T HE H YBRID M ODEL :
A FACELIFT FOR
Y OUR FACE -TO -FACE
Tim Cannon
University of Utah
tim.cannon@utah.edu
H YBRID M ODEL

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
V IRTUAL D AY &
FACE - TO -FACE D AY
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.
O UR M ODEL

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)
V IRTUAL D AY &
FACE - TO -FACE D AY
MONDAY
TUESDAY
Virtual Day
F2F
FTF
WEDNESDAY
WEDNESDAY THURSDAY
THURSDAY
Virtual Day
F2F
FTF
FRIDAY
FRIDAY
I MPLEMENTATION C HALLENGES
AND C ONCERNS
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
IN
M ULTIPLE I NSTRUCTORS
THE H YBRID C LASSROOM

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
T HE 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
H YBRID M ODEL
I MPLEMENTATION

Lesson plans

Online components

Activities and Assessment
D IVIDING A T RADITIONAL
L ESSON P LAN
Virtual Day
Lesson Plan
Traditional
Lesson Plan
F2F Day
Lesson Plan
H YBRID

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
O NLINE C OURSE
U SING W EB CT OR
M ANGEMENT TOOL
•Virtual Day
•Assignment
Drop Box
•Discussions
and Postings
•Wimba
V IRTUAL D AY – S TUDENT ’ S V IEW
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.
V IRTUAL D AY – S TUDENT ’ S V IEW
( CONTINUED)
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.
V IRTUAL D AY – S TUDENT ’ S V IEW
( 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.
V IRTUAL D AY – S TUDENT ’ S V IEW
( 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.***
W RITING IN THE
VIRTUAL DAY

Workbook and Lab Manual (Homework)

WebCT Assignments

Discussion Board

Blogs

Projects
O RAL PRACTICE AND
ACTIVITIES

F2F time for hybrid courses

Voice recordings (Wimba)

Voice boards

Voice presentations

Chats

Projects

Oral Exams
A SSIGNMENT D ROP B OX
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.
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.
D ISCUSSION B OARD AND B LOGS
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 te gustaba hacer? ¿Por qué?
¿Cuáles eran tus actividades preferidas del verano?
¿Qué hacías?
¿Qué no te gustaba hacer? ¿Por qué?
¿…?
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.
W IMBA -V OICE R ECORDING

Voice Presentations

Voice Boards

Oral Exams
G IVING FEEDBACK TO
STUDENTS

Global feedback

Individual feedback

Online feedback

Peer feedback
A SSESSMENT

Assessing the Virtual Day and F2F period

Quizzes

Compositions

Oral Exams

Projects
P ROJECTS :
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.
P ROJECT D ESCRIPTION AND
A SSIGNMENT
Project 1 – Span 1020
1.
Project Proposal
2.
Script
3.
YouTube Video
4.
Peer Review Evaluation
5.
Reflection Paper
P ROJECT D ESCRIPTION AND
A SSIGNMENT
Project 1 – Student Copy
Rubric
Example of Instructor’s Grade Sheet
P ROJECT A SSESSMENT
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)
H YBRID C LASSROOM D ATA
•
Myths about hybrid courses
•
Oral fluency and proficiency
•
Written fluency and proficiency
•
Results and conclusions
M YTHS 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.
M YTHS 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.
F LUENCY 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).”
M EASURES

OF
F LUENCY
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)
D ATA


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/
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 R ESULTS
O RAL P ROFICIENCY
F2F: (n=25)
Hybrid: (n=25)
Number of students by proficiency level
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
NL
NM
NH
Hybrid
IL
F2F
IM
O RAL

Average # of words:



Average # of words per minute



Hybrid: 51.2
F2F: 41.3
MLU:



Hybrid: 362
F2F: 402
Hybrid: 9.3
F2F: 9.5
Lexical diversity (D):


Hybrid: 40.32
F2F: 39.37
FLUENCY
W RITTEN F LUENCY



Average # of words:

Hybrid: 75

F2F: 62
MSL:

Hybrid: 7.7

F2F: 8.0
Lexical Diversity (D)

Hybrid: 34.7

F2F: 37.7
2009 R ESULTS
O RAL P ROFICIENCY
F2F: (n=12)
Hybrid: (n=17)
Number of students by proficiency level
10
8
6
4
2
0
NL
NM
NH
Hybrid
IL
F2F
IM
O RAL F LUENCY

Average # of words per minute:



Fluent runs:



Hybrid: 7.2
F2F: 7.7
MLU:



Hybrid: 52
F2F: 55
Hybrid: 10.67
F2F: 9.85
Lexical diversity (D):


Hybrid: 38.27
F2F: 39.56
S TUDENT 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.
S TUDENT
SATISFACTION
Student Satisfaction
Percentage of Agree or Strongly Agree
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007-2008
2008-2009
Oral Practice
Assessment
Satisfaction
Effectiveness
58.3%
87.5%
83.3%
85.9%
73.3%
78.6%
75.0%
85.7%
C ONCLUSION

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.
A DVANTAGES
•
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
I NSTRUCTOR
SATISFACTION
R EFERENCES

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