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	4 displays (3 large screen displays along one wall, 1 smaller display on the opposite wall) 1 desktop computer (both OSX and Windows available) Set of 4 wireless microphone-speaker “pucks” 2 laptop computers 1 wide-angle video camera 1 autofocus video camera with pan-tilt-zoom capability
Software	Web-conferencing software (Zoom) Desktop recording software (EverLec by Xinics) Recording editing software (CommonsEX by Xinics) LMS (desire2learn) Collaborate Ultra Google docs/slides/sheets (or any other method of online document collaboration as determined by students)

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	Meet with OIT to retrieve and setup equipment in classroom Arrange classroom per instructor’s request Test technology for onsite and online interaction Test recording technology
During Class	Monitor and manage the desktop recording to optimize the visuals for asynchronous students (e.g. adjusting Zoom camera views) Monitor and manage the perceived audio quality for asynchronous students (e.g. changing location of a wireless mic) Monitor and manage any complaints sent through Zoom’s chat room Take notes/photos of class (observations, ideas, potential problems…)
Immediately After Class	De-brief with instructor and TAs immediately after class Upload the full recording as an mp4 file and onto an online streaming server Edit the uploaded recording the students will receive Post a link to the recording on LMS / send the link to the TAs
After Class	Note any complaints about the disseminated class recordings Consult notes and generate a brief report on the class and any targets for improvement Discuss with implementation team members on any targets for experimentation or further innovation

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 well-designed 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

Exploratory Survey

Instrument

A Survey about Student Experience of a Hybrid Format of Learning Environment

Part I Demographic info: age, degree, attendance mode, online learning experience,

Part II Learning Experience (5 likert scale: agree-disagree)

Overall, I have a positive experience in this course.
I have no/few technical issues during the class.
The technology (cameras, microphones, speakers, Zoom etc.) provides good visual and audio representation of information and people.
I enjoy the interaction and communication with participants in this class.
I feel it easy to focus and pay attention in class.
I feel free and/or safe to make myself heard during class.
Small group discussion and collaboration is easy and effective.
I feel present with people on the other side of the camera.
I feel like I can be an equal contributor in this class.
I feel connected with the learning community of the instructor, online students and onsite students in this class.

Part III Open-ended questions

What do you like most about this hybrid format of learning environment of this course? Please give an example.
What would you want to change about this class? Do you have any suggestions?
Are there additional comments that you would like to make concerning you experience in this class?

Results

Courses	Responses received	Reports
EDIT 6210	5 out of 5 (100%)	https://ql.tc/g6waHy
EDIT 6170	4 out of 8 (50%)	https://ql.tc/0K6UjX

We designed and distributed the survey via Qualtrics to 5 selected students from EDIT6210 and 8 students from EDIT 6170. We received 5 and 4 responses from two classes respectively. From the survey reports, students from both classes were satisfied about technology used to represent people and information, and most students experienced little technical issues. Students in EDIT 6210 spoke highly of the interaction, communication, connectedness, safe relaxing atmosphere, and equal opportunity to contribute to class, while students in EDIT 6170 were more divided in these aspects, assumingly caused by different modes of attendance. This can be seen from answers to the open-ended questions as well.

“I like that the instructor is cognizant of his students’ class participatory needs: He is aware of the limitations of the technology, so he works to make sure that his students are connected and privy to the class activities.” –EDIT 6210 student

“I like being able to see everyone in the class.” –EDIT 6210 student

“I think the biggest positive aspect of the hybrid format is that it allows a greater number of students to participates and it encourages diversity within the classroom.” –EDIT 6170 student

Overall, the first stage of implementation of the flexibly accessible learning environment was generally a success with some specific local issues to solve, such as small group interactions and audio issues, which would be the focus of the next iteration. This can be seen from the open-ended questions as well.

“Small groups give us an opportunity to get to know others…but they are not implemented well.” –EDIT 6170 student

“The most challenging aspect of the hybrid format regards the use of the Collaborate Ultra groups. Because those of us in the classroom cannot turn on our microphones or speakers without disrupting others in the room, the group is forced to converse and discuss via the typed chat window. While this is adequate, it is slow and cumbersome. The inability to include things like voice inflections and facial expressions also creates a barrier to effective and efficient communication.” –EDIT 6170 student

“On site students should be required to have laptops and headset to facilitate small group meetings. Communication via chat only is VERY cumbersome and makes for poor communication.” –EDIT 6170 student

“Although some effort is made to encourage online students to participate, many of us feel we do not have a level playing field with on site students, especially when it comes to small group interactions.” –EDIT 6170 student

Mid-Term Survey

Instrument

A Survey about the Learning Experience in a Flexibly Accessible Learning Environment

Part I Demographics: (age, degree, major, attendance mode, experience in online learning)

Part II Experience about the course delivery

The following questions are about course delivery, not course content. Please answer the following questions based on your recent experiences.

How would you rate your experience of using Zoom? (dissatisfactory-satisfactory, 1-5)
How would you rate the visual quality of the cameras used to show interaction in the live classroom? (dissatisfactory-satisfactory, 1-5)
How would you rate the audio quality of the speaker-mics used to deliver information in the classroom? (dissatisfactory-satisfactory, 1-5)
How would you rate the use of tools for small group interaction, e.g. Collaborate Ultra, Google Hangouts? (ineffective-effective, 1-5)
Have you ever accessed the recordings of the classes? A. Yes. B. No.
(If yes) Is it helpful to you? (unhelpful-helpful, 1-5)
How would you rate the overall use of technology in this class? (unhelpful-helpful, 1-5)
How do you like the fact that students are free and flexible to choose any one of the three modes to participate in the classes, i.e. face-to-face, synchronously online, and asynchronously online? (unhelpful-helpful, 1-5)
How likely would you recommend other courses adopt this method of course delivery? (unlikely-likely, 1-5)

Part III Open-ended questions

What do you like most in terms of course delivery?
What do you think could be improved in terms of course delivery?
What would you like to see happen before the end of the semester in terms of course delivery?
Are there any additional comments you would like to share?

Results

Courses	Responses received	Reports
EDIT 6210	14 out of 15 (93.3%)	https://ql.tc/AXGday
EDIT 6170	19 out of 45 (42.2%)	https://ql.tc/lOHOTe

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. We received 13 valid responses from EDIT 6210; one response were eliminated because of incomplete information. 19 students from EDIT 6170 responded to the survey. Two of them did not finish the whole survey, leaving 17 valid responses. We compared students of 3 different learning modes in both (see Table 1). Students are generally positive towards flexible access. Here are our findings:

Zoom experience is generally satisfactory to 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.

Table 1: Student perception: Differences among 3 modes of learning

Questions (rate from 1-5)	EDIT 6210			EDIT 6170
Questions (rate from 1-5)	F2F (7)	Synch (6)	Total (13)	F2F (8)	Synch (6)	Asynch (3)	Total (17)
1. Zoom experience	4.57	3.83	4.23	4.25	3.67	4.0	4.0
2. Visual quality	4.43	4.5	4.46	4.13	3.5	4.0	3.88
3. Audio quality	4.43	4.0	4.23	4.38	2.67	3.67	3.65
4. Group interaction tools	3.14	4.0	3.54	2.63	4.17	4.0	3.41
5. Access to recordings	2 Yes	4 Yes	6 Yes	5 Yes	3 Yes	3 Yes	11 Yes
6. Helpfulness of recordings	4.0	3.0	3.33	4.0	4	5.0	4.47
7. Overall use of technology	4.57	3.83	4.23	3.86	3.33	4.67	3.82
8. Flexibly accessible	4.86	3.67	4.31	4.38	3.83	5.0	4.29
9. Likelihood to recommend	4.57	3.33	4.0	4.0	2.83	5.0	3.76

Figure 1: Difference of 2 learning modes in EDIT 6210

Figure 2: Differences of 3 learning modes in EDIT 6170

Figure 3: Comparison between 2 courses

We also compared students from different majors in EDIT 6170 because there was a diverse population from different educational levels across the campus (see Table 2). However, the results show no significant differences between the two groups.

Table 2 Student perception: Differences between LDT/IDD majors and non-majors.

Questions (rate from 1-5)	EDIT 6170
Questions (rate from 1-5)	LDT/IDD (10)	Others (7)	Total (17)
1. Zoom experience	4.0	4.0	4.0
2. Visual quality	3.8	4.0	3.88
3. Audio quality	3.7	3.83	3.65
4. Group interaction tools	3.1	3.83	3.41
5. Access to recordings	5 Yes	6 Yes	11 Yes
6. Helpfulness of recordings	4.2	4.33	4.47
7. Overall use of technology	3.7	4.0	3.82
8. Flexibly accessible	4.3	4.17	4.29
9. Likelihood to recommend	3.7	3.83	3.76

Open-ended questions provided some insights into the different perceptions of students from different classes (see Table 3). 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. Even if they were reminded at the beginning of the survey that this survey was only about the course delivery, six of them still mentioned unrelated issues, such as content, class activities, teaching method, communication, etc.

Table 3 Common Themes in Open-Ended Questions

Open-ended questions

EDIT 6170

(8 f2f, 6 sync, 3 async)

EDIT 6210

(7 f2f, 6 sync)

Q1: What do you like most of the course delivery?

10 mentioned flexibility

5 mentioned recordings

3 mentioned flexibility

6 mentioned interaction

4 mentioned social presence

Q2: What can be improved in terms of course delivery?

4 mentioned small group interaction tools

3 mentioned audio issues

6 mentioned issues not related to course delivery (e.g. content, class activities, teaching method, communication, etc)

Varied:

2 said no complaints

1 mentioned issues not related to course delivery

Q3: Additional comments

Most people skipped this question

Varied:

3 mentioned field trips were great

Final Survey

Survey about students’ cognitive needs, affective needs and logistic needs. Based on Self-Determination Theory (autonomy, competence, relatedness) and Community of Inquiry (social presence, teaching presence and cognitive presence). There are a lot of overlapping in these two theories. For example, relatedness is a major indicator of social presence. Cognitive presence is also related a sense of autonomy and competence. It will be a 5-scale likert instrument (agree/disagree), accompanied with an text-entry box for each question to provide additional comments, which is optional.

Instrument

#	Questions	Testing features
1	I enjoy the social interaction with participants in this class	relatedness / social presence
2	I feel free and/or safe to make myself heard during class.	autonomy / social presence
3	I feel I can be an equal contributor in this class.	autonomy / social presence
4	I feel connected to the learning community (instructor, TAs, online, onsite students).	relatedness / social presence
5	I feel the class activities, content, and assessments were an adequate fit for all students (onsite, online).	teaching presence
6	I feel everyone (e.g. instructor, TA, and fellow students) helped facilitate interaction and communication.	teaching presence
7	I feel the intellectual and learning climate of the class was positive .	teaching presence
8	I appreciate learning from group activities.	cognitive presence
9	I feel capable of handling the technological tools needed for this course.	competence
10	I appreciate the freedom of choice as to how to attend class.	autonomy

Results

Courses	Responses received	Reports
EDIT 6210	11 out of 15 (73.3%)	https://ql.tc/wN4BFT
EDIT 6170	25 out of 45 (55.6%)	https://ql.tc/mVdwl8

Table 4 Comparison of 2 courses in final survey

Questions	EDIT 6170				EDIT 6210 (11)
Questions	F2F (7)	Sync (12)	Async (6)	Total (25)	F2F (5)	Sync (6)	Total (11)
1. Social interaction	4	3.5	4.33	4.64	5	3.33	4.27
2. free/safe to speak	4.71	4	4	4.72	4.8	3.67	4.64
3. Equal contributor	4.43	3.67	4.33	4.16	5	2.6	4.27
4. Class activities, content, & assessments	3.43	3.75	3.83	4.56	5	3.17	4.36
5. Connected to the learning community	3.86	3.67	3.67	4.32	4.8	2.8	4.27
6. Everyone helped facilitation	5	3.92	4.33	3.72	4.8	3.83	3.8
7. Positive intellectual and learning climate	4.71	4.58	4.33	3.68	5	3.83	4
8. Learning from group activities	4.57	4	4	4.04	5	3.67	3.8
9.Handling the technological tools	4.71	4.75	4.67	4.2	5	4.3	4.18
10. Freedom to choose how to attend class.	4.86	4.42	4.83	3.84	4.8	3.83	4.09

Figure 4:

Interviews

Instructor Interview Protocol

Topic domain #1 Philosophy

Leadoff questions: There are three modes (face-to-face / synchronous / asynchronous) of students in your course.

Could you tell me how this class started?
Can you tell me your general experiences of teaching three modes of students at the same time?
What are the purposes of this class when you combined the three modes of students?

Possible follow-ups:

You mentioned about flexibly accessible courses. Could you explain more about what you do as an instructor to make the course flexibly accessible?
You mentioned about the concept of flattening hierarchy. Could you explain more about what you do as an instructor to realize the concept of flattening hierarchy in the course?

Topic #2 Pedagogies and Activities

Leadoff questions: Listening to your explanation about your philosophy, I would like to know more about your pedagogy or course activities to realize your perspective.

Can you explain how you have accommodated all the modes of students at the same time?
How different is the current course from your previous courses in which you taught only one mode of students?

Possible follow-ups:

You said that the assistance from teaching assistants are critical. Can you explain more about their roles in your course?
You mentioned about (discussion/collaboration/break out) activities. Can you explain how (discussion/collaboration/break out) activities went?
You mentioned about several activities in the course. Can you explain (activities / projects in the syllabus) more in detail? And how they went?

Topic #3 Experiences

Leadoff questions: Thank you for explaining course activities / projects in the course. Because this type of course is not common, I would like to know more about your experiences in the course so far.

What is your favorite activities / projects?
What is challenging experiences?

Possible follow-ups:

You mentioned about your challenging experiences. How did you solve the problems?
What is your experiences of technologies used in the course?
How would your course be different in the next semester?
What are your suggestions to other instructors who want to try this form of course?

Student Interview Protocol

Topic domain #1 Course Philosophy

Leadoff questions: You have participated at least two course participation modes among the three modes (face-to-face / synchronous / asynchronous).

What are your experiences of choosing a class participation mode?
How did you feel when you know you can freely participate in the course through three different modes?
What made you choose the two modes among the three?
Which mode was your favorite? And why?
What are similarities and differences of this course to and from other courses you have ever taken?

Possible follow-ups:

You mentioned about flexibility of choosing a course mode according to your daily schedule. What are benefits and restrictions of the flexibility?
You mentioned that face-to-face / synchronous / asynchronous mode is your favorite because….. How comfortable did you feel in expressing your thoughts or opinions with the participation mode?
You did not choose face-to-face / synchronous / asynchronous mode as a participation mode. And you mentioned you chose the two modes. Can you tell me more about what made you not choose the last mode?

Topic #2 Pedagogies and Activities

Leadoff questions: I would like to know more about your experiences in course activities. This course (e.g., Dr. Choi’s course) is composed of lecture, discussion, project presentation, group project activities…

Which activity was your favorite? And why?
Which activity was your least favorite? And why?
Can you tell me your general experiences in lecture / discussion / project presentation / group project?

Possible follow-ups:

You said that … is your favorite activity because… How different your experience was between your participation in the activity through the face-to-face mode and synchronous mode?
You said that … is your least activity because… How can the activity be improved for face-to-face / synchronous / asynchronous?
You mentioned your experiences in lecture / discussion / project presentation / group project. How different your experience was between your participation in the activity through the face-to-face mode and synchronous mode?
How can lecture, discussion, project presentation, and group project activities be improved to accommodate each course participation mode?

Topic #3 Technology

Leadoff questions: Thank you for explaining your experiences in general. I would like to know more about your experiences in technologies used in class. Zoom, Ultra collaborate, eLC, and a lecture recording tool were used to accommodate three different class mode of students.

Can you tell me your general experiences in participating in the class with these technologies?
Please tell me about your experiences in using Zoom.
(Dr. Branch’s class) Please tell me about your experiences in using Ultra Collaborate.
(To asynchronous students) Can you tell me about your experiences in watching recorded video?
What are restrictions you found in the technologies?

Possible follow-ups:

You mentioned about your experiences in Zoom. How could the activities of using Zoom be improved?
You mentioned about your experiences in Ultra Collaborate. How could the activities of using Ultra be improved?
You mentioned about your experiences in watching recorded videos. How can the quality of recorded video be improved?
What are your suggestions to improve this course?

Consent Form

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

CONSENT FORM

Global IDD: Flexibly Accessible Learning

Researcher’s Statement

We are asking you to take part in a research study. Before you decide to participate in this study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. This form is designed to give you the information about the study so you can decide whether to be in the study or not. Please take the time to read the following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information. When all your questions have been answered, you can decide if you want to be in the study or not. This process is called “informed consent.” A copy of this form will be given to you.

Principal Investigator: Dr. Janette R. Hill

Learning, Design, and Technology

janette@uga.edu

Purpose of the Study

This research study is aimed at discovering what improves and impedes the teaching and learning experiences in a flexibly accessible learning environment supported by innovative use of technological tools. in this learning environment, students are free to choose and switch their attendance mode (face-to-face, synchronously online, and asynchronously online) on a weekly basis.

Study Procedures

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to take surveys about the course delivery and pedagogical strategies used in the course, and further interview about your teaching and learning experience.

Risks and discomforts

We do not anticipate any risks from participating in this research.

Benefits

As a participant of the research, some of your learning needs in this learning environment, if you share with the researchers, might be addressed.
The the success of the research will provide guidance and examples as to how to meet students’ daily needs of an flexibly accessible learning environment.

Incentives for participation

You will receive a 5 dollar gift card for the participation of interview.

Audio/Video Recording

The interview will be recorded and transcribed for data analysis. The recordings will be achieved after transcription. All information collected will be anonymous and will be only used for the purpose of this study.

Please provide initials below if you agree to have this interview (video) recorded or not. You may still participate in this study even if you are not willing to have the interview recorded.

I do not want to have this interview recorded.

I am willing to have this interview recorded.

Privacy/Confidentiality

The data to be collected from will include information that identifies you directly. Researchers will not release identifiable results of the study to anyone other than individuals working on the project without your written consent unless required by law.

Taking part is voluntary

Your involvement in the study is voluntary, and you may choose not to participate or to stop at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you decide to stop or withdraw from the study, the information/data collected from or about you up to the point of your withdrawal will be kept as part of the study and may continue to be analyzed.

If you have questions

The main researcher conducting this study is Dr. Janette R. Hill, a professor at the University of Georgia. Please ask any questions you have now. If you have questions later, you may contact Dr. Janette R. Hill at janette@uga.edu or at 706-254-1157. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a research participant in this study, you may contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Chairperson at 706.542.3199 or irb@uga.edu.

Research Subject’s Consent to Participate in Research:

To voluntarily agree to take part in this study, you must sign on the line below. Your signature below indicates that you have read or had read to you this entire consent form, and have had all of your questions answered.

_________________________ _______________________ _________

Name of Researcher Signature Date

_________________________ _______________________ __________

Name of Participant Signature Date

Please sign both copies, keep one and return one to the researcher.

Student Interviewee Recruitment Letter

Dear EDIT 6210/ EDIT 6170 students,

I am a TA designer involved in the design and implementation of a flexibly accessible learning environment for this course. I invite you to participate in this research study initiated by Dr. Janette Hill and Dr. Choi in the Department of Learning, Design and Technology at UGA. The purpose of this study is to discover what improves or impedes students’ learning experience in the flexibly accessible learning environment, where they can choose any of the three attendance mode, i.e. face-to-face, synchronous online and asynchronous online, on a weekly basis.

You are eligible for a follow-up one-on-one interview because you have been taking this course in at least two modes. Your participation will involve a 15-minute semi-structured interview about your experience in this course. It may take place face to face or via Zoom at your convenience. The interview will be recorded and transcribed. The data collected will be anonymous and will only be used for this study. Upon the completion of the interview, you will receive a 5-dollar gift card for your participation.

If you would like additional information about this study, please feel free to call me at 864-494-3960 or send an e-mail to xy65409@uga.edu.

Thank you for your consideration!

Sincerely,

Xigui Yang

Graduate Research Assistant

864-494-3960

xy65409@uga.edu

Learning, Design, and Technology

College of Education

University of Georgia

Peer Feedback for the Prototypes

Prototype	Peer Feedback
Prototype # 1 (Feb 21)	Currently missing evaluation as part of the iterative prototyping approach. A logic model might help break the project down into smaller challenges. Storytelling may be an approach to address the various ‘chapters’ in the strategy. Could elicit some interesting data to study the professor/student acceptance rate of this moderately novel idea. A project like this should start with a very comprehensive evaluation and initiate its iterative design from the results of this evaluation. Providing a standards for assessing and evaluating the potential decisions will become increasingly important to ensure that ideas are reviewed fairly and equitably. Logo C is my favorite as well, with C4 my color choice.… You might consider a warmer tone to match the “caring” feeling of your product. Keeping an eye on how the corporate world uses technology would be an important aspect to consider as well. Does your group have plans to do a preliminary/pilot test of the resources (deliverables) with a specific group of audiences (maybe from your initial learner analysis population?) for developing the final prototype for this course? If so, measuring the four C’s from the user perspective might be helpful in meeting the objectives of the project.
Prototype #2 (Mar 21)	My concern for this project is that it is not addressing the ‘hard part’ yet. That is there does not seem to be a holistic plan that addresses issues beyond the technology. In this PT the project has clearly been narrowed down to reflect the realities of time, but the other issues seem to have vanished I might only suggest that they clearly define how they will determine the success of their project, for as fluid as the process is I feel like a clearly defined expectation of success is very important. I wonder how the team will measure both short-term and long-term success. One question we had is if the tutorials you are presenting were created for this product, or if you are using tutorials created by the developers of the products. We would suggest including a transparent “leaf” behind the leaf infographic. Case studies – you have identified the core problems and several solutions, but we think that for this to be really effective, providing additional case studies will be helpful. Case in point – how to effectively plan for remote broadcasts or field trips. Creating infographics for your final presentation will be a really effective method of presenting this data
Prototype #3 (April 18)	I am not sure how the workload was balanced amongst the team. Because of the nature of this project – highly creative and few sources of prior experience, especially within the team. I wonder if a simpler approach might have yielded a more tangible outcome. Instead of reaching for the stars from the beginning – maybe reach across the street – like designing a course on change management I would encourage packaging this idea up and presenting it for outside reflection at some point.

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