PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:/Proj/Aoc&Pres/ClRC/Dateouetindd

ENGAGING THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNER:
USING HYBRID INSTRUCTION
TO BRIDGE THE LANGUAGE-LITERATURE GAP

By

Angelika Natascha Kraemer

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
German Studies
Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African Languages

2008

 

 

\'

 

ABSTRACT

ENGAGING THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNER:
USING HYBRID INSTRUCTION
TO BRIDGE THE LANGUAGE-LITERATURE GAP

By
Angelika Natascha Kraemer

This study describes the design, implementation, and effectiveness of hybrid course
modules in fourth-year German—as—a-foreign-language classrooms at a large research
university. Hybrid instruction refers to a carefully planned blend of both traditional
classroom instruction and online learning activities and represents an innovative
curricular facet that takes into account recent trends in foreign language education such
as student-centered, engaged, and active learning, enhanced proficiency, and computer-
assisted language learning. This delivery model is rapidly gaining popularity in- US
institutions of higher education and offers an effective way to integrate the teaching of
academic content and linguistic skills at all levels. Following a qualitative case study
design, this dissertation investigated opportunities that enhanced students” active
engagement with the language, content, and each other as well as their perceptions of the
effects of technology in the language learning context.

Short-term hybrid modules were piloted in a fourth-year course on 18th and 19th
century German literature in order to test format, content, and outcomes. Based on the
results, a hybrid course on the German fairy tale tradition was developed and

implemented. Data were collected from nineteen students over the course of a semester,

where 34% of face-to-face sessions were replaced with online assignments. Data sources
included student questionnaires, instructor reflective essays, student access and
completion logs of online assignments, student interviews, and classroom artifacts.

Results indicated that, generally, students preferred a hybrid forinat and felt it
enhanced not only their content knowledge but also developed their language skills and
levels of fluency. In addition, the hybrid delivery format encouraged student engagement,
collaboration, and responsibility both online and in class and provided an interactive yet
flexible learning context. Various challenges related to work load, instructor
involvement, and functionality issues are also discussed.

Overall, the student-centered format supported the integration of academic content
and linguistic skills in the observed multilevel courses and may provide language

educators with specific examples to help bridge the gap between lower- and upper-level

foreign language courses through online activities.

 

Copyright by
ANGELIKA NATASCHA KRAEMER
2008

 

Ffir meine Eltern

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank all those who supported me in completing this dissertation.

I am very grateful to Karin Wurst and Charlene Polio, my advisors, who assisted me
in all endeavors regarding this dissertation and who provided invaluable comments and
suggestions before, during, and after the data collection.

I would like to thank Senta Goertler, Dennie Hoopingarner, and George Peters, my
dissertation committee members, whose insightful comments throughout my research
were much appreciated. Dennie’s technological assistance came to the rescue many times
and he offered many helpful suggestions regarding the use of technology for innovative
teaching purposes. Senta’s feedback on all related (and non-related) matters ensured my
sanity and helped me power through.

Special thanks to the instructor of the pilot study, who willingly opened her classroom
and assisted me in the development of the hybrid modules, and also to all the students
who participated in the pilot and hybrid studies. Without their cooperation, feedback, and
insights, this entire dissertation had not been possible. Thanks for bearing with me!

I am greatly indebted to the Department of Linguistics and German, Slavic, Asian and
African Languages at Michigan State University for various graduate assistantships that
supported me throughout my studies as well as to the Max Kade Foundation, the Global
Literary and Cultural Studies Research Cluster at Michigan State University, and the
Graduate School at Michigan State University for offering fellowships that allowed me to
concentrate on my research.

Finally, I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues, especially Julie

Delgado and Nathaniel Moore, who supported me in all ways possible. Danke!

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES. .......................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................ . .............................. xii
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Rationale ............................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................... 4

1.3 Definition of Terms .............................................................................................. 6

1.4 Outline of the Study ............................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 9

2.] Foreign Language Education at the Undergraduate Level ................................... 9

2.1.1 The Language-Literature Gap: Program Articulation ...................... . 12

2.2 Online Education .................................................................................................. 23

2. 2.] Course Delivery Methods and Web Applications ............................... 23

2.2.2 Learners in the Digital Age: Digital Natives and Digital Divides ..... 31

2.3 Hybrid Language Education ................................................................................. 33

2.3.1 Benefits of Hybrid Language Education ............................................ 36

2.3.2 Challenges onybrid Language Education.......................... ............. 41

2.3.3 Empirical Studies in Hybrid Language Education ............................. 44
CHAPTER 3

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 51

3.1 Context ................................................................................................................. 51

3.2 Research Paradigm ............................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 4

PILOT STUDY .................................................................................................................. 58

4.1 Course ................................................................................................................... 58

4.2 Participants ........................................................................................................... 59

4. 2.] Teacher ............................................................................................... 59

4.2.2 Students .............................................................................................. 61

4.3 Data Collection Procedures .................................................................................. 63

4.4 Treatment ............................................................................................................. 64

4.4.1 Word Associations .............................................................................. 68

4.4.2 Web Quests ......................................................................................... 69

vii

4.4.3 Key Word Writing ............................................................................... 70

4. 4. 4 Interactive Activities ........................................................................... 70

4.4.5 Sentence Rewrites ............................................................................... 71

4. 4. 6 Notes ................................................................................................... 71

4. 4. 7 Audio Files .......................................................................................... 72

4. 4.8 Chapter Summaries ............................................................................ 73

4.4.9 Online Speaking Activities................................... .............................. 73

4.4.10 Pronunciation Practice .................................................................... 74

4.5 Data Analysis Procedures ..................................................................................... 74

4.6 Results .................................................................................................................. 77

4. 6.1 Classroom Observations .................................................................... 77

4. 6. 2 Student Responses .............................................................................. 80

4.6.3 Teacher Responses ............................................................................. 88

4. 6. 4 Summary of Victories and Challenges ............................................... 90
CHAPTER 5

HYBRID STUDY .............................................................................................................. 93

5.1 Course ................................................................................................................... 93

5.2 Participants ........................................................................................................... 97

5.2.1 Teachers ............................................................................................. 97

5.2.2 Students .............................................................................................. 99

5.3 Data Collection Procedures .................................................................................. 101

5.4 Treatment ............................................................................................................. 103

5. 4.1 Self-Evaluations .................................................................................. 105

5.4.2 Online Speaking Activities .................................................................. 105

5.4.3 Chats ..................................................................................... - .............. 107

5.4.4 Blogs ................................................................................................... 108

5.4.5 Threaded Discussions ......................................................................... 109

5.4.6 Web Quests ......................................................................................... 110

5. 4. 7 Wiki ..................................................................................................... 112

5.4.8 Online Readings ................................................................................. 113

5.4.9Audio Files ......................................................................................... V114

5.4.10 Interactive Activities ......................................................................... 1 14

5.4.11 Multimedia Team Project ................................................................. 116

5.4.12 Other Assignments ............................................................................ 1 18

5.5 Data Analysis Procedures ..................................................................................... 119
CHAPTER 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 121

6.1 Research Question 1: Students’ Perspectives on Hybrid Language Learning ..... 121

6.1.1 Technology and Language Learning .................................................. 122

6.1.2 Classroom Practices .......................................................................... 123

6.1.3 Language Skills and Improvement ..................................................... 125

viii

6.2 Research Question 2: Effects of Technology on Student Engagement,

Collaboration, and Responsibility ........................................................................ 130
6.3 Research Question 3: Effectiveness of Assignment Types in Improving
Language Skills .................................................................................................... 141
6. 3.1 Reading and Writing Skills: Blogs ..................................................... 148
6.3.2 Listening and Speaking Skills: Online Speaking Activities. ............... 152
6.3.3 Integrated Skills: Multimedia Team Project.......; .............................. 159
6.4 Research Question 4: Perceptional Differences between Students with High
vs. Low Language Skills ...................................................................................... 165
6.5 Research Question 5: Effects of Attitudes toward Technology on Student
Perceptions of the Hybrid Course ........................................................................ 171
6.6 Other Findings ...................................................................................................... 174
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 178
7.1 Revision of Initial Hypotheses ............................................................................. 178
7.2 Connection to Existing Literature ........................................................................ 185
7.3 Implications .......................................................................................................... 189
7.4 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 193
7.5 Future Directions .................................................................................................. 196
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 198
APPENDIX A: Spring 2008 Enrollment Numbers at Big Ten Institutions .......... 199
APPENDIX B: Syllabus GRM 435 ....................................................................... 202
APPENDIX C: Initial Instructor Interview Questions for Hybrid Module ........... 206
APPENDIX D: Student Pre-Questionnaire for Hybrid Module and Course ......... 207
APPENDIX E: Student Post-Questionnaire for Hybrid Module .......................... 209
APPENDIX F: Final Student Interview Questions for Hybrid Module ................ 210
APPENDIX G: Final Instructor Interview Questions for Hybrid Module ............ 211
APPENDIX H: Screenshots of Lesson Folders in the Pilot Study ........................ 212
APPENDIX 1: Screenshots of Interactive Post-Reading Activities ..................... 214
APPENDIX .1: Pilot Study Quantified Questionnaire Results .............................. 217
APPENDIX K: Pilot Study Summary of Significant Differences ......................... 218
APPENDIX L: Syllabus GRM 455 ....................................................................... 219
APPENDIX M: Student Post-Questionnaire for Hybrid Course ............................ 229
APPENDIX N: Final Student Interview Questions for Hybrid Course ................. 231
APPENDIX 0: Screenshot of the Main Lesson Folders in the Hybrid Study ...... 233
APPENDIX P: Weekly Self-Evaluation Survey ................................................... 234
APPENDIX Q: Screenshots of Conversations ...................................................... 235
APPENDIX R: Online Speaking Assignments ..................................................... 239
APPENDIX S: Screenshot of Threaded Discussion Folder .................................. 241
APPENDIX T: Screenshot of Wiki ....................................................................... 242
APPENDIX U: Screenshots of SMILE .................................................................. 244
APPENDIX V: Screenshot of Sample Mashup ..................................................... 246

APPENDIX W: Hybrid Study Quantified Questionnaire Results .......................... 247

APPENDIX X: Hybrid Study Summary of Significant Differences ..................... 248
APPENDIX Y: Screenshot of Online Speaking Activities Lesson Folder ............ 249
APPENDIX Z: Screenshot of Blog Lesson Folder ............................................... 250

APPENDIX AA: Students’ Initial Perception of Language Skills by Groups ......... 251

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 252

 

 

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 1 1 :

LIST OF TABLES

Course Delivery Methods ............................................................................. 24
Web Applications for Language Learning ................................................... 27
Minimum Required Access per Assignment Type ....................................... 131

Student Access Numbers and Completion Rates for Assignment Types.....l33

Total Class Activity by Days of the Week ................................................... 138
Absolute Ranking of Effectiveness of Online Activities in Improving

Language Skills ............................................................................................ 147
Average Blogger Profile ............................................................................... 150
Students’ Proficiency Levels ........................................................................ 166
Effectiveness of Online Assignments by Group ........................................... 169
Students’ Attitudes toward Technology ....................................................... 173
Effect of Technology Background on Perception of Hybrid Course ........... 173

xi

Figure 1:

Figure 2:
Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Figure 6:

Figure 7:

Figure 8:

Figure 9:

Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Figure 17:
Figure 18:
Figure 19:

Figure 20:

LIST OF FIGURES

Relationship among recent Web Applications for Learning and their

Associated Variables .................................................................................... 28
Hybrid vs. Online Offerings by Discipline in Fall 2003 .............................. 35
Students’ Self-Perceived German Proficiency in GRM 435 ........................ 81
Students’ Self-Perceived Improvement in German Proficiency in GRM

435 ................................................................................................................ 82
Average Student Access Numbers for the Hybrid Modules ......................... 85
Most Popular Assignment Types in Terms of Average Access Numbers

in GRM 435 .................................................................................................. 86
Students’ Self-Perceived German Proficiency in GRM 455 ........................ 126
Students’ Self-Perceived Improvement in German Proficiency in GRM

455 ................................................................................................................ 127
Effectiveness of Online Activities in Improving Language Skills ............... I45
Fluency Levels for Online Speaking Activities ............................................ 156
Multimedia Team Project ............................................................................. 161
Screenshot of the Lesson Folder for the First Hybrid Module .................... 212

Screenshot of the Post-Reading Sub-F older for the First Hybrid Module...2 l 3

Screenshot of the Interactive Post-Reading Activities Website ................... 214
Screenshot of a Short Answer Post-Reading Activity .................................. 215
Screenshot of a Paragraph Mix Post-Reading Activity ................................ 215
Screenshot of a Multiple Select Post-Reading Activity ............................... 216
Screenshot of Conversations ........................................................................ 236
Screenshot of Student View of Conversations ............................................. 237
Screenshot of Instructor View of Conversations ......................................... 238

xii

Figure 21: Screenshot of a SMILE Activity .................................................................. 244

Figure 22: Screenshot of Instructor View of SMILE ..................................................... 245

xiii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Foreign language departments at US institutions of higher education often struggle with
articulation between lower- and upper-level courses at the undergraduate level. While
most first- and second-year foreign language courses follow a communicative approach
that aims to develop learners” functional ability to communicate in interpersonal contexts,
third- and fourth-year courses are generally content-based and aim to sharpen learners’
analytic skills and enrich their cultural and literary sensibilities through the investigation
of literary genres, time periods, or cultural themes (e.g., Kern, 2002). Many students feel
that too little emphasis is placed on continuing to develop oral proficiency throughout
their coursework, which they perceive to be a primary goal of their foreign language
education (e.g., Glisan, 1987; Harlow & Muyskens, 1994; Horwitz, 1988; Kern, 1995b;
Ossipov, 2000; Saussy, 2005). This circumstance is directly mirrored by course offerings
in fourth-year courses, which heavily (if not exclusively) focus on literary and cultural
studies (see Chapter 2.1).

This so-called language-literature gap has been addressed by many scholars and
practitioners over the past 25 years (e.g., Barnett, 1991; Bernhardt, 1995; Byrnes, 1988,
1990, 1996, 1998b; Bymes & Kord, 2002; Davis, 2000; Henning, 1993; Hoffmann &
James, 1986; James, 1989, 1997, 2000; Kern, 2002; Kramsch, 1985, 1993, I998;
Kramsch & Nolden, 1994; Schultz, 2002; Schulz, 1981; Scott & Tucker, 2002; Shanahan,
1997; Swaffar & Arens, 2005; Swaffar, Arens, & Byrnes, 1991). German Programs in

particular have engaged in vigorous debates over the last decade and have implemented

innovative models that offer a more integrated curriculum (e. g., Georgetown University,
University of Texas at Austin, and Michigan State University'). Yet, the integration of
linguistic skills and academic content still pose an urgent problem today and empirical
data that (a) focus on advancing language skills. particularly speaking, in upper-level

undergraduate courses and (b) investigate German Studies are scarce.

1.1 Rationale
In order to add to ongoing curricular reforms in German Studies and to the existing
research base on the language-literature gap, I offer an integrated technology-based
approach and practical suggestions for upper-level instructors, who may not necessarily
have extensive background in second language acquisition or online education. This
dissertation describes hybrid course modules that were implemented in fourth-year
German content classes at Michigan State University with the goal to provide varied
opportunities for input, interaction, and output, with particular emphasis on speaking
(e.g., Gass, 1997; Long, 1996; Swain, 1985; see Gass & Mackey, 2006a, 2006b for an
overview of the interaction approach). While scholars such as Bymes and Kord (2002).
Eigler (2001), Kern (2000, 2002), Kramsch and Nolden (1994), Swaffar and Arens
(2005), and Redmann (2008) have approached the problem of articulation from the point

of literacyz, their research has focused mainly on a holistic curriculum that implements

 

1 While the first two programs mainly focused on the undergraduate level in their curricular reforms,
Michigan State University has placed particular emphasis on the graduate level and the implications for
graduate training.

Kern (2000) defines literacy as “the use of socially-, historically-, and culturally-situated practices of
creating and interpreting meaning through texts. lt entails at least a tacit awareness of the relationships
between textual conventions and their contexts of use and, ideally, the ability to reflect critically on those
relationships. Because it is purpose-sensitive, literacy is dynamic—not static—and variable across and
within discourse communities and cultures. It draws on a wide range of cognitive abilities, on knowledge of
written and spoken language, on knowledge of genres, and on cultural knowledge.” (p. 16)

literature from the very beginning. Only few studies have focused on continuing to
improve language skills in upper-level courses.3 While I do not discount the notion of
literacy to bridge the language-literature gap, I argue that a continued focus on language
development in upper-level courses is equally important as the integration of texts from
the beginning. I therefore approach the issue from a different angle and propose that the
implementation of technology can offer effective ways to address the gap in terms of
continuing the development of language skills at advanced levels. I argue that, apart from
the much discussed language-literature gap, there is also a literature-language gap in
advanced content courses where language development has been marginalized at the
expense of literary and cultural studies.

This dissertation proposes one way to integrate the teaching of academic content and
linguistic skills by offering a hybrid course model. A study piloting short-term online
modules was conducted in a spring semester at Michigan State University in a fourth-
year course on 18th and l9lh century German literature to test format, content, and
outcomes. Based on the results, the short-term online modules were revised and extended
into a complete hybrid course on fairy tales that was implemented in the subsequent fall
semester at Michigan State University. In line with recent trends in foreign language
education, this course model emphasized student-centered, engaged, and active learning
(e.g., Bean, 2001; R.-M. Conrad & Donaldson, 2004; Lee, 2005; Meskill, 1999), worked
toward enhanced proficiency (e. g., Byrnes, 1998a; Saussy, 2005), and capitalized on the

benefits of technology (e. g., Felix, 2001; Gannon, 2004; Hokanson, 2000; Saussy, 2005).

 

3 While the field of advanced (foreign) language learning has addressed the theory of teaching and learning
in upper-level courses (e.g., Byrnes, 2006; Bymes & Maxim, 2004; Byrnes, Weger-Guntharp, & Sprang,
2006; Graham, 1997; Scott & Tucker, 2002)) the majority of the literature focuses on advanced-level
reading and writing skills. Few articles have addressed advancing linguistic skills (Donato & Brooks, 2004;
Maxim, 2004; Polio & Zyzik, in press; Zyzik & Polio, 2008), however, empirical research is lacking.

Research findings from a qualitative perception study revealed several positive outcomes

including increases in students’ self-perceived confidence and language skills as well as

various challenges related to work load, instructor involvement, and functionality issues.

The proposed online modules may prove appropriate in other foreign language classes,

thereby providing language educators with specific examples to help integrate the

teaching of language and content through online activities.

1.2 Research Questions and Hypotheses

The following research questions were used to guide this study.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

What are students’ perspectives on hybrid language learning, specifically in
terms of advancing oral skills, within the context of an upper-level content
course?

What effects does the implementation of technology have regarding
students’ levels of engagement, collaboration, and responsibility?

What assignment types and technologies yield high levels of effectiveness in
improving language skills?

What are the perceptional differences of online assignments between highly
proficient and strong students (in terms of language learning background
and GPA) and students with lower abilities and grades?

What effects do previous experience with and attitudes toward technology

have on how students perceive the hybrid course?

In qualitative research, hypotheses generally emerge from the data (Duff, 2008). The

following hypotheses, which were informed by the existing research on the language-

literature gap and hybrid education. served as heuristics at the outset of the study.

Hypotheses are that

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Online assignments will offer more varied opportunities for students to
engage with the course materials, with peers, and with the language and as a
result will help them advance all language skills while acquiring content
knowledge. In addition, students will enjoy the convenience of online
assignments in terms of access and pace and will become more confident
speakers of the language as a result of individual online speaking activities.
Students will engage more with course materials, feel more responsible for
their work, and collaborate with their peers more because of the online
delivery mode.

Innovative and interactive assignment types that integrate academic content
with linguistic skills as well as technologies that allow students to
collaborate will be perceived as most effective in improving language skills.
Specifically, online assignments that address students’ perceived areas of
weakness will be rated highest.

In general, students will prefer the hybrid course model to a traditional
classroom setting. Particularly weaker students will prefer this model
because it allows them to work at their own pace and removed from their

peers.

(5) Students will have extensive experience with online technologies, which
will result in positive attitudes toward the course model.
The participants’ insights will prove useful to language educators of all fields and levels.
Instructors will gain deeper insights into the effectiveness of certain activities, exercises,
and technologies and the results of the study may prompt curricular changes, such as
increasing the focus on language in advanced foreign language courses or hybridizing
language curricula. Also, the results may offer deeper insights into the benefits of using

technology for language teaching. which can further enhance instructional practices.

1.3 Definition of Terms

Delivery methods in language teaching range from traditional face-to-face instruction to
complete online delivery. Definitions vary from country to country, between institutions,
and from scholar to scholar, evolving continuously as technologies develop. For the
purpose of this study, the following terms will be used to define these variations.

Articulation: Articulation refers to curricular arrangements that facilitate movement
or progression from one educational level to the next, for example the transition from
high school to college or, as used in this study, the transition from lower- to upper-level
courses within one field of study.

F ace-to-face instruction: Face-to-face instruction refers to traditional classroom
settings where course content is delivered with students and the instructor present in the
same place at the same time. For upper-level courses, traditional tasks generally entail

listening to lectures, class discussions, and reading and composition assignments.

W eb-enhanced instruction: Web-enhanced or web-supported instruction refers to
courses where between 1 to 29% of the content is delivered online. Such courses
generally entail that students and the instructor are in the same place at the same time
while engaging in instruction and learning with and through technology.

Hybrid instruction: Hybrid instruction describes a carefully planned blend of both
traditional classroom instruction and online learning activities, combining the best of both
styles of instruction. Generally, courses are considered hybrid when between 30 to 79%
of the content is delivered online.

Blended learning: Blended learning is a term predominantly used in European
contexts to refer to the concept of hybrid instruction in the US: A blend of traditional
media and methods with technology-enhanced elements. In the context of this study, the
term education is seen as encompassing the concepts of learning and instruction without
distinguishing between the different processes and behaviors entailed in the two latter
terms. They are used interchangeably here.

Online instruction: Online instruction refers to courses where at least 80% of course
content is delivered online. Generally, online courses are delivered virtually via the
Internet and students and the instructor are at different locations and engage with each
other synchronously (i.e., at the same time) and/or asynchronously (i.e., at different
times).

Course management system: Course management systems are web-based course
management tools that allow for online instruction in any of its delivery modes. The
course management system used in the present study was ANGEL, which is similar to

Blackboard or WebCT. Its features include a variety of online tools such as built-in

lesson folders, course announcements, course email, a calendar function, an attendance
manager, discussion boards, drop boxes. surveys and tests, blogs, wikis, chat rooms, live

office hours, and a grade book.

1.4 Outline of the Study
Chapter 1 introduced the topic and presented the problem and research questions. The
following chapter will review the related literature with particular focus on the language-
literature gap and proposed solutions as well as literature on online and hybrid language
education, outlining benefits and challenges. Chapter 3 will illustrate the context in which
the pilot study and the hybrid study were conducted and will offer a description of the
research paradigm. Chapters 4 and 5 will present the methodology of the pilot study and
the hybrid study respectively, including information on the courses, the participants, data
collection procedures, treatment instruments, and data analysis procedures. Chapter 4 will
close with a discussion of the pilot results. In Chapter 6, I will provide and di8cuss the
results of the analyzed data of the hybrid study according to the research questions
outlined above. The perceptions and evaluations of all participants are reported,
highlighting the effectiveness and limitations of the treatment instruments and a general
evaluation of the hybrid course. Chapter 7 concludes my research and revisits the initial
hypotheses, connects the study to existing literature, and summarizes implications,

limitations, and future directions.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Foreign Language Education at the Undergraduate Level
In recent years, foreign language enrollments at US institutions of higher education have
steadily increased. Comparing numbers from the 2002 MLA survey with those from
2006, Furman, Goldberg and Lusin (2007) noted a 12.6% increase for the fifteen most
commonly taught languages (i.e., Arabic, Chinese, Korean, American Sign Language,
Japanese, Italian, Portuguese, ancient Greek, modern Hebrew, Spanish, Latin, Russian,
German, French, and biblical Hebrew), ranging from 2.2% (French) to 126.5% (Arabic)
with biblical Hebrew as the only language that decreased in enrollment by 0.3%.4 Along
with rising enrollment numbers in foreign languages, there is an increased demand for
language departments to provide quality instruction to a diverse body of learners in a
wide variety of languages under varying learning conditions. As the global network
continues to grow, so will the need for global citizens with proficient intercultural
communication skills. It can be assumed that global communication will take place to a
large extent in computer-mediated environments, which also calls for sufficient
technology skills in the future global workforce (NMC, 2007). Therefore, technology
poses a necessary component of curricular enhancement across educational institutions
and not least in language departments (e. g., Gannon, 2004; Hokanson, 2000). Digital
tools can not only enhance language learning in general, but also increase its efficacy and

capacity while increasing students’ computer literacy (Barrette, 2001).

 

4 German took the antepenultimate spot with a 3.5% enrollment increase from 2002 to 2006.

Rising enrollment numbers display a positive development, yet, many language
departments face the problem of classrooms that are filled to capacity and significant
drops in enrollment numbers between lower- and upper—level courses (Furman et al.,
2007). A review of three Big Ten institutions that all follow semester systems5 revealed
that in Spring 2008, 22% of first-year language classes in French, German, and Spanish
and 29% of second-year classes were filled to or beyond capacity (see Appendix A). It is
not hard to conceive that with student numbers approaching 30 for lower-division
language classes, traditional classroom settings do not offer many opportunities for
students to use the target language and to receive feedback.6 Also, a strategy that would
rely solely on hiring additional instructional staff is not cost-efficient.

Similarly, if we take a closer look at enrollments in upper-level courses, they continue
to reach capacity limits, which still approach and at some institutions even exceed 30
students per section. Naturally, the total number of enrollments drops significantly
between second- and third-year courses since this stage generally marks the transition
from taking languages to fulfill a requirement to taking languages as a major.7 However,
with numbers still approaching 30 for third- and fourth-year courses, it is clear that
providing all students ample opportunity to engage with the language in traditional

classroom settings poses a challenge. Zyzik and Polio (2008), for example, noted that

k

5 Indiana University Bloomington, Michigan State University, and University of Minnesota Twin Cities
were selected as a representative sample of large Midwestern universities whose enrollment numbers were
Publicly accessible.

The ADFL Guidelines suggest a maximum class size for foreign language instruction of 15-20 students,
Particularly at lower levels, as to enable effective interaction between students and teacher that is conducive
;0 language development (MLA, 2001).

Furman, Goldberg and Lusin (2007) list the ratio of introductory to advanced courses in French, German,
and Spanish as 3:1 and describe these differential enrollments as “ dramatic” (p. 4).

10

 

 

 

student output was limited to less than 10% of observed classroom interactions in three
advanced-level Spanish literature courses.

It is also interesting to note that the majority ofenrollments in third-year courses
across languages (i.e., French, German, and Spanish at the three above-mentioned
institutions) are in language-related courses8 as opposed to literary and cultural studies
courses”.'0 The situation changes drastically when we take a closer look at fourth-year
offerings. Courses with a language focus are marginalized if not even eliminated and,
while student numbers continue to decrease, the few language-focused courses that are
offered are in high demand. There seems to be a correlation between attrition and lack of
course offerings that speak to the educational, vocational, and personal interests of and
relevance for our student population (Davis, Gorell, Kline, & Hsieh, 1992), which stress
communicative skills in multiple modes.

The Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21” Century (1999) list
communication as the first of five areas of language competency. The statement of
philosophy reads:

Language and communication are the heart of the human experience. The United
States must educate students who are linguistically and culturally equipped to
communicate successfully in a pluralistic American society and abroad. This
imperative envisions a future in which ALL students will develop and maintain
proficiency in English and at least one other language, modem or classical.
(ACTFL, 1999, p. 2)

Communication is not only a major aspect in our daily lives, foreign language students

specifically state that one of their top priorities in language classes is to gain oral fluency,

 

8 . . . . . .
Language-related course topics include, for example, oral expressron, pronunCIation, conversation,
linguistics, and grammar.
9 . . . . . .
Literary and cultural studies course topics include, for example, literary themes, cultural history, and
reading and expression.

Specific purpose courses such as business or medical language as well as pure composition courses and
historical language courses were excluded from the count.

11

which will enable them to communicate and use the language in every-day situations
(e.g., Glisan, 1987; Harlow & Muyskens, 1994; Horwitz, 1988; Kern, 1995b; Ossipov,
2000; Saussy, 2005), but that too little emphasis is placed on this skill in classrooms that
seat many students and, in upper-level courses. students with often differing proficiency
levels (Lyman-Hager & Davis, 1996).

Another challenge for language educators is the implementation of authentic materials
in their teaching practices. Most often. such materials are limited in textbooks and
materials from other sources may be inappropriate in terms of level of difficulty (e.g.,
Geltrich-Ludgate & Tovar, 1987; Katz. 2002; Omaggio Hadley, 2001; Paesani, 2005;
Rogers & Medley, 1988). Along with the lack of authentic materials goes a general lack
of variety of input from different sources. Students are rarely exposed to another speaker
besides the instructor, and in the case of non-native instructors, students might never be
exposed to native speakers at all (Lazaraton, 2001; Medyes, 2001). They also have few if
any opportunities to observe and engage in communication with several natiVe speakers
in multiple modes (speaking and writing).

One of the biggest problems, however, that language educators across departments are
charged with, is the divide between lower-level language courses and upper-level content
courses and the integration of literature, language, and culture across levels. This problem

will be addressed in more detail in the following section.
2.1.1 The Language-Literature Gap: Program Articulation

For decades, program articulation has posed a particular challenge to language educators

and has been a topic of much debate. The term articulation refers to curricular

l2

arrangements that facilitate movement or progression from one educational level to the
next. Much of the research on articulation focuses on the transition from high school to
college (e.g., Andress et al., 2002; MLA's Articulation Initiative, 1998; Watzke, 2000) or,
within postsecondary institutions, on so-called “bridge courses” between lower-level
language and upper-level content courses (e.g., Guenther & Roller, 1996; Gutschke,
1996; Mantero, 2002; R. Weber, 2000). The literature seems to end at that level. Only
very few studies take advanced courses into consideration when discussing issues of
articulation. Examples mainly stem from the field of advanced (foreign) language
learning, which has addressed the theory of teaching and learning in upper-level courses
(e.g., Byrnes, 2006; Bymes & Maxim, 2004; Bymes et al., 2006; Graham, 1997; Scott &
Tucker, 2002). The majority of this literature, however, focuses on advanced—level
reading and writing skills. Few articles (Donato & Brooks, 2004; Maxim, 2004; Zyzik &
Polio, 2008; Polio & Zyzik, in press) have addressed advancing linguistic skills and
empirical research, particularly in the field of German Studies, is lacking.

Generally referred to as the language-literature gap, dichotomy, or divide in US
undergraduate foreign language education, the topic has been addressed by scholars and
practitioners in second language acquisition (e.g., Bernhardt, 1995; Byrnes, 1988, 1990,
1996, 1998a; Kramsch, 1985, 1993, 1998) and literary/cultural studies (e.g., Barnett,
1991; Henning, 1993; Hoffmann & James, 1986; James, 1989, 1997, 2000; Schultz,
2002; Schulz, 1981) alike. According to Davis (2000), the year 1967 marked the division
of “language teaching” and “literary studies” when the Modern Language Association
(MLA) founded the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTF L)

and literary and cultural studies instructors at the university level “began their disastrous

l3

withdrawal from a sense of responsibility of language teaching, choosing to believe that
this could be done ‘at the lower levels,’ that students would come to them with ‘language
competence as a foundation’ and could then be taught ‘literature”’ (James, 2000, p. 247).
Most scholars now acknowledge that foreign language students remain language learners
throughout their studies (e. g., Byrnes, 1998a; Byrnes & Kord, 2002; Polio & Zyzik, in
press; Redmann, 2005; Scott & Tucker, 2002; Zyzik & Polio, 2008) and that language
and literature need to be integrated from start to finish. I particularly agree with Klee
(2006), who cautioned that “upper-division courses must be carefully designed to
introduce sophisticated content and concepts while at the same time providing
opportunities for advanced language development” (p. 23).

Already in 1989, James had described the split situation in foreign language
department as “a recipe for disaster” (p. 81) and sparked much debate (Berman et al.,
1998; Byrnes, Kleinhenz, Mignolo, Pratt, & Vieira, 1998) with her 1997 ADFL Bulletin
article on the leadership crisis in the field of foreign languages and literatures. The gap,
however, was and continues to be widened by common practices in foreign language
departments that “use teaching practices that separate form from meaning” and that “treat
courses as separately owned property, independent of a larger curricular context”
(Swaffar & Arens, 2005, p. 12).

In 1990, the MLA Executive Council established an Advisory Committee on Foreign
Languages and Literatures that was charged with the mission to pay “particular attention
to foreign language and literary studies at all levels of the educational system and in
society at large” (“Meeting,” 1990, p. 944; see also Byrnes, 1998b). In response, the

MLA Teaching Languages, Literatures, and Cultures series was created. The first edited

14

volume Learning Foreign and Second Languages (Byrnes, 1998b) offered insights into
second language acquisition research and scholarship and was specifically geared toward
“literature colleagues” (p. vii). It marked the first publication of its kind that approached
the divide from a linguistic angle and encouraged mutual understanding. The fourth
volume Remapping the Foreign Language Curriculum: An Approach through Multiple
Literacies (Swaffar & Arens, 2005) offered practical solutions from the literary and
cultural studies side by describing an integrated curriculum that implements literary and
cultural studies throughout all stages of foreign language education. It offered template-
generated exercises for different levels of instruction that also took language
development into account.

As has been pointed out above, the issue has been discussed extensively in a variety
of academic journals, most notably in the ADF L Bulletin and the Modern Language
Journal, however, much of the existing literature has been theoretical in nature, focusing
on a presentation of the issue and a case for either one of the two sides. More practical
approaches that offered possible solutions to bridge the gap have mainly focused on the
integration of literature in lower-level language courses. Unfortunately, empirical data
from advanced courses are scarce. Recent exceptions are the studies by Donato and
Brooks (2004), Zyzik and Polio (2008), and Polio and Zyzik (in press), all of which focus
on attention to language forms in advanced Spanish literature courses at US research
universities.

Donato and Brooks (2004) investigated literary discussions in an advanced Spanish
literature course with the goal to determine how such discussions provided “discourse

opportunities to students to develop advanced language functions, as defined in ACTFL

15

Proficiency Guidelines for Speaking” (p. 183). Their findings revealed that class
discussions were mainly teacher-dominated and therefore prevented students from
moving beyond word- and sentence-level utterances, however, the authors pointed out
that advanced-level literary courses certainly have the potential to address advanced
proficiency goals if orchestrated properly by both the teacher and students.

Zyzik and Polio (2008) examined attention to linguistic form in instructor oral
feedback in advanced Spanish literature classrooms. In particular, they investigated “the
advanced undergraduate literature course as an avenue for form-focused instruction by
examining the ways in which literature professors do or do not attend to problems of
linguistic form” (p. 54). Results indicated that oral feedback was mainly provided in the
form of recastsll but that instructor feedback was limited due to students’ limited output
in the classes under investigation, which replicated Donato and Brooks’ findings. These
results were part of a larger case study on multiple perspectives on language learning in
content-based classes (Polio & Zyzik, in press). Participant perspectives revealed that
both students and instructors rated students’ speaking and writing skills as weak and
listening skills as strong. In terms of course goals, two of three instructors did not have
specific language-related goals”, contrary to the majority of students, who hoped to learn
about the content while improving language skills. The article also discussed emergent
issues of concern for students and instructors with respect to language learning in their

content-based literature classrooms. Results revealed four salient themes:

 

H A recast is an indirect and subtle form of feedback: The reformulation of an incorrect utterance that
maintains the original meaning. For example, the teacher (T) reformulates the student’s (S) incorrect
utterance: T: Where does the woman go? — S: He goes to work. — T: She goes to work?

’2 All three instructors were tenure-stream faculty members with backgrounds in literary and cultural
studies. The one instructor who did mention language-related goals for her students hoped that they would
improve their reading skills as a result of extensive reading assignments in class.

16

1) an incidental view of language learning

2) the lack of output and oral fluency, with study abroad as solution

3) the importance of vocabulary, and

4) problems with reading and reading comprehension.
One of the final recommendations from the perspective of the researchers that would
allow for more extensive focus on linguistic skills in advanced literary and cultural
classes was to offer hybrid options:

A series of online language support activities could be developed by teaching

assistants or faculty with expertise in language teaching. These could include

outside-of—class activities that literature faculty might be reluctant to complete in

class including dictoglosses, cloze activities, audiojoumals, and so on.

[H]ybrid options allow instructors to focus on their strengths, that is, language or

literature.
The advanced-level literature classrooms described in the above-mentioned research
studies highlight an apparent disconnect in advanced-level content courses in terms of an
interaction approach to second language acquisition. “The interaction approach considers
exposure to language (input), production of language (output), and feedback on
production (through interaction) as constructs that are important for understanding how
second language learning takes place” (Gass & Mackey, 2006a, pp. 3-4). While there is
no scarcity of meaningful input in these advanced-level content courses, the mere
provision of such input in written and/or oral form does not guarantee that students
advance their linguistic proficiency. As Polio and Zyzik pointed out: “while such input
may be enough to maintain a learner’s language skills, it is unlikely to push them to
higher levels of proficiency or help them gain control over certain L2 forms” (emphasis
added; see also Donato & Brooks, 2004). What appears to be necessary, then, are varied

opportunities for conversational interaction and output, which a traditional, teacher-

centered classroom oftentimes does not provide.

17

To my knowledge, no studies have been conducted that investigate the development
of linguistic skills in advanced-level German courses. There have been, however, various
practical initiatives in the field of German that address the language-literature gap, once
again mainly from the point of view of integrating literature and culture from the
beginning. One example is the literacy-based curriculum (“Developing Multiple
Literacies”) developed by Bymes and her colleagues at Georgetown University (1997-
2000). The goal of their integrated, content-oriented, task-based curriculum was to “focus
on literary-cultural studies content from the beginning of the instructional sequence and
continue[] to devote explicit attention to connecting content and language acquisition at
the upper levels of instruction” (Georgetown University, 2003a).

Other initiatives, spearheaded by the American Association of Teachers of German
(AATG), include the 2002 edited volume Teaching German in America (Peters, 2002),
which offered a broad scope of articles on the past, present, and future of German Studies
in educational institutions in the US, as well as the AATG Literary Task Force,
established in 2006, that aimed to provide practical solutions to the diminishing interest
in the study of literature and culture. Preliminary results of the Task Force were
published in both AATG journals, Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German (Wurst,
2008a; Kraemer, 2008b; Redmann, 2008) and German Quarterly (Wurst, 2008b; Byrnes,
2008; Byram & Kramsch, 2008; Arens, 2008).

In cooperation with the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the German
Studies Program at Michigan State University invited scholars Arens, Byrnes, and
Kramsch to a symposium on engaged learning in 2006, where they discussed best

practices to invigorate German literary and cultural studies as part of integrated language

18

 

curricula. All these examples speak of the crucial position this issue has taken within the
field of German Studies; however, classroom-based data and empirical evidence are
lacking.

In order to frame the discussion on the language-literature gap for German, I will now
focus on the debate in the academic journal Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German.
Since its inception in 1968, Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German (UP) has
contributed to the debate on the language-literature gap in collegiate contexts.I3 The first
UP article published was entitled “Die Mittelstufe: Ubergang vom Sprach- zum
Literaturunterricht” by Kritsch Neuse (1968) and provided practical suggestions on
selecting appropriate textbooks, implementing media (i.e., records, movies, images),
increasing students’ vocabulary range, structuring reading activities, and developing
automaticity in speaking. Rooted in the direct method, Kritsch Neuse promoted the
exclusive use of the target language from the beginning. Overtime, teaching methods and
approaches changed but the problem of articulation remained. The following two decades
continued to produce articles on the topic. Bauer Pickar (1975) offered an integrated
approach that “strengthens understanding and perception in both areas” (p. 28), language
and literature, through the introduction of short literary texts in the students’ early
learning stages. Lotze (1975) also argued for the inclusion of literature in beginning
foreign language classrooms as a means to integrate both areas and offered answers to the
questions why, when, what, and how to implement literature in language courses.

In the 19905, the topic resurged with publications by Kramsch and Nolden (1994),

Guenther and Roller (1996), Bymes (1996), and Bernhardt and Berman (1999). Kramsch

 

3 Articles discussmg articulation between high school and college Will be disregarded.

l9

 

 

and Nolden referred to the “institutionalized dichotomy between literary studies and
language training” (p. 28) and proposed a redefinition of second language literacy. Their
framework of oppositional practice placed the foreign reader at center stage and
facilitated understanding through cross-cultural literacy. Guenther and Roller described
the challenges in intermediate language courses as threefold: students’ diverse language
learning backgrounds, the role of grammar in communicative language teaching, and
student motivation. They offered activities and strategies to overcome these problems and
reported positive preliminary results from their classrooms.

In her 1996 summary report on the future of German in American education, Bymes
listed “the bifurcation of the curriculum into a language and a content component with its
repercussions in a discontinuous curriculum and radically different faculty status, which,
most recently has led to ‘outsourcing’ of the language component” (p. 256) as one of the
obstacles the profession needed to overcome. She wrote: “Reforming curricula at all
levels of instruction is the most important task for the German profession in the United
States. The need for such reform is greatest at the collegiate level... The key concept in
curriculum reform is articulation” (p. 256). The recommendation offered was to

replace an additive model of language learning (e.g., first mastery of the formal
inventory of German, then content knowledge, then culture, then literature, then
access to professional subfields; first oral then literate use of the language) with a
holistic model that integrates linguistic and cultural knowledge right from the
beginning. (p. 256)
Bernhardt and Berman (1999) followed this recommendation and reported on their
curricular reform at Stanford that acknowledged the “inextricable link between language

and culture” (p. 25). Focusing on first-year instruction, the Stanford project included an

English-language culture syllabus that accounted for 10% of class time. According to

20

Bernhardt and Berman, English reading materials about German culture and literary texts
in translation gave “the students a knowledge base—gave them things to say aufdeutsch”
(p. 26), which may have accelerated their overall language acquisition. Unfortunately,
their description was only based on personal observations and left many questions
unanswered such as how language skills were measured, how English reading materials
translated into expanded German linguistic knowledge, or what effect a significant
reduction in class size may have had on proficiency. While the authors mentioned that
their experimentation continued on to the second year, they did not provide information
about an integrated curriculum that spanned all levels of instruction; however, they
claimed that they were successfully able to integrate literature, culture, and language in
their first-year curriculum.

As has been mentioned above, Bymes and her colleagues at Georgetown University
revised their German curriculum into the nationally recognized literacy-based curriculum,
“Developing Multiple Literacies” (1997-2000). In contrast to Bernhardt and Berman, the
Georgetown revision resulted in a true integration of language and content throughout the
undergraduate curriculum, following a genre-driven approach that strives to produce
competent and literate non-native language users (see Eigler, 2001 and Georgetown
University, 2003b for a list of related publications).

The millennium volume of UP included an article by R. Weber (2000) that proposed
a possible alternative curricular design of undergraduate courses, focusing on two
categories: “(1) redefining and thus reorienting the lower-level courses; (2) patterning the
middle and advanced levels of instruction on what might be termed a “German Studies”

program not only to include more interdisciplinary content but also to achieve a smoother

21

perhaps less intimidating sequence of undergraduate courses” (p. 52). As continuing
challenge he saw the design of “courses that address literature and culture at earlier
levels and incorporate language instruction while still foregrounding the content of such
courses” (pp. 56-57).

In the following years, articles by Eigler (2001), van Handle (2002), Peters (2003),
Levine (2006), Melin and Laun (2007), Hock (2007), and Redmann (2008) continued to
attest to the difficulty of providing integrated instruction at the intermediate level. They
discussed models that addressed the problem by following a content-oriented, task-based
approach (Eigler), by focusing on the interconnectedness of reading and writing (van
Handle), by integrating culture as part of a proficiency-based curriculum (Peters), by
following a sociocultural approach that problematized the teaching and learning of
grammar (Levine), by implementing multimodal contemporary content as part of a
holistic curriculum that emphasizes reading and writing skills (Melin & Lauri), by
advancing students language skills through information-literacy training (Hock), and by
approaching the issue from the stance of literacy (Redmann).

In summary, the majority of the existing literature in UP focused on articulation in
general terms (curriculum revision for all levels), on the integration of literature in lower-
level language courses, or on the redesign of intermediate-level courses. Nonetheless,
these examples speak of the crucial position the issue has taken within the field of
German Studies in the US. However, classroom-based data and empirical evidence on
advanced-level courses (i.e., fourth year) are scarce and the integration of linguistic skills
and academic content particularly in upper levels continues to pose an urgent problem

today.

22

The present study attempts to address this lack of empirical data by investigating
fourth-year German content courses that implemented innovative online tools for
language learning with the goal to advance students’ linguistic development. The
following sections will provide background information on online education and hybrid

language education, outlining benefits and challenges.

2.2 Online Education
The educational landscape has changed tremendously since the advent of the Internet in
1969 and particularly since public access to the World Wide Web in 1991 (Boyle, 1995;
White, 2003). Information technology is becoming more and more important and relevant
for all areas of life, including education and communication (Cooper & Victory, 2002).'4
In the last 15 years, online and distance learning opportunities have mushroomed around
the globe (NCES, 1997, 1999, 2003; Oh, 2003; Saba, 2005) and different generations of

technological innovations have influenced and shaped learning and teaching formats.l5

2.2.1 Course Delivery Methods and Web Applications

Course delivery methods range from traditional face-to-face instruction to complete
online instruction. Table 1 presents general classifications to distinguish between these
different course types that were developed by the Sloan-Consortium, who conducts

annual surveys aimed at the state of online education in US. higher education.

 

’4 While the growth in popularity in online education is generally seen in a positive light, scholars like
Saba (2005) and Conrad (2007) cautioned that technology needs to be seen as a means to an end, not the
end itself and that critical issues such as the effects of globalization and the potential of interdisciplinary
collaboration need to be further investigated.

’5 See Kraemer (2008a) for an historical overview of the different generations and classifications of
technologies used to mediate distance learning and teaching situations.

23

Table 1

Course Delivery Methods

 

Course Type

Percent of
Course Content
Delivered Online

Description

 

Face-to-face

0%

0 Traditional classroom setting where course
content is delivered without online technologies.

- Students and the instructor are in the same place
at the same time.

 

Web-enhanced

l-29%

0 Traditional classroom setting where web-based
technologies facilitate content delivery.

- Students and the instructor are in the same place
at the same time while engaging in instruction
and learning with and through technology.

 

Hybrid/Blended

30-79%

0 Course setting that blends face-to-face and
online formats.

0 Portions of content delivery takes place online
with students and the instructor at different
locations.

 

 

Online

 

80+%

 

0 Virtual course setting where course content is
delivered without face-to-face meetings.

0 Students and the instructor are at different
locations and engage with each other
synchronously (i.e., at the same time) and/or
asynchronously (i.e., at different times).

 

Note. This table presents an overview of different course delivery methods based on the general
classifications put forth by the Sloan-Consortium (2003).

Computer- and online-based media and information and communications technologies

opened up new possibilities for interactive learning and teaching, which is of particular

relevance for language learning (White, 2003; Winke & Goertler, 2008). Web 1.0

applications such as e-mail, discussion forums, chat rooms, and instant messaging were

predominant in the 19905. The term Web 2.0 was coined by O’Reilly in 2004 (O'Reilly,

2005) and signifies web applications that increase user participation, collaboration, and

24

 

interaction”, for example, social networking technologies such as blogs, wikis, and
YouTube. These application types allow learners to collaborate with other students and
the teacher, emphasize two-way communication through various synchronous and
asynchronous avenues, offer a high degree of flexibility for the learner in regards to time,
place, and pace, and increase learner control.

Jenkins (2007) described Second Life, an Internet-based 3-D virtual world launched in
2003 that is entirely created by its users, as potential beginnings of Web 3.0. This
immersive online game has received extensive attention by higher education scholars and
language educators in particular. The Chronicle of Higher Education published 17 articles
on Second Life in 2007 and listed 65 blog entries on the topic. In November and
December of 2007 there was a discussion on the CALICO listserv about creating a
special interest group for virtual realities and gaming, which sparked a lot of interest from
educators around the world. Language teachers and learners are experimenting with this
platform as a new environment to use languages. When “matched with the open source
nature of the read-write Web and social networking, a next-stage in the level of
conversations redirecting our interpersonal and societal interactions” might be reached, as
Stevens (2006) described the potential impact of Second Life on language education.'7

While the outlined possibilities of online technologies and computer-based instruction

carry much potential for (language) learning and teaching, they do not come without

 

’6 The terms interaction and feedback are used here from 3 CALL perspective rather than from the
rspective of the interaction approach.

7 Further empirical research on this topic is necessary and under way. Several research projects were
presented at CALICO 2008 such as Sadler’s workshop and presentation on task-based instruction in Second
Life, Canfield’s presentation on Second Life as immersive learning environment, Cooke-Plagwitz’s
presentation on student and faculty responses to a course in Second Life, Luke and Kuriscak’s presentations
on pragmatics and language learning, and Zheng, Li, and Zhao’s presentation on research conducted in The
Confitcius Institute Chinese School in Second Life.

25

drawbacks. One of them is the high initial cost for institutions and students alike and,
depending on the software used, continuing costs for maintenance and upgrades (Davis,
1998). It also generally demands higher teacher involvement because the learning
situation is more individualized. The 2000 report of the Web-based Education
Commission stated that the creation of online courses can take anywhere from 66% to
500% more time than creating traditional courses (Web-based Education Commission,
2000). Increases in teacher involvement do not stop at course creation. As Taylor (2001)
pointed out “[t]he underlying resource model [of online courses] is not significantly
different from conventional on campus teaching, with a staff member being necessary to
manage groups of approximately 20 students to maintain a reasonable quality of
interaction and academic support” (slide 15). In order to make online education a
cost-efficient undertaking for both learners'8 and institutions, he proposed an “Intelligent
Flexible Learning Model” (Taylor, 1999, p. l), which language scholars generally refer to
as intelligent computer-assisted language learning or ICALL. Gamper and Knapp (2002)
defined ICALL as exploring “the use of Artificial Intelligence methods and techniques
for language learning” (p. 329).19 Such intelligent technologies can significantly decrease
institutional costs by reducing the need of teachers to supervise and intervene in
computer-mediated communication (CMC), be it synchronous or asynchronous.
Automated personalized responses in CMC draw on intelligent object databases and

allow the teacher to maximize instructional time focusing on those aspects that cannot be

 

’8 According to Taylor, the Intelligent Flexible Learning Model “has the potential to decrease significantly
the cost of online tuition and thereby increase significantly access to education and training opportunities
on a global scale. [It] will deliver a quantum leap in economies of scale and associated cost-
effectiveness.” (1999, p. 1)

’9 Their article also provided a comprehensive overview of the evolution of ICALL and reviewed existing
ICALL systems.

26

replaced by the computer.20 It remains to be seen how ICALL continues to be developed

and implemented in online language learning and if the claim of reduced costs will be

met in reality. The development of ICALL materials is still expensive and unless they are

commercially available and used in a wide context, cost savings seem unlikely.

Table 2

Web Applications for Language Learning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since Medium Examples Advantages Disadvantages
19905 Computer + - E-mail - Real-time - High initial
Internet - Discussion forums - Flexible costs
0 - Chat rooms - Individualized - Maybe high
2: - Instant messaging - Interactive maintenance
é) costs
- High teacher
involvement
20005 Computer + - Social networking - Real-time - High initial
Internet technologies - Flexible costs
(blogs, wikis, - Individualized - Maybe high
2 a YouTube) ' Interactive maintenance
'8 g - Virtual realities - Collaborative costs
3 3 (Second Life) - High teacher
- Desktop involvement
videoconferencing
ongoing Computer + - Object databases - Decrease in - High initial
Internet + - Text and voice teacher costs
.4 Automated scans involvement
é Response - Significant
2 Systems decrease in
costs

 

Note. This representation is a simplified description of recent web applications for language learning and
constitutes by no means an exhaustive list.

 

20 For a detailed discussion of how intelligent flexible learning is conceptualized and carried out, refer to
Taylor (1999). For further readings on CMC in distance language education, see Murray (2000).

27

 

Table 2 summarizes the above-mentioned web applications and provides information on
their emergence, delivery medium, examples, as well as a general (but by no means

exhaustive) list of advantages and disadvantages.

Figure 1
Relationship among recent Web Applications for Learning and their Associated
Variables

hiflh

ICALL

   

Interactivity Web 2.0/3.0

Web 1.0
Feedback

Involvement

Note. This figure offers an overview of the relationship among the recent web applications for learning
outlined in Table 2 and their four associated variables.

Figure 1 is an attempt to visualize these web applications outlined in Table 2 along the
line of four variables: interactivity, flexibility, feedback, and involvement. These
variables range from low to high, with a shorter, flat cone indicating a low level of the

variable, and a high, pointed cone indicating a high level of the variable. Interactivity

28

refers to the engagement between and among users and materials. Flexibility refers to the
ease of access in time, space, and pace. Feedback refers to the option of teachers
providing their learners with immediate feedback, and involvement refers to the amount
of work and time necessary by teachers.

The level of interactivity increased as new web applications evolved. For language
learning, this is an important facet because languages can be learned best through active
participation and engagement (Gass, 1997; Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000; Pica, 1994). Along
with interactivity, the possibility of giving and receiving immediate feedback also
increased, adding to the level of interactivity when considering student-teacher, student-
peer, and student-computer relationships. Flexibility is high for all applications. For
synchronous applications in Web 1.0-3.0, students (and the teacher) are required to be
online at the same time, which reduces the level of flexibility slightly. ICALL with its
intelligent design significantly decreases teacher involvement, as automated personalized
response systems handle a variety of tasks of the human teacher. It is important to keep in
mind that intelligent web applications are still in the fledgling stages and until reliable
technologies have been developed for language learning and teaching, educators are left
with higher levels of involvement.

Future technological developments and their possible impact on and relevance for
teaching and learning are discussed in detail in the 2007 Horizon Report put forth by the
New Media Consortium and the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. This annual report
“seeks to identify and describe emerging technologies likely to have a large impact on
teaching, learning, or creative expression within higher education” (NMC, 2007, p. 3). In

its fourth year, it identified six areas of emerging technology within three adoption

29

horizons. The six areas are: (1) user-created content; (2) social networking; (3) mobile
phones; (4) virtual worlds; (5) new scholarship and emerging publications; and (6)
multiplayer educational games. The adoption horizons are one year or less, two to three
years, and four to five years. Each area included an overview, its relevance to teaching
and learning, specific examples of its use, as well as references for further reading. All
six areas are directly relevant for language learning and can help foster all four language
skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking). For example, area 4 listed Second Life as
an emerging technology and included “Expand understanding of cultural and societal
experiences” and “Learn through simulations and role-plays” as potential benefits for
learners (N MC, 2007, p. 19). The report specifically mentioned foreign language learning
in areas 2, 3, and 6 with the benefits of immersion environments and the potential for
studying foreign languages and cultures. The report offered a positive outlook for online
education in general and a plethora of direct applications for language learning in
particular.

Turning back to the scholarly debate of technology applications for German language
learning and teaching, UP offers a long list of articles; too long to be dissected within the
context of this study. A short overview shall suffice to underscore the importance this
area has taken in German Studies. A more detailed discussion of hybrid language
courses, focusing on the debate in technology-related journals such as CA LICO and
ReCALL, will be presented in Chapter 2.3.

UP has followed the major shifts in technology applications: From laboratory work in
the late 19605 (Horvay, 1968) to detailed discussions of the challenges and benefits of

computer-assisted instruction in the 19705 until the earlyl9905 (Grundlehner, 1974;

30

Balser & Blice, 1978; Park, 1984; Jorgensen, 1984; Wazel, 1988; Fraser, 1993) to more
recent trends in computer-assisted language learning focusing on web-based applications
(see Pusack, 1997 and Tschirner, 1997 for an overview). Online modules have focused on
integration of literature (Fraser, 1999; King, 2000), culture (Kassouf, 2000; Hasty, 2006;
Schueller, 2007), grammar (Alm-Lequeux, 2001; Bohlke, 2003b), reading and writing
(Schaumann, 2001; High, Hoyer, & Wakefield, 2002), and business German (Carstens-
Wickharn, 2001). These articles speak of the accomplishments of instructional

technology in language classes and programs; however, research on speaking and

listening skills falls short.

2.2.2 Learners in the Digital Age: Digital Natives and Digital Divides

Today’s students are generally assumed to be computer-savvy “digital natives” (Cini &

Vilic, 1999; Facer & Furlong, 2001; Spodark, 2001). In describing the current generation

of learners, Prensky (2001), who coined the term “digital natives,” noted that
[t]hey have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers,
videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys
and tools of the digital age. Today’s average college grads have spent less than
5,000 hours of their lives reading, but over 10,000 hours playing video games (not
to mention 20,000 hours watching TV). Computer games, email, the Internet, cell
phones and instant messaging are integral parts of their lives. Our students
today are all “native speakers” of the digital language of computers, video games
and the Internet. (p. 1)

In order to reach these learners, Prensky (2005) argued that we need to actively engage

them through the use of digital technology. However, two practical implications pose

problems for the implementation of online technologies in and outside the classroom.

Already in the mid 19905, the Clinton-Gore administration warned about a “digital

divide” (Gore, 1996) that rests on economic, educational, social, geographical, and ethnic

31

reasons (Web-based Education Commission, 2000; K. Williams, 2001). Statistical data
provided by the US Census Bureau (2001) and the US Department of Commerce (Cooper
& Victory, 2002) underscored the existence of the digital divide in terms of access to
computers and the Internet.2 ' Secondly, Attewell (2001) argUed that access or lack
thereof only formed one half of the divide. The second digital divide he saw in computer
use and literacy: Simply having computer access did not necessarily translate into
academic success. Recent studies by Messineo and DeOllos (2005), Foster (2006), and
Winke and Goertler (2008) emphasized that today’s college students indeed lack
computer literacy. Messineo and DeOllos focused on college students’ self-perceived
computer skills (N=233) and found that while they felt comfortable using computers for
personal use such as email and word processing, their comfort-level for course-related
tasks was lower, particularly for advanced applications such as online homework
submission or online courses. Foster reported that ICT (information and communication
technology) test results of 3,800 college students and high school seniors yielded only
13% of them as “information literate,” which she defined as having “the skills needed to
retrieve, analyze, and communicate information available online” (A36). Winke and
Goertler’s study of 911 college students enrolled in foreign language classes revealed that
while 98% owned one or more computers, other hardware that might be required for
online learning such as microphones or web cams were difficult to come by. Similarly to
Messineo and DeOllos’ findings, their study revealed that advanced computer tasks such
as typing in non-English characters, making sound recordings, uploading a video

recording, or developing and maintaining a web site were rated as difficult.

 

2’ Access to technological resources including computers and the Internet increased with household
income. Only 28% of households with less than $25,000 annual income had access to a computer and only
19% of these households had Internet access.

32

Due to the ubiquity of information and communications technologies and documented
benefits in terms of language learning and teaching, many language departments across
the country choose to combine online learning with traditional classroom instruction,
resulting in hybrid or blended course designs. The following Section will provide an
overview of current issues and research in hybrid language education, which will serve as

a backdrop upon which the present study was developed.

2.3 Hybrid Language Education
Hybrid instruction denotes a carefully planned blend of both traditional classroom
instruction and online learning activities, combining the best of both styles of
instruction.22 Such courses still offer the crucial face-to-face interaction with instructors
and other students (particularly important for foreign language courses) but reduce seat
time at the institution and therefore expenses for reserving classrooms by moving parts of
the learning process online.

According to the definition by the Sloan-Consortium (2003), courses are considered
hybrid when between 30 to 79% of the content is delivered online. Cross (2006)
cautioned that providing such percentages of instructional style combinations are mere
oversimplifications because

[b]lended learning can take place while waiting in line at the grocery store or
taking the bus home. Its ingredients may be courses, content chunks, instant
messaging pings, blog feedback, or many other things. Interaction is the glue that
holds all these pieces together. Interaction comes in many forms, not just learner

and instructor, but also leamer-to-content, learner-to-leamer, and learner-to-
infrastructure. (p. xix)

 

22 In Europe, the term “blended learning” is generally used to refer to the concept of hybrid instruction in
the US. In the context of this study, the terms are used synonymously without distinguishing between the
different processes and behaviors entailed in learning vs. teaching.

33

This already entails two of the major features and often-cited advantages of hybrid
education: flexibility and interaction. Described as “the single-greatest unrecognized
trend in higher education today” (Young, 2002, p. A33), this delivery method is rapidly
gaining popularity in US higher education.

In 2007, the Sloan-Consortium reported on a three-year study of hybrid education in
the US. Between 2002 and 2005, the number of hybrid course offerings remained stable
with 55% of over 1,000 institutions offering at least one hybrid course. In terms of
disciplines, penetration rates of hybrid offerings in Fall 2003 in the field ofLiberal Arts
and Sciences, General Studies, Humanities (47.8%) exceeded those of online offerings by
7.6% and marked the second highest percentage rate of hybrid offerings besides Business
(47.9%). Figure 2 compares the two different delivery formats (online vs. hybrid).

It is interesting to note how equal the distribution is across disciplines, with hybrid
offerings outnumbering online offerings. In the same year, institutional responses to the
question whether hybrid courses hold more promise than online courses were in favor of
hybrid education: 67.4% indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with this statement
(Sloan-C, 2003). Unfortunately, there are no detailed descriptions of the individual
disciplines that would allow deeper insights into the exact number of available hybrid

foreign or second language courses.

34

Figure 2
Hybrid vs. Online Offerings by Discipline in Fall 2003

50% ..,._..,,_.._ .2 .. W. . ._..._ ,. . ._ E ... .._. LA _ ._. .-...,_. w. W...“ .__W

40%

30%

20%

10% .

 

 

 

0%
‘5 Ca ‘\ -—~ i‘-: .‘e
. .06? . "Qv ‘\\C\ ‘0Q V6 \06; \\
a . ~\" ~‘ g“ \ o c
. c. u A \
0 b x) \2; S“ o C;
9 0‘ b ‘0 "CC GD \
e s o s~ 5o
65: ($9 ‘90
a N c
O \x

Note. This graph compares program penetration rates for online and hybrid offerings from Fall 2003 based
on information from the 2007 Sloan-C report.

Goertler and Winke’s Opening Doors through Distance Language Education: Principles,
Perspectives, and Practices (2008a) is, to my knowledge, the only source of information
for enrollment data for hybrid language courses. Survey results of 39 Midwestern
universities revealed that only 8% of programs offered hybrid courses (which they
defined as having between 30-90% online content delivery), while 38% of programs
implemented online assignments that did not, however, replace face-to-face time. The
volume also offers discussions of existing hybrid courses (Kraemer, 2008a), the role of
the teacher (Wildner-Bassett, 2008), teacher training (Sénchez-Serrano, 2008), and the
effectiveness of technology-enhanced foreign language teaching (Goertler & Winke,

2008b). Along with White’s Language Learning in Distance Education (2003), these

35

volumes are invaluable resources for language educators who wish to design, implement,

and assess hybrid courses.

2.3.1 Benefits of Hybrid Language Education
Many scholars have discussed the benefits of technology for language teaching (see Liu,
Moore, Graham, & Lee, 2003 and Goertler & Winke, 2008a for an overview). The
following examples represent a short and by no means exhaustive list of recurring
advantages, based on which the present study was developed.
Bymes pointed out in her 1996 summary report on the future of German in American
education that:
[i]n contrast with the past, the technology available now inherently shifts the
emphasis from teaching to student learning, opening up new roles for learners and
teachers alike, and inviting a reconsideration not only of the process of learning,
but also of the kind of learning deemed to be crucial for responsible and
rewarding citizenship in an American democracy in the twenty-first century. (p.
254)
She recommends considering technology “not merely as an optional add-on but as
potentially reshaping the entire language-learning construct (more individualized,
student-centered learning, access to on-line information, task-based learning, interactive
linked learning with native speakers of German, distance learning in areas where German
programs can otherwise not be supported, language maintenance, specialized programs)”
(p. 257). These benefits echo those listed by Quinn (1990), who described the benefits of
computer-assisted language learning as follows:
it increases student interest, promotes retention of the subject matter while
substantially reducing the time needed for instruction, and lightens the burden for
both teacher and student by providing individualized, self-paced instruction.

Overall, microcomputers reduce the time needed to do our work, help improve the
quality of what we produce, and allow us to be more creative. As a result, they

36

give us more time to perform the tasks that teachers do better than machines. For
instance, they can “humanize” our classes by allowing us more opportunities to
provide individual attention for our students. (pp. 297-98)
More recently, Hokanson (2000) noted “classtime flexibility, cost savings, remote access,
and flexible program sequencing” (p. 85) as well as student-centeredness, increased
control, effective communication, immediacy of feedback, tracking of student records,
and greater learning as advantages of online language learning. Connecting to the
ACTFL Standards (1999) and the five areas of language competency, she wrote:
There are more ways to include activities germane to these areas than with
traditional use of textbooks and chalkboards. “Communication” activities include
e-mail, listservs, and chatrooms employed for genuine exchange of ideas with
others via the target language. usually about “Culture” facts and ideas.
Communicative activities make “Connections” with other subject areas...
“Comparisons” between the native and the target languages and cultures are
frequent in such an activity... “Community,” language learning directly from
contact with a community of target language speakers or the sharing of target
language projects with local, non-target-language communities... (p. 88)
Felix (2001) investigated students’ perspectives of the web’s potential for language
learning, yielding similar results: Reported advantages were time flexibility, wealth of
information, reinforcement of learning, privacy, ability to repeat exercises, gaining
computer literacy, and the absence of the teacher.

Gannon’s (2004) list of benefits of hybrid courses (even though from a psychology
rather than a language learning perspective) included “flexibility, independence, and
convenience. In addition, the hybrid course offers numerous opportunities for active
learning to be introduced in both the classroom and online environments” (p. 253).

One of the underlying commonalities in all these descriptions is the shift away from

the teacher and toward the learner. This shift in classroom practices denotes a general

37

change in educational approaches across disciplines in the new millennium, as described

by Chute, Thompson and Hancock (1999, p. 206):

Twentieth-Century Learning Twenty-first-Century Learning
(Instructor-Centered) (Learner-Centered)

Lecture Facilitation

Individual Learning Team Learning

Student as Listener Student as Collaborator
Instructor as Source Instructor as Guide

Stable Content Dynamic Content
Homogeneity Diversity

Evaluation and Testing Performance

Online technologies are a perfect match to accommodate twenty-first century learning, as
outlined above, and to address today’s students’ interests and needs. Of particular
relevance for language educators is that placing students at center-stage and providing
active and interactive ways to engage with course materials and with each other can
enhance language acquisition:

The optimal role for language learners is active. It is through active participation

in thinking and using the target language that the opportunity for language

' acquisition is maximized. Examination of learning contexts where computers are

used to enable and support student-centered tasks reveals that features of task and

medium in consort contribute to optimal, active student engagement. (Meskill,
1999, p. 144)

In addition to active engagement, the implementation of technology can increase
students’ responsibility and accountability, as Pederson and D. Williams (2004) noted:
“Essential to student-centered approaches is student ownership of their goals and
activities. Because students make decisions about which actions to take to meet their
goals, their work is meaningful to them, a condition that encourages depth of

understanding and an intrinsic motivational orientation” (p. 284).

38

We can summarize the following benefits from these descriptions: Online
technologies offer a student-centered and flexible approach for language learning. In
particular, such technologies encourage

(1) different learning styles
0 individualized and self-paced learning
0 active and engaged learning
0 interactive and collaborative learning
° task-based learning
0 reinforcement of learning (e.g., through the ability to repeat exercises)
(2) different learner types
0 student interests
0 creativity
0 privacy
0 convenience
(3) skill building
0 language skills
0 time management
0 problem-solving
° critical-thinking
- computer literacy
(4) access
0 to a plethora of (authentic) materials and native speakers

0 to education for non-traditional student groups

39

(5) instructional features
0 time efficiency
0 immediate feedback
0 increased control
- tracking of student records
- humanized instruction
(6) outcomes
0 improved quality
0 greater learning and retention
0 citizenship

0 cost savings

increased enrollments
(7) connection to the ACTFL Standards.

By combining the best features of online technologies with face-to-face interaction, we
can create a perfect blend of instructional methods that maximize learning outcomes: “a
thoughtful integration of distance learning techniques, judiciously selected and
implemented by knowledgeable foreign language teachers will accomplish the
pedagogical goals that promote overall successful language learning for the largest
number of students” (Spodark, 2001, p. 1207).

The listed benefits are also instrumental in addressing the challenges that language
programs today are faced with, as outlined at the beginning of this chapter (i.e., filled
classrooms, a diverse body of learners, the need for global communication and computer

skills, implementation of authentic materials, and the integration of academic content

40

with linguistic skills). Larger student numbers can be accommodated at reduced costs
when moving portions of instructional time online. The interactive and student-centered
nature of online tools can also increase the amount of exposure to and engagement with
class materials, particularly increasing communicative language skills and advancing
language development. In addition, the Internet offers a plethora of authentic materials
that can be implemented as part of a hybrid component. Lastly, the problem of
articulation can be alleviated by developing a smooth sequence of courses that integrate
literature, culture, and language from the beginning, which can be supported by online
technologies. However, all that glitters is not gold and hybrid education carries some
inherent problems that need to be resolved. These will be briefly outlined in the following

section.

2. 3.2 Challenges of Hybrid Language Education
Recent research has identified various areas of improvement that require thorough
consideration on behalf of language educators and practitioners. Among the most widely
cited difficulties are:
(1) Lack of training for students and teachers in using technologies (Barrette,
2001; Quinn, 1990; Se’rnchez—Serrano, 2008).
(2) Ambiguous instructions and lack of clarity about hardware and software
requirements (Rivera, McAlister, & Rice, 2002).
(3) Technical problems, accessibility to the lntemet, and lack of web support
(Hara & Kling, 1999; Harker & Koutsantoni, 2005; Sampson, 2003;

Stracke, 2007).

41

(4) Sustaining learner motivation (Strambi & Bouvet, 2003).
(5) Hidden costs (Davis, 1998; Valentine, 2002).
(6) Time in planning and implementation (Davis. 1998; Web-based Education
Commission, 2000).
(7) Lack of speaking practice and inadequate feedback (Blake, 2008; Felix,
2001)
(8) Questionable effects on foreign language proficiency (Sanders, 2005).
While none of these problems have been completely resolved to date, some appear to be
addressed more easily than others. The first area of difficulty can be solved by providing
solid training options for everyone involved in hybrid language learning and teaching in a
timely manner: For teachers, that means before a hybrid course is implemented, which
will enable them to anticipate problems and trouble-shoot in case an application
malfunctions; for students, that means at the onset of a hybrid course. The second
problem is a mere lapse in transparency. In online environments, particularly for
asynchronous tasks, it is of utmost importance to provide learners with explicit and
detailed information about course requirements and expectations because the absence of
face-to-face interaction diminishes the opportunity to ask questions and receive
immediate answers.

Just as in any other teaching context, it is important to have a contingency plan in
case technology fails and to allow for more flexible due dates of online assignments.
Most postsecondary institutions require incoming freshmen to own a personal computer
and dormitories are generally equipped with Ethernet access, which should provide equal

access to course materials. For nontraditional students, alternatives need to be sought.

42

When portions of face-to-face instruction are moved online, a higher degree of
independent study, self-discipline, and motivation are needed. The question of how to
sustain learner motivation in online environments is still debated. A possible solution
might be to cater to different learning styles and learner types and to address topics that
are of immediate interest and relevance to our student body (Felix, 2001).

While costs for hardware might be an initial burden for institutions and students alike,
there are potential continuing costs for maintenance and upgrades. Also, the cost of
human capital is often underestimated in hybrid and distance education. This area is
directly tied to problem six, time in planning and implementation. As mentioned earlier,
the creation of courses with online components can take anywhere from 66% to 500%
more time than creating traditional courses and new materials need to be piloted and
revised before they can be successfully implemented (Barrette, 2008).

Problems seven and eight appear to be particularly troublesome for language
educators, especially against the backdrop of the ACTFL Standards. Inadequate
provision of feedback seems to be just a negligence that should be resolved easily.
Implementation of online oral practice and its effects on language learning, however, is
an area that has not been much researched (Barr, Leakey, & Ranchoux, 2005; Liu et al.,
2003). In fact, most of the existing research on computer—assisted language learning has
been in the area of reading and writing (for comprehensive reviews of existing research
see Liu et al, 2003; Grgurovié, 2007). The present study tries to address this gap by
focusing on opportunities for oral language development in advanced-level German

content COUI‘SCS.

43

Questionable effects on written proficiency were found in a study conducted by
Sanders (2005). His study will be addressed in the following section, along with other
recent empirical studies that specifically investigated hybrid language learning in US

higher education.

2. 3.3 Empirical Studies in Hybrid Language Education
In the most extensive CALL database of its kind, Grgurovic’ listed 86 studies conducted
between 1972 and 2006 that compared the “effectiveness of computer-assisted pedagogy
with other modes of instruction” and also distinguished these studies by skill/knowledge
areas (i.e., grammar, pronunciation, reading, vocabulary, writing, communication, and
integrated skills).23 The database contains 25 comparison studies on hybrid learning, 22
of which were conducted in college settings.24 Overall results of these studies suggest that
hybrid courses are as effective, if not more effective than traditional face-to-face settings.
Of the 22 hybrid studies in college settings, three studies were conducted in the field
of German. One focused on grammar and vocabulary knowledge (Teichert, 1985), one on
learner strategies, attitudes, and achievement scores (Kunz, 1998), and one on integrated
skills (Green & Youngs, 2001). The first two studies found significant differences in
favor of the hybrid groups, while the comparison groups in Green and Youngs performed
similarly. Of all 22 hybrid studies, only two addressed the language skill communication:
Ibarz and Monaghan (2000) investigated e-mail communication of beginning—level

Spanish learners and found positive effects for the hybrid group. Payne and Whitney

 

23 For earlier CALL surveys, see Levy (1997) and Liu et al. (2003).

24 While Grgurovié does not claim that her database includes all relevant studies on the topic, it is
interesting to note that she did not mention Sanders’ 2005 study, probably because it was published in the
Foreign Language Annals and not in any of the journals specifically dedicated to research in technology
and language learning.

44

(2002) examined oral proficiency development in chatrooms in third-semester Spanish
courses and found significant differences for the hybrid group on speaking performance
tests. None of the hybrid studies addressed pronunciation. Once again, a lack in research
investigating oral language skills, particularly in advanced-level courses becomes
apparent. This lack is consistent in non-comparison studies that focus on hybrid foreign
language course offerings. A few studies that were not included in Grgurovié’s database
will be addressed in the following.

Harker and Koutsantoni (2005) reported on retention, achievement, and student
satisfaction in hybrid and online learning contexts in English for Academic Purposes
courses. Results indicated higher retention and higher achievement levels in the hybrid
option as well as higher levels of commitment and motivation. They concluded that face-
to-face contact is crucial in language learning and that a blended context offers the best
environment for maximum success. Leakey and Ranchoux (2006) came to the same
conclusion. While students in a first-year French course preferred the hybrid model to
traditional classrooms, 68.8% of them felt a “real need” (p. 367) to have a combination of
both settings.

Stracke (2007) also investigated retention in hybrid courses. Her case study discussed
the reasons why three students had dropped out of first-year hybrid French and Spanish
courses: lack of support, lack of traditional media types, and rejection of technology as a
medium. While Stracke’s study was very small in scale, the results emphasize the need to
address the challenges of hybrid education discussed above in order to develop successful

hybrid language offerings.

45

Das Neves Seesink’s (2007) case study of six Intensive English Program students
investigated their perceptions of hybrid language learning environments that focused on
vocabulary, in particular collocations. Results revealed a lack of commitment to working
online because students did not perceive the online assignments as integral to the course.
Whenever portions of face-to-face instruction are moved online, it is crucial that they are
not mere add-ons but that they are integrated well into the course as a whole and that
students can make connections between learning online and learning in class.

Barr et al. (2005) represents one of the few recent studies on oral development in
hybrid education. Addressing the dearth of research in this area, they argued that
“technology for oral language development has posed the greatest challenge to both
hardware and software developers” (p. 56). In addition, implementing and evaluating oral
practice online can be very time-consuming for teachers. Their study of first-year French
students in a hybrid approach revealed that the traditional group made more progress than
the hybrid group in terms of fluency, content, and grammar. Particularly the last area was
surprising and the authors suggested that apart from the short duration of the whole study,
the hybrid group first needed to take some time to get used to the new learning
environment, while the traditional group was already on task. Initial problems with using
the voice recording equipment may have also negatively influenced students’ attitudes
toward the entire hybrid experience. Once again, this speaks to the crucial position proper
training and support take in a hybrid learning context.

Goertler and Winke (2008b) compared six reports on program overhauls where
language departments moved from face-to-face instruction to web-enhanced, hybrid, or

online courses. Two of these six overhauls were outside the US. Of the remaining four,

46

three curricula were changed into hybrid formats: Beginning Spanish at Portland State
University (Sanders, 2005), beginning and intermediate French and Spanish at Carnegie
Mellon University (Chenoweth, Ushida, & Murday, 2006), and beginning Spanish at
University of Virginia (Scida & Saury, 2006).

The first-year hybrid Spanish courses at Portland State University replaced 50% of
face-to-face time (two of four class sessions) with multi-modal online activities
(including WebCT Chat and Discussion Board activities). Sanders (2005) reported
overall positive results (i.e., enrollment increase, class size and seat time reduction,
institutional cost reduction, instructor pay increase) and Portland serves as a stellar
example of streamlining in-class and online activities to offer the students the most
efficient, interactive, engaging, and effective way of language learning and teaching.25
Overall, the redesign maintained student achievement outcomes, however, as mentioned
above, Sanders found a significant difference in written proficiency between the
traditional and the hybrid group, where the former outperformed the latter. As possible
explanation, he offered that “[rjeduced seat time may have influenced lower proficiency
scores in the redesign” (p. 530). He continued to address one of the limitations of the
study that may have led to these negative results in written proficiency:

While most of the “traditional” instructors had 2 or more years prior experience
teaching Spanish as a foreign language, all 9 instructors for the experimental
courses had only 1 year or less prior experience. It seems reasonable that an 86%
decrease in instructor experience would have an effect on proficiency outcomes.
Employing experienced, part-time instructors the last year of traditional
instruction may have contributed to high base-line proficiency outcomes. (p. 530)

As this quote entails, the traditional courses were taught by experienced part-time

instructors as well as experienced and inexperienced graduate teaching assistants. The

 

25 For a more detailed discussion of the Portland project, see Kraemer (2008a).

47

redesigned course model, however, was taught exclusively by inexperienced graduate
teaching assistants, which may have contributed to the lower proficient scores more so
than the reduced seat time. It seems, then, that the issue of proficiency can be effectively
addressed by employing experienced instructors who can giVe adequate feedback in both
spoken and written formats.

At Carnegie Mellon University, traditional beginning and intermediate French and
Spanish courses met 4 and 3 times per week respectively for 50 minutes each. All hybrid
courses met one hour per week as a class and students attended individual face-to-face
tutoring sessions once a week for 20 minutes. The remaining face-to-face time was
replaced with multi-modal online activities (including WebCT Chat and Discussion
Board activities). Chenoweth et al. (2006)26 reported overall comparable results in terms
of effectiveness for all language skills for the traditional and the hybrid design. Of
particular interest to the present study are the positive results that were found for two
hybrid courses (beginning French and intermediate Spanish), where students
outperformed offline students in oral production scores. They cautioned, however, that
such comparisons “need to be interpreted carefully because this was not a controlled
study in which we could randomly assign students to courses (conditions) and have the
same teacher teach both sections (a way to control for teacher effects)” (p. 128).

Students in the hybrid courses reported frustrations with online materials and
technological problems, however, as the courses progressed, they became more familiar
with the structure of the course and the materials. Lack of technology support was

another recurring problem in the hybrid courses that led to frustrations for both students

 

26 See also Murday, Ushida, and Chenoweth (2008) for a further discussion of the Carnegie Mellon project.

48

and instructors. Both these problems can be addressed by providing continuing general
guidance for everyone involved in the learning and teaching process.

Overall, students made similar progress in both course options across languages and
levels, which the authors described as “extremely encouraging since they provide support
for alternative delivery methods for courses that often are unavailable to students with
schedule conflicts” (p. 132).

The first-year hybrid Spanish courses at University of Virginia replaced 40% of face-
to-face time (two of five class sessions) with multi-modal online activities (including
Mallard27 grammar and vocabulary drills). Scida and Saury (2006) reported overall
positive results in terms of enrollment increases, class size reductions, and modest gains
in language skills compared to traditional courses. While the main goal of the hybrid
redesign was resource management, the hybrid courses also aimed to “improve student
mastery of the language and to offer the instructor more resources and means to reach
students with different learning needs or who simply wanted (or needed) more practice
with grammar and vocabulary” (p. 521). Results indicated that students felt a positive
impact of the hybrid module on their learning, which particularly resulted in higher levels
of confidence in using vocabulary in-class. The redesign also opened up more time to
focus on communicative activities in class, as grammar and vocabulary studies were
moved online and students were better prepared for face-to-face sessions. Overall, Scida
and Saury concluded that “through the implementation of a hybrid course, we have

actually achieved close to the ideal teaching and learning scenario in language

 

27 Mallard is a course management system similar to ANGEL or WebCT.

49

acquisition, guiding students to master form, structure, grammar, and vocabulary, while
also being able to speak, read, and write with greater fluency” (pp. 527-28).

These three examples of successful language program overhauls and the other studies
discussed above attest to the outlined benefits and possibilities that hybrid education has
in store for language learning and teaching. All of them, however, focused on lower-level
language courses, predominantly in the Romance languages. To my knowledge, no
reports on hybrid program overhauls in German have been published and research on the
use of hybrid instruction in upper-level courses is lacking. It seems like not much has
changed since 1990, when Quinn noted that “CALL experiments have concentrated on
students in introductory classes” (1990, p. 306), or since 2000, when “very little reference
has been made to the role of computer technology in oral language development” (Barr et
al,2005,p.55)

In order to address these gaps, my dissertation investigates opportunities for the
continuing development of linguistic skills, particularly speaking, in fourth-year German
content courses and student perceptions of the effects of technology in the language
learning context. It follows the suggestion by Polio and Zyzik (in press) to offer hybrid
courses that combine the teaching of academic content and linguistic skills. The research
design and methodology employed in their study served as a guideline for this
dissertation and detailed comparisons will be drawn in the following chapters. Chapter 3
will illustrate the institutional context in which the pilot study and the hybrid study were

conducted and will offer a description of the research paradigm.

50

CHAPTER 3

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Context
The German Studies Program at Michigan State University (MSU) is home to a robust
undergraduate program. In the academic year 2007/08, 30 students were German primary
majors, 41 students had German as their secondary major, and 11 students were enrolled
in dual degree programs. In the same year, 336 students were enrolled in first-year
language classes, 280 students in second-year language classes, 144 students in third-year
courses, and 102 students in fourth-year courses (MSU, 2007).
Housed in the Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African
Languages, German Studies “seeks to serve all undergraduate and graduate students in
their acquisition of the German language and of critical knowledge about the cultures of
German-speaking countries in their historical context” (MSU, 2008). As part of a land-
grant institution, the program sees its responsibilities, among others, in
Infusing our instruction with methods and content that help students achieve the
following humanistic goals:

to make meaning out of information;

to manage technology in the acquisition and processing of knowledge;

to be open to new learning and diverse ideas;

to develop a sympathetic imagination;

to assume responsibility for one’s thoughts and actions;

to communicate one’s ideas, values, beliefs, and imagination to others;

to form reasonable judgments after considering facts and opinion;
to understand the value of independent and collaborative work habits.

“$999919!"

The integrated undergraduate curriculum offers a sequence of courses in language,
culture, and literature. Lower-level courses follow an integrated communicative approach

and focus on German language, civilization, and culture for first-year students and on the

51

development of all language skills with an emphasis on reading and writing for second-
year students. These courses fulfill standard college language requirements. First-year
courses are usually taught by teaching assistants who are graduate students in the
program. Second-year courses are taught predominantly by visiting assistant professors
and, depending on the number of sections, by advanced graduate students and tenure-
track faculty. The majority of undergraduate students who go beyond second-year
courses are those majoring in German.

Offerings in third-year German include advanced language courses, business German,
oral communication, and content courses on the historical, social, and cultural
developments in the German-speaking world before and after 1918. F ourth-year courses
include advanced language and grammar, linguistic analysis of German, and a variety of
literature and culture courses including 18th and 19th century literature, 20’h century and
contemporary literature, cultural history, and special topics courses.

Even though the mission statement specifically mentions the use of technology for
acquisition and processing of knowledge, it has not been consistently integrated as a core
component of the undergraduate curriculum.28 Individual undertakings and research
projects are exceptions. In an effort to address the lack of suitable textbooks and teaching
materials for second-year German, the program had obtained 33 wireless laptops29 and
piloted web-enhanced course modules in fall 2002. The modules were not implemented
in subsequent semesters because the pilot phase had not yielded exceedingly positive

results in terms of instructional methods, content, learning outcomes, and participant

 

28 Most courses use ANGEL, MSU’s course management system, to post information online, however, few
courses go beyond this use of web-based technologies.

29 These wireless laptops were obtained as part of an MSU grant project by two former Ph.D. students,
Cate Brubaker and Elizabeth Priester, who studied the implementation of Internet technology in the second-
year German language classroom. Portions of their findings are published in Brubaker and Priester (2007).

52

feedback. While the modules certainly had potential, the German Studies Program did not
have sufficient resources to revise them and it was deemed easiest to go back to a
traditional textbook approach. In summer 2004, data were collected on student
perceptions of technology applications for language learning, particularly speaking, as
part of a larger study on portfolio assessment in a second-year language course (Kraemer,
2005). Students reported that the online activities were meaningful because they were
task-based and provided additional contextualized language practice. The majority of the
students felt that their speaking abilities improved because of the online modules. Other
technology-enhanced instructional practices of individual professors have included
electronic feedback on composition assignments in third-year courses and video
recordings of face-to-face lectures in fourth-year linguistic courses that allowed students
to revisit the lectures later.

Since 2007, language faculty across departments in the College of Arts and Letters
have been studying the benefits of lower-level hybrid language courses, particularly in
Spanish where hybrid courses have been implemented for multiple years. Pilot studies in
second-year German are currently being conducted to evaluate the effectiveness for
language development. No advanced-level courses in German, however, have taken a
hybrid approach. In order to provide a systematic evaluation of an advanced-level hybrid
course in terms of participant perceptions and effects on (oral) language development,
hybrid course modules were piloted in a fourth-year course on 18th and 19th century
German literature to test format, content, and outcomes. Based on the results, a hybrid
course was developed and data on participant perspectives were collected throughout its

implementation.

53

3.2 Research Paradigm

The primary criterion for designing a research study is the appropriateness of the
methodology (Patton, 2002). For the present study, a qualitative research paradigm was
selected. Only in recent years has qualitative research become a more established and
accepted paradigm for language-related inquiries (Felix, 2005; Duff, 2008). The
quantitative-qualitative research distinction has relegated qualitative studies as inferior to
quantitative ones due to their subjective and ungeneralizable nature (Nunan, 1992).
However, scholars in hybrid language education have pointed out the importance of
student attitudes for enhancing future practices:

the influences that shape the learners’ perception of CALL emanate from their

experience gained from learning with a combination of CALL and FtF teaching.

On the basis of this experience, learners develop attitudes towards learning with

the assistance of computer technology that is highly influential on the future of

CALL. (Neumeier, 2005, p. 163; see also Felix, 2001 and Stracke, 2007)
Only through qualitative measures can we come to a deeper understanding of student
perceptions and can in turn improve teaching methods and outcomes. For the field of
German, Andress et al. (2002) noted that it is crucial to “pay careful attention to what
motivates students when they appear in our programs” (p. 5). I would extend this notion
and argue that it is equally important to maintain students’ interests and motivation
throughout their language learning experience in college. In-depth qualitative inquiries
will provide a better picture of student attitudes toward and motivations for language
learning and will shed light on promises and challenges of hybrid course formats.

The complexity and heterogeneity of student learning require not only diverse forms

of student work, but also multiple methods of assessment (Maki, 2004). This, in turn,

means that we need to offer students “additional and more diverse opportunities to

54

succeed” (Andress et al., 2002, p. 6) and technology can assist teachers in offering “a
broader repertoire of activities and assessments” (Andress et al., 2002, p. 6). Studies in
CALL have found that online technologies increase the number of opportunities for
students to produce output and can motivate students more due to the student-centered
format (Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995a; Warschauer, 1996). In addition, technologies can
facilitate instructors in gathering multiple sources of student work, including
contextualized real-life tasks, and in assessing progress longitudinally in a way that also
allows students to self-monitor their progress, taking performance abilities as well as
complex cognitive tasks into account (Darling-Hammond & Ancess, 1996).

In addressing the lack of qualitative research in hybrid language education
(Neumeier, 2005), this study followed a case study approach that explored opportunities
for the continuing development of linguistic skills in the context of a content course as
well as participant perspectives of the effects of technology in the language learning
context. Case studies have been a common research method in the social sciences for
decades (Yin, 2003) and have also become popular in applied linguistics and second
language acquisition (Duff, 2008). They are characterized by key principles such as
“boundedness or singularity, in—depth study, multiple perspectives or triangulation,
particularity, contextualization, and interpretation” (Duff, 2008, p. 23). This study can be
classified as both a descriptive and exploratory study. Descriptive studies set out to
“answer[] ‘What?’ questions” while exploratory studies “formulate new research
questions” (Duff, 2008, p. 101).

The case study guidelines put forth by TESOL (“TESOL,” n.d.) and Duff‘s (2008)

recommendations for applied linguistics case studies formed the basis of the study

55

design. Following these guidelines, my study seeks to identify important patterns and
themes in the data and to explain the findings in a descriptive, interpretive, and inductive
manner. The analytic process inherent in interpretive research involves repeated testing
and revision of preliminary assertions against the entire body of data (Contreras-
McGavin & Kezar, 2007) until those assertions can account for all the data presented.
This follows the tradition of case studies in the field of education where emphasis is
placed on “issues such as learners’ and teachers’ identities, skill development and its
consequences for learners, teachers’ professional development experiences, and the
implementation of language policies” (“TESOL,” n.d.).

Providing sufficient detail and contextualization are crucial elements in qualitative
research (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993). This chapter has presented a detailed description of
the institutional context. Chapters 4 and 5 will provide detailed information on the
courses in which the pilot study and the hybrid study were conducted, the participants,
data collection procedures, treatment instruments, and data analysis procedures.
Addressing the issues of validity and credibility of conclusions, the study design involved
persistent observation over an extended period of time, triangulation across data sources,
and the use of transparent analytic methods. These issues will be discussed in more detail
in the following two chapters. Due to the small sample size, generalizations or inferences
can and should not be drawn, but rather a model and principles are proposed that other
researchers should consider when undertaking similar projects.

Chapter 4 will describe the pilot study that tested short-term hybrid modules in a
fourth-year German course. It includes information on the course, the participants, data

collection procedures, treatment instruments, and data analysis procedures. The chapter

56

closes with a discussion of the results, based on which a hybrid course was developed and

implemented the following semester.

57

CHAPTER 4

PILOT STUDY

To better understand what is happening in the advanced German classroom and how an
integrated, hybrid approach of content and language might influence learners and
learning outcomes, I observed a fourth-year German course and designed and piloted
short-term hybrid modules to test format, content, and outcomes. Of particular interest
were possible ways to address oral language development by providing students with
multiple opportunities to create more language output without taking away from course
content. Participants’ engagement with the hybrid modules was tracked online and their
perceptions were collected in a pre-post-treatment design.

This chapter describes the pilot study that followed a qualitative case study approach
(Yin, 2003; Duff, 2008). It offers information on the course, the participants, data
collection procedures, treatment instruments, and data analysis procedures. The chapter
closes with a discussion of the results, based on which a hybrid course was developed and

implemented the following semester.

4.] Course
GRM 435: 18th and 19’h Century German Literary Studies is a fourth—year content course
that focuses on the representations of cultural identity, social issues, and intellectual
debates through literature and other texts before 1919. In the spring semester during
which the pilot study was conducted, the course topic was Biederrneier and Vorméirz

1815-1848. The goals of the course as listed on the syllabus were:

58

1. To gain an understanding of the period and some of the significant literary
texts.

2. To improve German skills (reading, speaking, and writing) through interaction
with these authentic cultural texts.

3. To develop critical thinking skills by asking new and appropriate questions
about this period. How can we re-evaluate the texts to gain new insight into
the ideas and struggles of a previous generation?30

The course followed a lecture-discussion model with heavy emphasis on reading and
writing assignments, albeit many sessions were led by individual students and were

supplemented to varying degrees with group activities and projects (see Appendix B for

complete syllabus). It was a 3-credit course that met twice a week for 80 minutes.

4.2 Participants

4. 2.! Teacher3 ’
The course was taught by a visiting professor, Gina", who had recently completed her
Ph.D. in literary and cultural studies with an emphasis on German Romanticism. Gina, a
native speaker of English, had extensive teaching experience in lower-level language
courses in US postsecondary settings, had co-taught a third-year German language course
at MSU, and had taught a variety of levels in Germany including a third-year literature
course. This was her first fourth-year course.

Gina had taken one course on teaching methods and a course on second language
acquisition as part of her graduate requirements. The rest of her graduate coursework had
focused on literary and cultural studies. She had used course management systems for

most of the courses she had taught, however, that use was restricted to posting

 

30 See Appendix B for the syllabus.
’ The descriptive information about the teacher is based on the initial interview (see Appendix C).
32 All participants were assigned pseudonyms.

59

information online and having students submit homework assignments electronically.
Gina had never taught or taken a hybrid course before but was very open to the idea of
enhancing her classroom with hybrid modules, hoping they would represent a “nice
change of pace” for her students.

When asked about her teaching style in the initial interview, Gina said that students
usually read assigned texts at home, responded to teacher-prompted questions in class,
and addressed questions in writing that challenged their critical thinking skills. Student-
led presentations on authors’ lives and presentations of critical articles in relation to the
primary texts were another major component of her regular classroom routine. Her
objectives for the course were for students to learn about the time period in question, to
learn about major literary texts produced during that time and how such texts reflected
the political and social environment, to learn how to work with and interpret literary texts
in general, and to advance their German skills, particularly reading, writing, and
communication.33 Students were mainly evaluated based on their writing assignments
(80% of final grade); only 15% of the overall grade was in connection with oral
proficiency (i.e., class participation, oral presentation, and discussion leading), however,
the majority of these assignments focused on content rather than language.”

From the beginning of the semester, Gina was very pleased with the language skills
of her students. She felt that, overall, the students had very high levels of communication
skills; only a few students had lower levels. She attributed that to the fact that these

students had not studied abroad before and had therefore had less exposure to the German

 

33 This last language-related goal is similar to the goal of the one instructor in Polio and Zyzik’s study (in
iii-85$)

The generic evaluation form for oral presentations, for example, included three sections: content,
organization, German. Out of seven subcategories, only one addressed oral language use (“Student spoke
clearly and slowly”).

6O

language and culture. Gina also addressed the articulation gap between lower-level
language and upper-level content courses as a problem for these students and speculated
that the topic of 19’h century literature may have been another reason for some students’
difficulties in the course. Despite her students’ “great language skills,” Gina mentioned
that oftentimes, students were hesitant to respond to the questions she posed in class and
that group discussions lacked engagement. She hoped that students would benefit from
the hybrid modules and that the online assignments would transfer into more engaged

classroom discourse.

4. 2. 2 Students”
Fifteen students were enrolled in the course, fourteen of which participated in the pilot
study. Of these fourteen students, five were males and nine females. Three were juniors
and eleven were seniors with an average age of 2 1. Five students had German as their
primary major, eight as secondary major, and one student took the course because he was
interested in German language and culture. On average, they had taken 6 years of
German in high school and college combined; one student was a native speaker of
German. All but two students (including the one who did not have German as a major)
had traveled to Germany before.

When asked about their rationale for taking this course, twelve students indicated that
it was a requirement and specified that they hoped to improve their understanding of the
literature and culture of the specific period and improve their German language skills,

particularly gaining speaking practice and maintaining listening, writing, and reading

 

35 The descriptive information about the students is based on the initial questionnaire (see Appendix D).

61

skills. These dual content and language learning goals were similar to the ones reported
in Polio and Zyzik’s study (in press). All students indicated that they were interested in
the German language, however, only seven students indicated that they were interested in
German literature and three of them only in modern literature. Five students specifically
stated that they were not interested in literature because it was “boring” and “difficult.”
These varied results were also similar to findings of Polio and Zyzik (in press).

In temrs of technology experience, three students indicated that they had taken online
courses before in economics, physics, and Spanish. All but one student had used
computers as part of an assignment in foreign language classes, mainly to write papers,
for web-based grammar assignments, to access online dictionaries, and to turn in
assignments. Students liked the convenience of working with computers, being able to
learn at their own pace, and the opportunity to receive immediate feedback. They disliked
the lack of speaking practice, the fact that working with computers required more self-
motivation, and the repetitive nature of certain assignments. Overall, students had a
neutral to positive attitude toward using computers in foreign language classes”; only
two students indicated that they disliked using computers because of the boring and
repetitive nature of online assignments. In terms of perceived benefits of computers and
the Internet in foreign language classrooms, students mentioned easy access to authentic
resources, the availability of listening materials and online dictionaries, and the

interactive nature of online applications.

 

36 Students were asked to rank how they felt about using computers in foreign language classes on a 5-
point Likert scale with 1 indicating strongly dislike and 5 indicating strongly like. The average response
was a 3.5, which ranked between “neutral” and “like.”

62

4.3 Data Collection Procedures

One aspect of a rigorous qualitative study is data triangulation (i.e., the collection of data

from multiple sources and using multiple methods to ensure their validity). Therefore, a

variety of data were collected from different sources.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

The instructor was interviewed on aspects pertaining to classroom practices
at the beginning of the semester. Personal information such as background,
course goals, materials/syllabus used to reach those goals, and perception of
students’ goals was also collected (Appendix C). The interview was tape-
recorded and transcribed.

I observed the classroom for one week prior to implementing the hybrid
modules to gain a better understanding of what is happening in the advanced
German literature classroom. I took detailed notes, focusing on activity and
exercise types, classroom interaction, and language use in general.

A questionnaire pertaining to classroom practices and expectations was
given to all students on the first day of classroom contact. Personal
information on backgrounds, previous language learning experiences, and
reasons for taking the course was also collected (Appendix D).

Two short-term hybrid modules were implemented that were integrated into
the regular syllabus as to not interrupt the normal dynamic of the class (see
Chapter 4.4). Student access to the modules was tracked via ANGEL and
assignments were logged online. I also observed the classroom during the

implementation of the modules and in the weeks following.

63

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

A student questionnaire pertaining to perceived differences in classroom
practices was given to all students at the end of the semester. Information
regarding improvement of language skills and content learned in the class
was also collected (Appendix E).

Two students were interviewed upon completion of the course to clarify and
elaborate on questionnaire results (Appendix F). The selection process was
based on voluntary participation. The interviews were tape-recorded and
transcribed.

Upon completion of the course, the instructor was interviewed on aspects
pertaining to classroom practices, perceptions of online versus traditional
activities, and additional topics that arose as the research progressed
(Appendix G). The interview was tape-recorded and transcribed.

Artifacts such as the syllabus, readings, assignments, and handouts used

throughout the semester were also collected.

4.4 Treatment

In the fall semester preceding the pilot study, I contacted Gina about her course and the

possibility of implementing short-term hybrid modules that would provide her students

with varied interactive and engaging opportunities to use the language online and that

would allow me to test format, content, and outcomes of the modules before designing an

entire hybrid course. She was open to the idea and we settled on class periods after

Spring Break during which I could pilot my materials. Once her syllabus was finalized,

we selected the primary text Wally, die Zweiflerin by Karl Gutzkow(1811-1878) for the

64

first hybrid module. The book is divided into three main sections, each of which was
discussed for one week (the class met twice a week for 80 minutes each). My initial
classroom observation took place during week nine and section one of Wally. I
implemented the first module during week ten (section two of Wally) and observed the
class again during the first session in week 11 (section three of Wally). The second
module focused on the primary text Die Judenbuche by Annette von Droste—Hiilshoff
(1797-1848) and stretched over class sessions in weeks 12 and 13; I also observed the
second class session in week 13. Face-to-face time was cut in half during the hybrid
modules; students met for 40 minutes per class session instead of 80 minutes and were
asked to spend the remaining time at their own convenience with the online materials that
were all available on ANGEL. Gina felt that it was important to maintain bi-weekly
contact with her students rather than meet once a week for the entire session during the
implementation phase of the hybrid modules. Also, since the modules were short-term
and introduced half way through the semester, I felt it would be best for those students
who may not have access to the necessary hard- and software to be able to spend the
remaining class time in the Language Learning Center on campus where all necessary
programs were installed.

I had interviewed Gina about her classroom practices at the beginning of the semester
and developed hybrid modules that would complement her teaching style without being
intrusive or interruptive to the normal dynamic of her course. Instead of assigning stand-
alone complex readings that were discussed in large groups and individual writing
assignments on the course topic (Gina’s normal teaching style), the first hybrid module

consisted of a set of assignments students had to complete before, during, and after

65

reading the assigned primary texts. Such a pre-, during-, and post-reading framework has

been advocated by scholars for many years because it prepares students for reading,

guides them through a text, and extend the newly acquired knowledge (Grellet, 1981;

Stoller, 1994; C. Wallace, 1992).

(1)

(2)

(3)

The pre-reading activities prepared students for the general content of the
novel and sensitized them to difficult linguistic and grammatical aspects of
the text. Second language acquisition research has shown that vocabulary
knowledge is closely related to reading abilities (e.g., Bernhardt, 1990;
Laufer, 1992; Nation & Coady, 1988; Qian, 2002; Stoller & Grabe, 1993;
Tozcu & Coady, 2004) and a large vocabulary base is necessary for
advanced university studies in a foreign language (e.g., Hazenberg &
Hulstijn, 1996). Also, vocabulary knowledge is indispensable to acquire
grammar (e.g., Ellis, 1997). Therefore, the pre-reading activities focused on
these areas.

While reading, students were asked to keep notes on certain aspects, helping
them to read purposefully and strategically and directing their attention to
relevant contextual and linguistic concepts (e.g., Grabe & Stoller, 2001).
The chapters were made available as mp3 files for students to download and
listen to while reading. This allowed students to make explicit connections
between the spoken and written form of the language (Lebauer, 2000).
Post-reading activities reviewed content and language found in the texts and

offered opportunities for online speaking practice. Similar to talking

66

journals37 that are successfully implemented at lower levels EFL/ESL
classes (Allan, 1991; Foley, 1993), online conversation and pronunciation
practice extended class time, integrated academic content and linguistic
skills, and allowed attention to accuracy while practicing fluency.
The first module was divided into two parts, based on the portions of the primary text that
had been assigned for the two class sessions in week ten. While both portions followed
the pre-, during-, post-reading framework, not all of the above activities were included in
each portion but rather a selection to allow for variety and exposure to and practice with
all language skills.38
In general, the hybrid modules were aimed at catering to different learner styles and
learning modes and enhancing students’ motivation for and enjoyment of the course
through engaging and interactive activities. Prior to their implementation, I discussed all
assignments with Gina and made modifications based on her comments, which focused
mainly on functionality issues and on content that she had deemed too difficult for her
students. I also modeled all activities in class before students had to work with them
individually and provided detailed explanations of all assignment types online in case
students encountered difficulties. In addition, students were encouraged to email me with

any questions, particularly when they could not access certain technologies or when

 

37 In talking journals, the teacher records a prompt or directions for the students, generally on individual
audiotapes, students then record their reactions, and return the tapes to their teacher, who then records
comments and/or feedback.

38 The second hybrid module focused on difficult vocabulary items in the primary text and asked students
to create a list of these words, including their definitions and examples of how the words could be used in a
sentence. The text was divided so that each student would be responsible for one section. Students had to
submit their vocabulary lists to a drop box before the text was discussed in class. Using their lists, I then
created online crossword puzzles, where students could test their vocabulary knowledge.

67

glitches recurred. I wanted to circumvent student frustrations with failing technologies
and wanted to keep students from spending hours online to complete the assignments.

Despite the fact that Gina believed that her students would “really benefit” from the
exercises, Gina decided that she would not give students credit for completing the hybrid
modules because she had not included these assignments in her syllabus and felt it was
unfair to make changes throughout the semester. This had considerable effects on the
modules and how students perceived them, as will be discussed in Chapter 4.6.

All assignments were posted on ANGEL in designated lesson folders, which would
allow me to track students’ access. For each hybrid module, individual folders were
created that contained relevant information, links, and drop boxes (see Appendix H for
screenshots of the lesson folder for the first part of the first hybrid module and one of the
subfolders).

In the following, I will briefly describe the individual assignment types that were part

of the first hybrid module.”

4. 4.1 Word Associations

Word associations are common activities in vocabulary acquisition (e.g., Schmitt, 1998)
that focus students’ attention on semantic aspects and prepare them for words and word
clusters from a text that they may find difficult. Students were asked to submit 3-4 words
or ideas that they associated with a given term in a drop box on ANGEL. The first word

association assignment was:

 

39 The assignments in the second module were targeted toward vocabulary acquisition and preparing
students for understanding the primary texts. The assignments were similar to the ones described in the
following and will therefore not be addressed separately.

68

Was assoziieren Sie mit den folgenden Begriffen? Schreiben Sie alle Ideen auf,
die Ihnen spontan einfallen (3-4 Ideen pro Begriff sind OK). Sie miissen die
Assoziationen am Freitag bis 17 Uhr in dieser Drop Box abgeben.

Hier ist ein Beispiel fiir eine Liste mit Assoziationen:

Universitéit:
Lehrer
Hausaufgaben
Studenten
Wissen
Bildung
lernen

Schreiben Sie jeweils eine Liste zu den folgenden Begriffen:
- Natur

- Ehe
- Kunst
- Revolution
- Liebe4O
This assignment was included in the pre- and the post-reading folder to determine if

students’ vocabulary use had changed after reading the primary text.

4. 4.2 Web Quests

Web quests are online scavenger hunts in which students are asked to find information on
a certain topic online. This assignment prepared students for new and unfamiliar concepts
that were treated in the text, for example the historical July Revolution or the term
“tableau vivant.” It also engaged students on a linguistic level by having them analyze,
comprehend, and summarize authentic materials online (Simina & Hamel, 2005).
Students were asked to describe the terms in 1-3 sentences and upload them to a

discussion forum so that all students would have access to the descriptions of these terms.

 

40 What do you associate with the following terms? Write down any ideas that come to mind spontaneously
(3-4 ideas per term are sufficient). You have to submit your associations on Friday by 5 pm. to this drop
box. Here is an example of a list of associations: “university” — teacher, homework, students, knowledge,
education, learning. Compile a list for each of the following terms: nature, marriage, art, revolution, love.

69

4. 4.3 Key Word Writing

To allow the students to use some of the important and recurring vocabulary items from
the primary texts in a new context, they were asked to write sentences containing a
selection of these words, as suggested by Hyland (2003). These sentences were submitted
to a discussion forum to give all students access to what they had written. This
assignment offered another way to sensitize students to keywords from the novel before
they read the text and was designed as a fun activity that would familiarize them, with

potentially unknown vocabulary items.

4. 4. 4 Interactive Activities" ’

These activities were included in the pre-reading assignments to preview vocabulary
items and grammar concepts and also in the post-reading assignments to give students the
opportunity to self-check their comprehension. All activities were created in Hot
Potatoes42 and linked to my personal web page.43 Hot Potatoes offers multiple-choice,
cloze, true-or-false, sentence scramble activities, and crosswords, some of which also
allow for oral rather than written prompts. Unfortunately, Hot Potatoes does not track
student access or completion of exercises. Therefore, I posted the direct link to the
activities on ANGEL so I could at least check when students accessed my web page.

What Hot Potatoes does offer is immediate feedback on the correctness of an answer and

 

4’ The terms interactive/interaction and feedback are used here from a CALL perspective rather than from
the perspective of the interaction approach.

2 . . . . . .
Hot Potatoes IS an online authoring tool that IS available at no cost for educational purposes and allows
users to create interactive exercises (http://hotpotuvic.ca/index.htm).

43 For examples, see hmpfl/wwwmsu.edu/user/kraemera/WallyNorDemLesenhtml for pre-reading
activities and http://www.msu.edu/user/kraemera/Wally/NachDemLesenhtml for post-reading activities.

70

a score in percentage. Appendix I shows screenshots of the post-reading activities for the

first Wally module.

4. 4. 5 Sentence Rewrites
Sentence rewrites were only included in the pre-reading assignments and focused on
complex grammatical aspects found in the novels. Since the primary texts were written in
the 19’h century, some of the grammatical structures were archaic and it was assumed that
students would have a hard time deciphering them. This paraphrasing activity guided
them in breaking down complex sentences into smaller constituents and encouraged
explicit focus on form (e.g., Doughty & J. Williams, 1998; J. Williams, 2005). The
activity was modeled in class before students were asked to complete it online. The
following is an example:
Schreiben Sie den folgenden Satz um, so dass er keine Relativsatze und
Konjunktionen enthalt. Sie mfissen Ihre Umschreibungen bis Montag um 17 Uhr
in dieser Drop Box abgeben.
“Wenn wir im folgenden mehr ein Verbaltnis schildem wollen, das in Wallys
Hause und in ihrer Verwandtschaft sich entwickelte, so ist es deshalb, um
einesteils fiber ihren Mann eine Ansicht zu haben, andemteils, um nichts zu
unterlassen, was zuletzt doch berichtet werden miiBte, weil es eine entscheidende
Folge hatte.”
Beginnen Sie so: “Im folgenden wollen wir ein Verhaltnis schildem. Das
Verhaltnis...”‘"’
4. 4. 6 Notes

While reading the primary texts, students were asked to take detailed notes on a pre-

specified set of characters and concepts that would facilitate in—class discussions.

 

44 Rewrite the following sentences by eliminating all relative clauses and conjunctions. You have to submit
your rewrites on Monday by 5 pm. to this drop box. [Sentence follows] Begin your rewrite like this: [First
relative clause is eliminated by ending the main clause and replacing the pronoun with its referent.]

71

4. 4. 7 Audio Files

19“1 century texts provide several challenges for 2'1St century foreign language students of
German. For one, the texts are culturally and linguistically removed both from a national
as well as a temporal perspective. The texts are complex and in a variety of the foreign
language that may be unfamiliar in terms of genre as well as diachronic linguistic features
(Lyman-Hager, 2000). Having the option to listen to the text while reading therefore
allows the learners to combine the intonation patterns and the pronunciation with the
letters and punctuation symbols they see on the page. This is hypothesized to enhance
their understanding of the reading materials and to help them develop reading fluency.
From my experience, listening to foreign language students read German literary texts
aloud, their intonation indicates lack of understanding or misinterpretation of the text.
Listening to the correct intonation may help them identify the important elements of a
sentence and the relations among them, especially in syntactically complex sentences (as
referred to above). In addition, especially those students who have studied abroad may
know the sound of a word, but not its spelling. Hearing it will help them recognize it. As
suggested by Grabe and Stoller (2001), having students read along silently while they
listen to the teacher read aloud can help develop overall fluency, rate, and word
recognition. Therefore, I recorded the chapters of the second section of Wally and posted
the mp3 files on ANGEL for students to download and listen to. It also provided more
exposure to listening to a native speaker other than the instructor, an aspect that Gina felt

lacked in most upper-level content courses.

72

4. 4. 8 Chapter Summaries

Students were assigned portions of each primary text that they had to write a short
summary of, adding a title and a discussion question. As reading provides the foundation
for synthesis and critical evaluation skills (e.g., Grabe & Stoller, 2001), this assignment
asked students to read carefully, summarize the gist in a title and short description, and
go beyond the text by offering a critical discussion question. Students were asked to
upload their summary to a discussion forum that allowed all students to access their
information. Students were also asked to review all summaries before class and to
respond to at least two of their peers’ discussion questions. These summaries were then

used as a springboard for in-class discussions.

4. 4. 9 Online Speaking Activities

To practice and improve their speaking and listening abilities, students had to listen and
respond to content questions online and received oral feedback on their answers. Using
Audio Assignments, a program developed by Dennie Hoopingamer at MSU”, students
subscribed and listened to my pre-recorded questions, gave short answers, and received
oral feedback from me on their production. The assignment directed students to the
Language Learning Center on campus, in case they did not have the required hard- and/or
software to work with the program. The content questions usually started out with a brief

description of a character or situation and also included an open-ended question where

 

45 Audio Assignments (hgp://www.audioassignmentscoml) is a program that allows teachers to create
structured speaking assignments. Assignments consist of a question prompt, student responses, and teacher
feedback. Teachers create assignments, students record their responses, and teachers listen and give
feedback to the students. Teachers subscribe to the program for a $50 fee; students can access the program
for free. The program stores all recordings on its server, so no large audio files need to be sent back and
forth between teacher and students.

73

students had to speculate on the reasoning behind certain actions, provide information on
how they would have reacted in a similar situation, hypothesize about the next chapter, or
elaborate on their own assessment of a character’s behavior or actions.46 The online
speaking activities also included a question on areas where students experienced
difficulties with reading the text and gave them an avenue to comment on the text as a

whole.47

4.4.10 Pronunciation Practice

While students in advanced-level courses have generally mastered segmental features of
the language (i.e., articulation of individual sounds), suprasegmental features such as
intonation, rhythm, and stress still pose problems (e.g., Goodwin, 2001). To provide
targeted pronunciation practice, I recorded sentences from the primary texts in Audio
Assignments and asked students to record their own voice, comparing their recording

with mine. Students also received oral feedback on their recordings. _

4.5 Data Analysis Procedures
Yin (2003) pointed out that “[a]nalyzing case study evidence is especially difficult
because the strategies and techniques have not been well defined” (p. 109). He suggested

principles that should guide sound analysis procedures, including “attending to all the

 

46 Examples are: “I. Beschreiben Sie den sardinischen Gesandten Luigi. Was denken Sie fiber sein
Verhalten? Konnen Sie sich mit ihm identifizieren? Warum oder warum nicht? ” [Describe the Sardinian
minister Luigi. What do you think about his behavior? Can you identify with him? Why or why not?]; “2.
Beschreiben Sie Wally am Ende von Kapitel 10. Wie reagiert sie nach dem Selbstmord von Jeronimo? Wie
hatten Sie in der Situation von Wally reagiert? ” [Describe Wally at the end of chapter 10. How did she
react after Jeronimo’s suicide? How would you have reacted in her position?]

47 “Womit hatten Sie beim Lesen der Kapitel 6-10 Schwierigkeiten? Was war einfach? Was war
kompliziert?“ [Where did you have difficulties reading chapters 6-‘10? What was easy? What was
complicated?]

74

evidence” and addressing “the most significant aspect” (p. 137). Data analysis, therefore,
included evaluations of the classroom observations and artifacts, evaluations of all
questionnaires and interviews, as well as detailed examinations of the hybrid modules
and students’ access and responses to the online assignments.

As case studies are “driven by the researcher’s and the discipline’s current interests”
(Duff, 2008, p. 17), I analyzed the data with respect to promising hybrid assignment types
for integrating linguistic skills and academic content as well as potential benefits of
online technologies for language development in upper-level literature courses as
perceived by the participants. I did not, however, formally assess students’ proficiency
levels at the beginning or end of either one of the studies (pilot or hybrid).48 My
dissertation work focused on students’ perceptions of online assignments that offered
extended opportunities for linguistic development as well as the functionality of the
online assignment types I had developed. I felt that assessing oral development over the
course of a two-week pilot study or a semester-long class was not warrantable or
conformable with my primary goal of investigating student perceptions. Inferential
comments on language development will be made based on a comparison of student
production at the beginning and the end of the study. Needless to say, such comments can
only be made about the semester-long hybrid study and not the short-term pilot study.

For the pilot study, data analysis of the classroom observation notes, the syllabus, and
the initial instructor interview focused on identifying salient themes that provided a
baseline for assignment types typically used in a traditional advanced-level content

course as well as typical classroom interaction patterns. Responses to close-ended student

 

48 This is one of the limitations of the study and will be addressed in more detail in Chapter 7.4.

75

questionnaire items were quantified and nonparametric repeated measures tests were
performed to determine potential significant differences in student ratings.49

Following Stracke’s (2007) analysis of open-ended questionnaire and interview
responses, such items were examined in terms of positive, negative, or critical attitudes
toward the hybrid modules and technology in the language classroom in general. All
responses to the questionnaires and interviews were compared within and between
participants, following a cyclical, iterative design (Duff, 2008). In terms of analyzing
students’ access and responses to the online assignments, the focus was less on the
content of students’ responses but more on the functionality of the modules and how
students reacted to them. Their online activity was automatically logged on ANGEL and
frequencies were calculated. It needs to be pointed out that tracking students’ logged
activity does not necessarily translate into active engagement with online assignments.
Students may have clicked on an assignment but may not have read or worked with the
activity, or their access may have been logged right before their computer crashed or
before they started chatting with a friend in another browser window. Accurate tracking
of students’ online performance would require screen capturing and eye-tracking, which
has been suggested for measuring second language acquisition in CALL environments
(Smith, 2008) but which the German Studies Program did not have the capabilities for.
While there certainly are limitations to what online tracking can tell us about student
learning, it does offer an approximation of learning behavior that is more detailed than

what instructor observations of traditional face-to-face classes can reveal. Moreover, it

 

49 This also allowed for direct comparison with the results presented in Polio and Zyzik (in press).

76

offers an unobtrusive way to track student actions in independent learning contexts
(Fischer, 2007).

The data were checked for similarities and differences in students’ responses to the
hybrid experience, identifying salient and repeated themes and patterns, based on which

the modules were redesigned for the hybrid course.

4.6 Results
The main goal of the pilot study was to test format, content, and outcomes of the hybrid
modules. I was particularly interested in organizational issues such as when and where to
post the hybrid modules, when to assign due dates, the activity types that students would
respond to and engage with, as well as students’ overall perceptions of the modules,
especially in comparison with the traditional assignments in class. The collected data
yielded a plethora of information beyond these areas; however, only those aspects that

were immediately relevant to this study will be presented here.

4.6.1 Classroom Observations

To establish a baseline in terms of what is happening in the advanced German literature
classroom at MSU, I observed the course during two class sessions before the
implementation of the hybrid modules. I was interested in assignment types typically
used in an advanced-level content course, typical classroom interaction patterns, as well
as language use in general. As mentioned above, the syllabus suggested a traditional

teaching approach (i.e., heavy focus on reading and writing, lecture-discussion model),

77

which was further underscored by the initial interview with Gina and the classroom
observations.

The classroom was arranged in rows and students tended to sit in the middle and rear
half. Gina began her classes by writing an outline on the board of topics that would be
covered. In the first session observed, two students gave presentations in German on the
author Gutzkow’s life (10 minutes) and his works (12 minutes). During the presentations,
some students seemed to take notes, others leafed through papers, and one student,
Bianca, was on AIM on her laptop. The presentations ended with three discussion
questions that were moderated by the two presenters with the help of Gina. Only three
students participated in the discussion. Gina posed additional questions, to which none of
the students responded at first; she rephrased a few of her questions and eventually
Benjamin, the native speaker in class, offered his opinion and two other students
responded as well, one of them in English. After 40 minutes (when half the class was
over), Gina split the class into five groups and assigned approximately four pages of the
primary text to each group with the task to summarize the content. All groups seemed to
be on task; only one group, however, completed the assignment in German. After ten
minutes, Gina asked a group representative to write keywords on the board and
summarize their portion in German. She supplemented the groups’ summaries with
additional information and posed questions on content and the meaning of individual
vocabulary items. Student answers were very slow and Gina called on specific students to
respond to her questions. With ten minutes left to go, Gina directed her students’
attention to ANGEL where she had posted information about upcoming assignments and

discussed the midterm, which she handed back.

78

Overall, there was little student participation in class discussions and Gina employed
a variety of elicitation strategies to encourage student answers, which, if at all, the same
set of students responded to. In terms of language focus, the first class session focused on
individual vocabulary items and their meaning, sometimes initiated by the students
(either when they did not understand a word in the text or when they did not know how to
express what they wanted to say in German), sometimes initiated by Gina (in reference to
the text). Gina spoke German throughout and most students used the target language as
well when speaking up in class though not always in group work.

The second session I observed was very similar to the first one. It contained a student-
led presentation, followed by a teacher-led lecture on the historical and political
background of the time period that included questions posed both by Gina (usually
ending in “Was meinen Sic?” [What do you think?]) and by the students. Some students
asked questions in English50 but for the most part Gina encouraged her students to use
German whenever possible. Instead of group work, Gina discussed the Gutzkow text with
the entire class. She started out asking broad questions about the content of the primary
text, which students did not respond to. When Gina posed more focused questions,
different students promptly answered.

Once again, most of the language focus was on individual vocabulary items (“Wie
sagt man ENGLISH TERM?” [How do you say ENGLISH TERM?]). I did notice one
instance of recasting by Gina after a student had used the term “geselbstmord” several
times:

Lauren: “Sechs [Menschen] sind geselbstmord.” [Six [people] are suicided.]
Gina: “Sie haben Selbstmord begangen.” [They committed suicide]

 

50 . . . . - n
English questions were often introduced by a precursory “I can t express that in German.

79

Gina also often used comprehension checks as parts of her lecture. Her explanations were
generally follow-up with “Ja?” with rising intonation [Right?].

The classroom observations confirmed my expectations of typical advanced-level
content courses: Much of the interaction followed a lecture-discussion model (the lecture
being either by the teacher or by individual students), students were hesitant to participate
in class discussions” and seemed to have difficulties with the comprehension of the
assigned primary texts, and explicit language focus centered around explanations and

translations of individual vocabulary items.

4.6.2 Student Responses

At the beginning of the study, the students were asked to rate their proficiency in and
knowledge of German in seven areas: speaking, listening, reading, writing, vocabulary,
grammar, and culture. While self-assessments of this kind are subjective and may not
accurately reflect students’ actual proficiency in these areas, they provide deeper insights
into students’ own perspectives and are an important facet of helping students to
construct knowledge, to attain autonomy, and to actively shape their learning experience
(e.g., Chen, 2008). Quantified average results are presented in Figure 3 (Appendix J lists
mean scores from both the pre- and post-questionnaire). A nonparametric repeated
measures test (Wilcoxon Signed Ranks) was performed to determine if there was a
significant difference in students’ self-perceived proficiency (Appendix K summarizes

significant differences from both the pre- and post-questionnaire).

 

5’ This further confirmed findings from Dontao and Brooks (2004) and Zyzik and Polio (2008).

80

Figure 3
Students’ Self-Perceived German Proficiency in GRM 435

5 .. . ..... . . '“T"'“" ...- --- ..-.-. .

 

 

l ‘. > aw :5; ::.;' ,1 ‘_ g h
Speaking Listening Reading Writing Vocabulary Grammar Culture

Note. This graph indicates average scores ofstudents’ self-perceived proficiency in and knowledge ofthe
areas ofspeaking. listening, reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar, and culture. Results are based on a 5-
point Likert scale with 1 being very weak in a given area and 5 being superior.

Students rated their listening and cultural skills as best, and significantly higher than
speaking, vocabulary, writing, and reading. Knowledge of vocabulary as well as speaking
and writing skills were ranked lowest, however the differences were not significant. An
open-ended question asked students to specify the area in which they felt weakest and
why; the majority of them listed speaking because they were concerned about mistakes

and lacked vocabulary to express their thoughts.52

 

52 These results are similar to Polio and Zyzik’s (in press) findings ofadvanced-level Spanish learners’
perceptions of their language skills. Their results revealed that students rated listening as best and
significantly higher than the other skills (their study did not include culture as a knowledge area) and the
majority of students also listed speaking as their weakest skill on the open-ended question.

81

The post-questionnaire contained questions in relation to students’ self-perceived
improvement in language proficiency and their perceptions of classroom practices. Of the
14 students participating in the study, 12 returned the post-questionnaire. Students were
asked to rate their perceived improvement over the course of the semester in the same
areas that had been addressed in the pre—questionnaire (i.e., speaking, listening, reading,
writing, vocabulary, grammar, and culture). Figure 4 presents the results of the post-
questionnaire (mean scores are listed in Appendix J). Once again, a nonparametric test
was performed to determine if there was a significant difference in students’ self-
perceived improvement (see Appendix K).

Figure 4
Students’ Self-Perceived Improvement in German Proficiency in GRM 435

 

5 W"1:“:77"iii" " "

   

 

 

 

 

Speaking Listening Reading Writing Vocabulary Grammar Culture

Note. This graph indicates average scores of students' self-perceived improvement in the areas of speaking,
listening, reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar, and culture. Results are based on a 5-point Likert scale
with 1 being no improvement as a result of taking this course and 5 being enormous improvement as a
result oftaking this course.

82

Due to the text-based nature of the course, it is barely surprising that students rated their
improvement of reading and vocabulary53 highest, and significantly higher than speaking,
writing, listening, and grammar.54 What is surprising though are the low mean scores for
writing and grammar (even though statistically not significant).55 The course focused
heavily on composition and Gina’s written feedback on her students’ essays, while
mainly focusing on content, included some comments on grammar. A closer look at
students’ responses to the open-ended post-questionnaire items will help illuminate this
disconnect.

When asked if their German language abilities improved as a result of taking this
course, six students clearly said no and highlighted that the materials were too
complicated, that the course focused on literature and not language, that there was not
enough grammar help (mentioned by two students), and that speaking practice was
lacking in the course (mentioned by three students). In the final interview, one student,
Lynne, reiterated that Gina had very high expectations and that the papers were graded on
content, not on grammar, which Lynne perceived as an area she and her peers still needed
help with. Four students felt that the course helped improve their language skills,
particularly reading, writing, and vocabulary because of the exposure to the language.

Students’ logged activity on ANGEL started the Sunday before the first day of the
semester and lasted through the end of finals week. In the eight weeks before Spring

Break, all students had logged on to ANGEL between 9-19 times with an average of 13

 

53 The course appeared to be successful in addressing the area that students had rated as their lowest skill
(i.e., vocabulary) in the pre-questionnaire.
54 These results are different from Polio and Zyzik (in press) who found that students rated their
improvement in speaking as significantly worse than all other areas (culture was not included on the
gpestionnaire).

Results from Polio and Zyzik (in press) showed that students rated their improvement in grammar as
worse than all other areas except speaking.

83

times total or 1.6 times a week. ANGEL access peaked during the implementation phase
of the hybrid modules: The first module was implemented over the course of one week
and all students had logged on between 3-18 times with an average of 10 times; this
represents a sextupled logged activity per week.56 This leads me to believe that the
students were curious to see what the modules were about.’7 Despite the fact that students
did not receive credit for these activities and could have simply not worked with them,
access and response rates were high and students appeared engaged.

Participation in the hybrid activities decreased from the first to the second module
and across parts within each module. All 14 participating students accessed the pre-
reading folder of module 1.1 and 13 students accessed the during- and post-reading
folders. For module 1.2, 13 students accessed the pre-reading folder while all students
accessed the during- and post-reading folders. Module 2.1 was accessed by 12 students,
module 2.2 only by 6 students. These numbers reflect a steady decrease.

Figure 5 shows average student access numbers to the different parts of each module.
As can be seen in Figure 5, in module one, students were least interested in the during-
reading activities and generally accessed all subfolders of the first part more often than

the subfolders in the second part.

 

56 The week following module one, all but one student logged on between 1-5 times with an average of 3
times. During module two (1.5 weeks in length), all students logged on between 2-10 times with an average
of 5 times. The last three weeks of the semester, all but one student logged on between 4-30 times with an
average of 8 times.

57 As pointed out above, measures of logged activity do not necessarily translate into active engagement
with materials or assignment completion.

84

Figure 5
Average Student Access Numbers for the Hybrid Modules

 

 

Pre During Post Pre 1 During ~ Post

Module [.1 ‘ Module 1.2 Module 2.] Module 2.2

Note. Both hybrid modules were divided into two separate folders on ANGEL: Modules 1.] and 1.2, and
modules 2.1 and 2.2. The first hybrid module was further divided into pre-, during-, and post-reading
folders. This figure shows average student access numbers to the modules during the implementation
phase.

A closer look at access numbers of the individual assignment types in module one as
outlined in Chapter 4.4 is presented in Figure 6. Chapter summaries were by far the most
popular hybrid assignment in terms of average student access numbers, followed by web
quests and key word writing. All other assignment types were accessed on average less
than 3 times per student with pronunciation practice as the assignment with the lowest
access rate.58 Only six students had subscribed to the online speaking activities in module

1.1 and only two students had subscribed to the ones in module 1.2. Of these students

 

58 Even though six students had accessed this assignment on ANGEL, none of the students subscribed to
the prompts I had recorded in Audio Assignments.

85

only one, Benjamin, answered the first of five questions in module 1.1.59 Many students
reported difficulties accessing the voice-recording program even though I had modeled
the program in class and functionality issues prevailed. The fact that students did not
receive credit for this rather time-consuming activity was another reason why they did
not take advantage of this listening and speaking opportunity.

Figure 6
Most Popular Assignment Types in Terms of A verage Access Numbers in GRM 435

 

 

 

 

 

 

Module 1.1 Module 1,1 Module 1.2 Module 1.2

Chapter Summaries Web Quests Chapter Summaries Key Word Writing

Note. This figure presents the most popular assignment types of module one in terms of average access
numbers during the implementation phase.

In terms of the hybrid modules, results showed that students enjoyed working online and
felt it gave them more exposure to and diverse opportunities using the language in a non-

threatening environment. Of the 12 students who completed the post-questionnaire, only

 

59 One other student, Nicole, tried for multiple hours to record her answers without success and eventually
turned in a written version of her responses.

86

one specifically expressed a strong negative influence of the hybrid component on her
attitude toward the course because it was “unexpected and irritating.” This student,
Biancabo, who also had been chatting online when I observed the class, gave the class the
overall worst rating and assessed improvement in content knowledge and language
proficiency in all areas as none to minimal. With the exception of Monica, Bianca logged
on to the modules the least often and appeared to be rather disengaged.

Three other students expressed a negative influence of the hybrid component on their
attitude toward the course because the activities were not well integrated into the course
as a whole, seemed as an add-on to the class, had unclear expectations and due dates, and
were too time and labor intensive. These last two points surfaced multiple times
throughout the post-questionnaire. Many students perceived the hybrid modules as “busy
work,” yet working with a variety of different activity types was seen as helpful. Nicole
stated in her interview that “deadlines on assignments were weird. Make them due before
class so students can remember.”

The remaining eight students preferred the hybrid activities to the traditional activities
and highlighted positive aspects of the hybrid modules, including better vocabulary
retention, improved listening comprehension, improved understanding of complex 19th
century authentic texts, interactive activity types, self-paced learning, and higher
attention rates. As Monica stated: “It was a great way to learn and understand the themes
by myself, outside of the classroom.”

Overall, students’ experiences with and perceptions of the hybrid modules were

positive. Their suggestions for change centered on shortening the modules, implementing

 

60 Bianca was a German major who had studied the language for 4 years in high school and for 3 years at
MSU. She had participated in a 6-week exchange program in Germany the summer prior to this semester.

87

them from the beginning into the course, and setting convenient due dates of
assignments.(’1 The two students who participated in the final interview both commented
on the assignment types and mentioned that the post-reading activities seemed
“redundant” and “a waste of time” because the text was discussed in class and content
questions were posed by Gina. This explains the decrease in student access numbers
indicated in Figure 5. Both students highlighted the benefits of the pre-reading activities
that helped them prepare for understanding the primary text. Lynne, one of the two
students, also commented on the speaking activities: “I liked the idea behind the speaking
activities. It was a no pressure situation.” In response to the question of how the
effectiveness of the hybrid modules could be increased, Lynne said that students should
receive credit for their work. As indicated above, I had initially planned for students to
receive credit for their work, but Gina decided that she could not make changes to her
syllabus halfway through the semester. This might have affected students’ attitude toward

and engagement with the modules to a large extent.

4. 6. 3 Teacher Responses

During the final interview, Gina expressed her satisfaction with the course and her
students. She felt that the three goals she had set for this course were accomplished: The
final student presentations showed that students had a grasp of the topic and their written
work served as evidence of improved language and critical thinking skills. She did

acknowledge though that getting her students to speak remained a challenge throughout

 

6’ As seen in Nicole’s quote above, students were irritated by due dates that fell out of the norm of what
they were used to. They preferred due dates right before class because many students would work on
course materials and assignments the day of class.

88

the course62 and that she needed to be more transparent in terms of assessment criteria. In
contrast to her students’ perceptions, Gina felt their writing abilities had improved
immensely.

Regarding the hybrid activities, Gina stated that they should have been integrated
better into the whole course and not simply added on to her students’ responsibilities.
Still, she felt that in-class discussions were more engaged as a result of the hybrid
modules and that more students participated in face-to-face discussions following the
hybrid assignments than usual. She also observed a more positive attitude because
students seemed to have understood the readings better and were able and willing to
engage more during in-class discussions. Gina speculated that her students’ attitudes
would have been influenced even more positively had they received credit for their work.

When asked about the individual activity types, Gina specifically emphasized the
value of the audio files of the texts because they addressed the need for listening
components in an upper-level class: “The audio recordings were fabulous. In 400-level
courses, there should be more listening because there is not that much exposure to the
spoken language.” She felt that the audio files and the online speaking activities
accomplished exactly that and gave her students much needed opportunities to listen to a
native speaker.

In terms of connecting the teaching of literary and cultural content with language
instruction at the advanced level, Gina supported the notion of bridging the gap. “You
can’t let either side slide. My course goals reflected that. I think it’s important to do both.

You can’t talk about Heine without talking about the complexity of his sentences or talk

 

2 . . .
6 A51 had jomed the class only halfway through semester and was only present for a few class sessrons, I
was in no position to assess proficiency levels or evaluate developments in students’ speaking skills, or any
other skills, in this specific course.

89

about Kafka without talking about the subjunctive.” While this comment speaks of the
importance of vocabulary and grammar knowledge to dissect complex authentic texts
(e.g., Ellis, 1997; Qian, 2002), the latter of which her students felt was neglected in this
course, it does not address the need for more opportunities to develop speaking skills to
actually discuss the readings in the target language (e.g., Davis et al., 1992). In order to
address this problem, I developed a hybrid course that would give students varied
opportunities to actively engage with the language and create output, with particular

emphasis on speaking.

4. 6. 4 Summary of Victories and Challenges
In summary, results from the pilot study revealed that the majority of students enjoyed
working online and felt it gave them more exposure to the target language in a non-
threatening environment. These positive results are particularly encouraging when
considering that students did not receive credit for their work and had therefore no
external motivation to complete the assignments. Based on student responses, the hybrid
modules were successful in offering increased opportunities for vocabulary retention,
improved listening comprehension, improved understanding of authentic readings,
interactive and self-paced learning, and higher attention rates. Generally, those activities
that prepared the students for the texts ahead of time were found more helpful than post-
reading activities. Chapter summaries, web quests, and key word writing activities
appeared to be the most popular assignment types in terms of frequency of access.

A variety of problems surfaced regarding organization, content, and functionality.

Students perceived the hybrid assignments as add-ons to their regular workload, found

90

them too time and labor intensive, and reported unclear expectations and due dates. Some
assignment types were perceived as redundant because they were part of the regular
classroom routine; for example, the post-reading activities that checked comprehension
were similar to content questions posed by Gina. While most assignment types were
successful in engaging students and connecting language skills with content, the online
speaking activities that I was most interested in were among the least accessed activities.
Since students had to log on to a different program outside of ANGEL that only I had
access to, they felt it was the easiest assignment to “ignore” because Gina could not
“monitor” their work. For all other assignments, Gina had direct access through ANGEL.
In addition, functionality issues with Audio Assignments kept students from recording
their responses.

The design of the hybrid modules resembled what Polio and Zyzik (in press)
proposed as a possible solution to the language-literature gap, an adjunct model with a
literature and a language expert co-teaching. However, students did not perceive me as a
full-fledged instructor because I did not teach them in a traditional manner or grade them.
While the modules resulted in no additional work for Gina, my time commitment for
developing, revising, and implementing the modules was substantial and would have
been significantly larger had students recorded their spoken responses and had I given
oral feedback.

Based on the results from the pilot study, the short-term online modules were revised
and extended into a complete hybrid course on fairy tales that was implemented in the
subsequent fall semester at Michigan State University. As was suggested by the pilot

participants, the hybrid course implemented online modules from the beginning,

91

integrated online assignments throughout the syllabus and course requirements, trained
students in the necessary technologies, and allowed for variety in assignment types.
Chapter 5 will describe the hybrid study, including information on the course, the
participants, data collection procedures, treatment instruments, and data analysis

procedures.

92

CHAPTER 5

HYBRID STUDY

5.1 Course
The first consideration in the development of the hybrid course was an appropriate course
topic. GRM 455 at Michigan State University is a fourth-year course on major themes in
German cultural history and the special course topic is open to the interest and expertise
of the faculty member teaching it. Topics in the past have included literary genres,
minorities in Germany, nationalism, or popular cultures. For the hybrid version of this
course, fairy tales were selected as the major topic due to their popularity among students
(Davidheiser, 2007), their potential for increasing participation as a result of lower
anxiety with known texts (Blickle, 1998), their short length and the appropriateness of the
level of vocabulary (H. Weber, 2000), their potential for teaching about culture (Ecke,
2004), and their accessibility online. The special course topic was listed as “The German
Fairy Tale Tradition” and moved beyond merely reading and discussing fairy tales to an
exploration of the global circulation of these stories through history and their
sociocultural impact.

Relegated today to the realm of children’s literature, fairy tales were originally told
among adults to create communal bonds in the light of the overpowering inexplicable
forces of nature. These oral tales challenged common values, norms, and belief systems
(Zipes, 1999). In general, fairy tales negotiate key ideas in human experience such as
good and evil, life and death, love and abandonment, violence or nourishment (Lfithi,

1982). They are cultural documents that have a general appeal but are also specific in

93

how they express morals and social values. Fairy tales are an important aesthetic
repository of cognitive and emotive knowledge and a tool that individuals, communities,
and nations utilize to work through deep anxieties, painful experiences, hopes, and
aspirations (Zipes, 2001). As cultural documents, they lend themselves as excellent
material for foreign language courses that integrate literature, culture, and language
(Roberts-Gassler, 1987). Not only can fairy tales help students develop their fluency, but
also support active learning of vocabulary and interpretation skills while making students
more knowledgeable about literary and cultural history.

GRM 455 is an advanced-level literature and culture course and students generally
enroll during their last semesters of coursework in their German major. As a prerequisite,
students have to have had at least two courses at the third-year level, which focus on
advancing all four language skills (i.e., speaking, listening, writing, and reading) and
learning about Germany’s place in the world through various media types. As pointed out
above, special topic third-year courses include business German and German literature
and culture before and after 1918.

The course description for GRM 455 read as follows (see Appendix L for the
complete syllabus):

Once upon a time, long before Tolkien, Disney, or Rowling, two brothers named
Grimm published a collection of fairy tales that went on to have an immense
cultural impact throughout the world. The Grim fairy tales will be our textual
point of departure for a multi-faceted, integrative exploration of this popular and
influential genre through time. We will examine traditional cultural theories of the
fairy tale, psychoanalytic and pedagogical approaches, and contextualize this
genre in cultural and social history. The focus is on the role that the literary fairy
tale by male and female writers assumes in the civilizing process.

Aside from studying some of the tales in depth, we will discuss how the Grimm
brothers collected the tales, how they changed over time, and how they portray

values and ethics of different (European) cultures. To this end, we will compare
the Grimm versions of some tales to other well-known versions (e.g., from the

94

Italian Renaissance, early courtly fairy tales in l7‘h- and l8’h-century France, and
contemporary Disney adaptations) and look at the different societal and moral
codes they promoted. The course explores how the fairytale has become
institutionalized in Western culture as a means to communicate about social and
psychological experiences, a mode of socialization, and a way of institutionalizing
culture, norms, values, and taste. We will extend our readings to 20’h-century fairy
tale adaptations and discuss the relevance of these themes for present-day
Germany.
The course was divided into eight broad themes. At the beginning of the semester, the
focus was on secondary readings that furnished the students with relevant socio-historical
and literary background information to situate the tales in a European cultural context.
The themes included: ( l) introduction (including the history and development of fairy
tales, characteristics and elements, and research traditions); (2) collectors of tales
(including the life and works of the Brothers Grimm and Frenchman Charles Perrault,
1628-1703, who is well-known for his collection of tales entitled The Tales of Mother
Goose); and (3) interpretation of fairy tales (including cultural theory, social history
approaches, and psychoanalytic and pedagogical approaches). Once a general knowledge
base had been established, the course moved on to discuss various primary texts within
the following broad themes: (4) male and female socialization (including Dornrdschen
[Sleeping Beauty] and Aschenputtel [Cinderella]); (5) animal grooms (including Das
singende, springende Loweneckerchen [Beauty and the Beast] and F roschkonig [Frog
Prince]); (6) family relationships (including Hansel und Gretel [Hansel and Gretel]); (7)
fairy tales and media (including illustrations and Disney versions based on Perrault); and
(8) fairy tales today. Different European versions of the five major fairy tales were
discussed and compared with each other, with the modern Disney versions, and with

other short tales from different international origins. The reading load was similar to

other fourth-year courses with approximately 20 pages in German per class session.

95

The goals of the course were:

1. To gain an understanding of the literary genre of fairy tales and the
developments it underwent throughout German cultural history.

a. To develop a critical understanding of how people live in a culture not as
an “add-on” but as a medium in which we act.

b. To learn to analyze significant social and cultural processes in the social
history of Europe.

2. To improve German skills (reading, speaking, writing, and listening) through
interaction with these authentic cultural texts.

3. To develop critical thinking skills by asking new and appropriate questions
about this genre and the relevant time periods. How can we re-evaluate the
texts to gain new insight into the ideas and struggles of previous generations?

In its traditional design, this 3-credit course meets two times a week for 80 minutes each.
For the hybrid course, seven class sessions (24%) were replaced with online activities to
allow students to work on online assignments both individually and collaboratively.
Three additional class sessions throughout the semester (10%) met in the Language
Learning Center where the different technologies were explained to the students mainly
in the target language and where they had additional time to work on the various
assignments under the teacher’s supervision. As pointed out above, such training sessions
are crucial because inadequate training of teachers and students in using online
technologies is one of the major problem areas of CALL (e.g., Barrette, 2001; Sénchez—
Serrano, 2008; Winke & Goertler, 2008).

The course management system used for this class was ANGEL, where all online
assignments, course materials, and grades for GRM 455 were available. Students were
notified in the syllabus that the online assignments were intended to help them with the

course materials and with practicing their German language skills. Since I was proposing

a new course model, I felt it was of utmost importance to provide students with as much

96

detail as possible and a specific rationale for its implementation, including benefits for
the students. These aspects were also discussed at length during the first week of class.

F ace-to-face sessions were structured in a student-centered format in which all
participants (including the teacher) sat in a semi-circle63 and one or two students were in
charge of leading the discussion and posing questions to the group (for which they were
graded). Whenever possible, engaging and interactive team or group tasks were
implemented in class such as the creation of a contemporary version of a Disney film
production, for which students had to apply and transfer what they had done online to a
new context and which they had to present to the class. This gave students the

opportunity to further practice their language skills.

5.2 Participants
5.2.1 Teachers
The course was co-taught by a senior faculty member, Maria, who served as mentor to
me, an advanced graduate student, who was in charge of all online assignments and the
majority of face-to-face sessions. Maria, a native speaker of German, had a background
in literary and cultural studies and extensive teaching experience in lower-level language,
upper-level content, and graduate courses in US postsecondary settings. As mentor,
Maria supervised the entire course and observed and facilitated some face-to-face

sessions. Since I was in charge of implementing all online assignments and most face-to-

 

6 . . . . . . . . .

3 Several students mentioned in the weekly self-evaluations and final intervrews that they liked Sitting in a
semi-circle because “people really respond to sitting like that-like we're all on the same level” (Judy) and
“the open class format of sitting in a circle resulted in more discussion than in other classes” (Angela).

97

face sessions, I will focus on my own experiences and perceptions in the remainder of
this study.64

I attended a German university from which I obtained the equivalents to American
B.A. degrees (Zwischenprr’ifung) in German and English language and literature studies. I
also received additional certifications in German as a foreign language and in pedagogy.
While attending the German university, I worked as an assistant in the German as a
foreign language department and mentored freshmen in the English department. Upon
completion of the Zwischenprz’tfimgen, I joined the German Studies M.A. Program at
Michigan State University, where I worked as teaching assistant, gaining several years of
experience teaching lower-level courses (both first and second year). I completed M.A.
degrees in German Studies and TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages) and joined the Ph.D. Program in German. During my graduate studies, I
assisted in a variety of upper-level content courses and was able to implement short-term
modules myself. GRM 455 was the first fourth-year course I was able to teach on my
own (under Maria’s supervision).

My interest in technology had been sparked by my work as graduate assistant in the
Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR), where I developed content for
an innovative web-based program for learning, practicing, and assessing pragmatic
language skills. Through the close contact with the undergraduate students in our
program that spanned beyond their completion of my courses, I became increasingly
aware of the disconnect between lower- and upper-level courses. Based on my academic

background as a researcher and teacher, researching classroom practices and improving

 

6 The descriptive information about me IS based on the initial reflective essay I wrote (see Chapter 5.3).

98

teaching methods have always been areas of particular interest to me. In addition, I have
always felt that students’ views and perceptions of classroom practices and instructional
methods were not adequately taken into account when designing courses, which led to the

topic of the present study.

5. 2. 2 Students"5

Nineteen students were enrolled in the course, fifteen females and four males. Two
students were native speakers of German (Rita and Benjamin) and one was a near-native
speaker (Evelyn). Sixteen were seniors and three juniors with an average age of 21. Six
students had German as their primary major, nine as secondary major, and the remaining
four students took the course because they wanted to maintain and advance their
language proficiency. On average, they had taken 6 years of German in high school and
college combined. All but two students had traveled to Germany before.

When asked about their rationale for taking this course, sixteen students indicated that
it was a requirement and specified that they hoped to improve their fluency and their
understanding of German literature and culture.”6 All students indicated that they were
interested in the German language. Eleven students indicated that they were interested in
German literature and two students specifically stated that they were not interested in
literature. These varied results are similar to the findings in the pilot study and to the

findings of Polio and Zyzik (in press).

 

65 The descriptive information about the students is based on the initial questionnaire (see Appendix D).

66 These dual content and language learning goals were similar to the ones reported in the pilot study and in
Polio and Zyzik (in press).

99

Students rated their technology skills as good to very good.67 In terms of technology
experience, three students indicated that they had taken online courses before in
economics, educational administration, and microbiology. One of these students, Monica,
had also been enrolled in GRM 435, along with Benjamin and William. All but one
student, Rita, who felt very hostile toward using computers because “it can get frustrating
and confusing,” had used computers as part of an assignment in foreign language classes,
mainly to write papers, for CD- or web-based homework assignments, to watch German
TV, to prepare PowerPoint presentations, and to access online dictionaries. Students liked
the convenience and flexibility of working with computers, the access to a variety of
materials and information that caters to different learner types (e.g., visual and auditory
learners), the interactive nature of online applications, the extension of class discussions
outside the classroom, and the self-paced and low-pressure nature of online
environments. “It allows for a more intense, multifaceted experience” (Tim). Students
disliked the time commitment required for many online activities, the lack of clear
instructions and easy access to hard- and software, frustrations caused by equipment
failures, and the lack of technology support. Jill summarized these sentiments well:
“Computers are great and allow one greater flexibility, but nothing beats being face-to-
face. They aren’t a cure-all magical pill. But computers and the Internet allow students
more time to reflect and continually add to discussion. They create debate outside of

classroom time.”

 

67 Students were asked to rate their technology skills in regards to using computers and the Internet on a 5-
point Likert scale with 1 indicating very weak and 5 indicating superior. The average response was a 3.5,
which ranked between “good” and “very good.” Only one student, Rita, rated it with 1, and one student,
Peggy, rated it with 5.

100

Just like the students in the pilot study, these students had an overall neutral to
positive attitude toward using computers in foreign language classes.68 As mentioned
above, Rita strongly disliked the use of computers in general. The other two students who
disliked the use of computers in foreign language classes were Benjamin and William,
who both had taken GRM 435 the previous semester. William had rated his sentiments in
the previous semester as neutral (3 on a 5-point Likert scale), Benjamin had rated his
feelings towards computers as very positive (5 on a 5-point Likert scale). Their negative
attitude toward computers in GRM 455 may have resulted from their experience in the
pilot study.69 Monica, on the other hand, had been open to the use of computers in foreign
language classes both at the beginning and the end of the pilot study (4 on a 5-point
Likert scale). Her experience in GRM 435 seemed to have had a positive effect because
she indicated on the pre-questionnaire in GRM 455 that she strongly liked using

computers in foreign language classes (5 on a 5-point Likert scale).

5.3 Data Collection Procedures
Data collection procedures for the hybrid course were similar to the ones used for the
pilot study. In order to triangulate data, the following procedures were employed:
( l) A questionnaire pertaining to classroom practices and expectations was
given to all students on the first day of class. Personal information on
backgrounds, previous language learning experiences, and reasons for

taking the course was also collected (Appendix D).

 

68 Students were asked to rank how they felt about using computers in foreign language classes on a 5-
point Likert scale with 1 indicating strongly dislike and 5 indicating strongly like. The average response
was a 3.5, which ranked between “neutral” and “like.”

69 William had reported at the end of the pilot study that the hybrid component did not have an effect on
his attitude toward the course. Benjamin had reported a negative influence.

101

(2) I, the main teacher/researcher”, wrote a reflective essay on aspects
pertaining to classroom practices on the first day of classroom contact.
Personal information such as background, course goals, materials/syllabus
used to reach those goals, and perception of students’ goals was also
included.

(3) I kept a reflective blog over the course of the semester, focusing on my
perceptions of how assignments worked both in class and online.

(4) Throughout the semester, student access to the hybrid course portions (see
Chapter 5.4) was tracked via ANGEL and assignments were logged online.

(5) A student questionnaire pertaining to perceived differences in classroom
practices (compared to previous advanced-level content classes taken) was
given to all students at the end of the semester. Information regarding
improvement of language skills and content learned in the class was also
collected (Appendix M).

(6) All students were interviewed upon completion of the course to clarify and
elaborate on questionnaire results (Appendix N). The interviews were tape-
recorded and transcribed.

(7) Upon completion of the course, I wrote a reflective essay on aspects
pertaining to classroom practices, student engagement, language
development, and additional topics that arose as the research progressed.

(8) Artifacts such as the syllabus, readings, assignments, and handouts used

throughout the semester were also collected.

 

70 One of the major limitations of the study is that the teacher was also the researcher. This will be further
discussed in Chapter 7.4.

102

5.4 Treatment
The hybrid course was developed based on recent trends in foreign language education,
which emphasize student-centered, engaged, and active learning (e.g., Bean, 2001; R.-M.
Conrad & Donaldson, 2004; Lee, 2005; Meskill, 1999),. work toward enhanced
proficiency (e.g., Byrnes, 1998a; Saussy, 2005), and capitalize on the benefits of
technology (e.g., Felix, 2001; Gannon, 2004; Hokanson, 2000; Sanders, 2005). A major
objective of the course was to address the gap in empirical research on advanced-level
German students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of hybrid assignments with particular
focus on continuing to develop speaking skills in a literary and cultural studies course.
Results from the pilot study were used as a baseline to design the hybrid course. In

addressing the problems found in the pilot study, the course integrated online
assignments throughout and gave students credit for their work. A variety of online
assignments were selected that would allow for an integration of academic content and
linguistic skills while attending to the above-mentioned trends in foreign language
education. The online assignments were aimed at catering to different learner styles and
learning modes and enhancing students’ motivation for and enjoyment of the course
through engaging and interactive activities. Students were notified in the syllabus that
these assignments were intended to help them with the course materials and with
practicing their German language skills. They were also trained in the necessary
technologies and technology support was provided on a needs basis. Training took place
mainly in the target language as to enable students to talk about technology in German.

As was the case in the pilot study, all assignments were posted on ANGEL in

designated, time-sensitive lesson folders, which would allow me to track students’ access.

103

Unlike in the pilot study, the online assignments were not divided into pre-, during-, and
post-reading activities but were arranged by assignment type. Certain assignments still
assisted students at the various stages of reading authentic texts but were not overtly
designated as such. Because of the nature of the primary texts in GRM 455 (fairy tales as
opposed to long, complex 19’h century novels), I did not feel it was necessary to focus the
hybrid assignments on such a division. Results from the pilot study had also indicated
that students did not take equal advantage of these categories (Figure 5) and a
categorization by assignment type seemed to be more fitting for the hybrid course. Each
lesson folder on ANGEL contained detailed information on the assignment, expectations,
and due dates. Appendix 0 shows a screenshot of the main lesson folder for this course.

In the syllabus, the grading criteria listed 25% of the final grade for online
assignments. However, many of the other assignments for which students received credit
had an online component, as will be illustrated below. All assignments were evaluated
regularly and grades were uploaded to the ANGEL grade book. I hoped that by providing
students with ongoing information on where they stand and their progress (or lack
thereof), they would feel more responsible for their work and could better gauge time and
effort put into the course. To help them keep track of their assignments and due dates and
to increase students’ own responsibility even further, students were given an assignment
checklist and all due dates were also listed in the calendar function on ANGEL, including
individual reminders for presentations.

In the following, I will briefly describe the individual assignment types that were part
of the hybrid course. For the majority of the online assignments, only the best portion

counted toward the final grade because of the plethora of assignments. This allowed for a

104

buffer and enabled students to skip certain assignments if they did not have enough time

or did not feel prepared to complete them.

5. 4.1 Self-Evaluations

Self-evaluations require students to critically reflect on what they have (not) done and
what they have (not) learned, which makes them more responsible for their own work by
keeping track of their performance (Campbell, Kyriakides, Muijs, & Robinson, 2004).
Students had to complete an online survey at the end of each week that was created in
ANGEL (Appendix P). The survey contained ten multiple-choice items71 that asked for
preparation, participation, and performance rankings. It also included five open-ended
items where students had to summarize what they had learned, could voice their opinions,
offer suggestions for improvement”, and were asked to grade their overall performance,
to which I made adjustments if necessary. The survey items were all in English. Students
received feedback and a grade on their evaluations on a weekly basis in the grade book
on ANGEL. The survey was due before the first class session each week and ten out of

15 evaluations counted toward the final grade.

5. 4.2 Online Speaking Activities
Even though students in the pilot study had not taken advantage of the online speaking
activities, I included a similar assignment to provide ongoing speaking and listening

practice. As has been pointed out, targeted listening and speaking practice are areas that

 

7’ The options were provided in form of a drop-down menu online where students had to select the answer
that fit best.
72 These suggestions were taken into account throughout the semester and changes were made accordingly.

For example, students requested longer access to class readings, so I changed the access dates on the
respective sub-folders.

105

are oftentimes marginalized in advanced-level courses that focus on content because its
implementation can be time-consuming and the instructor’s expertise is generally in
literary and cultural studies and not language acquisition. As Liskin-Gasparro (2000)
observed: “it is a rare upper-division course that includes systematic attention to the
development of students’ language skills” (p. 841) and the area has not been widely
researched (Donato & Brooks, 2004). In order to address this gap, online speaking
activities were made an integral part of the hybrid course. A program called Conversations
was used. It was developed by CLEAR and is available online at no charge for non-
commercial, educational use.73 The program lends itself to simulate face-to-face
conversations, role-plays, or virtual interviews and enables instructors to establish a more
personal relationship with each student. In addition, it allows teachers to assess their
students’ speaking skills much more accurately and, more importantly, early on in the
semester.

Each week, students had to listen and respond to my prompts that generally addressed
topics in the reading assignments. I provided individualized oral feedback74 to their
responses focusing on content and language in Audio Assignments, which gave students
the opportunity to leave questions for me in return. Students were graded on content,
accuracy, fluency, and vocabulary. The lesson folder contained a detailed description of
the programs’ functionalities and during the first lab session I modeled an activity and
gave students the opportunity to practice using the program under my supervision.

Screenshots of Conversations are provided in Appendix Q.

 

73 Students only need speakers and a microphone to work with the program. Teachers have the option of
allowing their students to practice or use the live mode. Conversations can be accessed at
http://clearmsuedu/teaching/online/ria/conversations/index.php.

74 As pointed out above, the terms interactive/ interaction and feedback are used here from a CALL
perspective rather than from the perspective of the interaction approach.

 

106

Some prompts asked for specific information based on the readings (e.g., name four
aspects that influenced the development of fairy tales as discussed in an assigned reading),
some asked students to interpret certain aspects of the readings (e. g., compare the main
characters of two tales and discuss their similarities and‘differences), while others were
simply used to work on intonation and stress patterns (e. g., read and record a fairy tale and
compare it with my recording). Appendix R offers a selection of prompts used in this
course.

These weekly activities gave students the opportunity to practice their listening and
speaking skills in a non-threatening environment, removed from their peers, and at their
own convenience and pace. It also allowed them to monitor their own progress and
increase their proficiency and fluency over the course of the semester, and it enabled me to
respond individually to each student. The assignment was due before the first class session

each week and ten out of 15 conversations counted toward the final grade.

5. 4.3 Chats

Research on peer-to-peer chatting has found positive results in terms of creating
community among students, improving personal confidence, offering opportunities for
real communication, and overcoming writing apprehension (e.g., Ortega, 1997; Skinner
& Austin, 1999). Designed as a fun activity, the students had to chat with at least one of
their classmates three times during the semester. I created chat rooms in ANGEL that
were time sensitive and automatically logged students’ chats. The topic of the chats was
left open; the only requirements were that the chat had to be in relation to the course (e.g.,

students could continue a class or online discussion, comment on the readings, or discuss

107

a movie in relation to the topic) and that each student had to contribute at lest 20 turns in
each chat with a turn consisting of a complete sentence, containing at least a noun, verb,
and object.

This assignment allowed for interactive, real-time communication between the
students. Because the assignment was designed to allow students to use the language
spontaneously, no feedback was provided as to not inhibit their language use but I read
all chat logs and deducted points if multiple turns were off topic or in English. All three

chats counted toward the final grade.

5. 4. 4 Blogs
A blog or weblog is “a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections,
comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer” (Merriam—Webster Online
Dictionary, 1999). Their high level of interactivity stems from connections (in the form of
hyperlinks) made to other resources and the option for readers to directly comment on
what the author wrote. In the language classroom, students can show development over
time and use them as a creative outlet for language use. One of the major advantages of
blogs is that the readership can extend beyond the teacher and classmates. “Self-publishing
encourages ownership and responsibility on the part of the students, who may be more
thoughtful (in content and structure) if they know they are writing for a real audience”
(Godwin-Jones, 2003, p. 13). ANGEL includes blogs that restrict accessibility to the
secured environment of the class and was therefore chosen over free online services.

I set up a blog for each student and arranged them in alphabetical order by first name.

The task was to write a reaction to class assignments, readings, or discussions or other

108

experiences in connection with the course topic every other week. Blog entries needed to
be in German and at least 5 sentences long with a sentence containing at least a noun, a
verb, and an object. Blogs were graded on language and content. Students were also
required to respond to at least three blog entries of their peers, forcing them to read each
other’s blogs. The blogs were intended as a fun environment in which the students could
write about the course topic. I commented on the blogs every other week and challenged
some of the things the students had written. Five out of seven blogs counted toward the

final grade.

5. 4.5 Threaded Discussions

Research on online discussions found that students used lexically and syntactically more
complex language structures than in face-to-face discussions, highlighting potential
advantages of this assignment type (e.g., Warschauer, 1996). Because of the
overwhelming positive feedback on chapter summaries in the pilot study, each student was
in charge of posting a brief summary of one of the assigned readings, along with an
interesting quote from or statement about the text and two critical, open-ended questions.
The class was divided into two groups by last names and all students in each group had to
alternate in contributing to the weekly discussion. This allowed the students to continue in-
class discussions and to react to their peers’ points of view. The student in charge also had
to moderate the discussion online and react to the comments posted. The lesson folder for
threaded discussions on ANGEL included discussion forums for each individual topic and
all students had access to all forums. While the blogs allowed the students to go beyond

the readings, the threaded discussions were intended as a reinforcement of the assigned

109

texts and they could also be used as a springboard in class to stimulate discussion. They
also strengthened students’ critical thinking and expression skills. The moderation as well
as five comments counted toward the final grade and students were graded on content and

language. Appendix S shows a screenshot of the threaded discussion folder.

5. 4.6 Web Quests
Web quests had been one of the most popular and frequently accessed hybrid
assignments in the pilot study, which was why they were also implemented in the hybrid
course. They were designed to help students better understand a certain topic or reading
and to find related information online. As has been pointed out, web quests engage
students on a linguistic level by having them analyze, comprehend, and summarize
authentic materials online (e.g., Simina & Hamel, 2005). Three web quests were assigned
over the course of the semester either before a specific topic was discussed in class in
order to allow students to gain some knowledge on the topic (e. g., history and
development of fairy tales) or after the topic was discussed in order to find information
from a different perspective (e.g., fairy tales in other German-speaking cultures).
Students had to find at least two sources of information online and annotate them (i.e.,
they had to provide a brief summary of the content of their sources in German including a
personal comment on why the source is relevant and how it could be used in the context
of the course).

The tasks were posted on ANGEL and students also submitted their results to a drop
box on ANGEL that was accessible to all students. The assignment for the first web quest

read as follows:

110

Das Thema ffir den ersten Web Quest ist “Geschichte und Entwicklung von
Marchen”.

Bitte suchen Sie Inforrnationen im Internet zu diesem Thema. Erstellen Sie
eine Liste mit Links und annotieren Sie diese Liste. Annotieren bedeutet, dass
Sie eine kurze Zusammenfassung fiber den Inhalt jedes einzelnen Links
schreiben. Die Zusammenfassung sollte mindestens 3 Satze lang sein.
Schreiben Sie auch Ihre eigene Meinung zu den Links, warum die Information
relevant ist und wie sic in unserem Kurs verwendet werden kann.

Links konnen individuelle Webseiten sein, Bficher, Audiodateien, Videoclips
usw. Sie konnen Links fiber verschiedene wichtige Personen suchen oder auch
fiber Kulturen, Epochen in der Geschichte, literarische Werke usw.

Jeder Student muss mindestens 2 Links finden und in der Drop Box auf
ANGEL abgeben.”

By engaging with a certain topic in a creative way, this assignment prepared the students
for the following readings and exposed them to themes and vocabulary items they
encountered later in the texts. This online assignment provided a smooth transition to the
theoretical background texts. Two out of three web quests counted toward the final grade
and students were graded on content and language.

In general, the assignment allowed students to browse German web sites and be
exposed to authentic materials. It was also intended to help them refine their online
research skills, engage deeper with the topic, practice skimming and scanning in the
target language, and synthesize the information in their own words. The annotated results

served as a resource for other assignments such as reaction papers and the final paper.

 

75 The topic of the first web quest is “History and development of fairy tales.” Please search for pertinent
information online on this topic. Compile a list with links and annotate your list. Annotating means to
provide a short summary of the content of each link. Your summary should be at least 3 sentences long.
Write your opinion about the link, why the information is relevant, and how it could be used in our course.
Links can include individual web sites, books, audio files, video clips, etc. You can search for links on
different important figures or on cultures, time periods in history, literary works, etc. Each student has to
find at least 2 links and submit them to the drop box on ANGEL.

111

5. 4. 7 Wiki
Wikis are social computing tools that focus on reading and writing in an interactive and
engaging way. “They feature a loosely structured set of pages, linked in multiple ways to
each other and to Internet resources and an open-editing system in which anyone can edit
any page (by clicking on the ‘edit this page’ button)” (Godwin-Jones, 2003, p. 15). One of
the best-known examples is W ikipedia. Wikis use content as their organizing principle (as
opposed to blogs which are arranged chronologically) and offer a great opportunity for
collaborative online projects. In terms of language development, wikis
foster attention to aspects of language use that span from appropriate lexical
choice to syntactic accuracy and from rhetorical style to textual cohesion and
genre specificity. Furthermore, they have the potential to encourage awareness of

the use of written language and visual expression as forms of representation that

are rooted in, often pluralistic, linguistic and cultural conventions. (Sykes, Oskoz,
& Thorne, 2008, p. 530)

Wikis allow users to create, edit, and link web pages and give the teacher as space
organizer the Opportunity to review any changes made on any page and compare different
versions of pages that are logged, which provides insights into students’ writing processes
(e.g., Kost, 2007). Appendix T shows an example of the course wiki, including the outline
of topics students had to work on.

Wikis provide diverse opportunities for students to use the language in a non-
threatening environment, at their own convenience and pace, and with the option of
editing and revising. They integrate content and language by asking students to synthesize
and summarize course materials and express them using their own words. Links to
authentic online materials can be included to supplement students’ own written products.
Wikis can function as great resources for students to review course content and create a

collaborative drop box of materials related to a course. Particularly in upper-level content

112

courses, wikis can help students share references and materials for course assignments and
encourage interaction with authentic materials found on the web. Students can continue
engaging with the course materials outside of class by summarizing and reformulating
class readings and additional online resources.

Due to the collaborative nature of this tool, it provides ample opportunities for students
to interact with each other outside the classroom (Sykes et al., 2008). Therefore, I set up a
wiki for this course using Wikispaces“, with the task to create an online resource that
would cover the major topics discussed in class. Students had to contribute to two major
topics, one of which could coincide with the topic they did their oral report on. Grades
were based on the final draft of the wiki site77 and students were evaluated on content,

language, and editing.

5. 4.8 Online Readings

Ercetin’s (2003) study on hypermedia reading revealed that the online presentation of texts
had a positive impact on students’ attitudes towards reading on the computer. While the
majority of the texts in this study was not presented as hypertext, it was still hoped that
case of access and storage as well as the ability to adjust the font size would have a
favorable effect on students’ reading habits, as suggested by Noam (1998). In addition,
while reading online, students were found to access online dictionaries frequently and
looked up substantially more words than when using paper dictionaries (e. g., Roby, 1999),

which helped advance comprehension and language development. All fairy tales were

 

76 Wikispaces is a publicly available provider of free wiki space that can be accessed at
www.wikispaces.com. As space organizer, the teacher can invite students as members, restrict editing
rights to members only, and restrict open access to certain pages (e.g., the main page cannot be modified by
students). The wiki itself is public but for a small fee, space permissions can also be set to private.

77 Earlier drafts of the pages were studied for research purposes.

113

available on the web and, whenever possible, other class readings were made available in
password protected, time-sensitive folders on ANGEL. This was also a practical
consideration, as I wanted to cut down on the number of books students needed to

purchase and the number of copies I needed to make.78 '

5. 4. 9 Audio Files

The benefits of audio files of reading assignments in terms of language development have
been outlined in Chapter 4.4.7. Even though only few students in the pilot study took
advantage of the audio files of the primary texts, I posted audio files of all fairy tales and
some additional secondary texts, alongside their written versions on ANGEL. This enabled
students to listen to the texts while reading along. I felt, as did Gina and the students I had
interviewed at the end of the pilot study, that opportunities for listening comprehension
lacked in upper-level content courses, particularly longer stretches of spoken German by a
variety of native speakers. Most fairy tales were available as mp3 files to download on the
web or I recorded them for this class. Other audio files included short biographies of the
main collectors of fairy tales and fictional interviews with them and served exclusively as

listening comprehension activities.

5.4.10 Interactive Activities
In the pilot study, students reported that the interactive activities were useful in terms of
vocabulary and grammar work. I had created these activities ahead of time based on the

readings and felt that a different approach that would make the students not only receptive

 

78 Apart from the syllabus that was handed out on the first day of class, there was no paper used in this
course. All assignments, including papers, were submitted online and students received feedback online
using Word’s comment function.

114

users but creative producers of such activities would be a more powerful tool for learning.
Constructivist learning theories see teaching and learning as a bi-directional activity (e.g.,
Piaget, 1952; Vygoysky, 1978). Empowering students to teach themselves and each other
helps them process information in meaningful ways, which leads to more efficient learning
and greater retention (e.g., Carlson, 2003). Students were therefore given the task to
develop interactive activities for their classmates on one of the secondary articles they had
read for a discussion leading, using the free CLEAR program SMILE (Server-Managed
Interactive Language Exercises)”. Similar in its functionality to Hot Potatoes, SMILE
offers easy access to templates for creating interactive language practice activities that
include a variety of exercise types (i.e., multiple choice, true or false, drag and drop,
sentence mix, paragraph mix, cloze, and multiple select). No software packet needs to be
downloaded and installed for SMILE, which makes the program more accessible for
students than Hot Potatoes. Most exercise types in SMILE allow for immediate feedback,
which the student-author has to provide as well. The program therefore offers deeper
engagement with content materials and can also include linguistic exercises (e. g.,
semantics, pragmatics, sentence- or paragraph-level processing). All individual exercises
can be grouped into one activity that is assigned its unique URL and published online. The
sample activity I created that models the exercise types is shown in Appendix U.

Students were asked to devise activities that could focus on vocabulary items in the
text, grammatical structures, or specific content and post them before class on the day of
the assigned reading. It was hoped that in the process of creating these activities, students

would review what they had learned and rephrase the information to make it more

 

79 SMILE is available at ht_tp://clear.msu.edu/teaching/online/mimea/smile/v2/index.php.

115

comprehensible for their peers. To ensure that students would work with each other’s
activities, they were required to respond to the activities of at least seven of their classmates
and write short reflective statements about them that were uploaded to a drop box only I

had access to. The actual activities were graded on content and language.

5.4.11 Multimedia Team Project
Sykes et al. (2008) noted that emerging media offer “(a) meaningful contexts for L2
language development and (b) a means for adding real world relevance transforming
the practice of collaborative content building, dissemination, and categorization” (p. 529).
Furthermore, familiarity with digital media is seen as highly relevant for students’
“current and future lives as language users” (Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008, p. 560) in social,
academic, and professional environments. As pointed out above, collaborative projects
offer ample opportunities for students to interact with each other outside the classroom,
strengthening team working and communication skills. In addition, student-led projects
that utilize new technologies not only encourage ownership and responsibility through
self-publishing (e.g., Pederson & D. Williams, 2004), but can also make assignments
more meaningful and relevant when producing them for a real audience (e.g., Godwin-
Jones, 2003). In order to combine all these aspects, students had to collaborate on team
projects that encouraged the use of all language skills.

Fairy tales reveal a lot about the culture(s) in which they were told, about
socialization, values, and ethics. Therefore, the course also included a discussion of
cultural identity as part of the introduction outlined above and woven in throughout the

discussion of the tales. For their midterm, students had to create a multimedia team

116

project on their own cultural identity that consisted of three parts: (1) What am I?/What is
identity?; (2) What is American?; and (3) Interactive Activities.

Each project needed to include a video and/or audio component, some text, and
interactive exercises on the content. Optional features were images and additional links.
A variety of CLEAR products, all available at no charge, were used to create the project:
V iewpoint‘w for recording or uploading audio and video files (similar to YouTube),
SMILE to create interactive exercises. and Mashups"?I to combine the different online
sources in one web page.

It was important to me to create a context that would force students to combine and
apply all of their language skills and to create an assignment that carried meaning beyond
the classroom. Therefore, the projects were compiled in a separate web site and shared
with an 8‘h grade English class at a German Gymnasium."’2 The German students were
encouraged to comment on the projects in a blog and engage in a transatlantic exchange.

Students had to collaborate on all parts of the assignment and received a single grade
for their work that evaluated language and content.83 For parts 1 and 2, I set length
requirements that the groups had to adhere to. Depending on the students’ comfort and
technology level, they could either produce a short video clip in German describing their
identity and what it means to be American or they could complete the assignment through
visuals, which they had to present (i.e., record) orally. Students were advised that if they

did not have a video camera, web cam, or microphone available, they could use the

 

80 VieWpoint is available at hgpfl/elear.msu.edu/viewpoint/.

8’ Mashups is available at http://clegrmsu.edu/tegching/online/mashup/index.php.

82 Even though 8’h grades are significantly younger than American undergraduates, this grade level was
deemed appropriate because their English curriculum covers “Die Vereinigen Staaten von Amerika” [The
United States of America] as the overarching theme. The transatlantic exchange allowed the German
students to expand their knowledge about America and Americans by engaging with the projects.

83 Detailed feedback on all aspects of the project was provided in the ANGEL grade book.

117

technologies in the Language Learning Center. Part 3 asked them to create activities

corresponding to the content of their video/presentation using SMILE. All components were

then uploaded to Mashups where the groups could add images, text, links, and additional

video and audio clips. The sample mashup I created as a‘model is shown in Appendix V.
This assignment not only asked students to critically engage with their own identity,

but also to become creative users of various technology applications and to express

themselves in multiple modes.

5. 4. 12 Other Assignments
Other assignments included three short reaction papers, an oral presentation on materials
only read by the presenter, an in—class discussion leading on materials read by all
students, and a final paper. For descriptions of these assignments, please refer to
Appendix L. Students were also given multiple opportunities for extra credit throughout
the semester, for example, when attending German guest lectures or opera performances
of fairy tales that were staged on campus.84

As was mentioned above, for the majority of the online assignments, only the best
portion counted toward the final grade. This allowed for a buffer and enabled students to
skip certain assignments if they did not have enough time or did not feel prepared to
complete them.

While not an assignment per se, I set up regular online office hours on ANGEL. As
noted by Wankat and Oreovicz (1999), office hours are a central aspect of the educational

process because they provide individualized interaction between teacher and student.

 

4 . . . .
8 In order to receive extra credit, students generally had to submit short reflective statements about the
events they attended.

118

Traditional office hours, however, are limited by time and space. Since this course was
designed as a hybrid course, I decided to move office hours to the online environment,
hoping to encourage students to take advantage of this platform. Past experience has
shown that students are reluctant to come to office hours even though they may have
questions. Online office hours offer a more convenient medium, automatically log the
conversation between teacher and student, and have the added advantage of “increased
opportunity for the students to directly communicate with the teacher and/or with other

students” (F. L. Wallace & S. R. Wallace, 2001, p. 196).

5.5 Data Analysis Procedures
Data analysis followed the same procedures as for the pilot study (see Chapter 4.5) and
included evaluations of all questionnaires, interviews, and reflective statements as well as
detailed examinations of the hybrid course components and students’ access and
responses to the online assignments. In analyzing the data, a variety of statistical analyses
were run to determine significant differences. These will be explained in more detail in
the relevant sections of Chapter 6.

The data were checked to confirm that the hypotheses given in Chapter 1 hold true.
Specifically, I looked for similarities and differences in students’ responses to the hybrid
experience, identifying salient and repeated themes and patterns that can help others in
designing and implementing similar hybrid courses. The goal of my study was to explore
opportunities for the continuing development of linguistic skills in the context of a
literature course as well as participant perspectives of the effects of technology in the

language learning context.

119

The following chapter will provide and discuss the results of the analyzed data
according to the research questions outlined in Chapter 1.2. The perceptions and
evaluations of all participants are reported, highlighting the effectiveness and limitations

of the treatment instruments and a general evaluation of the hybrid course.

120

CHAPTER 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents and discusses the collected data in terms of the effectiveness and
limitations of the treatment instruments for integrating linguistic skills and academic
content in an upper-level German class. In order to manage the plethora of data, results
will be presented according to the research questions outlined in Chapter 1.2.

It is the goal of this chapter to highlight participants’ perceptions of the online
assignments, offering a general evaluation of the hybrid course. As pointed out above, the
focus was less on students’ products but more on the process of working online, the
functionality of the assignments, and how students perceived the hybrid activities. I was
particularly interested in ways that enhanced students’ active engagement with the
language, specifically in terms of advancing oral production, while attending to content.
It will be shown how students’ perceptions can be translated into more effective
instructional practices and how hybrid courses offer a possible way to bridge the

language-literature gap in upper-level content courses.

6.1 Research Question 1:
Students’ Perspectives on Hybrid Language Learning
Research question 1 investigated students’ perspectives on hybrid language learning,
specifically in terms of advancing oral skills, within the context of an upper-level content
course. This question aimed at illuminating students’ perceived benefits of technology

applications and assignment types for language learning and offered insights into what is

121

happening in the context of foreign language content classes in terms of language

development.

6.1.1 Technology and Language Learning
Recall that all but one student (Rita) had used computers as part of an assignment in
previous foreign language classes, mainly to write papers, for CD- or web-based
homework assignments, to watch German TV, to prepare PowerPoint presentations, and
to access online dictionaries. 89% of the students specifically stated at the beginning of
the study that computers and the Internet are beneficial for language learning because
they afford convenience and flexibility, offer access to a variety of materials and
information that caters to different learner types (e. g., visual and auditory learners), are
interactive in terms of assignment types, extend class discussions outside the classroom,
and allow for self-paced and low-pressure learning in the online environment. While a
few students mentioned benefits in terms of extended listening practice, only one student
specifically addressed speaking skills. Benjamin cautioned that “it is very difficult to use
a computer to practice speaking German because you usually don’t receive feedback.”
Students disliked the time commitment required for many online activities, the lack of
clear instructions and easy access to hard- and software, frustrations caused by equipment
failures, and the lack of technology support. Jill summarized these sentiments:

1. Computers are great and allow one greater flexibility, but nothing beats being

face-to-face. They aren’t a cure-all magical pill. But computers and the

Internet allow students more time to reflect and continually add to discussion.
They create debate outside of classroom time. (Jill)85

 

85 Student quotes are numbered consecutively.

I22

6. I . 2 Classroom Practices

In previous upper-level German courses, students had been mainly exposed to lecture-
discussion models including extensive reading and composition assignments, group
projects, and film clips. Only few students mentioned the use of online assignments in
their previous coursework. In general, students liked group projects, in-class group
discussions, and film clips best. For group projects and discussions, students highlighted
their engaging, interactive, and collaborative nature, that such assignment types
accomplish the most in terms of comprehension and learning, and the fact that during
such assignment types students “get a chance to speak with other students” (Judy).
Students appreciated the immersive environment of film clips and stated that films held
their interest better because it did not feel like studying. “I found it an effective way to
improve comprehension and picked up new words from subtitles” (Sabrina). In the words
of Cathy:

2. I prefer film clips, group projects, & online activities, because I feel that since
these involve collaboration w/ peers, it allows one to improve their skills
gradually w/ the help of others; it’s more interactive and hands-on. (Cathy)

At the end of the study, students were asked to comment again on activity and exercise
types and compare the online assignments to those in their previous courses. 56% of
students clearly preferred the online activities to traditional assignments because they
offered more exposure to and practice with the language. The following comments
illustrate this point:

3. It was nice to have a combination and activities like the web quest were fun.
Because it was so diverse it stayed interesting while lecture-type classes are
very boring and less effective. (Benjamin)

4. The only other activities were generally book work, which was boring. The
online activities made the homework more interesting. (Angela)

123

5. Using the language through a variety of mediums vs. read, take notes, paper,
repeat. That’s why I like the idea of technology. (Sabrina)
6. We used current things + not the overhead all the time. (Judy)
7. I liked the online activities because they force you to think in German outside
the classroom and in a more casual, less daunting way. (Monica)
8. This course had me involved way more, while at first I hated (a lot of work)
but now I’m extremely glad for it! I learned 'way more here than I have before.
(Amanda)
Students particularly highlighted the speaking activities for extensive listening and
speaking opportunities and blogs because they offered an engaging and fun way for
practicing writing. Gordon noted that because “all activities in this course were online,
this is the only class that advanced my speaking ability.”

33% of students indicated that they liked the combination of both traditional and
online assignments that was offered in this course because the various assignment types
complemented each other well. A general tendency among these students was that the
overall heavy workload took away from the potential of the online assignments, as Jen
pointed out: “I think I would have enjoyed the technology aspect even more if there was
not so many things that we had to do. It was really hard to keep track of all the activities.”

The remaining two students (11%) clearly preferred traditional activities because they
liked being lectured (Rita86) or felt that editing abilities fell short online (Susie87). This
affected their perception of language development in this course:

9. I’m more of a traditional learner and prefer listening to lectures. (Rebekka)

10. Previous GRM classes weren’t as technology based and that allowed more
learning of the German language. (Susie)

 

86 Recall that Rita was the student who felt hostile toward computers in general and for language learning
in particular.

7 Susie preferred receiving written comments on papers that allowed her to revise her work and turn it
back in. As will be discussed in more detail in the following section, Susie did not take full advantage of
the editing abilities that were part of this course and never accessed any of the online feedback I provided.
Her case will be discussed in more detail in the following section.

124

The following section will take a closer look at students’ self-perceived language skills

and improvement in this course.

6.1.3 Language Skills and Improvement

Following the same procedures as in the pilot study, the students were asked to rate their
proficiency in and knowledge of German at the beginning of the semester in seven areas:
speaking, listening, reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar, and culture. Quantified
average results are presented in Figure 7 (Appendix W lists mean scores from both the
pre- and post-questionnaire). A nonparametric repeated measures test (Wilcoxon Signed
Ranks) was performed to determine significant differences between mean ranks of
students’ self-perceived proficiency (Appendix X summarizes significant differences
from both the pre- and post-questionnaire).

Like in the pilot study, students rated their listening and cultural skills as best, and
significantly higher than vocabulary, writing, and grammar.88 Culture was also rated
significantly higher than speaking. In addition, students rated their grammar and writing
skills significantly lower than their reading and vocabulary skills (and also significantly
lower than their culture and listening skills, as mentioned above). With the exception of
grammar and vocabulary, students in both courses rated their proficiency very similarly
(average scores for these two areas were switched in the two studies: in the pilot study,

grammar was rated higher and vocabulary lower than in the hybrid study).

 

88 In the pilot study, listening and culture were ranked significantly higher than speaking, vocabulary,
writing, and reading. Overall comparable results were found by Polio and Zyzik (in press).

125

Figure 7
Students’ Self-Perceived German Proficiency in GRM 455

 

 

1,, ,. ._

S eakin Listening Reading Writing Vocabula Grammar Culture
P 8 W

Note. This graph indicates average scores of students’ self-perceived proficiency in and knowledge ofthe
areas of speaking, listening, reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar, and culture. Results are based on a 5-
point Likert scale with 1 being very weak in a given area and 5 being superior. Only 18 students completed
this portion ofthe questionnaire.

An open-ended questionnaire item asked students to specify the area in which they were
weakest and why; the majority of students listed grammar, writing, and speaking because
of the lack of focus and feedback in these areas. In response to this question, Gordon
wrote on his questionnaire: “Speaking, because I just have not enough exposure. I think
classrooms give you minimum time speaking (because there are so many students)”
Other students also mentioned the lack of opportunities to speak and their lack of
confidence, which inhibits them to use the language in class.

The post-questionnaire asked students to rate their perceived improvement over the

course of the semester in the same areas that had been addressed in the pre-questionnaire

126

(i.e., speaking, listening, reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar, and culture). Figure 8
presents the results (mean scores are listed in Appendix W). Once again, a nonparametric
test was performed to determine if there was a significant difference in students’ self-
perceived improvement (see Appendix X).

Figure 8
Students ' Self-Perceived Improvement in German Proficiency in GRM 455

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking Listening Reading Writing Vocabulary Grammar Culture

Note. This graph indicates average scores of students’ self-perceived improvement in the areas of speaking,
listening, reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar, and culture. Results are based on a 5-point Likert scale
with 1 being no improvement as a result of taking the course and 5 being enormous improvement as a result
oftaking the course.

Overall, students rated their improvement in the area of culture as highest, and

significantly higher than speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary, and grammar. Listening
was significantly higher than grammar and speaking; vocabulary was rated significantly
higher than grammar. When asked about what they considered as part of “culture” in the

final interviews, it became obvious that students equated it with content knowledge,

127

mentioning aspects such as the history, elements, and interpretations of fairy tales and
their impact throughout cultural history. The course, therefore, appeared to have met its
first goal of providing students with an understanding of the literary genre of fairy tales
and the development it underwent throughout German'cultural history.

In comparison with the improvement scores from the pilot study (see Figure 4), the
biggest difference in the hybrid study was in the areas of culture and listening, which had
not received high average scores in the pilot study. Also, five out of the seven areas were
ranked between 2-3 (“minimal-some improvement”) in the pilot study, while all average
scores in the hybrid study were above 3 (“some improvement”). Considering that
students in both studies had rated their initial proficiency very similarly (see Figures 3
and 7), GRM 455 appeared to be more successful at helping students improve all
language skills than GRM 435. This was underscored by students’ responses to the
question if their German language abilities improved as a result of taking this course.
While 50% of the students in the pilot study had clearly answered this question with no,
63% of students in the hybrid study answered with yes, highlighting the varied
opportunities to use the language, increased exposure to the language, as well as
increased learning curves as a result of the amount of materials. The course therefore also
appeared to have met its second goal of helping students improve their German skills.
26% of the students indicated that the course helped them maintain their abilities or brush
up on certain areas.89 Only two students indicated that the course did not help improve

their language skills:

 

89 These students included both native speakers.

128

1 1. I don’t think so but, not in a bad way. This course was not geared towards
language improvement, rather the discussion and analysation [sic] of fairy
tales. (Tim)

12. More back and forth (aka. I turn something in, you return it corrected, I can
see my mistakes and correct) would have been more helpful. With everything
online, I could get a good enough response. (Susie)

Susie’s comment is similar to her comment above (7.) and seems to refer to feedback on
papers. She did, however, not write the first of three reaction papers, received detailed
feedback on the second one and the option to revise it (which she did), admitted to
writing the third one in English and then translating it into German, and did not access
the correction code for papers until the penultimate week of the semester.90 In addition,
she never accessed my comments on her other assignments on ANGEL and was the
student who only accessed a quarter of the mandatory readings online. She admitted in
the final interview that the one thing she took away from the course was “I really can’t
understand German. I do need to practice my German more. I had a hard time
understanding a lot what was going on.” Considering her overall performance and
c0mments, it is not surprising that she did not feel that her language abilities improved.
In summary, students were excited about the possibilities for language learning that
online technologies offered. While they were generally well aware of and critical toward
the drawbacks and difficulties of these technologies as outlined in Chapter 2.3, they
appreciated the different approach to language teaching that was more interactive,
engaging, and collaborative than previous upper-level courses they had taken. In terms of

advancing oral skills, students’ self-perceived improvement scores at the end of the

semester were encouraging, however statistically not significant. Individual comments

 

90 Students were also given a 6-page handout with detailed information on grammatical aspects that they
appeared to have difficulties with. Based on recurring errors in the first reaction paper and areas of
difficulty that had been encountered by students in earlier courses, I compiled this reference sheet.

129

pointed toward the benefits of online speaking activities, however, the quantity of
assignments throughout the course may have had a negative impact on the effectiveness
of individual online assignments. This will be illustrated further throughout the remainder

of this chapter.

6.2 Research Question 2:

Effects of Technology on Students’ Engagement, Collaboration, and Responsibility
Research question 2 investigated effects of technology implementation on students’
levels of engagement, collaboration, and responsibility. Engagement was measured by
students’ logged activity online and the number of assignments completed. In order to
investigate effects on students’ collaboration and responsibility, inferences were drawn
from access and completion numbers and students were specifically asked about these
areas in the final interview.

In order for any assignment type to be effective, students have to access and work
with it." To encourage student engagement, teachers should offer activities that are
interesting and motivating to students, as pointed out by Andress et al. (2002). A closer
look at students’ logged activity and assignment completions will provide insights in
terms of the popularity of activity types. This information can help others in deciding
what online assignments may work well with students.

The various online activities in GRM 455 required different amounts of access, as
described in Chapter 5.4 and summarized in Table 3. For example, students had to

complete self-evaluations and online speaking activities once a week (the highest 10 of

 

91 . . . . . . .
As pomted out in Chapter 4.5, measures of logged actIVIty do not necessarily translate into active
engagement with materials or assignment completion.

130

which counted toward their final grade) but chats only three times over the course of the
semester (all of which counted toward their final grade). Therefore, when looking at
individual access numbers and assignment completion rates as presented in Table 4, these
different minimum requirements need to be kept in mind.

Table 3
Minimum Required Access per Assignment Type

 

 

Assigmnentlype lflfilfliifié’é’éfieser iiifill’ifit’ii‘éus’ifli‘t’;

Self-Evaluations 1 5 10

Online Speaking Activities 15 10

Chats 3 3

Blogs unlimited 7 + 3 comments

Threaded Discussions 1 + moderation comments 1 + 2 moderation comments
+ comments to others + 8 comments to others

Web Quests 3 2

Wiki 13 2

Online Readings 24

Audio Files 16

Note. This table presents an overview of the different online assignment types for which access was logged
online.

The first column in Table 3 identifies the assignment, the second column lists the number
of options students had over the course of the semester to complete the assignment (in the
case of self-evaluations, for example, 15), and the third column lists the minimum
requirement to receive full credit (in the case of self-evaluations, for example, 10, which
means that students had the option to disregard 5 of the 15 assignments if they were

satisfied with the grades they received on completed assignments). For online readings

131

and audio files, no minimum requirement is listed. Students did not receive credit for
these assignments but were expected to access all of them (particularly the readings) in
preparation for class. All other online activities not listed (i.e., interactive activities,
multimedia team project, and other assignments such as reaction papers, handout for oral
presentations, and final paper) simply required students to upload their work to ANGEL
but not necessarily work in an online environment and are therefore not included.

Table 4 provides a detailed overview of each student’s total access numbers and
completion rates (measured by submissions) for the assignment types listed in Table 3.
With the exception of completion rates for online speaking activities and the wiki, all
numbers (both access and completion) were directly logged on ANGEL. For self-
evaluations and online speaking activities, the last assignments in week 15 were
eliminated because students needed more time to work on their final paper, reducing the
total number to 14 in each category. All students were given full credit for these two

. . . 9
eliminated assrgnments. 2

 

92 This meant that students could choose to complete only 9 other assignments in each of these two
categories to meet the minimum requirement of 10 assignments that counted toward their final grade.

132

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mi 2 cm m 2 mm 2 mm sea?
5. : 2 2 A32 2. a : EH
4+5 mm 8 m as E N s om beam
0+4 M: mm 2 A3 2 a m a Seem
m+m mm Ma m as w an 8 mm 628m
oi om a m :3 s cm w 2 esteem
m+m R a m S 2 S 2 ea
m+m E 2 N Go w 2 w M: awed
mi 3 mm _ a we 2 .8 £82
3 on a. N 2 M: S E Sac:
Ni mm so. m as 2 mm 2 2 a3
oi R as m E M: 2 E z:
re 3. 2: m A3 2 mm 3 S es.
mi om m: m A3 3 S 2 om geese
1m 2 NNN m a 2 e m ebbsm
o+e 2 cm a A3 2 em a 3 £56
m+m 2 Q m 2 m o 2 aeaabm
mi ea 8 m as 2 am 2 a 2wa
mi : N: m A3 2 a S 1 85:2
mEQEEOU + mmooom mag mo mmooom .1; no So mmooom .3; mo “:0 mwuoom
mcommmLEnzm 39 a :38 :38 maommmmfinzm :38 mcofimmfigm ~88
mac—m— muaq—U m03~>€9< magnum—m mfiomwa=_a>m—r=0w

 

 

 

 

 

 

BBQ Sofiefiaww ENBEM «8.53:80 .58 Emafiaz @8ro Emufim.

v 2an

133

.8:oE:w_mmm 33:22:26 92 9.2222 .5: 22:95 :3 :o>_w 203 $2225; =< .3 9 32:5:
2239 222 wEosoo: comma REL :22: :0 x53 9 0E: 95:: 3:00: 3:025 8228: 28:25:22.0 203 2:oE:w_mmm wfixwonm o:::o :5 523290.223 2mm— 02:...
.2595 some .3 822288 225 85 m2:oE:w2m8 :0 52:5: 05 :o 523528222 :5 3.0 25222568 .3 33:5: v.88: 2:025 3:39.: £28 £5. .202

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6222.: 2. 2N5: NN 2.: N N2 N N e+N+2 :2 822223
2N3: N 2.: N N N N N+o+22 2 EN
2N3: N2 ANN: N N N N N+o+o Ne beam
2N: : N N N N N+o+2 Ne Seem

8:: N 2N3: NN 2.: N 2.2 N N N+N+2 2 228m
2.N\NQ NN 2: 2 N N N2 o+N+2 NN 22:22am

6:: N 2N2: d2. 2.: N 22 N 02 $22 N2 52:
2N5: NN N: 2 N. N 2.2 e+o+2 2: Name:

2e22N: 2N 2.N22.N: N2. 2: 2 N N be N+N+2 NNN e282

6222.: 2. 2.N22.: NN 2.: N N. N 222 $22: em 82822

822: N 2N5: 2N 2.: N e N N e+2+2 222: 2.3

6:22: 2: 2.N2NN: NN N: 2 N N 2 e+o+2 ON 22:
32.: 2 2.N\2.: N 2.: N 22 N 222 N+N+2 NN 52.
62.2.: 2. @NNw 2.N ANN: N e N 222 e+N+2 N22 282.8:

EN: 222 2 2 e 2+o+2 N .532
$22: 2 2.3 a 22. 2. N NN N+22+2 NN 22226
ANN: N2 AN: 2 N N 2 e+o+2 NN 22225.25:
2.N2N: N 2.: N N N N N+N+2 2e sea...
2.95 2 2 2.: N 2 N 222 N+N+2 N 85.5...
@260 mo 22:: 3:05:28
mmooom mmooom mmvoow mmooom mmooow
mcomwznmbconv mcommmmenfism +GOSMHOUOE+2CEQ
22302 2238 2920232823 2238 .39 2302328225 288
2:54.. mwiuaom ES» 38:0 :03 3:23:35 catfish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.2:oo 2. 2:3.

134

As mentioned above, total access numbers for the speaking activities were based on
logged activity in ANGEL. Students, however, did not need to access the subfolders I had
created for each week’s speaking assignment because the necessary access code to join a
conversation was also available in the main lesson folder (see Appendix Y). Completion
rates of online speaking activities, on the other hand, are based on students’ actual
submissions of their oral responses in Conversations. The negative number in parentheses
indicates the number of conversations that were joined by the student but not completed
(i.e., either not recorded or shared with me).93 In contrast to the pilot study, where
students had not participated in the online speaking activities mainly because of
functionality issues of the program and because they did not receive credit for this rather
time-consuming activity, students in the hybrid course were very engaged and went
beyond the minimum requirement for this particular assignment.

For the chats, the second number provided in Table 4 lists the total amount of turns
students took in all chats they participated in (recall that studentswere required to
contribute at least 20 turns per chat). The completion rates for blogs include the number
of entries students submitted to their own blog plus the number of comments on their
peers’ blogs. Similarly, completion rates for threaded discussions contain the initial entry,
number of entries as part of the required moderation, as well as comments provided on
their peers’ discussion forums.

Total access numbers for the wiki are once again based on ANGEL logs, the number

of submissions, however, were logged on the wiki itself. Information on the number of

 

93 In Amanda’s case, she only accessed one of the subfolders in the online speaking activities lesson folder
in ANGEL. In Conversations, she had joined 12 of 14 assignments, but had failed to record her answers
twice and did not share her recordings with me in one instance (marked by a warning triangle in the
instructor’s view of the program as explained in Appendix Q).

135

edits per submission is noted in parentheses. Last but not least, total access numbers are
provided for the online readings and audio files, followed by the number of texts/audio
files that were accessed in parentheses (24 text files and 16 audio files were available
online and some students accessed the same file more than once).

With the exception of audio files, all online assignment types were accessed by all
students at some point throughout the semester. In terms of assignment completion,
students generally did the bare minimum’” with two exceptions: Three students did not
submit any entries to the wiki and, on a positive note, the vast majority of students went
beyond the minimum requirements for the self-evaluations, the online speaking activities,
the chats, and the web quests.

In summary, audio files and the wiki were assignment types that least engaged the
students in contrast to self-evaluations, online speaking activities, chats, and web quests
where they completed more work than was assigned. These results were confirmed by
students’ responses in the final interview where most students indicated that they did not
use the audio files (Amanda, for example, noted that she “didn’t even know they were
there”) and were “confused” (Cathy) and “unclear” (Sabrina) about the wiki. Self-
evaluations were seen as a good idea for “reflection” (Jill), to “self-monitor your work”
(Judy), and for “comments on the class” (Benjamin, Tim). All students commented
positively on the online speaking activities that helped them with their listening,
vocabulary, pronunciation, and speaking skills. The adjectives used most often in
conjunction with the chats were “fun” and “casual” and students enjoyed “using real

world German” (Evelyn). Students particularly liked the exposure to “authentic stuff

 

4 This course required students to work With a large variety of different a55ignment types —- in the opinion
of most students too large of a variety. The fact that students generally completed most required
assignments speaks of their responsibility as learners.

136

online” (Cathy) as part of the web quests, the fact that they could “gear it toward my own
interests” (Tim), and that the assignment was useful beyond the context of this class
because “I found stuff to use for other German classes” (Judy).

Noteworthy is also the high access rate for both the threaded discussions and the
blogs. While students generally submitted only what they had to”, they accessed their
peers’ information markedly often, leading me to believe that they were interested in
seeing what their peers wrote and enjoyed assignment types that promoted collaboration
and exchange of ideas. Once again, students confirmed the usefulness of these
assignment types in the final interviews where they indicated that the threaded
discussions “helped a lot with reading and understanding the complicated German texts”
(Angela) and made students “become aware of my peers’ ideas and views” (Gordon).
Students liked the free and casual format of the blogs but several students mentioned it
would have been easier for them had I preassigned topics to blog about. These results
mirror the popularity of assignment types in the pilot study where students had accessed
chapter summaries (similar to threaded discussion) and web quests the most (Figure 6).

It needs to be pointed out that one student in particular contributed to the high overall
access rates. Nadja96 had the highest access rates across the board and was also the only
student who had accessed all readings and most of the audio files. Her combined access
rates for the outlined assignment types numbered 669 hits on ANGEL. The student with

the next highest overall access rate was William with 302 hits (who had indicated at the

 

95 Interestingly enough, this holds true for both Rita, who “strongly disliked” the use of computers for
language learning, and Peggy, the computer-savvy language learner. For the most part, Rita completed the
minimum number of required activities for all online assignments. Peggy, on the other hand, completed
fewer than the minimum required activities (with the exception of web quests where she submitted the
required two entries, however, one of them late).

9 . . . . . . .
6 Nadja was a nontraditional student who was Significantly older than her peers in class and was taking
this course in preparation for graduate coursework in German Studies.

137

beginning of the course that he disliked the use of computers in language classes,
mentioned in the final interview that he didn’t like the course and felt that the online
assignments were obligations that did not help his understanding but had generally
completed more than the minimum required number of activities). Thirteen students were
between 282 and 139 hits and four students (Benjamin, Tim, Amanda, and Evelyn in
descending order) were at the lower end with between 108-70 hits.

In the pilot study, participation in the hybrid activities (measured by logged activity)
had decreased from the first to the second module and across parts within each module.
In the hybrid course, students’ total class activity remained steady throughout the entire
semester, peaking each week on the days of class meetings, that is Tuesdays and
Thursdays (generally in the morning and afternoon right before class), and on the days
preceding class meetings (generally in the evening and at night). Table 5 provides total
class activity numbers by days of the week for the entire semester.

Table 5
Total Class Activity by Days of the Week

 

 

Day of the Week Total Class Activity
Tuesday 3535

Thursday 2482

Monday 2209

Wednesday 1 967

Sunday 1340

Friday 571

Saturday 432

Note. This table presents students’ logged activity on ANGEL
over the course of the semester, arranged by days of the week.

138

In general, online assignments promoted high levels of student engagement as evidenced
by access and completion rates. The assignments also encouraged collaboration among
students. Approximately half of the online assignments (i.e., chats, blogs, threaded
discussions, wiki, and multimedia team project)97 were’collaborative in nature. With the
exception of the wiki, students participated actively in these assignments and highlighted
benefits as well as their general enjoyment of theses activities in their weekly self-
evaluations, the post-questionnaire, and the final interview. The most widely mentioned
aspects students appreciated about frequent collaboration with their peers online (and in
class) were the ability to exchange ideas and see different points of view, the flexibility of
online access, as well as the fact that students got to know each other well quickly, which
positively affected the classroom atmosphere and students’ overall attitude toward the
course.

13. I liked working with the other people online. It was really nice to have
somebody else’s input and it was convenient to work whenever I had time.
(Cathy) ‘

14. Collaborating was a good learning experience. It was interesting to find out
about others’ perspectives by reading their comments to the blogs or
discussions. I helped my peers during the midterm and in group work in class,
so they learned from me. We all laughed a lot in class, which was fantastic.
(Benjamin)

15. It was good being able to bounce ideas. During the chat, we would be on AIM
at the same time and we always helped each other with vocab and grammar or
when one of us had questions about an assignment. It’s less awkward to ask
others than asking the teacher. (Sabrina)

16. Working with my peers a lot was great. I know more people well in class now
than in any other class at MSU. The collaborative assignments were very
personal and had a lot of flexibility because we could work on them whenever
it was convenient for our schedules. It wasn’t hard to meet up online. (Judy)

 

97 Students also had the option of writing one or more of their reaction papers collaboratively on Google
Docs. None of the students took advantage of this option throughout the semester so I encouraged students
to write the third reaction paper collaboratively, however, most students felt it was forced last minute and
some had difficulties working with the program.

139

17. Group work, especially the midterm, made the class closer. In collaborative
work you got to see what others do, learn about your peers, and get to know
them. The chats really helped in getting to know other students better. (Peggy)

Apart from Sabrina, two other students specifically pointed out the benefit of
collaborative work for language skills:

18. Collaboration is helpful because German is about communication. You had to
communicate with your peers for these online activities. You had to read what
they wrote and then react. (Scarlet)

19. The chats were fun. It was good to speak with each other and we helped each
other out with words. (Jen)

Sharon was the only student who was critical toward collaborative projects.

20. I’m not a group person and levels of proficiency can be different in groups,
which can make it really hard and unequal. I never felt I could contribute as
much to the discussion boards as some of the more fluent students. As I said
before, the balance between native speakers and students who haven’t been to
Germany is tough in classes at this level. (Sharon)

While students had fun completing most of the collaborative assignments and felt it
helped their language development and enhanced classroom atmosphere, they also
reported that the online delivery mode increased their responsibility as (language)
learners. As pointed out above, students generally completed all minimum requirements
and oftentimes went beyond those requirements, attesting not only to their active
engagement with course content but also to their seriousness as students. The fact that all
materials, assignments, and due dates were posted in one place and that their work was
automatically time-stamped facilitated access on the one hand and increased students’
accountability on the other. Many students commented on their increased self-reliance as
a result of the hybrid course:

21. With the technology, everything built up and forced you to do work weekly

with the materials. I think continuous work is more beneficial than one big
final paper. (Gordon)

I40

22. Seeing all the stuff posted online helps seeing what you could and should do
and what others did. That definitely pushed me to do more and work better
and to become more responsible. (Sharon)

23. The online work makes you more self-reliant. Everything depends on you. If
you want a good grade, you can push yourself and do more. It was nice to
have choices as well so you could work on what you were interested in and
good at. Other classes don’t do that. (N adja)

24. The work totally immersed me into the content. You had to think more about
the course and about what you would write or say in response. (Amanda)

Many students also pointed out that the online delivery helped them with time
management and organizational skills:

25. In this hybrid course, you needed to be responsible from the start. It helped me
with my management skills to stay on top of things and complete my work on
time. Everything was well documented and it was also nice and easy to reach
all resources on ANGEL. (Evelyn)

Overall, the implementation of technology in this class yielded positive results in terms of
students’ levels of engagement, collaboration, and responsibility that had been
highlighted independently by students throughout the semester in their self-evaluations

and were confirmed at the end of the semester in students’ final questionnaires and

interviews.

6.3 Research Question 3:
Effectiveness of Assignment Types in Improving Language Skills
Research question 3 investigated students’ perceptions of assignment types and
technologies in terms of their effectiveness for improving language skills. I was
specifically interested in providing students opportunities to practice their oral skills and
to examine their perspectives of such assignments, as research has identified speaking as
one of the areas in upper-level foreign language courses whose implementation often

poses difficulties to instructors (e. g., Donato & Brooks, 2004; Klee, 2006; Polio & Zyzik,

141

in press). Recall that at the beginning of the semester, students had specified speaking as
one of their weaker skills (see Figure 7) because of the lack of focus and feedback in this
area and their lack of confidence in using the language around more proficient peers.

As discussed in Chapter 6.1, those students who had preferred the online assignments
to traditional activity types had favored-the online speaking activities for extensive
listening and speaking practice and blogs because they offered an engaging and fun way
for practicing writing. In terms of overall access and completion rates (Chapter 6.2), the
speaking assignments and blogs had also been among the most engaging assignments
along with chats, web quests, and threaded discussions. While neither access nor
completion rates had been calculated for the multimedia team project98, students
highlighted their enjoyment of this assignment and benefits in terms of language
development throughout.

In order to assess which assignment types students perceived as most effective for
improving specific language skills, I encouraged them to comment'on the course and the
assignments in the weekly self-evaluations. This assignment offered an excellent
opportunity for me to learn more about my students, their interests, hopes, insecurities,
frustrations, what they did (not) learn, and what did (not) work well in class; for the

students, it offered an outlet and the opportunity to actively shape their learning.99 At the

 

98 Students were graded on the final product, which only one student uploaded to ANGEL. It was therefore
impossible to assess students’ preparation and work-sharing for this assignment. However, the final
products speak of high levels of engagement, which was further confirmed by students’ commentary during
the final interview where they reported that they had spent a lot of time on this projects but didn’t mind

because it was “fun,” “integrative,” and they “leamed a lot.”

99 As pointed out above, the vast majority of students went beyond the minimum requirements for this
assignment and submitted 12 evaluations of the maximum 14 possible. As part of the self-evaluation,
students were asked to grade their performance throughout the week, taking preparation and participation
into account. It was interesting to note that in general, students were very critical and harsh on themselves
and gave themselves lower grades than I would have given. I made necessary adjustments based on my
perceptions.

142

end of the semester, Jill noted that “I liked that we spent a lot of time on surveys — it
shows the professor is very open to feedback and concerned about students.” Students’
suggestions for improvement were taken into consideration and modifications were made
to increase the effectiveness of the online assignments. For example, various students
indicated that they had a hard time “keeping track” of due dates and asked for
“suggestions for managing assignments” (Sabrina), so I created a checklist early on in the
semester that highlighted due dates, weighting, and minimum requirements. In addition, I
scheduled mandatory face-to-face office hours with each student half way through the
semester to discuss their progress in class, to answer any questions, and to gain deeper
insights into their perceptions of the course.'00 These meetings were appreciated by the
students, who felt more confident afterwards and “learned that asking for help really does
help” (Susie). Other students requested in the self-evaluations that access to the online
readings should be extended so they could go back to the texts after they had been
discussed in class and that class sessions should include more reading aloud because “it
helps with understanding and speaking” (Angela).'°l

The most frequent comment was on the quantity of assignments, where students
expressed their feelings of being overwhelmed. The following examples illustrate this
point:

26. I wish that sometimes I had a little bit more time to devote to this class. There
are just so many activities that I don’t want to forget anything and not receive

 

’00 Only one of the students, Scarlet, took advantage of the online office hours. However, she was unable
to enter the online chat and as a consequence simply emailed me her questions. Scarlet also met me in the
lab twice to go over the functionality of the online assignments. The only other student who requested a
face-to-face meeting was Susie, who wanted to talk about her presentation ahead of time. Most of the other
students communicated via email, whenever questions arose.

0’ Followmg this request, we did read aloud in class more ofien and students promptly pomted it out in the
“I really liked” section on the self-evaluation.

143

the points for it; I do feel a little overwhelmed with it all but I know that in the
long run it will help with my understanding. (Amanda)

27. Despite their seemingly simple requirements, they [the online assignments]
are time consuming and working with everything online is a bit frustrating. I
find myself to focus more on simply completing the online assignments
instead of actually trying to learn from them as well. (William)

28. Pertaining to ANGEL assignments — many of them seem to be fulfilling the
same function (developing our own ideas about Maerchen), although in
different formats. While I find a lot of this helpful (especially CLEAR) I do
think a bit of it is repetitive in that all of it is some form of online discussion,
but using different tools. In the future, I would limit the amount of
ANGEL/web applications used to three — one oral activity, one interactive
activity, and one independent activity. Right now it’s just a lot to keep track
of. (Jill)

Despite the plethora of materials, students valued the “variety of experiences” they were
exposed to in this course (Scarlet) and the fact that the activities helped “improve my
German in every aspect” (Gordon).

Admittedly, the course design was overly ambitious in the amount and variety of
assignments and I had a hard time keeping up with grading, so the students and I decided
together to drop the interactive activities, particularly because students were required to
create these activities also for their multimedia team project. The assigned points were

therefore added to the midterm.

I44

Figure 9. This graph provides the results of students’ perceived effectiveness of the
online assignments in improving their language skills. The cones display overall
averages. Shorter, flat cones indicate a low level of effectiveness; a high, pointed cone
indicates a high level of effectiveness. Students could assign the same scores to more
than one skill within an assignment, which is why the total number of points per
assignment exceeds 10. In the case of the online speaking activities (labeled
“Conversations”), for example, students rated the effectiveness in improving speaking
with an average of 9. 1 7, listening with an average of 8.76, reading with an average of
4.54, and writing with an average of 3.08.

145

 

Audio Files

Team Project

 

 

Web Quests

Chats

 

Self—Evals
Conversations

Discussions
Blogs

NEE?

           

News:
madam:
waabem

£23m. mmeaaeu MKSEQEN 2.2 3.2.5.28V m=.2~=©\o ummemahowkw
N 2&2:

146

At the end of the course, students were asked to rate the effectiveness of the online
assignments in improving their language skills (i.e., speaking, listening, reading, and
writing) on a 10-point Likert scale with 1 being the least effective assignment for a
particular skill and 10 being the most effective assignment. Figure 9 summarizes their
perceptions. Averages were calculated by adding all scores students had provided in each
individual cell, divided by the total number of students. For example, the sum of
students’ rating for the blogs/writing cell was 163, divided by 19 students, yielding an
8.58 average. Based on the sums, all assignment types were also ranked within each
language skill; the highest sum received a 10, the lowest sum received a 1. Table 6
presents the rankings according to the effectiveness for all four language skills.

Table 6
Absolute Ranking of Effectiveness of Online Activities in Improving Language Skills

 

 

Speaking Listening Reading Writing
Self-Evaluations 7 7 3 4
Speaking Activities 10 9 2 2
Chats 8 6 7 7
Blogs 6 4 8 10
Threaded Discussions 4 5 9 9
Web Quests 2 2 5 5
Wiki 1 1 4 6
Online Readings 3 3 10 3
Audio Files 5 10 1 1
Team Project 9 8 6 8

Note. This table presents absolute rankings of the assignment types according to their effectiveness for
improving language skills. The higher the number, the more effective the assignment type in improving the
particular skill.

I47

In line with the results presented in the previous two sections of this chapter, the online
speaking activities (labeled “Conversations” in Figure 9) received overall highest scores
and ranks in improving both speaking and listening skills. Blogs, threaded discussions,
and chats were all rated and ranked high for improving’reading and writing skills. Based
on these results, it becomes apparent that those assignment types that students liked and
labeled as “fun” were also the assignments that they perceived to be most beneficial for
their language development. The most successful assignment in terms of practicing all
four language skills was the multimedia team project.

In the following, I will take a closer look at the assignments that received overall
highest scores and ranks for the different modalities, that is, the blogs for reading and
writing, the online speaking activities for speaking and listening, and the multimedia
team project for all four language skills. Trends in students’ perceptions of these

assignments will be presented and challenges and victories will be discussed.

6.3.1 Reading and Writing Skills: Blogs

Overall, students rated blogs as the most effective online assignment in improving their
reading and writing skills.'02 As described in Chapter 5.4.4, I had created individual
student blogs on ANGEL that were arranged in alphabetical order by students’ first
names (see Appendix Z for a screenshot of the blog lesson folder). The students had to
submit an original post every other week and had to respond to at least three of their
peers’ blogs over the course of the semester. I as the teacher had an active role in

students’ blogs as well, commenting every other week on their entries. The task was to

 

’02 The average reading score in terms of effectiveness was 6.35 (with a range of l- l O), the average writing
score was 8.58 (with a range of 4-10). The writing score was the highest out of all assignments, the reading
score was the third highest, following online readings and the multimedia team project.

148

write a reaction to class assignments, readings, or discussions or other experiences in
connection with the course topic. Blog entries needed to be in German and at least 5
sentences long with a sentence containing at least a noun, a verb, and an object. Even
though students generally only completed the minimum requirement in terms of posting
entries and commenting on their peers’ blogs, access rates indicate high levels of
engagement with this assignment. Students liked the free and casual format of the blogs
but several students mentioned it would have been easier for them had I preassigned
topics to blog about. The following comments illustrate this:

29. I really liked that the blogs were so casual. You could just get your thoughts
out and not worry about every grammatical ending like you would on a paper.
It helped a lot with fluency in writing. (Scarlet)

30. It was nice having to react to what the others wrote. That made you think back
on what we had discussed in class but not in a formal way or anything.
(Amanda)

31. I sometimes really didn’t know what to write about. It would have been much
easier and quicker to complete these assignments had there been preassigned
topics. (Jen)

While the less proficient students tended to have a harder time coming up with things to
blog about and would have preferred specific topics, the more proficient students in class
enjoyed the freedom that went along with this assignment that allowed them to write
about a wide variety of topics. Blogs with specific topics received more responses than
blogs with general topics, for example, students who posted general comments on fairy
tales or general comments on the course received fewer responses than students who
wrote about specific aspects of fairy tales such as cruelty, sexuality, or gender roles in
fairy tales.

On average, students submitted 6 original posts with an average length of 111 words

and an average of 1 response per original post. This includes my responses to students’

149

blogs. Subtracting my responses, only every third original entry received a response with

an average length of 46 words. Table 7 summarizes this information.

Table 7
Average Blogger Profile

 

 

Original Length Responses per Post Length of Responses
Posts per Post
All Student All Student
Responses Responses Only Responses Responses Only
Mean 6 111.32 1.11 .38 46.74 45.55
SD 1.25 44.18 .53 .46 24.25 18.4
Range 3-7 65-202 .04-3 0-2 9-152 17-101

Note. This table presents information on mean, standard deviation, and range of students’ blogs. The first
column refers to the number of original posts, followed by average length. The third column contains
information on the number of average responses per original post according to all responses (peers and
teacher) and by students only. The last column refers to the average length of these responses, divided
again by all responses (peers and teacher) and by students only.

Only three students received peer responses to all their entries: Evelyn, Jen, and Susie.
While Evelyn posted only 3 original entries, Jen and Susie posted 6 and 7 entries
respectively. Throughout the first weeks of the semester, cliques had formed in class.
Students in a clique tended to sit together and worked on in-class and online group
activities together. I was interested in determining whether or not clique membership had
an effect on blog responses or whether the rank of a blogger’s own blog within the lesson
folder would influence students’ choice of which blogs to respond to. There were two
other students in Evelyn’s clique (Benjamin and Gordon) and three other students each in
Jen’s (Amanda, Judy, and Sabrina) and Susie’s (Angela, Monica, and William) cliques.
With the exception of Nadja, who accessed everybody’s blog between 2-10 times,

Evelyn’s, Jen’s, and Susie’s blogs were accessed by their clique members at 47%, 41%,

150

and 84% respectively. In general, students were more likely to access the blogs of clique
members than other students’ blogs with two exceptions: Blogs that were top- or bottom-
ranked within the lesson folder received most hits overall. Amanda’s and Angela’s blogs,
the first two in the folder, were accessed most, followed by Susie’s and William’s blogs,
the last ones on the list.103 In addition, four students had significantly higher blog activity
than the remainder of the class. Those students had accessed almost every blog at least
once. All other students had accessed blogs outside their clique, if at all, no more than
twice.

It appears that students felt most comfortable to collaborate with their friends and that
it was easier for them to respond to specific rather than broad themes in the postings.
Blogs allowed them to use the language in a non-threatening environment, at their own
convenience and pace, and in creative ways. The blogs integrated content and language
by asking students to elaborate on course materials and express their opinions using their
own words. Due to their collaborative nature, blogs provided ample opportunities for
students to interact with each other, albeit asynchronously. The assignment offered a
meaningful context in that students wrote for an audience that extended beyond the
teacher (i.e., their peers). Many students mentioned that they felt the threaded discussions
and the blogs covered similar topics and suggested to keep only one or the other,
preferably the blogs.

While the blogs were a successful assignment overall, there were some challenges
throughout the semester. The password-protected access to ANGEL offered a safe

environment for language learners, however, the layout of the actual blogs was not

 

’03 Tim’s blog was located between Susie and William, however, Tim did not belong to any clique and had
very few hits on his blog overall. He also asked to complete the multimedia team project by himself
because he did not feel comfortable working with any of his peers.

151

clearly arranged. It was difficult to determine when and where new entries were added,
blog entries disappeared, and time stamps changed. Using a different blog provider can
easily circumvent these functionality issues. As pointed out, not all blogs were accessed
or responded to equally. In general, those students with. fewer friends received fewer
responses and hits and those blogs that were located in the middle of the lesson folder
were accessed less often than blogs at the beginning or end of the folder. A possible
solution to these problems is to assign students to blog communities in order to limit the

total number of blogs and encourage higher engagement with fewer bloggers.

6. 3. 2 Speaking and Listening Skills: Online Speaking Activities
The online speaking activities were identified as the most effective online assignment in
improving students’ speaking and listening skills.’0” In fact, the average speaking score in
terms of effectiveness was the highest score received for any assignment type and
language skill (see Figure 9). It was also the assignment that students across the board
worked with the most. On average, students completed 11 of the possible 14 assignments,
22% more than the required minimum.105

At the beginning of the semester, students had rated speaking as one of their weaker
skills because of the lack of focus and feedback in this area and their lack of confidence
in using the language around more proficient peers. These issues surfaced multiple times
throughout the semester in the self-evaluations. As I provided feedback on the self-
evaluations, I always tried to encourage students to participate more in class. In response,

many students commented on their insecurities about speaking in front of others:

 

’04 The average speaking score in terms of effectiveness was 9.17 (with a range of 2-10). The average
listening score was 8.76 (with a range of 5-10) and was slightly below the score for audio files.

’05 Only four students were below the requirement with a total of 7 or 8 recordings.

152

32. As to speaking, for years it was very difficult to communicate to others in my
own language without feeling just a little intimidated! But I think I’m
improving. (Sharon)

33. I wish that my speaking skills were better. I’m trying to improve them and the
online conversations really help, but it’s very intimidating to be in a class full
of people who have already been to Germany and can speak without flinching.
This is mainly why I hesitate to participate. (Cathy)

34. I’m really trying not to be discouraged by the native speakers and I am going
to try and contribute more to classroom conversations, despite my
insecurities! I guess I shouldn’t compare myself to students who have more
experience with German, although they are kind of intimidating. I need to
work at my own pace. (Scarlet)

35. I wish that everyone would talk more and not just the same four kids that are
obviously from Germany and understand everything. (Peggy)

These comments point to the challenge of providing an inclusive learning environment in
upper-level classes where students may have diverse backgrounds and proficiency levels.
By providing additional speaking opportunities online, I hoped to help students overcome
their insecurities in a private environment, which ultimately led to increased participation
in class, as noted by Peggy, among other students, in week 13:

36. I really liked the in-class discussion we had today. [just felt that it was really
productive and everyone got into it. I think our class is getting more and more
comfortable with the texts that we’re reading and can hold a conversation for
along period of time on it. Pretty exciting. (Peggy)

As described in Chapter 5.4.2, the online speaking activities were intended to address
students’ perceived lack in this area by providing them extended, contextualized listening
and speaking practice while focusing on important aspects of the course materials. Each
week, students had to listen and respond to my prompts that generally addressed topics in
the reading assignments. Some prompts asked for specific information based on the
readings, some asked students to interpret certain aspects of the texts, while others were

simply used to work on intonation and stress patterns (see Appendix R for a selection of

prompts). I provided individualized oral feedback to their responses focusing on content

153

and language, which students felt was much needed. As pointed out by Scarlet: “The
conversations are definitely beneficial because we need feedback in speaking in
German.” Yet, only 9 students subscribed to their feedback online,’06 two of whom
(Amanda and Gordon) also left comments in response, ’which tended to be longer than
their initial responses to the prompts in Conversations. When asked why they did not take
advantage of this opportunity, students stated that they forgot about the oral feedback.

As I transcribed students’ responses to my prompts, I was interested in determining
whether any differences in levels of fluency could be discerned between students of
different proficiency levels or between the beginning versus the end of the semester. This
was measured by c-units, which Bohlke described as

more inclusive for measuring oral discourse [than t-units] because it does not
require a verb or predicate. Since many utterances in oral discourse lack a verb,
but still communicate pragmatic meaning, the c-unit is appropriate for the analysis

of spoken language. [A c-unit] include[s] any contribution without a verb, if it

is communicative, comprehensible. (2003a, pp. 72-73; see also Crookes, 1990 and
Duff, 1986)

The following excerpts from the transcripts illustrate how student responses were coded
using c-units. Each c-unit is indicated by a slash:
Sie handeln von Rituale oder Sitten / und geben einem ja sie geben einem die
Meinung / dass es eine bessere Zukunft eben konnte / und der Erzahler ah k‘o'nnte
sie findem / je nach Zustand. / (William) 07
Mythen und Sagen sind ganz gleich / alle kommen aus andere Quellen / und die

Publizitfit war wichtig / und die Zuhfirer / erst war es Erwachsene / und jetzt ist es
mehr Kinder. / (Judy)108

 

’06 Generally, students with average proficiency subscribed to the feedback. Those students with either
high or low proficiency did not subscribe. Jill, a student with high proficiency, and Angela, a student with
low proficiency, were the exceptions who subscribed to the feedback but did not leave comments for me in
return.

’07 They are about rituals or customs / and give you well they give you the idea / that there could be a
better future / and the narrator uhm could change them / depending on the state. /

’08 Myths and sagas are very similar / all come from different sources / und publicity was important / and
the audience / first it was adults / and now it is more children /

154

William’s excerpt contained five and Judy’s six c-units. Each c-unit communicated a new
concept and was meaningful. False starts, fillers, incomprehensible sentences, utterances
in English and the like were not counted as separate c-units.

Because not all students participated in the same conversations each week, I selected
samples of six students from weeks 2 and 13 to allow for comparison. The prompts in
these two weeks were comparable in terms of difficulty and content addressed. The six
selected students included the native speakers Benjamin and Rita, proficient speakers
William and Judy, and lower-proficient speakers Angela and Susie. The first two students
participated in every in-class discussion. William and Judy generally participated well
when called on, while the last two students were hesitant at first but became more
outspoken as the semester progressed. These students’ responses in weeks 2 and 13 were
timed and coded. To determine reliability of c-unit identification, a second rater coded
the data, and both the Pearson and Spearman correlations were 0.98. To determine
students’ fluency levels, the number of c-units per week was averaged by length of
responses to obtain a score of average c-units per minute. Figure 10 shows the
comparison of these six students’ fluency levels in weeks 2 and 13.

As can be seen, with the exception of Angela, all students increased in fluency from
weeks 2 to 13. Angela admitted to not having read the assigned texts for week 13 and had
therefore been unable to respond to the prompts in detail. Throughout the semester, she
got discouraged by the level of difficulty of the readings and her lacking language skills,
which prohibited her from understanding them: “I know I would have enjoyed the course
more had my German vocab been bigger, that hindered my ability to understand. I didn’t

get the readings. The vocab was too specific, so I simply stopped bothering.”

155

.m2 V283 :_ .05.
0222 3:323: 5:200 Em: 05 .N :83 :2 _o>o_ .8522: 2.: $55 5:28 to. 222 2:02:25 some :0: .m_o>o_ 28:22.28: wEmmobu: .3 was:
0.222 35:22: 22% .3533 Ems :0: 822328 wExaoam 052:9 0:2 :2 23:25 .222 £570 23 2.222233: £022 .8523: N265 Baum EC. 632

saw some... N252 84.2222222 52 M 22228.25:

N2 .28} N .283 .N2 .283, N .283 N2 .28? N .283 N2 .2an N .283 N2 .283 N .283 2N2 .28} N .2ch

     

 

.2

m2

 

.om

 

mm

 

 

om

BEBBVMNNEBQW 23:0 aetxfigmu 20:22:
2: new:

156

It appears hardly surprising that students of higher proficiency levels generally had higher
levels of fluency than the weaker students, both at the beginning and end of the semester.
A positive finding, besides students’ overall improvement, is that even the native
speakers appeared to have increased in fluency. Granted, a comparison of only relatively
short responses to different readings certainly had an influence on students’ oral
productions, however, these positive tendencies were confirmed by students’ oral
production in class and by the students themselves. Nadja, for example, noted that “I can
give spontaneous answers more readily” and Jen stated in the final interview that the
online speaking activities were mostly helpful because they “helped with speaking and
listening and resulted in speaking more German in class.”

In summary, the weekly activities gave students the opportunity to practice their
listening and speaking skills in a non-threatening environment, removed from their peers,
and at their own convenience and pace. It also allowed them to monitor their own
progress and students were able to increase their fluency over the Course of the semester,
as shown in Figure 10. Cathy, who was hesitant to participate (see comment 30.), noted at
the end of the semester that “the conversations helped with pronunciation. Participation
and class discussions went easier because of it.” The aspect that some of the weaker
students highlighted about this assignment was that they felt they were not graded against
the more proficient speakers in class but against themselves. Sharon, who felt intimidated
to speak in front of others (see comment 29.), stated in the final interview:

37. The balance between native speakers and students who haven’t been to
Germany is a problem but in this class I could show my potential because I

wasn’t put on the spot online and could take chances with words and
grammar. (Sharon)

157

The assignment enabled me as the instructor to assess my students’ proficiency levels
much more accurately and, more importantly, early on in the course. It was particularly
interesting to listen to those students who rarely participated in class. On many occasions,
Cathy, for example, did not speak up in class at all and'only responded very hesitantly
when called on. In the online environment, however, Cathy produced long stretches of
connected speech, had interesting viewpoints and ideas, and was able to synthesize
course content well.

Only two students reported difficulties using the programs. Benjamin had microphone
trouble in the beginning and ended up using computers in the language lab; William was
unable to access Audio Assignments and gave up after a few tries. One of the major
drawbacks of this assignment was the time commitment for me as the instructor. While
recording prompts was quick, listening to all students’ responses and providing feedback
took a long time. I was able to limit my time spent on this assignment by recording
shorter prompts and more targeted questions and by not allowing Students to practice
their answers but rather answer spontaneously using the program’s live mode. It needs to
be pointed out though that students could still click through the entire live mode and
listen to all prompts before they actually recorded and submitted their answers. As a
result, particularly the weaker students wrote out their answers and read them aloud.
Benjamin had doubted the usefulness of this program:

38. Ich personlich finde es sehr “akward” [sic], mit einem Computer eine
Konversation zu haben. Es ist so unnatfirlich und unpersonlich. In wie fern
helfen diese Aufgaben eigentlich dem Lerner? Beantworten die meisten
Studenten die Fragen spontan und frei, oder schreiben sie ihre Antworten erst
aus und lesen sie dann vor? Wenn es das zweite ist, dann ist die Clear-
Konversation meiner Meinung nach fiberflfissig, dann konnte man die

Antwort auch ausdrucken und im Unterricht abgeben. Wenn der Sinn der
Aufgabe ist, Aussprache zu fiben und eine Konversation zu haben, dann sollte

158

man das im Unterricht machen. Auf diese Weise wird der Schiller gezwungen,
spontan und frei zu sprechen.I09

While his comment is correct in addressing the lack of a natural conversation, the
program still offers valuable targeted language practice for all students, particularly those
who are hesitant to speak up in a traditional classroom. Despite his criticism, Benjamin
gave this assignment the highest scores for effectiveness in improving speaking and
listening on the post questionnaire and also indicated that he felt it helped with reading as
well because in order to respond to the prompts, “you had to read the texts, which
otherwise I probably wouldn’t have.” While his point is well taken and while I do not
suggest that online speaking activities could or should replace face-to-face conversations
in foreign language classes, students still perceived the additional opportunities to listen
to and speak in German as valuable and had reported significant improvement in listening

and some improvement in speaking at the end of the semester.

6. 3.3 Integrated Skills: Multimedia Team Project

The multimedia team project was rated as the most effective online assignment in
improving all four language skillsl '0 and therefore achieved what it set out to do, namely
allowing students to combine and apply all language skills in a meaningful, collaborative
context. Recall that the projects were shared with an 8th grade English class at a German

Gymnasium and therefore encouraged ownership and responsibility through self-

 

“)9 I personally find it rather “awkward” to have a conversation with a computer. It is very unnatural and
impersonal. To what extent do these assignments help the learner? Do most student answer the questions
spontaneously and freely or do they write out their answers first and the read them off? If the latter, then the
Clear-Conversation is redundant, in my opinion, and one could print out and turn in the answer. If the point
of the assignment is to practice pronunciation and to lead a conversation, then this should be done in class.
That way, students will be forced to speak spontaneously and freely.

“0 The average scores in terms of effectiveness for the language skills were 8 for speaking (with a range of
4-10), 7.33 for listening (with a range of l-lO), 7.07 for reading (with a range of HO), and a whooping
8.47 for writing (with a range of l-lO).

159

publishing fora real audience. As described in Chapter 5.4.11, each project consisted of
three parts and needed to include a video and/or audio component, some text, and
interactive exercises on the content. Optional features were images and additional links.
Figure 11 shows an example of one team’s project.

While some students questioned the topic of these projects within the context of the

coursel ' I, the general evaluation at the end of the semester was overwhelmingly positive

9’ 6"

and students described the midterm as “fun, interactive,” and “engaging.” Students
enjoyed being able to demonstrate their technology skills, learn new technologies they
could apply in other contexts, and appreciated the creative and artistic freedom in the
project. They immersed themselves in the task and worked enthusiastically with each
other. The following quotes illustrate this:

39. It was a fun and interesting project that made you think outside the box.
Looking at my peers’ projects was very interesting and I learned a lot about
them. (Gordon)

40. I really enjoyed the midterm. It was a lot of fun and I felt inspired by the
topic. I also felt proud of the end product and thought it was good for more
exposure to German. (Scarlet)

41. I liked the midterm. It was fun and I learned how to work with the programs.
The CLEAR programs are the most interesting thing I have ever seen in my
entire life for class interaction. I think that they are the most innovative tools
I've seen so far on the intemet for language studies. I also learned how to
upload on YouTube and already used this knowledge for another class.

(Peggy)

 

11] Jill, for example, wrote on her final questionnaire “It was fun, but it did not fit into this course + was
better suited for a 300 level grammar class than a 400 level Fairy Tales class.” Rita mentioned in the final
interview that she “didn’t see how the topic related to the course but it was interesting to see how people
see themselves and reality. The idea of sharing it with others was cool.” I felt the topic fit in with the
overall course theme as we discussed the concepts of culture and civilization and the impact of fairy tales
on concepts of identity.

160

 

 

- eggiuaiszuiiidgbau

weavanflaagiguflaaflnoaflaumi
ggmfimifléfi~€m§§9§£

83333.33383 688:
u§§§£§§§§<
... agggagmfiflgg

W gigggflisgggg

M gigwegfiggafl

$8383 E a?

33
gigggfigl flag

3 M ggeimfiflanfigmanfififiggm
gagifigoiflbmflim
38923333303313.8810!
m aseBEafiuflflfiBuegufiéueg
m 3.33ifiulgnfigi
€£§_S§8&~§ufigufici§§z

egmwfl 337

BQNQKK Ntfiwrm EfimEENNN:
: Rama

161

.owna 25 :o 550% 2m 33 82> 128526 cm was 80.35 05.8 28:8 2: :0 £88 35 323.8 322225
@8332 2? .N can _ mean :0 8:8 3:053 :05 325352 :2: 2:23: 2: \3 BEBE BE 0618 8m omen 3032a 05 :o owaé 05 5858:: owns: 5
mm :9: an N new _ mtg 8550 :2: i2 39:2: 952:: :2: .EEEB cam 655 .onoz .a_om:< .3 62.05 mEoEcEE 2: $5852 65:023. mt; $32

EumEmuth<

WMMEIHG Q 3,..de

 

cumEmuth<

mum _ no. a1.

Euncmxzwed.

mcmwm win

N

H
(B

 

 

Eommethm 22: EB cmoczEmU. wcu_w>> msmb

 

 

.38 ~ _ 2.:me

162

In one of the lab sessions, the students had to view all projects and comment on them in
the blog that I had set up for the midterm. Their feedback speaks to the informative
nature of these projects, how students learned a lot about each other, but also contained
critical comments on the content:

42. Ich fand alle Projeckten sehr interessant, manchmal lustig, aber alle haben die
Aufgabe in Ernst genommen. Tims Projekt war besonders bewegend und
informierend. Peggy und Scarlet bietet eine sehr bunte Projekt, mit viele
Informationen durch visuelle Medien praesentiert und das hat mir gut
gefallen.‘ '2 (Jill)

43. Dieses Midterm [von Benjamin, Evelyn und Gordon] ist sehr gut gemacht und
den Film finde ich besonders gut. Aber ich stimme mit ihrer Meinung nicht
zu, weil die meisten negativ sind. Bestimmt haben die Amerikaner viele
anerkannte negative Eigenschaften aber ich glaube, dass sie auch positive
haben. Ausserdem war es sehr gut gemacht.l ‘3 (William)

44. Ich habe diese Midterm [von Jill, Nadja und Rita] sehr toll gefunden. Es
gefellt mir das diese gruppe ueber Politik gesprechen haben. Die andere
gruppe, denke ich, habe nur ueber sich selbst gesprechen, aber diese grupper
benutzt eine kombination. Sie haben ueber sich selbst und uber etwas anderes
Amerikanisch ist gesprochen.l '4 (Angela)

45. Das [von Cathy and Sharon] war nicht wie die andere. Die aktivitaeten habe
ich sehr lustig gefunden. Die Video war aber ein bisschen komisch, aber auch
lustig. Sie haben viel ueber Amerikanische Identitaet gesprochen.l '5 (Monica)

Following this lab session, most students highlighted in their self-evaluations that the
viewing of all projects made the assignment come full circle. Gordon’s comment

illustrates this:

 

”2 I found all projects very interesting, sometimes funny, but all of them took the assignment seriously.
Tim’s project was particularly moving and informative. Peggy and Susie offered a very colorful project,
with a lot of information presented through visual media types und I really liked that.

”3 This midterm [by Benjamin, Evelyn, and Gordon] was done very well and I particularly liked the
movie. But I do not agree with their opinion because it is mostly negative. Americans certainly have many
widely acknowledged negative characteristics but I think they also have positive ones. But it was really
done well.

"4 i found this midterm [by Jill, Nadja, and Rita] great. l liked that this group talked about politics. The
other groups, I think, only talked about themselves but this group used a combination. They talked about
themselves and about other things American.

I 15 This [by Cathy and Sharon] wasn’t like the others. I found the activities very funny. The video was a bit
weird but also funny. They talked a lot about American identity.

163

46. Class this week was very interesting. It was great that all the projects were
integrated into class. I liked looking over other classmates' midterrns. They
were all very well done. (Gordon)

While the 8‘h graders in Germany got a chance to look at the projects in class (the teacher
projected the projects onto a wall), they did not have Internet access during class that
would have allowed them to post comments in the blog. Only the teacher responded with
feedback online: “Das Programm ist gut gemacht, die Fragen leider manchmal etwas
schwierig. In den amerikanischen Videos kam die unterschiedliche Identitat des
amerikanischen Volkes doch ziemlich gut zum Ausdruck.”| '6

All groups exceeded my expectations and submitted excellent projects with well-
delivered content. Some groups had reported difficulties with the online programs, which
had been quickly solved by a lab session. Out of all assignments, this is the one I would
definitely implement again because it presented the best ratio of (low) instructor
involvement and (high) learning outcomes in all language skills. Students could
demonstrate their understanding of assigned readings in the video/audio component as
well as in the interactive activities they had to create. The project stimulated their critical

thinking and expression skills and allowed the students to extend in-class discussions to a

broader context outside of class.

 

”6 The program is well-made but the questions were sometimes difficult. However, the American videos
expressed the diverse identity of the American people well.

164

6.4 Research Question 4:

Perceptional Differences between Students with High vs. Low Language Skills
Research question 4 investigated perceptional differences of the hybrid course and its
online assignments between highly proficient and strong students (in terms of language
learning background and GPA) and students with lower abilities and grades. I was
interested in determining if different learner groups deemed certain assigmnent types
more effective in advancing language skills.

Students were assigned scores for language learning background and GPA. For each
year they had studied German, students received 1 point. For study or travel abroad,
students received 1 point if their length of stay was up to 2 months, 2 points for up to 6
months, 3 points for up to 1 year, and 4 points if beyond.l '7 If their overall GPA was
between 0-1.9, they received 1 point, a GPA of 2.0-2.2 received 2 points, 2.3-2.7 received
3 points, 2.8-3.3 received 4 points, and 3.4-4.0 received 5 points. This allowed me to
divide the students into three groups, which I labeled as highly proficient, proficient, and
lower proficient. The results generally coincided with my perceptions of students’
abilities with two exceptions. Gordon and William were both ranked toward the bottom
of the lower proficient group. Neither of them had studied German in high school, which
significantly decreased their overall score compared to their peers. However, the quantity
and quality of their contributions in class and online were more similar to those students
ranked mid-field than to those students ranked toward the bottom. Therefore, I moved

both of them up.l '8 As a consequence, Peggy and Angela were moved to the lower group,

 

”7 In the case of the native and near-native speakers, the categories of number of years studied and time
spent abroad overlapped and therefore their years of exposure to the German language was translated into
if?”

My perception of William coincided with Gina’s perception of his language skills in the pilot study.

165

which also coincided with my perception of their abilities. Angela’s case was fairly clear
in that she herself had indicated that she hardly ever participated in class because of her
lacking language skills, which prohibited her from understanding the readings and her
peers (see Chapter 6.3.2). Peggy was a borderline case. She participated well in class but
the quality of her contributions was clearly lacking (in terms of content and language)
and not comparable to students in the average range who generally participated less than
her but produce quality statements when they did participate. Table 8 summarizes the
division of students into the three groups.

Table 8
Students’ Proficiency Levels

 

 

Highly Proficient Proficient Lower Proficient
Benjamin Jen Peggy
Rita Amanda Angela
Evelyn Monica Cathy
Nadja Judy Sharon
Jill William Sabrina
Tim Gordon Scarlet
Susie

Note. This table shows the distribution of students into three proficiency groups based on their language
learning background and GPA.

Prior to analyzing students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the online assignments, I
crosschecked students’ initial perception of their language skills (item B. 1. on the pre-
questionnaire [see Appendix D]). Results are listed in Appendix AA. The lower
proficient and proficient groups rated their productive language skills lower than their

receptive language skills, which was expected. The highly proficient group rated all four

166

language skills significantly higher than the other two groups and their language skills in
oral modality (i.e., speaking and listening) as higher than those in written modality. Due
to the fact that half of this group consisted of native or near-native speakers, who had
spent considerable time in German-speaking countries’but went through the majority of
formal schooling in English-speaking countries, they had an excellent command of the
spoken language but felt insecure about intricacies in writing and reading.l '9

Recall that 56% of all students had preferred online activities to traditional
assignments while 1 1% had preferred traditional activities (see Chapter 6.1.2). When
looking at responses by groups, preference of online assignments decreased with
decreasing proficiency. 5 of 6 students in the highly proficient group clearly favored
online to traditional assignments, compared to 3 students in the proficient group, and only
2 students in the lower proficient group. Learning online requires a high level of
independence, self-reliance, and motivation and it appears that students with lower
proficiency levels needed more handholding than students with higher proficiency levels.
They consistently preferred a blend of traditional and online activities to help their
understanding and language development. In the words of Sabrina:

47. The course had great balance between online and in-class activities. You
definitely need both for language classes. (Sabrina)

Interestingly enough, when asked how the hybrid design influenced students’ overall
learning experience, students in the highly proficient group reported a neutral effect,
whereas students in the proficient and lower proficient groups reported a strong positive

effect because it offered more practice, as illustrated by the following comments:

 

l 9 . . . . .. ,, .
1 In the words of Benjamm: “Es lst immer schwerer. Deutsch zu lesen als anzuhoren. [It IS always more
difficult to read German than to listen to it.]

167

48. It forced me to pay attention to homework and actually use my German.
(Angela)
49. I feel as though it was much more interactive & actually made me practice my
skills, rather than jus blindly writing papers. (Cathy)
50. It offered more practice in the language (Scarlet)
51. It made me just a touch more confident in using my German. (Sharon)
52. I felt more connected to the material, like it "was hands on learning, which
increased my attention and learning abilities. (Monica)
53. I was more integrated in this class with all of the activities, so I was more
involved. (Amanda)
Using students’ data on their perceived effectiveness of the various online assignments in
improving language skills (item B. 10. on the post-questionnaire [see Appendix M]), I
compared average cell ratings between the groups. The top ratings are summarized in
Table 9.

In general, group results were very similar to the ratings of the entire class as
presented in Figure 9. All groups rated the online speaking activities highest for
improving speaking and listening skills. It is interesting to note that the average scores
decreased, as the level of proficiency increased. Students in the lower proficient group
rated the effectiveness of this assignment for speaking with a perfect 10, students in the
proficient group with a 9.83, and students in the highly proficient group with a 7.5. This
correlates with initial average proficiency ratings by these groups. Students in the lower
proficiency and proficient groups had rated speaking as their lowest language skill (with

an average of 2.58 and 2.83 respectively120

) and had been eager to improve their oral
development, while students in the highly proficient group had rated their initial speaking

skills as their second highest skill with an average of 4.33. It appears that assignments

that overtly addressed students’ perceived areas of weakness were rated high in

 

120 Recall that these numbers were based on a 5-point Likert scale with I being very weak and 5 being
superior.

168

.mowfioaN macaw 6.8 090 EoEcw_mma some 9.35:8 385.223

E meonEzc on... .EoEcw_mmm 6288.3 ZOE 05 9:69 o_ 53> maize.— =Eo>o 2t 8 3%: w can .o .o. 33:5: 2: .masoew 5:26:93
8:: 05 .3 cements 3.2m owmswcm. w:_>o.aE_ E SEE—Rina 25:0 80 mmoco>zooto 33083 2: co :ocmELAdE 8220.5 038 3:. .682

 

No.8 sees 68H Not seas seep A28 Sosa 889 w
No.8 82m 58 82880.5 8825 No.8 82883 88oz; a
E8 320 £28 awoa A28 82m 2 Nazca
No.8 sees Eeoe E sowed seek G8 3er N
E 325 Not awoa 6 .868 sea. a
Not aweoeom 25:0 8 22833.5 8985 A28 8:888 25:0 2 Needed
Not eased so“; 58 seas seek 988 does .58. w
Nat moi 222. s _ .8 8233. 828% 3.8 8:332 mdeaoom a
No.8 823?. 8%on $8 mo: 22% Eat mo: 22;. 2 mafia:
3.8 $5 5.8 8.: 22% N08 920 w
No.8 Sosa as“; s _ .8 sowed 88H N88 aged :aoe a.
a: mo£>so< 382$ 88 mezzo/s. 828% G8 8223 8%on 2 8%on
622,35 8304 €22.35 E2385 3&5

 

macaw N8 “gunfirwwmmw mEEQKQ mmmzmfiaomekm

a 29?

169

effectiveness. This hypothesis is further underscored by the highly proficient group’s
initial low rating of their writing skill (with an average of 3.33) and the overall highest
average scores in terms of effectiveness for writing (blogs received a 9.33, threaded
discussions a 7.67, and the multimedia team project a 7.17).

All groups included the multimedia team project in the top three ranks for all
language skills. Once again, this assignment appeared to be the most effective for an
integrated approach regardless of proficiency level, which also suggests that this
assignment type is suitable for a multilevel course because of its collaborative nature.

In terms of group differences, chats were identified by the lower-proficient students
as an effective assignment for writing, reading, and speaking skills. The proficient group
rated the blogs as effective for improving both writing and reading skills and audio files
for improving both listening and speaking skills. The highly proficient group also
identified blogs as effective for improving writing.‘2| Based on these results, instructors
may want to consider offering different types of online assignment to students of
different proficiency levels.

In terms of assignments that were not perceived as effective, students in both the
lower proficient and proficient groups did not find web quests an overall effective
assignmentl22 In addition, students in the proficient group also identified the wiki as one
of the lesser effective assignments across language skills, which is in contrast to the
highly proficient group who rated this assignment high for reading and writing skills.
Students in the proficient group mentioned that the wiki “stressed me out because I knew

that people can look at it and I don’t think my German is good enough for public

 

121 The lower proficient group had also ranked blogs among the most effective assignments for writing
skills, however, average scores for chats were higher.

l22 .
It was among the lowest average scores for all four language SklllS.

170

consumption” (Amanda). Students in the highly proficient group did not seem to have
those fears and “enjoyed sharing my work with the public” (Nadja).

In summary, students’ levels of proficiency did not seem to have an immense impact
on their perceptions of the effectiveness of online assignments for language learning but
it did affect their preference of assignment types. As proficiency levels increased, so did
students’ preference of online assignment types to traditional activities, suggesting that
students with weaker language skills need an integrated approach that offers more in-

class support and connects online with face-to-face learning.

6.5 Research Question 5:

Effects of Attitudes toward Technology on Student Perceptions of the Hybrid Course
Research question 5 investigated effects of previous experience with and attitudes toward
technology on students’ perception of the hybrid course. Recall that at the outset of the
study, the students had rated their technology skills as good to very good and had an
overall neutral to positive attitude toward using computers in foreign language classes
(see Chapter 5.2.2). Rita, one of the native speakers of German and excellent studentm,
was the exception: She generally “disliked” computers, rated her technology skills as
“very weak,” and “strongly disliked” the use of computers for language learning. At the
other end of the spectrum was Peggy, an average studentm, who rated her technology
skills as “superior” and liked using computers in language classes. Along with Rita,

Benjamin, the other native speaker in class, and William also disliked the use of

computers in language classes. Both students had participated in the pilot study, which

 

123 Her overall GPA was between 3.4-4.0.
'24 Her overall GPA was between 2.3-2.7.

I71

may have had a negative influence on their perceptions at the beginning of the hybrid
course. Monica, the third student who had also participated in the pilot study, on the other
hand, “strongly liked” using computers in language classes, which reflects an increase
from her rating during the pilot study. Apart from the three students who participated in
the pilot study, GRM 455 was the first hybrid language class the students had enrolled in
(Scarlet had taken an online course in microbiology and thought “it was a wonderful
learning tool,” Nadja in educational administration and mentioned she “needed ongoing
technical support,” and Megan in economics and indicated she liked “the visual part of
the computer and felt less pressure”).

Students were assigned scores for previous experience with and attitudes toward
technology. High ratings of technology skills translated into high points, as did positive
attitudes about using computers in foreign language classes (see items 3.10. and 8.6. on
the pre-questionnaire [Appendix D]). For time spent online for German classes, students
received 1 point for 0-4 hours, 2 points for 5-9 hours, 3 points for 10-19 hours, and 4
points for 20 hours or more. This allowed me to divide the students into three groups,
which I labeled as technophil, tech-neutral, and technophob. Table 10 summarizes the
division of students into these three groups.

I compared average group ratings of students’ responses to how the hybrid design had
changed their attitude toward the course (ranked on a S-point Likert scale with 1 being a
strong negative influence and 5 being a strong positive influence) and their ratings of
enjoyment of the course (also ranked on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 being strongly

dislike and 5 being strongly like). Results are presented in Table 11.

172

Table 10
Students ’ Attitudes toward Technology

 

 

Technophil Tech-neutral Technophob
Monica Nadja . Evelyn
Peggy Judy Sabrina
Susie Jen William
Scarlet Cathy Rita

Sharon Amanda

Jill Benjamin

Gordon Angela

Tim

Note. This table shows the distribution of students into three groups based on their experience with and
attitudes toward technology.

Table 11
Effect of Technology Background on Perception onybrid Course

 

 

Technophil Tech-neutral Technophob
Perception of hybrid design 3.5 4 2
Enjoyment of course 3.5 4.43 3.5

Note. This table presents students’ attitudes toward the hybrid design and their general enjoyment of the
course by levels of technology skills.

Students in the tech-neutral group reported a positive influence of the hybrid design on
their attitude toward the course and also strongly liked the course as a whole. It appears
that the implementation of technology in a language course has positive effects on
students with average technology skills and backgrounds. Students in the technophob
group, on the other hand, reported a negative influence of the hybrid design on their

attitude toward the course, yet, they rated their enjoyment of the course on the whole with

173

neutral to positive. It is barely surprising that students who dislike technology would
perceive a heavy technology focus in a course as negative. Their ratings of their overall
enjoyment of the course is still encouraging, especially when considering the plethora of
online assignments in GRM 455. Technophil students rated both their perception of the
hybrid design and enjoyment of the course as neutral to positive.

In analyzing students’ open-ended comments on the post-questionnaire and their
responses in the final interview, almost all students stated that they “hated” the course at
first because of the heavy work load but “appreciated it” later for the extensive exposure
to and practice with the German language through different technologies. These
comments were made by the students, regardless of their language or technology level.
The following shall suffice as examples:

54. In the beginning, the course design had a negative impact but I enjoyed it in
the long run. It was a nice change from traditional classrooms. (Benjamin)

55. This course had me involved way more. At first I hated it because it was too
much work, but then I really liked it. I learned way more here than I have
before because I participated more because of the hybrid. (Amanda)

56. First I was overwhelmed and scared but it got better over the first few weeks.

But then I put off work and got frustrated easily. In retrospect, the hybrid
design really helped in advancing my German. (Peggy)

6.6 Other Findings
One of the major objectives of this course was to integrate academic content and
linguistic skills in an upper-level class. I had suggested that the implementation of
technology can be useful in this endeavor and, based on the results presented in this
chapter, this approach appeared successful. Students rated their knowledge of subject

matter at the end of the course with a 3.84 on a 5-point Likert scale, which approached “I

174

learned a lot,” and also perceived improvement across all language skills,’25 particularly
in cultural knowledge and listening comprehension.

In its hybrid format, the course emphasized the use of technology outside (and instead
of) the classroom. However, the integrated approach of content and language was not
only an important facet of the online assignments but was also applied during face-to-
face sessions. Using a student-centered format, the course encouraged students’ active
participation and involvement in large and small group discussions and in interactive and
creative group projects. Most of the students highlighted these aspects in their weekly
self-evaluations, the final questionnaires, and interviews. They particularly emphasized
four assignments: 1. After reading the fairy tale The White Bride and the Black Bride,
students had to rewrite the story in groups and switch the gender roles of the protagonists.
We had discussed the portrayal of gender roles in fairy tales and the groups came up with
interesting nuances and twists. Jill and Jen, for example, noted:

57. I liked the reinterpretation of the white and black brides. It was a fun and
entertaining exercise, but also showed what the class thinks of gender, sex,
and sexuality and how vital/non-vital they are to a story. (Jill)

58. I liked how we got to re-write the fairytale. I thought it was a very interesting
activity. The discussion we had in our group and later in class was really good
and I think my understanding may be improving. (Jen)

2. For various tales, we looked at illustrations throughout history, including illustrations
from different origins, cartoons, and political satires. Students were asked to analyze and
interpret the images in groups and present their thoughts to the class. All students were

very engaged and they appreciated the change of pace from heavy readings to visual

stimuli.

 

125 . . . . . .
Average scores for the areas of speaking, listening, reading, writing, grammar, vocabulary, and culture

were between 3.05 and 4.1 l on a 5-point Likert scale with 3 being some improvement and 4 being a lot of
improvement.

175

59. Mir haben die Illustrationen zu der Geschichte [von die Schone und das Biest]
gut gefallen. Sie waren sehr interessant; es war toll, diese Bilder vergleichen
zu koennen und bestimmte Elemente wie die Rose herauszusuchen. '26
(Benjamin)

60. I liked looking at the different pictures of Beauty and the Beast. It actually
gave me something to say auf deutsch for once. (Susie)

3. When we discussed the Frog Prince, students were given the task to design a modern
Hollywood film version of this tale. Groups had to identify the main characters, choose
the cast, draft the storyline, find a title, and create a movie poster. Students described it as
a “fun” activity they got very engaged in and for which they stayed after class to work on
and met throughout the week to prepare for their in-class presentations, on which we all
voted.

61. I liked working in groups to come up with our own F roschkoenig, it was very
interesting and fun. (Gordon)

62. Die Froschkoenig Aufgabe war toll, wo wir einen Film draus machen sollte.
Das war ganz witzig und wir haben uns am Wochenende getroffen, um unser
Filmplakat zu machen. Wir wollen auch Lindsay Lohan anrufen und fragen,
ob sie die Prinzessin spielt.’27 (Tim)

63. Brainstorming and presenting new Froschkonig movies was entertaining. It
seemed more engaging than other assignments and people seemed more
involved. (William)

4. After discussing Hansel and Gretel, we held a mock trial in class where the parents of
Hansel and Gretel were charged with negligence in supervision and the witch was
charged with cannibalism. Students were assigned to groups and either had to prepare
arguments for the prosecution or defense of the parents or the witch.

64. Forming our own arguments to defend/prosecute the different characters of
the fairy tale was awesome. I think we had a really great discussion and

people came up with some pretty interesting arguments. The parents are not
guilty! :) (Amanda)

 

'26 I really liked the illustrations of Beauty and the Beast. They were very interesting; it was great to

compare these images and identify certain elements like the rose.

127 The Frog Prince activity was great, where we had to make it into a movie. It was super funny and we

met over the weekend to work on our film poster. We also want to call Lindsay Lohan to ask if she can play
the princess.

176

Providing fun and collaborative tasks that students can relate to and identify with helps to
engage them with course content and language at the same time. Students had to apply
their knowledge and extend it beyond the immediate text—based nature of the upper-level
literature course to a broader context.

Another recurring aspect students highlighted throughout the semester was the
importance of the language lab sessions that showed them the different technologies and
explained the online assignments. This underscores research on the importance (and

oftentimes existing lack of) training for courses that utilize technology (e. g., Barrette,
2001; Sanchez-Serrano, 2008).

65. The training sessions were immensely useful and I liked learning about the
technology in German because I feel it will be useful in the future. (Monica)

66. The introduction classes helped because even though the technologies are
simple to learn, having the entire classtime allowed is to experiment &
explore the programs. (Susie)

67. The intro was the only way I would have been able to navigate through these
things. (Judy)

A final quote summarizes the perceptions of the majority of the students regarding the
hybrid course elements:

68. I think this class is a very good example of how teachers can integrate four
skills of teaching and learning (reading, writing, speaking and listening) into
technology. With essays, Wikispace and discussion forums the students can
improve their writing skills, with Muendliche Uebung [speaking assignments]
they can improve their speaking skills, we listen to Podcasts which is helpful
to improve listening skills, we are reading the articles... What I like most is
the self-evaluation part. Here a student not only evaluates his/her
performance, but also makes a summary of what he/she learned from the
previous class. I love that idea! I!!! This class is not a traditional class type, so
using the technology is changing the framework of this class. I have really
enjoyed the variety of experiences that I have gotten from this course. (Nadja)

Chapter 7 concludes my research and revisits the initial hypotheses, connects the study to

existing literature, and summarizes implications, limitations, and future directions.

177

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

7.1 Revision of Initial Hypotheses

The research questions outlined in Chapter 1.2 and discussed in Chapter 6 had guided this

study and I had sketched out preliminary hypotheses, which were informed by the

existing research on the language-literature gap and hybrid education. These hypotheses

were that

(1)

(2)

(3)

Online assignments will offer more varied opportunities for students to
engage with the course materials, with peers, and with the language and as a
result will help them advance all language skills while acquiring content
knowledge. In addition, students will enjoy the convenience of online
assignments in terms of access and pace and will become more confident
speakers of the language as a result of individual online speaking activities.
Students will engage more with course materials, feel more responsible for
their work, and collaborate with their peers more because of the online
delivery mode.

Innovative and interactive assignment types that integrate academic content
with linguistic skills as well as technologies that allow students to
collaborate will be perceived as most effective in improving language skills.
Specifically, online assignments that address students’ perceived areas of

weakness will be rated highest.

I78

(4) In general, students will prefer the hybrid course model to a traditional
classroom setting. Particularly weaker students will prefer this model
because it allows them to work at their own pace and removed from their
peers.

(5) Students will have extensive experience with online technologies, which
will result in positive attitudes toward the course model.

The data presented in Chapter 6 provide strong support for hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, partial
support for hypothesis 4, and incidental support for hypothesis 5. As a result of the hybrid
design, all students acknowledged the extensive exposure to and practice with the
German language, with each other, and with a variety of assignment types that integrated
course content and language skills. Amanda had noted that she “was more integrated in
this class with all of the activities, so I was more involved I learned more because I
participated more” and Sabrina liked “using the language through a variety of mediums
vs. read, take notes, paper, repeat. That’s why I like the idea of technology.”

As indicated in Chapter 6.1.3, students perceived improvements in all language skills
at the end of the course and had indicated great gains in content knowledge. While
improvements in listening comprehension and cultural knowledge had been significant,
students had commented on all aspects of the course as conducive to their learning.

69. There were many options, it was full of content and I learned more, more than

in a regular course. (N adja)

70. This is the most I’ve learned ever in a German class. (Peggy)

Many students pointed out the ease of access to materials and the fact that they could

work on assignments whenever and wherever convenient.

179

71. The collaborative assignments were very personal and had a lot of flexibility
because we could work on them whenever it was convenient for our
schedules. (Judy)

72. Medien wie Web oder auch Film sind heuzutzage leicht zuganglich und
konnen leicht von Schiilem eingesetzt werden.‘28 (Benjamin)

While students’ speaking skills did not improve significantly as a result of this course, all
students did highlight their perceived benefit of the online speaking assignments.

73. They offered much needed practice. (Sharon)

74. The speaking activities helped with speaking and listening and resulted in
speaking more German in class. (Jen)

Students not only became more confident users of the language but also more fluent
speakers of German (see Chapter 6.3.2).

Hypothesis 2 was also strongly supported by the data. In terms of access and
completion rates, students were engaged learners in this course and ofientimes went
beyond the mere requirements (see Chapter 6.2). Assignments that resulted in particularly
high levels of engagement were self-evaluations, online speaking activities, and web
quests, as well as chats, threaded discussions, and blogs. The last three assignment types
were collaborative in nature and students enjoyed working with their peers because of the
ability to exchange ideas and see different points of view and the fact that students got to
know each other well quickly, which positively affected the classroom atmosphere and
students’ overall attitude toward the course.

75. Group work, especially the midterm, made the class closer. In collaborative
work you got to see what others do, learn about your peers, and get to know
them. The chats really helped in getting to know other students better. (Peggy)

76. Working with my peers a lot was great. I know more people well in class now
than in any other class at MSU. (Judy)

77. Collaboration is helpful because German is about communication. You had to

communicate with your peers for these online activities. You had to read what
they wrote and then react. (Scarlet)

 

'28 Media like the Web or film are easy to access nowadays and can be implemented easily by students.

180

It might seem counter-intuitive, but the hybrid delivery made the class closer because the
online assignments encouraged more collaboration among students, which then translated
into more engaged participation in class because of lower anxiety levels. Students also
reported higher levels of responsibility because their Work was automatically time-
stamped and they could see online what needed to be done and what other students had
already completed (similar findings were also reported by Sanders, 2005).

78. Seeing all the stuff posted online helps seeing what you could and should do
and what others did. That definitely pushed me to do more and work better
and to become more responsible. (Sharon)

An additional benefit of the hybrid format that surfaced in students’ comments was that it
increased their time management and organizational skills.

79. In this hybrid course, you needed to be responsible from the start. It helped me
with my management skills to stay on top of things and complete my work on
time. Everything was well documented and it was also nice and easy to reach
all resources on ANGEL. (Evelyn)

Hypothesis 3 was also confirmed. The online assignment that received highest overall
scores for all four language skills was the multimedia team project, which integrated
content and language, was collaborative in nature, and had students utilize a variety of
innovative online tools.

80. It was a fun and interesting project that made you think outside the box.
Looking at my peers’ projects was very interesting and I learned a lot about
them. (Gordon)

The other two assignments that received high scores for improving individual skills were
the online speaking activities for improving speaking and listening and the blogs for
improving writing and reading.

As pointed out in Chapter 6.3, with the exception of the wiki, students generally rated

collaborative assignments as most effective in advancing language skills. Two additional

181

factors had an influence on students’ perceptions of the online assignments: Assignment
types that students perceived as “fun” or “casual” and that extended their audience
beyond the teacher were more meaningful to students (e.g., blogs, chats, and team
project) than assignments that were just one-way (i.e., where students submitted
something to a drop box as was the case with the self-evaluations and the web quests or
where students were simply receptive users as with the audio files and readings). Overall
highest scores for improving individual skills were given to the online speaking activities.
Many students had commented on their fears of speaking in a class with native and very
proficient speakers and the online activities offered students much needed practice away
from their peers, which in turn helped them overcome their insecurities and “resulted in
speaking more German in class” (Jen).

Results from Chapter 6.4 further underscored that assignments that overtly addressed
students’ perceived areas of weakness were rated high in effectiveness: Students with
lower and average proficiency levels had rated speaking as their lowest language skill
and had given highest average scores to the online speaking assignments, while students
of high proficiency had rated their writing skill low and had given overall highest average
scores to blogs and threaded discussions.

Hypothesis 4 was only partially confirmed. Overall, students did prefer the hybrid
course model to a traditional classroom setting because of the diversity of assignments it
offered and the student-centered format.

81. Technology is a very important tool that can be used to do many things more
effectively. (Gordon)
82. I preferred the hybrid course because of the group work and the interaction.

There was more hands-on learning and it caters to different learner types.
Having many options makes you feel better in a class when the number of

I82

assignments is within reason and if there is a perfect mix of face-to-face and
online. (Peggy)
83. A teacher—centered format (paper+test) is boring, here I am in charge.
(Amanda)
84. The hybrid format was a more modern, 21St century process of teaching. It
also forces you to practice. (Cathy)
85. I liked the authentic input and outside praCtice. (Monica)
The second assumption had been that weaker students would prefer the hybrid model
because it allowed them to work at their own pace and removed from their peers. While
the flexibility in time, Space, and pace had been mentioned by students, data did not
support that level of proficiency was a decisive factor in students’ perceptions of the
effectiveness of online assignments for language learning. However, it did affect
students’ preference of assignment types. As proficiency levels increased, so did
students’ preference of online assignment types to traditional activities, suggesting that
students with weaker language skills need an integrated approach that offers more in-
class support and connects online with face-to-face learning.

The data revealed only little support for hypothesis 5. Despite existing research on
students’ lacking technology skills for hybrid courses (e. g., Foster, 2006; Messineo &
DeOllos, 2005; Winke & Goertler, 2008), I had assumed that all students would be tech-
savvy and technophil and would therefore prefer a hybrid course format to a traditional
one. Overall, students had rated their technology skills as good to very good and had a
neutral to positive attitude toward using computers in foreign language classes. However,
a few students held negative attitudes toward computers in general and for language
learning in particular. It did not come as a surprise that these students reported a negative

perception of the hybrid design and only slightly positive ratings in terms of enjoyment of

the course. The surprising finding was that students who neither had a strong positive or

183

negative attitude toward technology reported the overall highest positive influence of the
hybrid design on their attitude toward the course and also on their enjoyment of the
course as a whole. It appears, therefore, that the implementation of technology in a
language course can have positive effects on students with average technology skills and
backgrounds.

Three additional findings surfaced from the data that had not been addressed initially
in my hypotheses. l. The student-centered format in class that included interactive and
creative group projects supported the integration of academic content and linguistic skills
(as shown by students’ high ratings for content knowledge and overall improved
language skills). Providing fun and collaborative tasks that students can relate to and
identify with helps to engage them with course content and language at the same time.
For the in-class group projects, students had to apply their knowledge and extend it
beyond the immediate text-based nature of the upper-level literature course to a broader
context. 2. Students highlighted the importance of the training sessions for understanding
the functionality of the various technologies and for supervised practice. 3. Students felt
that the self-evaluations gave them an active role in shaping the course by providing
ongoing feedback.

Based on the data, it seems appropriate to rephrase portions of the hypotheses to
better reflect students’ actual perceptions and to include those aspects that surfaced in the
data that seemed to have had an impact on students’ perceived usefulness and
effectiveness of the hybrid course. The following statements are the result of a
combination of the initial hypotheses and students’ actual comments and highlight the

benefits of hybrid language education that were found in this particular course. They do

184

by no means represent an exhaustive list, but taken together with the outlined benefits of

hybrid language education in Chapter 2.3.1, they may offer incentives for other language

teachers to go hybrid.

Benefits of hybrid language courses include

more varied opportunities for students to engage with the language

a more modern approach to language teaching that offers a chance of pace
speaking to students’ interests which results in higher levels of engagement
advancing all language skills while acquiring content knowledge
increased confidence and fluency

convenience in terms of access and pace

higher levels of responsibility

better organizational skills and time management

higher levels of collaboration

better classroom atmosphere

helping students in the areas they need most help with

positive effect on students with neutral attitudes toward technology.

7.2 Connection to Existing Literature

The goal of this dissertation was three-fold: l. I intended to contribute to the existing

research base on the language-literature gap in collegiate contexts through an empirical

investigation of student perceptions. 2. I was specifically interested in addressing the lack

of research on language acquisition, particularly oral development, in upper-level foreign

language content courses that has been pointed out by scholars like Barr et al. (2005),

185

Donato and Brooks (2004), Liskin-Gasparro (2000), or Liu (2003). 3. I approached these
issues from a perspective of hybrid education, hoping to capitalize on the benefits of
technology for language learning (e. g., Felix, 2001; Hokanson, 2000; Spodark, 2001).

My study investigated opportunities for the continuing development of linguistic
skills, particularly speaking, in fourth-year German content courses and student
perceptions of the effects of technology in the language learning context. It followed the
suggestion by Polio and Zyzik (in press) to offer hybrid courses that combine the
teaching of academic content and linguistic skills as a possible solution to the gap in
articulation between lower-level language and upper-level content courses. To my
knowledge, it is the only study that integrates a focus on articulation in upper-level
courses with German language development and hybrid education.

One of the most widely cited difficulties in hybrid language education is the lack of
training for students and teachers in using technologies, as pointed out by Barrette
(2001), Quinn (1990), and Sénchez-Serrano (2008). In designing the hybrid course, I paid
special attention to this issue and provided students with various training sessions
throughout the semester and was also available for support as problems arose. As
mentioned above, students were appreciative of these sessions and “would have been lost
otherwise” (Angela). A second important aspect that influenced the design and
implementation of the hybrid course was the perceived lack of speaking practice and
provision of inadequate feedback in hybrid language courses, as observed by Blake
(2008) and Felix (2001). While GRM 455 succeeded in providing students with extensive
speaking practice, some students felt that they needed “more opportunities to receive

feedback on assignments” (Jen). Students were given individualized feedback online on

186

almost all assignments on a regular basis, however, not many students accessed this
feedback. It appears that even in a hybrid environment, written feedback that is handed to
students is more effective than online feedback. The present study could therefore not
completely disprove F elix’ findings of lacking feedback in hybrid environments.

Results of the present study confirmed another area of difficulty in hybrid education
that has been discussed by Davis (1998) and the Web-based Education Commission
(2000): time spent in planning and implementing hybrid courses. The initial time
commitment in setting up the course was high, however, maintaining the course
management system was not very time consuming. What did increase time spent on this
hybrid course was the ongoing evaluation of all assignments, in particular the oral
speaking activities. This confirmed Barr et al.’s findings (2005) of increased instructor
involvement in implementing and assessing oral practice online. As mentioned above, I
was able to limit time spent evaluating these activities by modifying the quality and
quantity of my prompts and by not enabling the practice mode in Conversations. Another
way to reduce time spent would have been to change the assignment into a bi-weekly
activity instead of a weekly assignment.

Scida and Saury’s (2006) results of a first-year Spanish hybrid course indicated that
students felt a positive impact of the hybrid module on their learning, which particularly
resulted in higher levels of confidence in using vocabulary in-class. While the present
study was conducted with upper-level language learners, it still yielded similar results.
Students reported increases in all language skills, a general enjoyment of the course, and
higher levels of fluency and confidence in using the language in class, lending support to

the effectiveness of hybrid courses as instructional methods regardless of level.

187

In the present study, particularly students of lower proficiency had expressed their
perceived need of face-to-face interaction alongside the online activities. This finding
confirms results by Harker and Koutsantoni (2005) and Leakey and Ranchoux (2006)
who found that face-to-face sessions are crucial in language learning and suggested that a
hybrid course offered the best environment for maximum success. While the present
study did not include a control group and any measures were therefore relative, students’
and my own perspectives still revealed a strong preference of the hybrid format and
improvements in all language skills and lent support to Felix’ “large skew towards
advantages” in hybrid education (2001, p. 56). She also noted that “none of this [new
technologies] will ever replace best-practice face-to-face teaching, but what is becoming
more and more obvious with emerging research is that the new technologies offer
excellent potential for adding value to classroom teaching in a large variety of ways”
(Felix, 2001, p. 57). In a similar vein, Leakey and Ranchoux reported that students found
the hybrid environment a positive and motivating one and tended to prefer it to traditional
instructional methods. This finding found strong support in the present data.

While, to my knowledge, there is no study that investigated the effects of hybrid
education on students’ perceptions of language skills in upper-level content courses,
results of Donato and Brooks (2004) and Zyzik and Polio (2008) were relevant to my
research. Both studies investigated opportunities for language development in upper-level
Spanish literature courses and found that traditional, teacher-dominated classrooms were
not conducive for students to produce extensive output. The hybrid design of the present
study, on the other hand, actively engaged language learners through a variety of

collaborative assignments, both in-class and online, that integrated content and language

188

and resulted in overall improvements in language skills. Hybrid courses, therefore, seem
to offer opportunities for much needed practice and engagement with the language. As
pointed out above, students in the pilot and the hybrid study were comparable in their
perceptions of language skills at the outset of the studies. Improvement rates in the hybrid
study were higher than in the pilot study, lending further support of the effectiveness of
hybrid courses in improving language skills.

The present study confirmed the long list of benefits of hybrid instruction through a
student-centered and flexible approach to language learning. Implications of the results

will be discussed in the following.

7.3 Implications
This study has implications for language educators in planning course delivery and
provides valuable student opinions of the effectiveness of instructional methods. In
addition, instructors can use the data gathered to better understand what factors may
increase or decrease student engagement and participation and how to leverage
technology to assist the instruction, not to be the instruction.

As has been pointed out by students in the pilot and the hybrid study, it was important
that technology supported learning and was not an “add on” or “busy work.” By utilizing
technology to increase collaboration among students and engagement with course
content, it created a positive environment that was conducive to learning. It also allowed
for integration of academic content and linguistic skills and resulted in improvement in

both areas.

189

While the presented hybrid design had its drawbacks (see Chapter 7.4), it was a first
attempt at hybridizing upper-level German courses that focus on the integration of
academic content with linguistic skills and offers other educators insights into challenges
and victories. In general, I am very pleased with the implementation and the results of
this project. The hybrid process was a useful professional development experience for me
as it offered valuable insights into course development and student learning and
assessment. These insights had a positive impact on my instructional practices because
they were directly and continuously transferred and applied, which resulted in a
classroom that was more conducive to learning.

Based on the students’ comments and my own reflections, a few practical aspects are
crucial to make the hybrid experience effective and should be taken into consideration
when moving instruction to a hybrid format:

0 It is of utmost importance to remind students over and over again of the
functionality, purpose, grading criteria, and due dates of online assignments in
class. Only once students truly understand the meaning behind these learning
tools can they take advantage of all aspects to the fiillest extent possible.

0 The number of online assignments should be reduced to a level where task
completion enhances the learning experience and is not perceived as busy
work. It is also important to connect the work students did online to face-to-
face sessions by sharing a few examples and using them as springboard for in-
class discussions.

- Providing students with continuous training and feedback is a crucial aspect

and the online environment is very conducive to doing so. Students need to be

190

reminded where they can access such feedback and how they can monitor
progress.

0 Offering different assignments to address students’ differing needs
individualizes the learning experience and may result in higher levels of
achievement.

In contrast to the pilot study, the hybrid portions in GRM 455 were fully incorporated
into instruction. It was a flexible educational tool that took the students’, the teacher’s
and the supervising professor’s suggestions into account throughout the semester and
strove toward the best possible methods of learning and teaching. The online assignments
integrated skill competence in context and moved toward a student-centered model that
did not only take products (traditionally in the form of a final paper) but also processes of
learning into account. Tim’s comment captures some of the above-mentioned aspects:

86. Overall, I found it a well-rounded course. I myself have been interested in
technology-based language learning, and this has certainly served to heighten
my opinion of it. As for criticism, the pace could haVe been taken more
slowly. Not so many activities are necessary. A frequent complaint - and
tended to diminish the enjoyment students had initially felt. (Tim)

The hybrid course was successful in integrating academic content and linguistic skills in
an upper-level content course. Results from this dissertation can inform similar projects
in the future. The online assignments presented here are transferable to other foreign or
second language settings and hybrid courses in general can be implemented in most
subject areas. This innovative and engaging course design not only improves student

learning, it can also enhance the quality of instructional practices by moving from a

teacher- to a student-centered approach.

191

As was pointed out earlier, the complexity and heterogeneity of students’ learning
require not only diverse forms of students’ work, but also multiple methods of
assessment, and online technologies offer various avenues to encourage both. This study
does not suggest eliminating face-to-face contact beCause, as research suggests and as has
been pointed out by participants in this study, students need live interaction with their
teacher and their peers. Yet, online assignments can reduce anxieties of speaking in class
and increase fluency, which in turn can positively affect in-class participation. In-class
assignments such as the making of a Hollywood film version or the mock trial of Hansel
and Gretel had students connect content and language and produce output. These
assignments were received extremely well by the students because they were relatable
and relevant and enhanced students’ active engagement.

Students have rather strong opinions about instructional practices and their needs as
language learners, as can be seen from the data presented in this study. Usually, students’
opinions and preferences about classroom practices are barely considered when
instructional decisions are made. However, being open to their suggestions and taking
them into account can impact teaching practices in a positive way. It makes learning
more purposeful in the eyes of the students and by knowing that a teacher cares about and
values a student’s opinion, not only the classroom atmosphere and the rapport between
teacher and students might be enhanced but also student learning. Even though designing

and implementing a hybrid course is time consuming, it is a worthwhile effort.

I92

7.4 Limitations
There were several limitations in regard to the present study, the most pertinent ones
being (1) issues in design. (2) the small scale of the study in both number of participants
and duration, and (3) that the researcher was also the teacher.

The major drawback of this study concerned issues in design. Fitting a plethora of
online assignments for all language skills into a fifteen-week course with a heavy reading
load was overly ambitious, especially since it was the first time that such a project had
been undertaken in an upper-level course. It was time consuming and cumbersome to
create meaningful contextualized assignments and to grade all of them. The course was
no less demanding for the students. For a first-time hybrid course, it might have made
more sense to focus on one online assigmnent per language skill, as suggested by various
students. Nonetheless, I was very pleased with the performance of the students in class
and I believe that overall the implementation was a good first try.

Another major problem in design was the lack of formal assessment of students’
proficiency levels at the beginning and end of the study that would have allowed for a
more structured comparison on improvement. Conclusions were based on students’
subjective reactions concurrent and retrospective to the study and were not based on
measurements of actual learning gains. Simply asking students to rate their own skills
might not reveal their true abilities, as was discussed in Chapter 4.6.2. Also, students’
participation during class sessions was not measured or formally evaluated, which would
have provided deeper insights into improvements in fluency. Lastly, the effectiveness of
the hybrid course in comparison to traditional teaching methods could have been better

evaluated, had there been a control group. This was, however, impossible at the advanced

I93

level because generally the same course is not taught twice, especially not in one
semester. The pilot study attempted to remedy this lack by offering a short glimpse into a
traditional upper-level content course.

Certain technology problems arose over the course of the semester. I had assumed
that all students would have access to a computer, the lntemet, and necessary hardware
requirements such as a headset and microphone at home, which was not the case.
Students could work on the online assignments in the language lab on campus, but this
took away flexibility and privacy. Also, some students reported difficulties with various
technologies throughout the semester, despite elaborate training sessions. Since there was
no time for additional lab sessions in the schedule, I offered to meet with the students
outside of class to go over any difficulties, which generally took care of the problem but
increased my time commitment even further.

The second major limitation was the small scale of the study in both number of
participants and duration. Reporting descriptive statistical results of 19 participants does
not allow for generalizations. Also, many variables such as students’ language learning
background and knowledge of German could not be controlled for, which rendered the
participant group very heterogeneous. Such variables are very likely to have influenced
students’ perceptions of the hybrid course. This speaks of the dilemma that researchers
generally face when conducting classroom-based studies of

whether to aim for high internal validity through laboratory-based methods where
variables can be carefully controlled, while running the risk that equivalent results
may not be achievable in the real classroom setting; or to aim for authentic use,
which, while satisfying the need for studies in real contexts, raises the likelihood

that the findings cannot be generalized beyond the specific context where the
evaluation takes place. (Levy, 1997, p. 30)

194

The third major limitation was the fact that I as the researcher also taught the class and
had preconceived notions about the hybrid context based on the literature I had read,
which heavily influenced the design of the course. A teacher’s enthusiasm about any
aspects related to the classroom or the lack thereof can carry over to the students. My
enthusiasm about hybrid education may have had an overly positive effect on students,
who otherwise may have rated the effectiveness of online assignments differently. In fact,
various students mentioned on their final questionnaires that I made the class enjoyable,
so their ratings of the effectiveness of the actual assignments for language learning may
have been jaded.

From a research perspective, the point of view of the teacher and the researcher
converged and, apart from informal comments by Maria, there were no intervening
factors that might have encouraged ongoing critical reflection about instructional
practices. However, while being in the teacher role, I had ample background knowledge
about hybrid education and language learning which might have not been the case, had I
chosen to implement the hybrid assignments in a class I did not teach myself. I believe
that this aspect greatly enhanced the hybrid experience, as I was flexible and
knowledgeable enough to adjust to any arising problems.

Despite these limitations, I still feel that the implementation of the hybrid course was
a success and was well received by the students. Their perceptions generally addressed
their preference of this instructional method over traditional teaching styles, due to the
advantages outlined at the end of Chapter 7.1. By integrating the online assignments with
traditional essays and in-class group projects, I ensured to cater to different learner types,

and the course design offered ample opportunities for all students to succeed. I would

I95

implement hybrid courses again in upper—level German as a foreign language course,
however, I would take the aforementioned limitations and practical aspects into

considerations and make the proposed changes to the existing design.

7.5 Future Directions
Some suggestions for future research include the remedy of the identified limitations of
this study. It would be interesting to see if and how teaching effectiveness and student
learning are aflected when online assignments focus on only one or two language skills.
for example, speaking and listening, while the other skills are practiced through
traditional assignment types. This would involve a more manageable course design.

Conducting a study that uses a control group would allow for comparison of student
perceptions based on inclusion/exclusion of technology. This would provide better
insights into the effects of online assignments on student learning. In order to measure
gains in proficiency, students’ language skills should be formally assessed at the
beginning and at the end of the semester.

It would also be interesting to conduct research on the effectiveness of hybrid
education on language development and student perceptions with different populations
and levels. This would offer insights into the generalizability of findings across groups.
In addition, evaluating instructor perceptions of and experiences with the different
delivery methods (i.e., traditional and hybrid) could aid in identifying aspects that make
the delivery formats more accessible to instructors who have no extensive background in

language acquisition and computer-assisted language learning.

I96

Finally, longitudinal case studies of individual learners would provider deeper
insights into language development and other factors influencing language learning.
Because upper-level classes are not homogeneous and different students enroll in
different courses every semester, it would be complicated, if not impossible, to follow an
entire group of students for more than one semester.

All these suggestions will help educators better understand students’ perceptions of
instructional practices as well their benefits for learning. One of the goals of a teacher is
to provide effective language instruction that is contextualized, integrative, and

meaningful. Hybrid courses seem to be a step into the right direction.

197

APPENDICES

198

APPENDIX A: Spring 2008 Enrollment Numbers at Big Ten Institutions

Indiana University Bloomington

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

French
lstjvear . 2nd year 3rd year 4th year
# of sections: I9 l9 l6 3
# of sections by lit/cult or lang focus: 7 lit 7 lang 2 lit 1 lang
% of enrollments by lit/cult or lang: 55% 45% 67% 33%
Average # of 85 per section and range: 20 (16-23) 21 (IS-24) 18 (6-27) 18 (18-19)
Median capacity per section and range: 23 (20-23) 23 (22-23) 22 (IS-30) 20 (20)
# of sections filled: 4 5+1 beyond 9
German
1 st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year
# of sections: 10 7 7 4
# of sections by lit/cult or lang focus: 2 lit 5 lang 2 lit 2 lang
°/o of enrollments by lit/cult or lang: 31% 69% 35% 65%
Average # of 85 per section and range: 18 (14-20) 17 (13-23) 16 (IO-25) 12 (8-19)
Median capacity per section and range: 23 (23) 23 (23) 23 (17-35) 18(15-25)
# of sections filled: I
Spanish
lst year 2nd year 3rd year 4Mear
# of sections: 27 82 4O 6
# of sections by lit/cult or lang focus: 1 I lit 22 lang 5 lit 1 lang
°/o of enrollments by lit/cult or lang: 32% 68% 82% 18%
Average # of Ss per section and range: 22 (19-23) 21 (15-24) 20 (IS-25) 2| (IS-23)
Median capacity per section and range: 23 (23) 23 (23) 24 (16-25) 23 (21-23)
# of sections filled: 9 [9+1 beyond 15 2

 

199

Michigan State University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

French
lst year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year
# of sections: 5 8 6 4
# of sections by lit/cult or Iang focus: I lit 3 Iang 3 lit 1 Iang
% of enrollments by lit/cult or Iang: 25% 75% 70% 30%
Average # of Ss per section and range: 29 (27-32) 24 (13-29) 17(12-21) 21 (15-25)
Median capacity per section and range: 28 (28-30) 30 (20-30) 26 (20-26) 25 (20-26)
# of sections filled: 2+2 beyond 1 beyond
German
lst year 2ndyear 3rd year 4th year
# of sections: 8 5 4 3
#ofsections by lit/cult or Iang focus: I lit 2 Iang I lit 1 Iang
°/o of enrollments by lit/cult or Iang: 45% 55% 32% 68%
Average # of Ss per section and range: 20 (1 1—26) 27 (22-30) 15 (8-23) 20 (13-28)
Median capacity per section and range: 28 (28) 30 (28-30) 28 (25-30) 25 (18-28)
# of sections filled: 1 beyond
Spanish
lst year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year
# of sections: 12+10 hybrid 27 I9 9
# ofsections by lit/cult or Iang focus: 6 lit 13 Iang 7 lit 2 Iang
°/o of enrollments by lit/cult or Iang: 29% 71% 78% 22%
Average # of Ss per section and range: 24 (14-30) 26 (14-31) 26 (19-30) 28 (21-39)
20 (17-22) hybr
Median capacity per section and range: 30 (30) 30 (28-30) 26 (26-30) 26 (25-30)
22 (22) hybrid
# of sections filled: 2+1 hybrid 4+1 beyond 3 2+5 beyond

 

200

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

French
lst year 2ndjear 3rd year 4th year
# of sections: 16+6 distance* 20 I3 5
# of sections by lit/cult or Iang focus: 4 lit 8 Iang 5 lit 0 Iang
% of enrollments by lit/cult or Iang: 31% 69% 100%
Average # of 55 per section and range: 21 (15-24) 21 (15-25) 17 (12-21) 15 (IO-l9)
2 (1-4) distance
Median capacity per section and range: 23 (22-24) 24 (22-24) 20 (15-25) 20 (13-20)
# of sections filled: 4 5+2 beyond 1+2 beyond 1
German
lst year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year
# of sections: [0+2 distance* 12 6 3
# of sections by lit/cult or Iang focus: 2 lit 3 Iang 2 lit 0 Iang
% of enrollments by lit/cult or Iang: 46% 54% 100%
Average # of Ss per section and range: 20 (14-24) 21 (10-25) 17 (9—23) 16(11-22)
4 (2-5) distance
Median capacity per section and range: 24 (24) 24 (24) 23 (20-30) 15 (15-25)
# of sections filled: 2 2+1 beyond 1
Spanish
lst year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year
# 0f sections: 21 +7 distance* 49+8 dist.* 35 9
# of sections by lit/cult or Iang focus: 13 lit 19 Iang 6 lit 3 Iang
% of enrollments by lit/cult or Iang: 41% 59% 69% 31%
Average # of 85 per section and range: 22 (16-24) 22 (17-25) 19 (10-22) 22 (19-31)
5 (2-10) distance 4 (2-6)
Median capacity per section and range: 24 (23-24) 22 (22-24) 20 (15-25) 30 (25-30)
# of sections filled: 4 23+] beyond 5+18 beyond 2 beyond

 

*The distance option did not have an enrollment cap, therefore, none of these numbers
figure into sections filled to or beyond capacity.

201

APPENDIX B: Syllabus GRM 435

GRM 435 — 18th and 19th Century German Literature
Special Topic: Biedermeier and Vormarz 1815-1848

This class will explore the transitional period of the-early 19th century, specifically 1815-
1848. This was a time when the German Confederation was oscillating between
Restoration and Revolution. Because the literature of this period tended to either support
the conservative agenda of the upper-class or radically oppose it, it is difficult to find a
unifying term to describe this literary period. Generally speaking it is known as the time
between Romanticism and Realism. This course will explore the different characteristics
of this period by reading historical documents, including the “BeschluB des Bundestages”
(1835), alongside selected literary texts of the time. We will discuss writers who are
considered more mainstream and compare them to those who were banned for their
radical ideas. We will also compare women writers to their male contemporaries. The
texts selected for this course include one drama, two novellas, a travelogue, and some
selected poetry. The goals of this course are:
1. To gain an understanding of the period and some of the significant literary
texts.
2. To improve German skills (reading, speaking, and writing) through interaction
with these authentic cultural texts.
3. To develop critical thinking skills by asking new and appropriate questions
about this period. How can we re-evaluate the texts to gain new insight into
the ideas and struggles of a previous generation?

Grades for the course will be based upon the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attendance and active class participation 10%
Written assignments 25%
Oral presentations 5%
Lead a class discussion 5%
Take-home midterm 25%
Final paper 30%
Texts:

Georg Biichner Woyzeck
Reclam, 1999. ISBN 3-150—18007—4
Annette von Droste-Hfilshoff Die Judenbuche
Suhrkamp, 1999. ISBN 3-518-18814—3
Karl Gutzkow Wally, die Zweiflerin
Reclam, 1978. ISBN 3-150—09904-8
Heinrich Heine Die Harzreise
Aufbau Taschenbuch Verlag, 1992. ISBN 3-746—60158-4
Additional handouts will be provided.

202

Course Schedule:

Week 1
Tu Introduction to course; German Literature timeline
Th Discuss Robert C. Holub article (handout)
Week 2
Tu Introduction to Heinrich Heine ,
Discuss Sammons’ “Who did Heine Think he Was?” [course pack #2]
Th 2 Students lead discussion on Heine’s life and works
Die Harzreise [beginning -— top 22]
Week 3
Tu Die Harzreise [22- middle 40]
Discussion of final paper
Th Die Harzreise [poem pg 40 — bottom 63]
Week 4
Tu 1 Student leads discussion on Sammons’ “Chapter 4 Heine’s Prose Art: Die
Harzreise” [course pack #4]
Die Harzreise [63-end]
Th Discuss Kortlander “Die Harzreise” [course pack # 5]
Die Harzreise [finish discussion]
Written homework on Die Harzreise due
Week 5
Tu Introduction to Georg Btichner [see course pack #6]
2 Students lead discussion on Btichner’s life and works
Th Discuss Bfichner’s “Der Hessische Landbote” (1834) [course pack #7]
1 Student leads discussion on “Der Hessische Landbote”
Week 6
Tu Woyzeck [beginning — scene 7, top of 21]
Final paper topic due
Th Woyzeck [scene 8 — end]
1 Student leads discussion on Richards’ “Introduction & Chapter 1: Criticism
to 1945” [course pack #8]
Week 7
Tu Woyzeck [finish]
Written homework on Woyzeck due
Th Discussion of “BeschluB des Bundestages” (1835) [course pack # 9]
Take-home midterm handed out
Week 8
Tu Discussion of selected poetry; Woyzeck - Film
Th Woyzeck — Film continued
Midterm due
Spring Break

203

Week 9
Tu Introduction to Karl Gutzkow [see course pack # 10]
2 Students lead discussion on Gutzkow’s life and works
Wally, die Zweiflerin [Erstes Buch — bottom 21]
Th Wally, die Zwei/Ierin [Erstes Buch (6) 22 — 46]
1 Student leads discussion on Joeres’ “Introduction” [course pack # 11]

Week 10
Tu Wally, die Zweiflerin [Zweites Buch 47 — 65]

Bibliography for final paper due
Th Wally, die Zweiflerin [Zweites Buch (6) 65 — 86]

Week 11

Tu Wally, die Zweiflerin [Drittes Buch 87- bottom 106]
Outline for final paper due

Th Wally, die Zweiflerin [Drittes Buch 106 — 132 (end)]
Homework on Wally, die Zweiflerin due

Week 12
Tu Introduction to Annette von Droste-Hfilshoff [see course pack # 12]

2 Students lead discussion on Droste-Hfilshoff’ 8 life and works
Th Die Judenbuche [9 — middle 41]

Week 13
Tu Die Judenbuche [41 — (63) end]
First PAGE of final paper due
Th Die Judenbuche
2 Students lead discussion on Joeres’ “Chapter 2” [course pack # 13]

Week 14

Tu Die Judenbuche
1 Student leads discussion on Krimmer’s “A Perfect Intimacy ...” [course pack #
14]

Th Die Judenbuche
Homework on Die Judenbuche due

Week 15 — Last week of classes
Tu Oral presentations on final paper (4 Students)
Th Oral presentations on final paper (4 Students)

Final Exam ’Week — Thursday, 12:45-2:45
Final paper due; Oral presentations on final paper (7 Students)

 

Student-led discussions: Students will give a lO-minute oral presentation for individual
assignments, and a 20-minute presentation for partnered assignments. Each presentation
will be in German on the day assigned and will count towards 10% of your grade.
Presentations should be clearly organized, include the most relevant information on the
given topic with respect to our class, and provide 3-5 questions for further class
discussion. A handout or overhead of topic points is recommended.

204

Oral presentations: These presentations will be towards the end of the semester and will
provide students with the opportunity to share their research projects with the class. They
will be lS-minutes in length, in German. The use of PowerPoint, handouts, or the
overhead is greatly encouraged. The presentation counts towards 10% of your grade.

Homework: At the end of the discussions on the 4 major literary texts (Die Harzreise,
Woyzeck, Wally, die Zweiflerin, and Die Judenbuche) students will be required to turn in
typed responses to questions about the works. The questions will be posted on Angel, but
will need to be handed-in in class on the day specified. Each assignment counts towards
5% of your grade.

Final paper: The final paper will be in 5-7 pages in German and include a bibliography
using the MLA format. The topic, preliminary bibliography, outline, and first page are
due on the days marked in the syllabus. More specific guidelines about this project will
be provided during the semester. Students are encouraged to explore other authors of the
period, other works by the authors we have discussed, or another cultural or literary
aspect of this time period. The paper counts towards 30% of your grade.

205

9°

10.

ll.

12.

13.

APPENDIX C: Initial Instructor Interview Questions for Hybrid Module

Questions for Initial Guided Interview
Instructor 300/400/800-Level

. What kind of background do you have in literary and cultural studies?

What kind of background do you have in second language acquisition?

What kind of courses did you teach while pursuing your graduate degree? At what
institutions? Are they different from the courses you teach now?

What kinds of courses have you taught since you completed your graduate degree?
What materials do you typically use in your advanced literature/culture courses?
Please explain.

Please explain typical activity/exercise/assignment types that you implement in a
literature/culture course at this level.

What are your objectives for the course you are currently teaching? What do you
hope students will have learned by the end of the semester?

What do you believe to be your students’ goals and expectations of the course?
What is your general opinion of your students’ language abilities in German? Are
their language skills ever an impediment in understanding and/or discussing the
material?

Follow up to question 9: If you feel that their language skills are weak, why do you
think this is so?

What is your opinion about using English in the classroom? Do you ever use English
while teaching? When and for what reason?

How are the students evaluated? How much does language proficiency affect their
final grade or their grade on individual assignments?

Do you have any experience with online or hybrid (foreign language) courses? Please
explain.

206

APPENDIX D: Student Pre-Questionnaire for Hybrid Module and Course

Initial Student Questionnaire
300/400-Level

Please take a few minutes to answer the following questions in as much detail as possible.
If you need more space than provided, feel free to use a blank piece of paper. The
questionnaire will remain confidential. Thank you for your cooperation.

A. Language background

99:83:41"?

8.

9.

10.

11.

Age:

Gender: [:1 M 1:] F

Class level: El freshman Cl sophomore El junior CI senior El graduate or other
Primary major:

Secondary major (if applicable):

How many years of German instruction have you received in high school and/or
college? Please specify.

What other 300 or 400 level German literature/culture courses have you taken at
MSU?

Cl GRM 341 German Literature and Culture before 1918

El GRM 342 German Literature and Culture since 1918

El GRM 435 Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century German Literary Studies

[:1 GRM 445 Twentieth Century and Contemporary German Literary Studies
[:1 GRM 455 Major Themes in German Cultural History

D Other:

Have you ever traveled to or lived in a German-speaking country? If yes, where,
when, and for how long?

Are any languages other than English spoken in your home? Which one(s)?
Have you had any other substantial exposure to German outside of your high school
and college German classes? If so, please describe.

What is your primary reason for taking German? What are your primary goals?

B. Language proficiency

1.

Please rate your proficiency in German in each of the following areas.

(l=very weak, 2=weak, 3=good, 4=very good, 5=superior)

Speaking 1 2 3 4 5

Listening 1 2 3 4 5

Reading 1 2 3 4 5

Writing 1 2 3 4 5

Please rate your knowledge of German in the following areas (see scale above).
Vocabulary 1 2 3 4 5

Grammar I 2 3 4 5

Culture 1 2 3 4 5

In which area(s) (listed in questions 1 and 2 above) do you feel weakest? Why? What
do you think you can do to improve your abilities in this area?

207

C. Classroom practices

I.

b.)

{It

10.

11.

What activity and exercise types have you been exposed to in previous German
literature/culture courses at the 300 or 400 level (e.g., lecture-discussion model, use
of film clips, silent reading, group projects, individual papers, online activities, etc.)?
Which of these activities do you prefer? Please explain.

Have you ever taken an online course? Please explain.

Have you ever used a computer as part of an assignment in a foreign language class?
Please explain.

What did you like/dislike about it?

How do you feel about using computers in a foreign language class?

(l=strongly dislike, 2=dislike, 3=neutral, 4=like, 5=strongly like)

Use of computers in foreign language classes I 2 3 4 5

Do you think there are benefits of using computers/the Internet in foreign language
classrooms? Please explain.

How much time do you spend online per week (browsing web-pages, chatting,
checking E-mails, doing research, downloading programs, etc.)?

El 0-4 hours El 5-9 hours CI 10-19 hours [:1 20 hours or more

How much time do you usually spend online for your German classes (including
browsing German web pages) per week?

El 0-4 hours [1 5-9 hours [:1 10-19 hours El 20 hours or more

How would you rate your technology skills (in regards to using computers and the
Internet)?

(l=very weak, 2=weak, 3=good, 4=very good, 5=superior)

Technology skills 1 2 3 4 5

Please add any additional comments or thoughts on classroom practices and on
working with a computer to do language work.

D. Course expectations and professional goals

V‘PP’N?‘

Is this course a requirement? El Yes El No

What do you hope to learn in this course?

Are you interested in German literature? Please comment.

Are you interested in the German language? Please comment.

Are there German courses that you would be interested in taking that are currently
NOT offered at MSU? Please explain.

If you have German as your primary/secondary major, what career goals do you have
after graduating from MSU? Will you use German in your chosen field?

Thank you very much!

208

APPENDIX E: Student Post-Questionnaire for Hybrid Module

Final Student Questionnaire
Hybrid Module

Please take a few minutes to answer the following questions in as much detail as possible.
If you need more space than provided, feel free to use a blank piece of paper. The
questionnaire will remain confidential. Thank you for your cooperation.

A. Language proficiency

1.

After taking this course, please rate your perceived improvement in each of the
following areas.
(l=none, 2=minimal, 3=some, 4=a lot, 5=enormous)

 

Speaking ability I 2 3 4 5
Listening ability 1 2 3 4 5
Reading comprehension l 2 3 4 5
Writing skills 1 2 3 4 5
Vocabulary knowledge I 2 3 4 5
Grammar 1 2 3 4 5
Cultural knowledge 1 2 3 4 5

Overall, do you feel that your German language abilities improved as a result of
taking this course? Why or why not? What additional activities could have been done
to further help your language skills in this course?

Please rate your knowledge of the subject matter (content) of the course.

(l=none, 2=minimal, 3=some, 4=a lot, 5=extensive)

Knowledge of subject matter 1 2 3 4 5

What did you learn in this course? Is it what you expected to learn at the onset?

. Classroom practices

Please rate your enjoyment of this course.

(l=stroneg disliked, 2=disliked, 3=neutral, 4=liked, 5=strongly liked)

Enjoyment of the course 1 2 3 4 5

What aspects contributed mainly to your rating of question 1?

Please comment on the differences in activity and exercise types between the hybrid
component and the rest of the semester.

Which of these activities did you prefer? Please explain.

How did the hybrid component influence your learning experience when compared to
traditional classroom practices? Please explain.

Please rate how much the inclusion of a hybrid component changed your attitude
towards this course.

(l=strong negative influence, 2=negative influence, 3=neutral, 4=positive influence,
5=strong positive influence)

Influence of hybrid component 1 2 3 4 5

Please add any additional thoughts or comments on classroom practices and
suggestions for improving them.

Thank you very much!

209

DJ

kl]

10.

ll.

12.

13.

APPENDIX F: Final Student Interview Questions for Hybrid Module

Questions for Final Guided Interview
Student Hybrid Module GRM 435

. Please comment on your experience in GRM 435 this semester.

Did you enjoy the course? Please explain.

What were your expectations and goals for this course?

What did you learn and were your expectations of the course met? Please explain.

Do you feel your language skills improved in this course? If so, in which areas?

What was the reason for the improvement or lack thereof? Please explain.

e. Do you feel your knowledge of literature and culture improved in this course? If
so, in which areas? What was the reason for the improvement or lack thereof?
Please explain.

f. Did the presence of the researcher influence your performance in class? Please
explain.

Have you ever had an online course or a hybrid course component in a (foreign

language) class?

If yes, what class was it, what did you have to do online, and how satisfied were you

with this form of teaching?

How did you like the hybrid component in GRM 435?

Were there any parts of the hybrid component you liked/didn’t like working on?

Any parts you found not useful or unnecessary, easy or difficult?

Did you feel that by working online you were more responsible for your own work?

Please compare the activity types of the hybrid component with those during the rest

of the semester. Which ones worked best for you and why?

Did you find working with your peers helpful (both while working in class and

online)? Why or why not?

Do you think a hybrid course is a more effective and efficient way of teaching than

traditional classrooms practices? Please explain.

Did the hybrid component influence your attitude towards the course in a positive or

negative way?

Overall, do you think you learned more because of the hybrid component? In which

areas (speaking, listening, reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar, culture)?

Would you prefer to have hybrid components for your other classes? Which ones?

Why?

What, if anything, would you want to change or add to the hybrid component to make

it more effective?

Please add any additional thoughts or comments on classroom practices and

suggestions for improving them.

9.057!”

210

APPENDIX G: Final Instructor Interview Questions for Hybrid Module

Questions for Final Guided Interview
Instructor 435

What is your opinion of how this class went this semester?

a. Did you feel that the students learned what you had hoped? Why or why not?

b. Would you do anything differently the next time you teach this class?

. Do you believe that the students’ goals and expectation were met?

. Did you feel that the students’ language skills improved? If so, in which areas? What

was the reason for the improvement or lack thereof?

. Do you feel that the students’ knowledge of the subject matter improved? Please

explain.

. Do you believe that the researcher presence affected your teaching?

. Please comment on the activity/exercise/assignment types that you implement in this

course.

a. Do you think they were successful?

b. Did you perceive a difference in your teaching style before and after the hybrid
component?

c. Did you perceive a difference in students’ attitudes and language skills before and
after the hybrid component?

. Some studies have shown that teachers focus minimally on language in content-based

classes and that a language focus may be at odds with the goals of a literature/culture

instructor. What do you think?

. Is it the place of a literature/culture instructor to help improve students’ language

proficiency? If not, can you suggest any modifications to the curriculum to help meet

these goals?

. . Do you have any other comments?

211

Appendix H: Screenshots of Lesson Folders in the Pilot Study

Figure 12
Screenshot of the Lesson F older for the First Hybrid Module

 

 
   
 

Course Calendar Lessons Resources Communicate Report

.LJWally, die Zweiflerin 1

Zweites Buch, Kapitel 1-5

" JAktivittiten VOR dem Lesen
*- Bttte bearbeiten Sie diese Akfivitfiten, bevor Ste Kapltel 1-5 lesen

‘J Aktivit'a'ten WAHREND dem Lesen
Bitte bearbeIten Sle diese Akh'vitaten, wahrend Sle Kapltel 1-5 lesen

a: ____l Aktivita‘ten NACH dem Lesen
Bitte bearbelten Ste diese Aktivlta'ten, nachdem Ste Kapitel 1- 5 gelaen haben

Note. This is a screenshot of the lesson folder for the first hybrid module. The lesson
folder was entitled “Wally, die Zweiflerin 1” and covered chapters 1-5 of the second
section of the book. The folder contained three sub-folders: activities before reading,
activities while reading, and activities after reading.

212

Figure 13
Screenshot of the Post-Reading Sub-F older for the First Hybrid Module

     

Resources Communicate Report

 

Course Calendar

QAktivitéten NACH dem Lesen

-' Bitte bearbeiten Sie diese Aktjvitaten, nachdem Ste Kapitel 1-5 gelesen haben

1. Inhaltsangaben
--.--.l Abgabetermin: Montag, 19. mm, 17 Uhr

. R

, J2. Assoziationen
g; 2L- Abgabetermln: Dienstag, 20. M'a'rz, 13 Uhr

2;] 3. Interaktive Fragen zum Inhalt
" ' Mit dim Atdivitaten konnen Ste priifen, ob Ste den Text verstanden haben.

, ” 4. Miindliche Antworten
‘ Abgabetermin: Dlenstag, 20. mm, 13 Uhr

Note. This is a screenshot of the post—reading sub-folder. The sub-folder contained four
activities: 1. Chapter summaries, 2. Associations, 3. Interactive content questions, and 4.
Oral responses. Due dates for those activities that had to be turned in (i.e., 1, 2, and 4)

were also indicated.

213

APPENDIX 1: Screenshots of Interactive Post-Reading Activities

Figure 14
Screenshot of the Interactive Post-Reading Activities Website

Interaktive Fragen zu
Wally, die Zweiflen'u
NACH dem Lesen

Auf dicscr Seitc findcn Sic Links zu
interaktiven Fragen zu Kapiteln 1—5
dcs Zweiten Buches von Wally, die

Zweiflerin.

Es sind Fragen zum Inhalt und zum
Verstfindnis dcs Textes. Sic konnen
hier priifen. ob Sic den Text richtig
verstandcn haben.

Sic erhalten sofort Feedback filr cinige
der Aufgaben und ihr Ptmktcstand
wird Ihnen angegebcn.

 

Note. This is a screenshot of the interactive post-reading activities for the first portion of
the novel Wally. The activities are contained in an external web site that students had to
access through ANGEL. There are 16 activities total that focus on the content of the text.
Some examples are provided in the following screenshots.

In the left navigation bar, the web site contained a link to the beginning of this page and a
link back to ANGEL. In the right navigation bar, it contained a link to the online
dictionary http://dict.leo.org.

The text in the center described the activities and noted that students will receive
immediate feedback and a score. On the bottom of the page, an email address was
provided where students could send questions to.

214

Figure 15
Screenshot of a Short Answer Post-Reading Activity

Kapitel1,Fragel
GebenSiederidrtigoAntwortein.

 

 

Welche Jahreszeit herrscht in diesem Kapitel?

l

 

Prflfen ‘ Tlpp J Lbsung I

 

 

 

 

 

Note. This is a screenshot of the first question for chapter one. It is a short answer
question that asks about the season in the chapter and offers a check button (Prufizn), a
hint button (Tipp), and a solution button (Losung).

Figure 16
Screenshot ofa Paragraph Mix Post-Reading Activity

KapitelLFmgeZ
mammmmmmm

 

 

Wally war sehr aufgeregt.

marl n...

Wilymdcmmnwfeinunm “www.mm
densminlsdiensesmdtenhetraten. Gaugingarfkelsen. Wily
Memmmmteflfltm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note. This screenshot shows a paragraph mix activity where students have to sequence
the action of the chapter. The sentences from the bottom move to the top when clicking

on a sentence. Students can check their answers (Prufen), start anew (Neustart), or ask
for a hint (Tipp).

215

Figure 17
Screenshot ofa Multiple Select Post—Reading Activity

Kapitel2,Frage3
KlidrenSieALLEridItigenAntwortenm.

 

 

Was ist laut casar dcr Grund der vlelen Ehescheldungen?

 

a. F'Geld 3 / 4
b. l7 keine Llebc Richtig! casar sagt, dass der
(2. {— Leichtslnn Besitz einer kleinen Aussteuer zu

d. f'keine Kinder Ehen “WT-

...... I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note. This multiple select activity asked about a specific detail of chapter two. Option b
was selected and feedback is provided in the white box.

216

APPENDIX .1: Pilot Study Quantified Questionnaire Results

Means and Standard Deviations from Initial and Final Student Questionnaires

 

GRM 435 — Pilot Study

 

Speaking initial 3.21 (.98)
Speaking improvement* 2.83 (1.11)
Listening initial 4.07 (1.00)
Listening improvement 2.92 (.79)
Reading initial 3.42 (1.09)
Reading improvement 3.75 (.75)
Writing initial 3.25 (1.01)
Writing improvement 2.75 (1.06)
Vocabulary initial 3.07 (.92)
Vocabulary improvement 3.58 (.79)
Grammar initial 3.43 (.85)
Grammar improvement 2.58 (1.08)
Culture initial 4.07 (.99)
Culture improvement 2.92 (1.16)

*Improvement scores indicate the relative amount of students’ self-perceived
improvement, not the relative skill level as compared to their initial skill rating.
Therefore, an improvement score that is lower than the initial score does not mean that
the students perceived a decrease in skill level. The two scores provided here for any
given skill should not be compared to one another.

217

APPENDIX K: Pilot Study Summary of Significant Differences

Summary of Significant Differences on Student Questionnaires

 

GRM 435 — Pilot’Study

 

 

Category Comparison Sig. Level
Students’ perception of their skills Listening>Speaking p=.015
on the initial questionnaire Listening>Vocabulary p=.004
Listening>Writing p=.01 8
Listening>Reading p=.034
Culture>Speaking p=.016
Culturc>Vocabulary p=.006
Culture>Writing p=.022
Culturc>Reading p=.046
Students’ perception of their Reading>Speaking p=.008
improvement of skills on the final Reading>Writing p=.006
questionnaire Reading>Listening p=.008
Reading>Grammar p=.009
Vocabulary>Speaking p=.034
Vocabulary>Writing p=.046
Vocabulary>Listening p=.01]
Vocabulary>Grammar p=.006

218

APPENDIX L: Syllabus GRM 455

GRM 455 — Major Themes in German Cultural History
Special Topic: The German Fairy Tale Tradition

Course Description

Once upon a time, long before Tolkien, Disney, or Rowling, two brothers named Grimm
published a collection of fairy tales that went on to have an immense cultural impact
throughout the world. The Grimm fairy tales will be our textual point of departure for a
multi-faceted, integrative exploration of this popular and influential genre through time.
We will explore traditional cultural theories of the fairy tale, psychoanalytic and
pedagogical approaches, and contextualize this genre in cultural and social history. The
focus is on the role that the literary fairy tale by male and female writers assumes in the
civilizing process.

Aside from studying some of the tales in depth, we will discuss how the Grimm brothers
collected the tales, how they changed over time, and how they portray values and ethics
of different (European) cultures. To this end, we will compare the Grimm versions of
some tales to other well-known versions (e.g., from the Italian Renaissance, early courtly
fairy tales in 17‘“- and 18'h-century France, and contemporary Disney adaptations) and
look at the different societal and moral codes they promoted. The course explores how
the fairy tale has become institutionalized in Western culture as a means to communicate
about social and psychological experiences, a mode of socialization, and a way of
institutionalizing culture, norms, values, and taste. We will extend our readings to 20‘"-
century fairy tale adaptations and discuss the relevance of these themes for present-day
Germany.

Objectives
The goals of this course are:

1. To gain an understanding of the literary genre of fairy tales and the developments
it underwent throughout German cultural history.
a. To develop a critical understanding of how people live in a culture not as an
“add-on” but as a medium in which we act.
b. To learn to analyze significant social and cultural processes in the social
history of Europe.
2. To improve German skills (reading, speaking, writing, and listening) through
interaction with these authentic cultural texts.
3. To deveIOp critical thinking skills by asking new and appropriate questions about
this genre and the relevant time periods. How can we re-evaluate the texts to gain
new insight into the ideas and struggles of previous generations?

Required Readings
° Lfithi, M. (2004). Marchen. Stuttgart: Metzler. ISBN 3476200167

0 Schodel, S. (1977). Marchenanalysen. Stuttgart: Reclam. ISBN 3150095328
° Additional readings available online

Recommended
° Online Dictionary: http://dict.lco.org or http://dictcc

 

 

219

Grading System

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Weight My points
Attendance/Participation/Preparedness (highest 10 10% / 1000
count)
Reaction Papers 15% / 1500
Angel/Online Assignments ' 25% / 2500
Blogs / 345
Wiki / 400
Chats / 180
Interactive Activities / 375
Web Quests / 200
Speaking Activities / 1000
Oral Presentation 5% / 500
Discussion Leading 5% / 500
Midterm 15% / 1500
Final Paper 25% / 2500
TOTAL 100% l10000
Grading Scale
100-90% = 4.0 89-86% = 3.5 85-80% = 3.0 79-76% = 2.5
75-70% = 2.0 69-66% = 1.5 65-60% = 1.0 Below 60% = 0.0

Course Requirements

Attendance/ParticimtioNPreparedness:

Your active participation in partner and small group activities‘and class discussions
online and face-to-face is crucial to your progress and is therefore a graded component in
the course. In order to participate most effectively, you will have to prepare many
activities in advance. Preparation includes, but is not limited to, thoroughly and critically
reading assigned texts, preparing answers to assigned questions, completing written
exercises, and completing assignments online. It goes without saying that you cannot
participate effectively if you do not attend. Students who frequently miss class are at a
disadvantage on assignments and presentations, and miss the valuable opportunity to hear
and speak German. For this reason, attendance is taken regularly. The best thing to do if
problems arise is to keep in contact with your instructors so you can work through health
problems or emergency situations. Finally, punctuality is also expected, and repeated late
arrival will affect your grade. You will need to complete a self-evaluation form for
participation at the end of each week on Angel. The instructors will make adjustments to
your self-reported grade if necessary. Each week you can receive a maximum of 100
points, only the 10 best weeks will count.

Reaction Papers:

You will write three 600-word reaction papers (not accepted below 500 words or above
700 words) dming the semester. Topics will be posted on Angel approximately two
weeks before the assignment is due. You will need to respond to generalized questions on
pertinent issues of selected assigned readings and engage critically with larger issues and

220

 

problems represented in the course materials and discussed in class. Your own
perceptions, opinions, and interpretations are important. Each reaction paper needs to be
1.5-spaced in 12 point Times New Roman font with l-inch margins. They need to be
written in German, reference literature discussed in class, and be turned in electronically
on Angel as a word document before class on the day specified. These papers must be
completed without help from a native speaker or tutor. HOWEVER, you have the option
of writing one or more papers collaboratively on Google Docs with a co-student (your
instructor will set up the document for you). Unless you are taking the Google option, no
help from a fellow student is allowed for the papers. You will be graded on content,
organization, accuracy, comprehensibility, and language use. Each paper is worth 500
points evenly distributed across the five categories.

Angel/Online Assigments:
There will be a variety of online assignments that are intended to help you with the
course materials and with practicing your German language skills. These assignments
include, but are not limited to, blogs, wikis, podcasts, chats, interactive activities, web
quests, and speaking activities. Some assignments are purely receptive, others require you
to respond and/or participate. Some will need to be completed individually, others will be
done in teams/ groups.
B_10g§
You will need to write a bi-weekly blog entry on Angel. It can be in reaction to class
assignments/readlugs/discussions or other experiences in connection with our course
topic. Blog entries need to be in German and at least 5 sentences long (a sentence
contains at least a noun, a verb, and an object). You will be graded on language and
content. Throughout the semester, you will also need to comment on at least 3 of your
classmates’ blogs (you can receive up to 15 points for each of these responses). Your
blog should be posted before class on Tuesday (you will need to post a total of 7
entries regardless of whether we meet on Tuesdays or not). Each blog is worth 60
points, the highest 5 entries will count. [Total number of points: 345]
Wiki
We will create our own wiki for this course. There are 6 major topics that we will
cover, including 7 subtopics. You will need to contribute to 2 major topics; 1 major
topic may coincide with the one you did your oral report on, the other topic should be
a topic you did the regular required readings for. Your grade will be based on the
final draft of the wiki site and you will be graded on content, language, and editing.
Each wiki contribution is worth 200 points. [Total number of points: 400]
Podcasts
Some of the readings for this class will be available as podcasts on Angel.
Chats
You will need to chat with at least one of your classmates 3 times during the
semester, using the Angel chat. Chat 1 should be completed by Thursday of week 2,
chat 2 should be completed by Thursday of week 9, chat 3 should be completed by
Thursday of week 14. You may chat about anything in relation to our course (e.g.,
you can continue a class or online discussion or comment on the readings). Each
participating student should contribute at least 20 turns in each chat (a turn consists of
a complete sentence, containing at least a noun, verb, and object). Each chat will be
worth 60 points. [Total number of points: 180]

 

221

Interactive Activities

You will need to create interactive questions for your classmates on one of the articles
you read for one of the discussion leadings. We will use SMILE, Hot Potatoes, and/or
the Angel Game option to create the activities. The questions can focus on vocabulary
items in the text, grammatical structures, specific content, etc. and need to be posted
before class on the day of the assigned reading. The activities will be worth 200
points and will be graded on content and language. You will also need to answer the
questions of at least 7 of your classmates (each worth 25 points). [Total number of
points: 375]

Web Quests

On some topics, you will need to complete a web quest to help you better understand
the topic and to find more information. Each web quest will be worth 100 points, the
highest 2 assignments will count. You will be graded on content and language. [Total
number of points: 200]

Speaking Activities

You will have to respond to questions online, using Conversations. I will record
questions in relation to the readings and class discussions and you will need to answer
them on a weekly basis. Each response is worth 100 points. The highest 10 will count.
You will be graded on content, accuracy, fluency, and vocabulary. [Total number of
points: 1000]

Oral Presentation:

You will need to prepare one oral presentation in German during the semester on selected
readings (some presentations are partnered presentations). Each presentation should be 5-
10 minutes long (5 minutes for individual presentations, 10 minutes for partnered
presentations). Presentations should be clearly organized, include the most relevant
information on the given topic with respect to our class, and provide 3-5 questions for
further class discussion. You (and your partner) will be the only student(s) who will read
the assigned text(s), so make sure to summarize and synthesize the information well and
pose discussion questions that connect with the other course materials. The use of
PowerPoint or overhead is recommended; a handout is required and needs to be posted on
Angel before class. You will be graded on content and comprehensibility. Teams will
receive a single grade on their presentation.

Discussion Leading:
You will be in charge of two discussion leadings during the semester. One will be done

orally in class, the other one will be done online in the form of a threaded discussion with
you as the moderator. All students will read all texts (unlike for the oral presentation).
For the in-class discussion leading, you will need to be able to synthesize and comment
on the reading, raise critical issues, and devise 2 questions that will stimulate class
discussion. For the threaded discussion, you will need to post an interesting quote from or
statement about the text and raise 2 critical, open-ended discussion questions (they should
not be yes/no questions). Your comment and questions need to be posted before class. All
students whose last name starts with A-L will have to contribute at least one sentence to
each threaded discussion with an odd number. All students whose last name starts with
M-W will have to contribute at least one sentence to each threaded discussion with an
even number. The discussion moderator will also need to respond to at least 2 of your

222

classmates’ comments within 1 week. You will be graded on content and language. Each
discussion leading is worth 250 points.

Midterm:
This semester you will work on a multimedia team-project about identity. We will
discuss in class issues of German cultural identity based on our readings and by looking
at authentic German video clips from YouTube. For your project, you will need to
produce a short video clip in German that represents your own culture and identity. If you
do not have a video camera or web cam available, you can use the web cam in the
Language Learning Center or you can make a digital slideshow or presentation using
photos, pictures, art, quotes, etc. You will also need to create activities corresponding
with your video/presentation using SMILE. Both components will then be uploaded to
Mashups and shared with English high school classes in Germany (so you are producing
these projects for an actual audiencel).
Parts 1 and 2 have to include at least 200 words each, i.e. if you are completing the
assignment through photos, you will have to present the photos orally (there will be space
online in Mashups to include text also). You will also need to include references in parts
1 and 2 (references is defined rather loosely here; you may interview friends, use quotes
from popular books or movies, etc.). You will be graded on language and content. Each
project part is worth 500 points and groups will receive a single grade.

Part 1: Was bin ich? / Was ist Identitat?

Describe who/what you are and how you got to be who you are. OR Define what

identity is to you and how it is shaped. Discuss both national and individual identity.

The topic selection of this part will depend on how open you are to sharing very

personal ideas.

Part 2: Was ist amerikanisch?

Define what American/an American is and how one becomes American.

Part 3: lnteraktive Aktivitéiten in SMILE

Create activities corresponding with your project. Activity types include multiple-

choicc, true/false, drag/drop, sentence mix, paragraph mix, cloze, and multiple-select.

You need to create at least five activities for your project. If you have additional links

you want to include with your project, you can do so in Mashups.

Final Paper:
The final paper will consist of 5-7 pages in German, 1.5-spaced in 12 point Times New

Roman font with l-inch margins. It needs to follow APA format and structure
requirements, including a complex and explicit thesis, logical and well-defined
paragraphs, coherent organization, proper use of citation and quotation, a bibliography,
and an adherence to standard usage in syntax and grammar. For help with the format and
structure of your essay (including citation, quotation, and bibliography), go to
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/ 560/01/. You need to use logical
argumentation and support by referring to secondary materials outlined in the required
readings. Include at least two secondary texts not listed on the syllabus. A good place to
start your search is JSTOR (http://er.lib.msu.edu/). Make sure that you narrow your
search as much as you can; otherwise you will end up with too many hits.

The topic, preliminary bibliography, and outline/first page are due on the days marked in
the syllabus. Students are encouraged to explore other tales by the authors we have

223

discussed, compare different versions of the same tale written by multiple European
authors, select a certain aspect or theme we have covered in class, connect two or more
disciplines that were touched upon in the course (e.g., literary and cultural studies,
history, psychology, visual and performing arts), etc. The paper counts towards 25% of
your grade and will be graded on content, format, organization, accuracy,
comprehensibility, and language use. More specific guidelines about the paper will be
provided during the semester. '

Academic Honesty

Article 2.3.3 of the Academic Freedom Report states: “The student shares with the
faculty the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of scholarship, grades, and
professional standards.” In addition, the Department of Linguistics and Languages
adheres to the policies on academic honesty as specified in General Student Regulations
1.0, Protection of Scholarship and Grades; the all-University Policy on Integrity of
Scholarship and Grades; and Ordinance 17.00, Examinations. (See Spartan Life: Student
Handbook and Resource Guide and/or the MSU Web site: www.msu.edu.) Therefore
when you submit ANY work for a grade, the work must be your own. In a language class,
where students frequently collaborate or get help from a tutor, there is sometimes
confusion about the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable assistance. You
must always make clear where the work you hand in has been corrected by somebody
else. You are expected to develop original work for this course; you may not submit
course work you completed for another course to satisfy the requirements for this course.
Students who violate MSU rules may receive a penalty grade, including - but not limited
to — a failing grade on the assignment or in the course. Please consult your instructor if
you are unsure how to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable help with your

work. (See also http://www.msu.edu/unit/ombud/honesglinks.html)

NOTE

This course is a hybrid/blended course, which means that some class dates will be
replaced by online assignments and activities. The course will also serve as a research
site for Ms. Kraemer’s dissertation. The procedures for her research will be explained on
the first day of class.

224

 

.2353
"028:0 co> 383 no: cocoa: w “Samoa

@1882 new.
Emacs $2 $25

 

:smbom mutano :o> «to? no: :33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

alrlafiifi a9

 

nausea: 95. $3 uwgmm

3885 pebflhm .56 viva 9.3 £0304: h “ducked Gama “35.—m mummowom EEO Hovmum. How M53 was GBDA 0Q
2:. e 5:52.80 mmfio oz 5
a... _ .5 . 33.33 88 £053 2.55
.58... 8:853:05: e annex are 52.35 3883335 £85355 5.
05% M H¢520>H¢U . egg
26 N we:— are 85... 385558 as ongam 5
556 oz
8882.... 2:. 93.5.32 33 2 a 78V 38 53 55553552 on
05% N nomuamho>flcnv
32.0 :03
anon—SMN US.— DMWME: m HMHOMOM
33:85 same 33an a sausage,»
S 38:52 E “magnate. a. 35.5 33 o .825 a 52m 5333535ch 55:55 ..EE 5
2:. 5 .26 35-59.02 55m .252 a? 5:352 . . .. .
.8552 a? 5552. m 355 2 mam 5-8 53: 38 55 Eon So a: E Em: on
03% m fiomuamhozuohv
2:. _ «an 85: 32 new. 8552. .
.5:an be 35:055.. N seem 32$ 38 53 , be 95:05.5 was $5285 . 5
82V 88 €52
.5:an mango 2o. _ “seem one: €qu 5
5-: $3 .53 -
somxmnmwbfitxmfib 3Q -

    

2.50:5 09:50

 

225

 

sea 8: 8.8.2. E 808::

, , :05. a seweraggo.

 

8:555 ES»
2:. m 8:.

$2.89 5588::
8:8: \ 8:38 0:08:

8:an a 20:. .

wm<AO OZ. , 5

 

2:. N .5
26 N 8:0

3-8 .NN-_® 5:585
Swét 32.55 5 5953mm

«823 8:88:85 8:3: -
.._ousmooaom<: oQ

 

25 w :ofiamngaou

..Nuemfix

8:8353658522055: 2 “Samoa
.._otsacosom< :o> 5553/: N: 85.3%

5.835
\ £5-53 magnum E SEED

£me52.6 nAmnflQ ..Emk
..38882. 5

 

2... 5.3922

mm<AU 02 on—

 

 

oimu b :o_§m.~o>:oo

2.: v 8:.

Lcfle? .M :9» #83 on: 5904.. 2 8.50m
..nogomoEHoQ. 3 88.535

483:8 888:5
973 22 as:

888:

\ some 5:25 a: :55

«238% 8:88:55 8:3: -
38:88:35.. 5. .

 

 

2:. human :3: you each.
AsoEoUBm
8 352052 a: 35m :2: 25 man: 0 .5535

26 e :otamhozeu

 

82-83 ma: 5::
ARIN: 8:-2: :85:
so- 3 88:8. 5 awe:

 

 

   

8:052 e 258882 no on.

  

.386 oz

 

 

 

«mgm 29>?
hue—8.535552 Us?

 

.26 m :ofiamuwrnonv
25 m moi

 

are 8:5

41.5.3355? ...:1 1 at.

.. . . .5325: ..w 338:5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8:52 88 88888: 23 . 5.

Son 3o :2 z: 58:.

.33 23.35 02.50

226

 

26 VA AAoAAaonZAoU

mm<qo OZ

 

 

oAAAA m mm
05—. m «AAA—U

seam. .5 . am A25— .AAA «AAA. AnhEuAAAAAAAa.
26 MA AAAAAAaonZAcU

 

32-338453
.AA A -t A533.

 

 

 

 
 

:55 EA 8:052: AA 353A

AA: A88 82 AMEN...“

évtfijovfiiifigidt .. 8.1.. .

 

   

2:. A 85 Sum 8:33 8Q 1 Ass: ..EAE An
uzAEwvazfiAh mmfiu oz on
2:. NA AAoAAaonZAoU
80:0 :95
2:5,: 3;» ANANAMS 203:5...

ASAAMAD. AAAAAA AAoAAoAmSA

   

 

 

 

 

2:. A: :cAAwonZAcU
..oAmmA

 

   

AAA 6 oAAomA «A AAAAAA wAAAnvAAAomoAnA: mA

 

 

..AvoAO USA AomAAaAA AAO> AAoAAoAon>z OA 85.3%

 

  

“MHDIHOMH

Ammm- Re 88 :25. 3A
AmmoAAoAA \ oAAAAAAo mAAAAAAAAO

    

 

 

AmmowonA .\ oA.AAAAA.o mAAAEAAU

$86 02 on
2:. AA 8:83.35 A876: 38:8 5 A33»:
2.: e 8.: A373: EEAouom Am
2:. s «A .2: SA : E 235
EamAA=AA£o§ 23 AA A 78: 38:8 A: 5::
AAAoAAAoAuAAAm NV AmmoAAOnA
2.: a 38:6 5 8&5 3355 8: 8.8%

050on AoAA Aouo wAAonAAAomoAnA AmQ:
AAoAAoABAooAAoBoA
wwcomAAAAam ..oAVAAWwAAAm mun:

n¢

    

oQ

 

     

 

.AAAco 0162—5 0230

227

...?» 5m? acumen—om .5535? a 3 6.33.8.“ Maw—8— 2a 93

dam—33m mm: 9 mucoEwcoEm S mowfifio 39:30qu 838 8 Emt 05 view“: €08:me 2F

 

 

am». =< 3 x3 «mg

.259 23.2.5 emu—EU

 

wam 38:82: in E a; W m2

228

APPENDIX M: Student Post-Questionnaire for Hybrid Course

Final Student Questionnaire
Hybrid Course

Please take a few minutes to answer the following questions in as much detail as possible.
If you need more space than provided, feel free to use a blank piece of paper. The
questionnaire will remain confidential. Thank you for your cooperation.

A. Language proficiency

1.

After taking this course, please rate your perceived improvement in each of the

following areas.

(l=none, 2=minimal. 3=some, 4=a lot, 5=enormous)

Speaking ability 1 2

Listening ability

Reading comprehension 1

Writing skills 1

Vocabulary knowledge 1
1
1

 

{JIMMMMM

Grammar
Cultural knowledge 5

Overall, do you feel that your German language abilities improved as a result of
taking this course? Why or why not? What additional activities could have been done
to further help your language skills in this course?

NNNNNN
WWWWDJWW
hA-b-h-bh-h

. Please rate your knowledge of the subject matter (content) of the course.

(l=none, 2=minimal, 3=some, 4=a lot, 5=extensive)
Knowledge of subject matter 1 2 3 4 5-
What did you learn in this course? Is it what you expected to learn at the onset?

. Classroom practices
. Please rate your enjoyment of this course.

(l=strongly disliked, 2=disliked, 3=neutral, 4=liked, 5=strongly liked)

Enjoyment of the course 1 2 3 4 5

What aspects contributed mainly to your rating of question 1?

Please comment on the differences in activity and exercise types between the hybrid
course this semester and those activity and exercise types you had in previous
300/400 level German classes.

Which of these activities did you prefer? Please explain.

How did the hybrid course design influence your learning experience when compared
to traditional classroom practices? Please explain.

Please rate how much the inclusion of a hybrid course design changed your attitude
towards this course.

(l=strong negative influence, 2=negative influence, 3=neutral, 4=positive influence,
5=strong positive influence)

Influence of hybrid course design 1 2 3 4 5

Do you think that this course should have had more technology, less technology, or
was the amount about right?

229

IO.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Did the introduction to the online programs that we used in class (sessions in the
Language Learning Center on Conversations, SMILE, Mashups, blogs, wikis) enable
you to work with these programs? Please explain.

Did you encounter any difficulties with these programs? If so, please specify which
program(s) and what the difficulties were.

Please rate the online assignments according to their effectiveness in improving your
language skills and briefly comment on your ranking. You can give the same rating to
more than one assignment.

(1 = least effective, 10 = most effective)

 

Speaking Listening Reading Writing

 

Mfindliche Ubungen/
Conversations

 

Selbstevaluierung

 

Blogs

 

Online Diskussionen

 

Chats

 

Web Quests

 

Wikis

 

Midterm

 

Podcasts

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texte online

 

Do you feel that using tools like SMILE and Mashups to create materials helped you
learn more than if you just used materials that were already created? Please explain.
Did you have to spend significantly more time on the work for this class as a result of
its being a hybrid course? If so, how much more time? (Please give a rough estimate
on the time you spent online for this course per week and indicate if you read course
materials or worked on course assignments.)

Would you recommend this course in its current format to other students? What
would you tell them about it?

Please add any additional thoughts or comments on classroom practices and
suggestions for improving them.

Thank you very much!

230

 

APPENDIX N: Final Student Interview Questions for Hybrid Course

Questions for F inal Guided Interview
Student Hybrid Course GRM 455

1. Please comment on your experience in GRM 445 this semester.
a. Did you enjoy the course? Please explain.
b. What were your expectations and goals for this course?
c. What did you learn and were your expectations of the course met? Please explain.
d. Do you feel your language skills improved in this course? If so, in which areas?
What was the reason for the improvement or lack thereof? Please explain.
i. How can you tell that you improved? Could you read faster? Did you need
less time looking up vocabulary?
e. Do you feel your knowledge of literature and culture improved in this course? If
so, in which areas? What was the reason for the improvement or lack thereof?
Please explain
i. Did you become a more critical reader of fairy tales and their adaptations?
ii. Do you now see Disney fairy tales in a different light than before you took the
course? How did your perception change?
iii. Did the discussions help you think more critically, challenge your
assumptions and beliefs?
2. Have you ever had an online course or a hybrid course component in a (foreign
language) class?
If yes, what class was it, what did you have to do online, and how satisfied were you
with this form of teaching?
3. How did you like this hybrid German course?
4. On average, how much time did you spend online each week (each day) to complete
the activities?
a. Were there certain activities that took much/less longer than other or that you
decided to spend more/less time on? Why?
5. Were there any parts of the hybrid course you liked/didn’t like working on?
Any parts you found not useful or unnecessary, easy or difficult?
6. Please think about the different online assignments you had to complete throughout
the semester. What, if any, difficulties did you encounter?
Did you find the online readings beneficial? Why/why not?
Did you find the podcasts/mp3 files of texts beneficial? Why/why not?
Did you find the weekly self-evaluations beneficial? Why/why not?
Did you find the weekly speaking activities beneficial? Why/why not?
Did you find the bi-weekly blogs beneficial (plus comments)? Why/why not?
Did you find the discussion boards beneficial (plus comments)? Why/why not?
Did you find the chats beneficial? Why/why not?
Did you find the web quests beneficial? Why/why not?
Did you find the wikis beneficial? Why/why not?
Did you find the collaborative essay beneficial? Why/why not?
Did you find the midterm project beneficial? Why/why not?

rr'r'rrqo rm 999‘!»

231

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.

l6.
17.

Did you feel that by working online you were more responsible for your own work?
Please compare the activity types this semester with those you completed in previous
300/400 level German classes. Which ones worked best for you and why?

Did you find working with your peers helpful (both while working in class and
online)? Why or why not?

Do you think a hybrid course is a more effective and efficient way of teaching than
traditional classrooms practices? Please explain.

Did the hybrid course influence your attitude towards the course in a positive or
negative way?

Overall, do you think you learned more because of the hybrid course design? In
which areas (speaking, listening, reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar, culture)?
Would you prefer to have hybrid courses for your other classes? Which ones? Why?
What, if anything, would you want to change or add to the hybrid course to make it
more effective?

Compared to other German 300/400 level courses that you have taken, did you spend
more or less money on textbooks this semester?

Was it beneficial to have two instructors in this class?

Please add any additional thoughts or comments on classroom practices and
suggestions for improving them.

232

APPENDIX 0: Screenshot of the Main Lesson Folders in the Hybrid Study

1‘!-
. if .‘
-- J
. .‘rhefiae'c-e

 

Note. This is a screenshot of the upper portion of the main lessons folder for the hybrid
course. The lessons folder contained a variety of sub-folders for each major online
assignment and other pertinent information in regard to the course. The content visible
here is: syllabus and course schedule, assignment checklist, readings, weekly self-
evaluations, speaking activities, web quests, wiki for GRM 455, and blogs.

233

APPENDIX P: Weekly Self-Evaluation Survey

F ragebogen zur Selbstevaluierung

l. I participated in full class discussions
CIAlways DMost of the time DOften

2. I participated in group work
UAlways ElMost of the time DOften

3. I participated in pair work
CIAlways DMost of the time ClOften

4. I participated in online discussions
ClAlways DMost of the time DOften

5. I read all materials before class
UAlways DMost of the time DOften

6. I prepared for class
UAlways DMost of the time DOften

7. I completed all online assignments
UAlways UMost of the time CIOften

8. My German language production was

DSometimes

DSometimes

DSometimes

ElSometimes

DSometimes

ClSometimes

USometimes

DNever

CINever

[Never

[Never

ClNever

CINever

EINever

ClNot applicable
[Not applicable
ClNot applicable

[Not applicable

ClSuperior CIAbove average ClAverage DBelow average Cl Unsatisfactory

9. My understanding was

DSuperior ClAbove average ElAverage UBelow average El Unsatisfactory

10. The quality of my contributions was

ElSuperior DAbove average ClAverage EIBelow average Cl Unsatisfactory

11. I learned:
12. I really liked:
13. I wish:

14. Overall self-assessed grade for this week:

15. Additional comments:

234

Figure 18. The first screenshot lists all conversations started by the user, in this case
myself, on the left side. The functionality of the program is the same for teachers and
students, meaning that both can create conversations to which they invite others or join
existing conversations created by others. The pencil allows the user to edit each
conversation (i.e., set the number of prompts, set the option for students to practice or
complete the assignment in real time, and access the conversation code students need to
join). The x deletes a conversation, the speaker icon allows for recording prompts, the eye
allows for listening to students’ answers (see second screenshot), and the open/closed lock
permits/prevents students from joining the conversation. Users can join conversations
below by entering a specific conversation code provided by the instructor.

On the right side, the five prompts for week 6 are listed in the instructor preview and the
first prompt is currently playing. In this window, teachers can record and review their
prompts. The video function is not enabled for this assignment.

235

69.6.08. Scot. -< .3394; B whom >390ch 33m 50.5.: M 59.330 _ 80

_ “0053 n ~05 acoaoegcoub

 

 

 

0x3;

 

IMO

"gaging 30: 0 aka“

 

283 raw 1.. a 3a X ....

383 ram ...... or x ......

Aan

0‘00; 2&0 N... am 01 X ......)

3.003 ...—mm mm pm. at X ......

0.83 :5 a... ...... 3.. X ......
283 5.0 m... aw x

383 25 ....m. w aw X ...”...

‘6)

 

 

 

m 635%.. m ~95 mcoa§w>cou
v
n no 5 8000. En 30>
~ g.
fl icoalmu.icm63uco
”mcoamozo

 

 

mcgumufia< umESS 5.x

 

203§U>COU
$090 ..w.

EEBESEQDXQ metmmgum
M: 2:5

.3923?»ch no 80558an ”O X52972

236

Figure 19
Screenshot of'Sludenl View (g/‘(ilonversations

GRM Week6

Cl-IOOSE YOUR MODE

g Real-Time 3

y:. .. ”F . .. . ., . “ ‘ .... _ t.‘.. We} ,,-
{UH-ii: 1.1-77' .-.l --"'I\k"[i.!r‘ ..."7 .‘ 1“ ‘.f1§"kl'itj:.-I,.",';r.fl 1‘

 

3 “plays... '

I
. ' . ','u‘ ,‘r ' " ‘l ' V ."
-\ ..'-I ‘ .~‘. : I ' ‘izlif. I"TI‘ 1.“

Note. This screenshot shows the student view of the assignment for week 6. The practice
mode has been disabled for this assignment and students can only choose between
recording their answers in real time and playing back the entire conversation consisting of
my prompts and their answers. Once students click on the real-time button, the first
prompt will play and recording will start automatically at the end of the prompt. Students
have to click on the white area that reads “Recording. Click here when you are done.” And
the next prompt will play automatically.

237

Joan. METER mm 20:38:00 35:55 .oEw Em: 05 so .Ewcflb wag?» a 3 $68 :5 :02 who

as 3 3885 Ho: fl 08mm 8: 68.385 53mm“ 8: 39:53 8: we: En cormmcoéoo 2.: common :3. .38 330 55 .55 EEO“
Bum—:26 35% 35 £033 E 890 05 5 52395250 2t 85% 26: 0:3 359% 2: mo 0325 com 03 .me x83 com .903 who
on; 20325 .35me 8 magnum: 5:3 xmm x33 8% Eofinwmmm 38358 05 mo 32> $53:me 05 950% 85583 mEH $82

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3E2). Hm. o
Emits z: i 0
BE am. 0
«:32 ..m. .
Sum—3 m. .
c2960 ... .
C2 .1... 0
EC. ....m. .-
>2..— m. .
mucus? ....-. .
>55 3., .
Em==>> ”W o
Eosmflgcoo
£5 E acronnztun 229:8 flcouaum
exam; 2mm 6.62.. cornmcgcoo
xu<m

 

 

 

 

 

 

atomccmxo>2obtxo ENS 335“??? 3523.50
om 03E

238

APPENDIX R: Online Speaking Assignments

The following is a selection of prompts that students had to respond to on a weekly basis
online. I recorded the prompts online in the program Conversations and students had to
listen and respond to the prompts in order.

Woche 1 [Week 1]

1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

Wie heiBen Sie? [What is your name?]

Seit wie vielen Semestern studieren Sie Deutsch? [How long hve you been
studying German?]

Warum belegen Sie diesen Kurs? [Why are you taking this course?]

Was erwarten Sie von diesem Kurs? [What do you expect from this course?]
Erzéihlen Sie mir etwas Interessantes fiber sich. [Tell me something interesting
about yourself]

Woche 2 [Week 2]

l.

Wir haben fiber die Geschichte und Entwicklung von Marchen diskutiert. Was
sagt Max Lfithi auf Seite 40—55 zu diesem Thema? Nennen Sie bitte mindestens 4
Dinge, die Marchen beeinflusst haben. Zum Beispiel: verschiedene Kulturen,
historische Zeiten, Menschen, Ereignisse usw. [We have talked about the history
and development of fairy tales. What does Max Lfithi say on pages 40-55 about
this topic? Name at least four aspects that influenced fairy tales. For example,
different cultures, historical times, people, events, etc.)

Jack Zipes spricht in Kapitel 1 von seinem Buch When Dreams Came True vom
Unterschied zwischen mfindlichen Erzahlungen (oral folk tales) und schriftlichen
Erzfihlungen (literary tales). Bitte erkléiren Sie die Unterschiede zwischen diesen
Erzahlungen. [Jack Zipes talks in chapter 1 of his book When Dreams Came True
about the differences between oral folk tales and literary tales. Please describe the
differences between those tales.]

Woche 6 [Week 6]

l.

L»)

Assoziationen. Antworten Sie spontan in einem Satz auf die folgenden Fragen.
Was bedeutet fiir Sie Identitat? [Associations Respond spontaneously in one
sentence to the following questions. What does identity mean to you?]

Was ist typisch amerikanisch und warum? [What is typically American and why?]
Was ist typisch deutsch und warum? [What is typically German and whay?]

Was kfinnen wir von Marchen fiber Identitéit lernen? [What can we learn fiom
fairy tales about identity?]

Welche Interpretationsanséitze gibt es fur Marchen? Nennen Sie mindestens 3.

[What are common approaches fort he interpretation of fairy tales? Name at least
3.]

239

Woche 7 [Week 7]

1.

Bitte lesen Sie das Marchen Dornroschen vor. Sie finden es auf Seite 35-36 in
dem Text von den Brfidern Grimm. Der Text ist auf Angel im Lessons Folder ffir
den 16. Oktober. Lesen Sie bitte nur die Version von 1810, also Text Nummer 4.
[Please read Sleeping Beauty out loud. You can find the fairy tale on pages 35-36
in the Brothers Grimm text. It is posted on ANGEL in the lessons folder for
October 16. Please only read the 1810 version, which is text number 4.]

Jetzt lese ich das Marchen vor. Hfiren Sie es sich an und vergleichen Sie Ihre
Aussprache und Intonation mit der von mir. Sie mfissen hier nicht antworten,
sondem nur zuhoren. [Now I will read the fairy tale out loud. Listen closely and
compare your pronunciation and intonation with mine. You don’t have to respond
to my recording, just listen closely]

Woche 12 [Week 12]

1.

2.

Beschreiben Sie die Charaktere von Hansel und Gretel. [Describe the two main
characters, Hansel and Gretel.]

Vergleichen Sie die beiden Hauptfiguren mit den Hauptfiguren von Domrfischen
und Aschenputtel. Wo gibt es Ahnlichkeiten, wo gibt es Unterschiede? [Compare
these two characters with the main characters in Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella.
Where are similarities, where are differences?]

. Mit welchen Aspekten des Hansel und Gretel Marchens kann sich der Leser heute

identifizieren und warum? [Which aspects of the Hansel and Gretel fairy tale can
a modem-day reader identify and why?]

Woche 13 [Wek 13]

1.

Jack Zipes bespricht in seinem Kapitel ,,Once Upon a Time beyond Disney“ auf
Seite 93-94 ffinf Aspekte, die in allen Disney Marchenverfilmungen gleich sind.
Wahlen Sie einen der 5 Punkte und erkléiren Sie, warum Sie damit
fibereinstimmen oder nicht. [Jack Zipes discusses in his chapter “Once Upon a
Time beyond Disney” on pages 93-94 five aspects that are inherent to all of
Disney’s fairy tale movies. Choose one of these 5 aspects and describe why you
agree or disagree]

Jerry Griswold spricht in Kapitel 8 von verschiedenen Verfilmungen von ,,Beauty
and the Beast.“ Er argumentiert, dass die Filme eine Darstellung von
Homosexualitéit sind. Stimmen Sie damit fiberein? Warum oder warum nicht?
[Jerry Griswold talks about different film versions of “Beauty and the Beast” in
chapter 8. He argues that these movies are a representation of homosexuality. Do
you agree? Why or why not?]

240

APPENDIX S: Screenshot of Threaded Discussion Folder

 

Note. This is a screenshot of the upper portion of the threaded discussion folder for the
hybrid course. The lesson folder contained general information about the assignment, a
sign-up list where students could check when they were in charge of a threaded
discussion, and discussion forums for each individual assigned reading including due
dates.

241

Appendix T. The six major topics for the course wiki, including sub-topics, are listed in
the navigation bar on the left. The main body shows an excerpt of the wiki on
characteristics and elements of fairy tales. It also reflects the history of changes made on
September 13 between 12:52 pm and 2:00 pm. This screen shot compares two different
versions of the web page and highlights inserted and deleted text. In this case, the student
editing the page only focused on linguistic aspects and not on content.

242

0.. 800:8o8_m§~§.8u€=§888o0xBaggaoebuoaafiazsuuux

.8 .0 :0 .5588; .21. we 5382382

000 .0. 598m: :_ 0.030920%... 00.. >902 .050 0.0 50002.5 8.0 .0935 .09 Eliom ..O .

8.09.0 cm. 9...:be Eu... 0% .0 ..er 60.9.0.3
co.05.cox 009 33 .0 9.5.. 3:3 ...? .050

....0 0900.0 .00 :53 60:80: ... no.0 9050.00 2.02
0000.... 9.3 90 30: 8:005:21 .gaEcgcoeso
.250 .203 .200 00.. 800:. 8930.0

“0:0 ....00 8.0 .0. 0.09.0935:
.8005900903

 

30> 5.... ca...

 

.002: 59.03 .m .0 0m .0000; .000 .30.... .02. .09....

...090? .0 000.. £0.93 00 9098:: c0500 :9. .03 0900.9.0> .00 .3533»... .0. 5:550

9c: .c.0:...0..9.0> co) 5:39:30m 0900.000... 0... 9.3 55290)] .090 Sthcw ES.
8.9.0 new 5.9.0 o... :0 22.5., 0.2.0 3.5 883 80 .35 3.2.. 0.0 08.. 82 086 :08 W
0:: t 05.2 E... 09.2 I 3.5.9.8800 .00 ES... 09.0 0.9 ...s 5900 5989.2 ... 90.0.90 89.00305 ......
:2!“ 2:00:20 ..

. ,, . .:.0:u.m2 25> 02.050599: «.mEfiwE

 

E08”...
09.3.6: >590... coamsomb

.583. >5. . mm-

  

 

 

9.3 ..o 8.202% 5 5029......

243

APPENDIX U: Screenshots of SMILE

Figure 21
Screenshot ofa SMILE Activity

Zur Geschichte dcs Marchcns von LUthi (8.40-55) g

 

ITEMS Die Entwicklung von Mérchen im Altertum: Welche
Geschichte verbinden wir mit dem égyptischen Altertum?

 

Q 1

02 AmorundPsche

Nein, das stimmt nicht. Diese Geschichte stammt aus Rom
und wurde 150 nach Christus von Apuleius aufgezeichnet.

Anup und Beta

0019“

 

 

VSL. bmit:

 

Note. This screenshot shows a sample SMILE activity I created for one of the first
readings assigned on the history of fairy tales by scholar Lfithi (pages 40-55). The
activity contains six different items, the first two of which have been answered correctly
(smiley faces next to the item numbers on the left). Currently displayed is item three, a
multiple choice activity with two options. Feedback on the first option is provided. The
item asks about the development of fairy tales in antiquity, specifically which tale is
associated with Egyptian antiquity. The chosen answer is incorrect and the feedback
reads “No, this is not correct. This tale [Cupid and Psyche] is from Rome and was written
down by Christus of Apuleius around 150.” The activity can be accessed at

http://clear.msu.edu/teaching/online/mimea/smile/vZ/viewActivigg.php?lD=1679

244

.NEEM 90 5385838 05 mo 2w :E a mm :03 mm 893 34888 East? 2: 9 man: flow? :3 cosmwgmc £2 22. .20:
cosmfihomfi 3% Ba £8 £85 58 £33 .959“ cam—“$6 mm? 85 53:8 88:0 29:38 2: («o Q38 06 952?. 85.58% fish

:3 V5 .efifl

_H 2.0 385— _o>m._

503m
T. 15%

 

25> «335 $2 0.3 ans; 25 Sam man “582“ 35333 «35 .32: SEE“ may .52 m ..8

x838...
2E». .25 .22 m 835
< .8
x0339...
2mm 95 952 < 0205
339,3 6% :6 Es 59.5.? 85.530 2335 "Esta“? E_ 55.5: :9 32.3.55 05 HEP—n.
32%: E «62.2 «5.03 203:me
22.3on 53.6me
x05

4356383 33:5 .2 32 was; 8.3530 «35 488:“ «at .2

30332::
88
xi 59.8.5“.
52 mucficmm
35380
«waive»
835.29%:
"09: .3 v.58 >2

8&2? >2

 

 

 

 

33m
mouU A...

MNNEWKQ ENS 33525;? 39328ng

mm 23mm

245

£5358 86530588 “532235 98 “x8 o>umtom2u 2:8 mm :95 mm «2 2: co mzo 82> 98 wag—82 295 “owns: 5
325:8 : .85 x02 3:8 80 .85 :88 5:58:38 REM :05 “an? MO 0383 a mm $595 2t :23 U035 83 92:88 mEH

 

 

 

mam o

flow m

v

u m

E

H 0

2g EEEI 9F. ucmEumuauo mmmu £9.55 553300 St

E395 .03 £3 .5... .956 6o: ES 062 20 on 55... $3:

 

63.9350 236 95 +0.5 “9.9.00.

:25 Lona £9.ch .25 .5205 seem 595% :9. 023;:
.3 .zoxmfizfié us 2335 Eszvsfintmz

5 £8 .88 .zuxbnaw us 9.on 5 53:3

3 92% .3 .85on 22538 353.3 .3... .5“.
2858 E 83

$03.5 Loci: Love 525 L059:

0% so 58 285 83 .29. £328“ 23. a}; 8%
Lone +§2m§o¢ .8.» £23.: 55!»: .33.:
:2, 5:203 % 8% 5.; +£99.32: 8 8.8
5.9.55 i. 5=an L8 8., 83 .3“ 336202..
553500 :2. StEonH 05 £3.85”! x.o>

so 68 .58 892 use 0% .2953: 2... En 5:203
nEtEMUH ...3 no;

 

95mm: 038mm 98 8:202an H> x52???

246

APPENDIX W: Hybrid Study Quantified Questionnaire Results

Means and Standard Deviations from Initial and Final Student Questionnaires

 

GRM 455 — Hybrid Study

 

Speaking initial 3.44 (1.10)
Speaking improvement* 3.21 (.71)
Listening initial 3.94 (1.16)
Listening improvement 3.68 (1.06)
Reading initial 3.67 (1.08)
Reading improvement 3.58 (1.22)
Writing initial 2.92 (.73)
Writing improvement 3.32 (.95)
Vocabulary initial 3.50 (.79)
Vocabulary improvement 3.58 (.77)
Grammar initial 2.89 (.76)
Grammar improvement 3.11 (0.99)
. Culture initial 4.22 (.94)
Culture improvement 4.11 (.88)

*Improvement scores indicate the relative amount of students’ self-perceived
improvement, not the relative skill level as compared to their initial skill rating.
Therefore, an improvement score that is lower than the initial score does not mean that
the students perceived a decrease in skill level. The two scores provided here for any
given skill should not be compared to one another.

247

APPENDIX X: Hybrid Study Summary of Significant Differences

Summary of Significant Differences on Student Questionnaires

 

GRM 455 — Hybrid Study

 

 

Category Comparison Sig. Level
Students’ perception of their skills Culture>Grammar p=.002
on the initial questionnaire Culture>Speaking p=.014
Culture>Vocabulary p=.008
Culture>Writing p=.OOl
Listening>Grammar p=.005
Listening>Vocabulary p=.033
Listening>Writing p=.009
Reading>Grammar p=.039
Reading>Writing p=.030
Vocabulary>Grammar p=.026
Vocabulary>Writing p=.01 1
Students’ perception of their Culture>Grammar p=.001
improvement of skills on the final Culture>Reading p=.046
questionnaire Culture>Speaking p=.003
Culture>Vocabulary p=.008
Culture>Writing p=.OO7
Listening>Grammar p=.029
Listening>Speaking p=.029
Vocabulary>Grammar p=.038

248

32033 3:332: :08 $88 3 33 $588: Ho: Eu 3:0me

8 $3833 2: E 823E 82$ mecca $88 2:. 308563 $383 :80 com €020.33 3:339: 3 330:8 £0330“
ES 282 9 wow: fl Eacwoa 05 9 gs: a can accustomfi £=o2cu§>=ob Enhmoa 05 8: 9 Bo: co €38:me wows—0E
52¢.“ 05. Abowasno 32632.9 358%me was—3% cam—co >283 05 .8.“ 328 acmmfl 2t macaw 85.528 £5.

 

how—Ohm =Omm01— momum>muo< WES—Noam Owl—=0 MO “Or—mfluohum ”V Xmgzmnmnm<

249

APPENDIX Z: Screenshot of Blog Lesson Folder

 

Note. This screenshot shows the upper portion of the lesson folder for the bi-weekly
blogs. The folder includes information about the assigmnent, outlining the requirements
and grading criteria, followed by the individual blogs in alphabetical order.

250

APPENDIX AA: Students’ Initial Perception of Language Skills by Groups

Averages of Initial Ratings of Language Skills by Groups

 

 

Speaking Listening . Reading Writing
Highly Proficient 4.33 4.83 4.17 3.33
Group
Proficient 2.83 3.67 3.33 2.83
Group
Lower Proficient 2.58 3.17 3.33 3.5
Group

251

REFERENCES

252

REFERENCES

ACTFL. (1999). Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century.
Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.actfl.org/files/public/execsumm.pdf

Allan, D. (1991). Tape journals: Bridging the gap between communication and
correction. ELT Journal, 45(1), 61-66.

AIm-Lequeux, A. (2001). Using the Internet as zone of proximal development for
teaching indirect speech. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 34(1), 1-9.

Andress, R., James, C. J., Jurasek, B., Landale II, J. F., Lovik, T. A., Lund, D., et al.
(2002). Maintaining the momentum from high school to college: Report and
recommendations. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 35(1), 1-14.

Arens, K. (2008). Genres and the Standards: Teaching the 5 C's through texts. German
Quarterly, 81(1), 35-48.

Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74(3),
252-259.

Balser, .I. R., & Blice, S. A. (1978). Computer games for the German class. Die
Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 11(2), 95-96.

Barnett, M. A. (1991). Language and literature: False dichotomies, real allies. ADF L
Bulletin, 22(3), 7-11. ‘

Barr, D., Leakey, J., & Ranchoux, A. (2005). TOLD like it is! An evaluation of an
integrated oral development pilot project. Language Learning & Technology,
9(3), 55-78.

Barrette, C. M. (2001). Students' preparedness and training for CALL. CALICO Journal,
19(1), 5-36.

Barrette, C. M. (2008). Program administration issues in distance learning. In S. Goertler
& P. Winke (Eds.), Opening Doors through Distance Language Education:
Principles, Perspectives, and Practices (pp. 129-152). San Marcos, TX:
CALICO.

Bauer Pickar, G. (1975). Kafka's "Vor dem Gesetz": The case for an integrated approach.
Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 8(1), 28-34.

Bean, J. C. (2001). Engaging Ideas: The Professor 's Guide to Integrating Writing,

Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-
Baas.

253

Berman, R. A., Bernhardt, E. B., Castro-Klarén, S., Chaput, P. R., DeJean, J., Harper, J.,
et al. (1998). Forum response to Dorothy James, "Bypassing the traditional
leadership: Who's minding the store?". ADFL Bulletin, 29(2), 39-76.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1990). A model of L2 text construction: The recall of literary texts by
learners of German. In A. Labarca & L. M. Bailey (Eds), Issues in L2: Theory as
Practice/Practice as Theory (pp. 21-43). NOrwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1995). Teaching literature or teaching students? ADF L Bulletin, 26(2),
5-6.

Bernhardt, E. B., & Berman, R. A. (1999). From German 1 to German Studies 001: A
chronicle of curricular reform. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 32(1),
22-31.

Blake, R. (2008). Distance Learningfor Second and Foreign Language Teaching. New
York: Springer.

Blickle, P. (1998). Teaching the concept of childhood and nineteenth-century German
children's books in an intermediate German course. Die Unterrichtspraxis /
Teaching German, 31(2), 110-115.

Bohlke, O. (2003a). A comparison of student participation levels by group size and
language stages during chatroom and face-to-face discussions in German.
CALICO Journal, 21(1), 67-87.

Bohlke, O. (2003b). Adjective production by learners of German in chatroom and face-
to-face discussions. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 36(1), 67-73.

Boyle, R. (1995). Language teaching at a distance: From the first generation model to the
third. System, 23(3), 283-294.

Brubaker, C., & Priester, E. (2007). Culture at your fingertips: Implementing intemet
technology in the foreign language classroom. In M. Girod & J. P. Steed (Eds),
Technology in the College Classroom: Humanities. Stillwater: New Forums
Press.

Byram, K., & Kramsch, C. (2008). Why is it so difficult to teach language as culture?
German Quarterly, 81(1), 20-34.

Byrnes, H. (1988). How do you get there from here? Articulating the foreign language
major program. ADFL Bulletin, 20(1), 35-38.

Byrnes, H. (1990). Foreign language departments and the cultural component of an
intemational-studies program. ADFL Bulletin, 22(1), 10-15.

254

Byrnes, H. (1996). The future of German in American education: A summary report. Die
Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 29(2), 253-261.

Byrnes, H. (1998a). Introduction: Steps to an ecology of foreign language departments. In
H. Bymes (Ed.), Learning Foreign and Second Languages: Perspectives in
Research and Scholarship (pp. 1-22). New York: MLA.

Byrnes, H. (1998b). Learning Foreign and Second Languages: Perspectives in Research
and Scholarship. New York: MLA.

Byrnes, H. (2006). Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and
Vygotsky. London: Continuum.

Byrnes, H. (2008). What kind of resource is language and why does it matter for German
Studies? German Quarterly, 81(1), 8-19.

Byrnes, H., Kleinhenz, C., Mignolo, W., Pratt, M. L., & Vieira, N. H. (1998). Response
to Dorothy James, "Bypassing the traditional leadership: Who's minding the
store?": Part 2. ADF L Bulletin, 29(3), 46-63.

Byrnes, H., & Kord, S. (2002). Developing literacy and literary competence: Challenges
for foreign language departments. In V. M. Scott & H. Tucker (Eds.), SLA and the
Literature Classroom: Fostering Dialogues (pp. 35-73). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Byrnes, H., & Maxim, H. H. (Eds.). (2004). Advanced Foreign Language Learning: A
Challenge to College Programs. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Byrnes, H., Weger—Guntharp, H. D., & Sprang, K. (Eds.). (2006). Educating for
Advanced Foreign Language Capabilities: Constructs, Curriculum, Instruction,
Assessment. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Campbell, R. J ., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, R. D., & Robinson, W. (2004). Effective teaching
and values: Some implications for research and teacher appraisal. Oxford Review
of Education, 30(4), 451-465.

Carlson, K. S. (2003). Constructivism: What it means for my own teaching. CDT L Brief
6(1), 1-6.

Carstens—Wickham, B. (2001). Computer assisted business translation: An experimental
course with a future. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 34(1), 53-59.

Chen, Y.-M. (2008). Learning to self-assess oral performance in English: A longitudinal
case study. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 235-262.

255

Chenoweth, N. A., Ushida, E., & Murday, K. (2006). Student learning in hybrid French
and Spanish courses: An overview of Language Online. CALICO Journal, 24(1),
239-252.

Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of
interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.

Chute. A. G., Thompson, M. M., & Hancock, B. W. (1999). The McGraw-Hill Handbook
ofDistance Learning. New York: McGraw Hill.

Cini, M. A., & Vilic, B. (1999). Online teaching: Moving from risk to challenge.
Syllabus, 12(10), 38-40.

Conrad, D. (2007). Quo vadis? Reflections on the current state of research in distance
education. Distance Education, 28(1), Ill-116.

Conrad, R.-M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2004). Engaging the Online Learner: Activities and
Resources for Creative Instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Baas.

Contreras-McGavin, M., & Kezar, A. J. (2007). Using qualitative methods to assess
student learning in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research,
I 3 6, 69-79.

Cooper, K. B., & Victory, N. J. (2002). A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding
their Use of the Internet. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
ntiahome/dn/nationonline_920502.htm

 

Crookes, G. (1990). The utterance, and other basic units for second language discourse
analysis. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 183-199.

Cross, J. (2006). Foreword. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds), The Handbook of
Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs (pp. xvii-xxiii). San
Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Ancess, J. (1996). Authentic assessment and school
development. In J. B. Baron & D. P. Wolf (Eds), Performance-Based Student
Assessment: Challenges and Possibilities (pp. 52-83). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

das Neves Seesink, M. T. (2007). Using Blended Instruction to Teach Academic
Vocabulary Collocations: A Case Study. West Virginia University.

Davidheiser, J. C. (2007). Fairy tales and foreign languages: Ever the twain shall meet.
Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 215-225.

256

Davis, J. N. (1998). If the internet is the answer, what was the question? The French
Review, 72(2), 382-395.

Davis, J. N. (2000). Perspectives on an age: Forty-five years of NECTFL reports. In R.

M. Terry (Ed.), Agents of Change in a Changing Age (pp. 23-46). Lincolnwood,
IL: National Textbook Co.

Davis, J. N., Gorell, L. C., Kline, R. R., & Hsieh, G. (1992). Readers and foreign
languages: A survey of undergraduate attitudes toward the study of literature. The
Modern Language Journal, 76(3), 320-332.

Donato, R., & Brooks, F. B. (2004). Literary discussions and advanced speaking
functions: Researching the (dis)connection. Foreign Language Annals, 3 7(2),
183-199.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on F arm in Classroom Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R R. Day
(Ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 147-
81). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Duff, P. (2008). Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics. New York: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Ecke, P. (2004). DEFA-Marchenfilme zur Vermittlung von Deutsch als F remdsprache.
Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 3 7(1), 43-52.

Eigler, F. (2001). Designing a third-year German course for a content-oriented, task-
based curriculum. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 34(2), 107-118.

Ellis, N. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: Word structure, collocation, word-class, and
meaning. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds), Vocabulary: Description,
Acquisition and Pedagogy (pp. 122-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Ercetin, G. (2003). Exploring ESL learner's use of hypermedia reading glosses. CALICO
Journal, 20(2), 261-283.

Facer, K., & Furlong, R. (2001). Beyond the myth of the "cyberkid": Young people at the
margins of the information revolution. Journal of Youth Studies, 4(4), 451-469.

Felix, U. (2001). The web's potential for language learning: The student's perspective.
ReCALL: The Journal of E UROCALL, 13(1), 47-58.

257

Felix, U. (2005). Analysing recent CALL effectiveness research: Toward a common
agenda. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(1), 1-32.

Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring
students’ behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 409-
442.

Foley, K. S. (1993). Talking journals. TESOL Journal, 3(1), 37-38.

Foster, A. L. (2006). Students fall short on "information literacy," Educational Testing
Service's study finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(10), A36.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1993). How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Fraser, C. C. (1993). What is technology really doing for language teaching and learning?
Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 26(2), 127-131.

Fraser, C. C. (1999). Goethe gossips with Grass. Using computer chatting software in an
introductory literature course. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 32(1),
66-74.

Furman, N., Goldberg, D., & Lusin, N. (2007). Enrollments in Languages Other than
English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2006. Retrieved
November 20, 2007, from http://u-Mwmla.org/enroll_survpr06_fin

Gamper, J ., & Knapp, J. (2002). A review of ICALL systems. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 15(4), 329-342.

Gannon, E. J. (2004). Bringing active learning into a hybrid course. Academic Exchange
Quarterly, 8(4), 253-256.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006a). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA
Review, 19(1), 3-17.

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006b). Input, interaction, and output in second language
acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds), Theories in Second Language
Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Geltrich-Ludgate, B., & Tovar, D. (1987). Authentic text types and corresponding

strategies: A list for the foreign language instructor. Die Unterrichtspraxis /
Teaching German, 20(1), 80-94.

258

Georgetown University. (2003a). Curriculum Enhancement. Retrieved October] 1, 2007,
from http://wwwl .georgetown.edu/departments/german’programs/undergraduate/
curriculurn/enhancement/

 

Georgetown University. (2003b). Curriculum: Dissemination. Retrieved October 1 l,
2007, from http://wu-r'uj'légeorgetown.edu/departments/gennan/programs/
undergraduatc/curriculum/disscmination ‘

 

Glisan, E. W. (1987). Beginning Spanish students: A survey of attitudes at the University
of Pittsburgh. Hispania, 70(2), 381-394.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Emerging technologies. Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-
line collaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 12-16.

Goertler, S., & Winke, P. (2008a). Opening Doors through Distance Language
Education: Principles, Perspectives, and Practices. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.

Goertler, S., & Winke, P. (2008b). The effectiveness of technology-enhanced foreign
language teaching. In S. Goertler & P. Winke (Eds), Opening Doors through

Distance Language Education: Principles, Perspectives, and Practices (pp. 233-
260). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.

Goodwin, J. (2001). Teaching pronunciation. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching
English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 117-137). Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.

Gore, A. (1996). Remarks by the President and the Vice President to the People of
Knoxville. Retrieved July 2, 2007, from http://www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/
lcgacy/ l 01096-remarks-by-president-and-vp—in-knoxville-tn.htm

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2001). Reading for academic purposes: Guidelines for ESL/EFL
teachers. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign
Language (pp. 187-203). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Graham, S. (1997). Eflective Language Learning: Positive Strategies for Advanced Level
Language Learning. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Green, A., & Youngs, B. E. (2001). Using the web in elementary French and German
courses: Quantitative and qualitative study results. CALICO Journal, 19(1), 89-
123.

Grellet, F. (1981). Developing Reading Skills: A Practical Guide to Reading
Comprehension Exercises. New York: Cambridge University Press.

259

Grgurovié, M. (2007). Research Synthesis: CA LL Comparison Studies by Language
Skill/Knowledge. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://tesl.engl.iastate.edu:59l/
comparisom’synthesis.htm

 

 

Grundlehner, P. E. (1974). Computer-based education: PLATO in German. Die
Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 7(2), 96-105.

Guenther, C., & Roller, B. (1996). The intermediate college German language course in

the 19903: Problems and strategies. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German,
29(2), 218-226.

Gutschke, G. (1996). Bridge? What's a bridge? ADFL Bulletin, 27(2), 28-34.

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999). Students’ frustrations with a web-based distance education
course [Electronic Version]. First Monday, 4. Retrieved July 15, 2007, from
http:// fi rstmondayorg/ issues/ issue4_l 2/hara/ index .html

Harker, M., & Koutsantoni, D. (2005). Can it be as effective? Distance versus blended
learning in a web-based EAP programme. ReCALL: The Journal of E UROCALL,
17(2), 197-216.

Harlow, L. L., & Muyskens, J. A. (1994). Priorities for intermediate-level language
instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 141-154.

Hasty, W. (2006). Theory meets praxis: From Derrida to the beginning German
classroom via the Internet. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 39(1-2),
14-23.

Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive second-language
vocabulary for non-native university students: An empirical investigation. Applied
Linguistics, 17(2), 145-163.

Henning, S. D. (1993). The integration of language, literature, and culture: Goals and
curricular design. ADFL Bulletin, 24(2), 51-55.

High, J. L., Hoyer, J. M., & Wakefield,.R. (2002). Teaching "process editing" skills with
computers: From theory to practice on a larger scale. Die Unterrichtspraxis /
Teaching German, 35(2), 154-165.

Hock, L. (2007). Information literacy across the German-studies curriculum. Die
Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 40(1), 46-56.

Hoffmann, E. F., & James, D. (1986). Toward the integration of foreign language and
literature teaching at all levels of the college curriculum. ADF L Bulletin, 18(1),
29-33.

260

Hokanson, S. G. (2000). Distance education in foreign languages. Rocky Mountain
Review of Language and Literature, 54(2), 85-93.

Horvay, F. D. (1968). Laboratory work in college German. Die Unterrichtspraxis /
Teaching German, 1(2), 15-24.

Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language'learning of beginning university
foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ibarz, T., & Monaghan, A. (2000). Identifying issues in the introduction of information

and communication technologies with adult learners of Spanish. Vida Hispanica,
21, 8-13.

James, D. (1989). Re-shaping the "college-level" curriculum: Problems and possibilities.
In H. S. Lepke (Ed.), Shaping the Future: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 79-
1 10). Middlebury: Northeast Conference Reports.

James, D. (1997). Bypassing the traditional leadership: Who's minding the store? ADF L
Bulletin, 28(3), 5-11.

James, D. (2000). Kleiner Mann, was nun? In R. M. Terry (Ed.), Agents of Change in a
Changing Age (pp. 23 7-270). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.

Jenkins, H. (2007). From YouTube to YouNiversity. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
53(24), B.9. ‘

Jorgensen, P. A. (1984). Versatility in the design of foreign language computer-assisted
instruction. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 1 7(1), 104-108.

Kassouf, S. (2000). The web and Berlin as Baustellen: Reflecting on cultural construction

in the German Studies classroom. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German,
33(1), 71-77.

Katz, S. (2002). Teaching literary texts at the intermediate level: A structured input
approach. In V. M. Scott & H. Tucker (Eds), SLA and the Literature Classroom:
Fostering Dialogues (pp. 151-168). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Kern, R. (1995a). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects
on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language
Journal, 79(4), 457-476.

Kern, R. (1995b). Students' and teachers' beliefs about language learning. Foreign
Language Annals, 28(1), 71-92.

261

Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Kern, R. (2002). Reconciling the language-literature split through literacy. ADFL
Bulletin, 33(3), 20-24.

King. L. J. (2000). Teaching German literature through the web: Processes and outcomes.
Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 33(1), 62-70.

Klee, C. A. (2006). An unforeseen consequence of the boom in Spanish: Who is teaching
the majors? ADF L Bulletin, 3 7(2-3), 21-25.

Kost, C. (2007). Using wikis for a collaborative writing project. Paper presented at the
annual conference of CALICO.

Kraemer, A. (2008a). Formats of distance learning. In S. Goertler & P. Winke (Eds),
Opening Doors through Distance Language Education: Principles, Perspectives,
and Practices (pp. 11-42). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.

Kraemer, A. (2008b). Happily ever after: Integrating language and literature through
technology? Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 41(1), 61-71.

Kramsch, C. (1985). Literary texts in the classroom: A discourse. The Modern Language
Journal, 69(4), 356-366.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Kramsch, C. (1998). Constructing second language acquisition research in foreign
language departments. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning Foreign and Second
Languages: Perspectives in Research and Scholarship New York: MLA.

Kramsch, C., & Nolden, T. (1994). Redefining literacy in a foreign language. Die
Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 27(1), 28-35.

Kritsch Neuse, E. (1968). Die Mittelstufe: Ubergang vom Sprach zum Literaturunterricht.
Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 1(1), 3-18.

Kunz, J. P. (1998). A Comparison of a Traditional Foreign Language Workbook vs. a
Computerized Tutorial: Their Effects on Beginning German Students' Study
Strategies, Attitudes, Achievement and Language Retention Scores. The
University of Austin Texas: Unpublished Dissertation.

Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. J. L.

Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics (pp. 126-132).
London: McMillan.

262

Lazaraton, A. (2001). Teaching oral skills. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English
as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 103-115). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Leakey, J ., & Ranchoux, A. (2006). BLINGUA. A blended language learning approach
for CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(4-5), 357-372.

Lebauer, R. S. (2000). Learn to Listen, Listen to Learn: Academic Listening and Note-
Taking. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Lee, L. (2005). Using web-based instruction to promote active learning: Learner's
perspectives. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 139-156.

Levine. G. S. (2006). Problematizing the teaching and learning of grammar in the
intermediate German classroom: A sociocultural approach. Die Unterrichtspraxis
/ Teaching German, 39(1-2), 1-13.

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Context and
Conceptualization. Oxford: Clarendon.

Liskin-Gasparro, J. (2000). The use of tense-aspect morphology in Spanish oral
narratives: Exploring the perceptions of advanced learners. Hispania, 83(4), 830-
844.

Liu, M., Moore, 2., Graham, L., & Lee, S. (2003). A look at the research on computer-
based technology use in second language learning: A review of the literature from
1990-2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 250-273.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds), Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.

Lotze, D. P. (1975). Literatur im Anfangerunterricht. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching
German, 8(2), 4-10.

Luthi, M. ( 1982). Isolation and universal interconnection. In M. Liithi (Ed.), The
European Folk Tale: Form and Nature (pp. 37-65). Philadelphia: Institute for the
Study of Human Issues.

Lyman-Hager, M. A. (2000). Bridging the language-literature gap: Introducing literature
electronically to the undergraduate language student. CALICO Journal, 17(3),
431-451.

Lyman-Hager, M. A., & Davis, J. F. (1996). The case for computer-mediated reading:
Une Vie de Boy. The French Review, 69(5), 775-792.

263

Maki, P. (2004). Assessing for Learning: Building a Sustainable Commitment Across the
Institution. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.

Mantero, M. (2002). Bridging the gap: Discourse in text-based foreign language
classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 35(2), 437-456.

Maxim, H. H. (2004). Expanding visions for collegiate advanced foreign language
learning. In H. Bymes & H. H. Maxim (Eds), Advanced Foreign Language
Learning: A Challenge to College Programs (pp. 178-191). Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.

Medyes, P. (2001). When the teacher is a non-native speaker. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.),
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 429-442). Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.

Meeting of the MLA Executive Council. (1990). PMLA, 105(4), 940-946.

Melin, C., & Laun, J. (2007). Going contemporary in the intermediate-advanced
curriculum. Die Unterrichtspraxis/ Teaching German, 40(1), 1-8.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (1999). Definition ofBlog. Retrieved July 10, 2007,
from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionaiyLbl0g

 

Meskill, C. (1999). Computers as tools for sociocollaborative language learning. In K.
Cameron (Ed.), Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL): Media, Design
and Applications (pp. 141-162). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Messineo, M., & DeOllos, I. (2005). Are we assuming too much? Exploring students'
perceptions of their computer competence. College Teaching, 53(2), 50-55.

MLA. (2001). ADFL Guidelines and Policy Statements. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from
http://wwwadfl.org/projects/index.htm

MLA's Articulation Initiative. (1998). The MLA 's Articulation Initiative: High School to
College in Foreign Language Programs. Retrieved April I, 2008, from
http://wwwadfl.org/projects/articulation/introduction.htm

MSU. (2007). MS U Schedule of Courses. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from
http://schedule.msu.edu/

 

MSU. (2008). MS U German Studies: Mission Statement. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from
http://linglangmsu.edu/gennan/mission.php

Murday, K., Ushida, E., & Chenoweth, N. A. (2008). Learners' and teachers' perspectives
on Language Online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 125-142.

264

Murray, D. E. (2000). Protean communication: The language of computer-mediated
communication. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 397-421.

Nation, 1., & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy
(Eds), Vocabulary and Language Teaching (pp. 97-110). London: Longman.

NCES. (1997). Distance Education in Higher EduCation Institutions. Retrieved July 20,
2007, from http://nces.cd.gov/pubs98/98062.pdf

 

NCES. (1999). Distance Education at Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1 997-98.
Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gmr/surveys/peqis/publications/
2000013/

NC ES. (2003). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions:
2000-2001. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://ncesed.gov/surveys/peqis/
publications/2003017/

 

 

Neumeier, P. (2005). A closer look at blended learning - Parameters for designing a

blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCA LL: The
Journal of E UROCALL, 17(2), 163-178.

NMC. (2007). The Horizon Report. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from
http://www.nmc.org/horizon

 

Noam, E. M. (1998). Will books become the dumb medium? [Electronic Version].
Educom Review, 33. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http://net.educause.edu/
apps/er/review/reviewArticlcs/33218.html

 

 

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2. 0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software. Retrieved September 20, 2007, from
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/3O/What-is-wcb-
20.html

Oh, C. H. (2003). Information communication technology and the new university: A view
on eLearning. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences,
585(1), 134-153.

Omaggio Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining

the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language
Learning & Technology, 1(1), 82-93.

265

Ossipov, H. (2000). Who is taking French and why? Foreign Language Annals, 33(2),
157-167.

Paesani, K. (2005). Literary texts and grammar instruction: Revisiting the inductive
presentation. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 15-24.

Park, W. M. (1984). Computer-assisted instruction: The view from the language lab. Die
Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 17(1), 53-55.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.

Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the
(re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second
Language Learning (pp. 155-177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing oral proficiency through synchronous
CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO
Journal, 20(1), 7-32.

Pederson, S., & Williams, D. (2004). A comparison of assessment practices and their
effects on learning and motivation in a student-centered learning environment
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(3), 283-307.

Peters, G. F. (2002). Teaching German in America. Past Progress and Future Promise. A
Handbook for Teaching and Research. Cherry Hill, NJ: American Association of
Teachers of German.

Peters, G. F. (2003). Kulturexkurse: A model for teaching deeper German culture in a
proficiency-based curriculum. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 36(2),
121-134.

Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International
Universities Press.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language
learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-
527.

Polio, C., & Zyzik, E. (in press). Don Quixote meets ser and estar: Multiple perspectives
on language learning in Spanish literature classes. The Modern Language Journal.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Prensky, M. (2005). "Engage me or enrage me": What today's Ieamers demand.
EDUCA USE, 40(5), 60-65.

266

Pusack, J. P. (1997). Five questions to focus our attention on technology. Die
Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 30(2), ix-xi.

Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and
academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning,
52(3), 513-536.

Quinn, R. A. (1990). Our progress in integrating modern methods and computer-
controlled learning for successful language study. Hispania, 73(1), 297-31 1.

Redmann, J. (2005). An interactive reading journal for all levels of the foreign language
curriculum. Foreign Language Annals, 38(4), 484-493.

Redmann, J. (2008). Reading Kéistner's Emil und die Detektive in the Context of a

Literacy-Oriented Curriculum. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 41(1),
72-81.

Rivera, J. C., McAlister, M. K., & Rice, M. L. (2002). A comparison of student outcomes
& satisfaction between traditional & web based course offerings [Electronic
Version]. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5. Retrieved
August 13, 2007, from http://www.westga.edu/°/07Edistance/ojdla/fal153/
rivera53.html

 

Roberts-Gassler, V. (1987). Teaching the fairy tale. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching
German, 20(2), 250-260.

Roby, W. B. (1999). What's in a gloss? Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 94-101.

Rogers, C. V., & Medley, F. W. J. (1988). Language with a purpose: Using authentic
materials in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 21(5),
467-478.

Saba, F. (2005). Critical issues in distance education: A report from the United States.
Distance Education, 26(2), 255-272.

Sampson, N. (2003). Meeting the needs of distance learners. Language Learning &
Technology, 7(3), 103-118.

Sénchez-Serrano, L. (2008). Initiation by fire: Training teachers for distance learning. In
S. Goertler & P. Winke (Eds), Opening Doors through Distance Language
Education: Principles, Perspectives, and Practices (pp. 153-174). San Marcos,
TX: CALICO.

Sanders, R. F. (2005). Redesigning introductory Spanish: Increased enrollment, online

management, cost reduction, and effects on student learning. Foreign Language
Annals, 38(4), 523-532.

267

Saussy, H. (2005). Language and literature on the pedagogical continuum; or, life begins
after proficiency. ADF L Bulletin, 36(2), 17-21.

Schaumann, C. (2001). Erzahlraum im virtuellen Raum: Rewriting Bernhard Schlink's
"Der Vorleser" on the web. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 3 4(2), 150-
157.

Schmitt, N. (1998). Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary:
A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48(2), 281-317.

Schueller, J. (2007). One good turn deserves another: Sustaining an intercultural e-mail
exchange. Die Unterrichtspraxis/ Teaching German, 40(2), 183-196.

Schultz, J. M. (2002). The Gordian Knot: Language, literature, and critical thinking. In V.
M. Scott & H. Tucker (Eds), SLA and the Literature Classroom: Fostering
Dialogues (pp. 3—34). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Schulz, R. A. (1981). Literature and readability: Bridging the gap in foreign language
reading. The Modern Language Journal, 65(1), 43—54.

Scida, E. E., & Saury, R. E. (2006). Hybrid courses and their impact on student and

classroom performance: A case study at the University of Virginia. CALICO
Journal, 23(3), 517-531.

Scott, V. M., & Tucker, H. (2002). Introduction. In V. M. Scott & H. Tucker (Eds), SLA
and the Literature Classroom: Fostering Dialogues (pp. ix-xvii). Boston: Heinle
& Heinle. :

Shanahan, D. (1997). Articulating the relationship between language, literature, and
culture: Toward a new agenda for foreign language teaching and research. The
Modern Language Journal, 81(2), 164-174.

Simina, V., & Hamel, M.-J. (2005). CASLA through a social constructivist perspective:
WebQuest in project-driven language learning. ReCALL: The Journal of

E UROCALL, 17(2), 217-228.

Skinner, B., & Austin, R. (1999). Computer conferencing - does it motivate EFL
students? ELTJournal, 53(4), 270-279.

Sloan-C. (2003). Sizing the Opportunity: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in
the United States, 2002 and 2003. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from http://sloan-c.org/
flblications/survey/pdf/sizing_opportunity.pdf

 

Sloan-C. (2007). Blending In: The Extent and Promise of Blended Education. Retrieved
June 5, 2007, from http://sloan-c.org/_publications/survey/blended06.asp

268

Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the
missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 85-103.

Spodark, E. (2001). Integrating online techniques into undergraduate French language
instruction. The French Review, 74(6), 1206-1217.

Stevens, V. (2006). Second Life in education and language learning. TESL-EJ, 10(3).

Stoller, F. (1994). Making the most of newsmagazine passage for reading-skills
development. English Teaching Forum, 32(1), 2-7.

Stoller, F., & Grabe, W. (1993). Implications for L2 vocabulary acquisition and
instruction from L1 vocabulary research. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes & J. Coady
(Eds), Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning (pp. 29-45).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Stracke, E. (2007). A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners drop
out of a blended language learning (BLL) environment. ReCALL: The Journal of
EUROCALL, 19(1), 57-78.

Strambi, A., & Bouvet, E. (2003). Flexibility and interaction at a distance: A mixed-mode
environment for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 81-
102.

Swaffar, J ., & Arens, K. (2005). Remapping the Foreign Language Curriculum: An
Approach through Multiple Literacies. New York: MLA.

Swaffar, J ., Arens, K., & Byrnes, H. (1991). Reading for Meaning: An Integrated
Approach to Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds), Input
in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Sykes, J. M., Oskoz, A., & Thome, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive
environments, and mobile resources for language education. CALICO Journal,
25(3), 528-546.

Taylor, J. C. (1999). Distance Education: The Fifth Generation. Paper presented at the
19th ICDE World Conference on Open Learning and Distance Education.
Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://www.usq.edu.au/users/taylorj/
publications_presentations/1999vienna__5 thGeneration.doc

 

269

Taylor, J. C. (2001). Fifth Generation Distance Education. Keynote Address. Paper
presented at the 20th ICDE World Conference on Open Learning and Distance
Education. Retrieved July I, 2007, from http://www.usq.edu.au/users/taylorj/
publications _presentations/200I_ICDE_DusscldortKeynote.ppt

Teichert, H. U. (1985). Computer-assisted instruction in beginning college German: An
experiment. CALICO Journal, 2(3), 18-43.

TESOL. Qualitative Research: Case Study Guidelines. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from
http://www. tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?Cl D=476&DID=2 l 53

Thome, S. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). "Bridging activities," new media literacies, and
advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 558-572.

Tozcu, A., & Coady, J. (2004). Successful learning of frequent vocabulary through
CALL also benefits reading comprehension and speed. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 17(5), 473—495.

Tschirner, E. (1997). Neue Perspektiven fur DaF durch die neuen Medien. Die
Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 3 0(2), 121-129.

US Census Bureau. (2001). Home computers and Internet use in the United States:
August 2000. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www.censusgov/prod/
2()01pubs/p23-207.pdf

 

Valentine, D. (2002). Distance learning: Promises, problems, and possibilities [Electronic
Version]. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5. Retrieved
August 13, 2007, from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/fal153/
valentine53.html

Van Handle, D. C. (2002). A new model for teaching intermediate German at the college-
level. Die Unterrichtspraxis/ Teaching German, 35(2), 123-128.

Vygoysky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wallace, C. (1992). Reading. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wallace, F. L., & Wallace, S. R. (2001). Electronic office hours: A component of
distance learning. Computers & Education, 37(3—4), 195-209.

Wankat, P. C., & Oreovicz, F. S. (1999). Office hours Rx [Electronic Version]. ASEE

Prism, 8. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://findarticlescom/p/articles/
mi_qa3 797/ is_l 9990 l /ai__n8 836208?tag=artBody;col l

270

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second
language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2-3), 7-26.

Watzke, J. (2000). Student transitions from the high school classroom to the college
major: Implications for reform. ADFL Bulletin, 31(3), 45-52.

Wazel, G. (1988). Computergesttitzte Leistungsvermittlung und Leistungsbewertung. Die
Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 21 (1), 102-106.

Web-based Education Commission. (2000). The Power of the Internet for Learning:

Moving from Promise to Practice. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from
http://www.edgov/offices/AC/WBEC/FinalReport/WBECchortpdf

 

Weber, H. (2000). Ausgerechnet "Rumpelstilzchen"? Grimms Marchen im DaF-
Unterricht. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 33(1), 24-35.

Weber, R. (2000). Re(de)fining the college German curriculum: A program proposal. Die
Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 33(1), 50-61.

White, C. (2003). Language Learning in Distance Education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Wildner-Bassett, M. E. (2008). Teacher's role in computer-mediated communication and
distance learning. In S. Goertler & P. Winke (Eds), Opening Doors through
Distance Language Education: Principles, Perspectives, and Practices (pp. 67-
83). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.

Williams, J. (2005). Tasks and activities in second language writing. In J. Williams (Ed.),
Teaching Writing in Second and Foreign Language Classrooms (pp. 39-92).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Williams, K. (2001). What is the digital divide? Paper presented at the d3 workshop.

Winke, P., & Goertler, S. (2008). Did we forget someone? Students' computer access and
literacy for CALL. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 482-509.

Wurst, K. A. (2008a). How do we teach language, literature, and culture in a collegiate
environment and what are the implications for graduate education? Die
Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 41(1), 57-60.

Wurst, K. A. (2008b). Winds of change? How do we teach literature in a collegiate
environment? German Quarterly, 81(1), 4-7.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

271

Young, J. R (2002). "Hybrid" teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and
online instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(28), A33.

Zipes, J. (1999). When Dreams Came True: Classical Fairy tales and Their Tradition.
New York: Routledge.

Zipes, J. (2001). The Great Fairy Tale Tradition'From Straparola and Basile to the
Brothers Grimm. New York: Norton & Company.

Zyzik, E., & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in university Spanish literature
courses. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 53-70.

272

Sll‘t Ll

E UNIVEW

Gr’l‘l STAI

AICHI

I

 

RU
no
04
n4
nU
no
OJ
0‘
1|

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

L
......»a
.

firm
......
flan