Tim CannonUniversity of Utah

tim.cannon@utah.edu

THE HYBRID MODEL: A FACELIFT FOR

YOUR FACE-TO-FACE

HYBRID MODEL

Also known as a blended course

Combines face-to-face (F2F) class time with an online component (Virtual Day)

Offers more flexibility to students and instructors

Cost savings

Dynamic learning environment

Number of students in the classroom

Many sections are taught by 1st year TAs

Face-to-Face (F2F) - the time spent with the students in the traditional classroom setting.

Virtual Day - the online component that has replaced the traditional class period for that day.

VIRTUAL DAY & FACE-TO-FACE DAY

OUR MODEL

Four credit course

Meet twice a week face to face (F2F)

Have 2 Virtual Days

Reduce cap from 30 to 25 students

Each class has two instructors: a lead instructor and a TA or LA (Learning Assistant)

MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAYMONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY

FTF FTF

MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY

Virtual Day Virtual Day

MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY

Virtual Day F2F Virtual Day F2F

VIRTUAL DAY & FACE-TO-FACE DAY

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGESAND CONCERNS

• Organizing the curriculum • Creating a class community• Creating virtual classes that are

communicative • Student responsibility and

accountability• Learning language online• Having two instructors in the classroom

Veteran Instructor – full time instructor or second year graduate student

TA – Graduate Student (First or Second Year)

LA (Learning Assistant) – Undergrad student who is fluent and majoring in Spanish

MULTIPLE INSTRUCTORS IN THE HYBRID

CLASSROOM

THE ROLE OF THE “INSTRUCTOR”

IN THE HYBRID CLASSROOM

Atlas verses the great coordinator

Rethinking the classroom using two instructors

Instructors modeling

Double the feed-back and half the group size

HYBRID MODEL IMPLEMENTATION

Lesson plans Online components Activities and Assessment

TraditionalLesson Plan

Virtual DayLesson Plan

F2F DayLesson Plan

DIVIDING A TRADITIONAL LESSON PLAN

HYBRID LESSON PLANS

Keep it communicative (interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational)

Clear and consistent instructions

Fluidity and continuity between F2F and virtual class periods

Never use F2F class time for things that students can do outside the classroom

•Virtual Day

•Assignment Drop Box

•Discussions and Postings

•Wimba

USING WEBCT OR ONLINE COURSE MANGEMENT TOOL

Chapter 8 virtual day 4 (before class 1/21/08)

*Prep work - Study Gramática útil 4 e-book pages 253-255.

1. Before viewing the video, complete the True/False activity on page 242 based on the previous dialogues and photos in this chapter. (You do not need to submit assignment.)

2. View video in the e-book on page 243. Answer the questions from Actividad 5 (page 243). Submit your answers under Assignments in WebCT. You should number your responses and use complete sentences.

VIRTUAL DAY – STUDENT’S VIEW

3. Posting: You write for City Weekly and have to judge the best and worst of 2007. You can write about any of the following topics: movies, actors, musicians, sports, and/or local stores and restaurants. You must write at least 6 sentences using comparatives and superlatives. Make sure to vary the kind of comparative statements that you write (use statements of equal comparison and unequal comparison).

Modelo: El centro de esquí Beaver Mountain es menos divertido que Brighton. Artic Circle es tan malo como Taco Bell. La música de Los White Stripes es mejor que la de Bon Jovi. Cate Blachett es la mejor actriz del año 2007. Fred Claus es la peor película del año 2007.

VIRTUAL DAY – STUDENT’S VIEW

(CONTINUED)

3a. Respond to at least 3 of your peers’ opinions. You must respond using either a comparative or superlative statement. Write at least one sentence for each peer review you read. You can express agreement or disagreement. Post responses on WebCT. (If I had just read the previous model I could respond by writing the following statements.)

Modelo: No estoy de acuerdo. Primero, Artic Circle es peor que Taco Bell. También la película Evan Almighty es peor que Fred Claus, etc. El centro de esquí Beaver Mountain es tan divertido como Brighton.

VIRTUAL DAY – STUDENT’S VIEW

(CONTINUED)

4. Complete ALL assigned Quia activities. Quia activities are due at the stroke of midnight based on the due date. For example, Chapter 8 Quia has the due date of Jan 21, 2008. That means you have until Monday night (by midnight) to complete the assigned activities.

5. Preparación for class Tuesday: study and memorize Vocabulario útil 1 for chapter 9 (ebook pages 268-269), and study Gramática útil 4 (ebook page 286).

***Remember there is a Quiz (Ch 8) on Tuesday.***

VIRTUAL DAY – STUDENT’S VIEW

(CONTINUED)

WRITING IN THEVIRTUAL DAY

Workbook and Lab Manual (Homework)

WebCT Assignments

Discussion Board

Blogs

Projects

ORAL PRACTICE AND ACTIVITIES

F2F time for hybrid courses

Voice recordings (Wimba) Voice boards

Voice presentations

Chats

Projects

Oral Exams

1. Lectura — Yo soy Betty, la Fea

Lee el artículo sobre la telenovela y contesta las preguntas de la Actividad 5 en la página 357. Pon tus respuestas en Assignments en WebCT.

1a. Video - Complete Actividad 1 and Actividad 2 in the e-book on pg. 308 prior to viewing the video. (Do not submit answers)

1b. View video (pg 309) in the e-book.

1c. Complete Actividad 4 (pg 309). Indicate if the comments are cierto or falso. Number your answers and submit them under Assignments in WebCT.

ASSIGNMENT DROP BOX

1a. Posting: ¿Cómo pasabas los veranos cuando era niño(a)? Write a description about what you remember about the summers of your childhood (los veranos de tu niñez). Try to think of one summer in particular that was important, memorable or horrible. You can use the following questions as a guide (use imperfect). Post your description under discussions on WebCT. Write at least 6 complete sentences.

¿Dónde pasabas los veranos? ¿Con quién(es)? ¿Qué hacías?¿Qué te gustaba hacer? ¿Por qué? ¿Qué no te gustaba hacer? ¿Por qué?¿Cuáles eran tus actividades preferidas del verano? ¿…?

1b. Read several of your classmates descriptions of their summer experiences. Choose three of your peers’ postings and respond to the postings. You should either mention something you did or have in common with your classmate or something you did not do in common.

Por ejemplo: Yo también jugaba tenis cuando tenía 10 años. (or) Los dos jugábamos tenis cuando teníamos 10 años. (or) Tú estudiabas francés cuando eras niña, pero yo estudiaba español.

DISCUSSION BOARD AND BLOGS

WIMBA -VOICE RECORDING

Voice Presentations

Voice Boards

Oral Exams

GIVING FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS

Global feedback

Individual feedback

Online feedback

Peer feedback

ASSESSMENT

Assessing the Virtual Day and F2F period

Quizzes

Compositions

Oral Exams

Projects

PROJECTS: AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL FOR ASSESSING

STUDENTS’ PROFICIENCY

• Transition from exam format to projects

• Projects reflect what students do in and outside of class

• Direct application of the course content in a meaningful context

• Combines different types of communicative modes (presentational, interpretive, and interpersonal) and can have written and/or oral portions.

• Students perform for each other

• The project serves not only a diagnostic tool but also a learning tool.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ASSIGNMENT

Project 1 – Span 1020

1. Project Proposal

2. Script

3. YouTube Video

4. Peer Review Evaluation

5. Reflection Paper

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ASSIGNMENT

Project 1 – Student Copy

Rubric

Example of Instructor’s Grade Sheet

PROJECT ASSESSMENT

1. Proposal 5% (group)

2. Script 20% (group)

3. Video 35% (group 15, individual 20)

4. Evaluation 15% (individual)

5. Reflection 25% (individual)

Total 100% (40 group, 60 individual)

HYBRID CLASSROOM DATA

• Myths about hybrid courses• Oral fluency and proficiency• Written fluency and proficiency• Results and conclusions

MYTHS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AND L2 TEACHING

Technology is expensive.

Students served 06-07: 738.

Students served 07-08: 759.

Total spent 06-07: $143,910 ($195.00 per student)

Total spent 07-08: $121,750 ($160.40 per student)

Technology is not for everyone. Students will drop the class.

Attrition in Spring 08: Hybrid course = 14%

F2F = 17%

Face-to-face is crucial for developing proficiency. Learning will suffer with online or hybrid courses.

MYTHS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AND L2 TEACHING

Technology is not for everyone. Students will drop the class. Combined attrition in 07-08:

Hybrid course = 14% F2F = 17%

Combined attrition in 08-09: Hybrid course = 8.5% (1st semester: 8.35%) F2F = 16.5% (1st semester: 19.5%)

Face-to-face is crucial for developing proficiency. Learning will suffer with online or hybrid courses.

FLUENCY AND PROFICIENCY

Objectives:

Measure proficiency levels (writing and speaking) using ACTFL scale. function, content, context, accuracy and text type.

Expected level between NM-NH.

Measure fluency Lennon (2000): “a working definition of fluency might

be the rapid, smooth, accurate, lucid, and efficient translation of thought or communicative intention into language under the temporal constraints of on-line processing (p. 26).”

MEASURES OF FLUENCY

Speech rate (WPM) and mean length of utterance (oral) (Freed 1995, 2000; Lennon 1990)

All Spanish words and English proper nouns where appropriate (false starts and repetitions excluded)

Fluent turns (oral) (Freed, Segalowitz & Dewey 2004)

Number of words in the longest run of speech without silent or filled pause.

Mean sentence length (written)

Lexical Diversity (D)

Diversity measure independent of sample size, unlike TTR (MacWhinney 2000)

Oral proficiency/fluency Computerized oral proficiency test Proficiency assessed independently by two

raters

Written proficiency/fluency In class writing assignment

Data transcribed in CHAT and analyzed using the CLAN program (Computerized Language Analysis) MacWhinney 2000 http://childes.psy.cmu.edu/

DATA

PARTICIPANTS

All students took 2 semesters of Beginning Spanish with the same instructor in the same format (hybrid or F2F)

2008: Hybrid group (n=25)

Traditional group (n=25)

2009:

Hybrid group (n= 17)

Traditional group (n=12)

2008 RESULTS

ORAL PROFICIENCY

F2F: (n=25) Hybrid: (n=25)

NL NM NH IL IM0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of students by proficiency level

Hybrid F2F

ORAL FLUENCY

Average # of words: Hybrid: 362 F2F: 402

Average # of words per minute Hybrid: 51.2 F2F: 41.3

MLU: Hybrid: 9.3 F2F: 9.5

Lexical diversity (D): Hybrid: 40.32 F2F: 39.37

WRITTEN FLUENCY

Average # of words:

Hybrid: 75

F2F: 62

MSL:

Hybrid: 7.7

F2F: 8.0

Lexical Diversity (D)

Hybrid: 34.7

F2F: 37.7

2009 RESULTS

ORAL PROFICIENCY

NL NM NH IL IM0123456789

Number of students by proficiency level

Hybrid F2F

F2F: (n=12) Hybrid: (n=17)

ORAL FLUENCY

Average # of words per minute: Hybrid: 52 F2F: 55

Fluent runs: Hybrid: 7.2 F2F: 7.7

MLU: Hybrid: 10.67 F2F: 9.85

Lexical diversity (D): Hybrid: 38.27 F2F: 39.56

STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY

1. This course offers adequate oral practice

2. Assessments (quizzes, exams, projects, etc.) reflect what is being covered in class

3. Overall I am satisfied with this course

4. The hybrid course is effective

The results show the percentage of students who said they Agree or Strongly Agree with the above four statements.

STUDENT SATISFACTION

Oral Practice Assessment Satisfaction Effectiveness

2007-2008

0.583 0.833000000000001

0.733000000000001

0.750000000000001

2008-2009

0.875000000000001

0.859000000000001

0.786 0.857000000000001

5%15%25%35%45%55%65%75%85%95%

Percentage of Agree or Strongly AgreeSt

uden

t Sati

sfac

tion

CONCLUSION

Hybrid instruction has had no significant effect on fluency or overall proficiency.

Overall student satisfaction is relatively high.

Hybrid courses have improved retention and reduced costs significantly.

ADVANTAGES

• Cost Savings

• Space savings

• More flexible schedule

• More individualized attention

• Better training for TAs

• More attention to communicative practice

• Better ability to monitor communicative activities

• More uniformity

INSTRUCTOR SATISFACTION

REFERENCES

Freed, B., 1995. What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent?. In: Freed, B., Editor, , 1995. Second language acquisition in a study abroad context, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 123–148.

Freed, B.F., 2000. Is fluency, like beauty, the eyes, of the beholder?. In: Riggenbach, H., Editor, , 2000. Perspectives on fluency, The University of Michigan Press, Michigan, pp. 243–265.

Lennon, P., 2000. The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In: Riggenbach, H., Editor, , 2000. Perspectives on fluency, The University of Michigan Press, Michigan, pp. 25–42.

Lennon, P., 1990. Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning 40, pp. 387–412.

MacWhinney, B., 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. 3rd Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tim Cannon

University if Utah

tim.cannon@utah.edu