Validating the normalization of vocabulary systems in a university EFL program

Abstract

The integration and normalization of multiple CALL systems with more traditional face-to-face learning, or blended learning, is an emerging trend of research. Evaluators are urged to investigate the processes involved in normalization of language learning tools in the classroom. Grounded in blended learning evaluation, this paper adopts an argument-based approach to interrogate the single claim: blended vocabulary learning systems can be normalized in English as a foreign language (EFL) programs. Using needs analysis, survey data, and document analysis, the authors examine what factors contribute to implementation and normalization of a blended language vocabulary program in a private Japanese university EFL program. Results reveal that transparency, constructive alignment, and coordinator’s and teacher’s knowledge, skills, and attitudes are important factors. Finally, it is argued that the normalization of blended learning programs seems to be predicated upon careful alignment with well-defined learning objectives, and on the availability of transparent analytics from online systems for the learner, teacher, and coordinator to ensure the diffusion of alignment from the meso to the micro level of the program.

Keywords:

• Normalization
• blended language learning
• vocabulary learning
• constructive alignment
• technology integration

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Coordinators of large English as a Foreign Language (EFL) programs are tasked with determining vocabulary learning goals for language courses and programs, and then blending digital and paper vocabulary learning systems to deliver relevant practice and assessment to individual learners. This case study followed an argument-based evaluation method to determine whether EFL blended vocabulary learning programs can be normalized and what factors impact the normalization process. The authors found that vocabulary programs have the potential to be normalized when careful consideration is given to the curriculum, teacher training, and the needs of the students. This approach of argument-based program evaluation may provide a blueprint for others interested in evaluating a blended vocabulary learning curriculum.

Acknowledgements

Conducting this meso-level evaluation of the vocabulary program was part of the AOL initiative from the English Department and thus we are indebted to our colleagues on the AOL team for their monthly feedback and comments. Especially, we would like to thank the Director of the English Department for their excellent guidance in our AOL project. Finally, we would like to thank all the teachers who helped conduct surveys and students for taking the surveys.

Data

The data instruments that support the findings of this study are openly available in Mendeley data at

https://data.mendeley.com//datasets/cf2b9kvdw6/1

Declaration of Interest and Ethical Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. None of the faculty participants work for any of the CALL companies whose online systems were used or vetted for this study. Additionally, CALL companies were also anonymized. All decisions about data collection were made in conjunction with regular Assurance of Learning (AOL) meetings and were part of a bigger AOL initiative. Data was collected with the permission and approval of the language center at XU (pseudonym); although not an independent ethics committee, it ensured we followed the ethical guidelines set forth by our university that are in line with Taylor and Francis's ethical guidelines. Great care was taken to ensure ethical procedures and guidelines set out by our university were followed for data collection and all permissions were granted. All students who were video recorded signed informed consent forms. All surveys were anonymous, voluntary, and any identifying information has been removed to protect confidentiality. The survey data which we quote specifically in our paper included informed consent.  One survey in phase one was not voluntary because it was part of an overall evaluation and needs assessment of student vocabulary learning. However, students could choose whether their response could be used for publication.

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Lindsay Mack

Lindsay Mack, Paul Sevigny, Malcolm Larking, and Lance Stilp share a variety of research interests including vocabulary acquisition, academic writing, pedagogical stylistics, discussion, reading strategies, bilingualism, and conversation analysis. The research reported in this paper was part of a larger review of an entire English Program’s learning objectives and goals based on an Assurance of Learning (AOL) framework. When they started this project, they noticed a lack of studies on vocabulary assurance of learning and evaluation and hope this article contributes to that field. They hope to work together on future research projects for other skills besides vocabulary.