Using Information Technology in English Language ...

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 514 – 521

2nd World Conference on Educational Technology Researches – WCETR2012

Using Information Technology in English Language Learning Procedure: Blended Learning Prof. Jelisaveta Šafranj,Ph.D. University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, trg Dositeja Obradovica 5, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract This research aims to compare blended learning approach to the traditional teaching English for Mechanical Engineering for students at Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad. Data was collected from two groups of students over two semesters and analyzed to determine whether the students who were exposed to the blended environment displayed increased participation in a non-compulsory learning task and higher marks in both in-session and final examinations. The research methodology comprised the t-test and the Levene’s test for equality of variances. Results indicated significant improvements in every area of language teaching, supplying valuable evidence that the adoption of a blended approach in learning English for Specific Purposes in higher education can appreciably enhance students’ results and experience by providing a more studentcentered learning environment. © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hafize Keser Ankara University, Turkey

Keywords: blended learning, higher education, student-centered learning, teaching English

1.Introduction Blended learning refers to a mixing of different learning environments. The phrase has many specific meanings based upon the context in which it is used. Blended learning gives learners and teachers a potential environment to learn and teach more effectively. This learning approach can combine face-to-face instruction with computermediated instruction. It also applies science or IT activities with the assistance of educational technologies using computer, Satellite television channels, video-conferencing and other emerging electronic media. Learners and teachers work together to improve the quality of learning and teaching, the ultimate aim of blended learning being to provide realistic practical opportunities for learners and teachers to make learning independent, useful, sustainable and ever growing. Whether a course should be proposed as a face-to-face interaction, an online course or a blended course depends on the analysis of the competences at stake, the nature and location of the audience, and the resources available. Depending on the cross-analysis of these three parameters, the course designer will opt for one of the three options. In his course scenario he will then have to decide which parts are online, which parts are offline? A basic example of this is a course of English as a second language where the instructor reaches the conclusion that all audio-based activities (listening comprehension, oral expression) will take place in the classroom where all 1 1

Corresponding Author:Jelisaveta Safrani, Tel.: +21 36548244 E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hafize Keser Ankara University, Turkey doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.099

Jelisaveta Šafranj / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 514 – 521

515

text-based activities will take place online (reading comprehension, essays writing). Blended learning increases the options for greater quality and quantity of human interaction in a learning environment. It offers learners the opportunity to be both together and apart. A community of learners can interact at anytime and anywhere because of the benefits that computer-mediated educational tools provide. Blended learning provides a good mix of technologies and interactions, resulting in a socially supported, constructive, learning experience (Starkie, 2007). However, there has been little evidence to show that a blended learning environment has tangible benefits as measured by levels of voluntary preparation of weekly work or performance on a final examination. This current study is based on an assumption that students require more active involvement in the teaching/learning processes with an emphasis on research and flexibility of approach (Peko, A., Mlinarević, V., and Buljubašić-Kuzmanović, V., 2008). Thus, it evaluates the difference in student preparation and performance when a blended learning environment is adopted as compared to a traditional approach. In this study, students were given significant flexibility and autonomy in the blended environment. Flexibility was not just provided by the online components but also by the extended time in which students had to undertake various elements of the course. Further, it was the individual student’s choice whether to attempt various assessment tasks, with the only prerequisite that they had to achieve an overall mark of at least 50 percent in the course and sit the final examination. The study was based on an assumption that students require more active involvement in the teaching/learning processes with an emphasis on research and flexibility of approach. 2. The research outline Examinees consisted of graduate engineering students enrolled in English for Mechanical Engineering course in two different semesters. All students were seeking a Master’s degree in engineering, with the majority of the students being male. This course was compulsory for around two thirds of the students and chosen as an elective by the other third as shown in Table 1. There was also a mixture of part-time and full-time students in each semester. The part-time students revealed that they had had very limited exposure to English for Mechanical Engineering prior to enrolment in this course. Table 1: Description of Participants

Subject choice Compulsory Elective Study mode Full time Part time Gender Males Females

Communicative Approach (CA) n = 32

Blended Learning (BL) n = 34

21(66%) 11(34%)

24(71%) 10(29%)

27(84%) 5(16%)

28(82%) 6(18%)

29(91%) 3(9%)

30(88%) 4(12%)

Both courses were held at Faculty of Technical Sciences by the same teacher. The semester length of 13 weeks was identical for both groups. However, in 2010 a communicative language learning approach was used for both delivery and assessment, whereas in 2011 the course was completely redesigned and a blended learning approach was adopted combining both face-to-face and online modes. 2.1.Communicative approach (CA) Under the communicative approach subject-matter was delivered in 12 two-hour lectures with the final week as a revision. Thus, students were expected to attend their allocated two hour tutorial on a weekly basis bringing with them solutions to prepared textbook questions which would then be discussed in the class. Assessment components consisted of the weekly tutorial questions, a group assignment, a mid-session partial exam held during the lecture in Week 8 and a final examination, all of which were compulsory.

516


2.2.Blended Learning (BL) Blended learning approach comprised an online teaching activity and face-to-face language learning activity. The face-to-face teaching activity consisted of one full-day workshop organized in Week 3 and two half-day workshops held in Weeks 6 and 10. Thus, language learning activity provided an opportunity to communicate subject-matter, and students had a chance to interact with it and with each other. It also provided a valuable forum for group presentations and interactions where students could learn from each other. The workshops were supplemented with the provision of online notes and an online case study. The online component was delivered using a WebCT Vista interface which allowed extensive use of both student-student and student-coordinator asynchronous discussion between the workshop sessions. Assessment tasks consisted of online questions, an assignment consisting of both, a group work and an individual online element, a series of online tests in Weeks 5, 9 and 13, and a final exam, which was both oral and written. These online components promoted student-centred learning in that they provided significant autonomy for students in terms of when, where and even what they attempted (Gibbs and Habeshaw, 1989; Sparrow, Sparrow & Swan, 2000). The weekly questions were available from 9 am on Monday morning until 9 am on Sunday. Since these questions were not compulsory, they only provided a valuable learning tool to evaluate their understanding of the subject-matter. They also helped students in preparing for the online tests and the final examination. Suggested guidelines for answering weekly questions were provided on the website at the end of each week. The online tests were also available over an extended time – from 9am Monday until 9 am Sunday in the weeks in which they were held. The questions were drawn randomly from a test bank with similar questions grouped together, meaning that while each test had similar tasks, it would be highly unlikely that any two would be identical, thus maintaining the integrity of the testing process. Thus, students were able to have up to two attempts at each test during the release period, with their average mark which was recorded. Taking the average mark ensured students would make real attempts, and thus, allowed further learning time between the two attempts. The students made their first attempt early in the week and the second at the end of the week. The tests aimed not only to quantify the student’s performance in terms of the number of facts they are supposed to acquire but also to help them understand the processes through which they reach at accurate conclusions (Di Napoli, 2004). Thus, these tests provided support for students as they worked their way through the course. The case study assignment afforded a wide path for students to take part in group work, both face-to-face and online. Furthermore, there was an individual element which had to be submitted online in which students reflected on the performance of both themselves and their fellow group members, and assessed each individual’s contribution to the project. While completing this feedback, students’ awareness of group processes was improved and helped them to understand the need to contribute effectively. This feedback also provided valuable data that could be used as part of the overall assessment of the assignment (McGourty, 2000). Consequently, the online submission offered a confidential medium through which students could submit their peer assessment. 2.3. Research Hypothesis Students who were taught foreign language through the blended learning approach were given an opportunity as to whether they complete all assessment components or not, as opposed to the students who experienced the communicative language learning approach where all components were compulsory. The research proved that offering such choices correlates to students adopting a deep approach to learning activity (Entwhistle, 1988; Ramsden, 1992) and it is also, an essential part of a student-centred teaching activity (Brandes & Ginnis 1986; Gibbs & Habeshaw 1989). This assumption resulted in the first hypothesis: Hypothesis A (null) There is no difference between the average number of times weekly questions were attempted by the CA group and the average number of times weekly questions were attempted by the BL group. Hypothesis A (alternative) There is a significant difference between the average number of times weekly questions were attempted by the CA group and the average number of times weekly questions were attempted by the BL group.


517

Thus, due to examine whether the group of students who practiced the blended learning approach performed better than the students who were taught foreign language by the communicative approach, two different sets of data were compared for each group. The first data set referred to the average marks obtained on tests during the semester and the second, dealt with the average final examination mark for each group of students. This resulted in the following two hypotheses: Hypothesis B (null) There is no difference between the average test results taken during the semester for the CA group and the average test results taken during the semester for the BL group. Hypothesis B (alternative) There is a significant difference between the average test results taken during the semester for the CA group and the average test results taken during the semester for the BL group. Hypothesis C (null) There is no difference between the average final examination result for the CA group and the average final examination result for the BL group. Hypothesis C (alternative) There is a significant difference between the average final examination result for the CA group and the average final examination result for the BL group. 4. Data analysis Due to test the research hypotheses, data was collected in relation to students’ performance in the two study groups, i.e. the communicative approach and the blended learning approach. The obtained results for the two study groups are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Findings for the two study group by approach to which they were exposed n Mean Std Dev Min CA group 32 Attempts at weekly questions 9.07 2.89 3.0 56.86 16.38 26.5 Test taken during the semester Examination test 46.49 14.03 18.5 Final mark 58.31 12.68 27.0 BL group 34 Attempts at weekly questions 10.78 2.10 0 Test taken during the semester 77.12 11.25 45.38 Examination test 57.89 15.12 21.55 Final mark 69.2 7.20 53.0

Max 12.0 82.0 74.0 87.0 12.0 90.1 76.5 86.0

The study aimed to identify if there were significant differences between the behaviour and results of examinees learning foreign language by the communicative approach and those who were taught by the blended learning approach. The independent samples t-test compared the respective variable of the two groups and thus, examined each hypothesis. The test is considered appropriate because the independent variable is nominal (approach = communicative vs. blended) and the dependent variable in each case is scale. 4.1. Hypothesis A: Comparisons for the attempts at weekly questions Students were told to make up to ten attempts at weekly questions. The attempts of the students who were taught by communicative approach were physically checked in during the teaching activity each week. The other group of students who were taught by the blended learning approach had to submit their attempts online from 9 am Monday until 9 am Sunday. Results of the t-test are presented in Table 3. The Levene’s test for equality of


518

variances, the significance value, (p = 0.001), is less than the threshold of 0.05, thus equal variances cannot be assumed. The BL group made a larger number of attempts at weekly questions by an average of 1.71 (9.07 vs. 10.78) which is significant (p = 0.000). Therefore, the null hypothesis has been rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted. Thus, it could be concluded that there was a significant difference in the number of attempts between the two groups. Table 3: Results of t-test for Hypothesis A – comparisons for the attempts at weekly questions by group

Group Statistics group

n 32 34

CA BL

No. of attempts

Mean 9.07 10.78

Std. Deviation 2.886 2.104

Std. Error Mean .358 .211

Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means

No. of attempts

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean difference

Std. Error Difference

-4.158

58.897

.000

1.71

.375

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Upper Lower -2.675 -1.143

4.2. Hypothesis B: Comparison of the results of tests taken during the semester The maximum score of the test taken during the semester was 100. While teaching foreign language by communicative approach, this mark was achieved in one test held in a particular week. However, the teaching procedure organized through the blended learning approach imposed the mark as an aggregate of the scores for online tests held at four different times during the semester. Results of the t-test are shown in Table 4. The Levene’s test for equality of variances, the significance value, (p = 0.017), is less than the threshold of 0.05, thus equal variances cannot be assumed. Table 4: Results of t-test for Hypothesis B – Comparison of the results for tests taken during the semester

Group Statistics Group Results of the tests taken during the semester

n 32 34

CA BL

Mean 54.86 77.12

Std.Deviation 16.376 11.245

Std.Error Mean 2.216 1.355


Results of the tests taken during the semester

t

df

Sig.(2-tailed)

Mean Difference


-6.537

69.285

.000

-20.26

2.764

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Upper Lower -23.548

-12.437

The BL group scored a higher mark in the tests taken during the semester by an average of 20.26% (56.86 vs. 77.12) which is significant (p = 0.000). Therefore, the null hypothesis has been rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted. Thus, it could be concluded that there is a significant difference in the average score achieved by each of the two groups.


519

4.3. Hypothesis C: Comparison of the results of the final examination The maximum score of the test at final examination was 100. Results of the t-test are shown in Table 5. The Levene’s test for equality of variances, the significance value, (p = 0.641), is greater than the threshold of 0.05, thus, in this case, equal variances can be assumed. The BL group obtained a higher mark in the final examination by an average of 11.40% (46.49 vs. 57.89) which is significant (p = 0.000). Thus, the null hypothesis has been rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted. It could be concluded that there is a significant difference average score achieved by each of the two groups. Table 5: Results of t-test for Hypothesis C – comparison of the results for final examination by group Group Findings group

n 32 34

CA BL

Final Exam Results

Mean 46.49 57.89

Std.Deviation 14.13 15.14

Std.Error Mean 2.086 2.035


Results of the tests taken during the semester

t

df

Sig.(2-tailed)

Mean Difference


-3.487

83

.000

-11.40

3.169

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Upper Lower -18.198 -6.337

Independent samples t-tests were also carried out to determine whether any of the results (weekly questions, tests, final exam) were important in relation to the following variables, gender (male vs. female), mode of study (full time vs. part time) and choice of subject (compulsory vs. elective). In each case the significance level was consistent with the null hypothesis. Thus, it could be concluded that the null hypothesis could not be rejected. This indicates that there are no significant differences derived from these variables. 5. Discussion The research findings are significant because they indicate that teaching foreign language through studentcentred blended learning approach, learners’ motivation and grades can be improved. The improved results on the online tests proved that students took advantage of the extra learning opportunities provided through the weekly questions. The feedback supplied on these tests helped students to learn from their mistakes which influenced the improved results in the final examination for the students exposed to the blended learning approach. Thus, likewise the results of Dopper & Sjoer (2004), this study showed that the formative assessment provided by the online tests made significant contribution to advancing students’ foreign language learning. Table 6: Final Student Grades Grade Excellent -with distinction Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Fail Total

Mark range 95-100 85-94 75-84 65-74 55-64 to 54

Blended learning approach n % 2 6.2% 3 9.3% 4 12.5% 14 43.8% 9 28.2% 32

100

Communicative approach n % 1 2.9% 2 5.9% 2 5.9% 10 29.4% 12 35.3% 7 20.6% 34 100

Research findings of the final grades of the course provide further comparison between two different language learning approaches. They are shown in Table 6. and present the score of all the individual assessment

520


components for each semester. It is significant to note that the group who experienced the blended learning environment achieved higher grades, despite the fact that it was not compulsory to attempt the various assessment items. It may have been expected that students would not complete all components because they had to do so, but the findings show precisely the opposite, possibly indicating their commitment to the course and language learning procedure. Regarding the final mark, the blended learning group scored a higher overall mark by an average of 10.89% (58.31 vs. 69.20). This is a significant difference (p = 0.000) indicating that when students are given the opportunity to take responsibility for their learning, they will be more likely to be active learners (Di Napoli, 2004). 6. Conclusion This study has examined and assessed the participation and performance of students exposed to two different foreign language learning approach. It was carried out through the comparison of two groups of graduate engineering students who studied the same course – English for Mechanical Engineering. It was taught in two different semesters, one by the communicative approach and the other by a blended student-centred approach. The average number of times students’ attempted weekly questions was compared for both approaches. The findings show that there was a considerably higher attempt from students in blended learning approach. Thus, it indicates that despite the fact that they were not compulsory students took increased responsibility for their own learning. Average marks for both tests taken during the semester and final examinations were also compared. Once more, students who experienced the blended language learning environment achieved significantly higher results. Generally, the research findings contribute the view that a blended language learning approach empowers student-centred learning by encouraging students to take more responsibility for their foreign language learning and increase necessary involvement and participation. The research findings also suggest that blended language learning approach contributes the development of life-long education through the student-centred learning model. It also provides a rich educational experience with an emphasis on active language learning activity since it is adaptable in place and time as well. References Bourne, J., Harris, D. & Mayadas, F. (2005). “Online engineering education: Learning anywhere, Anytime”. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 131-146. Brandes, D. & Ginnis, P. (1986). A guide to student-centred learning. Hemel Hempstead: Simon & Schuster Education. Carmody. K. & Berge, Z. (2005). “Elemental analysis of the online learning experience”. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 1(3), 108-119. Clark, I. & James, P. (2005). “Blended learning: An approach to delivering science courses on-line”. Proceedings of the Blended Learning in Science Teaching and Learning Symposium, 30 September 2005, The University of Sydney: UniServe Science, 19-24. Davies, J. & Graff, M. (2005). “Performance in e-learning: online participation and student grades”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657-663. Di Napoli, R. (2004). What is student-centered learning? University of Westminster: Educational Initiative Centre. Dopper, S.M. & Sjoer, E. (2004). “Implementing formative assessment in engineering education: The use of the online assessment system Etude”. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(2), 259-266. Entwhistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. Chapter 2 in R.R. Schmech (Ed.) Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press. Gallini, J.K & Barron (2002). “Participants’ perceptions of web-infused environments: A survey of teaching beliefs, learning approaches, and communication”. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 139-156. Garrison, D.R. & Kanuka, H. (2004). “Blended learning: Uncovering transformative potential in higher education”. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-1005. Gibbs, G. & Habeshaw (1989). Preparing to teach: An introduction to effective teaching in higher education, Bristol: Technical and Educational Services Ltd. Graham, C.R. (2005). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing. Graham, C.R., Allen, S. & Ure, D. (2005). “Benefits and challenges of blended learning environments”. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.) Encyclopedia of information science and technology. Hershey: PA: Idea Group, 253-259. Holman, L. (2000). “A comparison of computer-assisted instruction and classroom bibliographic instruction”. American Library Association, 40(1), 53-64. Martin, K. (2000). Alternative modes of teaching and learning, University of Western Australia Centre for Staff Development. [Online]. Available: http://www.csd.uwa.edu.au/altmodes/to_delivery/ student -centred_learning.html. Accessed 15 August 2007.


521

McCray, G.E. (2000). “The hybrid course: Merging on-line instruction and the traditional classroom”. Information Technology and Management, 1(4), 307-327. McGouty, J. (2000). “Using multisource feedback in the classroom: A computer-based approach.” IEEE Transactions in Higher Education, 28(4), 383-394. Merino, D.N. & Abel, K.D. (2003). “Evaluating the effectiveness of computer tutorials versus traditional lecturing in accounting topics”. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(2), 189-194. Peko, A., Mlinarević, V., and Buljubašić-Kuzmanović, V. (2008). “Potreba unaprjeđivanja sveučilišne nastave”, Odgojne znanosti, Vol.10, No.1(15), pp.195-208. Sparrow, L., Sparrow, H., and Swan, P. (2000). Student centered learning: Is it possible? In A. Herrmann & M.M. Kulski (Eds.), Flexible Futures in Tertiary Teaching. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2-4 February 2000. Perth: Curtin University of Technology. [Online].Available:http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/confs/tlf/tlf2000/sparrow.html, Accessed 15 August 2009. Starkie, E.G. (2007). “The Practicum: An Example of Changes in the Teaching and Learning Process in the European Higher Education Space”. Odgojne znanosti, Vol. 9, No.1(13), pp. 119-135. Twigg, C.A. (2003). “Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning.” EDUCAUSE Review, September/October: 28-38. Waddoups, G.L. & Howell, S.L. (2002). Bringing online learning to campus: The hybridization of teaching and learning at Brigham Young University. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(2). Available: http://www.icaap.org/inicode Weston, C., McAlpine, L., & Bordonaro, T. (1995). “A model for understanding formative evaluation in instructional design”. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(3), 29-46. Williams, C. (2002). “Learning on-line: A review of recent literature in a rapidly expanding field”. Journal of Higher and Further Education, 26(3), 263-272. Yoon, S. & Lim, D.H. (2007). “Strategic blending: A conceptual framework to improve learning and performance”, International Journal on Elearning 6(3), 475-489.