Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course Design and Implementation

Recommendations

Info

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’
of telecoms engineers, but it was what they voted for! However, it was through constant evaluation of these moves, and discussions with all stakeholders, trainers, managers, participants, and the client that we were able to innovate in a way that was ‘safe’, managed and palatable. In summary, our context was key, and the stakeholders led the thinking. The technology came only in response to client needs, exploring features in our context, while at the same time working within trainers’ sense of plausibility. Prabhu (1990) says that the best method is one that meets a teacher’s ‘sense of plausibility’. The teachers who worked on this project were the ones who were most able to grasp this use of IT, and could see how this could support language learning. We set off with a general language-learning pedagogy in mind, and learned as we went. Practical considerations and recommendations ■■ Operate within teachers’ sense of plausibility. ■■ Seek support from colleagues, managers, and other available networks. ■■ Be open to questions about the proposed course’s learning outcomes. ■■ Be open about the business model. ■■ Seek to learn from trying to formulate answers to challenges. ■■ Place learning and context first, technology second. ■■ Create opportunities for learning. ■■ Carry out an IT audit to see if your proposed tools will run on your and your client’s system. ■■ Use tools in a way that create affordances for dialogue rather than just monodirectional instruction. ■■ Put tools in student hands as often as possible. ■■ Consider how the course will evolve and change as well as how improvements will be decided on. We responded in a transparent way to feedback at the end of each course and to input on needs at the beginning of each course. At the same time we had to deal with disappointment when certain interventions were not to the standard we hoped for, or did not reap the desired responses from participants. Each course built on the last, each time hoping to garner more positive feedback and better learning. This project shows how a course can develop with a partner over a longer period. Final word More than any course I have worked on, or designed, these CBECs afforded high levels of challenge and variety to me as an experienced and growing, DELTA qualified teacher, and later business manager. These challenges, which came about as a result of contextual realities, led to my pursuit of deeper questions about teaching and learning online that I pursued in an educational technology-focused MA. By adopting a learning mindset, and by working closely with our partner, this experience became A longitudinal case study of the ‘blends’ | 161
Page 1 and 2:
Blended Learning in English Languag
Page 3 and 4:
ISBN 978-0-86355-706-4 © British C
Page 5 and 6:
Part 3 - English for Specific Purpo
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgements We would like to t
Page 9 and 10:
To address this deficit I proposed
Page 11 and 12:
Introduction This introductory chap
Page 13 and 14:
an almost identical definition in h
Page 15 and 16:
■■ Learners’ expectations - l
Page 17 and 18:
To achieve a ‘principled approach
Page 19 and 20:
its weakness in speaking.’ Contra
Page 21 and 22:
References Adair-Hauck, B Willingha
Page 23 and 24:
Rossett, A, Douglis, F and Frazee,
Page 25 and 26:
1 A collaborative online reading an
Page 27 and 28:
engaging approach to teaching, wher
Page 29 and 30:
page evaluation strategies, and col
Page 31 and 32:
Conclusion Students received course
Page 33 and 34:
2 Blended learning in English for A
Page 35 and 36:
All in the blend Reports on the app
Page 37 and 38:
level of agreement or disagreement
Page 39 and 40:
Hyland, K and Hyland, F (1992) Go f
Page 41 and 42:
Why blend? The decision to offer th
Page 43 and 44:
to complete during the before, whil
Page 45 and 46:
In addition, there are a number of
Page 47 and 48:
Turgut, Y (2009) ‘EFL learners’
Page 49 and 50:
■■ English for Academic Purpose
Page 51 and 52:
Figure 1: Stages of the incorporati
Page 53 and 54:
Table 3: Schedule for Unit 1 Week U
Page 55 and 56:
Internet - links and WebQuests: Som
Page 57 and 58:
References Allan, M (1985) Teaching
Page 59 and 60:
My advice to intending EAP course d
Page 61 and 62:
5 A blended learning teacher develo
Page 63 and 64:
The face-to-face element Because of
Page 65 and 66:
ookmarking because social bookmarki
Page 67 and 68:
and instructional design of the onl
Page 69 and 70:
Encourage learner autonomy and refl
Page 71 and 72:
packages, setting up online account
Page 73 and 74:
Clearly there are advantages to hav
Page 75 and 76:
Lessons learned When deciding what
Page 77 and 78:
References Osguthorpe, RT and Graha
Page 79 and 80:
The learner and the context Althoug
Page 81 and 82:
typically involve writing or applyi
Page 83 and 84:
where possible, to bring them toget
Page 85 and 86:
8 Blended learning: The IDLTM exper
Page 87 and 88:
learning and characteristics, and k
Page 89 and 90:
There is a fourth activity type in
Page 91 and 92:
their own style of learning. At the
Page 93 and 94:
Garrison, D and Vaughan, ND (2007)
Page 95 and 96:
variety of teaching contexts (e.g.
Page 97 and 98: Figure 3: The homepage in a Module
Page 99 and 100: Figure 5: The projects page carries
Page 101 and 102: adding things in response to feedba
Page 103 and 104: Appendix 1 Extract showing first th
Page 105 and 106: ■■ Cambridge ESOL was reporting
Page 107 and 108: ■■ Including later units on, fo
Page 109 and 110: The rationale behind the blend The
Page 111 and 112: Figure 2: An example screen from a
Page 113 and 114: environment and to meet the student
Page 115 and 116: ■■ Fine-tuning of online course
Page 117 and 118: Comments on Part 2 Brian Tomlinson
Page 119 and 120: Learning a new language and reflect
Page 121 and 122: 11 Blended learning: Podcasts for t
Page 123 and 124: to the content (see below). Additio
Page 125 and 126: Making recommendations My friend An
Page 127 and 128: Sustainability Blended learning oft
Page 129 and 130: Kukulska-Hulme, A and Shield, A (20
Page 131 and 132: The face-to-face aspect of the cour
Page 133 and 134: The course covers listening, speaki
Page 135 and 136: latest, most secure and flexible pr
Page 137 and 138: not so much for language improvemen
Page 139 and 140: the reader/listener as customer) an
Page 141 and 142: 2. ‘Technology is only important
Page 143 and 144: 14 A longitudinal case study of the
Page 145 and 146: In the next version (v3) of the cou
Page 147: of a blend in Collis and Moonen’s
Page 151 and 152: 15 Using a wiki to enhance the lear
Page 153 and 154: The ‘history feature’ which can
Page 155 and 156: Figure 4: Student created listening
Page 157 and 158: Teaching methodology The blended de
Page 159 and 160: Figure 8: Student reaction to probl
Page 161 and 162: Lund, A (2008) Wikis: a collective
Page 163 and 164: hazard a guess that it was over con
Page 165 and 166: the management of the centres would
Page 167 and 168: There was a steady increase in the
Page 169 and 170: 3. User experience - feedback on th
Page 171 and 172: Comments on Part 3 Brian Tomlinson
Page 173 and 174: 17 A thinking-based blended learnin
Page 175 and 176: In each of the above parts, the lea
Page 177 and 178: Figure 1: Cycle of working with gra
Page 179 and 180: Model by JP, Form 10 Structure Mode
Page 181 and 182: Recommendation 2 Ensure that the on
Page 183 and 184: Sokol, A (2008) Development of Inve
Page 185 and 186: Moreover, as a result of increased
Page 187 and 188: In general, the students remarked t
Page 189 and 190: 19 Students’ CALLing: Blended lan
Page 191 and 192: The students were taken to the comp
Page 193 and 194: When considering blended learning,
Page 195 and 196: Introducing Macmillan English Campu
Page 197 and 198: In both scenarios, the ratio of con
Page 199 and 200:
attending scenario 1 courses. The o
Page 201 and 202:
Comments on Part 4 Brian Tomlinson
Page 203 and 204:
Conclusion Claire Whittaker
Page 205 and 206:
Table 1: Neumeier’s (2005) framew
Page 207 and 208:
Reasons given in the literature for
Page 209 and 210:
Software Author and Chapter New Lea
Page 211 and 212:
Keedwell’s (Chapter 13) blend on
Page 213 and 214:
Table 7: Learning theories, languag
Page 215 and 216:
What will the interactional pattern
Page 217 and 218:
Whittaker (Chapter 16) believed tha
Page 219 and 220:
Summary This chapter draws on the l
Page 221 and 222:
Appendix 1 - Questions for blended
Page 223 and 224:
Contributors Peter Aborisade lectur
Page 225 and 226:
Jody Gilbert taught in post-seconda
Page 227 and 228:
Juanita Pardo-González (BA Hons in
Page 229:
The British Council is pleased to o
show all

Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course Design and Implementation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?