The Landscape of Merging Modalities and Planning for Multi-Access Learning Pathways

Dr. Valerie Irvine, University of Victoria

Nov 13, 2024 Flickr@wwward0 CCBYND2.0

Co-Located Land Acknowledgement

I would like to acknowledge the lək̓ʷəŋən peoples, and the Songhees, Esquimalt and W̱SÁNEĆ peoples, on whose traditional territory I and my family, and my work is situated.

​

​

I recognize my privilege to be here and the impacts of colonization. I try to do my part to support truth/reconciliation.

​

Participation Tips

• Participation Google Doc for:
• Chat
• Responses to Focus Questions
• Post-Event Q&A
• Resources to share�
• Post-session debrief in my personal Zoom room (Link in Google Doc)

�ABOUT ME

​

Dr. Valerie Irvine�EdTech Area Advisor

Co-Director, TIE Research Lab�University of Victoria�

��virvine@uvic.ca

250-208-2441 cell

​

At University of Victoria

• Teach #edci336 to preservice teachers
• blended (face-to-face and online consecutively)
• Coordinator/Supervisor of #tiegrad MEd cohort
• mix of online courses & multi-access courses
• Supervise MA/PhD in Educational Technology
• Director of the TIE Research Lab
• Launching EDCI 136: Digital Literacy in January

2006

$680,000

Irvine, Principal Investigator

(matching up to $1.4 million)

The Technology Integration and Evaluation (TIE) Research Lab

• President of OTESSA: Open/Technology in Education, Society, and Scholarship Association�
• Conference at Congress: May 30-June 6, 2025�(Toronto at Congress, Online, & Victoria)

​

Call for Proposals Open Now

• Info at otessa.org - research and practice options
• Session Only: <500 word submission
• Optional:
• Short Paper for Proceedings Publication (1000-2000 words)
• Full Paper for Publication in OTESSA Journal (5-7000 words)

The History/Terminology

Learner Perspectives

Modality Preferences

Implementation/Finances

Modality vs. Pedagogy

Learning Design

Future Directions

Evolving Modality:

A History

FACE TO FACE

ONLINE

OR

Face to Face Enrollment

Online Enrollment

FACE TO FACE

ONLINE

*AND*

BLENDED

FACE TO FACE

ONLINE

*AND*

HYBRID

Irvine, V. (2009). Multi-Access Learning

253 Citations**

Learner Preferences for Modality

From the 2013 Multi-Access Article of a BEd cohort:

​

TOP CHOICE�

• 9 out of 15 (60%) ranked multi-access as THE top choice
• 3 selected blended
• 2 selected F2F
• 1 selected online

Learner Preferences for Modality

TOP CHOICE�

• 14 out of 15 (93.3%) chose multi-access (F2F or remote group) as 1^st or 2^nd choice

4 early players merging modes:�

Valerie Irvine (Canada)

Brian Beatty (USA, SFSU)

John Bell (USA, Michigan)

Matt Bower (Australia, Macquarie)

​

4 players merging modes:�

Valerie Irvine (2006)

Brian Beatty (2007)

John Bell (2013)

Matt Bower (2013)

​

4 players merging modes:�

Valerie Irvine: multi-access

Brian Beatty: hyflex

John Bell*: synchromodal

Matt Bower: blended synch

�*later changed to synchronous hybrid

​

"Program Delivery:

The cohort will include face-to-face instruction in courses taught in a centrally-located Vancouver site and flexible, blended formats that mix on-site and online learning."

FOCUS QUESTION # 1�What does this mean?

If blended or hybrid means *EVERYTHING*

• consecutive mixing of F2F & online modes
• concurrent mixing of F2F & online modes
• mixing online asynchronous & synchronous
• what does it mean anymore?
• for the learner?

(… and so is Hybrid)

Remote Online Pod (3 F2F)

F2F On-Campus Pod

Remote Online Individuals

Blended (F2F & Online)

Personalizing Modality

(blended is 1/3 of the results)

What does the rebranding of terms mean for the history of research work? Or for our shared understanding?

Irvine, V. (2020, October 26). The Landscape of Merging Modalities. EDUCAUSE Review, 55(4). https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/10/the-landscape-of-merging-modalities

12,000 reads

Modality & Granularity

• Program Level
• Hybrid = mix of online courses & F2F courses
• Multi-Access = ensured pathway in a mode
• Online = ensures no onsite requirements�
• Course Level
• Hybrid = consecutive mix of online & F2F
• Multi-Access = concurrent mix online/F2F
• Online = need to clarify if async and/or sync

​

Learner Perspectives

Can you think about a case where a learner was unable to access education due to modality or inflexibility in learning design?

​

What were the obstacles?

What was the outcome?

(minding confidentiality)

​

FOCUS QUESTION #2

Can you think about a case where a learner was unable to access education due to modality or inflexibility in learning design?

​

​

My Answer

Physical Health

Remote or Rural

Mental Health / Anxiety

Time

WORK

FAMILY

STUDENT PRESSURES, SOCIAL JUSTICE, �& PRIVILEGE

SELF-CARE

COMMUTE

COST �(transportation, accommodation, parking, airfare, etc.)

“Cyberproxy”

(Irvine)

​

​

K12 Learners in 2023 (10% online)

Barbour & Labonte, 2023

2024 BC Post-Secondary �Learner Modality Preferences

Late spring data collection to test two new instruments:

• MODE-LP (Modalities of Education, Learner Preferences) Scale
• POLS (Perception of Online Learning Scale)
• New demographic items for caregiving�

Conducting item response theory, revisions, and analysis.

​

1612 responses

Limitation: We are surveying registered learners.

Reported Mode of Current Program

What percentage of learners do you think prefer as their FIRST choice:

• F2F:
• Hybrid:
• Multi-Access:
• Online:
• Offline:

FOCUS QUESTION #3

Course Modality Preferences

What do you think is the FIRST choice mode for learners from the following groups:

• Disability/Chronic Health
• Careving - Rural
• First Gen - Indigenous
• Working - English as Add’l Lang
• First Year - International
• Pre-College/Adult Grad - 2SLGBTQIA+

​

FOCUS QUESTION #4

What do you think is the FIRST choice mode for learners from the following groups:

​

• They want different modes

The Answer #4

Choice Course Mode Preference �Demographic: Disability/Chronic Health

267 responses (25% of all) ranked as 1st choice:�

• 40% F2F
• 26% online
• 21% multi-access (*or 33% combined H-MA)
• 12% hybrid
• 1% offline

Course Modality Preference �Demographic: Caregiving

161 responses of caregivers (15% of all) ranked as 1st choice:

• 45% online
• 25% F2F
• 16% hybrid (*combined H-MA 25%)
• 9% multi-access
• 4% offline

Course Modality Preference �Demographic: First Generation

195 responses (12% of all) ranked as 1st choice:

• 38% F2F
• 32% online
• 15% hybrid (*combined H-MA 27%)
• 12% multi-access
• 2% offline

Course Modality Preference �Demographic: Working�*not yet split b/t P/T and F/T

619 responses (38% of all, of which 74% are part-time/26% full-time) ranked as 1st choice:

• 58% F2F
• 27% online
• 16% multi-access
• 13% hybrid (*combined H-MA 29%)
• 2% offline

Course Modality Preference �Demographic: First Year

211 responses (13% of all) ranked as 1st choice:

• 48% F2F
• 16% online
• 16% multi-access
• 15% hybrid (*combined H-MA 31%)
• 5% offline - higher…

Course Modality Preference �Demographic: Adult Grad/Pre-College

195 responses (9% of all) ranked as 1st choice:

• 39% F2F
• 23% online
• 21% multi-access
• 14% hybrid (*combined H-MA 35%)
• 3% offline

Course Modality Preference �Demographic: Rural

74 responses (4.5% of all) ranked as 1st choice:

• 34% online
• 31% F2F
• 24% multi-access
• 9% hybrid (*combined H-MA 33%)
• 1% offline

Course Modality Preference �by Demographic: Indigenous

22** responses (2% of all) ranked as their 1st choice:

• 41% online
• 27% hybrid (*combined H-MA 29%)
• 22% F2F
• 2% multi-access
• 0% offline

Course Modality Preference �by Demographic: English as Add’l Language

246 responses (15% of all) ranked as their 1st choice:

• 43% F2F
• 21% online
• 16% hybrid (*combined H-MA 31%)
• 15% multi-access
• 4% offline

Course Modality Preference �by Demographic: International

347 responses (21% of all) ranked as their 1st choice:

• 47% F2F
• 18% online
• 17% hybrid (*combined H-MA 30%)
• 13% multi-access
• 6% offline

Course Modality Preference �by Demographic: 2SLGBTQIA+

276 responses (26% of all) ranked the following as their 1st choice of mode:

• 43% F2F
• 24% multi-access (*combined H-MA 36%)
• 21% online
• 12% hybrid
• 1% offline

Sample Modality Overview

Modality Pref for an Entire Program

% Coursework Across Program

Multi-Access Ranking

Typical Preference - F2F Course Mode

56.6%

Current Preference - F2F Course Mode

46.6%

​

a 10% drop

increases (rounded):

online: 18 to 23%

hybrid: 11 to 13%

multi-access: 12 to 15%

offline: 2 to 3%

​

Anytime You Choose a Mode,

You Marginalize a Learner

• To meet EDI and increase the odds of enrolment from diverse groups, we face opposing needs:
• higher first choice preference for F2F among:
• 2SLGBTQIA+, International, EAL, Adult pre-college, First Year, Working, First Gen, Disability/Chronic Health
• higher first choice preference for online among:
• Indigenous, Rural, Caregivers

Anytime You Choose a Mode,

You Marginalize a Learner

• overall, no majority in any one course mode, but approximately half or more want some mix of online: online, hybrid, or multi-access
• Hybrid (as a personalized mode) is embedded within Multi-Access

BUT

Multi-Access is not embedded within Hybrid

Implementation & Finances

​

So What’s a PSI to do?

• Create pathways through each credential that can be done through a multi-access pathway
• ONLINE
• F2F
• Multi-Access

So What’s a PSI to do?

• Course offerings (core especially):
• if multiple sections: offer in both online and F2F
• if one section only: offer multi-access

​

• Consider online or multi-access format for senior courses, where there is attrition (e.g., 4th-year computer science)

​

Financial Model

• $100,000 to set up a good VC classroom has come down
• Cohort with multi-access & online courses runs at full capacity with 25 learners
• 75% rejection rate
• acceptance, beyond grades, is based on diversity and podding pedagogy
• Counterparts run half full with F2F courses
• Difference in tuition revenue is $100,000 over the 2-year program (pays for room)
• VC classroom could still fill 33 other class hours/week, could be $2 million in revenue

Multi-Access Room Management

• Utilize the multi-access classroom as a resource WISELY
• Do not allow any course to book this space to waste the potential
• In fact, require any course booked in there to be multi-access by default

​

Modality vs. Pedagogy

Online =

Face-to-Face =

Online =

Face-to-Face =

Modality Bias

Face-to-Face

Online

Modality Bias

Face-to-Face

Online

Pedagogy

Active

Passive

Active

Passive

Face-to-Face

Online

Modality-Pedagogy Matrix

Synchronous Online Unconferences

http://edtechuvic.ca/tiegradchat

Learning Design

​

Remote Online Pod (3 F2F)

Remote Online �Individuals

Decentralized Synchronous Pods:

Synchronous for Whom? When?

Decentralized Synchronous Pods:

Consider YOUR Impact on Learner Convo

Image from the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off

Flickr@chriswaits

Laughter:

Teacherless Sessions and Open Mics

Photo by Christian Erfurt on Unsplash

Workload Creep

​

• class time
• group time
• async time
• videos
• readings
• peer posts
• tech learning time
• more assignments�

Photo by Craig Pattenaude on Unsplash

Link to Pod Template (shows privacy statement at top)

Sample Pod Template

Pods afford:

• Increased learner agency
• Time for friendships
• Time to compare notes and form questions
• Separate screen time out from a longer block
• Find common times to address time zones
• Can even consider audio meetings, small in-person pods, and mixing in person and remote

Breakout Groups vs. Pods

Valerie’s Favourite Recipe for Multi-Access or Online Learning

​

• Blending synchronous & *asynch*
• Whole group synchronous (mixing on-campus & online learners in MA)
• Decentralized synchronous pods for small group conversations
• Asynchronous blogging & backchannel

Blending Synchronous and Asynchronous

Creating the blend within three “instructional hours”

​

Synchronous

​

• Synchronous Classes
• Whole Group Time �(on-campus group with remote learners via video)
• Breakout rooms (mixing)
• Guests – Article Authors

​

Synchronous

​

• Decentralized synchronous video pods (Learners need Zoom)
• Assessment meetings
• 1-1 or with groups
• Use Calendly

Guests! For whole group, pods, or 1-1

July 2019 EdTech Cohort

Photo taken and shared with consent

25 learners (max)

Asynchronous

​

• Course Blog
• Learner Blogs & Blog Feed
• Hypothes.is Markup
• Trello or Padlet for project supervision
• Collaborative Docs
• Backchannel (Mattermost)

​

Future Directions

What do you think is the future of modality in education?

​

​

FOCUS QUESTION #5

What do you think is the future of modality in education?

​

It’s not binary…

It’s not F2F *or* online alone

We are moving beyond blended

MY ANSWER #5

The distance is nothing when one has a motive.

​

~ Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

​

• Participation Google Doc for Zoom link and to add your own questions, thoughts. See sample Q&A from previous sessions on next slides

Sample Q&A from a previous keynote

• How do you help students navigate the modes at the same time that they’re trying to figure out how to learn, study, live etc …? (undergrad course focused on university success) - Reduce instructional hours in whole group synchronous, build community, use pods for support, backchannel
• Do you change how you evaluate students? - YES, assessment meetings
• I use a lot of small group activities in class. Those work great in person and pretty well when everyone is remote (I’m getting better at it). How do you approach small group activities when people are across in person and remote? I either use the online times for that or in-person groups who come with laptops often, split out into adjacent spaces/hallways/empty rooms to meet in a mixed location pod

Sample Q&A from a previous keynote

• How do I design it so that it is a manageable workload (for me and for students)? How do you determine a reasonable workload for students? I split it into thirds by mode (whole group sync, decentralized sync pods, asynch) and I use the extra 2 hours I have from my instructional time to put back into the course, into the backchannel, into assessment meetings with 1-1 or pods.
• I’d love to try - how do you organize/facilitate group activities (projects)? I use the pod sign-up to brainstorm, plan, and so do they
• Can this work with the instructor being remote? (with maybe a TA to setup a room for ther f2f folks?)??? Yes, and is done in some colleges or situations where there is an instructor shortage. We asked this question on our survey and students reported they did not like the idea, although they felt less strongly if it was only part of the classes not all of them.

Sample Q&A from a previous keynote

​

• Have you found any difference in engagement or distraction for F2F and remote learners. They both have different distractions. In-room, they feel watched and say they are more on task, while remote say they are more on task as they can pull up resources mentioned given connected to laptop.
• I worry that I’ll end up neglecting one mode during lecture - talking more “to/with” those in person or those online. Have you encountered that? - Yes, and I find it worse with laptops open in the class, hence have chat visible on screen. Use a separate personal laptop so your private DMs do not get displayed. I ensure each time I prompt from the class that I do so for both groups. The asynchronous backchannel chat is a continuous tool as well

​