2012 STARTALK Blended Learning Programs: A Report
Research and Writing Mouna Mana
Management Nicole Rumeau
© (2013). National Foreign Language Center at the University of Maryland. College Park, MD. Available at: http://www.nflc.umd.edu/pubcatalog. 2012 STARTALK blended learning programs: A Report.
Introduction This report addresses the topic of blended learning in 2012 teacher and student STARTALK programs and serves as a follow-up to STARTALK Central’s report on blended and distance learning components in 2011 STARTALK programs. While there are a variety of widely used definitions of blended learning, this report will focus on blended learning programs that combine a conventional face-to-face learning environment and a discrete but related distance learning component. This report highlights how blended learning and instruction occurred in STARTALK programs in the summer of 2012, identifies trends across 2012 blended learning programs as well as similarities and differences between 2011 and 2012 data on STARTALK programs, reviews recent research on effective blended learning practices, and provides recommendations for using blended learning components to enhance STARTALK programs in the future. In this year’s report, we also present information about programs with a significant amount of technology enhancement and online learning activities that do not, on their own, render a program “blended,” but that do incorporate significant use of web 2.0 technologies, online software, and mobile technology tools, such as iPads. This report takes a close look at approaches to blended learning among STARTALK programs and highlights features and characteristics of each program. The goal of this report is to provide STARTALK programs with some background from research literature, information about what other programs are doing, and some practical knowledge and suggestions about what constitutes effective blended learning. The aim of this report, ultimately, is to provide information for programs considering an online or distance component as part of their curricula so that they may look to what has been done as they plan for their upcoming STARTALK programs. The report begins by defining key terms as well providing a working definition of blended learning; the report then focuses on the growth and potential of blended learning for digital language pedagogy and professional development, and then the report details blended learning’s key characteristics. In the next sections, the data collection method is described, followed by a summary of information from the 2012 STARTALK programs that included distance and/or blended learning components. A discussion section then elaborates on the survey’s findings and identifies best practices for incorporating blended learning components. The report also lists what has been found in terms of the varieties of technologies incorporated. This is a new addition to the report for this year, and it is designed to spotlight the various technologies that programs are using to provide their teacher participants and students with digital-age learning experiences that are more enhanced than conventional classroom learning even if they do not strictly qualify as blended learning. The report concludes with recommendations for future STARTALK programs and recommendations for future data collection and research to track the growth and effectiveness of blended learning in STARTALK student and teacher programs.
2
The report will address the following six questions: 1) What does current research tell us about blended learning practices? 2) Which 2012 STARTALK programs were blended learning programs and how were blended learning components implemented? 3) Are there any notable trends or patterns across 2012 blended learning programs? 4) Was there growth between 2011 and 2012 for blended learning programs, and if so what forms did the growth take?? 5) What programs had significant online- or technology-based learning activities? 6) What recommendations can be made about the future direction and use of blended learning within STARTALK programs?
Why Blended Learning? Over the past several years, online learning has expanded beyond distance learning across a wide variety of learning environments in the United States. According to the North American Council for Online Learning, blended learning is predicted to emerge as the predominant educational model of the future, surpassing both fully online and fully face-to-face courses (Watson, 2008). Arne Duncan, US secretary of education, recently described a “new normal” for schools and educators who must now do more with less due to budget cuts coupled with teacher shortages in a results-oriented atmosphere, which accelerates the expansion of online learning into blended learning environments (Horn, Staker, Hernandez, Hassel, & Ableidinger, 2011). These elements have all contributed to blended learning becoming the fastest-growing type of online learning (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin & Rapp, 2011), and have also been major factors in the advent of a rapidly growing and debated trend in pedagogy known as the “flipped classroom” (Tucker, 2012). The literature on blended learning cites several benefits, including creation of a student-centered, personalized learning environment that is more productive and delivers improved results at comparable or even lower costs than in conventional face-to-face settings (Horn, Staker, Hernandez, Hassel, & Ableidinger, 2011). A report by the US Department of Education found that introducing fully or partially online components can improve educational productivity (Bakia, Shear, Toyama & Lasseter, 2012). The report names nine benefits of blended learning: 1) Broadening access to quality educational resources and experiences, specifically for students in remote locations or programs facing low student enrollment, all while reducing costs 2) Engaging students by using web-based instructional materials and providing access to resources in order to create an active learning environment without increasing costs 3) Individualizing and differentiating instruction through assessment and pace of learning activities
3
4) Personalizing the learning experience by focusing on student interests, increasing student motivation and time on task, thereby leading to better learning outcomes 5) Using teacher and student time more effectively by automating routine tasks and taking advantage of teacher time to focus on high-value activities 6) Increasing the rate at which students learn by boosting motivation and assisting students in grasping concepts 7) Reducing facilities costs by using alternative spaces 8) Reducing salary costs by using computers for activities, increasing the number of students individual teachers can reach, and more effectively using teacher time 9) Seizing opportunities for economies of scale by reusing materials and distributing them on a large scale Online education can deliver content and instruction in more flexible ways compared to traditional methods, allowing students who cannot or choose not to attend a traditional school equivalent learning experiences. (Bakia, Shear, Toyama, & Lasseter, 2012). Also, as research shows, the element of online learning alters the social dynamic typical in a classroom, making turn-taking, for instance, more organized and providing students equal opportunities for asking questions and providing input of their own, which could make the learning experience seem more personalized. Many of these benefits were mentioned in STARTALK programs’ final reports and by the directors of blended learning programs. Additionally, and not surprisingly, evidence suggests schools are using computer systems and related applications—also used by the majority of STARTALK blended learning programs—to expand access, improve the quality of instruction, and reduce costs associated with face-to-face programs, all of which were goals echoed in STARTALK proposals, reports, and by various program personnel and staff.
Definitions of Terms The use of technology for teaching and learning in and out of the classroom, including the teaching and learning of foreign languages, has grown significantly over the years, both generally and within STARTALK programs. Incorporating the Internet and other web-based tools into program design has steadily increased. Before looking at STARTALK programs, it is important to briefly define some terms and their common usage. After doing so, a working definition of blended learning is established for the purposes of this report and for classifying blended learning in STARTALK programs. Note that the definitions have remained largely unchanged from the 2010 report and include only minor modifications that more accurately describe the terminology and better classify blended learning components. Distance learning, or distance education, is a broad category that includes several arrangements between the learner and instructor as part of the course: traditional non-electronic correspondence, telephone or videoconferencing, or computer-delivered learning mediated through various Internet options (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010). Distance learning is commonly cited as having several benefits, making it an attractive alternative to face-to-face learning. One advantage includes the 4
ability to provide access to learning for an increased number of learners since geographical and temporal constraints can be overcome. Additionally, resources such as teachers, learning materials, native speakers, and so on, can be pooled and used more effectively. Online learning, or e-learning, is distance learning via the Internet. In online learning, the Internet is most frequently used to access learning materials and to interact with the content, instructor, and other learners; and to obtain support and guidance (Ally, 2004). Communication tools used in an online setting are often categorized as either synchronous or asynchronous. Synchronous tools such as VoIP, chat rooms, or videoconferencing facilitate real-time communication among all parties, while asynchronous tools such as e-mail, discussion boards, or wikis do not allow real-time communication and instead allow learners to access materials or interact with others at a time of their choice. Blended learning, or hybrid learning, is generally considered to feature online learning components combined with traditional face-to-face instruction. While this definition reflects the most common usage of the term, for the purposes of this report, the definition has been expanded to include distance learning delivery systems that may not necessarily require a computer, such as correspondence learning. This was done due to the fact that many definitions and understandings of the term have been developed. Some definitions of the term can be so broad as to include any learning experience that uses some sort of technology for educational purposes, such as an incidental use of e-mail to communicate with the instructor or using Powerpoint presentations. Other definitions more specifically state that in order for a program to be considered blended learning, a certain percentage of time must be dedicated to using a distance component. Here are several definitions of blended learning: Blended learning combines online learning with other modes of instructional delivery. (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin & Rapp, 2011, p. 8) [A blended course is one] that blends online and face-to-face delivery. Substantial proportion of the content is delivered online [30 to79 percent], typically uses online discussions, and typically has a reduced number of face-to-face meetings. (Allen & Seaman, 2011, p. 7) Blended learning is any time a student learns at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home and at least in part through online delivery with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace; often used synonymously with Hybrid Learning. (Horn & Staker, Hernandez, Hassel & Ableidinger, 2011, p. 3) Blended learning combines online delivery of educational content with the best features of classroom interaction and live instruction to personalize learning, allow thoughtful reflection, and differentiate instruction from student to student across a diverse group of learners. (Watson, 2008, p. 4) For the purpose of this report, blended learning is defined in the following way: Blended learning is an instructional approach that combines classroom-based instructional activities with distance learning experiences, which may take place before, during, or after class instruction. The 5
distance learning component, in which the instructor and participants are in different physical settings, represents a significant portion of overall learning time. The following two figures represent how blended learning components and distance learning components are interconnected. Figure 1 depicts what the elements are in blended and distance learning, and figure 2 shows how the blended learning components might be “blended” or combined to make a hybrid learning experience (figure 2). Figure 2 also represents the kind of hybrid combinations of online distance learning and face-to-face learning experiences we have observed in STARTALK programs over the years. Figure 1. Relationship of Blended Learning Components (distance learning component prior to face-toface component)
Blended learning
Face-to-face
Distance learning
instruction
• Traditional correspondence courses • Remote video-based instruction and videoconferencing • Online learning From STARTALK Blended Learning Report, 2010
Figure 2. Sequence and organization of blended learning components
6
Distance learning
Face-to-face
-Traditional Correspondence -Online learning -Remote video conferencing
Face-to-face
Distance learning
Blended Learning Structures
Face-toface Component of distance learning
Online Distance learning
In Figure 2, the diagram shows that there are at least four possible configurations of hybrid blended learning programs. Beginning at the top of the diagram and continuing to the lower half, the possibilities for blended programs include the following: a) A distance learning component followed by a face-to-face component (the most common configuration or “blend” in STARTALK programs) b) A distance learning component followed by a face-to-face component followed by another distance learning component c) A face-to-face component without elements of distance learning followed by an online distance learning component d) A face-to-face component which includes elements of distance learning followed by an online distance learning component These include the combinations we have observed in STARTALK programs, though it’s not an exhaustive description of all the different ways in which blended learning programs could be configured or set up.
Key Characteristics of Blended Learning Regardless of the exact definition, blended learning represents a shift in instructional strategy (Watson, 2008). Dziuban, Hartman, and Moskal (2004) noted the following in a research brief titled “Blended Learning” for EDUCAUSE: 7
Blended learning should be viewed as a pedagogical approach that combines the effectiveness and socialization opportunities of the classroom with the technologically enhanced active learning possibilities of the online environment, rather than a ratio of delivery modalities. In other words, blended learning should be approached not merely as a temporal construct, but rather as a fundamental redesign of the instructional model with the following characteristics:
A shift from lecture- to student-centered instruction in which students become active and interactive learners (this shift should apply to the entire course, including the face-to-face contact sessions) Increases in interaction between student-instructor, student-student, student-content, and student-outside resources Integrated formative and summative assessment mechanisms for students and instructor
These characteristics are consistent with the characteristics of the STARTALK programs discussed in this report. The STARTALK programs analyzed for this report not only fit into the definition established earlier, but they also included a distance component that was mediated by an instructor. The programs also noted that there was some sort of summative or formative assessment associated with the distance component. While peer interaction is not necessary for a program to qualify as a blended learning program, it is certainly considered a desirable characteristic. Non-teacher-mediated arrangements such as educational television or courseware on audio cassette, CD, and/or DVD were not included in this report. Instead, the report focuses on technology that enables learners to interact with their instructor(s), other learners in their course, or other individuals or organizations. While many STARTALK programs used technology such as interactive whiteboards and computers extensively in face-to-face situations, these programs are not considered blended. Additionally, this report does not deal with learners using the Internet to complete tasks or projects in the target language (e.g., when searching for authentic information about a particular topic online) or with online activities such as video chat conversations with native speakers of the target language living abroad. While these programs certainly showed the integration of distance technology in language learning, they are considered to have only featured a technological enhancement rather than to have been fully blended learning programs. This report also does not include STARTALK blended learning programs for which the online or distance component was not funded by STARTALK. A handful of programs offered some sort of extension course after the formal STARTALK program into the academic year, but these instances of non-STARTALK-funded blended learning programs were not included in this report in order to focus specifically on STARTALK-funded blended learning programs.
8
Methods, Data Collection & Analysis Types and Sources of Data The programs that met the criteria to be considered blended learning programs were primarily Arabic and Chinese programs. Some multi-language programs also met the criteria and are included in this analysis. Multi-language programs consist of teacher programs in which teachers of more than one language were trained together and student programs in which more than one language was taught. Some Turkish, Russian, and Portuguese teacher programs also met the criteria. Researchers at STARTALK Central reviewed documents submitted by programs, including proposals, curricula, and program final reports. From these documents, researchers collected a variety of information:
9
Program type (student, teacher, or combined student and teacher program) Target language(s) Delivery model and timing of the face-to-face component (i.e. interactive, noninteractive, synchronous, asynchronous, pre-face-to-face, post-face-to-face) Function of the distance vis-à-vis the face-to-face component Means of providing information, instruction, input Tasks (activities via distance learning) Technological tools for interaction and feedback Approaches to assessment
While there are a number of limitations to deriving data from an archival review of program documents, the purpose of this report is not to use the data to make claims, but rather to present a momentary snapshot of blended learning programs in STARTALK.
Procedures & Criteria Many of the 2011 STARTALK programs identified themselves in their proposals or curricula as blended learning programs, but only a handful met the criteria. A three-tiered process was used for selecting programs for this report. Researchers started by choosing programs that self-identified as a blended learning program in their program proposals, curricula, or final reports. During this process, researchers noticed that there were some programs that did not necessarily self-identify as blended, but somewhere in their program materials they indicated they had a distance, online, or technological component. To prevent overlooking any programs, researchers e-mailed all program directors that did not self-identify as blended to ask the program directors to clarify if their programs were or were not blended. If a program director wanted the researchers to consider the program blended, the e-mail correspondence was the director’s opportunity to explain anything that may not have been reflected in the program’s materials. Finally, using STARTALK Central’s definition of blended learning, as provided in the Definitions of Terms section, as the criteria for selecting programs for review in the report, researchers conducted a careful review of proposals, curricula, site visit reports, and final reports to determine which programs were truly blended. Researchers generated a list of programs for analysis that included student as well as teacher training programs. Much like the 2011 Blended Learning Report, individual program profiles were developed based on the information collected on the list of programs for 2011, which helped shape the summaries presented in this report. Because researchers received different amounts of information from each program regarding online or distance components, researchers were only able to produce a brief overview of a program’s structural and design features (i.e., synchronous or asynchronous, etc.). Pedagogical and curricular features (e.g., theme, content, focus, and means of bridging online and face-to-face interactions) were also difficult to elaborate on with the limited information that researchers were provided to produce this report. 10
Information Obtained About the Programs 1. Teacher programs continue to offer more blended learning opportunities than student programs. Much like in 2010 and 2011, a large majority of the blended learning programs were teacher programs— 83 percent in 2011 and 84 percent in 2012. Compared to 2011, there was a slight increase in both teacher blended learning programs (an 18 percent increase from 2011) and student blended programs (a 3 percent increase from 2011). Raw figures on the teacher and student blended programs are presented in Table 5 in the Appendix On average, a blended learning student program had twentyseven participants and a blended learning teacher program had twenty-six. It is also worth noting that in teacher programs a more sophisticated arrangement of blending components took place during and after the face-to-face portion, which can be seen in Table 6 of the Appendix. While the online distance learning opportunities that took place only during the face-to-face session decreased to 6 percent from 2011, and offering blended opportunities after the face-to-face session remained at about 12 percent compared to 2011, a larger number of programs included post-face-to-face components in addition to pre-face-to-face components. Additionally, there were at least three programs that arranged their blended learning such that it happened during and after the face-to-face components rather than before. This reflects the growth of blended learning approaches and the creativity with which programs were using the distance-learning component of blended learning.
2. Programs continue to report offering distance or online components; however, most of these were “technology enhancements” rather than blended learning components. While many programs used an online or distance component, these were largely program enhancements that did not fit the working definition of blended learning used in this report. It is important to note that programs are able to self-identify using definitions that do not necessarily match the definitions used in this report. These enhancements often consisted of video chat sessions with native speakers, online resources, online research, a classroom computer lab to complete tasks and assignments, an e-portfolio, and so on. There were fewer programs in 2012 than in 2011 due to level funding and cost increases. However, there was a slight increase in the number of blended programs compared to 2011. Of the 182 programs in 2012, thirty-two (or 17 percent) of the programs were blended learning programs. This is about a 25 percent increase from 2011 when, out of the 156 programs, twenty-four (or 15 percent) were blended learning programs. Tables 1–4 in the Appendix provide details about the thirty-two STARTALK blended learning programs in 2012.
11
3. Most blended learning teacher programs were asynchronous and occurred prior to the face-to-face portion of the programs. Regarding the timing of the distance component, researchers analyzed programs based on interactivity and blend point. Interactivity is the actual timing of the instruction in distance learning and uses synchronous and/or asynchronous communication tools. Blend point refers to the when the distance component occurs in relation to the face-to-face portion. This includes the options of pre-face-to-face, during-face-to-face, and post-face-to-face. Table 6 in the Appendix highlights the ways STARTALK teacher blended learning programs structured the timing of their distance learning component. Most of the teacher programs, as illustrated in Table 6, provided a blended learning component prior to the start of the face-to-face program. Much like the 2011 data results, the 2012 programs also seemed to be using this pre-face-to-face portion as a preparatory or front-loading function, with at least twenty of the thirty-two programs (62 percent) using this period to prepare learners (both teachers and students) for the face-to-face portion. This is heavily supported through information from programs provided in the proposals and final reports that specifically stress the preparatory or frontloading function of the pre-face-to-face portion. Programs in 2012, however, tended not to rely on pre-program distance-online components alone. Of the twenty programs that reported having a pre-face-to-face component, seven included a post-program online distance learning component in addition to the preprogram online distance learning component. Paralleling the 2011 program data, many teacher programs appear to have used asynchronous distance learning tools. At least ten of these programs combined asynchronous tools with synchronous ones, but it is not clear if any programs utilized synchronous tools exclusively. Of all the information programs documented, the aspect of synchronicity or asynchronicity was not consistently reported. Data on this aspect thus are not included in this year’s report. According to interview data that was compiled by STARTALK Central researchers in 2010, at least two rationales may explain the prevalent use of asynchronous tools in teacher training programs and the purpose of mixed-interactivity tools. The first reason was curricular in nature. The online portion prior to any face-to-face sessions was largely dedicated to guided readings and discussions to prepare for the face-to-face portion. The second reason appears purely logistical. The programs took advantage of the benefits of asynchronous communication tools to allow lead instructors and participants more flexibility with their schedules, which was particularly important during the summer academic break. What appears new in the 2012 programs is that post-face-to-face online distance learning components seem to be described as being focused on individual coaching, mentoring, discussion of projects, and collaboration with colleagues or feedback to colleagues on lesson plans and the like. However, it is hard to determine with any certainty the trends of using online programs post face-to-face meetings. Patterns of synchronicity or asynchronicity must be explored more closely in 2013 programs. Implementing a distance component for the teacher programs that is largely pre-face-to-face and asynchronous may be a partial result of the trainees’ language background. As indicated in the 2010 STARTALK report, based on survey data found in the STARTALK Participant Survey Report: Teacher 12
Trainees, 89 percent of the teacher trainees’ native languages were languages other than English. Additionally, 61 percent of respondents “went to a university in a country where the target language was the language of instruction” (Sugarman, Di Silvio, & Malone, 2010). It makes sense, then, at least for teacher programs that require a significant amount of reading in English that includes technical terms, including technical terms, to conduct such work and have it completed pre-face-to-face and with an asynchronous discussion component to allow participants the time needed to read and understand the material at their own pace, as well as to carefully craft discussion responses in English, their second or foreign language.
4. Student programs use distance components for a more varied range of functions when compared to teacher programs. In terms of blend types and interactivity, researchers found that student programs utilized all three blend types. In 2013, as with the teacher programs, it is unclear from the data whether student programs used mostly synchronous or asynchronous communication in the online portion of blended learning programs. Teacher programs are beginning to catch up to the use of multiple blend points or arrangements of online and face-to-face including: pre-face-to-face (prep), during (co-construction and collaboration), and post-face-to-face (follow up, mentorship, feedback). Student programs that had preface-to-face distance learning components used the distance learning components to give core instruction related to activities planned for face-to-face sessions. All but one of the five student programs had post-face-to-face blending, which reveals that student programs use post-face-to-face blending to follow up on and continue instruction after the face-to-face portion. This particular use of post-face-to-face distance learning online also seems to be taking hold in many teacher programs and some final reports indicated that it is used to further mentor teachers and provide them feedback. These are rather encouraging findings when considering the sustainability of programs’ impact on teachers and learners.
5. Trends can be found regarding function/purpose, materials and content, networking tools, and multimedia employed in blended learning programs. Some trends can be established by comparing 2011 and 2012 student and teacher programs. Table 7 in the Appendix provides additional information about the distance learning components in 2012 programs (i.e., the stated function or purpose, the materials and content, the networking tools, and the use of multimedia). Using this data, researchers were able to draw several conclusions about trends in STARTALK programs.
Function/Purpose The function or purpose of the distance learning component refers to the primary pedagogical function of that learning component, such as whether it helped prepare participants for the face-to-face portion, supported the face-to-face portion, served as a follow-up to the face-to-face portion, was the primary
13
medium of instruction or continuation of instruction, developed an online community of learners, or any combination of these. Table 6 highlights some noteworthy patterns discussed earlier, such as the fact that several teacher programs were using distance components post-face-to-face and post-summer to create or support a continuous mentorship model. Student programs used the distance portions as primary medium of instruction, follow up, and continuation of instruction; this is a notable difference from how the majority of teacher programs tended to utilize their distance components. The difference in program content, discussed in the next section, may offer a possible reason for this difference. The patterns, however, from 2011 to 2012, especially for teacher programs, appear to be changing, while trends and patterns in student programs in 2012 for the most part continue to mirror what was observed in 2011 programs.
Material & Content Material and content refers to the type of material provided to learners in the distance learning component specifically. These materials include language materials (text or listening materials in the target language that are either authentic or composed), language-learning materials (materials such as textbooks or online activities that can be used to teach the target language), general pedagogy content (foreign language pedagogical materials not specific to any individual language), or cultural content (target culture material and information that can be used for instruction). A distinction is evident in reviewing the material and content for teacher and student programs. While teacher programs focused largely on pedagogy, student programs focused on developing linguistic proficiency, a pattern that is almost exactly parallel to the 2011 results. Teacher trainees viewed online lectures, read materials online, and had online discussion boards to reflect and share ideas prior to meeting face-to-face, all of which helped teachers prepare for the course and devote face-to-face time to application of principles. In contrast, student programs were much more likely to introduce language content within the classroom and use the distance component for additional online practice. The new finding this year is the use of teachers’ own self-developed material in post-face-to-face distance learning components. This material included lesson plans, curriculum maps, and the like, and was used as a point of reference for feedback from mentors and colleagues as well as evidence of having learned from the face-to-face portion of the program.
Networking Tools Networking tools refers to the means of networking or communication used in the online learning component, such as a blog, Listserv, chat room, discussion board, video chat platform, online learning platform, or social networking site. As can be seen in Tables 6 and 7 of the Appendix, interactivity was largely accomplished through asynchronous tools such as discussion boards and e-mail in teacher programs. However, student programs used synchronous networking tools, which provided learners with immediate feedback, nearly as much as they employed asynchronous tools. Only about a third of the teacher programs used synchronous tools (although the programs did not use these tools exclusively), a considerable difference from the number of student programs that used synchronous tools. The difference is indicative of the varied nature of the two types of courses. Teacher programs 14
tend to be rooted in reflection, preparation, conversation, and individually paced reading, while student programs tend to require real-time interaction for learning.
Multimedia Multimedia refers to the types of media, mainly sound or video files, which were used in the distance learning components or that were developed by teachers or students as part of their program. Video was the dominant type of multimedia used for both teacher training and student programs, which is consistent with 2011 findings but also more varied than in past years. Interviews with program directors conducted in 2010 by STARTALK Central also indicated that the STARTALK and Annenberg websites were used to access teacher-training videos in preparation for and delivery of STARTALK programs.
Discussion & Recommendations Discussion Based on STARTALK Central’s review of 2012 proposals, curricula, site visit reports, and final reports, it is clear that introducing or maintaining a blended learning component as part of the program increases the flexibility of instruction time and the overall quality and amount of the admittedly brief face-to-face time during the summer. Several programs, primarily teacher programs, cited in their final reports that a benefit of blended learning was access—it extended the program to participants who may have otherwise been unable to attend due to time or distance limitations. This benefit is commonly cited in the literature on online or blended learning. Blended learning increases the “availability of learning experiences for those who cannot or choose not to attend traditional schools” (Bakia et al., 2012, p. 2). The distance or online portion of a program offers participants some flexibility and could be an attractive alternative for teachers who are unable to spend significant blocks of time away from home during the summer. Additionally, program directors who were interviewed for the 2010 report highlighted that the online component allowed them to incorporate more information than they would have been able to deliver in a traditional face-to-face setting, a benefit that was also cited at least half of the time in the 2011 and 2012 final reports. Programs suggested in the past (2011, specifically) that they would increase the amount of time participants spent on online distance learning. It is unclear whether the ability to incorporate more information translates into more learning time, but it is becoming apparent that, at least with teacher programs, the added online distance learning time in post-face-toface sessions seems to translate not to the use of more information, but more opportunities for feedback and follow up on what was learned prior to the summer. Due to both logistic and curricular reasons, the 2012 programs included fourteen post-summer extended programs, three of which used a blended learning arrangement, and five of which were technology-enhanced. This may point to the reality that integration of technology may be critical to effective implementation of program curricula. 15
The use of technology also enabled participants, especially teachers, to maintain an active online community throughout the duration of the program and sometimes after the program ended, which is another benefit that was commonly cited. Online communities created a sense of community, facilitated team building, and provided support. For programs with pre-face-to-face distance components, this online community established a baseline of conceptual understanding before the face-to-face began, allowing for more effective use of face-to-face time. With that in mind, some supporters of online and blended programs see the use of technology for instruction as surpassing the goal of simply increasing the efficiency in instructional delivery by providing support through a community of learners who together participate in the understanding of the materials and concepts presented in the course (as cited in Watson, 2008). The final reports indicated that participants who choose to remain part of an online community past the end of a course continue to share relevant experiences, ask educational questions, and/or exchange useful research. Programs view these interactions as beneficial since learning continues after the formal course timeframe. Another benefit commonly cited by STARTALK programs is that blended learning is more cost effective than face-to-face learning. Whether blended learning is in fact more cost effective has been debated in the literature. The meta-analysis carried out by the US Department of Education (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010) found that purely online instruction costs less than face-to-face instruction but that blended learning instruction costs more than face-to-face instruction. As a result, an online course must be equally as effective as a face-to-face course in order to justify the costeffectiveness. A blended learning course, on the other hand, must be more effective than a face-to-face course in order to justify the cost increase (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones,2010). Nielson, Gonzalez-Lloret, & Pinckney (2009) point out that developing an online component for a course most often requires a significant up-front investment of time and capital. However, once the systems are developed, relatively little additional expenditure is needed for future iterations of the course. Lovett, Myers, & Thille (2008) found that blended learning programs produced more cost-effective outcomes when teacher time was used effectively (as cited in Bakia, Shear, Toyama, & Lasseter, 2012). The issue of the cost-effectiveness of blended learning components in STARTALK programs will require more study before conclusions are drawn. While cost-effectiveness/cost-benefit studies of online and blended learning do exist, most of those studies fail to include a rigorous control of costs when compared to the program scope (Bakia, Shear, Toyama, & Lasseter,. 2012). In conducting such studies, researchers must bear in mind that cost-effective instruction does not necessarily result in highly effective education (see Brustad, 2011). Several meta-analyses (as cited in Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010) have investigated the effectiveness of both distance education and face-to-face instruction and did not find significant differences in the effectiveness between the two methods. In contrast, Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, (2006) (as cited in Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010) found online learning to be “superior to classroom-based instruction in terms of declarative knowledge outcomes.” The US Department of Education study conducted by Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia & Jones, (2010) found that for several academic subjects, both solely online learning as well as blended learning “on average 16
produce stronger student learning outcomes [in a variety of subject areas] than do classes with solely face-to-face instruction” (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones , 2010, p. 18). A recent meta-analysis by the US Department of Education found that “students tended to perform better in blended learning courses than in traditional face-to-face classes. Learning outcomes for purely online instruction were equivalent to those of purely face-to-face instruction . . . the effectiveness of online learning is quite stable across different content and learner types. Effectiveness did not vary significantly with learner age or content area” (Bakia, Shear, Toyama, & Lasseter, 2012, p. 18).
Toward Best Practices in Blended Learning While the various analyses in previous sections address online and blended learning generally, other reports have specifically addressed the use of technology or online systems for language learning, which is more relevant to STARTALK programs. In Optimal foreign language learning: The role of technology, Frank et al. (2008) identified two best practices supported by empirical evidence surrounding the use of technology: (1) technology such as instant messagingcan maximize target language practice outside of the classroom, and (2) technology such as computer-assisted pronunciation training used outside the classroom can maximize the efficiency of classroom contact time with the teacher. In another report, Nielson, Gonzalez-Lloret, & Pinckney, (2009) make recommendations for creating successful online language courses: create input, focus on tasks, promote interaction, and provide feedback. Creating input includes increasing the comprehensibility of authentic input through tailoring, providing students with specific questions or instructions to ensure that they are engaged with the input, and providing links to a variety of supplemental inputs. Focusing on tasks entails designing tasks that utilize the multimodal nature of the Internet, increase in complexity, are relevant to the needs of students, require communication between students, and require that students both hear and speak/write the target language. Promoting interaction includes providing access to both synchronous and asynchronous communication tools, requiring that the target language be used during all forms of computer-mediated communication, and providing opportunities for students to communicate with fluent target-language speakers. Finally, providing feedback refers to giving students feedback during and after communicative exchanges using multimedia and giving students opportunities to incorporate the feedback that they receive from their instructor and peers (Nielson, Gonzalez-Lloret, & Pinckney, 2009). In “Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance and foreign language learning,” Doughty and Long offer ten methodological principles (MPs) for teaching less commonly taught languages through distance learning. The points made by Doughty and Long are similar to those made by Nielson. Doughty and Long give ten MPs: use tasks rather than texts as the unit of analysis; promote learning by doing and problem-based learning; elaborate input rather than simplifying or relying solely on “authentic” texts; provide rich input; encourage inductive, or “chunk,” learning; focus on form; provide negative feedback; respect the developmental process and learner syllabuses; promote cooperative and collaborative learning; and individualize instruction, both psycholinguistically and based on communicative needs (Doughty & Long, 2003, p.52). Some important findings from this article can be applied in a blended learning environment: 17
Salaberry (2000) says that in online chat rooms learners may have trouble following turn-taking rules, keeping up with who the addressee is, or identifying when a contribution was made. Having one conversational partner in online chat aligns with or reflects second language acquisition research on negotiated interaction, especially if the task goals are made clear from the beginning (as cited in Doughty and Long, 2003). While the Internet offers many options to access rich input, keep in mind that there is no pedagogical involvement. Avoid Internet searches and web-based scavenger hunts. Consider instead “well-constructed input archives in the form of audio, video, and text-based corpora, the components of which are tagged for task complexity and perhaps controlled in terms of learner access [and] could provide rich input that is, indeed, accessible” (Doughty and Long, 2003, p. 62). Case-study research by Hara (1999) has shown that student frustration and dissatisfaction with distance learning courses are triggered by feelings of isolation, problems with the technology, feedback that is minimal or not received in a timely fashion, and instructions that are vague and posted on a website or sent over e-mail (as cited in Doughty and Long, 2003). Fukuda, Komatsu-Yonezawa, Komori, and Zimmerman found that learners who are asked to be part of a collaborative task sometimes choose not to participate because they do not feel motivated to use online chat, e-mail, or other forms of communication; additionally, learners who are asked to be part of a collaborative task often feel confused about how a group is supposed to collaborate if clear goals are not set from the outset (as cited in Doughty and Long, 2003).
Additionally, the US Department of Education meta-analysis concluded that online instruction that promotes student “self-reflection, self-regulation, and self-monitoring leads to more positive learning outcomes” (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones,2010, p. 45). Also beneficial are activities that engage the learner with the target language for longer periods of time. This includes homework that is completed outside of the classroom as well as increased engagement in a particular topic within the classroom so that the learner may spend time outside of the classroom on other independent tasks (Bakia, Shear, Toyama, & Lasseter, 2012). Figure 3. Summary of Best Practices in Blended Learning Identified to Date Use Technology to:
Increase learners’ time on task Promote learners’ reflection and self-monitoring Provide asynchronous interactions between the teacher and learner Provide synchronous and asynchronous interactions between learners and their peers and other speakers of the language Maximize opportunities for meaningful practice outside of class Provide focused feedback (e.g., pronunciation or control of other language features) Focus on meaningful tasks with authentic online materials Provide a variety of ways to access, produce, and discuss learning and pedagogical materials 18
Adapted from STARTALK Blended Learning Report, 2011
Recommendations As blended learning continues to expand, both generally and within STARTALK programs, it will be important for STARTALK Central to find ways to ensure the quality of these STARTALK programs. Below are recommendations from STARTALK Central, some of which are adapted from the 2010 report, for future steps that can be taken to ensure the effectiveness of blended programs: 1. Assist programs in articulating the structure and content of their online or distance components by first creating and maintaining a standard glossary of terms. This could include adding definitions and examples to the STARTALK website or using the program proposal template as a reference. Because blended learning terminology is defined differently by different groups and organizations, it would be helpful to provide programs with standard definitions they can use when reporting information to STARTALK. Providing programs with standard definitions would expedite the data collection and research process as well as allow STARTALK to more accurately report program information. 2. Provide programs that have self-identified as blended a means to describe their programs and program components in the final report. A supplemental questionnaire could be included that would focus on the details of curricular and content-related information and what kinds of learning experiences they were designed for. This, in turn, would allow STARTALK Central to examine in detail how STARTALK programs are using online and other technologies to facilitate and enhance education in blended learning programs, both in and out of the classroom. 3. Develop a basic guide or to address the pedagogical, technological, and logistical needs of blended learning programs. Developing a guide would allow programs to report in such a way that comparisons could more easily be made across all blended learning programs. The guide could mirror the STARTALK curriculum template guide and could be either supplemental used by programs to capture additional online features or a similar but expanded guide that would outline what information to consider and what is required to report on. to accommodate this extra information. The guide can evolve over time as needed based on observations or program feedback reported to STARTALK Central or based on information collected by team leaders, site visitors, or a blended learning task force. 4. Use training and refresher workshops or webinars to prepare team leaders and site visitors to more thoroughly examine online and distance program components during site visits and providing a dedicated space in the site visit report for comments and brief explanations of the distance learning components. This will offer STARTALK Central as well as the field tremendous insight on blended learning programs as well as allow STARTALK to provide feedback and
19
recommendations to programs on how to improve specific components that are often overlooked. 5. Convene a task force on blended learning. The task force could be comprised of language specialists, online and distance learning experts, and experts in foreign language pedagogy as well as program directors or lead instructors. The taskforce could provide guidance to STARTALK Central regarding the guide/template, as well as implement any necessary changes as seen fit. 6. Continue future research to gather more empirical and survey data, specifically data that addresses distance and online tools and components used within STARTALK student and teacher blended learning programs. All of these proposed recommendations could likely be implemented and take effect in STARTALK’s new program cycle, should the NFLC be refunded. The implementation of these recommendations would be beneficial for STARTALK programs but also for other language programs across the country interested in blended learning. It is also beneficial for STARTALK to continue engaging in the growing dialogue on enhancing education through technological tools, especially in the field of foreign languages, in which little research has been conducted on best practices in blended and online learning. Researchers at STARTALK hope this report will spawn interest in further research and, ultimately, contribute to blended learning practices that are pedagogically sound.
Conclusion Data collected in 2010, 2011, and 2012 show that blended learning tools in STARTALK programs were used more widely for teacher training than for teaching a language to students, although a few student programs were considered blended learning programs under our working definition. Teacher programs often used the online or distance learning portion of their programs to prepare teachers for the face-toface part and, increasingly, to follow up on face-to-face sessions for mentorship, feedback, and continued conversation. The number of blended learning programs is steadily increasing even when funding is level and there are fewer programs. Technology is a preferred medium for learning and interaction for the so-called Millennial Generation, of which most of the STARTALK language students and many of the teacher trainees are members. STARTALK learners have repeatedly shown an eagerness and enthusiasm to use their strong competence in social media and other digital technologies to improve language learning and to interact with other people and cultures (STARTALK Blended Learning Report, 2011). Given this fact and the growing evidence that blended learning is more effective than traditional face-to-face classroom learning alone (e.g., Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009), it is essential that STARTALK programs begin to take steps to incorporate technological tools in ways that clearly support their curriculum goals and reflect best practices. Programs that incorporated blended learning components 20
for the first time in 2012 found blended learning to be an effective approach overall and indicated an interest in continuing to deliver instruction using a blended model. Based on these preliminary findings, it would prove advantageous for STARTALK programs to consider incorporating some form of online and distance learning when possible to enhance the learner experience, provide flexibility of access and instruction, extend access to more participants, and possibly become more cost-efficient. Lingering questions remain after examining the data found. This report is purely declarative and presents what was observed in STARTALK programs. Yet it leads us naturally, to ask the question of what makes for an effective hybrid or blended learning experience? The answers, as well as the angle from which to approach this question, remain unclear. For instance, the amount of time STARTALK blended learning programs dedicated to the online distance-learning portion varied widely. Does time spent in the online course make a difference? What about access to synchronous meetings? Still further, what kind of transition or language study serves to best bridge between content studied online and that which is conducted face-to-face? In several programs, the online portion is interactive, but not necessarily synchronous. It is not clear whether this plays a role in determining the quality of the learning experience in the online distance learning portion. All of these questions and more require more investigation, both within the context of STARTALK summer intensive programs and beyond.
21
Appendices Table 1. Chinese Blended Learning Programs TEACHER PROGRAMS Program Name City University of New York (Hunter College)
Brigham Young University
Hamilton College
Idaho State Department of Education
Loyola Marymount University
University of Colorado at Boulder program for teaching East Asia
University of Florida
University of Houston
Description Two weeks long online following face-to-face sessions for teachers to tutor high school students online. It included workshops and discussions on how to teach in a virtual environment effectively. Then 10 weeks of online tutoring and weekly online teaching discussion meetings. Prior to the face-to-face portion teachers took part in a two week on-line tutorial which focused on readings and discussions on the theory and practice of teaching Chinese. Every evening for six evenings teachers had online tutorials for 30-40 minutes with teachers of Chinese from Beijing. Week 1 of the program was online. Addressed the theme of the student program and planned for microteaching experiences that would happen in the face-to-face portion. During the face-to-face portion, 85% of the certification course was conducted online. During the pre- and post-program asynchronous online modules, participants will discuss module topics and assigned readings and comment on colleagues’ responses. Also part of the online modules, participants kept a daily journal online (via the Moodle course website) to reflect on daily themes, readings, and presentations/sessions. Five days online prior to the face-to-face for readings and online discussion. August through October online follow-up for the professional development plan. One month prior to face-to-face program for readings and assignments related to readings monitored by instructor.
22
University of Massachusetts, Boston
Three weeks prior to face-to-face program teachers used a wiki to complete projects, carry out online presentations and design language activities, as well as use the library e-reserve. University of South Florida Prior to the program participants read theoretical pieces designed to expose them to important issues related to the teaching and learning of Chinese. Teachers posted 300-500 word response to each article via Blackboard. STUDENT PROGRAMS Program Name Description Students conducted independent web-based Center for Applied Second Language Studies research and study for the various assignments and independent projects during the face-to-face program. Online asynchronous counterpart began in Sept 2012 and was guided by a certified language instructor.
City of New York Research Foundation (Hunter)
Students practiced literacy skills online, had online conversations with classmates
Gonzaga University
One hour a week for 14 weeks to practice reading and literacy skills. Prior to the STARTALK program, parents and students were required to spend 10 hours reviewing specific online (or digital) information about Mulan (in English) so that the students were already familiar with Mulan and other relevant information. In July the students completed a short online/digital project as they worked with their parents to learn about Mulan as well as basic classroom behaviors
Granite & Weber School District
Table 2. Arabic Blended Learning Programs
Program Name
Aldeen Foundation
TEACHER PROGRAMS Description Prior to the beginning of the program for two weeks teachers listened to lectures online and responded to them. 23
Boston University
Brigham Young University
George Washington University
Pennsylvania State University
Program Name Los Angeles Unified School District
Prior to the beginning of the program teachers took an online course that offered them a foundation in standards-based curricular planning and assessment, and the trainees were asked to submit the first draft of their thematic unit template at the end of the online course. Discussions also took place online The pre-program online portion allowed teachers to get to know each other and build a community of learners by watching video clips that they discuss online. Teachers also completed readings online. For three weeks prior to the face-to-face portion, participants engaged in online discussions and assignments. The online course consisted of readings and related discussions and responses (both individual and group) in addition to a larger technology/assessment assignment. Participants were required to post their responses and discussions on Blackboard for review by instructors. Prior to the face-to-face portion, the online portion presented key concepts, such as the National Standards, staying in the TL, etc., and allowed the teacher-participants to form themselves into a learning community through interacting with each other as well as with the instructional team. The post-program online component emphasized the direct application of what the teachers had studied. Teachers created a Portfolio in which they adapted the program's information and experience to the individual institutional environments in which they teach STUDENT PROGRAMS Description During and after the end of the face-to-face portion, the online portion was devoted to four thematic units about Arabic culture delivered via Moodle
Table 3. Multi-Language Blended Learning Programs
Program Name
TEACHER PROGRAMS Description 24
Arlington Independent School District (ALL STARTALK languages)
After the face-to-face portion of the program, teachers worked online to submit videos of work and to receive online mentoring
Center for Applied Linguistics (ALL STARTALK languages)
Prior to the face-to-face portion, teachers took two modules with online workshop materials on assessment. Following in-person, materials from face-to-face on assessment was made available online to continue learning. Follow up modules for opportunities to receive guidance and feedback. For two weeks after the program teachers worked online on model lesson plan development, formulating lesson plans, assessing lessons, and resources Teacher participants logged into NING 3 weeks in advance of meeting face-to-face. They met the online instructor and completed tasks that were assigned by the program director. Teachers took a two-week asynchronous online workshop featuring online video recordings of presentations on integrating technology in teaching world languages and discussed the topics amongst themselves. They took quizzes online as well. For three weeks prior to the face-to-face portion teachers engaged in course readings and reflections and responses online.
Center for Human Services (Arabic & Chinese) George Mason University (Arabic & Chinese)
Human Assistance & Development International (Arabic & Persian)
Indiana University (Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Chinese)
Kean University (Hindi, Urdu)
UCLA Center for World Languages
A two-week online segment was conducted during the practical face-to-face component and after a onsite portion. Teachers collaborated with educators from the Mayoor School in India and St. Anthony's High School in Pakistan though online interactions in order to plan for and facilitate online instructional/assessment activities. Prior to the face-to-face portion the online learning component took place, and lasted from 3-4 weeks. The online workshop helped to familiarize participants with terms and readings, and served as a space and time to discuss readings with colleagues.
25
Table 4. Other Blended Learning Programs TEACHER PROGRAMS Description Prior to the face-to-face portion for three weeks Boston University (Portuguese) teachers were exposed to practical issues online facing teachers of Portuguese. They engaged with standard-based teaching and received both an overview of and practical experience with the current high yield teaching practices in foreign or second language teaching, focusing on studentcentered classes conducted entirely in the target language. The second component, an online distance Utah State Office of Education (Portuguese) component, involved curriculum development and assessment projects completed by the teachers under the guidance and direction of the program director and their facilitator/trainer for a month. Prior to the face-to-face portion teachers used National Council of Less Commonly Taught the UW-Madison LI and NCOLCTL Online Languages (Swahili) Teaching Methods Course for one week. The course covered: Principles of Second Language Acquisition, Standards, Teaching Culture and Grammar, and other theoretical issues on language teaching The content of the distance learning course both University of Iowa (Russian) integrated the knowledge that the participants received during our face-to-face part and provided new knowledge of distance learning environments. The online component also provided individual coaching to each participant on creating innovative computer-based learning objects and embracing the new teaching practices of the distance learning environments. Program Name
Table 5. Overview of Blended Learning Programs
Arabic Chinese Multi-language & Other TOTAL
STARTALK Student Total # 1 4 0
STARTALK Teacher Total # 5 10 12
5
27 26
Table 6. Descriptions and Summary of STARTALK Teacher Programs Arrangement of online relative to face-to-face portions of the program Program Type Pre- face-toDuring face-to-face A: Arabic face C: Chinese H: Hindi R: Russian U: Urdu P: Portuguese Pers: Persian: S: Swahili M: Multilanguag e but not all ALL: All languages
Post- face-to-face
TEACHER PROGRAMS C: City University of New York (Hunter College) C: Brigham Young University C: Hamilton University C: Idaho State Department of Education C: Loyola Marymount University C: University of Colorado at Boulder program for teaching East Asia C: University of Florida
√ √
√ √ √
√
√
√
√
√ 27
C: University of Houston C: University of Massachusett s, Boston C: University of South Florida A: Aldeen Foundation A: Boston University
√
√
√
√ √
√ √ √
ALL:
Arlington Independent School District ALL: Center for Applied Linguistics M: Center for Human Services M: George Mason University M: Human Assistance & Development International M: Indiana University
√
A: Brigham Young University A: George Washington University A: Pennsylvania State University
√
√ √
√ √ √
√ √
√
28
√
H/U: Kean University ALL: UCLA Center for World Languages P: Boston University
√ √
√ √
P: Utah State
Office of Education S: National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages R: Iowa University
√
√
√ STUDENT PROGRAMS
C: City of
√
New York Research Foundation (Hunter)
√
C: Gonzaga University C: Granite & Weber school district C: Center for Applied Second language Studies A: LAUSD
√
√ √
√
√
√
29
Table 7. Overview of the Online/Distance Learning Components Institution
Function/Purpose (Prep/Frontloading , Support, Followup, Other)
Material & Content (Language material, Language learning material, Pedagogy, Cultural info)
Networking Tools (Blog, Listserv, Chat room, Discussion board, Ning, Skype, online classroom))
Multimedia (Audio, Video)
TEACHER PROGRAMS Aldeen Foundation (A) Boston University (A) Boston University (P) Brigham Yousng University (A) George Washington University (A) Pennsylvania State University (A) City University of New York (Hunter College) (C) Brigham Young University (C) Hamilton University (C) Idaho State Department of Education (C) Loyola Marymount University (C) University of Colorado at Boulder program for teaching East Asia (C) University of Florida (C) University of
Prep/Frontloading
Pedagogy
Discussion board
Video
Prep/Frontloading
Pedagogy
Discussion board
Video
Prep/Frontloading
Pedagogy
Discussion board
---
Prep/Frontloading
Pedagogy
Email
----
Prep/Frontloading
Pedagogy
Online classroom
----
Prep/Frontloading & Follow up
Pedagogy, Language learning Material ____
Online classroom
___
Chatroom, Discussion board
Follow up & support Prep/Frontloading
Pedagogy
Online discussion board or classroom Email
Support (During)
___
SKYPE
Prep/Frontloading
Pedagogy
Discussion board online
____ Audio and Video
Online chat (Video and Audio)
Support & Follow up
Pedagogy
ADOBE CONNECT
Prep/Frontloading & Followup
Pedagogy
Moodle
Audio
Prep/Frontloading
Pedagogy
Google drive
____
Prep/Frontloading
Pedgagogy 30
Blackboard
____
Houston (C) University of Massachusetts, Boston (C) University of South Florida (C)
& Followup Prep/Frontloading & Followup
Arlington Independent School District (ALL languages)
Followup & Feedback
Pedagogy
Center for Applied Linguistics (ALL languages Center for Human Services (Multiple languages: A & C) George Mason University (Multiple languages, A & C) Human Assistance & Development International (Multiple languages: A & Pers) Indiana University (Multiple languages, A, T, C, Pers) Kean University (H, U) UCLA Center for World Languages (All languages)
Prep/Frontloading & Followup
Followup & Feedback
Followup
Followup and feedback
Pedagogy and language learning material Pedagogy
Wiki ___ Blackboard
___
Email
Video & Audio
Pedagogy and language learning material
Online course
___
Language learning materials Pedagogy
Online forum/space
___
NING
___
Prep/Frontloading
Pedagogy
Online platform, course
___
Prep/Frontloading
Pedagogy
Course website & discussion board
___
Support & Followup Prep/Frontloading
Pedagogy
Audio & Video
Pedagogy
Online module & SKYPE Online workshop
Utah State Office of Education (P)
Support
Language learning material
Online platform, email
___
National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages (S) Iowa University (R)
Prep/Frontloading
Pedagogy
Online course & lectures
___
Followup/Mentoring
Language learning materials
Online development of material. Email.
31
___
___
City of New York Followup Research Foundation (Hunter) (C)
STUDENT PROGRAMS Language Online tutoring material with a live teacher
Gonzaga University (C) Granite & Weber school district (C)
Support & Followup Prep/Frontloading
Language material Language Material
Center for Applied Second language Studies (C) LAUSD (A)
Support & Followup
Language material
Support & Followup
Language and Cultural learning material
Website (unspecified) Utah Chinese Dual Immersion website Internet, email
Moodle
Audio
___ Audio
___
Audio & Video
References (2012) A report: 2011 STARTALK blended learning programs. College Park, MD: National Foreign Language Center at the University of Maryland. Available at: http://www.nflc.umd.edu/pubcatalog Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2001) Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning, 3–31. Athabasca, Canada: Creative Commons: Athabasca University. Bakia, M., Shear L., Toyama Y., & Lasseter A. (2012). Understanding the Implications of Online Learning for Educational Productivity. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/implications-online-learning.pdf Brustad, K. (2011). Tug of war over teaching: The goal is proficiency. Houston Chronicle, June 18, 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7616618.html Doughty, C. & Long, M. (2003) Optimal Psycholinguistic Environments for Distance Foreign Language Learning. Language Learning & Technology, 50–80. Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Moskal, P. (2004) Blended Learning. Boulder, CO:EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0407.pdf, 32
Frank, V., Golonka, E., Bowles, A., Becker, E., Freynik, S., & Richardson, D. (2008). Optimal foreign language learning: The role of technology. Retrieved from http://www.casl.umd.edu/sites/default/files/Frank08_RoleofTechnology.pdf Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In Bonk, C. J. & Graham, C. R. (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, 3–21. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Horn, M., Staker, H., Hernandez, A., Hassel, B., & Ableidinger, J. (2011) The Rise of K-12 Blended Learning. San Mateo, CA: Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-Rise-of-K-12Blended-Learning.pdf Lovett, M., Meyer, O., & Thille, C. (2008). The open learning initiative: Measuring the effectiveness of the OLI statistics course in accelerating student learning. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/2008/14/. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidencebased-practices/finalreport.pdf Nielson, K., Gonzalez-Lloret, M., & Pinckney, K. (2009). Learning foreign languages at a distance: Characteristics of effective online courses. Retrieved from http://www.casl.umd.edu/sites/default/files/Nielson09_LearningForeignLang.pdf Oxford, R. & Oxford, J. (Eds.). (2009). Second language teaching and learning in the Net generation. Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center. Sitzmann, T, Kraiger, K., Stewart, D. & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623-664. Retrieved from: C:\Users\Mouna\Downloads\d912f510954e84efd2.pdf Spreen, C.A. (Ed.). (2002). New technologies and language learning: Cases in the less commonly taught languages. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Sugarman, J., Di Silvio, F., & Malone, M. E. (2010). 2010 STARTALK participant survey report: Teacher trainees. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom: Online instruction at home frees class time for learning. Education Next. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/files/ednext_20121_BTucker.pdf Watson, J. (2008). Blended learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning. Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2011) Keeping Pace With K-12 Online Learning: An Annual Review of Policy and Practice. Durango, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Retrieved from http://kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPace2011.pdf
33
