Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course Design and Implementation

with a willingness to use technology did not always change their teaching styles and
White et al. (Chapter 8) recognised a ‘diversity of experience of blended learning
pedagogy, expectations and commitment’ amongst trainers. Training and support for
teachers/tutors is therefore as crucial as it is for learners and needs to be considered
in the design process.
What will the ratio of learners to teachers/tutors be?
Dudeney and Hockly (2007: 141) include this question in their list for online course
designers, possibly to account for the increase in the teacher/tutor workload that has
been mentioned. In Chapter 6 they address this question and inform us that a tutor
is assigned 6 –10 participants and no more to accommodate the increased workload
and the additional one-to-one support. The value of asking this question during the
design stage is highlighted in Aborisade’s case study (Chapter 2) in which ‘teachers
are unable to respond to all questions and posts because of large numbers’.
4. Evaluating and developing the blend
Once the course has been designed and is underway it will need to be evaluated
as according to Beetham and Sharpe (2007: 8) ‘effective designs will evolve only
through cycles of practice, evaluation and reflection’.
How will the blend be evaluated?
There are a number of areas of a blend that can be evaluated such as the choice
of software and materials, the balance of time spend in each mode, the learners
and teachers/tutors’ attitudes towards the blend, and its effectiveness in terms of
teaching and learning. Evaluations were referred to in the case studies, for example
Aborisade (Chapter 2) used a questionnaire to collect feedback on six aspects of the
course; Fleet (Chapter 8) collected information ‘through teacher reflection, student
feedback from post-course questionnaires and informal comments throughout the
project’ and Bilgin (Chapter 19) explored the effects of Macmillan English Campus
on her students’ achievement. The designer will therefore need to determine what
aspects of the blend to evaluate, at what stage of the course and how, and in my
experience this will often be an ongoing process.
How will the blend evolve?
The redesign process that I undertook in Bosnia and Herzegovina took three years
because it employed an iterative approach to the redesign process in that small
changes were made, implemented, then evaluated before moving onto the next one.
Pardo-Gonzalez (Chapter 4) also views blended learning courses design as a constant
process and advises designers that it ‘needs to be seen as an ongoing and gradual
process in which the course evolves. It is not a final product.’ This can be a lengthy
process as Sharpe and Oliver (2007: 49) state that ‘as many as three of four iterations
of course design, development and implementation may be needed to complete
the transition from traditional to blended e-learning course’. Russell’s description
of the evolution of his blend in Chapter 14 from V1 in 2004 to V5 in 2010 clearly
demonstrates this iterative approach and gives some indication as to what a lengthy
process it can be.
Conclusion | 239