Evaluation of a foreign languages school hybrid program in Turkey through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model

Abstract

In response to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, global educational institutions transitioned to fully online instructional modalities. Later, there was a gradual shift back to traditional educational formats. During this transitional phase, academic institutions adopted a hybrid delivery model, integrating elements of both online and face-to-face instruction. This study was conducted with students, instructors, and administrators affiliated with the Department of Foreign Languages at a state university, aiming to evaluate this department’s hybrid program through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model. In this program evaluation study, qualitative data were obtained through open-ended questions, narrative frames, metaphors, and drawings. A total of sixty nine students, eight instructors, and three administrators participated. Participants’ positive and negative views were investigated, and suggestions were made to improve the current hybrid education program of the foreign languages school.

Keywords

• Hybrid Education
• Program Evaluation
• Stake's Responsive Evaluation Model
• the Pandemic

References

1. Ahlin, E. M. (2020). A mixed-methods evaluation of a hybrid course modality to increase student engagement and mastery of course content in undergraduate research methods classes. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 32(1), 22-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2020.1831034
2. Almazova, N., Krylova, E., Rubtsova, A., & Odinokaya, M. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for Russian higher education amid COVID-19: Teachers’ perspective. Education Sciences, 10(12), 368. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10120368
3. Batubara, B. M. (2021). The problems of the world of education in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(1), 450-457. https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v4i1.1626
4. Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G.,& Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-126.
5. Delamarter, S., & Brunner, D. (2005). Theological education and hybrid models of distance learning. Theological Education, 40(2), 145-164.
6. Dragicevic, N., Pavlidou, I., & Tsui, E. (2020). Use of hybrid classroom and open educational resources: Experience gained from a university in Hong Kong. International Association for Development of the Information Society. Available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED621650
7. El Mansour, B., & Mupinga, D. M. (2007). Students’ positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online Classes. College Student Journal, 41(1). 242-248.
8. Ersin, P., Atay, D., & Mede, E. (2020). Boosting preservice teachers’ competence and online teaching readiness through e-practicum during the COVID-19 outbreak. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2(2), 112-124. https://doi.org/10.46451/ijts.2020.09.09

9. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Pearson Education
10. Franklin, H., & Harrington, I. (2019). A review into effective classroom management and strategies for student engagement: Teacher and student roles in today’s classrooms. Journal of Education and Training Studies. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v7i12.4491
11. Frye, A. W., & Hemmer, P. A. (2012). Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE guide no. 67. Medical teacher, 34(5), e288-e299. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.668637
12. Gagnon, K., Young, B., Bachman, T., Longbottom, T., Severin, R., & Walker, M. J. (2020). Doctor of physical therapy education in a hybrid learning environment: Reimagining the possibilities and navigating a “new normal”. Physical Therapy, 100(8), 1268-1277. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa096
13. Goldschmidt, K., & Msn, P. D. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: Technology use to support the wellbeing of children. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 53, 88-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2020.04.013
14. Graham, M., & Scarborough, H. (2001). Enhancing the learning environment for distance education students. Distance Education, 22(2), 232-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791010220204
15. Hall, S., & Villareal, D. (2015). The Hybrid Advantage: Graduate Student Perspectives of Hybrid Education Courses. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27(1), 69-80.
16. Hamza-Lup, F. G., & White, S. (2018). Design and assessment for hybrid courses: Insights and overviews. International Journal of Advances in Life Sciences 7(3), 122-131. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1811.07273
17. Ho, C. P., & Burniske, R. W. (2005). The evolution of a hybrid classroom: Introducing online learning to educators in American Samoa. Tech-Trends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 49, 24–29.
18. Jackson, M. J., & Helms, M. M. (2008). Student perceptions of hybrid courses: Measuring and interpreting quality. Journal of Education for Business, 84(1), 7-12. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.1.7-12
19. Johnson, E., Morwane, R., Dada, S., Pretorius, G., & Lotriet, M. (2018). Adult learners’ perspectives on their engagement in a hybrid learning postgraduate programme. The journal of continuing higher education, 66(2), 88-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2018.1469071
20. Joseph, A. (2020). What is the future of arts education in the midst of a pandemic? It’s essential, virtual, and hybrid for now!. International Dialogues on Education Journal, 7. 61-80. https://doi.org/10.53308/ide.v7i1/2.26
21. Karabulut-Ilgu, A., & Jahren, C. (2016). Evaluation of hybrid learning in a construction engineering context: A mixed-method approach. Advances in Engineering Education, 5(3), 1-26.
22. Keskin, Y. (2011). DKAB bölümleri öğrencilerinin bilgisayar ve internet kullanma durumları ve yeterlikleri. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(30), 211-233. https://doi.org/10.17120/omuifd.96811
23. Kibble, J. D. (2017). Best practices in summative assessment. Advances in Physiology Education, 41(1), 110-119. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00116.2016
24. King, K. P. (2002). Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 231-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00104-5
25. Koohang, A., Britz, J., & Seymour, T. (2006). Panel discussion. Hybrid/blended learning: Advantages, Challenges, Design and Future Directions. In Proceedings of the 2006 Informing science and IT education joint conference. 155-157.
26. Koehler, M. J., Zellner, A. L., Roseth, C. J., Dickson, R. K., Dickson, W. P., & Bell, J. (2013). Introducing the first hybrid doctoral program in educational technology. TechTrends. 57(3), 47-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0662-0
27. Linder, K. E. (2017). Fundamentals of hybrid teaching and learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2017(149), 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20222
28. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2010). Intercoder reliability. 20.11.2022. Available at http://matthewlombard.com/reliability/
29. Lynch, B. K., & Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
30. Maity, C., & Mukherjee, M. (2021). Hybrid model of learning: A flexible combination of in-person and remote environment. Education Matters, 24-29.
31. Manea, V. I., Macavei, T., & Pribeanu, C. (2021). Perceived benefits of online lectures during the pandemic: A case study in engineering education. Pro Edu International Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(1), 35-41. https://doi.org/10.26520/peijes.2021.4.3.35-41
32. Meydanlioglu, A., & Arikan, F. (2014). Effect of hybrid learning in higher education. International Journal of Information and Communication Engineering, 8(5), 1292-1295. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1092346
33. Mossavar-Rahmani, F., & Larson-Daugherty, C. (2007). Supporting the hybrid learning model: A new proposition. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 67-78.
34. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017- 1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
35. Nikolopoulou, K. (2022). Face-to-face, online and hybrid education: University students’ opinions and preferences. Journal of Digital Educational Technology. 2(2), ep2206. https://doi.org/10.30935/jdet/12384
36. Nørgård, R. T. (2021). Theorising hybrid lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. 52(4), 1709-1723. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13121
37. Oh, H. M. (2022). The Impact of Online Laboratories and Hybrid Laboratories on Examination Scores in an Undergraduate Anatomy Program During the Covid-19 Pandemic. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], The Ohio State University.
38. Onyema, E. M., Eucheria, N. C., Obafemi, F. A., Sen, S., Atonye, F. G., Sharma, A., & Alsayed, A. O. (2020). Impact of Coronavirus pandemic on education. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(13), 108-121.
39. Robert, J., & Pelletier, K. (2022). 2022 EDUCAUSE Horizon Action Plan: Hybrid Learning. Available at https://library.educause.edu/resources/2022/10/2022-educause-horizon-action-plan-hybrid-learning
40. Sadeghi, M. (2019). A shift from classroom to distance learning: advantages and limitations. International Journal of Research in English Education, 4(1), 80-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.29252/ijree.4.1.80
41. Salta, K., Paschalidou, K., Tsetseri, M., & Koulougliotis, D. (2022). Shift from a traditional to a distance learning environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Science & Education, 31, 93-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00234-x
42. Sanders, J. R. (1994). The program evaluation standards: how to assess evaluations of educational programs. Sage.
43. Schartel, S. A. (2012). Giving feedback–An integral part of education. Best practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, 26(1), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2012.02.003
44. Stake, R.E. (1983). Program evaluation, particularly responsive Evaluation. In: Evaluation Models. Evaluation in Education and Human Services. Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6669-7_17
45. Sturgill, R. (2018). Implementing Hybrid Education: Short-term and Long-term Considerations. International Conference on Education, Training, & Informatics, Florida, US.
46. Tabor, S. W. (2007). Narrowing the distance: Implementing a hybrid learning model for information security education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 47.
47. Trentin, G. (2016). Always-on education and hybrid learning spaces. Educational Technology, 56(2), 31–37. Usun, S. (2012). Eğitimde program değerlendirme: Süreçler yaklaşımlar ve modeller. Anı Yayıncılık.
48. Vázquez-Sánchez, A., Cruz-Villar, C. A., Delgado, F., Chávez-Alcaraz, E., & Chong-Quero, J. E. (2021). Statistical modelling of factor analysis to set causals of hybrid learning success during Covid-19 lockdown. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2090/1/012072
49. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
50. Wu, S. C., Silveus, A., Vasquez, S., Biffi, D., Silva, C., & Weinburgh, M. (2019). Supporting ELLs’ use of hybrid language and argumentation during science instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(1), 24-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1529520
51. Xiao, J., Sun‐Lin, H. Z., Lin, T. H., Li, M., Pan, Z., & Cheng, H. C. (2020). What makes learners a good fit for hybrid learning? Learning competences as predictors of experience and satisfaction in hybrid learning space. British journal of educational technology, 51(4), 1203-1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12949
52. Xie, X., Siau, K., & Nah, F. F. H. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic–online education in the new normal and the next normal. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 22(3), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2020.1824884
53. Yildirim, A., Simsek, H. (2016). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (10th ed.). Ankara: Seckin.