Can blended learning aid foreign language learning?

DOI 10.1515/cercles-2013-0007 CercleS 2013; 3(1): 127 – 149

Marta Genís Pedra and Ma Teresa Martín de LamaCan blended learning aid foreign language learning?

Abstract: There has always been a debate around the issue of what it is that improves learning: the instruction itself or the media used for it (Clark 1983; Kozma 1994). It has also been said (Kulik and Kulik 1991; Andrewartha & Wilmot 2001) that computer mediated learning, as opposed to traditional instruction, positively influences the students’ achievement. However, some researchers (Clark 1983; Schramm 1977; Wiley 2002) point out that it is not the use of media that improves learning but the strategies and the material developed for this particular kind of instruction. Online tuition is a trend which is being introduced by many educational institutions both as a core instructional mode, as in the case of pure online or blendedlearning courses, or a as a complement to traditional facetoface learning (Ko and Rossen 2010). Online asynchronous learning is implemented in order to attract students who desire to receive a quality education regardless of time zones, location and distance. Synchronous online learning is being used to increase interaction between students and teachers. In blended learning these two modalities, asynchronous and synchronous learning, are frequently combined to design full courses that promote meaningful learning. This paper will examine the benefits and difficulties of the combination of asynchronous and synchronous learning modes in blended learning and the theoretical and practical implications in the design of effective blendedlearning materials for foreign language learning.

Keywords: Network learning, blended learning, connectivism, learning ecologies, foreign language learning, computerassisted language learning, asynchronous and synchronous communication

Marta Genís Pedra: Nebrija University, c/ Pirineos, 55 28040 Madrid (Spain). E-mail: [email protected] Teresa Martín de Lama: Nebrija University, c/ Pirineos, 55 28040 Madrid (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]

Brought to you by | New York University Elmer Holmes Bobst LibraryAuthenticated

Download Date | 10/9/14 3:01 AM

128 Marta Genís Pedra and Ma Teresa Martín de Lama

1 IntroductionBlended learning is an umbrella term under which a wide spectrum of learning approaches are clustered. With the emergence of digital technology, there has been a considerable variety of terms used to name this methodology which current literature typically describes as combining facetoface and computer mediated learning.

It has been called hybrid learning (Hall and Davison 2007), mixed learning (Bartolomé 2004), blended learning (Vasileou 2009) or blearning (Bañados 2006). These last terms, blended learning or blearning, have prevailed at last as opposed to elearning, in which content is delivered only though the Internet without the interlocutors being physically present. Both terms will be used interchangeably throughout this article.

There have been many definitions. Osguthorpe & Graham (2003: 227) defined blended learning methodologies as “pedagogies that change according to the unique needs of learners”. Highlighting this flexibility, Thorne (2003:18) characterizes blended learning as “the right learning at the right time and in the right place for every individual”. Anderson (2001: 12) describes blended learning as a methodology that “combines the best attributes of electronic and traditional classroom experiences to present and reinforce learning”.

In a more comprehensive definition, Dziuban, Moskal and Hartman (2004: 3) state that blended learning “should be viewed as a pedagogical approach that combines the effectiveness and socialization opportunities of the classroom with the technologically enhanced active learning possibilities of the online environment.”

However, a definition which comprises all the key pedagogical features of blended learning is preferred by the authors. This definition includes online and faceto face devices for effective learning; flexibility to adapt to the learners’ needs as regards time, place and pace; and socialization, interaction and active learning opportunities.

This article intends to analyze the theoretical implications behind blended learning, as well as to examine the reasons why blearning aided by computerassisted language learning can possibly aid foreign language learning.

2 Theoretical implicationsThe use of new technologies has revealed new ways of teaching and learning as instructional means have changed. In this sense, blearning is highly influenced by the medium being used at each given teaching/learning moment (Anderson



Blended learning 129

and Elloumi 2004). As early as in 1964, Marshal McLuhan declared that if we want to understand social and cultural change, we have to consider media as an ecosystem (McLuhan 1964: 26). More recently, Prensky (2001: 1) divided people into digital natives and digital immigrants. In opposition to this, Jones et al. (2010) consider that there is not such a clear distinction. They argue that the university students’ profiles and backgrounds are varied, and therefore we should be cautious about “adopting technological determinist arguments that suggest that universities simply have to adapt to a changing student population who are described as a single group with definite and known characteristics” (Jones and Cross 2009: 19). Nevertheless, what we can be sure of is that learners are increasingly adopting new technological media, very much different to formal traditional learning within a new learning medium, ecosystem or ecology.

2.1 Learning ecologies

In this recent learning scenario, the traditional bookbased learning is out of date, and we need to talk about learning ecologies instead. These are learning structures that emulate the connections triggered in our brains when we learn (Siemens 2004).

John S. Brown (2002: 25) defined a learning ecology as “an open, complex, adaptive system comprising elements that are dynamic and interdependent”. Its characteristics are: (1) it is informal and nonstructured; (2) it uses many different tools; (3) it is consistent and safe; (4) it is simple and decentralized; (5) it is fostered and not managed; and (6) it is connected and tolerant with failure (Siemens 2004).

In this light, students can acquire knowledge from different sources, both formally and informally, creating a network among users who learn from each other as well as from other information devices (Downes 2007). The theory of connectivism (Siemens 2004), described in the following subsection, tries to analyze how in a learning ecology all members and other sources of information are continuously connected, sharing learning experiences and knowledge.

2.2 Connectivism

As new media and technologies are being introduced in educational contexts, the processes of teaching and learning need to be viewed from a different perspective. Siemens (2004), reflecting about the inadequacy of the existing theories of learning and teaching for our technologically advanced society, explains that:




Connectivism is the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and selforganization theories. Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing. Connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on rapidly altering foundations. New information is continually being acquired. The ability to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information is vital. The ability to recognize when new information alters the landscape based on decisions made yesterday is also critical. (Siemens 2004: 4).

According to Siemens, we learn in a chaotic and messy way, i.e. we are interested in many issues, so we connect with other people using social and collaborative networks in order to interchange opinions and thoughts, and to try hypotheses and propose alternatives. Downes (2007: 4) shares this view when he says that learning “occurs in communities, where the practice of learning is the participation in the community. A learning activity is, in essence, a conversation undertaken between the learner and other members of the community.”

Siemens (2004) also suggests a move from transmission of established knowledge by an instructional organization to acquisition, which involves selfselection of content according to personal interests and hobbies. He implies that the process of learning begins with transmission and follows with acquisition, emergence and accretion. Emergence is a cognitive process that entails reflection, innovation and creation; accretion implies considering learning as a neverending process.

This holistic view of learning, which is incorporated in the new social and cultural context, considers all the available information resources and background and goes beyond the mere delivery of information.

2.2.1 Principles of connectivism

Connectivism relies on the following principles (Siemens 2004; Downes 2007): (1) diversity of opinions is essential for acquiring knowledge; (2) learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources; (3) learning may reside in nonhuman appliances; (4) what is currently known is not as important as our capacity to know more; (5) we need connections to make constant learning possible; (6) the pivotal skill needed is the ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts; (7) all learning activities should be aimed at acquiring currency (accurate, uptodate knowledge); (8) decisionmaking is in itself a




learning process in which we choose what to learn and can understand that reality is constantly changing.

As it can be noticed, connectivism shares many principles with constructivism, which also considers the individual mental process when learners are actively interacting with the medium. Constructivism (Ausubel 1968; Vygostky 1992; Bruner 1960) mainly emphasizes the importance of: (1) individual knowledge construction; (2) individual responsibility, effort and information discovery; (3) individual differences in learning styles and strategies; (4) the active and creative role of the student; (5) meaningfulness and purposefulness of learning; (6) cooperative work and interaction for effective learning.

2.2.2 Problems when applying connectivism

The application of this new paradigm can present some problems. One of these difficulties is the huge amount of information available. Our students are exposed to a lot of information, and they very often lack criteria to select it, validate it or to know the original source. This can be a problem as students might not be able to identify the original sources and consequently choose inappropriate or incorrect information (Downes 2011).

An additional problem is knowledge creation, which is not the same as knowledge consumption, as we have to build up new knowledge out of the information we receive. However, sometimes students do not realize that the sources used to support their own ideas have to be mentioned and cited, and quite often students appear to plagiarise (Downes 2007).

Evaluation can also become a difficult task for teachers. First, we have to consider whether any evaluation is needed and, if so, adapt old evaluation methods or establish a new assessment model from scratch in order to assess socially constructed knowledge.

Likewise, the profiles of instructors, learners and learning materials need to change in the context of connectivism. Downes (2002: 1) claims that: “Educators play the same sort of role in society as journalists. They are aggregators, assimilators, analysts and advisors. They are middle links in an ecosystem, (. . .), parasites on information produced by others”. Traditionally, until now, teachers have been considered the ones that hold the knowledge, while knowledge is now “distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks. Knowledge, therefore, is not acquired, as though it were a thing. It is not transmitted, as though it were some type of communication.” (Downes 2011: 1). This theory conceives the teacher as a person who helps students to learn by themselves, encourages them to find their own sources, helps them to select the resources they need, and fosters logical




thinking and knowledge acquisition through group connection naturally via any form of technology.

This view is shared by some other theorists (Siemens 2004; González 2004; Brown 2002) who believe that knowledge is not acquired but that it just happens as connections are formed naturally by association. Thus, the activities we may undertake are very varied, as we can use all the conventional media along with the new ones such as fora, chats, videoconferences, links, wikis, blogs, webquests, instant messenger, and many other ways.

3 Advantages and disadvantages of using blended learning for foreign language learning

Despite its drawbacks, as it will be explained below, blearning can present considerable advantages in providing students with effective, low cost tuition, autonomous learning, interaction and socialization, collaboration and connectivity (Nicolson et al. 2011) to improve their competence in the foreign language.

As Bonk, KyongYee and Tingting (2006) argue, it is not a matter of whether to blend or not, but how it is done. For this reason, when designing blearning it is necessary to bear in mind the advantages and disadvantages that this methodology can offer.

3.1 The advantages of b-learning

According to Bonk and Graham (2005), there are several good reasons to implement blearning programmes:

3.1.1 More flexibility, easier access and self-directed learning

As discussed above, distributed or online learning allows students to reconcile their personal and working lives with their studies. Moreover, blendedlearning follows a studentcentred approach, and therefore student’s autonomy and responsibility are fostered as learners feel in control by accessing learning materials when they need them and at their own pace, taking pauses, taking some time to reflect or consulting other information sources simultaneously. Besides, blendedlearning courses offer a more flexible learning option without neglecting high human interactive learning experience. In this respect, the main issue is to design




ing a type of blearning which suits each educational programme, and determining the degree of alternation between synchronous and asynchronous learning.

3.1.2 Less cost and high effectiveness

Blended learning lets higher education institutions reach a wider and more dispersed audience. It is very effective because it employs the devices available from both asynchronous and synchronous learning modalities. Using this model has proved effective to improve quality and reduce costs, and reverse investment (Bonk and Graham 2005). However, return on investment cannot be calculated only through quantitative measurable factors, such as for instance the increase of success rates, reduced number of drop outs, improved faculty and student skills, etc. Return on investment also needs to take into account qualitative aspects, such as the degree of satisfaction experienced by teachers and learners.

3.1.3 Fulfillment of connectivity demands

Nowadays, higher education institutions are challenged to meet the “connectivity demands of prospective students” (Garrison and Kanuka 2004: 15). Given the growth of Internet information and communication technologies, society is being transformed in the sense that students need to be simultaneously together and apart, and to be connected to a community of learners anytime and anywhere, without being time, place and situation bound.

3.1.4 Interaction, socialization and collaboration

Blended learning promotes socialization and group integration. As students collaborate, they establish relationships based on trust and opportunities to get to know each other and maintain group cohesion. Communication and interaction takes place facetoface and via email, fora, chats, videoconferences, blogs, podcasts, etc., which are used for collaborative learning and problemsolving.

3.2 The disadvantages of b-learning

Notwithstanding the above advantages, blended learning can also present certain problems:




3.2.1 The need for face-to-face human interaction

Related to the need for facetoface human interaction (Bonk and Graham 2005) are the issues of the strength of online learning communities, and the way in which we can encourage student collaboration in nonfacetoface contexts. Although there has not yet been much research as to how important students feel that human facetoface interaction is, or to what extent computermediated communication can replace this interaction, against this point, authors like Kehrwald (2007: 510) claim that “social presence plays an important role in textbased online learning environments to (a) provide information about individual social actors in the environments and (b) indicate the content, direction and relative strength of relations between pairs of actors”. He continues that “collaborative activity may extend to the development of online communities and other supportive social structures which not only improve learners’ productivity in terms of meaningful learning activity, but also add value to learners’ experiences by linking individuals to one another and improving access to supportive resources”. Rourke et al. (2001: 14), on their part, argue that in computermediated teaching the difficulty lies in two aspects: “to develop compensatory behaviors for the relative lack of nonverbal and paralinguistic communication in a textbased medium” and “to overcome the difficulty of conceiving the role of the teacher in online courses within the long established conceptual framework that we have built in the context of conventional, facetoface teaching”. In this respect, they believe that computermediated communication can rely on the means to provide quality human interaction although “its manifestation looks quite different in this mediated context” (Rourke et al. 2001: 14). Perhaps the question then is to decide when and for what purpose we are using the different learning modes available. In this sense, Nicolson et al. (2011) emphasize the importance of pedagogical aims first and foremost, as in blended learning all learning modes can be present but at different moments.

3.2.2 Students’ self- regulation

Students can choose and adapt learning to their personal needs and availability (Bonk and Graham 2005). They can also learn while they are collaborating. However, collaborative work needs training in order to reach its full potential. Online learning also requires a great amount of disciplined training for students to succeed (Bonk and Graham 2005). In this sense, we need to design blends which support the learner’s increasing autonomy and selfdiscipline. The problem then




is how much and what type of guidance learners need in order to selfregulate their access to education.

3.2.3 Acceptance of ICT and training

Some teachers and students do not feel prepared to assume their new roles. Some are not willing to accept the increased demand of time (and perhaps lack of reward) that blended learning implies. Besides, some faculty members fear that certain online platforms are so rigid that there will not be much room left for teachers’ creativity and initiative. Furthermore, there is still a view of ICT as a counterworld rather than a complementary world to traditional teaching (Bartolomé 2008), although increasingly teachers view ICT favourably and blame their reluctance on their lack of skills to apply it in their own learning. In this scenario, the only option is to provide students and faculty with the necessary instruction in order to become familiar with the usage of tools required to succeed in blended learning contexts (Park and Son 2009).

3.2.4 Access problems

As already stated, blearning enables higher education to reach a wider and more diverse portion of student population (Garrison and Kanuka 2004). However, there is still a digital divide among groups in terms of access to, use of, or knowledge of ICT. This is mainly due to economic reasons or computer illiteracy, which can act against democratization of education. In this scenario, some students may be excluded from the accessing quality education due to their economic resources or because they are computer illiterates (Hvorecký 2004). Other access problems include, for instance, technical and communication problems, which are of no less importance but which are out of our reach.

3.2.5 Failure in rethinking and redesigning teaching

The success or failure of blended learning lies on the faculty adoption of effective practices. Implementing blended learning cannot be made just by “stretching the mold” (Collis and Van der Wende 2002), i.e. using the same traditional teaching procedures and materials and uploading them to online platforms. Blended teaching needs to integrate effectively all the tools (facetoface and ICT). We have to learn to adopt technology in a new manner, in such a way that we do not just




adapt new technologies to support old practices. We also must avoid oversimplifying the contents and the activities because of the delivery mode we are using. Creating a blended environment depends on the educational context and the needs that the programme in question is designed to meet. Different environments require different blends.

3.2.6 Institutional support

Finally, higher education institutions must be aware of the transformative potential of blended learning, and they must provide the necessary assistance and guidance, technical support and tool training to implement flexible blends adapted to their particular needs. They must also support necessary refinement of the blearning model in question (Bonk, KyongJee and Tingting 2006).

4 Common elements in blended learning

4.1 Why and how to apply the common elements of blended-learning

There is not a standard blended learning approach, as regards the proportion of facetoface and computermediated teaching, or regarding which tools should be used in order to produce the most effective learning (Bonk, KyongYee and Tingting 2006). Nevertheless, we can describe some common elements which are present to a greater or lesser extent in all blended learning approaches (Alcides Parra 2008; Bartolomé 2008; Bonk and Graham 2005; Thorne 2003). These elements are explained in the following sections and summarized in Appendix 1.

4.1.1 Face-to-face sessions

During facetoface classes, teachers and students socialize and interact in flexible groupings. A global approach to knowledge is introduced, key aspects to study are suggested, opinions are exchanged and argued, and acquired knowledge is applied to practical contexts. As these sessions are live, they are essential to provide students with guidance, tutorials, motivation, and the generation of group dynamics and supervision of activities (Carman 2005).




4.1.2 Practical activities

Through practical activities autonomous learning is fostered. Learners actively acquire knowledge mediated by texts and digital materials. Students learn by doing and they have contact with reallife experiences. For Bartolomé (2008) the use of resources in an independent way is one of the greatest contributions of the Internet, in any of the forms that independent activities may adopt: simulations, tutorials, casestudies, problemsolving exercises, etc.

4.1.3 Communication tools

These technological elements are used to favour continuous synchronous and asynchronous communication between all participants in the learning process. They can take the form of fora, chats, distribution lists, group mails, webquests, blogs, wikis, audio and videoconferences. Previously, communication tools were highly dependent on written communication, where nonverbal communication was hardly present, and group dynamics through computermediated communication could not be compared to incampus group cohesion (Garrison and Vaughan 2008). Nowadays, virtual discussions in real time over video and audioconferences are progressively gaining ground on the traditional chats or fora as interactive communication tools.

4.1.4 Evaluation resources

The aim of evaluation is not only to give students a grade but to provide them with comments on their performance that facilitate followup and self assessment. Formative evaluation allows teachers to check their students’ progress and provide feedback on activities and tests. Some evaluative elements can be traditional, such as personal interviews, small group sessions, classgroup sessions, active participation in class activities, etc. Other evaluative elements can be new, based on multiplechoice tests, collaborative work, critical thinking assignments, frequentlyasked questions, questions in the fora, inquiries through emails, active participation in audio and videoconferences, etc. (Carman 2005; Garrison and Vaughan 2008).

4.1.5 Virtualized contents

The Internet has brought with it new ways of distributing resources and providing students with information. Content in blended learning is formatted in such a




way that it can be transmitted virtually, in accordance with the digital resources available (Carman 2005). Students are offered information in various formats, including: audiovisual, like youtube or podcasts; textual, such as word or pdf files; or hypertextual, like links to websites or blogs. This virtual content is flexible and motivating enough to foster students’ selflearning in the format which best applies to each individual learner.

4.1.6 Group work

Groups are considered very important in the completion of higher education studies (Bartolomé 2008). Therefore, collaborative work should be an integral element of blended learning at university as well. Group work and collaborative activities help students to develop interpersonal, intercultural, social and civic competences.

4.1.7 Personal work

In blended learning, students must be flexible and positive, and adapt themselves to manage and use these technologies. It is essential that they have clearly in mind that fewer classes in blended learning do not equal less work (Garrison and Vaughan 2008). They have to accept the responsibility to complete individual and team activities. Therefore, they must actively participate in the learning and teaching process by planning and organizing their time effectively, collaborating in group work, providing their ideas and knowledge to the group through the fora, chats and in all the proposed activities.

4.1.8 Tutors

From a pedagogical point of view, tutors are facilitators of all the knowledge which is directly or indirectly integrated in the course. They must overcome the initial difficulties and train themselves in this technology; they must design and develop interactive materials to foster independent study; they have to understand the rationale of technologymediated distance education; and they need to adapt their teaching delivery to the blended learning situation. From an organizational point of view, tutors must also prepare the course agenda and procedures, including all the different interactions between teachers and students, among groups of individual students, or between class groups with other experts. Be




sides, they must evaluate the students’ achievements, and discover their attitudes and perceptions. From a social perspective, tutors have to create a friendly environment, encourage students to use this technology, increase group cohesion, foster group work, and hold regular, respectful and attentive communication with them (Garrison and Kanuka 2004; Bonk and Graham 2005).

4.2 Asynchronous and synchronous communication and learning modes

Independent from the use of more or less facetoface and technologymediated teaching, adopting blended learning implies the use of both synchronous and asynchronous learning and communication modes (Sharma and Barrett 2007).

When using asynchronous tools, learning can occur at different times as determined by the learners without the need of having an interlocutor at that moment. Online tools like virtualized contents, learning paths, fora, emails, etc. belong to this group (Hiltz and Goldman 2005). Although not all asynchronous tools have the same features, and characteristics are also shared by a few synchronous tools, following Hrastinski (2008), we can describe some general features for asynchronous tools:– Flexibility. Students can access information as many times as they need it,

wherever they wish with the only requisite of Internet connection.– Gradation. For pedagogical reasons, contents are placed in a specific order to

ensure the students’ correct and progressive knowledge acquisition.– Feedback. Asynchronous tools provide selfassessment tests, explanations,

extra practice and tutorials on problematic areas to provide revision and reinforcement. Besides, frequently asked questions can guide learners in the learning process.

– Reflection. Asynchronous communication and learning modes do not occur in real time and, therefore, students can take the time to reflect on the contents and the practical activities without the pressure of having to respond immediately as in live interaction.

In synchronous learning experiences, on the other hand, the instructor and the students come together at the same time in a live learning event. Videoconferencing, instant messaging and chat belong to this group. These tools introduce some dynamism to traditional online devices in order to improve learners’ motivation and foreign language skills (Clark and Kwinn 2007). Synchronous learning tools have the following features (Hrastinski 2008):




– Flexibility. Incampus and online classes are usually scheduled during a time slot which allows learners to reconcile their studies with other personal and professional activities. Besides, like asynchronous tools, these tools permit students to attend classes from any location as long as they have access to the Internet.

– Interactivity. These tools allow realtime communication both between teachers and students and among groups of individual students, fostering interaction and collaboration. Besides, they offer the advantage of offering learners immediate feedback.

– Collaboration. These tools also support elearners in the development of learning communities. They foster group cohesion and adherence. Learners and teachers usually experience synchronous learning as more social. Through continuous contact they help students to feel that they are participants in the community rather than isolated individuals in the virtual space.

The debate, however, should not be which of these two communication and learning modes is the best, but when, why and how to use the different learning methods available. As Andrews and Haythornwaite (2007) argue, there are three types of communication which are essential for building and supporting elearning communities: communication related to content, communication for task planning, and communication for providing social support. In communication related to content, students will need to ask or answer questions related to content, share information and express their own ideas. For task planning, students have to communicate in order to plan and coordinate work, as well as to negotiate and solve possible conflicts. Finally, in communication for providing social support, learners need to express their emotions, provide support and socialize outside class work.

Hrastinski (2008) also describes the concepts of personal and cognitive participation linked to synchronous and asynchronous elearning. Personal participation increases motivation and is more appropriate for easy information exchanges, including the planning of tasks and social support. Cognitive participation, on the other hand, increases reflection and the ability to process information. It occurs more often for complex reflection and discussion. According to Hrastinski (2008), synchronous learning supports better personal participation, while asynchronous tools are a good foundation for cognitive interaction.

The combination of these two types of learning and communication modes enriches students’ learning. Synchronous tools are essential to support learners in getting to know each other and for task planning. However, for the discussion of complex issues, when time for reflection is necessary, asynchronous tools are considered a better choice.




4.3 Computer-assisted language learning (CALL)

The use of new media and information technologies for language learning and teaching has become a discipline known as ComputerAssisted Language Learning (CALL), which mainly lies in the fields of Psychology, Second Language Acquisition and Computational Linguistics (Murphy and McTear 1997). On the one hand, from the field of Psychology, CALL can help us explain what happens when learning occurs. The main theories applied in the field are behaviourist and humanistic approaches. Although the former is only applicable at a lower scale, drills and mechanical practice still exist in language learning. Humanistic approaches can allow us to understand all the contextual and personal variables which can affect and influence learning. On the other hand, Second Language Acquisition has developed research methodologies which can be applied in CALL as well. The study the interlanguage, as regards the effects of L1 on L2 learning, demonstrates common acquisition and development orders. Moreover, Second Language Acquisition considers learners’ linguistic environment and personal factors such as age, aptitude, motivation, personality, cognitive styles, etc. (Chapelle 2005).

Traditionally in CALL, computers could act as tutors or as tools (Levy 1997). As a tutor, the computer assumes the role usually given to the teacher, for example, evaluating the students’ output. It offers flexibility at different levels, as regards access time, geographical location and learning pace; and it must provide timely, accurate and appropriate feedback. CALL tutors must be reliable as they are sometimes the only information source. Currently, CALL tutors can only deal effectively with certain language skills. As a tool, CALL programmes work as an aid to the teacher in language learning situations. The tool does not follow a fixed methodology and the learner is in direct control. However, CALL has recently evolved into “a virtual environment where learners can collaborate and interact with a wide variety of native speakers” rather than just tools or tutors (Schwienhorst 2012).

All the synchronous and asynchronous learning and communication tools discussed above are CALL tools. When used for foreign language learning, asynchronous tools can aid students to train in their receptive skills, as students can access written texts (although mainly at word or phrase levels) in different formats and recorded materials in video and audio files. Synchronous tools introduce the dynamism and interactivity to CALL which asynchronous tools lack. Interaction in incampus classes and audio and videoconferences greatly improve learner’s motivation and linguistic skills. They allow learners to practice and improve their receptive and productive oral skills in an integrated way and for a real and meaningful purpose (Liu 2011).




According to Egbert and HansonSmith (2007), ComputerAssisted Language Learning has the following positive features:– Interaction in the target language. Computerbased technologies facilitate in

teraction with different audiences. Moreover, learners can interact with the computer, have to use the target language in exercises and can practice as much as they need it.

– Authentic tasks. Technology can be used to create authentic tasks using a great variety of resources, including computer programmes and telecommunication tools for meaningful interaction. Besides, CALL can provide opportunities to obtain and produce comprehensible input and output in real communicative contexts.

– Feedback and reinforcement. Providing almost immediate feedback is beneficial for the learner. In the traditional classroom setting it may not always be possible to provide immediate feedback to every individual learner. Computers, on the other hand, allow learners obtain feedback by just clicking a button. They can test their knowledge and learn from their mistakes by checking their correct answers, comments and explanations.

– Guidance. Learners are guided through their learning process, taking into account different learning styles. CALL can guide students and cater for different needs, as it provides many possibilities for adapting activities to students’ diverse personal needs.

– Stress-free learning atmosphere. In CALL, learners work in an atmosphere with an ideal stress and anxiety level, as they do not feel the pressure of facetoface interaction. Computers do not make students feel exposed, as in more traditional settings. In CALL, shy students can learn within a sheltered context.

– Learner autonomy. CALL programmes foster selfdirected study, autonomy and independence. Learners can work at their own pace, access information several times and repeat tasks. Moreover, CALL programmes have the potential to provide additional information to the learner through links to other sources.

– New types of exercises. There is an immense variety of exercises available in CALL. This helps learners to maintain a high level of motivation. Activities are delivered in innovative and varied formats (for instance, audio, videos, graphics, pictures or images). A multisensory approach can enrich the learning process of learners.

– Motivation. Learners are highly motivated when using CALL. Motivation fosters greater effort on the side of the learner and thus also results in greater language performance. CALL, through stimulation and personal challenge, can raise students’ motivation (Dörnyei et al., 2006).




CALL represents a great technological improvement for foreign language learning, and if used correctly, it can increase students’ communicative competence in the target language. It could be argued, however, that the use of CALL could cause some kinds of antisocial behavior (Wellman and Gulia 1997). If the methodology focuses too much on training language items in isolation, the ultimate goal of foreign language learning, which is communication, could possibly be neglected.

5 ConclusionsThat learning technologies must play a key role in the future of education is obvious. The question is whether the educational institutions are ready for the change from traditional practices to this challenging new paradigm that demands an unyielding and unavoidable adaptation towards a technologically enhanced panorama.

In order to be successful in this endeavour, creativity and innovation have to go hand in hand, not only in relation to technology but also in teaching and learning. The adoption of a blended learning approach can bring academic excellence and competitive advantage to our students, as it increases motivation and engages students in a firstrate learning experience, with the aid of both asynchronous and synchronous learning and communication modes. Both modes provide flexibility in learning access, the former allowing gradation, reflection and a certain degree of feedback, and the latter adding interactivity and realtime collaboration.

Blearning possibilities are varied as they should provide solutions to different needs and conditions. However, certain common elements are essential for blended methodology, namely facetoface and online sessions, virtualized contents, independent and practical activities, evaluation resources, tutors, communication tools, and personal and group work.

Besides, when implementing a blendedlearning method, it is important to take into account which of the two communication and learning modes, synchronous or asynchronous, are likely to be used for each of the learning and teaching tasks at hand, i.e. for content communication, task planning or social support, or for personal and cognitive participation. On the one hand, synchronous tools are essential to support learners in getting to know each other and for task planning. On the other hand, for the discussion of complex issues, when time for reflection is necessary, asynchronous tools are preferred.

All the synchronous and asynchronous learning and communication tools can be used as CALL tools, since they make use of new media and information




technologies as an aid to teachers in language learning situations. Asynchronous tools in foreign language learning are ideal for working online with receptive skills, whereas synchronous tools introduce to CALL the dynamism and interactivity which asynchronous tools lack.

For all these reasons, blended learning tools can represent a great improvement for foreign language learning, increasing students’ communicative competence in the target language. The combination of asynchronous and synchronous learning and communication modes can help students experiment in intellectually stimulating and meaningful activities within a truly revolutionary project.

References

Alcides Parra, Luis. 2008. Blended Learning, la nueva formación en educación superior. AVANCES Investigación en Ingeniería (9). http://www.revistaavances.co/ (accessed 28 June 2012).

Anderson, Terry. 2001. The buzzword ‘blended learning’ has real meaning. The Central New York Business Journal 15(46). 12.

Anderson, Terry & Fathi Elloumi (eds). 2004. The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University. http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/pdf/TPOL_book.pdf (accessed 9 April 2013).

Andrews, Richard & Caroline Haythornwaite. 2007. The SAGE handbook of e- learning Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Andrewartha, Geoff & Simon Wilmot. 2001. Can multimedia meet tertiary educational needs better than the conventional lecture? A case study. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. 17(1). 1–20. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet17/andrewartha.html (accessed 13 April 2013).

Ausubel, David P., Joseph D. Novak & Helen Hanesian. 1968. Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehard & Winston: New York.

Bañados, Emerita. 2006. A blended-learning pedagogical model for teaching and learning EFL successfully through an online interactive multimedia environment. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal. 23(3). http://journals.sfu.ca/CALICO/index.php/calico/article/download/732/594 (accessed 15 April 2013).

Bartolomé Pina, Antonio. 2004. Blended learning: conceptos básicos. Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación 23. 7–20. http://www.lmi.ub.es/personal/bartolome/articuloshtml/04_blended_learning/documentacion/1_bartolome.pdf (accessed 9 April 2013).

Bartolomé Pina, Antonio. 2008. Entornos de aprendizaje mixto en educación superior. AIESAD RIED 11(1). 15–51. www.utpl.edu.ec/ried/ (accessed 21 May 2012).

Bonk, Curtis J. & Charles R. Graham. 2005. Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future Directions. In Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, Ch. 1.1. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Bonk, Curtis J., Kim Kyong-Jee & Zeng Tingting. 2006. Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (eds.),



http://www.revistaavances.co/

http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/pdf/TPOL_book.pdf

http://journals.sfu.ca/CALICO/index.php/calico/article/download/732/594

http://journals.sfu.ca/CALICO/index.php/calico/article/download/732/594

http://www.lmi.ub.es/personal/bartolome/articuloshtml/04_blended_learning/documentacion/1_bartolome.pdf

http://www.lmi.ub.es/personal/bartolome/articuloshtml/04_blended_learning/documentacion/1_bartolome.pdf

http://www.utpl.edu.ec/ried/


Proceeding of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2005, 3644–3649. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. http://publicationshare.com/bonk_future.pdf (accessed 10 May 2012).

Brown, John Seely. 2002. Growing up digital: How the web changes work. Education and the ways people learn. United States Distance Learning Association Journal (USDLA) 16(2). 15–27. http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html (accessed 23 May 2012)

Bruner, Jerome. 1960. The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Carman, Jared M. 2005. Blended learning design: Five key ingredients. Agilant Learning. 1–10.

http://www.agilantlearning.com/pdf/Blended%20Learning%20Design.pdf (accessed 15 October 2012).

Chapelle, Carol A. 2005. Computer assisted language learning. In Bernard Spolsky & Francis M. Hult (eds.), The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. 585–595.

Clark, Richard E. 1983. Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research 53(4). 445–459. http://rer.sagepub.com/content/53/4/445.abstract (accessed 19 June 2012).

Clark, Ruth C. & Ann Kwinn. 2007. The new virtual classroom: evidence-based guidelines for synchronous e-learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeifer.

Collis, Betty & Marijk van der Wende (eds.). 2002. Models of technology and change in higher education: An international comparative survey on the current and future uses of ICT in Higher Education. Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS). Netherlands: Twente University. http://doc.utwente.nl/44610/1/ictrapport.pdf (accessed 16 June 2012).

Downes, Stephen. 2007. Learning networks in practice. National Research Council Canada (NRC). Institute for Information Technology. http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?action=rtdoc&an=8913424&lang=en (accessed 23 July 2013).

Downes, S. 2011. Connectivism and connective knowledge. Newsletter. http://www.downes.ca/post/54540 (accessed 24 June 2012).

Dziuban, Charles, Patsy Moskal & Joel Hartman. 2004. Blended learning. Educause Center for Applied Research Bulletin 7. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erb0407.pdf (accessed 13 June 2012).

Dörnyei, Zoltán, Kata Csizér & Nóra Németh. 2006. Motivation, language attitudes and globalization. Clevedon, Buffalo & Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Egbert, Joey & Elizabeth Hanson-Smith. 1999. CALL environments: Research, practical, and critical issues. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Garrison, D. Randy & Heather Kanuka. 2004. Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education. Elsevier 7(2). 95–105. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751604000156 (accessed 22 June 2012).

Garrison, D. Randy & Norman Vaughan. 2008. Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

González, Cathy. 2004. The role of blended learning in the world of technology. Benchmarks Online. http://www.unt.edu/benchmarks/archives/2004/september04/eis.htm (accessed 1 April 2013).

Hall, Hazel & Brian Davison. 2007. Social software as support in hybrid learning environments: The value of the blog as a tool for reflective learning and peer support. Library and Information Science Research (LISR), Elsevier 29(2). 163–187. http://researchrepository.napier.ac.uk/2187/1/hall_davison_blogs_draft.pdf (accessed 9 April 2013).



http://publicationshare.com/bonk_future.pdf

http://publicationshare.com/bonk_future.pdf

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/53/4/445.abstract

http://doc.utwente.nl/44610/1/ictrapport.pdf

http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?action=rtdoc&an=8913424&lang=en

http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?action=rtdoc&an=8913424&lang=en

http://www.downes.ca/post/54540

http://www.downes.ca/post/54540

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erb0407.pdf

http://researchrepository.napier.ac.uk/2187/1/hall_davison_blogs_draft.pdf

http://researchrepository.napier.ac.uk/2187/1/hall_davison_blogs_draft.pdf


Hiltz, Starr R. & Ricki Goldman (eds). 2005. Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hrastinski, Stefan. 2008. The potential of synchronous communication to enhance participation in on-line discussions: A case study of two e-learning courses. Information & Management 45(3). 499–506. http://www.journals.elsevier.com/information-and-management (accessed 16 June 2012).

Hvorecký, Jozef. 2004. Can e-learning break the digital divide? European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning 2. http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Hvorecky.pdf (accessed 14 April 2013).

Jones, Chris and Simon Cross. 2009. Is there a net generation coming to university? In ALT-C 2009 “In Dreams Begins Responsibility”. Choice, Evidence and Change, 8–10. Manchester, UK. http://oro.open.ac.uk/18468/1/ (accessed 14 April 2013).

Jones, Chris, Ruslan Ramanau, Simon Cross & Graham Healing. 2010. Is there a net generation coming to university? Computers & Education 54(3). 722–732. http://oro.open.ac.uk/19890/2/ (accessed 14 April 2013).

Kehrwald, Benjamin. 2007. The ties that bind: Social presence, relations and productive collaboration in online learning environments. ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings Ascilite Singapore 2007. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kehrwald.pdf (accessed 9 April 2013).

Ko, Susan & Steve Rossen. 2010. Teaching online: A practical guide. New York: Routledge. Kozma, Robert. B. 1994. Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational

Technology Research and Development 42(2), 7–19. http://robertkozma.com/images/kozma_will_media_influence.pdf (accessed 12 December 2012).

Kulik, Chen-Lin C. & James A. Kulik. 1991. Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: an updated analysis. Computers in Human Behaviour 7, 75–94. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/29534/0000622.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 12 April 2013).

Levy, Michael. 1997. Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Liu, Gi-Zen. 2011. The blended language learning course in Taiwan: Issues &challenges of instructional design. In John Macalister & I.S.P. Action (eds.) (8) Case studies in language curriculum design: Concepts and approaches in action around the world, 82–100 New York: Routledge.

McLuhan, M. 1964. Understanding media: The extensions of men. Cambridge (USA): MIT Press.Murphy, Maureen & Michael McTear. 1997. Learner modelling for intelligent CALL. Jameson,

Anthony, Cécile Paris & Carlo Tasso (eds.), In User Modelling: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, UM97. Vienna & New York: Springer Wien New York. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.29.7204&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 28 June 2012).

Nicolson, Margaret, Linda Murphy & Margaret Southgate. 2011. Language teaching in blended contexts. Edinburgh: Dunedin.

Osguthorpe, Russel T. & Charles R. Graham. 2003. Blended learning systems: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4(3). 227–234.

Park, Chan Nim & Jeong-Bae Son. 2009. Implementing computer-assisted language learning in the EFL classroom: Teachers’ perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 5(2). 80–101. http://eprints.usq.edu.au/6887/1/Park_Son_IJPLv5n2_AV.pdf (accessed 10 April 2013).



http://www.journals.elsevier.com/information-and-management

http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Hvorecky.pdf

http://oro.open.ac.uk/19890/2/

http://oro.open.ac.uk/19890/2/

http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kehrwald.pdf

http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kehrwald.pdf

http://http://robertkozma.com/images/kozma_will_media_influence.pdf

http://http://robertkozma.com/images/kozma_will_media_influence.pdf

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/29534/0000622.pdf?sequence=1

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/29534/0000622.pdf?sequence=1

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.29.7204&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://eprints.usq.edu.au/6887/1/Park_Son_IJPLv5n2_AV.pdf

http://eprints.usq.edu.au/6887/1/Park_Son_IJPLv5n2_AV.pdf


Prensky, Marc. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants. MCB University Press. 9 (5). http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky-digitalnatives,digitalimmigrants-part1.pdf (accessed 10 May 2012).

Rourke, Liam, Terry Anderson, Randy Garrison & Walter Archer. 2001. Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education 14(3). 51–70. http://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/2149/732/1/AssessingSocialPresenceInAsynchronousText-basedComputerConferencing.pdf (accessed 12 April 2013).

Schramm, Wilbur. 1977. Big media, little media. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Sharma, Pete & Barney Barrett. 2007. Blended learning – Using technology in and beyond the

language classroom. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers Limited.Siemens, George. 2004. A learning theory for the digital age. Elearn Space. http://www.

elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm (accessed 18 May 2012).Thorne, Kaye. 2003. Blended learning: How to integrate online and traditional learning.

London: Kogan Page Publishers.Vasileuou, Ismini. 2009. Blended Learning: The transformation of higher education curriculum.

The Journal for Open and Distance Education and Educational Technology 5(1). 1–11. http://plymouth.academia.edu/IsminiVasileiou/Papers/95589/Blended_Learning_The_transformation_of_Higher_Education_curriculum (accessed 10 June 2012).

Vygotsky, Lev, S. 1992. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Wellman, Barry & Milena Gulia. 1997. Net surfers don’t ride alone: Virtual communities as

communities. University of Toronto. http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/netlab/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Net-Surfers-Dont-Ride-Alone-Virtual-Community-as-Community.pdf (accessed 20 December 2012).

Wiley, David. 2002. Learning objects need instructional design theory. In Allison Rossett (Ed.), The ASTD e-Learning Handbook. 115–126. New York: McGraw-Hill.



http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky-digitalnatives,digitalimmigrants-part1.pdf

http://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/2149/732/1/AssessingSocialPresenceInAsynchronousText-basedComputerConferencing.pdf

http://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/2149/732/1/AssessingSocialPresenceInAsynchronousText-basedComputerConferencing.pdf

http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

http://plymouth.academia.edu/IsminiVasileiou/Papers/95589/Blended_Learning_The_transformation_of_Higher_Education_curriculum

http://plymouth.academia.edu/IsminiVasileiou/Papers/95589/Blended_Learning_The_transformation_of_Higher_Education_curriculum

http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/netlab/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Net-Surfers-Dont-Ride-Alone-Virtual-Community-as-Community.pdf

http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/netlab/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Net-Surfers-Dont-Ride-Alone-Virtual-Community-as-Community.pdf


Appendix 1: Why and how to apply blended-learning common elements

B-learning element Why How

Face-to-face sessions

– Live socialization and interaction

– Global approach to knowledge

– Guidance and supervision– Motivation– Group dynamics

– Flexible groupings– Introduction of key aspects– Exchange of opinions– Practical application of

knowledge– Tutorials

Practical activities – Autonomous and reflective learning

– Contact with real life experiences

– Learning by doing– Texts and digital materials– Simulations, tutorials,

case-studies or problem-solving

Communication tools

– Continuous contact and group cohesion

– Synchronous and asynchronous socialization and interaction

– Fora, chats, distribution lists, group mails, webquests, blogs, wikis, audio and video-conferences

Evaluation resources

– Learner’s follow-up and assessment

– Students’ progress check– Feedback of activities and

tests

– Personal interviews, small group sessions, large group classes, active participation in class activities, etc.

– Multiple-choice tests, collaborative work, critical-thinking assignments, frequently-asked questions, issues in fora or e-mails, active participation in on-line activities, etc.

Virtualized contents

– Internet resources and digital formats available

– Flexibility– Motivation– Independent learning– Adaptation to individual

needs

– Audiovisual (youtube, podcasts, etc.)

– Textual (word, powerpoint, pdf documents, etc.)

– Hypertextual (links to websites, blogs, etc.)

Group work – Collaboration– Shared responsibility– Development of interpersonal,

social and civic competences

– Team activities




BionotesMarta Genís Pedra is Director of the Department of Applied Languages at Nebrija University (Madrid, Spain). Specialized in bilingual education, sociolinguistics and pragmatics, she also directs the Master’s degree in Bilingual Education, a blendedlearning course in which she teaches Sociolinguistics and Pragmatics and English Literature and Culture.

Mª Teresa Martín de Lama is an Associate Professor at Nebrija University (Madrid, Spain) who has specialized in the application of ICT to second language learning, sociolinguistics, pragmatics and bilingual education. She has been coordinator of the Master’s degree in Bilingual Education, wholly run through bleaning, and currently teaches several subjects related to foreign language learning through online and blendedlearning methodologies at the Department of Applied Linguistics.

B-learning element Why How

Personal work – Acceptance of personal responsibility

– Active participation

– Individual activities– Active participation in group

activities (class discussions, fora, chats, blogs, etc.)

Tutors – Facilitation of knowledge– Organization of learning-

teaching process– Promotion of socialization

– Adaptation, design and development of interactive materials

– Preparation of course agenda and procedures

– Evaluation of students’ performance

– Discovery of learners’ attitudes and perceptions

– Creation of a friendly environment to increase group cohesion

– Guidance in the use of technology

– Promotion of group work– Holding of regular meetings





Documents

Can blended learning aid foreign language learning?