August 9, 2018
Abstract
Blended synchronous learning (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kenney, 2015; Hastie, Hung, Chen, & Kinshuk, 2010; Wang, Huang, & Quek, 2018) describes online courses with a face-to-face component, and where students may attend the synchronous sessions face-to-face or online through web conferencing. Many universities are offering blended synchronous learning as a flexible attendance option to better meet the needs of students (Bower et al., 2015; Cain, 2015), to improve university finances, address rising enrollment by reducing the needs for classroom space (Lakhal, Bateman, & Bedard, 2017; Romero-Hall & Vicentini, 2017), and provide real time interaction (Cain, 2015; Cunningham, 2014). Though there are many benefits to blended synchronous learning, there are challenges too. Instructors need specialized training and strategies to overcome the challenges. Effective blended synchronous strategies have been noted in several case studies. Application of these blended synchronous learning strategies for design and implementation of synchronous sessions may alleviate problems and lead to an improved blended synchronous learning experience and greater satisfaction for students and teachers (Bower et al., 2015).
Blended synchronous learning (Bower et al., 2015; Hastie et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2018) is one of several names for learning that occurs in online courses with a face-to-face component, and where students may attend regularly scheduled synchronous sessions face-to-face or online through web conferencing. Increasingly, many universities are offering this option for flexible attendance to meet the needs of students (Bower et al., 2015; Cain, 2015), improve university finances, save on classroom space (Lakhal et al., 2017; Romero-Hall & Vincentini, 2017), and to provide real time interaction (Cain, 2015; Cunningham, 2014). Though there are notable benefits to blended synchronous learning, there are significant challenges too. Instructors need strategies to conduct blended synchronous sessions successfully. The purpose behind this investigation of several blended synchronous case studies was to identify effective strategies to support instructors who teach in this environment. Through application of research-based design and implementation strategies for blended synchronous environments, instructors can overcome common challenges and provide students with well-managed blended synchronous learning experiences which in turn lead to increased student and teacher satisfaction (Bower et al., 2015).
What is Blended Synchronous Learning?
Blended synchronous learning is a method of instruction that can be defined in several ways, is known by a variety of terms, exists on a design continuum consisting of numerous modes, and can be considered a system of complexity.
Definition
Before examining the definition for blended synchronous learning, it would be helpful to define blended learning. Blended learning is an instructional strategy already known by many educators, and it is simply a combination of face-to-face and online teaching and learning, possibly with materials parlayed through a learning management system.
Though there is not a widely accepted definition for blended synchronous learning (Lakhal et al., 2017), there are several definitions that have been proposed by researchers. Bower et al. (2014) described blended synchronous learning “as a means of simultaneously engaging remote and face-to-face students in the same live experience using…rich-media real-time technologies” (p. 262). Yu and Qiyun (2017) define blended synchronous learning as “a learning approach by which students take part in the same activity and lessons at the same time, but at different sites…via web conferencing” (p. 147). In this investigation, blended synchronous learning is considered as the synchronous meeting of an online course where some students attend the session face-to-face, and other students attend the synchronous session online via web conferencing. As there are variations in definitions for blended synchronous learning, so there are varied terms for the method as well.
Other Terms
Blended synchronous learning is the chosen term for this investigation into the instructional method described above, however there are a variety of terms for which this method is also known. Other terms include synchronous multimodal (Howes, 2018), synchromodal (Cain, 2015; Cain, Bell, & Sawaya, 2014), hybrid synchronous, synchronous online, and synchronous hybrid (Romero-Hall & Vincentini, 2017). Irvine (2009, as cited by Lakhal et al.,
2017) mentions Hyflex mode and multi-access mode for when students have the option whether to attend the session online or face-to-face. With so many names to consider, it is easy to see why pertinent literature and strategies may be difficult to locate.
Continuum
A sort of continuum exists of various modes of instruction between fully online and traditional face-to-face. Blended synchronous learning falls on the continuum, with much of the course online, but with synchronous meetings held with a face-to-face or online option for the interaction. Hastie et al. (2010) introduced the Blended Synchronous Learning Model (BSLM) made up of “five elements: the cyber classroom, the physical classroom, the teacher, the student, and a number of classrooms or participants” (p.11). Various combinations of these elements make up nine possible options in BSLM model.
Today some schools or programs require local students to attend the synchronous sessions face-to-face, and distant students may attend online. Other schools or programs offer more flexibility, allowing students to choose how they will attend without making a formal commitment to attending any certain way. Many of the studies examined for this investigation used an instructional method that falls somewhere on this continuum, thus adding to the complexity.
Theoretical Foundations of Blended Synchronous Learning
Blended synchronous learning has roots in several learning theories and models. Foundational theories include constructivism and social learning theories. No matter their location, blended synchronous sessions provide live opportunities for social interaction between students and between students and the instructor. These interactions provide opportunities for learning and growth, immediate feedback, and a strengthened sense of community. Also, the Community of Inquiry Framework’s fluid notions of “cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence” are significant factors for blended learning (Wang, Han, & Yang, 2014, p. 381) and for blended synchronous learning (Wang, Quek, & Hu, 2017).
With so many variations of blended synchronous learning, between traditional face-to-face and online, blended synchronous learning is dynamic, changing, and therefore can be described as a complex system. Wang et al. (2014) suggests viewing blended learning though the lens of “complex adaptive systems,” This led to the development of “The Complex Adaptive Blended Learning System.” The decisions and interactions that occur in a complex system have lasting and far-reaching effects. As a complex system that is part of a larger complex system, consideration must be given to all contexts and all related entities when making decisions, interacting, problem-solving, and in carrying out instruction. Noted by Wang et al. (2014), reciprocal changes come about due to interactions in a complex system, so flexibility is important in this type of environment.
Furthermore, students’ perceptions of a blended synchronous course will certainly affect instructor evaluations, student learning and retention, the reputation of the program, and future enrollment. With such important factors hinging upon success in the blended synchronous learning environment, training for instructors is of utmost importance. Cain (2015) states, “a technologically and pedagogically complex learning environment would require an equally innovative approach to instructors’ technological and pedagogical support” (p. 21). Therefore, it makes sense to identify effective blended synchronous learning strategies that instructors can use to improve their craft.
Why Do Schools Choose Blended Synchronous Learning?
Though blended learning has been around for some time, blended synchronous learning is an emerging trend that learning institutions are beginning to adopt based on finances, enrollment, flexibility for students (Bower et al., 2015, Lakhal et al., 2017; Romero-Hall & Vincentini, 2017), and to improve the social experience of online learning (Cunningham, 2014). Drawing students from wider areas to attend class together online and with blended synchronous learning may mean less instructors are needed to handle enrollment. It is also a way to increase enrollment, since programs may attract students who were unable to attend using other methods of delivery. These factors can have a positive effect on a university’s bottom line. In addition, in schools where enrollment is rising rapidly, there is no way for building programs to keep up. So online and blended synchronous are attractive options that offer ways to increase enrollment without as much need for classroom space.
Research
As blended synchronous learning has recently become more prevalent (Bower et al., 2015), researchers have conducted many helpful studies exploring the topic. Following are the purpose, methods, types of courses, technology, training, and results for several studies focused on blended synchronous learning.
Purpose
The purpose behind many of the studies explored in this investigation are varied, although some are similar. Many of the researchers desired to discover the perceptions of students who participated in blended synchronous courses (Olson & McCracken, 2014; Romero-Hall & Vincentini, 2017; Wang, Huang, & Quek, 2018). Conklin (2017) dove deeper into this idea as she explored students’ perceptions of interactions that took place during the synchronous sessions. Szeto and Cheng (2016) also tracked interactions with a focus on social presence. Many of the researchers wanted to identify benefits and challenges to blended synchronous learning and to pinpoint effective strategies for instructors to use in a blended synchronous environment (Lakhal et al., 2017; Yu & Qiyun, 2017).
Some researchers focused on the design of blended synchronous learning (Romero-Hall & Vincentini., 2017; Wang et al., 2017), and some researchers tracked the effectiveness of the sessions (Eadt et al., 2017; Romero-Hall et al., 2017). Francescucci and Foster (2013) studied students’ “performance, engagement, and satisfaction” (p.78). One researcher invited a group of online students to attend face-to-face sessions online to increase their motivation (Cunningham, 2014). Paskevicius & Bortolin, (2015) hoped that as instructors participated as learners in a blended learning environment for professional development, that they would become familiar with the instructional method during the process. Through his capstone project, Howes (2018) was determined to make blended synchronous experiences better by designing training for instructors who conduct blended synchronous classes.
Method
Most of the research selected for this project were case studies, and data was collected in a variety of ways. Many researchers gathered data while observing live or recorded blended synchronous sessions (Bower et al., 2014; Conklin, 2017; Szeto & Cheng, 2016; Wang & Huang, 2018; Wang, Huang, & Quek, 2018). Researchers also surveyed students and instructors for their perceptions of the learning experience (Bower et al, 2014; Conklin, 2017; Eadt, Woodcock, & Sisco, 2017; Francescucci & Foster, 2013). Interviews were conducted with instructors and students following blended synchronous sessions or courses (Bower et al, 2014; Conklin 2017; Romero-Hall & Vincentini, 2017; Szeto & Cheng, 2016). Journal reflections (Romero-Hall & Vincentini, 2017; Wang & Huang, 2018; Wang, Huang, & Quek, 2018) and discussion were two other methods for gathering data (Szeto & Cheng, 2016). In some of the cases, each interaction between students and instructors were tracked and coded (Conklin, 2017; Szeto & Cheng, 2016).
In some case studies, several students attended the sessions face-to-face, and the online students attended from home as well as other locations (Conklin, 2017). Other studies examined blended synchronous learning with a main campus class, plus several classes held at satellite campuses (Eadt, et al., 2017). Szeto and Cheng (2016) examined a case where one group of students met face-to-face with the instructor, and the other group of students met at a remote location. Still other cases required students to attend face-to-face except for a small number of students who scheduled a session or two to experience attending online from a remote location (Wang & Huang, 2018).
Francescucci and Foster (2013) used an experimental design to track performance on assessments in addition to student responses on surveys, and Olson and McCracken (2013) used a quasi-experimental design to track achievement as well as student perceptions for their synchronous sessions. Wang, Huang, and Quek (2018) used an iterative process to make data-based improvements to the blended synchronous learning environment during off weeks of the term. Though many of the studies were relatively short-term studies based on one or two locally based classes, one study was a seven year long international study.
Types of Courses
Most of the case studies were conducted in graduate programs, with the majority of those being in the field of education (Cain, 2015; Conklin, 2017; Romero-Hall & Vincentini, 2017; Wang & Huang, 2018; Wang et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2018). However, courses in other disciplines are represented here as well. One study consisted of seven case studies across disciplines (Bower et al., 2015, Bower et al., 2014). One of the case studies involved a professional development program (Paskevicius & Bortolin, 2015). Francescucci and Foster (2013) conducted their research using a couple sections of a marketing course. Szeto & Cheng (2016) studied an engineering course as a case study.
Technology
A variety of technology was used for web-conferencing for the blended synchronous sessions. Some of the main platforms that were used include Blackboard Collaborate (Romero-Hall & Vincentini, 2017), Adobe Connect (Olson & McCracken, 2014), Go to Meeting (Cain, 2015), Google Hangouts (Cain, 2015), WebEx Training Center (Francescucci & Foster, 2013), and Skype (Cunningham, 2014). Eadt et al. (2017) utilized a synchronous learning platform called Centra. In a multi-course study, researchers examined the use of video conferencing, web conferencing, and the use of virtual worlds (Bower et al., 2015; Bower et al., 2014). Howe (2018) described a new distance learning system that had recently been installed.
Training
For most of the cases, training wasn’t noted specifically. However, Eadt et al. (2017) mentioned 30-minute training for facilitators. Olson & McCracken (2014) discussed providing a training session for students and instructors to familiarize them with the web-conferencing software prior to the first synchronous session. Some instructors were described as highly experienced (Wang & Huang, 2018). The instructor described by Romero-Hall & Vincentini (2017) was familiar with online and face-to-face teaching.
Results
The studies yielded some similar results which describe the benefits of blended synchronous learning that can be celebrated and challenges where more work needs to be done to provide an equitable learning experience. Researchers noted an overall positive perception of blended synchronous learning (Bower et al., 2015; Conklin, 2017; Eadt et al., 2017; Francecucci & Foster, 2013; Romero-Hall & Vincentini, 2017). Results point to the importance of quality technology (Bower et al., 2014; Bower et al 2015; Conklin, 2017; Eadt et al., 2017; Lakhal et al., 2017; Romero-Hall & Vincentini, 2017; Wang et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2018; Yu & Qiyun, 2017). The importance of active learning activities was mentioned (Bower et al. 2015; Conklin, 2017, Eadt et al., 2017), and the need for well-managed synchronous sessions was also expressed (Wang et al., 2017).
Benefits of Blended Synchronous Learning
Benefits of blended synchronous learning include flexibility for attendance and teaching, social presence and interaction, and the possibility of a reduced workload for instructors.
Flexibility
Students appreciate the flexibility to attend class online or face-to-face (Bower et al., 2015; Cain 2015; Lakhal et al., 2017, Wang et al., 2017, Wang et al., 2018; Yu & Qiyun, 2017). Whether it is to accommodate location, work schedules, travel, or child-rearing duties, adult students are grateful to programs that are flexible enough to allow them to go to school and handle their other responsibilities. In addition, students who attend online from home, note the comfort and safety provided by that option (Wang et al., 2018).
Social Presence
Students view increased social presence as a benefit of blended synchronous learning (Conklin, 2017). For the most part students who attended blended synchronous sessions online appreciated the opportunity for a live session, even though they attended virtually. They felt like part of the community. Many times, students who have the option of how to attend will choose to attend synchronous sessions online (Bower et al., 2015). Face-to-face students appreciated the opportunity to work with a more diverse group of students (Cain, 2015; Eadt et al., 2017).
Reduced Workload
With blended synchronous learning as an option, there is the possibility of reduced workload for instructors (Yu & Qiyun, 2017). Rather than teaching the same content in a face-to-face class and an online synchronous class, an instructor may reduce the teaching time by combining the two sessions into one blended synchronous session. Duplication of classes may be reduced as two classes, one online and one face-to-face, may be replaced with one blended synchronous course (Cain, 2015). This may also give instructors the opportunity to add another course to their load should they choose.
Other Benefits
Additional benefits were reported by some researchers. Benefits that were mentioned included increased student responsibility (Yu & Qiyun, 2017), “quality of learning experience”, self-confidence, more familiarity with technology tools (Lakhal et al., 2017). Not only will each of these qualities benefit students during their college years, these same qualities will continue to benefit them in the workplace. Economic benefits were also a noted (Wang et al., 2017). Blended synchronous learning may lead to increased revenue for universities as a result of expanded enrollment, full rosters for courses, and less classroom space required.
Challenges for Blended Synchronous Learning
Challenges that were common across many studies include technology and communication problems, perceived lack of attention from the instructor, increased cognitive load for instructors during instruction, and student engagement.
Technology
Technology problems top the list of issues for blended synchronous learning (Bower et al., 2015). Eadt et al. (2017) noted technology problems that included lack of technology training, slow internet, communication lags, and mentioned that one satellite location had more technical problems than the others. Several other studies indicated problems with poor audio (Bower et al., 2014, Romero-Hall & Vincentini, 2017; Wang et al., 2018), thus communication was hindered between the instructor and online students and between the face-to-face and online students (Wang et al., 2017). A couple studies mentioned connectivity issues. (Lakhal et al., 2017; Romero-Hall & Vincenti, 2017). Romero-Hall & Vincenti spoke of problems with visuals for online students.
Balanced Attention
In a blended synchronous learning environment, groups often perceive that they didn’t receive an equal share of the instructor’s attention during a synchronous session. Sometimes the online students felt left out, and at other times the face-to-face students felt left out. Sometimes online students felt unwelcome (Cunningham, 2014). A commonality across the studies was the challenge for instructors to provide balanced attention to the students attending face-to-face and those attending the session via web conferencing (Conklin, 2017). In addition, students attending face-to-face complained about having to help the online students (Cunningham, 2014).
Cognitive Load
As instructors manage two groups of students, content, technology for teaching, and technology for web conferencing, the cognitive load for teachers is increased heavily (Bower et al., 2014). By implementing strategies for pedagogy and technology during planning and during teaching may alleviate some of the load teachers face in blended synchronous environments.
Engagement
During some sessions, students weren’t fully engaged. This may be partly due to frustration with technical problems. Wang et al., 2018 mentioned that students were unprepared at times and online students sometimes slipped away from their computers during the session.
Strategies, Activities, and Training for Successful Blended Synchronous Learning
In the literature reviewed for this investigation, researchers relayed strategies and suggestions for effective design and implementation for consistently successful blended synchronous learning experiences. Some of these strategies were observed as effective strategies during the blended synchronous sessions, and the others are suggestions for overcoming the challenges that were observed.
Strategies from the BSLE Framework
The development of the Blended Synchronous Learning Environment Framework (BSLEF) (Bower et al., 2015) was the centerpiece of one of the studies, and it was referred to in other studies (Conklin, 2017). It is an important resource for instructional designers and blended synchronous instructors. Bower et al. (2015) organized strategies listed in the BSLEF into three stages which include “Presage (Design), Process (Implementation), and Product (Outcomes)”, and then further categorized the strategies as “pedagogy, technology, and logistics” (p. 14). Below is a summary of the strategies from the BSLEF.
Design.
Bower et al. (2015) provided the following blended synchronous design strategies. When planning for a successful blended synchronous session, state the learning outcomes, plan for active learning, decide in advance how to group students for various activities, use basic design principles, select appropriate applications for when technology is required, and complete a trial run with the technology. In addition, plan early, garner the necessary help, prepare students and yourself for synchronous sessions, and establish a community of learners.
Implementation.
Bower et al. (2015) shared several implementation strategies. When leading a blended synchronous session, get all the students actively involved, balance attention between groups, stay focused on the topic, explain only once, use what you know about teaching, monitor and adjust. When using technology, it is critical to know how to operate the technology, how to use audio/visual equipment, coach students on technology use, and facilitate the session with a tablet or phone to improve visibility for online students. It is always a good idea to begin early and clear up any technical difficulties early on. Set up a second computer to see what the students see and use a teaching assistant or possible other students to help manage the chat during instruction.
Outcomes.
Bower et al. (2015) predicts the following outcomes from using the BSLE Framework. Active learning will be more prevalent, a strong community of learners will develop, and learners will enjoy the flexibility. These outcomes lead to more satisfaction for students. Further discussion on these strategies are available in a paperback titled, Blended Synchronous Learning: A Handbook for Educators, by the same authors.
Additional Strategies
Conklin (2017) recommends having all face-to-face students log in to the web conferencing application. This provides all students with the ability to communicate with each other using the chat feature and to collaborate in breakout rooms. Be proactive in building a culture where the students are supportive and encouraging of whether students want to attend class face-to-face or online (Romero-hall & Vincentini, 2017). Yu and Qiyun (2017) suggest displaying the web conferencing application on the projector screen, so all student have the same view of content being shared. Cain (2015) utilizes a blended synchronous navigator. The navigator is a doctoral student who assists the class with technology during the design and implementation of the course. This lightens the load for the instructor and gives extra attention to the technology part of the course.
Activities
As mentioned earlier, Conklin (2017) and Bower et al (2015) specified the importance of active learning activities. Though not specifically designed for blended synchronous learning, Miller (2014) has provided an exhaustive listing and examples of “cognitively optimized” learning activities that are effective and engaging for students in online and blended learning environments. These activities can be adapted for the blended synchronous environment.
Technical Training
Tutorials, job aides, and instructional guides are vital to blended synchronous instructors. Especially since many times instructors may use the technology only every other week, or perhaps not even every term. Having some sort of a guide to carry with them for a quick refresher and to post in the classroom would be helpful and further lighten the cognitive load.
With new distance learning technology available and a desire to improve the blended synchronous learning experience at Morehead State University, Howe (2018) developed an instructional guide to give instructors the information needed to successfully operate the technology in this new environment. The guide includes descriptions of the technology and step by step instructions with annotations.
In addition, several studies suggested providing technical training as a strategy. Olson and McCracken (2013) discussed training instructors and students using the web conferencing application before the first session.
Diffusion of Innovation
Strategies and best practices for design, implementation, and logistics for leading blended synchronous learning experiences must find their way into the hands of those who teach using this innovative method. For this to happen, researchers need to continue their work in this field. Instructional designers and educational technologists should design and build training based on the strategies suggested by research. As change agents, they can share this information with instructors, administrators, and information technology leaders. In addition, blended synchronous experiences need to be shared, and strategies should continue to be relayed via websites, blogs, self-paced modules, and interviews with blended synchronous instructors and students. Cain et al. (2014) gives credit for noteworthy diffusion of “synchromodal” instruction to support given to instructors at “critical points in the innovation-decision process” (p. 851).
Next Steps
During this investigation into blended synchronous learning, ideas for future investigations on this topic emerged. In many of the studies surveyed in this investigation, researchers explored blended synchronous successes and issues, student and instructor viewpoints, and then proposed actions for improving the experience. The purpose of several the studies were seeking the perspective of the online students. However, it seems that there may be at a gap in the literature relating to the perspectives of the face-to-face students. Though the face-to-face students’ concerns were discussed, their perspectives were not the centerpiece of any of these investigations. Perhaps investigating perspectives of the face-to-face students as the focus of a study will yield further strategies for improving the experience for all students and instructors.
Another topic to focus on may be an investigation into quality audio and various web conferencing applications as technology was a common complaint.
Final Thoughts
It is possible for instructors to teach successfully in a blended synchronous environment. As schools continue to experiment with various modes of blended synchronous learning to steward finances and provide flexible attendance options for students, there are strategies that when applied can improve the learning experience for instructors and students. Intentionally using the strategies suggested by researchers and wisely investing the time needed for solid preparation, instructors can transcend the trials of teaching in a blended synchronous environment and enjoy the benefits of increased satisfaction along with their students (Bower et al., 2015).
References
Bower, M. Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning 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.
Cain, W. (2015). Technology Navigators: An Innovative Role in Pedagogy, Design and Instructional Support. In P. Redmond, J. Lock, & P.A. Danaher. (Eds.), Educational Innovations and Contemporary Technologies (pp. 21-35). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan
Cain, W., Bell, J. & Sawaya, S. (2014). Supporting Diffusion: Engaging the Innovation-Decision Process for Synchromodal Class Sessions. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014–Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (p. 851). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/130870/
Conklin, S.L. (2017). Students Perceptions of Interactions in a Blended Synchronous Learning Environment: A Case Study (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/td/1246/
Cunningham, U. (2014). Teaching the disembodied: Othering and activity systems in a blended synchronous learning situation. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6), 33-51.
Eadt, M. J. Woodcock, S., & Sisco, A. (2017). Employing the EPEC Hierarchy of Conditions (Version II) to evaluate the effectiveness of using synchronous technologies with multi-location student cohorts in the tertiary setting. International Review of Research in open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 1-24.
Francescucci, A., & Foster, M. (2013). The VIRI (Virtual, Interactive, Real-Time, Instructor-Led) Classroom: The impact of blended synchronous online courses on student performance, engagement, and satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 43(3), 78-91.
Hastie, M., Hung, I., Chen, N., & Kinshuk. (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9-24.
Howes, Christopher D., “Creative Collaboration in Higher Education: A Guide for Distance
Learning Technologies” (2018). Morehead State Theses and Dissertations. 137.
Irvine, V. (2009). The emergence of choice in “multi-access” learning environments: Transferring locus of control of course access to the learner. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceeding of Ed-Media 2009 -World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp.746-752). Honolulu, HI: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Lakhal, S., Bateman, D., & Bedard, J.M. (2017). Blended synchronous delivery mode in graduate programs: A literature review and its implementation in the Master Teacher Program. CELT: Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, X, 47- 60. DOI: 10.22329/celt.v10i0.4747
Miller, M. (2014). Minds online. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Olson, J.S, & McCracken, F. E. (2014). Is it worth the effort? The impact of incorporating synchronous lectures into an online course. Online
Learning, 19 (2). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1062939.pdf
Paskevicius, M., & Bortolin, K. (2015). Blending our practice: Using online and face-to-face methods to sustain community among faculty in an extended length professional development program. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 53(6), 605-615.
Romero-Hall, E. & Vicentini, C. (2017). Examining distance learners in hybrid synchronous instruction: Successes and challenges. Online Learning, 21(4), 141-157. doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i4.1258
Szeto, E., & Cheng, A.Y.N. (2016). Towards a framework of interactions in a blended synchronous learning environment: What effects are there on students’ social presence experience. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(3), 487-503.
Wang, Q., & Huang, C. (2018). Pedagogical, social and technical designs of a blended synchronous learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 451-462.
Wang, Q., Huang, C., & Quek, C.L. (2018). Students’ perspectives on the design and implementation of a blended synchronous learning environment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 1-13.
Wang, Q., Quek, C.L., & Hu, X. (2017). Designing and improving a blended synchronous learning environment: An educational design research. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 99-118.
Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015). Revisiting the Blended Learning Literature: Using a Complex Adaptive Systems Framework. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 380–393.
Yu, H.W., & Qiyun, W. (2017). A review of blended synchronous learning. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 5(4), 278-291.
Catalyst 