Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course Design and Implementation

Recommendations

Info

■■ the creative grammar module, where learners develop and test their own models of grammar ■■ the text module, where learners develop their language and thinking skills through various text-based communicative tasks. The modules are presented to learners through simple tutorials that demonstrate the structure of learning and the philosophy behind it (Staluns and Sokol, 2008). The language learning methodology underlying the modules originates from the ‘Thinking Approach’ to language teaching and learning (Sokol, 2008; Sokol et al., 2008). The approach is aimed at helping learners develop their thinking skills and dispositions in the process of learning a language, thus making the learning process more effective, as learners are dealing with both language and thinking syllabi in an integrated way. The design of the modules is underpinned by the thinking syllabus, e.g. focus on planning and evaluation of own learning, open ended tasks to texts, learner development of grammar rules, etc. Learners can connect to the modules at any time. All their work is saved in the learner portfolios, which perform both formative and summative roles. The former is achieved as a result of the feedback obtained both from the system and the teacher, while the latter becomes possible when the learner has selected some of his/her learning outcomes for sharing with the wider community for assessment. Although the work with the modules is asynchronous, teachers can monitor both the process and the results of each learner through accessing their portfolios and leaving comments. Due to mainly technological reasons, the creative grammar module was the one used most widely during the period the study reports. Therefore, it is this module that will be dealt with in this publication. Structurally it comprises seven parts, each aimed at a specific function, as illustrated in the table below. Part Name Function 1 Define present knowledge Help learners see how much they already know in a given theme and help make a decision about the necessity of further learning. 2 Clarify structures Help learners come up with a list of structures used in a given theme. 3 Formulate learning goals Help learners analyse examples of using structures found in Part 2 (Bank 1) and formulate the learning goal(s) connected with further work with the system of grammar tasks. 4 Develop a draft model Help learners develop a draft model connected with goals formulated in Part 3. 5 Test and improve the model Help learners transform their preliminary grammar model to a working model that is sufficient to cope with the goals formulated in Part 3. 6 Put the model into practice Provide learners with contexts for language production practice based on their working models. 7 Evaluate and plan further learning 190 | A thinking-based blended learning course Help learners analyse the process and products of their work with the system of tasks offered in Parts 1– 6 and as a result develop plans for further learning.
In each of the above parts, the learner works with one of the systems of tasks dealing with a certain communicative function, for example speaking about the past, expressing modality, describing objects, etc. One system includes about 35 tasks (Sokol et al., 2002 – 09). The novelty of the online modules is reflected in the following underlying principles: ■■ no grammar explanations are offered to learners ■■ tasks ask for new knowledge ■■ learners build their own grammar models ■■ learner models are tested and improved instead of being evaluated as right or wrong ■■ learner banks are major tools for learning ■■ learners define learning goals and finalise content ■■ each learner works at his/her own pace. Blend: online and face-to-face time Despite the trend to include less grammar in General English courses, in Latvia it traditionally receives a lot of attention. Although we do not have any research evidence to support this, practically any local educator knows that both teachers and learners want to deal with grammar as part of their courses. The approach to grammar within the Thinking Approach, where learners develop and test their own grammar rules, normally requires more time than a more traditional approach. Given only three academic hours of classroom time for English, allocation of even one third of this to grammar was seen as unaffordable luxury. Thus, a decision was made to allocate one academic hour per fortnight to face-to-face work on grammar. The rest students had to do independently through work with the online modules. On average, students spent about two months on one system of grammar tasks. The table below gives an overview of how the work was normally organised. Week Time (mins) Content Part of the system Medium 1 15 Entry test 1 Online 10 Results overview 1 Classroom 2 60 – 90 Work on the discovery of structures 2 Online 20 Overview: major problems, questions, technical support 2 Classroom 3 15 Formulation of aims 3 Online 60 Work on concept questions tasks 4 Online 20 Overview: major issues, hints 4 Classroom 40 Development of models 4 Online 20 Support session 4 Classroom 4 60 –120 Testing the model 5 Online A thinking-based blended learning course | 191
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 and 148: of a blend in Collis and Moonen’s
Page 149 and 150: of telecoms engineers, but it was w
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: 17 A thinking-based blended learnin
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?