In short
- Use live time to start each unit, discuss it and check understanding; use the days between for reading, re-reading and word practice.
- Look at what pupils did on their own before you plan the next live session.
- Meta-analyses found blended learning ahead of classroom-only teaching, but much of the evidence comes from older students and none isolates reading in a foreign language.
- Blended courses often added time and resources as well, so the format alone may not explain the gain.
Few schools can teach every page of every story live, and they should not try. Pupils need far more reading than a weekly session can hold. A blended program splits the work. The live session does what needs a teacher: it starts the unit, gets pupils talking and checks understanding. Independent time between sessions does the rest: more reading, re-reading and practice with the new words. This article gives a weekly model, explains what each part is for, and reports what meta-analyses of blended learning found, with their limits.
What is a blended reading program?
A blended reading program combines live reading sessions, online or in school, with independent reading in the days between them. The live session starts each unit, gets pupils talking and checks understanding. Independent time carries the volume: finishing the unit, re-reading, listening and word practice. The two are planned as one program, and what pupils do alone shapes the next live session.
| Part | What it is for | Who leads | How you know it happened |
|---|---|---|---|
| Live session | Starting a unit, discussion, the story's moral, a check of understanding | Teacher | Attendance and the check |
| Independent reading | Reading volume, finishing the unit, re-reading at an easy level | Pupil | Units finished |
| Reading while listening | Support for weaker readers, and a model of pace and pronunciation | Pupil, with audio | Units finished with audio |
| Word practice | Repeated meetings with the story's new words | Pupil | Words practised and retained |
| Practice questions | Rehearsal before the next check | Pupil | Questions answered |
'Hybrid' is often used for the same idea. Some schools use it for classes where some pupils sit in the room while others join online at the same time. This article is about the first meaning: live sessions plus independent work between them.
A weekly model for one unit
Here is one way to run a week, with one live session and one unit. It is an example from practice, not a tested schedule. Independent time comes to about an hour a week. Shorten the daily blocks for younger pupils. Pupils at B1 and above can usually read longer units alone.
- Monday, live, 30 to 40 minutes. Set up the unit, read the first part, talk in pairs, run a quick check.
- Tuesday, 15 minutes. Finish the unit alone, with audio if needed.
- Wednesday, 10 to 15 minutes. Practise the unit's new words, then re-read a favourite page.
- Thursday, 15 minutes. Read the unit again, or read on in an easier story.
- Friday, 10 minutes. Practice questions. The teacher looks at the week's results.
- Weekend. Optional reading for pleasure.
Classroom example
Grade 6, 26 pupils, reading at A2. The story has five units, and this is unit 2.
Monday, live: the teacher teaches 'refuse', 'crowd' and 'proud' and asks why Nadia refuses the prize. Pupils read half the unit, then retell it in pairs.
Tuesday to Thursday: pupils finish the unit at home, eight of them with the audio, and practise the unit's words.
Friday: the teacher sees that six pupils have not finished the unit, and that 'proud' is the word most often missed.
Next Monday: the session opens with 'proud' in two sentences from the story. The six pupils get a short catch-up during reading time.
What the live session is for
Keep live time for what pupils cannot do alone. In practice, that list is short.
- Starting a unit. Three key words and one question to read for make the first page easy to start.
- Talking about the story. Retelling in pairs and discussing the moral need other people.
- Checking understanding. A short check shows who read and who did not follow.
- Responding to the week. Re-teach the word most pupils missed, and catch up pupils who did not finish.
- Keeping the habit. A fixed time each week gives the independent reading a deadline.
Reading still belongs in the live session, but not all of it. Day and Bamford (2002) quote Williams (1986): the main activity of a reading lesson should be learners reading texts, not listening to the teacher. For the session itself, see How to Run Live Online English Reading Classes or How to Run an In-School Reading Session.
What independent reading between sessions is for
Independent reading supplies the volume that live time cannot. Day and Bamford (2002) list it among their principles for extensive reading: learners read as much as possible. They write that the most critical element in learning to read is the time spent actually reading. They also say the material should be easy, well within the learner's competence.
Nakanishi (2015) combined 34 studies of extensive reading with 3,942 participants. Where groups were compared, learners who read extensively did better than those who did not, with a medium effect (d = 0.46). He concluded that extensive reading improves reading proficiency and should be part of language curricula. That is the strongest reason to protect the days between sessions.
Audio helps pupils who would stall alone. Chang and Millett (2015) followed 64 beginner-level secondary students in Taiwan for 26 weeks. Both groups improved, but those who read graded readers while listening gained substantially more in reading rate and comprehension than those who read silently. Reading While Listening covers the wider research.
Word practice and practice questions repeat what the story taught, and repetition does not need a teacher in the room. How Many Times Must a Learner Meet a Word? explains why repeated meetings matter.
What meta-analyses of blended learning found
Three meta-analyses are worth knowing. All compare blended teaching with classroom-only teaching. None is about reading in a foreign language.
Means, Toyama, Murphy and Baki (2013) combined 50 effects from 45 studies. On average, students in online conditions did modestly better than those taught face to face. The advantage was significant for blended learning, not for purely online learning. The average learner age in a study ranged from 13 to 44. About half the studies involved learners in graduate programs or professional training.
Bernard, Borokhovski, Schmid, Tamim and Abrami (2014) looked only at higher education. Across 117 comparisons, blended courses beat classroom courses by about a third of a standard deviation. Achievement was higher where technology gave cognitive support rather than just presenting content. It was also higher where courses built in interaction between students, with the teacher or with the content.
Li and Wang (2022) is a large review of school pupils. It combined 84 studies with 30,377 pupils from kindergarten to grade 12, published from 2000 to 2020. Blended learning improved performance compared with face-to-face teaching (g = 0.65). The effect varied with group activities, educational level, subject, instructor, intervention length and region.
| Study | Learners | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Means et al. (2013) | 45 studies; average age 13 to 44; about half graduate or professional | Blended ahead of face-to-face; purely online not significantly different |
| Bernard et al. (2014) | Higher education; 117 comparisons | Blended about a third of a standard deviation ahead; interaction and cognitive support helped |
| Li & Wang (2022) | 84 studies; 30,377 pupils, kindergarten to grade 12 | Blended ahead of face-to-face (g = 0.65), varying with level, subject and other factors |
The limits of that evidence
These results support blending. They do not show that your blend will work. Four limits apply.
- Many learners were older. Bernard and colleagues (2014) studied only higher education. In Means, Toyama, Murphy and Baki (2013), about half the studies involved graduate or professional learners.
- Blending often added more than a format. Means, Toyama, Murphy and Baki (2013) note that blended conditions also tended to involve extra learning time, extra resources and more interaction among learners. Any of these could explain the gain.
- The subject was rarely reading in a foreign language. None of the reviews isolates EFL reading, and Li and Wang (2022) report that the effect varied by subject.
- Averages hide a wide spread. Some programs did much better than others. What made the difference, such as planned interaction, is more useful than the average.
So a blend is not a way to get the same result with less teaching. It is a way to fit more reading and practice into the week, with the teacher's time spent where it counts. If your blend adds reading time and planned interaction, it has the features these reviews link to better results.
Look at independent work before you plan the next session
The link between the two parts is the teacher's weekly look at what pupils did alone. Day and Bamford (2002) describe the same habit for extensive reading: teachers keep track of what and how much each student reads, and use it to guide them. Spend ten minutes on these questions before you plan the next live session.
- Who finished the unit? Pupils who did not may need a catch-up in the next session, or a shorter unit.
- Which words were missed most? Open the next session with them, in sentences from the story.
- Which practice questions went wrong? If most pupils missed the same one, look at the teaching or the text before the pupils.
- Who did nothing at all? Speak to them before the session, and ask what got in the way.
Without this check, live sessions tend to repeat what pupils already know and miss what they do not. The blend then becomes two separate programs that happen to share a story. That is a judgement from practice.
Adjusting the balance through the year
The balance between live and independent time can change as a class grows. The advice here comes from practice. New or lower-level classes may need more live time at first, perhaps two short sessions per unit, until pupils can read a unit alone. Established classes can move to one live session per unit. A pupil who falls behind needs an extra live catch-up, not more independent work they are not doing.
Explain the design to parents. Some hear 'blended' as less teaching. Tell them what the live session does, what reading at home does and how many minutes a day their child should read. A clear plan makes the home reading easier to support.
How iRead handles this
In iRead, a session is a live class, online or in school, and a quiz runs after every session. Between sessions, practice questions are available, and four word games are regenerated every 24 hours from the vocabulary of the story the class is reading. Many stories have audio synced to the text. Teachers see retention per word, per game and per class.
The core principle: Use live time for what needs a teacher and the days between for reading volume and repetition. Then look at what pupils did alone before you plan the next live session.
See it in iRead: A quiz runs after every session, and practice questions and daily word games built from the story fill the days between. Teachers see retention per word, per game and per class.
See live reading sessionsKey takeaway
A blend works when both halves are planned as one: live sessions start, discuss and check each unit, and independent reading supplies the volume. The research favours blending, but much of it comes from older students, so measure your own results.
Frequently asked questions
What is a blended reading program?
It combines live reading sessions, online or in school, with independent reading between them. The live session starts each unit, gets pupils talking and checks understanding. Independent time supplies more reading, re-reading, listening and word practice. The teacher uses what pupils did alone to plan the next live session.
Does blended learning work better than classroom teaching?
On average, in the studies reviewed. Means, Toyama, Murphy and Baki (2013) and Bernard and colleagues (2014) found blended learning ahead of face-to-face teaching. Many of their learners were university students or adults, and blended courses often added time and resources, which may explain part of the gain.
Is there evidence for blended learning with school pupils?
Some. Li and Wang (2022) combined 84 studies with 30,377 pupils from kindergarten to grade 12. Blended learning improved performance compared with face-to-face teaching, though the effect varied with level, subject and other factors. None of the reviews isolates reading in English as a foreign language.
How many live sessions does a blended reading program need?
One live session per unit is a sensible starting point, with 10 to 15 minutes of independent reading or practice on most other days. New or lower-level classes may need more live time at first. This is practice, not a ratio that research has tested.
Can pupils learn to read English with self-study alone?
Some will, but many need a teacher. Day and Bamford (2002) say teachers should orient and guide students in extensive reading, keeping track of what each reads. Without a live session, a pupil who has stopped reading may not be noticed for weeks.
Sources
- Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47. doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500307
- Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122. doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
- Li, S., & Wang, W. (2022). Effect of blended learning on student performance in K-12 settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(5), 1254-1272. doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12696
- Nakanishi, T. (2015). A meta-analysis of extensive reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 6-37. doi.org/10.1002/tesq.157
- Day, R., & Bamford, J. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(2), 136-141. doi.org/10.64152/10125/66761
- Chang, A. C.-S., & Millett, S. (2015). Improving reading rates and comprehension through audio-assisted extensive reading for beginner learners. System, 52, 91-102. doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.003