Presented by Luba Iskold, Ed.D. Muhlenberg College

 Review of the Literature  Hybrid Teaching vs. Hybrid Learning  Pedagogical Needs  Elluminate vs. Skype  Benefits & Solutions?

 A combination of online and face-to-face instruction (Young, 2002)  Interchangeable with the term “blended” learning  Synchronous & asynchronous delivery modes: ● Classroom ● Online ● Blended ●  Distance Learning: Videoconferencing technology  Online Learning: Computer-mediated (CM) technology

 Combination of face-to-face instruction with a group of students in a regular classroom and synchronous interaction with one or more students at a remote location  Possible Scenarios:  Student cross-registration among consortial institutions  Student extended absence from campus due to various circumstances  Study abroad in an English-speaking country

 In the past decade, widespread availability of digital learning technologies has led to increased integration of computer-mediated interaction in traditional face- to-face learning experiences.  Institutions of higher education are embracing online and blended learning (Bonk, 2004).  Although more research is needed, recent publications provide dozens of models that combine face-to-face instruction with online learning in formal academic settings (Bonk & Graham, 2006).  Reactions include a wide range of opinions, from excitement to disappointment (the Chronicle of Higher Education, Zemsky & Massy, 2004).

 Blended Learning Models (Graham, 2006):  Activity Level: using technology to enhance learning activities  Course Level: combination of face-to-face and CM activities used as part of a course  Program Level: (1) participants choose a mix between face-to-face and online courses (2) combination between the two is prescribed by the program  Institutional Level: large-scale effort to enable students to take advantage of both modes

How can we blend face-to-face and CM instruction effectively ? To answer this question, let’s consider pedagogical needs

 Synchronous Content Delivery:  Presentations/Demonstrations  Reviews & discussions  Video & audio  TB/WB  Printed handouts  Tests & Quizzes  Experience & practice:  Role play  Peer discussion  Interactive Exercises

 Library access (e-books, e-journals)  Blackboard (other CMS) access  Handouts & tutorial documents  PowerPoint presentations  Images and Internet links  Interactive generic & customized content  Asynchronous collaborative learning ( , discussion boards, chat facilities)  Student support (e-tutors, technical support)

 Instructional Materials  Audio Textbook CDs Instructor & student recordings Songs  Video Textbook DVDs Student-produced videos YouTube clips SCOLA segments Dish TV clips

Chat box – type here Polling buttons Switch whiteboard “pages” Whiteboard tools Custom size/color/font options appear below when using certain tools Turn microphone on/off and control volume levels Menus & shortcut buttons Enable/disable functions for individual participants

Share a single application, or your entire desktop While sharing the desktop, the quality of video and audio files is poor. Better quality can be achieved by ing files or links to students, or by uploading them to Blackboard.

 Pros:  Geared toward teaching and learning  Many features integrated into a single program  Students and guest speakers do not need accounts  The software is installed automatically upon first use  Instructors moderate discussion  Sessions can be recorded and reviewed at a later date

 Cons:  The college must pay for a license  Cluttered interface with too many buttons  Time is needed to become familiar with the software  Sessions must be scheduled in advance  Participants must be invited ahead of time  Invitations clutter inboxes  The best audio quality is achieved by turning microphones on/off each time someone speaks, which is a distraction in a classroom setting

 Calls with video & audio  Desktop sharing  Instant Messaging  File sharing  Integrated access to Facebook newsfeed and contacts (Windows only)

 Pros:  Free  Easy to use, intuitive interface  Spontaneity: No need to send invitations or schedule meetings in advance  No need to turn microphones on/off when speaking  Less disruptive to classroom instruction  Runs in multiple languages

 Cons:  No integrated whiteboard; however, any drawing program can be run while sharing your desktop  Every participant needs to create an account and download the software

 Professional development for instructors  Training and technical support for learners  Dynamic institutional infrastructure  Acceptance of blended approaches by institutional culture

 Additional time to prepare ALL instructional materials in a digital format  Seamless integration of online learners with students in a traditional classroom  Switching between three modes:  Face-to-face in a traditional classroom  Blended learning in a traditional classroom  Online learning from a remote location

 Impact on student learning  Faculty workload  Recognition of the value of faculty work

 View learning as a social experience  View technology as an aid to the social dimension of learning  Capitalize on the learner-faculty relationship  Make the most of peer relationships

Luba Iskold 2400 Chew Street Muhlenberg College, Languages, Literatures and Cultures, Allentown, PA Phone: russian/iskold.html 22