Category: Blended Synchronous Learning

Blended Synchronous Learning, Faculty Development, Instructional Design

Blended Synchronous Learning: Strategies for Success

sksj13gmailcom
Image by 200 Degrees from Pixabay

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.

Blended Synchronous Learning, Faculty Development, Instructional Design

Blended Synchronous Success in Higher Education Proposal

sksj13gmailcom

Short Description

Take a load off – instructor cognitive load that is! During a blended synchronous class, instructors must manage both face-to-face and online students, the technology for web-conferencing and teaching, and the content. What this means for instructors is an increased cognitive load during instruction. Find out how you can use the Blended Synchronous Learning Design Framework to reduce cognitive load when teaching in this setting and  improve learning outcomes, student satisfaction, as well as instructor experience.

Abstract

In an effort to provide flexibility and meet the needs of more students, many universities are offering flexible attendance policies so that students can attend their classes face-to-face or online without making a formal commitment to one method or the other. During class, instructors must manage both face-to face and online students, the technology for web-conferencing, and the content. What this means for instructors is a heavily increased cognitive load during instruction. This can lead to any number of problems. When these sessions are not managed well, it can result in low student satisfaction, less than desirable learning outcomes, and instructor frustration. Thankfully, there is an answer – the Blended Synchronous Learning Design Framework (Bower et al. 2015). This framework can be used to develop instructor training for blended synchronous course design and classroom management, which can result in reduced cognitive load for instructors and a better learning experience for students.

Content

Collective Case Study

Seven cases of blended synchronous learning were observed as part of a cross-case analysis performed to gain better understanding of this type of learning environment. Viewpoints of students, instructors, and researchers involved in these cases were taken before, during, and after instruction. Noted was the extra heavy cognitive load carried by instructors as they try to manage the two groups of students in separate locations, all of the technology, and the content. Also noted were better sense of community, flexibility, and active learning with blended synchronous learning. After analyzing and synthesizing the data, researchers created the the Blended Synchronous Learning Design Framework. Much attention was given to keeping the Framework neutral and objective, so it would be applicable to more learning environments (Bower et al. 2015).

Framework

The Framework is divided into three sections including Presage (Design), Process (Implementation), and Product (Outcomes). Pedagogical, technological, and logistics/setup tips are provided in each of these sections of the Framework (Bower et al. 2015). The listing of tips, suggestions, and practices noted in the Framework are the focal point of the presentation with the goal of providing actionable items for educators to put into practice to begin improving their blended synchronous teaching experience right away. The items in the framework taken separately seem overly simple and like common sense-like, however all together they provide a well-designed, well-prepared learning environment and experience for students. 

     Training for instructors who are teaching in this setting is crucial. Many instructors do not receive any training before their first blended synchronous session. There is a lot that can go wrong. The Framework could easily be used by faculty developers to develop training and job aids for instructors who teach in this setting. Use of these tips and suggestions in the Blended Synchronous Learning Design Framework should help to reduce the heavy cognitive load experienced by instructors in this setting.  In addition, the Framework lays a strong foundation for successful management in these learning environments which should yield better learning outcomes and higher student satisfaction (Bower et al. 2015). 

   Since blended learning is a preferable mode of learning for today’s students, issues related to this topic are important to address (Bower et al. 2015). It is an area sure to see continued growth, so training instructors in best practices for blended synchronous teaching and learning will be time well spent.

Audience

Though the intended audience of this presentation is higher education instructors who teach blended synchronous sessions in their courses, the information would also be beneficial to leaders in online education administration, program directors, instructional designers, faculty developers, workplace trainers, instructors of face-to-face or online courses, and instructors in grades K-12. In addition, technicians who assist with technology in these settings would benefit from the session. With so many variations on the blended learning continuum, these practices are beneficial for all educators who are now teaching in this setting or who may teach in this setting in the future.  

Presentation

The presentation will be Pecha Kucha style, a very short, image-heavy and fast paced slide presentation which briefly highlights the need for the blended synchronous framework, it’s background, and tips and suggestions provided as best practices for blended synchronous learning which are outlined in the Blended Learning Synchronous Learning Design Framework. Rather than the typical live performance, the presentation will be a screencast video recording. The presentation will last six minutes and forty seconds.

Objectives 

Describe the blended synchronous learning environment and explain the need for instructor training for those who teach in this environment. 

Describe design and implementation best practices for blended synchronous learning environments. 

Describe the outcomes that may result from applying the BSLE Framework.

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.

Blended Learning, Blended Synchronous Learning, Instructional Design, Online Learning

Blended Synchronous Learning: Annotated Bibliography

sksj13gmailcom
Image by Manfred Steger from Pixabay

6/2/2018

Introduction

The intent of my literature search was to find ways to help instructors at my university who are teaching in synchronous blended learning environments. Of course instructors want the environment and learning experiences to be efficient, engaging, and effective for students. I want to develop some training for these instructors- more than what we’ve been doing. Currently, I’ve visited with them about strategies as needed, provided tutorials for web conferencing and audio and visual setup. I would like to do more though. I’ve taught face-to-face and online with lots of synchronous experience, however, I have no blended synchronous experience. 

I met a student in my last class whose title is Director of Telepresence at a university. She told me that her school has four coaches to train instructors how to teach in this environment. I knew they must have gotten information somewhere on which to base their training. I wanted to find that information, so that became my topic of interest. 

At first, I had some trouble putting a name on it. I hadn’t heard the term synchronous blended learning, so I tried searching a variety of terms that I came up with. Simultaneous face-to-face and online synchronous, blended learning, blended synchronous sessions… I set up several Google Scholar searches and found a couple articles that way. Then when I was looking in the dissertation database at Boise State, I found Sherry Conklin’s dissertation on the topic. With that, I found some good resources and the wording that I needed to do better searches. Since I have access to libraries and databases at Boise State and at John Brown University, I had no trouble finding and accessing the articles that I wanted to include. 

In my reading, I’ve found other terminology for this learning environment. I’ve discovered strategies for design and implementation in these settings. Many of the journals had common strategies or common issues that need solving. Common themes or needs include advance preparation of teachers, students, and the environment and seamless communication. I’ve also learned that there is a wide variety of environments included in the synchronous blended continuum. Of course some best practices and strategies would work better in one situation than another. Having the research from these different setups provides a better perspective from which to design training and advise instructors. 

The Blended Synchronous Design Framework (Bower et al., 2015) was a good find for me. It gave me a good topic for my Pecha Kucha and a start for helping instructors who use this format. I’m looking forward to synthesizing the design and implementation strategies from all of these articles and putting them together in some training for instructors at my university. First it was just some graduate education courses using this format, but now a number of graduate business courses are going this way too. I think it’s a trend that will continue to grow. There is plenty of room for research in this area especially in the format used at my school, and it’s a topic of interest to me, so it may be an area for me to continue my study.

  1. 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/

Conklin (2017) conducted a case study that involved twenty-seven graduate students from two courses in an Education program and their two instructors. The researcher’s goal was to investigate the perceptions that students had about their various types of interactions in a blended synchronous learning environment. In this case, in each of the classes some of the students attended class online and others attended face-to-face.

The project use qualitative methodology with data collected through observation, surveys, and interviews. The researcher observed during half of the synchronous sessions. All interactions between students, student and instructor, and student and content were tracked and coded. Student perceptions of social presence were noted in the data. The Blended Synchronous Learning Design Framework (Bower et al) provided recommended best practices for this environment that would encourage student satisfaction. 

Generally, the perception of interactions was positive. The author noted specifics such as the importance of quality technology as well as the importance of active learning activities. Interaction was somewhat unbalanced and social presence varied across types of activities. Suggestions were made for improving these areas.

My intention in selecting this topic is to provide better training for instructors who will teach in this environment. The suggestions made for improving learning and perceptions in a blended synchronous learning environment along the Framework (Bower et al) mentioned above provide a foundation for developing training for instructors. 

We should host Blackboard Collaborate orientation sessions for instructors each term and for graduate students as well, similar to the session for our degree completion students. Just to get them more familiar with the environments and their functionality. Many instructors use the environment for office hours and meetings, but not necessarily for teaching. I’ve provided a video tour, but live sessions would be nice to offer. Repeating the study after implementing the suggestions would be interesting to see how perceptions might differ. 

  1. 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, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, and Kenny (2015) conducted a collective case study with cross-case analysis to examine  seven varied cases of blended synchronous learning. Students appreciate the convenience and flexibility offered with this model, and it is becoming more prevalent. Many times students who actually prefer attending class in person will choose to attend online if given the choice. 

Though benefits to blended synchronous learning are many, there are challenges too. Difficulty with technology seems to lead the way. Another problem stems from instructors trying to manage two separate groups of students at the same time and teach too. The perceptions of students vary according to where and how they attend the sessions. Many problems can be alleviated with training, advanced planning and preparation of the online learning space, and communication of instructions and expectations.

The data was collected before, during, and after the sessions and from the instructors as well as the students. Observation data was collected as were recordings of the blended sessions. In addition to classroom and web conferencing environments, virtual worlds were included in the study. The article goes into detail of each case study which provides varied and valuable information into various aspects of blended synchronous learning.

Reports show blended synchronous learning favorably. A Blended Synchronous Design Framework was created as a result of the analysis and synthesis of the data from this study. It includes design, implementation, and outcomes for pedagogy, technology, and logistics (p. 14).

This study seems especially valuable due to looking closely at seven cases. Since the cases look at different web environments, different class setups, and different types of courses, it packs a wealth of information. It will be resource to revisit. The framework that was provided is something to build on for training teachers for work in this environment. 

  1. 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.

Eadt, Woodcock, and  Sisco (2017) explored the level of success of multi-location synchronous learning in higher education. The setting was a “hub and spoke” setup with a main campus and several satellite campuses. Centra was the synchronous learning platform that was being used for communication between the sites. 58 students volunteered to participate in the study. 44 students were divided among three groups at the satellite campuses. Each of these groups were seated around one computer. 14 students attended using individual computers. The facilitators at each of the satellite locations had received 30 minutes of training to use the technology (p. 2). 

To measure the effectiveness of the sessions, the EPEC Hierarchy of Conditions (Version II) was used. It had been used in the past to support studies in e-learning, but not with students attending simultaneously from multiple locales. E stands for “ease of use.” P stands for “psychologically safe environment.” E stands for “e-learning self-efficacy.” C stands for “competency” (p. 4).

Following the thirteen week course, a survey was given using a mixed methods approach. Results varied according to the location or setting of the participants. One location had more technical problems than the others which attributed to a higher level of satisfaction with the multi-location synchronous learning situation. Participants in the other locations were generally more satisfied.

Complaints included technology problems, anxiety of using the technology, lack of training with the technology, slow internet, lag in communication while waiting for remote students to respond. There were positives as well. Students saw value in communicating with other students that they normally would not get the opportunity to work with. 

It was determined that EPEC Hierarchy was effective for this situation. However, a Version III is now in effect with the addition of two more factors – “tutor presence in group settings” and “appropriate technology tools” (p. 17).

After reading Sheri Conklin’s dissertation, and in my own experience with online learning, a best practice would be to have all students in every location log in to a device capable of interacting with each student. This would free up the teacher to interact with all students equally and more efficiently. Each student could communicate more easily with everyone else. With each person being able to communicate in the chat, lag in communication may not be as noticeable. This group may wish to include the Framework for Synchronous Blended Learning by Bower et al. (2015) in their effort to improve this environment for learning.         

  1. Miller, M. (2014). Minds online. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Miller (2014) wrote a book in response to the growth in educational technology, growth in the field of cognitive psychology, and as a result of the focus on getting results which was promulgated by NCLB. Miller examined some common questions having to do with online learning – the quality, comparison to typical face-to-face courses, and cheating. She made good arguments in support of online learning for all of these points. 

She exposed problems with learning styles and why they don’t hold true. Miller focused on attention, memory, and thinking in the next part of the book. She shared a number of examples from tests and experiments that support her claims. A number of tools and types of assignments are discussed that are supported by how our thinking, memory, and attention work. Some good ideas for online courses were provided. 

In the third portion of the book, Miller discussed multimedia with a focus on multimedia principles, and then she turned to motivation. A couple chapters on gamification are included. Miller discussed how game elements can improve learning and how they work with the way we think. The last chapter wrapped up with a cohesive plan for teaching online in a way that works with how our brains are wired. She included a full syllabus with annotations for each element on how it works with our brains.

This book is really helpful for educators, developers, and  instructional designers. I will be reading it once again when I have more time, and referring back to it often. Though it wasn’t specifically written for blended synchronous learning environments, it is still valuable to those who design or teach in those environments, because of their heavy online component. Consideration should be given to the types of learning activities suggested and supported in this book when designing any online course, even those with blended synchronous components. 

  1. 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, Huang, and Quek (2018) conducted a study of a graduate education course that was held in a Blended Synchronous Learning Environment. The purpose was to find out how students perceived learning in this environment. The researchers mentioned several other names for this type of learning environment in the literature review. 

Wang et al. (2018) mentioned the study from the second article in this list. There is some research on the topic of blended synchronous learning, but it is limited especially where students attend sometimes face-to-face and sometimes online. In this situation, students attending online were not all at one remote location. Some were at home, some were at work or another location. There were off weeks in between sessions so that improvements could be made before the next session. Table 1 listed strategies the were implemented as they went on throughout the term. 

Students offered reflections which were designated as “participation, interaction and technology” (p. 7). Students liked the comfort, safety, and flexibility of the environment. Some problems were noted such as audio, communication between online and face-to-face students, communication between instructor and online students, students not having equipment needed, and apparently wandering away during the session.

Noted musts for BSLE environments are smooth communication, activities that transfer to the environment, good audio quality, and equal attention given by the instructor to the online and face-to-face students. 

There is plenty of room for research and problem-solving in this field. There is desire for it work seamlessly, but it must be intentional – you can’t just walk into a classroom and make it happen in a way that make students happy. I’m wondering if the researchers used all the strategies in BSLE Framework by Bower et al. (2015). A problem I see is that instructors are so busy that it’s difficult to find the time to prepare more than the content though it’s very important to do so.

  1. 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, Quek, and Hu (2017) used an educational design research approach to design, implement, and improve their BSLE for a graduate education course. Basically, it sounds like they may have used the same course and time frame as the research in the article above or at least a very similar example. Although in this case, the purpose was to showcase the design method, whereas in the other article it was to learn about the students’ perspective of the learning environment. 

Wang et al. (2017) defined blended synchronous learning and shared the benefits which included “teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence” (p. 101). Flexibility and economic benefits were also noted. The researchers also mentioned challenges with this learning environment which include well-managed blended synchronous sessions and communication. 

There were three stages in the project which include preliminary research, prototyping, and assessment. The research focused on four class sessions that were scheduled several weeks apart so that improvements – iteration of the prototype could take place in between sessions. I like how the researchers walk through the project, sharing the problem each week and the solution to the problem that was introduced in the following session. It seems like an interesting approach and one that I might consider. For each prototyping session, the design, implementation, and evaluation are provided. 

Students signed up to attend online for certain sessions. I thought this was an interesting approach. So students may have only attended online for one or two sessions. That would alleviate some dissatisfaction if any arose. Another valuable aspect to this is that students would see the experience from different viewpoints. This adds to the richness of the results.

The information in this article works well with the others that I’ve included. There is some overlap, but some new information too. A synthesis of strategies and tips from all them is something I’m interested in.

  1. 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.

Cunningham (2014) approached her study of blended learning in an effort to provide some classroom experience to online students who were somewhat unengaged in their course and interaction with each other. Online students were invited to participate during class sessions. Not all accepted the invitation, but some did. These students attended via Skype on an iPad. Each online student was represented with an iPad at the table. Face-to-face students were responsible for moving the student. This setup was used during the first half of the course. This was chosen as an improvement over just a video of the classroom. 

After receiving feedback from the participants, Cunningham changed the mode of attending. All online students became one group in Skype on one iPad. The instructor became responsible for moving the online students and facilitating for them. This was due to complaints from face-to-face students who didn’t want to help their online partners. Cunningham described the situation of the online students as being disembodied, or as students with a disability who may need assistance turning to the speaker or being moved to a table for a discussion.  

All students were surveyed anonymously at the end of the course. Some things to note – there was kind of an us and them culture and both groups viewed things differently. The online students felt unwelcome. Later attempts of blended synchronous learning utilized Adobe Connect and saw more movement of students to attending online.

This article is a memorable one. Thinking of online students as disembodied and talk of othering sounds kind of mystical. All that aside, interesting that these studies so far have involved teachers as students. I’m hoping to see some examples from other groups. In the two articles above, students signed up for a chance to attend online. So all of the students experienced the class both ways. I think that goes a long way toward empathy in this learning environment. This should be addressed in developing norms or classroom culture at the beginning of the course.

  1. 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.

Hastie, Hung, Chen, and Kinshuk (2010) introduced a Blended Synchronous Learning Model as a result of a seven year international collaboration. Hastie et al. (2010) worked with students from early childhood through college providing range of synchronous learning experiences and emphasized the importance of connecting and collaborating globally to provide better education opportunities. 

The proposed model was made up of “five elements: the cyber classroom, the physical classroom, the teacher, the student, and a number of classrooms or participants” (p. 11). Table 1 shows a matrix with the possible combinations of a BSLM environment including nine possible options using these elements. Diagrams and examples explain each of these nine options. Mode 9 was considered the most holistic it allowed the most freedom for attendance. Both teachers and students could attend online or face-to-face. Schools may even collaborate to hire the best teachers.

The collaborative empirical study by two teachers followed and yielded “six teaching and learning networks” (p. 22). Network 2 reminded me of my synchronous sessions as a virtual teacher. All of the students who participated in the trial experienced significant growth academically and socially during the trial. The study resulted in five implications: a wide range of student locations, heavy use of virtual classroom and Web 2.0, benefits for both groups as a result of collaborating, support from within organizations, move to collaborations between groups rather than within a group.

This article is a bit dated. It may be helpful though in considering the the continuum of blended synchronous learning and also connectivism and international collaboration. Blended synchronous learning has really taken off in recent years. I wonder if the international collaboration in education has grown since 2010. It may be helpful in looking at each example for some best practices for each mode or place on the blended learning continuum.

  1. 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.

Francescucci and Foster (2013) investigated the effects of the “VIRI (Virtual, Interactive, Real-Time, Instructor-Led) Classroom” on students’ “performance, engagement, and satisfaction” (p. 78). An experimental design was used. Two random sections of a introductory marketing course were taught by the same instructor. The only difference being was that one section met every other week in a virtual classroom. In this case they used WebEx Training Center. 

Pre and post surveys were given to both groups. The performance on assessments by the two groups was pretty typical. At the end of the course, attention, participation, and engagement scores were higher for the students who attended half of the lectures in the virtual classroom. Students attending virtually also answered questions on satisfaction which showed mostly favorable results for the environment. It was encouraging to see that students didn’t have technical problems in this instance. Even so, there were still a few areas where students aren’t one hundred percent behind the idea.

The satisfaction questions are good ones I think. I would consider adapting them for a project. I like the idea of the experimental design with a control group and a treatment group. It seems pretty straightforward. It seems that things went more smoothly in this instance than in the others I’ve read about. I’m wondering if this technology is better or if students and the instructor had more experience using this technology or if that fact that it’s business instead of education makes a difference. There were no negative consequences for students attending class in this mode, so it is an economic win for universities who can host more students without adding too much overhead. It’s a win for students who enjoy the flexibility.

Several interesting ideas for future research include repeating this across disciplines, instructors, and levels. Another idea is to hold all sessions in the virtual classroom as opposed to every other week.

  1. Bower, M., Kenney, J., Dalgano, 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.

Bower, Kenney, Dalgarno, Lee, and Kennedy (2015) selected seven instructors from a pool of 1,748 applicants for case studies involving blended synchronous learning. The cases involved a variety of disciplines, a variety of activities, and used video conferencing, web conferencing, and virtual worlds for hosting the online students in the face-to-face sessions. Data was taken from pre overviews, pre interviews, recordings of the sessions, observations, post surveys of students and of instructors. Several methods of coding were used to analyze the data. A cross-case analysis method was used.

The article describes each of the seven cases, providing some details and photos for each one. The last couple of cases involved using virtual worlds for hosting platforms. I have explored Second Life a little bit, however I have

  not considered it as a location for hosting my class. I’m interested in exploring that option and as described in case 7 using a virtual world and streaming the face-to-face class inside the virtual world. Sounds complicated, but interesting. If it could be done smoothly, it would definitely add interest. 

The next part of the article discussed issues that arose during the blended synchronous sessions. Many of the issues could be described as problems with communication. Other problems were a result of increased cognitive load due to having so much to manage in this situation. Strategies to counter these problems were provided as suggestions from the participating instructors. A number of good ideas are shared here. Then later they are formatted into the framework discussed in my second article on the this list. It is interesting to read this article now and take a look at each of the seven cases involved in the study – to see where the ideas in the framework came from. I was happy to see the variety in the cases since a number of case studies I see involve teacher education. 

  1. 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.

Paskevicius and Bortolin (2015) conducted a study where they used blended learning as foundation for a nine month university professional development program. The idea was based on developing a community of inquiry. In the fall, there was a two day workshop to start the program. After that, face-to-face meetings were held every two months. The month before each face-to-face meeting, an online module was used. The article provides details on how the program was developed, the topics that were selected, and some of the activities that were used. 

A case study method was used with participants providing reflective data three times during the school year. In addition to the content learning and community building, it was hoped that instructors would become familiar with method of blended learning in the process. Some participants struggled to get everything done along with their teaching loads. Reminders were sent whole group and even to individuals when needed. Overall, the plan was successful for which it was designed and showed evidence of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence.  

This article fell heavy to one end of the blended learning continuum, with no blended synchronous – just face-to-face and online. However, I decided to keep it in my collection here, since it does involve blended learning and faculty development. I think it may be useful as that is a department in which I work. I can see combining some ideas from here in with blended synchronous sessions – again to familiarize faculty with another mode of learning. It is helpful to see and use the LMS from the student side. As I was reading this article and thinking about faculty that I know, I feel like this may be too much – maybe take too much time. I think I would try to do something a little less time consuming, though I think a community of inquiry is a good thing.

  1. 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

Olson and McCracken (2014) investigated whether adding a synchronous component to a course would have an affect on achievement and whether it would affect perceptions of a social or learning community. To do this, a quasi-experimental design method was chosen. The research team selected a course that had two sections taught by the same instructor. Everything in the course design was kept the same for both courses except for a weekly synchronous lecture that students would attend using Adobe Connect. Students had the opportunity to opt out before the class started if they could not be available for synchronous attendance. The instructor offered two times each week for students to choose from in addition to recording the sessions. 

Achievement was analyzed by looking at three instances of grades during the course. Questions were added to the evaluations to determine any effect on social community or learning community. In the end, no improvement or negative results were found as a result of adding the synchronous lectures. The researchers noted that results may be skewed by the low numbers in the courses and the low participation in the surveys. Overall, they decided that thoughtful consideration should be given before adding a synchronous component and how it will be added and utilized since it may not work for students who need to be extremely flexible, and it can open up opportunities for problems.

Though this article doesn’t address blended synchronous, I kept it because it discussed synchronous sessions in higher education. My personal experience is more with K-12 and instructional coaching synchronous sessions, so any insight in this area is helpful to me. There was some good information on how the investigation was set up with an instructor who was not one of the designers. It also described the training of students and the instructor for using Adobe Connect before the first session. That is information I can use in my research on best practice for synchronous sessions in general. 

  1. 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.

Szeto and Cheng (2016) conducted a case study which examined social presence by tracking, coding, and finding patterns in the various types of interactions in a blended synchronous learning situation. Data was collected via observations, interviews, discussion, and instructor reflections. Impressions of social presence were noted as well. In this case it was an engineering course with some students meeting face-to-face with the instructor and another group of students meeting at a remote location and attending via web-conferencing. No equipment had to be arranged as it was already in place. 

In addition to “Moore’s (1989) three types of interactions” commonly discussed, two new types were found, “instructor-content” and “instructor-student” (p. 496). It was noted where interactions began, who they were directed to, and in what context. Though the experience wasn’t seamless in this environment, everyone concluded that the learning was elevated. 

A framework was created as a result of the project which developers and designers can consult when planning for this environment. 

Something I thought was interesting was that the face-to-face group more often asked their peers for help and the online group more often asked the instructor for assistance. In addition, this was a good example of two locations by group. Where in some instances there is the face-to-face group and everyone else are in separate locations. Since we have three centers in addition to our main campus, this work is a nice example to have. In looking for best practices, I will try to categorize by the types of environments similar to Hastie et al. (2010) above.

  1. 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 and Huang (2018) researched a blended synchronous learning environment that was created with a pedagogical, social, and technical design. It seems to be the same course that was described in article number five above. It was a master’s course in an education program. Students mainly attended face-to-face, however four sessions were designed where several students could sign up to attend those sessions virtually. The virtual students attended from multiple locations. The instructor was highly experienced and was also one of the researchers.

The method used was a educational design research approach. The researchers used a rapid prototyping method, providing improvements to the experience with each iteration of the session. Data was taken mainly from observations and reflections. Helpful tables with very specific strategies are provided for pedagogical design, social design, and technical design. 

It was determined that blended synchronous learning environments are feasible and desirable formats for learning, however for the best experience for everyone it’s important to keep some key things in mind. Communication, sound quality, perceived instructor attention, and activities appropriate to both modes of learning along with technical savvy can provide a very positive learning experience. Where problems are describe, the article mentions other studies which had similar problems noted. 

I like that in this case online students were logging in from a number of locations. I also like that student sometimes attended face-to-face and sometimes online without having to commit to either way. I feel that this is probably the direction education is going and it is how our programs run at my school, so it helpful for me to read those stories. I was surprised that students who are teachers, would turn off their cameras, walk away, and not answer questions when called on, and this when working with an experienced instructor.