The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in courses transitioning to fully remote learning, or considering hybrid models. Such models demonstrated great potential, making an argument for consideration even beyond the pandemic. In this paper, co-instructors of a synchronous hybrid design studio course present their experience of such a course and recommendations for future synchronous hybrid design studio courses. Through instructor reflections and student surveys/interviews, we present successes and failures of several aspects of the course, such as pre-recorded content, technology and software usage, groupwork, and project activities.
AustinJ.HickeyA. (2007). Autoethnography and teacher development. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 2(2), 369–378.
3.
BrandtS.LonsdaleM. (1996). Technology-supported cooperative learning in secondary education. Proceedings of HICSS-29: 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3, 313–322vol. 3. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1996.493202
4.
CabıE. (2018). The Impact of the Flipped Classroom Model on Students’ Academic Achievement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3482
5.
CampbellJ.AragonC.DavisK.EvansS.EvansA.RandallD. (2016). Thousands of Positive Reviews: Distributed Mentoring in Online Fan Communities. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW ‘16, 689–702. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819934
6.
CastroR. (2019). Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 2523–2546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3
7.
ChoichnovA. (2021). How to Teach Hybrid in the Fall with Zoom and Almost No Money (LONG VERSION). Medium.
8.
ChuaY. H. V.DauwelsJ.TanS. C. (2019). Technologies for automated analysis of co-located, real-life, physical learning spaces: Where are we now?Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303811
9.
CoiaL.TaylorM. (2009). Co/autoethnography: Exploring Our Teaching Selves Collaboratively. In
FitzgeraldL.HestonM.TidwellD. (Eds.), Research Methods for the Self-study of Practice (pp. 3–16). SpringerNetherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9514-6_1
10.
DagmanA.WärmefjordK. (2022). An Evidence-Based Study on Teaching Computer Aided Design in Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Education Sciences, 12(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12010029
11.
DuncanK.KenworthyA.McNamaraR. (2012). The Effect of Synchronous and Asynchronous Participation on Students’ Performance in Online Accounting Courses. Accounting Education, 21(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2012.673387
FrancescucciA.FosterM. (2013). The VIRI (Virtual, Interactive, Real-Time, Instructor-Led) Classroom: The Impact of Blended Synchronous Online Courses on Student Performance, Engagement, and Satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(3), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v43i3.184676
14.
HiltzS. R.GoldmanR. (2004). The Student in the Online Classroom. In Learning Together Online: Research on Asynchronous Learning Networks (pp. 137–160). Routledge.
15.
JaredK.OnchwariG.OigaraJ. (2014). Promoting Active Learning through the Flipped Classroom Model. IGI Global.
16.
KhanS. (2011). New Pedagogies on Teaching Science with Computer Simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9247-2
17.
KoehlerM. J.MishraP. (2005). What Happens When Teachers Design Educational Technology? The Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV
MartinF.ParkerM. A. (2014). Use of Synchronous Virtual Classrooms: Why, Who, and How?10(2), 20.
20.
McBrienJ. L.ChengR.JonesP. (2009). Virtual Spaces: Employing a Synchronous Online Classroom to Facilitate Student Engagement in Online Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605
21.
Mossavar-RahmaniF.Larson-DaughertyC. (2007). Supporting the Hybrid Learning Model: A New Proposition. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching.
22.
NunamakerJ. F.DennisA. R.ValacichJ. S.VogelD. R.GeorgeJ. F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40–62.
23.
OblingerD. G.BaroneC. A.HawkinsB. L. (2001). Distributed Education and Its Challenges: An Overview. 56.
24.
SilbermanM. (1996). Active Learning: 101 Strategies To Teach Any Subject. Prentice-Hall, P.
25.
SimpsonC.DuY. (2004). Effects of Learning Styles and Class Participation on Students’ Enjoyment Level in Distributed Learning Environments. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/40323899
26.
SmithG. G.SorensenC.GumpA.HeindelA. J.CarisM.MartinezC. D. (2011). Overcoming student resistance to group work: Online versus face-to-face. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.005
27.
SmithP. J.FeighK.SarterN.WoodsD. (2021). Online Instruction for Cognitive Systems Engineering: Lessons Learned and Opportunities to Pursue. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 65(1), 551–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181321651027
28.
StrangK. (2013). Cooperative learning in graduate student projects: Comparing synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 24(4), 447–464.
29.
TsengH. W.YehH.-T. (2013). Team members’ perceptions of online teamwork learning experiences and building teamwork trust: A qualitative study. Computers & Education, 63, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.013
30.
TsoiM. F.GohN. K.ChiaL. S. (2005). Multimedia Learning Design Pedagogy: A Hybrid Learning Model. In Online Submission (Vol. 2, Issue 9, pp. 59–62). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED497687
31.
van LeeuwenA.JanssenJ.ErkensG.BrekelmansM.. (2013). Teacher interventions in a synchronous, co-located CSCL setting: Analyzing focus, means, and temporality. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1377–1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.028
