Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course Design and Implementation

■■ Learners’ expectations – learners nowadays expect technology to be
integrated into their language classes, (although I believe this to be highly
context dependent).
■■ Flexibility – learners expect to be able to fit learning into their busy lives,
especially professional adults and university students.
■■ Ministry of Education (or similar) directives – in some contexts teachers
are expected to offer blended learning options.
Different blends
Once the initial decision has been taken to employ a blended learning approach then
the next stage is to determine the blend itself and according to Reid-Young (n.d.) and
with reference to the business world there are a multitude of models to choose from.
Ultimately this means that there is ‘…no single optimal mix. What configuration is best
can only be determined relative to whatever goals and constraints are presented in
a given situation’ (Shaw and Igneri, 2006: 3). Graham (2004) also makes this point,
stressing the ‘infinite’ number of design solutions and their context dependency. This
latter point is particularly important as to my mind the context is all, and a thorough
analysis of it is vital, as is identifying your drivers for change before developing a blend.
This variety of options can both pose problems and provide opportunities for course
designers. Rossett et al. (2003) exemplify this by quoting part of a conversation
overheard at a conference in which a delegate, who accepts blended learning
as a concept, questions what to blend and how to blend. The authors offer three
guidelines to consider for achieving successfully blended combinations: stability and
urgency (how long will the course content be valid for and how long do the course
planners have to develop the course?); touches and cost (are face-to-face sessions
necessary or will technology alone be sufficient and how much are people or
organisations willing to invest in terms of time and money?); learning resources and
experience (will the learning resources endure the test of time or will they quickly
become redundant and how will the learners work, e.g. alone, at home, at work?).
Valiathan (2002) identifies three models, as opposed to guidelines, that have
emerged from the business world namely: skills-driven, attitude-driven and
competency-driven learning. Reid-Young (n.d) provides us with three more ‘typical’
examples: course model, reference-based learning and pre-assessment model.
There is no apparent overlap between the models, and as with the guidelines they
do not appear to have an immediate bearing on language learning and teaching.
Dewar and Whittington (2004) reviewed Valiathan’s (2002) model along with two
others in their literature review, but ultimately preferred Hocutt’s (2001) ideas on
blended learning. Rather than identifying the individual components of a blended
learning model, Hocutt (2001) takes a different perspective and proposes four ways
in which the components should interact with each other. Dewar and Whittington
(2004: 10) list these as:
1. blended learning components have a mutual awareness of each other
2. components are consistent in language, style and technique
Introduction | 15