Global IDD
Creating a Practically Negotiated Learning Environment
Design Document
Project Website: http://ldtglobal.coe.uga.edu
Xigui Yang, Elliot Kim, Jeonghun Oh
Enid Turong, Patricia Thomas
April 25, 2018
Acknowledgements
It has been a great experience for us working on the Global IDD project this semester. First and foremost, we would like to thank Dr. Janette R. Hill and Dr. Ikseon Choi for providing this great learning opportunity as well as their support and guidance along the way. We also truly appreciate the peer feedback received from other participants in EDIT 6210, which is beneficial for us to refine the project both in course implementation and in the development of the prototypes. Meanwhile, we have learnt a lot from the course of EDIT 6170, taught by Dr. Robert Branch, about how to practice instructional design and how to prepare this design document. We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Branch and his students for participating in the pilot study. Without their understanding, cooperation, support and honest feedback, this project would not have been successful. Last but not least, thanks also go to the OIT staff at the College of Education, especially Jeff Reiter. They have offered great help and remarkable resources for us and we have learnt tremendously about the technological tools necessary for the hybrid learning environment.
Executive Summary
Students increasingly need ways to attend class in ways that are convenient and meet the demands of 21st century life. Students also need ways to make connections and to engage that will foster their learning within a given course, as well as enable them to create global professional networks to sustain their careers. The challenges of meeting learning needs become even greater when students are in multiple physical locations and time zones around the globe.
The Global IDD project endeavours to create a practically negotiated learning environment to satisfy students’ diverse logistical needs, affective needs and cognitive need. In a commitment to meet the needs of all of our graduate students, we piloted a flexibly accessible delivery strategy in the spring of 2018 in two graduate courses of LDT, with innovative use of various technological tools to combine 3 modes of learning together, i.e. face to face on site, synchronously online, and asynchronously online.
The practically negotiated learning environment (PNLE) is grounded in a pragmatic constructivist learning-centered design of a community of inquiry. It strives to accommodate various pedagogical strategies and learning activities, offering high level of flexibility to all participants of the learning community, including the students and the instructors or facilitators. It allows the students to choose any of the three modalities from week to week to meet their busy daily schedule. It allows instructors to explore different ways to facilitate the course to create equitable learning experiences. The design of PNLE is based on four major principles: flexibly accessible, flattening hierarchy, participation and presence, and ongoing and dynamic interactions.
Key Design Principles of PNLE
In the pilot implementation, this innovative instructional design practice was adopted in two graduate courses, EDIT 6170 and EDIT 6210, using web conferencing tools, desktop recording tools, multi cameras, multi screen displays, and mic-speaker system. Instructors and students joined together once a week for face-to-face and synchronous interactions, which were recorded and immediately uploaded for the asynchronous students. Various technologies were used to enable the interactions in real and delayed time.
Formative evaluation shows that students generally have a positive learning experience in both classes. They are satisfied with the use of Zoom as the major tool, and the visual and audio quality provided by the cameras and mic-speakers are satisfactory. Recordings of the class meeting are essentially helpful to asynchronous students. The flexibility of attendance mode is highly appreciated. In general, face-to-face onsite students feel more satisfied than remote students. There were some audio issues at the first few weeks, but it was getting better towards the end of the courses.
Interviews with instructors reveal that students’ performances are comparable with previous classes where only one mode of learning was involved. Dr. Choi even said this was the best class he had ever had and he was especially impressed by online students’ high level of commitment and expertise.
Challenges, however, still lies in how to organize small group breakout sessions in class more efficient and effective, how to include asynchronous online students in the dynamic interaction, and how to manage the cognitive overload experienced by instructors. These could be the directions for future research.
Introduction
Learning, Design, and Technology (LDT) faculty at the University of Georgia (UGA) are known for being “front runners,” adopting “cutting-edge” and innovative approaches to teaching and learning. For example, UGA LDT is well known among LDT programs for “The Studio” approach developed 15 years ago. In hopes to continue the legacy of innovative learning approaches, there have been discussions amongst the faculty in terms of what the next innovation should be with the IDD program. The inspiration for this instructional project is originated from this innovative tradition in this program and the extensive research of Dr. Janette R. Hill on online teaching and learning and negotiated learning environments.
Our Client
Our client is Dr. Janette R. Hill, a professor of Learning, Design, and Technology at the University of Georgia. She is also the IDD program coordinator. Her major research interest concerns online learning environment. She has not only done extensive research on the design and development of web-based learning environments for students from kindergarten through higher education, but also involved in educational research in various fields such as medical schools.
Our Team
Elliot Kim, Xigui Yang, and Jeonghun Oh had participated in the preparation and testing of this pilot study months before the Spring semester began and continue to work on the project while taking the course EDIT 6210. Enid Truong and Pat Thomas joined the team to fulfill the course work for EDIT 6210. Elliot and Xigui are also taking the other course EDIT 6170 involved in the project. They set up the technological tools and classroom arrangement for both courses each week. Elliot takes the major responsibility of recording and monitoring the cameras and mic/speakers during the class. Pat is the only IDD (synchronous online) student in our team, providing her particular perspective about the project; all of the others are face-to-face LDT students.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xigui Yang Project Manager & Evaluator |
Elliot Kim Instructional Designer & Developer |
Enid Truong Graphic Designer & Instructional Designer |
Pat Thomas Instructional Designer & Evaluator |
Jeonghun Oh Web Designer & Coordinator |
Purpose
The purpose of this project is to create a practically negotiated learning environment current innovative technologies and strategies to provide a flexibly accessible course delivery. Flexibly accessible means that students can attend in one of three modes: face-to-face, synchronous, and asynchronous. Further, students can change how they chose to interact within the course week to week, thus meeting real-time needs and demands of everyday life.
Target Audience
The target audience for our end product will mainly be instructors who may be interested in the learning environment that is developed, tested, and presented in this project. The secondary target audience would be the students who will be involved in this particular learning environment, majorly students enrolled in the IDD program.
LDT/IDD Faculty
LDT/IDD Faculty are experts in their field, with:
- Varying content
- Varying styles/philosophies of teaching
- Varying levels of comfort with different technologies
- Varying preferences for different technologies
Faculty’s concerns:
- Can my class activities work in this Learning Environment (LE)?
- How much compromise do I have to make to my teaching style?
- How will my TA know what to do?
- Will the students’ experiences be the same? better? worse?
- Will the learning outcomes be the same? better? worse?
- What other activities that I haven’t tried are possible in this LE?
- How do I start testing this LE?
- What have others done, and what does it look like?
IDD Students
Students range from novice to expert in various knowledge/skills, with:
- Varying preferences for modes of learning
- Varying life/work constraints
- Varying language abilities
- Varying technology constraints
- Varying levels of comfort with different technologies
- Varying preferences for different technologies
- Technological Needs
Goals and Objectives
This is a pilot study of a grand research project, the ultimate goal of which is to elicit innovation in the whole IDD program to create the PNLE we are trying to promote. The implementation of the pilot test is to prove the feasibility of this hybrid course delivery format and hopefully to have LDT/IDD faculty and students comfortably on board to try out this new delivery method, which is the short-term goal.
Scope
Pilot study of the project is implemented in two graduate courses in Spring 2018 and will produce:
- Design document
- Resources for one-hour workshop for instructors, including an instructor’s handbook
- Resources of 20-minute orientation for students, including a student manual
- Manuscript
Project Management
Project Overview
Project Timeline
|
Time Frame |
Expected Progress |
|
Jan 10-17 |
Project introduction, team member selection |
|
Jan 18-24 |
Client meeting, instructor consulting |
|
Jan 25-31 |
Research design, evaluation plan |
|
Feb 1-7 |
Website design, logo design, student manual storyboard |
|
Feb 8-14 |
Preliminary survey, data analysis, AECT proposal |
|
Feb 15-21 |
Instructor manual structure, first prototype presentation |
|
Feb 22-28 |
Group reflection, literature review |
|
Mar 1-7 |
Case studies, minimally required technology testing |
|
Mar 8-14 |
Mid-term survey, data analysis |
|
Mar 15-21 |
Graphic design, 2nd prototype presentation |
|
Mar 22-28 |
CIS poster, Group reflection |
|
Mar 29- April 4 |
Literature review |
|
April 5-11 |
Literature review presentation |
|
April 12-18 |
Instructor manual, 3rd prototype presentation, fiinal evaluation |
|
April 18-25 |
Instructor interview, data analysis, design document, website update |
|
April 26-May 2 |
Group reflection |
Project Hour Log Analysis
[insert table of hours worked, categories of work]
Conceptual Framework
Introduction
Wilson (1996) gave a constructivist definition of learning environment: “a place learners may work together and support each other as they use a variety of tools and information resources in their guided pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving activities” (p. 5), but he also recognized its intrincial complexity because it “cannot be prepackaged and defined” (p. 5). There are diverse learning environments such as open-ended learning environments, cognitive apprenticeships, constructivist learning environments, microworlds, goal-based scenarios, anchored instruction, social mediated communication, etc. (Jonassen & Land, 2012).
Each type of the above-mentioned learning environment has its own characteristics to accommodate learning needs. For example, constructivist learning environments (CLEs), which are defined as learning spaces in which students “explore, experiment, construct, converse and reflect on what they are doing so that they learn from their experiences” (Jonassen, Peck & Wilson, 1999, p. 194), accommodate instructional values such as authentic learning, learner-centered activities, students’ own knowledge construction, and active learning (Jonassen, 2013).
Online learning
In terms of delivery mode, principles of these learning environments can apply to both face-to-face and online deliveries, probably with different strengths and challenges. In a digital era, however, there is a need for more flexible methods of delivery to meet the needs of a more diverse learner population (Bates, 2015). Students increasingly need ways to attend class in ways that are convenient and meet the demands of 21st century life (logistic needs), and ways to make connections and engagement that fosters learning within a given course and to create global professional networks to sustain their careers (affective and cognitive needs). On the surface level, online learning, whether synchronous or asynchronous, has made the first step to meet the students’ logistic needs for flexibility; however, the choice and determination of delivery mode is still at the hands of the institution and instructors (Irvine, Code & Richards, 2013).
In recent years, there are some programs or courses attempting innovative means to delivery face-to-face and synchronous instruction in real time simultaneously (Bower et al., 2015), bringing two groups of learners divided by geographies, time zones and contexts into the same connected learning space (Henriksen, Mishra, Greenhow, Gein & Roseth, 2014). Nevertheless, none of them aspire to accommodate three modes of learning, i.e. face to face on site, synchronous online and asynchronous online, at the same time.
Students’ needs
Logistic needs
As mentioned above, nontraditional students need more flexible ways to attend class to meet the demands of their busy daily schedule, yet they still desire a comparable learning experience no matter what learning mode they choose. Web conferencing tools and advanced recording tools allow students freedom to decide when, where and how they take courses on a weekly basis, especially for synchronous and asynchronous online students. The flexibility is beneficial to face-to-face students as well when they are unable to attend a class onsite: They have more alternatives and need not worry about missing something in class. (more citations here?)
Affective needs
According to Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000), there are three basic human psychological needs, namely autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy refers to the “internal perceived locus of causality” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 58) or a sense of agency and self-determination, which are highly related to intrinsic motivation. Competence refers to the self-efficacy to understand and have the relevant skills to succeed, and it enhances the intrinsic motivation accompanied by a sense of autonomy. Relatedness refers to a sense of belongingness and connectedness to the persons, group, or culture disseminating a goal, which majorly deals with extrinsic motivation. SDT maintains that social, cultural, and contextual conditions that facilitate people’s perception of autonomy, competence, and relatedness can foster the most volitional and high quality forms of motivation and engagement for activities, including enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In educational contexts, satisfaction of students’ diverse affective needs are essential to students’ performance and overall well-being.
Butz, Stupnisky, Peterson and Majerus (2014) reported students’ satisfaction and motivation were fostered in a synchronous hybrid graduate program. They found significant correlation between affective needs satisfaction and motivation for both online and on-campus students, and there were few significant differences between the two unique groups in terms of need satisfaction, motivation, and perceived success. It implies that synchronous hybrid learning environments may be able to provide a more equitable approach to online education (Butz et al., 2014).
Cognitive needs
Students have a wide variety of learning styles. Students’ various learning styles are influenced by their cognitive and affective traits. To satisfy the varying cognitive needs of the students, we propose learning-centered approach as opposed to learner- or student-centered. Learning-centered leaves room for the negotiated learning environment. Students are encouraged with greater and greater autonomy, but in a position of autonomy students have the freedom to request more direction and scaffold. Learner- or Teacher-centered distinctions maintain a fixed view of designing learning environments that may be impractical and inflexible for the varied needs of a learning community.
Meeting students’ needs
In order to satisfy students’ diverse needs, our project takes a further step to to combine the three delivery modes in one course. It will afford a higher level of flexibility, which means students have the freedom to choose any of the three attendance modes from week to week. It strives to ensure all students have comparable learning experiences regardless of location or attendance mode (Cain, Bell & Cheng, 2016) through interaction and connection with participants in the learning community. As we have observed, however, challenges of creating a flexibly accessible learning environment lie in the design and implementation of both pedagogical strategies and technological systems that enact those comparable learning experiences (Cain, Bell & Cheng, 2016).
Therefore, the purpose of this project lies in designing a flexibly accessible learning environment to address learners’ logistic, cognitive and affective needs, taking into consideration pedagogical and technological practicality as a way of filtering and delivering student needs so as not to try and meet all needs, but a negotiated balance where needs are met flexibly throughout the course of learning. This negotiated balance requires a learning environment and community that is conducive to meeting the various student needs in practical ways.
Our proposal
We propose a framework that draws from Janette Hill’s (2013, 2017) negotiated learning environment and the Community of Inquiry conceptualization of social, teaching, and cognitive presence (citation) as the basis of a practically negotiated learning environment (PNLE); furthermore, although constructivism is an underlying theoretical/philosophical frame of a PNLE, we believe that “constructivism” is too vague a term, and instead will argue that pragmatic constructivism is the more relevant frames a practically negotiated learning environment.
Negotiated learning environments
Different types of learning environment have their own pursuing values and practical suggestions to realize the values. For example, to implement CLEs, the following methods are suggested:
(1) select interesting, ill-defined, and authentic problems for learning.
(2) provide related cases or worked examples to enable case-based reasoning and enhance cognitive flexibility.
(3) provide learner-selectable information just-in-time.
(4) provide cognitive tools that scaffold required skills.
(5) provide conversation and collaborative tools to support knowledge building communities.
(6) provide social/contextual support. (Jonassen, 2013, p. 216)
However, it is not always possible to incorporate all the methods into a learning environment. Sometimes it is necessary to incorporate more traditional instructional methods such as direct instructions into a learning environment.
Negotiated learning environments (NLE) allow the balance of individual and external priorities that affect learning (Hill et al., 2013). A hybrid of informal and directed learning environments, NLEs typically have an underlying constructivist philosophy and epistemology, owing to the promotion of learner autonomy but in a more formal context (Hill et al., 2013). The figure below distinguishes some features of a NLE from other LEs.
|
Learning Environment |
Authority |
Theoretical Frame |
Goals/ Objs/ Strats |
Resources |
Tools |
Scaffolds |
Assessments |
|
Directed |
External |
Objectivism |
Authority |
Authority |
Authority |
Authority |
Authority |
|
Negotiated |
Ext/Int |
Constructivism |
Authority/ Learner |
Authority/ Learner |
Authority/ Learner |
Authority/ Learner |
Authority/ Learner |
|
Informal |
Internal |
Social Constructivism |
Learner/Others-as-Needed(OAN) |
Learner/OAN |
Learner/OAN |
Learner/OAN |
Learner/OAN |
Directed, negotiated and informal learning environments (Hill et al., 2013).
Incorporating different philosophical bases of directed and informal LEs is a fundamentally incompatible task if we pursue ideological purity. Furthermore, practical concerns of Jonassen’s CLE and Hill’s NLE above, such resources, tools, scaffolds, and assessments, may hinder or reverse the pure versions of a directed or informal approach in the context of a learning space (Dr. Branch’s diagram of Learning Space?). We suggest that a practically negotiated learning environment has a robust affinity with a hybrid, synchromodal form of course delivery.
Social, teaching, and cognitive presence
A PNLE promises a higher degree of interaction among student, teacher, and content due to the nature of negotiating the components of learning. The Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000) posits assumes learning occurs within the the learning community through the interaction of three core elements: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence (See figure below).
Community of Inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000, P. 88)
Cognitive presence means the extent to which the participants in a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained interaction and communication. It is a fundamental goal and critical component of the learning process.
Social presence refers to participants’ ability to project and present themselves to the other participants in the community of inquiry as “real people” with distinct social and emotional characteristics. It functions as facilitative factor for cognitive presence, supporting the process of critical thinking carried on by participants.
Teaching presence is the responsibility to design and facilitate the educational experience, including presenting learning content, designing learning activities, and development assessment tools. It supports and enhances social presence and cognitive presence in order to realize certain educational objectives. Although this responsibility is usually taken by the teacher, it may be performed by any one participant in a Community of Inquiry.
Social presence in education has many benefits (Richardson, 2017), yet all presences seem to overlap. Teaching presence may exert a stronger influence on all the other types of presence, including social (Add my articles for QUAL 8400 here). A hybrid, synchromodal learning environment promises more complex and higher degrees of cognitive load (Citation, see below) and technological-mediation among the three types of presences. As a result, practical considerations circumscribe the learning environment. Issues such as the class access and delivery modes, affordances of the technology, and technology-in-action, combine with issues of student needs to result in a practically negotiated learning environment.
The main issues that teachers confronted when facilitating blended synchronous lessons were those relating to communication and those relating to cognitive overload caused by split attention. Key pedagogical principles for enactment as identified by the lead teachers included the need for extensive preparation, clear instructions, composure, flexibility, advance preparation of students and savvy utilisation of support staff. (Bower et al., 2014)
Suitable technological tools can fulfill the potential of creating a critical community of inquiry in online and on-campus education, only if they can include cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence in the learning community. (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000)
Practical learning environments
Practical learning environments refer to learning spaces which implement and meet a negotiated learning environment and students’ learning needs with technological and pedagogical practicality. It is important to identify the intersection of technological practicality and pedagogical practicality because technological affordances need to support pedagogies to realize negotiated learning environment which accommodate diverse learning needs. In conclusion, “the importance of alignment among psychological, pedagogical, technological, pragmatic and cultural foundations of a learning environment” (Land, Hannifan & Oliver, 2012, p. 6) cannot be stressed enough.
Concept map of PNLE
As shown in the figure below, practically negotiated learning environments adopt values from diverse learning environments such as instructor-centered learning, online learning, and constructivist learning environment. Students learning needs which result from their cognitive, affective, and logistical needs are primary concern of PNLEs. Each learning activity is designed at the intersection of technological and pedagogical practicality.
Conceptual map of practically negotiated learning environments.
Key Design Principles
With pragmatic constructivism, self-determination theory, learning-centered approach, and negotiated learning environments as underlying theoretical bases, the practically negotiated learning environment we propose is designed with the guideline of four key principles, namely flexibly accessible, flattening hierarchy, participation and presence, and on-going and dynamic interactions.
Flexibly accessible is a core principle, which means students have the autonomy to choose from the three modalities of learning, that is, face to face onsite, synchronously online or asynchronously online to fit their logistical needs.
Participation and presence. Provide ways for students to engage in learning that meet their regular as well as just-in-time needs. We were committed to blending three modes of interaction (face-to-face, synchronous, and asynchronous) simultaneously. As students meet face-to-face and synchronously, the course is recorded in real-time and then uploaded within 24 hours. We believe that this blend enables increased participation and presence (Richardson, Maeda, Lv, & Caskurlu, 2017) for all students.
Flattening of hierarchies. We also sought ways to breakdown the traditional power structure in a classroom, developing a context in which all participants – instructors and students alike – have the opportunity to be teacher and learner. In doing so, we worked to enable a more negotiated open-ended learning environment to best meet learning needs (Hannafin, Hall, Land, & Hill, 1994; Hill, Domizi, Kim, & Kim, 2013)
On-going and dynamic interactions across participants and content. We wanted instructors and students to have the ability to have on-going and dynamic interactions with each other as well as with content (Moore, 1989). We sought to create a context in which the free flow of information and ideas can more readily occur by providing multiple modes of access to meet learners’ needs and flattening the hierarchies in the learning environment.
References
Bates, A.W. (2015) Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Vancouver, BC: Tony Bates Associates Ltd.
Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1-17.
Bower M., Kenney, J., Dalgarno, B., Lee, M. J. W., & Kennedy, G. E. (2014). Patterns and principles for blended synchronous learning: Engaging remote and face-to-face learners in rich-media real-time collaborative activities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 261-272.
Butz, N. T., Stupnisky, R. H., Peterson, E. S., & Majerus, M. M. (2014). Self-determined motivation in synchronous hybrid graduate business programs: Contrasting online and on-campus students. Online Learning and Teaching, 10, 211-227.
Cain, W., Bell, J., & Cheng, C. (2016, July). Implementing robotic telepresence in a synchronous hybrid course. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on (pp. 171-175). IEEE.
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, 87–105.
Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., Greenhow, C., Gein, W., & Roseth, C. (2014). A tale of two courses: Innovation in the hybrid/online doctoral program at Michigan State University. TechTrends, 58, 45-53.
Hill, Domizi, Kim, & Kim. (2013). Teaching and learning in negotiated and informal online learning environments. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd edition), pp. 372-389. New York, NY: Routledge.
Irvine, V., Code J., & Richards L. (2013). Realigning higher education for the 21st century learner through multi- access learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 172-185.
Jonassen, D. (2013). Designing constructivist learning environment. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, pp. 215-240. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jonassen, D. & Land, S.M. (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd edition). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Land, S.M., Hanafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. M. (2012). Student-centered learning environments: Foundations, assumptions, and design In D. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd edition), pp. 3-25. New York, NY: Routledge.
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 402-417.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Wilson, B. G. (1996). What is a constructivist learning environment? In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design, pp. 3-8. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
Implementation
Course Descriptions & Participants
As mentioned above, this project is implemented in two graduate courses in LDT in Spring 2018: EDIT 6170 Instructional Design and EDIT 6210 Learning Environments Design.
EDIT 6170 Instructional Design (ID) is an introductory course about the ADDIE approach to instructional systems design. There are 46 students of different majors and educational levels in ID, including 17 students from the Learning, Design, & Technology (LDT) program. 10 students attend face-to-face sessions regularly, with almost half (n=20) participating asynchronously. Small groups are composed of both face-to-face and online students.
EDIT 6210 Learning Environments Design (LED) is an advanced course in which students work in teams on real-world learning environment design projects with real clients to produce real products. There are 20 students in LED. Seven graduate students from the LDT program, who mostly participate face-to-face, and eight LDT master’s students, from different parts of the U.S. Participants also include students, clients, and partners from China and South Korea. As in ID, small groups are blended across formats.
How participants are connected
Instructors and face-to-face students are co-located in the physical room. Meanwhile, all real-time participants – the instructor, face-to-face students and synchronous students – are connected through Zoom, as shown by the solid line in the figure below.
Synchronous students can view the classroom via Zoom through 2 wide-angle cameras. Zoom activities, including lecture, discussion and chatroom, are shown on 3 large displays. They are connected to the learning community by synchronously by online connection shown as black-dotted line in the figure below.
Asynchronous students are able to access the recorded class within 24 hours. They are connected with other students via group projects with mixed group members.
All the participants are connected to each other through the learning management system, emails, google hangouts, and other communication tools, outside the classroom, which is shown as the orange dotted line.
A Connected Learning Community
Technology used
Instructors’ and face-to-face students’ needs for monitoring chatting room activities and all the online students’ activities. We used two large screen displays and two laptop computers to show the conversations and questions in the chat room of the video conference software and the grid view of all the synchronous online students.
Synchronous online students’ needs for viewing classroom activities. We used a wide-angle video camera to deliver the whole view of classroom activities to online students. In addition, we used four wireless microphones to deliver clear, non-echoing audio to online participants.
Asynchronous students’ needs for viewing recorded video conferences. We used a desktop computer, a screen recording platform, and a learning management system to control the recording processes and deliver the recorded video conferences for asynchronous students.
|
Hardware |
|
|
Software |
|
Technologies Used in Pilot Study
The table above illustrates the general technological tools used in both courses. These tools as well as the tables and chairs are arranged a little differently according to the instructors preferences. The screenshots of the classrooms below can show the differences.
Minimally-Required Technology
After investigating learning and teaching needs, we identified technologies minimally required for implementation (See Figure below), testing in simulated iterations to maximize learners’ satisfaction with the learning environment.
Minimally Required Technology
Weekly Tasks
|
Before Class |
|
|
During Class |
|
|
Immediately After Class |
|
|
After Class |
|
Case Study: EDIT 6170
In this section we introduce more details of the implementation of the project in EDIT 6170. This course is chosen for the case study for a few reasons. First of all, as mentioned earlier, there is a more diverse population of students from different programs across the campus with a mix of undergraduates, master’s students and PhD students. Secondly, it includes all three modes of students and the number of onsite students, synchronous online students and asynchronous online students are quite balanced, roughly 10, 15, and 10 respectively. Moreover, apart from the assistant from two members from our team — Xigui and Elliot — with the technology, there is another teaching assistant helping the instructor in terms of communication with students, class activity design and grading, etc. In a nutshell, this could be the most complicated form in this hybrid learning environment, so it is worth being well studied.
Picture of original setup for EDIT 6170
Picture of a later setup for EDIT 6170
Components of a Practically Negotiated Classroom
Interactive Portal / Nexus / Space
1. Web conferencing software allowed an interactive portal connecting synchronous online and face-to-face participants. Zoom was the preferred choice of software due to its prioritizing of audio over video: if there was a connection issue, the audio of the classroom (e.g. instructor’s lecturing) could continue as smoothly as the connection allowed while video was allowed to become choppy.
2. One main computer (a desktop iMac) was designated as the class recording unit. It had Zoom running full screen or on a maximized window. Desktop recording software (EverLec) was used to record the live class as experienced through the class recording computer’s desktop (mostly Zoom). Anything appearing on the desktop (i.e. Zoom) would be recorded. A TA managed the visuals of what would be recorded, such as the proportion of Zoom’s shared screen and camera views, which camera view was most relevant at any given moment, and other considerations of what would allow for the best final recorded product in a given situation.
An alternate option for recording was to have Zoom record the session instead of EverLec. However, the post-processing of a 2-hour class made this inconvenient compared to the EverLec option. With a Zoom recording, which is proprietary, the TA would have to remain after class for a lengthy amount of time while the Zoom recording converted to mp4–an impossibility if another class was scheduled afterwards. Or, the TA could copy the Zoom recording onto a USB drive and then convert it to mp4 at a later time. Then, the TA would have to edit the mp4 in video editing software. Creating thumbnails at different points of the mp4 in order to allow viewers to easily navigate the mp4 would be unavailable.
Desktop recording software EverLec, on the other hand, processed the recording within 15 minutes of the end of class by uploading it to the company’s cloud-based content management platform. The TA also saved the EverLec recording onto the computer’s hard drive as an mp4 file as a backup, which took less than 5 minutes. Editing the video was done through the company’s cloud-based platform, accessible on any internet-ready computer. Videos were edited, and most importantly, cut into segments with their accompanying thumbnails so that students could easily navigate a 2-hour class. A link to a view-only access of this newly edited video was copied and pasted onto the class’s LMS (desire2learn) under the “Recorded Class Meetings” folder. A recording of the class was available from 3 to 4 hours after the end of class. The class promised asynchronous students that a recording of the class would be available within 24 hours.
3. Two video cameras captured the live, onsite class through connected computers, which were in turn connected to the classroom portal space via Zoom. One camera had a lecturer/podium view and the other camera had a wide classroom view. Synchronous online students had the freedom to choose one of the two camera views, or could opt for any of the face-to-face students’ laptop camera views that were available.
4. Audio was captured through a set of 4 wireless speaker-mic combination devices–one device functioned as both a speaker and mic. The speaker function allowed online students’ voices to be heard, while the mic function allowed the instructor and onsite students to be heard. The mics could be placed anywhere in the room. We often had to change the location of the speaker-mics to adapt to the situations, such as a soft speaker, or change in location of classroom activity.
Physical classroom space
1. Onsite face-to-face students had more responsibilities than in a traditional classroom setting because they were asked to accommodate both types of online participants. For example, face-to-face students were encouraged to bring their laptops to class and also use Zoom in addition to any other programs they would normally use in a class. This was done so that online students could have a better sense of their presence, whether through a face-to-face student’s laptop camera view or communication through the Zoom chatroom. For example, synchronous students could select a face-to-face student’s laptop camera when that student was speaking. For asynchronous students, the TA could select the face-to-face student’s laptop camera for the recording, allowing the onsite class student’s voice to be accompanied by a portrait shot of their face.
Face-to-face students had to manage this process by remembering to mute their Zoom audio and their laptop’s speakers to avoid creating audio feedback in the onsite classroom. They also had to make an effort to speak in the direction of the mics, and some students were often encouraged to speak louder.
2. The instructor was required to have a laptop running Zoom so that he could share his screen for the online participants. Face-to-face students could view the shared screen via their laptops or through the large classroom screen, on which was projected the real-time recording view of the designated recording computer.
3. Projection onto screens. We utilized the projection capabilities of the physical classroom space for face-to-face students and the instructor to more conveniently see all participants in one glance. Screens were used to show: a “gallery” view of participating students, the Zoom chatroom, and the view of the desktop recording computer (i.e. what was being recorded for asynchronous students). One computer was dedicated to each projection screen.
Synchronous online space
Synchronous online students could join from any space via a computer, as long as there was adequate internet (at least 1Mbps download). They required a mic to participate in class, and a camera, though not required, enriched the experience for asynchronous and face-to-face students. Tablets and smartphones with functioning mic and camera were also a possible alternative to joining via computer.
Asynchronous access
Asynchronous students accessed what was recorded via the dedicated recording computer. They witnessed the intra- and inter-actions between synchronous and face-to-face students through the portal space (Zoom). Absent, however, was the Zoom chatroom interaction in real time. Depending on the content of the chatroom, the TA would save the chat log and post it along with the link to the EverLec video recording.
Class activity setups
Individual student presentations
Real-time students could present directly from where they were sitting at their computers/laptops. Face-to-face students had the added option of presenting in the traditional manner, using the mobile podium to present while standing. Asynchronous students did not present individually, but could do so through a pre-recorded powerpoint.
Breakout groups
EDIT 6170 had extensive use of breakout groups. Initially, we did not know about the breakout room feature of Zoom, which is exclusive to Pro accounts, and due to the preference of the instructor, Collaborate Ultra was used for small group discussions. This involved the main interactive portal / nexus / space splintering into multiple portals. Participants had to log off Zoom and join pre-assigned Collaborate Ultra rooms via eLC. For synchronous online students, the experience was generally similar to the main Zoom classroom. For face-to-face students, however, they were restricted to text communication with their online peers because of audio issues. Overall, the learning experience was not satisfactory to both groups because of the transition between two tools and the related audio issues. Then some face-to-face onsite students started to bring their own headphones so that they could talk during breakout sessions. It worked well with tolerable background noise. So later, all onsite students were encouraged to use headphones.
We found out about the Zoom breakout room later and tested it successfully. It has many convenient features such as broadcast to whole class, ask instructor for help, instructor can visit any group and assign anyone to any group, etc. Using one tool for both main meeting and breakout sessions will make the transition of class activities seamlessly and reduce audio issues.
Group presentations
For real-time mixed group presentations, we suggest that one of the group members is designated to share their screen and be the controller of the slides or document as the presenters take turns to present the content. If the group involves asynchronous presenters, they can pre-recorded their part and let the other group members ( whoever is not sharing the screen) play the recording in class. It can be played by their synchronous online partners, with their headphone unplugged. It can also be played by a face-to-face student who is not sharing the screen (see more details in the next section of “Challenges and Recommended Solutions”). It is highly recommended to inform the TA beforehand of any possible plans of playing a video/audio file in the physical classroom by an onsite participant.
Challenges & Recommended Solutions
|
Challenge |
Solution |
|
Instructor or face-to-face students want to play video with sound. |
Change the onsite classroom audio to the computer that wants to play the video. 1) Disconnect wireless speakers/mics 2) Unmute in Zoom the computer playing the video 3) Turn up speaker volume of the computer playing the video 4) Play video 5) Announce to students (through the computer that played the video) we will need 30 seconds to reconnect the main wireless mics. 6) Mute in Zoom the computer that played the video 7) Mute the speaker volume of the computer that played the video 8) Reconnect wireless speakers/mics 9) Pause EverLec recording 10) Verify Zoom recognizes the wireless speakers/mics 11) Resume EverLec recording |
|
Onsite group presentation involves pre-recorded audio embedded in a powerpoint |
Group should use 2 computers for the presentation. One to share the screen with the class, the other to play the recorded file. |
|
The cable connecting the mic-speaker system and the main desktop computer designated for recording is kicked off accidentally. |
|
Evaluation
As the nature of this project is iterative design and implementation, formative evaluation happens throughout the whole project. On the informal side, we take feedback from the instructors and students via conversation, observation, and discussion boards, on a daily basis. On the formal side, we have surveys and interviews to investigate the students’ learning experiences and the instructors’ perceptions.
Formative Evaluation Plan
|
|
Time |
Purpose |
Distribution |
|
Exploratory Survey |
Week 4 |
Examine students’ overall experience in this learning environment in a focus group, in terms of use of technology, video/audio quality, group interaction, social presence, engagement, collaboration, and connectedness, ect. |
Qualtrics survey link |
|
Mid-Term Survey |
Week 9 |
Focus on students’ perception in terms of the course delivery, addressing logistic needs. Questions are asked about Zoom, video quality, audio quality, small group interaction tools, recordings, flexibility, likelihood to recommend this method of course delivery, etc. |
Qualtrics survey link |
|
Final Survey |
Week 15 |
Focus on students’ cognitive needs (e.g. achievement) and affective needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness), whether they are satisfied by learning activities and technological use. |
Qualtrics survey link |
|
Instructor Interview |
Week 16 |
Investigate instructors’ perception of their teaching philosophy, pedagogical activities and teaching experiences in the two courses. |
Face to face interview |
|
Student Interview |
Week 16 |
Look deeper into students’ learning experiences, comparing different modes of learning across two courses. |
Face to face/Zoom |
Mid-Term Survey Results
Mid-term evaluation was conducted among all the students in the two courses during the spring break. It was more focused on the course delivery, not the content. Students are generally positive towards flexible access. Here are our findings:
- Zoom experience is generally satisfactory to both classes.
- Overall use of technology is effective for both classes.
- Flexibility provided by the course delivery is highly rated by both classes.
- Synchronous students have a less positive experience than face-to-face or asynchronous students.
- Students in EDIT 6210 have more positive experiences than those in EDIT 6170.
- Students appear more tolerant of poor video and less tolerant of poor audio.
- Synchronous and face-to-face students must become active facilitators of the learning environment to accommodate participants in all modes (including each other).
- Mixed (f2f-synchronous) breakout groups pose the biggest challenge for all participants.
Open-ended questions provided some insights into the different perceptions of students from different classes. EDIT 6170 students value more about the flexibility to choose any of the 3 learning modes, while EDIT 6210 students emphasize more of the interaction between participants and the social presence made possible by the use of technological tools in this learning environment. EDIT 6210 students generally have few complaints about the course delivery, while EDIT 6170 students wanted to improve the use of small group interaction tools and resolve audio issues that came up once in a while.
Final Survey Results
The final survey majorly focus on the satisfaction of students’ cognitive needs, social needs and logistical needs. The overall need satisfaction is high in both classes. Students from both classes feel comfortable to speak in class; everyone helped facilitate the learning activities; the learning atmosphere is positive; they are confident in handling the technological tools used for the courses and appreciate the flexibility allowed by the course delivery. However, more efforts need to be made to enhance the sense of connectedness to the learning community and ensure better alignment among the class activities, contents and assessments.
For EDIT 6170, face-to-face onsite students and asynchronous online students had better need satisfaction than synchronous students. They felt the social interaction was not sufficient and they were not equal contributors to the classes compared to face-to-face students. In contrast, asynchronous students seemed very satisfied in these two aspects, probably because they benefited from the real-time interaction between face-to-face and synchronous students in class and active interaction with mixed group members after class, which they normally do not have in regular asynchronous courses. The onsite face-to-face group generally have very positive experiences, but they are least satisfied with class activities, content and assessments. The optional comments elicits some deep thoughts of the students. Face-to-face students hope the online students, whether synchronous and asynchronous, could be more active and and get more involved in learning activities Synchronous online students, they mention more about breakout sessions.
For EDIT 6210, the opinions of the two groups were polarized, to some extent. Face-to-face students almost rated all five stars to this course, while onsite students felt at a disadvantage to their onsite counterparts in every aspects, especially in terms of equal contribution and connectedness to the learning community. They also rated relatively low to the social interaction with participants and class activities, contents and assessments. Optional comments reveals that online students felt at a disadvantage to the onsite students because they thought they could enjoy the same level of interaction, communication and learning experience onsite students might have, for example, the field trips. They were also not accustomed to the not so well-structured course plan and negotiated syllabus.
Deliverables
Project Logo
The IDD Global Logo design had to incorporate the previous IDD logo while integrating the global connectedness of multiple flexible learning environments. Our first iteration included a sketch of a globe with a connected triangle. Seeing how this logo held similarities to another instructional project, we decided to go a more minimalistic route. Below are some logo prototypes in the order of creation:
First Iteration:
Second Iteration:
Third Iteration:
Fourth Iteration:
In the Third Iteration, we found our current favorite logo. The round circle represents the global aspect of IDD Global. The rings of red, black, and cream represent UGA’s proud university colors as well as the previous IDD logo. The three curved lines represent the three different modes of learning platforms: face-to-face, synchronous, and asynchronous. All three curve visibly meet in the center of our circle, which represents the meaning of our project: to connect an offer three different learning platforms so that everyone is connected. Our final Logo is the following:
Instructor Manual
[a short introduction; table of contents; how to use for workshop]
Student Manual
[student manuscript description and plan write out here; and how to use for orientation]
Future Research
Overall, as discussed above, the pilot study has been successful in the implementation of the two courses, from both the instructors’ perspective and students’ perspective. Hopefully, if the LDT department decides to continue this project and implement it in more courses, what we have learnt, both success and challenges form this pilot study will great resources. Potential future research can be concluded as follows:
- Workshop for LDT faculty who are interested in this hybrid course delivery and their TAs, to inform them the best practices and solutions to potential challenges.
- Come up with more effective strategies to include asynchronous students in more collaborative and interactive activities beyond offline group projects.
- Explore and discover tools or methods to simplify the implementation where only one TA is needed for each course.
- Refine the conceptual framework and finish a manuscript which can be presented in AECT 2018 Conference or ready to be published.
- Get IRB approval and design a more robust evaluation plan based on the conceptual framework to collect rich data with more insights
- Promote Global IDD project in the whole IDD program to reach more students both local and global.
Global IDD: Creating a Practically Negotiated Learning Environment
