Through the development of the SPaM framework I have placed “modality” as a core domain in the design of mixed-modal education, emphasising how important our consideration of the teaching/learning mode is in the context of curriculum and instructional design.

As this research develops through conversations with designers, academics and learners we can begin to understand the “value” of each mode and determine the most appropriate mode for learning in a range of contexts. Through a deeper understanding of modality and the value attributed to each mode we can therefore more consciously make decisions about which mode to use and why/when it is best to do so. This move towards “Conscious Modality” means that the mode becomes an important topic for discussion during curriculum design activity, alongside conversations around the subject being taught and the approaches to teaching and assessment.

When we think about the value of modes we can categories these into four main areas:

Value Category	Description	Example
Learning & Teaching	This is where a particular mode has a specific value relating to learning and teaching activity. This might be connected with having access to specialist equipment or to undertake specific types of learning or for access to certain teaching experiences.	The “In Person On Campus” learning mode might be particularly suited to lab work or access to specialist equipment. For “In Person Off Campus” the learning experience might be a field trip or experiential. In both these cases the value of being physically present for learning can be clearly identified and articulated.
Social & Wellbeing	In some cases the mode may have some social element, building a sense of belonging and cohort cohesion for learners beyond just the learning experience. These social interactions may be designed to help with student wellbeing and mental health.	Online Asynchronous and Synchronous activities can be used to provide opportunities for students to introduce themselves and get to know each other. This can then be enhanced through an In Person On Campus session which builds upon this. In each case the mode being used is done so consciously as a whole.
Accessibility & Availability	In some cases a choice of mode may well be determined based accessibility. In these cases a mode might be chosen to ensure maximum access to all students. Understanding your student cohort can really help here.	As an example, if you know that you have a lot of students who are carers but your “lecture” slot has been scheduled for 9am and you anticipate poor attendance then you might consider moving some (if not all) of those lectures to being Online Synchronous to increase access to the learning for more students. In another example you may want to include overseas guest lectures to increase diversity, in which case Online Synchronous facilitates this.
Administrative & Operational	In some cases there may be operational and administrative reasons for selecting a mode. Whether it relates to student numbers, room availability or some other operational reason sometimes the decision to choose a particular mode might be more administrative in nature.	An example of this might be where the largest lecture theatre only holds 100 students but you have recruited 150 on to the programme. You could either hold it in the 100 seater and hope that some students don’t come, run the session twice (with the additional staff hours required for this) or move it to being online synchronous so that all 150 students can join at once.

---

In the table above we can begin to see how the mode through which we teach, and students learn, might be decided upon some value proposition associated with it. When we more consciously consider modality we then begin to make a decision about which mode is most appropriate, bearing in mind that a choice of mode will have benefits and pitfalls associated with it. What is key though is that we are conscious of those benefits (and pitfalls) and are able to articulate these to our students. It is important that students understand why we have made a decision to use to particular mode, including when that might have a negative impact on some learners so that we are able to put in place some measures to minimise any negative impact.

This “Conscious Modality” requires that we think more deeply and purposefully about the modes we use for education, the contexts within which we undertake that learning and

Also cross-posted here:
blog.digisim.uk/musings/towards-conscious-modality/

So, I asked ChatGPT to write me an “Edtech Review of the Year” and this is what it came up with:

It has been a groundbreaking year for edtech. New technologies and platforms have emerged that are transforming the way we teach and learn. Online learning platforms such as Khan Academy and Coursera have continued to grow in popularity, offering a wide range of courses and educational resources. Meanwhile, virtual and augmented reality technologies have begun to make their way into the classroom, providing new opportunities for immersive and interactive learning.

One of the most significant developments in edtech this year has been the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) in education. AI-powered platforms such as OpenAI's Assistant and Google Classroom are making it easier for teachers to personalize instruction and provide individualized support to students. These tools are also helping to automate administrative tasks, freeing up teachers' time to focus on teaching.

Another major trend in edtech this year has been the increased use of mobile devices in the classroom. More and more schools are embracing the use of tablets and smartphones as learning tools, providing students with access to a wealth of information and educational resources at their fingertips. This shift towards mobile learning has also been facilitated by the development of new educational apps and online platforms that are specifically designed for use on mobile devices.

Overall, it has been an exciting year for edtech, and the future looks bright. As new technologies continue to emerge and evolve, we can expect to see even more innovative and effective tools for teaching and learning in the years to come.

What’s notable here are the lack of specifics. It’s pretty good at a generalised summary but very poor at providing the specifics. However, it certainly provides a similar quality of opinion commentary that you sometimes see in online mass article publication platforms so I can certainly see a lot more online opinion pieces being written in this way.

But as Martin Weller notes in his own (human-written?) end of year piece on AI generated content, the threat to the ‘essay’ as an established assessment type is real and something that all levels of education that use essays as an assessment will need to grapple with.

Mmmmm, I wonder how many more blog posts I can write this year using ChatGPT?

I refer to the SPaM framework as being in support of the development of Hybrid Education/Learning and one of the queries I get is why use the term hybrid over blended, what’s the difference?

In the context of SPaM I will attempt to set out why I have chosen to use the term hybrid over and above any other term, but in all honesty no matter the terminology, SPaM is still useful as reference point for fully on campus / blended / hybrid / fully online course development as fundamentally it is about consciously thinking about and making decisions around each of the framework domains.

(Oh and as side note I have also heard people question why I use “in-person” in reference to just on campus teaching because after all isn’t online synchronous also in-person? Well the main reason is because that is what the dictionary definition is, so I hope we can agree on that one at least!

in-person

 adjective

​(of an activity or event) taking place with people physically present together in the same place, not on the internet or by phone or video link

So with that out of the way, let’s down to the slightly more complex discussion about defining “hybrid”. What I’d like to do is start with why I’m not using the term blended. Part of the reason for this is because we just haven’t really ever managed to get to an agreed definition of what we mean by that either (and I suspect the same will be the case for hybrid), but I do think Sue Beckingham’s work (as seen in the modality section) is really helping to clarify those differences of opinion in relation to terminology and at least starting to get to a consensus of definition, even if some won’t always agree.

As you will see from that model Beckingham has provided a definition for both blended and hybrid, both of which I am pretty comfortable with, but not everyone will be. The basic premise is that ‘blended’ is a mode that is predicated around an on campus setting, using digital tools and platforms to support that experience, whereas ‘hybrid’ is predicated on learning experiences where students have aspects of their learning taking place on campus and online.

Now on the surface of it some may think that that sounds pretty much the same, but the key difference for me is that in hybrid education the curriculum is specifically designed for each mode, that means decisions about the pedagogy (including assessment design, learning activities, feedback methods etc) are all specific to the mode (this is exactly what SPaM encourages).

Also personally when I think of blended I visualise lots of ingredients in a food processor being whizzed round together – and I wanted something that represented a more structured approach.

The best analogy I have relates to a hybrid vehicle. A hybrid vehicle has both a combustion engine and electric motors. For some journeys the combustion engine is the most suitable, usually for travelling long distance or at high speed for long periods. For other journeys the electric motor will be most effective, usually those shorter runs, in urban areas and where maximum efficiency can be gained. There is also an intrinsic link between the combustion engine and the electric motor, with the former charging the batteries for the other and conversely the electric engine providing extra horse power for when the combustion engine needs it. Ultimately what we have here is a system designed for maximum flexibility, combining the benefits of both.

So, if we apply that same concept of ‘hybrid’ to education, what we should be doing is thinking about the student learning journey and designing the curriculum using different modes for different elements of that learning journey, making decisions about which mode is best for which elements of learning. At a programme level it may be that certain modules are best for certain modes, or within a module certain topics/activities are best for a certain mode. These are not decisions for me, but for those charged with the design of the programme/module, using SPaM as a point of reference for these discussions and decisions.

So, that’s the rationale for why I am using the term ‘hybrid’ – not everyone will agree with it, but firstly it is based on established use of the term, albeit outside of the education sector which in my opinion makes it less likely to be misunderstood and secondly this definition has gained traction (in the UK at least) over the past few years as we rethink our approaches to learning and teaching in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

I have no doubt that the term ‘hybrid’ will continue to be debated for many years, as we have seen with the definition of blended learning and this is to be expected as both technology, pedagogy and the scholarship of learning and teaching evolve.

All we can do is seek to clarify these terms in the context of our own work so that those who engage with this framework and it’s use understand the framing of the terminology around which it was developed. So, whether you agree with this definition or not (and I’m happy to debate it), at least you have a better sense of what it means in the context of the SPaM framework and why I am using it.