Associate Professor Barney Dalgarno Sub Dean Learning and Teaching, Faculty of Education

1. Blended synchronicity: Uniting on-campus and distributed learners through media-rich real-time collaboration Associate Professor Barney DalgarnoSub Dean Learning and Teaching, Faculty of Education http://blendsync.org

2. Overview • The project • The problem • Technology afforded opportunities • Theoretical framing • Project plan • Ideas towards an affordance analysis

3. The Project • The Team • Dr Matt Bower, Macquarie (lead) • A/Prof Gregor Kennedy, Melbourne • A/Prof Barney Dalgarno, CSU • Mark Lee, CSU • Jacqueline Kenney, Macquarie (project officer) • The Grant: • $220,000 ALTC Innovation and Development Grant • October 2011 to September 2013

4. The Problem • University students find it increasingly difficult to commit to regular face-to-face classes (James, Krause, & Jennings, 2010; Gosper, Green, McNeill, Phillips, Preston, & Woo, 2008). • This can result in decisions to enrol in online or distance mode or can result in non attendance at class despite face-to-face enrolment. • However, real-time interaction and collaboration are often considered essential (or highly valuable) for achieving successful learning outcomes.

5. The Problem (cont.) • Online support for students has matured in recent years, through Learning Management System features such as: • Online subject outlines and study guides • Online forums • Lecture recording • However, support has tended to be asynchronous and so non face-to-face students do not have access to real-time interaction and collaboration.

6. Opportunities Emerging • A range of media-rich synchronous technologies has emerged that could allow real-time learning experiences for these increasingly distributed students. • Specific technologies of focus include: • Desktop video conferencing • Web conferencing • Virtual worlds • Importantly, the boundaries between these tools are becoming blurred and there is also scope for combining them in interesting ways

7. Example Scenarios • Small group consultations involving remote and face-to-face learners on Skype

8. Example Scenarios • Lectures integrating remote and face-to-face learners using web-conferencing

9. Example Scenarios • Tutorial activities simultaneously engaging students in face-to-face and virtual world environment

10. Theoretical Framing: Affordances and Learning Design • A key aspect of the project will be a literature and theory informed affordance analysis, building on the affordance framework for Virtual Worlds in earlier work by Dalgarno and Lee (2010). • This affordance analysis will also build on earlier work by Bower (eg. Bower & Hedberg, 2010) on learning designs incorporatingweb conferencing. • An important deliverable will be learning design exemplars, building on earlier work by various members of the team on Web 2.0 technology and learning design (eg. Kennedy, Dalgarno et al., 2009, Bower et al., 2010, Lee & McLoughlin, 2010).

11. Project Plan • Phase 1 (completion Feb 2012) • Extensive literature review • Survey of current practice • Formation of practitioner network • Phase 2 (completion June 2012) • Affordance analysis • Identification of possible exemplar learning designs • Phase 3 (completion December 2012) • Implementation and evaluation of case studies • Phase 4 (completion September 2013) • Dissemination of outcomes and project evaluation

12. Affordances • James J. Gibson (1977) • The affordance of anything is a specific combination of the properties of its substances and its surfaces taken with reference to an animal (p. 67). • Although an affordance consists of physical properties taken with reference to a certain animal it does not depend on that animal...an affordance is not what is called a subjective quality of a thing... (p. 69)

13. Affordances • Donald Norman (1988) • ... the term affordance refers to the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used...(p. 9).

14. Affordances • Donald Norman (1999) • When I get around to revising [The Psychology of Everyday Things], I will make a global change, replacing all instances of the word “affordance” with the phrase “perceived affordance.” The designer cares more about what actions the user perceives to be possible than what is true.

15. Gibsonian Affordance Analysis Features Affords Requires

16. What Norman might say • Even though a tool might technically afford a particular activity, if users don’t perceive this affordance the activity will not occur • Consequently the capabilities need to be looked at in conjunction with the usability of the interface • Sometimes a tool might technically afford an activity but its interface may not actually afford the activity due to constraints and conventions. For example high latency audio may theoretically afford group discussions but in practice regular back and forth interaction may not occur due to conventions about interruptions and politeness. • With the addition of an attention request mechanism, group discussions may be more effectively afforded by allowing for smoother exchanging of the right to speak.

17. Implications for our project • As well as the theoretical (Gibsonian) affordance analysis we need to undertake empirical evaluations which gauge perceptions of affordance, along with conventions and constraints coming into play, and relative advantages of one tool over another for certain communication requirements.

18. References • Bower, M., & Hedberg, J. (2010). A quantitative multimodal discourse analysis of teaching and learning in a web-conferencing environment - The efficacy of student-centred learning designs. Computers & Education, 54(2), 462-478. • Bower, M., Cram, A., & Groom, D. (2010). Blended reality: Issues and potentials in combining virtual worlds and face-to-face classes. In Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Sydney, (pp. 129-140). • Dalgarno, B. & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10-32. • Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. IN R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds). Perceiving, acting and knowing: toward an ecological psychology, 67-82.

19. References • Gosper, M., Green, D., McNeill, M., Phillips, R., Preston, G., & Woo, K. (2008). The impact of web-based lecture technologies on current and future practices in learning and teaching [Final project report]. Sydney: ALTC. • James, R., Krause, K., & Jennings, C. (2010). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from 1994 to 2009. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne. • Kennedy, G.K., Dalgarno, B., Bennett, S., Gray, K., Waycott, J., Judd, T., Bishop, A., Maton, K., Krause, K., Chang, R. (2009). Educating the Net Generation: A Handbook of findings for Practice and Policy. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne Press

20. References • Lee, M.J.W. & McLoughlin, C. (2010). Applying Web 2.0 tools in hybrid learning designs. In F.L. Wang, J. Fong & R.C. Kwan (Eds), Handbook of research on hybrid learning models: Advanced tools, technologies, and applications (pp. 371–392). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. • Norman, D. (1988) The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books. • Norman, D. (1999) Affordances, Conventions and Design, Interactions, Interactions, May/June 1999, pp. 38-43. www.jnd.org