0000/73.1fairweather02%5
B1%5D.pdf
Gudea, S.R. (2008). Expectations and demands in online
Congress 2011 CSSHE
teaching: Practical experiences. USA: IGI Publishing.
Kanwar, M. & Swenson, D. (2000). Canadian Sociology. Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Kendall, D., Murray, J., & Linden, R. Sociology in our times. (2nd
ed.). Ontario: Canadian Cataloguing in Publication
14

15. Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design. An interactive
approach, 2nd edition. New York: Sage Publications.
Rhoades, G. (2006). The higher education we choose: A question
of balance. The Review of Higher Education 29(3), 381-404.
Retrieved August 25, 2010, from Project MUSE database.
Rhoades, G. & Maitland, C. (2004). Bargaining Workload and
Workforce on the High Tech Campus. The NEA 2004 Almanac of
Congress 2011 CSSHE
Higher Education (pp.75-81). Retrieved from
http://www.nea.org/assets/img/PubAlmanac/ALM_04_06.pdf
Tomei, L. (2004). The impact of online teaching on faculty load:
Computing the ideal class size for online courses. International
Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning 1(1).
Retrieved from
15
http://www.itdl.org/journal/Jan_04/article04.htm

16. Yick, A., Patrick, P., & Costin, A. (2005). Navigating distance and
traditional higher education: Online faculty experiences. The
International Review Of Research In Open And Distance
Learning, 6(2). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/235
Congress 2011 CSSHE
16

17. THANK YOU
I would like to acknowledge the support of the Academic Research
Committee at Athabasca University in the form of a Mission Critical
Research Grant and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council for their support of this research.