Blending Technologies in Foreign Language Programs

Blending Technologies in Foreign Language Programs

Don W. Hinkelman

Submitted in total fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

January 2012

School of Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Arts University of Melbourne Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT Blended language learning is the principled mix of online and classroom-based activities in foreign language programs. It involves the growing trends of classroom-based instruction adopting multi-modal learning and internet-based activities, and online programs recognizing the value of face-to-face interaction. Little theory, however, and sparse empirical study exist to guide the creation and growth of blended foreign language programs. The aim of this investigation, therefore, is establish a preliminary framework for the development of such programs. To achieve this aim, I undertook a longitudinal study of blended EFL programs at two Japanese universities. Over five years, I employed three qualitative approaches for enquiry: institutional ethnography, action research and auto-ethnography. The results of the authoethnography show that technologies consist of not only electronic tools, but also a diverse multi-dimensional collection of groupings, timings, texts, spaces, and materials. The results of the action research, three cycles from 2005-2009 at Site One, indicate that a mix of pedagogic metaphors influence the design of technologies, that the role of teachers is changing from consumers to authors of teaching materials, and that the failure of integration is related to immature and unsustainable selection of technologies. Finally, the results of the ethnography in Site Two suggest that action research teams are required to design, support, and reconfigure technology interventions in institutional environments. Personnel policies that enforce in-house, curriculumfocused team research were instrumental in this site. The findings of these three approaches form the basis of a preliminary framework that sets out range of factors, including institutional leadership, faculty management and curriculum alignment that have implications for language instruction, acquisition, and socialization. In the discussion, I propose a re-conceptualization of ‘technology’ that seeks to better combine generic face-to-face and online learning processes. This revised view includes, for example, the need for a reduction in techno-centric thinking that has dominated computer-assisted approaches as well as fully integrating the design of technologies within a task-based learning framework for mainstream foreign language programs.

ii

Implications of the study suggest the concept of technology in second language learning is overly tool-centric and dimensions of pedagogic action, varied groupings, synchronous/asynchronous timings, multi-modal texts and tool ecologies need consideration. In addition, from an institutional view, programs need to adopt principles of collaborative, localized, variable, and accountable design. Based on the investigation of two universities in Japan with blended language learning environments, I proposed twelve guidelines to foster the blending of technologies in foreign language programs.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all the faculty of my university who gave their valuable time supporting me in this research, especially Seiichi Miyamachi, Tim Grose, Shuji Sugawara, Koichi Okazaki, Atsushi Nakamura, Yumi Hiratai, Shugo Yamazoe, Makiko Nishi, and Keisuke Sanada. I am indebted to the work of my colleagues who participated in action research studies and who developed blended approaches in the classrooms of this study. I hope the outcomes of this research will in some way benefit their future teaching and lead to more effective programs that benefit their students. My supervisor and mentor, Paul Gruba, challenged me in innumerable ways, encouraging research approaches that would have been spurned twenty years ago, and provided guidance in all aspects of my professional and personal life. I learned that ethics is not only respect for vulnerable participants, but also an obligation to serve the core issues of my vocation, rather than following the convenient path. Finally, I offer my deep thanks to the Gruba family for their care of our family in our visits to Australia, and Yumi, Leo, and Jhay Hinkelman for their constant support. This thesis is dedicated to Doloris Good Hinkelman, who inspired all in my family to be educators.

iv

DECLARATION This doctoral thesis contains only original work by the author, except for the references that have been appropriately acknowledged. Sections of this thesis contain work or data that appeared in earlier versions in the following publications: Hinkelman, D. (2004). EML and implications for task design in blended L2 environments. Proceedings of Pacific Computer Assisted Language Learning Conference, 962-973. Hinkelman, D. (2005). Blended learning: Issues driving an end to laboratory-based CALL. JALT Hokkaido Journal, 9, 17-31. Hinkelman, D. & Grose, T. (2005). Placement testing and audio quiz making with open source software. Pacific CALL Journal, 1(1), 69-79. Kay, W., Gemmell, P., Johnson, A. & Hinkelman, D. (2007). Blended language learning: Using wireless notebooks and a project-based approach. Journal of Faculty of Humanities, Kita University, 82, 45-79. Hinkelman, D., Okuda, O., Johnson, A., Ishikawa, S., & Grose, T. (2008). Mobile phone technology integration into open source LMS for university general education classes in Japan. Journal of Faculty of Humanities, Kita University, 83, 173-202. Grose, T., Hinkelman, D., Rian, J., McGarty, G. (2009). Assessment strategies of a university EFL curriculum in Japan. Journal of Faculty of Humanities, Kita University, 85, 214-233. Hinkelman, D. (2009a). Revival of paper: Booklets and textbooks in collaborative classroom networks. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Annual JALT CALL Conference, (pp. 35-40). Nagoya, Japan: JALTCALL. Hinkelman, D. (2009b). Sharing learning objects within a teaching team. The Language Teacher. 33(4), 22-23. Hinkelman, D. & Johnson, A. (2009). Project format repositories for teacher collaboration. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Annual JALT CALL Conference (pp. 41-46). Nagoya, Japan: JALTCALL. Mackenzie, D., Promnitz-Hayashi, L., Jenks, D., Geluso, J., Delgado, R., Castellano, J., & Hinkelman, D. (2011). Blended learning spaces: Synchronous blending. JALTCALL Journal, 7(1), 43-60. Gruba, P. & Hinkelman, D. (in press, 2012). Blending technologies in second language classrooms. London: Palgrave-MacMillan. Chapters 2 (technologies), 5 (action research), 6 (blended classrooms), 7 (blended programs) written originally by Don Hinkelman. Chapters 1, 3, 4, 8, and pp. 90-97 of Chapter 5 by Paul Gruba. Hinkelman, D. & Gruba, P. (forthcoming, 2012). Power in blended language learning programs in Japan. Language Learning & Technology. This total article was written originally by Don Hinkelman, with editing and critique by Paul Gruba.

The length of this thesis, exclusive of tables, bibliographies and appendices, is less than 100,000 words. Don W. Hinkelman

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... ii   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................iv   DECLARATION.........................................................................................................................................v   INDEX  OF  TABLES ..................................................................................................................................x   INDEX  OF  FIGURES.............................................................................................................................. xii   PART  I:    ISSUES,  CONTEXTS,  AND  INQUIRY  INTO  BLENDED  ENVIRONMENTS............... xiii   CHAPTER  1:    INTRODUCTION  TO  TECHNOLOGIES  AND  LANGUAGE  LEARNING .............. 1   CHALLENGES  WITH  BLENDING  TECHNOLOGIES................................................................................................ 2   Challenges  for  learners  and  teachers ..........................................................................................................2   Challenges  for  researchers  and  developers ..............................................................................................2   Challenges  for  administrators  and  institutions ......................................................................................3   Summary  of  challenges  with  blending  technologies.............................................................................5   AIM  AND  SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................................ 5   RESEARCH  APPROACH  AND  DESIGN .................................................................................................................... 6   Research  questions ..............................................................................................................................................6   Research  approach ..............................................................................................................................................7   Background  of  the  sites .....................................................................................................................................7   Attributes  of  the  research  design ..................................................................................................................9   OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................................. 10   CHAPTER  2:    THEORETICAL  FOUNDATIONS  OF  BLENDED  LANGUAGE  LEARNING .......12   THE  EVOLUTION  OF  SECOND  LANGUAGE  PEDAGOGY ................................................................................... 12   Changing  metaphors:  Instruction,  acquisition,  and  socialization ............................................... 12   The  centrality  of  environment..................................................................................................................... 18   Constructivist  and  ecological  learning  perspectives ......................................................................... 19   CURRENT  DEBATES  IN  LANGUAGE  LEARNING  THEORY ................................................................................ 20   Issue  of  metaphors............................................................................................................................................ 21   Issue  of  cognition............................................................................................................................................... 23   Issue  of  success ................................................................................................................................................... 26   Issue  of  design..................................................................................................................................................... 28   Summary  of  Issues ............................................................................................................................................ 29   THE  CONCEPT  OF  BLENDED  LANGUAGE  LEARNING ...................................................................................... 30   Blended  learning  in  higher  education...................................................................................................... 31   Types  and  categories  of  blended  learning.............................................................................................. 32   Blended  learning  and  teacher  education................................................................................................ 33   The  role  of  computers  and  networks  in  blended  learning............................................................... 34   CALL  research  and  blended  language  learning................................................................................... 36   Is  normalization  the  goal  of  CALL? ........................................................................................................................................39   How  is  normalization  useful  for  understanding  program  innovation? .................................................................40  

Heterogeneous  definitions  of  blended  language  learning .............................................................. 42   Implications  of  a  blended  approach ......................................................................................................................................43  

CHAPTER  SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 44   CHAPTER  3:    RESEARCH  IN  BLENDED  ENVIRONMENTS.........................................................46   RESEARCH  PHILOSOPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 46   Motivation  and  standpoint ........................................................................................................................... 47   Modernist  and  postmodernist  worldviews............................................................................................. 47  

vi

Parallel  research  paradigms........................................................................................................................ 48   Recognizing  potential  blind  spots.............................................................................................................. 51   Reductionism:  analyzing  pieces  of  information...............................................................................................................51   Objectivism:  Seeking  universal  truth....................................................................................................................................52   Determinism:  Oversimplified  causality ...............................................................................................................................53   Detachment:  A  pretense  of  non-­‐bias.....................................................................................................................................54   Minimizing  research  traps  and  pitfalls ................................................................................................................................54  

Summary  of  research  paradigms ............................................................................................................... 55   RESEARCH  METHODOLOGIES .............................................................................................................................. 55   Methodology  1:  Action  research ................................................................................................................. 56   Defining  action  research  in  blended  environments .......................................................................................................57   Advantages  and  difficulties  of  action  research.................................................................................................................57   Justification  of  action  research  for  CALL.............................................................................................................................59   Action  research  in  blended  approaches ..............................................................................................................................69  

Methodology  2:  Ethnography ...................................................................................................................... 69   A  perspective  of  inter-­‐objectivity...........................................................................................................................................70   Merging  human  and  material  categories ............................................................................................................................72   A  post-­‐modernist  socio-­‐cultural  theory ..............................................................................................................................72   Boundaries  of  action ....................................................................................................................................................................73   Black  boxes  of  activity .................................................................................................................................................................73   Implications  for  blended  learning  program  analysis.....................................................................................................74   Trustworthiness  in  ethnographic  research .......................................................................................................................76   Summary  of  ethnography  as  a  methodology.....................................................................................................................76  

Methodology  3:  Autoethnography............................................................................................................. 76  

Defining  autoethnography ........................................................................................................................................................77   Aims  of  autoethnography ..........................................................................................................................................................77   Data  collection  and  analysis  in  autoethnography ...........................................................................................................78   Problems  and  validity  of  autoethnography .......................................................................................................................79   RESEARCH  DESIGN ................................................................................................................................................ 80  

Research  questions  of  this  study................................................................................................................. 80   Methodology  and  site  selection  strategy................................................................................................. 83   Data  collection  and  analysis......................................................................................................................... 84   Triangulation  of  sites  and  researcher  positionality........................................................................... 86   Validity  and  trustworthiness........................................................................................................................ 87   Ethical  considerations..................................................................................................................................... 88  

PART  II:  EMPIRICAL  RESEARCH  ON  BLENDED  ENVIRONMENTS.........................................91   CHAPTER  4:    AN  AUTOETHNOGRAPHIC  APPROACH ...............................................................92   INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 91   CAREER  DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................... 93   METHODOLOGY  FOR  A  RETROSPECTIVE  APPROACH ........................................................................................ 94   Data  selection,  coding,  and  clustering ..................................................................................................... 94   Theme  interpretation ...................................................................................................................................... 96   THEME  1:  PEDAGOGIES ........................................................................................................................................ 97   Intensive  formats: ............................................................................................................................................. 97   Experiential  settings:....................................................................................................................................... 99   Overseas  participants:.................................................................................................................................. 101   Performance-­‐based  assessment:.............................................................................................................. 102   Summary  of  major  theme:  Pedagogy  shifts ........................................................................................ 104   THEME  2:  ROLES .................................................................................................................................................106   Learner-­‐centered  modalities..................................................................................................................... 106   Student-­‐generated  content ........................................................................................................................ 108   Computer-­‐automated  management ...................................................................................................... 109   Teacher-­‐designed  texts ................................................................................................................................ 111   Collaborative  curriculum  design ............................................................................................................. 112   Summary  of  a  major  theme:  Role  shifts................................................................................................ 113  

vii

THEME  3:    TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................................................................115   Affordable  economics ................................................................................................................................... 115   Face-­‐to-­‐face  groupings ................................................................................................................................ 119   Flexible  spaces ................................................................................................................................................. 119   Engaging  interfaces ...................................................................................................................................... 121   Integrated  web  tools..................................................................................................................................... 123   Summary  of  Theme  3:  Technologies ...................................................................................................... 125   CHAPTER  SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................127   Major  findings.................................................................................................................................................. 127   Examination  of  blind  spots......................................................................................................................... 129   Evaluation  of  quality .................................................................................................................................... 129   Next  steps  in  the  inquiry.............................................................................................................................. 132   CHAPTER  5:  AN  ACTION  RESEARCH  APPROACH ................................................................... 133   METHODOLOGY  FOR  AN  INSIDER  APPROACH ..................................................................................................133   Site  description................................................................................................................................................ 133   Participants  and  data  collection ............................................................................................................. 135   Current  role....................................................................................................................................................... 135   Cycle  stages  and  methods ........................................................................................................................... 135   CYCLE  ONE ............................................................................................................................................................137   Participants  and  data  collection  in  Cycle  One................................................................................... 137   Stage  1:  Planning  in  Cycle  One ................................................................................................................. 138   Stage  2:  Interventions  in  Cycle  One ........................................................................................................ 139   Intervention  1:  Teacher  collaboration  meetings .......................................................................................................... 139   Intervention  2:  Wireless  computer-­‐based  tasks........................................................................................................... 140   Intervention  3:  Multiple  seating  arrangements ............................................................................................................ 144  

Stage  3:  Evaluation  in  Cycle  One ............................................................................................................. 144  

End-­‐of-­‐term  evaluation  by  research  team....................................................................................................................... 146   Retrospective  evaluation  by  lead  researcher................................................................................................................. 148   CYCLE  TWO ...........................................................................................................................................................149  

Participants  and  data  collection  in  Cycle  Two.................................................................................. 149   Stage  1:  Planning  in  Cycle  Two ................................................................................................................ 149   Stage  2:  Interventions  in  Cycle  Two ....................................................................................................... 152   Intervention  4:  Lecture  feedback  LMS  module ............................................................................................................. 152   Intervention  5:    Mobile  phone  vocabulary  study  module......................................................................................... 154   Intervention  6:  Process-­‐writing  automation.................................................................................................................. 156  

Stage  3:  Evaluation  in  Cycle  Two ............................................................................................................ 158   End-­‐of-­‐term  evaluation  by  research  team....................................................................................................................... 158  

CYCLE  THREE .......................................................................................................................................................162   Participants  and  data  collection  in  Cycle  Three............................................................................... 162   Stage  1:  Planning  in  Cycle  Three ............................................................................................................. 162   Stage  2:  Interventions  in  Cycle  Three.................................................................................................... 164   Intervention  7:    Facility  renewal  and  blended  learning  rooms.............................................................................. 164   Intervention  8:  In-­‐house,  multi-­‐media  materials ......................................................................................................... 165   Intervention  9:    Participation  tracking  system.............................................................................................................. 166  

Stage  3:  Evaluation  in  Cycle  Three ......................................................................................................... 167   CROSS-­‐CYCLE  THEME  ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................169   QUALITY  AND  TRUSTWORTHINESS ...................................................................................................................170   CHAPTER  SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................172   CHAPTER  6:    AN  ETHNOGRAPHIC  APPROACH........................................................................ 173   METHODOLOGY  FOR  AN  OUTSIDER  APPROACH ..............................................................................................174   Contextual  frameworks  in  blended  environments........................................................................... 175   Material-­‐semiotic  categories .................................................................................................................... 178   Site  selection..................................................................................................................................................... 178  

viii

SITE  DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................................................174   Institutional  role  of  Minami  University ................................................................................................ 179   Point  of  entry  and  researcher  positionality........................................................................................ 179   Scope  and  term  of  study .............................................................................................................................. 180   DATA  COLLECTION  AT  MINAMI  UNIVERSITY ..................................................................................................181   Interview  sampling  and  participants .................................................................................................... 181   Data  reduction................................................................................................................................................. 182   Use  of  qualitative  analysis  software ...................................................................................................... 184   DATA  THEMES  AT  MINAMI  UNIVERSITY .........................................................................................................185   Purposive,  manual  coding .......................................................................................................................... 185   Main  themes  descriptions........................................................................................................................... 189   Theme  1:    Distributed,  collaborative  leadership .............................................................................. 189   Principled,  institutional  values............................................................................................................................................. 189   Curriculum-­‐based  research  groups.................................................................................................................................... 190   Systematic,  in-­‐house  materials  development ................................................................................................................ 192  

Theme  2:  Committed,  full-­‐time  faculty ................................................................................................. 192   Multi-­‐role  employment  contract.......................................................................................................................................... 193   Full-­‐time  faculty  budgetary  priority .................................................................................................................................. 194   Required  faculty  development ............................................................................................................................................. 195  

Theme  3:    Teacher-­‐designed  infrastructure ....................................................................................... 198  

Curriculum-­‐driven  language  support  spaces ................................................................................................................. 198   Flexible,  blended  learning  classrooms .............................................................................................................................. 200   Critical,  teacher-­‐designed  technologies............................................................................................................................ 200   MAJOR  FINDINGS  AND  METHODOLOGICAL  ASSESSMENT ..............................................................................201  

Major  findings.................................................................................................................................................. 202   Shifts  in  research  questions  and  methodology.................................................................................. 204   Quality  and  trustworthiness...................................................................................................................... 204   CHAPTER  SIX  SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................205   PART  III:    THEORY-­‐BUILDING  AND  CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... 206   CHAPTER  7:  A  FRAMEWORK  FOR  BLENDING  TECHNOLOGIES ......................................... 207   Combined  summary  of  themes  from  research  approaches.......................................................... 207   Data  themes  on  technology,  programs  and  power ......................................................................... 209   RECONCEPTUALIZING  TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................210   A  wide,  socio-­‐cultural  view  of  technology ........................................................................................... 211   Developing  a  pedagogic  framework  of  technology  for  CALL...................................................... 211   A  critical  theory  of  language  learning  technology.......................................................................... 213   Towards  a  multi-­‐dimensional  definition  of  technologies ............................................................. 214   DIMENSIONS  FOR  BLENDED  TECHNOLOGY  DESIGN ......................................................................................216   Single-­‐theme  analysis  of  autoethnography  data ............................................................................. 216   Dimension  1:  Actions .................................................................................................................................... 220   Support  for  pedagogic  categorization ............................................................................................................................... 223   Narrative  actions ........................................................................................................................................................................ 223   Interactive  actions ..................................................................................................................................................................... 225   Adaptive  actions.......................................................................................................................................................................... 226   Communicative  actions............................................................................................................................................................ 227   Productive  actions ..................................................................................................................................................................... 228  

Dimension  2:  Groupings .............................................................................................................................. 229   Dimension  3:  Timings................................................................................................................................... 230   Dimension  4:  Texts......................................................................................................................................... 231   Dimension  5:  Tools......................................................................................................................................... 233   Summary  of  dimensions .............................................................................................................................. 234   Verification  with  action  research  data................................................................................................. 235   Integration  with  task-­‐based  learning  theory..................................................................................... 241   Defining  a  blended  task ........................................................................................................................................................... 241  

ix

Comparing  task  vs.  technology............................................................................................................................................. 242   Verification  of  the  task/technology  relationship ......................................................................................................... 245   Multiple  technologies  within  a  task.................................................................................................................................... 247   Strategies  in  designing  tasks ................................................................................................................................................. 248   PRINCIPLES  FOR  BLENDED  PROGRAM  DESIGN ................................................................................................249  

Principle  1:  Collaboration .......................................................................................................................... 251   Principle  2:  Localization ............................................................................................................................. 251   Principle  3:  Variability................................................................................................................................. 252   Principle  4:  Accountability......................................................................................................................... 252   CHAPTER  SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................254   CHAPTER  8:    SUMMARY,  IMPLICATIONS  AND  FURTHER  RESEARCH.............................. 256   REVIEW  OF  AIM,  SCOPE,  AND  QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................256   SUMMARY  OF  FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................256   Major  findings  in  the  autoethnographic  approach......................................................................... 256   Major  findings  in  the  action  research  approach .............................................................................. 257   Major  findings  in  the  ethnographic  approach .................................................................................. 258   RESEARCH  CONTRIBUTIONS...............................................................................................................................259   Contributions  to  theory ............................................................................................................................... 259   Redefinition  of  technology  for  second  language  learning ........................................................................................ 259   Integration  of  CALL  and  applied  linguistics  with  an  expanded  TBL  theory ..................................................... 260  

Contributions  to  practice............................................................................................................................ 261   Contributions  to  research  methodology............................................................................................... 262   APPLICABILITY  AND  IMPLICATIONS..................................................................................................................263   Applicability  of  the  findings....................................................................................................................... 263   Implications  for  CALL  research................................................................................................................ 264   Implications  for  teacher  education ........................................................................................................ 265   Directions  for  future  research .................................................................................................................. 266   SUMMARY  OF  THESIS ...........................................................................................................................................267   REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 270   APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 295   APPENDIX  A:    AUTOETHNOGRAPHY  ACADEMIC  REVIEW .............................................................................295   APPENDIX  B:    AUTOETHNOGRAPHY  CRITICAL  INCIDENTS ...........................................................................300   APPENDIX  C:    AUTOETHNOGRAPHY  THEMES .................................................................................................303   APPENDIX  D:    ETHNOGRAPHIC  INTERVIEW  EXTRACTS ................................................................................304   APPENDIX  E:    ACTION  RESEARCH  INTERVIEW  EXTRACTS ...........................................................................308   APPENDIX  F:    ETHICS  APPLICATION  FOR  RESEARCH ....................................................................................310  

INDEX OF TABLES Table 1.1. Challenges of blending technologies in second language learning .............................. 5   Table 2.1 Summary of approaches in second language teaching ............................................... 15   Table 2.2. Summary of issues in blended approaches.................................................................. 30   Table 2.3. Types of blended learning by Smith and Kurthen ....................................................... 33   Table 2.4. Views of computer use in second language learning ................................................... 37   Table 2.5. Terminology used in describing blended and non-blended learning .......................... 38   Table 2.6. Areas of normalization in language programs ............................................................ 39   Table 2.7. Normalization strategies for CALL by Chambers and Bax.......................................... 41  

x

Table 2.8. Qualities and definitions of single-venue learning and blended learning .................. 44   Table 3.1. Questions of reflexivity and principles of good practice in research ......................... 50   Table 3.2. Research questions for a contextual inquiry into CALL ............................................. 52   Table 3.3. Perspectives on action research.................................................................................. 62   Table 3.4. Examples of researcher actions to establish positionality ........................................... 64   Table 3.5. Validity types and sample questions............................................................................ 67   Table 3.6. Tactics to increase internal validity in action research ............................................... 68   Table 3.7. Aim, key concepts, assumptions, and frameworks ...................................................... 80   Table 3.8. Evaluating research questions in blended language learning .................................... 82   Table 3.9. Research paradigm, approaches and site selection strategy ...................................... 84   Table 3.10. Stages and steps in a cycle of action research .......................................................... 85   Table 3.11. Sites, methods, participants, data collection, and data analysis............................... 86 Table 3.12. Positionality choices applied to multiple sites .......................................................... 87 Table 3.13. Validity and trustworthiness questions applied to sites of this study ........................ 88   Table 3.14. Ethical questions in action research ......................................................................... 89   Table 4.1. Criteria for evaluation of autoethnographic research ............................................... 92 Table 4.2. Sample data from the academic review...................................................................... 96 Table 4.3. Autoethnography themes and sub-themes .................................................................. 97   Table 4.4. ‘Intensive formats’ sub-theme data summary .............................................................. 99   Table 4.5. ‘Experiential settings’ sub-theme data summary ...................................................... 101   Table 4.6. ‘Overseas participants’ sub-theme data summary.................................................... 103   Table 4.7. ‘Performance-based assessment’ sub-theme data summary..................................... 104   Table 4.8. Pedagogy shifts ........................................................................................................ 106   Table 4.9. ‘Learner-centered modalities’ sub-theme data summary ........................................ 108   Table 4.10. ‘Student-generated content’ sub-theme data summary ........................................... 109   Table 4.11. ‘Computer-automated management’ sub-theme data summary ............................. 111   Table 4.12. ‘Teacher-designed texts’ sub-theme data summary ................................................ 112   Table 4.13. ‘Collaborative curriculum design’ sub-theme data summary................................. 113   Table 4.14. Role shifts ................................................................................................................ 115   Table 4.15. ‘Affordable economics’ sub-theme data summary ................................................. 117   Table 4.16. ‘Face-to-face groupings’ sub-theme data summary ............................................... 119   Table 4.17. ‘Flexible spaces’ sub-theme data summary ............................................................ 121   Table 4.18. ‘Engaging interfaces’ sub-theme data summary..................................................... 122   Table 4.19. ‘Integrated web tools’ sub-theme data summary .................................................... 125   Table 4.20. Technology shifts..................................................................................................... 127   Table 4.21. Summary of autoethnographic blended language learning themes ........................ 128   Table 4.22. Summary of autoethnographic shifts in pedagogy, roles, & technologies.............. 129   Table 4.23. Self-evaluation of the autoethnography approach ................................................... 131   Table 5.1. Cycles of the action research approach .................................................................... 137   Table 5.2. EFL classes involved in Cycle One interventions at Kita University ....................... 138   Table 5.3. Cycle One intervention results and evaluation ......................................................... 147   Table 5.4. Comparison of the CALL room and wireless blended rooms at Kita U. .................. 148   Table 5.5. Application Development Priorities, Funding, and Schedule................................... 150   Table 5.6. Action research planning for a vocabulary study module ........................................ 151   Table 5.7. Cycle Two intervention results and evaluation ......................................................... 159   Table 5.8. Cycle Three intervention results and evaluation....................................................... 168   Table 5.9. Combined interventions over three cycles of action research .................................. 168 Table 5.10. Action research results and evaluation points clustered into themes ..................... 167 Table 5.11. Cross-cycle thematic analysis ................................................................................. 172  

xi

Table 5.12. Research quality assessment for action research approach ................................... 173   Table 6.1. Data collection at Minami University ...................................................................... 182   Table 6.2 Summary of selected participants at Minami University. ......................................... 184 Table 6.3. Summary of interview participants, initial codes and descriptions .......................... 187   Table 6.4. Summary of initial codes, principal actors, and major themes.................................. 188   Table 6.5. Summary of major themes and principal actors of the ethnography ........................ 188 Table 6.6. Summary of major themes and principal actors of the ethnography ........................ 201 Table 6.7. Summary of ethnography: Shifts in leadership, personnel, infrastructure ............... 203   Table 6.8. Quality and trustworthiness of the ethnographic study ............................................ 205   Table 6.9. Research quality assessment for an ethnographic approach.................................... 206   Table 7.1. Summary of themes from combined research approaches........................................ 209   Table 7.2. Data themes organized by research questions: technol./programs/power ................ 211   Table 7.3. Critical perspectives on the tool dimensions of technologies ................................... 216   Table 7.4. Shea’s framework of blended learning environments ............................................... 217   Table 7.5. Analysis of technology dimensions from autoethnographic data.............................. 219   Table 7.6. Dimensions of language learning technologies ........................................................ 221   Table 7.7. Summary of the pedagogic technology actions by Laurillard.................................... 223   Table 7.8. Cross-site analysis of pedagogic technology types ................................................... 224   Table 7.9. Grouping and spatial dimensions of technologies .................................................... 231   Table 7.10. Timing dimensions in technologies .......................................................................... 233   Table 7.11. Text dimensions in technologies............................................................................... 235   Table 7.12. Tool dimensions in technologies .............................................................................. 236   Table 7.13. A multi-dimensional description of carouselling technology................................... 239   Table 7.14. Confirmation of carouselling technology descriptions by critical friends.............. 240   Table 7.15. Descriptions of video assessment technology ......................................................... 241 Table 7.16. Definitions of task in second language learning theory.......................................... 245 Table 7.17. Classroom observation data categorized by task elements..................................... 248 Table 7.18. Technology analysis of an EFL speech-making task (Class07) .............................. 249   Table 7.19. Data themes related to program design & institutional culture key words ............. 252   Table 7.20. Principles, values and guidelines of technological change .................................... 251   Table 8.1. Summary of themes in the autoethnographic approach............................................ 259   Table 8.2. Summary of themes in the action research approach ............................................... 260   Table 8.3. Summary of themes in the ethnographic approach ................................................... 260   Table 8.4. Conceptual shifts in technology dimensions ............................................................. 257   Table 8.5. Conceptual shifts in second language learning theory ............................................. 258   Table 8.6. Types of blended learning knowledge/skills for teacher education .......................... 268   Table 8.7. Conceptual framing of a blended approach to learning environments ..................... 264  

INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 3.1. Figure 3.2. Figure 6.1. Figure 7.1. Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3. Figure 7.4.

Four paradigms of research by Rossman and Rallis ............................................... 48 Two models of educational enquiry........................................................................... 65 Minami University administrative and research management structure ............... 191 Dimensions of a language learning technology ...................................................... 237 A multi-dimensional description of carouselling technology ................................. 239 A multi-dimensional description of video assessment technology ......................... 242 Relationship of technologies employed in an EFL speech task............................... 250

xii

PART I: ISSUES, CONTEXTS, AND INQUIRY INTO BLENDED ENVIRONMENTS Chapter 1: Introduction to technologies and language learning Chapter 2: Theoretical foundations of blended language learning Chapter 3: Research in blended environments

xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING The intent of this thesis is to examine how technologies are combined in face-to-face and online second language (L2) learning environments. This thesis explores the development of blended language learning approaches at two universities and builds preliminary frameworks for understanding the design and configuration of technologies at the classroom level and the institutional program level. This introductory chapter states the context of the study by first presenting challenges facing learners, teachers, materials developers, researchers, and institutions that motivate research into technologies and foreign language learning. Following this, I propose the aim, scope, approach, research design, and overview of the study. Motivated by the desire to create rich and engaging learning environments, foreign language teachers have long been encouraged to adopt digital technologies in their programs (Boswood, 1997; Egbert & Hanson-Smith, 2007; Higgins & Johns, 1984; Levy & Stockwell, 2006). Nonetheless, many tertiary instructors struggle to integrate these new technologies into their teaching as issues in professional development, institutional leadership and curriculum design hamper efforts to incorporate technologies into otherwise everyday instructional practices (Chambers & Bax, 2006). Why does the use of technologies in the classroom, and to applied linguistics in general, tend to present such a formidable challenge? One reason may be that the techniques and technologies in faceto-face instruction need greater emphasis and incorporation into integration planning. This may justify the use of blended learning, the principled combination of face-to-face and online learning environments into classrooms and programs.

CHALLENGES WITH BLENDING TECHNOLOGIES There is no consensus in the language learning field on how online and digital tools should be blended or integrated with classroom instruction (Egbert, Huff, McNeil, Preuss & Sellen, 2009). This thesis is motivated by a number of challenges as learners, teachers, material developers, researchers, and institutions attempt to build blended language learning environments.

1

Challenges for learners and teachers At the classroom level, learners and teachers struggle with technologies in terms of authenticity, learner fit, modalities, and time management. To serve the needs of foreign language learners, an environment that most closely resembles authentic use of a target language (Chapelle & Liu, 2007) and communicates with authentic audiences (Johnston, 2007) are necessary conditions for successful language learning in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) environments (Egbert & Hanson-Smith, 2007). In addition, learners also have individual preferences, backgrounds, and priorities (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003) as they enter online and face-to-face environments, and may reject one that does not account for their needs. For teachers using collaborative or social technologies, ‘instructing’ is now a less important skill than ‘facilitating’. Although facilitative roles have long been expected of teachers, including CALL instructors (Warschauer & Healey, 1998), this shift may be challenging to teachers accustomed to tightly controlled classroom activities or CALL pedagogies that focus on tutorial drills. Furthermore, skepticism from classroom teachers, who reject CALL or react negatively to new technologies (Egbert & Thomas, 2001), may be related to the difficulty of implementing non-verbal communication and verbal spoken discourse online. Lamy and Hampel (2007) acknowledge that online learning tools provide reduced contexts and “disembodied environments, unable to replicate modes such as gestures or touch” (p. 38). In addition, there are concerns with non-movable computer furniture that can impede natural communication patterns in pairs and groups (Hanson-Smith, 2007). These fears may contribute to a perception that CALL technologies are often considered an alternative venue to face-to-face venues, rather than as tools to be integrated together with classroom techniques. Finally, time management is an issue as the time required to learn new digital literacies can detract from learning a new language, particularly when teachers overuse digital tools and are unable “…to identify when not to use a technology” (Kessler, 2006, p. 25).

Challenges for researchers and developers At a more global level, researchers, materials designers, and software developers struggle with technologies in terms of competing pedagogic metaphors, separated classroom and online tasks, and emerging collaborative forms of learning. A core issue for researchers is competing metaphors of how languages are learned. Second language acquisition has

2

been criticized as a dominant metaphor based on cognitive theory (Kramsch, 2002b; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Cognitive theory focuses on processes of perception, consciousness and memory within the brain of an individual. Its metaphor of learning uses information processing—particularly the terms of ‘input’ and ‘output’. The problem with over-reliance on this model is that learners do not solely learn a language in isolation, within their own minds, but socially, through tasks that a learning community undertakes. In contrast, some second language learning theorists propose socio-cultural approaches (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2007) and ecological perspectives on language learning (Leather & van Dam, 2002; van Lier, 2004). This perspective argues that computer networks need not exist not as a separate world, but can be integrated within physical communities of learners and especially in face-to-face classrooms where teachers use them in creative ways for language learning. Often online components are embedded within a larger classroom task and form gathering points for sharing information and initiating communication. These conditions require a broader metaphor or multiple metaphors to accommodate the non-cognitive aspects of a language learner’s world that SLA theory has difficulty incorporating into its models. Another problem facing researchers and designers is the change to collaborative learning and conceiving tasks in a blended world. Task-based learning researchers (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Ellis, 2003) focus on classroom tasks, often ignoring how tasks change in CALL and Web 2.0 environments (Thomas & Reinders, 2010). In addition, task design changes in a collaborative world. Instead of solely authoring a text or multimedia presentation, a designer must facilitate a process that involves learner-created texts. Collaboration is not just an initial design stage, but it also continues throughout the learning process. Levy and Stockwell (2006) describe early ‘tutorial’ models of CALL as better fit for single learners in isolation, but not inclusive enough for the collaborative, communicative aims of complex learning scenarios.

Challenges for administrators and institutions At the institutional level, administrators and institutions are challenged with an overcentralized process of selecting new technologies, a tool-centric bias that favors electronic devices over other forms of technology, and teachers’ individualistic or fragmented approaches to using pedagogic technologies. Administrators face problems determining which new technologies should be selected and funded to further the

3

institutions’ aims. In a section on technological integration in CALL, Levy and Stockwell (2006), quoting Postman (1993) question the term, ‘integration’. Integration assumes change is additive, that by adding some technology, it can be improved. However, in Postman’s ecological view, technology is neither additive, nor subtractive, but rather ‘ecological’ in that a single minor change, changes the whole system. Thus institutions, with their historically developed cultures and practices, cannot lightly introduce changes. They recommend a number of principles to achieve ecological change of technologies in second language learning, including: • • •

Centralizing the role of design and evaluation as core dimensions of CALL Conducting small-scale evaluation or action research studies Expanding the teacher’s role to include design and materials development

These principles suggest that centralized models of CALL, where universal designs are created by expert designers and released to global markets of foreign language materials, may not be appropriate to achieve an incremental, ecological form of technology integration. From a techno-centric context, researchers in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) have suggested ‘normalization’ of computer use in classrooms as an important goal (Bax, 2003; Chambers & Bax, 2006). The problem with the normalization view is that the computer is the center of attention rather than asking how an innovative classroom process (such as task-based learning) can take advantage of computer technologies. Administrators with tool-centric thinking see electronic devices as an educational panacea and subsequently may be saddled with underused and wasted investments (Cuban, 2001). Another problem in institutional programs is that high-tech innovations too often involve ‘lone wolves’ whose work fails to be sustained because of a focus on the ‘novelty effects’ of computers (Hubbard, 2005). Abandonment and underuse of computers in education is often unexamined though other researchers have attributed poor sustainability to the lack of experience, on-site support, time and access to technologies (Mumtaz, 2000; Moser, 2007) and issues to do with logistics, stakeholder abilities, syllabus integration and training, development and support (Chambers & Bax, 2006).

4

Summary of challenges with blending technologies The problems of blending technologies are wide-ranging and the affect learners, teachers, developers, researchers, administrators and institutions at many levels. Table 1.1 summarizes the issues described in this chapter. Table 1.1. Challenges of blending technologies in second language learning Stakeholders

Challenges of blending technology

Key References

Learners & Teachers

Inappropriate task authenticity

Chapelle & Liu (2007)

Inauthentic, infrequent target language involvement

Johnston (2007)

Improper fit with learner preferences and priorities

Dörnyei & Skehan (2003)

Resistance to facilitative roles

Warschauer & Healey (1998)

Fear of sacrificing face-to-face communication

Lamy and Hampel (2007)

Inflexible teaching environments

Hanson-Smith (2007)

Inappropriate selection of technologies

Kessler (2006)

Competing metaphors of language learning

Kramsch (2002b)

Separated classroom and online tasks

Thomas & Reinders (2010)

Overemphasis on tutorial, individualized learning

Levy & Stockwell (2006)

Over-centralized technology selection

Levy & Stockwell (2006)

Tool-centric integration patterns

Chambers & Bax (2006)

Novelty effects, lone wolves, and abandonment

Hubbard (2005)

Researchers & Developers

Administrators & Institutions

These issues and problems are related and intertwined, suggesting an ecological perspective such as blended learning can address the challenges of learners, teachers, developers, researchers and institutions by examining the question of learning environment design from multiple perspectives.

AIM AND SCOPE The aim of this thesis, therefore, is to establish a preliminary framework for blending technologies in foreign language learning. To create such a framework, this investigation explores blended second language learning environments, establishes a cross-venue

5

definition of ‘technology’, and identifies institutional attributes that promote the blending of technologies. In addition, I specify the relationship of ‘technologies’ and ‘task’ in blended environments in order to incorporate both CALL activities and classroom activities into common frameworks of task-based learning. To reach that aim, this research describes how teachers design the learning environments in their classrooms and how institutions design environments in their foreign language program, focusing especially on the criteria they use for designing activities.

RESEARCH APPROACH AND DESIGN To achieve this aim, the thesis investigates contexts of language learning. These contexts include a broad environment of human and physical agents working in language learning networks. For researching complex conditions in naturalistic settings, this study uses methods based upon a qualitative paradigm. I investigate the process of design in university teaching settings in an attempt to “maximize discovery of heterogeneous patterns and problems” through purposeful sampling (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993, p. 82). Rather than a random sampling of many possible teaching situations, Patton (1990) recommends selecting a few “information-rich cases whose study illuminate the questions under study” (p. 169).

Research questions The metaphor of ‘normalized’ use of computer technology in language learning classrooms and institutions (Chambers & Bax, 2006) has become a theme of CALL researchers (Levy & Stockwell, 2007). In addition, decontextualized software and hardware evaluation studies have been criticized (Egbert et al., 2009) in favor of studies that are contextualized within classroom and institutional situations. Therefore, this study examines blended learning environments empirically across large-scale EFL programs within two institutions committed to a ‘blended’ approach in the use of technology— adopting policies and facilities which combine face-to-face and online technologies. In order to answer the question of how technologies are blended in these foreign language programs, I investigate two thematic questions in this study: •

Question 1: What are the dimensions of technology in designing a blended language learning environment? (classroom level)

•

Question 2: What conditions in the institutional culture promote blending of technologies? (program level)

6

Research approach Based on a post-positivist philosophy, I select three research approaches appropriate for complex learning environments. These methodologies--action research, ethnography, and autoethnography--were employed to collect and analyze data from a multiple site, multiple cycle design, situated in tertiary institutions where communication occurs in at least two languages (a target L2 and a native L1). In an action research approach (Burns, 2010), I position myself as both participant and researcher throughout the project as it involves innovations and change in university environments. In an ethnographic approach with a second site, my position switches to a low-participation researcher in an outsider role (Herr & Anderson, 2005). For greater validity, an authoethnographic approach (Chang, 2008) of my own personal practice of designing pedagogy over the past thirty years provides further insight to compare with the themes of the two sites. Therefore, the research design is a descriptive, multiple-site qualitative study.

It

investigates teaching programs or classes where teachers are actively and aggressively experimenting in blended learning with task-based or project-based language learning approaches. The site studies are instrumental rather than intrinsic. In other words, the theme of blended learning dominates the study rather than a comprehensive assessment of the total environment of each case. The particulars of these two sites are not the focus of this inquiry, but are only important in their ability to illuminate the theoretical questions posed by this study. The approach is not to compare venues but to describe how venues are combined. Data collection involves interviewing teachers and administrators, reviewing diaries and action research reports of teaching team members, and observing classes and facilities in action.

Background of the sites The locations are selected in foreign language learning situations in Japan where blended language learning is currently and actively being used in university situations. It is a fiveyear longitudinal study, focusing on language learning programs where English is taught as a foreign language. Although the sites are chosen in Japan, the results may apply to

7

situations in technologically active countries where blended CALL experiments are active in tertiary EFL programs. In Japan and many parts of Asia, fluency in English is considered an important goal for corporate and government positions (Nunan, 2003). Among foreign languages, English is idealized as a tool of ‘internationalization’ and an embodiment of British and American culture rather than a global language (Seargeant, 2009). It also plays a role in general education advancement by its inclusion within entrance examinations for secondary and tertiary schools. Even for those students without international career aspirations, English is a required subject simply for entering a high school. This places English above other foreign languages in status and privileges those who can achieve proficiency its use. English is thus a mass-education program that is often a required subject in primary schools as well. In other parts of Asia, this condition is common. One estimate calculated over 137 million primary school students in 2005 were studying EFL in China alone (Graddol, 2006). In China, Korea, Japan, India, and most other countries in South Asia or Southeast Asia, English is a compulsory subject in university curricula. Within Japan, 3.1 million students are enrolled in universities and junior colleges (MEXT, 2011) with the majority of those taking one or more EFL classes during the typical four-year duration of studies. Mass EFL education means typical class sizes of 20-40 students. Lecture classes of over 100 students are not uncommon in these countries. Online learning or ‘e-learning’ of English has been seen as a possible solution to the administrative burden of handling these large numbers (Kawai, 2006). However, ‘e-learning’ has since been discredited in favor of blended learning at the tertiary level (Miyachi, 2009). In a summary of world language learning trends, Graddol (2006) notes that,

“attempts to create global

eUniversities have largely failed, though eLearning is proving to be a successful component in ‘blended learning’ offered by traditional institutions as well as in secondary education.” (p. 80). Within Japan, English as a foreign language is taught as a required subject for at least one year in primary school, six years in secondary school, and two years in many universities and tertiary schools. Despite its prominence, English is considered a ‘difficult’ and highly specialized skill that most people cannot imagine themselves mastering. This inferiority complex is self-fulfilling as few students learn to speak the

8

language or attempt to communicate when confronted with a foreign visitor (Seargeant, 2009). A common approach to teaching is to have students focus on grammar-translation and vocabulary memorization in order to prepare for nation-wide tests or for entrance examinations into high schools and universities (Nunan, 2003). The EFL curriculum in universities is often taught in Japan by a combination of strategies: 1) separated streams of classes, one by native speakers of Japanese (usually native-born Japanese) and another by native speakers of English (usually born in the UK, USA, Australia, Canada and other native speaking countries). These streams of classes have important political implications on the design of curriculum. Lecture-style pedagogies dominate and the architecture of large classrooms tends to be bolted down rows of seats facing theater-style to the front podium. Communication classes, conversely, use small classrooms with flexible seating arrangements. The two sites in this study mirror this situation, with class sizes averaging 20-30 students per class and requirements of up to eight classes of foreign language (typically EFL) for graduation.

Attributes of the research design The design of this study offers several contributions to the field, based on the following values: •

Contextualized: The study emphasizes institutional and classroom contexts as they affect the design of blended environments. It is a rich description of the administrative, pedagogic, technical, material landscape of large language learning programs.

•

Longitudinal: By covering five years of change within the sites, there is sufficient time to reveal the maturity of a technological intervention and its sustainability. Many apparently successful innovations reported at conferences or in journals are discontinued due to instructor fatigue or the unsustainability of resource requirements.

•

Comprehensive: Studies of CALL environments often cover a single condition (Egbert & Hanson-Smith, 2007). This study describes broad, institutional environments and tracks a number of changes over time. Furthermore, it examines environments not only from an SLA viewpoint but also from other theoretical perspectives such as second language instruction and second language socialization.

9

•

Applicable: This study is based in Japan where English is a compulsory foreign language subject with large size classes. Similar conditions exist in Asia, leading to estimates of EFL learning/using population approaching 350 million in China alone (Yang, 2006). As EFL is compulsory in secondary and tertiary education, I estimate that student population in formal EFL classes in China ranges between 50-100 million. The findings of this study will be applicable to foreign language programs in parts of the world faced with similar large class management conditions.

•

Practical: This study aims to create a principle-based framework for administrators, researchers and teachers to apply blended design principles that work in sustainable, incremental approaches that are appropriate and localized to individual institutions.

OVERVIEW This thesis consists of eight chapters documenting research on the theme of ‘blending technologies in foreign language programs’. Chapter 1 reviews problems of technologies in second language learning for various stakeholders and sets forth the aims, scope and approach of the research project. Chapter 2 discusses the historical context, current debates in theory, and issues of practice in the design of blended L2 environments, based on a cross-disciplinary approach incorporating models and studies in computer-assisted language learning, applied linguistics, and educational technology. Chapter 3 lays out the assumptions of the research philosophy, justifies the selection of approaches, and projects initial plans of the research design. Part II documents the data collection, analysis and display in Chapters 4-6. Chapter 4 uses an autoethnographic approach to retrospectively analyze thirty years of teaching practice developing blended language learning environments. Chapter 5 uses an action research approach to explore questions in my home institution as I work with research and teaching teams over three teaching cycles in a four-year period. Chapter 6 uses an ethnographic approach to explore an external site with a rich description of the blended environment, the institutional culture, and materials development process. Part III, Chapters 7-8, concludes the study. Chapter 7 proposes preliminary frameworks for a multi-dimensional view of technology and the institutional design of blended environments. Chapter 8 summarizes findings of the three

10

research approaches, claims contributions for research and practice, projects implications for second language learning, and suggests new areas of research.

11

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF BLENDED LANGUAGE LEARNING This chapter reviews theoretical concepts and debates concerning blended language learning environments. It begins by examining key concepts in the evolution of second language pedagogy, concluding that environment, not drill or task, plays the key role in designing blended language learning. Next, it describes current debates in the fields of applied linguistics and computer-assisted language learning (CALL). Core issues in the field of language learning theory are discussed, trends and gaps identified, and a set of unresolved questions posed. Finally, I review how blended learning has been defined and propose a broad, adapted conceptualization that is useful for planning and implementing curricular change in language learning programs.

THE EVOLUTION OF SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY The theoretical context of this study critically examines the evolution of second language pedagogy and defines the scope and elements of a ‘blended’ environment. The teaching of any subject, and particularly a second language, is a complex and often messy process. In applied linguistics, language is not only the object of study (content) but also the means of study (process). This has led to theories somewhat unique to second language learning and outside of more content-based fields in education, including changes in metaphors of language learning and concepts of what a ‘context’ is.

Changing metaphors: Instruction, acquisition, and socialization Like many professional crafts, L2 pedagogy is based upon both theories of practice and theories from academic disciplines. It is the ‘how’ of L2 teaching, evolving over the past fifty years in a succession of methods and methodologies (Richards, 2001). Grammarfocused structural teaching was replaced by audio-lingual methodologies, which then were largely discarded as more communicative approaches were adopted. Various fixedpattern methods (silent way, suggestopedia, total-physical response) gave way to a more flexible understanding of teaching by principles (Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Brown, 2007). Communicative teaching in the past two decades has been transformed from a broad collection of approaches to a more rigorous focus due to the influence of task-based

12

learning (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004). Task-based learning moved L2 teaching to concentrate on an individual’s communicative goal rather than the accuracy of the form. In all of these changes, the assumption remained that optimal second language learning depended on a teacher or a course designer selecting the right content and methodology that would match a group of learners in a school classroom. In the past two decades, however, negotiated syllabuses (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000), project-based learning (Fried-Booth, 2002; Debski, 2006) and other learnercentered approaches (Nunan, 2004) upset this simple design process by introducing less controllable tasks—often ones selected and configured by learners. Parallel to the evolution of pedagogical practice, metaphors of second language learning have evolved in three phases - from structured learning, to natural acquisition, and then to community socialization. In the pre-1970s, it was common to emphasize the formal ‘learning’ of structures and rules of the language itself (Bloomfield, 1933). This focused on the syntactical and semantic understanding of a target language along with contrastive analysis with one’s native grammatical system. In this era, the emphasis in learning was to achieve correct linguistic product, rather than to develop cognitive strategies or social process. Students were imitators, teachers used error correction to force accuracy, and researchers reduced linguistics to structural analysis of minute detail. The design world was drills-based on a fixed rule-set of grammar and vocabulary. The dominant metaphor was instruction and success was defined as native-like fluency and accuracy in the new language. This target language was learned through explicit transmission or imitation of content and rules from the teacher to the student. This collection of pedagogic methods, including structural, behavioral, and audio-lingual approaches is what I refer to as ‘second language instruction’, or ‘SLI’. Teachers and researchers questioned this approach as they noticed learners often required no instruction to learn a language, acquiring it through travel and immersion in its context. In the 1960s and 70s, cognitive perspectives on the innate mental construction of grammar (Chomsky, 1965) and the natural ‘acquisition’ of language outside of formal classroom situations (Krashen, 1982) began gaining interest. This was formalized in a vast body of research called second language acquisition, summarized thoroughly by Ellis (1994). Students were likened to black-box computers or ‘information processors’ that would learn more naturally if given appropriate input according to their individual

13

differences. Through consciousness raising exercises and strategy training, teachers could create tasks that prepare students for greater cognitive challenges. Researchers would study the mental construction of new syntax and lexis in predictable stages of interlanguage. The design world was one of teaching top-down and bottom-up strategies and tasks to build reading, writing, listening, and speaking competency skills (LarsenFreeman, 2000). Universal proficiencies of second language were tested with global tests of English (TOEIC, IELTS) and other languages. This collection of pedagogic methods, based on the metaphor of individuals ‘acquiring’ a language is what is commonly referred to as ‘second language acquisition’, or ‘SLA’. From the 1990s, sociocultural theories gained greater acceptance, focusing on the appropriate use of language for communication in authentic, purposeful communities. This led to Kramsch (2002b) calling for a ‘socialization’ metaphor to replace the acquisition metaphor. Similarly, Larson-Freeman and Cameron (2008) applied complexity theory to move from linear ‘acquisition’ models to complex ‘participation’ models of language learning. In this paradigm, students are seen as apprentices, learning the community norms, values, and styles from veteran members (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Learning is not sentence or discourse constructions, but verbal speech acts and non-verbal semiotic actions situated in real-community projects, and assessed by local accomplishments (Kramsch, 2002b). A teacher’s role is to facilitate students’ use of a foreign language in global learning communities. Researchers adopt a connectivist paradigm to understand the process of socialization within these environments (Seimens, 2005). The design world is not tasks or drills, but environments filled with agents (van Lier, 2007). This is a community of participation based on a model that is more ecological in its conception, indicating a web of actors, and their relations. The dominant metaphor in this era is ‘second language socialization’ or what I call, ‘SLS’. Pedagogy in CALL mirrored this history with a progression of approaches emphasizing these structural, cognitive, and socio-cognitive perspectives (Kern & Warschauer, 2000). Table 2.1 summarizes this broad outline of the history and context of L2 pedagogy.

14

Table 2.1 Summary of approaches in second language teaching Era

Pre-1980s

1980s-1990s

Post-2000

Dominant metaphor

Instruction

Acquisition

Socialization

Dominant theories

Structural

Cognitive

Sociocultural

Philosophic view

Reductionism

Constructivism

Connectivism

Role of learner

Imitator

Processor

Apprentice

Research focus

Sentence

Discourse

Acts, Semiotics

Pedagogic goals

Accuracy & Fluency

Skill & Strategy

Participation & Use

Pedagogic technique

Error-correction

Consciousnessraising

Project-creation

Pedagogic assessment

Products

Competencies

Norms

Pedagogic success

Native-like production

Global proficiencies

Local accomplishments

Design world

Drill

Task

Environment/Community

Design models

Fixed, Rule-based

Linear, Input-Output

Holistic, Ecological

Three broad metaphors dominate this history, suggesting a succession from instruction to acquisition to socialization. However, these eras are tentative and overlapping, reflecting a rough approximation of types of thinking and practice. Actually, I argue that the eras never have an ‘ending’ point, as all three are in common practice today and form our common sense as teachers. Philosophically, this model is both developmental and ontological in nature. It is developmental in the sense that the model suggests an evolutionary progression for the field--from reductionism to constructivism, and then to connectionism. Thus from a developmental perspective, an implication is that L2 pedagogy should emphasize a socialization approach, and not attempt to ‘balance’ the approaches. However, an ontological argument would assert that all three approaches or metaphors have continuing value, and each should be applied wherever the theory can provide useful answers to questions that teachers and researchers face. My assumption in

15

this study is that these three metaphors and their associated pedagogies have continuing usefulness in blended language learning and explain problems in different ways. So what are the questions that concern design of blended language learning? The complexities of decisions have mushroomed exponentially as old and new technologies are combined. The modus operandi of the average language teacher, choosing a prepackaged textbook may be too limited, too inflexible, and too simplistic for designing lessons that incorporate multiple media and venues. It is possible that pedagogy needs to be adopted with second language socialization as the primary aim, supported by second language instruction and acquisition as secondary aims. In this paradigm of second language socialization, it is increasingly clear that while individual tasks are an important part of the learning design, they are no longer the central point of view. Instead, tasks are a part of an ‘environment’ which becomes the core focus of analysis. Setting up an environment for learning is becoming the primary role of the teacher, rather than designing drills or tasks. Indeed, ‘facilitating’ an environment for learning is an even more appropriate word. Historically, second language acquisition research tended to ignore environment. For example, Ellis (2003) takes a strict view on course design, separating it from methodology, focusing purely on content, without stating ‘who’ is making the selection decisions: “…course design is concerned with the selection of and sequencing of content—the ‘what’ of teaching” while methodology “addresses the ‘how’ of teaching, i.e. the participatory structure of the classroom and the actual teaching procedures” (p. 205). Notice that the participatory structure of the classroom has little to do with course design. Furthermore, in his view, content and methodology selection are not only separated, but more significantly, are assumed to be the whole design process. In an environmental view, design includes all the spaces, people and activities in a system. For language learning, this view is further expanded beyond the classroom with the inclusion of ‘authentic audience’ into the system - broadening the scope of the learning community (Egbert & Hanson-Smith, 2007). Second, if the participatory structure of the course is project-based, this could mean students, not teachers, are selecting the content themselves and engaging in a purposeful community with aims of its own. ‘Course design’, the selection and sequencing of content, then begins to disappear to be replaced by an organic, emergent form of student-selected content. By denying a teacher-led a

16

priori sequencing of content, this comes reduces the importance of interlanguage directing a linear sequence of content and grammatical form. In this scenario, a core tenet of the second language acquisition metaphor may no longer play a central role in syllabus design. Methodology and content are not gone from an environmental perspective; they are now elements and conditions within the environment. In the past, environment was often ignored or considered a separate issue in the view of second language acquisition research. In fact, the bulk of research in the past decade has focused on the methodology of task-based learning, most notably with Willis (1996; 2004) and Willis and Willis (2007). In this approach, procedure, goals and roles are the focus. These are critical factors, but they do not account for all the factors that comprise a large part of the environment, or what Ellis (2000) calls, ‘sociolinguistic variables’. For many second language acquisition researchers, methodology and environment are separate. Methodology was the procedures of teaching, while environment was the conditions surrounding the teaching situation. Environment was something ‘taken into consideration’ but not actively designed. However, in more systemic (Egbert, HansonSmith & Chao, 2007) and ecological (van Lier, 2004) perspectives, environment is not a surrounding climate, but an all-inclusive description of procedures, content, people, tools, and conditions that affect learning. One of these conditions or tools is networked computers. Unfortunately, technological factors have rarely been given a significant role in the task-based learning view of pedagogy and environment. In the task-based learning view described by Bygate, Skehan and Swain (2001), Ellis (2003) and Willis (2004), human-prescribed methodology was the sole active component as it comprised the planned activities and instructions that the teacher could control. Computers and networks, rooms and blackboards, tapes and videos, notebooks and desks - all of these were considered passive, inert bodies. Other parts of the environment were considered even more marginalized, comprising the given institutional and social conditions surrounding the classroom. However, according to van Lier (2002), these ‘conditions’ have agency and actively design the way communication happens. With online networks, teachers can actively configure the communicative environment. Furthermore, curriculum, institutional policy, and social factors are too important to be considered ‘uncontrollable conditions’. In the TBL view, context

17

surrounds the learning. In a blended, ecological view the context is the learning network. In this view, ‘context’ and ‘environment’ are interchangeable terms. Teacher-planned methodology is part of the environment, but no longer plays the dominating role. Arranging and facilitating the context/environment for learning becomes the preoccupation of the teacher/designer. Thus second language pedagogy is evolving from a focus on selection of content and methodology to the process of facilitation of whole environments. An environmental view includes the design of tasks, audiences, strategies, policies and management that extend beyond the teacher’s responsibility to include learner responsibility and institutional responsibility.

The centrality of environment Within blending learning, the process of pedagogic design is becoming increasingly focused on environment. In second language acquisition studies and task-based approaches, environment was considered the context or surrounding climate - a minor role in pedagogic design. Task planning was central to the design process, accompanied by consciousness-raising activities to build learning strategies. Now under the influence of socio-cultural theories and ecological perspectives, environment is focus of design because it forms the process of socialization into a target language and culture. An example of this new focus is the model of CALL environments proposed by Egbert and Hanson-Smith (2007). However, in this framework it is not clear how far the environment extends beyond the individual learner. What kind of interaction is there between class members or their families, friends, or peers on the internet? In addition, it does not deal with issues of curriculum (how does the particular class fit into a larger program and how is it assessed?), issues of social expectations (why do learners in some nations assume they must learn multiple languages to be educated, while monolingualism is considered normal in others?), or even issues of technology (how do online activities mediate the learning process?). For our purposes, we need a framework that gives a systematic way to analyze the multiple roles humans and technological tools are interacting and co-creating the environment. It should explain who is involved in the designing of the environment, what they design, what are the functions being designed, and who/what occupies those functions. Sociocultural theory points to community as the defining principle that holds together all the elements of environment. Whereas community is traditionally considered a distant

18

environment apart from school that teachers prepare students for after they graduate, situated learning suggests the peripheral participation in the community is actually the most legitimate form of learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In the Lave and Wenger model, learning happens in social practice. Learners are apprentices in a community of practice. The lines between school and society are deliberately blurred, and new social practices involving learning apprentices engaged in learning ‘work’ are designed. In this view, community is the key descriptor of environment, which is placed at the center of the design model. For second language learning, the work of an apprentice-student is to learn a language in the process of engaging in a purposeful (not just simulated or imagined) community. This community may be built around the intercultural exchange of sister schools, a shared website between classes in two countries, a migrant language maintenance social networking site, or simply a cohort community of classmates. In a foreign language learning situation, it may be more difficult to foster a target language community. Students in monolingual classes are often wholly surrounded by their native language, and often revert to using their L1. In this case, the community may not be a working community, but a learning community—students, teachers and peers engaged in and out of their classroom to learn about foreign languages and cultures. Thus, the design of environment focuses on participation in a community, as in the continuous process of co-creating and facilitating a community environment for second language learning.

Constructivist and ecological learning perspectives From this background, social constructivist and ecological principles of learning form a core assumption in this study. In a social constructivist perspective, knowledge and skills are constructed and situated within a learning community and embedded in practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). A teacher’s role is to create an environment where learners can easily share knowledge and be supported by peers and mentors. Rather than discern the truth, or select the appropriate truth for a particular level of learning, the teacher’s role is to facilitate, coach, and counsel. Recently, sociological and cultural aspects of learning have grown in influence over psychological aspects of second language learning (Lantolf, 2000). The notion that language learning is a socially-driven phenomenon has led to socio-cultural theories applied to L2 learning including the study of mediation, activity, scaffolding, and communities of practice (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).

19

Socio-cultural theory applied to education is concerned with developing the community environment of learning. This includes attention to the roles of the individual, the group of co-learners, and the teacher/facilitator. Vygotsky emphasized the ‘active world’ surrounding the student as the primary factor in learning, as opposed to the Piaget focus on the ‘active mind’ (Daniels, 2001). This social environment is, for Vygotsky, more important in constructing new ideas, skills, and knowledge. If the surrounding social “zone of proximal development” is rich in relevant learning tools and content, a learner will grow through collaboration with others in that zone. Learning objects in this model are often not pre-determined, but negotiated collaboratively and often added ‘just-intime’ as needs arise. Collaboration acts as the basis of the educational philosophy of social constructivism—learning happens in interaction with community. Recent interpretations of socio-cultural theory to language learning involve ecologicalsemiotic perspectives on L2 learning (van Lier, 2002; Tudor, 2003). Likewise, Kramsch (2002b), van Lier (2004) and Lafford (2009) advocate open-ended approaches to language learning based on ecological metaphors. In her introduction, Kramsch (2002b) proposes ecological metaphors are needed to replace mechanistic ones. She contrasts language acquisition, which defines successful language learning as producing target forms of the language, with language socialization that seeks successful communication within the norms of a particular community. They focus on broad and deep contexts that expand communication far beyond symbolic representations of language. By expanding a linguistic perspective to a semiotic one--the study of signs and sign-making in the environment—it is easier to describe the complexity of blended learning situations. A study of materialistic semiotics or ‘actor network theory’ (Law, 2004; Latour, 2005) is useful for describing these complex systems because it is more objectivist in that it ignores the primacy of human consciousness, treating material objects and technological processes with equality to human agents.

CURRENT DEBATES IN LANGUAGE LEARNING THEORY In the previous sections, I examined major metaphors of second language pedagogy and how they suggest an emerging central role of environment and ecological perspectives. This section examines specific theoretical issues and dilemmas facing the second language learning field and CALL theory in particular. I examine four key questions of

20

language learning theory and then discuss how the theme of blended language learning changes this debate: • • • •

The issue of metaphors: What are the best ways to conceptualize second language learning? The issue of cognition: What mental and social processes most influence second language learning? The issue of success: How do we judge achievement in second language learning? The issue of design: How should second language learning be organized and taught?

Issue of metaphors As discussed earlier, a major debate in second language learning (L2 pedagogy) is the model or metaphor for the theory of second language learning. Before the 70s, very little theorizing on second language learning was formulated. Teachers taught the language explicitly, usually focusing on reading and writing, using a transmission approach. The metaphor was ‘instruction’. Then, for the past 20-30 years, the primary model has been second language acquisition. This model has been useful for understanding the naturalistic processes of learning a language. Yet at its core it is mechanistic in nature. Second language acquisition often uses linear, causal metaphors, such ‘input-output’, ‘information processing’ or the ‘learner as computer’ (Ellis, 1994). Learning is considered a series of developmental stages of interlanguage, which follow a steady stepby-step progression of levels of difficulty. The input hypothesis (Krashen, 1982) suggests comprehensible input of language is the beginning of this progression. The underlying assumption of research is that there is a universal process to learning a language and that it exists as a mental process within an individual. In classroom-based language acquisition, a teacher should design the inputs properly and specify the appropriate outputs. Then learners will ‘acquire’ a language in a process more like learning a first language. Success is defined in terms of outputs such as ‘proficiency’ or being able to produce target forms of the second language. Language testing checks these forms and assigns a proficiency level to a student. The value of a language teaching program is directly judged by the scores of those tests. Second language acquisition theory has been applied to CALL environments using frameworks developed by Chapelle (2001) and Egbert, Hanson-Smith and Chao (2007). Chapelle (2001) recommends six SLA criteria for evaluating CALL tasks: a) degree of opportunity for focus on form; b) fit with individual learner characteristics; c) extent of

21

focus on language meaning; d) correspondence of CALL activity with the out-ofclassroom world; e) positive effects on participants; and f) adequacy of resources to support the task (p. 55). In this model, the computer is used to increase the quantity and quality of inputs, outputs, and feedback. In the Egbert, Hanson-Smith and Chao (2007) model, an optimal language learning environment is composed of eight necessary conditions: • Interaction: Learners have opportunities to interact and negotiate meaning. • Authentic Audience: Learners interact in the target language with an authentic audience. • Authentic Task: Learners are involved in authentic tasks. • Exposure and Production: Learners are exposed to and encouraged to produce varied and creative language. • Time and Feedback: Learners have enough time and feedback. • Intentional Cognition: Learners are guided to attend mindfully to the learning process. • Atmosphere: Learners work in an atmosphere with an ideal stress/anxiety level. • Autonomy: Learner autonomy is supported. These SLA-based guidelines address learner needs and the cognitive and affective processes they experience. Similarly, when these conditions are met, language acquisition will presumably occur. The problem with these models is they do not answer what to do in a classroom and how to design an online/classroom environment. They tell us what an individual learner needs, not what a teacher should do. Notice the word metaphor and model are used rather interchangeably here. In postpositivist thought, theories are constructed realities, subject to reinterpretation, and thus not an external object to be ‘proven’ or ‘disproven’. Kramsch’s use of ‘metaphor’ sounds softer and less scientific than a ‘model’, yet both are intended here in the same sense, as reinterpretable conceptions of theory. For blended language learning, an ecological metaphor is most useful because inputs are not clear, coming from multiple sources (such as other students, web searches, postings on a website). Secondly, the inputs and outputs are not linear, and cannot be seen in multiple linear paths in parallel. They form a lattice of relationships because learners are constantly forming/reforming groups for learning, rarely taking an individual path. For

22

example, in the single-learner-in-isolation paradigm, if each learner is completely differentiated by ability, background, learning styles, and interests, each learner would ideally have his or her own learning path. A researcher may still apply the cognitive second language acquisition models and argue that a clever (and very busy) teacher could devise a separate and unique path for each student. Even better would be the teacher that trains his or her students in learning strategies so they could correctly chose inputs that fit themselves. Notice the focus is on the internal world of the learner, even in analyzing his or her own learning styles and corresponding learning strategies. The outputs of each student never connect and need never connect, as language learning tasks are just ‘practice’ for later real-world application. In a project-based learning pedagogy, outcomes are complicated. The initial topic and inputs can be learner-selected or learner-defined, and subsequent outputs can be equally diverse. Thus with multiple inputs and outputs required, and multiple grouping involved, single input-single output second language acquisition models would be useless. And if students were allowed a learning process with variable outputs according to their goals or interests, standardized tests of proficiency based on second language acquisition models would be useless for comparing students with each other. Factor into this complexity a process that is based on contingency or one that features a process syllabus, then there will be no predictable path or set of manageable resources to prescribe to students. Furthermore, if group work were added to the learning process, an individual cognitive model would be hard-pressed to provide understanding in the learning process. The ecological metaphor interconnects all of these psychological, social and environmental factors and focuses attention on affordances in the environment which foster learning ‘emergence’ (van Lier, 2002; 2004).

Issue of cognition A second debate in second language learning theory is whether learning is primarily individual or primarily social--the issue of how cognition and collaboration coexist. Learning in groups and pairs, ‘collaboration’, is commonly used in face-to-face classrooms and increasingly in online venues, within forums, chat rooms, wikis and other activities. As language learning theory moves from an emphasis on cognitive theories of learning (inside the mind) to collaborative theories of learning (inside social environments), then we might expect research to focus on both the intended collaborative

23

process designed by the facilitator and the actual process as it happened in teams of learners. For online learning, guidelines for collaborative L2 tasks have been outlined by Gruba (2004b) and Ganem-Gutierrez (2003). These largely disregard cognitive process, instead describing roles and behavior of learners and mentors. In contrast, Chapelle (2001) and Willis (2004) emphasize cognitive processes for instructor-led classes, with slight

attention

paid

to

‘socio-affective’

processes.

Ellis

(2000)

compares

psycholinguistic and sociocultural perspectives to task design, and concludes that psycholinguistic models are useful for planning tasks in advance while sociocultural models are appropriate for improvisation of tasks during implementation. His assumption was that tasks should be pre-planned, and therefore are teacher-centered, or designercentered by default. The debate over individual versus social influences is actually a broad one that covers all educational theories of learning, introducing mediation, activity theory, situated learning, embedded cognition, and distributed cognition (i.e. communities of practice). Lave and Wenger (1991) propose learning is not disembodied mental activity or ‘learning as internalization’, but rather ‘learning as participation’. Instead of learning as a step-bystep process of internalizing outside experiences (including school instruction), learning is social practice and cognition is socially negotiated meaning. They observe that the internalization metaphor also assumes learning is an ahistorical, universal process. However, learning is situated in time. Communities have histories and communities are embedded in societies with histories. As classroom teachers, we rarely imagine our students as a community with a history. When the term ends, grades are submitted, papers thrown away, data wiped clean from the past term, and we start again fresh. However, if we think beyond a single-term mindset, and carry forward student knowledge (best projects, wiki knowledge banks and glossaries), a community begins to form with a history. It then makes sense to involve older, veteran members of the community to assist in training the novice members entering in a new term. So groups are learning, not just individuals. In a similar view, Viseu (2000) observes: “Cognition is not primarily an internal process, but one that is socially shared. The social, however, is constituted by more than people. It is constituted by 'hybrid' networks, or sets of relationships created among people through the use of artifacts. Without these artifacts, the relationships could not be established/ maintained and hence cognition would not function the way it does.” (p. 1)

24

In learning environments, an artifact might be a website where documents or projects are stored. It might be a place to congregate online or a photo album of past events. An artifact is piece of group knowledge or an evidence of group learning. Through artifacts, memories are held and communities are built. In a second language learning community, an artifact may be a project or collection of projects where students use a target language to explain or promote a topic of interest to members of the community. In a community with a history, we do not wipe clean the second language acquired every term, deleting and tossing the artifacts away. Instead, we retain useful student-generated materials and build lessons from them. Artifacts become actors in a new cycle of learning. The question now turns to how researchers have viewed artifacts and material objects in learning environment. Do they ‘act’ in the learning process or ‘mediate’ the process? Earlier, I described ‘blended environments’ as networks of human and material actors in both face-to-face and networked venues. It is important whether we designate technology as an ‘artifact’ or ‘mediator’, as activity theory does (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006), thus giving a more subservient or passive role to the material ‘object’ compared to the human ‘subject’. Or do we consider objects as ‘actors’, thus giving them a more powerful and symmetrical relationship? Latour (1992) studied the process of how humans constructed artifacts and noticed that the artifacts also constructed the humans—in a symmetrical relationship. Thus he called both ‘actors’, that is, entities or agents that do things and viewed them as ‘assemblages’, ‘configurations’ or ‘networks’. This latter view may be more useful to the study of networks and how they affect language learning. Networks are hybrids of socio-technical, human/physical agency. They include inanimate objects, such as a photo, a text, or a desk. They are also animate objects such as tape recorders that we can turn on and off or classmates we can call or ignore. Latour expands the concept of actor to even include constructed forces that direct behavior such as forms, policies, rules, and budgets. His concept of ‘network’ is not carefully constrained in fixed hierarchies; it can include any effect that may join the network to exert its ‘will’. With cross-geographic internet connections, the possible actor-networks are even more vast and elusive, opening themselves to dynamic and static resources far beyond the immediate locality. Thus the usefulness of actor network theory is its ability to accommodate variability in time and space.

25

Callon and Law (1997) explain that the social world is not exclusively a human domain, but also includes the semiotics of technologies, texts, money, buildings, and symbols. Each possesses a potential for agency. One example is the photocopier and photocopied papers in the language classroom, perhaps the most under-studied, high-impact technology network in a classroom. The agency of a photocopier is that it gives the teacher the power to stray from a pre-programed text, adding additional approaches, activities, images, and text to class instruction. For the students, suddenly a non-linear (out-of-the-textbook) experience takes them into another small adventure. Cognition is affected as they realize that there is not one authority on a topic (their assigned textbook), but multiple authorities. Thus we see a micro-system created, which includes a photocopier, copied text, main text, students, teachers, all acting in new ways that would not be possible without the added tools and media. Actors have competencies and these competencies give them agency, the power to act upon and affect the environment (Viseu, 2000). If we include both physical and human actors in our language learning environments, and see that many of these actors are combined physical/human artifacts, learning can be viewed as a blended reality based on social cognition, and less on individual mental cognition. Yet to avoid suggesting an ‘either-or’ theoretical change, I believe it would be more appropriate to say learning is neither physical nor cultural, neither individual nor social, but an impure combination. One solution to the individual vs. social dualism is to disband categorical, dualistic terms and adopt blended concepts that do not favor one side over the other.

Issue of success A third major debate in language learning theory is the issue of what defines educational success in second language learning. If concepts from the previous discussions of ecological models and situated, distributed cognition are adopted, success can no longer easily be defined as ‘proficiency’. According to Kramsch (2002b), “…language acquisition defines success as the ability of the learner to produce target-like forms of the language, in all dimensions of communicative competence. Language socialization, by contrast, defines success as the ability to communicate in the language of a particular community and to act according to its norms.” (p. 24)

This suggests that while the acquisition model uses universal criteria of success applied to all learners, the socialization model would use localized criteria applied to a community of practice to judge the success of a learning course or program. Final

26

success would be complete assimilation into the target language-speaking community. Kramsch views success in socialization in three dimensions: to use appropriate language to accomplish social tasks, to use appropriate semiotics to manage relations and express feelings, and engage wholeheartedly in negotiating paradoxes of community interaction. An implication of this view would mean that assessment (measuring/interpreting success) is based on a learner’s quality and quantity of participation in a specific community of practice. In this learner-as-apprentice model, language learners would do tasks and projects within a community who would recognize the learner as a member and support or ‘scaffold’ their growth in socializing into fuller and more active participation. This is an exciting concept, but one that is far from reality in practice. The first conceptual problem is to define where this community is located. Candlin (2000), for example, describes this community as a classroom community embedded in a school’s curriculum. It is also likely to include not just the enrolled students in a classroom, but a community well outside the classroom. The classroom becomes a peripheral support group that sends students ‘out’ into ongoing communities to engage in. This raises another question of whether all learners in a language learning classroom are members of the same ‘community’. It is possible each learner or each learning group would engage in different communities of their own choice, even multiple communities depending on the project. In a ‘second’ language learning environment, where migrants are surrounded by numerous opportunities to engage in society that uses a target language, this kind of community engagement is easier to design or facilitate. However, in a ‘foreign’ language learning environment, designing or creating such a community is extremely difficult. Classes are monolingual, and slippage into native language conversation is almost instantaneous. There are virtually no surrounding social groups who use a target language. This is where a creative design effort is most needed and most undeveloped. It could mean setting up more international exchange programs, cross-border simulation games, email partnerships, or online communities with sister schools abroad. Participation would be defined as using a target language to achieve mutual goals in that community (i.e. host an intercultural festival, prepare a conference of debates, solve a puzzle in a multi-user online game, or sell a product to someone overseas). As the discussion of success moves farther from the domain of proficiency testing, it becomes increasingly unrelated to issues of test design or preparation. It demonstrates a

27

rather radical change required if teachers and students adopt a learning-as-socialization paradigm compared to a learning-as-acquisition one. And with this change, the ‘environment’ of a blended language learning classroom expands well beyond its walls.

Issue of design A fourth debate in second language learning theory is the issue of teacher and learner roles in the creation of syllabus. In many tertiary institutions, the planning process of curriculum, syllabuses, and lessons follow a linear, hierarchical path (Graves, 1996). The curriculum, a course list and graduation requirements, is decided by the institution and its faculty, with varying degrees of influence by governmental policy. The syllabus of each course is then created by an individual faculty assigned to teach that course, or by default, the course book outline. Sometimes this design is created as a group process, but rarely so in most universities. Finally, the content and process of each lesson is decided by the individual teacher with occasional input by students. Such a role progression does not follow a learner-centered principle, but is nonetheless a mainstream phenomenon. Ellis (2003) advocated such a teacher-centered design process to specify the tasks before using a learner-centered methodology for actual implementation. In this view of syllabus design, content can and should be pre-determined. This is based on the second language acquisition concept that universal acquisition stages, known by a specialist, should drive a progression of tasks that consider level and grammatical form (Ellis, 1994). In this view, the level of the student also determines the degree of participation in the design process. In lower level situations, tasks were heavily structured by facilitating teachers; in higher-level situations, tasks were re-negotiated and adapted by learners. A different approach is a trend toward learner-centered design in syllabus and lesson planning (Nunan, 1988). Learner-centered design implies that the needs and goals of students will have priority in the teaching methodology. Yet the precise roles of teachers and students in learner-centered syllabuses are an open question. Some researchers advocate a process syllabus, where tasks and content are not selected a priori but are negotiated between teacher and students (Breen, 1984; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000). Kramsch (1993) describes an agency-centered syllabus, based on a metaphor of language acts in contextualized situations. Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy and Perry (1992) state that the role of the teacher is to not to specify and organize content, but to 1) identify authentic tasks; 2) simplify those tasks, keeping the essence; and 3) teach students how to

28

act as an expert, using a knowledge domain. It is never to "…define the structure of learning required to achieve that task" (p.23). Returning to CALL research, Barson and Debski (1996) state “…none of the content syllabuses—be they notional, functional, or situational—can fully support the partnership between teaching and technology” (p. 51). They propose an alternative approach where a syllabus is ‘managed action’, a ‘malleable entity’ that connects resources and identifies directions. Debski (2000) found that heavy teacher directiveness was no longer possible in project-based language learning. Students in project-based CALL activities experienced their role as directors of their own language learning, which was met with both eager and resistant reactions. They received training in computer literacy skills, and coaching in strategies and requesting resources. As their ability and maturity increased, they found themselves designing projects with more independence. Teachers experienced their role changing to general facilitation, resource coaching, and broad assessment conferencing. The overall curriculum initiative was ‘re-created’ over time as teachers and students adapted to new roles, often negotiating and defining incentives, managing interschool connections, and handling less pre-selected teaching content. The guiding intuition in these initiatives is that networked, collaborative project work is a powerful approach to learning languages. Yet the legacy of teacher-directive and studentreceptive roles will need more attention and re-creation than just assuming that added technical training and configuration of the networking tools is sufficient. The transition is a destabilizing experience affecting long-standing identities and policies. Blending of roles is inevitable, unless teachers chose to return to a preformatted task/content syllabus.

Summary of Issues By looking at four current debates in the field of language learning, as summarized in Table 2.2, the aim and scope of blended language learning is further framed.

29

Table 2.2. Summary of issues in blended approaches Issue

Trends in blended approaches • Ecological perspectives • Environmental focus • Multiple metaphors

Gaps and unresolved questions

Cognition

• Situated and distributed cognition • Communities of practice

How do student groups learn languages? How do teaching teams learn? What varieties of community? How to combine cognitive and socio-cognitive?

Success

• Completion of needed tasks • Cultural competence • Assimilation into the community

What is the path from apprentice to veteran? What kinds of benchmarks and who determines? How to assess tasks and roles in a community? What is the role of proficiency testing? What do good goals/projects look like?

Design

• Material-semiotics • Learner-centered syllabus

Who designs? What powers? How allocated? How are spaces, groups, schedules configured? What is done face-to-face, what online?

Metaphors

What is a language learning ecology? What are the material and human elements? What are the components of environment? What are some blended metaphors that bridge individual/social dichotomies?

In short, blended approaches emphasize: • • • •

Framing by ecological, not mechanistic pedagogical models Investigation of situated and distributed cognition, rather than individual cognitive processes Defining educational success not as linguistic proficiency, but achievement of needed tasks in a particular community Attention to teacher/learner-centered design roles, not specialist-planned syllabuses

THE CONCEPT OF BLENDED LANGUAGE LEARNING This section looks again at the history and definitions of ‘blended language learning’. Although a variety of technologies have been blended into teaching for centuries (Grunberg & Summers, 1992), the term ‘blended learning’ first gained widespread use in corporate training situations to describe the combination of teaching and learning approaches that included coaching, mentoring, online interactions, face-to-face classes and on-job training (Thorne, K., 2003; Valianthan, 2002), or simply supplementing

30

instructor-led courses with online formats (Bersin, 2004). In the human resource development field, it included even broader frameworks such as the combination of online/classroom learning, performance support, and knowledge management (Bielawski & Metcalf, 2003). In each of these sources, blended learning was seen as strategic selection of formats to optimize the learning outcomes.

Blended learning in higher education In mainstream tertiary education, blended learning arose out of a desire for educators to find a ‘middle ground’ between face-to-face classrooms and distance learning (Welker & Berardino, 2005). In an era when there were widespread moves to incorporate learning management systems in higher education, early advocates of blended learning were keen to break away from a perceived ‘all-or-nothing’ view of technology use. In the 1990s, elearning was viewed as a panacea for problems with standard lecture courses, only to fail in numerous high-profile experiments (Cuban, 2001). Blended approaches, in a way, sought to question assumptions that online environments were a ‘superior’ or ‘higher’ form of learning when compared to classroom-based approaches to learning (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Thus the delivery format was not the only aspect that defined blended learning; the pedagogical practice associated with the format/venue often held greater importance. In this view, Kerras and DeWitt (2003) define blended learning as “a mix of different didactic methods and delivery formats” (p. 103). As the concept of blended learning grew in higher education, Oliver and Trigwell (2005) critique the overall concept. At the time, they argued, advocates used the term in ways that were “ill-defined and inconsistently used” and that theory surrounding blended learning was “incoherent or redundant” (p. 24). Accordingly, Oliver and Trigwell observed that the confusion surrounding the concept of blended learning led to a poorly framed and weakly motivated integration of technologies in education. For instructors, vague conceptualizations hindered the creation of principled guidelines that must be in place to create a sound curriculum. For students, confusion frustrated learning opportunities. For researchers, the lack of clarity pertaining to the epistemological foundations of blended learning resulted in stillborn agendas. As such, advocates of blended learning offered little more than speculation regarding how technologies may be used in a classroom setting. Such a weak framing, Oliver and Trigwell suggested, could

31

not act as a rational basis for an informed theory of complex, higher order learning that is required for tertiary education. As an alternative to debate on the value of technological integration, Oliver and Trigwell (2005) highlighted the importance of promoting variation as a way to justify blended learning. According to educational variation theory, students are thought to learn when they experience noticeable shifts in conceptualizations and modalities in such ways that evoke discernment and trigger effective learning (Bowden & Marton, 1998). Seen this way, technology integration for its own sake is not of prime importance; rather, it is the potentialities of technologies to promote variety in the learning environment that are their key attributes. According to Oliver and Trigwell, blended approaches are effective when students experience a variety of materials, presentations and activities in a structured and collaborative learning community. In such a view, the value of technologies – whether or not they are digital – lies in their abilities to afford and promote variation.

Types and categories of blended learning Debates about the role of new technologies fuelled the development of blended learning theory. Amidst the controversies, Bonk and Graham (2006) produced a handbook that defined blended learning systems as the combination of “face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated instruction” (p. 5). Within this combination, they suggested, differing media and instructional methods varied along a continuum in each of four dimensions: space, time, fidelity and humanness. Space, for example, could be understood as ‘live’ (physical, face-to-face), virtual or distributed. Time could be seen, at one end of the continuum, as being fast and synchronous or, at the other end, as relatively slow and asynchronous. The fidelity of a learning experience could be viewed as ‘high’ and inclusive of many senses, or as ‘low’ and consist of text-only exchanges. In a fourth dimension, ‘humanness’ embodies rich, face-to-face interactions in contrast to what may occur in learning environments that are built upon many machines. As the spread of blended learning grew, theorists continued to try to untangle it from, or merge it more closely with, a range of related concepts such as ‘hybrid learning’ or ‘mixed approach learning’. To clarify, Smith and Kurthen (2007) proposed definitions for related terms based on percentages of use (Table 2.3).

32

Table 2.3. Types of blended learning by Smith and Kurthen Type

Percentage Online

Description

Web-enhanced

5-10%

Small usage of online materials, including syllabus assignments, reference material.

Blended

10-45%

Introduction of some significant activities to a face-to-face course.

Hybrid

45-80%

Online activities replace a majority of FTF sessions.

Fully online

>80%

Classes that interact almost totally online, with sporadic face-to-face events.

online

To Graham and Dziuban (2008) however, such efforts to impose set percentages of the use of online technologies in the classroom use were unhelpful. For them, the terms ‘hybrid’ and ‘blended’ are synonymous in both the literature and in practice. To avoid confusion, they suggested that it was best if blended learning was simply understood as the integration of electronic technologies in face-to-face teaching. A common theme in each description of blended learning is this integration, or configuration, of network technologies with technologies commonly used within face-toface classrooms. A focus on integrating technologies has spurred research and development of blended learning in a variety of disciplines (Snart, 2010; Wang, Fong & Kwan, 2010), including second and foreign language programs (Neumeier, 2005; Sharma & Barrett, 2009) and CALL teacher education (Hubbard & Levy, 2006).

Blended learning and teacher education As an emerging field in second language learning, blended language learning has not been featured in teacher education programs. However, in more established TESOL or foreign language teacher training programs, CALL or technology-related studies have been occasionally included as a course offering (Hubbard, 2008). Concerning the design of these programs, Reinders (2009) outlines two major questions facing teacher training in technology for second language education: 1) what should be taught and 2) how should it be taught.

33

According to Hubbard and Levy (2006), the first question, ‘what should be taught’, depends on the functional roles of the teachers-in-training, such as practitioner, developer, researcher, or trainer. They suggest that practitioners will need a more operational understanding of CALL applications than a developer or materials author would. Thus a practitioner may encounter a single CALL or technology-related course within an MA program, while a CALL technology specialist may focus the whole MA degree on this field. Furthermore, as CALL applications can become outdated within as little as two years, it often seems to be a futile effort to choose tools to train teachers in knowing that upon degree completion, the skill or information may be useless. Reinders (2009) sums up the issue by asking, “to what extent should teacher education curriculum be technology-driven?” (p. 231). This question, however, seems to take the view of technology-as-tool. In a blended learning perspective, both techniques of face-to-face learning and tools of online learning are considered equal and often interchangeable. A training course syllabus would thus need to find a way to incorporate a combination of non-electronic and electronic-supported activities. The second question, ‘how technology should be taught’, is even more problematic. In pre-service training and within external workshops of in-service training, teachers are likely removed from the classroom context and are taught in contexts they may never encounter. In contrast, situated training involves teachers learning technologies as they teach and within an institutional context. Egbert, Paulus, and Nakamichi (2002) found that teachers learn technologies better in situated contexts rather than formal classroom contexts. Later, Egbert (2006) argues that CALL education itself needs to be situated in teaching contexts, suggesting that formal training is less important than non-formal inservice workshops (Wong & Benson, 2006) and support from communities of practice (Hanson-Smith, 2006; Robb, 2006).

The role of computers and networks in blended learning Many of these usages and definitions used in the literature view the computer as a tool that is connected into an online network. However, the term ‘networked’ is not limited to only a computer/internet-based activity. Long before the Internet, social behavior and communication studies have used ‘social network analysis’ (Thompson, 2003) and communication network theories (Monge & Contractor, 2003). Both of these forms of analysis tend to emphasize humans as nodes of a network. Likewise, language learning

34

communities have always been social, as communication networks in classrooms. Classrooms are also technological networks if we consider low-tech blackboards as a form of technology. ‘Technology’ can refer to any natural or human-made tool or method that assists the learning process. In this view, a classroom network has a number of technologies in use:

blackboards, pens, notebooks, desks, teachers, lights, copy

machines, tape recorders, DVD players, monitors, realia, and so on. An online network adds a database, computer screen, keyboards, texts, and images. In the actor network view, a network is the total collection of equipment, spaces, furniture, humans, textbooks, blackboards, visuals, policies and rituals (Latour, 1992). The addition of computers did not make a network; they transformed the configuration and complexity of an existing network that was already in place. The complexities of environment would mean that there are not just two venues to compare, but rather numerous varieties of venue. No two environments will actually demonstrate the simple bipolarity of classroom vs. CALL. The terms are thus tentatively and temporarily used to gain some clarity and consistency with current usage. From this complexity, it is necessary to move towards a more heterogeneous definition of blending. The starting point is usually more homogenous and simplistic—conceiving ‘blended’ as the incorporation of any ‘new’ technology into an ‘old’ face-to-face learning environment. But blending is more than adding technologies. Barson and Debski (1996, p. 51) state that pedagogic process and technology cannot be separated. Separation is a techno-centric mistake, yet a common one in research. Often with the introduction of a new technology, the researcher will examine learner outcomes and attitudes without consideration of concurrent, simultaneous changes in pedagogy, roles, text, audience, and space, and then attribute better outcomes to the easily visible technological change. For example, if an internet search task is introduced to a classroom situation, the teacher may simultaneously allow students to do open searches instead of relying on a single textbook (a blending of texts), or have students help each other (a blending of roles). They may have students communicate with students overseas (a blending of audiences), assign a mix of quizzes and projects to complete (a blending of pedagogies), or require tasks to accomplish at home or in community locations (a blending of spaces). In spite of this complexity, the researcher may ignore all but the equipment integration in the study.

35

Much of this blending occurs unconsciously and unintentionally as a consequence of introducing a new technology. Introducing a new technology is not just adding a new tool, as blending might also occur when a new audience or new space is introduced. It is hard to pin down what is the focal point of inquiry and what is the background context. It is also difficult to locate where the change originated. That is an uncomfortable condition that is necessary for researchers who view relationships as co-creative rather than casual. An actor network perspective will question the conceptualizing of one actor as primary and another actor as background. It will attempt to view all actors as equal by paying attention to the effects or flows happening between actors. Relationships and actions are analyzed, not identities and essences (Latour, 2005). Relationships are mutual effects, not sequential, cause-effect chains. As blended learning develops, dichotomies between the modes of delivery (classroom vs. laboratory, or online vs. face-to-face) may become transitory. Latour (2005) warns against sharp categories dividing human and technical phenomena. Careful ‘purification’ of these categories would not lead us to clarity nor explain how to ‘integrate’. A hybrid, network view of learning is a view that would not dichotomize or avoid purifying categories, but instead acknowledge fuzzy boundaries and negotiated roles. It would look at the changes in social relationships effecting from network actor changes. It would design interaction without separating human-to-technology interaction from human-tohuman interaction. Perhaps then interface design would not be framed as a usability issue, but as a learning process issue. The location and expansion of design responsibility would be examined as well the design process. In the sociology of teaching, a hybrid view will embrace the blending of design roles (software engineer, textbook writer, multimedia designer, project-selecting learner, task manager) blending of boundaries, blending of text and authority, blending of audiences/participants, and blending of physical spaces.

CALL research and blended language learning How has this hybrid perspective been studied in CALL? Historically, CALL was defined as “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning" (Levy, 1997, p. 1). Recently, Garrett (2009) now defines CALL as “the full integration of technology in language learning” that consists of a “dynamic complex in which technology, theory, and pedagogy are inseparably interwoven” (pp. 719-720),

36

CALL is both ‘disappearing’, as it increasingly becomes normalized into the routine practices of everyday language programs (Bax, 2003) and ‘expanding’ within mainstream applied linguistics research (Levy, 2009; Chapelle, 2010).

Table 2.4

illustrates the evolution of CALL conceptualization by three leading researchers.

Table 2.4. Views of computer use in second language learning Kern & Warschauer (2000)

Bax (2003)

Garrett (2009)

Structural CALL: Focus on language as a formal structural system; technology used for drills and practice

Restricted CALL: Technology is not integrated into syllabus, an ‘optional extra’

Tutorial CALL: Sophisticated drills, especially those with diagnostic capabilities, can be useful to teach, and should not be disregarded

Communicative CALL: Emphasis on cognitive development for language; technology used to support communicative approaches

Open CALL: Technology is not integrated into syllabus, an ‘optional extra’, precedes learner needs

Engagement with authentic materials Technology allows access to materials made by, and for, native speakers; through sophisticated teaching, can assist students to better understand a range of text types and language abilities

Integrative CALL: Language develops in social interaction

Integrated CALL: Technology is a part of every lesson

Communication CALL: Computer use for CMC, telecollaboration, Web 2.0 activities and social networking

In CALL, the focus of research has persistently been on technology-oriented venues, and comparing digital or computer technologies with ‘traditional’ face-to-face venues and materials. One of the earliest concepts to combine real and virtual environments created a concept called a ‘global learning environment’ (Barson & Debski, 1996). This concept was tightly connected to a process-based syllabus, where learners and teachers negotiated problems and content based on a ‘contingency principle’. Warschauer and Healey (1998) and Bax (2003) and others have suggested ‘integrated CALL’ or ‘integrative CALL’, as a term similar to ‘blended language learning’. Here, the computer as a technology is ‘integrated’ into the teaching practice until it becomes mainstream. ‘Integrated into normal practice’ or ‘integrated into pedagogy’ are useful goals where the computer has reached a state where it is no longer a ‘special’ device, imbued with positive powers. The terms for a classroom venue and an online/CALL venue in language learning has also undergone an evolution, with ‘blended language learning’ now accepted as an

37

emerging field (Neumeier, 2005; Sharma & Barrett, 2007). Table 2.5 summarizes the various terms currently used in CALL, second language acquisition (SLA), and human resource development (HRD) to describe learning venues with and without computers. Table 2.5. Terminology used in describing blended and non-blended learning Author

Field

Non-computeroriented venue

Computer-oriented venue

Combined venue

Barson & Debski (1996)

CALL

Real classrooms

Virtual classrooms

Global learning env

Levy (1997)

CALL

Classroom

CALL

----

Warschauer & Healey (1998)

CALL

Classroom

Computer laboratory

Integrative CALL

Kern & Warschauer (2000)

CALL

Classroom-based

Network-based

----

Chapelle (2001)

CALL

Classroom

CALL

----

Bax (2003)

CALL

----

CALL

Integrated CALL

Skehan (2003)

SLA

Teacher-led

Computer-based

----

Leaver & Willis (2004)

SLA

Classroom instruction

Internet tasks

----

Bersin (2004)

HRD

Instructor-led training

Electronic-format training

Blended learning

Neumeier (2005)

CALL

Face-to-face teaching

CALL applications

Blended learning

Sharma & Barrett (2007)

CALL

Face-to-face classes

Appropriate technology

Blended learning

Thomas & Reinders (2010)

CALL

Face-to-face classroom

Technology-mediated

Blended models

This chart suggests a growing consensus toward using the term, ‘blended learning’ as a description of combined venues. In a combined venue, the computer as a technology has been ‘integrated’ or ‘blended’ into the teaching practice until it becomes mainstream (Bax, 2003). However, the concept of integration also suggests an end-state to a process-moving from a separated state to a final state of integration. A ‘final’ stage of normalization may be impossible, as Hubbard (2008) suggests, because changes that a computer brings to a learning environment are continuous and constantly evolving, without an end in sight. Changes in the future of educational technology, however, are not limited to integrating single computers and there is nothing to suggest that a stable end-state is approaching. Therefore, I would propose a term that focuses on all types of technologies, media and even pedagogies would be preferable. More useful than ‘integration’ or ‘normalization’,

38

the concept of ‘blended learning’ does not prematurely suggest the next phase nor that an ending phase has been reached or that something is lacking or missing that needs to be integrated. ‘Blended learning’ also does not imply the frustration of CALL proponents who have not seen a rapid adoption of their advocated computer innovations.

Is normalization the goal of CALL? If normalization and integration are no longer appropriate metaphors, this raises questions as to what the goal of CALL is. The concept of normalization in CALL, defined as a goal of CALL (Bax, 2003) has also been criticized for its ‘seductive’ aims and for overly minimizing the need for CALL training (Hubbard, 2008). Normalization processes remain incomplete due to a range of institutional impediments (Chambers & Bax, 2006). At many universities, for example, sufficient technological and pedagogical support is yet to be made available to instructors; learning spaces require re-thinking and refurbishment; and collaborative work groups need to be established. Table 2.6 lists a variety of areas that determine the degree of normalization of CALL. Table 2.6. Areas of normalization in language programs Area Logistics

Issue

(adapted from Chambers & Bax, 2006)

No separation of CALL and other teaching spaces Classrooms organized to allow for a free-flow of CALL and non-CALL activities Additional time and resource for lesson planning

Stakeholders

Teachers and managers are confident in using technology Computers are seen to be normal and integrated Pedagogical effectiveness depends on many factors; that is, technology alone is not a single determinant of success

Integration

CALL is ‘properly integrated’, and supported, into teaching practices and syllabus CALL materials are ‘authorable’, not closed, to allow for specific tailoring into a curriculum

Training

Professional training is approached as collaborative Wariness about using technology be met and overcome with support and encouragement Pedagogical support is as valued as IT support

The key factor in achieving the normalization of technologies, according to Chambers and Bax (2006), is syllabus integration. This can only be done, they suggest, when a culture of collaborative support provides technological and pedagogical training to

39

instructors and when colleagues and administrators encourage, and then expect, instructors to make regular use of technologies in their teaching. Other critical factors are the flexible authoring of CALL materials and combination of spaces for computer use and face-to-face activities. This model is essentially focused on the program level factors, ignoring macro sociocultural factors such as strong national standards, and inequitable allocations of social capital, which may compromise opportunities to integrate technologies (Oxford & Jung, 2007). Yet the usefulness of the normalization model is to drive the concept of blended learning beyond micro design to consider program level and macro factors. However, it is necessary to view normalization as a process, not as a goal, because an end-state is not possible given technologies are evolving at an ever-increasing pace.

How is normalization useful for understanding program innovation? While normalization has captured the attention of CALL researchers (Levy & Stockwell, 2006), it has not been extensively tested empirically in second language learning programs, nor specifically in blended programs. Normalization can be related to blended language learning when the concept is broadened beyond computers alone, to deal with the overall question of technology integration. Chambers and Bax (2006) have addressed the question of technology integration by expanding ‘normalization’ as a pathway for ICT implementation. Focusing on integration of computers and assuming the usefulness of this technology, they proposed eleven strategies to advance normalization of computer technology in the classroom. If this framework is applied not only to integration of networked computers, but with any technology added to the classroom environment, this set of strategies can explain how to enhance innovation (desired change) in second language classrooms. The eleven normalization strategies are clustered on four themes: 1) logistics, 2) stakeholders’ conceptions, knowledge, and abilities, 3) syllabus and software integration, and 4) training, development, and support (Table 2.7).

40

Table 2.7. Normalization strategies for CALL by Chambers and Bax Theme

Issue

Description

Logistical Design

Issue 1: Combined Spaces

For normalization to take place, CALL facilities will ideally not be separated from ‘normal’ teaching space.

Issue 2: Easy Movement

For normalization to occur, the classroom will ideally be organized so as to allow for an easy move from CALL activities to non-CALL activities.

Issue 3: Sufficient Time

For teachers to ‘normalize’ computer use within their daily practice, they may need additional time for preparation and planning.

Issue 4: Teacher Confidence

For normalization to take place, teachers and managers need to have enough knowledge of and ability with computers to feel confident in using them.

Issue 5: Common Vision

Normalization requires that conceptions on the part of different stakeholders, including teachers and management, concerning the role of computers in language learning be of a type conducive to integration and normalization.

Issue 6: Interconnected Factors

If CALL is to be normalized, teachers and managers need to avoid the ‘technical fallacy’, namely the view that the main determinant of success or failure is the hardware and software, or any other single factor. They will be aware that the success of CALL in their classrooms depends on several interconnected factors, all of which may need to be considered.

Issue 7: Syllabus Integration

Successful normalization of CALL requires that it be properly integrated into the syllabus, and support provided for teachers who may be uneasy about their new roles.

Issue 8: Authorable Materials

Progress towards normalization may be enhanced by the use of ‘authorable’ CALL materials which allow teachers to tailor the CALL activities better to fit the existing syllabus aims, as opposed to the use of imported ‘closed’ materials.

Issue 9: Collaborative Training

If CALL is to be normalized, teacher training and development may best be offered in collaborative mode rather than in ‘top-down’ expert-to-novice mode.

Issue 10: Breakdown Backup

Successful normalization requires that teachers’ concerns about technical failures, and their lack of skills to deal with such failures, be addressed and overcome by means of reliable support and encouragement.

Issue 11: Pedagogical Support

Technical assistance is important, but is insufficient on its own in supporting teachers towards fully normalizing technology in their teaching. Teachers need pedagogical support also.

Stakeholder Awareness

Syllabus and Materials

Training and Development

(Chambers & Bax, 2006, p. 477-478)

This framework offers an appealing approach for myself playing a role as an inside researcher within my own institution, a four year university in Japan with a large-scale required EFL program. Originally, when I began this study in 2004, my core research question was: “how do teachers design in blended environments?” I found that this

41

question was somewhat abstract and slightly divorced from the urgent issues I dealt with on a year-to-year basis. Upon reflection and three years of site research, in 2009 I decided to shift this question into one that focused more on integration of new technologies rather than general design issues. The new question became: “How do teachers and administrators manage the process of integration of technologies in foreign language programs?” With this line of inquiry, the eleven issues that Chambers and Bax identified became a promising structure to test these strategies over time within a specific context. The aim of this thesis was then to become an extensive study on the normalization framework’s applicability. However, rethinking this strategy in light of studies based on critical theories of technology (Feenberg, 1990; Warschauer, 1998), I realized the normalization concept was focused on a techno-centric philosophy that emphasized and privileged computer technology over other non-electronic technologies in the classroom. In order to understand ‘blending’, the processes that involve human technologies needed to be considered equally with machine technologies. There was no definition of technology in the CALL field that allowed this kind of neutrality. Thus I returned to the original question of this study, ‘how are blended language learning environments designed?’ but with a slight change in the title to emphasize design in programs as well as within single classroom lessons. This realization also led to the implication that this study needed to create a broad definition of technology that would consider the normalization of new human technologies as well as the more prominent electronic ones that tend to become ‘fetishized’ (Hornborg, 2008).

Heterogeneous definitions of blended language learning Moving away from the concept normalization, I would like to examine a heterogeneous definition of blending technologies. A heterogeneous definition might include more than a mix of ICT tools, expanding the concept to include hybrid, blended designs: • • • •

Blending of equipment (copiers, whiteboards, movable desks, LAN, PowerPoint, VCR) Blending of texts (websites, textbooks, television programs, email messages, forum posts) Blending of groupings (whole class activities, pair work, group work, individual self-study) Blending of audiences (newspaper readers, sister schools, pen friends, migrant groups)

42

• •

Blending of pedagogies (project-based learning, test preparation, simulations, role-play) Blending of spaces (home study, classroom, library, club room, community center, telephone)

Much of this blending occurs unconsciously and unintentionally, as a consequence of introducing a new technology, a new audience or a new learning venue. When examining innovation, it is easy to be attracted to the ‘obvious’ change (a visible, tangible electronic device), and ignore other, simultaneous changes. This makes it difficult to pin down what is the focal point of inquiry and what is the background context. For this precise reason, I have chosen to avoid selecting a focal point and opened up the background context as part of the total environment to be examined. Throughout this section on theoretical contexts, there is a temptation to narrowly and precisely specify what a blended language learning environment is. However, it is more useful to examine the terms from many angles in order to avoid a confining final definition. For example, the word ‘blended’ suggests a variety of possible hybrids traditional/modern, sensual/intuitive, technical/social, and online/face-to-face. The act of blending has the potential to disrupt these dual categories, and signify the hybrid nature of combining technological and human agents in the learning process. In addition, the concept of ‘environment’ should not be viewed as ‘people in classrooms plus computer network’. Environment should be viewed as combined, hybrid networks - human, social networks intermingling with virtual, technological networks. A classroom without computers is also a network - a network of desks, chairs, groupings of students, printed artifacts, and teacher roles. Online, the network is more obvious, with web interfaces, group spaces, browsing areas, and moderators. Thus ‘blended environment’ means the combination of physical, human networks with virtual, online networks in a community or course of learning. In summary, the design of blended environments for second language learning can be defined as the continuous process of co-creating, configuring, and facilitating a community environment for second language learning with a strategic, local ecology of face-to-face and online technologies.

Implications of a blended approach Although this is a complex definition, the nature of the social phenomena is even more complex. Tatnall and Gilding (1999) warn against methodologies that “filter out

43

complexity” (p. 959) and oversimplified definitions that trivialize the learning situation. My short definition of blended learning, ‘combining online and face-to-face instruction’, may be useful as a plain language description. However, a richer definition integrates elements of power/responsibility, process, product, and philosophy. This is summarized in the Table 2.8, which contrasts the definition and assumptions of this blended paradigm with paradigms associated with a single learning venue (all face-to-face or all online).

Table 2.8. Qualities and definitions of single-venue learning and blended learning Single-venue learning concept

Blended learning concept

Power

Specialist-centered

Locally-created

Process

Design as an initial stage

Design as a continual process

Product

Encapsulated inventions

Network configurations

Emphasis

Electronic devices applied to pedagogy

Mixed face-to-face and online pedagogic processes

Worldview Techno-determinist and social-determinist

Relativist (humanist/realist)

Ontology

Separate Categories (human vs. material)

Hybrid categories (human/material)

Definition

CALL design: The use of electronic tools to enhance or assist the language learning process.

Blended learning design: The continuous process of co-creating, configuring, and facilitating a community environment for second language learning by a strategic, local ecology of face-to-face and online technologies.

CHAPTER SUMMARY In conclusion, this chapter reviewed theoretical concepts and debates that concern blended language learning environments. I began by examining key concepts in the evolution of second language pedagogy, highlighting the continuing usefulness of multiple metaphors of instruction, acquisition and socialization in blended approaches. Next, I described current debates in the fields of applied linguistics, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and teacher education in CALL. Core issues in the fields of

44

CALL and language learning theory were discussed, revealing a major gap in the conception of technologies, that electronic devices have received predominant attention while face-to-face techniques have been separated and under-theorized as technologies. In addition, I discussed how the metaphors of ‘integration’ and ‘normalization’ act as extensions of this techno-centric paradigm. Finally, based on post-modern concepts of heterogeneity, I proposed a hybrid definition of blended learning that assumes design is configured continuously and locally, while focused on socio-technical ecologies rather than electronic inventions.

45

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH IN BLENDED ENVIRONMENTS

This chapter examines my personal philosophy of research, the methodological options for a contextual inquiry, and a design for examining the questions of this study. Over the past several decades, research in applied linguistics has relied heavily on scientific approaches that applied hypothesis testing and control of variables (for example, Seliger & Shohamy, 1989; Mackay & Gass, 2005). In the past ten years, interpretive, qualitative approaches have been given an increasing role in classroom research (Richards, 2003; McKay, 2006; Nunan & Bailey, 2009; Burns, 2010) and CALL research (Motteram, 1999; Egbert & Petrie, 2005). This chapter compares the suitability of these two research paradigms for contextual inquiry in classrooms and institutions. In the first part of this chapter, I reflect on my personal worldview as it affects research and discuss philosophical approaches based on that worldview. Then, I select and justify three research methodologies as appropriate for this particular contextual inquiry on blended environments, recommending action research as the primary methodology for this thesis. Finally, due to changes in my positionality in one of the sites, I explain the addition of two other methodologies for contextual inquiry, autoethnography and ethnography, which were included later in the research design employed for this study.

RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY The research approach of this study begins by acknowledging the role of personal perspective in research, learning, and the nature of knowledge itself. In a qualitative paradigm, this self-conscious review, ‘reflexivity’, is not to be controlled, distanced or ignored (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). It acknowledges that worldview, philosophy, and values play an important role in constructing the approach of this study.

46

Motivation and standpoint My motivation for initiating this study comes from fifteen years of experience facilitating adult education groups in communities and twenty-five years teaching and administering foreign language classes in universities. I participated in various technological initiatives and watched some succeed and many fail due to conflicts in priorities and problems in training and implementation. Bringing language learning theory in line with realities of practice is an incentive for this research endeavor. In addition to this experiential position, I bring personal factors and bias into this study. As a white male educated in American institutions, I carry a positivist worldview. Despite living and working for over thirty years in Asian, European and African settings, I unconsciously hold a pervasive belief in the benefits of new technology (Hornborg, 2008). Like most Western-educated researchers, a problem/solution mindset will color my findings and require self-conscious reflection to overcome the limitations of such a perspective. I intend to maintain reflexivity on these factors throughout the course of this inquiry. The notion of “blended” learning is one way to counter the blind affection with technology that accompanies much work in CALL of the past two decades. Another important concept for reflexive analysis of bias is standpoint theory--a postmodern method for analyzing inter-subjective discourse (DeFrancisco & Palczewski, 2007). This theory maintains that a researcher cannot avoid participating in research and therefore takes a standpoint, which affects procedures, conceptualizations, analysis and results. With standpoint theory, there is greater objectivity to center the perspectives of the marginalized and offer more diverse accounts of the world (Harding, 2008). In my view of blended language learning environments, I anticipate some stakeholders will experience marginalization, as I privilege other voices and practices. Finally, my position in each of the sites may affect what I am permitted to see, view and enact as a researcher.

Modernist and postmodernist worldviews As a Westerner, my worldview is heavily influenced by an assumption that reality is an external truth that must be ‘discovered’. Western modernism assumes that to be human is to ‘develop’ by learning the truth (van Manen, 1990). This Platonic worldview rejects an empirical approach—that knowledge can be obtained and constructed through direct experience—and instead assumes truth is objective, universal, and external to our minds. Education systems and modes of teaching in Western-influenced areas often follow this

47

modernist paradigm—a view I question but cannot avoid. Furthermore, I am imbued with the Western worldview that social reality is developmental, not ecological. I view ‘progress’ as an inevitable and desirable effect of my actions. This blinds me to relational, cyclical, vitalistic, and aesthetic paradigms of knowing, doing and being. Truth-seeking is not the only endeavor appropriate for inquiry. Such a realization may lead to the opening of a cultural-rooted worldview to what some call ‘postmodernism’. Postmodernism attempts to go beyond Western notions that it is possible to control the environment and discover knowledge (Crookes, 2009). Likewise in this study, I will not assume this inquiry will lead to clear single answers or that I can control the conditions surrounding our ‘subjects’. Rather, I will presume there will be multiple, conflicting answers, and that the environment also controls me and my attempts to shape it. Applying this principle to research methodology, although I presume to direct the goals of this study, nonetheless, I seek to align myself with the goals of co-participants (Schratz & Walker, 1995) and leave open the possibility of changing the process of inquiry.

Parallel research paradigms From a postmodernist view this study would not be transparently studied by a distant, impartial observer, but influenced, or ‘authored’ by an individual with particular orientations. The personal stance of the researcher guides the study. This ‘bias’ or reflexivity is central to this project, as my own agendas need to be examined as well as the intentions of co-participants and co-researchers in this study. The research paradigm of this study is primarily a post-positivist, qualitative view. Rossman and Rallis (2003) recommend that each researcher acknowledge the assumptions that one’s worldview brings to the inquiry. They set out two continuums of worldview (objective vs. subjective and status quo vs. radical change) and four resulting paradigms of inquiry (see Figure 3.1). Radical Change Critical Humanism

Critical Realism

Subjective

Objective Positivism

Interpretivism

Status Quo

48

Figure 3.1. Four Paradigms of Research (Rossman & Rallis, 2003, p. 45) Looking at the status quo vs. radical change continuum, I find the motivation of my study is for practical change, not detached description or interpretation. This desire for change is not just for my own teaching situation, but also for the field of L2 learning and education as a whole. Yet this distinction is not so clear cut. Besides my concern for modes of domination, contradiction, emancipation, deprivation, and potentiality, I am also oriented toward the values of consensus, cohesion, and solidarity in the status quo view. Thus, I prefer to be called ‘pragmatic’, rather than ‘radical’ as an appropriate descriptor of my change-oriented perspective.

My change agenda in this study is two-fold. One is to acknowledge the resistance of nonCALL teachers and researchers, and bring their perspective into the discussion of appropriate technology for language learning. The other is to introduce CALL-oriented teachers and researchers to a broader conceptualization of learning environments and task-based learning that thoroughly integrates face-to-face aspects of teaching methodology. This disposition is what Rossman and Rallis (2003, p. 45) call the ‘radical change’ assumption about society.

Radical change includes two poles of ‘critical

humanism’ and ‘critical realism’. Critical humanism assumes the reality of teaching and learning is in a process of change and can be controlled or affected by individual consciousness; that the researcher is actively participating and promoting the change. Critical humanism is also the philosophical basis for an action research approach. Critical realism, however, assumes society cannot be changed by personal consciousness but by structural change of objective relations of power in social structures. According to Rossman and Rallis (2003), “rather than focusing on individual human consciousness, the critical realist paradigm analyzes the power relations embedded in political and economic structures” (p. 47). While the structures in my study are educational institutions and practices, nonetheless, the political dimensions (control, roles, boundaries) and economic policies (funding, budgets, plans) of these institutions will be a core area to be examined. Critical realism has also been advocated as useful in applied linguistics because it “views the non-human properties of the social world as real

49

entities” (Corson, 1997, p. 166). Studying blended learning environments, by definition, involves understanding the relation of non-human objects, machines, and networks and thus would seem to require a critical realist research paradigm as a part of the inquiry. Choosing between paradigms in this subjective vs. objective continuum is difficult. Burrell and Morgan (1979) insist that the paradigms of objectivism and subjectivism are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Because my view of human learning is highly subjective, constructivist and post-positivist, they might say critical humanism fits my perspective. On the other hand, my view of the nature of design is mixed. Design is both intentional (human agency-driven) and unintentional (environmentally-structured). This would point to a mix of subjective and objective approaches to understanding the social and material reality of the blended classroom, a choice that Burrell and Morgan would call ‘dangerous’, ‘naïve’ and even ‘impossible’. Fortunately, Rossman and Rallis rescue this dilemma and permissively suggest that the borders of philosophy are “mushy and permeable” (p. 47) existing on a continuum of understanding. I would also argue that multiple paradigms can simultaneously co-existent because they explain different aspects of the phenomena of design. Thus I see multiple paradigms useful in this study, with critical realism guiding the study of material objects, as well as critical humanism to frame the intentional action of human participants. Mixing of paradigms is not to be undertaken lightly, requiring continual reflexivity throughout the study. Rossman and Rallis (2003) argue that in continuums, a pure form of paradigmic positionality is not possible, only infinite variations. They offer a checklist of reflexive questions (Table 3.1) to guide researchers in multi-paradigm efforts. Table 3.1. Questions of reflexivity and principles of good practice in research Questions of Reflexivity

Principles of Good Practice

•

How do you define your terms?

• Comfort with ambiguity

•

What assumptions do you make?

•

What do you do and why?

•

What decisions do you make?

• Capacity to make reasoned decisions and to articulate the logic behind those decisions

•

What are the parameters of the study?

• Deep interpersonal or emotional sensitivity

•

What preconceptions and prejudices do you bring?

• Ethical sensitivity of potential consequences to individuals and groups

•

What problems do you encounter?

• Political sensitivity

50

• Perseverance and self-discipline • Awareness of when to bring closure Rossman & Rallis (2004, pp. 54-55)

Recognizing potential blind spots A third aspect in building a personal and team research philosophy is recognizing blind spots or unconscious thinking that may limit the research. In this section, I examine four issues that may arise: reductionism, objectivism, determinism and detachment.

Reductionism: analyzing pieces of information Should a research question focus on individual tools of learning or whole contexts of learning? This has been a key question in methodological debates in the field of CALL, which has been criticized as overly tool-focused (Egbert et al., 2009). Kern and Warschauer (2000) assert that research into network-based language learning must avoid a tool-based focus. They state, “The computer, like any other technological tool used in teaching (e.g. pencils and paper, blackboards, overhead projectors, tape recorders), does not in and of itself bring about improvements in learning. We must therefore look to particular practices of use in particular contexts in order to begin to answer the question.” (p. 2)

Further, they criticize current CALL research as predominantly studies of convenient, easily countable measures of communication and suggest that the contexts of networkbased language learning have not been explored sufficiently. This type of contextual inquiry “…entails holistic, qualitative research that goes beyond inventories of linguistic features” (pp. 14-15). Similarly, Chapelle (2000) notes that, “relatively little work has been done so far to probe the questions about the sociocultural and classroom contexts of CALL use” (p. 217) and Zapata (2004) calls for examination of institutional and pedagogical factors in how instructors actually use technology in classrooms. Earlier, Baskerville (1999) affirmed that organizational and educational environments are complex social settings requiring idiographic efforts to understand what is contingent and unique. He concludes that factoring the social and ICT components into variables or isolated sub-systems will not lead to useful knowledge about the whole setting.

51

To examine these specific contextual factors, Kern and Warschauer (2000) list eight questions shown in Table 3.2. To these, I add my adaptation to a blended learning environment with attention to theoretical frameworks I intend to support. This is an initial approach, to be refined in the next section. The aim of these questions is to broaden the inquiry, focus on a comprehensive environmental context and thus avoid the reductionist blind spot. Table 3.2. Research questions for a contextual inquiry into CALL Warschauer’s Questions for

Adapted Questions for Blended

Investigating Practices of Use in CALL

Language Learning Environments

(Kern & Warschauer, 2000, p.2) • • • • • • • •

Who were the learners? What exactly did they do? For what purpose? In what setting? With what kinds of language? In what patterns of social interaction? What were the particular outcomes in terms of quantity of language use, attitudes, and motivation? What were the particular outcomes in terms of quality of language use, attitudes, and motivation?

• • • • • • •

Who are the learners, teachers, technologies, institutional practices and other actors? How do they design? Who exerts power? Why do they make those designs? Why were they configured to do so? With what kinds of actions, relations? In what patterns of actions, relations? What were the particular outcomes in terms of quantity of influence, change? What were the particular outcomes in terms of quality of design? What criteria do students and teachers use for quality?

Objectivism: Seeking universal truth Related to reductionism, is a second blind spot, which I call ‘objectivism’. Should blended learning be analyzed objectively for universal ‘best practice’ standards? Are there measures for blended learning effectiveness? Can optimal blending be calculated? The danger in these views, however, is assuming that a blended learning is based on objective facts, laws, and variables that can be observed and verified outside of the researcher influence. Positivists assume questionable view that the world is stable (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper & Allen, 1993). In an interpretivist view, networks are locally constructed and configured; thus a universal, best-practice, optimal form of learning would not be a sensible goal (Edge & Richards, 1998). Rather, the complicated

52

reasoning and contextual factors behind decisions of blending technologies in language learning may be better to investigate in order to inform policy-making.

Determinism: Oversimplified causality A third danger is determinism. Does technology cause change? Do humans cause change? Such questions may reflect a naïve determinism of how the world works, and can be avoided in blended language learning research. A research question may reveal an investigators’ concept of the place and role of technology in education. Tatnall and Gilding (1999) summarize the limitations of existing research methodologies for investigating innovation in IT-related questions. They note that technological determinism and social determinism dominate the approaches currently used in research. Technical determinism assumes the properties of the technology are dynamic and that social actors will adopt the most appropriate ones. The social actors are considered a stable context, and do not determine the outcome of the innovation. Technology is the focus of study, while social actors are relegated to the background. In contrast, social determinism puts technology in the background and assumes social actors and their power relations will determine the outcome of the innovation. Diffusion theory (Rogers, 2003) is predominately social deterministic in that it concerns itself with the relations of early adopters, resistors, change agents, and other social entities. The properties of technology are considered relatively stable or generally ignored and thus do not determine the outcomes. Both of these approaches are deterministic in that the properties of the social or technological actor ultimately determine the outcome. In contrast to deterministic methodologies, van Lier (2002) uses the concept of affordances to describe the semiotics of language learning settings. Affordances in an educational context can be: (1) intentional support for learning in the form of visual and verbal cues, (2) contingent support for learning in the form of on-demand analogies, for example, as well as stories, and demonstrations, and (3) other opportunities provided by the context within which the activity occurs (Kennewell, Parkinson & Tanner, 2000). These affordances are made apparent in contexts, in relationships, and in actions. The structures in a blended language learning study appear at first to be only educational institutions and practices. Nonetheless, political dimensions (control, roles, boundaries) and economic policies (funding, budgets, plans) of these institutions are also core arenas to be examined.

53

Detachment: A pretense of non-bias A fourth weakness in research philosophy is detachment. Can researchers detach themselves from the study, or are they invariably part of the study itself? From a constructivist, ecological view, it is impossible to separate a teacher-researcher from coparticipants of the study. A research question is not studied transparently by a distant, impartial observer, but influenced or ‘authored’ by an individual with particular orientations. The personal stance of the researcher guides the study. This ‘bias’ or reflexivity is central to a research project, and personal agendas need to be examined as well as the intentions of co-participants in this study. Rossman and Rallis (2003) argue that all research carries an assumption of either maintaining the status quo or moving toward radical change. The motivation for action research studies is for practical change, not detached description or interpretation. This desire for change is not just for the individual’s own teaching situation, but for the field of education as a whole. Yet the status quo also carries important values. Besides change and the agent’s concerns for modes of domination, contradiction, emancipation, deprivation, and potentiality, the status quo view holds the values of consensus, cohesion, and solidarity. Thus, in blended language learning, a researcher may take a ‘pragmatic’ stance, which appropriately balances needs for change and stability. My entry into developing a practice of blended learning has had an implicit change agenda. One is to acknowledge the resistance or rejection of high-tech approaches by teachers and researchers, and bring their perspective into the discussion of appropriate technology for language learning. The other is to introduce computer-oriented teachers and researchers to a broader conceptualization of learning environments and task-based learning by thoroughly integrating face-to-face aspects into the CALL teaching methodologies. This acknowledged agenda helps avoid a detached view.

Minimizing research traps and pitfalls In contrast with studies in which emphasize introduction of tools or measurements of effectiveness, an exploratory research study into blended language learning can avoid the traps of reductionism, objectivism, determinism, and detachment by conducting a contextual inquiry with a rich description of the whole environment of language learning. This would involve:

54

• • • •

Describing contexts and actions of blended learning practice, not isolated tools and their applications; Seeking localized examples and factors, not universal laws or truths; Deconstructing complex and chaotic relationships, not linear and direct causalities; Employing critical and reflexive approaches such as action research, not detached hypothesis testing or experimental studies.

Summary of research paradigms This study intends to start with such a contextual basis for inquiry, and adds to this list to create a rich description of the whole environment of language learning, ignoring the tendency to focus totally on CALL, computer, or other tool-oriented features. In short, this study emphasizes: •

description of contexts and actions that explore blended learning practice, not tools and their applications;

•

critical realist approaches that seek to understand power in objects and materials;

•

critical humanist approaches that seek interventions to promote a change agenda;

•

postmodern approaches that limit reductionism, positivism, detachment and determinism.

In the following sections, I examine the debates concerning which research methodologies are appropriate for contextual inquiry and how to apply these qualitative approaches to my research question.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES This section reviews the issues concerning the appropriate methodology used for the core research questions of this inquiry. This is an exploratory study, which first asks, “how are blended language learning environments designed?’’ It addresses this question through a contextual investigation into the learning environment at the classroom level and the institutional level in second language learning programs. Qualitative methodologies are recommended for broad, contextual studies in second language classroom research (Richards, 2003). These include: ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenology, case study, life history, action research, and conversation analysis. Of these, Nunan and Bailey (2009) focus mainly on action research, ethnography and case study research, including introspective methods. In the field of second language teaching

55

and classroom teaching practice, action research carries a strong history (Burns, 1999, 2009, 2010; Edge, 2000; Nunan, 2001). Qualitative CALL research has examined questions of technology and second language learning primary through ethnographic (Warschauer, 2000) and socio-cultural perspectives (Warschauer, 2005). Yet interestingly, Egbert and Petrie (2005) did not include action research as an emerging methodology for the field of CALL. This is surprising because CALL, by its tendency to introduce new electronic tools into language teaching situations, would seem to be open to an interventionist methodology such as action research. Due to its focus on interventions, I intended to explore action research as a primary methodology for this study. Later in the study, I expanded my plan to include two other methodologies useful in examining complex socio-cultural and technological environments. Not only for philosophical reasons (triangulating critical humanism and critical realism), I added ethnography for practical reasons, in order to deal with an outsider position in a second site. Further, I found my past practice in numerous institutions a useful set of knowledge to analyze through autoethnography, resulting in three methodologies to examine in this chapter: • • •

Methodology 1: Action research Methodology 2: Ethnography Methodology 3: Autoethnography

As these are new or uncommon approaches in CALL, the following sections provide an extensive introduction and justification for using these methodologies in this study.

Methodology 1: Action Research Of the many approaches for institutional research, action research is one of the most useful tools for blended language learning because it is designed for longer-term, highly contextualized research and change-oriented practice, a common condition of technologically-influenced situations. The literature in second language learning has grown with key works by Edge (2001) and Burns (1999, 2005, 2010). Often, second language researchers refer to it as ‘classroom research’ (Allwright & Bailey, 1991) or ‘teacher research’ (Freeman, 1998). The main attribute of action research is that it is intervention-oriented, involving cycles of planning, action, observation, and reflection (Herr & Anderson, 2005). Action research is also traditionally described by three characteristics (Kemmis & McTaggert, 1992):

56

-

practitioner-based: not carried out by an outside researcher

-

collaborative: involving multiple stakeholders and/or multiple researchers

-

emphasis on change: those affected by change have primary responsibility for action

Stark and Torrence (2004) place action research as one of five types of case studies: 1) ethnographic case studies, 2) policy case studies, 3) evaluative case studies, 4) educational/professional case studies, and 5) action research case studies. In this section, I focus on this last type of case study, starting with a definition of action research, a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of action research, and then justifying its application in CALL studies.

Defining action research in blended environments With reference to language educators, Burns (2010) defines action research as a “…selfreflective, critical, and systematic approach to exploring your own teaching contexts” (p. 2). At its core, action research revolves around a four-phase ‘plan-act-observe-reflect’ cycle of inquiry (Costello, 2003, pp. 4-7). Taking ‘action’ in blended language learning may mean adapting technologies to fit a syllabus or lesson plan. This ‘taking action’ is integral to the whole research process. It is not ‘action after research’ but rather ‘research during the action’ that is happening. This is ideal for blended environments, which are uniquely configured by location and constantly changing from lesson to lesson, and semester to semester. Research approaches that force a ‘stop in time’ for analysis and non-participatory observation will be unable to capture relevant data that reveals why and how change happens (Coglan & Brannick, 2001).

Advantages and difficulties of action research The advantages of the action research study are first that practitioners will have less difficulty in grasping the perspectives of the insiders, a problem with outsider-based, ‘fly-on-the-wall’ research. Collaborative research means aligning the goals of the research with the goals of the institution and of the co-researchers and co-participants. Building from a common purpose, the research questions are refined to have more real world impact and greater commitment by stakeholders, thus greater external validity. Burns (1999) contrasts practitioners from traditional researchers who separate themselves

57

from the implementation of research findings. However, for action researchers, “…putting findings into practice is an integral part of the research process.” (p. 25). Second, when researchers have a stake in a cycle of action, the implications of research are transformed. They are not abstract recommendations for ‘someone’ to consider ‘someday’. They are well-reasoned, more appropriately practical means to action. The action phase of the cycle is in a sense, testing the quality of the research outcomes. Qualitative researchers who use a cyclical action research approach to their case study will find little feeling of the detached observer who comes to the field, leaves the field, and never returns, instead submitting research purely for publication, avoiding the trialby-fire of application in the field again. The insider status puts an action researcher into a position of understanding ‘responsibility’ by knowing the actors’ moral motives, experiencing emotions that drive behavior, revealing intentions and political agendas, and identifying tensions between agents before conflicts develop (Calori, 2005, p. 267). Finally, action research studies are done in real time and located in real spaces, which have the advantage of better understanding of ‘dynamics’ such as relationships between multiple events, relevant contexts, and agent sense-making before, during and after action (Calori, 2005, p. 268).

Also, action research case studies tend to have an

longitudinal design, extending over many years and proceed further than standard qualitative studies. Many long-term case studies simply revisit a site and observe, not engaging the participants to join into the research problem, and together create solutions to that problem. In an extended case study, the researcher may play the role of expert, ignoring stakeholder contributions, or assume that good research must be clearly separated from active problem solving. The action research perspective assumes the opposite, that good research is enhanced by active problem-oriented action that is reflected on. The difficulties of an action research case study are twofold. First, action research starts from an insider perspective and must attempt to build outsider perspective. While a classic qualitative study struggles to gain insider insight, an action research study struggles to gain outsider insight (Herr & Anderson, 2005). An outsider view is necessary for connecting the research to the larger community and expressing the results so that practice as a whole can be improved. The outsider perspective can be enhanced through literature review, and maintaining a dialogue the community of practice through

58

reports, publications, workshops and presentations. The validity of a case study is largely determined by its success in such peer-reviewed reflections. If an action research study concludes with no report to the “outside”, it is no longer research but an internal problem-solving effort. It may be successful in achieving an institutional aim, but it fails in responsibility to society by holding on to ‘secrets’ (Herr & Anderson, 2005). Public reporting or publication raises the outsider perspective and improves the external validity of the study (Nunan & Bailey, 2009). A second difficulty of action research is that it is centered on human volition, an assumption of critical humanism. It adopts the humanist assumption that change is intentional human action. However, researchers distinguish between innovation/design as ‘deliberate effort’ and change as any difference in an educational situation from one point in time to another (White, 1988), which may have to do with uncontrollable economic, social and technical factors. In this study, I will examine both willful innovation (critical humanism) and unselfconscious or ‘uncontrollable’ change (critical realism). In Chapter 2, I pointed out that design is a continuous process of both intentional and unintentional action. This definition in effect combines the concepts of innovation, design, and change. In a blended paradigm, a model is needed for analyzing both human-instigated and non-human-created change, which action research alone cannot handle. For this reason, I have considered a critical ethnographic approach as a concurrent methodology to compensate for action research’s weaknesses.

Justification of action research for CALL Despite these attributes, action research studies have not received the credibility that positivist approaches receive in applied linguistics and CALL. While action research has earlier been referred to as ‘classroom’ or ‘teacher’ research, Burns (1999) notes that such terms may denigrate its value to position it as either non-research, informal research, or as a method of investigation not to be taken seriously. Action research, however, has developed into a rigorous academic approach (Coghlan & Brannick, 2001; Herr & Anderson, 2005) and is now well integrated into second language teacher training (Burns, 2009). In many ways, action research can be seen as a structured and proactive process of reflection that aims to improve teaching. Rather than rely on outside expert’s recommendations for change, action researchers are teachers who engage in an

59

intentional and visible process that helps formalize concerns, draw out hunches, examine issues and develop plans to move forward that “develops a sense of ownership in the knowledge constructed” (Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003, p. 7). In CALL, many studies tend to evaluate a particular new technology, comparing it with similar pedagogies which used an ‘old’ technology (Gruba, 2004). Comparison studies that isolate technology as a separate innovation, unembedded in a teaching context are not uncommon from a positivist viewpoint. Action research studies, which emerge from a post-positivist paradigm, seek not to compare, but to ask why practices happen, and test alternatives. The following sections examine four questions that will help distinguish action research from typical CALL research approaches and justify its appropriateness for the research questions in this study: •

the question of epistemology

•

the question of positionality

•

the question of inference

•

the question of validity

Question of epistemology A view of what constitutes ‘good research’ depends on the paradigm or worldview of each researcher. A person who considers the world as something ‘outside’ the researcher has an epistemology (a way of knowing) that suggests knowledge is separated from the researcher and outside the people involved in the study. This paradigm is called ‘objectivism’ or ‘positivism’. Often action research is rejected by objectivist-oriented scientists because an insider-initiated style of inquiry contradicts the belief that researchers must stand as far away as possible from the ‘object’ being studied (Burns, 2005). Thus there have been a number of myths about action research arising. Action research has been categorized or criticized as localized (only useful for site-specific problem solving), solitary (conducted by a single researcher leading a single class), invalid (data not trustworthy), informal (documents daily work), non-generalizable (findings not useful for other cases), biased (an activist agenda), and unscientific (not rigorous and not reliable) (McPherson & Nunes, 2004; Herr & Anderson, 2005). These myths impede the acceptance of action research in some academic communities, but when these criticisms are examined, they prove to be overly biased with positivist perspectives. Positivism is a worldview that assumes that researchers can separate

60

themselves from what is being studied. In classrooms, the students are treated as ‘subjects’, and the experiments are conducted ‘upon’ them. Variables (the factors being investigated) can be separated, isolated, and analyzed with carefully designed statistical instruments. A hypothesis is tested and conclusions are drawn which can be generalized to the whole population. That is the standard positivist practice of research, sometimes called the ‘scientific method’ or just ‘science’. In the natural sciences and engineering, this positivist view dominates many of the quantitative studies. However, in practice-based teacher communities, this perspective is less revered. Furthermore, trends in social science, humanities, and education are moving to post-positivist views where the researcher is considered part of the investigation, infusing the data with a personal perspective, reflecting on that, and interpreting principles for broader application. Post-positivism is a common paradigm in qualitative inquiry, a parallel form of research which has seven core traditions: ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenology, case study, life history, conversation analysis, and action research (Richards, 2003). Qualitative inquiry is advocated as the most appropriate approach for studies of second language pedagogy for a number of reasons. First, classrooms are far too complex to control all the variables required in experimental types of research (Allwright & Bailey, 1991). Second, attempts to prove ‘best practice’ are a dangerous distraction (Edge & Richards, 1998). Finally, action research has transformative potential in the ‘lived world’ of teaching practice (Richards, 2003). Sometimes, however, qualitative researchers struggle to acknowledge action research, preferring to consign it to a “separate category of knowledge” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p.52). The strongest accusation is that action research is pure advocacy, not inquiry. One researcher was told, “If you want to do research, do research; if you want to organize, then go do activist work.” (Maguire, quoted in Herr & Anderson, 2005: xii). This view does not consider that advocacy and inquiry can operate concurrently, and even illuminate each other. Similarly, action research may be characterized as mere problemsolving or analysis of daily work. Kemmis and McTaggert (1992) respond that problemposing is an initial step of action research, and that there is no guarantee or requirement that a problem be solved. Handel (1991) adds that although action research starts with informal daily practice, it must deconstruct the phenomena, and from that build theory.

61

Nunan (2001) argues that it would be patronizing to simply accept action research as professional development and then discount it as ‘real’ research. Questions of validity and bias are also raised as to whether the results of action research are generalizable beyond a single situation. Table 3.3 summarizes and compares these positivist and post-positivist views on action research (AR). Table 3.3. Perspectives on action research Positivist views

Post-positivist, qualitative views

AR is unscientific

AR is qualitative, post-positivist inquiry (Richards, 2003).

AR is local problem-solving

AR is both problem-posing and problem solving (Kemmis & McTaggert, 1992, p. 21).

AR is conducted by a solitary insider

AR is participatory and collaborative, an insider/outsider continuum (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 31).

AR is informal daily work

AR formalizes knowledge from practice settings; it deconstructs daily practices, and reconstruct them as theory (Handel, 1991).

AR is advocacy

AR is both advocacy and inquiry. Inquiry has greater outcome validity when participants commit implications to action (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 55).

AR is professional development

AR is not only professional development, but ‘real’ research because it is a systematic process of inquiry--question, data, and analysis (Nunan, 2001, p. 200).

AR is invalid and unreliable

AR uses qualitative reliability and validity checks. External validity is less of a concern in some studies (Nunan, 1992, p.19).

AR is not generalizable

AR is like a case study, often extensible to general theory (McPherson & Nunes, 2004, p. 125).

AR is biased

AR is value-laden, as is all research. Reflexivity acknowledges values (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 4).

Actually, this is the quandary of any qualitative inquiry. Generalizability depends on the quality and rigor of the study (McPherson & Nunes, 2004) and validity is just as important in any qualitative study as in a quantitative study (Nunan, 1992). Validity of an insider-based study will need new types of criteria, and requires a more sensitive analysis of the varieties of insider/outsider positions that a researcher can take (Herr & Anderson, 2005).

62

By asking the question of epistemology, we learn that the complexity of blended environments requires a post-positivist view of research that accepts problem-solving by teachers as they investigate classroom and online practice. It is impossible and, indeed, naïve to think that discrete variables can be separated for analysis. Studies that focus on a particular technology within a learning environment violate this principle. Rather than draw conclusions, implications or advantages of a tool, action research studies instead describe the relations that are happening when a teacher or other actors configure a learning environment. Generalizations cannot and should not be drawn. However, the usefulness of the study emerges in the depth and richness of description that allows other teachers to draw intuitive connections to the problems they are facing in different situations. In addition to the question of epistemology, three other questions for classroom research include the question of positionality, the question of inference, and the question of validity. The next section looks at positionality of the teacher-researcher within the process of inquiry. Question of positionality Positionality, or the concern for the relationship between the researcher and the researched, results from a reflection of the self to the site of study (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). Being an insider, a leader or colleague inside the institution being studied, is not simply an either/or condition but rather a continuum of positions, each with differing types of methods and criteria for validity (Herr & Anderson, 2005). In the Herr and Anderson model, positionality is divided into six possible positions ranging from highly insider-oriented (position 1) to highly outsider-oriented (position 6). The positionality in action research can cover any of the six positions (1-6), but it is likely to be more insider-oriented (positions 1-3). It can also have multiple positions depending on the stage of action. An initial stage might be position 3 (insiders and outsiders planning together), while a later stage might be position 1 (insider studying her own practice). Note that the question of being an insider is not a unique trait of action research, but a question to be asked in every tradition of qualitative research. Action research brings the question of positionality to the forefront and broadens the options by

63

giving acceptance to various levels of insider status. Herr and Anderson (2005) set out six insider/outsider positions within educational settings (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4. Examples of researcher actions to establish positionality Positionality type

Example actions

1. Insider studies self

Researcher writes diary and analysis of his/her classroombased teaching practices.

2. Insider in collaboration with insiders

Researcher and two colleagues use same curriculum in their classes and compare experiences.

3. Insider in collaboration with outsiders

Researcher invites co-researchers from other institutions to observe and analyze his/her situation.

4. Insider-outsider teams

Researcher teams in two institutions analyze their own situations and compare experiences.

5. Outsider in collaboration with insider

Researcher joins another researcher and studies his/her teaching setting.

6. Outsider studies insiders

Researcher visits another school for observations and interviews.

(Adapted from Herr & Anderson, 2005) Similar to positionality, the issue of ‘standpoint’ is important to the researcher. In critical theory, the researcher takes a standpoint to document or to intervene on behalf of an oppressed stakeholder in the study (Kellner & Share, 2007). In education, historically, the weakest participant is the learner, and possibly also the teacher, in that each has been at the mercy of professional textbook and software designers. These expert designers created products with little configurability rendering teachers and learners with few options to design or redesign the learning process to fit their needs. Thus in investigating blended environments, a critical perspective would suggest the positionality of the researcher more often needs need to ‘stand’ as the teacher and learner in the environment. Question of inference In research design, the procedure of reasoning can be inductive (bottom-up, from the data) or deductive (top-down, from a theory). In qualitative inquiry, the process is commonly inductive, and especially so in case studies and action research. The typical intent of a case study is to explore a context and from a very rich description and analysis

64

of data, develop theory. The two basic stages of a case study are 1) description, and 2) interpretation (Yin, 2002). Coghlan and Brannick (2001) add to this model with a prestep, called ‘diagnosis’, which is the problem-posing phase that initiates the whole cycle. Action research begins to extend these two stages of inquiry. Stringer (1999) first conceptualized the action stage as an extension of interpretive research. The classic three-stage case study and the action research model are depicted in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 Two models of educational enquiry

In this extended model, action research is shown as an extension of current forms of qualitative inquiry. The next sections examine four questions that help to distinguish action research from case studies and other approaches of educational enquiry. Beyond description and interpretation of data, the attention to insider/outsider status requires a researcher to articulate personal and group influences on the data, in effect selecting the data that is interesting or important. This is a reflective stage of the inquiry. Furthermore, action research not only draws implications but attaches commitment by the collaborative researchers to act on the implications. This action is then observed and reflected upon to start another cycle of inference. Question of validity Apart from questions of position or inference, the question of validity asks how can the data collection and analysis be rigorously checked for quality. Tomal (2003) lists a number of threats to validity. Among these, the effect of researcher attention and preferences are crucially important for qualitative blended learning studies. For example,

65

researchers in innovation studies, particularly technological innovation, are affected by a pro-innovation bias (Rogers, 2003). Similarly, researchers in the literature on educational technology invariably report success, without examining whether the ‘success’ could have been due to the attention given to a process or a technology in its classroom setting, also known as the ‘Hawthorne Effect’ (Tomal, 2003). In addition, when the practicality of an innovation is ignored, the pedagogical process may often disappear from use due to time-consuming administrative requirements. Thus a significant threat to validity is a short history of data collection that may not include sufficient time to indicate the sustainability of an innovation. As for researcher bias, the question for action research is not to avoid bias, but to make the bias self-conscious. In positivist forms of research where the researcher must assume a detached position, all forms of insider research were discarded as invalid. With the advent of action research, insider research is accepted and new forms of validity checks are set up to insure rigor. Anderson, Herr and Nihlen (1994) proposed guidelines for maintaining five types of quality/validity in action research (later revised by Herr & Anderson, 2005). The first of these, outcome validity, asks whether the research question was answered or whether the research problem was solved. Next, process validity, looks at how well the methods were triangulated to give multiple views on the issue. Third, democratic validity, asks whether all stakeholders were not only involved, but all benefited from the study. Fourth, catalytic validity, is the measure of transformation undergone within the researcher, the participants, and in the surrounding environment. This is similar to outcome validity, but is does not look at the specified parameters of the research question. It asks what other transformative effects happened beyond the stated aim of the study. Finally, dialogic validity is the question of external validity, the degree of value the study holds in the larger practitioner or academic community. This is measured not only in terms of accepted publications, but also through the dialogue created at conferences and workshops. Table 3.5 summarizes the questions of validity that Herr and Anderson (2005) propose.

66

Table 3.5. Validity types and sample questions Validity type

Sample questions

Outcome validity

Does the resulting action resolve the problem that led to the study? Does the outcome force reframing the problem in a more complex way?

Process validity

To what extent are problems framed to permit ongoing research? To what extent are methods triangulated?

Democratic validity

To what extent is research conducted with all stakeholders involved? Are the results relevant and just to the local setting?

Catalytic validity

To what degree are the participants’ view of reality changed? Are both researchers and participants transformed?

Dialogic validity

To what extent is new knowledge generated?

How well does the researcher engage in practitioner community dialogue? (Based on Herr & Anderson, 2005, pp. 53-57) These five types of validity are primarily oriented toward what has traditionally been referred to as ‘external validity’. External validity is concerned with how generalizable the findings are to other contexts, subjects, or theory. For Herr and Anderson (2005), these five are the primary forms of validity appropriate for action research. However, other action research methodologists such as Nunan (1992) emphasize internal validity measures, which they call ‘trustworthiness’, and argue that only the qualitative criteria of trustworthiness can be usefully applied to action research. More specifically, Burns (1999) describes six types of triangulation (multiple perspectives on a research situation) and four other processes for measuring this internal validity. These are summarized with sample validity questions in Table 3.6. Both internal and external models of validity are useful and often overlap. The ‘multiple stakeholder triangulation’ and ‘multiple method triangulation’ in Burns’ terminology can be compared to the democratic and process validity of Herr and Anderson (2005). Thus it is difficult, and perhaps unnecessary, to draw a clear line between internal and external measures which are mixed in the Herr and Anderson model. In exploratory research

67

within educational environments it is useful to employ as many varieties of validation in order to generalize beyond immediate findings. Table 3.6. Tactics to increase internal validity in action research Validity Type

Questions Raised for Validity

Multiple stakeholder triangulation

Is each important stakeholder included in the study?

Multiple method triangulation

Are multiple methods used to collect and analyze data?

Multiple time sampling triangulation

Are the environments studied in several iterations?

Multiple space triangulation

Are sites chosen in different locations?

Multiple investigator triangulation

Is there more than one investigator involved in the research?

Multiple theory triangulation

Does the research use multiple theoretical frameworks to compare findings?

Respondent checking

Are summaries and reports checked and modified by the participants?

Peer examinations

Are reports given to peers and critiques incorporated into new cycles?

Rival explanations and negative cases

Are alternative explanations considered and documented?

Monitoring researcher bias

How often and how well does the researcher examine his/her own biases and refer to it the writing?

Does the researcher collect data from students, teachers, and administrators?

How many sites are chosen?

Are negative cases or cases that disagree with emerging themes discounted or included?

(Validity types summarized from Burns, 1999, pp. 162-166) For example, one other form of triangulation not considered in the above models is ‘triangulation of positionality’. Multiple insider/outsider positions to view the phenomena may yield interesting or richer data. This is an additional factor within a framework of research validity. In action research, and especially for a blended language learning studies, we recommend that the factors for claiming validity be explicitly stated, and factors which question or cast doubt upon trustworthiness be acknowledged.

68

Action research in blended approaches In summary, why is action research appropriate for localized, incremental studies of blended approaches? First, a post-positivist epistemology justifies the use of qualitative description and purposeful action within inquiry. Second, insider positionality with reflexivity can use bias as an ally. Closeness and constant contact can lead to richer insights. Third, a cyclical process of planning, action and re-planning infuses commitment within research, not just observation. Finally, multiple forms of validity will make a stronger research design and give impact on the teaching community. Action research is appropriate to investigations of blended language learning because it takes advantage of the primary researcher’s already active role as an insider well acquainted with the problems and issues of practitioners working in second language learning classrooms. The values of action research fit the needs of contextualized, longterm, qualitative study. Further, the results of interventions can lend additional external validity to the analysis. Action researchers in blended environments can weaken their study by using reductionism: analyzing pieces of knowledge (individual tools or technologies out of context), objectivism: seeking universal truth (comparison studies to determine best practice), determinism: oversimplified causality (generalizing rather than describing), and detachment: a pretense of non-bias (ignoring the researchers’ role in change). In addition, action research has a weakness that may require employing a dual paradigm approach. Action research is bounded by limits of a particular teaching situation and the range of actions available to researchers in a particular institution. The research questions reflect their desires to accomplish their work, as opposed to global trends in technology and society. CALL studies often focus on this later view, but do so out of technological determinism, or technological ‘triumphalism’. A different methodology is needed that merges social and technological views into a hybrid methodology. In the next section, I examine how ethnography can provide triangulation of methodology in viewing blended language learning environments in actual practice.

Methodology 2: Ethnography In this section, I examine ethnography and its potential for explaining blended language learning environments. Although some CALL researchers have advocated ethnography as a research approach (Kern & Warschauer, 2000; Warschauer, 1999, 2000), it has been

69

little adopted in recent views of CALL research methodology (Egbert & Petrie, 2005). Ethnography continues to gain wider acceptance in mainstream applied linguistics and the literature on second language research (Richards, 2003; Harklau, 2005). Nunan and Bailey (2009) describe ethnography as “large-scale, long-term studies aimed at investigating classrooms as cultural systems” (p. 8) and recommend it as one of five important research designs, including experimental, survey, case study, and action research approaches. In addition, Harklau (2005) explains, “the purpose of ethnography in the context of second language learning is to come to a deeper understanding of how individuals view and participate in their own social and cultural worlds.” (p. 179). These definitions of ethnography focus more on understanding human behavior rather than the interplay of human, machines, and other material objects. Therefore, it may be necessary to search for a broader application of ethnography. For example, van Lier (2004) finds ethnography useful in describing and interpreting the ecological nature of second language education, inside and outside of classrooms. In socio-technical systems research, socio-cultural concepts of ‘material-semiotics’ and ‘actor-networks’ are useful frameworks to explore ‘hybrid cultural/technical systems’ (Latour, 2005). Actor-network theory, originated by Callon (1986), Latour (1987) and Law (1987), allows networks to be described not only as relations between material objects, but also concepts and concepts-as-artifacts (semiotics). As a research framework, actor-network theory, also called ‘material-semiotics’ (Law, 2004) has been applied to information systems ethnography (Tatnall & Gilding, 1999), educational ethnography (Larsson, 2006) and institutional ethnography (Tummons, 2010). These applications show actor network theory is useful for conducting research in complex, blended technology settings. The next section examines how such a material-semiotic ethnography may also be promising as a triangulation of analytic perspectives.

A perspective of inter-objectivity One reason for adopting ethnography based on a material-semiotic framework is its ability to provide triangulation of philosophical perspectives. Earlier in this chapter, I examined action research as an appropriate process for directing this investigation from a humanist point of view. Action research is a critical perspective in that it advocates enacting change intended by participants, and if ethically designed, will engage silenced stakeholders in the process of improvement and emancipation. However, action research

70

itself has been criticized for its overreliance on human volition, ignoring material/technical power (Tatnall & Guilding, 1999). In effect, action research, by its singular focus on inter-subjectivity, is based on a premise of social determinism, similar to diffusion theories of innovation. In order to consider the effects of spatial architecture, information systems and material technologies, an additional framework, a perspective of inter-objectivity, may give a study greater trustworthiness. This approach proposes an open-ended ethnography that attempts to map an ecology of the social, spatial, and material relationships that are part of the pedagogic design process. It does not simply identify whether human actors ‘want’ a particular design, but also considers the actors that force a design whether they be humans, rules, locations, or devices that exert power. These actors may be unconscious agents, or possible effects that choice would have upon the whole learning ecology. Action research in education often avoids material/technical objects and tends to elicit opinions and conscious understandings about the learning environment, and deal with it from the prominence of the human actor. Tatnell and Gilding (1999) propose actor-network theory as a useful ethnographic framework for studying human/technical networks in information systems innovation research: “Actor-network theory extends ethnography to allow an analysis of both humans and technology by using a single register to analyse both, so avoiding the need to consider one as context for the other. It helps the researcher not to think in terms of human/non-human binaries and the different discourse with which each may be aligned. An actornetwork analysis of information systems innovation may well be described as an ethnography but one that develops themes that conceptualise people and artefacts in terms of socio-technical networks, thus employing concepts such as networks, enrolments and actors.” (p. 963)

More recently, Fenwick and Edwards (2010) have investigated the use of actor-network theory in various educational research studies, pointing out its disruptive effect on common conceptualizations: “These educational studies [drawing upon actor-network theory] often rupture central assumptions about knowledge, subjectivity, agency, the real and the social. They bring to the fore the material—objects of all kinds— and de-centre the human and the social in educational issues.” (p. viii)

These comments suggest an ethnographic approach based on an actor-network (materialsemiotics) perspective is useful for identifying emergent human/technical or online/faceto-face themes in the design of blended language learning environments. Further, its divergence from a humanist, action research approach provides a form of methodological triangulation that balances views of inter-objectivity and inter-subjectivity. The next

71

sections explain how this perspective may affect the process of category-making and framework-developing in an ethnographic methodology.

Merging human and material categories Actor-network theory asserts that the division between human and technical/material actors is artificial, that all actors are hybrid human/material configurations (Latour, 2005). In addition, it asserts that these actors exert power semiotically, that is, through symbolic, primarily non-verbal processes of power. This focus allows a researcher to pay attention to unknown, unconscious or unrecognized powerful forces operating in an organization—‘the elephant in the room’ that no one mentions but everyone knows is there. In the CALL field, the ‘elephant’ that is often ignored is the role of face-to-face techniques or ‘human technologies’ in the classroom. The differences between a classroom full of students who face the teacher in whole-group activities or face their peers in pair work activities into a room are massive compared to room where they face rows of computer screens in terms of types, formats and texts of interaction. Yet, the research focus in much of CALL literature is more on the tools of learning rather than the contexts of learning (Kern & Warschauer, 2000). This is further complicated when a CALL room and a classic language teaching room are combined into a blended learning environment that has both chairs and tables for face-to-face interaction as well as computer screens for online interaction. Applied linguistics in an SLA paradigm has been comfortable limiting the analysis to the texts, but has few research tools to study the actions involved (Kramsch, 2002b). Actor-network theory and other socio-cultural approaches focus on the actions of the classroom and the actions of the learners/teachers as they interact in a variety of locations, physical and virtual. Contexts of learning are made the center of analysis by converting the neutral idea of a ‘context’ into the concrete actions of learners and teachers with all aspects of their environment (Fenwick & Richards, 2010). The concept of hybridity is useful to a blended learning paradigm because it means the categories of ‘face-to-face’ and ‘online’ can be combined when we focus on the actions, groupings and spaces of interaction.

A post-modernist socio-cultural theory Post-modernist inquiry pushes the boundaries of socio-cultural theory, a tradition that itself is struggling to assert its perspective amongst a more dominant second language acquisition paradigm. In applied linguistics, sociocultural theory has focused primarily

72

on activity theory (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). The philosophical roots of activity theory are in social constructivism not general constructivism, which is the foundation of actor-network theory (Mulcahy, 1997). Social constructivism, particularly activity theory, starts with identifying social groups, and distinguishes between agents (subjects) and artifacts (objects). It treats material objects as ‘mediators’, which relegates them to a role of a ‘filter’ or ‘aid’. I am skeptical of this assumption because material technologies are more than neutral, instrumental aids, as Warschuaer (1998) argues, but exert power to change the environment, often dramatically. In this view, not only ‘humans design technologies’, but ‘technologies design humans’ as they ‘force’ humans to behave in certain ways. Therefore an educational technology, such as a CALL laboratory, may force humans to study in a particular way despite the intentions of the human teachers. If in this ethnographic study, the actions of material objects (e.g. laboratories, paper forms, document cameras, mobile devices) reveal a significant role in the design of language learning environments, it may justify a revision of socio-cultural theory to include more post-modern perspectives in its paradigm. One way to describe the method of actor network theory is to consider it as a form of semiotics. In investigating educational systems, such as computer-based training, Mulcahy (1997) describes her method as ‘semiotic method’ or ‘material semiotics’. This may differ from the concept of ecological semiotics, as framed by van Lier (2002, 2004) which seems to be more focused around human communication (mutuality, indexicality, symbolicity) than material effects. Two semiotic concepts that may help understand how material technologies act in a learning environment are ‘boundaries’ and ‘black boxes’ (Akrich & Latour, 1992).

Boundaries of action The flow of action in environments is affected by boundaries, much like a river halts, diverts, or accelerates movement. Again the point of inquiry is not the river, but how I, the traveler, am affected and how my relations are changed as I interact with the river. In actor network theory, boundaries are not fixed but constantly in motion, renegotiated by the actors. An educator might describe a boundary as a ‘role’, a teacher’s role or a student’s role. An IT person might initially make a design by defining ‘permissions’ of this user or that user. These may be indicators of boundaries, but a fuzzier, more fluid reality is likely. Boundaries are important because they tell action researchers where

73

there are objective obstacles to overcome in attempts to achieve educational aims. These obstacles are not common knowledge, which often is stuck in vague problem definitions such as “not enough funds” or “no support from administration”. Strong boundaries that deny or allow action, such as contracts, job descriptions, signatures, memberships, logins, or even classroom doors may all be examples of obligatory passage points, (Latour, 2005). These passage points may control the design of environments at any levels, such as in the classroom or in the institution.

Black boxes of activity Another semiotic concept, ‘black boxes’, are ‘fixed’, singular entities, such as ‘the computer’, which can be deconstructed in actor network theory. In Latour (1987), black boxes are described as stable networks of many parts that are considered to be ‘one’ entity/network. A computer, which researchers often treat as a single variable in evaluating an educational program, is actually a complex web of human plans (code designs) and physical materials (drives, screens, buttons) which have multiple functions (taking videos, writing a paper, researching on the internet, playing games, tracking progress, calculating grades). The black box of a computer can be opened up and all the embedded networks and functions examined, and the nested networks inside examined yet again. When black boxes are in constant change, or are highly configurable in local situations, actor network theory calls this a situation of instability. Networked computing is an example of incredible instability. In higher education, the complex ecology of LMS reports, tools, profiles, tracking and activities is one example of how the ‘computer’ has evolved into over the past twenty years. The next twenty years will see further evolution and instability into socially networked learning and mobile learning. Callon (1986) explains that when new actors enter a network, black boxes are often opened up. This would be the case when introducing mobile communication technologies, which ‘open up’ and destabilize formerly stable classroom ‘networks’ and stable CALL laboratory ‘networks’.

Implications for blended learning program analysis The implication of this methodological framework, is that a researcher can analyze ethnographic data to identify which design processes were ‘black boxed’ and unconfigurable, and which were opened up and reconfigured. Unconfigurable technologies exert inordinate power in the environment. This does not suggest

74

unconfigurable objects should be avoided, just that their power needs to be exposed and understood. In an action research study, this analysis could be used to determine which processes should be finely deconstructed, and locate strategic points where redesign can be applied to achieve curricular innovation aims. ‘Black-boxing’ a new teaching practice might also become a goal in an intervention plan. For example, if an action research team wanted to implement an assessment system for student projects, they would first have to assemble a network of students, peers, interfaces, default settings, rubrics, criteria, file formats, upload procedures, teacher time schedules, and computer center rules and then align their interests into an easy-to-agree-on package (a set of polices and procedures). If this package is sustainably and appropriately designed, it might then become a stable network, a black box that can be named and promoted. Then it can be used to encourage others to try the new practice (‘technology’) and let them rearrange it their own classroom settings. In this way, actor-network theory will naturally reveal power in action from a realist view. For example, it may tell us whether the most powerful actor in a design network is a lesson plan template, a curriculum committee policy, a software module interface, or a pedagogical principle. Some actors exerting their influence may lead to instability, such as declining university enrollment forcing emergency measures to devise new programs of curriculum. Stability or instability are natural conditions of change and do not imply a desirable condition, except to point that change is happening and why it may happen. Opposed to this network-configuration theory of material semiotics is diffusion theory or other social determinist models that approach blended language learning environments solely from human power relations. These theories tend to identify an influential human and follow the choices that actor makes, ignoring the context of semiotic objects. Another opposing view, techno-determinism, would approach the environment by studying a tool or software, and describe its attributes or how the tool exerts its role. In the ethnographic phase of this study, I will attempt to avoid both determinist approaches and maintain a blended, socio-technical perspective of material semiotics. The next section defines other, similar principles that will ensure a greater level of quality of this study.

75

Trustworthiness in ethnographic research Quality ethnographic research, like good quality action research establishes trustworthiness according to standards for naturalistic research rather than the measures of reliability and validity of positivistic science. As Nunan and Bailey (2009) state, measures of external validity in order to generalize results to a general population are not relevant to ethnography. Two ways to ensure trustworthiness are to allow replicability and employ triangulation. For ensuring replicability in ethnographic studies, Nunan and Bailey (2009, p. 201) cite five factors developed by LeCompte and Goetz (1982): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Examine the status of the researcher within the research site Describe who the informants are and how they were selected Describe the social situations and conditions where the research occurred Discuss the analytic constructs and premises underlying the research Provide details on data collection and analysis.

In addition, triangulation can achieve greater quality research by simply involving more than one researcher, more than one site, more than one research methodology and more than one analytic construct (Nunan & Bailey, 2009). In the simplest form, verifying a narrative or data analysis by respondent checking provides a check on the quality of the study.

Summary of ethnography as a methodology In designing an ethnography, actor network theory, as a material-semiotic method, has advantages for the study of blended environments. It is a set of principles that flexibly includes all human/material actors, conducts analyses by semiotic systems, moves between micro-macro worlds, and rejects conceptual dichotomies in favor of examining objective circulation patterns. In recent studies in education, it has shown its adaptability as a political and critical tool as well (Fenwick & Edwards, 2010). It, however, requires a strong commitment to postmodern, poststructural thinking and a high degree of comfort with ambiguity. Procedurally, in the course of research, this method can focus on the deconstruction of assumed objects (such as the ‘computer’) and examine the boundaries, black boxes, stability, and network-building in action within learning environments.

Methodology 3: Autoethnography In addition to action research and ethnographic methodologies, a third methodological approach to consider in this study is autoethnography. As a practitioner of over thirty years of experience in various educational roles and institutions, a debriefing of these

76

experiences can be an important source of insight as well as a further tool for triangulation, thus contributing to greater internal validity (Nunan & Bailey, 2009). The purpose of autoethnography can be threefold. First, it is to gain insights from personal experience that motivates the study (a reflexive aim), then to produce insights that provide themes for the study (an interpretive aim), and finally to build an alternative narrative that challenges current theory and practice (an interventionist aim). This section describes the aims of autoethnography, justifies its appropriate use for this research question, outlines recommended forms of data collection, and reviews alternative approaches for analyzing this data.

Defining autoethnography In a sense, all ethnography is autoethnography because storytelling is an interpretive, constructive act. Stanley (1993) notes that autoethnography is not limited to the self because people do not accumulate their experiences in a social vacuum. Holt (2003) challenges reductive, dualistic views (self-other distinctions) of autoethnography, and suggests that, “to write individual experience is to write social experience.” (p. 16). Usher (1998) explains that autoethnography does not record a life and capture the essence of a real subject in the past. It is a recreation in the here-and-how. Identity is not something fixed and discovered by autoethnography, but is created by it. Denzin (1999) contrasts autoethnography with twenty-five other types of biographical method, defining it as an “account of one’s life as an ethnographer” (p. 95). Taking this view, I would need to recall my experiences and publications in educational inquiry, even back in time to formative events, which led to this research question. Chang (2008) defines autoethnography as a type of self-narrative that attempts “…to achieve cultural understanding through analysis and interpretation” (p. 48). In her view, autoethnography is an ethnography, not about the self, but about a culture, which in this study, would be about examining the ‘culture’ of blended language learning throughout my professional practice.

Aims of autoethnography The first aim of autoethnography is a method of reflexivity for a researcher, a way of reflecting not only on the process of inquiry at hand, but also on a lifetime of inquiry. This lifetime of inquiry builds a personal paradigm of the world. A paradigm is a filter of what a researcher ‘sees’ and how she or he is bound up in it. Specifically, it interprets the

77

technologically blended language teaching world of one practitioner over a forty-year period. Autoethnography is thus a method to create and acknowledge the paradigm and the paradigmatic change of the researcher. It assumes that no observation is neutral, and methods do not discover or depict reality (Law, 2004). Instead, methods enact the paradigm of the researcher. Secondly, in my research design, autoethnography is a technique for seeking greater trustworthiness, or validity. By triangulating methods of insider case study, outsider case study, and personal biography, then comparing results, any resulting similarities can verify and enhance the value of findings or conversely reveal an important contradiction in the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Autoethnography will develop themes that may agree or conflict with themes created in other frameworks and methods. If the goal of this research is not local problem solving, but trans-local theory building, then multiple methods and perspectives on various data sources are necessary to claim external and internal validity. Finally, autoethnography can be an emergent viewpoint, that of a minority discourse community writing to resist a dominating discourse (Pratt, 2007). For me, it is articulating the practitioner’s struggle with technology and education and translating this into the terms of the academic theoretician, the instructional designer, and the software engineer. Reed-Danahay (1997) writes that the auto-ethnographer is a boundary crosser, and the role is one of embodying dual or multiple identities. Martineau (2001) adds that it involves entering borderlands and indeterminate hybrid ‘contact zones’. The role of the autoethnographer is not to presume the neutrality of unbiased reporting, but to illuminate dichotomies of power, in order to locate border-crossing potentialities.

Data collection and analysis in autoethnography Data collection in autoethnography occurs through mainly through journal/diary writing. Nunan and Bailey (2009) note the difference between a retrospective journal in an autoethnography and an introspective teaching diary, which may be used as data collection in a qualitative study. A teaching diary is written concurrently as the teaching progresses through a term, while the retrospective journal is written after the years of past practitioner experience. However, in both uses of journal writing, the data should not be presumed ‘raw’ and ‘comprehensive’, but highly selective based on the themes of the research. All writing immediately filters the data by conscious or unconscious attention

78

to questions, issues, or intuitions. In this study, I will select the content as much as possible from past writings rather than recreate new writing from retrospection. Before writing or after writing, a retrospective diary can use triggering tools or selective categories, such as themes, time, place, and episodic events. Other recommended triggering tools are that of snapshot, metaphor, journey and artifacts (Muncey, 2005) as well as photos, art and material objects (Martineau, 2001). In personal myth, there are defining moments (Roberts, 1998), or epiphanies (Denzin, 1989).

Some types of

epiphanies are a) a major event which touches every fabric of a person’s life, b) a cumulative or representative event signifying disruptions, c) a minor epiphany which symbolizes a problematic moment, and d) a episode which relives and gives meaning to a major epiphany (p. 70). Richardson (2000) also notes that autoethnographic narratives may include dramatic recall, unusual phrasing, and strong metaphors that enable readers to ‘relive’ events or connect the reader’s own experience.

Problems and validity of autoethnography Sparkes (2000) observes that autoethnography lies on the boundaries of qualitative research. Holt (2003) found that reviewers of autoethnographic research might not agree on the verification criteria, especially when autoethnography is used entirely on its own as the sole methodology. This then is one justification for using autoethnography in a combination of methods.

Holt (2003) also warns that, “…those who produce

autoethnography are at risk of being overly narcissistic and self-indulgent…” (p. 19), yet he acknowledges the value of any research that links the personal with the cultural. The most referenced summary of validity criteria are those given by Richardson (2000, pp. 15-16), who describes five factors for reviewing personal narrative papers including both evaluative and constructive validity techniques. The criteria are: • • • • •

Substantive contribution: Does the piece contribute to our understanding of social life? Aesthetic merit: Is the text artistic, captivating and avoids simplification? Reflexivity: Is it clear how the author developed the text? Impactfulness: Does the text generate new questions or move the reader to action? Expresses a reality: Does the text express an embodied lived experience?

In summary, autoethnography can be a useful methodology for triangulating data collection and analysis, adding reflexivity to other research approaches and the inquiry as

79

a whole, and locating emergent viewpoints in the story being told. The rigor of autoethnography is tested by formative and evaluative validity techniques.

RESEARCH DESIGN From an articulation of a personal research philosophy and a justification for three research approaches, this section lays out the research design of this study. The research design of this study emerges from a dialogue between the conceptual framework of my focus question, the unresolved issues of CALL theory and practice, and the debate on appropriate methodology for investigation. Table 3.7 summarizes the aim, key concepts, and philosophic assumptions made earlier in this paper. Table 3.7. Aim, key concepts, assumptions, and frameworks Aim

To investigate how blended environments are designed for second language learning. To establish a preliminary framework for blending technologies in foreign language learning.

Key Words and Concepts

Pedagogic design, learning environment, blended learning, second language learning, CALL, foreign language education

Philosophical Assumptions

Knowledge is constructed mentally, socially, and materially Communication is semiotic, situated in context Inquiry is a critical action, implicating and enacting change Actions and relations are the focus of analysis, not essences

Conceptual Frameworks

Pedagogy is becoming less directive and more facilitative Learning environments are collaborative and blended Design is intentional and unintentional Design networks are ongoing circulations of action/relationships Environments are hybrid human and technological networks

Research questions of this study In Chapters 1 and 2, I established the need for contextual study of blended learning environments for both the fields of CALL and second language learning in general. I begin this exploratory study by asking, “How are blended environments designed for second language learning?” and later expanded it to include, “How are technologies blended in foreign language programs?”

80

However, as I conducted the study, I found that the question of design was more simply stated in three of the questions of innovation that Markee (2001) poses: ‘What’, ‘How’, and ‘Who”. In other words, in order to investigate how designs are made, I needed to articulate what a technology is, how it is designed, and who/what does the designing? This leads to the first question, which seeks to expand the definition of technology beyond electronic tools to investigate broader dimensions: •

Question 1: What are the dimensions of technology in designing a blended language learning environment? (classroom level)

A second question inquires ‘how’ technologies are designed or configured. As Chambers and Bax (2006) suggest, the real concern here is the question of innovation, normalization, or integration. I refined the question to: •

Question 2: What conditions in the institutional culture promote blending of technologies? (program level)

A third question asks the critical question of ‘role’, that is, who is doing the design? This is the question of power, and who/what exerts the strongest power in the design process. •

Question 3: How are roles in the design of blended environments changing?

In order to avoid expert-oriented and encapsulated design, I did not seek a set of ideal rules of design to recommend. The aim of this investigation is not to discover expert rules or a consensus of best practice. Rather, this study examines factors within the particular situation inside ongoing blended learning programs. I begin by asking the participants several open-ended questions, such as, 1) “What is your role in the program?”, 2) “What are the techniques and tools you use in your classes?”, and 3) “How did you design or configure them?”. The study then attempts to discern the factors as ‘themes’ and how they affect design. In analyzing a research question for appropriateness, Burns (2010) adapts eight categories of evaluation from Schwalbach (2003): 1) scope, 2) open-endedness, 3) bias, 4) logical connection, 5) ease of data collection, 6) relevance to current research, 7) ethical value and 8) clarity. In Table 3.8, I provide adapted guidelines for blended environments and then evaluate the two research questions of this study according to those guidelines.

81

Table 3.8. Evaluating research questions in blended language learning Evaluative category

Guidelines for blended environments

Evaluation of this study’s research questions:

Scope

Clarify whether the scope is mesolevel (program context), or microlevel (classroom context). Avoid narrow, tool-focused questions.

Both questions are open-ended; one focuses on micro classroom level, the other on meso/macro aspects of programs.

Openendedness

The question should lead to further, long-term questions related to technology. At the same time, it should lead to a sustainable environment. A question focusing on highly expensive interventions may need to be reconsidered.

This question is rather openended in that the question of ‘who’ designs the environment is not specified. The study will reveal who, what, how the environment is designed.

Bias

Avoid questions that focus on tool effectiveness or comparative methods. Instead ask how the ecology of classroom technologies influences students and their learning.

This question does not compare media, tools, methods or approaches. It assumes that both face-to-face and online technologies are useful and evolving.

Logical connection

A good research question makes a clear connection between interventions and outcomes.

The interventions in this study have clear outcomes. But the research questions are not clearly connected.

Ease of data collection

The question should not be too abstract, but specific enough to quickly generate interview questions and observational categories.

The question is intentionally abstract to allow openness to many possible factors and generate exploratory interview questions and observations.

Relevance

The question should be a problem that needs solving, and results considered valuable by others. The question may have already been explored by another study. Be sure to build on past studies.

Problems of learners, teachers, researchers, materials developers, and institutions are affected by issues of technology blending and integration.

Ethical value

Ensure the question is aligned with student goals, school curriculum aims and teaching community research needs.

Blended language learning is a priority approach for the administration in the two sites of this study.

Clarity

A clear, concise question suggests its value to both external researchers/institutional colleagues.

The question is clear but needs justification to be compelling to researchers/administrators.

82

This evaluation of my research suggests there are several decisions I have made which may violate principles of ‘quality’ research questions by Swalback (1995) and Burns (2010). The primary violation may be my intentional concern to open the investigation to multiple levels of design: micro, meso, and macro. I justify this stance that a broad, exploratory inquiry needs to avoid boundaries, at least initially. Thus, in the research design I will investigate both micro concerns of the classroom and meso/macro concerns of the institution. In the following sections, I summarize plans for methodology and site selection, research questions, data collection and analysis, researcher positionality, quality assessment, and ethical considerations.

Methodology and site selection strategy From this context, I considered three methodologies for conducting the research. Given my philosophical assumptions about knowledge and learning, a qualitative paradigm fits because it assumes both the researcher and participants interpret reality.

Next, the

complex nature of the environment in learning situations require contextualized descriptions in ethnographic studies both in institutions and as within a personal teaching career. Third, I am a committed practitioner with agendas for change based on an ethical framework of equitable resources, support, and challenges for all students. Earlier in this chapter, I examined and justified three approaches to qualitative research appropriate for the inquiry into blended language learning environments: • • •

action research to focus on the interventions of human actors ethnography to understand institutional culture and discover power relationships in the design of technologies autoethnography to uncover past experiences relevant to confirm and illuminate the present studies.

To provide further triangulation, I chose varying sites: an institutional language program, a collaborative team teaching a single course, and my personal career of work and study. Each institutional site exhibits a type of blended learning where curriculum promotes blended venues and the infrastructure features blended classrooms. For these institutions, in order to protect the confidentiality of the participants, I use the pseudonyms of ‘Kita’ and ‘Minami’ University. These research paradigm, research approaches, and research sites are summarized in Table 3.9.

83

Table 3.9. Research paradigm, approaches and site selection strategy Research Paradigm

Qualitative, post-positivist, postmodernist, critical

Research Approaches

Action research Ethnography Autoethnography Institutional Language Program at ‘Minami’ University English Language Institute

Research Sites

General English Teaching Team at ‘Kita’ University Information Department General English Course Professional career of Don Hinkelman Academic in communication/foreign language education Facilitator in community development projects

Data Collection and Analysis The study collects qualitative data consisting of interview transcripts, teaching journals and institutional documents over the period from 2005 to 2009. For the purpose of the research question in this paper, teachers were the main participants, as their role is central in the selection, configuration and use of technologies in the classroom (Hubbard, 2008; Egbert et al., 2009). Specifically, Hubbard (2008) claims that “…language teachers are the pivotal players: they select the tools to support their teaching and determine what CALL applications language learners are exposed to and how learners use them” (p. 176). My role as researcher varied according to the sites. In one site, I acted as an ethnographer with an ‘outsider positionality’. In the other site, I with a team of action researchers using an insider, interventionist approach (Herr & Anderson, 2005). There are a number of ways educators have framed the steps needed to complete an action research project (Burns, 1999; Kemmis, 2007). Earlier in this chapter, I explained four major stages commonly proposed for action research: 1) plan, 2) act/observe, 3) interpret/reflect, and 4) re-plan. One point all proponents of action research have in common is that investigations are cyclical, moving in a spiral starting from inspiration (challenge), planning, action, data collection, data analysis, and finishing with a new plan for action (Burns, 2010). With the results in, a new spiral starts again in a cycle of

84

continual reflection and improvement. Table 3.10 lists this progression of larger stages and smaller steps within a single cycle of action research. Table 3.10. Stages and steps in a cycle of action research Stage

Step

Planning

Clarify purpose, identify interventions Consider ethical issues and strategies Determine what type and how much data will be needed Design instruments for data collection Set a schedule for data collection

Intervention

Begin intervention Gather data Define end point

Evaluation

Examine the data Create a rubric/analytical tool for data analysis Complete data analysis Reflect Write the research Disseminate

Re-plan

Take new actions

Applying this action research construct to this study, one site will undergo a cyclical action/reflection process. I have divided one institution into three cycles of action research—the limit for this present study, and another institution for three site visits and five years of ethnographic data collection. Continual, long-term studies in CALL are rare and although further cycles are possible and desirable for greater integrity, the five-year limit is arbitrarily applied for the purpose of completing this study. Data will be collected through personal journals, teaching diaries/forums, interviews, observations of classroom activity, observation of online activity, observation of out-ofclass activity, and collection of teaching materials. Data analysis will involve thematic analysis, cross-site analysis, and cross-cycle analysis. Data representations will be narrative summaries and table summaries. Table 3.11 summarizes this design.

85

Table 3.11. Sites, methods, participants, data collection, and data analysis Site

Cycles

Methodology

Participants

Data Collection Methods

Data Analysis Methods

Home/office 1970-2010

Thirty years

Autoethnography

Researcher

Diary, academic paper collection

Critical incidents, paper summaries

Kita U. Cycle 1 2005-2007

Pilot and two semesters

Action research

General English research team

Teacher diaries, classroom/facility observation, interviews materials collection

Thematic analysis and narrative writing

Kita U. Cycle 2 2007-2008

Two semesters

Action research

General English research team

Teacher diaries, classroom/facility observation, interviews materials

Thematic analysis and narrative writing

Kita U. Cycle 3 2008-2009

Two semesters

Action research

General English research team

Classroom/facility observation, interviews materials

Thematic analysis and narrative writing

Minami U. 2005-2009

Three site visits

Ethnography

ELI program: Teachers and administrators

Classroom/facility observation, interviews materials

Thematic analysis and narrative writing

Triangulation of sites and researcher positionality Two forms of research triangulation happen through multiple sites and multiple positions of insider/outsider status (Herr & Anderson, 2005). The autoethnography takes the most inside positionality, an introspective and retrospective study of a researcher’s relevant data produced over an extended time period. The action research approach involves an insider in collaboration with insiders. The ethnographic approach takes the most ‘outside’ position, an outsider in collaboration with insiders. Table 3.12 displays these three sites and the accompanying levels of positionality that triangulate this study. Table 3.12. Positionality choices applied to multiple sites Positionality Choices

Example for Sites

86

1. Insider studies self

Career autoethnography Researcher writes autoethnographic diary, reflecting on themes of classroom-based teaching practices, innovation in education, technological/human hybrids.

2. Insider in collaboration with insiders

Kita University action research Researcher and two colleagues use same curriculum in their classes and compare experiences with team meetings, shared materials, and teacher diaries.

3. Insider in collaboration

--

with outsiders 4. Insider-outsider teams

--

5. Outsider in collaboration

Minami University ethnography

with insiders

Researcher visits researcher team and individual faculty to study a comprehensive EFL program setting and studies multiple classroom/online settings.

6. Outsider studies insiders

--

Validity and trustworthiness The quality of this study will be judged by models of validity posed by Herr and Anderson (2005) with additional criteria added by Burns (1999). Other forms of triangulation

could

include

respondent

checking,

peer

examinations,

rival

explanations/negative cases, and monitoring researcher bias. Kemmis (2007) points out that there are two schools of thought or polarities in contemporary action research, the critical social science view and the reflective practitioner view. My values emphasize the former, that the purpose of this action research is to change education and schooling in a broad sense, rather than focusing on improving my own personal professional practice (i.e. outcome validity). In Table, 3.13, I created the following preliminary questions of validity as possible guidelines for quality assessment at the end of the action research and ethnography. Table 3.13. Validity and trustworthiness questions applied to sites of this study

87

Type of Validity

Site

Outcome Validity

Minami Does the research accurately describe the culture? Kita

Questions of trustworthiness

Does the research identify a problem and does the agreed upon action move to resolve it? Do results offer lower costs, student satisfaction, successful learning, or other benefits?

Process Validity

Minami Does the research comprehensively study the culture? Kita

Catalytic Validity

Minami Is the research recognized across the department, and to other departments, causing further change? Kita

Democratic Validity

Does the cycle lead to further problem identification? Does triangulation work well?

Same

Minami Are silenced actors given voice in the process? Are teachers and students empowered? Are technophobic teachers/students represented? Kita

Dialogic Validity

same

Minami Is the research accepted for publication, in-house, nationally, and internationally? Does the research create a dialogue amongst researchers, practitioners? How? What degree? Kita

same

(Categories of validity from Herr & Anderson, 2005)

Ethical considerations Even cases of where participants are primarily teachers, there is potential for positions of power used for advantage. As a researcher who plays multiple roles as teacher, administrator, I will need to be aware that the roles may conflict (Coglan & Brannick, 2001). Even though a teaching team may feel that it is acting alone when conducting classroom research, the investigation may influence our relationship amongst colleagues. Also, as a tenured staff, I hold discretionary power to renew contracts of adjunct faculty. The vulnerability of these staff that choose to participate in the study is protected by providing clear options for redress outside of members of the research team. Table 3.14

88

summarizes these ethical questions common in action research (Herr & Anderson, 2005; Burns, 2010). Table 3.14. Ethical questions in action research Potential area of ethical Questions to consider conflict Abuse of power in student and collegial relationships

What safeguards will be in place minimize power differentials in the student-teacher relationship? How will colleagues be informed, portrayed, or debriefed?

Informed consent

What will participants be told about the purpose of the investigation? Will a plain language statement that details the purpose, methods of data collection and who to contact for misbehavior be provided to each potential participant?

Non-coercion (voluntary participation)

How will students opt-in, or opt-out, of a study that involves an entire subject? How will the data they present for analysis, be gathered?

Confidentiality of data

How will the data be anonymized? Who will have access to the raw data? How will the data be stored and secured? How long will it be retained?

Dissemination to stakeholders

What is the plan for dissemination to stakeholders, including transient students, regarding the outcomes of the research?

Academic publications and conferences

What are the standards set by academic journals or professional bodies regarding ethical guidelines?

The outcomes of action research can also affect the relationship with the wider community. Pedagogical approaches, of course, affect students directly. Less obvious though, members of the community may ask for evidence of results and expect defense of the innovation. In an ethical sense, I will need to justify to my home institution, which provides salary support and research expenses, how the resources were expended and used throughout the project. I must answer questions of whether the outcomes justified the costs and whether action research projects undertaken are sustainable and beneficial?

89

PART II: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON BLENDED ENVIRONMENTS Chapter 4: An autoethnographic approach Chapter 5: An action research approach Chapter 6: An ethnographic approach

90

CHAPTER 4: AN AUTOETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACH INTRODUCTION Chapters 4, 5, and 6 begin Part II of this study, focusing on three approaches to empirical studies on blended learning environments. Previously in Part I, Chapter 1, I reviewed trends in CALL and identified problems concerning technologies for various stakeholders, such as the growth of new modalities and literacies, the under-theorized environments of blended language learning, and the institutional waste of resources on hardware and software. In Chapter 2, I discussed theoretical concepts and issues in second language learning, such as technologies, pedagogies, and roles, and how these issues are shifting within blended environments. In Chapter 3, I then reflected on research philosophies and critiqued three methodological approaches that would best address contextual inquiry into complex educational programs. Of the many approaches to contextual inquiry, autoethnography showed potential to illuminate the issues that I faced as a practicing teacher designing blended learning environments. Although ‘blended learning’ is a new term, the process of integrating technology in my teaching has been a continual process over a forty-year career as an educator and a twenty-five year career as a foreign language classroom researcher. This strategy to investigate the long-term ‘context’ of my inquiry aims to overcome the temptation in educational and institutional research to conduct ‘snapshot research’-examining a temporary ‘innovation’ rather than systematically examining longitudinal change (Benson & Nunan, 2005). A longitudinal ethnography of my academic career and critical incidents in blended learning programs as a teacher and administrator could avoid what Nunan and Bailey (2009) call a ‘single-episode perspective’ and provide what Chang (2008) calls ‘intentional self-reflexivity’. This approach offers the potential to reveal both the researcher’s motivation for the study as well as possible themes that could give insight to the primary research question, “How are blended learning environments designed?”

91

This chapter is the first of three chapters that detail the procedures of data collection and analysis in the sites of this study. In this chapter, I begin with an autobiographical study of my teaching career, especially where it concerns previous attempts to integrate technologies within blended second language classrooms. There are five sub-sections of this chapter. To begin, I outline a brief description of my career. Next, I propose a strategy for employing retrospective methodology in education and justify the selection of auto-ethnography. Third, I summarize and display the data summaries of an academic publishing review and a critical incident chart. Fourth, I describe the themes and subthemes with brief narratives to illuminate personal priorities in designing blended learning environments. These sub-themes are then connected and compared to similar themes in the fields of CALL and applied linguistics. Finally, I conclude by identifying blind spots in the interpretation, projecting the next stage of inquiry, and evaluating the quality and trustworthiness of this research. To evaluate the quality of these findings, I adopt the validity criteria for autoethnography proposed by Richardson (2000).

Within qualitative research contexts, the terms

‘trustworthiness’ or ‘quality control’ is often substituted for ‘validity’ (Nunan & Bailey, 2009). Table 4.1 summarizes Richardson’s five criteria and five questions I propose for evaluating this phase of research.

Table 4.1. Criteria for evaluation of autoethnographic research Trustworthiness Criteria

Key Questions

(Richardson, 2000)

(Richardson, 2000)

Substantive contribution Aesthetic merit Reflexivity Impactfulness Expresses a reality

Does the research contribute to understanding of [learning environments?] Is the text artistic, captivating and avoids simplification? Is it clear how author developed the text? Does the text generate new questions or move the reader to action? Does the text express an embodied lived experience?

The next section begins the autoethnography with an overview of my past and present career in education.

92

CAREER DESCRIPTION Currently, I coordinate and teach in the Foreign Languages Department of the General Education Center of Kita University. In 2010, this program had 1800 students enrolled from a 4500-student body, studying in 192 foreign language courses, including 139 EFL classes/semester. Within this department, I work closely with five other full-time teachers who teach EFL in 50 of these classes. Our classes are all based in facilities that were designed to enhance blended learning practices--classrooms with movable desks and chairs along with networked computers on the side walls or in nearby laboratories. While I directly teach EFL communication skills, I am also indirectly responsible for administration of approximately 70 English communication sections of classes. This includes administering an online learning management system and CALL facilities for foreign languages and serving on committees for IT coordination. Before coming to Kita University, I worked for twenty-five years in various education and community development positions. These roles and locations included technical instruction at vocational schools in Chicago and Micronesia, community leadership training in Kenya, community development facilitation in North America, computer education/consulting in Belgium, EFL communication skills in Japan, and interuniversity exchange program management across Asia. In each role, I often initiated technology-related changes in teaching methodology and designed intensive training programs both within and across institutions. ‘Blending’ of tools, venues, and pedagogies is a common metaphor to unite these various duties. However, my frustration in understanding the failure of some innovations and the desire to transfer what was successful to others now motivates this study. Interpreting these previous attempts at blending technologies in education is the aim of this autoethnographic stage. Unfortunately, there was little formal data available to document these years as a teacher. I needed to design a research strategy that took advantage of the papers I had written as an academic and recollections from the years spent as an NGO trainer. The next section defines the methodological strategy I chose for this autoethnography.

93

METHODOLOGY FOR A RETROSPECTIVE APPROACH Autoethnography is a retrospective, insider methodology that requires a strategy for data collection, interpretation and trustworthiness. Nunan and Bailey (2009) write that autobiographical research is useful as a holistic examination of an individual’s life experience. As discussed in Chapter 3, autoethnography must be selective, choosing to review lengthy experience by listing events, artifacts, questions, or incidents (also called ‘triggering tools’), as well as employing writing tools such as journals or other narratives to compose the data (Richardson, 2000). In this study, I designed two triggering tools, an academic papers and presentations review (Appendix A) and critical incident chart (Appendix B), as data collection instruments. Both of these allowed a large amount of data (28 papers, 23 presentations, 34 incident entries) to be analyzed for themes related to blended learning.

Data Selection, Coding, and Clustering The most relevant and accessible data available for retrospection are the publications and presentations I have given in my academic career in foreign language education. The topic of each of these works represents a particular issue in my teaching efforts that I was motivated enough to document and explore. My intention was that an analysis of themes in these papers would indicate the origins of unexplored issues with blended learning. In this stage, I reviewed 26 papers published in academic journals and 23 presentations given to teacher association conferences in the fields of CALL and EFL during the period of 1991 to 2005, excluding papers published after the start of this study. In addition, two other pre-academic publications from 1989 were added, for a total of 51 papers and presentations. After collecting the titles, I prepared a data display chart with year, title, summarized abstract, and key concepts related to blended learning. The full data chart is shown in Appendix A, listing approximately 210 key concepts. Table 4.2 illustrates this data with six sample publication titles, abstract summaries, and key concepts.

94

Table 4.2. Sample data from the academic review (Appendix A) Year

Publication Title

1991a

Student Learning Styles: Variances in Learning Modality Preferences of University Students

1992a

Computer-Aided Composition Teaching

1996a

Reliability of a Fluency-based Oral English Test for Large Low-level Classes

2000a

Designing Sister School Exchanges in Asia: Active English Production for Second Language Learners

2003f

e-Learning Systems with Open Source Software

2005a

Practical and pedagogical issues for teacher adoption of IMS learning design standards in Moodle LMS

Abstract Summary

Key Concepts

Compared personality testing (Myers Briggs) with learning style testing and found sensory modality testing was useful for student self-awareness and for teachers to vary their media types in lessons and tasks. Presented a process writing approach with multiple draft using computers or Japanese word processors. Used Japanese word processors for English compositions, removed drudgery of rewriting Used classic measures of reliability to assess in mass oral fluency test format. Found low levels of reliability. Nonetheless, recommended pair dictation methods for certain situations with large size classes and low proficiency levels. This presentation focused on the use of English in short-term, Asian-to-Asian student cultural exchanges. The design of the exchange forced students to separate from their L1 classmates and interact with overseas partners in L2. Further examination of open source LMS and the role they play in education. Compares in-house developed LMSs with commercial and open source ones. An analysis of international e-learning standards and what conditions and attributes would allow greater adoption, especially from a teacher’s view. Designon-the-fly, or bricolage, was the most critical feature required.

learning styles self-assessment (1991a), student learning strategy training (1991a), sensory modality testing (1991a), computer-aided composition teaching (1992a), timesaving, multi-draft process writing (1992a), recorded and editable files (1992a) pair dictation technology (1996a), mass oral testing formats (1996a), speech assessment rubrics (1996a), large class/low level appropriate testing (1996a) sister school exchanges (2000a), Asian EFL partners (2000a), groupings to force L2 production (2000a)

open source LMS (2003f), role of LMSs in language education (2003f) on-the-fly design of LMS tasks (2005a), portable international standards for blended learning (2005a), universal educational modeling descriptors (2005b)

(Note: All citations to papers and presentations such as these by ‘Hinkelman’ are located in Appendix A, not in References)

In addition to the academic review, I collected 102 key concepts from 34 critical incidents. However, to avoid the danger of self-indulgence in auto-ethnography (Holt, 2003), I limited the final data for direct citation to include only the academic review, although data from the critical incidents can be reviewed in Appendix B. The 210 academic-related key concepts were sufficient to generate a concise interpretation without excessive introspection before moving on to the subsequent ethnographic and action research stages of this study. Next, I grouped these key concepts into clusters of similar intent. These were given descriptive titles rather than interpretive or pattern codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This resulted in fourteen ‘sub-themes’ that I categorized according to the three themes of the literature review in Chapter 2: pedagogy, technology, and roles. Then I wrote short narratives indicating how each of the sub-

95

themes were important to me, illustrating with examples from some of the data stories-the critical incidents that were most vivid to me. Finally, I linked that story to frameworks of technology, pedagogy and roles in the field of CALL and applied linguistics. Later, I evaluated the process with a quality/trustworthiness checklist (Richardson, 2000). Some of my initial coding suffered from vague wording such as ‘tasks’ or ‘groupings’. By adding multiple, descriptive adjectives, the personal values in the key concept wording were specified more discretely. A summary chart of the concepts and themes, Appendix C, shows the three major themes with 14 sub-themes and over 200 cited key concepts listed under each title. In each sub-theme, some key concepts without numbered citation are added to the list, representing critical incidents related to that theme. Each sub-theme has a generic category (i.e. ‘format’) with an individual quality descriptor (i.e. ‘intensive’). Table 4.3 lists the fourteen autoethnographic sub-themes.

Table 4.3. Autoethnography themes and sub-themes Pedagogies

Roles

Technologies

Intensive formats

Learner-centered modalities

Economical costs

Experiential settings

Computer-automated management

Face-to-face groupings

Overseas participants

Teacher-Designed Texts

Flexible spaces/Multiple venues

Performance-based assessment

Collaborative curriculum design

Engaging interfaces

Student-generated content

Integrated web tools

Theme interpretation After coding, clustering, and titling of the key concepts, the next stage involves theme interpretation. Here I present the fourteen sub-themes in narratives that describe and interpret the data in relation to the aim of the study using an analytical-interpretive style of narrative writing (Chang, 2008). The following sections examine and interpret the three major themes from the analysis--pedagogies, roles, and technologies--using the underlying data cited directly (papers, presentations) with some added illustrations

96

(critical incidents). Citations to papers and presentations by ‘Hinkelman’ in this chapter are not listed in the endnotes section of this thesis, but located in the Appendix C: Autoethnography Themes chart.

THEME 1: PEDAGOGIES This section describes and interprets four themes concerning pedagogies in blended language learning: intensive programs, experiential learning, overseas exchange, projects and events, and performance-based assessment. The four sub-themes under ‘pedagogies’ are as follows: • Format: intensive, single-topic courses, scheduled in consecutive time periods • Setting: direct experience in foreign cultures or simulated holistic experience • Participants: overseas or cross-curricular participants with compelling interest to communicate • Assessment: performance-based rubrics which transparently reflect the values and priorities of the program The next four sections interpret each of these themes.

Intensive formats: In my analysis of the publications, one common theme in my research was the design of blended learning programs with ‘intensive formats’. This I define as the format of instructional programs where a single topic or project is covered in a short period of time often with participants in a full-time seminar setting. This type of format contrasts with the once or twice weekly format of most 90-minute academic classes in Japan. This concern for an intensive format developed over fifteen years, as I worked as a facilitator and trainer in a community development organization (NGO) in a variety of industrialized and developing country settings. The training programs that I coordinated were short and intensive, usually with a team of teachers (Hinkelman, 1989a). The intensity of the programs was such that it forced a high level of preparation and collaboration among the teaching team. I noticed the transformation of our participants’ skills and attitudes in a period of weeks was dramatic and subsequent iterations of the course were quickly improved through student feedback and group reflection by the team. Table 4.3 summarizes the data that supports this sub-theme.

97

Table 4.4. ‘Intensive Format’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Key Concepts Academic review

Intensive formats: an instructional program where a single topic or project is covered in a short period of time often with participants in a fulltime seminar setting.

intensive 5-day training program (1989a) short-term overseas program (1993f) intensive program constructs (1993h) intensive EFL volunteer program (1993h) extended culture learning exercises (1994e) intensive postgraduate teacher-training program (1998b) continuing education for high school EFL teachers (1998b) short-term sister school exchange (2001b)

Critical Incidents Summer M.A. Program, ten-day work camp, World learning conference, oneweek home-stay exchange, student conference, summer English Camp, team teaching and leadership, cross-curricular events

The materials we used were highly graphic and focused on identified attitude changes to promote adult leadership in community organizations (Hinkelman, 1989b). This mode of teaching was opposite what I experienced later in university EFL programs, which followed a classic academic format of independent, teacher-defined aims, independent choice of materials, and independent assessment determined by a single teacher teaching 1-2 hours per week over a four month semester. In an NGO, the economics of an in-house training program forced attention to team objectives, accountability, and minimum time away from the job. Training programs were the highest expense of the organization (calculating travel, food, and time away from the job) so the pressure was high to produce results. In academic foreign language programs, however, no such sense of urgency or attention to aims existed. Perhaps because of this background, once in academic programs, I found myself creating or joining short-term programs that often were part of extra-curricular affairs, such as international exchanges programs and experiential learning programs (Hinkelman, 1993f; 1993h). The contrast of the two approaches to institutional learning led me to greater sensitivity to time design, group formats, and stage-by-stage accountability to aims. In addition, when I transferred my experience in communication skill training to foreign language learning, I was more focused on changed behavior or visible skills, rather than internalized knowledge. I tended to ignore grammar and vocabulary, emphasizing projects and holistic skills instead, such as speeches, dramas, and newsletter production. This approach is consistent with project-based foreign language learning (Beckett &

98

Miller, 2006) which is less focused on form, but more concerned with socialization into appropriate use of L2 within a classroom community. Concerning technology, I emphasized the design of face-to-face processes with groupings of students in intensive, synchronous learning. In contrast, as I later moved into EFL programs in university settings, I found the design of classic CALL programs was more on asynchronous formats, using solitary learning of tutorial exercises or sporadic interaction with textbased online tools. With these CALL programs, I could not find the intensive energy of group work among participants. Searching for alternatives, I began to design and promote more immersive programs such as ‘English Camps’, student conferences, and short-term exchange programs (Hinkelman, 1993f; 1993h). In my review of applied linguistics literature, I found a few studies concerning time design and formats of language teaching programs, especially in the field of immersion programs. In one evaluation of immersion programs, Nettan and Germain (2004) researched French immersion education in Canada, and found that in addition to effective teaching strategies, the intensity and quantity of hours were important factors in developing spontaneous oral communication skills in L2. In a survey of tertiary institutions, blended learning researchers (Allen & Seaman, 2007) reported that institutions routinely employed a design of 2-3 hours of classes per week rather than consecutively-scheduled course hours. However, they did notice many teachers conducted a type of blending which separated face-to-face activities into classroom time, and assigned homework done online with an LMS accompanied by a variety of manual and automated feedback. The purpose of such ‘web-facilitated’ courses (Allen & Seaman, 2007) is to increase the frequency or intensity of students’ interaction with the topic or ‘enhance’ a traditional lecture-based course with additional activities (Graham & Robison, 2007).

Experiential settings: A second sub-theme is called “experiential settings”. This I define as physical settings for learning, which simulate real-world venues for the use of a second language. These settings depart from theater-style classroom arrangements that are common in universities. Table 4.5 summarizes data that supports this theme.

99

Table 4.5. ‘Experiential Settings’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Key Concepts Academic review

Experiential Settings: physical settings for learning besides theater-style classroom arrangements that simulate real-world venues for the use of a second language.

culture learning principles (1993a) EFL curriculum priorities (1993a) student social networks (1993e) informal classroom communication patterns (1993e) social issues content-based learning (1993f), content-based language learning (1993h) experiential EFL education (1993h) inter-cultural simulation games (1994e) group constructivist learning program (1994e) socio-cognitive learning (1994e) intercultural simulations for management education (1995g) culture shock training game (1995f) contextualized skill training (1998d) university students & Third World development (2003h) culture shock and value reflection (2003h)

Critical Incidents Philippine work camp, Teaching practice in junior highs, inter-cultural communication, Thai-Japan Home-stay Exchange, simulation games, culture learning, culture exchange, extended debriefing in L1 and L2

Within a university context, I attempted to integrate a variety of experiential programs into the credit-bearing formal aspects of the curriculum I was responsible for. The first was an intercultural communication simulation called ‘Bafa-Bafa’ which used a gamelike group process to simulate culture shock and culture learning (Hinkelman, Ishikawa, & Wilson, 1994e). The logistical issues with this simulation was that it required at least two teachers and double the amount of time available in a normal 90-minute class period. Both the extended time format and the team teaching configuration were non-standard, thus making a possible useful innovation difficult to implement. Despite the cumbersome and expensive arrangements, we reported that participant reflections showed a high degree of self-awareness and understanding of the problems of inter-cultural communication. This was confirmed in a later study, (Hinkelman, 1995g), which justified the effort required to arrange non-standard time scheduling. Furthermore, I continually redesigned the reflection to add greater students reflection on affective aspects of the culture shock experience in both oral discussion in L1 and written reports in L2 (Hinkelman, 2003h). Later, I transferred the extended, intensive format of this simulation to a popular summer program our department developed called the ‘English Camp’. This was a four day, three night program that met official requirements of 22.5 class hours for a two-credit class. I found simulation games like Bafa-Bafa fit the multi-teacher, intensive format of the

100

camp far better than forcing the design into normal class schedules. The technology of the learning process involved a complex series of five small group sessions, seven medium size groupings, and two large group sessions within the three-hour construct. A variety of realia, spatial dividers and cultural icons made the simulation engaging for the participants. Pedagogically, students would undergo a slow socialization process into culture learning and asked to evaluate their own reactions and performance. Examining the pedagogical process, I found the experiential learning cycle of Kolb (1984) could be applied to a four-stage second language lesson-planning process--direct experience, reflection, instruction, and creative practice (Hinkelman, 1994c). In applied linguistics, the role of simulation and direct experience in second language learning has been explored with an emphasis on immersion learning techniques (Marshall, 1989), for traveling programs and tele-collaboration (Warschauer, 2005), and remote, online communication (Lamy & Hampel, 2007). By building a target language environment where students experienced real-world language tasks, our teaching team created a high-motivation program that integrated these out-of-class tasks with the inclass tasks of the regular curriculum. This type of lesson planning is what Knutson (2003) calls a ‘communicative-experiential’ syllabus.

Overseas participants: A third theme, called ‘overseas participants’, I define as attempts to connect my students with students from other classes, taught by other teachers, often residing in other countries or other courses within the curriculum. In addition to creating intensive, experiential programs, I also experimented with engaging outside, overseas participants in my classes. In particular, I became attracted to overseas sister-school exchanges at my school because of the quality of highly motivated communication and student enthusiasm that I noticed (Hinkelman, 1993f; 1993h). Reflecting on the reasons for high levels of student engagement (Hinkelman, 2000a), I identified two factors in the Asian-to-Asian exchanges that were not common in more typical study abroad programs to native-speaking countries. These were: 1) common interests among participants (culture learning, culture sharing), and 2) common levels of a second language (Hinkelman, 2001b). From this I began to sense that integrating crossclass, overseas participants in the language learning program could be institutionalized

101

into exchange programs hosted in Japan (Hinkelman, 1995c) and abroad (Hinkelman, 1995f; 2003h). I then applied the concept of cross-class communication to a cassette tape exchange program with participants from another school in the same city in Japan. Warschauer (2005) suggests that this kind of multi-class partnerships is an example of ‘culture-inuse’. This greater diversity of participants and increase in role variation is a key theme in socio-cultural theory of second language learning and socialisation of second language learners (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002). The common interests of participants (learning about popular youth culture through personal friendships) also drove me to switch my syllabus from functional-notional categories to a topic-based sequence that connected to contact experiences with overseas students (Hinkelman, 1993f). According to Johnston (2007), appropriate and authentic L2 learning requires “an audience that is concerned exclusively with the meaning of the speaker’s message” (p. 67). Similarly, I observed that whenever my students communicated directly with overseas participants they became intensely concerned with the meaning of their partner’s message. Table 4.6 lists key concepts related to this theme.

Table 4.6. ‘Overseas Participants’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Key Concepts Academic review

Overseas Participants: Connecting my students with students from other classes, taught by other teachers, often residing in other countries or other courses within the curriculum.

Asian-to-Asian student culture exchange (1993f) short-term overseas program (1993f) authentic audiences for EFL (1995c) curriculum innovation through inter-Asian exchange (1995f) sister school exchanges (2000a) Asian EFL partners (2000a) university youth exchanges (2000b) volunteer work and EFL (2000b) design of Asian-to-Asian programs (2001b)

Critical Incidents email exchange with Koreans and Thai students, authentic communication through overseas friendships, outside members of the class, face-to-face exchanges combined with tele-collaboration, sister school partners in tandem learning, Philippine work-camp host families, visible student accomplishments, inter-cultural communication, Thai-Japan homestay exchange

Performance-based assessment: A fourth sub-theme in pedagogy is called, ‘performance-based assessment’. I define this as an assessment system based on project performances that are accompanied by

102

guidelines and criteria explicitly understood by the participants, and clearly reflect the aims and real-world goals of the course (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7. ‘Performance-based assessment’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Key Concepts Academic review

Performance-based Assessment: An assessment system based on project performances that are accompanied by guidelines and criteria explicitly understood by the participants, and clearly reflect the aims and realworld goals of the course.

large scale foreign language oral testing (1994a) practical oral communication assessment (1994a) practical, sustainable oral assessments (1994d) mass testing of speech-making skills (1994d) mass oral testing formats (1996a) speech assessment rubrics (1996a) large class/low level appropriate testing (1996a) oral fluency mass testing (1996b) pronunciation assessment priorities (1998a) extended contextualized suprasegmental practice (1998a) holistic task assessment (1998d) continuous improvement of test items (1999a) localized evaluation criteria for placement tests (1999a) simple, practical test analysis (1999b) sustainable practices for test evaluation (1999b)

Critical Incidents Mass oral testing, speech assessment rubrics, evaluating assessment practice, pronunciation assessment priorities, program-entry placement tests, continuous improvement of test items

Initially, I designed oral fluency tests to handle large classes of low-level students (Hinkelman, 1994a). Despite issues with validity and reliability (Hinkelman, 1996a), I found powerful washback effects in my classes and at another institution (Hinkelman & Johnson, 1996b) convinced me to adopt it across all of my classes and promote the technique nationally (Hinkelman, 1994d). At the end of each semester in university communication classes, I often scheduled one or two classes for individual or team events. An event was a project presentation that involved some sort of audience participation, which usually meant students would rate various aspects of the performance as they viewed it. Performances included student-written dramas, multimedia slideshow presentations of essays or speeches, and sometimes simulated miniclasses for children’s English. A performance aspect, similar to a performance expected in the future, was the culminating point of the course. The percentage of course grading and the prominence of the event made it clear how important this kind of assessment was. In addition, I developed detailed sets of grading scales (rubrics) for EFL pronunciation lessons (Hinkelman, 1995a; 1998a) and writing courses (Hinkelman, 1993d) which indicated the kinds of behavior or qualities that

103

would receive points toward passing the course. These assessment sets were discussed and practiced with students ahead of time to insure transparency. However, when sharing the rubrics with other teachers, I found little interest and none were adopted beyond my courses. Assessment was considered a private domain for the individual teacher to decide and enforce in the her or his classroom. Institutionally, I was only able to effect change in placement testing, where my colleagues and I have conducted continuous improvement of closed items over a seven year period, starting with a manual process (Grose & Hinkelman, 1999a; 1999b) and becoming more automated and sustainable with LMS integration (Hinkelman & Grose, 2004). At the same time, I experimented with motivating feedback such as weekly quizzes to review classroom activities and content. Besides formal assessment, I noticed that with commenting, grading, or rating within a classroom task, students would show high alertness, positive facial expressions, or increased pace of action toward an important language learning goal. Within CALL research, Chapelle and Douglas (2006) report that localized assessment practice has been less studied than high-stakes test development. They recommend an approach to computer-assisted language testing which “...entails a development of a variety of tests and test uses that are not possible without technology” (p. 117). Unfortunately, computer-based assessments often focus on closed-response items, such as comprehension questions rather than project-based rubrics (Churches, 2011). In my attempts to build multi-scale rubric sheets for peer and teacher marking of speeches and essays, my focus was on performance assessment rather than knowledge testing. By necessity, I found that I had to integrate both paper and online tools to provide a rich, comprehensive assessment. I found greater practicality and content validity with a design that included a variety of ‘blended’, face-to-face, or paper-based technologies with clearly defined criteria. In this way, my students could apply the criteria to peer-assessment of their classmates in systematic ways.

Summary of major theme: Pedagogy shifts This section summaries the description and interpretation of four themes concerning shifts in pedagogy within my professional practice. Table 4.8 lists the theme title, definition, pedagogic shift intent, and relevant references.

104

Table 4.8. Pedagogy shifts Themes Intensive Format

Experiential Settings

Overseas Participants

Performance -based Assessment

Definition A format of an instructional program where a single topic or project is covered in a short period of time often with participants in a fulltime seminar setting. A physical setting for learning outside of a classroom atmosphere of desks and chairs which includes or simulates a realworld venue for the use of a second language. Attempts to connect my students with students from other classes, taught by other teachers, either within my school, with other schools, or residing in other countries. An assessment system based on project performances that has guidelines and criteria explicitly understood by the participants, and clearly reflecting the aims and realworld goals of the course.

Pedagogical Shift

References

Formats of course changed from one hour/week sessions to a mix of periodic and intensive formats.

Nettan and Germain (2004) Allen & Seaman, 2007) Graham & Robison (2007) Hinkelman (1989a; 1989b; 1993f; 1993h)

Settings of courses changed from classrooms filled with desks and chairs to a variety of simulated and real-world settings.

Kolb (1984), Marshall (1989) Knutson (2003) Warschauer (2005) Lamy & Hampel (2007) Hinkelman, Ishikawa, & Wilson, 1994e), Hinkelman (1995g)

Participants in the course shifted from a fixed course enrollment to varied constructs involving crosscourse and overseas participants. Assessment changed from content testing to content plus performance assessment. Feedback changed from infrequent formal grades to frequent, multi-style feedback

Warschauer (2005) Kramsch & Thorne (2002) Johnston (2007) Hinkelman, (1993f; 1993h; 1995c; 1995f; 2000a; 2001b; 2003h) Chapelle & Douglas (2006) Hinkelman (1993d; 1994a; 1994b; 1994d; 1995a; 1996a; 1996b; 1998a) Hinkelman & Johnson, (1996b) Grose & Hinkelman (1999a; 1999b) Hinkelman & Grose, 2004)

The key insight of this section relative to blended language learning is that my initiatives in pedagogy involved changing and mixing the format, settings, participants and assessment of my classes. I gave evidence that intensive formats were an alternative time setting that could be employed in university language learning programs that normally relied on once or twice a week foreign language scheduling. My reasons for choosing an intensive format were that I believed that students focused their energy on a target language more consistently and learning objectives were more transparent. I was able to mix both intensive formats and sporadic formats in the syllabus of several classes. In academic settings, intensive formats were often blocked by accreditation requirements and institutional practice which stipulated a single teacher be assigned to a class which was taught in 15 separate, once-a-week sessions. In another pattern of my teaching, I found that experiential settings gave multiple locations for language learning. I developed several activities so distant participants could be connected to my own students through online networks. Activities that simulated real-world settings could be designed to give authentic context to a learning situation. I found motivation for learning a language in a monolingual classroom was not

105

an issue when the communication itself was engrossing and involved real people, not just materials. Finally, performance-based assessment meant that the learning environment needed clear, discrete skill and learning strategy objectives rather than assessment based on knowledge transmission. I meant that practice of a communicative skill was more important priority that required large amounts of class time and out-of-class time, sometimes online. Blending of online and offline activities was a constant concern of mine and it influenced the syllabus and homework requirements I gave my students. However, these initiatives were difficult to transfer beyond my own classes to the whole curriculum. In each of these initiatives, the design of the learning environment was never set, but changed year-to-year, and class-to-class, in line with the definition of design as a continuous process.

THEME 2: ROLES In this section, I examine the theme of ‘roles’ as I continue my autoethnographic analysis of blending learning throughout the trajectory of my career. Throughout my analysis, ‘Roles’ pertains to the influence of key functions that various teaching approaches that I have tried. I pay specific attention to the change or shift in roles that my initiatives require or instigate. The theme consists of five sub-themes that emerged from the key concepts: multiple learner-centered modalities, student-generated content, computerautomated management, teacher-designed textbooks, and collaborative teacher research. After grouping the key concepts and giving titles to those themes, I gave definitions to each: • Modalities: learner-centered lesson plans for varied learning styles • Content: recycling student-created texts to use within other communicative activities • Management: streamlined classroom management for feedback and assessment • Texts: in-house development of textbooks and multi-media materials • Research: prioritizing educational research for collaborative teaching teams

Learner-centered modalities The first aspect of roles that I was concerned with is called, ‘learner-centered modalities’. I define this as designing a learner-centered lesson plan utilizing multiple media types to

106

allow a class of students with different sensory learner styles (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) to experience a mix of modalities (Table 4.9).

Table 4.9. ‘Learner-centered modalities’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Key Concepts Academic review

Learner-centered modalities: the design of a learnercentered lesson plans that utilize differing media to allow students to learn through a variety of styles.

Visual learning materials (1989a) Simplified, illustrated language training books (1989b) Semiotics of page layout for teaching materials (1989b) Learning styles self-assessment (1991a) Student learning strategy training (1991a) Sensory modality testing (1991a) Visual/auditory/kinesthetic sensory modalities (1992b) Multi-media materials (1992b) Varied media in lesson planning (1992b) Mixed modality teaching (1992b) Teaching modality styles (1993c) Mixed modality presentation strategies (1993c) Teachers adjust to mixed student modality preferences (1993c) Experiential learning cycle in EFL (1994c) Cognitive learning styles in EFL (1994c) Cooperative/competitive learning styles (1995b) Teaching style self-assessment (1995b)

Critical Incidents Learning style selfassessment questionnaire (sensory preferences: visual, auditory, kinesthetic)

My interest in presenting different media types to students is born out of my early concern with individual differences in language learning (Skehan, 1989), sensory learning preferences (Reid, 1987) and cognitive learning styles (Kolb, 1984). As I saw it nearly 20 years ago, instructional approaches tended to treat all students the same and favor a single, ‘optimum’ approach to learning. I myself believed that pedagogical inflexibility led to ‘designer approaches’ to teaching, which assumed that content sequencing was more important than the students’ self-awareness. At the time, I found my own classroom practice combined differing modalities in ways that were popular with students (Hinkelman, 1991a). Further, I conducted simple preand post-test experiments with colleagues that suggested overall vocabulary learning scores improved with a multiple modality teaching process (Hinkelman & Pysock, 1992b). Within my own classes, I created lessons that blended several types of media texts and employed a variety of modalities to complete projects. By understanding that they had individual preferences for visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning modes of learning, I argued, students could select a learning strategy to fit their own style. I wanted to transform the teacher’s role from a ‘content provider’ to ‘strategy advisor’. The

107

approach required reflexivity to avoid teaching solely to my own personal preferences, and I noted that it shifted responsibility for learning processes to students while promoting self-directness and autonomy in line with work by Ellis (1989, 1994).

Student-generated content A second sub-theme emerged in my analysis of ‘roles that I called ‘student-generated content’, or the recycling of student-created texts to use within other project-based communicative activities. Table 4.10 illustrates this definition with key concepts from my autoethnographic data. Table 4.10. ‘Student-generated content’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Key Concepts Academic review

Student-generated content: the recycling of studentcreated texts to use within other projectbased communicative activities.

individualized language learning strategies (1995d) learning style/strategy connection (1995d) teacher role as advisor (1995d) student report management in extensive reading (2000c) reading teacher role becomes manager/advisor (2000c) multi-media student speech-making (2001a) pedagogic design with powerpoint (2001a) pedagogic use of slide-making software (2002b)

Critical Incidents Voice recording LMS, recorded and editable, peer-to-peer assessment, multi-stage project module, development of the Project Module for Moodle LMS

Rather than use commercial texts, I found the student slide presentations, multi-media posters and essays could be productively shared and reused in quizzes and discussions (Bossear, Miyamachi, & Hinkelman, 2002b). My two teaching colleagues and I reasoned that since that the use of already ubiquitous tools, such as PowerPoint slideshow software, would increase interest in presentation performances by adding visual aspects to oral presentation. We noticed that the office suite tools were available to students in all computer-equipped rooms across the school, while the dedicated CALL software was only available in one room. By using a low-cost, readily usable tool instead of specialpurpose software, we could expand the role of CALL from a small percentage of classes to all classes in the general English curriculum. Despite our initial enthusiasm as early adopters, however, our project was initially plagued with time-consuming technical problems (Hinkelman, Miyamachi, & Bossaer, 2001c). Within a few years these problems were solved, and now multi-media slide presentations are now a common

108

practice among teachers and PowerPoint training is a required part of the undergraduate curriculum. Upon reflection, it often appears to me that such technologies have become normalized (Bax, 2003) at the university to the point where their use is assumed, unconscious, and even forgotten. Clearly, the ‘role’ of a textbook has shifted from commercial sources to students themselves. I agree that student-created content enhances authentic and critical use of a second language (Simpson, 2009) and expands the concept of literacy (Lippincott, 2007). In the practice of materials production, this theme aligns with Hall (2001) who supports a student-generated experiential approach as a way to increase autonomy, responsibility and participation in the class.

Computer-automated management In a third component of ‘roles’, I define ‘computer-automated management’ as the streamlined classroom management to provide timely feedback and assessments to students, teachers and administrators. Roles come into play here as stakeholders make judgments on the aspects of lessons that should be recorded and assessed. When, for example, LMS functions are used to handle repetitive actions or force students into assessment tasks, there is a shift in the various roles amongst students, teachers and institutional technologies. Table 4.9 shows the data used to develop this theme. As I thought over my career, I noted that one important aspect of my work has been to increase the roles of both students and technologies in assessment and administration. A key outcome of this interest has been to lead the development of a peer- and selfassessment module in Moodle (an open source LMS project). Such work resulted in the use of a set of weekly feedback and assessment systems (Hinkelman & Grose, 2005) and online learning journals (Hinkelman, Okuda, Johnson, Ishikawa & Grose, 2007). By formulating assessments into closed answer formats, we found that we could increase the feedback to students on a regular basis and reduce marking time. Initially, despite the fast marking, the lengthy development of quiz items added to preparation time requirements. However, by the second year, teachers re-used the previous year’s items and materials creation time was dramatically reduced. Even with open-ended questions in the online journal, one teacher reported a reduction in summary and assessment time from eight to three hours per week. Table 4.11 shows the data used to develop this theme.

109

Table 4.11. ‘Computer-automated management’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Computer-automated management: Streamlined classroom management to provide timely feedback and assessments to students, teachers and administrators.

Key Concepts Academic review

Critical Incidents

computer-aided composition teaching (1992a) timesaving, multi-draft process writing (1992a) recorded and editable files (1992a) journal writing integration (1993b) process writing with computers (1993b) open source LMS (2003f) role of LMSs in language education (2003f)

Cost-saving, time-saving computer tasks, automation of repetitive functions, easy learning curves, facilitative teacher roles, customprogrammed LMS scripts, file management breakdown, time consuming projects, technical difficulties,

My attempts to spread automated assessment and management, however, had limited success. This was especially problematic in developing achievement tests across our general English curriculum. Despite my enthusiasm for collaboration, teachers were wary of attempts to define common course objectives and find assessment instruments that all could agree on. However, in one case, online assessment was welcomed in a low-stakes, school-wide placement test for entering freshmen. We surmised that its acceptance was due to a number of reasons: 1) saving considerable faculty time in marking, 2) automatically producing comprehensive reports for meetings, 3) streaming students effectively, and 4) actually not requiring extensive departmental collaboration (Hinkelman & Grose, 2005). The rapid adoption of this initiative may find support in Chapelle and Douglas’ (2006) claim that the ability of computer-based tools to enhance the practicality of testing is clearer than its ability to enhance the quality of the testing. Concerning roles, on first appearance, the role of the ‘computer’ was increased while the role of the teacher was decreased. However, I did not think of a ‘computer’ as a device separate from myself, but more of an extension of myself as a teacher. The black box concept to describe the computer seemed to me overly simplistic as computers are actually multi-function devices, networked in a variety of ways, and configurable with many teacher-designed settings and content. Thus the dividing line between ‘teacher’ and ‘computer’ is not clear in the weekly assessment systems. Latour (2005) calls this a ‘human/machine hybrid’ and explains that boundaries between roles are being shifted as functions are re-arranged, stabilized and automatized. Importantly, these new configurations were at the command of teachers, not software programmers. The ease of configuration, I think, removes much of the power to design from experts to teachers.

110

Teacher-designed texts A fourth aspect of ‘roles’, called ‘teacher-designed texts’, I define as year-to-year inhouse development of textbooks and other multi-media materials by teachers and used in their own classrooms. Table 4.12 lists autoethnographic data related to this theme. Table 4.12. ‘Teacher-designed texts’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Teacher-designed texts: The year-to-year development of in-house textbooks and other multimedia materials by teachers and used in their own classrooms.

Key Concepts Academic review

Critical Incidents

simplified language training books (1989b) pronunciation integration into curriculum design (1995a) teacher-designed student manual (2002b) teacher self-setup of LMS (2003d) configurable, flexible software (2005b)

Global issues book, child development textbook, project booklets, color printing, clear files for course papers, open content, teacher-created materials, flexible materials, course material binding, iterative materials development, making handouts, Textbook-website integration, old BBC CALL lab, online/paper integrated text, online quiz integration

In 1998, a colleague at my home institution developed his own EFL textbook that was based on principles of content-based instruction (Snow & Brinton, 1997). With this text at hand, I built an accompanying website to review and reuse sections of the book. In this situation, the strategy was to connect and recycle materials covered in class through group activities, with solitary online study outside the classroom. The website relegated online work to personal homework that was tightly integrated with earlier tasks; additionally, it reinforced classroom work and gave feedback to teachers. The site was accessible 24 hours per day and had no licensing costs. At the time, such a site stood in contrast to ‘classic’ CALL software, which was not web-based, and limited to use within a single location on campus. Web-based open-source servers were relatively easy to set up and secure, and they distributed teacher-created materials at little cost. In addition, the CALL lab software contained content unrelated to classroom objectives, and therefore was not integrated to reinforce project goals or needs according to major. By 2006, I had co-developed an EFL textbook that targeted the specific needs of students in one non-foreign language major department (Gemmell & Hinkelman, 2006) and, later, I developed a companion web site for a textbook (Hinkelman, 2008). In each case, the model for ‘blending’ online and face-to-face was to place assignment submission and quiz taking activities to the LMS, keeping most activities in the classroom using face-to-

111

face processes. Here, the role of the commercial textbook author and distributor was progressively eliminated. Further, the role of school administration diminished in favor of teacher-driven curriculum and materials design (Shawer, 2009). Teachers that I worked with on such projects felt their roles shift. For some, the power to produce materials was welcomed as an alternative to frustrations with the fixed nature of commercial textbooks. Nonetheless, workloads increased for these teachers. For others, the opportunity to shift their roles was rejected in preference to the use of familiar textbooks and formatted sequences of goals and activities. This implies that a blended learning framework must acknowledge a flexible level of innovation for teaching staff.

Collaborative curriculum design The fifth aspect of ‘roles’, ‘collaborative curriculum design’, refers to teaching teams who work together to research and implement curricular designs (Table 4.13). Typically, research at the universities I worked at was considered an individual pursuit, encompassing literature, linguistics, even Japanese culture, with no particular priority on educational research. In contrast to this pervading institutional culture, I was attracted to work with teaching teams who collaboratively decide important curricular themes to research and implement in second language programs. My interest in collaboration was born out of work on intercultural simulation games (Hinkelman, Ishikawa, & Wilson, 1995). Table 4.13. ‘Collaborative curriculum design’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Collaborative Curriculum Design: Teaching teams who work together to research and implement curricular designs.

Key Concepts Academic review

Critical Incidents

teacher-training curriculum (1989a), organizational training needs/assessment (1989a) EFL teacher training priorities (1995a) pronunciation integration into curriculum design (1995a) national EFL curriculum requirements (1995e) curriculum/entrance examination connection (1995s) communication priorities in examinations (1995e) curriculum innovation through inter-Asian exchange (1995f) continuing education for EFL high school teachers (1995h) continuing education for teachers (1997b) intensive postgraduate teacher-training program (1998b) continuing education for high school EFL teachers (1998b)

iterative change, novices in technology, technology training, CALL seminar

112

Later, I teamed with two Japanese EFL high school teachers to create a proposal for ongoing professional education for the northern regions of Japan (Hinkelman, Fujikane, & Morita, 1998a; 1998b). Following this, in 2005, I was asked to teach an M.A. Ed. Course in CALL concepts and practice. Using the curriculum and its principles as a guide, I co-authored and taught this two-day intensive CALL seminar, which taught blended learning principles. Using the enrolled students’ priorities for learning CALL, the teachers identified cooperatively-designed project booklets (production and sharing) as the key technology skill they needed for their classrooms. This surprised me, as participants expressed no interest in learning how to operate a CALL laboratory or the latest software available for its operation. Efforts such as these have been supported by calls for more active roles of teachers in foreign language education research (Borg, 2003) and more critical roles in institutional practice (Gurney, 1989): “Teachers need to be encouraged to move out of their submissive position and to take a much more innovatory, as opposed to implementary, role in curriculum development. One way to do this is to adopt the perspective of the researcher.” (Gurney 1989, p. 15) However, I have found that such research is not common. Borg (2009) reports that over 80% of English language teachers in his survey favor ‘objective’ research, based on hypothesis testing and conventional scientific notions of inquiry. He concludes that “...teacher research—systematic, rigorous enquiry by teachers into their own professional contexts, and which is made public—is a minority activity in ELT.” (p. 377). If, however, this situation could be reversed, and teachers do become more active in research targeted to improve practice in their classrooms, it will shift the role of research away from individual academic specialties and empower more localized research teams.

Summary of a major theme: Role shifts The following table summarizes the five sub-themes concerning roles within blended learning environments. It points to role shifts from teacher-to-learner (media/modality preferences), from publishers to teachers and learners (textbook and content generation), from teacher to students and LMS (assessment and management), and from specialized researchers to teacher researchers (contextualized curricular research).

113

Table 4.14. Role shifts Themes

Definition

Role Shift

Learnercentred modalites

Designing a learnercentered lesson plan utilizing multiple media types to allow a class of students with different sensory learner styles (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) to experience a mix of modalities.

Student styles affected choice of learning strategies. Teacher adapted to students and played the role of an advisor or counselor.

Kolb (1984) Reid (1987) Skehan (1989) Ellis (1989, 1994) Hinkelman (1991) Hinkelman & Pysock 1992)

References

Studentgenerated content

Recycling studentcreated texts to use for other communicative activities that follow a major project.

A greater proportion of ‘texts’ in the classrooms are being generated not from expert authors and commercial publishers, but by the students themselves.

Bax (2003) Simpson (2009) Lippincott (2007) Hall (2001) Bossear, Miyamachi, & Hinkelman (2001c, 2002b)

Computerautomated management

Streamlined classroom management which saves teachers from manual paperwork and gives timely feedback and assessments to students, teachers and administrators.

The role of the ‘computer’ was increased while the role of the teacher was decreased. However, the computer was actually a multifunction device with many teacher-designed settings and content. These hybrid functions were hard-coded, stabilized and automatized.

Latour (2005) Chapelle & Douglas (2006) Hinkelman & Grose (2004)

Teacherdesigned texts

The year-to-year, inhouse development of textbooks and other materials by teachers and used in their own classrooms.

The role of the textbook author and distributor was progressively eliminated. In addition, the role of school administration is also diminished in favor of teacherdriven curriculum and materials design The power of authorship, along with increased workload, was increasingly added to teachers.

Shawer (2009) Gemmell & Hinkelman (2006) Hinkelman (2008)

Collaborative teacher research

Prioritizing educational research to engage teaching teams who collaboratively decide important curricular themes to research and implement in second language programs.

As teachers become more active in research targeted to improve practice in their classrooms, it may shift the role of research to more localized research teams.

Gurney (1989) Borg (2003, 2009) Hinkelman, Johnson, Ishikawa (1995) Hinkelman, Fujikane, & Morita (1998a, 1998b)

Over a fifteen-year academic career, I saw roles shift slowly but dramatically in many aspects of my professional research and teaching life. As a teacher, I experienced myself with increasing power to change the materials and software that previously I could barely effect. My students were respected as individuals with differences that I adapted to, rather than assuming they should adapt to me. In research, I attempted to relate research to the day-to-day institutional issues of curriculum and good teaching practice. Some

114

powerful roles, however, resisted change, and my ability to affect change was limited, for reasons that I did not always comprehend. It would be simplistic to generalize by saying, power in all aspects of educational design is moving from large corporate entities to individual decisions--as it is in software and materials authoring. To the contrary, I often felt that the overly individualistic nature of research and teacher autonomy was a cause of the neglect of curriculum improvement in the schools I worked in. As I research blended language learning, I must continue to examine the element of ‘power’ in the design of learning environments. Power is institutionalized in roles, policies and other actors that teachers, learners, and administrators embody. Roles are also a critical aspect in examining the socialization of learners into a learning community. Intentional designs of roles, rather than unconscious assumption of roles may be a strategy to be considered in a blended learning framework.

THEME 3: TECHNOLOGIES This section describes and interprets five sub-themes concerning technologies in blended language learning: affordable economics, face-to-face groupings, flexible spaces, engaging interfaces, and integrated web tools. After grouping the key concepts and giving titles to those sub-themes, I gave definitions to each: • Economics: affordable costs and individualized ownership for ubiquitous tools • Groupings: face-to-face arrangements of people to enhance communication • Spaces: multiple, flexible furniture and rooms for face-to-face and online activities • Interfaces: engaging paper and web screen designs that are fun for interaction • Web tools: various web activities integrated into one community environment

Affordable economics The first aspect of technologies that I was concerned with is called, ‘affordable economics’. I define this as the use of technologies that are ubiquitous, time-saving, affordable, standardized and well-managed by both students and teachers (Table 4.15).

115

Table 4.15. ‘Affordable economics’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Key Concepts Academic review

Affordable Economics: The use of technologies that are ubiquitous, time-saving, affordable, standardized and well-managed by both students and teachers.

home-based technology (1993d) economics of technology choice (1993d) low-cost technology (1993d) ubiquitous, student-owned tools (1993d) home-based technology affordances (1993g) economics of educational technology (1993g) low cost LMS (2003c) teacher self-setup of LMS (2003d) expensive licensed CALL software (2005b)

Critical Incidents home-based technology, multiple venues, student owned, expensive computer laboratories, educational economics, free open source, public licenses, teacher-built textbooks, low cost, photocopying and clear files, ubiquitous tools, PowerPoint software built-in standard office suite, process writing with easy computer reprinting,

From 1992 to 2005, I worked in two universities where new CALL hardware and software was installed with special government grants. These packages were not requested by teachers but applied for by administrators. At both universities, a teacher familiar with the grants reported that the cost of the CALL laboratories was over one hundred million yen (USD one million) for the turn-key package of a single room for 40 students. Despite the cost, the rooms were rarely used by teachers and when I inquired into the source of the funding, I found out that both cases used government grants from national ministries--grants intended to spur the national economy by encouraging schools to purchase large hardware packages. Thus neither plan had gone through the ongoing institutional budgeting process. Even though I could use the rooms freely, I discontinued requesting CALL rooms because the software seemed optimized for 1970s style audiolingual teaching methods and the room architecture prevented pair and group interaction. Instead of using CALL laboratories, my strategy with technology turned to using ubiquitous tools that students already owned. In order to implement a process writing approach in my EFL classes, I investigated the use of Japanese word processors. In 1992, computers were not commonly owned by students, but low-cost, single-purpose Japanese word processors had proliferated across nearly 100% of the Japanese university student population. At a student-affordable cost of fifty thousand yen (USD500), the wordprocessor became a standard, must-have, student appliance for producing reports in all subjects. Switchable between Japanese and Roman alphabets and using internationalstandard keyboards, I adapted this tool to EFL writing classes using a multi-draft process writing approach (Hinkelman, 1992a). Without having to plan, invest, and construct a

116

computer laboratory in the school, my students could shift to a new technology they already knew how to operate, and could use in their free time in their homes and apartments to do the actual typing. In addition, the school required no budget for this innovation. Classroom time was used for preparation tasks (pre-writing, first draft writing), revision tasks (peer assessment, teacher consultation), and fluency tasks (journal writing and exchange) (Hinkelman, 1993b). This blending of computer-based tools and face-to-face activities taught me that new technologies could be employed with no additional cost to students or the school (Hinkelman, 1993d; 1993g). I recalled that earlier in my career, similar principles were successful when applied to clean water storage in African villages. When the economics were localized to individual ownership, and the tools and costs were designed to be affordable to families, large scale adoption of local craftsmen-produced tanks were adopted without costly, external intervention. Instead, micro-loans and group repayment systems produced high rates of year-to-year sustainability. Using these principles of sustainability, affordability, and ubiquity, I later initiated projects to use standard slide presentation software in EFL classes (Bossaer, Miyamachi, & Hinkelman, 2002b) and open source web server tools such as phpBB forums and Moodle LMS (Hinkelman, 2002a; 2003e). In both cases, the new tools were either free and open source scripts using free internet browsers on networked computers, or were tools already purchased but could be used freely for other purposes (Office suites with presentation slide software). This principle of using low-cost, quickly deployed tools has been called ‘just-in-time technology‘ by MacKenzie (2002) and advocated for educational contexts. In addition, parts of the university curriculum supported these tools with computer literacy classes. Thus by integrating my syllabus with the larger school curriculum, I could reduce software skill training in my class and devote more time to using the target language in EFL writing or presentation tasks. These economic and curricular principles are not commonly discussed in CALL literature, except tangentially in critical essays on the digital divide (Warschauer, 2003). However, in the field of educational technology, critics of the overuse of use of electronic technologies now promote intermediate or lowtech solutions based on a ‘hugging-the-middle’ strategy (Cuban, 2009).

Face-to-face groupings The second aspect of technologies that I was concerned with is called, ‘face-to-face

117

groupings’. I define this as the arrangement of people into whole class, small group, partnered and solitary exercises that a teacher facilitates in a sequence within a single face-to-face class session to intensify use of a target language. I define ‘groupings’ as a part of technologies because both computer-based and face-to-face technologies have a specific grouping embedded into their actions (Table 4.16). Table 4.16. ‘Face-to-face groupings’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Key Concepts Academic review

Face-to-face groupings: The arrangement of people into whole class, small group, partnered and solitary exercises that a teacher facilitates in a sequence within a single face-to-face class session to intensify use of a target language.

student social networks (1993e) informal classroom communication patterns (1993e) grouping designs for local and foreign student exchange (1995c) Japanese/English tandem learning techniques (1995c) pair dictation technology (1996a) face-to-face and online sessions mixed (1998c) groupings to force L2 production (2000a) blended language learning tasks (2005b)

Critical Incidents fast-pair conversation, pair dictation, group work, isolated groups, paired groupings, social tasks, mixing extracurricular,

As a group facilitator in a community development NGO from 1972-1990, I was often involved in leading groups of adults in a planning process that involved individual thinking/writing, pair discussion, and group conversation. This process was called ‘methods of active participation’ (Bergdall, 1993) and many of its concepts transferred well into second language teaching. As communicative learning approaches became popular in the foreign language curricula of my university in the 1990s, pair work and group work became the norm in native-speaker led university classes. Teachers would move students to face each other rather than face the teacher and thus create a temporary environment for two speakers to use a target language in a simulated setting. These groupings often needed to be switched in rapid sequences, especially in FL contexts, in order to keep the learners in the mood or frame of mind of a second language. In the early 1990s, I experimented with a process I called ‘fast-pair switching’ (Hinkelman, 1994a). In this process, four students would sit with desks and chairs facing each other in a square (in Japan, desks and chairs tend to be separate--no armrests). After conducting a pair conversation task, through simple prompts, the students would turn

118

their body and do a similar conversation with another partner, and another. This process could be varied to allow or gradually disallow supporting materials and hopefully move toward L2 fluency in a task. Later, I developed a fast-paced oral testing procedure called ‘pair dictation’ which allowed speaking tests to be conducted in parallel pairs rather than conducted serially with a teacher observing (Hinkelman, 1994d). I also began to employ choral response activities in short bursts throughout a lesson to keep attention and focus in the L2. Choral response shifted the grouping from a pair configuration to a whole class activity focused on a leader. These kinds of groupings are enhanced or limited by available classroom spaces and furniture. Further, I noticed that if networked computers were available, additional recording tasks and self-assessment tasks could be added. Many other kinds of groupings are used in communicative FL classrooms (see Brandl, 2008 for example). Within these groupings, operation of communicative tasks requires teachers to take on the roles of facilitator and an interdependent participant as well (Breen & Candlin, 2001). Early literature on CALL tended to assume a single type of grouping--one student paired with one computer, and occasionally with a teacher who speaks to the students through a microphone-- a process called a tutorial or tutoring mode of CALL (Levy, 1996). This fixed mode of grouping that often occurs in CALL classrooms is one reason why I rejected CALL and other high tech, tool-focused, packaged approaches to language learning. A blended learning construct tends to be more inclusive of mixed groupings and paced sequencing of groupings. More recent ‘communicative’ CALL research adds pair groupings in email exchange (Warschauer, 1998) and tandem learning (Egbert, 2005a), and group learning via forums, wikis, and immersive environments (Lamy & Hampel, 2007). However, each of these research cases take place within an online environment, not a classroom. I became perplexed by the separation of online and classroom environments as if they were two separate worlds, and determined to find a blended framework that would bridge what I felt was an artificial boundary.

Flexible spaces The third aspect of technologies that I was concerned with is called, ‘flexible spaces’. I define this as classroom space designs that allow multiple types of face-to-face groupings of students and multiple types of pedagogic activities, preferably with networked devices available in the same room (Table 4.17).

119

Table 4.17. ‘Flexible spaces’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Key Concepts Academic review

Flexible Spaces: Classroom space designs that allow multiple types of faceto-face groupings of students and multiple types of pedagogic activities, preferably with networked devices available in the same room.

multiple venues for EFL writing (1993d) rejecting computer laboratories (1993d) student social networks (1993e) informal classroom communication patterns (1993e) classroom/home venues for EFL writing (1993g) blended distance/classroom masters program (1995h), blended programs for continuing education (1998c) face-to-face and online sessions mixed (1998c) in-class activities supported by online forums (2003e) inflexible CALL furniture (2005b)

Critical Incidents Inflexible lab spaces, Fixed desks, movable desks, rolling chairs, clipboards for handouts (no need for desks), movement in class, stiff bindings

In the university foreign language programs that I have worked in, there are a number of different types of classrooms available, but most feature fixed, theater-style seating for the participants. This fixed seating arrangement usually assumes a transmission metaphor for language learning, where teachers face an audience, producing a lecture that students listen to. In my university, the grammar-translation method of language learning is well adapted to this kind of learning arrangement, and it is still popular today with instructors who rely on lectures for the majority of their class work. Beginning with my research on learning styles (Hinkelman, 1991; 1992b), I began to include more activities with physical movement and tactile action in my EFL classes. Adding movement to class activities was intended to not only benefit learners with preferences for kinesthetic sensory styles, but also to increase the variety of learning patterns in the classroom (see variation theory, Oliver & Trigwell, 2005). Bolted down desks in classrooms defeated these attempts for greater physical movement, especially for whole group communicative tasks. In addition, the networked computers available in laboratories almost always required fixed tables for reliable operation. Given an either/or choice of rooms, I attempted to book two rooms simultaneously for each class, or coshare multiple rooms with other instructors. The first 45 minutes of class would be in a flexible classroom with no networked computers, and the second half of class would be in a computer lab. This then divided the class into ‘face-to-face time’ and ‘online time’, which was not optimal for tasks that mixed online and offline actions within a task. This

120

forced dichotomy of classrooms was not only unsustainable at our school for all teachers to schedule dual rooms, but also, I believe, created a false division of learning actions. In response to this difficult situation, I began experimenting in blended learning and even offered predictions in the shifting architecture for second language learning classrooms (Hinkelman, 2005b): “Closed laboratories operated by CALL specialists will disappear, replaced by ordinary classrooms where even non-technically oriented teachers can integrate internet-based activities into a face-to-face setting.” (p. 17) Recently, CALL studies offered similar recommendations for flexible, blended rooms. Hanson-Smith (2007) offers designs for rooms that allow group work around circular tables, accompanied by networked computers on the periphery of the classroom. Similarly, Chambers and Bax (2007) stated that CALL activities should not be segregated into a separate room, but rather have all language learning rooms allow easy, quick access to the internet and computing tools.

Engaging interfaces The fourth aspect of technologies that I was concerned with is called, ‘engaging interfaces’. I define this as the semiotic design of paper handouts and electronic device screens that prompts and absorbs the learner in using the target language to achieve steps and tasks planned by the teacher (Table 4.18).

Table 4.18. ‘Engaging interfaces’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Key Concepts Academic review

Engaging interfaces: The semiotic design of paper handouts and electronic device screens that prompts and absorbs the learner in using the target language to achieve steps and tasks planned by the teacher.

multi-media materials (1992b) multi-media student speech-making with PowerPoint (2001a) online discussion boards (2002a) multi-media integration of LMS modules (2003e) configurable, flexible software (2005b)

121

Critical Incidents Interface screen design, project module screens, frustrating interface, Multi-media slides, paper handouts design, semiotic behavior, student action with minimal verbal explanation, forum software with photos, split screen video viewing, Time pressure to complete task on mobile device, -group competition, bells and buzzers, stopwatches,

Over the past twenty years, I have used a variety of commercial textbooks for EFL spoken and written communication. Many of the exercises in these standard texts EFL I wanted to change because the layout or content was inappropriate for the level and background of my students. I often redesigned the exercises to work more effectively with the learners in my classrooms, both with simpler, more consistent content, but also with less cluttered format to assist low-level students in comprehending the task. Often boxes, blanks, colors, and graphics were more effective than words in explaining the task. Sometimes I made handouts to replace the pages in the book, and in some cases eventually decided using a bound book was no longer appropriate. With the advent of inexpensive photocopying in the 1990s, I was able to add photocopied handouts to my lessons with little cost. The step-by-step structure in a handout often required five or ten revisions and minute adjustment of steps to maximize the attraction to the goal and ease of cognitive load in the exercise. In some activities, a well-designed page kept students engaged and I felt absorbed in the learning process. In EFL classes, I used worksheets on a daily basis to engage learners because the forms gave clues to their action. Whenever I skipped a paper form, and relied on verbal explanations in a foreign language, students appeared lost and distant in the class. I could regain engagement by adding task-prompting forms and including a few selected L1 instructional words to guide the process. A similar phenomenon exists with website screens. Some are engaging while others are not. I chose web forum software according to the ease-of-use, soft colors, and student photos in each posting (Hinkelman, 2002a; 2003d). As more and more of my activities were included online, from 2002, I began designing new plug-in modules or modifying existing ones to provide easier project management, split screen video viewing, and other visual improvements that made it attractive and easy for low-level, low-motivation students to become engaged in the learning tasks and projects (Hinkelman, 2003f). I also noticed that paper forms for face-to-face communication tasks often were connected to online tasks in blended learning lessons I conducted (Hinkelman, 2005b). I found some issues of student engagement depended on form design, and the issues of form design were similar whether on paper or on screen. In line with I found it odd that the research and design of paper forms was segregated from research on screen forms, and indeed, very little research has been conducted on visual electronic texts (Petrie, 2005).

122

Despite my desire to experiment with new formats and adapt commercial texts, I found it difficult to collaborate with the authors of these major texts. Although the authors I contacted welcomed ‘teacher-input’, the collection of teacher experiences was not systematic and actual changes in textbook format were not possible for an individual institution. They wrote for a national or international market. I became more aware that materials design (both paper-based and online) is an assumed role of publishers and design professionals rather than teachers. Hall (2001) however, presented a strong case for localized, teacher-designed materials that met specific, student needs for tasks in their fields, not general, universal proficiency approaches. Within CALL, research on interactive screen design in CALL is recently emerging. Petrie (2007) discusses visuality and ‘discourse competence’ in CALL (mouse movement, button pushing, fill-in-blank spaces, paths of movement) and how computer operation has changed from programming command line interfaces to a ‘visual grammar’ in interfaces. However, screen design and authoring online materials is not covered in recent texts on second language teacher education (Burns & Richards, 2009) or CALL teacher education (Hubbard & Levy, 2006). This is understandable, given screen design by non-technical teachers has only recently possible with open-source scripting within LMS module design. In my situation, with monolingual classrooms, I began to sense more research was needed in the strategic mix of L1 and L2 on the screen or form. Petrie (2005) has begun this work with a summary of research on visual communication in language learning contexts. She calls for ethnographic research on both print and electronic texts and accounts of the experience of learners across classroom, school and community environments.

Integrated web tools The fifth aspect of technologies that I was concerned with is called, ‘integrated web tools’. I define this as creating or configuring a single integrated interface which allows groups of students in for-credit courses to use forum, chat, survey, blog, wiki and other interactive, collaborative Web 2.0 tools (Table 4.19).

123

Table 4.19. ‘Integrated web tools’ sub-theme data summary Definition

Key Concepts Academic review

Integrated web tools: Creating or configuring a single integrated interface which allows groups of students in for-credit courses to use forum, chat, survey, blog, wiki and other interactive, collaborative Web 2.0 tools.

technical issues in software tools (2001c) introduction of new technologies (2001c) online discussion boards (2002a) open source vs. commercial web software (2002a)customizable LMS modules (2003c) teacher-designed interactive websites (2003c) multi-media integration of LMS modules (2003e) open source LMS (2003f) role of LMSs in language education (2003f) interactive web forums (2003g) classroom communities of participation (2003g) universal modeling standards (2004a) hybrid educational models (2004a) blended L2 tasks (2004a) on-the-fly design of LMS tasks (2005a) portable international standards for blended learning (2005a) universal educational modeling descriptors (2005b)configurable, flexible software (2005b)

Critical Incidents Global Standards, tool Integration, global LMS collaboration, tool Integration, standards, scripting, open source software, integration of tools, international standards, IMS, journal writing integration, bricolage, on-thefly design, universal modeling language, yet another LMS syndrome, web-based technology

Starting from about 2000, I began experimenting with interactive web forums to promote communication (Hinkelman, 2002a; 2003e). However, as I added additional tools, such as polls, calendars, and chat rooms, I found each tool required a separate site and students had to jump around to various URLs and log in repeatedly. I began searching for an integrated solution that included a variety of interactive tools within one ‘classroom’ interface. The advent of open source learning management systems provided a flexible and evolving solution for this problem (Hinkelman, 2003f; 2003g). One of these open source LMSs, the Moodle LMS provided an interface that was based on tasks or learning topics rather than separate tool areas (Hinkelman, 2003d). In addition to free and modifiable source code, it offered a collaborative community for development, learning module customization, and cooperation within global e-learning standards bodies (Hinkelman, 2005a). By 2004, all of my classes were using an LMS as a single sign-on location to find information, practice language skills, and communicate with me or other students. However, I was single teacher working alone in building these sites, what I call a ‘lone wolf innovator’ in our school, and I saw the limitation of isolated attempt to improve my own classes. It was about this time that CALL conferences and research began to press for more curricular and institutional integration. Bax (2003) and Chambers and Bax

124

(2006) argued for technology integration policies that promote ‘normalization’ of computers in each classroom. For me, however, it was not enough to simply relocate computers from laboratories and spread them about all ordinary classrooms. Our school had over 30 teachers leading 170 foreign language classes. I wondered what systems and form of curricular change would allow them to benefit from what I learned.

Summary of Theme 3: Technology shifts Table 4.18 summarizes five themes that I found important in the design of technologies within blended learning environments. This data shows how the use of technology has shifted in the university teaching contexts that I was involved in. Within the institutions I worked in, I noticed technology shifting from high cost to lowcost ubiquitous solutions, from solitary learning patterns to multiple groupings, from fixed seating to frequent movement in flexible rooms, from standard textbooks to adjustable handouts or screens, and from standalone tools to highly integrated, shared web environments. My use of technology involved not only computers, but also nondigital devices and indeed all types of process in my educational environment. Supporting technologies such a photocopying, broadband internet, and open source scripting languages led me to design a few new technologies and reconfigure many of the technologies I was given. Table 4.20 summarizes these shifts in how I used technology in pedagogic contexts.

125

Table 4.20. Technology Shifts Themes

Definition

Technological Shift

Economical Costs

The use of technologies that are ubiquitous, timesaving, low costing, standardized and well understood by both students and teachers.

High cost, high tech approaches can usually be replaced with appropriate, ubiquitous technologies that are free, low-cost or easy to support.

Warschauer, (2007) Cuban (2009) McKenzie (2002) Bossaer, Miyamachi, & Hinkelman (2002b) Hinkelman (1992a, 1993b, 1993d, 1993g, 2002a, 2003e)

Face-to-face Groupings

The arrangement of people into whole class, small group, partnered and solitary exercises that a teacher facilitates in a sequence within a single faceto-face class session to intensify use of a target language.

Common solitary learning procedures need to change to include complex varieties of groupings of students and between teacher and students.

Breen & Candlin (2001) Bergdall (1993) Lamy & Hampel (2007) Brandl (2008) Levy (1996) Warschauer (1998) Egbert (2005a) Hinkelman (1994a, 1994d)

Flexible Spaces

Classroom space designs that allow multiple types of face-toface groupings of students and multiple types of pedagogic activities, preferably with networked workstations available in the same room.

Fixed classroom furniture inhibits physical movement. Flexible spaces allow rapid sequences of groupings, require movable furniture and portable networking devices within the same classroom.

Oliver & Trigwell (2005) Colis & Moonen (2001) Kramsch & Lam (2002) Hanson-Smith (2007) Chambers & Bax (2007) Hinkelman (1991, 1992b, 2005b)

Engaging Interfaces

The semiotic design of paper handouts and electronic device screens that prompts and absorbs the learner in using the target language to achieve steps and tasks planned by the teacher.

The strategic use of visual cues and mix of L1/L2 on paper or screen forms in order to attract and engage learners in target language tasks.

Egbert & Petrie (2005) Burns and Richards (2009) Petrie (2005, 2007) Hall (2001) Hubbard & Levy (2006) Hinkelman (2002a, 2003d, 2003f, 2005b)

Integrated Web Tools

Creating or configuring a single integrated interface which allows groups of students in forcredit courses to use forum, chat, survey, blog, wiki and other interactive, collaborative Web 2.0 tools.

The integration of separated sites, tools, and activities that tracks total student participation in a single classroom location.

Bax (2003) Chambers & Bax (2000) Levy & Stockwell (2006) Hinkelman (2002a, 2003e, 2003, 2003f, 2003g)

126

References

CHAPTER SUMMARY Based on analysis for classroom research and other critical incidents in my teaching career, I identified three major themes and fourteen sub-themes that summarized this autoethnography of my teaching practice (Table 4.21).

Table 4.21. Summary of autoethnographic blended language learning themes Pedagogies

Roles

Technologies

Intensive formats

Learner-centered modalities

Economical Costs

Experiential settings

Computer-automated management

Face-to-face groupings

Overseas participants

Teacher-Designed Texts

Flexible spaces/Multiple venues

Performance-based Assessment

Collaborative curriculum design

Engaging interfaces

Student-generated content

Integrated Web Tools

Major Findings Through this autoethnographic investigation, I identified fourteen specific themes that give evidence to major shifts in the primary themes developed in Chapter 2: pedagogies, roles, and technologies. I believe these three major shifts have significant influence in the design of blended language learning environments: • Shifting pedagogies that promote an extended learning community involved in intensive, experiential settings. • Shifting roles that support varied and flexible functions of teachers, students, tools, and networks. • Shifting technologies that allow appropriate configuration of tools, groupings and spaces. In my teaching career, the particular form of these shifts in the design of pedagogy, roles and technology are elaborated in Table 4.22.

127

Table 4.22. Summary of autoethnographic shifts in pedagogy, roles, and technologies Pedagogical Shifts

Role Shifts

Technological Shifts

From: one hour/week sessions

From: single, teacher-preferred mode

From: costly, high-tech packages

To:

To:

To:

intensive formats

student-preferred multi-modality

low-cost, mid-tech approaches

From: one-pattern classrooms

From: pre-selected expert content

From: solitary, screen-focused seating

To:

To:

To:

simulated real world settings

added student-generated content

varied, face-to-face groupings

From: fixed course enrollments

From: manual, secretive grading

From: bolted down theatre seating

To:

To:

To:

cross-course/overseas participants

automated, transparent marks

flexible, movable furniture

From: content testing only

From: commercial, fixed textbooks

From: non-interactive books/screens

To:

To:

To:

content & performance assessment

teacher-designed, flexible texts

engaging paper/screen interfaces

From: single teacher, academic research

From: separated web tool areas

To:

To:

collaborative, classroom research

single, task-based web classroom

Overall, this research provides evidence of long-term patterns that this researcher undertook to facilitate students in their second language learning by combining a projectbased, intensive format of pedagogy, varied roles which promoted teacher/student autonomy, and low-tech technological processes to force L2 interaction. Some of the conceptual aspects of the pedagogy and technology frameworks in Chapter 2 that were confirmed by evidence in the autoethnography were: • Technology is not just electronic tools, but also material tools. This was shown by the importance of flexible furniture and space design. • Technology is not just tools, but a process that includes tools. This was shown by the sequencing of multiple groupings within a task. • Pedagogic issues were not simply instruction and acquisition, but also participation and socialization. This was shown by the shift from content testing to performance assessment in experiential settings and intensive formats. • Roles were not merely a teacher-lecturer directing student-listeners, but included a variety of complex, evolving new roles. This was shown by the involvement of out-of-institution students, the shift from instructional to advisory roles by teachers, and the user-generated design of materials and software.

128

The blended learning environments within my own classes over a fifteen year period of classroom research and forty years of teaching experience can be described by these fourteen shifts in my pedagogical design, role design, and technology design.

Examination of Blind Spots In spite of these findings, I found I was unable to implement similar changes in the overall EFL curriculum at my university. These findings emerge from a view of a single teacher. They do not explain why other teachers were not expressing or enacting the same values in their classes and the institutional program. Although my position as a tenured instructor allowed me freedom to experiment with these pedagogic, role and technology initiatives, I experienced little support from my colleagues. Despite formal attempts to discuss and present curriculum issues (Hinkelman, 1998c), in the end, these proposals were merely wishful thinking. My ability to impact curriculum design policymaking at my school was negligible. Although hampered by being a non-native speaker in a Japanese institution, the most resistant block to change was a culture of individualism in teaching practice. Teachers are expected to design their own classes and not interfere, question, or evaluate another teacher’s classes. My classroom research history of over fifty academic papers and presentations is another example of the ‘lone wolf syndrome’ of CALL practitioners. Technological enthusiasts and initiators often remain on the periphery of institutional policy (Rogers, 2005). Yet the discourse at CALL conferences I have attended, is that introduction of computers is ‘innovative’ and ‘cutting edge’ in the field of language learning. In my experience attending these conferences, I noticed presenters tended to focus on tool operation and other micro-issues, ignoring the economics and sociology of the integration. The data in this autoethnographic suggests a more macro view of program and curriculum development is needed, as well as methodological perspectives that focus on curriculum, programs and institutions.

Evaluation of Quality Finally, I evaluate the autoethnographic findings according to the validity criteria for autoethnography (Richardson, 2000) that I earlier proposed in the introduction. Table 4.23 summarizes my evaluation of this chapter’s study.

129

Table 4.23. Self-evaluation of the Autoethnography Approach Trustworthiness criteria

Key question

Researcher’s self-evaluation

(Richardson, 2000)

(Richardson, 2000)

Substantive contribution

Does the piece contribute to our understanding of social life? [educational environments]

This retrospective study examines a significant time period of my own classroom research (15 years) and teaching experience (40 years) covering active work in designing blended learning classroom environments.

Aesthetic merit

Is the text artistic, captivating and avoids simplification?

The narratives summarized numerous articles but told a story of change by highlighting particularly vivid learning experiences of the author.

Reflexivity

Is it clear how author developed the text?

I described the steps of the academic review and critical incident recollection. The data path can be traced from data displays in the appendix to the summary tables in this chapter.

Impactfulness

Does the text generate new questions or move the reader to action?

The text tends to agree with recent trends in project-based learning, sociocultural theory, and learner-centered/teacher-authoring roles. However, it departs in its concept of technology and raises questions about the ineffectiveness of a single teacher acting alone within an institution.

Expresses a reality

Does the text express an embodied lived experience?

Yes, each of the fourteen sub-themes illustrate a particular passion of an educator as he attempts to enact his vocation in foreign language learning.

Concerning the first criteria, substantive contribution, this stage of the study examines a career spanning thirty years and attempts to coalesce the personal efforts into themes. This fulfills a ‘longitudinal portrait’ goal of autobiographical studies that is beyond ‘snapshot’ research (Benson & Nunan, 2005). As for the second criteria, aesthetic merit, the autoethnographic narrative attempts to portray my motivations, though more extensive storytelling may be more captivating than the lengthy theme summaries. The reflexivity is high with data charts, theme summaries, and traceable explanations. The study’s impactfulness has been high for myself, as it motivates further research and generates new questions for blended language learning beyond the micro-level world of the classroom. The descriptions show an embodied, lived experience, rather than abstract argumentation.

130

Next steps in the inquiry I examined my own efforts over an extended period of time and compared those initiatives with research in the fields of CALL, applied linguistics and educational technology. The fourteen themes I developed from autoethnography tell an individual teacher’s story of blending technologies, roles and pedagogies. But they do not explain how groups of teachers can collaborate to create effective blended lessons, syllabuses, and curriculum. They do not explain how an institution can align its policies, budgeting and pedagogic priorities to create a blended learning environment. The aim of the next research phase, Chapter 5, is to explore these questions. With these blind spots and weaknesses in quality in mind, a shift in research methodology is needed. Herr and Anderson (2004) recommend triangulation of positionality within a study in order to avoid an overly insider or overly outsider account and interpretation of the social contexts. Until now, this study has been introspective, focusing on my own reflections and justifications in designing blended environments. In Chapter 5, I move to action research to observe and direct the actual creation of blended environments in a collaborative teaching team effort. Then in Chapter 6, I propose employing a third methodology, ethnography, as a way for an outsider to study similar questions, but with greater distance and a wider perspective on the case itself.

131

CHAPTER 5: AN ACTION RESEARCH APPROACH Having explored the action of blended language learning within a teaching career, I now turn the inquiry to practice within my own institution, where I act as an insider. By ‘practice’, I set out to situate the activity of blended language learning in local contexts, rather than seeing the blending as a system or structure. Blending technologies, like any language learning activity is an action that teachers, administrators and students ‘do’ or ‘perform’ as social, spatial and temporal activities (van Lier, 2007; Pennycook, 2010). This chapter describes the action of blending technologies through three cycles of action research. These cycles illustrate examples of blending technologies in classrooms-within the micro context of a language learning task or lesson and the meso context of an annual cycle of a full syllabus of teaching.

METHODOLOGY FOR AN INSIDER APPROACH Action research is an appropriate research approach when researchers have insider status, that is, they have access private institutional data and can perform interventions based on a research aim (Coglan & Brannick, 2001). This was the case in with Kita University, where I have been employed for over twelve years. In this section I will describe the site as a whole and then the participants and data collection according to three annual cycles and three stages within each cycle. As described in Chapter 3, action research operates in cycles and has three main stages within each cycle: a planning stage, an action or intervention stage, and an evaluation stage. In later sections, the cycle data will be condensed in the form of narratives according to the stage of the cycle. Following this, I will analyze and summarize all three cycles for themes related to blending technologies in the Kita University foreign language program.

Site Description The site of this action research approach is an EFL program within Kita University, a medium-sized (4500 enrollment) four-year university in Japan. Declining enrollments

132

provoked a sense of urgency to provide a more attractive curriculum to potential students. An ‘attractive curriculum’ in many university marketing brochures throughout Japan, includes innovative electronic technologies. At Kita University, CALL laboratories were seen as a marketing agent to promote the school’s curriculum as ‘state of the art’. This site was not only chosen because my status as an insider, but also because of the institution’s growing use of blended language learning environments in significant portions of the curriculum. By the end of the study, nearly 50% of the EFL classes were taught in classrooms that had movable desks and chairs, along with wired or wireless computers available for each student—what I define as a ‘blended learning room’. In 2006, Kita University’s foreign language program included 2100 students enrolled in 192 foreign language courses, covering five different languages. Of these, 139 courses per semester were EFL classes with 1300 students taught by 50 teachers (30 Japanese teachers of English, and 20 native-speaking teachers of English) in a two-year English curriculum required of students in most departments. Kita University is holds a lower ranking among universities in Japan, thus attracting students with lower aspirations and lower motivation to learn foreign languages. Foreign languages have not been a priority for students intent on entering a local employment market, and if there had not been a two-year requirement of foreign language credits for graduation, it is likely there would be a much smaller enrollment in EFL. For its EFL program, the administration built a dedicated CALL room and hired four native-speaking faculty on limited term contracts to teach the base curriculum along with tenured and part-time Japanese teachers of English. Apart from the EFL communication teachers, tenured faculty teaching beliefs at Kita University favor teaching English for academic study, particularly of prominent literature and linguistic knowledge from legacy nations (UK and the USA). This approach to university language teaching, which Cook (2000) calls ‘academic English’, has been a persisting practice. Therefore, within many Japanese university language programs, assessments tend to focus on prominent literary works and linguistic knowledge, rather than language proficiency, a situation that has changed little since the introduction of communicative teaching principles in the 1970s (Seargeant, 2009). In these academic courses, students are not expected to speak or write in the target language.

133

To counter this practice, Kita University set up a required English curriculum based with two independent curricula: 1) an ‘A’ curriculum of EFL taught by Japanese teachers, emphasizing reading, translation and listening, and 2) a ‘B’ curriculum of EFL taught by foreign, native-speaking teachers, emphasizing oral communication. Assessment in the ‘B’ curriculum focused on communicative proficiency with individual instructors designing their own testing.

Participants and data collection Participants at Kita University initially consisted of four teachers who worked on an action research project beginning in 2006 to investigate the use of wireless notebook computers in an EFL course for computer majors. The team members and intervention projects changed over the years so a total of twelve teachers were involved, including six limited-term, full-time contract faculty and two tenured faculty. All members were teachers of the communication-oriented, ‘B’ curriculum, and were native-speaking teachers from Canada, UK, and USA with postgraduate degrees in TESOL or related fields. The data was organized and analyzed by three annual curricular cycles, a common procedure in action research methodology (Burns, 2010). The research team produced three collaborative reports, one each year from 2007-2009, and published these in a public, faculty-based journal, which served as additional data along with meeting minutes, reports and forum postings of the team.

Current Role Currently, I co-coordinate and teach in the Foreign Languages Section in the General Education Center of Kita University. Within this department, I work closely with five other full-time teachers and two part-time EFL instructors. These instructors have a common interest in teaching with facilities that were designed to enhance blended learning practices--classrooms with movable desks and chairs along with networked computers on the side walls or in nearby laboratories. My position as an administrator allows a degree of influence on school policies, hiring and budgeting.

Cycle Stages and Methods In action research, each cycle has three stages: a planning stage, an action or intervention stage, and an evaluation stage (Stringer, 1999). In the planning stage, the methods employed were group meetings, which identified the annual goals and specified the

134

journal where the results would be published. Then in the intervention stage, the method included writing weekly diaries posted on online forums (a form of a teaching journal) as well as writing reports, which summarized our team’s work at committee meetings. A vast amount of topics, curricula and policies were included in these forums and reports, so a data reduction process reduced the data into ‘cycles’ and ‘interventions’, which were generally three major interventions per cycle. From the journal and forum data, team members wrote narratives for a formal publication. From these publications, I extracted quotations relevant to the design of blended environments and did further data reduction by writing narratives from my perspective as a researcher. Although narrative writing as a methodology has been marginalized in mainstream applied linguistics research, Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) assert its usefulness in providing non-predictive historical accounts, giving a context beyond the here-and-now, and ensuring high ecological validity (how actors work in critical, culturally important situations). They oppose perspectives that dismiss narrative research as ‘anecdotal evidence’, because such views are based on assumptions of scientific validity and generalizability. In narrative research, there should be no claims of general causation because “…validity is based on a well-grounded conclusion, but it does not presume certainty; rather it proposes likelihood…” (p. 161). By pulling themes from the data, constructing narratives to connect those themes, and drawing localized conclusions, other teacher-researchers may intuitively draw connections of likelihood and discover paths to explore in their own situations. Finally, in the evaluation stage of each of the three cycles, our research team evaluated by holding reflection meetings and writing a joint paper for publication in the school journal (Kay, Gemmell, Johnson, & Hinkelman, 2007; Hinkelman, Okuda, Johnson, Ishikawa, & Grose, 2008; Grose, Hinkelman, Rian, & McGarty, 2009). In addition, I prepared reports for faculty meetings and conducted one-to-one interviews that were recorded and transcribed. The summary of this chapter includes a multi-cycle summary table of interventions and a cross-cycle analysis that develops themes to combine with other themes developed in the autoethnographic and ethnographic approaches. Table 5.1 lists the cycles, the schedule of stages, the interventions selected for each cycle, and the documents produced by the action research teams.

135

Table 5.1. Cycles of the action research approach Cycles

Stages

Interventions

One:

Planning: October 2005-March 2006

1. Teacher collaboration meetings

20062007

Interventions: April 2006-January 2007

2. Wireless computer-based tasks

(first and second semester terms)

3. Multiple seating arrangements

Evaluation: February-March 2007

Document: Kay, Gemmell, Johnson, & Hinkelman (2007)

Two:

Planning: October 2006-March 2007

4. Lecture feedback LMS module

20072008

Interventions: April 2007-January 2008

5. Mobile phone vocabulary module

(first and second semester terms) Evaluation: February-March 2008

6. Process writing automation Document: Hinkelman, Okuda, Johnson, Ishikawa, & Grose (2008)

Three:

Planning: October 2007-March 2008

7. Blended learning rooms

20082009

Interventions: April 2008-January 2009

8. In-house multi-media materials

(first and second semester terms) Evaluation: February-March 2009

9. Participation tracking in BL rooms Document: Grose, Hinkelman, Rian, & McGarty (2009)

CYCLE ONE Cycle One is the first action research cycle among three cycles in this study on the design of blended learning environments. It occurred during the 2006-2007 school year at the Kita University site, but also included some planning and pilot work conducted in November 2005-March 2006. The following sections first describe the participants and data collection, then the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the interventions.

Participants and data collection in Cycle One The participants in Cycle One consisted of a five-member EFL teaching team assigned to teach first-year and second-year general English communication to students in the Social Information Department at Kita University. The core data for Cycle One were documents collected from the teaching team including planning papers, weekly online forums and

136

notes from face-to-face meetings. For one year, each teacher made a short weekly report of plans, results and reflections on their teaching, which was then posted on a forum open only to teachers involved in this project. At the end of the year, the teachers made a summary of their postings based on five points. These points were reported as teacher diary summaries in an action research paper published in the Kita University Humanities Journal (Kay, Gemmell, Hinkelman, & Johnson, 2007). In April 2006, the first semester of the school year began with the teacher-participants being assigned to all the Social Information Department classes. These classes were comprised of sixteen separate sections of semester-long courses, spanning two years of general education. Table 5.2 shows a summary chart of the course baseline information for these sixteen classes. This includes course titles in this curriculum, teacher names, and basic student data. Table 5.2. EFL classes involved in Cycle One interventions at Kita University Class Section

Teacher

Level

Class Year

Class Hours

Enrolled Students

1

English I-II B (34)

Teacher 5*

1

High, 1 of 3

21.0

25

3

English I-II B (35)

Teacher 1

1

Middle, 2 of 3

21.0

30

5

English I-II B (36)

Teacher 4

1

Low, 3 of 3

21.0

24

7

English I-II B (37)

Teacher 2

1

Repeater class

21.0

25

9

English III-IV B (31)

Teacher 3

2

High, 1 of 3

21.0

32

11

English III-IV B (33)

Teacher 2

2

Middle, 2 of 3

19.5

25

13

English III-IV B (32)

Teacher 5*

2

Low, 3 of 3

21.0

25

16

English III-IV B (34)

Teacher 1

2

Repeater class

21.0

30

* Teacher later chose not to participate in the action research project

Stage 1: Planning in Cycle One The teachers who joined this collaborative research project were initially five teachers who had worked together for a number of years instructing similar EFL classes for students with the same major, Social Information, a cross-disciplinary subject involving computing skills and government/social service. The initial action research project was chosen in a team meeting to focus on the use of student-owned, wireless notebook computers in ordinary classrooms. However the issues quickly turned from tools to include other important factors of materials and pedagogy. Most teachers had already abandoned publisher textbooks in oral English and had moved into student-designed

137

PowerPoint presentations as a project-based format for teaching oral communication. However, difficulty in scheduling the over-booked computer rooms led one teacher in this team, Max, to attempt a pilot use of wireless notebook computers in a common desk/chair style classroom environment. In this brief test during the late fall in 2005, he asked all students to bring their notebook computers to class and had them do an internet search activity. Of the approximately 15 students, all were able to access the internet without much trouble or technical assistance. From this experience and discussions with the computer center staff about load capacity, it seemed possible to continue with a fullscale internet and computer-based curriculum for three classrooms starting in April 2006. Three other faculty, including myself, decided to join Max and focus curriculum changes on the use of notebook computers as the major theme. In team meetings, we planned six interventions, which emerged not in pre-planning, but evolved through weekly reports and discussion as a team. Later we divided the overall theme into topics between each of us to write about in the action research paper. These topic choices were primarily based on the individual priorities or interests of each member.

Stage 2: Interventions in Cycle One The main intervention in this stage of the action research was to employ student-owned notebook computers within a project-based curriculum. In order to support this key action, the four teachers planned and added other interventions to implement during the semester: 1) teacher collaboration meetings, 2) wireless notebook computers, and 3) multiple seating arrangements.

Intervention 1: Teacher collaboration meetings Up until the 2006 school year, the contract faculty of Kita University never met together formally, relying on informal discussion to share teaching ideas. In this individuallyoriented institutional culture, teachers decided their own class aims, materials and methods. Although this ostensibly promoted creativity and gave ‘freedom’ to each teacher, it actually seemed to promote a rigidity and resistance to other materials and approaches. Thus my initial attempts to form a collaborative action research team were met with skepticism or resistance. I decided to focus on a single project where teachers were teaching students from one single department. When Max proposed using notebook computers with students from one department (Social Information), I suggested that be a research theme for the five of us teaching that department. As both the first-year and

138

second-year sections of that department’s classes were held on Wednesday, we elected to meet once a week on Tuesday mornings before class (8:30-9:00 am) to plan classes and share materials collectively. At this point, I realized that although systematic collaboration was not possible at Kita University, a modified form of team action research was possible when a common issue motivated a group to collaborate. Without salary incentives to promote collaboration, a common need to publish for career advancement was enough to get started. However, collaboration was not easy. Resistance to group research was illustrated by one teacher who chose not to participate in the research project after several months. He stated that his personal research interests were a priority, felt the time spent in meetings was a waste of time because of past failures in collaboration, and desired to maintain his autonomy in teaching methods and content. The remaining four teachers continued the weekly coordination meetings for the 30 teaching weeks over the year and some expressed relief at a more positive mood in the ongoing discussions.

Intervention 2: Wireless computer-based tasks The second intervention involved introducing blended learning practices into a set of eight classes of non-English majors. In the preceding two years, one of the teachers in the project had pioneered the use of PowerPoint-based projects at Kita University and developed a sophisticated use of ordinary computer laboratories (not the CALL lab). When the school began a transition to a common LMS for foreign language, he noticed some problems that prevented collaboration. “The most significant problem [with the new LMS] was the fact that the students were unable to access each other’s projects for peer evaluation exercises. This was a communicative peer assessment technique that I had used the previous year in a computer laboratory.” [Diary04, paragraph 3]

Ironically, the LMS, Moodle, had been promoted as a collaborative, socialconstructionist tool for online learning, yet without customization, it was not appropriate for the social mode of teaching he wanted to continue in his classes. Another problem was the extra time required for preparing equipment before classes. “...using laptop notebooks in a wireless classroom was challenging at first. Basic connection preparation would often take about twenty minutes (providing everything went smoothly). This meant that it was essential for me to have access to my classroom thirty minutes before the actual first class began. Even then, there were often several technical hiccups, such as internet-access problems that impeded considerable progress on classroom exercises.” [Diary04, paragraph 4]

139

While Steve felt positive about the general mood and cooperation of the class, he expressed regret at their unwillingness to deal with problems on their own. A significant number of students would sit and wait, doing nothing, until the teacher, going one-to-one in the classroom, came to check on them. “There were times where students appeared frustrated with their own technical problems and on occasion would readily use this as an excuse to avoid participating in classroom exercises. “[Diary04, paragraph 5]

In addition, he found that cohort grouping significantly affected his teaching approach with technology. “The second year repeater class, however, seemed more resistant to English language learning overall and did not voluntarily work communicatively or well with their classmates. One reason for this is due to the fact that repeater classes are often a mix of students from various ages and years. As a result, students are often isolated from their peer groups and tend to find it difficult to relate to their junior or senior counterparts. This may have also had a negative effect on the attendance rate, which made it difficult to conduct group and pair-work activities. “ [Inter04, paragraph 6]

His conclusion in his diary reflected on his own changes as a teacher. “I was also able to confront and overcome my initial fears and concerns about working in a wireless classroom.” [Diary04, paragraph 7]

Among the other full-time native-speaking English teachers, Max valued collaboration and was one of the first to advocate it. Max initiated the first action research project and later became one of the co-authors of the team publication on that topic (Kay, Gemmell, Hinkelman, & Johnson, 2007). Max saw the role of the notebook computer as providing a ‘positive’ environment. “A guiding goal in my lesson planning was to balance computer use with direct communication. This was thought necessary to avoid having students getting too bogged down in their own computers. At the same time, there was a great hope that by having students prepare material in English at their own pace, a positive work environment would be fostered. These were students who for the most part had little or no interest and/or ability in English language use, and in some cases a limited capacity to interact with peers even in their L1.”[Diary01, paragraph 3]

However, this use of computer could be an escape from dealing with the deeper problems. “I felt that too much time was being used on learning computer operation and so I added more face-to-face, conventional classroom English lessons…” [Diary01, paragraph 4]

Learning IT skills, and dealing with lengthy setup time has been a recurring question with Max and other teachers over the years. Student time in class is precious and a wellpaced class with high-intensity face-to-face communication activities can be stalled or sacrificed to dealing with passwords, learning to fix wireless internet connections, or just finding the right button to push. Max also commented on the time that he consumed as a teacher learning new technology.

140

“This project represented a big learning curve in using materials and technology for both myself and my students. This was the first time for me to use an online platform (Moodle LMS) in these courses. It was also the first time to rely solely on notebook computers and my handouts for a whole course rather than a computer laboratory or a textbook. The first two classes in the first semester and part of the third were mostly taken up with issues of getting wireless and Moodle accounts set up and the wireless system working correctly. Furthermore, on the days we used computers there was always at least one student who had trouble logging on either to the network or to Moodle. This was due to either the student having reconfigured their computer at home, forgotten passwords, or having not been in attendance at the lesson when accounts were created. This type of problem occurred up to and including the very last computer class.” [Diary01, paragraph 5]

The biggest issue that plagued Max and others was the disruption of the pace and timing of the class due to lost internet connections. “The use of notebook computers created an imbalance in the classroom, as those who had no technology issues (e.g. connecting to the internet) had to wait for those who did. Thus, at times a sense of boredom was felt based purely on troubleshooting computer issues.” [Diary01, Paragraph 7]

She noted that students with computers might have avoided direct communication faceto-face. One student typed the words he wanted to say into a web translator, and pointed at the resulting answer to Max. “The over-reliance of computers to “speak” for students was apparent in this class. Some students attempted to, in effect, have a conversation with me using their computers as a spontaneous translator.” [Diary01, Paragraph 7]

Max was struggling with the change of behavior with students as they used the portable notebook computers. He saw the positive effects as generating interest in foreign languages and the negative effects as time-consuming confusion, lengthy setup, and avoidance of spoken communication. A third teacher, Rebecca, was a new teacher at Kita University and came with extensive experience designing websites. She built his own e-learning site with a custom LMS and uses that in all his classes. I asked her why she didn’t use Moodle, and she explained problems that justified why he made his own LMS. I said we should adopt either Rebecca’s LMS or the Moodle LMS but not both. I suggested that the two of us change Moodle, reprogram it, until it is equal in quality to Rebecca’s LMS. Over the course of the next three months Rebecca and I contracted a freelance programmer in Russia to convert a standard Moodle Quiz into a split screen version that showed video in an easyto-view window. This began to integrate individual teacher’s efforts into a more common effort, which was my goal as a coordinator. Later, Rebecca reflected on the overall process of design in her classes. “When designing lessons for this class, it was my goal to have students create dynamic language using language that interested them. However challenges soon prevented me from using this approach. One I met was that many of the students were disinclined to mix socially in activities. Students tended to stay in their cliques and were very hesitant to talk to anyone outside of them.” [Diary04, paragraph 3]

141

She was encountering problems of interaction toward pair-work and group-work in class, and the possible social issues causing them. Yet, she found creative ways to engage students in new roles in the classroom, as students helped other students. “...they seemed to enjoy being able to help their classmates who had little experience with it.” [Diary04, paragraph 5]

Then technical issues distracted her from what she felt was her main role as a teacher. Furthermore, one of the economic motivations for the project (student ownership) became a technical impediment. “Technology plagued the first third of the first semester. The core problem was gaining internet access… ...there were classes when the internet was not working and activities had to be adjusted ‘on the fly.” [Diary04, paragraph 4] “Another problem was...the students individually owned their computers, I couldn’t assume students would have particular software beyond what was preinstalled.” [Diary04, paragraph 4]

Each day, a new problem interrupted the class. Even the capacity of the school’s wireless was not geared to handle all students doing the same task at the same time. “I also found that using multimedia on a large scale tended to overload the wireless. When half the class was downloading the QuickTime installation program and the other was trying to view a 2-minute movie trailer, the entire system slowed down a very noticeable degree. Although this slowdown was more of an annoyance than an actual problem, 10 to 15 minutes of class time was wasted when it could have been spent on learning activities.” [Diary04, paragraph 4]

The accumulation of these issues led to the eventual abandonment of this wireless notebook experiment after another year of trial. Even Rebecca, the most technically proficient and enthusiastic member of the team, was getting worn out by the string of problems. Later, as Rebecca reflected on her initial enthusiasm with computer-based teaching, she felt that much of his time and his students’ time had been wasted. “Like a child with a new toy, I tended to place more emphasis on the computer than I normally would in a language classroom. Looking back now I feel that an excessive amount of time was spend on the computer time. As a teacher, I would prefer to replace a fair amount of this computer time with communicative activities.” [Diary04, paragraph 6]

Rebecca made a conceptual separation between ‘computer’ time and ‘communication’ time because the work on computers involved language support exercises such as vocabulary quizzes, surveys and internet searches. She used class time for direct communication between students rather than intra-class forums, chats, or exchanges.

142

Intervention 3: Multiple seating arrangements A third intervention concerned how room furniture was arranged and seating designed in the classrooms. Actually, this intervention was not identified at beginning of the cycle, but it became a constant topic of discussion in weekly team meetings. As a member of the team, I began teaching in the rooms with wireless notebooks and faced an immediate issue in the seating arrangements and the attention to the teacher in managing sequences of tasks. I noted this problem in my teaching journal: “I noticed one problem in class management was that the notebook computers totally commanded their attention and it was hard to get them to switch between a computer-based task to a face-to-face task. To accomplish the switch, I set up squares of four students in group tables in the front half of the classroom and had students actually stand up and move to a new seat—without a computer—where they directly faced another student.” [Diary05, paragraph 2]

By re-grouping and requiring physical movement, I could command attention and move to the face-to-face tasks that students were not comfortable with. I also used a projector and screen to point out activities and locations online at the class website. The LMS class page formed the central place for students to check the syllabus, find activities for the week, and submit work completed. “This website became the center of our online activity in the first semester, and I had students login every class and submit assignments via the Assignment module of the LMS.” [Inter05, paragraph 3]

But the LMS was not enough. Poor implementations of blogging tools on Moodle LMS meant I had to go outside the site and have students work on a separate blogging site, which had a more beautiful design. “Although outside of the LMS, Blogger was successful tool, but first year students became easily confused about login information. I spent an extraordinary amount of time dealing with forgotten usernames and passwords.” [Inter05, paragraph 3]

Interspersed with online and face-to-face activities were several paper-based handout activities, which were sometimes individual tasks and sometimes pair-completion tasks. These handouts were invariably lost or forgotten, making it difficult for the teacher to review tasks week-to-week and to assist absent students in catching up to current activities. This problem meant students were often lost in the direction of the whole course. His solution was to collect handouts into booklets of 5-10 sheets related to a particular project. “I felt a more formal booklet of handouts would give my students a better sense of the process and product of the project. Hopefully, the booklet could provide a visual map of the steps and how to do them.” [Inter05, paragraph 5]

143

This comment on the role of paper-based materials indicated a possible intervention for the team in Cycle Two and Three.

Stage 3: Evaluation in Cycle One The action research team met for a summary workshop following the 2006-2007 school year to evaluate the interventions. Initially, the primary focus was on whether CALL rooms with wired computers or regular rooms with wireless notebooks were superior. However, the evaluation was broadened to cover all interventions.

End-of-term evaluation by research team The interventions in Cycle One were evaluated by a combination of teaching team discussion followed by writing an action research report (Kay et al., 2007). The action research study listed several conclusions: Wireless notebook and internet-activities can be incorporated into classic desk-and-chair classrooms to replace a CALL or computer laboratory Wireless rooms were highly cost-effective for the university. Students bought all tools personally. University supplied wireless routers and technical support. Many differences in class operation that teachers had to adjust to: No networked printing in the room. Students could not print self-designed surveys for their peers to fill in the results manually with a pen and paper. Students also could not print project reports (slide mockups) for teacher checking. No centralized monitoring software in the room. In a lab, teachers could freeze student computers and draw attention of the whole group to a point. Unstable wireless internet connections. This forced teachers to individually troubleshoot student computers continually throughout the lesson, interrupting lesson flow. Moveable desks and chairs allowed various cooperative learning activities, such as pair-work, group-work, skits and whole class interaction. Attention directly to the teacher, rather than on computer screens was more possible as students were always facing the front.

•

Weekly focus group discussions were the primary teacher support strategy. Teachers debated which activities needed to be paper-based and which ones online.

Table 5.3 summarizes the immediate results and the team evaluation of the three interventions.

144

Table 5.3. Cycle One intervention results and evaluation Intervention

End-of-term result

1. Teacher collaboration meetings

Teachers met once a week before classes to share lesson plans and posted diaries on forums to report results. This process was accepted by four teachers and rejected by one. The weekly meetings debated use of paper and online activities, solved technical problems and shared lesson plans.

•

Technological problems challenged all teachers, even tech proficient ones.

•

Pedagogical limits of the system; its potential for teaching a range of skills,.

•

Teachers who were not in the teaching team or sharing lesson plans had little interest in the meetings, which were too specialized and technical.

New tasks were designed for the students to do on notebook computers, but most projects lacked language learning activities. Students experienced frequent loss of internet connections.

•

Technological challenges faced in wireless internet overwhelmed lesson focus and pacing.

•

Greater variety of pedagogical actions, groupings and timings were available with the system; its potential for teaching a range of skills, and allowed individualized learning paths.

•

Paper forms generated greater in-class excitement. Exchange handled synchronously forced concentrated attention.

•

Teachers complained too much time spent learning computer operation.

•

Printer needed in the room for students to deliver project reports to teacher for quick assessment.

•

Two separate areas were needed to segregate the use of notebook computers and to do pair and group activities, in order to have rapid transitions between task steps. The computers often lost power and had to be constantly recharged.

2. Wireless computer-based tasks

3. Multiple seating arrangements

Evaluation

Seating in the room evolved into a two format plan: 1) in front, desks arranged in fours for group and pair work, and 2) in back, students sit facing forward with notebook computers open.

.

These results led directly to a new design of blended learning rooms that did not rely on wireless connections, but instead featured the same stable, wired internet-connections that standard CALL rooms were able to provide along with flexible desk/chair arrangements in the center of the classroom. This new design was implemented in Cycle Three of the study. The results of these discussions compare each respective learning environment in Table 5.4.

145

Table 5.4. Comparison of the CALL room and wireless blended rooms at Kita University CALL Room (using fixed PCs)

Wireless Room (using laptop computers)

Printer capabilities

Moveable desks/chairs: Flexible activities

Centralized monitoring abilities

Low cost for school: student-owned

Reliability of internet-connection

Convenience for students: saving/keeping files

Pedagogically, the teaching team noted that although students could complete tasks and projects, it was unclear whether vocabulary and grammar acquired would transfer to other projects. In addition, often students did not have enough language preparation to build intelligible sentences in the projects. The team resolved that in the next intervention cycle to create more tasks devoted to language skill practice and vocabulary building as part of every project. This led to a decision in the final teaching team meeting of the 2007-2008 cycle to develop and publish paper-based, project learning booklets to accompany electronicbased resources. The booklets would collect handouts the teacher produced and give a guide to the goals and steps to students who were absent or lost, provide language support quizzes, and centralize assessment of all tasks. This type of approach was intended to merge both CALL and wireless room capabilities further and be the focus of a new study by this action-research team.

Retrospective evaluation by lead researcher The results of this cycle set in motion major changes conducted in both Cycle Two and Three. The wireless rooms continued to be problematic, compounded by a change in notebook operating system (from Windows XP to a mix of Windows XP and Vista-based OSs) in the 2008-2009 cycle. Teachers were unable to assist students to achieve a stable internet connection and the lesson flow was constantly interrupted. Two engineers from the computer center were required to stand by in the hallways outside the classrooms because the trouble requests became too numerous. It was an unsustainable situation and the wireless notebook experiment was abandoned after two years. However, the importance of stable connections influenced the university-wide facility planning that

146

began in 2007 and subsequent design of a third type of room—‘wired’ blended learning rooms--in 2008-2009. This planning and intervention is described later in Cycle Three.

CYCLE TWO Cycle Two included interventions during the 2007-2008 school year, but included some planning and pilot work conducted in November 2006-March 2007

Participants and data collection in Cycle Two The participants in Cycle Two included three EFL faculty (native English speaking) and two Humanities faculty (native Japanese speaking). These five members participated in planning software modules for the LMS at Kita University. At the end of the research term, they reported their work in an action research publication in the institutional journal (Hinkelman, Okuda, Johnson, Ishikawa, & Grose, 2008). Much of the data in this section was taken as extracts from this article and from interviews with the participants. In addition, representatives of five universities across Japan were involved in a design workshop, which planned several of the mobile phone modules. This planning began in 2006 at a national research conference on CALL hosted by Kita University.

Stage 1: Planning in Cycle Two The interventions planned in Cycle Two were carried out in several directions as I worked with three different groups in the university during the 2007-2008 school year. In one role, as a member of the IT committee of the whole school, I was able to participate in major planning for facility renovation. This work led to later interventions in Cycle Three. In another role, I acted as a facilitator of a joint research team developing LMS modules for in-house use, within other teachers’ lecture-based classes and within my own process writing class. The planning of interventions began with developer workshops, some including representatives of five collaborating universities using the same open source LMS, Moodle. The first developer workshop was conducted in November 2005 and focused mainly on applications that are web-based “pull” communication tools (i.e. a student goes to the activity location and selects it) for the LMS. Five priority applications were agreed on and responsibilities assigned. These were: Quiz Module, Hot Potatoes Module, Mobile Phone Quickmail Integration, Attendance Slip, and Lecture Feedback. Results were initially reported in the moodle.org general developer forum (Moodle, 2005). Table

147

5.5

summarizes

decisions

that

were

made

regarding

applications,

funding

responsibilities, schedule and priorities. Table 5.5. Application Development Priorities, Funding, and Schedule Mobile Phone Application

Funding University

Priority & Schedule

1. Quickmail

Hokusei Gakuen University

A – November 2005

2. Quiz

Yamaguchi University

A – November 2005

3. Hot Potatoes (pure HTML)

Kanazawa Gakuin University

A – December 2005

4. Attendance Slip

Kita University

A – March 2006

5. Lecture Feedback

Kita University

A – March 2006

6. Polling

Kita University

B – March 2006

7. Forum

Hokusei Gakuin University

B – March 2006

8. Static Images

Undecided

C -- Undecided

9. Flash Lite Interface

Undecided

C – Undecided

The lecture feedback and attendance slip modules were programmed and piloted in 2006, implemented for classroom use in 2007, and reported as Intervention 1. The Polling module was never begun, as teacher interest shifted to mobile vocabulary study apps. In March 2007, our Kita University planning team made a list of design considerations and software development considerations for a vocabulary study module, which became Intervention 2. These plans are listed in Table 5.6.

148

Table 5.6: Action research planning for a vocabulary study module General

Design

Considerations

Development Strategies

* mail delivery (not web) to provide regular exposure to target language * delivery can be forced (more teacher control) or subscribed (more student control) * focus on "units" of mail messages on a project-based or content-based topic which would reinforce several weeks of classroom lessons (blended learning approach) * each unit would include messages sent either in sequence or random * messages would be non-interactive for study (some could also be interactive as well) * messages would be either 1) words, 2) stories, 3) questions * word-focused messages would be like flash cards, for review of vocabulary * story-focused messages would be like a book, divided into reading segments * non-interactive questions could work by having a 5-10 blank lines to scroll down to see a correct answer * collocations need to be considered as well as single words, especially phrases used in context of a particular project * begin with non-interactive messages and move toward interactive * begin intensive use in classrooms by end of September, 2008 * for word messages, Moodle’s glossary module is too defined and not configurable--we need to use question engine or database module for entering content * if question engine is base, new question types need to be created for handling multiple field word glossaries, multiple field stories * sending screen might use parts of Modified Quickmail Block--send to mobile phone email (all/some/none), send to school email (all/some/none)--show student name, photo, subscribed/not subscribed * unit authoring of email messages: mass upload for quick authoring of short bits--via Excel? * various templates for sending which could include single or multiple records and/or single or multiple fields - template 1: word in target language, 7 blank lines, word in native language - template 2: word in context sentence - template 3: question, answer1, answer 2, answer 3, 7 blank lines, correct answer * easy or automatic sequencer/scheduler over 1-2 weeks

The planning of third and final intervention of Cycle Two, process writing automation, was conducted concurrently as I taught the course. As the writing instructor, I iteratively added writing steps and tasks to the LMS, as opportunities to save time and increase learner interest arose.

149

Stage 2: Interventions in Cycle Two In Cycle Two, the interventions included designing and using: 1) a lecture feedback module, 2) a mobile phone vocabulary learning application, and 3) a process writing technology. Initial pilot experiments were reported in a faculty development report on internet-based teaching (Hinkelman, Okuda, & Kudo, 2005). The full results of this action research cycle were reported in an institutional journal (Hinkelman, Okuda, Johnson, Ishikawa, & Grose, 2008).

Intervention 4: Lecture feedback LMS module The opportunity to build custom-designed LMS modules began three years earlier when an open source LMS, Moodle, was adopted at Kita University in 2003. From that time, teachers began designing software to fit their lesson-plans. As the LMS used open source code, teachers could hire a reasonably costing programmer to alter some LMS modules and build new designs from scratch. In one case, Akio, a Japanese professor of indigenous language and cultural studies, built a module based on his practice of a teaching method called "bidirectional lectures" that he estimates 10-20% of the university lecturers at Kita University have adopted. Bidirectional lectures use a response paper that students fill out at the end of lecture to summarize the key points of the lecture and ask questions to the lecturer. Typically, a lecture class will include from 50-150 students with each one generating a 100-150 word response. Tabulating these response papers is a labor-intensive job as Akio collates selected sentences and prepares a two page summary of key student insights and questions which he copies and returns to the students the following week. That handout becomes the basis of the first 20-30 minutes of his lecture. He is satisfied with the general operation of the system: "My students usually explain the points of the class better than I do. The questions they ask are straightforward and force me to think about the value of what I was trying to teach". [Int15, paragraph 2] In 2005, Akio suggested designing an LMS-based version of the response papers, which he called the "Lecture-feedback Module". With this system, students enter their response each week after class by going the class website in one of the computer labs on campus. This eliminated manually retyping the data, collating similar themes, and rating key phrases by the students. Akio was able to reduce his paperwork from eight hours to three hours per week. The resulting weekly paper-handout was reformatted and posted on the

150

LMS as well as handed out to students. The handouts become a record of the course and a part of what is assessed at the end of the term. The lecture feedback module that he created may have been more appropriate to the Japanese university culture than the free-form forum and chat modules that I tended to use because it respected the teacher-student hierarchy, and because it was a formal process that was systematically assessed. Yet it was transformational (compared to many non-interactive lectures in the university) in that some aspects of the content were cocreated by teacher and student. We asked one non-Japanese faculty member of his opinion of this system: “I would have never tried to create such a kind a module, because I prefer to involve students with more peer-topeer interaction. I also don’t have large lecture classes to deal with. I wonder, though, how he gets such high quality responses. Writing in their first language may explain it, but also I am impressed that Akio's process was repeated in the same pattern, week-by-week over the 15-week semester. Students seem to take his approach more seriously than mine.” (Int10, 5)

I suggested this to Akio that the hierarchy and formality between teachers and students may have affected his design and the positive response by the students. He replied: “Hmm. I don’t think about [hierarchy and roles] so much. I think it is more that my class is so large and yours is small. In small classes, I use oral activities a lot, too.” [Int15: 3]

His response suggests the design of classroom environments in this case may be less related to cultural values and more affected by the number of students. At Kita University, lecture-based classes are typically five to ten times as large as seminars or language communication classes. Native-speaking teachers thus can avoid such large classes and tend to develop modules that fit smaller, more intimate classroom settings. Curious about this possible explanation, I queried Akio in the follow-up interview and found that year-by-year on his own, Akio had continued to improve his module and make changes in his blended lecturing environment. In 2008, he had rebuilt the module to work on mobile phones, so students could complete the lecture responses immediately, in class. In 2010, instead of lecturing with notes on a blackboard, he transferred all of his notes to computer-based slides. Using a long computer laboratory with two parallel rows of students, he would walk up and down the rows as he lectured. A remote control for his slide show enabled him to be free from the front of class. He described how this changed his relationship with the students: “By walking within the rows of students and using a remote control, I learned to see the lecture from the students’ point of view. When students were talking I was able to stop and enter their private discussions and either help them understand a point, or pull their attention back. Instead of standing up front on the podium, I could stand with the students. It feels like a kind of shoulder-to-shoulder communication.” [Int15: 5]

151

Perhaps as an unintentional result, the physical relationships of teacher, student, and texts changed with the addition of a new practice. I compared this with my own teaching practice and found no direct parallel. But again, the technology ecosystem in Akio’s class is based on a lecture-based pedagogic approach, which could explain why technological change follows different paths due to differing class sizes and pedagogic philosophies.

Intervention 5: Mobile phone vocabulary study module In the second intervention of Cycle Two, two teachers added a mobile phone vocabulary learning requirement to their content-based class of Intercultural Communication Theory at Kita University. One teacher, Sonoyo, introduced what we called, the ‘Mail Study’ program to her class of 30 students, where 15 volunteered to try the program in between April and July 2006. Because the service costs the students significant usage fees, the program was voluntary. The students were 3rd year English majors, composed of 7 male and 8 female students. Sonoyo chose this particular class because the students were learning both English and intercultural communication. She believed that reading English would help them increase their exposure to the second language. She intended the program to give extra information beyond the classroom topics and hoped this would increase the students’ level of interest. She anticipated that the mobile phone would generate much of this interest. She cited the very high ownership of mobile phones and the fact that students access them far more often than they access computers as reasons. She also recognized students’ familiarity and ease with different kinds of media. When asked why she did not use paper-based exercises, Sonoyo observed that some students may be absent, some may not read the paper carefully and some may simply put it away and forget about it. On the other hand, she observed that students usually open their emails, especially if they come from their instructors. The instructor’s role in the development team of teachers was to create content for email messages and to learn how to set the mail streams to her students. She set up her mail streams to go out twice a day, avoiding class times and night times when a mail-received alarm might wake the students.

The content focused on vocabulary—definitions,

translations and explanations.

152

Her messages were designed with seven parts centered around a multiple choice format, including a 1) greeting, 2) multiple choice question, 3) answer choices, 4) blank lines/instructions to scroll down, 5) correct answer, 6) explanation, and a 7) closing statement. The greetings and closings were designed to create a personal and informal atmosphere, as if it were a personal communication from the instructor. After the greeting a question was given, followed by 3-4 possible answers. After viewing the answer choices, blank lines were inserted to temporarily hide the answer from the student. These blank lines were intended to force students to think of the answer first, before seeing the answer. This was a simpler substitute for a true online quiz, which would require using the internet to contact a main server for the correct answer, and subsequently waiting for the server to send a reply. The emails covered and reviewed the important points of the class with the aim of helping students to remember what they had studied. The instructors hoped that this would motivate more competitive students. Goal-driven students may see this as a way of raising their confidence to get a higher score. They may also see it as a game, deriving instant satisfaction from solving puzzles. However, less goal-oriented students are likely to derive less satisfaction from such activities. Stories were not used, so those students who like stories may not have been engaged. Also individualistic learners may prefer this type of study rather than learners whose learning style preferences are more collaborative. The instructor noted that initially there were delays in sending out the mail streams at first due to difficulties in understanding how to send them. Students, too, were initially confused because they did not at first identify the sender of the mail streams with their instructor. However, they soon became accustomed to this and the students were able to receive the messages in a timely manner. One student complained that there were too many messages. Another student suggested that the topics were not very interesting and that low levels of interest may mean that students would not open all their messages. This would be especially true if the format were always the same. Finally, one student surprisingly complained that the messages were all in English. In terms of future potential, the instructor noted that a more varied and entertaining range of formats might be more attractive to students. This would include such things as images, illustrations and animation. It is also important to include more collaborative

153

activities such as surveys or social activities. Rather than merely a text-based, vocabulary-focused program, material that is more vivid, visual and interactive would generate more interest. In addition, if the messages could be more personalized, students would probably pay more attention. Finally, she observed that the technology could have valuable application for contacting students who are absent. In practical terms, setting up the content in the program is overly time consuming because questions from the LMS question bank were not reusable in the email study module, and thus the project died because teacher prep time was not sustainable.

Intervention 6: Process-writing automation A third intervention in Cycle Two (sixth intervention over the three years) involved a process-writing lesson that employed print-based face-to-face technologies in a classic teaching classroom. The intervention was intended to use online technologies to automate the labor-intensive work of writing, feedback and assessment. Newsletters, essays, journals, advertisements, and other forms of written expression are often the product in a process writing approach. Yet, the paper formats often make interaction with audiences difficult. Because of their interactive nature, student blogs offer an opportunity to engage wider audiences by adding public commenting and rating features. In this intervention, two writing teachers at Kita University created differing blended learning approaches to process writing. This approach was applied to two introductory courses in writing with 20 students in each class. The course began with paragraph writing and moved to multi-paragraph essays. Teachers emphasized writing production and chose to create their own teaching materials instead of using a course book. They created handouts covering topic sentences and paragraph structure, as well as worksheets for brainstorming and reviewing common errors. With the heavy editing, re-writing, and correcting chores inherent in the teaching of writing, this kind of class had great potential for adopting automated management online. The first attempt at automation was to have students upload their essay files into an assignment module on the LMS. This allowed a teacher to collect the digital files and give a grade to the assignment, all in one spot. However, the LMS module for grading file uploads assessed only the final product and there was no systematic way to give feedback on drafts that would be improved in subsequent drafts. This was not a good solution for handling multiple drafts, an essential part of process writing. An attempt at

154

using a blog also met with problems, as there was no way to mark up the text with structural and comprehension problems. Although it was convenient for students to share, read, and add comments or questions, the versions could not be collected and compared. The major need after a first draft is to give structural/organizational assessment and then grammatical checking on later drafts. Students often neglect advice, so comparison of versions is essential when teachers do one-to-one counseling with students. The other writing teacher did not use a paper system, but tried a forum tool on the LMS. In the forum tool, students opened a ‘topic’ and posted their first draft of an essay. Other students were assigned to read the essays from other students in their group of four, and post a comment. The teacher also posted a reply, but instead of a comment, re-posted the first draft with color-codings of text and comments written into the original text. The original student then took this peer and teacher input and wrote a second draft, posting it within the same forum topic. The forum is an excellent tool for asynchronous communication and keeps a linear sequence of postings that is easy to view in one spot. The flow and path of improvement from initial draft to final draft is obvious with a forum interface. One problem was the LMS had no way of assessment using a multi-scale rubric. The only options were a single letter or numeric grades. The other teacher, who relied on paper drafts, passed those drafts around the class for peer reading. Each student had to read the draft and wrote two comments and two questions on each paper. The teacher then passed out a check sheet with over 20 structural points to assess in the title, introduction, main points, and conclusion. Peers checked these points and returned the check sheets to the original writer. Armed with comments and check sheets, the second draft would be expected the following week with not only corrections, but also rewriting and additional words added. Each student kept these paper drafts and check sheets and collected them along with pre-writing research notes in a folder with clear plastic pockets for each draft. At the end of a final draft, the student would clip all the drafts, notes and sheets together and submit it to the teacher with self-scored grade sheet. The teacher would verify all the paper sheets (up to twenty) and make a final grade as well. This heavily paper-based process allowed public reading and commenting in a limited form and created a clear trail of all tasks and assessment.

155

Stage 3: Evaluation in Cycle Two End-of-term evaluation by research team The interventions in Cycle Two were evaluated by a combination of teaching team discussion followed by writing an action research report (Hinkelman et al., 2008). In the discussion, the participants evaluated the benefits and limitations of integrating of online LMS and mobile phone technologies into blended learning environment interventions. To evaluate the use of mobile technologies, the team studied research on the limitations of mobile learning (Wang & Higgins, 2006). The first limitation, small screen size and distorted web pages proved to be a significant problem, so a parallel scripting development strategy was adopted to provide mobile phone-specific proportions. The screens on the mobile phone were then customized only for the phone rather than compacted from the larger standard screens. The second limitation, input limitations, was less of a factor as student input speeds were rather high in the Lecture Feedback case, and not a factor in the Mail Study case where students did not have to input anything. Table 5.7 summarizes the immediate results and the evaluation of the three interventions.

156

Table 5.7. Cycle Two intervention results and evaluation Intervention

Immediate result

4. Lecture feedback LMS module

Students adopted the lecture feedback both online and mobile phone. Teacher saved time processing content received. LMS integration project continued for next year. (Note: has continued for 5 years)

•

repetitive thus easy for socialization over 15 weeks.

•

liked dual entry: computer or mobile phone

•

the potential for using the system for more efficient classroom administration. An effective system of feedback will provide teachers with insights into the effectiveness of their classes and allow teachers to monitor the degree of involvement and understanding of students.

Student expressed initial enthusiasm, but soon tired of the spamlike delivery and rejected the high costs. Teachers tired of tedious content preparation. LMS integration project abandoned.

•

the technological challenges faced in providing material to students in a timely, coherent and affordable manner were not overcome.

•

the pedagogical limits of the system; its potential for teaching a range of skills, structures, grammar and functions. The degree to which the technology is compatible with the principles of collaborative learning in the context of content-based curricula must also be analyzed.

•

non-reusability of the content from the LMS

•

Paper forms generated greater in-

5. Mobile phone vocabulary study module

6. Process writing automation

Evaluation

Teacher continued using paper forms. LMS integration project never started.

class excitement. •

Exchange handled synchronously forced concentrated attention.

The fourth technical limitation, lack of standardization and compatibility, was a major factor as the programmers were forced to create screen designs using only plain text (no color, no HTML styles, no animation) as the lowest common denominator, in order to be

157

able to be used on the greatest variety of phones. An initial plan for an animated Flashbased interface was abandoned due to the incompatibility of many legacy mobile phones in use by the students. The final technical issue that Wang and Higgins referred to, small memory and storage, was not a factor because almost no data was being stored on the phones themselves. The data was held in a central LMS server and delivered as needed via PHP scripting. This is an advantage of LMS-integrated mobile phone applications, which do not require memory-intensive, mobile phone-resident applications. Similarly, many of the pedagogical limitations of the Wang and Higgins (2006) analysis were supported. The first limitation, difficulty to follow up learning achievements, was particularly significant. The interaction and storage of data on a central database for each class is important for the ongoing community aspect of language learning. It is not just a database for storage quiz scores or other assessments for the convenience of the teacher, but also for the reuse of student-generated data. The re-reading and summarizing of this data is an integral part of a social constructivist learning philosophy. In addition, webbased activities that are connected to the community database will have the ability to be tracked, not only by the teacher, but also by students seeking to watch their own participation and learning achievements inside and outside the community. A second pedagogical limitation, the difficulty of testing when students cannot be authenticated or supervised in testing situations, was not a concern in this study. Testing was not the aim of any of the activities in these cases. Both the Mail Study and Lecture Feedback activities were intended as supplementary or reinforcing activities to the learning process rather than summative assessment instruments. However, the Lecture Feedback tool does show that an open-ended question that requires creative, summarizing cognitive skills may have some role in testing, since the originality of the response is most valued, rather than providing a “correct” answer. A third pedagogical limitation, lack of classroom atmosphere, was definitely a concern in these case studies.

All cases involved blended learning, whereby the teachers and

students engaged in direct face-to-face learning activities, with mobile phones providing an adjunct role in the learning process. A final pedagogical limitation, environmental interruptions, was not a factor because the mobile phone exercises were designed for between 5-20 minutes. This amount of time

158

would likely not be affected by outside environmental interference. Similarly, the cases in this study did not consider psychological limitations—slow change of habits and health risks—as important factors in this study, again due to the small amount of time required to engage in the activities. These attempts to integrate or blend an ubiquitous tool, mobile phones, with classroom activities was limited to vocabulary re-enforcement. This is useful for practice in areas such as TOEFL, TOEIC and other similar examination training but, may be doubtful value for promoting fluency or linguistic dexterity. Receptive/responsive types of closed answer questions are passive exercises and therefore undemanding of students’ intellectual commitment. In addition, a degree of randomness is introduced into the process with the possibility that guessing has been substituted for real comprehension. Furthermore, time-consuming authoring of media-rich content means teachers need additional incentives to compensate the extensive time requirements. A resource bank or digital repository of compatible language learning materials would allow pooling of ideas for classroom application and provide a vast bank of activities for students. This is a possible intervention for future cycles of action research. The remarkable aspect of process writing automation intervention is that while computers have dominated second language writing classrooms since the early 1990s, the overall process has been difficult to integrate into the internet and LMSs. Paper formats have evolved and progressed at a faster rate than online formats. The dominant tool in the process writing classroom in this study is a ‘clear file’ plastic folder and not the LMS website or even a blog site. Blog sites, however, may evolve for the publishing the end product and building an on-going community of readers and responders. Standalone, commercial software products are likely available as writing aids, but the situation for these two teachers allowed only free or open source, customizable tools. For production of fluent, well-organized and coherent essays, teachers realized that students needed to be socialized into a pattern of learning habits. A pattern of assignment responsibilities that included weekly papers to hand in and pass around proved reliable, tangible and productive. The three interventions of Cycle Two did not lead directly to further interventions in Cycle Three. Lecture-feedback and process writing automation continued independently the following year with little change, and the mobile phone vocabulary study module was

159

abandoned. Blended language learning is a process of trial-and-error with failures and small successes.

CYCLE THREE The interventions planned in Cycle Three were carried out in several directions as I worked with two different groups in the university during the April 2008- March 2009 school year. In one role, as a member of the IT committee of the whole school, I was able to participate in major planning for facility renovation. In another role, I acted as a facilitator of a joint research team developing an assessment system for the General English program at Kita University. Cycle Three included planning and pilot work conducted in November 2007-March 2008.

Participants and data collection in Cycle Three In Cycle Three, the first intervention involved over forty faculty and office staff at Kita University, not as participants in the study, but as members of the institution conducting their work. The data collected here includes my own observations collected in a research journal and from interviews of three selected teachers who had experience using the old and new facilities in this intervention. The second intervention includes four members of the general English faculty at Kita University, continuing the work of the same team in Cycle One. These participants were interviewed and reported their action research study in an institutional journal (Grose, Hinkelman, Rian, & McGarty, 2009).

Stage 1: Planning in Cycle Three As a member of the IT committee of the whole school, I participated in facility renovation planning. The major planning decision was whether to replicate the CALL rooms or build flexible designs for blended learning. CALL had been a strong presence at Kita University since the mid-1990s, culminating in a national grant to build the first CALL laboratory in northern Japan. The 44-seat laboratory was installed in 1996 at a cost of approximately one million US dollars—mostly financed by national education grants. The English department was a leader in the campus politics and CALL dominated the recruitment literature for new students. Teachers were encouraged to switch to computer-based language learning and the lab was packed with teachers and students each day. The unquestioned power of computers to improve language learning was built

160

on an assumption that automated feedback in drill-intensive pedagogic approaches would replace the passive nature of lecture-based teaching. Yet some teachers voiced concern: “I think CALL is not suited for communication-based classes. Students need to do pair-work and face each other, not a computer screen.” [Int11: 1] “It looks like teaching in a CALL lab is like running a factory. The teacher sits behind lots of screens and machinery, watching the students do their work.” [Int12: 2]

These teachers raised questions about how the physical layout affected facial interaction and attention of students. While many teachers had their doubts, there was no public debate because of the high profile investment in promoting the room. Significantly, the extreme cost of custom-built CALL rooms meant only one room was available and the majority of teachers could continue their current practice—and few teachers were pressured into using it. After five years, the CALL room began a decline in popularity as teachers preferred rooms with a blackboard, desks and chairs. A writing teacher commented: “My students can write just as much in a paper journal than in a computer journal. Plus I can easily have them read and comment on each other’s journals in the beginning of class. Computers are clumsy for exchanging information student-to-student in the classroom. I want to control the pacing of activities and keep the class moving.” [Int10: 7]

In a workshop for teachers, I asked an EFL communication teacher why she avoided the CALL room. She expressed concern about students’ inability to interact orally in class: “I don’t think my students are doing well at reading faces and exchanging feelings. A computer screen can’t help there.” [Int16: 1]

In response to these sentiments, in 2006 I surveyed the 40+ EFL teachers at Kita University concerning their technology needs, and presented results to the IT committee. Nearly 60% of English language teachers wished to have students use the Internet during activities in their classes. As CALL laboratories had decreased in popularity and room renovation cost was over ten times as expensive as standard computer laboratory equipment, I felt justified in recommending the retrofitting of standard computer labs across campus as blended learning rooms. After I prepared floor plans and had them revised by EFL teachers, the IT committee adopted a plan to convert five existing computer laboratories into blended learning rooms. In each of these rooms, computers were moved away from the center of class to line the walls, placing movable desks and chairs in the center of the room. The aim that both face-to-face and online technologies could be combined in the same room was appealing and highly cost effective. Existing furniture was reused with the only new expense being standard, off-the-shelf desktop computers—each seat costing one tenth of the previous cost/seat of the CALL lab.

161

Stage 2: Interventions in Cycle Three Intervention 7: Facility renewal and blended learning rooms The seventh overall intervention was the facility renovation, which included five blended learning rooms. The blended rooms opened in April 2008 and were immediately booked solid throughout the week. The teachers using the blended rooms reported doing face-toface activities for about 80% of class time and the remaining 20% of the period for online activities on a web-based learning management system. Course books, workbooks and handouts were also commonly used in class and often combined with a document camera to project the paper materials on a large screen. The mix of media and technologies is complex and determined by each teacher. Occasionally teaching teams collaborate and build common materials and activities. Instead of packaged courseware, teachers are combining a mix of self-developed quizzes, surveys, and forums on the LMS along with copied handouts or commercial course books to build content-based materials to fit a particular major or level of students. With the greater use of pair-work, paper forms, and other non-electronic technologies in the blended learning rooms, some teachers exhibited a growing excitement about their control of innovation: “I love the new rooms. With the projector and the students facing forward, I can get their attention and hold it. They know what to do in the next task and the pace of the class moves along. I don’t like using computers so much because it is like a dull game for them. So I limit the web work to the last 15 minutes of class and they can get a start on homework. Before I could never get them to do homework.” [Int17: 3]

Administrators and head teachers have ceased pushing electronic technologies on the program and instead are responding to small changes proposed by teaching groups. With the opening of blended learning rooms, the use of teacher-authored handouts, booklets, and other materials grew and formed the impetus for the next intervention.

Intervention 8: In-house, multi-media materials The eighth intervention over the three years of action research was an effort to switch from commercial textbooks to in-house authored, multi-media materials. Until 2006, all teachers used internationally published course books for oral communication based on a functional syllabus. However, comments by one teacher expressed dissatisfaction with those materials: “I have mixed feeling about these standard textbooks. The students complain they are expensive and they don’t always fit the wide range of levels and interests of our students. If we don’t adapt the texts, they will drop out and take other subjects. I have been teaching here for ten years, so I know what works and what doesn’t work. For example, this textbook has a lesson on restaurant English, something 5% of them will might use if they take a trip

162

aboard someday in the future. I prefer to make topics that students need to use now in their university life. [Int10: 10]

After two years of experience using an LMS to build quizzes for students, in 2008 six teachers in Kita University foreign language program formed a team to create specialized EFL materials for 45 of the oral communication courses in the school. The new materials were intended to fit the level, interests and content needs of the computer-major students. To divide the labor-intensive task of materials creation, they defined a two-year curriculum with 12 projects. Each project had a 5-10 page booklet of exercises and assessment sheets to accompany blended tasks in the classroom and online. Teachers loved the opportunity to be creative but soon found the weekly page layout and printing chores consumed their energy. Heavy course loads meant massive printing and design chores, which teachers soon expressed their exhaustion: “The only problem is that with 10 classes to handle, I just don’t have the time to make good materials.” [Int10: 10]

In addition, the team attempted to add color images and highlights to the paper materials but the school objected when the teachers attempted to collect money from students to pay for the printing supplies. Some teachers built extensive booklets while others did not. Some activity pages were so cryptic to other teachers that they were unusable. One teacher complained: “We each have our own teaching styles and I can’t teach with [his] materials. It does not work for me. Also, I am working past six o’clock every night just trying to print up papers for the next day. I am not a graphic designer. Why are we reinventing the wheel?” [Int17: 3]

The team-authoring approach proved to be too large a frustration, so after three months of effort, two members switched to a commercial textbook and two others decided to prepare original material independently for their own use. As the teacher-administrator who led the team, I had been inspired by the collaborative research teams I had observed at Minami University, but felt frustrated with the failure in my home university. “There is no way I can build good multi-media activities for prints and online by myself. Even if three or four get together it is not enough. Surely some kind of mass collaboration like Wikipedia could be organized to pull likeminded teachers together.” [Int10:12]

Thus, the grand plans had to be abandoned. I then persisted with several small-scale initiatives: 1) building a shared question bank with 1000 multi-media quiz items (multiple-choice, cloze, matching, ordering types) that followed the syllabus of the most popular textbooks used in the curriculum, 2) monthly meetings to share lesson plans, and

163

3) a department-by-department content-based curriculum for just the top students in each department (law, economics, psychology, elementary education, etc.). The selection and creation of materials is still independently chosen by teachers, but gradually more classes are produced in-house, with some scattered teams doing collaborative development.

Intervention 9: Participation tracking system The third intervention of Cycle Three (ninth overall) was a participation assessment system that James implemented for all ten of his General English classes.

His

impressions of student behavior indicated a measurable change in student willingness to ask questions and engage positively in an English environment. He also developed an online management system that cuts teacher marking time to a minimum and allows constant student monitoring of their participation grades. Student evaluations of the tracking system showed over 50% were positive, another 30-40% neutral, and less than 10% negative to the system. Two other teachers agreed to use the same tracking system the following semester before making a broader recommendation to a larger number of teachers. In addition, this online system was reinforced with large paper name cards that each student placed on their desk. On the reverse of the name, various common phrases were printed to be used as communication strategies. Students who used these were awarded points in the participation tracking system. James felt the most uncomfortable aspect of the participation tracking system is the overt extrinsic approach to rewarding behavior. This system may not be needed for highly motivated students or when the activities or methods itself provide intrinsic motivation for learning. With improved classroom activities, students may find the process of a learning task so enjoyable that external rewards could become counterproductive. On the other hand, many aspects of education in general rely on such behaviorist incentives (grades, credits and diplomas for example), so these concerns may be unfounded and point to considering multiple educational philosophies to guide assessment policies.

Stage 3: Evaluation in Cycle Three The blended learning rooms were enthusiastically adopted by teachers, and remained the most requested rooms in the institution during the following three years. The rooms afforded greater stability than the wireless notebook computers, and provided total flexibility by duplicating both a CALL laboratory and a flexible, communicative teaching

164

room in the same location. Table 5.8 summarizes the intervention results and team evaluation. The initial symbolic power of computers configured within CALL language laboratory allowed it to receive budgetary priority. It was a showplace that enabled the school to compete against other schools in new student recruitment. However, its role was superseded by standardized, multi-purpose blended rooms. IT committee planners recognized the value of face-to-face tools (pair-work and group work) and increased support of paper-based media. Based on a study of my school’s blended learning environments (Hinkelman, 2009), I noticed that paper-based technologies were not being reduced in classrooms as earlier predicted (Robb, 1997), but have taken on new functions and multiple roles in blended classrooms, such as: 1) recording information, 2) giving instructions, 3) publishing or pre-writing for projects, 4) prompting dialogue 5) keeping records and 6) assessing peers.

165

Table 5.8. Cycle Three intervention results and evaluation Intervention Immediate result

Evaluation

7. Facility renewal with blended learning rooms

Teachers booked the blended rooms full every day of the week and expressed enthusiasm at the flexibility.

Teachers liked the flexibility, but not all teachers took advantage of the computer availability.

8. In-house, multi-media materials

Teachers’ initial enthusiasm dropped within a month due to excessive time requirements. School administration upset with money-collecting.

Authoring and self-publishing one hundred pages of booklets each month was not a sustainable practice. All teachers expressed exhaustion.

Students responded to the incentives with additional questions, comments and clarification-seeking in class. The teacher posted participation scores online.

Repetitive thus easy for socialization over 15 weeks.

9. Participation tracking system

When teaching teams used a common LMS website to collect and distribute their materials and activities, the computers were used more intensively.

Nonetheless, teachers were dissatisfied with standard course books (weak multimedia, and no LMS-integrated quizzes).

Visible, frequent feedback affected behavior. Overt behaviorist incentives were uncomfortable for some teachers.

CROSS-CYCLE THEME ANALYSIS This section summarizes the three cycles of action research and builds common themes related to the design of blended learning environments. Table 5.9 lists the nine interventions spread over three cycles of action research. Table 5.9. Combined interventions over three cycles of action research Cycle One

Cycle Two

Cycle Three

1. Teacher collaboration meetings

4. Lecture feedback LMS module

7. Facility renewal with blended learning rooms

2. Wireless computerbased tasks

5. Mobile phone vocabulary study module

8. In-house, multi-media materials

3. Multiple seating arrangements

6. Process-writing automation

9. Participation tracking system

166

The next step in the analysis process that I used was to produce cross-cycle themes. This step has not been prescribed in action research handbooks, yet it seemed congruous with the process in other qualitative approaches, so I attempted it here. The temptation is to simply take the intervention titles as the themes, however, I wanted to build categories that crossed and combined the interventions. The procedure for this was to review each of the three evaluation tables, and extract relevant results and evaluation points.

Table 5.10. Action research results and evaluation points clustered into themes Intervention results/evaluation points*

Themes

Major theme

Time-consuming non-reusable content creation (4), Paper forms supporting tasks (6), Teaching team using common website (7), Divided authoring assignments (8), Unsustainable design and printing chores (8), School issues with materials fees (8),

Collaborative course development

Authoring

Wireless instability (2), Lesson pacing interruptions (5), Teacher-designed LMS activities (5), Dual use enthusiasm (7), Low cost design (7), Reused furniture (7), Pointand-click website design (5)

Economical, standard equipment

Individualized learning paths (8), Repetitive feedback and assessments (5), Dual entry options—PC or phone (5), Teacher reflection on effectiveness (5), Danger of spam-like interactions (6), Paper forms generate intensity (7), Synchronous journal writing more engaging than asynchronous (7)

Multi-metaphor rubrics/incentives

Handout-supported, face-to-face tasks Institutional/global materials repositories

Classrooms

Stable internet connections Easy, customizable class websites Flexible seating arrangements

Assessments

LMS tracking and display Multi-device recycling of content Weekly cycles of feedback

* intervention number in parentheses

The points included both positive and negative results. These are listed in the left-side column of Table 5.10. From these, I clustered similar extracts and gave each cluster a unique title, calling them ‘themes’. Then I clustered those themes into three groups and gave a simple one-word title as a ‘major theme’. The same eleven themes and major themes are displayed as columns in Table 5.11.

167

Table 5.11. Cross-cycle thematic analysis Authoring

Classrooms

Assessments

Collaborative course development

Economical, standard equipment

Multi-metaphor rubrics/incentives

Handout-supported face-toface tasks

Stable internet connections

LMS tracking and display

Institutional/global materials repositories

Easy, customizable class websites

Multi-device recycling of content

Flexible seating arrangements

Weekly cycles of feedback

QUALITY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS This section assesses the quality or trustworthiness of the research conducted through an action research approach. It consists of a post-cycle review using the ten processes and associated questions initially proposed by Burns (1999) and revised in the research design of Chapter 3. Using these criteria, I made a self-review of six types of triangulation criteria (multiple stakeholder, multiple method, multiple time sampling, multiple space, multiple investigator, and multiple theory) and four other quality assessments (respondent checking, peer examination, rival explanations/negative cases, and monitoring researcher bias). The main quality check I employed was respondent checking with one participant, an older colleague who served as an administrator at Kita University. He strongly approved that the narrative accounts accurately reflected the situation at Kita University’s EFL program. These assessments are summarized below in Table 5.12.

168

Table 5.12. Research quality assessment for action research approach Validity Type

Self-assessment

1. Multiple Stakeholder Triangulation

Key stakeholders related to lesson/curriculum design were included. The interviews focused solely on teachers and a few administrators. In addition, non-human actors such as networks, materials, and spaces were observed.

2. Multiple Method Triangulation

Three sources of data collection were used: 1) interviews, 2) class observation, 3) material collection. One analytic method was used— thematic analysis with narrative writing.

3. Multiple Time Sampling Triangulation

The blended learning environment was studied in multiple iterations over three cycles. The Kita University research team included data over 20 team sessions with written reviews.

4. Multiple Space Triangulation

Three classroom observations were noted. Each teacher represented between one and four different classes.

5. Multiple Investigator Triangulation

Twelve researchers were involved over the three year period of study. At least four team members per year participated in writing the action research papers.

6. Multiple Theory Triangulation

Within action research, one theoretical framework (blended learning) was used to focus the data collection. This is a possible weakness, however, other theories were used to guide the other approaches.

7. Respondent Checking

A draft of this chapter was checked and approved by a Kita University colleague, a co-administrator in the EFL program. In addition, all coresearchers checked drafts of the three action research papers, which comprised the major data of this approach.

8. Peer Examinations

The only peer examination was the Kita University colleague who read, commented, and approved of the content. His main comments concerned conciseness, focusing on details that were appropriate to the research theme.

9. Rival Explanations and Negative Cases

Some alternative explanations were considered and documented. The views of one negative participant that disagreed with the action research process were noted.

10. Monitoring Researcher Bias

I referred to my own pro-innovation bias in this approach by noting surprise at the failures of innovation in the mobile phone vocabulary module and the project booklet publishing interventions.

(Validity types based on Burns, 1999, pp. 162-166)

In addition, all the co-researchers read and re-read several drafts of the three action research reports that were published in the school journal. Finally, several triangulation factors were strong with twelve researchers involved, working in over twenty classroom spaces, and reporting over three years of interventions.

169

CHAPTER SUMMARY This chapter illustrated the practice of blended language learning at one institution where an action research approach was applied to the research questions. Twelve participants, including myself, were involved in planning, implementing and evaluating nine interventions in creating a blended learning environment for an EFL program. The interventions were paced within three annual cycles that followed the school teaching year. The length of the study allowed a growth in reflective thinking of the teams, and tested the sustainability of early interventions, thus ensuring initial enthusiasm was not a significant influence. The results of this inquiry included eleven themes concerning authoring, classrooms and assessment, as constructed from a cross-cycle analysis. The action research approach allowed a greater intimacy into the micro aspects of lesson design and the meso aspects of institutional policy-making.

170

CHAPTER 6: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACH In this chapter, I continue examining the factors that contribute to the development of a blended language learning program, but shift my research approach from autoethnography and action research to ethnography. In Chapter 4, I formulated a strategy for retrospective inquiry and adapted autoethnographic methods by using publication analysis and critical incident analysis based on a blended learning theme. In Chapter 5, I used an action research approach in my own institution, documenting and analyzing team interventions of blended learning. However, these approaches were insufficient in understanding how blended learning takes hold in an institution. I found I was too intimate with the sites and participants to extract insights beyond my own situation. In contrast to these ‘insider’ views, I now take on the role of an ‘outside’ ethnographer and conduct research within the context of a single, relatively mature and stable blended program. Ethnography should deliver a rich description of the institutional culture, focused on the theme of this study. To achieve this aim, I first set out the tenets of ethnographic research. Specifically, I look at material-semiotic approaches and justify their use in a technology rich setting. Next, I introduce the site selected for the investigation, the participants and the questions and techniques that I used to collect qualitative data. The primary research questions I ask are: ‘how is blended learning designed?” and “how do blended language learning programs develop?” Here I shift the data collection site from documents collected over my professional teaching/research career to interviews of practitioners in foreign language learning program and observations within a single tertiary educational institution. Then, I present an analysis of the data based on a pre-analysis framework of material-semiotics. The chapter concludes with a summary of key findings and suggests points for further investigation. This is the third research approach used in this inquiry and following this, in Chapters 7 and 8, I will attempt to draw together the results of all three research approaches to formulate comprehensive frameworks that can guide

171

research into language learning technologies and the wider context of curricular and institutional programs. Originally, I had planned to adopt an action research methodology in this site and act as an insider among colleagues initiating change in the university-wide English language program. An insider role would increase access to key documents and the subtleties of decision-making. I noticed that a number of researchers at the institution were also employed as advisors or consultants. I considered establishing an insider status by requesting a role as a formal advisor to a CALL research group, but soon realized that my invitation to conduct research on site was more limited than I expected. After conducting initial interviews, I found my requests to view teaching materials required institutional permission, and initial attempts to offer advice were politely considered but not acted on. I then realized my positionality was clearly an ‘outsider studying insiders’, or level six in the Herr and Anderson (2005) continuum of positionality. The advantage of this outsider status was a more detached perspective and the relative freedom with no pressure to produce a favorable report assessing the site’s program. Yet, the research methods available for an outsider role are markedly restricted than those for an insider role, mostly limited to interviews and observations. Therefore, I was forced to forgo an action-change approach and examine other qualitative approaches to the inquiry. One promising approach was ethnography, which like auto-ethnography is known for examining contexts and environments in a naturalistic, holistic way (McKay, 2006). The next section on methodology sets out the process of ethnography and justifies the framework to guide analysis.

METHODOLOGY FOR AN OUTSIDER APPROACH In this section, I describe my choice of a theoretical framework that focuses the ethnographic approach of this study. The first methodological issue was how to conduct an outsider approach that necessarily guided my investigation. Nunan and Bailey (2009) recommend that although ethnography is holistic, it must be strongly guided by a theoretical framework in order to focus data gathering and avoid unbounded descriptive accounts. In addition, the research question focusing on blended environments dictated a need for a theory that would allow me to examine relations that cross the boundaries of face-to-face and online learning.

172

Contextual frameworks in blended environments As discussed in Chapter 2, CALL frameworks tend to be either tool-oriented or SLAoriented, and ignore programmatic, institutional, and other contextual factors. One promising contextual framework was Chambers and Bax’s (2006) categories of normalization. Although it expanded CALL to consider institutional factors, I found it remained overly tool-centric, focusing on the integration of an electronic tool, computers, and ignored face-to-face tools and techniques. Another option was to adopt frameworks from past studies on innovation theory within language learning programs (Markee, 2001). This theory focuses on the social forces which influence and power relations between early adopters, laggards, opinion leaders and influential authorities (Rogers, 2003). The problem with this approach is its reliance on social determinism, which has been criticized earlier. The process of designing a blended environment involves configuring a set of rapidly changing teaching techniques and technical objects as well human networking in an organization. To combine technical and human factors, I sought a framework that would embrace complexity in an environment rather than oversimplify or assume deterministic factors. Therefore, I adopted actor-network theory because of its attention to a mix of human and technical forces at work within a socio-cultural setting, including quasi-objects such as teaching practices and organizational routines (Feldman & Pentland, 2005). With this framework, I intended use an ethnographic approach to create a set of initial descriptive categories, as proposed by Tatnell and Guilding (1999). These themes would cross the boundaries of CALL and face-to-face teaching. These type of hybrid categories have been called ‘actor-networks’ (Law, 2004) or more abstractly, ‘material-semiotic’ associations (Mulcahy, 1997).

Material-semiotic categories I speculated that in contrast to categories of tools and features commonly used in educational technology or CALL studies, I needed to think beyond teaching equipment and consider influential actor-networks, which might include, for example, grading systems, credits/diplomas, international proficiency tests, website permissions/access, teacher beliefs, incentive schemes, performance appraisals, grants/budgets and other institutional factors. These types of possible factors then guided my interview questions in data collection and code-creation in data analysis. Recent studies of actor-networks in

173

educational systems (Fenwick & Edwards, 2010) support these intuitions and suggest powerful

actors

in

educational

institutions

also

include

national

standards,

testing/assessment systems, reform agendas, screen interfaces, curriculum policies and pedagogic theories. This framework then guides data collection and analysis in blended language learning environments by focusing on organizational forces based on a material-semiotic view. From this perspective, I chose a site for ethnographic study that exhibited blended language learning environments in action, revealing forces at work in creating a particular institutional design of blended environments.

Site Selection Finding a site exhibiting the criteria of a systematic, institute-wide program of blended learning in foreign language education was difficult. Isolated examples of blended language learning in classroom situations could be located in virtually every university I had contact with, as many instructors are independently experimenting with adding online activities to their face-to-face classes. The secondary criterion for selecting a site was openness at a high administrative level, so that I could collect insights into the broader, programmatic forces at work. In order to find such a suitable site that displayed the qualities of an institutional blended language learning environment and administrative openness, I drew upon my past experience attending language teaching conferences in Japan. One institution, in particular, stood out with a number of innovative studies presented at national CALL conferences. At one conference, JALTCALL 2003 in Nagoya, Japan, the presenters from Minami University of Foreign Studies (Minami U.) described their blended learning designs and reported on classrooms called, ‘Blended Learning Spaces’, which had been awarded a national prize for educational architecture. In addition, and by coincidence, my supervisor and coresearcher in this study, had previously worked at the same institution ten years earlier. His introduction to the administrators allowed an open entry to conduct research observations and interviews.

SITE DESCRIPTION In this section, I examine the particular institutional role that Minami U. has played within Japan and its exemplar status in blended language learning programs. Then I lay out my expected and eventual positionality as a researcher, along with the scope and term of this ethnographic study.

174

Institutional Role of Minami University Minami University is a four-year university in Japan, which is highly specialized on the learning of foreign languages and cultures. Within Minami University, a program called the English Language Institute (ELI) concentrates on proficiency in written and spoken EFL skills. All of the approximately 3500 undergraduate students participate in one or more courses of the ELI. This program is nationally known for developing a self-access learning center, blended learning spaces and an exemplar English communication curriculum. The large scale of this program may be representative of foreign language teaching situations in many parts of the world, but particularly to the conditions in Asia. In Japan, Minami U. is regarded as a high-resource leader in the field of language teaching, especially in its implementation of a self-access learning center and a large native-speaking faculty in the ELI (currently 55 instructors and advisors). In addition, in 2003, its new facility construction received a national architectural design award for educational buildings. Thus Minami U. should not be considered a typical example of a university in Asia but rather as an exemplar institution. Although Minami U. is regarded as an ideal situation, it provides a useful site to investigate the history, issues and success in developing a blended language learning program. The university itself and its English Language Institute has a 25 year history, beginning in 1986. This is relatively young for a Japanese institution, so it inherited few traditions and practices that normally are highly embedded and resistant to change. When Minami U. was begun, the founder of the university hired a director for English language teaching who would establish an innovative curriculum. This director was given broad powers to set up an independent institute with personnel policies that allowed greater student-teacher contact and more curriculum-related research. The resulting research groups were also responsible for creating in-house materials and designing new learning spaces for the institute. This tradition is uncommon and thus provided a protected organizational culture that produced much of the blended learning designs reported in this study.

Point of entry and researcher positionality My PhD supervisor introduced me to the Minami University director of research, who was also the founder of their English Language Institute. As a former researcher connected to the ELI at Minami University, my supervisor continues to hold a personal

175

relationship with the former director of the ELI. This relationship allowed me to gain greater access for interviews. In addition, the director promoted research projects on the ELI to gain credibility to the research agenda of the institution. Again, these prejudicial factors allowed me to work with greater freedom with staff members. However, I soon realized the limits of my entry into an ‘outside’ institution. The administrators and teachers felt comfortable in an interviewee-interviewer relationship, rather than as collaborative planners. For example, after conducting initial interviews, I found requests for materials touched a sensitive area and responses were cautious. Perhaps materials and planning documents were considered intellectual property that had to be guarded. Nonetheless, there was much to investigate without being on a planning committee, and with an action research project already in process at my own university, I only needed a broad organizational picture of what guided the design of blended environments at Minami U.. At this point, I realized my positionality was clearly an ‘outsider studying insiders’, or level six in the Herr and Anderson (2005) continuum of positionality. The advantage of this outsider status was more detached perspective and fewer obligations to Minami University to produce a favorable report assessing their system.

Scope and term of study The scope of the study in the Minami University was limited to teachers and administrators of the English Language Institute. The ELI was a large, independent program, which employed about one third of the full-time faculty in the whole university at that time. The teachers in this program were the only faculty members to use the blended learning rooms and thus had intimate knowledge about the blended environment. Student use and perceptions of the blended learning facilities are also important in the understanding the overall context. Campbell (2001) points out that marginalized views are often unaccounted for in actor-network analysis, as researchers prefer to seek grand narratives of prominent actors. Nonetheless, I chose to emphasis teacher and administrator views because of their direct, decision-making involvement in day-to-day use of technology in this study. The neglect of student views remains a limitation to this study. The length of the study needed to be extensive in order to gain sufficient insight into an institutional culture. Ethnographic and classroom researchers often recommend a longitudinal study of more than one year (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993;

176

McKay, 2006). Matching the three years of action research at another site, I choose to make three annual visits to Minami University from 2005 to 2007 on days when classes were conducted. On site, I could observe classes in session and facilities in operation, interview teachers and administrators formally, and converse informally with my hosts. Follow-up interviews by email, document collection, and joint writing of journal articles continued another two years from 2008 to 2010.

DATA COLLECTION AT MINAMI UNIVERSITY Interview sampling and participants Over the three years of formal visits, I interviewed 12 faculty and administrators in the English Language Institute (ELI) approximately 20% of the staff. This sampling was both purposive, seeking participants related to my research question, (Berg, 2001) and seeking outliers, alternative or deviant views to the status quo (Miles & Huberman, 1996). Teachers were the main participants, as their role is central in the selection, configuration and use of technologies in the classroom (Egbert et al., 2009). All interviewees were voluntary participants and signed the official consent form authorized by the University of Melbourne. I promised anonymization of the interview transcripts but warned that due to the small sampling size, some participants, particularly administrators, may still be recognizable. Fortunately, the most vulnerable participants, contract teachers, would be unrecognizable when identified with pseudonyms. Among the approximately fifty-five full-time teachers and learning advisors in the ELI, I requested interviews with all four tenured faculty/administrators and eight other teachers who actually teach in the blended learning spaces and were willing to meet with me, including one or two who were not particularly technology enthusiasts. Of these twelve, I chose five participants as ‘cases’ whose comments most illuminated the networks of blended learning design and gave insight into institutional, programmatic design of blended environments. These five participants ranged in length of service between 2 and 20 years, and included both tenured and non-tenured contract faculty. I used a semistructured interview approach based on a prepared list of questions (see Appendix E), but allowing for discussion of topics according to the participants’ key interests and concerns. In the extracts of the interviews, I have anonymized the conversations with pseudonyms. However, as explained in the plain language statements that participants read and sign, it is difficult to guarantee anonymity to the some participants (even with

177

pseudonyms, it would be easy to guess the identities of the key administrators). As these administrators were in positions of power and less vulnerable than contract teachers, they understood and gave permission to quote their comments freely. Data was collected in the form of interviews and observations. The initial interviews were arranged by a faculty member in Minami University, who was the head of an Internet/CALL research committee. I asked to visit with all administrative staff and a representative number of teaching faculty. Each interview ranged from 20-90 minutes and was conducted in English, the native language of each of the participants. Extracts of these interviews are shown in Appendix B. In addition, I observed four classes in action (basic writing, seminar, oral communication) and the total facility in operation. Table 6.1 lists these sources of data collection. Table 6.1. Data Collection at Minami University of Foreign Studies Interviews Conducted (12)

Jack, Director of Research/Chief Administrator [Inter01] Alicia, Assistant Director ELI [Inter02] John, Director ELI [Inter03] Michel, Teacher [Inter04] Edgar, Assistant Director ELI, Research [Inter05] Seven other teachers

Classes Observed (4)

Michel, English Writing [Class01] Mark, Internet English Seminar [Class02] Peter, General English Communication [Class03] Stan, General English Communication [Class04]

Facilities Observed (16)

6 blended learning spaces in Building Six 1 standard teaching room in Building 4 1 self-access learning center 5 student project rooms, 2 writing consultation areas 3 lounge communication areas

Data reduction Miles and Huberman (1994) define data analysis as “…three concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification” (p. 10). I found the ‘concurrent’ description of data analysis particularly useful as the process was never linear, but featured a back-and-forth sequence of data collection and analysis. I begin by explaining the process of reduction, describing attempts to use qualitative analysis software, and selecting a purposive approach to manual coding that I employed.

178

At Minami U., data reduction began within the process of interviewing. Each interview built upon previous interviews, as I gained insight into the operation and culture of the institute. In this way, the flow of questions I chose during the interview changed with each participant. Thus, I made no attempt to force a common sequence of questioning across all participants, instead following their interests and roles in process of learning design and technology integration, as Ezzy (2002) recommends. In the auto-ethnography, by placing frameworks of technologies, pedagogies, and roles a central position in the analysis, I sought to place purpose at the center of interpretation, based on my summary of issues in the field of CALL and language learning (Chapter 2). However, using an ethnographic approach at a new site, I wanted to increase trustworthiness by employing a different methodological approach, abandoning the ‘purposeful’ guiding framework used in the auto-ethnographic approach. After twelve interviews of up to 70 minutes each, the amount of data was too large for the purpose of this study. In terms of the aim to generate insights on institutional factors, a limited number of interviews were sufficient to gain a set of themes. Based on their relevance to broader institutional issues related to blended learning environments, I selected five interviews to transcribe and analyze. This would provide triangulation of data to balance the more micro-focused and personal approaches of auto-ethnography and action research. The five selected participants included four tenured faculty who played both administrative, research and teaching roles, and one contract instructor who had no administrative role (see Table 6.2). All administrators (one research institute director, one ELI director and two assistant ELI directors) had extensive experience in EFL education in Japan with postgraduate degrees in fields related to applied linguistics. The instructor had a limited experience in Japan, a masters degree in applied linguistics, and no administrative roles. From the transcriptions, I extracted quotations from the selected participants, Jack, Alicia, John, Michel and Edgar, assigned initial codes per extract and then by major themes.

179

Table 6.2. Summary of selected participants at Minami University Participant

Years

Type of Position

Jack

20

Administrator

Enforced contractualized research and socializing duties. Controlled vision and principles for curriculum. Battled discrimination toward language proficiency. Pushed decision-making down to research teams.

December 2005

Alicia

10

Administrator, Instructor

Designed media center. Selected and customized furniture for social spaces and learning spaces. Followed curriculum principles and team directions. Maintained security.

December 2005

John

10

Administrator, Instructor

Conducted teacher observations. Criticized technology use. Upheld collaborative principles. Promoted informal networking among teachers.

December 2005

Michel

2

Instructor

Produced a professional development portfolio. Created learning atmospheres. Reconfigured LMS site. Specified needed LMS improvements.

November 2006

Edgar

2

Administrator, Instructor

Supervised professional development program. Encouraged informal PD. Defended personnel model. Focused research funding on curriculum issues. Separated in-class face-to-face tasks and homework computer tasks. Criticized internet tasks in class.

November 2006

Institutional Roles

Date of Interview

Use of qualitative analysis software Initially I planned to use qualitative software for coding the transcribed interviews, however this was not as straightforward as I presumed. As a CALL researcher, I initially assumed software to aid qualitative research would benefit this project. I thus began this stage of data analysis by surveying and testing a variety of qualitative research software to handle transcribed interviews. A comparison site of computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) gave assessments of 13 different software packages available for interview transcripts and other textual data (Koenig, 2005). I choose two packages that fit my technical background and tested them extensively. Both of these however were unintuitive and I eventually rejected them. I sensed the embedded

180

procedures were not allowing me to understand or make sense of the interview stories and the paths of questioning I was taking in them. Reviewing some critiques of qualitative analysis software confirmed my hesitation. Lewins and Silver (2004) warns that qualitative software can force assumptions on data reduction and coding. In addition, Krücken (2003) cautions against ‘path dependency’ of following colleague and institutional availability/recommendations for software. Knowing my own inexperience in qualitative inquiry, I sensed I needed to rely on simpler, manual procedures that kept me closer to the data. I was not interested in “automatic coding” or “suggested coding”, as that would only be useful for large masses of text where pre-specified search words or phrases are used. Therefore, I sought a coding process to create codes on the fly as I read, or ‘free coding’. McMillan and Koenig (2004) and Seror (2005) caution that CAQDAS is not methodologically neutral, as grounded theory tends to be the dominant approach. Further, Koenig (2005) warns of the “lure of coding” and how “it is very tempting to neatly attach codes to data, as it gives the impression of an analytical ordering of data, particularly, when combined with a well structured coding tree” (p. 1).

Instead they recommend searching through

different types of data and making annotations to the data as an alternative to automated coding. In this stage of the research, an ethnographic approach, I decided to combine both inductive naming of codes, but based on pre-analysis theoretical framework, identifying hybrid actors in the environment. Epistemologically, a pure grounded approach was not possible and may not be desirable as ethnographic method handbooks advise using a structured framework (MacMillan & Koenig, 2004).

DATA THEMES AT MINAMI UNIVERSITY This section documents my analysis of the Minami University data, describing initial codes, major themes, and sub-themes, which I call ‘principal actors’. With the initial codes, I built major themes and sub-themes, then constructed the narratives around these themes. Each major theme is presented as a narrative, illustrated with commentary and extracted quotations.

Purposive, manual coding The initial codes focused on in vivo wording of actors as described in the participants’ interviews. I then described these actors by their actions or performance in the

181

environment rather than as entities, a purposive approach (Berg, 2001). I looked for phrases that would identify the actions that participants mentioned in the course of an interview. In the first round of interviews, I used a semi-structured interview sequence based on the meta-questions, “What is your role in Minami University?” and “How is this learning environment designed?”. This question deliberately avoids the more likely phrasing, “How do you design your classroom/program environment?” because the ‘who’ as an actor is not a person and must remain open-ended or unassumed at this stage. The ‘who’ in the question of design is the hybrid actor-network. This assumes that human actors cannot be separated in the environment and indeed are not purely human at all, but according to Law (2004) play an embedded role in an ecosystem of networks consisting of materials, technical processes, and managerial practices. For initial codes, I chose words which described a hybrid actor or actor-network at work in the institution. I used the Kaghan and Bowker (2001) definition of actor-network: “any collection of human, non-human, and ‘hybrid’ human/non-human actors who jointly participate in some organized (and identifiable) collective activity in some fashion for some period of time” (p. 258). In this view, initial codes included ‘contracts’, ‘blended learning spaces’ and ‘research teams’, which were assigned through manual coding of interview transcript extracts. See Appendix D for the extracted quotations, initial codes, and sub-themes to the Minami U. data. Each of the participants in the interviews gave selective views of their role in the learning environment of their institution. For example, Jack, whose main role was administrative, focused on policies and philosophies while Michel, a full-time teacher, gave examples of lessons and how he managed with the tools he had. Table 6.3 summarizes the actor-networks described by the participants in their interviews and the researcher’s code descriptions. With these initial codes, I clustered them by similar actions into groups of codes. These groups, I called principal actors, which I defined as a hybrid actor-network with significant effect on the design of a blended learning environment. This kind of analysis describes ‘environment’ not by hierarchical levels: classroom (micro), curriculum (meso) and institution (macro) environments, but by powerful agents, which act across, levels. These principal actors are relatively mature, and may be called ‘black boxes’ as their boundaries are stable.

182

Table 6.3. Summary of interview participants, initial codes and descriptions at Minami University Participant Jack

Alicia

John

Michel

Edgar

Initial codes:

Initial code descriptions:

Actor-networks described by participant

Institutional relations/actions of each actor-network

Contracts, Qualifications Research teams Budget subsidies Team leader bonus In-house materials Proficiency test Blended learning spaces Furniture Project spaces, Research teams Space management, Scheduling Security Professional development program Internet tasks Blended learning spaces Electronic dictionaries Teacher interaction In-house materials Professional development program Web portfolios Lounge seating Flexible LMS Professional development program Voluntary professional development Blended learning spaces Timing of technology Research strategy hints Research team meetings Research projects

Enforced contractualized research and socializing duties. Controlled vision and principles for curriculum. Battled discrimination toward language proficiency. Pushed decision-making down to research teams. Designed media center. Selected and customized furniture for social spaces and learning spaces. Followed curriculum principles and team directions. Maintained security.

Conducted teacher observations. Criticized technology use. Upheld collaborative principles. Promoted informal networking among teachers.

Produced a professional development portfolio. Created learning atmospheres. Reconfigured LMS site. Specified needed LMS improvements. Supervised professional development program. Encouraged informal PD. Defended personnel model. Focused research funding on curriculum issues. Separated in-class face-toface tasks and homework computer tasks. Criticized internet tasks in class.

Creating major themes from these codes was a process of combining principal actors into similar, mutually exclusive categories. Table 6.4 summarizes these: 1) initial codes, 2) principal actors, and 3) major themes. The data display moves from left to right to show the process of theme generation.

183

Table 6.4. Summary of initial codes, principal actors, and major themes at Minami Univ. 1. Initial codes Contracts, Qualifications Research teams, Budget subsidies Proficiency test Research teams Research strategy hints Research team meetings Research projects In-house materials In-house materials Teacher interaction Team leader bonus Research teams Professional development program Contracts Budget subsidies Professional development program Voluntary professional development Research team meetings Project spaces Lounge seating Proficiency test LMS networks Security Space management Scheduling Project spaces Furniture Internet tasks Blended learning spaces Timing of technology Learner-configured web portfolios Electronic dictionaries Flexible LMS

2. Principal Actors

3. Major Themes

Common, proficiency-based curriculum

Leadership (distributed, collaborative management) Curriculum-based, research groups

In-house materials & testing development Multi-role employment contract

Personnel Budgetary priorities for full-time positions

(committed, full-time faculty)

Required faculty development Curriculum-driven language support services

Infrastructure Flexible, blended learning spaces

(teacher-designed infrastructure)

Critical, teacher-designed technologies

Table 6.5 displays the same major themes and principal actors in vertical columns but without the underlying initial codes. Table 6.5. Summary of major themes and principal actors of the Minami U. ethnography Leadership

Personnel

Infrastructure

‘distributed, collaborative leadership’

‘committed, full-time faculty’

‘teacher-designed infrastructure’

Principled, institutional values

Multi-role employment contract

Curriculum-driven, language support services

Curriculum-based, research groups

Full-time faculty budgetary priority

Flexible, blended learning classrooms

Systematic, in-house materials development

Required professional development

Critical, teacher-designed technologies

184

Main Themes Descriptions In this section, I discuss the themes and illustrate them with collected extracts from transcribed interviews and observations.

To the outsider, the first impression upon

entering the premises of Minami U. and their English as a foreign language program is the variety of rooms, libraries, offices, tables, counseling areas, computer nooks, and media centers that are full of staff and students. The visible activity and distinctive design of the educational environment is remarkable, yet the underlying reasons driving the activity and spaces was not apparent until capturing the voices of the teaching and administrative participants. In addition to facilities (infrastructure), I found the leadership structures and personnel management to be the primary themes that influence the design of this blended language learning program. In the following sections, I will describe these major themes and the principal actors within them.

Theme 1: Distributed, collaborative leadership Throughout the interviews, leadership emerged as a major theme in the design of the blended learning program. Three aspects of this leadership include organizational values, group structures, and materials development.

Principled, institutional values The first aspect of leadership was a principled set of values instilled by the chief administrator. Jack founded the establishment of the ELI, when Minami U. was born as an offshoot of a successful foreign language training school. He was recruited to set up curriculum and materials for the all English language programs and soon thereafter established the ELI. Edgar summarized the role that Jack played in those early developments: “I think initially, you have got someone like Jack, who started the place, and then he brought in like-minded staff, if you like. I mean, he is the original architect of the ELI. And in bringing people in who were sympathetic to his way of thinking, as you mentioned earlier, they then worked together in groups, which consolidates those sorts of ideas and leads to more ideas along the same lines. And then the program is successful and students like it, and there is sort of a snowball effect.” [Int05, page 14, lines 6-10]

The interesting aspect of the ELI that Edgar identified was the systematic group aspect of research, which was a phenomenon unknown in Japan and perhaps many countries. Individual choice of research had always been the ethos of academia and the academic approach to learning English (Cook, 2008). Within the ELI of Minami U., however, group research was the energy that Edgar saw as empowering the teachers:

185

“Now, with institutional research projects, we have got them in, you step into any one of them; and that's actually my job is to go around to all of them, that's quite fun thing to do, everyone else is sort of stuck in one, but I get to go to all the project meetings. ...and you see the ideas coming out of the members, and then being empowered…” [Int05, page 14, lines 6-10]

These values, however, were not accepted by other academics in the school: “...the idea that we would set up this collaborative research-based curriculum development project, ...met with a great deal of resistance. You will know that Japanese professors have the right to teach whatever they like, and not be dragooned into teaching something that they don't feel comfortable with.” [Int01, 16:53]

Regular, tenured faculty were not ready to even meet together to establish common values and common curricular goals. “Another problem… was that it was very difficult to ever get the groups of people to have meetings together. You only had to come to university when you were required to teach, if there were no meetings on Wednesday or something, you didn't come. And there was no obligation to be here. I've always been in institutions where you were here from Monday to Friday or Saturday, and well into the night. That's not so at Japanese universities, it is very difficult to require people to be here if they are not required to teach... So a collaborative effort was really very difficult.” [Int01, 18:23-19:21]

Curriculum-based research groups To solve this problem, Jack felt compelled to create a separate department rather than reform the initial departments that had been set up. “And we began the collaborative work, this was in 1989, 1990, of doing systematic development of language teaching materials and testing materials. So we began, we set up the Minami English Proficiency Test, to make it a measure of general proficiency. And right from the beginning we've looked at the test as being consummate with the curriculum that we were developing.” [Int01, 24:08]

Within this department, he established a proficiency test (KEPT) and eight research teams. BEPP refers to ‘Basic English Proficiency Project’. 1. BEPP English = Basic English Proficiency for the English Department research and curriculum development 2. BEPP IC = International Communication Department research and development 3. BEPP ILC = International Languages and Culture Department research and curriculum development 4. KEPT = Minami English Proficiency Project (testing/assessment research and test creation) 5. CALL = computer assisted language learning (research on CALL and creation of CALL materials) 6. Basic Skills = research and curriculum development for 1st year reading and writing 7. Advanced Skills = research and curriculum development for 2nd year reading and writing 8. SRG = SALC research group (research and materials development for the selfaccess

186

The resulting structure of the ELI has developed extensively, as shown in Figure 6.1. This organizational chart with eight institutional research projects and coordinator names is released publicly on the Minami University website.

Figure 6.1 Minami University administrative and research management structure

Edgar explains how each of these groups meet for planning curriculum together and develop materials individually. “...team meeting discussions are very important, because we do work in these groups, as I told you. We call them research groups. 50% of their purpose or more is materials development. So people are seen together in a group, talking about the direction we are meant to go in, and then everyone goes away and makes up the materials based on the discussion.” [Int05, page 7, lines 3-5]

Systematic, in-house materials development These institutional values then led to in-house teams developing teaching materials as well. This principle was so important to Jack that he set it as one of the conditions required for him to come to Minami University. He describes this core value as: “As an educator, I've been very much concerned in many parts of the world with the design and development of instructional materials, which is seen as being at the heart of the educational process.” [Int01, 03:28-04:00]

Although he did not hesitate to employ outside consultants, he seems passionately committed to local design of materials:

187

“And that if our discipline is to be taken seriously, these must be produced not by dilettantes like [famous textbook authors]..., but rather in a systematic way and so, when I came here, one condition was that I would be responsible for the development of proficiency with a system of instructional materials design, which was based upon the collaboration of all members who were going to be teaching.” [Int01, 04:10-05:36]

John confirmed the value of collaborative design and emphasized their continual redesign: “They are collaboratively developed. … For most of the courses, there are still some courses that commercial textbooks are used, but the majority are in-house materials that are systematically developed in trial through the years.” [Int03, page 11, line 10-12]

In this way, the theme of leadership at Minami University enabled a values-driven curriculum driven by and comprised of: 1) principled, institutional values, 2) curriculumbased research groups, and 3) systematic materials development.

Theme 2: Committed, full-time faculty In contrast to the well-articulated leadership theme, the hidden actor in the ELI culture was the personnel system. Mostly it was an unspoken structure built on a sensitive history. In order to build a school based on educational research-driven principles, Jack had to create a different culture. This culture was called the ELI and it had entirely different rules than the other departments of Minami U. and academia in general across Japan. Jack gradually set up a separate program that would establish different policies for full-time, but non-renewable teaching positions. Through the formal interviews and informal conversation with faculty, I found the ELI personnel system to have three powerful, defining features: 1) a multi-role employment contract, 2) budgeting priorities which favored fulltime teachers, and 3) a required professional development system.

Multi-role employment contract First, a differentiated employment contract applied only to ELI staff specified the new teaching conditions and functions: “...our teachers have a contract, which spells out their duties in three terms. One is a teaching obligation. And they have 8 hours of teaching per week during the semester. The second one is a research component of the contract, and they are required to fully participate in one of the ELI or the research institute's institutional research projects. And the third component is a requirement for socializing with students, and is for work outside of the regular classroom. We call that a socializing function. So, there are these three functions now.” [Int01, 00:33-02:57]

What is remarkable is that these duties are completely different from common academic practice in Japan. Normally, a full-time teacher will have five hours of teaching, independent research of their own choosing, and no structured socializing with students.

188

Jack was determined to build an institution that was based on forty-hour workweeks with stipulated research and socializing/administrative duties. I then pondered why the contracts were terminal, especially when so many talented teachers came through the system. The depth of talent became apparent to me after attending about ten presentations by ELI staff over a five-year period at various national conferences across Japan. The quality of the presentations stood out above other presentations and indicated that Jack was not only selecting highly qualified applied linguists/language educators but also had managed to find imaginative and committed leaders. It seemed odd that the ELI would not keep the best 10% of these teachers and thus avoid the lengthy time and expenses to interview and orient new teachers. My explanation for this draws on the actor-network concept of stability/instability and network boundaries. This system was constantly in danger of being dismantled and yet the whole ELI depended on the necessity of maintaining the separated hiring system. It existed outside the rules of tenure and if renewable contracts or some form of tenure were to be introduced, it would complicate and cause the terminal contract system to come under continual scrutiny. Stability of the personnel actor-network had been established and re-introducing instability would re-open the tight black box of the personnel contract. In addition, in order to enforce the different culture of the ELI, there had to be a degree of isolation. Maintaining non-mainstream values can happen by cutting off contact with others with different values. Somewhat isolating teachers who were teaching under a different system could keep questioning and dissatisfaction to a minimum. A constant supply of overseas-recruited teachers with little or no experience with Japanese employment practices were needed to maintain the system. However, this sociological isolation was not the public reason for the non-renewable contracts. Instead, Jack offered a reasonable, but somewhat superficial, justification to bring in ‘new ideas’: “You mentioned a terminal contract, and we think that this is an important thing, for several reasons. We don't keep [instructors] beyond four years. …from the ELI's point of view, we want to get new ideas, we want to get people who have been brought up in the MA programs with new ideas...” [Int01, 37:33]

What Jack did not mention was that these contracted staff taught twice as much as tenured teachers and received half the salary (in Kita University the situation is even more dramatic with contract teachers teaching triple the course load for one third the pay). Other differing benefits were generally not known by the newly-arrived staff, such

189

as shared offices of three faculty instead of a personal office, and no personal research allowance compared with approximately US$5000/year for tenured staff. Surely, these cost factors were important to school decision-makers as Jack would have to continually ask for annual increases in budgets to build an institution that increased its staffing from 5 in 1992 to 55 in 2009. The tenured teachers in other departments would naturally not complain about the system as long as their privileged status was maintained.

Full-time faculty budgetary priority Yet, the ‘cheap labor’ theory does not explain Minami U.’s enormous expense of hiring full-time staff instead of part-time (adjunct) faculty. The prevalent practice at most Japanese universities is to hire part-time casual staff to teach over 50% of classes. Surprisingly, very few part-time instructors have been hired for the ELI classes--less than 10%, according to Edgar’s estimates. This contrasts with part-time instructors teaching over 40% of classes at Kita U. and over 60% at some private universities in the Hokkaido region of Japan. In general, within Japan, it costs a university one fourth the personnel costs to hire a part-time faculty as a tenured one. A contract full-time teacher costs the school one-third to one-half of a tenured teacher. Of course, for the extra salary, a tenured faculty member is expected to handle greater administrative, counseling and research duties. Nonetheless, it is remarkable that Minami University invested so heavily in teaching personnel. I would speculate its overall personnel costs were 50-100% that of what other private universities were spending (with a 50% ratio of part-time faculty). Despite this, Minami University was criticized by activists in teaching unions because the workload, compensation, and terminal contracts were less than tenured faculty. Why would Minami University be willing to invest so much in personnel costs is unclear. However, when I asked the president of Minami U. at a social event about the recruitment situation at his university, he remarked that the ratio of the number of applying high school students to those actually accepted (called the ‘application ratio’) was 6:1. This contrasts with Kita U.’s application ratio of 1.5:1. I would not be surprised if foreign language programs across Japan would average between 1:1 and 3:1. If Jack was able to link the ELI program to this outstanding recruitment situation for Minami U. despite a general environment of declining university-age population, the funding committees would find it easy to approve what he requested. The role of application ratios as a significant ‘actor’ in determining funding priorities should not be

190

underestimated. Conceivably, Jack could have been able to maintain the delicate personnel system and expand it by establishing a link between Minami University’s reputation and ability to draw a dramatic higher amount of applicants to the performance of the ELI.

Required faculty development Besides the differentiated contract, a second prominent aspect of the personnel system was the professional development (PD) program introduced in 2004. The PD system was a way to systematically evaluate the growing number of teachers in the system, and provide an objective incentive to conduct research and participate in the research committees. It was also a way to terminate unproductive teachers and reward exceptional ones with promotions or contract extensions (an additional two years, beyond the initial two years). After Jack’s retirement, Edgar was the one responsible for administering the PD system. Edgar’s opinion of the PD system was mixed, showing skepticism along with enthusiasm: “...the problem with the system is it's an official PD system, if you like, so it has ties to staff members’ contracts. Yeah, so it goes against… you can say that's not real professional development in the sense that,… true professional development should be voluntary and free of that, sort of, constraints. So we actually have an unofficial professional development system and an official professional development system.” [Int05, page 1, lines 12-14]

And later he spoke of the role that funding exerts upon research. Minami University exerted its influence on research, not by requiring particular research themes, but by funding only those topics that were related to the institutional aims of the ELI. If a teacher proposed to attend a conference on English literature or linguistics, for example, it would likely be refused institutional support: “Well, I think [our contract teachers] have realized that if they can [present]-- that research is also an investment, and if they can get their name out there. I mean, that's probably the catch, is that, yes, there is money available, but in general we have to be talking about [Minami] stuff, as in very much the institutional projects, not -- you could have some individual interests that might be something within the realm of linguistics or applied linguistics or whatever, but if it's not really linked in some way to what is taught here, it's often hard to get the funding. So there is a catch there in a sense.” [Int05, page1, lines 12-14]

Jack, the founder, felt that a contractual aspect of management was needed to ‘force’ collaborative research and collaborative materials development: “And we forced them to collaborate in the development of the curriculum.”

[Int01, 29:07]

John, the ELI director, confirmed its continuing, required importance of professional development:

191

“The professional development is not optional. They have to take part in that.”

[Int03, page 2, line 1]

I also asked a contract teacher of his view of the institutional professional development (PD) program as an effect on teaching practice. As an instructor whose contract renewal was about to be judged according to criteria in the professional development program, Michel was less positive as Jack in his assessment of the effectiveness of the PD system: “A great deal, because ...your main focus is on the lessons you are going to be observed on, which is three, just three in the first three semesters. So… what actually happens is that the teachers tend to like focus everything on that one particular lesson to make it fantastic, because that's the one that's going to be watched. So it has less effect on the day-to-day teaching. I wouldn't say it has zero effect, but it doesn't tend to kind of influence your day-to-day thing.” [Int04, page 5, line 16; page 6, line 1]

His honesty came as a surprise to me. In one sense the PD policy had a great effect upon the overall participation of teachers in research groups, but in another sense, it had little effect on day-to-day teaching. Another aspect of PD that had a broad impact on teachers was the portfolio, as described by Edgar: “Well, basically you produce a portfolio for this PD program, right? And that includes the information, the documents related to the observations. But it also includes other, sort of, materials making -- evidence of materials making, etcetera, and action, evidence of action research, etcetera. So, yeah, yeah, so I think it's variable to what degree it influences one's day-to-day teaching.” “ [Int04, page 6, line 13]

The portfolio requirement was a powerful incentive to produce materials and relate it directly to salary and contracts. A teacher had no choice but produce teaching materials and share them in this system. Finally, a requirement of peer observation of classes was required at least three times in the first year of employment. John observed that learning directly from teaching peers was the most important part of an institutional learning culture: “I think it comes from peer observations perhaps like professional development. Somebody noticed something; you just pose questions, okay? How did the use of technology contribute to or -- you ask questions and get the teacher to reflect. How was the technology used to maximize use of language amongst students in the class or how did that contribute to a high-density of interpersonal interaction or how did it assist them in planning…?” [Int03, page 9, line 1] “I think a lot of it is informal, colleagues talking to each other, and we do try to have people read articles and people present at conferences, they hear about things.” [Int03, page 9, line 1]

Another powerful incentive in the ELI personnel system was the increased salary for research committee coordinators. The three teachers I had most contact with (Mark, Stan, and Doug) all had served as Coordinators of the CALL Project committee. These three were closest to the design of blended learning and were most responsible for management of the BLS rooms. I found out from Michael that the coordinator received

192

an increase in salary of approximately US$5000/year, which was important for him, and made him earnestly apply for the position. In order to become a coordinator, a contract faculty member had to serve two years with outstanding PD reviews and evidence of research, show a willingness to commit extra hours, and display an ability to lead a group of colleagues.

Theme 3: Teacher-designed infrastructure A third major theme of that emerged from the interviews at Minami University was infrastructure. The physical spaces of Building 6--comprised of the Media Education Centre, Self-access Learning Centre, and Blended Learning Spaces--were the most visible aspects of the ELI’s public reputation. Alicia, an earnest teacher-administrator for the ELI was assistant director. A serious, well-organized, and energetic staff-member, he had been directly involved in the detailed planning of the SACLA building with its conversation lounge, blended learning spaces, and other areas. So I took the opportunity to focus the discussion on the history of that project and the values embedded in its design.

Curriculum-driven language support spaces First, we talked about the design of various sections of the newly-built Media Center, starting with the lounge areas for free and structured conversation. He has coordinated teacher schedules for staffing the lounge as well as designing the spaces and furniture himself. However, the biggest project he tackled was designed the “dream” building with his colleague, Lucy. This building was called the SACLA Building for ‘SelfAccess, Communication and Learner Autonomy’. In 2003., it received an architectural award for outstanding design of an educational facility. Alicia initially commented that the new building design: “...was a fantastic opportunity because we were lucky, we had the experience in the old building… And [the old building] was very popular, but just too small. So we've got these ideas from what we have been given before…” [Int02, 09:49]

This indicated how the architecture and space-use design flowed from the curriculum and roughly twelve years of experience of using classrooms and self-access rooms in the ELI program.

From this experience, the planning team could give detailed reasons for

requesting various non-conventional plans for walls, furniture and arrangements. “But we had to justify everything. So I think that was a really good thing. because we could justify them, Dr. Smith had set up this whole ELI, the duties, the lessons and it was coordinated.” [Int02, 09:49]

193

The design of the spaces was not created by an architect or an external consultant on educational space planning, but rather on the teachers and administrators themselves based on fifteen years of experience. Alicia explained how this experience informed the design: “The best thing was we had the curriculum. We had a curriculum that necessitated all of these things. [Int02, 11:19] So rather than building a building and then starting from scratch, we had the curriculum and the curriculum seemed to be working well with the research projects. And each project needed this equipment or this space. So the design of the building came from what we needed to develop our curriculum.” [Int02, 11:47] “[The new building]...was a fantastic opportunity because we were lucky, we had the experience in the old building… And [the old building] was very popular, but just too small. So we've got these ideas from what we have been given before…” [Int02, 09:49]

Interestingly, Alicia attributed the strength of the space design, not only to the curriculum but to the research projects as well. “So rather than building a building and then starting from scratch, we had the curriculum and the curriculum seemed to be working well with the research projects. And each project needed this equipment or this space. So the design of the building came from what we needed to develop our curriculum.” [Int02, 11:47]

In a later interview, Edgar echoed this view: “The way concepts and theories and ideas have preceded construction [of buildings] in a very literal sense. So the way the buildings look, the way the classrooms are set up, and the way these offices are set up, everything is a manifestation of conceptualizations of learning, teaching, and access to knowledge, if you like, and people who might have the knowledge, if you like. So I think a lot of other places run around and try and build a similar thing, without working out from the ideas, if you like. So they might just think, well, you throw a bunch of foreigners into a building; and that's what this place is, but it's not really. But there is sort of a lot of hidden stuff that makes Minami what it is, which is that ideas--” [Int05, page 13, lines 11-13]

Alicia then discussed the details of designing the large variety of language support spaces in SACLA (Building Six), including: the conversation lounges, the reading lounge, writing PC area, listening stations, individual study areas, self-autonomy guidance area, group access area, edutainment booths, multi purpose project rooms, and speaking booths.

Flexible, blended learning classrooms In addition to the language support areas, of particular interest were the classrooms, which held cabinets of notebook computers. Instead of CALL labs, Minami University built ‘Blended Learning Spaces’ or BLSs in the school terminology. The nuances of design included choosing tables large enough to accommodate standard poster paper, which teams of students typically used for group presentations at the end of

194

each unit in their freshman English classes. Alicia described in the intricacies of designing furniture for the blended learning rooms: “Those desks over there, with computers on them, are custom designed. And I don't know if you noticed but they are slightly arched. Originally we wanted banana shaped desks, because the problem we had in the old classrooms with the computer labs is, fine, you can work in pairs but we also ask for group work. So you’ve got the pair in front but facing the opposite way. If you turn their chairs around, you couldn't see them over the screen. So the tables their are big enough so you can work alone or you can move your chairs in with your partner here and partner is over there, and you can see the group.” [Int02, 18:20]

Interestingly, the key design issues were not about the notebook computer specifications, but about how pair work and group work would function with the notebooks and the desk/chair configuration. This priority is related to the communicative aim of activities in the BLSs. We also spoke at length about the problems of managing a classroom full of laptops--from security, transferring keys between teachers, batteries and power recharging. These choices determined the success (continuance) or failure (abandonment) of a particular design. The successful use of laptops, for example, depended on power plugs being available constantly at various points around the room (recharging before class was not reliable). By adding a number of extension cords, they were able to continue the use of laptops.

Critical, teacher-designed technologies Another aspect of infrastructure at Minami U. was the learning management system or ‘LMS’. The LMS was initiated not by the ELI administration or the university IT Center, but from one of the research teams called the Internet Research Project (IRP), and renamed in 2008 as the CALL research project. This team of 5-7 members was also involved in the design of the blended learning spaces in terms of ensuring internet access to those rooms and designing activities that take advantage of the internet. Before this current study began, around 2003, the IRP selected the open source Moodle LMS for the ELI for several reasons: its customizability and low cost. The ELI also needed an LMS that they could set up outside of Minami U., due to a highly conservative IT Center, which banned or discouraged any interactive web sites at the time. The IT Center, to this day, has continued its mistrust of the ELI and its use of an LMS for blended learning, so there has been little institutional support. Nonetheless, because of the decentralized research budgets and low-cost economics of open source, a small group of teachers was able to setup a system that enrolled over 2000 students in an estimated 150 courses. Thus the LMS was setup using an outside hosting service, which was reasonably enough

195

priced to allow a committee budget to handle it. In 2009, the CALL Research Group conducted an internal evaluation of the role of the LMS and found that 50% of the teachers were using Moodle for various activities (Mackenzie et al., 2011). This suggests that the purpose of the LMS at this stage has not been for curriculum-wide objectives, but an open-ended set of tools for individual teacher experimentation. Importantly, the research team provided all training materials and workshops on the use of the LMS. No outside training services were employed.

MAJOR FINDINGS AND METHODOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Three major themes emerged from the ethnographic study of Minami University: personnel, leadership, and facilities. Within these themes, I identified nine sub-themes, which further describe the ‘culture’ of Minami University from a material-semiotic view (Table 6.6). Table 6.6. Summary of major themes and principal actors of the Minami U. ethnography Leadership

Personnel

Infrastructure

‘distributed, collaborative leadership’

‘committed, full-time faculty’

‘teacher-designed facilities’

Principled, institutional values

Multi-role employment contract

Curriculum-driven, language support services

Curriculum-based, research groups

Full-time faculty budgetary priority

Flexible, blended learning classrooms

Systematic, in-house materials development

Required professional development

Critical, teacher-designed technologies

In determining these themes, I paid attention to strong effects which influenced how the participants described their roles and how the ELI operated. The network of effects, also called an ‘actor-network’ did not start with pre-set categories of investigation but emerged as common points that either surprised me as unusual or that confirmed an intuition that was related to me past experience.

Major Findings Through this ethnographic investigation, I identified nine principal actors that give evidence in the site of three highly influential themes: 1) leadership, 2) personnel, and 3)

196

infrastructure. The evidence in this site demonstrates three powerful institutional ‘actors’, which may have as much effect on the design of blended environments as the themes analyzed earlier in Chapter 4 (pedagogies, roles and technologies). The nine principal actors can also be described historically as a shift in practice. The evidence at Minami U. indicates that when these major shifts occur systematically across an institution, there is significant impact on the design of blended language learning environments. At the major theme level, these shifts can be summarized as: • Shifts in leadership patterns that promote a values-driven curriculum. Technologies are almost ignored as a focus of change. Excellence in curriculum pulls technological change that happens iteratively and organically as part of the materials and assessment design. Materials design is conducted in-house to align with these values. • Shifts in personnel patterns that require institution-based curriculum-based research is explicitly contracted. Contract renewal is based on a establishing a track record of professional development, including critical use of technology. • Shifts in infrastructure that provide a stable, flexible set of rooms and equipment that teachers can design to fit curriculum needs. From the interviews and observations of blended learning at Minami University, I discerned the following shifts in the sub-themes within leadership, personnel and infrastructure. These are described in Table 6.7.

197

Table 6.7. Summary of ethnography: Shifts in leadership, personnel, and infrastructure Leadership Shifts

Personnel Shifts

Infrastructure Shifts

From: Bureaucratic, efficiencyoriented culture

From: Simple salary and benefitsfocused employment conditions

From: Separated CALL labs and standard classroom facilities

To: Principled, institutional values

To: Multi-role work-specified employment contract

To: Blended learning spaces

From: Individualistic, scholarly research efforts

From: Heavy use of part-time, casual teaching faculty

From: Support limited to office hours

To: Curriculum-based, research groups

To: Budgetary priorities for full-time teachers

To: Language support areas and services

From: Reliance on mass-market course books

From: Voluntary professional development

From: Top-down requirements of technology use by administration

To: Systematic, in-house materials development

To: Required faculty development

To: Teacher-driven use of LMS

Overall, this research provides evidence of long-term patterns that evolved over the life of the institution beginning in 1986 until the present. The ELI program was driven by persistent leadership of like-minded individuals, who believed in language proficiencybased testing, materials, and curriculum. In addition, the program was structured around a protected and demanding personnel system that required committed teachers. Finally, the school invested heavily in infrastructure that supported the curriculum. This ethnography suggests the following implications in the design of blended environments: • Institutional values support blended learning by hiring and rewarding teachers who exhibit those values. • Institutional management can force collaboration, as well as encourage it voluntarily. • Collaborative research groups, consisting of teachers, performed the major design work in facilities. • Employment contracts maintain the present collaborative system to sustain the innovations. The blended learning environment within Minami University was designed and developed over a ten-year period based on the influence of these themes and principal actors.

198

Shifts in research questions and methodology The core research question, “How are blended learning environments designed?” continued to direct and redirect the investigation. From the Minami U. site ethnographic study, I studied the culture of innovation and observed key forces in design as a valuedriven curriculum, committed teachers, and innovative facilities, all institutional forces. Methodologically, I had intended to employ an action research framework to span two sites simultaneously. Contrary to my anticipations, I found that I was only able to apply action research to Kita U., where my status as an insider-planner was possible. At Minami U., I was able to interview teachers and administrators, observe classes where teachers gave permission, and received a limited number of public documents. However, I was not asked to participate in planning meetings where policy decisions might be made. In contrast, I had access to all private and public documents at Kita U., and was involved in every important decision concerning the management of the targeted general English classes. This is not a criticism of Minami U., as it is natural that the school would be protective of documents that had been built collaboratively for over 20 years. Thus the role of Minami U. as a second site grew in importance as an exclusively ethnographic methodology and also served a greater role for triangulation of the results I was finding in the Kita U. site.

Quality and trustworthiness This section assesses the quality or trustworthiness of the research conducted in the ethnographic approach. For the quality assessment, I reviewed the process of inquiry using concepts of alternative criteria for reliability and validity of ethnography as described by Nunan and Bailey (2009), emphasizing the values of credibility, transferability, and dependability. This assessment is shown in Table 6.8.

199

Table 6.8. Quality and trustworthiness of the ethnographic study Type of criteria Question External reliability (dependability)

Self-assessment

(Nunan & Bailey, 2009, pp. 204206) Is the status of the researcher made explicit? Does the researcher provide a detailed description of the subjects? Does the researcher provide a detailed description of the context and conditions under which research was carried out? Are constructs and premises explicitly defined?

Internal reliability (dependability)

Internal validity (credibility)

Are data collection and analysis methods presented in detail? Does the research utilize lowinference descriptors? Does it involve more than one researcher/collaborator? Does the researcher invite peer examination or cross-site corroboration? Are data mechanically recorded? Is it likely that maturational changes occurring during the course of the research will affect the outcomes? Is there bias in the selection of informants? Is the increase or attrition of informants over time likely to affect outcomes? Have alternative explanations for phenomena been rigorously examined and excluded? Are outcomes due in part to the presence of the researcher?

Are some phenomena unique to a External particular group or site and therefore validity non-comparable? (transferability) Are cross-group comparisons invalidated by unique historical experiences of particular groups? To what extent are abstract terms and constructs shared across

200

Yes, I maintained a positionality of an outsider collaborating with insiders. I documented my entry into the institution and described my biases. Yes, I described the institutional history and culture, as well as the participants’ roles within that institution. No, the conditions of the interviews were not explicitly explained. I recorded the interviews one-to-one in the offices of the informants. Yes, the concept of a material-semiotic actor is described. However, it is a new concept and not explicitly defined. Yes, the data collection and analysis methods are presented with sample data. No, most of the descriptors are high inference. No, only one researcher on site. One collaborator introduced me to staff. Yes, the description of the Minami U. site ethnography was given to one administrator who confirmed and corrected my account. Yes, interviews are recorded. Selected interviews for analysis are transcribed. Yes, absolutely. Changes in the conditions of the institutional culture were noted as ‘shifts’ and analyzed. Yes, a purposive sampling was used to select informants relevant to the research questions. No, when the coordinator of the IRP changed, I became involved with the new coordinator. Sometimes. Most informants were enthusiastic about blended learning spaces. I encountered resistant opinions in CALL conferences where I reported these findings. Yes, my presence and the accompanying discussions with research team members at Minami U. has influenced changes at that institution. Somewhat. Minami U. has a particular history that suggests its conditions are not transferable. Replication began in 2009. I did not make cross-group comparisons in this study. However, I did import aspects of the Minami U. BLS concept into the design of Kita U. blended learning rooms. Terms such as groupings are well-known across the foreign language teaching

different groups and research sites?

profession. Synchronicity and network terms are well-known in the CALL field.

In addition to these criteria, I did a second self-analysis of the ethnographic approach using the same criteria as used later in the action research approach (Burns, 1999). These assessments are summarized below in Table 6.9. Table 6.9: Research quality assessment for an ethnographic approach Validity Type

Self-assessment of Trustworthiness

1. Multiple Stakeholder Triangulation

Key stakeholders related to lesson design, curriculum design, building design, and institutional history were included. The interviews focused solely on teachers and administrators. In addition, non-human actors such as networks, materials, and spaces were observed. Perspectives by the university-wide administration and by students in the program were not included, as they were less related to the research question.

2. Multiple Method Triangulation

Two methods were used to collect and analyze data: 1) interviews and transcription, 2) class observation and journal notes. Additional data collection methods could have employed video-taped class sessions and surveys of the whole teaching faculty.

3. Multiple Time Sampling Triangulation

I conducted three site visits and interviews each year from 2005 to 2007 at Minami U.

4. Multiple Space Triangulation

I observed the blended learning spaces used for classes. I did not observe a faceto-face classroom in action, but toured several empty rooms set up for teaching.

5. Multiple Investigator Triangulation

As lead researcher, I collaborated on a paper reporting on blended learning spaces with members of the CALL Research Project (6 faculty) at Minami U.

6. Multiple Theory Triangulation

One theoretical framework (actor-network theory) was used to analyze data. This theory considered the importance of multiple-actors (humans, spaces, tools, papers)

7. Respondent Checking

A summary was checked by a Minami U. faculty member/interviewee. Some modifications made and the personnel sections expanded.

8. Peer Examinations

This summary of the ethnography was given to one peer with past employment experience at Minami U. His critique and background analysis gave historical perspective to the site, and additional insight into the culture.

9. Rival Explanations and Negative Cases

Some alternative explanations were considered and documented in the theme analysis. One non-administrative participant, a contract teacher, was included.

10. Monitoring Researcher Bias

My personal bias in the investigation was noted several times in the theme summaries.

Although the number and type of participants (administrators and teachers) was limited, the length and depth of the interviews was sufficient to identify nine significant actors. These nine are not exhaustive and further interviews and additional types of participants may reveal other actors. Another quality check I employed was respondent checking with

201

one participant, an administrator at Minami University. In the summer of 2009, I wrote a summary of the ELI values and management and sent this to him for confirmation. He made a number of corrections and warned me on several points, which could hurt his personal job status at Minami University. From that experience, I modified the summary for greater accuracy, but also decided to elaborate in even more detail on the delicate issues of personnel.

CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY The investigation of the blended learning environments at Minami University revealed three major themes and nine sub-themes at work influencing the design process. The actors work at many levels to maintain the stability of the ELI. Significant trends are emerging—one trend is a newly prominent role that teachers play in blended environment design, moving them to greater influence as actors exerting power. However, the weakness in the ethnographic approach is the lack of insider data in the design process. In the action research approach at Kita University, I could achieve greater intimacy in the inquiry and focus on the questions of power in the actor-networks and the shifting roles that wireless notebook computers, mobile phone quizzes, and paper materials play in the blended classrooms.

202

PART III: THEORY-BUILDING AND CONCLUSIONS Chapter 7: A framework for blending technologies Chapter 8: Summary, implications and further research

203

CHAPTER 7: A FRAMEWORK FOR BLENDING TECHNOLOGIES This chapter summarizes findings from the autoethnographic, action research, and ethnographic approaches and builds a preliminary framework for understanding technologies and technological change in blended environments.

Combined summary of themes from research approaches Chapters 4-6 presented data from three research approaches and multiple sites, which were analyzed into thirty-two themes and nine major themes (Table 7.1). Table 7.1. Summary of themes from combined research approaches Pedagogies

Roles

Technologies

Intensive formats

Learner-centered modalities

Economical costs

Experiential settings

Computer-automated management

Face-to-face groupings

Overseas participants

Teacher designed texts

Flexible spaces/multiple venues

Performance-based assessment

Collaborative curriculum design

Engaging interfaces

Student-generated content

Integrated web tools

Authoring

Classrooms

Assessments

Collaborative course development

Economical, standard equipment

Multi-metaphor rubrics/incentives

Handout-supported, face-to-face tasks

Stable internet connection

LMS tracking and display

Institutional/global materials repositories

Easy, customizable class websites

Multi-device recycling of content

Flexible seating arrangements

Weekly cycles of feedback

Leadership

Personnel

Infrastructure

Principled, institutional values

Multi-role employment contract

Curriculum-driven, language support services

Curriculum-based, research groups

Full-time faculty budgetary priority

Flexible, blended learning classrooms

Systematic, in-house materials development

Required professional development

Critical, teacher-designed technologies

204

Next, I review these autoethnographic, ethnographic, and action research themes in light of the questions of this study. In Chapter 1, I described problems with blending technologies, and defined the initial research question of this study as: “How are technologies blended in the design of L2 environments?” Later, during the course of this study, and noted in Chapters 4-6, that single research question was clarified and elaborated into three research questions, with the first two questions related to the level of the inquiry (classroom-level or program/institutional level): •

Question 1: What are the dimensions of technology in designing a blended language learning environment? (classroom-level)

•

Question 2: What conditions in the institutional culture promote blending of technologies? (program-level)

•

Question 3: How are ‘roles’ and ‘power’ in the design of blended environments changing?

In relation to Question 1 on ‘technology’, in Chapter 2, I established that the technocentric bias of much CALL research was founded on a definition of technology based on electronic devices, and the goal of CALL was often an intent to normalize those devices. I argued that, in a blended learning perspective or paradigm, these concepts do not apply, and that a new conceptual framework is needed to understand technology and technological change. The process of blended learning changes the meaning of technology and points to a merging of human and material devices and techniques. The first section of this chapter proposes a framework to define dimensions of technology. In relation to Question 2, on ‘programs’, in Chapter 2, I defined design as a continual process of both intentional action and unintentional change, and argued that socialdeterminist concepts of technology change, such as diffusion theory, may not be suitable for analyzing blended environments because of a bias of human pre-eminence over the role of material agents in the design process. An ecological or a material-semiotic model, however, would presume the process of design is done by hybrids of both materials and humans, such as contracts, policies and assessments. However, such a model has not been applied to empirical conditions in blended learning sites. The second half of this chapter proposes preliminary guidelines based on the question of institutional culture.

205

In relation to Question 3, on ‘power’, I did not touch this concept in Chapter 2, but noticed that in the data, the question of ‘who’ or ‘what’ was doing the design kept recurring. For example, I noted that design power was sometimes distantly concentrated in textbooks or locally concentrated in teachers making their own materials. This question and related data, though relevant, will be summarized in Table 7.2 but not included in the findings of this study. Instead I will defer it for future analysis and research.

Data themes on technology, programs and power Table 7.2 summarizes these thirty-two themes gathered in the research approaches and organizes them according to the three research questions they tend to address. Several themes overlapped across two research questions and are thus listed twice. Table 7.2. Data themes organized by research questions—technology, programs, power Approach Data Research Question 1: Technology Autoethnographic Themes

Action Research Themes

Ethnographic Themes

Research Question 2: Programs

Research Question 3: Power

Intensive formats Experiential settings Overseas participants Computer-automated management (tools, software) Face-to-face groupings Flexible spaces/multiple venues Engaging interfaces Integrated web tools

Learner-centered modalities Economical costs Integrated web tools Collaborative curriculum design

Teacher designed texts Collaborative curriculum design Student-generated content Institutional/global materials repositories

Collaborative course development booklets Handout-supported face-to-face tasks LMS tracking and display Multi-device recycling of content Economical, standard equipment Easy, customizable class websites Flexible seating arrangements Stable internet connections

Institutional/global materials repositories Weekly cycles of feedback Multi-metaphor rubrics/incentives Collaborative course booklets development

Collaborative course booklets development Easy, customizable class websites

Flexible, blended learning classrooms Critical, teacher-designed technologies

Principled, institutional values Curriculum-based, research groups Multi-role employment contract Full-time faculty budgetary priority Required professional development Curriculum-driven, language support services

Critical, teacherdesigned technologies Systematic, inhouse materials development Curriculum-based, research groups

206

These data themes show that concept of technology in this study was broader than a ‘device’-based definition. The autoethnographic data focused on pacing, venue, location, software, groupings, spaces, interfaces and web tools. The action research data focused on paper booklets, face-to-face tasks with handouts, recycling of tasks across multiple devices and in multiple locations, the timed cycles of quiz feedback, and multi-level, multi-modal assessment displays. Although the ethnographic focused more on the question of change, the technology-related data focused on flexible, multi-venue classrooms and teacher-designed technologies. These aspects of technology suggest a broader definition of technology is needed than the common CALL concept that technology is, “any electronic tool” (Egbert, 2005a). The themes also show that the process of change is not merely a process of diffusion among human actors, but involves non-human, material actors as well. The following sections of this chapter will deal with re-conceptualizing technology and reconceptualizing technological change.

RECONCEPTUALIZING TECHNOLOGY This section first reviews additional perspectives that would inform a definition for reconceptualizing ‘technology’ and build a practical framework for teachers and administrators to design blended learning environments. By re-conceptualizing technologies, teachers will be able to more comprehensively configure classroom learning designs from a micro perspective. In addition, researchers will be able to describe contextualized learning ecologies as they analyze classroom situations, and programs will be able to construct policies that center power in the design ecology according to the cultural values of the institution. In the first section of this chapter, by reviewing pedagogic, critical and ecological perspectives of technology, I propose and justify a multi-dimensional concept of technology for blended language learning environments. Second, I connect the data analysis of Chapters 4-6 to the issues raised about the concept of technology. Third, I describe each dimension and develop sub-dimensions with illustrations from the data in this study and support from relevant literature. Finally, I pull data from sites and reanalyze according to these dimensions in order to test the applicability of the model and

207

demonstrate how researchers may apply this framework. Then, in the second section of this chapter, I will move to the question of sustainability of these technologies and the process of integration in an institution.

A wide, socio-cultural view of technology In a meta-analysis of concepts of technology, Orlikowski (1992) divides various concepts according to scope (hardware only or processes) and role (determinist or nondeterminist). Concerning scope, there are two views, a narrow-view that considers technology solely as material artifact (machinery, hardware) and a wide-view that considers technology as a human process (techniques). Despite the convenience of a narrow definition, it is the boundedness of the technology that is problematic. When a machine is configured within the classroom, the settings and uses are not merely the ‘outside’ context of the machine, but they are part of the machine from an ecological view (van Lier, 2004). User configuration is an inherent part of the design and is uniquely co-constructed per situation. The external/internal boundaries of the technology are actually irrelevant and unhelpful to the pedagogical analysis. Instead all aspects of the ‘use’ should be described as the design, included how the technology is re-constructed or ‘made’ locally. Bijker (2010) made a similar observation saying that the overall process of technology design by users in the field is critical. He suggests the question, “how to make technology?” and how a technology works in an organizational context is of greater concern than asking the question, “What is technology?” (p. 63). From data in the blended learning sites gathered in this study, I will argue that multidimensionality (grouping, textuality, timing, spatiality, pedagogy) cannot be removed from the material description without rendering that description empty of the reality of the classroom environment. For this reason, a broader, pedagogic view of technology will be necessary.

Developing a pedagogic framework of technology for CALL Revisiting the CALL literature again, it is hard not to notice electronic focus that technologies have been defined. For Egbert (2005b), technologies are seen as “any form of electronic, chip-driven technology and the software that makes it run…” (p. 4). Levy and Stockwell (2006) define them as “authoring software, learning management systems (LMS)... audio-and videoconferencing; artificial intelligence and intelligent systems;

208

speech recognition and pronunciation-training technologies; and mobile technologies" (pp. 206-207). For Erban, Ban and Casteneda (2009), the definition is straightforward: "Technology refers to any electronic device used in the classroom" (p. 202). At times, tools alone were seen as a catalyst for change. Beatty (2003), for example, wrote: “…CALL is technology-driven, with improvements in computers’ power, speed, storage and software tools helping to define directions for pedagogy and research” (p. 15). To counter such a focus, Barson and Debski (1996) argued that pedagogic process and technology could not be separated. In a similar way, educational technologists, Jonassen, Howland, Marra and Crismond (2007) have stated this wide definition of technology: “Technology consists of the designs and the environments that engage learners. Technology can also consist of any reliable technique or method for engaging learners, such as cognitive learning strategies and critical thinking skills.” (p. 12) CALL researchers, however, have continued to emphasize electronic technologies (Levy & Stockwell, 2006). A few, however, have attempted to connect computer and electronic tools to pedagogy. For example, Colpeart (2006) developed a design process that emphasized specifying pedagogic aims before selecting or creating software. Egbert and Hanson-Smith (2007) used second language acquisition categories as conditions for effective CALL environments. Levy (2009) used language learning skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking) plus grammar, vocabulary and culture to classify the uses of technology in language learning and Thomas and Reinders (2010) focus on the relationship of task-based learning and electronic technologies. However, by limiting technology to electronic devices and holding an instrumental view of technology, researchers separate and give undeserved power to tools that ‘aid’ pedagogy, rather than being part of the pedagogic process itself. A process approach views the process of ‘lecturing’ and ‘projecting’ as technologies, instead of a ‘lecture’ or a ‘projector’ as a tool. Recent views on learning as ‘languaging’ (Swain, 2006), actionoriented language learning (van Lier, 2007), group agency approaches (Murphey, 2009), and complexity theory in language learning (Larson-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) support the concept of pedagogy as action. Thus technologizing is learning, and technologizing is teaching. In this view, the common warning to teachers to “…avoid putting technology ahead of learning” (Egbert, 2005b, p. 4) makes no sense because pedagogic technologies and learning cannot be separated.

209

By avoiding a narrow, essentialist view of technology, practitioners can focus more on the process of learning, rather than tools. Administrators can trust localized experimentation to yield useful designs rather than force a universal technology upon a program. When adopting a wide definition of technology based on ‘process’, it allows both classroom-based teaching and online-based teaching a common ground to discuss the technologies of learning a language.

A critical theory of language learning technology In a wide definition, the process of learning is the focus, and computing is one of many processes. It is not separate from the process, acting as an ‘aid’, ‘mediator’ or ‘assistant’. Viewing computers still sees technology as a separate aid. This utilitarian view has been criticized with the critical theory of technology by Feenberg (1991, 2002, 2008). Tracing the history of CALL, Warschauer (1998) applied this critical theory of technology and noticed early concepts of computers were viewed as ‘deterministic’ transformers of education. He observed that later research into CALL had essentially abandoned these deterministic views but adopted the instrumental position that computers can neutrally ‘assist’ the learning process. He criticizes this perspective because it ignores the powerful ways that technologies change education, in both constructive or destructive ways. One problem of deterministic (tool-centric) or instrumental (tool-minimized) approaches is that they decontextualize the technology in order to study its essential characteristics (Cutrim Schmid, 2006). Such views assume that the essential nature of the technology is fixed (an essentialist view) rather than dependent on its action in the local environment (a relational view). When computers are seen to be ‘embedded’ with learning environments, they are no longer the center of analysis, but are instead regarded as one aspect of the environment. A ‘environment-embedded’ perspective resonates with the concept of learning ecologies (Brown, J., 2000; van Lier, 2004; Lafford, 2009) in which tool usage is part of a web of relationships involving the whole learning environment, including dimensions of time, space, and human interaction. Table 7.3 summarizes these deterministic, instrumental, and ecological perspectives on the concept of technology.

210

Table 7.3. Critical perspectives on the tool dimensions of technologies Deterministic, or ‘tool-centric’

Instrumental, or ‘tool-minimized’

Ecological, or ‘environment-embedded’

Seen as focal point of change in education, tool use itself generates innovation; the utility of tools can be thought of as having advantages and disadvantages.

Conceived of as merely assistants in educational processes, tools can be added or removed with little disruption; tool utility depends on learning improvements.

Part of a complex local ecology, tools situated in local environments; involving dimensions of time, space, media, and human interaction.

For those who maintain a deterministic or ‘tool-centric’ view, technologies may be imbued with transformative, or perhaps even oppressive, powers. When seen in a minimal, instrumental role, they can be added or removed without great effect on the educational process. However, when embedded in an educational process, tools become integral to a learning ecology in ways that foster a ‘hybridity’ in machine and human interactions (Latour, 2005) that are situated in and transformed by the context in which they take place (Lave & Wegner, 1991). Therefore, a tool-focused perspective is insufficient to account for the varied roles that technologies play in university language programs.

Towards a multi-dimensional definition of technologies Adopting a viewpoint of a learning ecology, Shea (2007) constructs a framework of blended learning environments that provides seven dimensions or components in the design. One of the components, ‘technologies’, is described purely in terms of media texts. Each of these dimensions are conceptualized as continuums, with two extreme positions, as shown in Table 7.4. This model is useful because it broadens concepts of blended learning beyond a simple continuum of online vs. face-to-face, considering synchronicity in particular. However, it is limited, in my view, because: 1) it has little of the complexity of groupings common in language learning environments (i.e. pair work, small group), 2) it limits pedagogy to two modes and does not consider varieties and metaphors of learning, 3) it narrowly

211

defines technology as media texts, and 4) it omits the role of networks, furniture, scripting, and other online/face-to-face tools that are part of the technology. Table 7.4. Shea’s framework of blended learning environments Blended learning components (Shea, 2007, p. 28) Time:

synchronous

asynchronous

Place:

face-to-face

online

Pedagogy:

cooperative

competitive

Technologies:

printed text

multi-modal

Format:

cohort

self-paced

Courses:

home institution

outside

Participants:

local

distant

From these wide, critical, and ecological perspectives, language learning technologies can be defined as generic pedagogic processes that engage learners in a language learning task. A pedagogic process is a method or technique that configures learning actions in time and space. It is generic in the sense that the method or technique can be applied across various situations and named so that teachers can identify the process and reconfigure it according to their needs. In this view, technologies are not single objects or devices in isolation, but are described by dimensions that specify the various aspects of the learning ecology. This dimensional model should be robust and inclusive enough to handle all methods used in language learning practice, such as information-gap pair-work, small-group discussion, lectures, asynchronous online forums, social networking sites, furniture arrangements in classrooms, multi-media texts, and various tools and formats of the Internet. The following sections extract evidence from the data in order to create categories that provide rich descriptions of pedagogic use. Then I will describe each of these parameters or dimensions as it applies to a language learning technology and justify it according to current literature in field of second language education. These dimensions are not

212

exclusive but illustrate the most common aspects of design that teachers can identify with.

DIMENSIONS FOR BLENDED TECHNOLOGY DESIGN In this section, I create categories or dimensions, which would define a multidimensional concept of technology. Originally, I built these categories based on the experiences reported in the publications, conference presentations and critical incidents of the autoethnographic study. However, to generate a more reliable model, with greater trustworthiness to base future research on, I need to trace the data where the proto-model came from. To do this, I did a single-them analysis by revisiting the ‘key concept’ data (Appendix A and B) of the data analysis in the autoethnographic approach of this study and selected evidence that indicates a shift from the dominant metaphor of ‘technology as electronic tool’ to ‘technology as learning ecology’. I later confirmed or verified these categories with action research data and a peer review with a critical friend.

Single-theme analysis of autoethnography data The first analysis was a review of the autoethnography data, searching for examples of ecological aspects of technologies in blended learning environments of my own professional practice. I started this analysis by listing the key concepts and their associated subthemes from the data summary of publications (Appendix A) and critical incidents (Appendix B) that are related to the theme of ‘technology’. Then I categorized it with single code words that stood for a major technological dimension. The data shows that electronic tools were a minor aspect in the technology of my teaching practice. Other dimensions of technology dominated. As my teaching practice and research on CALL and blended environments evolved, I was increasingly concerned with the timings, groupings, texts, spaces, and actions of a technology, as well as the tools. Even among tools, I was increasingly interested in paper handouts, furniture, blackboards and other non-electronic devices affected. Table 7.5 lists the key concepts, subthemes, and dimensions that emerged from the data.

213

Table 7.5. Analysis of technology dimensions from autoethnographic data Key concepts

Subtheme

Dimension

visual learning materials (1989a), semiotic design and page layout of teaching materials (1989b), sensory modality testing (1991a), multi-media materials (1992b), varied media in lesson planning (1992b), mixed modality teaching (1992b), PowerPoint projects (2000)

multi-modal materials

texts

multi-media materials (1992b), varied media in lesson planning (1992b), mixed modality teaching (1992b), multi-media integration within text-based LMS modules (2003e),

engaging interfaces

texts

process writing with computers (1993b), computer-aided composition teaching (1992a), timesaving, multi-draft process writing (1992a), recorded and editable files (1992a), open source LMS (2003f),

computerautomated management,

tools

home-based technology (1993d), computer laboratories (1993d), ubiquitous, student-owned tools (1993d), classroom/home venues for EFL writing (1993g), face-to-face and online sessions mixed (1998c), in-class activities supported by online forums (2003e)

multiple venues

spaces

student social networks (1993e), informal classroom communication patterns (1993e), group constructivist learning program (1994e), grouping designs for local/foreign student exchange (1995c), Japanese/English tandem learning techniques (1995c), Pair dictation technology (1996a), Asian EFL partner groupings to force L2 production (2000a)

face-to-face groupings

groupings

short-term overseas program (1993f), intensive program constructs (1993h), intensive EFL volunteer program (1993h), short-term sister school exchange (2001b),

intensive formats

timings

intensive EFL volunteer program (1993h), content-based language learning (1993h), experiential EFL education (1993h)

experiential setting

spaces

practical oral communication assessment (1994a), learning styles/individual goals integration (1994b), extended contextualized suprasegmental practice (1998a)

motivating feedback

actions

inter-cultural simulation games (1994e), culture shock training game (1995f)

gaming formats,

actions

introduction of new technologies (2001c), online discussion boards (2002a), open source vs. commercial web software (2002a), teacher-designed interactive websites (2003c), interactive web forums (2003g), open source Moodle LMS (2003, Outside LMS--blogger tool mashup (2006)

integrated web tools

tools

pedagogic use of slide-making software (2002b), configurable, flexible software (2005b), Lulu print-on-demand (2006)

teacher-designed texts,

texts

portable international standards for blended learning (2005a), universal educational modeling descriptors (2005b), blended language learning tasks (2005b)

blended design

actions

mixed face-to-face/online sessions (1998c), inflexible CALL furniture (2005b)

flexible spaces

spaces

cassette tape exchange (1994), forum software (2002), voice recording blog (2007)

asynchronous communication

timings

global issues textbook & quizzes (2002), child development textbook (2006)

online/paper integrated text ubiquitous tools

texts

low-cost word-processor technology (1993d), ubiquitous, student-owned tools (1993d), internet-based CALL, open-source PHP forum scripts (2004)

214

tools

In order to simplify the complexity, I found the resulting list of six code words (actions, groupings, spaces, timings, texts and tools) to be highly inclusive of all aspects of technology, when standing from a learning ecology/technology-as-process metaphor. I then chose five of these codes to as key dimensions in a framework of blended technology. For greater simplicity, I reduced the dimensions from six to five, by merging the categories of ‘groupings’ and ‘spaces’ into one category, ‘groupings’. It may sometimes still be useful to separate the terms, ‘spatial groupings’, or ‘groupings in space’, because the two terms are very closely related--a grouping always implies a spatial location. Table 7.6 lists these dimensions and the primary autoethnographic data associated with them.

215

Table 7.6. Dimensions of language learning technologies Dimensions Actions

Groupings

Timings

Texts

Tools

Associated autoethnographic key concepts Motivating feedback: practical oral communication assessment (1994a), learning styles/individual goals integration (1994b), extended contextualized suprasegmental practice (1998a) Gaming formats: inter-cultural simulation games (1994e), culture shock training game (1995f) Blended design: portable international standards for blended learning (2005a), universal educational modeling descriptors (2005b), blended language learning tasks (2005b) Multiple venues: home-based technology (1993d), computer laboratories (1993d), ubiquitous, student-owned tools (1993d), classroom/home venues for EFL writing (1993g), face-to-face and online sessions mixed (1998c), in-class activities supported by online forums (2003e) Face-to-face groupings: student social networks (1993e), informal classroom communication patterns (1993e), group constructivist learning program (1994e), grouping designs for local/foreign student exchange (1995c), Japanese/English tandem learning techniques (1995c), Pair dictation technology (1996a), Asian EFL partner groupings to force L2 production (2000a) Experiential setting: intensive EFL volunteer program (1993h), content-based language learning (1993h), experiential EFL education (1993h) Flexible spaces: face-to-face and online sessions mixed (1998c), inflexible CALL furniture (2005b) Intensive formats: short-term overseas program (1993f), intensive program constructs (1993h), intensive EFL volunteer program (1993h), short-term sister school exchange (2001b), Asynchronous communication: cassette tape exchange (1994), forum software (2002), voice recording blog (2007) Multi-modal materials: visual learning materials (1989a), semiotic design and page layout of teaching materials (1989b), sensory modality testing (1991a), multimedia materials (1992b), varied media in lesson planning (1992b), mixed modality teaching (1992b), PowerPoint projects (2000), Engaging interfaces: multi-media materials (1992b), varied media in lesson planning (1992b), mixed modality teaching (1992b), multi-media integration within text-based LMS modules (2003e), Teacher-designed texts: pedagogic use of slide-making software (2002b), configurable, flexible software (2005b), Lulu/Bookmaker print-on-demand (2006) Integrated online/paper texts: global issues textbook and quizzes (2002), child development textbook (2006) Computer-automated management: process writing with computers (1993b), computer-aided composition teaching (1992a), timesaving, multi-draft process writing (1992a), recorded and editable files (1992a), open source LMS (2003f), Integrated web tools: introduction of new technologies (2001c), online discussion boards (2002a), open source vs. commercial web software (2002a), teacherdesigned interactive websites (2003c), interactive web forums (2003g), open source Moodle LMS (2003, Outside LMS--blogger tool mashup (2006) Ubiquitous tools: Low-cost word-processor technology (1993d), ubiquitous, student-owned tools (1993d), internet-based CALL, open-source PHP forum scripts (2004)

216

In the following sections, I further define each of the dimensions, connect data from the action research and ethnographic approach, and relate to past literature in the field. This framework of blended language learning supports an ‘environment-embedded’ view of pedagogic technologies. This ecological view combines the richness of face-to-face techniques of interaction and their complex arrangements of learners within classroom spaces with the synchronous and asynchronous interfaces of CALL into a blended environment. Based on the data analysis of the previous section, I propose five core dimensions: • • • • •

Actions: narrative, interactive, adaptive, communicative, and productive; Groupings: individual, pair and collaborative configurations and their associated spaces; Timings: synchronous and asynchronous; intensive and intermittent pacing; Texts: static and dynamic, monomodal and multimodal displays; Tools: physical devices and software applications.

Dimension 1: Actions Mainstream university educators have long argued the need for a pedagogical basis for technology use. With reference to university teaching, Laurillard (2002) proposed a framework that pushed the educational process of technologies to the center of attention. She describes five teaching and learning processes or ‘actions’ of technology: narrative, interactive, adaptive, communicative, and productive. While Laurillard (2002) uses the term ‘media forms’, I have adapted her thinking to develop the multidimensional concept of ‘technologies’, which conceives of pedagogic actions as categories to group technological activity irrespective of whether they are conducted face-to-face or online. Therefore, the first dimension of technology in a language learning environment refers to the type of pedagogic action. These ‘actions’ are similar to what van Lier (2007) describes as ‘agency’ in language learning. However, the difference in this view is that van Lier was most concerned with ‘human agency’ while the blended technology framework proposes a combination of human and material agency, which I have defined as the essence of a ‘technology’. Pedagogic ‘actions’ can be thought of as a series of intentional acts on both the part of instructors and students as they journey through a course. Laurillard (2002) proposes a comprehensive framework of pedagogic actions that are useful descriptions in both face-to-face and online contexts. Her five types are called narrative, interactive, adaptive, communicative, and productive with differing actions for teachers and learners, as listed in Table 7.7.

217

Table 7.7. Summary of the pedagogic technology actions (Laurillard, 2002) Types

Teaching action

Learning action

Example technologies

Narrative

Presenting

Apprehending

Lectures, television, DVD, printed textbooks, printed instructions

Interactive

Questioning

Exploring

Pair-work dialogues, hyperlinked text, printed workbooks, quizzes with feedback,

Adaptive

Modeling

Practicing

Role-plays, tutorial programs, simulations, games, microworlds

Communicative

Facilitating

Discussing

Discussion boards, chat dialogues, messaging

Productive

Coaching

Expressing

Publishing, productions, conferences, websites, manuscripts

Cross-site analysis of pedagogic actions In order to confirm or verify what can be learned if technologies are categorized by pedagogic type, I did a cross-case analysis of classroom observation data in two sites of the study. Presently, most technologies are categorized by their tool name (e.g. blog) or even their brand name (e.g. iPod). However, as I argued in Chapter 2, tool-emphasis is an ongoing issue within CALL, and is biased toward electronic tools. This problem was confirmed in the site interviews, where teachers spoke of technology as ‘tools’. At Minami University, when John said, “... using the technology in their classes. That's optional…” (Int03), he was conceiving of technology not as pedagogic process, but as an electronic tool that be ‘optionally’ used in place of ‘traditional’ face-to-face tools. In his mind, there was an option ‘not’ to use technology, which suggests he used a narrow, toolcentric view of technology, and not a wide, pedagogic-process view. In a pedagogic process view, it would be impossible ‘not’ to use a technology, as any and all face-toface methods would be considered a technology as well as a method supported by an electronic tool. Although the Laurillard (2002) framework of technologies was not built from a language teaching perspective, I analyzed the classroom data in Minami U. (Class04) and Kita U. (Class05). First, I had to give names to technologies and then place them according the

218

five pedagogic processes (narration, interaction, adaption, communication, and production) that she assigns. I wanted to see if we could use these words in phrases like “narration technologies” or “narration courseware”.

I refer back to the definition

proposed in Chapter 2, that technology is a ‘generic process’. In the technology naming process, I gave two-word and three-word names that were recognizable to teachers, but also expanded the term beyond a tool identity to include process. I wondered whether to use nouns or gerunds for technology naming. A noun format suggests an entity rather than a process, so I attempted using noun-modified gerunds, hoping teachers would accept these terms more easily. The data in Table 7.8 came from coding notes from two class observations (Class04 and Class05), one each from the two sites. I identified 13 technologies in Class04 and 15 technologies in Class05 and categorized them by pedagogic type. Table 7.8. Cross-site analysis of pedagogic technology types Pedagogic Technology Type Narrative Technologies

Minami U. Michel class [Class04] 1. Voice announcement 2. Whiteboard colored bullet points 3. Internet screen projections w/pointer and highlighting 4. Task instruction sheet

Interactive Technologies

5. Electronic or internet dictionary lookup 6. Spellchecking, grammarchecking 7. Error correction and commenting on files

Adaptive Technologies

8. Multi-draft re-writing

Communicative Technologies

Productive Technologies

9. Pair discussion mind map 10. Rule-enforcing doll-tossing 11. Teacher-student conferencing 12. Word-processed writing 13. Assignment file upload

Kita U. Hinkelman class [Class05] 1. Projected web page 2. Projected handout instructions reading 3. Whiteboard announcements 4. Poster demonstration 5. Video of student presentation last year 6. Q & A session 7. Online quiz 8. Sentence correction

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Jumbled word puzzle Listen and write survey Word stress choral repetition Carouselling speech practice Pair question asking

14. Video-recorded presentation 15. Poster presentation 16. Assignment file upload

This table shows a broad variety of different technologies, crossing all types of pedagogic action, were employed in both Class04 and Class05.

219

Support for pedagogic categorization The previous analysis, categorizing technologies observed in two classroom lessons, showed that all five types were evident in the classes and that all technologies described in the observation notes could be classified within these five categories, though with frequent overlaps. Importantly, I found that if I were to reduce the technology description to a single, tool-oriented word, such as “textbooks”, then categorization becomes more problematic because, depending on its use, a textbook can be listed in several ways, not strictly as a narrative technology. When students read a story or explanation in the textbook, it was narrative, but if the textbook contains questions and blanks for filling in an answer, it also becomes an interactive technology. Many textbooks and handouts have this ‘workbook’ feature in language learning activities. Thus, when a researcher looks at an object, they should not be tempted to assign a single function to it, as multiple technological functions may be embedded in the design. They must see the book in context and describe its pedagogic use within a process--and quite possibly discover multiple, original uses of the tool. Similarly, I found that the categorization of the technology often depended on ‘who’ was doing it. For example, when a slideshow presentation is given by a teacher, it is a narrative; but when done by a student, it is no longer a narrative, but a productive technology. This demonstrates how the ‘role’ of a person enacting a technology may essentially define its pedagogic type. In the following sections, I focus on each type of action individually with data examples from the action research and ethnographic approaches and justify through the literature of second language theory and practice.

Narrative actions Narrative, as one type of action within this dimension, allows a story to be told, an explanation to be given, or an argument to be developed. It is a process of presenting and apprehending. In face-to-face contexts, typical narrative actions include lectures, demonstrations, explanations and story-telling, which may also include presentation through course books or movies that are discussed in class. In online contexts, narrative actions can take place through podcasts, for example, as well as animations, web pages, blogs and digital video clips. At Minami University, Michel, in his essay-writing class (Class04), used four narrative technologies. First, he gave verbal instructions at the beginning of class, accompanied by

220

a task check sheet on paper, which listed the steps of the writing project, points to pay attention, schedule of progress, and assessment guidelines. On the LMS, the same check sheet was posted for reference or for students who missed class that day. Occasionally, while students were working on their writing, he would move to the front, stop all the students, and write some key points on a whiteboard that everyone needed to pay attention to. He also demonstrated an internet site on the big screen to help students on common grammar problems. At Kita University, Don, in his oral communication class (Class05), used five narrative technologies. He prepared handouts for all the classes and referred to this several times during the class. Each time, he projected the text page onto a large screen with a document projector and marked important points with a red felt-tip marker. With a switch box, he toggled to a projection of the class LMS site and went through step-by-step, how to submit their assignment. At the end of class, he showed a paper poster made by a student the previous year and a video of a model speech, pointing out good and poor performance points. All of these are narrative pedagogic actions, which spanned both online and face-to-face venues within their classes. In these blended contexts, narration consists of one person communicating to many people, and can be seen as a form of broadcasting. Laurillard (2002) sees narration as ‘presenting’ or ‘exposition’ as the primary teaching acts; and ‘attention’ or ‘apprehending’ as the primary learner actions. However, when learners do a presentation, it is called a ‘productive’ action because it plays a different role in the outcome of a task. Critics of narrative actions in teaching, however, see them contributing to a transmissive form of pedagogy (Collins & Halverson, 2009) that is teacher-centered and stilted (Leaver & Willis, 2004). However, in Laurillard’s (2002) view, such actions should not be excluded from a blended mix of tools and techniques because a lecture is not inherently a poor action, only its overuse. She advises that the mix of pedagogic actions should be guarded against overuse of lectures through a balance with other pedagogic types. Another criticism of narrative actions is that teachers alone select and summarize materials and, therefore, limit experiential learning and discourage student-generated content. Legacy CALL tutorial systems, such as those that used programmed instruction to test grammatical accuracy (Levy, 1997), can be seen as a form of a narrative technology that perhaps ignored student participation in the content selection and creation.

221

In an ideal blended language approach, a teacher mixes face-to-face narratives and online narratives within a language program. A series of live face-to-face lectures could be video recorded, for example, and the clips of these could be put online for students. Such material could be further enhanced with supplementary links that could compliment a class textbook. Further, interactive whiteboards can also be used when teaching involves narrative actions (Sharma & Barrett, 2009). As found in the Kita U. classrooms, a document camera and computer connected to a projector and screen can, for example, be used for narrative purposes. Combined in a classroom, a projected page of a textbook can be annotated with colored pens. In addition, using the same screen, the display can then be switched to online sites to blend external resources to the narration and provide multiple, multi-media narratives simultaneously.

Interactive actions Interactive dimensions of technologies permit learners to “navigate and select content at will” (Laurillard, 2002, p. 107) in both texts and contexts. Teachers highlight the interactive action of technologies when they, for example, direct students to use libraries or self-access centers, search the internet, respond to quizzes or complete problemsolving exercises. For Laurillard, ‘questioning’ is the focal teacher action, and ‘inquiry’ is the key learner action. Interactive actions differ from narrative actions in that they are dynamic and non-linear. Similar interactive technologies were present in Don’s oral communication class (Class05), where the teacher led an oral question-and-answer exercise, and students took written weekly quizzes with questions and answers on their handout material. The quizzes were located on the class LMS website, which gave instant feedback on the answers as well scores on each quiz. He also prepared a worksheet on paper with common mistakes in captioning for student to correct. At Minami University, Michel’s essay-writing class (Class04) used three interactive technologies. First, he had students refer to the spell-checker or thesaurus built into their word-processing software, and then had them check the internet, to consult dictionaries and make content searches on their topic. On the LMS, his error-correction feedback on submitted papers were a form of interaction with the students, teacher, and student texts. Other examples of interactive technologies include exercises such as ‘corrupted text’ and ‘prediction’ (Willis & Willis, 2007) or jumbled or cloze tasks for solitary study using

222

printed/audio text, or a worksheet quiz (Brown, H. D., 2007) that can be adapted for online use (Blake, 2000). Chants and other forms of choral practice (Cook, 2008) can be seen as a technology that prompts interaction within a large group. A blended version of a chant uses prompts such as printed texts or words displayed on a screen or blackboard. Then individually, students can do further practice when a teacher integrates the chant into an online quiz with audio clips and cloze words to listen for. In the 1970s, new face-to-face technologies were developed in audio-lingual approaches, such as minimal pair, expansion, chain, or substitution drills (Larsen-Freeman, 2000), that continue to have a role in focus-on-form practice in blended environments (Garrett, 2009). Classroom teachers, for example, have developed paper-based quizzes or exercises as interactive technologies for work in small groups. Worksheets may be employed for information gap, jigsaw, matching, or corrupted text techniques. When provided online at the appropriate moment, completed worksheets can provide instant feedback to students.

Adaptive actions An adaptive action involves making use of technologies that can be modified to fit the learners’ level or interests. For teachers, ‘modeling’ is a primary form of pedagogical adaptations; for learners, ‘practice’ and ‘simulation’ are the primary forms of action (Laurillard, 2002). In the two classroom observations at the sites of this study, I noticed no simulation games, but various forms of practice as adaptive technologies. These included multi-draft re-writing in Class04, or word puzzles, repetitive surveys to classmates, and word stress choral repetition in Class05. Adaptive actions may also take place, for example, when students engage in role-plays and games, which for example, may be cooperative, puzzle-solving, exploratory or adventurous (Westecott, 2003; Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008). When pair work is designed with open-ended prompts and goals, it forces students to adapt their vocabulary and usage. Students can also simulate second language situations with role-playing exercises where prompts describe a particular role and task for each student. Given a task, a learner can practice achieving that task multiple times, often with successively more difficult situations added. In written communication, students can search through prepared paragraphs to find errors or structural problems. In extensive reading, students progress through graded readers at increasingly higher vocabulary and grammar levels. University

223

level foreign language programs at the beginning level need large amounts of interactive and adaptive exercises as students require extensive hours of simple practice in meaningful situations. One example of a face-to-face adaptive technology is a board game requiring questions answered in a target language. Shoemaker and Shoemaker (1991) describe how students freely use a game atmosphere to review key phrases and conversations introduced in past lessons. Course books and guidebooks suggesting short gaming exercises can be designed by either teacher or students and included in every lesson. In an online environment, Warschauer and Meskill (2000) suggest concordancing software can be an effective simulation tool for testing collocations. Merging both adaptive and communicative actions, simulation worlds have been developed to include immersive environments (Sykes, Oskoz & Thorne, 2008), including adaptive communication with avatars that engage in dialogue with other players (Hislope, 2008).

Communicative actions Communicative actions technologies enable learners to interact with others, and discussion is the key learner action (Laurillard, 2002). Paired and small group conversation with learners seated or standing in a classroom is a common technology for oral communication classes. In writing classes, pre-writing tasks can involve pair brainstorming of ideas and post-writing tasks may include comments and questions about the writing. In the essay-writing class at Minami U., Michel used three communication technologies. First by having students write their essays in pairs, he had them discuss the topic beforehand and create a mind map from their discussion as a pre-writing stage. Students were required to discuss in L2, and if Michel noticed they had switched to L1, he did a playful scolding exercise by tossing a doll on their table and asking them to summarize what they were saying. He then moved on and continued doing student conferences with each pair of students throughout most of the lesson. In the oral communication at Kita U. (Class05), Don employed just one communicative technology, a pair work exercise where students prepare and ask questions to a partner. These questions are later captured through a survey form on the class LMS site, for reuse in a later class.

224

Communicative actions can come to the fore with technologies that include, for example, in online discussion forums, conversations in small groups and video link exchanges with students in another country (Fotos, 2004). In face-to-face situations, communicative dimensions can happen through fast pair switching (Hinkelman, 1996), conversational shadowing (Murphey, 2001) or carouselling (Bainbridge & O’Shea, 2010).

Productive actions The productive dimension of technologies allows students to create and publish their work for an audience. ‘Performance’, according to Laurillard (2002), is the key learner action and ‘coaching’ is the key teacher action. Production can involve the creation of materials for online communication (Lamy & Hampel, 2007), which may include, for example, mazes, quizzes, montages and cards for use in the classroom (Egbert, 2005a). When production is highlighted in language learning programs, teachers may group the students in pairs or in small teams to work on a common project. Individual projects are also popular, and while they lose an environment of varied roles and leadership styles, they force more individual participation. Compared with narrative texts, which are teacher-generated or publisher-authored, most productive texts are student-generated, and provide a valuable opportunity for pedagogical re-use, as the level fits the cohort group and is likely more focused on topics of common interest. Each time a teacher varies the grouping, a different set of tools may be required. A large screen with a projector is appropriate for whole group productive actions, while a small screen computer or tablet may fit an individual exercise. Tools that stimulate productive actions may be the most challenging to use. Mastering the use of relatively new tools (such as wikis, blogs and podcasts) may be familiar to some students but also time-consuming for others, requiring computer literacy skills – not necessarily core language abilities, raising issues of curriculum crossover, professional development and workload (Corbel, 2007). In the Class04 observation data at Kita U., an example of productive action was found in a multi-staged lesson that was designed to teach students oral presentation skills. In a first step, individuals constructed a presentation based on a popular anime character. Students prepared a paper poster, captioned the images in L2 and practiced with each other using a carouselling technique. Later, the students gave a live performance face-to-

225

face in class with video recording for instructor-, self- and peer-assessment. Digital video cameras were used to record the presentations for upload to an LMS or another site that hosted video clips. The productive technologies in the Minami U. Class04, included a completed word-processing file for publishing and a file submission process on the LMS for collection and grading. Thus far, this discussion has described actions as a key dimension of technologies. Based on the data, I add four additional dimensions that illustrate how technological actions become reconfigured or ‘designed’ in the classroom context. These dimensions may involve: 1) grouping learners in various physical/virtual spaces in and out of the classroom, 2) setting the action in an open or fixed timing, 3) displaying single or multimodal texts, and 4) configuring arrangement of physical tools, objects, and networks.

Dimension 2: Groupings The second dimension of technology design, grouping, takes into account whether learners work individually, as a pair, or in collaboration with others in small or large groups. These groupings are located in ‘space’, which simply pertains to a specific venue in which learners are co-located, be it physical or virtual or a mix of both (Table 7.9). Table 7.9. Grouping and spatial dimensions of technologies Grouping patterns

Examples in physical spaces

Examples in virtual spaces

Individual work: Solitary interaction with content material

Sustained silent reading, free writing, essay draft writing in classrooms, libraries, homes, and other study areas

Recorded listening exercises, pronunciation recording from any networked computer or mobile device

Pair-work: Two students or a student and teacher interacting

Information gap pair-work, standing/sitting dialogue practice, essay feedback and commenting in classrooms

Messaging, email in blended classroom or from mobile locations

Small group-work: Three to six learners interacting with different roles

Cooperative learning, jigsaw exercises in classrooms

Multiplayer games, simulation worlds, group documents in computer labs, homes or any networked location

Large group work: An entire classroom observing or interacting with course participants and materials

Choral response, watching/listening-to-a-recording, read-aloud and listen, presentation in classrooms

CMC whiteboards, networked video streaming in classrooms and distributed network conference rooms

226

Groupings and spaces are embedded in a definition of technologies to better understand how blended approaches operate. Interactive actions fostered by a pair-work grouping, for example, may be hindered if it takes place in a fixed-seating lecture theatre; adaptive actions with technologies that involve role-plays and other cooperative language learning activities (Johnson & Johnson, 1999), too, may require open spaces at the front of classrooms, as well as online collaborative activities that require space for presentation and interaction. Groupings are often unconscious dimensions of a technology. When students moved to a CALL lab, for example, the predominant pair and small group settings of an open classroom frequently shifted to solitary work, sitting before an individual computer screen. Appropriate spaces and co-location for learning are important even when students study independently. A study of ‘sustained silent reading’ by Pilgreen (2000) noted that the presence of others helped students to focus on a reading. Writing instruction may rely on similar techniques where students collect information, brainstorm ideas and write drafts on their own. In speaking classes, individuals may interact individually with a recording device to practice; in listening classes, individuals might respond to with comprehension questions as they work with a recording. The range of interactive speaking and listening groupings allowed in CALL lab setting is dramatically different from the groupings allowed in face-to-face classroom settings, thus accounting for the reluctance of some classroom teachers to adopt CALL activities.

Dimension 3: Timings Timing as a dimension of technologies acknowledges that educational processes can occur as temporal events in real-time, synchronous actions; be recorded for later use for asynchronous actions; or consist of a mixture of both, typically in blended approaches. In addition to temporality, the timing dimension of technologies includes paths and pacing. The concepts of ‘paths’ takes into account the uniformity of movement amongst learners, and can be thought of as either serial or parallel. In a whole class situation, for example, when all learners move from one activity to another in unison is considered to be serial; in parallel paths, learners undertake independent study or work individually online. When used for the adaptive actions, the path of technologies can be branched with computer-adaptive multimedia products or assessments. A serial, synchronous path such as a video text with static language input can be transformed into a parallel path

227

when recorded and dynamic elements added (such as interactions, quizzes, and assessment feedback. Pacing occurs when technologies are used to foster actions that require succession, and can be thought of as either intensive or periodic. Timed vocabulary learning activities and competitive in-class games, for example, may demand rapid repetition at a high intensity pace. On the other hand, periodic postings to a discussion board forum operate at a low intensity pace that allows for considered reflection (Table 7.10).

Table 7.10. Timing dimensions in technologies Temporality

Paths

Pacing

Synchronous

Serial/Parallel

Periodic

Asynchronous

Branching/Overlapping

Intensive

Because both asynchronous and synchronous texts and actions can exist when technologies are blended in a single classroom, instructors need to be aware of timing as a dimension of technologies. As Neumeier (2005) points out, blended uses of technologies can cause overlapping sequences of temporality (e.g., intensive games in the synchronous classroom that later require a periodic reflection in asynchronous discussion forums). At first, this can be disarming for both teachers and learners. To start, then, interactive whiteboards that emulate aspects of established patterns of instruction may be more ‘natural’ tools for teachers to start with as they develop blended approaches (Cutrim Schmid, 2006).

Dimension 4: Texts The dimension of ‘texts’ is defined broadly as communicative artifacts that have materiality and structure that generate meaning through semiotic resources (Graddol, 1994). Seen this way, texts only come about through the use of technologies. For example, the production of a painting as a text requires the use of brushes and paint; the creation of a novel requires the use of a computer and software; and the production of a movie is made possible with cameras and recording media. That is, textual materiality and structure cannot exist independent of technologies; inseparable, texts and

228

technologies combine in a range of forms to create ‘multi-modal media’ (Kress, 2009) and multi-modal discourse (Kress & van Leeuwan, 2001). Concepts, which support faceto-face techniques and technologies, include facial and vocal ‘texts’ as an emergent category of investigation in communicative competency. Lamy and Hampel (2007) argue that the ‘disembodied’ nature of much online communication is due to overreliance on alphanumeric texts and other digital formats, suggesting an undervalued nature to the facial and vocal modalities present in face-to-face classroom communication (Antes, 1996). Likewise, ‘realia’ and ‘total physical response’ in the classroom are underexplored dimensions of text, which provide tactile and kinesthetic modalities to language learning (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Although created with various tools, Mayer (2005) warns against adopting a ‘delivery media’ view of understanding texts. Using such a perspective, an educator would focus on the role of delivery devices such as screens, projectors or amplifiers. As an alternative, Mayer argues that it is preferable to adopt a ‘presentation modes’ view that emphasizes attention to what verbal and pictorial elements are shown to learners, and, to a lesser extent, a ‘sensory modalities’ view that highlights cognitive processes in the comprehension of texts. The latter two views are commonly used in research, for example, concerning second language acquisition and learning with new media (e.g., Gruba, 2006; Plass & Jones, 2005). Media have a range of characteristics that are salient to education (Siemens, 2003) that include whether they are static or dynamic, mono-modal or multimodal, fixed or portable. A printed, black and white handout produced on paper that uses a single font is static and mono-modal that can be easily moved in a classroom, for example, and a digitized recording of a television advertisement can be seen dynamic and multimodal and able to be presented in local and global networks. Textbooks and other printed materials remain core technologies in many university language programs; as classrooms become ‘smarter’, however, the options for textual display, interaction and blended learning increase. An awareness of capabilities of texts, or more importantly, the characteristics of text, can inform designers of blended language learning approaches in decisions regarding the choices of educational technologies. Perhaps obvious, static displays of text as found in printed books, allow for close inspection; dynamic or hyperlinked presentations, as in those found in multimedia, may

229

encourage learners to see the relationship amongst the many aural and visual elements that work to create meaning (Plass & Jones, 2005). Alphanumeric capabilities, until recently, were unable to display multiple languages in the same text passage or same device. Now it is more common to have adjustable font sizes/formats and switching to alternate modes (text to voice) to make texts more accessible. Further, storing texts on websites makes them available on demand, 24 hours/day. This growing feature should not, however, devalue the alternative, ephemeral mode of vocal communication common in un-recorded, spontaneous conversation. Table 7.11 summarizes the sub-dimensions of variability, modality, mobility, accessibility and availability of texts in blended language learning. Table 7.11. Text dimensions in technologies Variability

Modality

Mobility

Accessibility

Availability

Static

Alphanumeric

Fixed/wired

Adjustable

Recorded

Dynamic

Image/Facial

Portable/wireless

size/shape

Live

Mode switching

Audio/Vocal Video/Realia

Dimension 5: Tools Simply defined, tools are the furniture, hardware and software dimensions of technologies. That is, tools consist of both physical devices and software applications, designed to work individually or as part of a network, that together create a visible and tangible presence. Furniture such as desks, chairs, blackboards and other physical objects that support sitting, standing or display of texts are the most basic form of tools. Bolted down chairs or flexible, movable desks on rollers can have dramatic impact on the types of activities possible in a classroom, home, or laboratory. Lounge environments are increasingly being added to language centers to provide alternative patterns of sitting and interacting fit for learning projects or school community events. Devices, such as computers or cameras or telephones, are material and physical; software applications, such as operating systems or office suites or databases, are made of binary code and are digital. In practice, the term ‘tools’ can refer to either hardware or software

230

with the intent that they have the ability to perform particular functions that meet the requirements of an end user (Farmer & Gruba, 2006). Interactive whiteboards, merge a variety of display and interactive devices into an integrative experience that provides a whole-group learning environment for foreign language learning (Cutrim Schmid, 2009). In addition, networks and shared databases have become the fastest growing aspect of tools in past decade. Learning management systems, personal learning environments, social networking platforms, mobile devices, and other Web 2.0 resources (Sykes, Oskoz & Thorne, 2008; Godwin-Jones, 2009). provide a wide range of tools that teachers employ in increasingly flexible patterns. They serve as integrating tools that can track participation in various locations and spaces, thus bridging the face-to-face world and online world in the assessment of learning. Table 7.12 summarizes the variety of tool dimensions in blended language learning. Table 7.12. Tool dimensions in technologies Furniture

Devices

Networking

Scripts/software

Formal sitting

Displays

Browsers

Office suites

Standing areas

Storage

Lounge chairs

Audio tools

Flooring

Video tools

Lighting

Computers

Surfaces

Projectors

Learning Media authoring management systems Databases Personal learning Modules/Plugins environments Mashups Social networking Repositories services

Summary of dimensions In the preceding sections, I built an ecological model of technology for blended learning environments, using a thematic analysis and cross-site analysis as evidence to support a multi-dimensional framework of technology. These dimensions emerge from the priorities of second language learning, but they may be appropriate descriptors for other types of learning environments as well. In blended learning environments, technologies are complex, relational, and contextualized, so it is not appropriate to separate the individual elements for comparative research or evaluation. It is their combination and how they work together that defines the technology. In this sense, a technology is a

231

‘learning ecology’. I call this multi-dimensional model a ‘language learning technology’ because foreign language teachers tend to emphasize the value of groupings (i.e.: pair work, group work) and texts (i.e.: audio, video) more than in other fields of learning. Figure 7.1 illustrates the relations of the five dimensions of a language learning technology described in this chapter.

Actions  

Groupings  

Language   Learning   Technology  

Timings  

Tools  

Texts  

Figure 7.1. Dimensions of a language learning technology

Verification with action research data To further verify these dimensions, I applied this framework of blended technology by describing two technologies used in a Kita University EFL classroom. One approach to verifying conclusions recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994) is called, ‘checking for representativeness’. In this process, the researcher will, “sort the cases systematically… and fill out weakly sampled data” (p. 265), which, in qualitative research, is typically done as a verification device after drawing a conclusion. Returning to action research classroom observation data, I chose a weakly sampled section of my teaching practice (in this case, lessons from a speech class which had not been analyzed earlier) and identified two possible technologies--generic pedagogic processes embedded

232

in the blended learning environment. Although both technologies were from a blended environment, I chose one technology that typically would be characterized as a face-toface technique, and chose another technology that might be called a CALL technology. I then described the dimensions of each technology based on a framework of blended technologies, as follows: • • • • •

Pedagogic actions: narrative, interaction, adaptive, communicative, productive technologies Pedagogic groupings: pair, small group, whole group and individual spaces Pedagogic timings: synchronous and asynchronous learning, intensive and periodic pacing Pedagogic texts: video/audio/image, facial/voice/gesture, multi-screen interfaces Pedagogic tools: furniture/displays, digital/analog, devices/networks, fixed/mobile

By describing the technologies in this way, I hoped to verify that in the blended environment of Kita U., a researcher could apply the dimensions easily and provide a description that avoided a tool-centric bias.This evaluation asks questions of verification: • • •

Is it easy for a teacher or researcher to identify the dimensions of the technology? Does the resulting description provide a multi-dimensional view of the technology as a learning ecology? Is the description useful for both CALL teachers and teachers who avoid CALL?

I then used critical friend checking to ask other teachers to: 1) describe the technology according to their interpretation of the five dimensions and 2) respond to my analysis. The two sample technologies are analyzed using action research data collected in 20082010 from classroom observations and teaching diaries from an EFL public speaking class at Kita University (Class07). In this university level class, for second year English language majors, students aim to produce four 2-5 minute formal speeches during a 22hour semester-long class. The course is titled ‘Oral Communication C’ and has required credits towards a B.A. in Humanities, English as a foreign language major. Class sizes were 20-30 students in three sections each taught by a single teacher working in team collaboration. One of the face-to-face technologies employed is called fast pair switching or ‘carouselling’, a technique described by Bainbridge and O’Shea (2010).

In this

technology, students stand in two parallel lines, do a conversation or give a speech, and then switch to another partner when a time limit is reached. The intent is to force rapid, intense interaction or repetitive practice in a limited amount of time. The intensity

233

produces a game-like atmosphere, which has been applied similarly in ‘speed-dating’ events or ‘speed presentations’ in conferences. Table 7.13 lists the dimensions of this technology and Figure 7.2 illustrates this list graphically. Table 7.13. A multi-dimensional description of carouselling technology in an EFL class Technology

Carouselling (fast pair switching)

Actions

A narrative/productive act (short speech) presented to partners. Semi-interactive with nonverbal and verbal listening responses.

Groupings

Students standing in parallel pairs, one line of partners moving to switch partners periodically.

Timings

Synchronous actions, repeated multiple times. Time-limited interchanges.

Texts

Paper with written speech. Used on demand at first, then removed. Facial expressions of listeners.

Tools

Hands, faces and papers. Video camera if speeches are to be recorded and uploaded to LMS.

Short  Speech   (productive)  

Standing  in   open  space             (pair  work)  

'Timed  pair   Carouselling'   Technology  

Time-­‐limited,   switching   (synchronous)  

Hands,  face,   paper,  video   camera,  LMS   (analog/digital)  

Student-­‐written   words  +  visual,   facial  response   (paper  text)  

Figure 7.2. A multi-dimensional description of carouselling technology in an EFL class

234

The critical friend (who had used carouselling in their own teaching practice) described the same technology similarly as shown in Table 7.14. Table 7.14. Confirmation of carouselling technology descriptions by critical friends Researcher

Critical friend description

Actions

A narrative/productive act (short speech) presented to partners. Semi-interactive with non-verbal and verbal listening responses.

Like PPP. Practice comes through repetition, and familiarity with language. Results in hands-free production.

Groupings

Students standing in parallel pairs, one line of partners moving to switch partners periodically.

Working in pairs in a whole class forum. Repetitive pair-work. Students are mobile and standing. It is a psychological jump to stand up, rather than rooted to their seats. A physical activity.

Timings

Synchronous actions, repeated multiple times. Time-limited interchanges.

Synchronous because tasks going on at the same time

Texts

Paper with written speech. Used on demand at first, then removed. Facial expressions of listeners.

Self-produced text. Both printed and vocal. Expressions, hand gestures, posture, eye contact. Perhaps hidden cultural/gender norms.

Tools

Hands, faces and papers. Video camera if speeches are to be recorded and uploaded to LMS.

Furniture is moved to make an open area.

A second technology, called video peer/self assessment used in the same EFL class and within the same speech project as the carouselling technology. For the students, it is called the ‘Watch Again’ or ‘Video Assessment’ tool, as each one is expected to watch their own speech again to self-assess it and to watch 2-3 other speeches to give ratings and advice. The pedagogic assumption here is that developing students’ evaluative skills will improve their subsequent performances. This technology is a self-study, online technique where students watch their own speech again and click various radio buttons to rate themselves and their peers. In addition, they add comments in text boxes below each scale in the rubric. The tools involved are rather complex and time intensive for teachers or assistants. A digital camera with removable

235

memory card is used by a student or teacher to record a speech performance. After class, the video file is then uploaded into Youtube or similar repository, and an embedding code from that stream location is posted on a forum or assessment module in the class’s LMS website. When students view the video, they are presented with an online checklist for rating and commenting. These scores and comments are collated and a report produced for each student. Paper forms can be substituted for the online forms, but this sacrifices rapid collation reports and tracking within the student’s electronic portfolio. Table 7.15 (to be completed) provides three descriptions of the technology and Figure 7.3 illustrate the dimensions of the ‘Watch Again’ video assessment technology. Table 7.15. Descriptions of video assessment technology Technology Name

Researcher description

Critical friend 1 description (CALL)

Actions

An interactive action where students giving ratings to a performance.

It’s reflective. It’s selfcorrective, its analytical, It has aspects of consciousness raising, but I don’t know how to categorize it. It is simple observation. It is evaluative. Of self and others.

Groupings

Solitary, self-study.

Solitary, watching by themselves.

Timings

Asynchronous actions, can be replayed multiple times, continuous access.

Asynchronous because they are doing it at home or in their own time.

Texts

Video text.

Audio of language and watching video for expressions, eye contact and gestures. Rubric text with prompts and blanks.

Tools

Digital camera, Youtube streaming, LMS embedding, assessment rubric module.

Computer, camera, chair, study environment. Maybe also the environment of where the presentation was given.

236

View,  rate,  and   comment   (interactive)  

Seated  facing   internet  screen           (solitary  work)  

'Video   Assessment'   Technology  

Replayable   recordings   (asynchronous)  

Digital  camera,   Youtube  upload,   LMS  embed,   rubric  module   (online)  

5x10cm  video   window  of  face/ body/voice   (video  text)  

Figure 7.3. A multi-dimensional description of video assessment technology These two examples of technologies in an EFL speechmaking class show that the five dimensions of the blended technology framework provides a rich, pedagogicallycontextualized description of technology as it is used in a second language classroom. The description does not overly focus on the attributes of electronic devices, but places those devices within an ecology that includes designs of synchronicity, co-location, media texts/formats, and learning actions. Seeing technologies as a cluster of multiple dimensions allows language academics to make better use of them as they undertake approaches to blended learning. Rather than choosing amongst technologies based on their physical forms, an understanding of the five dimensions of technologies can help university language teachers better consider how particular blends can meet the values and considerations appropriate for foreign language tasks, lessons, and syllabuses. In this section, I have specified, described and justified each of the five dimensions of technology that emerged from thematic and cross-site data analysis of each of the blended learning research approaches. In the next section, I apply this framework by expanding aspects of second language learning theory.

237

Integration with task-based learning theory To this point, I have built multi-dimensional categories of technologies, which leads to a generic analysis of blended learning environments. This framework allows us to view complex environments ecologically, but it does not, however, provide an answer to the question of how environments are designed, particularly how teachers design foreign language lessons. This section places the ‘dimensions of technology’ model in the context of task-based learning (TBL), a broadly accepted theory or model of foreign language education (Ellis, 2003). The concept of task will be dealt with from a pedagogical perspective as opposed to a research perspective, an important distinction discussed by Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001).

Defining a blended task Teachers and researchers often separate tasks into two categories: 1) classroom-based tasks and 2) online tasks. For example, Leaver and Willis (2004) divide their book on task-based instruction into ten chapters on classroom-based tasks and three chapters on online tasks. Thomas and Reinders (2010) focus on online or ‘technology-mediated’ tasks. However, for teachers working in blended learning environments, this separation is not so useful. Tasks in a blended environment tend to be a combination of both, which I call a ‘blended task’. A ‘task’ can be considered as a broader and higher order process than a ‘step’, ‘activity’, or ‘technology’ used in the lesson. Thus it may take a mix of several steps online and face-to-face to achieve a task. In an earlier study, I defined a blended task as tasks that “…include sub-tasks that move back and forth between online and face-to-face venues” (Hinkelman, 2005, p. 29) and more recently as, “A blended task is a procedure that requires both face-to-face steps and online steps for completion” (Hinkelman, 2009, p. 38). This phenomenon of ‘blended task’ has also been documented in by Yeh (2007) who describes blending technologies in research writing, speechtraining, and teacher training classes and Motteram and Sharma (2009) who give vignettes of blended task descriptions for listening, presentation-making, and writing. Teachers build blended tasks in several patterns. Besides switching back and forth between online and face-to-face modes in class, they often separate modes according to homework time and in-class time. Motteram and Sharma (2009) delineate three of these patterns in blended learning courses:

238

• • •

Dual track: a teacher-led part of the course in parallel to a self-study part Integrated: consolidation work given as pre-/post-activities between face-to-face classes Embedded: always-on internet with tools accessing the web at any time

The embedded version of blended learning has also been called ‘synchronous blending’ by Mackenzie et al., 2011). The examples given in the following three cases tend to illustrate ‘integrated’ patterns, rather than dual track or embedded. Most online portions of these tasks serve as consolidation, review, or follow-up publication of the classroom portions of the task. Also a few examples of embedded patterns can be observed, where the teacher’s use of the LMS and internet projected on a screen is kept constantly available. As mobile devices proliferate during the next ten years, it is likely that embedded blending will grow and allow rapid switching between paper, visual/facial, and screen interfaces. This phenomenon as it occurs in classrooms might be called a ‘blended technology’. A blended technology is when the face-to-face dimensions merge with the online dimensions such that it is no longer possible to distinguish between the two. It is neither face-to-face nor online, but a combination. This is a true hybrid, and illustrates the eventual evolution of embedded technologies within a blended task. Earlier, I applied Laurillard’s five types of educational media forms and called these ‘actions’ in a framework of blended technology dimensions. I justified this pedagogic framework as appropriate for second language learning, and particularly useful in rethinking the field of CALL, which tends to be overly tool-focused. Therefore, these descriptions of blended lesson designs will integrate both face-to-face classroom techniques, often referring to them as ‘technologies’, along with online and other electronic tools—without favoring one over the other.

Comparing task vs. technology If a technology is categorized pedagogically, it risks confusion with the concept of ‘task’. Task and technology are indeed similar because both are based on a process. In fact, van den Branden (2006) acknowledges the confusion that “...almost anything related to educational activity can be called a task.” (p. 3). To bring clarity, he defines task as both: 1) a language learning goal, and 2) an educational activity. The key to the first definition is the objective and the key to the second is ‘meaningful interaction’. Similarly, Bachman

239

and Palmer (1996, 2010) position a language-use ‘task’ as an activity involving learners using language for achieving a particular situational goal. Willis and Willis (2007) expand the meaning to include ‘engagement’ as well, defining a necessary task element as its ability to engage the interest of the learners.

While ‘activity’ is a part of

‘technology’, a language learning goal is not intrinsic, as a technology is a generic pedagogic process. Learners working on the same activity may have different understandings of what to do, or produce an outcome that may differ from what was originally planned. Jones (2007) notes that being aware of the actual activity and its 'indeterminate space' is more important than the design because “tasks are what designers set, they are prescriptions for the work the students are expected to do, activity is what people actually do” (p. 173). Thus, researchers are fairly consistent in describing a ‘task’. Table 7.16 lists examples of more commonly accepted definitions of task, summarized by Willis and Willis (2007, p. 12). Table 7.16. Definitions of task in second language learning theory Author

Definition of ‘Task’

Nunan (1989)

“A piece of classroom work which involves learners comprehending, manipulating, or interacting in the target language while their attention is primarily focused on meaning rather than form.” (p. 10)

Willis (1996)

“...activities where the target language is used by the learner for communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome.”

Bachman & Palmer (1996)

“...an activity that involves individuals in using language for the purpose of achieving a particular goal or outcome in a particular situation.”

Skehan (1998)

“...an activity in which meaning is primary, learners are not given other people’s meanings to regurgitate, there is some sort of relationship to comparable real world activities, task completion has some sort of priority, [and] the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome.”

Willis & Willis (2007)

Questions to determine whether an activity is ‘task-like’. • “Does the activity engage learners’ interest?” • “Is there a primary focus on meaning?” • “Is there an outcome?” • “Is success judged in terms of outcome?” • “Is completion a priority?” • “Does the activity relate to real world activities?” (p. 13)

Notice that there are no technologies or generalized activities in these definitions. I recommend that technologies be added to the definition of a language learning task in

240

order to clarify the role of generic processes/activities in tasks, and to avoid the unnecessary conceptual separation of face-to-face and online tasks. The difference between a task and technology can be rather straightforward: a pedagogic technology has a generic design that can be used in many different kinds of tasks. It may have a generic pedagogic goal but it has no communicative goal. A task, however, has a communicative goal or problem embedded in it (Willis, 1996) and an assessable outcome (Skehan, 1998). Skehan also states that a task completion is a priority and that assessment is related to that completion. From these definitions, a task is different from a technology because it includes learning aims, content (L2 use) and evaluation. As shown in the earlier classroom examples, a task may employ several technologies (activities) in completing its goal. A particular technology may have affordances that lend itself to achieving certain goals over another technology, but it has no second language learning goal in its description. In short, a task is the ‘content’ and ‘aims’ of a second language lesson while a technology is a generic process used to achieve various content goals. A task includes multiple technologies/generic activities to achieve its goal. To simplify this graphically, imagine the equation: ‘goals plus technologies plus assessment equals task’. Goals + Technologies + Assessments = Task To capture this relationship in a second language learning context, it is important to add the TBL concepts of communicative/meaningfulness, target language use, and outcomebased assessment. Communicative + Pedagogic + L2 + Outcome-based = Language Learning Goals Technologies Use Assessment Task

The communicative goals drive the task, and have an engaging, compelling interest for students. They can be stated in at least three ways, as: 1) instructional aims, 2) acquisitional aims, and 3) socialization aims. The pedagogic technologies are the generic processes or activities of the task and are stated in terms of pedagogic actions, groupings, timings, texts and tool. Meaningful target language use is presumed throughout the task, though appropriate use of L1 may be applied according to learner factors of level and degree of needed challenge. Assessment, then, is related to the task aims and based on

241

outcomes of the task, essentially asking the questions: “Did you do it?” and “How well did you do it?” These three additional elements (goals, L2 use, and assessment) are what separate a ‘technology’ from a ‘task’. In this model, I define all four ‘elements’ as necessary, essential elements to construct a task. The selection of tasks and technologies in the design process can be initiated through a ‘task-based learning cycle’ (Willis, 1996, 2004; Willis & Willis, 2007). In these cycles, a progression may start with narrative input (or students’ productive input), such as a text or video, in the ‘Pre-task’ stage, and may include interaction to elicit student experience. This is followed by other pedagogic actions such as adaption, communication and production in the ‘Task’ stage. A ‘Post-task’ stage adds analysis or reflection on the task and further practice of the task. These three parts of a TBL cycle can be mapped in line with the pedagogic action dimensions of technologies: • • •

Pre-task: Narration and Interaction (Introduction to Task) Task: Adaption (Doing), Communication (Planning), Production (Reporting) Post-task: Communication (Analysis), Adaptation (Practice)

Verification of the task/technology relationship As a verification tactic in theory-building (Miles & Huberman, 1996), I apply this blended technology framework to tasks in the contexts of the sites of this study, selecting two tasks from classroom observation data. This illustrates how both face-to-face and online technologies are designed and configured in use. Each case includes a task description (elements) and an analysis of the blended configurations of technologies (dimensions). The task is a higher order design that places technologies as lower order steps in the context of a sequence of technologies with the task. To directly compare the concepts of task and technology in these two class observations, in the next table I took the four core elements of ‘task’ and illustrated them with data from the two class observations. I divided the ‘goal’ element into four sub-categories: 1) engagement/compelling interest, 2) instructional goals, 3) acquisition goals and 4) socialization goals to illustrate how multiple metaphors can be applied in this framework. An instructional goal refers to language content aims (second language instruction or ‘SLI’). An acquisition goal refers to strategy or skill aims (second language acquisition or ‘SLA’). A socialization goal refers to project or community goals (second language

242

socialization or ‘SLS’). In Minami U., the overall objective in Michel’s class (Class04) was writing an argumentative essay on a social issue while in Kita U., Hinkelman’s (Class05) overall objective was giving an informative presentation. Table 7.17 displays how task aspects were applied to tasks in two blended language learning classes. Table 7.17. Classroom observation data categorized by task elements Task Elements

Minami U. Michel class [Class04] Task analysis Social Issues: Students are able to select topics they have personal experience with.

Kita U. Hinkelman class [Class05] Task analysis Japanese Anime: Students can choose an anime theme of personal interest. Visual media is an attractive shift from text-media.

Communicative goal: instructional aims (SLI)

Structured, grammatical composition of paragraphs that follow rules of standard written language.

Captioning images with simple sentences or adjectives that describe personal values.

Communicative goal: skill and strategy acquisition aims (SLA)

Develop student skills to find their own errors, and show improvement over several drafts.

Ability to select relevant, attractive images and words appropriate for an audience.

Communicative goal: socialization in community aims (SLS)

Build a convincing argument. Exchange provocative essays for comment and discussion.

Construct a poster that will be taken to a Thai primary school that evokes interest in Japanese pop culture.

Pedagogic technologies

Process writing, discussion-making.

Poster-making, presentation-giving, student conferencing.

Meaningful use of target language

Students write 600 words and argue their views in target language discussion.

Students write 100 words of image captions in target language, and present on personal media favorites.

Completion and assessment based on outcome

Essay posted in the LMS with teacher comments and scores as assessment.

Poster with graphics posted on the classroom wall, assessment rubric with audience ratings.

Communicative goal: Engagement/ Compelling interest

From this table, which shows task elements in two classroom situations, the meanings of task and technology can be separated. The two tasks demonstrate engaging interest, have a communicative objective, use the target language meaningfully, and assess based on successful completion of the task. Technologies are not listed in goals or assessments, but as the ‘process’ element of the task. The technologies used in a task are generic, in the sense that they are not native to that task but can be configured to many types of tasks. Therefore, there should be no confusion between ‘task’ and the wide-view of ‘technology’. As for the term, ‘activity’, it is possible to use it interchangeably with ‘technology’ in this wide view.

243

Multiple technologies within a task The next question concerns sequencing within a task. When multiple technologies are used in a task, how are the technologies sequenced or ordered? From classroom observation data of a blended lesson at Kita U., I selected a single task to illustrate the sequential and hierarchical relations of language learning technologies to a language learning task. Referring to the earlier described carouselling and video assessment technologies, I expand the analysis to display all five prominent technologies as they are sequenced during a three-session, 5-hour (in-class time) task. Other minor technologies can be identified in the course of the task or project, but the major ones employed by the Kita U. teaching team included: 1) projected lectures/demos, 2) carouselling, 3) wholeclass performances, and 4) ‘watch-again’ video assessments, and 5) online quizzes,. Table 7.18 shows the major dimensions of each of the technologies and the their sequence within the overall task. Figure 7.4 illustrates the table with a large arrow symbolizing the overall task (an EFL speech project) and the relationship of technologies within the overall task--some in sequence, some in parallel, supporting the learning task. Table 7.18. Technology analysis of an EFL speech-making task (Class07) Technology Name 1. Multi-media Lecturing

Sequence within task First (T1)

Action

Technology Dimensions Grouping Timing Texts

Tools

Narrative

Whole group

Synchronous

Face, voice, slides

Screen, software, projector

Pairs

Synchronous

Face, voice, paper

Open space classroom

2. Timed pair Carouselling

Second (T2)

Productive,

3. Whole group Performing

Third (T3)

Productive

Whole group

Synchronous

Face, voice, slides

Screen, software, projector

4. Video Assessing

Fourth (T4)

Interactive

Solitary, Small group

Asynchron.

Video

Camera, LMS Youtube

5. Online Quizzing

Parallel (T5)

Interactive,

Solitary

Asynchron.

Text, audio

LMS

Communicative

Adaptive

244

T1:        Lecture  

T2:    Carousel  

T3:   Performance  

T4:                Video   Assess  

T5:  Quizzes  

Figure 7.4. Relationship of technologies employed in an EFL speech task

Notice in the analysis, that digital tools were not privileged or isolated. The design of the technology was as much a factor of groupings, timings, texts and actions as it was a factor of a new device. Also, notice that the design of each technology was often blended. There was no clear separation between a ‘face-to-face’ technology and an ‘online’ technology. The first technology, lecturing, was more ‘face-to-face’ but included an online aspect of notes posted on the LMS. The third technology, speech performance, was also primarily face-to-face but also included an online aspect when the video was recorded during the live performance and posted for review. The quizzes were administered online, but were also accompanied by face-to-face demonstrations, explanations and coaching in class.

Strategies in designing tasks One strategy in applying the blended technology framework may be to diversify the pedagogic actions in a technology and task. For example, if use of narrative technologies (lecturing, for example) is predominant, teachers can design a greater variety of

245

interactive, adaptive, communicative, and productive actions. Another goal may be to diversify the modalities used in texts, so that a text-driven pedagogy is combined with audio, images and video, or that an online-dominant task is balanced with face-to-face interactions. In the EFL speech task, productive and interactive technologies reduced the amount of class time using narrative actions. Previously, students would listen to teachers lecture and demonstrate a good speech and then receive a grade on a single chance to perform. The carouselling technology allowed multiple performances, and the watchagain video technology spread the assessment role from teacher alone to include peers and self-checking. Thus, within a task, the technologies were varied by diversifying the actions and texts within its dimensions. This strategy is supported by variation theory, which Oliver and Trigwell (2005) advocate as a theoretical justification for the use of blended approaches in all fields of education. The next section expands this framework to the program level where I propose programmatic principles for building an institutional culture based on blended approaches.

PRINCIPLES FOR BLENDED PROGRAM DESIGN The previous section addressed the first question of this study, ‘how are pedagogic technologies designed?’ and built a framework that integrates task-based learning theory with blended technology concepts and dimensions. In this section, I move to the second question of this study, ‘how are blended programs designed?’, and propose preliminary principles and specific guidelines for institutional design of blended language learning environments. To develop principles and guidelines for blended program design, I selected and displayed theme data from the three approaches that were related to the question of program design. Within the autoethnographic approach of this study, I found that ‘learner-centered modalities’, ‘economical costs’, ‘integrated web tools’, ‘collaborative curriculum design’ were key themes related to program design. From these themes, I assigned key words that indicate the institutional cultural value that the theme was referring to. Within the autoethnographic approach, I categorized four themes related to programs: ‘Economical costs’, ‘Integrated web tools’, ‘Collaborative curriculum design’, and

246

‘Learner-centered modalities’. The key institutional values that these themes illustrate, I called, ‘affordable’, ‘unified’, ‘common’, ‘aligned’, ‘variable’, and ‘user-centric’. Within the action research approach of this study, I found that ‘institutional/global materials repositories’, ‘daily cycles of feedback’, ‘event-driven project goals’, ‘common multi-metaphor aims’, and ‘collaborative course development booklets’ were key themes related to program design. This led to key words of shared, recycled, affordable, ubiquitous, aligned, variable, transparent, intensive, formative, collaborative, and localized. Within the ethnographic approach of this study, I found that ‘principled, institutional values’, ‘curriculum-based, research groups’, ‘multi-role employment contract’, ‘fulltime faculty budgetary priority’, ‘required professional development’, and ‘curriculumdriven, language support services’ were key themes related to program design. Table 7.19 displays these findings. Table 7.19. Data themes related to program design and institutional culture key words Approach Data

Autoethnographic themes Action research Themes

Ethnographic Themes

Themes related to the question of

Institutional cultural

‘programs’

value key words

Economical costs Integrated web tools Collaborative curriculum design Learner-centered modalities

affordable unified common, aligned variable, user-centric

Institutional/global materials repositories Economical, standard equipment Multi-metaphor rubrics/incentives LMS tracking and display Weekly cycles of feedback Collaborative course booklets development

shared, recycled affordable, ubiquitous aligned, variable transparent intensive, formative collaborative, localized

Principled, institutional values Curriculum-based, research groups Multi-role employment contract Full-time faculty budgetary priority Required professional development Curriculum-driven, language support services

principled research-oriented, practice-based accountable, comprehensive committed accountable, growth-oriented integrated

I then defined principles by clustering the institutional culture key words, which emerged directly from the themes of the autoethnographic, action research and ethnographic approaches. The following sections describe these four principles of institutional blended language learning programs and recommend guidelines for administrative practice.

247

Principle 1: Collaboration The principle of collaboration is based on institutional culture values such as ‘researchoriented’, ‘growth-oriented’, ‘integrated’, ‘collaborative’, ‘common’, aligned’, and ‘shared’. The two institutions in this study dealt with collaboration in different ways, but both found that collaboration among teachers and administrations was essential in building environments where technologies were changing and materials development was localized. In Minami University, full-time faculty were required to participate in committee work, called ‘research teams’, and shared an ethos of growth through professional development and curriculum-design responsibilities. In Kita University, collaboration began through common research projects and a desire to spread the workload of materials creation. Although, the in-house course book intervention failed, the collaborative teamwork continued in team-taught courses and in monthly meetings to share lesson plans. •

Guideline 1: Institute distributed authority for curriculum design, materials development, and assessment systems within an array of teacher-researcher committees.

•

Guideline 2: Force research funding to be team-oriented and practice-based towards institutional needs.

•

Guideline 3: Ensure committed faculty by prioritizing funding for full-time status.

•

Guideline 4: Require professional development through team teaching, peer observation, presentations, publications, and meeting leadership.

Principle 2: Localization The principle of localization is based on institutional culture values such as ‘affordable’, ‘localized’, ‘practice-based’, and ‘recycled’. Localization means technological change is not dependent on national trends or top-down initiatives, but is directed from the classroom as teachers make small, incremental changes within flexible environments. This is called an iterative bricolage approach to development (or ‘make do with what you have’) rather than an invent-and-distribute approach. Training and development of technological skills is handled internally through peer-teacher coaching and externally through regional teaching associations. In Minami University, the responsibility for materials creation and course assessment practices is pushed down to the level of research teams. In Kita University, an ethos of individual teacher autonomy allows

248

teachers to make their own materials or collaborate with others as needed. In their blended learning rooms, teachers are not required to adopt new technologies, but have multiple options built into their spaces with networked computers available on-demand. •

Guideline 5: Renovate teaching spaces to flexibly handle pair work, group work, whole group activities, and individual computer work.

•

Guideline 6: Shift from dependence on marketed course books to a mix of flexible, in-house materials and globally-shared materials.

Principle 3: Variability The principle of variability is based on institutional culture values such as ‘principled’, ‘variable’, ‘user-centric’, ‘unified’, ‘intensive’, ‘inclusive’ and ‘project-based’. Variability means promoting multiple venues, multiple modalities, and multiple metaphors of learning. In this way, an institution adopts policies that promote teaching and learning with a variety of face-to-face, visual, audio and text modalities and creating a pedagogic vision that accepts multiple metaphors of learning including instruction, acquisition and participation. In Minami University, the desire to use multiple forms of audio/video texts were a driving force in promoting and justifying the blended learning spaces. In Kita University, multiple venues were available in blended learning rooms which allowed rapid switching between large screen projections of video and texts to online activities on the computers on the periphery of the classroom. •

Guideline 7: Instill a vision of multiple pedagogic metaphors, including instruction in language, acquisition of skills, and participation in projects.

•

Guideline 8: Offer multiple venues for students—online and face-to-face in the classroom, and both open community and closed LMS tasks for language learning.

•

Guideline 9: Build blended facilities and network infrastructure which allow easy use of video, audio, written and face-to-face modalities of texts.

Principle 4: Accountability The principle of accountability is based on institutional culture values such as ‘accountable’, ‘comprehensive’, ‘transparent’, and ‘committed’. Accountability means teachers, learners and administrators know the aims and semester objectives of each course in the curriculum and the results are transparently available for reflection by all

249

parties. The principle of accountability focuses on responsibilities of teachers and administrators to ensure transparency in the learning process and commitment to define and attain standards of language learning performance. In Minami University, these responsibilities were defined in full-time teacher contracts, and expanded continuously through professional development. The program itself was accountable to institutional standards of assessment (an annual proficiency test of four skills) as well as syllabusdefined assessments built by curriculum teams. In Kita University, these responsibilities became increasingly transparent as assessment scores were shared among teachers and the LMS combined teaching approaches when teaching teams were used. •

• •

Guideline 10: Formalize multi-role teacher contracts or team agreements that cover an individual’s comprehensive responsibilities for teaching, researching, socializing, and administrating. Guideline 11: Define assessment standards at the course level and the program level based on multiple literacies. Guideline 12: Make course results transparent through systematic feedback and reporting to students, teachers, and administration.

These four principles and their related twelve guidelines are summarized in Table 7.20.

250

Table 7.20. Principles, values and guidelines of technological change from site studies Principle

Key institutional Guidelines culture values

Principle 1: Collaboration

research-oriented, growth-oriented integrated collaborative, common, aligned shared project-based

Guideline 1: Institute distributed authority for curriculum design, materials development, and assessment systems within an array of teacher-researcher committees. Guideline 2: Force research funding to be team-oriented and practice-based towards institutional needs. Guideline 3: Ensure committed faculty by prioritizing funding for full-time status. Guideline 4: Require professional development through team teaching, peer observation, presentations, publications, and meeting leadership.

Principle 2: Localization

Principle 3: Variability

Principle 4: Accountability

affordable localized practice-based recycled

Guideline 5: Renovate teaching spaces to flexibly handle pair work, group work, whole group activities, and individual computer work.

principled variable, user-centric unified intensity tolerant project-based

Guideline 7: Instill a vision of multiple pedagogic metaphors, including instruction in language, acquisition of skills, and participation in projects.

principled variable, user-centric unified intensity tolerant project-based

Guideline 10: Formalize multi-role teacher contracts or team agreements that cover an individual’s comprehensive responsibilities for teaching, researching, socializing, and administrating.

Guideline 6: Shift from dependence on marketed course books to a mix of flexible in-house materials and globally-shared materials.

Guideline 8: Offer multiple venues for students—online and faceto-face in the classroom, and both open community and closed LMS tasks for language learning. Guideline 9: Build blended facilities and network infrastructure which allow easy use of video, audio, written and face-to-face modalities of texts.

Guideline 11: Define assessment standards at the course level and the program level based on multiple literacies. Guideline 12: Make course results transparent through systematic feedback and reporting to students, teachers, and administration.

CHAPTER SUMMARY In this chapter, I first presented a summary of data from three research approaches, which contradicted the essentialist, device-oriented model of technology prevalent in CALL theory and practice. I then reviewed literature to justify a reconceptualization of idea of technology, arguing that ecological and critical views of technology are more useful in blended environments. From these, I constructed a blended learning framework of

251

technology that, 1) defined multi-dimensional model of pedagogic technology and 2) offered guidelines for promoting technology change in institutions. The conceptualization was based on a continuum of face-to-face and online formats, and informed by a thematic analysis and cross-case analysis of data in this study. In the framework, technologies were first categorized by pedagogic action: narrative, interactive, adaptive, communicative, and productive. Each of these was described without a predetermined preference for electronic devices, but instead with a balance between face-to-face and online examples. Then, additional dimensions of the technology were described within an ecological network metaphor, illustrating embedded groupings, timings, texts and tools. Finally, I discussed how a multi-dimensional technology framework is related to definitions of language learning ‘tasks’ and the process of task-based learning. Importantly, in common usage within CALL, tools are often viewed as technology itself (i.e. ‘technology-mediated’), rather than a dimension within a technological ecology. This narrow view gives preference to branded, encapsulated objects that can be promoted with over-inflated powers of innovation. Furthermore, ethnical questions, such as conflicts of interest, can be raised when research focuses on and evaluates commercial, sometimes patent-restricted devices. While these tools may be attractive to educators, such as the current market for tablets and other mobile devices, I would argue that these tools by themselves are relatively minor in importance. It is the tool’s pedagogic use in combination with web of multiple devices, connected to human and stored databases, and configured in time and space that defines what a technology is. Therefore, in order to avoid a tool-centric perspective, a framework of actions, groupings, timings, texts and tools intentionally lists ‘tools’ as the last dimension of technology. In the next chapter, I summarize findings on the three questions of this study, note limitations on the methodologies and their implementation, project implications on CALL/second language learning theory, and recommend further research directions in the design of blended language learning environments.

252

CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH REVIEW OF AIMS, SCOPE, AND QUESTIONS In this chapter, I begin by reassessing the aim and scope of this research project as described in Chapter 1 before moving onto to summarize the findings from Chapters 4, 5, and 6. The aim of this study is to examine blended language learning environments and inquire as to how those hybrid face-to-face/online environments were designed. Two principal research questions emerged from that aim: •

Question 1: What are the dimensions of technology in designing a blended language learning environment? (classroom level)

•

Question 2: What conditions in the institutional culture promote blending of technologies? (program level)

The scope of this study was focused on two sites of tertiary-level EFL programs located in Japan. Each of those sites actively applied blended language learning in their curriculum and constructed a blended language learning infrastructure in their facilities. In addition, an autoethnographic study of thirty years of teaching practice in blended language learning provided a third ‘site’ for triangulation and insights into the design process.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Major findings in the autoethnographic approach In the autoethnographic approach to this study, retrospective inquiry of 28 academic publications, 23 presentation abstracts, and 34 critical incidents in my professional practice revealed fourteen themes related to blended language learning. Concerning pedagogies, my principal concerns in teaching practice were intensive formats, experiential settings, and involvement of overseas participants. I trialed a number of performance-based assessments in these teaching programs. Concerning roles, I emphasized multiple modalities according to learning style preferences and experimented

253

with computer-automated management of test taking. The main materials of classes were designed by teachers but also included student-generated content. Concerning technologies, I sought out ubiquitous tools that students already owned, and coupled these with face-to-face tasks and interfaces that used flexible spaces and varying groupings. I experimented heavily with web-based tools that were open source integrations of various tools. Table 8.1 lists these autoethnographic themes. Table 8.1. Summary of themes in the autoethnographic approach Pedagogies

Roles

Technologies

Intensive formats

Learner-centered modalities

Economical costs

Experiential settings

Computer-automated management

Face-to-face groupings

Overseas participants

Teacher designed texts

Flexible spaces and multiple venues

Performance-based assessment

Collaborative curriculum design

Engaging interfaces

Student-generated content

Integrated web tools

Major findings in the action research approach In the action research approach to this study, the interview and classroom observation data of three year-long cycles of interventions provided insider insight into the design of blended language learning environments resulting in eleven themes under three major themes: authoring, classrooms, and assessment. Concerning authoring, a teaching team attempted to develop courses collaboratively courses by jointly authoring project booklets, handouts, and media files. Long-term development of materials was unsustainable due to time-consuming production and weak incentives to the faculty. Concerning classrooms, the university successfully renovated five classrooms as blended learning classrooms based on values of economy, standardization, stability, and open source web software. Concerning assessment, an independent, autonomously-minded staff began ventures into transparent and inclusive assessment of their teaching and student learning. Assessments were based on multiple metaphors of learning, such as language structure mastery, strategy and skill development, and classroom participation. Table 8.2 lists these eleven themes according to authoring, classrooms, and assessment.

254

Table 8.2. Summary of themes in the action research approach Authoring

Classrooms

Assessment

Collaborative course development booklets

Economical, standard equipment

Multi-metaphor rubrics/incentives

Handout-supported face-to-face tasks

Stable internet connections

LMS tracking and display

Institutional/global materials repositories

Easy, customizable class websites

Multi-device recycling of content

Flexible seating arrangements

Weekly cycles of feedback

Major findings in the ethnographic approach In the ethnographic approach to this study, the interview and classroom observation data revealed nine themes of institutional culture that significantly affected the design of blended language learning environments.

Concerning leadership, a strong ethos of

collaborative, curricular research drove the actions of the faculty. This resulted in systematic, in-house materials development. Concerning personnel, the university ensured a committed, full-time faculty by prioritizing full-time employment over parttime contracts, by making common work patterns through a multi-role contract, and by requiring minimum standards of professional development.

Finally, concerning

infrastructure, teacher committees directly designed the architecture, furniture, networked LMS, social communication spaces and other language support services. Table 8.3 lists those themes. Table 8.3. Summary of themes in the ethnographic approach Leadership

Personnel

Infrastructure

‘distributed, collaborative leadership’

‘committed, full-time faculty’

‘teacher-designed facilities’

Principled, institutional values

Multi-role employment contract

Curriculum-driven, language support services

Curriculum-based, research groups

Full-time faculty budgetary priority

Flexible, blended learning classrooms

Systematic, in-house materials development

Required professional development

Critical, teacher-designed technologies

255

RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS This study contributes to the field of CALL, applied linguistics, and foreign language education in terms of theory, practice, and research design. In this section, I summarize the major contributions, which in my view, may impact and lead to further useful inquiry in these fields.

Contributions to theory Redefinition of technology for second language learning The main contribution of this study is a deconstruction and re-conceptualization of the core metaphor of ‘technology’. Technology is an assumed concept in CALL that roughly equates to ‘computer’ or ‘computerization’. This term has carried with it an ethos of positivism and triumphalism that ignored or negated the role of face-to-face techniques of learning and non-verbal modalities of communication. This in turn, led to separated research in the fields of mainstream applied linguistics and computer-assisted language learning. In this study, I found empirical evidence that the design of blended environments was less concerned with using devices and more concerned with methods that configured learner groupings, timings, actions and texts in local settings. These themes were strikingly consistent in the sites of the study and the autoethnographic assessment of my professional teaching practice. From these themes I constructed a conceptual model of dimensions, which in the respondent checking procedure, shows promise of intuitively allowing teachers to make sense of the changes that are happening in their classrooms. I justified this framework by reviewing the literature on pedagogic technology and referring to sociocultural, critical and ecological perspectives of technology. By building an inclusive framework, this model can be extended beyond blended environments to all aspects of second language learning, because the definition of technology is now wide enough to encompass all L2 environments, including CALL environments. This conceptual shift could lead to greater dialogue between CALL and applied linguistics. Table 8.4 shows how the prevailing metaphors of ‘normalization’ and ‘diffusion’ are shifted within an ecological metaphor of technology.

256

Table 8.4. Conceptual shifts in technology dimensions Techno-determinist view

Social-determinist view

Ecological, blended view

Normalization of computers

Diffusion of innovations Configuration of face-to(attributes of innovations) face/online technologies

•

Hardware integration

•

Software integration

•

Status

•

Actions

•

Space integration

•

Economics

•

Groupings

•

Values/beliefs

•

Timings

•

Observability

•

Texts

•

Tools

Integration of CALL and applied linguistics with an expanded TBL theory A second contribution to theory in second language learning is the greater integration of CALL and applied linguistics through an expanded task-based learning theory. In Chapter 7, I demonstrated how an expanded model of task-based learning (TBL) can include the concepts of ‘activity’ and ‘method’ into a wide view of ‘technology’. By giving ‘technology’ a major focus in TBL, the contributions of CALL can be better integrated into mainstream discussions of task design in communicative teaching and learning. When the definition of ‘technology’ is no longer focused on electronic devices, as in current CALL metaphors, technologies can easily fit into TBL designs as a less dominant factor. A task designer can use electronic devices to expand the variability of learning, but is not limited to tools as the sole source of variability. Varying the texts, timings and groupings, and actions may open more possibilities for designing engaging, meaningful tasks. Localized combination of these dimensions may lead to a more appropriately-designed technology to fit within a task. The shift in metaphors emerges from a device-oriented CALL model and a deviceminimalized TBL model to an expanded TBL model that includes technology. This expanded model, which I call ‘blended language learning’ or ‘BLL’ sees technology not as option to be included or excluded, but as an integral part of every task. In CALL, technological devices tends to hold an implicit value of ‘enhancing’ the language learning processes, whereas TBL or less CALL-friendly perspectives might be more skeptical to the value of the device. In BLL, technology has no value universally. Its only

257

value is contextualized in the local teaching situation. Table 8.5 elaborates on these shifts in second language learning theory. Table 8.5. Conceptual shifts in second language learning theory CALL deviceoriented view

Task-based learning View (TBL)

Expanded task-based learning view (BLL)

Image

Technology is single dimensional—tools.

Technology is single dimensional—tools.

Technology is multidimensional.

Role

Technology is optional.

Technology is optional.

Technology is integrated into all tasks.

Value

Technology enhances, assists and improves tasks.

Technology may not improve a task.

Technology has localized, contextualized value, no universal value.

Technology replaces face-to-face techniques.

Technology is separate from a task, not face-to-face.

Multiple technologies are linked and configured to build a task.

Implication

Contributions to practice This study contributed to the practice of second language teaching and learning by specifying a preliminary framework of program environments for innovation. The framework was based on a critical perspective of innovation that emphasized an iterative, teacher-controlled pace of change. This view challenges metaphors of change based on diffusion theory or the normalization of computers metaphor. The four principles proposed are: 1) Collaboration, 2) Localization, 3) Variability, and 4) Accountability. From these principles, I extracted twelve specific guidelines of institutional policy. These policy guidelines can prevent overly ambitious and short-sighted planning of technological change, which is often blamed the result of the Hawthorne effect. When asked why CALL and educational technology research is so often positive and optimistic, short-term analysis of practice is often an issue. The Hawthorne effect in educational research (Clark & Sugrue, 1991) suggests that in studies where a teacher believes in an innovation and students know they are participating in a hopefully useful change, the result will almost always be short-term improvement. Thus, people will respond positively to any novel change in the environment (Jex, 2002). This effect

258

suggests that students designated for an innovation study will improve their learning behavior to some degree because of the attention they receive. Thus, positive, short-term reports should be viewed with skepticism because they are almost always positive, and rarely show long term documentation of the innovation process, instead reporting on the first initial change.

By following the twelve guidelines for blending technologies,

institutions are more likely to use long-term perspectives in the practice of second language teaching and learning.

Contributions to research methodology CALL research has been criticized for a pro-innovation bias, techno-centric frameworks, and overreliance on tool analysis or comparative media designs (Huh & Hu, 2005). At the same time, CALL research has been urged to rely more on qualitative, contextual modes of inquiry (Kern & Warschauer, 2000). This study avoided a comparative study of instructional design, and instead introduced two new research approaches, which can be employed for contextual inquiry of environments. It reported failures of innovation and used those failures to provide evidence for a broader non-tool-centric definition of technology. Two of the methodologies employed, autoethnography and action research, to my knowledge, have been rarely applied as CALL research methodologies. In addition, a third approach, ethnography, has not been applied to the design of institutional CALL policies. Due to the lack of precedence, in Chapter 3, I justified the use of action research for the investigation of blended programs where iterative change occurs. I answered critics concerns about the rigor of action research and justified its use especially for collaborative teaching teams who are tackling a host of learning problems simultaneously in institutional settings. One of the key questions about action research is how to handle positionality, the role of an insider or an outsider conducting a study. I proposed a research design based on a mixed positionality that combines a deep insider position in one case, with another outside case to provide triangulation, or greater trustworthiness in the research. In addition, I examined the design of cycles of inquiry and how collaborative research teams can create questions or problem to focus the inquiry. In this way, action research served as the primary methodology, placing autoethnography and ethnography in a triangulating role. Further, in Chapter 3, I justified autoethnography and ethnography as valuable approaches for both ‘human’ and ‘machine’ investigations. Autoethnography provided the widest view of factors, as it

259

pulled data from a variety of university teaching situations and gave an historical context to the motivations of this study. Ethnography allowed a cultural understanding of institutional practices that led to the creation of blended learning principles and policies for institutional programs.

APPLICABILITY AND IMPLICATIONS In a qualitative study, the aim is not to produce generalizable results, but to project applicability of findings, or suggest the ‘likelihood’ of usefulness (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). In this section, I speculate on the application of the findings, the limitations of the research process and the implications for members of the broader community within second language learning.

Applicability of the findings There are two aspects to the applicability of this study. First, the applicability of the findings is highly localized and it is likely that no other institution even in Japan would have the same conditions and results. However, by discerning some common themes and building classroom level and program level frameworks of design, teachers and administrators of foreign language programs can apply and expand the model built here in this study. Its applicability may span particularly to large-scale tertiary foreign language institutions that have created more independent programs, staffed with fulltime, native-speaking faculty. The ethnographic data shows that when staff are not bound to academic traditions, it is easier build contracts that attract teachers committed to collaborative research, materials development and blended learning principles. It is interesting to note that according to professional development staff at Minami University, their personnel management system, SALC and blended learning rooms are being replicated in two other universities in Japan. In addition, Kita University applied the principles of Minami University by reworking future personnel contracts to emphasize collaborative teaching and faculty development participation. Second, the applicability of new theory, the expanded task-based learning framework, can be broad, extending to all forms of second language and foreign language learning irrespective of national context. By combining evolving face-to-face techniques with similarly changing electronic technologies, non-CALL-oriented teachers can understand the complexity of multi-media and Web 2.0 designs without having to sacrifice current

260

teaching practice. CALL-oriented teachers can expand their range of teaching expertise by recognizing and incorporating appropriate face-to-face technique and paper-based texts into their lesson planning.

Implications for CALL research For researchers, the problem of separation of research communities between CALL and applied linguistics can be addressed by expanding the concept of technology to a wide, blended view. This study does not answer the question, ‘what is a technology?’ directly, but like Bijker (2010) observes, asks the question, ‘how to make technology?’. The simple answer to that question is technologies are made by configuring actions, groupings/spaces, timings, texts, and tools. The implication is that models of CALL theory may need to shift. Egbert (2005b) defines ‘the CALL equation’ as (p. 5): •

Learners + Language + Context + Tools + Tasks/activities +- Peers/teachers = CALL

In the ecological, multi-dimensional perspective used in this study, ‘context’ and ‘tools’ are no longer separate entities, but are blended into the technology through groupings/spaces, timings, and tools. Activities are part of the ‘action’ dimension of technology. Learners are situated in an institution or community of other learners, and derive their meaningful tasks from doing the ‘work’ of that community. Language, in the case of L2 learning, is a target language that is part of the task and the text of technology. In a blended world, that language is a mix of live and recorded language, semiotics, and other forms of non-verbal communication. This research viewpoint implies a change in the equation to: + Learners in community (new learners, veteran peers, teachers, mentors, global partners) + Language (including live and recorded texts, semiotics, nonverbal communication) + Technologies (face-to-face and online activities, techniques, and tools) + Tasks, syllabus, curriculum = Blended language learning (or, integrated CALL, or, expanded TBL) In short, blended language learning is: •

‘Learners using language through technologies in tasks’

261

This definition is potentially dramatic in building institutional learning communities because it includes all teachers in the technologizing efforts and removes the false dichotomy between ‘tech teachers’ and ‘classroom teachers’. The key attraction in adopting a blended approach is that it creates a ‘third space’ between colleagues who either strongly advocate, or strongly resist, the use of electronic technologies in language learning and teaching. Ideally, blended approaches equally advocate face-to-face technologies, online technologies, print technologies and emergent forms that we have yet to anticipate. They evolve and grow from teacher initiatives that are incremental and sustainable. In turn, curriculum change becomes an integral part of a university language program in ways that foster ownership and collegiality.

Directions for teacher education Concerning the question of teacher education in language learning technologies, the results of this study point to task-driven, not tool-driven, design of blended learning environments. The implication for second language teacher education is that technologies should not be taught as a separate course, which would imply a tool-driven approach. Instead, technology design should be a part of all pedagogic-related courses with both technical and pedagogic knowledge and skills combined in the training process. There should be no separation of face-to-face technologies from online technologies, nor any device given excessive privilege of attention. In this view, I have revised the table of necessary teacher knowledge and skills by Hubbard and Levy (2006) according to blended language learning principles in Table 8.6.

262

Table 8.6. Types of blended language learning knowledge and skills for teacher education (adapted from Hubbard & Levy, 2006, p. 6) Technical

Pedagogical

Blended language learning knowledge

Systematic and incidental understanding of technological ecosystems, including timings, groupings, spaces, texts, and tools for both online and face-to-face settings.

Systematic and incidental understanding of ways to effectively vary pedagogic types in language learning tasks, including informational, interactive, adaptive, communicative, and productive activity types.

Blended language learning skill

Ability to evaluate, configure and use technical knowledge and experience both for operation of various and evolving face-to-face techniques and mobile/stationary devices inside and outside of the classroom.

Ability to evaluate, configure and use technical knowledge and experience to facilitate creation of effective materials, content, and tasks, and to monitor and assess results appropriately within lesson, curricular, and international contexts.

Directions for future research One of the initial questions of this study was, “What are roles and power in the design of blended environments?” I chose to designate this question for later research. In future studies, researchers may study blended approaches and single mode approaches (face-toface dominant or online dominant) in terms of power, process, product, worldview and ontology. In a blended approach, the power in the design process is distributed and localized, co-created by the teacher and faculty teams, and possibly with learners as well. In environments where face-to-face lecture-narrative teaching is popular, or course book designed courses are prevalent, the power in design tends to be specialist-centered, publisher-centered, and software developer-centered. In terms of design process and product, blended approaches are in continual, iterative change resulting in configurations of unique classroom ecologies. The orthodox process of design, however, is to prepare an invention in a research lab, encapsulate/brand it, then release and market it to global markets. Philosophically, blended approaches do not ascribe the causes and effects of

263

innovation as determined by technological or social forces, but see a web of relations that view socio-technical world of language education as a hybrid of human/material action. These conceptual shifts highlight potential differences in the framing of approaches to designing learning environments (Table 8.6). Table 8.7. Conceptual framing of a blended approach to learning environments Single-venue paradigm

Blended approaches

Power

Specialist-centered

Co-created

Process

Design as an initial stage

Design as a continual process

Product

Encapsulated inventions

Networked configurations

Worldview Technological or social determinism Relational/Pragmatic Ontology

Categorical

Hybrid

Other directions for future research may include factors discussed in the data chapters that were unaccounted for in later analysis and framework construction. These include 1) class size and its affect on design, 2) cultural values and their affect on design, and 3) horizontal and vertical integration within design (see Levy & Stockwell, 2006, p.232 for a discussion).

SUMMARY OF THESIS In this thesis, I have argued for a balance in the use of technologies for language learning, a balance that recognizes face-to-face techniques or technologies on an equal basis as electronic devices. The multi-dimensional framework of technologies was intended as a way to unite these two types of technologies. In this ecological view, I found that blended learning is increasingly grounded in collaborative design approaches that rest on multiple metaphors based on ‘learning as socialization and participation’, ‘learning as acquisition’, and ‘learning as instruction’. As a theoretical foundation, I reviewed works that point to blended approaches to learning, what factors make it work, and what issues are unresolved. I also reviewed how second language learning theory has impacted blended learning, explaining that recent theories see the social environment as paramount, while metaphors that reduce education to ‘input’ and ‘output’ are less appropriate for this study. Ecological metaphors that describe a web of actors and

264

affordances in a rich, supportive environment are more useful in understanding the interplay of technologies in tasks. This fits with new views of cognition look at ways thinking is situated in real world contexts and emerges from enacted purposes and goals. Knowledge is embedded in learner-designed projects, while contribution and participation form the measurements of success. This theoretical foundation provides a view that productive blended learning embraces a holistic view of the role of technologies in second language education. In Chapter 3, I assessed my research philosophy, justified research approaches appropriate for blended inquiry and build a research design. This design took the form of a longitudinal study of blended EFL programs at two Japanese universities. Over five years, I employed three qualitative approaches for enquiry: institutional ethnography, action research and auto-ethnography. The results of the autoethnography showed that technologies consist of not only electronic tools, but also a diverse multi-dimensional collection of groupings, timings, texts, spaces, and materials. The results of the action research, three cycles from 2005-2009 at Site One, indicated that a mix of pedagogic metaphors influence the design of technologies, that the role of teachers is changing from material consumers to material authors and producers, and that the failure of integration is related to immature and unsustainable selection of technologies. Finally, the results of the ethnography in Site Two suggested that action research teams are required to design, support, and reconfigure technology interventions in institutional environments. Personnel policies that enforce embedded team research were instrumental in this site. To conclude, I proposed a multidimensional view of technologies in Chapter 7. Beginning with work by Laurillard (2002) that emphasizes pedagogic actions, I argued for a wide definition of technologies that includes variations in groupings (pair, smallgroup,

whole-group,

individual

spaces),

timings

(simultaneous/separate,

periodic/intensive pacing), texts (verbal and non-verbal media), spaces (online/offline), and tools (equipment, furniture, networks and software). I then applied this framework to blended learning lessons and tasks in EFL classrooms held in a university setting. When teachers prepare lessons, they balance the given factors (rooms, furniture, materials, common equipment) with their working principles (curriculum, syllabus, beliefs about good teaching) and the flexible factors (patterns of interaction, sequence of activities, management, and technology configurations). In one oral communication task, the design

265

incorporated online and classroom activities over three sessions of classes. Nineteen technologies were identified within this task, and each one was configured in regards to pedagogic actions, groupings, timings, texts, and tools. Chapter 7 also proposes principles of designing blended learning programs from an institutional view. I argued that a universal ‘best practice’ view of describing cases of blended language learning has limitations, and adopt a framework that localizes the design. These principles emerged from observing the blended learning infrastructure design and interviewing administrators involved in the implementation at two Japanese universities. Classroom infrastructure was created in a new building in one site requiring a broad consensus on types of furniture, common electronic devices, and patterns of interaction in the rooms. The system of eight teams of researchers building materials and training each other in technologies was instrumental to its success. At the other site, change was also dependent on bottom-up teacher initiatives. A three-year set of action research interventions by small teams of teachers met with a variety of successes and failures. Throughout this thesis, I have explored the theory and practice of blending technologies in university language programs. To help make sense of blended environments, I have structured a view on the process of innovation at two institutional sites with large EFL programs. Through three cycles of action research, an institutional ethnography, and a career autoethnography, I found evidence that the blending of technologies in face-toface and online language learning is best achieved through collaborative, localized, variable, and accountable practices that are developed within a community of practice. With

an

ecological

model

of

technologies,

I

demonstrated

an

expanded,

multidimensional concept of technologies that include variations in pedagogic actions, groupings, timings, texts and tools. From this understanding, blended learning is not a new concept but is “as old as CALL itself” (Neumeier, 2005, p. 163).

266

REFERENCES Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Akrich, M. and Latour, B. (1992).

A summary of convenient vocabulary for the

semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In W. Bijker and J. Law (Eds.) Shaping technology/Building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 259-264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Allen, I. & Seaman, R. (2007). Why blended learning: A survey of practitioners. In A. Picciano & C. Dzuiban (Eds.), Blended learning research and perspectives (pp. 65-82). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Anderson, G., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. (1994). Studying your own school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Antes, T. A. (1996). Kinesics: The value of gesture in language and in the language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 439-448. Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bainbridge, S. & O'Shea, P. (2010). An integrated approach: The techniques for teaching pronunciation skills and communicating in the ESL classroom. TESOL Arabia. Retreived from http://hdl.handle.net/2149/2860 Barson J. & Debski R. (1996). Calling back CALL: Technology in the service of foreign language learning based on creativity, contingency, and goal-oriented activity. In M. Warschauer (Ed.) Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 49-68). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Bax, S. (2003). CALL-past, present and future. System, 31,13-28.

267

Beatty, K. (2003). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning. London: Pearson Education. Beckett, G. H. & Miller, C. R. (2006). Project-Based second and foreign language education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Bednar, A., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., & Perry, J. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy and D. H. Jonassen (eds.). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A conversation. (pp. 17-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.å Benson, P. & Nunan, D. (2005). Learners' stories: Difference and diversity in language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Berg, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Bergdall, T. (1993). Methods for active participation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Berggren, A., Burgos, D., Fontana, J., Hinkelman, D., Hung, V., Hursh, A.,

&

Tielemans, G. (2005). Practical and pedagogical issues for teacher adoption of IMS learning design standards in Moodle LMS. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2 ,1-24. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/2005/02 Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies, and lessons learned. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Bielawski, L. & Metcalf, D. (2003). Blended e-learning. Amherst, MA: HRD Press. Bijker, W. E. (2010). How is technology made?--That is the question!. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 63-76. Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136. Blake, R., Wilson, N., Cetto, M., & Pardo-Ballestar, C. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 12 (3), 114-127. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

268

Bollen, D., Cooke, S., Fenton-Smith, B., Rivers, D. J., Ruegg, R., Stillwell, C., & Yamamoto, K. (2010). Taking action on professional development. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT 2009 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT. Bonk, C. J. & Graham, C. R. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borg, S. (2003). ‘Research education’ as an objective for teacher learning. In B. Beaven & S. Borg (Eds.), The role of research in teacher education (pp. 41-8). Whitstable, Kent: IATEFL. Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers' conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 358-388. Boswood, T. (Ed.) (1997). New ways of using computers in language teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning: Beyond quality and competence in higher education. London: Kogan Page. Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative language teaching in action: Putting principles to work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Breen, M. (1984). Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In C. Brumfit (ed.): General English Syllabus Design. Oxford: Pergemon Press. Breen, M. & Candlin, C. (2001). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in English language teaching: A reader, (pp. 9-26). London: Routledge. Breen, M. & Littlejohn, M. (eds.) (2000). Classroom decision-making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brodsky, M. (2003). E-learning trends, today and beyond. Learning and Training Innovations. Retrieved June 2004: http://www.elearningmag.com/ltimagazine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=56219.

269

Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Brown, I., Lockyer, L. & Caputi, P. (2010). ‘Multiliteracies and assessment practice’ (Chapter 11). In D. R. Cole and D. R. Pullen (Eds.) Multiliteracies in motion (pp. 191206). London: Routledge. Brown, J. (2000). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change Magazine, March/April, pp. 11-20. Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Hienemann. Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Burns, A. (2005). Action research: An evolving paradigm? Language Teaching, 38(2), 57-74. Burns, A. (2009). Action research in second language teacher education. In A. Burns and J. Richards (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 289-297). New York: Cambridge University Press. Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. London, UK: Pearson Education. Callon, M. (1986). The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In M. Callon, J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. (pp. 19-34). London: Macmillan Press Callon, M. & Law, J. (1997). After the individual in society: Lessons on collectivity from science, technology and society. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22(2) 165-182. Calori, R. (2005). Real time/real space research: Connecting action research in organization studies. In Cooke. B. & Cox, J. (Eds.), Fundamentals of action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

270

Campbell, L. (2004). Networked learning/learning networks. Unpublished thesis, University of Melbourne. Candlin, C. (2000). Afterforeword: Taking the curriculum to task. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain, (Eds). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing, (pp. 229-243). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Chambers, A. & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalization. System, 34, 465-479. Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapelle, C. (2010). The spread of computer-assisted language learning. Language Teaching, 43(1), 66-74. Chapelle, C. & Douglas, D. (2006). Assessing language through computer technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapelle, C. & Lui, H. (2007). Theory and research: Investigating authenticity. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (Second ed.), (pp. 111-29). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Churches,

A.

(2011).

Rubrics

for

digital

assignments.

Retrieved

from

http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Rubrics+-Bloom%27s+Digital+Taxonomy Clark, R. E. & Sugrue, B. M. (1991). Research into instructional technology. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future (pp. 327-43). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Coghlan, D. & Brannick, T. (2001). Doing action research in your own organization. London: Sage. Collins, A. & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology. New York: Teachers College Press.

271

Colpaert, J. (2006). Pedagogy-driven design for online language teaching and learning. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 477-497. Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2008). ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50, 511–524. Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Corbel, C. (2007). Teachers’ roles in the global hypermedia environment. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching, Volume 2 (pp. 1113–1124). New York: Springer Verlag. Corbel, C., Gruba, P. & Enright, H. (2002). Taking the web to task. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. Corson, D. (1997). Critical realism: An emancipatory philosophy for applied linguistics? Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 166-188. Costello, P. J. M. (2003). Action research. New York: Continuum. Coulter, D. (2002). What counts as action in educational action research? Educational Action Research, 10(2), 189-206. Crisp, G. (2007). The e-assessment handbook. London: Continuum. Crookes, G. (2009). Values, philosophies, and beliefs in TESOL: Making a statement. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cuban, L. (2009). Hugging the middle: How teachers teach in an era of testing and accountability. New York: Teachers College Press. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the English language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62.

272

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2009). Interactive whiteboards and the normalisation of CALL. In R. Marriott & P. Torres (Eds.), Handbook of research on e-learning methodologies for language acquisition (pp. 69-83). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Silva, D. (2003). The reflective educator's guide to classroom research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer. Debski, R. (2000). Exploring the recreation of a CALL innovation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13 (4-5), 307-332. Debski, R. (2006). Project-oriented language teaching with technology. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. Debski, R. & Gruba, P. (1998). Attitudes towards language learning through social and creative computing. In K.C. Cameron (Ed.) Multimedia CALL: Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the Exeter 1997 Conference, (pp. 51-56). Exeter: Elm Bank Publications. DeFrancisco, V. & Palczewski, C. (2007). Communicating gender diversity: A critical approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. (1999). Biographical research methods. In J. Keeves & L. Lakomski (Eds.), Issues in educational research. Oxford: Pergemon. Dodds, T. (2007). Information technology: A contributor to innovation in higher education. In T. S. Glickman, & S. C. White (Eds.), Managing for innovation (pp. 8595). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dörnyei, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 589-630. Edge, J. (2001). Action research. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Edge, J. & Richards, K. (1998). Why best practice isn’t good enough. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 569-576. Egbert, J. (2005a). CALL essentials: Principles and practices in CALL classrooms. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Egbert, J. (2005b). Conducting research on CALL. In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 3-8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

273

Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.) (2007). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Egbert, J., Paulus, T., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on language classroom technology use: A foundation for rethinking CALL teacher education? Language Learning and Technology, 6(3), 108-126. Egbert, J. & Petrie, G. (Eds.) (2005). CALL research perspectives. Malweh, NJ: Erlbaum. Egbert, J., Hanson-Smith, E. & Chao, C. (2007). Introduction: Foundations for teaching and learning. In J. Egbert and E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-14). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Egbert, J., Huff, L., McNeil, L., Preuss, C., & Sellen, J. (2009). Pedagogy, process, and classroom context: Integrating teacher voice and experience into research on technologyenhanced language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 754-768. Egbert, J. & Thomas, M. (2001). The new frontier: A case study in applying instructional design for distance teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 391-406. Eklund, J., Kay, M., & Lynch, H. (2003). E-Learning: Emerging issues and key trends. Sydney: Australian National Training Authority. Ellis, R. (1989). Classroom learning styles and their effect on second language acquisition. System, 17, 249-262. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-220. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erben, T., Ban, R., & Castañeda, M. E. (2008). Teaching English language learners through technology. London: Routledge.

274

Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Crows Nest, AU: Allen & Unwin. Farmer, R.A., & Gruba, P. (2006). Model-driven end-user development in CALL. Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 19(2/3), 149-191. Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. New York: Oxford University Press. Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. New York: Oxford University Press. Feenberg, A. (2008). Critical theory of technology: An overview. In G. Leckie & J. Buschman (Eds.), Information technology in librarianship: New critical approaches. (pp. 31-46). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Feldman, M. S. & Pentland, B. (2005). Organizational routines and the macro-actor. In B. Czarniawska & T. Hernes (Eds.), Actor-network theory and organizing (pp. 91-110). Stockholm: Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press. Felix, U. (2008). The unreasonable effectivness of CALL: What have we learned in two decades of research? Recall, 20(2), 141-161. Fenwick, T. & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. London, Routledge. Fotos, S. (2004). Writing as talking: E-mail exchanges for promoting proficiency and motivation in the foreign language classroom. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.) New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 109-130). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From enquiry to understanding. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Fried-Booth, D. (2002). Project work (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. London: Hodder Education. Ganem-Gutierrez, G. (2003). Beyond interaction: The study of collaborative activity in computer-mediated tasks. ReCALL, 15(1), 94-112.

275

Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 719-740. Garrison, R., & Vaughan, H. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Godwin-Jones, R. (2009). Emerging technologies: Personal learning environments. Language Learning and Technology, 13(2), 3-9. Graddol, D. (1994). ‘What is a text?’ (Chapter 3). In D. Graddol and O. Boyd-Barrett (Eds.) Media texts: Authors and readers, (pp 40-50). Clevedon, UK; Multilingual Matters. Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council. Graham, C. (2001). Acquisition and participation: Two metaphors are better than one. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(3), 22-26. Graham, C. R., & Dziuban, C. (2008). Blended learning environments. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 270-274). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Graham, C. R. & Robison, R. (2007). Realizing the transformational potential of blended learning: Comparing cases of transforming blends and enhancing blends in higher education. In A. Picciano & C. Dzuiban (Eds.), Blended learning research and perspectives (pp. 83-110). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Graves, K. (1996). Teachers as course developers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Grose, T., Hinkelman, D., Rian, J. & McGarty, G. (2009). Assessment strategies of a university EFL curriculum in Japan. Journal of the Faculty of Humanities, Sapporo Gakuin University, 70(2),1-25. Gruba, P. (2004a). Computer assisted language learning (CALL). In A. Davies & D. Elder (Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 623-48). London: Blackwell. Gruba, P. (2004b). Designing tasks for online collaborative language learning. Prospect, 19(2), 72-81.

276

Gruba, P. (2006). Playing the videotext: A media literacy perspective on video-mediated L2 listening. Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 77-92. Grunberg, J., & Summers, M. (1992). Computer innovation in schools: A review of selected research literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 1(2), 255-276. Gurney, M. (1989). Implementer or innovator: A teacher's challenge to the restrictive paradigm of traditional research. In P. Lomax (Ed.), The management of change (pp. 1351). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hagley, E. (2002). Improving oral communication pedagogy through the use of tape recorders. JALT Hokkaido Journal, 6. Retrieved on 20 January 2010, from http://jalthokkaido.net/jh_journal/2002/Hagley.htm Hall, D. (2001). Materials production: Theory and practice. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in English language teaching: A reader (pp. 229-39). London: Routledge. Handel, G. (1991). Collective time-collective practice. Curriculum Journal, 2, 317-334. Hanson-Smith, E. (2006). Communities of practice for pre- and in-service teacher education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 301-16). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Hanson-Smith, E. (2007). Critical issues: Places and spaces. In J. Egbert & E. HansonSmith (Eds.), CALL environments (pp. 42-58). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Harding, S. (2008). Sciences from below: Feminisms, postcolonialities, and modernities. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Harklau, L. (2005). Ethnography and ethnographic research on second language teaching and learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 179-94). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Harwood, N. (2010). Issues in materials development and design. In N. Harwood (Ed.) English language teaching materials (p. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Herr, K. & Anderson, G. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

277

Higgins, J. & Johns, T. (1984). Computers in language learning. London: Collins. Hinkelman, D. (1996). Reliability of a fluency-based oral English test for large low-level classes. Journal of Hokkaido University of Education (1C) 47(1),151-169. Hinkelman, D. (2004). EML and implications for task design in blended L2 environments. Proceedings of Pacific Computer Assisted Language Learning Conference, 962-973. Hinkelman, D. (2005). Blended learning: Issues driving an end to laboratory-based CALL. JALT Hokkaido Journal, 9, 17-31. Hinkelman, D. (2009). Revival of paper: Booklets and textbooks in blended language learning. In M. Thomas (Ed.), JALTCALL 2008 Conference Proceedings (pp. 35-40). Nagoya, Japan: JALTCALL. Hinkelman, D. & Grose, T. (2005). Placement testing and audio quiz-making with open source software. Pacific CALL Journal. 1(1), 59-69. Hinkelman, D., Okuda, O., Johnson, A., Ishikawa, S., & Grose, T. (2008). Mobile phone technology integration into open source LMS for university general education classes in Japan. Journal of the Faculty of Humanities. Sapporo Gakuin University. 69(2), 34-51. Hinkelman, D., Okuda, O., & Kudo, Y. (2005). Development and experimental operation of a WWW-based bidirectional lecture management system. Sapporo Gakuin University Faculty Development Report. Volume 2, pp. 7-10. Hislope, K., (2008). Language learning in a virtual world. The International Journal of Learning, 15(11), 51-58. Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237-264. Holt, N. (2003). Representation, legitimation, and autoethography: An autoethographic writing story. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 1-22. Hornborg, A. (2001). The power of the machine: Global inequalities of economy, technology, and environment. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Hornborg, A. (2008). Machine fetishism and the consumer's burden. Anthropology Today, 24(5), 4-5.

278

Hubbard, P. (2005). A review of subject characteristics in CALL research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(5), 351-368. Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 175-188. Hubbard, P. & Levy, M. (Eds.) (2006). Teacher education in CALL. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal approach. Milton Park: Routledge. Jex, S. M. (2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Johnston, B. (2007). Theory and research: Audience, language use, and language learning. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues, 2nd ed. (pp. 61-70). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Marra, R., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. Jones, C. (2007). Designing for practice. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 166-179). London: Routledge. Kaghan, W. & Bowker, G. (2001). Out of machine age?: Complexity, sociotechnical systems and actor network theory. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18(3-4), 253-269 . Kawai, G. (2006). English language collaborative learning in asynchronous online environments. In Proceedings of the Computer Aided Language Instruction Consortium Conference (CALICO 2006). Honolulu, Hawaii. Kay, W., Gemmell, P., Johnson, A. & Hinkelman, D. (2007). Blended language learning: Using wireless notebooks and a project-based approach. Journal of the Faculty of Humanities, Sapporo Gakuin University, 82, 45-79.

279

Klebl, M. (2004). IMS Learning Design: First-hand Experience in Creating Courses. Retrieved

22

April,

2004,

from

http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/

mmiss/workshop/presentations/ Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy, democracy, and the reconstruction of education. In D. Macedo & S.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Media literacy: A reader (pp. 3-23). New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Kemmis, S. (2007). Action research. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Educational research and evidence-based practice (pp. 167-80). London, UK: Sage. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (Eds.) (1992). The action research planner, 3rd ed. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Kennedy, C., & Levy, M. (2009). Sustainability and computer-assisted language learning: Factors for success in a context of change. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(5), 445-463. Kennewell, S., Parkinson , J., & Tanner, H. (2000). Developing the ICT capable school. London: Routledge Falmer. Kern R. & Warschauer, M. (2000). Introduction: Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.) Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kerras, K. M. & DeWitt, D. C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Education Media, 28(2), 101-113. Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 23-42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Knutson, S. (2003). Experiential learning in second-language classrooms. TESL Canada Journal, 20(2), 52-64. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Koenig, T. (2005). CAQDAS—A primer. [Web page] Retrieved July 2, 2005, from the http://www.restore.ac.uk/lboro/research/software/caqdas_comparison.php database. Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

280

Kramsch, C. (Ed). (2002a). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London, UK: Continuum. Kramsch, C. (2002b). Introduction: How can we tell the dancer from the dance? In C. Kramsch (Ed.). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 1-30). London: Continuum. Kramsch, C. & Thorne, S. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 83-100). London: Routledge. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergemon. Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge. Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold. Krücken, G. (2003). Learning the 'new, new thing': On the role of path dependency in university structures. Higher Education 46(3), 315-339. Lafford, B. (2009). Toward an ecological CALL: Update to Garrett (1991). Modern Language Journal, 93, 673-696. Lamy, M. N. & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Lantolf, J. (Ed). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

281

Larsson, S. (2006). Ethnography in action. How ethnography was established in Swedish educational research. Ethnography and Education, 1(2), 177-195. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225-58). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd edition). London: Routledge Farmer. Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1) 5-20. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Law, J. (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In W. Bijker, T. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 111-134). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge. Leather, J. & Van Dam, J. (Eds). (2003). Ecology of language acquisition. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer. Leaver, B. & Willis, J. (2004). Task-based instruction in foreign language education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. LeCompte, M. & Goetz, J. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31-60. Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Computer uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education, 49(2), 284-296.

282

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Levy, M. (2007). Research and technological innovation in CALL. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 180-190. Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 769-782. Levy, M. & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in ComputerAssisted Language Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lewins, A. & Silver, C. (2004). Choosing a CAQDAS Software Package. [Web page] http://caqdas.soc.surrey.ac.uk/Choosing%20a%20CAQDAS%20package%20%20Lewins&Silver.pdf Accessed: December 1, 2005. Lievrouw, L., & Livingstone, S. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of New Media: Social shaping and social consequences. London: Sage. Lippincott, J. (2007). Student content creators: Convergence of literacies. Educause Review, 42(6), 16-17. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In D. deBot, R. Coste, & C. Ginsberg (Eds.) Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Long, M. & Richards, J. (2001). Series editors' preface. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Computer applications in second language acquisition (pp. xiii-xiv). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mackey, A. & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. MacKenzie, D., Promnitz-Hayashi, L., Jenks, D., Geluso, J., Delgado, R., Castellano, J. & Hinkelman, D. (2011). Blended learning spaces: Synchronous blending. JALTCALL Journal, 7(1), 43-60. Mackenzie, J. (2002). Just in time technology. Bellingham, WA: FNO Press.

283

MacMillan, K. & Koenig, T. (2004). The wow factor: Preconceptions and expectations for data analysis software in qualitative research. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 179-186. Markee, N. (2001). The diffusion of innovation in language teaching. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.) Innovation in English language teaching (pp. 118-126). London: Routledge. Marshall, T. (1989). The whole world guide to language learning. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Martineau, J. (2001). Autoethnography and material culture. Biography, 24(1), 242-258. Martin-Kniep, G. O. (2008). Communities that learn, lead, and last: Building and sustaining educational expertise. San Francisco: Wiley Jossey-Bass. Masie, E. (2006). The blended learning imperative. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.) Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 22–26). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McKay, S. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McPherson, M. & Nunes, J. (2004). Developing innovation in online learning: An action research framework. London: Routledge Falmer. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. MEXT (2008). Basic School Survey. Tokyo: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Tokyo: Japan. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://www.ipss.go.jp/p-info/e/psj2008/PSJ2008-11.xls MEXT (2011). Higher education in Japan. Tokyo: Higher Education Bureau, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/highered/1302653.htm

284

Moodle (2005). General developer forum. Retrieved on 15 December 2009 from: http://docs.moodle.org/20/en/MFM Monge, P. & Contractor, N. (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moser, F. Z. (2007). Faculty adoption of educational technology. Educause Quarterly, 30(1), 66-69. Motteram, G. & Sharma, P. (2009). Blending learning in a web 2.0 world. International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 7(2), 83-96. Mulcahy, M. D. (1997). Designing the user/using the design: Of competency training and vocational education practices (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 9(3), 319324. Muncey, T. (2005). Doing autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(1), 1-12. Murphey, T. (2001). Exploring conversational shadowing. Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 128. Murphey, T. (2009). Group agency and aspiration contagion. Peerspectives, (3), 18-20. Netten, J. & Germain, C. (2004). Pedagogy and second language learning: Lessons learned from intensive French. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 183-210. Neumeier, P. (2005). A closer look at blended learning—parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 17(2), 163178. Nunan, D. (1988).

The learner-centred curriculum.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

285

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (2001). Action research in language education. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.) Innovation in English language teaching (pp. 197-207). London: Routledge. Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research: A comprehensive guide. Boston, MA: Heinle. O’Dowd, R. (2010). Online foreign language interaction: Moving from the periphery to the core of foreign language education? Language Teaching, 44(3), 368-380. O’Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interation in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 433-466. Oliver, M. & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can 'blended learning' be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), 17-26. Orlando, J. (2009). Understanding changes in teachers' ICT practices: A longitudinal perspective. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(1), 33-45. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427. Oxford, R. & Jung, S-H. (2007). National guidelines for technology integration in TESOL programs: Factors affecting (non)implementation. In M. Peters, K. MurphyJudy, R. Z. Lavine & M. A. Kassen (Eds). Preparing and developing technologyproficient L2 teachers (pp. 23-48). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pavlenko, A. & Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (J. Lantolf, Ed.). (pp. 155-77). New York: Oxford University Press.

286

Pennington, M. (2004). Cycles of innovation in the adoption of information technology: A view for language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(1), 7-33. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Pilgreen, J. L. (2000). The SSR handbook: How to organize and manage a sustained silent reading program. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Plass, J. L. & Jones, L. C., (2005). Multimedia learning in second language acquisition. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 467-488). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage. Pratt, M. L. (2007). Imperial eyes: Travel writing and transculturation (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-111. Reinders, H. (2009). Technology and second language teacher education. In A. Burns & J. Richards (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 230-7). New York: Cambridge University Press. Reed-Delhany, D. (1997). Auto/ethnography: Rewriting the self and the social. Oxford, UK: Berg. Richards, J. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Richardson, L. (2000). Evaluating ethnography: Assessing alternative modes of qualitative and ethnographic research: How do we judge? Who judges? Qualitative Inquiry, 6(2), 253-255. Robb, T. (1997). The paperless classroom? TESL-EJ, 3(1). Retrieved form http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej09/int.html

287

Robb, T. (2006). Helping teachers help themselves. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 335-47). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Robinson, P. (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. New York: John Benjamins. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York: Free Press. Rossman, G. B. & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Salaberry, M. R. (2000). Pedagogical design of computer mediated communication tasks: Learning objectives and technological capabilities. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 28-37. Samuda, V. & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning: Research and practice in applied linguistics. Basingstoke: UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Schneider, D. (2004). Conception and implementation of rich pedagogical scenarios through collaborative portal sites. In M. Tokoro & L. Steels (Eds.), The future of learning II: Sharing representations and flow in collaborative learning environments (pp. 193220). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Schratz, M. & Walker, R. (1995). Research as social change: New opportunities for qualitative research. London, UK: Burns & Oates. Schwalbach, E. M. (2003). Value and validity in action research: A guidebook for reflective practitioners. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Seargeant, P. (2009). The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the evolution of a global language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Seliger, H. W. & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Sergeant, S. (2001). CALL innovation in the ELT curriculum. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.) Innovation in English language teaching (pp. 240-249). London: Routledge. Séror, J. (2005). Computers and qualitative data analysis: Paper, pens, and highlighters vs. Screen, mouse, and keyboard. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 321-328.

288

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. Sharma, P. & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom. London: Macmillan. Sharma, P. & Barrett, B. (2009). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom (update 7: December 2009). London: Macmillan. Sharma, P. (2010). Blended learning. ELT Journal, 64(4), 456-458. Shawer, S. F. (2009). Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2010), 173-184. Shea, P. (2007). Towards a conceptual framework for learning in blended environments. In A. Picciano & C. Dzuiban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives (pp. 1936). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Shoemaker, C. L. & Shoemaker, F. F. (1991). Interactive techniques for the ESL classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Siemens, G. (2003). Evaluating media characteristics: Using multimedia to achieve learning

outcomes.

Retrieved

from:

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

mediacharacteristics.htm Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10. Simpson, J. (2009). A critical stance in language education: A reply to Alan Waters. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 428-434. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, task, and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 16 (5), 391-411.

289

Smith, D. (2006). Institutional ethnography as practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Smith, G. & Kurthen, H. (2007). Front-stage and back-stage in hybrid e-learning face-toface courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 455-474. Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Hoboken, NJ: Anker. Snart, J. A. (2010). Hybrid learning: The perils and promise of blending online and faceto-face instruction in higher education. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Snow, M. A. & Brinton, D. (1997). The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Pearson. Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and learning with ICT: Researching the art of innovation. London: Routledge. Spanos, T., Hansen, C. M., Daines, E. (2001). Integrating technology and classroom assessment. Foreign Language Annals, 34(4), 318–324. Sparkes, A. C. (2000). Autoethnography and narratives of self: Reflections on criteria in action. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 21-43. Stanley, L. (1993). On auto/biography in sociology. Sociology, 27(1), 41. Stark, S. & Torrence, H. (2004). Case study. In Somekh and Lewin (Eds.) Research methods in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stringer, E. (1999). Action research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). London: Continuum. Sykes, J. M., Oskoz, A & Thorne, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments, and mobile resources. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 528-546. Tanaka, H. (1999). Goodbye to old-style lectures: Invitation to bidirectional education using a reaction paper method. Sapporo: Hokkaido University Press.

290

Tatnall, A. & Gilding, A. (1999).

Actor-network theory and information systems

research. Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Victoria University of Wellington, 8(4). 955-966. Thomas, M. (Ed). (2009). Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Thomas, M. & Reinders, H. (Eds). (2010). Task-based language learning and teaching with technology. London: Continuum. Thompson, G. (2003). Between hierarchies and markets: The logic and limits of network forms of organization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning. London, UK: Kogan Page. Thorne, S. L. (2008). Mediating technologies and second language learning. In Coiro, J., Lankshear, C. Knobel, M. & Leu, D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 417-449). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Thorne, S. L. & Reinhardt, J. (2008). ‘Bridging Activities,’ New media literacies and advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 558-572. Thorne, S. L., & Black, R. (2007). Language and literacy development in computermediated contexts and communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 133-160. Thorton, P. & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, (3), 217-228. Tomal, D. (2003). Action research for educators. Lanham, MA: Scarecrow Press. Tomlinson, B. (2003). Materials evaluation. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 15-36). London: Continuum. Tudor, I. (2003). Learning to live with complexity: Towards an ecological perspective on language teaching. System, 31(1), 1-12. Tummons, J. (2010). Institutional ethnography and actor-network theory. Ethnography and Education, 5(3), 345-357. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.

291

Unsworth, L. (2008). Multimodal semiotics: Functional analysis in contexts of education. New York: Continuum. Usher, R. (1998). The story of self: Education, experience, and autobiography. In M. Urban (Ed.), Biography and education: A reader (pp. 18-31). London: Falmer Press. Valiathan, P. (2002). Blended learning models, learning circuits. Retrieved from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/aug2002/valiathan.html van den Branden, K. (2006). Introduction: Task-based teaching in a nutshell. In K. van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 1-16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C. Kramsch (Ed.) Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 140-164). London: Continuum. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic. van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 46-65. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Viseu, A. (2000) How social is the social? Rethinking the role of artefacts in cognitive science. Unpublished thesis, University of Toronto. Retrieved 25 July, 2005: http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~aviseu/eng_art-cog_content.html . Wagner, E. (2008). Video listening tests: What are they measuring? Language Assessment Quarterly, 5, 218-243. Wang, S. & Higgins, M. (2006). Limitations of mobile phone learning. JALT CALL Journal, 2006, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 3-14. Wang, F. L., Fong, J. & Kwan, R. C. (Eds.) (2010). Research on hybrid learning models: Advanced tools, technologies, and applications. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

292

Warschauer, M. (1998). Researching technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumental and critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 757-761. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Warschauer, M. (2000). On-line learning in second language classrooms: An ethnography. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 41-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Warschauer, M. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 41-51). Mahweh,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Warschauer, M. & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview . Language Teaching, 31, 57-71. Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (Eds). (2000). Network-Based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ Press. Warschauer, M. & Meskill, C. (2000). Technology and second language teaching and learning. In J. Rosenthal (Ed.) Handbook of undergraduate second language education (pp. 303-318). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Welker, J., & Berardino, L. (2005). Blended learning: Understanding the middle ground between traditional classroom and fully online instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 33-55. Westecott, E. M. (2003). Game forms for new outcomes. In B. Laurel (Ed.), Design research: Methods and perspectives (pp. 129-34). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. White, R. (1988). The ELT curriculum: Design, innovation and management. London: Blackwell. Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.

293

Willis, J. (2004). Perspectives on task-based instruction: Understanding our practices, acknowledging our differences. In Leaver, B. & Willis J. (Eds.) Task-based instruction in foreign language education (pp. 3-46). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Wong, L., & Benson, P. (2006). In-service CALL education: What happens after the course is over. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 26780). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Yang, J. (2006). Learners and users of English in china. English Today, 22(2), 3-10. Yeh, A. (2007). Critical issues: Blended learning. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice and critical issues, 2nd ed. (pp. 404-421). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yutdhana, S. (2005). Design-based research in CALL. In J. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 169-78). Mahweh,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Zapata, G. (2004). Second language instructors and CALL: A multidisciplinary research framework. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(3-4), 339-356. Zhou, Y. (2008). Voluntary adopters versus forced adopters: Integrating the diffusion of innovation theory and the technology acceptance model to study intra-organizational adoption. New Media and Society. 10(3), 475-496.

294

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: AUTOETHNOGRAPHY ACADEMIC REVIEW Year 1989a

Title Staff Development and Training Assessment of a Local Development Organization in Kenya

1989b

Small Family--Better Life: a family planning training manual

1991a

Student Learning Styles: Variances in Learning Modality Preferences of University Students

1992a

Computer-Aided Composition Teaching

1992b

Multi-Media ESL Teaching Methods: A Psychological Investigation into Learning Styles

1993a

The Cultural Dimension of Language Learning

1993b

College Composition Roundtable: Integrating Student Journals in a Process Writing Approach Learning Styles: Adjusting to Student Differences

1993c

1993d

Computers and ESL Composition: Lowcost Teaching Strategies for Japanese Universities

* Abstract Summary M Analyzed the organizational training T needs and current training curriculum of a 65 staff member development NGO. Developed and presented an intensive 5-day training program with visual learning materials. T Wrote an easy English guidebook M which promotes government population goals and used as a community development training tool. Supervised a local graphic artist in page layout and design concepts. J Compared personality testing (Myers A Briggs) with learning style testing and found sensory modality testing was useful for student self-awareness and for teachers to vary their media types in lessons and tasks. C Presented a process writing approach P with multiple draft using computers or Japanese word processors. Used Japanese word processors for writing teaching, removed drudgery of rewriting J A more systematic study of sensory A modalities, applied in a quasiexperimental study, comparing visual, auditory, kinesthetic and mixed modality-based lesson plans. Confirmed that mixed modality teaching showed greatest increase in pre- and post-test vocabulary scores. B A policy paper concerned with C comprehensive issues concerning foreign language instruction, and hoped this paper would open the narrow literature and linguistic views of other teachers. Proposed culture learning as an important part of an EFL curriculum. C Attempted to connect the goals of P fluency writing tasks on paper journals with structured writing tasks in a multi-draft process writing approach C P

Outlined how teachers can change their teaching methods and presentation media to fit a mix of student learning styles.

J A

An experiment with how to teach writing and how to use a common technology to enhance writing--the Japanese word processor. Proposed an alternative to CALL labs or computer labs--reducing additional school costs to zero.

295

Key Concepts teacher-training curriculum (1989a), organizational training needs/assessment (1989a), intensive 5-day training program (1989a), visual learning materials (1989a) simplified language training books (1989b), semiotic design/page layout of teaching materials (1989b), illustrated learning materials (1989b) learning styles selfassessment (1991a), student learning strategy training (1991a), sensory modality testing (1991a),

SubTheme collaborative teacher research, multi-modal materials

computer-aided composition teaching (1992a), timesaving, multi-draft process writing (1992a), recorded and editable files (1992a),

computerautomated managemen t, economical costs multi-modal materials, engaging interfaces

visual/auditory/kinesthetic sensory modalities (1992b), multi-media materials (1992b), varied media in lesson planning (1992b), mixed modality teaching (1992b)

multi-modal materials

multi-modal materials, teacherdesigned texts,

culture learning principles (1993a), EFL curriculum priorities (1993a)

experiential setting

journal writing integration (1993b), process writing with computers (1993b)

computerautomated managemen t,

teaching modality styles (1993c), mixed modality presentation strategies (1993c), teachers adjust to mixed student modality preferences (1993c) home-based technology (1993d), multiple venues for EFL writing (1993d), rejecting computer laboratories (1993d), economics of technology choice (1993d), low-cost technology (1993d), ubiquitous, student-owned

multi-modal materials

economical costs, flexible spaces/multi ple venues

1993e

Communication Networks in EFL Classrooms

J A

This paper used a social networking framework to analyse classroom communication patterns.

1993f

Short-term Overseas Tours to Research Social Issues and their Effects upon Foreign Language Acquisition

J A

1993g

Home-based Japanese Word Processors for English Composition Teaching

J A

Concise description of the construct and learning aims of a two-week volunteer program to work in lessdeveloped villages in Philippines. Presented participant outcomes in terms of new awarenesses and motivation to use English. Criticized current practice of study abroad to native-speaking countries. Claimed Asian-to-Asian use of ESL was preferable because of matching levels and intrinsic interest. An extension of an earlier paper, but focusing on the technology and economic aspects of student ownership and home venue.

1993h

Overseas Tours to Research Social Issues: Language Learning Through Experiential Education

J A

1994a

Speaking Test Techniques for Large Classes

C P

1994b

Connecting Student Goals and Learning Styles

C P

1994c

Applying Experiential Learning Theory to EFL

C P

1994d

Oral Testing for Large English Classes: A Learner-Centered Approach

C P

1994e

Intercultural Simulation Games for Japanese Language Learners

J A

1995a

Pronunciation Practice for Student Teachers of English: Directions for Curriculum and Syllabus Design

B C

Presented full data on the Philippine Workcamp design, reporting in an institutional journal. Outlined the tenday construct and how volunteer work affected or motivated students’ use of English. In large scale foreign language programs, oral testing is too timeconsuming for practical application. Presented a mass testing technique with low construct validity, but high reliability and high face validity. Created a individualized language learning goal exercise for students, and analyzed according to individual sensory learning styles. Took Kolb’s experiential learning cycle and applied it to several common lesson plans for EFL oral communication. Case studies of two teachers in separate institutions applying a mass oral testing system to their classes. Results showed the system was high practical and generated significant washback effects. Low levels of validity and reliability could be compensated with other forms of evaluation. This documented the use of a crossculture game that simulated culture shock and difficult learning of unknown rules. Students in groups had to construct the rules of the other culture in order to succeed in the exchange scenario. Reviewed current trends in instruction of pronunciation. Specified priorities and standards for Japanese teachers of EFL, especially extended discourse patterns of intonation, stress, and other suprasegmentals. Recommended directions for

296

tools (1993d) student social networks (1993e), informal classroom communication patterns (1993e)

short-term overseas program (1993f), social issues contentbased learning (1993f), Asianto-Asian student culture exchange (1993f)

experiential settings, flexible spaces/multi ple venues, face-to-face groupings experiential setting, overseas participants, intensive formats

home-based technology affordances (1993g), classrom/home venues for EFL writing (1993g), economics of educational technology (1993g) intensive program constructs (1993h), intensive EFL volunteer program (1993h), content-based language learning (1993h), experiential EFL education (1993h) large scale foreign language oral testing (1994a), practical oral communication assessment (1994a)

economical costs, flexible spaces/multi ple venues

student language learning goals self-assessment (1994b), learning styles/individual goals integration (1994b) experiential learning cycle in EFL (1994c), cognitive learning styles in EFL (1994c)

motivating feedback

practical, sustainable oral assessments (1994d), mass testing of speech-making skills (1994d), high washback oral testing strategies (1994d)

transparent assessment, motivating feedback, motivating feedback

inter-cultural simulation games (1994e), group constructivist learning program (1994e), extended culture learning exercises (1994e), socio-cognitive learning (1994e), EFL teacher training priorities (1995a), pronunciation integration into curriculum design (1995a)

experiential setting. intensive formats

experiential setting, intensive formats transparent assessment, motivating feedback

multi-modal materials

collaborative teacher research, teacherdesigned texts

1995b

Language Learning Styles: Theoretical and Practical Trends

C P

1995c

Integrating Foreign Students into Regular University Curriculum

C P

1995d

Language Learning Strategies for Communicative Competence

C P

1995e

The New Communicative Curriculum and Implications for University Entrance Examinations

C P

1995f

University Innovation through Study Abroad: Case Studies of Five Institutions in Japan

J A

1995g

Intercultural Simulation Games for Management Education in Japan

J A

1995h

Postgraduate Distance and Inservice Training Curricula for Public School English Teachers

J A

1996a

Reliability of a Fluency-based Oral English Test for Large Low-level Classes

J A

1996b

Pair Dictation for Testing Oral English Fluency in Large Classes

J A

1998a

Pronunciation in Context

C P

university level Took my previous studies in sensory learning preferences and added an overview of other aspects of learning styles. Prepared a worksheet for teacher self-assessment of their teaching practices and discriminatory tendencies. Visiting foreign students to Japan universities are often isolated and find it difficult to integrate or even converse with local students. This paper describes a number of tasks and techniques for grouping students to force interaction and friendbuilding. A review of Oxford’s work on language learning strategies, and connecting it to learning style research. Recommended that students assess learning styles first, then apply learning strategies. Teacher’s role is advisor, not instructor. A summary of national changes in Japan’s high school EFL curriculum and a discussion of similar changes needed in university entrance examinations, particularly in listening, oral communication, and written communication. In this study, I connected the theme of innovation to study abroad. Brief descriptions of five university approaches were made and compared. Recommended non-native to non-native EFL programs. A comprehensive review of intercultural simulation games for university-level management education. Added a case study of a culture shock simulation with participant extracts and analysis. Described training needs for high school and junior high school instructors in Hokkaido. Proposed designs and curriculum for a Englishlanguage model for a masters level, blended learning program. Used classic measures of reliability to assess in mass oral fluency test format. Found low levels of reliability. Nonetheless, recommended pair dictation methods for certain situations with large size classes and low proficiency levels. Case studies of two teachers in separate institutions applying a mass oral testing system to their classes. Results showed the system had similar effect in two institutional settings that featured large EFL classes of non-English majors. Presented contextualized approaches to teach pronunciation. Recommended current practice of segmental training be replaced by suprasegmental training within the context of extended discourse. Activities practiced word stress within

297

cooperative/competive learning styles (1995b), teaching style selfassessment (1995b)

multi-modal materials

grouping designs for local/foreign student exchange (1995c), authentic audiences for EFL (1995c), Japanese/English tandem learning techniques (1995c)

face-to-face groupings

individualized language learning strategies (1995d), learning style/strategy connection (1995d), teacher role as advisor (1995d)

studentgenerated content

national EFL curriculum requirements (1995e), curriculum/entrance examination connection (1995s), communication priorities in examinations (1995e) curriculum innovation through inter-Asian exchange (1995f),

collaborative curriculum design

intercultural simulations for management education (1995g), culture shock training game (1995f)

experiential settings,

blended distance/classroom masters program (1995h), continuring education for EFL high school teachers (1995h)

collaborative curriculum design, flexible spaces/multi ple venues transparent assessment, face-to-face groupings

Pair dictation technology (1996a), mass oral testing formats (1996a), speech assessment rubrics (1996a), large class/low level appropriate testing (1996a)

collaborative curriculum design, overseas participants

oral fluency mass testing (1996b)

transparent assessment

pronunciation assessment priorities (1998a), extended contextualized suprasegmental practice (1998a)

transparent assessment, motivating feedback

1998b

Continuing Education Needs Analysis for Junior and Senior High School English Teachers in Hokkaido Curriculum Proposals for a Distance Learning Masters Program in English Education

J A

1998d

Discourse-Oriented Pronunciation Activities

J A

1999a

Criteria for Evaluation of Entrance Examination Questions

C P

1999b

Criteria for the Evaluation of Entrance Examination Questions

J A

2000a

Designing Sister School Exchanges in Asia: Active English Production for Second Language Learners

C P

2000b

International Cooperation: Universi ty Youth Exchanges, and NGOs

C P

2000c

Large Class Management for Extensive Reading Programs

J A

2001a

English Speechmaking using Powerpoint Software

C P

2001b

Designing Sister

J

1998c

J A

full dialogues. Report on a survey of approximately 50 high school teachers in rural and urban Hokkaido on their continuing education needs. A set of proposals for continuing education for high school EFL teachers in mostly rural areas of Japan. Curriculum goals were based on a survey of needs as assessed by teachers working in the field. Designed a schedule of intensive face-to-face courses mixed with online components. Combined academic classes with collaborative action research and materials development. Description of activities and methods for teaching pronunciation embedded in discourse.

intensive postgraduate teacher-training program (1998b), continuing education for high school EFL teachers (1998b) blended programs for continuing education (1998c), face-to-face and online sessions mixed (1998c)

collaborative curriculum design, intensive formats face-to-face groupings, flexible spaces/multi ple venues

holistic task assessment (1998d), contextualized skill training (1998d),

experiential settings, transparent assessment transparent assessment

A set of guidelines to evaluation Japanese university entrance examinations. Generally, entrance exams are not evaluated, but this paper used several criteria to critique our own institutional exams. A number of problems were published which should have gotten us into trouble, but likely no one read this article in a school journal. Two members of an entrance exam committee present data from a 1998 university EFL examination and critique the item design. Advocating a simple analysis of item facility and item discrimination only, we argue that practicality and long term improvement of questions are the most important criteria. This presentation focused on the use of English in short-term, Asian-toAsian student cultural exchanges. The design of the exchange forced students to separate from their L1 classmates and interact with overseas partners in L2. A report on the Asian Youth Forum and my own university’s sister school exchange with a Korean institution. We took advantage of pre-existing formal arrangements and added short-term cultural and academic exchange. Given an opportunity to teach reading skills for the first time, I experimented with an emerging methodology of extensive reading in a university freshman class. Students read books of their own choosing, developing a degree of autonomy and shifting the role of the teacher to class manager, coach, and strategy advisor. Three teachers trialled powerpoint software for literature reports and oral speeches. Detailed description of the processes and results.

continuous improvement of test items (1999a), localized evaluation criteria for placement tests (1999a)

In this article, I compiled an extended

short-term sister school

298

simple, practical test analysis (1999b), sustainable practices for test evaluation (1999b)

transparent assessment

sister school exchanges (2000a), Asian EFL partners (2000a), groupings to force L2 production (2000a)

overseas participants, face-to-face groupings

university youth exchanges (2000b), volunteer work and EFL (2000b)

overseas participants

student report management in extensive reading (2000c), reading teacher role becomes manager/advisor (2000c),

studentgenerated content

multi-media student speechmaking (2001a), pedagogic design with powerpoint (2001a)

studentgenerated content, engaging interfaces overseas

description of short -term sister school exchanges that I had led between Japan, Korea, Philippines, and Malaysia. Common factors in the designs and recommendations are outlined. A short summary of the technical problems encountered when introducing a new software tool to a teaching syllabus. The problems included technical issues with large file size handling and pedagogic issues with students learning a new software tool. This presentation gives an overview of various online discussion boards and how to use them in EFL classes. A comparison of tools shows that open source web scripts are equal or better in features than commercial scripts. An extended description of the pedagogic use of presentation slidemaking software (ie: PowerPoint) in an EFL department. Later, a student manual was produced based on the findings of this study. This training workshop teaches teachers how to customize the modules in the Moodle LMS for language learning purposes.

exchange (2001b), design of Asian-to-Asian programs (2001b)

participants, intensive formats

technical issues in software tools (2001c), introduction of new technologies (2001c),

integrated web tools

online discussion boards (2002a), open source vs. commercial web software (2002a)

integrated web tools, engaging interfaces

pedagogic use of slidemaking software (2002b), teacher-designed student manual (2002b)

teacherdesigned texts, studentgenerated content integrated web tools

C P

The how and why of using Moodle as an LMS for language learning. This workshop demonstrated how a teacher can setup and customize an LMS for their own classes.

low cost LMS (2003c), teacher self-setup of LMS (2003d)

EFL Classroom Support with On-line Discussion Forums

C P

A how-to guide to using discussion forums to support in-class activities. Promoted the advantages of open source, customisable scripts. Explanations of multi-media integration.

multi-media integration of LMS modules (2003e), inclass activities supported by online forums (2003e)

2003f

e-Learning Systems with Open Source Software

C P

open source LMS (2003f), role of LMSs in language education (2003f)

2003g

Creating Classroom Communities with Open Source CMS Software Intercultural Exchange: Design of NGO and University Student Exchanges

C P

Further examination of open source LMS and the role they play in education. Compares in-house developed LMSs with commercial and open source ones. The metaphor of a classroom community of learners based on interactive web forums.

2004a

EML and implications for task design in blended L2 environments

J A

2005a

Practical and pedagogical issues for teacher adoption of

J A

School EFL Exchanges in Asia

A

2001c

Technical Difficulties in the Application of Presentation Software to University EFL Speech-making Classes

J A

2002a

Online Discussion Boards: New Forms of Written Communication

C P

2002b

Feasibility of Students Using Presentation Software in University English Communication Classes Tailoring Moodle to Your Own Needs: A Workshop for LMS Administrators & Developers Moodle as a Platform for Online Language Learning

J A

2003e

2003c

2003d

2003h

C P

C P

An analysis of the combination of NGO village development projects and university student exchange with the view of four purposes: culture learning, personal growth, third world living standards, and ESL. Goal was to experience multiple shocks and reflect on values. A description of blended tasks in second language learning and the implications for Educational Modeling Language (since taken over by IMSLearning Design). An analysis of international e-learning standards and what conditions and attributes would allow greater

299

customizable LMS modules (2003c), teacher-designed interactive websites (2003c)

interactive web forums (2003g), classroom communities of participation (2003g) university students & Third World development (2003h), culture shock and value reflection (2003h),

economical costs, teacherdesigned texts, engaging interfaces flexible spaces/multi ple venues, integrated web tools, engaging interfaces computerautomated managemen t, integrated web tools, integrated web tools experiential settings

universal modeling standards (2004a), hybrid educational models (2004a), blended L2 tasks (2004a)

integrated web tools

on-the-fly design of LMS tasks (2005a), portable international standards for

integrated web tools

IMS learning design standards in Moodle LMS

2005b

The Emergence of Blended Learning: An End to Laboratorybased CALL

J A

*

adoption, especially from a teacher’s view. Design-on-the-fly, or bricolage, was the most critical feature required. IMS-Learning Design standards must capture designs after-the-fact, rather than requiring up-front design. A critique of current CALL laboratory space design and pedagogy. Supported by a discussion of trends in second language learning and problems faced by teachers, students, and developers.

blended learning (2005a), universal educational modeling descriptors (2005b)

inflexible CALL furniture (2005b), blended language learning tasks (2005b), expensive licensed CALL software (2005b), configurable, flexible software (2005b)

economical costs, flexible spaces/multi ple venues, engaging interfaces, integrated web tools. teacherdesigned texts

JA: Journal Article; BC: Book Chapter; MT: Masters Thesis; TM: Training Manual; CP: Conference Presentation

APPENDIX B: AUTOETHNOGRAPHY CRITICAL INCIDENTS Date 1970

Episode/Incident Reading A. S. Neill

1971

Summer Program, Chicago

1971

Academy training, Ecumenical Institute

1974

Nadler and Purpose Design

1976

Copra Harvesting Work Camp on Arno Island Philippine Work Camp

1982

1985

Computer consulting in Brussels

1988

African fieldworker training: AAMMEE lesson planning technique

1992

Student Practice Teaching

1994

Cassette tape exchange

Commentary During high school, I read about free schools and decided a grade-driven path to education was wrong. I almost decided to drop out of school and go to Esalen in California. Neill said children are naturally curious will want to learn if given a delightful environment. Spent the summer with a community development project in Chicago called Fifth City, Learned comprehensive approaches to social change. Practiced a rational, intuitive group workshop process. Learned a grounded approach to learning theoretical concepts, including charting techniques and group process methodologies. Course at University of Wisconsin in socio-technical systems engineering. Combined purpose in design work. Differentiated research methods from design methods. Led a group of 50 boys on an island, demonstrated work leadership, management of practical tasks such as cooking, daily work planning. Took students from several Japan universities to a village project in the Philippines. All experienced personal growth and shock. For three years, I worked in a foreign culture using English, listening to the information and task problems of clients, and proposing computer-based solutions to their problems. Most proposals required a 2-4 page description for an approximately $1000 consulting job. Team taught a 5-day teacher training program with all 60 members of the NGO staff. 3 x 20 people. Used acronyms and simple images to teach communication skills to a semiliterate staff. Developed multi-lingual training manuals for water tank construction and promotion in community groups. During the school year, students attempting a teacher’s license would have to practice teaching in their 3rd or 4th year. This was invariably the toughest, most life-changing experience of their school career. It clearly defined their vocation. I connected various writing assignments or reports to this experience. I exchanged cassette tapes between 100 of my students and students from Stuart Walker’s school. Students loved

300

Key Concepts engaging educational environments, foster natural curiosity systematic, comprehensive, community development group learning, intensive programs, design methods, research methods group work, intensive, leadership, vision intensive program, intercultural communication, global issues audience awareness, design for customer, automation of functions, cost-saving, timesaving intensive program, teacher training, multi-modal materials, experiential learning intensive program, experiential learning

asynchronous, audio communication, authentic

the mysterious people they were talking to. An example of authentic audience. 1996

University of London students at Hokkaido University of Education

1997

CALL laboratory, BBC courseware

1999

University of London Online Certificate program

2000

Powerpoint projects

2001

Asian student email exchange

2002

Forum software, phpBB

2002

Moodle discovery

2002

Global Issues Textbook

2003

Server hosting and administration

2003

Progress testing

2003

Placement Testing

2004

Moodle forum

Visiting students from London who were studying Japanese, tended to avoid talking with Japanese students. I developed a lunchtime partner program where each British student was paired with a Japanese students, communicating in a mix of two languages. Spent two years assigned to a BBC courseware based class. It had tons of drills, enough for 5 years. Detailed assessment, that I had students print on paper. Why? because then they could bring the paper to me and we have a face to face discussion Joined a continuing education program for online education. It used a 100% online format with the First Class forum program (commercial). Hated the interface and dropped out. Visual threads, photos not yet introduced. My complaints about the discussion forum interface were confirmed by the director of the program. I learned the importance of intuitive interface. My colleague, Bossaer, created a student handbook with step-by-step screenshots to create a simple presentation in 30 minutes. Along the way, it taught a number of slide making techniques (IT skills). This was before the days of computer literacy classes. It taught me that teacher produced textbooks could be more effective and appropriate. In one of my intercultural communication classes, it is impossible to see a whole picture of the learning activity taking place by looking at the Moodle course page. Japanese students do a forum with Thai "buddies" that were assigned to them. But at the same time they are emailing each other on less formal topics. Then they meet in a trip (yes, a face-to-face experience) where they conduct a Thai-Japan culture fair for elementary school kids. Reports are written back in Moodle while networking and photo-sharing goes on somewhere, somehow I do not know. Thus the Moodle view of the course community is a brief window. What goes on outside of Moodle is larger and very complex. My intuition is that we teacher/facilitators can and should actively make it more complex. My search for interactive web activities, led me to forums, and I purchased one forum software, before stumbling upon phpBB, and open source type. With Moodle, I found that scripting not programming, was all I needed. I could cut and paste and set up a webserver myself. I noted the PHP dominance emerging over cgi and perl. I compared a commercial system with an open source one and found open source superior. Qualities of Moodle were beautiful forum design, photos, task-based forums, not tools, pedagogy first. My colleague, George, made a Global Issues in English textbook: George has written a sharable, open-content textbook on environmental and global issues. I assist with making online components in Moodle. Used a mac server to install moodle and build a webserver, got a domain name at my school. With an external hosting service, I learned how to host website by hosting the JALT Hokkaido site on Netmundo, used fantastico and one-click installation to set up Moodle. Started as a January progress test. Failed due to a weak hardware and Mac OS which cannot handle MySQL databases well. April test with students, hardware/software failed again. George and I have made a two-level, 50 question English placement test for freshmen students entering university. The questions are statistically analyzed and updated annually. It includes 30 listening questions, and has been successful administered to over 1000 students on a single day each April and repeated each January as a progress test. This test is built in an open source LMS (Moodle) and freely distributed to all schools. Moderation--adviceforums: Learned how to deal with

301

audience, curiosity toward unknown participants, crosscourse groupings isolated groups, paired groupings, social tasks, mixing extracurricular face-to-face counseling, paper assessment reports,

frustrating interface, reflective assignments

learning organization, group cognition, multi-literacy, time-consuming projects, file management breakdowns, technical failure, abandoned innovation authentic communication, excitement from overseas friendships, outside members of the class

standards, scripting, open source task-based LMS, visual design

global issues textbook, open content, online/paper integrated text open source, easy/inexpensive server hosting low cost, open source low cost, open source, technical failure, collaborative test design, common aims

iterative change, visible

2005

Summer English Camp

2005

Project Module Programming in Melbourne

2006

Moodle at Minami

2006

CALL Lab & Wireless printer in Akan 3F-CALL lab

2006

Lulu and Bookmaker

2006

Child Development Textbook

2006

WorldLink: Commercial Open source connection

2006

Outside LMS-Blogger Mashup

2007

JALTCALL officer

2007

Voice-recording Blog

2007

CALL MA course for Heidelburg

difficult people online, and how to help novices who do not know how to ask questions. Also learned how to build a community online and the benefits of a simple program. The LMS has such a huge significance for us and any educator, that I can just say intuitively I believe it is a quantum leap in many ways. The principles were: 1. do small changes (a step-by-step, or iterative approach) 2. do blended learning (combine face-to-face and online processes) 3. find fun ways for students to publish, and vary those venues. I use powerpoints, paper posters, blogs, and wiki. 4. do what is easiest for you as a teacher. avoid complicated learning curves 5. use the tools that students have and know how to use (office software is very standard) 6. focus on the process, not the technology This was a 4-day intensive program for learning oral communication. Included the bafa-bafa simulation game.

student accomplishments, fun events, easy learning curves, ubiquitous tools, process-based technology

intensive program, intercultural communication, short-term multi-stage project module, online management, timesaving, student generated content, online learning platform,

I led a group of five students to make a new module in Moodle. This is a five module pack for Moodle for managing student projects such as Powerpoint presentations, multi-draft essays, or website projects. It includes brainstorming topics, selecting topics, submitting files, assessing files or presentations, and publishing them. Developed by student engineers at University of Melbourne and University of TAMK in Finland. LMS's like Moodle are "palettes", to say how configurable they are. The open source LMS did not catch on as I expected. low cost LMS Perhaps because it was not related to assessment. Individualized, not required. Also the hosting service did not allow What is the difference between a CALL lab and a blended Fixed desks, pairwork, classroom? Surprisingly little when both are web-based. clipboard surfaces, Both are networked, Rebecca mentioned the need for a wireless printer in our teaching rooms. I wondered why that would be necessary. I found bookmaking is easy, even textbook making with teacher-created materials, online book publishers. Even quantity one is possible. flexible materials, course Before quantities required were in hundreds or thousands. material binding Case Study of Lulu: Max introduces me to self-publishing. Case Study of Bookmaker: online book publishing and mailing direct to family member. English for Child Development textbook: Max wrote an iterative materials activity book for elementary teachers in training. I am development, binding helping test it and adding resources, both online and paper-based. Worldlinks was hugely financed CALL package that we feedback hints, answers, almost ordered but then found a number of horrible textbook-online quiz mistakes in the design--no answers to questions for integration example. Students would only know what was wrong, not the correct answer. For example, here is my little mashup--a side block with integration of tools, links to each student's blogger page. Yes, I could have communities of practice, assigned students to stay inside Moodle with "our" blog, lifelong learning but the school owns Moodle and the blog dies upon graduation. Asami's blogger page, belongs to her, and continues before and after her university time. The area that I was thinking about the knowlege transfer gap novices in technology, between the CALL experts and the CALL novices. I encounter technology lots of training the CALL novices bumping their head against this gap for the first time in my dealings with the JALTCALLers. This is a modified Moodle blog that can do voice recording voice recording, peer via a Flash communication server. Created by Paul feedback, peer interaction Daniels, it is in its first testing phase. Project Planning Worksheets semiotics, stages of History: 2007.6.29 CALL course for Heidelberg-computer literacy, making Preparing for this course, I came upon the idea to create handouts with boxes and two task worksheets for teachers. photos, tasks, projects, Categories: project booklets • task number

302

• task name • task actions & roles • task language focus • task technology • task assessment • project title • project aim • project product • project audience Teacher Training: teachers asked for training in how to make a project booklet. • How to make tables • How to autofit table columns 2010

World Learning -student conference

•

How to put photos into the boxes In this planned conference for later this year, we will attempt a number of project-based learning principles. Students will create an academic conference.

intensive program, intercultural communication,

APPENDIX C: AUTOETHNOGRAPHY THEMES PEDAGOGIES “Extended community”

ROLES “Empowering teachers”

Intensive formats intensive 5-day training program (1989a), short-term overseas program (1993f), intensive program constructs (1993h), intensive EFL volunteer program (1993h), extended culture learning exercises (1994e), intensive postgraduate teachertraining program (1998b), continuing education for high school EFL teachers (1998b), short-term sister school exchange (2001b), Summer M.A. Program, ten-day work camp, World learning conference, one-week homestay exchange, student conference, summer English Camp, team teaching and leadership, cross-curricular events

Learner-centered Modalities visual learning materials (1989a), simplified language training books (1989b), semiotic design/page layout of teaching materials (1989b), illustrated learning materials (1989b), learning styles selfassessment (1991a), student learning strategy training (1991a), sensory modality testing (1991a), visual/auditory/kinesthetic sensory modalities (1992b), multi-media materials (1992b), varied media in lesson planning (1992b), mixed modality teaching (1992b), teaching modality styles (1993c), mixed modality presentation strategies (1993c), teachers adjust to mixed student modality preferences (1993c), , experiential learning cycle in EFL (1994c), cognitive learning styles in EFL (1994c), cooperative/competitive learning styles (1995b), teaching style self-assessment (1995b),

Experiential settings culture learning principles (1993a), EFL curriculum priorities (1993a), student social networks (1993e), informal classroom communication patterns (1993e) social issues content-based learning (1993f), content-based language learning (1993h), experiential EFL education (1993h), inter-cultural simulation games (1994e), group constructivist learning program (1994e), socio-cognitive learning (1994e), intercultural simulations for management education (1995g), culture shock training game (1995f), contextualized skill training (1998d), university students & Third World development (2003h), culture shock and value reflection (2003h), Philippine work camp, Teaching practice in junior highs, inter-cultural communication, Thai-Japan Home-stay Exchange, simulation games, culture learning, culture exchange, extended debriefing in L1 and L2 Overseas participants Asian-to-Asian student culture exchange (1993f), short-term overseas program (1993f), authentic audiences for EFL (1995c), curriculum innovation through inter-Asian exchange (1995f), sister

Computer-automated Management computer-aided composition teaching (1992a), timesaving, multi-draft process writing (1992a), recorded and editable files (1992a), journal writing integration (1993b), process writing with computers (1993b), open source LMS (2003f), role of LMSs in language education (2003f) Costsaving, time-saving computer tasks, automation of repetitive functions, easy learning curves, facilitative teacher roles, custom-programmed LMS scripts, file management breakdown, time consuming projects, technical difficulties, Teacher-Designed Texts simplified language training books (1989b), pronunciation integration into curriculum design (1995a), teacher-designed student manual (2002b), teacher self-setup of LMS (2003d), configurable, flexible software (2005b) Global issues book, child development textbook, project booklets, color printing, clear files for course papers, open content, teacher-created materials, flexible materials, course material binding,

303

Technologies “Appropriate configuration” Economical Costs home-based technology (1993d), , , economics of technology choice (1993d), low-cost technology (1993d), ubiquitous, student-owned tools (1993d), home-based technology affordances (1993g), economics of educational technology (1993g), low cost LMS (2003c), teacher self-setup of LMS (2003d), expensive licensed CALL software (2005b), home-based technology, multiple venues, student owned, expensive computer laboratories, educational economics, free open source, public licenses, teacher-built textbooks, low cost, photocopying and clear files, ubiquitous tools, PowerPoint software built-in standard office suite, process writing with easy computer re-printing, Face-to-face groupings student social networks (1993e), informal classroom communication patterns (1993e), grouping designs for local/foreign student exchange (1995c), Japanese/English tandem learning techniques (1995c), Pair dictation technology (1996a), face-to-face and online sessions mixed (1998c), groupings to force L2 production (2000a), blended language learning tasks (2005b), fast-pair conversation, pair dictation, group work, isolated groups, paired groupings, social tasks, mixing extracurricular, Flexible Spaces/Multiple Venues multiple venues for EFL writing (1993d), rejecting computer laboratories (1993d), student social networks (1993e), informal classroom communication patterns (1993e), classroom/home venues for EFL writing (1993g), blended distance/classroom masters program (1995h), blended programs for continuing education (1998c), face-to-face and online sessions mixed (1998c), in-class activities supported by online forums (2003e), inflexible CALL furniture (2005b), Inflexible lab spaces, Fixed desks, movable desks, rolling chairs, clipboards for handouts (no need for desks), movement in class, stiff bindings Engaging interfaces multi-media materials (1992b), multi-media

school exchanges (2000a), Asian EFL partners (2000a), university youth exchanges (2000b), volunteer work and EFL (2000b), design of Asian-to-Asian programs (2001b) Email exchange with Koreans and Thai students, authentic communication through overseas friendships, outside members of the class,, face-to-face exchanges combined with telecollaboration, sister school partners in tandem learning, Philippine work-camp host families, visible student accomplishments Performance-based Assessment large scale foreign language oral testing (1994a), practical oral communication assessment (1994a), practical, sustainable oral assessments (1994d), mass testing of speech-making skills (1994d), mass oral testing formats (1996a), speech assessment rubrics (1996a), large class/low level appropriate testing (1996a), oral fluency mass testing (1996b), pronunciation assessment priorities (1998a), extended contextualized suprasegmental practice (1998a), holistic task assessment (1998d), continuous improvement of test items (1999a), localized evaluation criteria for placement tests (1999a), simple, practical test analysis (1999b), sustainable practices for test evaluation (1999b) Mass oral testing, speech assessment rubrics, evaluating assessment practice, pronunciation assessment priorities, continuous improvement of test items

iterative materials development, making handouts, Textbook-website integration, old BBC CALL lab, online/paper integrated text, online quiz integration Collaborative curriculum design teacher-training curriculum (1989a), organizational training needs/assessment (1989a), EFL teacher training priorities (1995a), pronunciation integration into curriculum design (1995a), national EFL curriculum requirements (1995e), curriculum/entrance examination connection (1995s), communication priorities in examinations (1995e), curriculum innovation through inter-Asian exchange (1995f), continuing education for EFL high school teachers (1995h) intensive postgraduate teacher-training program (1998b), continuing education for high school EFL teachers (1998b),iterative change, novices in technology, technology training, continuing education for teachers (1997b) Student-generated content individualized language learning strategies (1995d), learning style/strategy connection (1995d), teacher role as advisor (1995d), student report management in extensive reading (2000c), reading teacher role becomes manager/advisor (2000c), multimedia student speech-making (2001a), pedagogic design with powerpoint (2001a), pedagogic use of slide-making software (2002b), Voice recording LMS, recorded and editable, peer-to-peer assessment, multi-stage project module

student speech-making with powerpoint (2001a), online discussion boards (2002a multimedia integration of LMS modules (2003e), configurable, flexible software (2005b) interface screen design, project module screens, frustrating interface, Multi-media slides, paper handouts design, semiotic behavior, student action with minimal verbal explanation, forum software with photos, split screen video viewing, Time pressure to complete task on mobile device, -group competition, bells and buzzers, stopwatches,

Integrated Web Tools technical issues in software tools (2001c), introduction of new technologies (2001c), online discussion boards (2002a), open source vs. commercial web software (2002a), customizable LMS modules (2003c), teacher-designed interactive websites (2003c), multi-media integration of LMS modules (2003e), open source LMS (2003f), role of LMSs in language education (2003f), interactive web forums (2003g), classroom communities of participation (2003g), universal modeling standards (2004a), hybrid educational models (2004a), blended L2 tasks (2004a), on-the-fly design of LMS tasks (2005a), portable international standards for blended learning (2005a), universal educational modeling descriptors (2005b), configurable, flexible software (2005b) Global Standards, tool Integration, global LMS collaboration, tool Integration, standards, scripting, open source software, integration of tools, international standards, IMS, journal writing integration, bricolage, on-the-fly design, universal modeling language, yet another LMS syndrome, webbased technology

APPENDIX D: ETHNOGRAPHIC INTERVIEW EXTRACTS Participant Name & Data Location

Jack [Interview 01, 00:33-02:57]

Jack [Interview 01, 03:28-05:36]

Jack [Interview 01, 05:38] Jack [Interview 01, 7:02]

Interview Extracts

Initial Codes

“...our teachers have a contract, which spells out their duties in three terms. One is a teaching obligation. And they have eight hours of teaching per week during the semester. The second one is a research component of the contract, and they are required to fully participate in one of the ELI or the research institute's institutional research projects. And the third component is a requirement for socializing with students, and is for work outside of the regular classroom. We call that a socializing function. So, there are these three functions now. “ “As an educator, I've been very much concerned in many parts of the world with the design and development of instructional materials, which seen as being at the heart of the educational process, and that if our discipline is to be taken seriously, these must be produced not by dilettantes like [famous textbook authors]..., but rather in a systematic way and so, when I came here, one condition was that I would be responsible for the development of proficiency with a system of instructional materials design, which was based upon the collaboration of all members who were going to be teaching. “ “...this has always been the ethos of the ELI… We now have it formalized that this research component is an integral part which will determine whether teachers get offered a new contract. “ “...we tell people this in [their employment] interview. We are not interested in you unless you are a serious scholar of language education.”

employment contract, teaching load requirment, research group requirement, socializing requirement collaborative materials development, inhouse materials production, conditions for administration

Jack “...the idea that we would set up this collaborative research based curriculum [Interview 01, 16:53] development project, ...met with a great deal of resistance. You will know that Japanese professors have the right to teach whatever they like, and not be

304

formalized ethos for contract extension required professional development, research limited to language education collaborative research projects, independent teaching and research

dragooned into teaching something that they don't feel comfortable with.” “Another problem… was that it was very difficult to ever get the groups of people to have meetings together. You only had to come to university when you were required to teach, if there were no meetings on Wednesday or something, you didn't come. And there was no obligation to be here. I've always been in institutions where you were here from Monday to Friday or Saturday, and well into the night. That's not so at Japanese universities, it is very difficult to require people to be here if they are not required to teach... So a collaborative effort was really very difficult. “ Jack “And we began the collaborative work, this was in 1989, 1990, of doing [Interview 01, 24:08] systematic development of language teaching materials and testing materials. So we began, we set up the Minami English Proficiency Test, to make it a measure of general proficiency. And right from the beginning we've looked at the test as being consummate with the curriculum that we were developing.”

Jack [Interview 01, 18:23-19:21]

Jack “You mentioned a terminal contract, and we think that this is an important thing, [Interview 01, 37:33] for several reasons. We don't keep [instructors] beyond four years. We think this is important. One, from the ELI's point of view, we want to get new ideas, we want to get people who have been brought up in the MA programs with new ideas... “ Jack “And we forced them to collaborate in the development of the curriculum.” [Interview 01, 29:07] Alicia “The new building design “...was a fantastic opportunity because we were lucky, [Int02, 09:49] we had the experience in the old building… And [the old building] was very popular, but just too small. So we've got these ideas from what we have been given before…” [Int02, 09:49] Alicia [Int02, 09:49] Alicia [Int02,11:19] Alicia [Int02, 11:47]

Alicia [Int02, 13:57] Alicia [Int02, 14:11] Alicia [Int02, 18:20]

“But we had to justify everything. So I think that was a really good thing. because we could justify them, Dr. Johnson had set up this whole ELI, the duties, the lessons and it was coordinated.” [Int02, 09:49] “The best thing was we had the curriculum. We had a curriculum that necessitated all of these things.” [Int02, 11:19] “So rather than building a building and then starting from scratch, we had the curriculum and the curriculum seemed to be working well with the research projects. And each project needed this equipment or this space. So the design of the building came from what we needed to develop our curriculum.” [Int02, 11:47] “I don't know, I mean I haven't worked at many universities. But no, I have never heard of it” [a university active and well-funded in research]. [Int02, 13:57] “I think that comes down to Dr. Johnson, that's his idea.” [Int02, 14:11]

“Those desks over there, with computers on them, are custom designed. And I don't know if you noticed but they are slightly arched. Originally we wanted banana shaped desks, because the problem we had in the old classrooms with the computer labs is, fine, you can work in pairs but we also ask for groupwork. So you’ve got the pair in front but facing the opposite way. If you turn their chairs around, you couldn't see them over the screen. So the tables their are big enough so you can work alone or you can move your chairs in with your partner here and partner is over there, and you can see the group.” [Int02, 18:20]

John “The professional development is not optional. They have to take part in that [for [Int03, page 2, line 1] a further contract]. That's the option of using the technology in their classes. That's optional.” [Int03, page 2, line 1] John [Int03, page 6, “So in the past perhaps teachers would give them reams of paper and things, and lines 7-11] supply all the information and they would digest that. [Now, students] are accessing a lot of stuff that they can help plan whatever it is they have to do that they then bring along to their class. … So there is more freedom, there is more exposure to a lot of things, and so there is in a way less control.” [Int03, page 6, lines 7-11]

305

group meetings, obligation to work on site,

collaborative materials development, proficiency testing, test/curriculum alignment four year limited term contract, cycle of new ideas required curriculum development building design, historical experience affecting building design justified room and equipment design Curriculum-based building design Research project requirements for equipment and spaces Research funding by research project groups Core ideas from top administrator Blended learning spaces

Required professional development, Teacher-driven adoption of technologies Teacher-driven adoption of technologies, student access and selection of materials

Don Hinkelman with “It wasn’t simply a matter of using face-to-face or computer. People were using John computers as standalone for a task. Use the Word for editing your essay and [Int03, page 2, line 8] save it, or they were using it for internet with the LMS or the searching capability. Some are using just face-to-face classroom, at desks, and chairs and whiteboards and also some group rooms and lounge area, self-access library and the students’ home, just assigning homework and so on. And varieties of groupings from the individual to whole class, it was rather complex. Like I was watching even something simultaneously, while small groups were working on essays, the teacher would go around counseling individuals, and try to touch everyone during the class period. ” [Int03, page 2, line 8] John “I have noticed some people use the BLSs and in some of the lessons I have [Int03, page 7, observed, it's been an incredible waste of time... it's kind of telling students, okay, line 10] I want you to look up X, get a computer, sit down and off you go, and basically they’ll be given 40 minutes to look up something.” [Int03, page 7, line 10] John “And there was one teacher who for 20 minutes, it was a 20-minute activity, the [Int03, page 9, beginning of a Monday, and it used to run to 40 minutes, and they had to use -line 5] look up some words in a -- I forget, not words, but a very good vocabulary building website. The plan was 20 minutes, but it invariably went to 40 minutes. The students were just sitting by themselves with their computer, essentially using it like a dictionary and looking up words. And students later complained about what a waste of time this was. I think they were justified.” [Int03, page 9, line 5] John “...but I see incredible range. We have people who are brilliant in implementing [Int03, page 11, and incorporating the technology, we have other people, and there is always the line 2] slight criticism that people just use it for the sake of it being there…” [Int03, page 11, line 2] John “I think it comes from peer observations perhaps like professional development. [Int03, page 9, Somebody noticed something; you just pose questions, okay? How did the use of line 1] technology contribute to or -- you ask questions and get the teacher to reflect. How was the technology used to maximize use of language amongst students in the class or how did that contribute to a high-density of interpersonal interaction or how did it assist them in planning to --? [Int03, page 9, line 1] John “I think a lot of it is informal, colleagues talking to each other, and we do try to [Int03, page 9, have people read articles and people present at conferences, they hear about line 1] things.” [Int03, page 9, line 1] John “They are collaboratively developed. … For most of the courses, there are still [Int03, page 11, some courses that commercial textbooks are used, but the majority are in-house line 10-12] materials that are systematically developed in trial through the years.” [Int03, page 11, line 10-12] John [Int03, page 12, line 9]

“...they are institutional materials, but some people have issues with intellectual property rights, ownership. But institutions have to first and foremost decide that internally and work that out and clarify that…” [Int03, page 12, line 9]

Michel [Int04, page 5, line 16; page 6, line 1]

“A great deal, because the PD program, you generally just focus on -- your main focus is on the lessons you are going to be observed on, which is three, just three in the first three semesters. ...what actually happens is that the teachers tend to like focus everything on that one particular lesson to make it fantastic, because that's the one that's going to be watched. So it has less effect on the day-to-day teaching. I wouldn't say it has zero effect, but it doesn't tend to kind of influence your day-to-day thing. [Int04, page 5, line 16; page 6, line 1] “Well, basically you produce a portfolio for this PD program, right? And that includes the information, the documents related to the observations. But it also includes other, sort of, materials making -- evidence of materials making, etcetera, and action, evidence of action research, etcetera. So, yeah, yeah, so I think it's variable to what degree it influences one's day-to-day teaching. “ [Int04, page 6, line 13] “Because I wanted to recreate a kind of cinema, kind of, atmosphere, so we brought some popcorn and stuff and drinks and stuff. So yeah, so sometimes you use that lounge for special occasions like that and to kind of like break up, not always just being in a classroom, change the atmosphere.” [Int04, page 7, line 13] “Because if they have that kind of degree of control over [the LMS], and ownership of it, then I am sure they would be more motivated to go to it more often, visit it more often. So things could be -- so I guess the way it would work

Michel [Int04, page 6, line 13]

Michel [Int04, page 7, line 13] Michel [Int04, page 12, line 3]

306

Blended learning spaces, Teacherdriven adoption of technologies

Blended learning spaces, time-wasting activities time-wasting activities

Teacher variation of technology implementation Peer observation in PD, peer questioning in PD

informal conversation for PD Collaborative course development, inhouse materials, systematic trials of materials Institutional materials ownership, intellectual property rights Lesson observation in PD, influence of official PD on day-today teaching

PD portfolio, in-house materials production

Language support areas, services, and networks Critical, teacherdriven adoption of technologies

would be that the teacher could, or anybody could like put stuff there. I mean, I don't know how it will work, but maybe like put stuff on it and stuff to it, like the teacher would be able to access all those sort of unique pages and add stuff to them.” [Int04, page 12, line 3] Michel “...using [a customizable student page] as the place where they write about their [Int04, page 13, independent learning. It could be very good. So then the other students in the lines 3-5] class could read about what each of them is doing. So that would be useful too.” [Int04, page 13, lines 3-5] Edgar “...the problem with the system is it's an official PD system, if you like, so it has [Int05, page 1, ties to staff members’ contracts. Yeah, so it goes against. You can say that's not lines 12-14] real professional development in the sense that,-- True professional development should be voluntary and free of that, sort of, constrains. So we actually have an unofficial professional development system and an official professional development system. “ [Int05, page 1, lines 12-14] Edgar “Well, I think [our contract teachers] have realized that if they can [present]-[Int05, page 1, that research is also an investment, and if they can get their name out there. I lines 12-14] mean, that's probably the catch, is that, yes, there is money available, but in general we have to be talking about Minami stuff, as in very much the institutional projects, not -- you could have some individual interests that might be something within the realm of linguistics or applied linguistics or whatever, but if it's not really linked in some way to what is taught here, it's often hard to get the funding. So there is a catch there in a sense. Edgar “If you are in a teaching space where you can't move the tables, or can't move [Int05, page 6, the chairs, that's going to affect dynamics. Yeah, I have got one class where lines 4, 6] everything is nailed to the floor, so I always have to be aware of that when I am designing the lesson, and the materials, how they are going to be used. So that's something at teaching space that I always am affected by.” [Int05, page 6, lines 4, 6] Edgar “As far as technology goes, I tend to be on the low -- I am probably on the low [Int05, page 1, use side of computers. What I mean by that is not that I don't use a computer, but lines 7-8] what I get the students to do during their lesson time, I tend, probably by comparison, to use computers less. I have more of a philosophy of getting them to do it outside the lesson. Because I am not always convinced that it's the best use of time. I mean, I have to be convinced that, okay, if they are going to get all the computers out and start doing something on them, there has to be a reason why it's important that they are doing that now and not later, because it does take so much time. [Int05, page 6, line 6] Edgar “I know that a lot of teachers will, for example, get students to open up their [Int05, page 7, computers and write during class time, whereas I will sort of do activities about line 3] writing --” [Int05, page 7, line 3] Edgar “I tend not to do internet research in class time, but I know a lot of other [Int05, page 7, teachers do that. Because unless it's very focused, I find it becomes -- for me it's line 8 ] like -- you generally don't let the students just go and walk about in the library [during class]. Why? [Just] because we have now got the library online, do we suddenly think that they should be walking about in the library, so to speak, during class time. That's my philosophy. [Int05, page 7, line 8] Edgar “...you might let them know that they can use the internet for a certain purpose, [Int05, page 7, or that they should be looking somewhere in the internet for a certain purpose or lines 7-9] whatever, but I will tend not to do that in the class. I will tend to talk about that and then they will have to do that somewhere else.” [Int05, page 7, line 7-9] Edgar “Minami is very much a place with underlying or pervading philosophies more [Int05, page 10, than other universities. I mentioned before, I have worked at other places where line 2] Joe Blog does his stuff and Barry Watkins does his stuff.” [Int05, page 10, line 2] Edgar “...team meeting discussions are very important, because we do work in these [Int05, page 10, groups, as I told you. We call them research groups. 50% of their purpose or lines 6, 8] more is materials development. So people are seen together in a group, talking about the direction we are meant to go in, and then everyone goes away and makes up the materials based on the discussion. [Int05, page 10, lines 6, 8] Don Hinkelman with “...technology has its own ways of limiting and constraining us in various ways, Edgar [Int05, page 13, and when technology changes, some doors open and others close, and that's also line 4] interesting to look at.” [Int05, page 13, line 4] Edgar “The way concepts and theories and ideas have preceded construction [of [Int05, page 13, lines 11buildings] in a very literal sense. So the way the buildings look, the way the 12] classrooms are set up, and the way these offices are set up, everything is a manifestation of conceptualizations of learning, teaching, and access to

307

Language support areas, services, and networks Required professional development, Curriculum-based, research groups Curriculum-based, research groups

Blended learning spaces

Critical, teacherdriven adoption of technologies

Critical, teacherdriven adoption of technologies Critical, teacherdriven adoption of technologies

Critical, teacherdriven adoption of technologies Principled, institutional values Curriculum-based, research groups

Critical, teacherdriven adoption of technologies Principled, institutional values, Language support areas, services, and

Edgar [Int05, page 14, lines 6-8]

Edgar [Int05, page 14, lines 8, 10]

knowledge, if you like, and people who might have the knowledge, if you like. So I think a lot of other places run around and try and build a similar thing, without working out from the ideas, if you like. So they might just think, well, you throw a bunch of foreigners into a building; and that's what this place is, but it's not really. But there is sort of a lot of hidden stuff that makes Minami what it is, which is that ideas--” [Int05, page 13, lines 11-12] “I think initially, you have got someone like Jack, who started the place, and then he brought in like-minded staff, if you like. I mean, he is the original architect of the ELI. And in bringing people in who were sympathetic to his way of thinking, as you mentioned earlier, they then worked together in groups, which consolidates those sorts of ideas and leads to more ideas along the same lines. And then the program is successful and students like it, and there is sort of a snowball effect. [Int05, page 14, lines 6-8] “Now, with institutional research projects, we have got them in, you step into any one of them; and that's actually my job is to go around to all of them, that's quite fun thing to do, everyone else is sort of stuck in one, but I get to go to all the project meetings. ...and you see the ideas coming out of the members, and then being empowered…” [Int05, page 14, lines 8, 10]

networks, Blended learning spaces

Principled, institutional values, Curriculum-based, research groups

Curriculum-based, research groups

APPENDIX E: ACTION RESEARCH INTERVIEW EXTRACTS Participant Name & Data Location

Max [Diary01, Paragraph 3]

Max [Diary01, Paragraph 4] Max [Diary01, Paragraph 5]

Max [Diary01, Paragraph 7] Max [Diary01, Paragraph 7] Rebecca [Diary04, Paragraph 3]

Rebecca [Diary04,

Interview Extracts

“A guiding goal in my lesson planning was to balance computer use with direct communication. This was thought necessary to avoid having students getting too bogged down in their own computers. At the same time, there was a great hope that by having students prepare material in English at their own pace, a positive work environment would be fostered. These were students who for the most part had little or no interest and/or ability in English language use, and in some cases a limited capacity to interact with peers even in their L1.” [Diary01, Paragraph 3] “I felt that too much time was being used on learning computer operation and so I added more face-to-face, conventional classroom English lessons…” [Diary01, Paragraph 4] “This project represented a big learning curve in using materials and technology for both myself and my students. This was the first time for me to use an online platform (Moodle LMS) in these courses. It was also the first time to rely solely on notebook computers and my handouts for a whole course rather than a computer laboratory or a textbook. The first two classes in the first semester and part of the third were mostly taken up with issues of getting wireless and Moodle accounts set up and the wireless system working correctly. Furthermore, on the days we used computers there was always at least one student who had trouble logging on either to the network or to Moodle. This was due to either the student having reconfigured their computer at home, forgotten passwords, or having not been in attendance at the lesson when accounts were created. This type of problem occurred up to and including the very last computer class.” [Diary01, Paragraph 5] “The use of notebook computers created an imbalance in the classroom, as those who had no technology issues (e.g. connecting to the internet) had to wait for those who did. Thus, at times a sense of boredom was felt based purely on troubleshooting computer issues.” [Diary01, Paragraph 7] “The over-reliance of computers to “speak” for students was apparent in this class. Some students attempted to, in effect, have a conversation with me using their computers as a spontaneous translator.” [Diary01, Paragraph 7] “When designing lessons for this class, it was my goal to have students create dynamic language using language that interested them. However challenges soon prevented me from using this approach. One I met was that many of the students were disinclined to mix socially in activities. Students tended to stay in their cliques and were very hesitant to talk to anyone outside of them.” [Diary04, Paragraph 3] “...they seemed to enjoy being able to help their classmates who had little experience with it.” [Diary04, paragraph 5]

308

Key Concepts

Paragraph 5] Rebecca [Diary04, Paragraph 4] Rebecca [Diary04, Paragraph 4] Rebecca [Diary04, Paragraph 4]

Rebecca [Diary04, Paragraph 3] Max [Interview04, Paragraph 3] Max [Interview04, Paragraph 4]

Max [Interview04, Paragraph 5]

Max [Interview04, Paragraph 6]

Max [Interview04, Paragraph 7] Don Hinkelman [Inter05, paragraph 5]

Don Hinkelman [Inter05, paragraph 5] Don Hinkelman [Inter05, paragraph 5]

Don Hinkelman [Inter05, paragraph 5] George [Inter32, paragraph 1] Hiroko

“Technology plagued the first third of the first semester. The core problem was gaining internet access… ...there were classes when the internet was not working and activities had to be adjusted ‘on the fly.” [Diary04, Paragraph 4] “Another problem was...the students individually owned their computers, I couldn’t assume students would have particular software beyond what was preinstalled.” [Diary04, Paragraph 4] I also found that using multimedia on a large scale tended to overload the wireless. When half the class was downloading the QuickTime installation program and the other was trying to view a 2-minute movie trailer, the entire system slowed down to a very noticeable degree. Although this slowdown was more of an annoyance than an actual problem, 10 to 15 minutes of class time was wasted when it could have been spent on learning activities.” [Diary04, Paragraph 4] “Like a child with a new toy, I tended to place more emphasis on the computer than I normally would in a language classroom. Looking back now I feel that an excessive amount of time was spend on the computer time. As a teacher, I would prefer to replace a fair amount of this computer time with communicative activities.” [Diary04, Paragraph 6] “The most significant was the fact that the students were unable to access each other’s projects for peer evaluation exercises. This was a communicative peer assessment technique that I had used the previous year in a CALL laboratory.” [Inter04, paragraph 3] “...using laptop notebooks in a wireless classroom was challenging at first. Basic connection preparation would often take about twenty minutes (providing everything went smoothly). This meant that it was essential for me to have access to my classroom thirty minutes before the actual first class began. Even then, there were often several technical hiccups, such as internet-access problems that impeded considerable progress on classroom exercises.” [Inter04, paragraph 4] “There were times where students appeared frustrated with their own technical problems and on occasion would readily use this as an excuse to avoid participating in classroom exercises. “[Inter04, paragraph 5] “The second year repeater class, however, seemed more resistant to English language learning overall and did not voluntarily work communicatively or well with their classmates. One reason for this is due to the fact that repeater classes are often a mix of students from various ages and years. As a result, students are often isolated from their peer groups and tend to find it difficult to relate to their junior or senior counterparts. This may have also had a negative effect on the attendance rate, which made it difficult to conduct group and pair-work activities. “ [Inter04, paragraph 6] “I was also able to confront and overcome my initial fears and concerns about working in a wireless classroom.” [Inter04, paragraph 7] “I noticed one problem in class management was that the notebook computers totally commanded their attention and it was hard to get them to switch between a computer-based task to a face-to-face task. To accomplish the switch, I set up squares of four students in group tables in the front half of the classroom and had students actually stand up and move to a new seat—without a computer—where they directly faced another student.” [Inter05, paragraph 5] “This website became the center of our online activity in the first semester, and I had students login every class and submit assignments via the Assignment module of the LMS.” [Inter05, paragraph 3] “Although outside of the LMS, Blogger was successful tool, but first year students became easily confused about login information. I spent an extraordinary amount of time dealing with forgotten usernames and passwords.” [Inter05, paragraph 5] “I felt a more formal booklet of handouts would give my students a better sense of the process and product of the project. Hopefully, the booklet could provide a visual map of the steps and how to do them.” [Inter05, paragraph 5]

“I think CALL is not suited for communication-based classes. Students need to do pair-work and face each other, not a computer screen.” [Int32: 1] “It looks like teaching in a CALL lab is like running a factory. The

309

[Inter32, paragraph 1]

teacher sits behind lots of screens and machinery, watching the students do their work.” [Int31: 1]

Don Hinkelman summary of Teacher Five [Diary05, paragraph 2]

“I had to deal with teachers who had no interest in collaboration or improving their teaching as a team. Their objections included these kind of statements; Each teacher should have the right to decide whether or not to attend a meeting.To save time and avoid meetings, teachers can share information by online forum. In the last few years at Kita U., nothing has changed, why start now? What about the part-time teachers and the English A teachers? Why aren't they involved? If all teachers are not involved, then it is not real collaboration. Attempts to use a common textbook failed in the past, so this collaboration will also fail. Each teacher has their own style of teaching, collaboration will force a common style of teaching. At Kita U., teachers never know what kind of students we have before classes begin. Therefore, teachers cannot decide materials ahead of time.This kind of thinking made it impossible for our school to require teachers to work together. [Diary05, paragraph 2] “Teachers are expected to provide quality teaching. Our contract states that we will use our time outside of direct teaching of classes to assist the betterment of the teaching program. That may include meetings to coordinate and collaborate. Forums are useful for sharing information, but face-to-face discussion is better for negotiating objectives or sharing differing opinions. Even if nothing has improved in the past, teachers can take professional responsibility now to make improvements. All teachers will eventually be involved, but full-time teachers need to take initiative on curriculum planning. It is important for teaching to know their own teaching style, but also to learn and use multiple teaching styles so as not to discriminate against students with learning styles different from the teacher’s. With the new placement testing system instituted in 2003, Kita U. classes are streamed according to level and motivation. So we can better predict what materials are best for a particular class.” [Diary 05, page 4]

Don Hinkelman [Diary05, paragraph 3]

APPENDIX F: ETHICS APPLICATION FOR RESEARCH Relevant sections from the signed and approved ethics application form. FORM 1 (8/00) THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PROJECT INVOLVING HUMAN PARTICIPANTS This application form is to be used by researchers seeking human ethics approval for individual projects and studies. The original and 13 copies of your completed application must be submitted to the Committee by the due date. Applications must be completed on the form; answers in the form of attachments will not be accepted, except where indicated. No handwritten applications will be accepted. Research must not commence until written approval has been received from the Committee.

PROJECT TITLE:

Blending Technologies in Foreign Language Programs

310

THIS PROJECT IS: (tick as many as apply)



Staff Research Project Practical Class Student Research Project

Funded Consultancy Clinical Trial Other - Please Describe:

Doctorate PhD

Honours Postgraduate Diploma

Masters

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Supervisors and co-supervisors of student projects are Principal Investigators. PhD and Doctoral students can be listed as Principal Investigator along with their supervisors. TITLE Supervisor Student

SURNAME Gruba Hinkelman

FIRST NAME Paul Don

FACULTY/DEPARTMENT/SCHOOL/ CENTRE:

PHONE 8344-5147 0404-435-078

FAX None None

EMAIL [email protected] [email protected]

Faculty of Arts, School of Languages

DECLARATION BY INVESTIGATORS The information contained herein is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, accurate. I have read the University’s current human ethics guidelines, and accept responsibility for the conduct of the procedures set out in the attached application in accordance with the guidelines, the University’s Code of Conduct for Research and any other condition laid down by the University of Melbourne’s Human Research Ethics Committee or its Sub-Committees. I have attempted to identify all risks related to the research that may arise in conducting this research and acknowledge my obligations and the rights of the participants. I and my co-investigators or supporting staff have the appropriate qualifications, experience and facilities to conduct the research set out in the attached application and to deal with any emergencies and contingencies related to the research that may arise.

Signature(s):

Principal investigator(s)

Date

PAUL GRUBA DON HINKELMAN

1.

PROJECT DETAILS

1.1

PROPOSED DURATION OF RESEARCH COMPONENT OF PROJECT

1.2

START DATE FOR DATA COLLECTION:

From:

4 October 2005

To:

3 October 2008

4 October 2005

1.3 LAY DESCRIPTION: Provide a brief outline of the project, including what participants will be required to do. This description must be in everyday language which is free from jargon. Please explain any technical terms or discipline-specific phrases. (No more than 300 words).

This research studies how foreign language teachers use technology in their classrooms. In particular, it focuses on how teachers design and combine computer networks with face-to-face classroom teaching. The use of computers is controversial to many teachers who think it deprives students of contact time with teachers and wastes teacher time and school resources. Many second language researchers have also ignored the impact of computer networks. These researchers may not include the effect of technology on language learning because they assume mental processes alone affect the learning of languages.

311

This study will take place by observing classes in progress, interviewing teachers, students and administrators, and examining policies and teaching practices in two universities in Japan. It will result in a broader understanding of the role of technology in teaching languages and perhaps other kinds of learning as well. 1.4 AIMS OF AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RESEARCH: State the aims and significance of the project. Where relevant, state the specific hypothesis to be tested. Also please provide a brief description of current research, a justification as to why this research should proceed and an explanation of any expected benefits to the community. (No more than 600 words).

The aim of this thesis is to establish a principled framework for the development of blended L2 learning environments. Specifically, the thesis will examine the design of blended language learning environments using a framework proposed by Egbert et al. (1999). In this view, language learning environments are composed of eight necessary conditions: a) interaction, b) authentic audience, c) authentic task, d) exposure and production, e) time and feedback, f) strategies and motivation, g) atmosphere, and h) control. The nature, description, and impact of blending online and face-to-face tools on these eight conditions of L2 environments will be the focus of this study. The justification for this research emerges from practical and theoretical problems in the second language learning field. These can be summarized as follows: 1) overindulgence in technological solutions, 2) a history of unsustainable of innovations, 3) pedagogical theories based on single-venue paradigms, and 4) poorly supported and administered tasks used in classroom/online lessons. The practical outcomes of this study will be to allow universities and other educational institutions to save technological infrastructure funds by investing more wisely in appropriate technology selectively applied instead of simply mass introductions of the newest technology. Secondly, it will inform an organic, institutional process for supporting sustainable innovations embedded in the professional development and collaborative teaching of the school. One possible theoretical outcome of this study is the construction of a cross-venue definition of language learning tasks. This specification would delineate attributes, parameters, and descriptors that are applicable to all L2 learning situations and incorporating both CALL activities and classroom activities. In addition, this study will help describe how teachers actually design tasks, especially focusing on the criteria they use for selecting venue. Although some researchers call for more effectiveness studies in CALL or assessment of actual proficiency gains from technological innovation (Felix, 2001), this study will focus on describing the design process and analyzing the resulting designs, not resulting learner outcomes. Before effectiveness can be studied in blended language learning, a framework of variables is needed. If indeed, new variables are at work here, the assessment of a particular design under a framework intended only for CALL or only for face-to-face instructed classes will be useless. Further, it has been argued that given the complexity of institutional and classroom contexts, any effectiveness measurement may not be transferable to other contexts (Kern & Warschauer, 2000).

312

1.5

PROPOSED METHOD: Provide an outline of the proposed method, including details of data collection techniques, tasks participants will be asked to do, the estimated time commitment involved, and how data will be analyzed. If the project includes any procedure which is beyond already established and accepted techniques please include a description of it. (No more than 500 words.)

To achieve this aim, the thesis will primarily utilize a qualitative research paradigm, looking at real world teaching in naturalistic settings in an attempt to maximize discovery of heterogeneous patterns and problems. The research design is a descriptive, multiple-site case study. It investigates teaching programs or classes where teachers are actively and aggressively experimenting with blended learning. The aim is not to compare venues but to describe how venues are combined. It assumes all venues are valid and can be selectively employed within a task depending on contextual usefulness. The research design will use multiple methods of inquiry including interviews, observation, online discussion, document/teaching objects examination, and autoethnography. This is an instrumental rather than an intrinsic case study. In other words, the theme of blended learning dominates the study rather than the total environment of each particular case. The sampling will use purposeful (purposive) sampling to select information-rich cases whose study will illuminate the questions under study. The time frame in this study covers the two stages of research. It is an action research case study, where the researchers conduct a cycle of planning, action, observation and reflection. This study will conduct two of these cycles in case studies at each site. The primary researcher will position himself as both participant and researcher throughout the project as one site involves his own institution, a university in Northern Japan. Similarly, in an outside site, he will add ethnographic techniques to examine the foreign language program of another institution. The particulars of these two cases are not the focus of this inquiry, but are only important in their ability to illuminate the theoretical questions posed by this study. Stage One: October 2005 – September 2006 • Site 1, Minami University: 1-2 weeks onsite—interviews, observations, focus group discussion • Site 2, Kita University: two semesters onsite—interviews, observations, diaries, focus group Stage Two: October 2007 – September 2008 • Site 1, Minami University: 1-2 weeks onsite—interviews, observations, focus group discussion • Site 2, Kita University: two semesters onsite—interviews, observations, diaries, focus group The site locations have been selected in foreign language learning situations where blended language learning is currently and actively being used in school situations. This is intended to give a variety of participants and perspectives, but focus on more on cases employing collaborative tasks in constructivist frameworks. Japan is selected because its EFL programs are representative of foreign language education, particularly in Asia, and because of the primary

313

researchers’ frequent contact with other teacher/researchers from Japan in Asian regional conferences over the past 15 years. This familiarity has allowed him to identify sites which exhibit the attributes which are aligned with the purpose of the study. Finally, the proximity of the sites will allow more frequent contact at a lower cost—an issue of convenience and feasibility. 1.6

INVESTIGATORS’ QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE AND SKILLS List the academic qualifications and outline the experience and skills relevant to this project that the researchers and any supporting staff have in carrying out the research and in dealing with any emergencies, unexpected outcomes, or contingencies that may arise.

Paul Gruba, currently a Senior Lecturer in Horwood Language Centre, School of Languages, holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics: University of Melbourne (thesis on video and listening) and an M.A.: U.C.L.A. emphasis in language testing. Research publications in research methods/thesis writing, CALL, language testing, collaborative language learning, and media literacy. Don Hinkelman, M.A. in Leadership Studies, Azusa Pacific University; 20 years experience in foreign language teaching methodology, 15 years experience in facilitating adult education and planning; 20+ minor publications in CALL, intercultural communication, language testing, learning styles, and collaborate language learning. 50+ academic and training presentations to teacher-educators. 1.7

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHEN, HOW, WHERE, AND TO WHOM RESULTS WILL BE DISSEMINATED, INCLUDING WHETHER PARTICIPANTS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH ANY INFORMATION AS TO THE FINDINGS OR OUTCOMES OF THE PROJECT?

Portions of the research will be submitted for publication in journals related to language learning and technology (i.e. CALL Journal, Language Learning and Technology, Journal of Education, Technology and Society). Reports will be given to the host institutions. Teachers involved in the study will receive copies of those reports. 1.8

WILL THE RESEARCH BE UNDERTAKEN ON-SITE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE? YES

1.9



NO

(If NO, give details of off-campus location.)

For the field research, there are two sites of the study. a. Minami Univesity of Foreign Studies, Chiba, Japan: b. Kita University, Hokkaido, Japan;

OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED Has permission to gain access to another location, organisation etc. been obtained. Copies of letters of approval to be provided when available. (Information concerning Department of Education approval for research is available at:www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/scsb/council/res_info.htm)



YES

NO

NOT APPLICABLE

(If YES, please specify from whom and attach a copy. If NO, please explain when this will be obtained.)

Attached are copies of letters requesting approval by persons responsible in the field research institutions. Approval is in process and expected to proceed on schedule.

314

1.10

IS THIS PROTOCOL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER ETHICS COMMITTEE, OR HAS IT BEEN PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO AN ETHICS COMMITTEE? Please refer to HREC’s policy on Research at Other Institutions (Please note that these guidelines are currently under review. Please contact the Human Research Ethics Secretariat for further information.) YES



NO (No ethics approval required at either site.)

2.

PARTICIPANT DETAILS

2.1

DOES THE RESEARCH SPECIFICALLY TARGET: (Tick as many as applicable)

(If YES, provide details.)

YES a) students or staff of this University b) adults (over the age of 18 years and competent to give consent) c) children/legal minors (anyone under the age of 18 years) d) the elderly e) people from non-English speaking backgrounds

 

          

f) pensioners or welfare recipients g) anyone who is intellectually or mentally impaired h) anyone who has a physical disability i) patients or clients of professionals j) anyone who is a prisoner, parolee, or ward of the State k) any other person whose capacity to consent may be compromised l) Aboriginal and/or Torres Straight Islander communities m) other collectives where a leader or elders may need to give consent 2.2

NO

NUMBER, AGE RANGE AND SOURCE OF PARTICIPANTS Provide number, age range and source of participants. Please provide a justification of your proposed sample size (including details of statistical power of the sample, where appropriate).

Participants are adult students and teachers in universities in Japan--many who are non-native speakers/writers of English. Number 10-20 100-200 10-20 100-200

Minami University-Teachers/Staff Minami University-Students Kita University-Teachers/Staff Kita University-Students 2.3

Age Range 25-65 18-23 25-65 18-23

MEANS BY WHICH PARTICIPANTS ARE TO BE RECRUITED Please provide specific details as to how you will be recruiting participants. How will people be told you are doing this research? How will they be approached and asked if they are willing to participate? If you are mailing to or phoning people, please explain how you have their names and contact details. This information will need to be included in the plain language statement. If a recruitment advertisement is to be used, please ensure you attach a copy to this application.

In Minami University, I have been offered a position of Research Associate (see attached letter). Teachers will be introduced to the research project by means of a meeting hosted by the Director of Research. Individual teachers will be contacted

315

personally for permission to conduct interviews with them and observe their classes. In classes, I will be introduced to students and I will explain the purpose of my research. Students who agree to project will sign the consent form, and those who do not will be offered other classwork with no penalty to their marks in class. In Kita University, I will advertise a research project meeting and invite teachers to join that. In the research project meeting, I will explain the goals and methods of the research project, then invite teachers to schedule an interview with me and observe their classes. Before observing classes, I will introduce myself to the students and explain the research project in simple terms. Students will be given the printed plain language statement and consent form translated into Japanese. Students who choose not to join the research project will be given other classwork with no penalty to their marks in class. 2.4

WILL PARTS OF THIS PROJECT BE CARRIED OUT BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS? YES



NO

If YES, please confirm that the independent contractor will receive from the first named Principal Investigator, a copy of the approved ethics protocol and be made aware of their responsibilities arising from it. [The responsibility for effective oversight and proper conduct of the project remains with the Principal Investigator(s)] If it is necessary, for interviewing participants who have a dependent relationship with the primary researcher or who need the interview conduct in Japanese, a bilingual Japanese person/peer who is not in a dependent relationship will be recruited as a research assistant. This person will conduct a limited number of interviews directly under my supervision and be informed of all ethics requirements. The research assistant will independently recruit the student participants in classes where the primary investigator, Don Hinkelman, is the teacher in charge. The teacher-in-charge will not know who has been recruited— each will be assigned a pseudonym by the research assistant. The research assistant will transcribe the audio recordings and replace all real names with the pseudonyms. During transcription, all recordings will be kept by the research assistant and only released to the primary investigator after marks for the course have been formally submitted. 2.5

ARE ANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN A DEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY OF THE INVESTIGATORS, PARTICULARLY THOSE INVOLVED IN RECRUITING FOR OR CONDUCTING THE PROJECT? Research involving persons in dependent or unequal relationships (for instance, teacher/student) may compromise a participant’s ability to give consent which is free from any form of pressure (real or implied) arising from this unequal power relationship. Therefore, the University of Melbourne HREC recommends that, where possible, researchers choose participant cohorts where no dependent relationship exists. If, after due consideration, the investigator believes that research involving people in dependent relationships is purposeful and methodologically defensible, then the HREC will require additional information explaining why subjects in a dependent relationship are essential to the proposed research, and how risks inherent in the dependent and unequal relationship will be managed. They will also need to be reassured that refusal to participate will not result in any discrimination or penalty. NB. Reasons of convenience will not normally be considered adequate justification for conducting research in situations where dependent relationships exist.

316



YES

NO

A limited number of participants from Kita University will be students of the primary researcher, or are teachers whose employment conditions could be influenced. As an action research project involving my own classes, it is unavoidable that participants with dependent relationships be include in the project. Under ethical guidelines for action research by Herr & Anderson (2005, pp. 112-126), risks to participants must be minimized. If there are students who are directly being graded by me, first I will inform them that participation in the research is voluntary and will in no way affect their grade. In addition, I will employ a research assistant to conduct the interviews directly with them (see procedures outlined in 2.4). This person will be recruited from advanced students who are not in a dependent relationship. As for research participants who are teachers at Kita U., my status is tenured and I may need to gather data from untenured faculty. In these cases, the design of the research will be created collaboratively so that there will be direct benefits (opportunity to do joint publications) and indirect benefits (improved teaching environment) to these teachers. The design of the research will be created in a focus group workshop (see attached agenda). Participation in personal interviews will be voluntary for both teachers and students. Interviews will be subject to prior consent and data kept confidential. 2.6

PAYMENT OR INCENTIVES OFFERED TO PARTICIPANTS Do you propose to pay or reward participants? YES



NO

(If YES, how, how much and for what purpose?)

Although no direct payment will be made to participants in the study, indirect incentives such as extra training and opportunities to improve their foreign language ability will be offered. In addition, all participants will be offered copies of reports and other teaching/learning aids resulting from this research. For teaching faculty who express a desire to participate with more time in this project, I will offer to co-author research papers which are related in theme, but focus on the individual case study itself.

3.

RISK AND RISK MANAGEMENT

3.1

DOES THE RESEARCH INVOLVE: YES •

use of a questionnaire? (attach copy)?

• •

interviews (attach interview questions)? observation of participants without their knowledge?



• •

participant observation (provide details at question 1.5)? audio- or video-taping interviewees or events?

 

•

access to personal and/or confidential data (including student, patient or client data) without the participant’s specific consent? administration of any stimuli, tasks, investigations or procedures which may be experienced by participants as physically or mentally painful, stressful or unpleasant during or after the research process? performance of any acts which might diminish the self-esteem of participants or cause them to experience embarrassment, regret or depression?

• •

317

NO

    

• • •

investigation of participants involved in illegal activities? procedures that involve deception of participants? administration of any substance or agent?

• •

use of non-treatment of placebo control conditions? collection of body tissues or fluid samples?

• •

collection and/or testing of DNA samples? participation in a clinical trial?

•

administration of ionising radiation to participants?

       

The research will involve observation of classroom activities, interviewing participants, and collecting teaching materials/software related to the class. No personal data will be collected. Questions for the semi-structured interview are attached: student and teacher versions. The interviews will be audio-recorded for later transcription. Before recording, participants will be asked to give written permission (see attached Consent Form). During the class observation times, participants who chose not to join the research project will be given the option of alternative activities without penalty. Students who are under a dependent relationship with the primary researcher will be interviewed under procedures outlined in 2.4. 3.2

POTENTIAL RISK TO PARTICIPANTS AND RISK MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES Identify, as far as possible, all potential risks to participants (e.g. physical, psychological, social, legal or economic etc.), associated with the proposed research. Please explain what risk management procedures will be put in place.

The primary focus of this study is action research involving teachers and students in ongoing second language learning programmes. The potential risk to participants could include possible discriminatory marking in classes where participants are studying under the primary investigator. Even when students are interviewed and their remarks held confidential, it is still possible for their teacher to exercise pressure to participate in the study. The risk to them would be that a teacher directly supervising their study could give them a lower mark for critical remarks or non-participation in the study. To mitigate these conditions, participants with direct dependent relationships to the principal researcher will offered confidential interviews conducted by a research assistant. Participation will be voluntary and, in both written and verbal form, participants will be assured that there will no effect on marks in their subjects. 3.3

ARE THERE LIKELY TO BE ANY BENEFITS (DIRECT OR INDIRECT) TO PARTICIPANTS FROM THIS RESEARCH?



YES

NO

(If YES, provide details.)

There are significant benefits to all participants. The institutions may find that their financial resources will be better directed to purchasing technology that is more appropriate to their situation. Teachers may find that their opinions in the incorporation of technology into the curriculum are better understood and implemented. Teachers may also find that administrative time for handling classroom activities is decreased by the use of time-saving policies introduced or shared in the course of the research. As the research is a long-term, in-depth case

318

study, institutions may benefit from the perspectives and knowledge shared by the principal researchers. Finally, students may benefit by receiving extra tuition and a more pedagogically sound syllabus due to improvements added in the course of this research. During the research, the principal investigators with be active in sharing insights across schools and across the curriculum. 3.4

ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC RISKS TO RESEARCHERS? (where research is undertaken at an off-campus location researchers will need to consult the University guidelines and their Department – please refer to the University fieldwork guidelines for information relating to difficulties associated with research in foreign countries – available from the Risk Management Office) YES



NO

(If YES, please describe.)

There are minimal risks to the researchers in this project. The principal researcher is protected by a tenured status and cannot be punished or discriminated against for any reason by colleagues. The physical dangers of visiting universities in Japan are also minimal. 3.5

ADVERSE / UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES Please describe what measures you have in place in the event that there are any unexpected outcomes or adverse effects to participants arising from involvement in the project.

In the event that either the administration or faculty of Minami University or Kita University decides not to cooperate in this project, another school will be chosen for this research and appropriate research application documents will be submitted for review. 3.6

MONITORING Please explain how the researchers propose to monitor the conduct of the project (especially where several people are involved in recruiting or interviewing, administering procedures) to ensure that it conforms with the procedures set out in this application, the University’s human ethics guidelines and the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. In the case of student projects please give details of how the supervisor(s) will monitor the conduct of the project.

The supervisor, Paul Gruba, will regularly elicit reports and independently contact the research site institutions to determine if there any complaints or questions concerning the progress of the study. The two primary investigators will correspond and meet on a regular basis to insure all procedures are conducted according to the guidelines in this statement and in the University’s Statement. IF THE RISKS YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED IN YOUR PROJECT ARE NOT MORE THAN THOSE ENCOUNTERED IN EVERYDAY LIFE, YOU MAY NOT NEED TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS 3.7 TO 3.9

The risks identified in the project are not more than those encountered in everyday activities in the school environment, therefore debriefing and additional support is not anticipated to be necessary (responses to 3.7-3.9 not needed). 3.7

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PARTICIPANT OR THE COMMUNITY OUTWEIGH THE RISKS?

319

3.8

SUPPORT FOR PARTICIPANTS Depending on risks to participants you may need to consider having additional support for participants during/after the study. Consider whether your project would require additional support, e.g., external counselling available to participants. Please advise what support will be available.

3.9

DEBRIEFING What debriefing will participants receive following the study and when? (Attach a copy of any written material or statement to be used in such a debriefing, if applicable). Participants may need to talk about the experience of being involved in the study with the researchers, as well as learn more about the aims of the research.

4.

INFORMED CONSENT

4.1

HAVE YOU ATTACHED TO YOUR APPLICATION A COPY OF THE PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT (PLS) FOR PARTICIPANTS - written information in plain language which you will be providing to participants explaining the project and inviting their participation.



YES

NO

(If NO, please explain.)

DOES THE STATEMENT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: YES •

will it be printed on University of Melbourne letterhead

•

clear identification of the University, the Department(s) involved, the project title, the Principal and Other Investigators (including contact details) details of what involvement in the project will require (e.g., involvement in interviews, completion of questionnaire, audio/videotaping of events), estimated time commitment, any risks involved if staff/students of the University of Melbourne will be involved as participants in the research, advice that the project has received clearance by the HREC if the sample size is small, advice to participants that this may have implications for privacy/anonymity a clear statement that if participants are in a dependent relationship with any of the researchers that involvement in the project will not affect ongoing assessment/grades/management or treatment of health (as relevant) that involvement in the project is voluntary and that participants are free to withdraw consent at any time, and to withdraw any unprocessed data previously supplied advice as to arrangements to be made to protect confidentiality of data, including that confidentiality of information provided is subject to legal limitations advice as to whether or not data is to be destroyed after a minimum period advice that if participants have any concerns about the conduct of this research project that they can contact the Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics, The University of Melbourne, ph: 8344 2073; fax 9347 6739 any other relevant information

• •

• •

• • • •

•

4.2

 

N/A

        

HAVE YOU ATTACHED TO YOUR APPLICATION A COPY OF THE CONSENT FORM - if you are not obtaining consent in writing please explain how the informed consent process is to be documented



YES

NO

(If NO, please explain how you consent will be

320

documented.)

DOES THE CONSENT FORM INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: YES • •

will it be printed on University of Melbourne letterhead title of the project and names of investigators

• •

confirmation that the project is for research confirmation that involvement in the project is voluntary and that participants are free to withdraw at any time, or to withdraw any unprocessed data previously supplied confirmation of particular requirements of participants, including for example whether interviews are to be audio-/video-taped advice of legal limitations to data confidentiality if the sample size is small, confirmation that this may have implications for anonymity any other relevant information

• • • •

5.

N/A

       

CONFIDENTIALITY/ANONYMITY

5.1 WILL THE RESEARCH INVOLVE: YES •

•

•

• • •

•

complete anonymity of participants (i.e., researchers will not know the identity of participants as participants are part of a random sample and are required to return responses with no form of personal identification)? anonymised samples or data (i.e., an irreversible process whereby identifiers are removed from data and replaced by a code, with no record retained of how the code relates to the identifiers. It is then impossible to identify the individual to whom the sample of information relates)? de-identified samples or data (i.e., a reversible process in which the identifiers are removed and replaced by a code. Those handling the data subsequently do so using the code. If necessary, it is possible to link the code to the original identifiers and identify the individual to whom the sample or information relates)? participants having the option of being identified in any publication arising from the research? participants being referred to by pseudonym in any publication arising from the research? the use of personal information obtained from a Commonwealth Department or Agency? (If YES, you may need to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988? – information is available at: http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/ethics/contents.htm any other method of protecting the privacy of participants? Please describe:

NO

  

  

Please bear in mind that where the sample size is very small, it may be impossible to guarantee anonymity/confidentiality of participant identity. Participants involved in such projects need to be advised of this limitation.

The interview data of teachers and students will be confidential, but not anonymous. No other person besides the principal researchers will be allowed access to that data. Reports and summaries of that data will be released to the site institutions and participants without any reference to names. Names of all participants in the data will be changed to insure confidentiality. Occasionally, roles will be referred to where there is no danger of that information harming the person who said it.

321

5.2 WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS OF ASSURING CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA WILL BE IMPLEMENTED? Please select all relevant options. • • • 5.3

data and codes and all identifying information to be kept in separate locked filing cabinets access to computer files to be available by password only other (please describe)

 

LEGAL LIMITATIONS TO DATA CONFIDENTIALITY: Participants need to be aware that confidentiality of information provided can only be protected within the limitations of the law - i.e., it is possible for data to be subject to subpoena, freedom of information claim or mandated reporting by some professions. Depending on the research proposal you may need to specifically state these limitations. Have you included appropriate information in the plain language statement and consent form?



YES

NO

(If NO, please advise how participants will be advised .)

6

DATA STORAGE, SECURITY AND DISPOSAL

6.1

DOES DATA STORAGE COMPLY WITH THE UNIVERSITY’S GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF RESEARCH DATA AND RECORDS ? (University of Melbourne Guidelines for the Management of Research Data and Record are available at: http://www.unimelb.edu.au/records/rmp/guidelines.html. The Joint NHMRC/AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice are available at: http://avcc.edu.au/avcc/pubs/glrespra.htm)

 6.2

YES

NO

(If NO, please explain.)

WILL THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURITY OF DATA COLLECTED?



YES

NO

(If NO, please provide further details. You may also use this space to explain any differences between arrangements in the field, and on return to campus.)

The primary investigator (Don Hinkelman) will be responsible for security of data collected. 6.3

WILL DATA BE KEPT IN LOCKED FACILITIES IN THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH WHICH THE PROJECT IS BEING CONDUCTED?



YES

NO

(If NO, please explain how and where data will be held, including any arrangements for data security during fieldwork.)

During the field research period, 4 October 2005 – 3 October 2008, data will be storage at the home and office site of the primary researcher (Don Hinkelman). My office address is Room A-513 at Kita University, 11 Bunkyodai, Ebetsu city, 069, Japan. My home address is Nopporo Miyuki-cho 1-20, Ebetsu-city, 069, Japan. Data in printed form will be kept in a locked cabinet. Data in digital form will be kept in a password-protected desktop computer (not a notebook computer, removable hard disk, flash memory drive or other storage device that could be easily lost or stolen). After the field research period, data will be stored at the

322

office of primary investigator located at the University of Melbourne (Paul Gruba). 6.4 ACCESS TO DATA Access by named researchers only  Stored at the University of Melbourne Access by people other than named researcher(s) Stored at another site Please explain who and for what purpose: Paul Gruba and Don Hinkelman, in order to verify data collection procedures. Other 6.5

Please explain:

YES

NO

(If NO, please explain. How long will that data be kept?)

WILL OTHERS BESIDES THE NAMED RESEARCHERS HAVE ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA? YES

6.7

Please explain where and for what purpose: See explanation above (6.3)

WILL DATA BE KEPT FOR A MINIMUM OF 5 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE RESEARCH?

 6.6





NO

(If YES, please explain who and for what purpose? What is their connection to the project?)

IF DATA IS TO BE DISPOSED OF PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW, WHEN AND BY WHOM THIS WILL BE DONE?

PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT: INTEVIEWS & OBSERVATIONS The Plain Language Statement is to be given to potential participants of the observation and interview. The original with university letterhead will be copied and a Japanese translated version provided for students.

PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT: Observation & Interview for Teachers and Administrators Research Project: "Blending Technologies in Foreign Language Programs" You are invited to participate in the above research project, which is being conducted by Dr Paul Gruba (supervisor) and Mr Don Hinkelman (PhD candidate) of the Horwood Language Centre, School of Languages at The University of Melbourne. You have been selected and invited to participate in this research as a faculty member or administrator of a language teaching institution selected by the researchers. This project will form part of Mr Hinkelman’s doctoral thesis, and has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Melbourne.

This is a research project on how foreign language teachers use technology in their classrooms. In particular, it focuses on how teachers design and combine computer

323

networks with face-to-face classroom teaching. The use of computers is controversial to many teachers who think it deprives students of contact time with teachers and wastes teacher time and school resources. Others believe the internet is a useful tool but don’t know how to use it. In addition, much of the teaching literature is not clear about the impact of computer networks. These researchers may exclude technological effects from their study because they assume mental processes alone affect the learning of languages. This study will take place by observing classes in progress, audio-taping interviews of teachers, students and administrators, and examining policies and teaching practices at two universities here in Japan. It will result in a broader understanding of the role of technology in teaching foreign languages and perhaps other kinds of learning as well. We are asking you to do the following: 1. Allow observation of your class and study environments: one or two 90 minute classes 2. Take part in a one-to-one interview with the researcher (confidential): one hour 3. Take part in a focus group discussion led by the researcher (not confidential): 90 minutes Information collected from each interview will remain confidential, only the project leader and supervisor will have access. Your colleagues and your supervisors will only see summary reports where individual comments and opinions cannot be traced. We intend to protect your anonymity and the confidentiality of your responses to the fullest possible extent, within the limits of the law. Your name and contact details will be kept in a separate, password-protected computer file from any data that you supply. This will only be able to be linked to your responses by the researchers, for example, in case anything needs to later be followed up or verified. In the final thesis, you will be referred to by a pseudonym. We will remove any references to personal information that might allow someone to guess your identity, however, you should note that as the number of people we seek to interview is very small, it is possible that someone may still be able to identify you.. Once the thesis has been completed, it is also possible that the results will be presented at academic conferences. The data will be kept securely in the Horwood Language Centre for five years from the date of publication, before being destroyed. Please be advised that your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Should you wish to withdraw at any stage, or to withdraw any unprocessed data you have supplied, you are free to do so without prejudice. If you would like to participate, please indicate that you have read and understood this information by signing the accompanying consent form and returning it in the envelope provided. The researchers will then contact you to arrange a mutually convenient time for you to attend the observation and interview, which will be undertaken on your campus. If you have any questions about this research project, please contact the principal investigators, Dr Paul Gruba (tel: +61-3-8344-5147) or Mr Don Hinkelman (tel: 011382-9948) or the Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics, The University of Melbourne, tel: +61-3-8344-2073; fax: +61-3-9347-6739

324

PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT: INTEVIEWS & OBSERVATIONS The Plain Language Statement is to be given to potential participants of the observation and interview. The original with university letterhead will be copied and a Japanese translated version provided for students.

PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT: Observation & Interview for Students Research Project: "Blending Technologies in Foreign Language Programs" You are invited to participate in the above research project, which is being conducted by Dr Paul Gruba (supervisor) and Mr Don Hinkelman (PhD candidate) of the Horwood Language Centre, School of Languages at The University of Melbourne. You have been selected and invited to participate in this research as a faculty member or administrator of a language teaching institution selected by the researchers. This project will form part of Mr Hinkelman’s doctoral thesis, and has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Melbourne.

Don Hinkelman is a research student at the University of Melbourne in Australia. Your teacher and Mr Hinkelman want to study how to best teach English using the internet. Your ideas will be very helpful. So he would like to ask you questions about what you think is good teaching for you, and what is a good way to use a computer to learn English. He will also watch your class in action and how you use the room and equipment. Your answers will be kept private and confidential. Your teacher will not see what you write, nor hear what you say. Also, if your teacher is also the research project leader, another person will interview you so that your answers will be kept confidential from your teacher. Your individual data will not show your name, a pseudonym will be used. You are asked to do the following: 1. Allow observation of your class and study environments: one or two 90 minute classes 2. Possibly take part in a one-to-one interview with the researcher (only a few students selected): one hour All information provided will be kept confidential to the researchers subject to limitations of the law. This project is voluntary and you are also free to withdraw your participation in the research at any time. There is no penalty for you class grade if you decide not to participate. All data will be kept for a minimum of five years. If you have any questions about this research project, please contact Dr Paul Gruba (tel: +61-3-83445147) or Mr Don Hinkelman (tel: 011-382-9948) or the Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics, The University of Melbourne, tel: +61-3-8344-2073; fax: +61-3-93476739.

325

CONSENT FORM: INTERVIEWS & OBSERVATIONS This Consent Form will accompany the Plain Language Statement for participants of the interview and observation. The original will be printed on university letterhead and copies made for each participant. A Japanese language version will be provided for students. THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE HORWOOD LANGUAGE CENTRE Consent form for persons participating in research projects PROJECT TITLE: "Blending Technologies in Foreign Language Programs" Name  of  participant:  

 

    Name  of  investigator(s):     Dr  Paul  Gruba    (supervisor)  and  Mr  Don  Hinkelman    (PhD  candidate)     1.

I consent to participate in the project named above and the particulars, including details of observation and interview, have been explained to me. A written copy of the information has been given to me to keep.

2.

I authorise the researcher or his assistant to use the observation and interview data collected for the purpose of this research project.

3.

I acknowledge that: (a) the possible effects of the observation and interview have been explained to me to my satisfaction; (b) I have been informed that I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without explanation or prejudice and to withdraw any unprocessed data previously supplied; (c) The project is for the purpose of research (d) I have been informed that the confidentiality of the information I provide will be safeguarded subject to any legal requirements. (e) I authorise the researchers to audio-tape the observation and interview process, so that the researchers can ensure they make an accurate record of what I say. (f) I understand that in the final thesis, if directly referred to, I will be referred to by a pseudonym, and any references to personal information that might allow someone to guess my identity will be removed, however it is still possible that someone may be able to identify me.

Signature

Date (Participant)

326

CONSENT FORM: INTERVIEWS & OBSERVATIONS This Consent Form will accompany the Plain Language Statement for participants of the interview and observation. The original will be printed on university letterhead and copies made for each participant. A Japanese language version will be provided for students. THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE HORWOOD LANGUAGE CENTRE Consent form for persons participating in research projects PROJECT TITLE: "Blending Technologies in Foreign Language Programs" Name  of  participant:    

 

  Name  of  investigator(s):     Dr  Paul  Gruba    (supervisor)  and  Mr  Don  Hinkelman    (PhD  candidate)     1.

I consent to participate in the project named above and the particulars, including details of observation and interview, have been explained to me. A written copy of the information has been given to me to keep.

2.

I authorise the researcher or his assistant to use the observation and interview data collected for the purpose of this research project.

3.

I acknowledge that: (g) the possible effects of the observation and interview have been explained to me to my satisfaction; (h) I have been informed that I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without explanation or prejudice and to withdraw any unprocessed data previously supplied; (i) The project is for the purpose of research (j) I have been informed that the confidentiality of the information I provide will be safeguarded subject to any legal requirements. (k) I authorise the researchers to audio-tape the observation and interview process, so that the researchers can ensure they make an accurate record of what I say. (l) I understand that in the final thesis, if directly referred to, I will be referred to by a pseudonym, and any references to personal information that might allow someone to guess my identity will be removed, however it is still possible that someone may be able to identify me.

Signature

Date (Participant)

327

Attachment: Schedule of Interview/Focus Group Questions Interviews: the following are illustrative of questions to be asked in semi-structured interviews with teachers, students, and administrators. A. Teachers

-

What kinds of classes do you teach? Level, topic, skill, age What hours & format do you teach them? What tools and materials do you use in your class? What is your syllabus? How did you go about deciding it? Who decides your course syllabus, aims, materials? What is your role? Who decides your tools, space, software? What is your role? How is the overall curriculum decided? What is your role? What roles would you like to play? Why? How do you assess your teaching? Your work? How do others assess you? Students? Admin? Faculty? What have been some changes you have introduced recently? What do you consider an innovation? When started? Your role? What innovations have disappeared? Why? How do you conduct a typical class? Methods? Tools? What role do online activities play? Face-to-face activities? What some tasks/projects that you do in/out of class?

B. Students

-

What are your English class titles and the names of your teachers? How often are the classes? Any outside of class activities? When do you use the internet for your class? Any other technology? Where do you access the internet? Home, school? How is that working? Problems? What are your goals for this class? For learning English? What is the most interesting part of your English learning? What is the most boring/not useful part of English learning? What would you change to improve this situation?

C. Adminstrators:- What roles do you play in the school, and the department? - What are the policies for curriculum, lesson planning, materials? - How are budgets determined? For materials, tools, technology? - What roles do teachers play in curriculum planning? - What roles do teachers play in materials development? - What are the strong and weak points of the planning and design here? - What is the direction of the department for next 5-10 years? - What are some challenges that must be overcome?

328

Attachment: Letter of Request to Minami University 26 May 2005 Professor Jack Smith Director, English Language Institute Minami University, Japan Dear Professor Smith, Re: Proposal for Research Project on the Design of Blended Environments for Second Language Learning I am presently studying in a PhD course (CALL studies) at the Horwood Language Centre, University of Melbourne under Dr Paul Gruba. My area of research is ‘blended learning’, best described as the mix between classroom-based and computer-assisted instruction. As I am about to complete my first year residency and begin my field research from October 2005, I have identified several educational sites exhibiting best practice in blended language learning. Paul recommended that I investigate Minami University, particularly in regards to innovations developed in the English Language Institute. I believe the ELI would be an ideal site to examine emerging practices in designing flexible, hybrid learning environments that combine online technology and face-to-face pedagogies. I have been a teacher in Japan for the past 20 years, and first came in contact with Minami U. as a member of JALT. A presentation by your faculty particularly impressed me with the innovative approaches to space design and course design. Later, I met Mark who introduced me to the University of Melbourne’s postgraduate studies in CALL. Still later, I met with Dr Gruba and have chosen him to supervise my study. Paul’s description of the research-oriented aspects of your language teaching program led me to consider the ELI as a site already receptive to the idea that research can be an constructive aid to good practice. My purpose is to conduct a holistic investigation of the ELI environment and identify factors that support the development of innovative blended practices. My study is not ‘prescribed’ but rather seeks to incorporate the aims and ambitions of Minami U. faculty, students, and administrators and may well be useful for problem-solving and locating future directions in the development of the ELI. Presently, I imagine the study would focus on two key actors in the design process: the teacher and aspects of technology use. My qualitative study involves three methods: 1) observation of classes and study environments, 2) interviews with teachers (and a selection of students and administrators), and 3) focus group discussions with faculty. I hope to conduct this in two cycles. I would first like to undertake a pilot study visiting your campus for one week in the fall of 2005. Later, I would like to arrange time for a more extensive study in 2006 at a time negotiated with your department. If this proposed research is an agenda you would like to further discuss, I would be glad to answer your questions and provide a more specific documents. Thank you for your consideration Sincerely yours, Don W. Hinkelman Associate Professor, Faculty of Humanities, Kita University PhD Candidate, Horwood Language Centre, University of Melbourne

329

Attachment: Letter of Request to Kita University Don W. Hinkelman Horwood Language Centre University of Melbourne 20 June 2005 Professor Shuji Sugawara Chair, Department of English and British-American Literature Kita University Bunkyodai 11, Ebetsu-shi 069-8555 Japan Dear Professor Sugawara, Re: Proposal for Research Project on the Design of Blended Environments for Second Language Learning During my sabbatical from October 2004 to September 2005, I began studying in a PhD course (CALL studies) at the Horwood Language Centre, University of Melbourne under Dr Paul Gruba. My area of research is ‘blended learning’, best described as the mix between classroombased and computer-assisted instruction. As I am about to complete my first year residency and begin my field research from October 2005, one of the sites I wish to study is our own General English program at Kita University. I believe the Kita U. would be an ideal site to examine emerging practices in designing flexible, hybrid learning environments that combine online technology and face-to-face pedagogies. My purpose is to conduct a holistic investigation of the ELI environment and identify factors that support the development of innovative blended practices. My study will focus on one department of students enrolled in General English, the Social Information Department. This is because all students in that department are required to have wireless notebook computers and can use the internet in any classroom on our campus. I will be interested to learn how to best employ this technology and make a good learning environment for them. Since the Social Information Department students have a lower ability in English than other departments, whatever we find successful at that level, will definitely transfer to higher levels. Presently, I imagine the study would focus on the teachers and aspects of technology use. My qualitative study involves three methods: 1) observation of classes and study environments, 2) interviews with teachers (and a selection of students and administrators), and 3) focus group discussions with faculty. I hope to conduct this in two cycles. I would first like to undertake a pilot study starting for one semester in the fall of 2005. Later, I would like work a full year with the Social Information Department classes in 2006-2007 terms. If this proposed research is an agenda you would like to further discuss, I would be glad to answer your questions and provide a more specific documents. Thank you for your consideration Sincerely yours,

Don W. Hinkelman Associate Professor, Faculty of Humanities, Kita University PhD Candidate, Horwood Language Centre, University of Melbourne

330