Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course Design and Implementation

learning facilities is noted repeatedly. In addition, with the growing sophistication
of participants – particularly on a course like IDLTM – there is an expectation that,
to coin a phrase, course provision will have moved beyond ‘BL 1.0’ to ‘BL 2.0’.
Secondly, the course material and examples must be directly relevant to management
in an LTO. Since management textbooks rarely draw on examples in an educational
service context, this has meant developing a coursebook based on the course, as well
as assembling a stock of examples and cases from the world of the LTO manager, such
as articles from the IATEFL Leadership and Management SIG Newsletter.
Thirdly, as Dziuban, Hatman and Moskal (2004: 10) point out, with blended learning,
‘Just as students have to relearn how to learn, faculty have to relearn how to teach’,
while in courses such as IDLTM, bringing together trainers from a range of different
areas can create a forum for mentoring and the exchange of pedagogical practices
and, as they also suggest, can ‘revitalize senior professors by refocusing them on the
process of effective instruction’.
Fourthly, because there is a high level of integration across the eight assessed course
modules, it has proved beneficial to restrict the number of trainers to a maximum of
four because of the close co-operation required – at least ideally – among trainers.
With a small scale course like IDLTM such co-operation is feasible, but it is clear that
in large-scale course provision, facilitating communication and co-operation across a
teaching team becomes a more challenging and even more important requirement.
Fifthly, the trainers themselves influence how, when and what participants contribute
to online tasks and discussions. If trainers are perfunctory in the way they interact
with participants, the latter are disinclined to contribute in depth. Indeed, Garrison
and Vaughan (2007) advocate that teachers must provide ‘…ongoing facilitation,
monitoring, and modelling of the course expectations for students throughout the
entire semester’ (p. 141). What participants value is comments from trainers which
are insightful, though not necessarily lengthy, and which are worth taking time off
from their own busy schedules to read and reflect upon.
Finally, although blended learning tuition involves a combination of elements,
inputs and activities which are greatly facilitated by the means of a VLE, ultimately
the success of blended learning depends on the imagination, understanding
and commitment of the trainers, the effectiveness of well-organised and reliable
administration and the wholehearted engagement of learners, prepared to
participate in a course that may extend over a prolonged period.
References
Dziuban, CD, Hatman, JL and Moskal, PD (2004) Blended learning. EDUCAUSE Center
for Applied Research Bulletin Issue 7. Available online at http://net.educause.edu/ir/
library/pdf/ERB0407.pdf
Garrison, D and Kanuka, H (2004) Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative
potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education 7: 95–105.
98 | Blended learning: The IDLTM experience