Pedagogy and Situational Creativity in Synchronous Hybrid Learning: Descriptions of Three Models William Cain and Danah Henriksen Michigan State University United States
[email protected] [email protected]
Abstract: This paper describes how differences in pedagogy and content led to instructors to exercise situational creativity in designing new models of learning and instruction at the graduate level. The term synchronous hybrid learning is introduced to describe a real-time learning environment that is simultaneously face-to-face (F2F) and online. Through direct observation and first-hand involvement in three new course designs, a behind-the-scenes account centers on the instructors’ use of situational creativity to solve complex contextual challenges. Each course was designed to address unique pedagogical and technological challenges, in which a “one size fits all” approach was not possible. This has serious implications for strategies aimed at educators’ professional development and related technology support. Educators should remain sensitive to the limits of technology, and employ situational creativity to “zones of possibilities” within those limits.
Introduction The challenge of creating and developing professional development programs for teachers engaged in online learning and instruction has become one of the central concerns in modern education (Levine, 2007; Dede, 2009). New and emerging technologies continue to transform our notions of what we teach, how we teach, and even where teaching and learning take place (Ghezzi, 2007; Lin, 2008). This rapid influx of online technological innovation into educational environments promises both spectacular learning opportunities and daunting instructional challenges (Spector, 2002). This issue is reflected well in a quote from Mishra & Koehler (2006): … there is no single technological solution that applies for every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching. Quality teaching requires developing a nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy, and using this understanding to develop appropriate, context-specific strategies and representations. This paper will review the efforts of two instructional teams and one individual instructor to design and implement three new course designs based on a central concept: synchronous hybrid learning (SHL). SHL is an educational context in which the students and the instructors gather both face-to-face (F2F) and remotely (hybrid), either as a group or distributed among multiple locations, for a class conducted in real-time (synchronous). All of the courses described here were doctoral level, and took place at a large Mid-western university during the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 semesters. These models were created with the goal of delivering high quality instruction and learning opportunities to doctoral-level students in several education and communications-related programs. However, these instructors faced an additional challenge: instruction would be delivered simultaneously to students both in an on-campus classroom setting, and in off-campus sites around the country and even around the world. And while it is true these three models for learning and instruction share a number of common technological elements, this paper will examine how the instructors’ “understanding of the complex relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy” produced the creative instructional designs and complex course dynamics that the
- 291 -
instructors, and technology researchers assisting them, came to refer as SHL. This paper will also examine how each learning context called for creativity and flexibility on the part of both the students and the instructors. The instructors’ pedagogical preferences and strategies, their organizational styles, the number of students attending each course, and the nature of the content, are issues which compelled them to utilize technologies that produced radically different course designs. The following are briefly written and visual descriptions of each of the three course designs.
Elements of synchronous hybrid learning Synchronous hybrid learning (SHL) can be viewed as a pedagogical and technological response to the constraints and affordances of teaching online. People interested in obtaining graduate degrees are beginning to view online graduate programs not only as viable, attractive alternatives to F2F, but in some cases, an economic necessity (Lin, 2008; Abrami, 2011). Instructors charged with designing and implementing SHL programs are confronted by familiar pedagogical challenges and questions. What will the interactions between students, and between students and instructors, look like? How will the course design help students perceive, explore, interpret, and synthesize the content in a meaningful learning fashion? To be sure, there are other instructional models that offer versions of hybrid learning environments combining online instruction with F2F instruction. However, many of these models can be said to use a vertically integrated or blended learning model, where whole group instruction alternates from online to F2F on a class-to-class basis. In the cases presented here, online and F2F instruction often occurred simultaneously, rather than as an either/or proposition. The challenge for instructors attempting an SHL approach is to design and develop courses that address the educational needs of remote and F2F students simultaneously, and that achieve and maintain appropriate levels of rigor and relevance. For each course offering, the instructors determined specific and unique physical, information and communication elements as being essential for presentation, collaboration, and interaction among all participants. Some common elements to each course included the need for a physical space that would: • •
Support a F2F gathering of on-campus students with the instructor; Support the array of information and communications equipment and applications necessary for streaming multiple modes of audio, visual, and text-based interactions in real-time to that physical space
A brief description of the features provided by the video platforms used for the three course designs is necessary to better understand the affordances and setup for each. GoToMeeting (GTM) is a software application for real-time (synchronous) online audio/video meetings. Users are able to see and hear one another online via the web using built-in or external cameras and microphones. GTM also provides synchronous screen sharing and chat options. GTM can support audio feeds for up to 24 participants at a time but is limited to 6 video feeds. That means that potentially 24 separate participants or groups can hear and speak to one another, but only 6 participants or groups are able to share their cameras at the same time. GTM can be run on desktop, laptop, and mobile devices (smart phones, iPads, etc.). Google+ Hangouts has similar audio/video and chat support features. It has the advantage of a certain ubiquity, in that any participant with a Google account (Gmail, Google+, etc.) has access to this platform. However, Google+ Hangouts is limited to 10 participants in a single Hangout, so this option is more useful for small group discussions than for larger group activities. Model 1: Balanced Hybrid (Knowledge Media Design) This class had two instructors and approximately 14 students. While the students were evenly split between those participating F2F and those participating remotely, the two instructors were both located in the classroom. The subject for the course, Knowledge Media Design, was intended to introduce doctoral students to concepts and
- 292 -
practices in design thinking. As such, the instructors wanted to employ a pedagogical strategy that centered on how people experience, record, reflect upon, and synthesize information in relation to perception and design. Thereby, the decisions that they made about the technologies used in class were closely guided by these pedagogical goals and the design-focused content. Activities included several smaller individual design projects, one larger group design project, and one overarching individual design project. There were weekly readings and online discussions on the course website forums, in addition to live, synchronous class sessions (with a mix of on-campus students, and online students from around the U.S. and the world) every other week. The incorporation of these synchronous sessions (and the technologies that facilitated them) was driven directly by the instructional goal of fostering a sense of community around the topic of design. By giving students opportunities for discourse about design, both F2F and online, an ongoing discussion and continual thinking about design frameworks permeated their learning throughout the semester, in multiple modes. The instructors used a specially equipped room for their synchronous hybrid learning sessions. The room contained: • a SMART Board with a Mac mini • a group of node chairs with mounted iPads (note: node chairs are swiveling chairs on wheels with small adjustable tables attached for writing and other student activities; the iPads were then mounted on the desks) • two USB cameras • one omnidirectional combination microphone and speaker For the F2F sessions, the instructors wanted to create seminar-type learning experiences that produced rich whole-class discussions and interactions with the course material. The instructors used GTM to support periods where the instructors would speak directly to the entire class about salient features within the readings. GTM was also used for whole class discussion, and presentations (often through a screen sharing feature) for individual and group projects. During these portions of the class, the instructors displayed the active GTM session on the large SMART Board screen so that F2F students could view both the remote participants and the presentations at the same time, and in the same way as remote students viewed the proceedings. This is another example of how technology choices supported the unique pedagogical needs of the instructors (fostering community visually and making content “visually present” in the room). The initial view of the remote view of the classroom was from a single fixed camera mounted on top of the SMART Board. After some in-class experimentation, the instructors observed that a second camera was important to help remote viewers get a more dynamic sense of what was taking place inside the classroom. Their solution was to use a tripod with an iPad mounted on top (later called “the TriPad”) that could be moved easily to any point in the room. Use of this new mechanism meant that for any classroom discussion by the instructor and/or the students could be followed on camera, with a greater degree of closeness and dynamism than the fixed camera could provide. The TriPad also gave F2F participants a sense of advocacy on the part of the remote students – they realized that the remote viewing experience depended on their careful and conscientious placement of the camera angles. The instructors felt this was a significant innovation that, in a sense, created a viewing and participatory experience that was more similar for both F2F and remote students alike. The use of this “TriPad” was an emergent and creative technological solution, driven by the need to create a more personal and vivid sense of being in the classroom for all students (even students who weren’t physically in the classroom). Such a uniquely repurposed contrivance is a small but powerful example of the way that synchronous hybrid learning evolves through situational creativity. These class sessions also featured brief (20-30 minutes) small-group discussions. The instructors, however, let students choose which online medium they preferred to hold their discussions. This meant that students were free to communicate via audio/visual connections (Skype, Google Hangouts) or by text-based synchronous connections (Etherpad) in ways that best fit the styles and preferences of the group. This could also be seen as a way for the instructors to provide students with opportunities to develop their own sense of situational creativity and adaptability.
- 293 -
Model 2: Weighted Hybrid (Pro-seminar – Educational Psychology and Educational Technology) The term weighted in this instance refers to a SHL context in which more of the students are either remotely located or F2F during the class sessions (an imbalance in the number of on-campus vs. online students in the group). For this particular course, there were more remote students than F2F students. This shifted the balance of interaction towards the online video platforms – GTM and Google Hangouts. Pedagogically, the instructors wanted to create a seminar environment that fostered rich small-group discussion, constructive conflict, and synthesis of the concepts and ideas being studied. Creating this environment was in large part a response to the demands of the course content, which was a survey and exploration of foundational concepts and trends in educational technology at the doctoral level. To achieve their goals, the instructors initially tried a classroom arrangement similar to the arrangement in Model 1. Because they placed a premium on having small-group discussions on the same platform at the same time, the instructors decided to use Google Hangouts as the venue for these discussions. The idea was to have Google Hangouts for each small-group running continuously throughout the class session, so that students could move between online discussion groups easily. This would also allow a greater exchange of ideas and opinions on the concepts under discussion. However, trial and error during the first class session revealed that the iPads mounted on each of the node chairs would not support Google Hangouts. During the days after the first class, the instructors and their technology support assistants decided to change venues and opted for a classroom that contained a number of iMacs that could run Google Hangouts continuously without interruption, even if there were no students present. This was an important decision, because it meant a complete realignment of both the F2F location and the equipment to be used. But from a pedagogical standpoint, this adjustment was vital to the success of the course. With the weight of student attendance shifted towards the remote online participants, establishing reliable small-group video discussion forums was critical to fostering constructive conflict sessions among all the students present. In short, the instructors had made pedagogical commitments that the original technology arrangement could not support. Situational creativity called for an adjustment of where the instructors would teach the course to better match the constraints of the technology being deployed. Again, this was an instance where choices in pedagogy, and emerging contextual constraints for the technology being used, fostered the possibility for adaptive and creative design solutions from the instructors. In this case, persistence and willingness to adapt were key in finding a way to actualize the essence of the original design, if not it’s original instantiation, Model 3: Group Hybrid (Social Networking Theory) The class featured one instructor and two F2F groups of students gathering in two different physical locations. Because the two student groups were located at two different universities in two different cities (but relatively close to one another), the instructor arranged to alternate between F2F and remote meetings with each group every other week. In other words, for each session, and for a certain portion of the students involved, the instructor was both a F2F and remote presence during every class session. Which group of students experienced the F2F or remote version of the session depended more on the location of the instructor, not the location of the students. For pedagogical purposes, the instructor wanted to create a standard seminar environment where students could analyze and discuss the findings and implications of statistical models related to social networking theory. The instructor arranged for both groups of students to use GTM as the central online video platform. The instructor also made use of the dynamic, produced camera view of the TriPad innovation mentioned in Model 1. Later, on a suggestion from the technology research assistant assigned to the course, this arrangement changed to using one of the iPads mounted on the node chairs in the classroom, also mentioned in Model 1. This shift allowed a student, acting as a kind of latent camera operator, to sit in the chair and swivel the position of the camera seamlessly with her natural body motion. This meant that wherever she was facing was also the view the iPad camera was streaming to the class online. However, this particular feature of dynamic viewer advocacy could only be done in one of the classroom locations; the other classroom did not have the necessary technology support equipment, in this case, a
- 294 -
node chair. However, when the context offered opportunity for refining the original design, the instructor did not hesitate. By combining the original purpose of the node chair as student seating with the innovation of the node chair as a camera mount, the instructor demonstrated a keen sensitivity to repurposing existing technology to better suit his learning and instructional goals Several classes into the semester, the instructor realized the GTM platform would allow guest speakers and presentations from locations far removed from either classroom location. He arranged for a number of guest speakers to present their work and discuss aspects of the course concepts directly with students in both physical locations. Bringing guest speakers to prominence in the online space proved to be a significant pedagogical innovation afforded by the technology. It allowed the emphasis of class interaction to be placed in the virtual realm, where the instructor’s physical presence, though still important, became less obvious as the semester progressed. Combined with the instructor’s alternation between physical locations, the use of guest speakers and two groups of gathered students made for a synchronous hybrid learning environment where the distinctions between F2F and remote participants were significantly reduced.
Implications for further research The experiences of these two instructional teams and the individual instructor in designing and sustaining effective SHL environments have significant implications for online learning and instructional development programs on several fronts. First, SHL involves a complex mix of online and F2F ingredients. The design and implementation discussions between the instructors and the technology research team assisting them often took place weeks and months before classes began. Moreover, the discussions themselves did not cover all aspects of the technological, pedagogical, and course content interactions that either took place unexpectedly, or needed to take place on the fly. The instructors found that even with the best-laid plan for technology implementation, creative adjustments and refinements were still necessary. There was no one “standard” model for a SHL environment that would address all the variables involved in each of the courses The mixtures of remote and F2F students, the instructors’ pedagogical and technological preferences, the specificity of the content – all these elements and more came together to form their own unique contextual affordances and constraints. Flexibility and an open willingness to adapt became important instructor traits to develop and practice. SHL experiences also raise the question of effective and responsive technological research, design, and support for instructors. Both the instructional teams and the individual instructor found it most effective and beneficial to have a separate person in charge of managing and maintaining audio/video connections, camera positioning, screen sharing, and transitions between online video platforms. This person must act responsively to the pedagogical aims of the instructors, be thoroughly familiar with the constraints, affordances, and particular nuances of the technology, and adjust and coordinate the expectations and actions of both students and instructors with inthe-moment solutions and suggestions for improving and enhancing class interactions and performance. The instructors and technology research team involved in the design and implementation of these courses used the term “tech navigator” to describe both the position and the responsibilities it invokes. As SHL technologies and designs evolve, only time will tell whether the tech navigator is a construct appropriate for continued development and refinement, or simply a result of our nascent attempts at a new design for learning and instruction. Finally, the experiences of these instructors in designing SHL environments raises the significance of what some have referred to as “situational creativity” (Goswami, 1999; Mishra et al., 2012) on the part of educators employing educational technologies and techniques in the classroom. The simple answer, related to the first implication above, is that there is no one fixed educational technology arrangement that will meet the demands of every class, or even a single class over time. Differences in content, class make-up, technology, and most importantly, pedagogical strategies make a one-size-fits-all model of SHL an unrealistic expectation. Instructors must develop a refined sense of what works for their classes in terms of pedagogy, class composition, and content – and they must combine this sense with a sophisticated set of skills that allow them to repurpose and adjust quickly to
- 295 -
the technologies they employ. Creativity lies in the fact that the pedagogical goals and content of each course requires that instructors are flexible and purposeful problem solvers. As the unique context of each hybrid setting provides challenges to teaching and learning content, instructors must creatively navigate the possible technological solutions. The successes of these instructors raises hope for taking advantage of what Dirkin & Mishra (2010) called a “zone of possibility”, a construct reminiscent of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Bounded on one side by the demands of content and pedagogy, and the constraints of technology on the other, educators are pulled towards finding new and creative solutions centered on principles of design thinking, improvisation, and pedagogical responsiveness. The results of these efforts in SHL design could be the emergence of new teacher education and professional development strategies to contour teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, and take advantage of the affordances and constraints of technology.
References: Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 82–103. doi:10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8–19. doi:10.1177/0022487108327554 Ghezzi, P. (2007). The online doctorate: Flexible, but credible? School Administrator, 64(7), 30 35.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ771694) Retrieved July 18, 2009, from ERIC database. Goswami. A. (1999). Quantum theory of creativity. In M.A.Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 2, pp. 491-500). New York: Academic Levine, A. (2007). Educating researchers. New York, NY: The Education Schools Project. Lin, L. (2008). An online learning model to facilitate learners’ rights to education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(1), 127-143. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Dirkin, K. & Mishra, P. (2010). Values, beliefs, and perspectives: Teaching online within the zone of possibility created by technology. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3811-3817). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/33974. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., Zellner, A., & Kereluik, K. (2012). Thematic considerations in integrating TPACK in a graduate program. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. Persichitte (Eds.),Developing Technology-Rich Teacher Education Programs: Key Issues (pp. 1-12). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Persson, P-A. (2012). Technology: From substance to abstraction and what this means for our understanding of it. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 4(2), 14-20 Spector, J.M. An overview of progress and problems in educational technology (1). (2001). Interactive Educational Multimedia, 3, pp. 27−37
- 296 -
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- 297 -
