Theoretical and Practical Issues in Designing a Blended e-learning Course of English as a Foreign...

In G. Dettori, D. Persico (eds) Fostering Self-Regulated Learning through ICTs. New York/Hershey, USA: IGI

Global. (Chapter X), 2011.

Theoretical and practical issues in designing a blended e-learning course

of English as a Foreign Language

Rita Calabrese, Filomena Faiellai

University of Salerno, Italy

The only real voyage of discovery consists not

in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes

Marcel Proust

ABSTRACT

The aim of this chapter is to provide an outline of the main theoretical issues in the field of Self-Regulated

Learning which have inspired the design and implementation of a blended learning course of English as a

Foreign Language (EFL) at the University of Salerno. In particular, the first part of the chapter focuses on

some key concepts concerning meaningful learning, self-regulated learning, as well as e-learning in

academic settings, as basic components to achieve cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). The

second part of the chapter is devoted to the description of the sequencing and progression of our syllabus

design in line with the principles/guidelines for “good teaching practices for using Technology Mediated

Instruction (TMI)”.

KEYWORDS: meaningful learning, second language acquisition, blended learning

INTRODUCTION

Online education, either delivered as part of blended educational models (part online, part face-to-face) or as

full distance learning, has become increasingly widespread in different learning domains including academic

contexts (Barone & Calabrese, 2005). In this chapter, we will report on an educational experience concerning

an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) course that is intended as a contribution to investigating the role of

the self-regulated learning in a computer-assisted language learning context. We will first provide a brief

review of studies which have investigated the cognitive factors involved in the acquisition of a foreign

language in relation to the development of meaningful learning and self-regulated learning, in order to

outline the theoretical framework underpinning the whole paper. We will then deal with the overall features

of a blended course, describing in more detail the online EFL component. This experience is part of a

broader e-learning program designed by a team of technologists of the eLearning_Lab of the Faculty of

Education, University of Salerno (www.eformazione.unisa.it) and delivered by a group of professors from

various academic areas (Italian Literature, Art and Design, Music, Philosophy and so on).

THEORETICAL ISSUES

Aspects of adult Second Language Acquisition

Among the vast amount of studies on first and second language acquisition, two important paradigms have

proved to be particularly influential within Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theory. The first is based on



cognitive theories derived from psychology and linguistics, while the second is influenced by socio-cultural

theories. The cognitive paradigm mainly focuses on the mental processes occurring during language

development and acquisition, whereas socio-cultural theorists see language acquisition as contextualized,

within both a social and cultural context. Both theoretical positions can help examine the process of learning

and teaching online (Lamy & Hampel, 2007, p. 19) and provide useful hints for distance education designers.

SLA theory gained great impetus from Krashen’s (1985) theoretical assumptions built around the central

idea of “comprehensible input” for the development of a second language. Thus, the major function of the

SL classroom is to provide learners with input for acquisition by setting up meaningful and communicative

activities. As a matter of fact, the development of pragmatic competence can actually be achieved through

exposure to real language in particular contexts of use. The communicative issue in SLA leads to a further

aspect of SLA theory which is characterized by the so called “social turn” influenced by the rediscovery of

Vygotsky’s constructivist view of learning (1978). In language research, Vygotsky’s concept of the “zone of

proximal development” proved to be particularly influential in the domain of L2 teaching and learning and

gave rise to important tenets in the field of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) as well: the idea of

scaffolding (Faiella, 2005) as the educator/instructor’s supporting action that is adapted to the learner’s

needs, and the more recent concepts of “collaborative dialogue” and “instructional conversation”. As a

matter of fact, the combination of the input-interaction-output model and the “social turn” view has produced

an integrated model that can be applied to both face-to-face communication and virtual interaction (Lamy,

Hampel, 2007, p. 20); the only difference is that the latter is accomplished through what appears on the

screen and other technological devices, e.g., mouse and keyboard (Clarke, 2008, p. 14).

In order to understand Second Language Acquisition (SLA) processes in instructed conditions within CMC

environments, it is important to determine whether SLA processes in adult learners are essentially the same

as or different from those involved in child first language acquisition and, if different, how so (Doughty,

2003, p. 275). Given the evident differences in outcomes, a logical inference is that child language

acquisition and adult SLA involve different types of processing for language learning which give rise to

three different theoretical positions. The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (Bley-Vroman, 1990) proposes

that child language learning is automatic and implicit whereas adult SLA is characterized by explicit and

general problem-solving strategies. The Competition Hypothesis (Felix, 1985) claims that implicit Universal

Grammar (UG, i.e., language principles underlying every language) and explicit problem solving processes

initially compete in adult SLA, with the latter eventually dominating the former. Finally, recent studies on

adult SLA which have been carried out adopting the hemodynamic method of FMRI (Functional Magnetic

Resonance Imaging) suggest that different brain regions subserve language processing in L1 and L2 during

the exposure to language input (Sorace, 2005, p. 73).

The common explanation for these child-adult differences is that there are maturational constraints on

language acquisition (Doughty, 2003, p. 275). Children in primary language acquisition face the difficulty of

processing and “shaping” the structure of their native language by relying upon the language input they hear

as the only cues for segmentation. When acquiring a second language, adult learners generally apply their

native-language processing strategies to L2 structure by focusing on specific elements of language which

belong to L1 rather than to L2, hence the necessity of exposing L2 learners to continuous audio-visual input.

The major difficulty for adult L2 learners is that L2 declarative or explicit knowledge cannot be matched to

the needs of overall processing mechanisms. Nonetheless, L2 formal instruction can help learners in

organizing the processing space by enhancing mechanisms that depend upon perceptual acuity. One of the

main goals of L2 instruction should therefore be the systematization of learners’ processing space in order to

enable them to notice the cues located in the input during implicit learning rather than to promote meta-

linguistic reflection in the first stages of language exposure.

An important recent claim is that implicit processing is more powerful than explicit thinking for learning

complex systems involving multiple tasks (Sorace, 2005, p. 296), implying that instructed SLA processing

should enhance implicit learning through appropriate activities and only gradually provide explicit

knowledge. Findings from a series of experiments have indicated that contextualized grammar knowledge

was acquired better implicitly from exposure to instances of language than by trying to explicitly induce

grammar rules (Sorace, 2005, p. 294). Thus, where complex knowledge is learned in context, implicit



learning is more successful. It is therefore important to determine how complex learning is processed in

particular conditions delivering varied types of information such as repeating either visual (images, video) or

auditory (mp3 recordings, podcast) language patterns combined with performative tasks such as writing,

completing, filling in, etc..

However, findings show that the main feature of implicit learning is fragmentary knowledge, i.e., subjects

are not able to recombine fragments from the input in order to verbalize the underlying rules and

consequently “declarative knowledge is a by-product of practice during implicit learning” (Sorace, 2005, p.

295). Accordingly, it appears reasonable that SLA necessarily involves more than one mode of processing,

that is, explicit learning takes place alongside implicit learning and such assumption informs the design of

effective applications in instructed SLA.

Individual differences in SLA

Research in the fields of psychology and applied linguistics has highlighted the relationship between

maturational constraints and cognitive/learning styles underlying the overall motivational processes of self-

regulated learning. It is therefore necessary to review some of the key concepts involved in this area.

Cognitive and learning styles - The study of cognitive and learning styles, borrowed from the discipline of

psychology, has greatly influenced SLA researchers. First of all, the issue of a certain predisposition to deal

with learning situations or to process information has proved to be very fruitful in SLA research in terms of

language proficiency and attainment. However, it is necessary to draw a distinction between learning styles

and cognitive styles that is sometimes unclear in the literature. “Learning style is a gestalt combining internal

and external operations derived from the individual’s neurobiology, personality and development and

reflected in learner behavior” (Keefe & Ferrell, 1990, p. 56). According to this definition, learning style

expresses a typical preference for a way to approach learning in general. Cognitive style, on the other hand,

refers to information-processing preferences.

It is also possible to go beyond the cognitive domain and apply the concept of style to other fields to include

areas such as sensory preference and personality. Regarding the sensory domain, Reid (1995) singled out

auditory, visual, kinesthetic and tactile preferences. In relation to personality, Oxford and Anderson (1995)

took a wider perspective including six interrelated aspects of learning styles: cognitive (concerning preferred

patterns of mental processing), executive (concerning the ability to manage his/her own learning processes),

affective (concerning attitudes that influence an individual in a specific learning situation), social

(concerning the extent of involvement with other people while learning), physiological (concerning the

learner’s sensory tendencies) and behavioural (concerning learner’s attempt to satisfy his/her learning

preferences). Thus, the term “learning style” is used in the literature to cover a wide range of learning

patterns and orientations at various psychological and behavioural levels. In this respect, learning styles are

closely related to learning strategies in that learning style refers to a cross-situational use of a class of

learning strategies.

Self-regulation - The concept of language learning strategy reflects the learner’s active contribution to

enhance the effectiveness of his/her own learning, which plays an important role in L2 acquisition. In this

respect, it is closely related to the less ambiguous term of “self-regulatory learning” which was adopted by

researchers focusing on the essence of strategic learning (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003, p. 611). The notion of

“self-regulation of academic learning refers to the degree to which individuals are active participants in their

own learning: it is a more dynamic concept rather than learning strategy. The self-regulated learner can be

portrayed as applying a set of varied skills during studying activities” (Winne, 1995, p. 173), he/she is aware

of his/her motivation and what he/she knows and what the differences between these kinds of information

imply for approaching a task. Using the new paradigm, researchers have attempted to combine learner-

initiated cognitive, meta-cognitive, and motivational processes and strategies. From a self-regulatory point of

view, language learners can improve the effectiveness of their learning not only by applying creative

operations that suit their learning styles, but also by increasing motivation to learn. In this view, self-

regulation and motivation are bound together to enhance learner achievement.

Motivation - This concerns the direction and measure of human behavior, i.e., the choice of a particular

action and the effort to pursue it. There is, of course, a broad range of reasons that can influence human



actions and in particular, learners to study a foreign language. In order to better understand the intricate

motivational network of a virtual classroom, it is necessary to adopt a comprehensive model which covers a

wide range of academic and social motives. Dörnyei (2000) argues that such a model can help explain the

relationship between many factors such as general reasons concerning L2-related attitudes, learner-specific

motives, reasons related to the micro-context of the language classroom, the teacher’s motivational

influence, the motivational characteristics of the curriculum and the teaching materials, the learner’s self-

regulatory activity, the role of time since motivation is a dynamic process rather than a state. In fact, from a

process-oriented perspective, it is important to take into account different phases of motivation: choice

motivation related to the foreign language chosen as a study subject, execution motivation concerning

activities to achieve the learning goals, motivational retrospection in which learners analyse and evaluate

their actional processes.

Language Learning in virtual environments

Some researchers (Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Lantolf, 2000) have applied Vygotsky’s ideas to second language

learning, interpreting the process of language acquisition as an overall mediated process occurring in three

different domains of mediation:

1. Social mediation or social interaction

2. Self-mediation or private speech

3. Artefact mediation operated by language, tasks and technology (Lamy & Hampel, 2007, p. 26).

Human learning is mediated through interaction with others, using language and other mediational tools,

with new technologies having developed new modes of communication that try to reproduce some

characteristics of face-to-face communication.

New media offer a wide range of ways of communicating (including spoken and written language, images,

video) and this means that learners and teachers cannot simply replicate modes of face-to-face

communication, rather they acquire the main ability to cope with these means once and accordingly self-

regulate their learning/teaching processes. It is therefore required that teachers and course designers are

aware of the affordances computer tools offer by taking into account how learners will use them to construct

meaning. As a matter of fact, some researchers (New London Group, 1996; Kress, 2003) talk about the

development of “multiliteracies” including the skills of using hardware and software as well as making

meaning from the hypertextual combination of multiple linguistic texts, audio, video and symbolic graphics

codes such as “smileys” (e.g., , ) and other graphic representations. In written CMC language learning

the “multimedia character of new electronic media facilitates reading and writing processes that are more

democratic learner-centred, holistic and natural” (Warschauer, 1999, p. 11).

However, according to some researchers, environments based on written communication can produce both

facilitative and inhibitory effects in terms of learner experience. In fact, anxiety is generally provoked by the

“mismatch between foreign language learners’ mature thoughts and their immature foreign or second

language proficiency which leads to frustration” (Gregersen & Horowitz, 2002, p. 562). On the other hand,

written environments can also provide scaffolding by reproducing features of oral language and therefore

train students for face-to-face communication. In particular, in face-to-face communication participants can

see facial expressions, hear the tone of voice and listen to the words used. In e-learning the only use of

written communication can make it more difficult to convey precise meaning and sometimes this fact may

lead to misunderstandings. The use of emoticons, a code based on punctuation and other symbols, can help

convey participants’ intentions and emotions. There is of course considerable variation in the way to

combine the elements of traditional and e-learning as well as the learning skills associated with them (Clarke,

2008, p. 3). For example, websites may have been especially designed as part of an education program or for

general purposes consequently requiring different search or study skills. Table 1 shows a comparison of

traditional and e-learning skills as well as sub- or related skills combined with more specific language skill.

Table 1. Comparing traditional and e-learning skills in SLA



Skill Traditional e-Learning

Reading skimming/scanning

skimming/scanning/browsing are

particularly important to

locate relevant websites

using the Worl Wide Web

Writing

summarising the key points

of a text;

reporting information; note

taking and

exercises

referencing information;

communicating

(e.g. e-mails); keeping records;

note taking and exercises

Listening

Understanding the key points

of a conversation between

two or more speakers or a

recorded message

Understanding the key points of

a conversation between two or

more speakers

or a recorded message

Interaction

Ability to understand and

respond to a native or non-

native speaker/interlocutor in

written/oral communications

Ability to understand and

respond to a native or non-native

speaker/interlocutor in written

communications

Searching

Ability to search physical

libraries by reviewing the

contents page, looking up

key words, checking the

publication date and the

author

Ability to search the world wide

web, to analyze information, to

assess content and compare

alternative sources

Planning Determined by the teacher

along with timetables and

study guides

In part determined by the teacher

and in part by the learner

Time management Critical to control the

teaching/learning process

Critical to control the

teaching/learning process

Self-assessment Steady Steady

Creating content Associated with arts and

crafts

Enhanced and facilitated by the

availability of technological

equipment

Meaningful learning, autonomy and self-regulated learning: an overview

The design of a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), i.e. the choice of contents as well as the organization

of materials and tasks of a learning course, generally relies on meaningful learning and autonomy as main

theoretical foundations. These concepts, integrated into the multidimensional construct of Self-Regulated

Learning, may contribute to constructing educational environments that are inspired by the constructivist

paradigm as well as sensitive to the cognitive aspects of academic learning.

Ausubel’s notion (1968) of meaningful learning implies that the learner is in a certain disposition to link new

information (concepts and propositions) with existing concepts in his/her cognitive structure and that new

material to be learned is potentially significant to him/her.



As theorized by Ausubel, the idea of meaningful learning emphasizes the active role of the learner who

relates “new subsuming concepts and principles to be learned” in a “non-arbitrary and substantive” fashion

to what he/she already knows, to the learner’s existing knowledge, to relevant anchoring concepts already

available in cognitive structure, through a major transaction of interaction between new knowledge and

his/her cognitive structure. The result of this process is acquisition, retention/reduction and retrieval of

meanings of new symbolic expressions. Ausubel assumes that the attribution of meanings is a complex

individual cognitive experience which is influenced and determined by many factors that closely relate to the

learner, to the instructional design as well as teaching techniques.

The concept of meaningful learning has been developed within the research field that investigates the

integration of technology and instruction. Several researchers in this field (Ashburn & Floden, 2006;

Jonassen, Howland, Marra & Crismond, 2007) have defined meaningful learning as “deep and enduring

understanding of complex idea” and argued that meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in

social activities, i.e., in projects and tasks based on the interactions with each other in natural and complex

learning environments, using authentic and contextualized tools that promote construction, collaboration and

reflection on what learners are studying.

Jonassen (1994) points out that computers, as cognitive learning tools rather than “conveyors of

information”, afford the most meaningful thinking because they force students to reflect on their knowledge

in a new and meaningful way.

In general, studies on Technology Mediated Instruction within the social-constructivist paradigm invite us to

be aware of the role of the learner, letting him/her be actively involved in the learning process, since he/she

“constructs” conceptual systems in his/her mind (Piaget, 1971). The learner acquires new knowledge in

interacting with others, through contextualized practices and activities which have to be rooted in specific

historical, cultural and social settings which in turn determine the conditions as well as the purposes, goals,

means and tools of such activities. In fact, the social-constructivist paradigm states that learning is neither a

transmissive nor submissive process, rather it views learning as a complex process through which the learner

assigns meaning to things in the real world. “Meaning exists neither in us, nor in the world, but in the

dynamic relation of living in the world” (Wenger, 1998, p. 54), it is itself produced by an active and

productive process of negotiation, in terms of controversy, interpretation, amendment, or confirmation. The

negotiation of meaning, then, allows its articulation, expression and representation through factors such as

conversation, reflective practice, language, relation, comparison, non-verbal interaction. Knowledge,

learning and culture therefore derive from the negotiation of meaning.

The social-constructivist perspective suggests a mediated instructional model based on scaffolding

instruction that fosters meaning-making. An important inference of constructivism is that students, as “active

learners”, play a central role in controlling learning, and must accept greater responsibility for generating

learning and constructing their own understanding. This does not mean that constructivism advocates the

abolition of teacher control, rather a radical change is needed in teaching/learning management: teachers

create a learner-centred environment for learners and assume the role of facilitators who help learners to

build understanding and support their active participation in their own learning process. A self-regulated

learning perspective widens this idea by pointing out that learners’ involvement should encompass the meta-

cognitive, motivational and behavioural aspects; (Zimmerman, 1990). Its main objective is the development

of awareness of cognitive processes and control over learning.

Autonomy has been defined as the learner’s ability to take charge of (Holec, 1981), or take responsibility for

(Little, 1991), or control over (Benson, 2001) his/her own learning. From this point of view, the concept of

autonomy refers to an ability that can be acquired, enhanced and developed in individuals mainly through

instruction and learning experiences involving students in the processing of their knowledge.

The concept of autonomy in the field of Second Language Acquisition has been used to indicate the learner

who studies alone, or the right of the learner to determine his/her own learning goals. Autonomy is not self-

instruction and does not imply learning in isolation without a teacher, rather it implies “a holistic view of the

learner that requires us to engage with the cognitive, meta-cognitive, affective and social dimensions of

language learning and to worry about how they interact with one another” (Little, 2003). Autonomy can



manifest itself in different ways and “take various forms for different individuals, and even for the same

individual in different contexts or at different times” (Benson, 2001, p. 37).

The ability of a learner to understand and control his/her own learning processes is defined as Self-Regulated

Learning (SRL). Self-regulating students “set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate,

and control their cognition, motivation, and behaviour, guided and constrained by their goals and the

contextual features in the environment” (Pintrich, 2000, p. 453). Self-regulation is generally accepted as an

important construct in student success within environments as online courses that enhance learner choices.

It is worth noting that the point of view of self-regulated learning is extremely important in order to examine

how a blended learning course can help students become more autonomous in their meaningful learning of

English as a Foreign Language.

In order to increase the understanding of the relationship between e-learning and motivational processes, it is

necessary to gain a greater understanding of the learning materials that are developed to increase motivation.

Students need to understand the current state of their knowledge and build on it, improve it, and make

decisions.

The use of e-learning offers an added value to face-to-face training (Vento, D’Esposito, Faiella, 2008),

especially in relation to the possibility for students to study according to the variables of time, ways and

places appropriate to their learning styles. The need to set up an online environment that is “learner-oriented”

and designed to increase the potential of asynchronous and synchronous communication tools, as well as

improve the effectiveness of guidance and counselling training during lessons, should be emphasized.

APPLICATIONS

Designing an e-learning course for language learning

In the first part of the chapter we have focused on the developmental and individual differences that can

influence the individual regulation efforts within virtual learning environments. In the second part, we will

relate the cognitive and motivational processes underlying SRL to the constituent parts of the EFL e-learning

course.

Virtual Learning Environment

The EFL blended learning course was carried out in the experimental set up of a teaching laboratory called

eLearning_Lab (www.eformazione.unisa.it). The main aim of the course was to respond to the increasing

educational and training demands of the students as well as creating more flexible study paths based on

innovative teaching and learning methods.

The EFL course was designed in a blended format (Ligorio, Cacciamani & Cesareni, 2006) since this has

proved to be particularly effective in terms of flexibility and individualization of the educational proposals.

“Resource-based learning offers learners the opportunity to exercise control over learning plans, the selection

of learning materials and the evaluation of learning” (Benson, 2001, p. 113).

The online English component of the course was delivered through the Moodle platform as a parallel

instructional pathway complementing the traditional face-to-face learning environment of classroom lessons

by means of learning materials and resources available 24 hours a day. Moodle is an Open Source learning

management system developed to help teachers to create effective online courses. It manages the teaching

activity through specific tools devised to prepare lessons in text format and hypertext links to web pages,

write glossaries, create multiple-choice test items, true-false tests, short essays and evaluative tests. It allows

the development of learning environments in which communication can be achieved through different

services integrated into the system. The integrated platform, when properly set, meets the principles of

constructivism based on the dialogue and negotiation of meaning, social relationships and active

participation to meaningful practices. Therefore, it can support an active approach to the process of

knowledge building and stimulate the natural abilities to learn through the creation of genuine virtual

learning environments in which learners can actively cooperate in a mutual support (scaffolding). Moodle

also leads students to focus on the processes of (self-) learning and (self-) evaluation without distracting with

the complexity of use, and encourages communication and interaction among students, teachers, web-



administrators, through various synchronous and asynchronous communication tools. Learners, in fact,

should not feel alone with resources and materials, at the mercy of technical difficulties. The centrality of the

student does not exclude a fundamental role for the teacher who is there not only to ensure the quality of

content but also as a point of reference for each student.

The learning environment set up on Moodle for our course provides a number of tools, ideas and alternatives

which have been carefully evaluated and pedagogically calibrated to guarantee a constant monitoring of the

actions undertaken by participants and accordingly to improve, correct and adapt the educational intervention

to the training needs of the students.

In order to enhance goal orientation, the student can find a brief description of the course syllabus on the

right side of the interface with specifications concerning progression and sequence of the learning

experiences, course objectives, expected outcomes and topics to be covered. The central part of the user

interface is divided into ten sections and each of them includes a general overview of the language contents,

homework, reading assignments and recommended readings. There is no restriction on the sequencing from

the first to the tenth module: each student can plan the selection of materials and activities which are relevant

to his/her personal needs and goals. The only restriction is placed on the self-assessment test each student has

to do as a self-reflection operation on his/her prior language knowledge and competence.

Research framework

Earlier on, we have described the theoretical framework within which the blended e-learning model we

adopted in designing the EFL course can be placed. In this section, we will deal with the application of SLA

theories to the practice of an online EFL course by presenting the main features which have informed its

planning and design.

Vygotsky’s “scaffolded” model of instruction seemed to provide a valuable and appropriate basis upon

which we could build the EFL course.

Following Skehan’s (1998, p. 132) indicators for task-based instruction in SLA which are worth considering

in a Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) system (Chapelle, 2001, p. 46), we have selected five

guidelines concerning cognitive conditions that can influence the linguistic content of a course along with the

more general criteria adopted in designing online courses. By matching the five preliminary conditions for

SLA task-based instruction with the stages of the Instructional System Design (ISD), we obtained the overall

architectural structure of the language course. Table 2. gives an overview of all these elements combined

together (arrows indicate correspondences between the two models).

Table 2. Overview of task-based instruction indicators and stages of ISD

Cognitive conditions for SLA Stages of the Instructional System Design

1. Selection of a range of target structures

following the sequence of natural

development

I. Analysis: students’ pre-requisites

and future professional profile,

expected outcomes, affordances

(technological tools, web

resources, degree of students’

involvement in performing

online tasks)

2. Choice of tasks which meet utility

conditions, i.e. degree of likelihood that

a particular structure will be used by

learners as they perform a task

II. Design: in terms of Bloom’ s

taxonomy of educational

objectives; learning modules,

learning objects, virtual visits,

assessment tests

3. Sequencing of tasks to achieve balanced III. Development: of text files or



goal development according to the three

dimensions of language performance,

i.e. fluency, accuracy and complexity

(Chapelle, 2001, p. 46)

web pages

4. Maximizing chances of focus on form

while performing meaningful tasks

essentially based on communication

tasks

IV. Implementation: in the Moodle

integrated platform

5. Use of accountability cycles to let

learners become responsible of their

own learning, aware of the language

they are acquiring

V. Evaluation/assessment:

formative and summative tests

On a practical level, we adopted a blended approach to cope with both the linguistic demands of face-to-face

communication and the constructivist principles of language learning. In particular, the learning activities

carried out during self-study sessions were adopted as warm-up or grammar reflection stages before the in-

class face-to-face sessions.

In the following pages, we will illustrate how this model was implemented within the University context

aiming at:

1. Enabling learners to achieve the pre-requisites required by the language course objectives

(elementary pathway).

2. Increasing/supporting learners during self-study sessions at home or university self-access centre

(pre-intermediate pathway).

3. Empowering learners’ both “traditional” study and e-learning skills (autonomy in searching the web,

consulting web resources specifically designed to improve their foreign language knowledge and

increase motivation to learn).

Course format

Participants - The EFL e-learning course was delivered at the Faculty of Education (University of Salerno)

during the autumn term 2008. The participants were 83 students aged 21-22 attending a regular face-to-face

course of English for Primary School teachers, but only 50 of them actually attended both the regular and the

online course.

Method - The first step in designing the scaffolded structure of the course was to choose the A2 and B1

levels from the Common European Framework (CEF) of Reference (Council of Europe, 2001) as

respectively the starting and expected levels of language proficiency. Students were therefore provided with

e-documentation for self-assessment and placement test, a detailed description of the course syllabus, a list of

the planned activities and guidelines for the final tests and assessment criteria in order to assist students in

achieving course objectives. For this reason, they were first given an online version of a self-assessment test

(http://www.tolearnenglish.com/test-de-niveau-anglais-grammaire.php) in order to determine the learner’s

starting level of language competence along with the table of CEF descriptors for the levels involved (A2,

B1/B2).

Tools and Materials - The description of the course syllabus also included a wide range of study resources

(Online Dictionary with pronunciation (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/), Bilingual Dictionary

(http://www.wordreference.com/enit/word), BBC Learning English with video recordings devoted to

pronunciation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/pron/sounds.shtml) and learning

materials carefully selected from a number of accredited websites devoted to EFL acquisition (Oxford

University Press Study Links (http://www.oup.com/elt/global/products/englishfile/englishfile2/c_games/),

Australian Network Living English Stories (http://australianetwork.com/livingenglish/stories/le_ep01.htm).

The availability of a variety of resources has to be seen as the pedagogically/theoretically motivated

necessity to intersperse instructional methodologies using different learning styles: logical/deductive with



text-based material, verbal-visual with audio-video materials and visual-kinesthetic with interactive

exercises.

Syllabus - Then, two interrelated learning pathways were designed, an elementary pathway and a pre-

intermediate pathway. The term pathway generally refers to a collection of recommended materials selected

and organized on the basis of levels of language competence, learning needs and styles. Therefore, the

concept of learning pathway can be seen as a personalized educational plan characterized by built-in choice

of contents, self-assessment techniques, flexibility in terms of time.

The basic characteristics of the two learning pathways were the same. Both pathways were planned as 9-

week courses and structured around “Thematic Modules” focusing on everyday speech and communicative

topics (Introducing yourself and people you know; Personality and Physical Appearance; Leisure and Free

Time, etc.) “conveyed” and introduced by specific episodes selected from a TV movie series. Each module

was subdivided into “grammar units” composed of grammar notes with written exercises, listening activities

such as “video-dictation”, text completion and note taking while watching the selected video. It is worth

noting that the pre-intermediate course was intended as complementary to the in-class lessons, whereas the

elementary one was conceived as “preparatory” to achieve the expected language objectives of the course

corresponding to the pre-intermediate level indicators.

Activities - The related activities (video-dictation, listening exercises, revision tasks) were placed in

meaningful and real contexts in order to expose students to the different communicative functions of

language without explicitly providing grammar knowledge. The primary concern was to choose materials

and learning tasks which could meet the expectations of the group of students involved in the study and their

potential professional profile as future primary school teachers. Assuming that exposure to real contexts of

language use enhances comprehensible input and implicit thinking for learning, students were exposed to a

given communicative situation performed by the characters in the video. This activity could then respond to

both the “criterion of authenticity” (with the correspondence of language learning and real-world task) and

“learner fit” taking into account learner’s characteristics and learning styles which increase the effectiveness

of Computer Assisted Language Learning tasks (Chapelle, 2001, p. 8). Each of the 42 episodes was provided

with the transcript on the right of the screen (Figure 1) and a grammar focus area containing explanations

and examples taken from the video. The language material could also be used to make brief assignments

proposed at the end of the section. Finally, a complete list of the episodes was also provided allowing fast

and easy browsing to search for a specific topic.

During the face-to-face session in the classroom, warming-up activities started with a review of the

communicative patterns found in the episodes through learner-learner or learner-teacher interactions. This

activity had two main aims: 1. to give students the opportunity to negotiate meaning, 2. to draw students’

attention to specific syntactic patterns in certain contexts of use.

Figure 1. Overall structure of TV movies

Assessment and Evaluation - At the beginning of the course students were provided with a downloadable

portfolio (Figure 2) in the form of a diary to be completed during self-study sessions where students could

record important information such as date, type of activity, topic, grammar areas involved, and achieved

outcomes with comments on their learning experience, study skills implied, drawbacks, backwash.

Figure 2. Portfolio for Self-Study

Students were asked to carefully complete this kind of documentation since it was used as the starting point

of the oral exam.

Summative assessment took place in the classroom in both written and oral form as this still remains the

central focus of the national examination system. Given the characteristics of the course informed to a

constant (self)-monitoring of students’ progression, we assumed as our primary aim the standards recently

fixed in relation to foreign language assessment:

1. Monitoring to ensure students’ progress.



2. Assessment including formal and informal assessment, ongoing evaluation, target-setting, regular self-

assessment.

3. Recording marks from tests and formal assessments.

4. Translating assessment results into frequent descriptive feedback for students, providing them with

specific insights as to how to improve.

Translating, in particular, proved to be crucial, since it related the learning experience of the self-study

sessions carried out in the virtual environment to the educational reality of the university classroom.

DISCUSSION The careful evaluation of the documentation (self-assessment test and portfolio) provided by the students

session gave evidence of the expected outcomes of the whole group attending the course (50 out of 50

students successfully passed the English exam set out according to the Preliminary English Test format). In

other words, the high percentage of students (60,2% out of the total number of students attending the face-to-

face course) who passed the achievement exam shows that they had effectively set up all the necessary

actions to become a self-regulated learner (Pintrich, 2000, p. 455).

The first section of the course, for example, provided students with the tools to (self-)evaluate the level of

their prior language knowledge and skills. The students had at disposal a self-assessment grid to compare

their actual skills with the CEF descriptors of the B1 level (Council of Europe, 2001). They were asked to

give specific examples of how they actually use the English language in real-life situations and then compare

these examples with the CEF standards specified for each language skill (listening, reading, spoken and

written interaction). Furthermore, the experience of comparing the learning goals with their ability to

evaluate their own language competence would encourage students to reflect on the path of learning they

need to plan and become active participants in their learning process.

The online course was seen as an alternative way to make the teaching/learning process a highly motivating

experience through which students could become aware of their own learning and progress in language skill

mastery.

Starting from the premise that students need advanced self-regulated learning skills to succeed in online

environments, as well as to learn a second language, we specifically designed the courseware to help

students take control of their learning and support students to plan, monitor, control and evaluate their EFL

learning. The focus was also placed upon the learner’s interaction with the learning resources and support

tools specifically designed for planning, monitoring and (self-) evaluating the learning process. In this

respect, the most effective means of self-monitoring proved to be the personal portfolio compiled by each

student as the report on his/her tailor-made learning pathway.

CONCLUSION

In recent years, foreign language teaching has undergone a profound methodological transformation. First

the slate-board and book have been complemented with a wide range of audiovisual aids, and then with a

series of tools based on the Internet and real time communication. Teachers that live daily with their students

can not exempt themselves from experiencing new ways of meeting their students’ educational needs.

When designing our course, we considered a scaffolded structure for fostering self-regulated learning in

order to promote learner autonomy and meaningful learning. In this view, the student does not passively

undergo the training intervention made by the teacher, but personally contributes to building his/her learning.

In order to reach this aim, we have provided the online course with tools that facilitate and stimulate

planning, monitoring and self-assessment of students’ learning.

By self-assessing their language skills, students obtain the necessary information concerning the primary

language abilities of understanding, interacting and producing verbal messages in both written and oral

forms. Then, the possibility to present the contents of the discipline in e-documents linked together in a non-

linear but associative architectural structure allows the students to navigate through various kinds of

information (text, graphics, sounds, audio, images, videos) following routes which combine the learners’

autonomous choices and teachers’ instructional design decisions. Thanks to the frequent links, students can

navigate from one node to another as active players able to structure their own learning pathways with



contents in a dynamic educational framework. The Portfolio, moreover, is a tool designed and conceived

with the express purpose of directing students’ learning efforts towards specific goals, helping them to plan

study time and monitor their own learning process. This document accompanies students throughout their

self-study sessions as a valuable means for raising their language learning awareness by recording the

accomplished tasks, activities, and objectives.

Relying on these conceptual tools, the overall structure of our course was aimed at enhancing self-regulation

by setting up a series of operations ranging from self-evaluation to specification of study items, language

skills and objectives, all contributing to defining the profile of the self-regulated language learner.

Finally, guidelines to the final tests and the specification of the evaluation criteria were designed as means to

help students to make sense of the assigned tasks and relate them with the final goal, plan their own learning

path consistently with the expected result and, most importantly, facilitate the overall process of self-

regulation in a behavioural dimension.

At the end of the course, the class participation and learners’ achievements pointed out that Technology

Mediated Instruction can offer additional delivery tools and innovative teaching/learning strategies which

should complement those currently experienced in the academy and actually support language learning.

When used appropriately, web resources can facilitate language learning in a highly motivating dimension

and allow the teacher/facilitator to search for continually updated instructional tools and undertake research

on new teaching methodologies, in an ongoing process of professional training and long-life learning.

REFERENCES

Ashburn, E.A., & Floden, R.E. (2006). Meaningful learning using technology: what educators need to know

and do. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology. A Cognitive View. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Barone, L., & Calabrese, R. (2005). Didattica nella rete. Aspetti positivi e negativi dell’uso di Internet nel

campo della didattica, con uno sguardo particolare alla lingua inglese (Teaching through the Net.

Advantages and disadvantages of the Internet in EFL teaching). Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica

Applicata, 2(3), 33-52.

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London, UK: Longman.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 201(2), 3-

49.

Chapelle, C.A. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Foundations for Teaching,

Testing and Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, A. (2008). e-Learning Skills. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching,

Assessment. Cambridge, UK: CUP.

Dörnyei, Z., (2000). Motivation in action: towards a process-oriented conceptualization of student

motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (4), 519-38.

Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual Differences in L2 Learning. In C. Doughty & M.H. Long

(Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA. In C. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second

Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Faiella, F. (2005). Metodologie di scaffolding per il blended learning (Scaffolding Methodologies for

blended learning). Form@re, 39(2). Retrieved from

http://formare.erickson.it/archivio/novembre_05/2_FAIELLA.html.

Felix, S. (1985). More evidence on competing cognitive systems. Language Research, 1(1), 47-72.

Gregersen, T., & Horowitz, E.K. (2002). Language Learning and Perfectionism: Anxious and Non-anxious

Language Learners' Reactions to Their Own Oral Performance. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4),

562-70.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.



Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Technology as Cognitive Tools: Learners as Designers. ITForum. Retrieved from

http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper1/paper1.html

Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Marra, R.M., & Crismond, D. (2007). Meaningful learning with technology.

Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Keefe, J.W., & Ferrell, B.G. (1990). Developing a defensible learning style paradigm. Educational

Leadership, 48(2), 57-61.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow, UK: Longman.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London, UK: Routledge.

Lamy, M.N., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online Communication in Language Learning and Teaching. New York,

NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Second Language Learning as a Mediated Process. Language Teaching, 33(2): 79-96.

Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian Approaches to second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ligorio, M.B., Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D. (2006). Blended learning. Dalla scuola dell'obbligo alla

formazione adulta (From compulsory to adult education). Roma, IT: Carocci.

Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin, EI: Authentik.

Little, D. (2003). Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning. Subject Centre for Languages,

Linguistics and Area Studies Good Practice Guide. Retrieved from

http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1409

Matthews, R. et al. (1997). Guidelines for Good Practice: Technology Mediated Instruction. Sacramento,

CA: The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges.

New London Group (1996). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Educational

Review, 66(1).

Oxford, R.L., & Anderson, N.J. (1995). A cross-cultural view of learning styles. Language Teaching, 28(4),

201-215.

Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and Knowledge. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Pintrich, P.R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich &

M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Reid, J.M. (1995). Learning Styles in ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive Approach to Language Learning. London, UK: Edward Arnold.

Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K.P. Corrigan (Eds.),

Syntax and Variation. Reconciling the Biological and the Social. Amsterdam, NL/New York, NY: J.

Benjamins Publishing.

Vento, M., D’Esposito, M.R., Faiella, F. (2008). Percorsi di formazione a distanza “e-learning”.

L’esperienza dell’ateneo salernitano (Rooting for distance learning "e-learning". The experience of the

University of Salerno). Lecce: Pensa Editore.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic Literacies: Language, Culture, and Power in Online Education.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 173-87.

Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational

Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

KEY TERMS & DEFINITIONS

eLearning Lab: teaching laboratory of Faculty of Education (University of Salerno, Italy) that was created

with the aim of responding to the increasing educational and training demands of the students as well as

create more flexible study paths using innovative methods of teaching and learning.



Explicit/Implicit knowledge: Explicit knowledge refers to information acquired and stored as such in the

mind (“knowing that”). Implicit knowledge is “knowing how” to go about doing something. These terms are

often associated to the concepts of declarative knowledge, which is defined as the factual information stored

in memory and known to be static in nature and procedural knowledge as the knowledge of how to perform,

or how to operate.

Moodle: a Learning Management System (LMS). It manages the teaching activity through specific tools

devised to prepare lessons, glossaries, wiki and tests. Communication is achieved through different services

(chat, forum, messages, blog) integrated into the system.

Motive: the hidden reason you do something.

Multiliteracy: the mastery of different abilities in the overall communications environment.

Portfolio: a collection of self-study session recordings and documents also including placement and

formative tests.

Rote learning: Ausubel considered rote learning as opposed to meaningful learning. He claimed that the rote

level of learning does not allow to anchor new knowledge into concepts that are already available in the

cognitive structure.

Scaffolding: in the educational field, the word “scaffolding” is used metaphorically by researchers, trainers

and teachers to denote the support and assistance provided by an adult or more knowledgeable peer to a

learner for conduct a task too complex for his/her skill levels.

BIO OF THE AUTHORS

Rita Calabrese teaches English Language at the University of Salerno. She researches and publishes in the

areas of Second Language Acquisition, Interlanguage Analysis, and distance learning. She is the author of a

number of publications on the use of English as the medium of instruction in non-language subjects (Content

and Language Integrated Learning) and the use of corpora technology to study interlanguage (Insights into

the Lexicon-Syntax Interface in Italian Learners’ English. A Generative Framework for a Corpus-based

Analysis, Aracne, 2008).

University of Salerno

Department of Literary and Language Studies

Via Ponte don Melillo

84084 – Fisciano (SA)

Filomena Faiella is a researcher at the University of Salerno and the coordinator of the eLearning_Lab

(www.eformazione.unisa.it). She teaches Learning and Instructional Technologies at the Faculty of

Education and in master and doctoral courses. She is currently participating, as coordinator or partner, in

projects on e-learning models for higher education, e-tutoring and online cooperative learning, collaborative

knowledge building, semantic web. She has published a number of books (Progettare la didattica

costruttivista – Learning Design, Pensa Editore, 2009) and papers in refereed journals (Teaching in virtual

worlds: educational experiences in Second Life, Je-lks, 5(2), 2009) and proceedings (Innovare i processi

educativi. Costruzione Collaborativa di Conoscenza multimediale - Innovative educational processes.

Collaborative knowledge building, 1st National Conference of Collaborative Knowledge Building Group,

ScriptaWeb, 2007).

University of Salerno

Department of Education

Via Ponte don Melillo

http://everything2.com/title/knowledge

http://everything2.com/title/information

http://everything2.com/title/mind



84084 – Fisciano (SA)

i Rita Calabrese is the author of Introduction, Aspects of adult Second Language Acquisition, Language Learning in

virtual environments, Research framework, Course Format. Filomena Faiella is the author of Abstract, Meaningful

learning, autonomy and self-regulated learning: an overview, Virtual Learning Environment, Discussion and

Conclusion.

Date post:	23-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	unisa-it
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Theoretical and Practical Issues in Designing a Blended e-learning Course of English as a Foreign...

Documents