9.0 Introduction

In Chapter 2, we discussed the 3Ms (medium, modality, method), specifically talking about how modality can affect the methods designed into a course. In this chapter, we will go into more detail about how four different dimensions of modality can shape course dynamics and inform the facilitation methods that are used. We’ll also discuss bichronous and blended modalities and connect the content between each. Recognizing and understanding the modalities you will use in your course are essential to identifying the areas where your learners will need support as you facilitate your course.

Learning Outcome: I can explore strategies for facilitating activities in different modalities using different dimensions of interaction. 

• I can articulate how time, place, fidelity, and humanness in interactions affect my facilitation. (Section 9.1)

• I can help students see the connection between synchronous and asynchronous activities. (Section 9.2.)

• I can help students see the connection between in-person and online activities. (Section 9.2.)

9.1 Dimensions of Interaction Affecting Blended Learning Facilitation

Learning Outcome: I can articulate how time, place, fidelity, and humanness in interactions affect my facilitation.

There are four dimensions of interaction that affect activities within your course and how you facilitate those activities. These dimensions include time, place, fidelity, and humanness (see Figure 9-1). We’ll go more in depth for each in the following sections. 

9.1.1. Time

In blended teaching, the time dimension plays a crucial role in shaping the dynamics of interactions. Understanding the distinctions between synchronous, asynchronous, and bichronous activities is essential for effective facilitation.

The two ends of the time dimension are synchronous (live synchronous) and asynchronous. Synchronous interactions have a short lag time between interactions, often just a few seconds. On the other hand, asynchronous interactions have longer lag times between interactions, ranging from minutes to days. Bichronous activities combine both synchronous and asynchronous components.

Facilitation practices differ based on the lag time between interactions. See Table 9-1 for a comparison of facilitation strategies for a synchronous discussion and an asynchronous discussion. 

Table 9-1. Synchronous and Asynchronous Discussion Characteristics and Facilitation Strategies

You should be intentional in the activities that you do facilitate synchronously, asynchronously, and bichronously. You may want consider some of the following questions as you create your facilitation plan:

• Could learners come across complex technological problems that will be difficult to diagnose asynchronously? How will you address those problems?
• How much will learners need to interact for this activity? How will the timing of the activity affect their level of interaction?
• What level of feedback will learners need from the instructor or TA?
• How often will you, as the facilitator, participate in the activity?
• When will you be available to answer learners’ questions or clarify assignment instructions?
• Do you want everyone to participate? How will you encourage participation?

In the upcoming chapters, we will dive deeper into specific examples, tips, and platforms for synchronous and asynchronous activity facilitation. 

9.1.2 Place

“Co-located and distributed” are the two ends of the place dimension. Co-located means that learners are interacting from the same physical space, such as the classroom. Distributed means that people are engaging virtually with the content in different physical locations, such as one learner interacting from the library while another is working at home. Blended lies between the two, combining elements of both online and in-person modalities. So one class session may be in-person while another class session may be taught online using video-conferencing software. Or perhaps one class session is in-person and then the learners go through the rest of their materials asynchronously. See Table 9-2 for a comparison of co-located and distributed facilitation strategies for group discussions. 

Table 9-2. Co-Located and Distributed Group Discussion Characteristics and Facilitation Strategies

9.1.3 Fidelity

Fidelity describes the richness of communication cues in interactions. High fidelity interactions would allow participants to use all their senses, such as is found in an in-person environment. Further on the continuum is medium fidelity, which can include audio and video. This includes communication cues such as tone and facial expressions, while also losing cues such as body language. With low fidelity, interactions are typically text based, requiring only the ability to see text in a document (or sound for those using document readers). 

Different levels of fidelity convey varying levels of information, both for learners and for the facilitator. The higher the fidelity, the easier it is to receive or convey affective information through body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, and intonation. Body language cues may include crossing arms, using hand gestures, nodding, tapping feet, or looking around the room. Facial expressions such as smiling, frowning, yawning, raising eyebrows, and using eye contact can provide insights into how the information is being received. When the facilitator and learners can hear tone of voice they can hear whether someone is being serious, cheerful, respectful, sarcastic, or assertive. Lastly, with intonation, listeners can understand where the speaker is placing emphasis within the sentence. The facilitator can use these cues to intuit learners’ sentiments regarding a topic, assess their confusion, evaluate group dynamics, and adapt their facilitation approach to address specific needs or challenges. Additionally, the facilitator can give encouragement and show passion or excitement for the topic through their own body language and tone of voice.

However, sometimes it may be more efficient to give and receive written (low fidelity) feedback. Facilitators can use programs that comment directly on learners’ work, edit their comments before they send it, and have a record of what feedback they have given to each learner. Also, learners can access the feedback when they are ready and can refer back to the feedback for future assignments. 

No fidelity level is necessarily “better” than the others. Each has benefits and drawbacks that should be considered when designing and facilitating course activities. Table 9-3 describes some strengths and weaknesses of discussions at varying levels of fidelity.

Table 9-3. Strengths and Weaknesses of Group Discussions at Varying Levels of Fidelity

9.1.4 Humanness

The humanness dimension looks at who facilitates interactions: human actors or machine/AI actors. For example, consider a free response mathematics quiz in a learning management system. An instructor or TA (the human actor) could provide feedback on the learners’ responses, indicating if each answer is correct, identifying areas in which they could improve, etc. Or instead, a software or AI actor could go through the same process, comparing learner responses to the correct answers. In most cases, a machine/AI actor would have feedback for the learner almost instantaneously, while learners would have to wait days or weeks for feedback from their instructor. However, human actors can typically provide more personalized feedback than a machine or AI. See Table 9-4 for a comparison of strengths and weaknesses of human and machine/AI driven interaction. 

Table 9-4. Strengths and Weaknesses of Interaction from Human and Machine/AI Actors

Note: Right now, many learners can tell when they are interacting with a real person and when they are interacting with an AI or machine. As technology continues to evolve, these differences may become less obvious. 

Referencing these strengths and weaknesses, you can choose whether human or machine actors will best fit the needs of your learners for each activity in your course. See the example below.

9.1.5 Putting the Dimensions of Interaction Together

Now that we’ve learned about the four dimensions of interaction individually, let’s look at a few examples of course activities and determine where they align along the dimensions. 

In a traditional in-person class, activities such as discussions are typically done synchronously, in the same high fidelity environment with human to human interactions. In Figure 9-2, you can see how this aligns all dimensions along the left.

Now consider an online synchronous discussion over a video conferencing software. Participants can interact with each other synchronously though they are physically located in different environments. Since the discussion is done over video, the platform is of medium fidelity. And lastly, there is still human to human interaction, so there is high humanness. In Figure 9-3, you can see this aligns time and humanness along the left, but place and fidelity are in different places. 

Many courses use text-based online discussions to foster student interaction. These activities are typically done asynchronously in distributed environments. Since they are text-based, they are low fidelity. As for humanness, students may have the opportunity to use AI, but for now, discussions mainly involve human-to-human interactions. Figure 9-4 shows time, place, and fidelity aligned to the right, with humanness aligned on the left.

Lastly, let’s now consider a discussion where some people participate online over video conferencing software and some participate in-person. In this scenario, students are participating synchronously. However, some are co-located and some are distributed, making it blended. The fidelity is high for those participating in the class together, but medium for those participating online. And students are still interacting with each other, so there is high humanness. Notice how Figure 9-5 looks like both Figure 9-2 and 9-3, since this scenario includes both in-person and online participants. 

By recognizing the dimensions of interactions involved with your course’s activities, you can be more intentional with the facilitation strategies you use to support your learners.

9.2 Connecting Bichronous and Blended Activities

It is important to recognize and understand the modalities that you will use in your course. Just as the design of your course is influenced by the modalities you’ll be using, the facilitation strategies you will use throughout your course and your course activities are affected as well. See Figure 9-6 for a breakdown of online and blended learning modalities looking at the time and place dimensions of interaction. 

Blended and bichronous modalities are becoming more and more common in higher education. With these combinations of synchronous and asynchronous (bichronous) and/or in-person and online (blended) courses, it is important to have continuity when moving between modalities. Activities in different modalities should connect to each other and those connections should be communicated to learners. 

9.2.1 Bichronous

Learning Outcome: I can help students see the connection between synchronous and asynchronous activities.

A bichronous course includes both synchronous and asynchronous elements for instruction. As shown in figure 9-2, bichronous modalities include bichronous online and traditional blends. 

In a bichronous online modality, both synchronous and asynchronous instruction happen online with no in-person components. For example, a synchronous lecture using a conferencing tool and asynchronous group discussions in a learning management system. 

In a traditional blend, synchronous instruction occurs in-person while asynchronous instruction is online. Asynchronous readings from an online resource and synchronous labs using shared tools and resources would be a traditional blend. 

In either modality, there can also be synchronous and asynchronous elements of the same activity, such as a discussion that starts in class and then continues asynchronously online. 

Course activities should not be isolated or disconnected from other activities. If activities are disconnected, students may feel like they are doing “busy work.” Instead, activities in each modality should complement and support one another. 

Here are some examples of facilitators connecting synchronous and asynchronous activities in a bichronous online or traditional blend context:

• Before class, students read a chapter in their textbook and take a reading quiz. The facilitator looks at the data from the reading quiz to go over questions that students had difficulty with. 

• During class, students listen to a guest speaker present and then participate in a Q&A session. After class, in a journal entry, students reflect on their experience with the guest speaker’s presentation and write down any questions they still have.

• Before class, students participate in an asynchronous discussion. Then in class, the facilitator summarizes key points from the discussion and addresses any questions or misconceptions they saw in learners’ responses.

To help students see connections between synchronous and asynchronous activities, you may want to explicitly talk about what you will do in each modality and how they will impact each other. For example, “For your online activity due Thursday, you will submit a reflection on what you learned from our presenter today. So make sure to take good notes!” 

You could also remind students of activities. While synchronous, you may remind students about upcoming asynchronous activities. And while working asynchronously, you may send out an announcement of what you will be working on in the next synchronous meeting. 

9.2.2 Blended

Learning Outcome: I can help students see the connection between in-person and online activities.

Similar to synchronous and asynchronous activities in a bichronous context, effective facilitators can help learners transition between in-person and online activities in a blended course. As shown in figure 9-2, blended modalities may include concurrent blends, consecutive blends, and traditional blends. 

In a concurrent blend, all instruction is synchronous, but some learners are participating online while others are in-person. Often, facilitators focus on the participants that are in-person and are not aware of any questions or comments from the online group. To address this, a facilitator may have a TA or another student log into the conferencing platform and act as an advocate for the online participants. They might read aloud any questions or comments that are in the platform’s chat feature or help direct the camera to point the audience toward those that are speaking. If you plan on having learners work together in groups, make sure you have a plan for how the groups can work together. Will you put those online into their own groups? Will those online be mixed in with those in-person? If so, how will the in-person groups interact with those online?

In a consecutive blend, all instruction is synchronous, but online and in-person modalities occur at different times. For example, an online session on Tuesdays and an in-person session on Thursdays. As a facilitator, make sure it is clear to your learners which days will be in-person and which days will be online.

Conclusion

Knowing your course’s modalities and where activities lie on the dimensions of interaction can greatly influence how you facilitate your course. You should recognize the affordances of each modality and adjust your facilitation to support your learners. Effective facilitators should also be able to help learners transition between synchronous and asynchronous activities or in-person and online activities. In the upcoming chapters, we will discuss specific tips and facilitation strategies you may consider for synchronous and asynchronous activities.