Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course Design and Implementation

hazard a guess that it was over concerns that the latter would be too unfamiliar to
the learners in this context for it to be effective. That is purely conjecture though.
The lead mode in the blend at that time was the computer and the software used
in the computer sessions led the course and determined the syllabus. The officer
instructors followed up these sessions with practice and extension activities that
did not demand much of them as ‘teachers’ but more as ‘facilitators’. Adopting
this approach also meant that it was cost effective (as the officer instructors were
already employed by the AFBiH) and enabled the centres to start working almost
immediately with very little financial outlay on pre-service teacher training. It was also
cost effective because the learners – military personnel – could be trained at their
place of work. However, it could be argued that the initial financial outlay to set up
the centres and provide them with the computers and materials for the self-access
centres was not cost-effective.
The blend
The blend was unusual in that it was comprised of three modes of delivery: face-toface,
computer and self-study. The definitions provided in the literature on blended
learning in relation to language teaching and learning typically only refer to two
modes: face-to-face and computer. Sharma and Barrett (2007: 7) for example, state
that ‘blended learning refers to a language course which combines a face-to-face
(F2F) classroom component with an appropriate use of technology’. Dudeney and
Hockly (2007: 137) provide a similar definition in that blended learning ‘is a mixture of
online and face-to face course delivery.’ What becomes apparent when conducting a
wider literature review is that blended learning can mean different things to different
people so for the purposes of this case study I would define it as being a combination
of face-to-face, computer and self-study modes.
The lead mode in our resultant blend was the face-to-face mode because in
AFBiH this would be the most recognisable form of course delivery and because
the coursebooks would essentially provide the syllabus in terms of content and
sequencing. Therefore, it was the mode in which the core materials were initially
presented and practised. Moreover, the lead mode regulated the pacing of the
course by ensuring that all the learners covered the core material at the same time
before the follow-up activities that they could then complete at their own pace
on the computers or in self-study. Tasks conducted in the computer or self-study
mode supplemented the syllabus and provided the learners with controlled practice
and extension activities (Figure 1). This resulted in a cyclical approach to language
teaching and learning where the learners had the opportunity to recycle and review
what was presented in the face-to-face mode.
176 | A military blend