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