Teaching Developmental Reading With Hybrid Instruction
 |
Sponsored by |
June 2009, Volume 12, Number 6
By Inez Whipple and Mary Shelor
In an effort to meet the growing demand for more flexible scheduling, Pima Community College (PCC) has explored alternative delivery modalities that include online and hybrid technologies. One delivery method explored is hybrid instruction, the combination of face-to-face and online instruction. In January 2007, there were no developmental-level hybrid courses at the college and we initially experienced some resistance within the faculty and instructional design ranks regarding the ability of developmental students to handle higher-level technology and a reduction in the amount of seat time. However, we, the authors, believe that not introducing developmental students to higher-level technology skills may put students at a disadvantage as they progress to upper level courses. The hybrid format provides the best of both worlds in that students have the opportunity to accept greater individual responsibility for their own learning while still providing direct face-to-face contact to help students through the rough spots. We suspected that a gradual introduction to these skills would enhance the students’ chances of success in developmental reading and in future college courses.
This paper highlights the process of developing, implementing, and assessing a hybrid reading improvement course for developmental reading students.
Review of the Literature
Although limited work has been published regarding the use of hybrid courses in developmental education, some literature highlighting the benefits of using online education with developmental students does exist. Caverly and MacDonald (1999) advocate using the “technology as a lever” principles (Chickering and Ehrmann, 1999) when designing developmental education courses. These seven principles include active learning, prompt feedback, and frequent student-to-instructor and student-to-student interaction. They also emphasize increasing the amount of time a student spends on course tasks. Although not specifically developed for online learning, these principles are easily transferable to the online environment.
A study performed on online developmental mathematics courses by the League for Innovation in the Community College, PLATO Learning Inc., and eight community colleges (Perez and Foshay, 2002) found that, among other items, high standards of quality and content development led to the most successful student outcomes. Finally, Petrides and Nodine (2005) indicate that online education may be the way to assist underprepared students in being successful in college, but successful developmental courses require the same components as all successful online courses. These components consist of an accurate assessment of student readiness, a high-touch quality — students have frequent and deep interactions with other students and with the instructor, access to course materials and hardware/software, and the ability to meet diverse student needs. Petrides and Nodine also discuss the problem of inadequate technology support and access.
Design and Development Process
Hybrid committee. PCC has a combined credit and noncredit annual enrollment of almost 75,000 students, offering more than 200 fully online courses to its students. Development of the vast majority of these courses is through the Center for Learning Technology (CLT). Each online course developed by the CLT undergoes rigorous quality assurance so that each course meets the college’s goal of clarity, consistency, and community (Thurman and Silc, 2005). Among these fully online courses, only three are at the developmental education level: MAT 086 Pre-Algebra, MAT 092 Elementary Algebra, and CHM 080 Preparation for General Chemistry.
In fall 2006, the CLT initiated a committee to explore the concept of hybrid, or blended, learning. The goal of this exploration was to develop guidelines and best practices that could be communicated to the rest of the college so faculty could develop their own high-quality hybrid courses. The committee consisted of instructional designers, an instructional web/graphic designer, administrators, and faculty representatives from each of the six campuses. In choosing faculty, a variety of technological skills were sought. Experience ranged from faculty who had developed and taught fully online courses to those with little technical skill and experience.
Developing courses and guidelines comprised much of the academic year, as team members reviewed articles, benchmarked other institutions’ policies, and reviewed hybrid courses at other institutions. Each faculty committee member was paired with an instructional designer to choose and develop one course using the tools available in the learning management system (LMS), WebCT Campus Edition 4.1. The plan was to review each of these courses for commonalities and develop a set of best practices for distribution throughout the college.
Many meetings focused on the nuts and bolts of how hybrid courses would be structured, who would have control of the enrollment generated by these courses, and who owned the material within the courses. Much of this discourse clarified situations confused by the college’s existing policies regarding fully online course development in which one campus has been almost exclusively responsible for developing and implementing online courses. Individual campuses were reassured that they would own the content and enrollments generated by the hybrid courses.
REA 081. Faculty member Mary Shelor and instructional designer Inez Whipple were paired to develop a hybrid course as part of the Hybrid Project committee. Discussion about the course choice revolved around the ability of students in developmental reading courses to handle online coursework. There were concerns that developmental education students may lack the necessary skills to work online, e.g., literacy level, time management skills, and the ability to work independently. Some on the committee suggested that an upper-level reading class would be a better alternative. However, the team decided to accept the challenge of creating an interactive online component to the existing developmental reading improvement course, REA 081, acknowledging that they were lacking in college level skills. To counter this, the course was highly structured to give students direct instruction in reading and writing strategies on the in-class days and then ample time to practice online.
Finding a starting point for the design was not difficult. Current face-to-face classroom techniques were analyzed and the available tools were reviewed. The most useful exercise the team performed was storyboarding the course week by week on large sheets of newsprint paper. Class objectives and possible activities were written on the sheets. Some rearranging of content was necessary to get the right flow of content. Then each class was marked as on-campus or online. When complete, this gave the team a visual guide to the entire course structure.
The team wanted to gradually introduce developmental students in a step-by-step manner to the kinds of tools they might expect to encounter in upper-level hybrid and online courses, using demonstration in a face-to-face setting and reinforcement throughout the course. The number of tools would be kept to a minimum but would include those most likely encountered by students as they progress along their educational path.
Each on-campus and online class session was developed as an HTML page containing objectives of the class, a before-class assignment, a recap of the face-to-face class or explicit instructions for work to be completed online, and homework for the next class, all in a format labeled Before Class, During Class, and After Class. These were posted using the trackable content module tool.
After the content was added to the LMS, course colors and graphics were arranged. Course design was a simple straight-forward approach using minimal graphics and simple icons. The hybrid committee gave the team very positive feedback on the course design and layout.
Tools
Tools for online activities were chosen for their ease of use, correlation to the content, and probability of use in subsequent online and hybrid courses. In the final version of the course, the team decided on a short list of pages and tools, including Syllabus, Mail, Discussions, Self-test, Games, Quizzes, and Wimba Audioboard. In keeping with the college’s current policy, an HTML web page contained in the content module tool was used in lieu of a calendar.
Tools that required active manipulation were introduced one at a time in the first weeks of the course. For example, in the first week, students were asked to use the mail tool and send it to the instructor. In the second week, students were asked to post to the discussions area of the course. In-class demonstrations of each tool were given prior to the students having to use it. Class time was also used to assess the readability of the tool’s instructions and to solve problems.
Syllabus. The paper syllabus used by the instructor was redesigned as a web page. Objectives for each module of the course and additional supplies — headset and microphone for use with the audioboard and reliable Internet access — needed by students were added. The hybrid course philosophy and expectations were added to the existing attendance and homework policies.
Mail. The mail tool was included as an avenue for students to contact the instructor and each other, and because it is one of the most commonly encountered tools in hybrid and online courses.
Discussions. This tool was primarily used for the class Novel Discussion Group project. Students were grouped according to a novel of their own choosing, usually in groups of four or five. Each group was given a set of questions to answer throughout the semester. Discussion guidelines were posted in the course syllabus and in each small group discussion thread, and were reinforced in the on-campus portion of the class.
Self-test. This nongraded multiple choice tool was included to help students self-assess reading comprehension skills. Various short readings were included in both the on-campus and online portions of the class. After reading the passage, the students could check comprehension by taking and retaking the self-test. Students were assured that there was no grading or tracking attached to the self-tests and they could be used as a tool for better reading comprehension.
Games. External links to various online word activities were included to help students practice word skills. The links were a combination of public and publisher sites targeted for word analogies and context clues. The gaming activities were not graded, but a reflection of learning was required for one class.
Quizzes. Two online quizzes were administered. The first was a 15-question paragraph or essay quiz with a two-hour time limit. Students were allowed to complete this portion with a partner if they desired. The second contained 25 multiple-choice questions and was to be individually completed within one hour. Students were given a Flash multimedia demonstration on how to correctly complete the quiz and get their results immediately.
Audioboard. Arguably the most controversial tool used in the course was the Wimba audioboard. This tool, similar to a discussion board but using voice recordings in lieu of typed responses, is currently used only in the college’s online foreign language courses. However, the team felt it was appropriate to include this tool as a way of encouraging students to practice their out-loud readings. Students were asked to read a passage from the textbook into the audioboard. It would then be reviewed and graded by the instructor. Students had the option of re-recording the submission several times.
Calendar. In keeping with the CLT’s current design model, an HTML page posted in the content module tool was used in lieu of the standard LMS calendar tool. The CLT uses this configuration because it has tracking capabilities within this version of the software. In online courses, the calendar, sometimes called the schedule of work, serves as one place where students can view all course assignments, due dates, and assigned points. Using this page, an instructor can easily change due dates and page numbers between semesters.
In REA 081, this format was revised to include a hyperlink from each class directly to the web page outlining the before-, during-, and after-class activities for each class. This format reduced the number of clicks required to get to the content of the course.
Teaching and Learning Process
The finalized course was held on the college’s secure server inside the LMS. Three separate sections (two day sections and one evening section) were listed in the course catalog as Web Hybrid courses. The team faculty member taught the day sections, while an adjunct faculty member who completed required training taught the evening section. Additionally, the team faculty member taught a traditional face-to-face day section.
Pass rates. The hybrid courses met once a week and contained the additional online assignments, while the traditional course met twice a week with no online component or assignments. Completion rates for the hybrid courses were 71 percent (day section A), 81 percent (day section B), and 81 percent (evening section), while the completion rate for the traditional class was 67 percent. In this case, retention rates for the hybrid sections were clearly higher than for the traditional section. However, students in the traditional classroom scored higher pass rates overall. Seventy-three percent of the students in the traditional class earned a C or better. In the hybrid classes, 67, 71, and 78 percent, respectively, earned a C or better.
Interaction. Anecdotally, although students were in classroom seats less time, the level of interaction definitely increased. After teaching developmental reading courses for more than 20 years, the instructor stated that she has never had so much student contact as in this format. Students still came to her office to ask for help, but since the implementation of online tools, students knew that the instructor was accessible at any time, not just on class days. Many students used the mail tool to contact the instructor. They asked questions and asked for assignment clarifications when previously they would have come to class with incomplete homework because they hadn’t understood the assignment. Students also used the mail tool to report absences. Students who were afraid to speak in class used the tool to contact the instructor to ask questions, respond to a question asked in class, or give advice on how to improve the class. Perhaps more importantly, students contacted other students about assignments and working on homework together. They developed interpersonal and communication skills that might not be developed in a more traditional classroom model.
Challenges. Students had some problems with technical support, discussion tool postings, and timed quizzes. The college provides phone and email technical support, a service that was crucial to the successful outcome in these sections. Initially, students had problems with user names, passwords, and other log-in issues; however, these were settled within two days and there were few technical issues after that.
Students also had difficulty learning the post and reply function of the discussion tool. There was a tendency to compose a new message for each reply instead of using the threading option, which created disjointed, hard-to-follow discussion threads. Even after a second demonstration of the tool, only a few students were able to correctly use the tool. The problem may stem from the students’ lack of exposure to online discussion formats. Most students already had email accounts, but may not have had experience using online bulletin boards.
The idea of having to complete a test in a certain amount of time made students nervous. Several students voiced complaints after the first quiz. When the timing function was removed, students did not use significantly more time than originally allotted.
Following up. We surveyed students in these sections who returned in the following semester to learn whether they felt the hybrid REA 081 helped them develop skills needed in the current semester. When asked, “What do you think helped you the most in REA 081?”, one student commented, “I did start the class off a little nervous because I didn’t have Internet, but I started to like it because I was able to go to the library and use the computers. It gave me the opportunity to go to the library more often and I did all my homework there [sic] for all my classes.” Another student stated that the experience of REA 081 helped him with his writing hybrid course and that he hasn’t “had any problems. This is because I knew everything, like discussing, sending emails, post[ing] messages.” A third student commented that the course helped him with reading strategies and vocabulary, and “helped me to manage my time [and] have everything ready.”
Comments such as these seem to indicate that while the developmental students in this course may not have entered with the necessary technical skills, the format of the course helped them develop skills they were later able to apply to other hybrid and fully online courses. Students were also motivated to learn skills that will help them succeed, such as homework completion, problemsolving, and time management.
What We Learned
A major concern of colleagues at the outset of this project was the underpreparedness of developmental students to have the commitment, discipline, and technological skills necessary to participate in and successfully complete a hybrid course. We created REA 081 specifically to offer students an opportunity to develop and use these skills during the semester, but how did we do? What did we learn about using technology with developmental readers? How can we improve this experience for next semester?
Hybrid model. The hybrid design model gives students the opportunity to come to class only once a week, reducing seat time and giving students flexibility in completing assignments. According to the instructor, this is important since this population often has many family and life issues that make coming to class twice a week seem overwhelming and may contribute to failure or stopping out. The hybrid model also challenges students to do more work on their own, and many students came to this realization during the semester. Since one day a week was an online assignment, students had to practice time management skills and work independently.
Technology modeling and practice. It was not only helpful, but also essential to provide developmental students with both technology-use modeling and classroom practice time. The use of a computerized classroom for in-class sessions allowed the instructor to demonstrate the process for accessing the course each week. It also allowed students to take turns demonstrating the use of course tools during the semester. All tools used in the course were first demonstrated by the instructor several times and then practiced by the students in the first few minutes of class time. This reinforced the procedures for using the mail tool, posting discussions, and taking quizzes.
Clarity. Making it as easy as possible for students to find their assignments is seen as a godsend to the instructor, who reported that, “Students always knew where to go.” Linking each class page to the calendar entry reduced the number of clicks needed to find assignments. Students began to rely on the calendar page for content, due dates, and point totals. Keeping the home page as uncluttered as possible kept students focused and fearless.
Tools. The voice board tool turned out to be one of the surprise successes. The instructor reported that although about half the class performed the assignment in the lab and immediately left, the students who most needed practice reading out loud spent significant time practicing the reading before recording for the final time. The ability to record, playback, and re-record gave students instant feedback on how they sounded while reading and increased time-on-task for reading aloud. One student reported that she did not understand what she was reading while she was reading it, but when she replayed it, she had much better comprehension.
Students in this course seemed confused about the discussion tool even after several instructional sessions. The CLT’s current design model uses the discussion tool extensively in almost all courses developed in the unit, so this tool is seen as integral to the student’s future success in online or hybrid classes. The expansion of both the tool and its instructions is probably needed.
Hybrid Courses Offer the Best of Both Worlds
While hybrid courses provide flexibility in scheduling, the hybrid course format offers even more for the developmental reading student. It can gradually introduce students to new technology that will transfer to other courses. It also elevates the application of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seven principles by
- increasing the ways students can connect with their instructor and fellow students (mail, discussions);
- encouraging more active participation in learning (word games, audioboard);
- promptly providing feedback (self-tests, quizzes);
- emphasizing time on task (audioboard, self-tests, games);
- communicating high expectations (syllabus, calendar); and
- respecting diverse talents and ways of learning (games, self-tests, discussions, quizzes).
Hybrid courses provide a different mode of education for the developmental student. We addressed many of the concerns that other educators have about developmental students not being able to handle an online course by providing a highly structured, well-organized, easy-to-follow course that addressed the needs of our students and by providing quality face-to-face time for explanation, demonstration, and practice. Using this format, students were able to develop the skills needed to succeed in this reading improvement course. Additional formal study would be necessary to determine the long-term effects this method of instruction has on developmental students; however, anecdotally, these particular students seem to have derived at least some benefit from being exposed to the hybrid method of instruction and the associated technology during their developmental education.
Works Cited
Caverly, D. C. and McDonald, L. (1999). Techtalk: Asynchronous Distance Developmental Education. Journal of Developmental Education. 23.2 Education Research Complete. EBSCO. PCC], Tucson, AZ. Accessed on 1 October 2007. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2555263&site=ehost-live.
Chickering, A.W., and Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. AAHE Bulletin. 39 (7), 3-7.
McCabe, R. H. (2003). Yes, We Can! A Community College Guide for Developing America’s Underprepared. Phoenix: League for Innovation in the Community College
Perez, S. and Froshay, R. (2002). Adding Up the Distance: Can Developmental Studies Work in a Distance Learning Environment? T.H.E. Journal; 29:8 Education Module pg. 16
Petrides, L. and Nodine, T. (2005). Online Developmental Education: Who’s Ready? Community College Journal. Oct/Nov 76, 2; Education Module pg 42.
Thurman, L. and Silc, K. (July, 2005). Strategies for Online Course Design. Presented at Impact 2005: 7 th Annual WebCT User’s Conference in San Francisco, CA.
This article was provided by Inez Whipple and Mary Shelor.
Comments
Gerogia Kariotis wrote on 06/29/09 7:11 AM