1. Faculty Considerations
1.1. increased cognitive load for faculty
1.1.1. Instruction in an environment such as a blended, synchronous environment represents an increase in workload (as faculty adapt their lessons or build new lessons), as well as an increase in cognitive load while teaching (constantly monitoring all locations while using instructional technology) (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015; Detienne, Raes, Depaepe, 2018)
1.2. increased workload for faculty
1.2.1. content, lesson plans, activities, and assessment could be redesigned
1.2.1.1. Instruction in an environment such as a blended, synchronous environment represents an increase in workload (as faculty adapt their lessons or build new lessons), as well as an increase in cognitive load while teaching (constantly monitoring all locations while using instructional technology) (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015; Detienne, Raes, Depaepe, 2018)
1.2.2. prep time is increased
2. Administrative Considerations
2.1. manage expectations
2.1.1. user expectations of these technologies will increase as technology advances
2.1.1.1. As videoconferencing technologies have become more common in our daily lives, student expectations of the use of such technologies in higher education have increased (Lawson, Comber, Gage, Cullen-Hanshaw, 2010)
2.1.2. expectations of these technologies increase as the technology becomes more ubiquitous
2.1.2.1. As videoconferencing technologies have become more common in our daily lives, student expectations of the use of such technologies in higher education have increased (Lawson, Comber, Gage, Cullen-Hanshaw, 2010)
2.2. IT/ operational support
2.3. interest will increase and decrease
2.3.1. Anticipate student and faculty interest to wean as the technology catches on an moves through the hype cycle (Veletsianos, 2010)
2.4. student support
2.4.1. for face-to-face learners
2.4.2. remote learners
2.5. specific policies are required
2.5.1. protection of privacy and personal information
2.6. faculty support
2.6.1. pedagogy
2.6.2. instructional design
2.6.3. reduces anxiety and uncertainty
2.6.3.1. (Rennar-Potacco & Orellana, 2018)
2.7. avoid lags in pedagogical change vs. technological change
2.7.1. There exists an implementation gap with any of these such technologies; whereby the pace of technological change makes it challenging for pedagogy to keep up. As these such technologies become more prevalent, this gap will close (Lawson, Comber, Gage, Cullen-Hanshaw, 2010)
3. Benefits
3.1. improves recruitment
3.1.1. increases flexibility for learners
3.1.1.1. Improved access to higher education opportunities is one of the primary benefits of blended, synchronous environments; giving these technologies the potential to help drive recruitment rates (Lawson, Comber, Gage, Cullen-Hanshaw, 2010; Detienne, Raes, Depaepe, 2018)
3.1.1.2. Blended synchronous learning allows for greater flexibility for learners - particularly in contexts where they have the ability to participate from home or from a physical campus (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015; Detienne, Raes, Depaepe, 2018; Ebner, Gegenfurther, 2019)
3.1.2. improves access to higher ed
3.1.2.1. Improved access to higher education opportunities is one of the primary benefits of blended, synchronous environments; giving these technologies the potential to help drive recruitment rates (Lawson, Comber, Gage, Cullen-Hanshaw, 2010; Detienne, Raes, Depaepe, 2018)
3.2. provides options for individuals who require adaptations
3.2.1. Heiman, Fichten, Olenik-Shemesh, Keshet & Jorgensen (2017)
3.3. cost-effective way to increase audience
4. Critical Evaluation
4.1. comparison to other modes of delivery
4.1.1. no significant differences in student learning
4.1.1.1. Blended, synchronous deliver has been shown to be equality effective as face-to-face instruction and synchronus online learning for student learning and satisfaction (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015; Ebner, Gegenfurther, 2019)
4.1.1.2. (Gegenfurtner & Ebner, 2019)
4.1.2. no significant differences in student satisfaction
4.1.2.1. Blended, synchronous deliver has been shown to be equality effective as face-to-face instruction and synchronus online learning for student learning and satisfaction (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015; Ebner, Gegenfurther, 2019)
4.1.3. Some studies report gains in student achievement, while others found the opposite. Small sample sizes is thought to make up this discrepancy.
4.1.3.1. (Gegenfurtner & Ebner, 2019)
4.2. challenge of giving immediate feedback
4.2.1. The lack of immediate feedback for learners has been cited as one of the challenges of blended, synchronous delivery (Ebner, Gegenfurther, 2019)
4.3. challenge of fostering interaction (between learners, and between learners and instructors)
4.3.1. The lack of interaction between learners and other learners, as well as between learners and instructors, has also been cited as a challenge of blended, synchronous delivery (Ebner, Gegenfurther, 2019)
4.4. research on how to split content online vs. face to face is limited
4.4.1. (Bates, 2015)
4.5. students fear these environments may compromise their learning
4.5.1. Some students reported concerns that their learning experience may be compromised in a blended, synchronous environment (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015)
5. Student Considerations
5.1. increased cognitive load
5.1.1. Student participation in blended, synchronous environments has been described as creating an increased cognitive load (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015)
5.2. IT expectations
5.2.1. avoid time lags
5.2.1.1. The quality of audio and video in a blended, synchronous environment is critical. Time lags in particular have been shown to significantly impact blended, synchronous environments (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015; Lawson, Comber, Gage, Cullen-Hanshaw, 2010)
5.2.2. high-quality multimedia
5.2.3. high-quality audio/ video
5.2.3.1. The quality of audio and video in a blended, synchronous environment is critical. Time lags in particular have been shown to significantly impact blended, synchronous environments (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015; Lawson, Comber, Gage, Cullen-Hanshaw, 2010)
5.2.4. avoid technological lags
5.2.4.1. (Rennar-Potacco & Orellana, 2018)
5.2.5. provide technical support
5.2.5.1. (Rennar-Potacco & Orellana, 2018)
5.3. ensure interaction with peers, instructors, and content
5.3.1. faculty typically initiate these interactions
5.3.1.1. In studies done on blended synchronous environments, students have consistently asked for greater interaction collaboration with instructors, and with one another (Lawson, Comber, Gage, Cullen-Hanshaw, 2010; Ebner, Gegenfurther, 2019).
5.3.1.1.1. Studies also suggest these interactions are typically initiated by instructors (Lawson, Comber, Gage, Cullen-Hanshaw, 2010)
5.3.1.1.2. Some authors suggest blended, synchronous technologies have the potential to enhance a sense of community between face-to-face and remote groups of learners (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015)
5.3.1.2. Studies also suggest these interactions are typically initiated by instructors (Lawson, Comber, Gage, Cullen-Hanshaw, 2010)
5.3.1.3. (Rennar-Potacco & Orellana, 2018)
5.3.2. this technology has the potential to enhance a sense of community across sites
5.3.2.1. Some authors suggest blended, synchronous technologies have the potential to enhance a sense of community between face-to-face and remote groups of learners (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015)
5.3.3. intentional community building
6. Teaching and Learning Considerations
6.1. maximize receptivity
6.1.1. Communication becomes more effective in blended synchronus environments when faculty seek to maximize their immediacy and receptivity (Umphrey, Wickersham, and Sherbrooke, 2008)
6.2. acknowledge all learners
6.2.1. maximize immediacy
6.2.1.1. Communication becomes more effective in blended synchronus environments when faculty seek to maximize their immediacy and receptivity (Umphrey, Wickersham, and Sherbrooke, 2008)
6.2.2. share the focus on face-to-face and remote sites
6.2.2.1. Studies suggest that remote students can express both a feeling of not being acknowledged enough to of being focused on too much (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015)
6.2.2.2. Studies suggest that remote students can express both a feeling of not being acknowledged enough to of being focused on too much (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015)
6.3. consider how various cultures may respond to this delivery method
6.3.1. Assess receptivity across cultures (ie, into First Nations communities), and plan, implement, evaluate strategies to mitigate cultural differences in receptivity (Veletsianos, 2010)
6.4. group norms/ shared expectations
6.4.1. groups of 4 are less are most effective for interaction
6.4.1.1. (Rennar-Potacco & Orellana, 2018)
6.4.1.2. Studies have suggested the development of shared expectations regarding student engagement in blended, synchronous sessions is necessary to create an effective learning community (Lawson, Comber, Gage, Cullen-Hanshaw, 2010)
6.5. ensure learning outcomes are clear
6.6. align pedagogy with delivery method
6.6.1. Without proper resources and support, blended synchronous environments can become a extension of our existing face-to-face classrooms; and fail to address the nuances of this particular mode of delivery (Lawson, Comber, Gage, Cullen-Hanshaw, 2010)
6.7. align instruction with delivery method
6.7.1. New modes of delivery require shifts in pedagogical methods (Detienne, Raes, Depaepe, 2018)
6.8. consider composure, stay calm
6.8.1. (Umphrey, Wickersham, & Sherblom, 2008)
7. Definition
7.1. Teaching and Learning through audio and video communication across two or more physical sites
7.1.1. via video conferencing, web conferencing, or virtual worlds
7.1.1.1. Synchronous audio and video communication through computer or telephone networks between two or more geographically dispersed sites (Lawson, Comber, Gage, Cullen-Hanshaw, 2010)
7.1.1.2. Learning and teaching where remote students participate in face-to-face classes by means of rich-media synchronous technologies such as video conferencing, web conferencing, or virtual worlds (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kennedy, 2015)
7.1.2. sometimes deployed as one-to-many sessions (sometimes referred to as webcasts), sometimes group-to-group (sometimes referred to as webinars)
7.1.2.1. (Lawson, Comber, Gage, & Cullum‐Hanshaw, 2010)
8. Questions
8.1. how should we measure effectiveness?
8.1.1. data/ what evidence to inform decision-making?
8.2. what are best practices for designing blended synchronous learning spaces?
8.2.1. unique needs of the campus community?
8.3. are there advantages or disadvantages to learners being on campus or remote? should there be?
8.4. how can institutions support communities and individuals with limited access to or awareness technology?
8.4.1. will such technologies close or widen the digital divide?
8.4.1.1. (Huffman, 2018)
8.5. do institutions intent to make access available to individuals from a home internet connection? mobile internet connection?
8.5.1. who are the intended audiences? locally? across the country? internationally?