Evaluation of a blended learning language course: students’ perceptions of appropriateness for the development of skills and language areas

Abstract

This study investigated students’ perceptions of the usefulness of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in all the skills and areas of language in an English as a Foreign Language blended course, which integrated ICT fully, and compared these perceptions to those of pupils of a Spanish as a Second Language blended course with a lower level of ICT integration. Our results showed that both student populations had not used ICT much for language learning previously, that their ratings varied depending on use of ICT in their course and that students with an increased use of technology in their courses seemed to realize its true potential for productive skills, but also some of its disadvantages. The perceived usefulness of ICT for skills and different areas of language was also different. The students who had used ICT less in their course rated it as most useful for some areas of language (grammar and vocabulary) followed by receptive skills, and least useful for the development of pronunciation and productive skills. However, students who had used ICT more in their course rated it lower for its usefulness for areas of language and receptive skills, and rated it higher for the improvement of pronunciation and productive skills. This study encourages the use of ICT for language learning, showing that students had very positive perceptions of its usefulness, and recommends adding guides and training to blended learning experiences to diminish the number of students rejecting the use of ICT.

Keywords:

• blended learning
• ICT integration
• students’ perceptions
• skills development with ICT

Notes

1. Levy defined technology at five levels: Level 1 included technologies with a material form; Level 2 referred to management environments such as VLEs and LMS; Level 3 was the application or tool level; Level 4 consisted of applications and Level 5 comprised components for larger applications.

2. Martínez Baztán (2008) compared the levels used in Europe (CEFR) to the American Council of the Teaching of Foreign Languages and established B1 to be Intermediate High proficiency level. To see equivalences to other tests go to http://www.examenglish.com/examscomparison.php.

3. As some authors (Levy, 2010) claim training is important for the success of this kind of courses. Including a guide about platform usage and organization was considered as the best option for training.

4. The transactional distance is defined as the “physical distance that leads to a communication gap, a psychological space of potential misunderstandings” (Moore & Kearsley, 1996, p. 200), which manifests in the lack of opportunity for person–person communication within a course.

5. Organized according to Levy's (2010) levels.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

M.C. Bueno-Alastuey

M.C. Bueno-Alastuey, PhD, is a lecturer at the Public University of Navarre where she teaches English teaching methodology courses related to ICT for learning and teaching foreign languages to Education degree and masters' students and English for Specific Purposes. Her research focuses on CALL, especially in blended learning design and implementation, the use of Virtual Learning Platforms and Synchronous Voice-based Computer-Mediated Communication. She has published nationally and internationally on these topics.

M.V. López Pérez

M.V. López Pérez, PhD, is a teaching assistant at the Public University of Navarra where she teaches Communicative Skills in Spanish language to students on exchange programmes, and Didactics of Languages to masters' students. Her research interests include academic language, teaching of a second language to immigrant populations and ICT for language learning. She has produced papers for a national and international audience. Since 2012, she collaborates as an honorary research fellow in Language Technology for e-learning in the Research Group in Computational Linguistics, Research Institute of Information and Language Processing (RIILP).