Blended synchronicity: Uniting oncampus and distributed learners
through media-rich real-time
collaboration
Associate Professor Barney Dalgarno
Sub Dean Learning and Teaching, Faculty of Education
http://blendsync.org
Overview






The project
The problem
Technology afforded opportunities
Theoretical framing
Project plan
Ideas towards an affordance analysis
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
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.
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.
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
Example Scenarios
 Small group consultations involving remote and
face-to-face learners on Skype
Example Scenarios
 Lectures integrating remote and face-to-face
learners using web-conferencing
Example Scenarios
 Tutorial activities simultaneously engaging
students in face-to-face and virtual world
environment
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 incorporating web 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).
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
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)
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).
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.
Gibsonian Affordance Analysis
Features
Desktop Video
Conferencing
Web
Conferencing
Virtual Worlds
One to one video
communication
Lecture
Affords
Requires
One to many video
conferencing
Group video conferencing
Verbal presentation
Audio communication
Slide presentation
Instant text messaging
Written presentation
Screen sharing
Verbal discussion
Virtual hand up
Attention request
Voting
Viewing each other’s
notes
File sharing
Editing each other’s
notes
Shared whiteboard
Role representation
Avatar representation
Grouping
Spatial audio
Dynamic regrouping
Spatial representation
Chalk and Talk
Tutorial
Small group
discussion
Paired discussion
Group problem
solving
Role play
Think Pair Share
Embodied communication
Separate communication
channels
Jigsaw
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.
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.
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.
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
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