The Hybrid Model

In this millennium, classroom boundaries have undergone deep changes, transforming brick walls into web forums and changing real-time conversations into asynchronous interactions. In envisioning our future, we realize that we need to adapt to meet the needs of the new generations. Therefore, giving students what they need involves making technology an integral part of the teaching and learning processes. Transitioning effectively from a traditional to a hybrid program with "...reduced 'face time' that is replaced by time spent outside the traditional classroom" (Caulfield, 2011, p. 3) has much more to do with understanding the pedagogical implications than the technological applications involved. Stommel (2015) expresses that: “...digital pedagogy demands that we think critically about our tools, demands that we reflect actively upon our own practice” (para. 1).

So, when an institution sets out to make a paradigm shift, such as moving from a traditional classroom to a hybrid one, the following three pillars must strongly support the transition:

1. A solid pedagogical framework.

2. A professional development (PD) plan that will guide teachers through the process.

3. A support system for students that will help them adapt to the new modality and stay enrolled; after all, “...our challenge is not to merely replace (or offer substitutes for) face-to-face instruction, but to find new and innovative ways to engage students in the practice of learning” (Stommel, 2012, para. 2).

In this article, we outline our pedagogical framework, describe our PD plan as we started transitioning into a hybrid pedagogy, and share our present perspective after 4 years of having experienced the hybrid model.

There are several reasons why, in 2008, the Binational Center (BNC) in Uruguay, Alianza Cultural Uruguay-Estados Unidos, started looking into hybrid pedagogy. We not only needed to integrate technology into our classes as the literature in the field proposed, but we also needed to optimize our resources. A very large portion of our student body is composed of adults who study EFL as needed for their academic work or to seek better employment opportunities. This segment of our student body attends either the early morning or the late afternoon classes, making our need for teachers and classrooms dire in those shifts.

We realized that a hybrid model would provide us with the answers we were looking for. Besides keeping us ahead as the leaders in the field of EFL teaching in our market, the implementation of a hybrid model offered a solution to the need for teachers and classrooms. On the one hand, teachers could double the number of groups they could teach, and, on the other hand, we could offer twice as many groups in the hybrid modality.

First Steps and Rationale

The first step involved the project team leader conducting needs analysis. We reviewed the literature relating to blended and hybrid models so as to define the theoretical framework for our program. In addition, we needed to research teaching materials and learning management systems available to decide which ones would suit our needs. Meanwhile, we needed to find the professionals that would be available and willing to carry out the whole project. In the end, the team was composed of 12 teachers who worked in different branches of our institution throughout the country. Having considered all aspects, we were ready to define the scheme for our hybrid program.

Our institution adheres to a communicative framework, with emphasis on personalization, cooperation and collaboration, task dependency, error treatment, and ongoing assessment and feedback. One of the many reasons we decided to transition into a hybrid program, combining a face-to-face and a digital environment, is that we would be able to

• personalize our classes more,

• give our students more opportunities to cooperate and collaborate (as Tucker, 2013, explains, “students can think about the discussion question, take their time articulating a response, and learn from what their peers have to say about the topic” [para. 26]),

• create stronger and more motivating task dependencies,

• treat errors with a wider array of tools,

• have much more information to assess our students’ progress, and

• give more individualized and focused feedback.

As change usually represents a challenge for all, there is a real need to plan for it. First, we identified our team’s strengths and weaknesses so that we could be well aware of how to proceed regarding responsibilities and teamwork. We capitalized on the advantages that we could pinpoint and we also anticipated possible drawbacks in our scheme. A hybrid model was used to train the 12 professionals that were the original designers of our new program, so that they could be immersed in the hybrid pedagogy themselves.

Piloting and Implementation

When the new courses were at an advanced stage of development, we invited all teachers and administrative staff from around the country to participate in a 1-month pilot experience. As teachers and as students, we needed to unlearn habits and strategies in order to relearn new ones. Doing this together in a safe environment, while experiencing the new modality first hand, was one of the most impactful decisions we made. We not only received plenty of useful feedback about the course design, but also had the chance to give each and every teacher and administrative staff member the chance to understand what students would feel in a hybrid course.

The implementation of hybrid courses brought about a substantial paradigm shift, and for this reason, we decided that it should be carried out gradually. We provided for the coexistence of the two pedagogies—hybrid and face-to-face—as well as for transitions from one modality to the other.

Supporting teachers was essential from the very beginning, so after we synthesized our pilot experience, we focused on designing a detailed in-service training program that was carried out in a hybrid modality as well.

As the academic year kicked off and teachers started teaching hybrid courses, we knew that in order for teachers to feel supported, a strong sense of community and collaboration had to be fostered. This implied creating communities of practice that closely shared the online portion of the hybrid courses, as well as reflected together on the best ways to “weave” both learning environments. Whenever possible, two to five teachers would work together during their online facilitation, consulting and giving each other feedback on their practices. This turned out to be an extremely enriching practice as we were all, experienced and novice teachers, starting anew; everybody’s voice had a place at the table.

Providing ongoing training and giving feedback that helps teachers grow in this new modality has been a standing order from the start. Ongoing PD is carried out systematically; supervisors accompany teachers’ practices and conduct class observation in the two environments. One very important advantage of hybrid courses is that online observation can be carried out any time, and therefore, supervisors can conduct online observation on a weekly basis. At the same time, we foster peer observation, which contributes to the sharing of ideas as well as to the building of a sense of community.

Another reason for choosing a hybrid model is that increased flexibility in course delivery is perceived as an asset by teachers. This flexibility is reflected in the fact that good practices are complementary in both environments giving teachers the possibility to personalize instruction in an unprecedented level. While teachers have to make on the spot decisions F2F they can ponder on best interventions online, thus allowing for much more freedom and complementation in the choices they can make; teachers also enjoy having more time to decide what to add or take out from their lessons, taking into account how students are progressing. In our context, hybrid pedagogy has brought about the best of the two worlds. Program administrators, teachers, and students have been able to experience the benefits of a model that we are certain is here to stay.

Conclusion

The implementation of the hybrid model has been really successful and that records show improvement in student performance. Our analysis of international exam results shows that students who prepared their exams in the hybrid modality scored higher than students who had taken traditional courses. Furthermore, we provide our students with formal course feedback via an institutional survey, and records show that 95% of the students that chose the hybrid modality consider that their expectations are being met.

As we optimistically and confidently dive into the future, we are getting ready for yearly editing of our courses; 3-year redesign of the whole program, capitalizing on the lessons learned along the way; evaluation of other learning management systems available so that we can always feel we have chosen what most suits our students and our program needs; and researching the possible effects of hybrid coteaching (one online teacher and a different on-ground one) so that two teachers cooperate in the same course and hone in on their particular strengths. It is important to mention that we have planned revisions that imply updates in design. At present, we have already gone through the first redesign of the courses, and we keep working on course improvements periodically.

References

Caulfield, J. (2011). How to design and teach a hybrid course. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Stommel, J. (2012). Hybridity, pt. 2: What is hybrid pedagogy? Digital Pedagogy Lab. Retrieved fromhttp://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/hybridped/hybridity-pt-2-what-is-hybrid-pedagogy/

Stommel, J. (2015). Learning is not a mechanism. Digital Pedagogy Lab. Retrieved fromhttp://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/hybridped/learning-not-mechanism/

Tucker, C. R. (2013). The basics of blended instruction. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 57–60. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar13/vol70/num06/The-Basics-of-Blended-Instruction.aspx

Rosario Giraldez is the academic director at the Alianza Cultural Uruguay-Estados Unidos. She has coordinated Alianza Centers, teacher education programs, and English programs in schools. Her main areas of interest are evaluation and curriculum design. She holds a TEFL degree from the Alianza.

Silvia Laborde is academic director at a branch of the Binational Center in Montevideo, Uruguay, and member of the TESOL International Association Board of Directors. Throughout 2012, she led a group of 12 professionals in a hybrid curricular design project and continues to be involved in assessing and designing hybrid courses.