Bringing Language Learning
Online and in Blended
Paradigms
Rebecca Rhea
Three parts to our discussion…
How blended learning can support immersive language learning environments
How Common Core Standards align with ACTFL National
Standards in L2 courses
Discovering success factors
The Implementation Context
Implementation
Model
Fully Online
Blended
Supplemental
Mixed
Teaching Model
We Teach
They Teach
Grade Level
Elementary
Middle
High
Mix
Tech Access
High
Mid
Low
“Most of the growth is occurring in blended-learning environments, in which students learn online in an adult-supervised environment at least part of the time.”
http://goodwin.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/file/vie
w/The-Rise-of-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf
Rise of Blended Learning
7
Blended Learning: Market Data
Source: Education Sector Factbook, GSV Advisors, 2012
Middlebury Interactive SY13-14 Enrollments (July 1-Aug. 31)
1%
20%
78%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
K-5 6-8 9-12
Perc
ent
of
Sch
oo
ls A
do
pti
ng
Adoption of Blended Learning in Schools (2008)
45,701
11,471
-
20
40
60
Fully Online Proxy(PGLMS)
Blended Proxy(CAP, BH, BB)
Enro
llmen
ts (
in T
ho
usa
nd
s)
• Middlebury Interactive blended enrollments are approximately 20% of total enrollments (proxy) • Approximately two-thirds of districts offer some online or blended program
• Large majority of programs have relatively few students and rely on external course providers
From Innosight Institute: Classifying k-12 Blended Learning 2012 Heather Stacker and Michael Horn
Developing a new
ATTITUDE towards new
languages and cultures
Gaining new language and
cultural KNOWLEDGE
Acquiring new
language and cultural
SKILLS
An experiential approach that goes beyond language proficiency to impact the whole individual.
The ASK Model
Research in SLA - What works?
OPTIMAL L2 LEARNING
(Ortega, 2009)
1.
Acculturated attitudes
(Schumann, 1990, 1997)
2.
Comprehensible input
(Krashen, 1985, 2004)
3.
Negotiated interaction
(long, 1996) 4.
Pushed output
(Swain, 1985)
5.
Noticing/Attention
(Schmidt, 1995)
Acquisition
Middlebury Courses
HS French I
HS Spanish II
HS Spanish I
HS Spanish I
HS Spanish I
HS Spanish I
HS Chinese I
HS French I
HS French I
HS French I
HS French I
How Common Core
Standards align with
ACTFL National
Standards in L2 courses
ACTFL, 2012
(http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/CrosswalkFinalAligningCCSSLanguageStandards.pdf)
Three parts to our discussion…
Third Party Evaluation:
The 2012-13 Johns
Hopkins University Study
Middlebury Interactive: Research
and Evaluation Paradigm
Research-based Product Design Product Testing
Continuous Customer
Feedback and Product/Program
Monitoring
Third Party Evaluation
Why 3rd Party
Evaluation?
An unbiased study definition and execution
Design and results that are analyzed and published by an independent, respected research entity
Confirmation of the organization’s commitment to ensure rigorous, ongoing evaluation of product and implementation against established metrics
3rd Party Evaluation Presents:
Center for Research and Reform in
Education (CRRE), John Hopkins U
• Mixed Methods Design
• Establishing the Research Questions:
1. To what degree do teachers/ schools define Middlebury Interactive
program to be effective in supporting the World Language proficiency-
based instruction model?
2. What are students’ reactions to the Middlebury Interactive program with
regard to interest, learning experiences, instructional materials and
activities, and effectiveness for learning?
3. What is the overall student success in world languages with use of the
Middlebury course design ?
– Cultural awareness and appreciation
– Language proficiency
– Motivating experience to continue world language
The Research Design
Phase I
• Preliminary Lab School Site Observation
• Teacher, student and administrator interviews and observations
Phase II
• Survey Development
• Interviews with teachers and program administrators Likert-type rating design and open-ended questions
• Online Survey Monkey distribution – 170 anonymous respondents representing teachers, program administrators and lab monitors
Phase III
• Case Study Follow-up and Data Collection
• Additional interviews and observations
• Data from STAMP assessment administration
• Teacher gradebook data and online course gradebook data
• Locally operated career and
technology center serving
three high schools in the
district.
• Language taught: Spanish
• Students from all grade levels
– 9 through 12.
• A few students had limited
exposure to Spanish at their
middle school through an
exploratory language class.
Majority of the students had
no prior language learning.
Case Study Context and Population
Case Study Challenges
• An evolving course implementation: Teacher started with a fully online course implementation which was refined to a hybrid implementation.
• Scheduling: The class was designed to be a condensed full-year program, delivered within a semester time period with a 2-hour block scheduling approach.
• Access: The lead teacher initially planned to do a flipped-classroom with students using the online courses at home but discovered limited access to technology for home use.
• Student Expectations: Students,
in most cases, were not aware that
that would be using an online course
prior to starting the course, especially
during the first semester.
The Strengths of Jessamine
• Technology proficient teachers.
• 2 semester study with first semester as a trial and a blended learning development.
• Strong administrative support. Administration understood that digital learning adds to the experience and deepens learning.
• Access to technology on the school site.
• Technology support on site to limit interruptions to instructional time.
Results
The Case Study Results
“In terms of the STAMP Assessment, it is interesting to note that the scores for the second semester students are significantly higher than both the first semester scores as well as higher than the non-MIL class where Spanish I/ II was taught using a non-specific curriculum with teacher-gathered materials over the entire school year. This year an average STAMP score of 2 was considered passing and this was easily surpassed by most.”
Teacher Grade
MIL Online Course Grade
Reading Writing Listening Speaking
Teacher I, Semester I 84.2 80.2 2.93 2.46 1.97 2.30
Teacher 1, Semester 2 88.6 86.6 3.56 2.96 2.36 2.71
Teacher 2, Semester 2 76.1 73.7 3.31 2.86 2.18 2.55
Non-MIL, Yearlong Course
NA NA 3.04 2.44 2.08 2.48
The Research Questions
• “Both the teachers from the Lab School and the online survey
respondents using Middlebury Interactive courses were enthusiastic and
confident about the program’s ability to effectively support world
language proficiency-based instruction.”
• “The overall sentiment among those surveyed and interviewed is that
Middlebury Interactive offers unique and robust courses that effectively
build language proficiency and enhance cultural appreciation.”
Question 1: To what degree do teachers/ schools define Middlebury Interactive program to be effective in supporting the World Language proficiency-based instruction model both in terms of integration into teaching context and support of world language objectives of the course?
The Research Questions
• “When asked, ‘what part of MIL do you like the most and why?’ the majority of
students indicated appreciating the differentiated learning opportunities inherent
in Middlebury Interactive courses. The sense of freedom that comes with being
able to determine one’s own pace was new and enjoyed by many. Another
feature that was highlighted by a number of students was the authentic videos.”
• “Initial interest in the language was low but many students admitted to feeling
“more into it” as the course went on. Aside from their increased interest in
learning the language, their interest in Hispanic culture was certainly
peaked.”
Question 2: What are students’ reactions to the Middlebury Interactive program with regard to interest, learning experiences, instructional materials and activities, and effectiveness for learning?
The Research Questions
• “Many of the highest ratings from the survey surrounded MIL’s ability to enhance
levels of appreciation of different cultures and encourage a positive
attitude toward target language cultures and those speaking the target
language. Respondents also indicated students showing appropriate levels of
mastery within both the Competency and Fluency courses and advancing along
to language proficiency at an appropriate pace.”
• “... it appears that developing cultural knowledge represents one of the
greatest relative strengths of the MIL Fluency I course.”
Question 3: What is the overall student success in world languages with use of the Middlebury course design in terms of cultural awareness and appreciation, language proficiency, and motivating experience to continue world language?
Unanticipated Positive Outcomes
• Shift of expectations: improved integration of technology in the learning process
of the students
• Deeper learning; deeper understanding of technology to support student’s
learning path
• Growth of teachers as Research practitioner (Reflexive Practitioner)
• Growth of teachers as Mentors and Coaches for other teachers
• Students and teachers feel empowered because they
were heard in their feedback and MIL integrated the
feedback in the revision of the courses
• Immediate progress and accuracy in student pronunciation.
Q&A
What does the difference between
mixture and solution have to do with
blended learning?
Thank you!
Becky Rhea [email protected]
Top Related