How do you create a multi-access learning model? It can take many forms and to choose the one that is right for your classroom takes thought and creativity. The CEPSE/COE Design Studio at Michigan State University in their explorations of synchromodal learning models (synonymous with multi-access learning models) at the post-secondary level has found that emphasis must be placed on “the interconnectedness between content, pedagogy, and the technology”. Your teaching pedagogy plays an influential role in the kinds of activities you choose to facilitate learning and your expectations for your students. Different content, activities and expectations will require different technologies for them to be successful. The availability of resources is also a factor.
In the Design Institute’s publication “Synchromodal classes: Designing for shared learning experiences between ace-to-face and online students” they highlight four distinct models for multi-access learning.
The first model, the linked classroom, joins two face-to-face classrooms with one instructor. Each class of students can see one stream of the entirety of the other class and instructor. In this model greater emphasis is placed on content rather than interaction. This model may be appropriate when the focus is on content but K-12 learning revolves largely around interaction. It would be effective when co-teaching a lesson with another teacher in another school but it does not include students who may be joining from beyond a physical classroom.
The second model, the shared portal, joins online and face-to-face students and their instructor. This model is very different from the linked classroom model as it allows online students to join in the class through video conferencing in one location in the classroom. This model also allows for some small group discussions through services such as Google hangout or co-constructed documents in services such as Google Docs. The students in the study were able to see both a wide-angle view of the entire class and a more mobile ‘student’ view of the speaker in the class. This model has presented some challenges as preliminary data found that their was a disconnect between online students and face-to-face students. Their data found that, “students who were online sometimes felt they had a more individualized presence within the whole class discussions as compared to face-to-face students”, and that “instructors would often seek the input of online students directly and by name. When they spoke the attention of all students , both face-to-face and online, was directly on them. In contrast, the face-to-face students saw their images aggregated in a single frame that was the same size as the frame occupied by individual online students, and as such it seemed to reduce their individual presence within the combined classroom space.” (pp. 75)
These issues raised in the shared portal model, by the face-to-face students, were important to address and modifications resulted in the creation of a third model, the personal portal. In this model online students were dispersed throughout the physical classroom using iPads connected to peers desks. This set up allowed for more authentic discussion and classroom atmosphere. This model is described as allowing students to “acquire[] their own eyes, voices, and ears.” (pp. 76) A drawback however was that the online students were completely dependent on their face-to-face peers to ensure that their camera was pointed at the speaker, giving them a limited view of the classroom space.
The final model was the small group model, which combined both whole class and small group activities. This is the most complex model of the four as it requires more organization and technology and the more of those two components you have the larger the margin for error. This was navigated by having a course website to coordinate small groups and a tech navigator in the room to address any issues that arose.
The four models presented vary and would allow for different focuses and activities, influenced by pedagogy and available technology. The shared portal model allows for the greatest visibility for online students but in its form raised concerns for face-to-face students. The personal portal model however allowed for the most authentic discussion and shared learning although visibility was reduced for online students. Finally the small group model allowed for a combination of whole class and small group activities although its complexity allowed the greatest opportunity for problems to arise. When choosing how to structure you multi-access classroom it is important to consider what you want your students to accomplish. If whole-class discussion is of the greatest importance maybe the personal portal model is for your classroom. However if you want the attention of the whole class maybe the shared portal model is the best approach. An if you want elements of both and have the resources and support to do so, the small group model may be the way to go. Overall, I would suggest that the decision of which model your classroom will take will be personal to you as the teacher and your students, you will modify the models to work for your classroom needs and adjust as those needs change allowing for a unique and successful multi-access learning experience for all of your students.
In the Design Institute’s publication “Synchromodal classes: Designing for shared learning experiences between ace-to-face and online students” they highlight four distinct models for multi-access learning.
The first model, the linked classroom, joins two face-to-face classrooms with one instructor. Each class of students can see one stream of the entirety of the other class and instructor. In this model greater emphasis is placed on content rather than interaction. This model may be appropriate when the focus is on content but K-12 learning revolves largely around interaction. It would be effective when co-teaching a lesson with another teacher in another school but it does not include students who may be joining from beyond a physical classroom.
The second model, the shared portal, joins online and face-to-face students and their instructor. This model is very different from the linked classroom model as it allows online students to join in the class through video conferencing in one location in the classroom. This model also allows for some small group discussions through services such as Google hangout or co-constructed documents in services such as Google Docs. The students in the study were able to see both a wide-angle view of the entire class and a more mobile ‘student’ view of the speaker in the class. This model has presented some challenges as preliminary data found that their was a disconnect between online students and face-to-face students. Their data found that, “students who were online sometimes felt they had a more individualized presence within the whole class discussions as compared to face-to-face students”, and that “instructors would often seek the input of online students directly and by name. When they spoke the attention of all students , both face-to-face and online, was directly on them. In contrast, the face-to-face students saw their images aggregated in a single frame that was the same size as the frame occupied by individual online students, and as such it seemed to reduce their individual presence within the combined classroom space.” (pp. 75)
These issues raised in the shared portal model, by the face-to-face students, were important to address and modifications resulted in the creation of a third model, the personal portal. In this model online students were dispersed throughout the physical classroom using iPads connected to peers desks. This set up allowed for more authentic discussion and classroom atmosphere. This model is described as allowing students to “acquire[] their own eyes, voices, and ears.” (pp. 76) A drawback however was that the online students were completely dependent on their face-to-face peers to ensure that their camera was pointed at the speaker, giving them a limited view of the classroom space.
The final model was the small group model, which combined both whole class and small group activities. This is the most complex model of the four as it requires more organization and technology and the more of those two components you have the larger the margin for error. This was navigated by having a course website to coordinate small groups and a tech navigator in the room to address any issues that arose.
The four models presented vary and would allow for different focuses and activities, influenced by pedagogy and available technology. The shared portal model allows for the greatest visibility for online students but in its form raised concerns for face-to-face students. The personal portal model however allowed for the most authentic discussion and shared learning although visibility was reduced for online students. Finally the small group model allowed for a combination of whole class and small group activities although its complexity allowed the greatest opportunity for problems to arise. When choosing how to structure you multi-access classroom it is important to consider what you want your students to accomplish. If whole-class discussion is of the greatest importance maybe the personal portal model is for your classroom. However if you want the attention of the whole class maybe the shared portal model is the best approach. An if you want elements of both and have the resources and support to do so, the small group model may be the way to go. Overall, I would suggest that the decision of which model your classroom will take will be personal to you as the teacher and your students, you will modify the models to work for your classroom needs and adjust as those needs change allowing for a unique and successful multi-access learning experience for all of your students.