Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course Design and Implementation

in the later versions of the course we settled on Jing. This was not compatible with
internal IT systems, but relevant tutors were willing and able to download it onto their
personal laptops. It proved a more stable and versatile tool than screen-cast-o-matic.
There was more functionality, and you did not have to be online to be recording
screencasts.
Practicalities of making individual recordings
Screencasting was popular with both clients and participants, who gave positive
feedback. It was effective (there was clear progress between pre- and post-draft
writing), and it was cost effective. Screencasts took around 10 –15 minutes to
produce and send, thus four to six screencasts an hour was possible from a trainer.
The teaching centre arranged training for involved teachers, and used administration
hours for the production of these short (maximum five minutes) video clips. However,
there was a question as to whether this was a sustainable enterprise, and whether
the time teachers invested in this might not be spent more efficiently on other tasks
that promoted learning.
The issue of teacher and learner interaction patterns
In v5, when we chose a forum this decision was strongly influenced by a sense that it
would create some opportunities for a more social interactive learning environment.
We knew that participants were familiar with this medium, and we felt that there would
be more opportunities for conversation and reflection around the process of writing.
This is in line with sociocultural perspectives on learning that ‘see knowledge and
understanding not as things that can be handed down but as constructed through
interactive processes’ (Hyland and Hyland, 2006: 88). In v5 we hoped that the
learners would instigate and lead conversations about the feedback given, and talk
about issues more than they had previously in direct email contact with their tutors.
The expectation was that by sharing screencasts amongst a community of learners
(rather than individually), and by communicating in threads, participants would read
and respond to each other’s writing and experiences of learning. However, the
communication between participants was not as voluminous as had been hoped,
and the tendency for quite static, trainer–participant–trainer moves continued.
There were broad issues with the technology and tools, and participant motivation
was an issue throughout. The scalability of the project was a concern: had we
needed to upscale it, it may have proven difficult. Also, there were concerns over the
sustainability of such an endeavour, for example, the time tutors and managers spent
administering programmes. However, as an example of flexibility and responsiveness
this series of CBEC was a success in the eyes of most stakeholders.
Lessons learned and advice
We approached these courses with common sense, and an eye for improvements.
We sought feedback readily. Yet, sometimes our responses to feedback were not as
effective as we might have hoped. In trying to be responsive we perhaps lost sight of
learning aims. For example the six genre approach in v5 was more than challenging
and the relevance of tasks, like essay writing, is highly questionable to an audience
160 | A longitudinal case study of the ‘blends’