E-tandems remains peripheral to the foreign language curriculum (O’Dowd, 2010, 2013), in spite of the proliferation of Language Learning Social Networks and research findings showing learners’ linguistic progress in tandem learning. Similarly, recent studies have shown that students taking hybrid courses reach comparable levels of oral proficiency to those taking traditional courses (Blake, 2008; Rubio, 2012). This study measures linguistic development through a 10 week hybrid course of intermediate Spanish with an e-tandem component, in contrast with a traditional Spanish course. Results showed similar overall proficiency development for both groups and a greater improvement in sentence mastery for hybrid students.

1. Proficiency Development through a
Hybrid Course with e-Tandems
Gabriel Guillén
gaguillen@miis.edu
@gaguillen
This presentation http://go.miis.edu/elio
#Calico2015
5/28/2015

2. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
Should I buy a hybrid car?

3. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
1) Survey on tandem learning and Language Learning Social Networks (155
students, 21 instructors) and a preliminary experiment with e-tandems.
2) Measured and described proficiency development through a 10 week
hybrid Spanish course with an e-tandem requirement, in contrast with
a traditional course. Today quantitative results.
3) Explained the state of the art of social Computer Assisted Language
Learning (sCALL) and gave recommendations for using and developing
LLSNs.

4. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
Face to Face Face to Face Face to Face Face to Face Face to Face
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
Virtual Face to Face Virtual Face to Face Virtual
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
Virtual Virtual Virtual Virtual Virtual

5. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
A hybrid course with e-tandems
What are tandems? Two individuals of different native languages
(L1) helping each other to learn the target language (L2).
It is “one of the oldest learning methods in the world” (Brammerts
1996, 121). What are e-tandems? Online tandems.

6. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
Why tandems?
1. Lack of opportunities for oral interaction with speakers of
other cultures. Intercultural competence (Beltz, 2003, Lee, 2009)
2. A satisfactory tandem experience promise a road to fluency development (Morley &
Truscott, 2005, Xiao 2007,
Ware & O’Dowd, 2008, Brinckwirth, 2012).
3. Curricular tandem projects are still peripheral in second language education
(O’Dowd 2010, 2013).
4. Learner autonomy, duh.
5. Also…. the hybrid and online classes seem to be an ideal space for the
implementation of tandem projects (outside of the classroom).
6. Recent studies have shown that students taking hybrid courses (2 days a week)
reach comparable levels of oral proficiency to those taking traditional courses that
meet 4 or 5 days a week (Blake, Wilson, Cetto & Pardo-Ballester, 2008, Rubio,
2012).

7. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK

8. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
Methods
1. Duration: 10 weeks (January-March, 2014)
2. Level: Intermediate Spanish
3. Participants: Started with 50, ended up with 23 learners (HyC: 11; TrC: 12), after
removing native speakers who scored 75-80 in the test, other participants who had
technical issues with the test, and participants who did not finish the course.
4. I was the tandem partner for all of the students, in order to favor uniformity. The hybrid
group was exposed to a minimum of 8 tandem sessions (50 minutes).
5. HyC learners wrote 8 reports, specifying words and collocations they have “learned”
during the tandems. Along with the words, HyC learners wrote a brief personal reflection
(no more than 8 lines) for each tandem session. 15% of final grade.
6. There were specific tasks for each tandem session.
7. All learners took the Versant Test (measuring fluency, sentence mastery, pronunciation,
and vocabulary) before and after the treatment. The Versant Spanish Test “estimates the
test taker’s level of automaticity with the language” (Versant 2011, 9). It has been tested
for validity. For instance, it has shown a high correlation (0.86-0.92) with the OPI.
own online textbook, iCultura (with Blake &
Bradley) and syllabus

9. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
Quantitative Research Questions
1. How a hybrid course with an e-tandem learning
component would or would not improve L2 fluency
and “automaticity” (sentence mastery) for college
students, compared to a traditional course? How this
hybrid course would or would not improve L2 proficiency in
general, and in regards to vocabulary and pronunciation,
compared to a traditional course?
2. Which factors contribute the most to second language
development in the hybrid course: motivation,
language aptitude, or the final score in the course? Is
it different from the traditional course? What about both of
them combined?

10. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
1. The overall results showed that HyC learners can perform
comparably to the TrC learners, which means that it’s a viable
alternative to the traditional teaching method, as seen before in the
literature (Blake et al, 2008, Rubio, 2012)
2. However, none of the groups showed substantial progress in terms
of fluency, after 10 weeks of Spanish learning
3. Similarly, students did not show statistically significant progress in
terms of pronunciation, as it was expected
4. The area where both groups showed more significant progress was
sentence mastery, which reflects how students are able to recall and
produce Spanish phrases that are syntactically accurate and
appropriate in regards to usage
5. Finally, only the HyC group showed a significant improvement in
vocabulary. The progress for the TrC group, even though existent,
was not statistically significant

11. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK

12. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK

13. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK

14. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK

15. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
6. For both groups (HyC and TrC) there was no significant
correlation between the Versant Results and aptitude,
vocabulary, and the final grade in the course.
7. This is still relevant. For example, the final grade and the
aptitude test ended up not being a good predictor of student
language progress (how well students do in the Versant Test).

16. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
1. Good news! The model of this HyC with e-tandems worked and it could
work with “non-professional” tandem partners. It was a brand new course.
2. Neither group showed a statistically significant progress in the fluency
score, using the Versant results for this category. This is different from
previous positive results with tandem learning experiments (Morley &
Truscott, 2006, Xiao, 2007, Brinckwirth, 2012)
3. It does not necessarily imply that students did not progress in terms of
automaticity and proficiency. Their substantial progress in sentence
mastery and vocabulary establishes a solid base for future fluency progress.
4. The sentence mastery score does not take into account rhythm and timing
but complexity and, to a certain degree, length, which are more important
for fluency development (Towell, 1996). The only difference between the
Versant fluency and sentence mastery scores is that the former takes into
account the reading activity, a task where learners read a series of
sentences without creating new utterances.

17. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
5. Vocabulary improvement, showed only by the HyC students, is also a
predictor of fluency gains
6. The quantitative results are not measuring the impact of the tandem per se
but the overall effectiveness of this hybrid model. The impact of tandems is
addressed in the qualitative discussion. Tandems are, nonetheless, an
essential component for any hybrid course that seeks to promote autonomy
and fluency development
7. Projects such as the tandem experiment could not only enhance language
learning but allow students to create their own opportunities for language
learning beyond the constraints of the classroom. Lifelong learning needs

18. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
8. As in the preliminary experiment, learners need more training in regards to
the principles of tandem (autonomy and reciprocity) and the characteristic
of effective language feedback and language learning strategies. The
implementation of the tandem workshop before the tandem encounters
was not sufficient. Therefore, instructors should not only reinforce this
workshop but organize monthly follow-up sessions with the students in
order to ensure optimal tandem learning
9. Future studies should use “real” tandem partners and increase the
importance of the tandem in the activitities, projects, and syllabus
10. The whole course could be designed around the idea of
substituting the traditional language class with coach sessions
with one or two learners, establishing weekly goals and giving
immediate feedback on recordings, reading/listening/writing
projects, and reports from the tandem experiences (with L1
“native” speakers). A real E-TANDEM course

19. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
Limitations
1. Further studies should increase the number of participants, include a
delayed posttest, and avoid using the instructor as the tandem partner, in
spite of the positive outcomes of this experiment. I improved my English!
But it was not reflected in the Versant Test
2. Similarly, it would be ideal to compare groups that share the same
instructor and content. These two variables might have impacted the
results of the main experiment, beyond the hybrid design and the tandem
component
3. Finally, a more longitudinal study, solely based in tandem and the use of
LLSNs, is recommended. The dialogue between the emerging LLSNs and
the language profession should flow naturally from the core of the common
interests

20. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
http://go.miis.edu/tandem
What happens if they never meet up
with their partners, if they don’t hand
in their dossiers, if they do not attend
the final examination? Remember that
after the early meetings, there is no
more face-to-face contact with tutors.
We had to learn to trust the
students, to relinquish our
control and to hand over
responsibility. And we have been
rewarded in our trust. Out of the
several hundred students who have
now participated in the scheme
[tandem project], only a handful have
not met the challenge – and they
would probably have proved
problematic in the more conservative
class-based course unit as well.
(Truscott & Morley, 2004, p. 157).

21. INTRO  RESULTS  DISCUSSION  FEEDBACK
Questions, complains, references:
gaguillen@miis.edu
www.gaguillen.com
@gaguillen
This presentation:
http://go.miis.edu/elio
What about non-native instructors? Well, I was the tandem partner
for all of the learners for the sake of uniformity but I don't think
instructors would be the ideal tandem partners, it would be a lot of
time! Students need to find their own partners
Same space or different space? More and more universities are
creating local social networks for language learners. Go back and
see them in the previous table! This is a great dea. Getting together,
face-to-face, would facilitate interchange of ideas, allignment,
assimilation, connection. But it is not easy to find partners. Also, what
you get with LLSNs is access to speakers of other cultures who
don't necessarily have experience with your local culture. Intercultural
competence!
We need to reinforce new skills: finding learning opportunities,
building a PLN, giving feedback
How to avoid self-reported assesment? Some social sites allow you
to record part of your conversation. I have the feeling it is going to be
spreaded to other sites.
One of the attendees mentioned the strategy of recording your
speech with the tandem partner and going back to the recording for
feedback, analysis. This is great and widely used in the self-taught
language learner community!
Independent language studies at the University of Colorado with
peers: a model (learning by teaching)