Accessibility is not just a Section 508 thing.

June 4, 2008 – 5:48 pm

When we talk about making sure people have full access to our web-based course designs, I think we stop short if we just consider whether or not we’ve met the requirements of “Section 508″ (in the U.S.) for accessible web design.

In the HyFlex course, a major goal is for students to have full access to all alternative modes of the course participation. So if web-based participation (online) is an option, it should certainly meet the Section 508 requirements, and if classroom participation is an option, special access accommodations may be needed (i.e. ASL interpreters) to provide full access to information and activities. However, we can’t stop there.

Most semesters I use the HyFlex course design, I intentionally require students to complete one or two sessions (early in the course) using the online option in order to enable more equal access to both participation modes throughout the semester. My basic reasoning is that if they have no experience with the online participation option, they aren’t likely to understand or appreciate the differences between the normal in-class participation mode and the online option(s). In my experience overall, this has been very successful. By looking at participation patterns, I see that students participate more flexibly after these “online-required” sessions. And overall, approximately 20% of students in a given week choose online participation as an alternative to in-class participation.

This past semester (Spring 2008) I did not use this approach, however, and I noticed a definite change in student participation patterns. In a class with students experiencing the HyFlex course design for the first time, approximately 10% (or less) students chose the online option from week to week. That’s a drop of 50% in students selecting the alternative option than students in the same course during the past two terms. In another class, where most students had already completed a HyFlex course, the online participation rate was approximately 20%, the overall average I’ve seen in my HyFlex courses.

Now, I don’t think having students choose in-class or online participation in any particular distribution is necessarily good or bad, but I think I see evidence that when they don’t know what the alternative option is like (How hard is it? Is learning going to be effective?), they may be less likely to choose it. (Roger’s diffusion of innovations theory supports this, of course.) And if one of the options I provide isn’t understood by the students, I wonder how fully “accessible” it really is to the students.

Next semester I am going back to the required online sessions (one asynchronous and one synchronous) with students in their first HyFlex course. Especially since my students are in the field of instructional technology, they need the experience of online learning, but anecdotal evidence shows they may not choose it on their own. Once I’ve forced them to ”taste and see” the alternative(s), I’ll revert to bi-modal choices each week. And I’ll watch to see what they choose!

Have you tried this as a teacher or student? What was your experience like?

By brian_beatty | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Seeding and Reusing Discussions

May 2, 2008 – 1:36 pm

One of the four HyFlex principles is Reusability: Utilize artifacts from learning activities in each participation mode as “learning objects’ for all students.

In some weeks, running an online discussion is challenging because there may only be one or two students who have chosen the online option for that week. I’ve been struggling to think of good ways to make the online discussion useful to them, even when only a few are there. This past week I tried a new way to reuse the discussion we had in the face-to-face class for the online students.

In class, we had small groups of students discussing a variety of instructional design models. Each group developed a basic level of “expertise” on one model, and then posted a summary of that model to the online discussion forum during class. After each group had posted their summary, we went around the class and discussed each model for about ten minutes. I recorded the audio from the class discussions and posted the relevant segment for the discussion of each model to that model’s explanation post. (Using Audio Recorder (MAC) and a Telex UsB boom mic it a simple thing to capture and compress to MP3.)

So the online student(s) could enter the course site, review the source material, read the discussion posts, and listen to the class discussion about the post, and then decide if and what to reply to in their own posts. I was happy with the way the design turned out. I’ll follow-up with my students next week to see how they liked it - whether the reuse of class discussion to populate the online discussion made them feel like they were joining in on something already “happening”or not.

By brian_beatty | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

What do Online Learning professionals think about HyFlex?

April 9, 2008 – 2:44 pm

Listen in and watch a recent one-hour webinar that I facilitated through the Sloan-C Workshop Series. From the Sloan-C website: “The purpose of the Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C) is to help learning organizations continually improve quality, scale, and breadth of their online programs, according to their own distinctive missions, so that education will become a part of everyday life, accessible and affordable for anyone, anywhere, at any time, in a wide variety of disciplines.”

Watch it now - this link will download a Java program - Elluminate - to play the webinar. https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/recording/playback/link/meeting.jnlp?suid=M.12569D314A7901865E2C507121810F

I hope to be speaking about further developments with HyFlex at “The 14th Annual Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning” in Orlando FL in November 2008.

By brian_beatty | Posted in HyFlex in Practice | Tagged , , , | Comments (1)

Equivalency Matters - Sameness Doesn’t

April 9, 2008 – 2:28 pm

The second key principle I use to guide HyFlex development is Equivalency: Provide equivalent learning activities in all participation modes.

In the courses I teach, there are at least two, and sometimes three alternative participation modes - in-class, online synchronous, and online asynchronous. Each of these alternatives should lead to equivalent learning. A student who decides to complete class requirements on her own instead of coming to class in person should be able to meet the same student learning outcomes as any other student.

Providing a poorly designed alternative approach to students which leads to inferior learning is poor instructional practice and is probably unethical. In fact, if an important learning outcome cannot be met in one mode or another, students shouldn’t be given a choice of modes. In that case, a more traditional approach to hybrid learning (teacher dictates participation mode) is called for.

Equivalency does not imply equality or “sameness”, either. An online learning experience (i.e., asynchronous discussion) may turn out to be much less socially interactive than a classroom based discussion activity, yet still lead students to the same outcome. In the case of discussions, even if the discussion is not overtly socially interactive (as many online discussions with few participants tend to be), students should be challenged to reflect upon course content, contribute their developing ideas to the discussion, and interact with the ideas of their peers. A socially active in-class discussion may be a very different experience, but the student learning goals associated with course content should be the same as those for online discussions.

This past week in one class (E-Learning Development), I had the in-class students work in small groups to come up with a general description of ways they can create meaningful, memorable, and motivating e-learning from the perspective of Michael Allen’s approach - looking at Context, Challenge, Activity and Feedback. They came up with small group concensus on general approaches for each design element, and presented their work to the rest of the class. Students who participate online this week will complete a similar activity, though working on their own for the most part. An online student is asked to complete a 3×4 grid assessing his approach to implementing the 3 Ms (as I call them) across the same four design elements (Context, Challenge, etc.), and post them for peer review and commentary. These students will work on applying the concepts to more specific situations than the in-class students. But both sets of students are using higher order thinking skills to consider how they can design more effective e-learning; e-learning that is meaningful, memorable, and motivating.

Equivalent learning? I think so. The same? Definitely not.

By brian_beatty | Posted in HyFlex Principles, HyFlex in Theory | Tagged , | Comments (0)

Who decides how students participate? Why is this relevant?

March 21, 2008 – 11:03 pm

One of the important underlying principles I try to implement with HyFlex is to provide Learner Choice in how students participate in courses. And I want them to have the flexibility to make that choice every week; I want them to take control of that aspect of their learning experience. Why?

Perhaps three of the APA’s Learner Centered Principles help answer this question and support this flexible approach:

  1. LCP 9. Effects of motivation on effort: Acquisition of complex knowledge and skills requires extended learner effort and guided practice. Without learners’ motivation to learn, the willingness to exert this effort is unlikely without coercion.
  2. LCP 11. Social influences on learning:  Learning is influenced by social interactions, interpersonal relations, and communication with others.
  3. LCP 12. Individual differences in learning:  Learners have different strategies, approaches, and capabilities for learning that are a function of prior experience and heredity.

Learners who can control their learning experience may be more motivated to participate in assigned activities than if they have no control over selecting activities. I think with adult graduate students with busy lives, this may be even more important to motivational factors than for younger students who are used to beign told what to do and when to do it; especially in school.

I think we all know that our learning is influenced by social factors. Social interaction is a major factor in many seminar-type classes that use interactive group discussions as an instructional activity. As educators, I think most of us believe that a socially interactive classroom enhances learning for all. But that is not true. For some students, the social experience in the classroom can be mortifying at worst, intimidating at best. Is it our role as educators to force all students to participate in social settings that they cannot thrive within? If so, I would argue that the goal this restraint attempts to meet is not an instructional goal, but a social goal. And each educator will have to decide whether or not that is appropriate for her instructional situation. (It may be, but then again it may not be.) So in my case, though the online participation mode may be less socially interactive for students, I think the overall social influence “factor” may be more favorable for some of these learners if they are not forced into uncomfortable social settings.

Finally, the third LCP listed above acknowledges individual differences among learners, due to experiences, preparation, and heredity (and we could list a large number of factors here). I realized a long time ago that all of my students do not learn exactly the same thing even when they have the same learning experience; whether in the classroom or online. So the presumption that every student must experience exactly the same content, supports, and activities in order to acheive the same learning goals is not valid (in my experience and opinion). The HyFlex course design provides alternative ways to achieve the same learning goals so that a learner can select the most appropriate (and yes, sometimes this translates to convenience) path to the goal for him or her. And the instructor may have a very important role to play here; helping a student identify the best approach to follow, based on the student’s strengths, preferences and past experience.

Bottom line: The learner choice principle of the HyFlex course design is well supported by the APA’s Learner Centered Principles, and may improve student motivation and overall learning because a student can choose a social situation and and select from alternative learning paths that fits her personality, experience and strengths. 

By brian_beatty | Posted in HyFlex in Theory | Comments (0)

Fundamental Principles Driving HyFlex Design

March 18, 2008 – 9:37 pm

I’ve developed the HyFlex approach based upon four fundamental principles; Learner Choice, Equivalency, Reusability, and Accessibility. To me, these four represent key values that I want to make a reality in my teaching and for my students.  In this post, I’ll explain each principle briefly. Please leave comments and questions!

Principle 1 - Learner Choice: Provide meaningful alternative participation modes and enable students to choose between participation modes weekly (or topically).

The primary reason a HyFlex course design should be considered is to give students a choice in how they complete course activities in any given week (or in some cases, per topic). Without meaningful choice, there is no flexibility … no “Flex” … and therefore no HyFlex. Without flexibility all you have is a standard hybrid course. Not a bad thing, perhaps, but also not HyFlex.

Choosing to implement this value may requires that an instructor or designer value providing participation choice to students more than s/he values forcing everyone into a pre-set “best” way of learning a set of content.

Principle 2 - Equivalency: Provide equivalent learning activities in all participation modes.

Well-designed alternative participation modes should lead to equivalent learning. Providing an alternative approach to students which leads to inferior learning “by design” is poor instructional practice and is probably unethical.

Equivalency does not imply equality, however. An online learning experience (i.e., asynchronous discussion) may turn out to be much less socially interactive than a classroom based discussion activity. In each case, however, students should be challenged to reflect upon learning content, contribute their developing ideas to the discussion, and interact with the ideas of their peers. Providing equivalent learning experiences in various modes may be one of the greatest challenges in the HyFlex approach.

Principle 3 - Reusability: Utilize artifacts from learning activities in each participation mode as learning resources (“learning objects”) for all students.

Many class activities which take place in classrooms can be captured and represented in an online-delivered form for online students. Podcasts, video recordings, discussion transcripts or notes, presentation files and handouts, and other forms of representation of in-class activities can be very useful – both for online students and for classroom students wishing to review after the class session is finished.

In a similar way, the activities completed by online students, such as chats, asynchronous discussions, file posting and peer review, etc. can become meaningful learning resources for in-class students as well as provide useful review materials for online students. And indeed, artifacts from some learning activities, such as, glossary entries, bibliographic resource collections, and topical research papers, may become perpetual learning resources for all students in future courses as well.

Principle 4 - Accessibility: Equip students with technology skills and enable full access to instructional resources and activities in all participation modes.

Clearly, alternative participation modes are not valid alternatives if students cannot effectively participate in class activities in one or more modes. If a student is not physically capable of attending class, then in-class participation is not an option for that student. If a student does not have convenient and reliable Internet access, then online participation may not be a realistic option for that student. Students need the technologies (hardware, software, networks) and skills in using technology in order to make legitimate choices about participation modes. It may be incumbent upon an instructor or academic program to provide resources and extra training to students (and instructors) so that flexible participation is a real option.

Another key aspect of accessibility is the need to make all course materials and activities accessible to and usable for all students. For example, audio or video recordings should include text transcripts or be close-captioned, web pages and learning management systems must be “screen reader friendly”, and all forms of online discussion should meet universal design guidelines for accessibility. As more students with varied learning-mode abilities enter graduate programs and public, regulatory and legal pressures for universal design for accessibility increase, this aspect becomes increasingly important.

In my experience, this has also been challenging, and I don’t believe that I’ve been able to implement this principle fully. And it may be that there will always be some inequity in access to alternative participation modes, much like some students learn better verbally (listening to instructions and explanations) and some learn better visually (watching others do or view visual explanation), and some learn best by doing. Of course, other students never realistically be able to attend class in person if they are located in a distant place. So perhaps this principle is the least likely to be fully implemented; however, I believe that full and equitable access is still an important goal.

There may be more fundamental principles that should be included in this list, and I (of course) reserve the right to add to and revise these as the HyFlex approach evolves and matures.

What do you think?

By brian_beatty | Posted in HyFlex Principles | Comments (0)

Why HyFlex? What’s the advantage?

February 28, 2008 – 6:00 pm

I started developing the HyFlex course design to meet the needs of the MA program in Instructional Technologies at SF State (where I teach and “profess”). These needs are 1) the general “busy-ness” and complicated lives of our graduate students, 2) the program’s desire to attract and serve online students, and the 3) desire of the College of Education to expand its reach outside of the local region to serve students throughout the state of California and beyond.
Students Need Options
In our program at at SF State, essentially all graduate students commute to classes, and a large majority of graduate students work full time. Most graduate courses meet face to face once a week for approximately three hours. In the ITEC program, courses are offered in the late afternoon and evenings to accommodate students’ work schedules. While some ITEC graduate students live within several miles of campus, many students travel 60 miles or more from every part of the San Francisco Bay Area – from the Napa Valley in the North to the Silicon Valley in the South and the Livermore Valley (and beyond) in the East. Since SF State is located in San Francisco and connected to the rest of the region by three major bridges which span San Francisco Bay, student (and faculty) commutes often include the additional time and cost of transiting heavily travels bridges at rush hour. To attend class in person each week, graduate students may spend up to three or more hours per class in commute traffic. For some this is a major burden.
Program Desires to Serve Distant Students
The ITEC program at SF State draws students from across the SF Bay Area in part due to its comprehensive approach to the Instructional Technologies curriculum. Students come to learn how to apply the latest instructional technologies to educational settings, develop educational software and Internet sites, and apply instructional design principles to training in all sorts of organizations. As in many graduate degree programs, natural fluctuations in economic and employment cycles have lead to significant variation in student enrollments over the years, especially since 2001. While acknowledging that many factors influence this variation, the ITEC program decided in 2005 that it would “move the program online” to increase enrollment by opening up access to the instructional program to students who could not attend class in person. Of course, just announcing that a program or course is now available online does not create the content or generate the enrollment to turn a promise into reality. The program needed a way to transition the core of its program to support online students without abandoning face to face students; it needed a solution to serve both types of students without spending significantly more resources.

University Considers Online Degree Programs
At the same time the ITEC program was feeling these pressures and moving in the direction of online courses, the College of Education (COE) at SF State was experiencing similar pressure to bolster declining enrollments. The COE only offers graduate programs leading to California teaching credentials or Masters of Arts degrees in Education. The various teaching credential programs at SF State enroll the majority of COE students and therefore receive the majority of state funding. And not surprisingly, the teaching credential program at SF State has traditionally supported the needs of public school systems in San Francisco and the surrounding urban area. In recent years there has been a major shift in the school age population away from San Francisco and its surrounding cities (for a number of reasons too complex to explore here). This has contributed to lower enrollments in teacher credential programs in the COE at SF State. The COE is now looking for ways to expand its service area outside of the San Francisco Bay Area to the rest of the State of California and beyond. Serving students at a distance requires alternative instructional delivery systems, including online courses. Once again, a solution was needed that allows the COE to serve both its face to face students in traditional classes and distance students who need other ways of connecting to the college programs (courses, faculty, and students).

Does the HyFlex approach meet needs and solve problems?
Well, of course it can! Whether it does or not depends on many other factors (as any approach does). The HyFlex course design can play a central role in effective solutions to these significant institutional needs. But what about the specific learning needs of students? What should be considered as new course delivery models are developed? I considered two main conceptual frameworks as I started; andragogy – as applied to adult education , the APA’s learner centered principles applied to instruction in higher education. I’ll say more about that in my next post.

By brian_beatty | Posted in HyFlex in Theory | Comments (1)

Hello! Welcome to the HyFlex world!

January 23, 2008 – 12:20 pm

What is the HyFlex world? (You may be wondering.) HyFlex is my simple attempt to describe and explain an effective way of combining traditional, classroom based learning and online (synchronous and asynchronous) learning approaches in a way that allows learners (or students, if you prefer) a flexible path to follow as they learn. In my graduate courses, I encourage students to come to class if they wish (and are available) or attend online. Essentially, I have created a hybrid learning environment with flexible participation modes … the HyFlex world! Watch for more explanation of the HyFlex approach - fundamental principles, course design tips, reports of student (and instructor) experience, participation patterns, and other evaluative findings as I (and my SF State colleagues) continue developing this approach to creating new learning communities.

By brian_beatty | Posted in HyFlex in Theory | Comments (1)