CONTEXT: When I first encountered the concept of a "blended" course, the blend was actually called a "hybrid course." My only encounter with the idea of a "hybrid" was in my upbringing in a west-central Illinois farming family and in my Ag classes in high school. In livestock production, producers select two pure breeds that each contain strengths that the other lacks. The goal is to produce offspring that accentuate the strengths of both breeds, while minimizing whatever liabilities each breed may also bring. If the selection is right, the offspring result in something called "hybrid vigor." The offspring bring a better result with regard to production, health and temperament than the two original breeds. Educationally, I began considering two "pure breeds" that I had available to me, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each. Could I create a "hybrid" that accentuated the strengths of each? I had been teaching Introduction to Religion (Religion 100) as a seated (face-to-face) class for several years. In recent years I had also begun teaching Intro to Religion as a fully distanced course (little or no face-to-face interaction). In the Fall of 2009, I launched a blended version of Introduction to Religion. The class was scheduled as a Tuesday - Thursday class. Students came to class on Tuesday's, then the Thursday class meeting time was exchanged for online lecture and web-based media content that students could do at any time before our next Tuesday class meeting. The content of those face-to-face sessions would be Q&A, small group discussion and full class discussion and debate. PROBLEM: My question was: "Is this blend resulting in hybrid vigor?" Did the more interactive class meeting time foster greater student engagement? Did the web-based and asynchronous aspects give students a greater sense of autonomy? Was I able to lay out the weekly and full-semester game plan to the students in such a way that they had all the resources they would need to feel competent for success in the class, despite the loss of half the classroom time? And, did this potential mix of more meaningful engagement, greater autonomy and increased competence result in more vigor, life and motivation in the students' experiences of the class as a blended course? The common assumption has been that decreased face-to-face time with students will surely decrease their motivation, success and retention. But, does that, in fact, have to be the case? Do we just accept that losing face-to-face time will bring other losses that we just have to manage? Or is that common assumption a false one? APPROACH: I had the perfect situation to compare the "vigor" in face-to-face and blended formats. I was teaching the same introductory course containing the same basic content to the same number of students in both delivery formats. The only difference was the delivery format. Thus, I wanted to explore the life and potency of the hybrid class experience as compared to the face-to-face class. Rather than just look at the hard data of grade performance, I wanted to explore the deeper aspects of bringing life, potency, vigor to the class. This led me to work our Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning to develop and administer a student survey that measured students' levels of motivation (self-determination) in my face-to-face and blended courses. Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 2005) asserts that the components of engagement, autonomy and competence create a climate that will influence students' levels of extrinsic to intrinsic motivation (6 levels). Our Center's director, Dr. Chantal Levesque, along with other research colleagues, had just completed the successful development and validity testing of instruments to measure students' levels of autonomy, engagement and competence, as well as the resulting levels of motivation. These instruments, along with questions about demographic data and students' affinity to specific course aspects, were developed into an online survey that students were invited to complete. I ran this survey for four semesters, so as to have a higher n, as well as to assist me with feedback on changes I made in response to each run of the survey. RESULTS: I love the classroom interaction with students. And, based on course evaluations, I can say I am a good classroom teacher. Thus, the results that showed equal to higher levels of engagement and motivation in my blended courses as compared to my face-to-face courses surprised me as much as anyone! The blended course exceeded my seated courses for all three forms of self-determined motivation (intrinsic levels of motivation). In the comparison of the fall 2009 (the first semester I taught the course in a blended format) and the spring 2010 blended courses, all intrinsic forms of motivation increased in the spring, and extrinsic levels of motivation decreased. Decreased face-to-face time did not decrease student motivation, engagement and overall success; in fact, the "blend" that was created resulted in higher levels of motivation, engagement and overall success! Hybrid vigor in education! DISCUSSION: In this session, I plan to: 1. present a tested theoretical framework that conceptualizes the elements that create an effective learning climate for student motivation and success. 2. present research results that demonstrate an equally or more effective learning climate in hybrid / blended courses of a 100-level general education course taught by the same instructor. 3. present strategies for infusing technology based courses with the elements that create a motivational earning climate. 4. lead workshop participants through their own worksheet process to strategize specific elements to tweak their blended course's learning climate to cultivate increased student engagement and motivation.