Synchromodal Learning Environments. EdMedia 2013

451 views
333 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
451
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
168
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Time / Model / Integration / ConsistencySync / F2F / Int / ConsistAsync / Online / Int / ConsistSync-F2F/Async-On / Int / AlterSync / Multi-Situated / Int / Consist or Alt
  • Synchromodal Learning Environments. EdMedia 2013

    1. 1. Technology Navigators, Small Groups, and Personal Portals in Synchromodal Classes John Bell  William Cain  Sandra Sawaya College of Education June 25, 2013
    2. 2. Our Context  Ph.D. in Ed Psych & Ed Tech edtechphd.com/edpsychphd.com – Face-to-Face (F2F) and Hybrid  Provide access to mid-career people  Challenges – Two groups integrated — a challenge and a strength – Practice what we preach  CEPSE/COE Design Studio – Do what we’re doing … better – Learn from what we’re doing – Doctoral students as central contributors • William Cain, Sandra Sawaya, Charlie Belinsky
    3. 3. Our Big Idea Leading with a solution rather than a problem only succeeds by chance • What primary problem are you trying to solve? – E.g., Learning, access, productivity, constraint, dema nd, … • Our primary problem: – Increased access with undiminished effect without (significantly) increased faculty load
    4. 4. Hybrid Courses • Using both face-to-face and online interactions for “contact hours” of a class – So a “hybrid” course is not … • an online project for a face-to-face course • a face-to-face meeting for an online course – A “hybrid” course is… • Sometimes “meeting” online instead of face-to-face
    5. 5. Two Types of Hybrid Courses • Alternating Modes – Face-to-face and online for same course – E.g. • Week 1 F2F, Week 2 online, Week 3 F2F, … • Flipped classrooms: lectures online, work f2f • Synchromodal – Integrating face-to-face and online learners as comparable partners in the same learning experience
    6. 6. Learning Environment Models 1.0 2.0 1/2 3.0 Model Time Face-to-Face Synchronous Online Asynchronous “Blended” Face-to-Face+Online Synchronous * These models are (largely) pedagogically neutral. Consistency Uniform Uniform Alternating Uniform
    7. 7. Major Learning Topographies * Face-to-Face * • Lecture: hub & spokes / monarchy – hierarchical structure with the predominant direction being outward • Large group: player/coach – instructor guides whole class interaction in a relatively flat structure • Small group: federal system – student led groups with instructor as periodic guide
    8. 8. Major Learning Topographies * Online * • Topographies can be essentially unchanged from face-to-face • Generally asynchronous • MOOCs – Initially Lecture topography – Increasingly combined with Small group
    9. 9. Major Learning Topographies * Synchromodal * • Lecture & small group can be essentially unchanged
    10. 10. Major Learning Topographies * Synchromodal * • Linked Classrooms
    11. 11. Major Learning Topographies * Synchromodal * • Shared Portal
    12. 12. Introducing the Role of Technology Navigator
    13. 13. Increased Challenges of Synchromodal Classes 1) Two-tiered learning experience – Online learners… • Feel the need for permission to contribute • Tend more toward being a consumer than a contributor – In the mind of instructor, f2f, and online students – Surprise: sometimes online got greater attention • Our Goal – Comparable value rather than identical experience
    14. 14. Increased Challenges of Synchromodal Classes 2) Increased technical challenges – New technologies to learn – New technologies that might fail – Bring change to class dynamics – Need new/adjusted pedagogical strategies – Some dependent, and some not
    15. 15. Types of Instructor Support • Before teaching – Hand-off work (e.g., producer) – Integrated design team (see Koehler, et al.)  Tech Nav (the latter) • While teaching – Technology support: technical tasks – Teaching Assistant: pedagogical tasks  Tech Nav (combined)
    16. 16. Tech Nav: Defined • “a graduate student whose responsibility it is to facilitate the interactions among instructor(s) and students in a synchromodal course”
    17. 17. Tech Nav: Responsibilities • Before the course – Brainstorm, experiment, set up, … • During the course – Take primary responsibility for technical operation • PolyCom, GoToMeeting, Skype, Google Hangouts, WordPress, EtherPad, … • Individually and collectively – Monitor and facilitate inclusion of both populations • What do they see & hear? • What are the class dynamics?
    18. 18. Tech Nav: Benefits • For the instructor – Concentrate on teaching rather than juggling and trouble shooting • For the Tech Nav – Dialogue with faculty at the intersection of technology, pedagogy, and content – Authentic engagement in design for learning – Experience in a growing area of teaching & learning
    19. 19. Tech Nav: Future Directions • Exploration of Synchromodal Classes • Increased accessibility of Tech Nav – Clarify/formalize roles & responsibilities – Define & develop means for preparation needed for this work
    20. 20. Technology Navigator: Background • Synchromodal set-ups… – are bundles of technologies – require extensive preparation – use technology in real-time – are rarely “fixed”
    21. 21. Technology Navigator The Challenge • Synchromodal set-ups are bundles of technologies that encompass: – Hardware (laptops, desktops, mobile devices, cameras, microphones, speakers, monitors, etc.) – Software (video conferencing platforms, OS, browsers, user accounts, synching system preferences, etc.)
    22. 22. Technology Navigator The Solution • Tech Navs are experienced in selecting and assembling the different bundles – Each bundle can be different, depending on pedagogy, student composition, location parameters, etc. – The tech nav takes these into account, and keeps track of the necessary equipment
    23. 23. Technology Navigator The Challenge • Synchromodal set-ups require extensive preparation: – Deciding which tech configuration best matches pedagogical strategies – Setting up the technology bundles before each class – Contacting participants with tech details
    24. 24. Technology Navigator The Solution • Tech Navs devote time prior to class sessions to focus on technology/user performance issues – Consult with instructors on the course design – Activate and test technology before each class – Contact students with tech details prior to first class contact (login info, downloads, audio and video preferences)
    25. 25. Technology Navigator The Challenge • Synchromodal set-ups use technology in real-time: – Set-up requires monitoring (user experience, technology failure with one / multiple systems, etc.) – Troubleshooting must occur in real-time • Solving tech failures • Assisting participants – Failures can be felt by one, several, or all participants – It can be hard to know when they are happening!
    26. 26. Technology Navigator The Solution • Maintain a presence in both online and face-to-face modes • Field and respond to user feedback (advocacy for online participants) • Troubleshoot in real-time without interrupting the instructor • Provide multiple back-up communication solutions (e.g., phone, alternate video conferencing)
    27. 27. Technology Navigator The Challenge • Synchromodal set-ups are always changing: – Set-ups usually require fine-tuning and adjustments to technology and environmental configurations – New approaches and uses of technology can emerge and require adjustments
    28. 28. Technology Navigator The Solution • Have knowledge of the course, the pedagogy, and the technology – Have technological knowledge that inform how tech aspects can be refined • Are embedded in the class environment – Directly observe and take notes on design performance – Help gather data for research
    29. 29. Major Learning Topographies * Synchromodal * • Personal Portal
    30. 30. Evolution of the Enhanced Personal Portal Model • Phase 1: Shared Portal Model • Phase 2: Personal Portal Model • Phase 3: Enhanced Personal Portal Model 1. Techniques/Courseware: How the tech was set up 2. Issues: Problems that arose 3. Solutions: How we addresses the problems
    31. 31. Phase 1: Shared Portal Model • Techniques/Courseware 1 3 2 1. Balcony– GoToMeeting on Mac Mini + SMART board + webcam on top 2. Audio input/output – Chat160 speakerphone 3. Instructor station – laptop connected to Sony SMART TV
    32. 32. GTM Online Student-View 1 2 3 1. Bird’s eye view of entire class 2. Online students can see one another 3. Instructor screen (in this case PPT presentation)
    33. 33. Phase 1: Shared Portal Model • Issues – Seclusion of the balcony area • Online students did not feel like an immediate part of the class – Single audio and video output • Online students shared one audio output • Solution – Development of the personal portal model
    34. 34. Phase 2: Personal Portal Model • Techniques/Courseware INSERT PICTURE 1 1. iPad/node chair combo – Skype video call
    35. 35. Phase 2: Personal Portal Model • Issues – Limited instructor presentation visibility • Online students could not directly or clearly see the instructor’s presentation – Limited student visibility • Online students could not see (a) other online students and (b) face-to-face advocate – Online student dependence • Online students completely dependent on face-to-face advocate to orchestrate their classroom experience • Solution – Development of the enhanced personal portal model
    36. 36. Phase 3: Enhanced Personal Portal Model • Techniques/Courseware 1 2 1. Balcony– GoToMeeting on Mac Mini + SMART board + webcam on top 2. iPad/node chair combo – Skype video call
    37. 37. Lessons Learned • Student Advocacy – Importance of pairing up online and hybrid students • Backup Plan – Two concurrent, always-on methods of joining class – If one way of participating in class fails, online students switch to alternative • Multitude of Devices – Successful implementation of SmLE models contingent on students’ willingness to operate two computing devices
    38. 38. Future Plans • • • • More hybrid learning classrooms Asus Taichi™ double-sided display laptop Google Glass Perpetual experimentation with different models
    39. 39. From the instructor’s chair
    40. 40. Instructor Feedback • Integration of remote and face-to-face students was “near seamless” • Using iPads on chairs allowed “the remote students [to] participate more like they were physically in the room with the face-to-face students…. The remote students more comfortably joined the face-to-face conversation as if they were physically in the ‘real’ classroom.”
    41. 41. Instructor Feedback • Key test for seminar: interruption – Without personal portals, online students would qualify their comments with statements like, “If it's okay to speak, I'd like to add that…” – With personal portals, online students “could pick right up when someone else stopped saying something, or even to overlap their seminar conversation when making an argument that called for grabbing the discussion floor.”
    42. 42. Overall Framework
    43. 43. Conclusion Synchromodal: F2F+Online in same experience Exciting potential Personal Portal Model: Virtual individual presence Close approximation of seminar feel Personal Portal Enhanced: Add global view Mimic human ability for scale Tech Nav: Support synchromodal technology and teaching Always learning

    ×