1 of 61

Shared Intentionality in Hyflex Education

Tamara Crasto

Peter Coppin

Mahadeo Sukhai

David Barter

A study on accessible and inclusive hyflex education from the perspective of instructors and students with disabilities, demonstrating the importance of shared intentionality on engagement, interaction and inclusion.

2 of 61

Acknowledgements

Advisors

Dr. Peter Coppin, Primary Advisor

Dr. Mahadeo Sukhai, Secondary Advisor

Participants

For sharing your lived experiences, the time you dedicated to this study, and for your perseverance of education and learning, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Perceptual Artifacts Lab

David Barter, Erin Lee, Stephen Murgaski, Ram Puvanesasingham, Mariana Meiji, Zainab Hussain, Sandra Law, Ali Raza (Syed), and Robert Ingino

3 of 61

Acknowledgements

Funding

OCAD University, Graduate Student Project and Travel Grant

Accessibility Standards Canada, via The Canadian National Institute for the Blind;

Building an Evidence-Based Universal Design Framework for Employment Standards in Canada (ASC Grant #017323577)

Accessibility Standards Canada, via OntarioTech University;

A Study of Accessible and Inclusive Virtual and Blended Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for the Federal Public Service and Federally Regulated Industries in Post-COVID-19 Canada (ASC Grant #102194)

4 of 61

Agenda

Shared Intentionality + Conceptual Model

10 min

Key Findings �(Challenges + Co-Design)

10 min

HyFlex Recommendations

5 min

Questions + Discussion

5 min

Introduction + Study Background

5 min

5 of 61

Presentation Objectives

Define and describe the significance of the terms “shared intentionality” and “hyflex” in the context of learning environments and with regard to students and instructors with disabilities.

Share a conceptual model through which the physical and technological service provision environments of learning spaces can be shaped towards fully including and supporting students and instructors with disabilities.

Summarize key intervention/findings from codesign workshops to inform technology and policy advancements in the field of inclusive education for both instructors and students with disabilities.

6 of 61

Participants

Background

How might students’ and diverse instructors’ lived experiences through the pandemic stages, inform the development and improvement of inclusive (accessible) practices and engagement for hyflex education?

Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a long-term global shift to virtual education that had its challenges with remote collaboration, engagement and visual bias, but also benefits (flexibility, anonymity navigating accommodations, inclusive pedagogy). As we transition out of the pandemic, institutions/instructors are adopting a hyflex approach, bringing about its own set of challenges and practices. HyFlex refers to “hybrid, flexible” where people have the choice to participate remotely (through virtual means) or in-person. Our research study sought to investigate how students’ and diverse instructors’ lived experiences through the pandemic stages, could inform the development and improvement of inclusive(accessible) practices and engagement for hyflex education?

The methodology of the study was longitudinal (Jan 2022-March 2023), qualitative and participatory.It involved 57 participants in research activities including surveys, narrative inquiry, semi structured interviews, observation of a semester-long course, and co-design sessions with participants.

7 of 61

Video

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f5WMeA9Kxe1IfOz8yRg9B9FErfdWWYw3/view?resourcekey

Transcript for video:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T_XLZk37_26GCT0gSUV_XMaYmpS6qdJv/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117828484321917581687&rtpof=true&sd=true

8 of 61

9 of 61

http://mgsird.org/zeb.asp?iid=567282543&cid=254&shop=zoom+camera+on+or+off&pr=60.99&g=1

Unsure of camera position

10 of 61

https://sundial.csun.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/dmKlaMPNDNA3yRsiz0dH5rDe89zWuawbs9ZRSPVs.jpeg

11 of 61

Attention Boundary

12 of 61

Shared Intentionality

“The ability to participate with others in collaborative activities, with shared goals and intentions” where “participation…requires…powerful forms of intention reading”.

Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005).

Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition.

The Behavioral and brain sciences, 28(5), 675–735. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129.

to understand a SI BH, we must first understand shared intentionality. Defined by Tomasello, SI is “the ability to participate with others in collaborative activities, with shared goals and intentions” where “participations…requires… powerful forms of intention reading”.

Can you simulate what could be happening with the digital shell of a person on your meeting call? Can you see their body language? Hear their tone of voice? Is their audio cutting out?

Persons with sensory or mobility disabilities may not be able to access or provide this perceptual information. However, digital mediums allow for increased control and personalisation of perceptual information and cues, making remote/hybrid interactions potentially more accessible (E.g. auto-captions, screen-reader access etc.), but also risks fostering low SI, making is potentially harder to collaborate and coordinate (?)

In HyFlex interactions, how we control/ manipulate/ share perceptual info and action is __ by the affordances of 3 MAIN ASPECTS:

13 of 61

1. Multiple (often competing) Environments

14 of 61

15 of 61

16 of 61

📄

17 of 61

Other Virtual Environments

📄

18 of 61

Other Virtual Environments

📄

19 of 61

Other Virtual Environments

Information-Action Loops

📄

20 of 61

2. High Cognitive Load

21 of 61

22 of 61

3. “Objects” of Communication

23 of 61

https://a.storyblok.com/f/167495/1520x1140/eca8a01a97/playback-meeting-recording.png

https://www.demandhub.co/assets/images/demandhub/articles/difference-between-chat-and-text-message/difference-between-chat-and-text-message-5.png

google-docs-blank-template-4d32e5cdd9dc4249aeb75785bee1b066.png

24 of 61

2. High Cognitive Load

3. “Objects” of Communication

1. Multiple (often competing) Environments

25 of 61

Information-Action Loops

📄

Joint Action

Other Virtual Environments

Shared Intention/Mutual Knowledge

S.I

Shared

Intention

26 of 61

Information-Action Loops

Other Virtual Environments

27 of 61

Attention Boundary

28 of 61

Information-Action Loops

Joint Action

Other Virtual Environments

Shared Intention/Mutual Knowledge

S.I

Shared

Intention

📄

Attention Boundary

29 of 61

Challenges

Multiple (competing) environments	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Digital Shells (meetings; people)	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Distractions (virtual clutter; nested environments)	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Degree of agency over environments affecting accessibility	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)
Building relationships and support systems	Buck- passing when reporting issues; victim blaming minsets
Resources (accessing; storing)	Negative reputation for accessibility advocacy

30 of 61

Multiple (competing) environments	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Digital Shells (meetings; people)	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Distractions (virtual clutter; nested environments)	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Degree of agency over environments affecting accessibility	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)
Building relationships and support systems	Previous experiences with disability (advocacy; modelling)	3D sculptures/painting
Resources (accessing; storing)	Reporting issues; victim blaming minsets

Attention Boundary

31 of 61

Multiple (competing) environments	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Digital Shells (meetings; people)	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Distractions (virtual clutter; nested environments)	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Degree of agency over environments affecting accessibility	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)
Building relationships and support systems	Previous experiences with disability (advocacy; modelling)	3D sculptures/painting
Resources (accessing; storing)	Reporting issues; victim blaming minsets

Attention Boundary

Distractions

32 of 61

Multiple (competing) environments	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Digital Shells (meetings; people)	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Distractions (virtual clutter; nested environments)	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Degree of agency over environments affecting accessibility	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)
Building relationships and support systems	Previous experiences with disability (advocacy; modelling)	3D sculptures/painting
Resources (accessing; storing)	Reporting issues; victim blaming minsets

Attention Boundary

Distractions

Agency over Environment

33 of 61

Multiple (competing) environments	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Digital Shells (meetings; people)	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Distractions (virtual clutter; nested environments)	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Degree of agency over environments affecting accessibility	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)
Building relationships and support systems	Previous experiences with disability (advocacy; modelling)	3D sculptures/painting
Resources (accessing; storing)	Reporting issues; victim blaming minsets

Attention Boundary

Distractions

Agency over Environment

Building Relationships/ support systems

34 of 61

Multiple (competing) environments	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Digital Shells (meetings; people)	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Distractions (virtual clutter; nested environments)	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Degree of agency over environments affecting accessibility	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)
Building relationships and support systems	Previous experiences with disability (advocacy; modelling)	3D sculptures/painting
Resources (accessing; storing)	Reporting issues; victim blaming minsets

Attention Boundary

Distractions

Agency over Environment

Building Relationships/ support systems

Resources

35 of 61

High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Multi-role instructors	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Constructive disengagement	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Uncontextualized accommodations	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)
Buck- passing when reporting issues; victim blaming minsets	Previous experiences with disability (advocacy; modelling)	3D sculptures/painting
Negative reputation for accessibility advocacy	Reporting issues; victim blaming minsets

Attention Boundary

Distractions

Agency over Environment

Building Relationships/ support systems

Resources

36 of 61

High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Multi-role instructors	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Constructive disengagement	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Uncontextualized accommodations	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)
Buck- passing when reporting issues; victim blaming minsets	Previous experiences with disability (advocacy; modelling)	3D sculptures/painting
Negative reputation for accessibility advocacy	Reporting issues; victim blaming minsets

Attention Boundary

Multi-role Instructors

37 of 61

High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Multi-role instructors	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Constructive disengagement	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Uncontextualized accommodations	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)
Buck- passing when reporting issues; victim blaming minsets	Previous experiences with disability (advocacy; modelling)	3D sculptures/painting
Negative reputation for accessibility advocacy	Reporting issues; victim blaming minsets

Attention Boundary

Multi-role Instructors

Constructive Disengagement

38 of 61

High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Multi-role instructors	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Constructive disengagement	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Uncontextualized accommodations	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)
Buck- passing when reporting issues; victim blaming minsets	Previous experiences with disability (advocacy; modelling)	3D sculptures/painting
Negative reputation for accessibility advocacy	Reporting issues; victim blaming minsets

Attention Boundary

Multi-role Instructors

Constructive Disengagement

Uncontextualized Accommodations

39 of 61

High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Multi-role instructors	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Constructive disengagement	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Uncontextualized accommodations	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)
Buck- passing when reporting issues; victim blaming minsets	Previous experiences with disability (advocacy; modelling)	3D sculptures/painting
Negative reputation for accessibility advocacy	Reporting issues; victim blaming minsets

Attention Boundary

Multi-role Instructors

Constructive Disengagement

Uncontextualized Accommodations

Reporting; victim-blaming mindset

40 of 61

High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Multi-role instructors	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Constructive disengagement	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Uncontextualized accommodations	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)
Buck- passing when reporting issues; victim blaming minsets	Previous experiences with disability (advocacy; modelling)	3D sculptures/painting
Negative reputation for accessibility advocacy	Reporting issues; victim blaming minsets

Attention Boundary

Multi-role Instructors

Constructive Disengagement

Uncontextualized Accommodations

Negative reputation for advocacy

Reporting; victim-blaming mindset

41 of 61

“Objects” of communication	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Surveillance/recording	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Disability-disclosure documents	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)

Attention Boundary

Surveillance

42 of 61

“Objects” of communication	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Surveillance/recording	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Disability-disclosure documents	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)

Attention Boundary

Disability disclosure

Surveillance

43 of 61

“Objects” of communication	High cognitive load (internal representation mismatch)	“Objects” of communication
Surveillance/recording	Multi-role instructors	Surveillance/recording
Disability-disclosure documents	Constructive disengagement	Disability-disclosure documents
Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)	Uncontextualized accommodations	Virtual collaboration tools (spatial/visually-biased)

Attention Boundary

Virtual collab tools

Surveillance

Disability disclosure

44 of 61

Co-designed Solutions + Practices

Multiple (competing) environments	High cognitive load (internal representation)	“Objects” of communication
3 Models of HyFlex	AI feedback prompts	Auto-redaction of video and audio from meeting recordings
AV + Spatial Synchrony	Wifi/Tech-difficulties indications	Tangible indicators for collaborative documents
Tangible Tokens to activate different virtual environments	Tangible controls for participant audio during virtual meetings.	Policy and transparency
Personalisation/aggregation of tools and services	Seeding/modelling inclusive practices	Visual avatar
Internal wayfinding tool for functions/role/ resolving issues	Internal wayfinding tool for functions/role/ resolving issues
Digital twins (e.g. prototyping tools)

45 of 61

Models of Hyflex

Convergent-Divergent

The convergent-divergent hyflex structure model developed in this study acknowledges the cognitive overload, the difficulty in managing physical and virtual environments and the challenge of maintaining engagement. Execution of this hyflex model requires at least two facilitators/co-instructors, as the virtual and FtF experiences run synchronously, but separately. This allows each experience to focus on the affordances of virtual or FtF, without compromising one group or the other.

Hub and Spoke

The Hub and Spoke model can be run asynchronously or synchronously, and has a central hub, with connections to multiple external hubs. The focus of this model is to cater to social, FtF (face to face) collaboration and experiences, without sacrificing flexibility or causing resource-strain. An example of a hub and spoke model would be class being run on-site/online, with students gathering in small groups in different locations to attend virtually-together (an approach student-participants took during the pandemic). Another example is

educational programming created and run at the central hub (e.g., museum), with materials shared with other community centres who then re-run the programming with local groups of people.)

In-situ Asynchronous

This model outlines asynchronous experiences in a shared physical location (e.g., wood shops/modelling shops and museums). This model brings together the affordances of asynchronous experiences, such as time-flexibility, structured or explicit guidance, staggering of resources, and documentation, with the affordances of collated experiences, such as spatial segregation from other tasks or distractions, organic interaction with others, contextual information, and spatial familiarity.

While previously explored in contexts such as audio-tours, installations/exhibitions, and museums, it could be beneficial to (design) education to supplement shop orientations and tools, field trips, and lectures. There is also potential for virtual reality augmentation to guide experiences in the environment).

46 of 61

AV/Spatial Synchrony

vs

AV and Spatial Synchronicity to Increase Engagement

From the observed hyflex course, two key aspects were brought to attention. First, sharing audio and video of the co-located students in the physical classroom to those attending remotely was limited by one-directional microphones and cameras, and on the dependence of students to bring in personal devices (to connect to the virtual class). Second, that the classroom was set-up with long tables that went down the length of the room, and that students gravitated to the back of the class.

To address the first issue, we introduced the use of a document camera to share drawing techniques and an Owl camera (Owl Labs, 2022) that had a 360° camera and microphone, as well as an integrated speaker. The Owl camera provided a panoramic view of the room, as well as focused the camera on whoever was speaking at a certain time. Over the course of the term, we codesigned a variety of technical and lay out set-ups, and found that a semi-circle set up increased SI as it reflected the OWL camera’s panoramic view, and made students less distracted, more participatory, and more engaged in the class content.

47 of 61

Aggregation

Student participants found it difficult to keep track of the many digital tools and

combinations of tools that each course/professor required. Students that were more

mature in age also expressed they needed more onboarding time for unfamiliar tools.

By introducing a “digital tools” feature into the course structure, instructors would be

required to be more intentional with their chosen tools, students would be able to review

course tools in advance and get familiar with them, as well as easily reference an

aggregated and hyperlinked view of institution-wide, course-specific, and personal tools.

The three levels of tool-categorization are comparable to those identified in Basham et.

74

al.’s, digital backpack concept: foundational technologies, modular technologies, and

instructional technologies (Basham, J.D., Meyer, H., Perry, E., 2010).

48 of 61

Internal tool for directional/role info to resolve issues

This codesign session focused on prototyping a way to resolve issues by providing

employees with an internal wayfinding tool to mitigate the experience of buck-passing

(see section 5.2.1). The tool would highlight gaps and provide more transparency and

accountability in regard to policies, roles and job duties, and clarity on procedures. One of the key considerations of the internal way-finding tool was a “self-learning” ability

to adjust its direction depending on (a) the correct place/department (b) the correct

person/role and (c) the right action. If all three conditions were met at the end of the

employee’s experience (e.g., directed to the correct person, in the correct department,

and the task was resolved), then it would be marked as successful, and it would use

that to direct the next person that comes with the same request.

Another concept explored was to provide a template to document employee journeys

through different tasks (e.g., checking out AV equipment, resolving an accessibility

issue) to identify bottlenecks and cross-departmental functions. Four rows are indicated,

where the first is for the instructor or employees’ action. The following three rows

indicate different departments. The actions and decisions taken to resolve the instructor

action (issue) is mapped across these rows, depending on the involved departments.

49 of 61

Digital Twins

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Arduino-uno-perspective-transparent.png/1200px-Arduino-uno-perspective-transparent.png

https://csg.tinkercad.com/things/cSqKRGKwi4y/t725.png?rev=1634320762864000000&s=&v=1&type=circuits

50 of 61

AI Feedback Prompts and Interface Indicators

51 of 61

Tangible Spatial Audio Controls

52 of 61

Auto-Redaction

53 of 61

Tangible Collaborative Document

Software like Google Docs, which were key tools for remote/hyflex collaboration, did not

provide a good experience for screen-reader users accessing features like comments or

indicators of collaborators. Participants expressed frustration with the current

experience of their screen-reader announcing every-time a colleague entered the

shared document, or moved to a new line/paragraph, as well as announce each

instance a new comment was added, along with the contents of the comment. Current

controls provide a binary option to have screen-reader integration on or off, causing

most people to work on the document on “off hours” when others were not working on it.

This prototype from codesign participants illustrates a tangible interface, where locked

paragraphs were indicated by yellow pipe-cleaners, and the pink spheres were

indicators of team-members. Touching these aspects on the TUI would announce the

collaborators name or read the beginning of a locked paragraph. The intent of this

prototype was to provide a degree of choice versus binary (not completely on/off) and

provide more agency and control interacting with collaboration features

54 of 61

55 of 61

17 Evidence-based Suggestions

for Hyflex Environments, built on Universal Design Principles

56 of 61

(1) Provide “twin” (identical or fraternal) experiences for tools, procedures, and information across hyflex environments (virtual and physical).

(2) Explicit and implemented policies for students and staff about class recordings, intellectual property, as well as storage, distribution, and possible manipulation of communication objects.

(3) Integrate feedback indicators that do not encroach on participants’ privacy.

57 of 61

(4) Balance formal/informal and passive/active feedback points during classes (communicate formal feedback points at the start).

(5) Verify execution and log feedback for institution events/training.

(6) Internal search or directional tool to guide employees to correct department/role as well as opportunities for cross-pollination across the institution.

58 of 61

(7) Augment or supplement communicated information with multi-sensory options whenever possible.

(8) Evaluate tools for accessibility experience and make collective decisions about virtual tools before starting a task.

(9) Provide opportunities for individuals to adjust perceptual information on micro and macro scales (e.g., individual’s audio or overall audio in virtual meetings).

(10) Scaffold and chunk information.

59 of 61

(11) Create space for personalisation, while maintaining structural consistency across the institution.

(12) Identify and mitigate single-point failure systems (people or technology).

(13) Develop opportunities for cross-pollination across the institution to encourage social support systems.

(14) Encourage contextualised/integrated rather than checklist implementation of accessibility support (e.g., decision trees) while aiming for more sustainable or long-term solutions.

60 of 61

(15) Provide facilitation support whenever possible.

(16) Encourage/explicitly teach students how to minimise digital distractions and clutter.

(17) Create structures/scheduling for institutional communication (e.g., 8 am and 5 pm)

61 of 61

Scan the QR code to access the full report

Or email: tcrasto@ocadu.ca

Discussion + Questions

https://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/4077/7/Crasto_Tamara_2023_MDes_INCD_MRP.pdf