DELTA Module 3 extended assignment

Paul Gallantry TEACHING LEARNERS ONLINE THROUGH DISTANCE/BLENDED LEARNING (DL) Teaching ESOL Learners Through Blended Learning Contents Review and Key Issues2. Needs analysis and commentary.4 Course Proposal..8 Assessment Proposal..11 Conclusion..13 Bibliography..15 Appendices.18 Appendix 1: Course Plan and note..18 Appendix 2: Results..22 a) Collated Needs Analysis b) Diagnostic Test Results and note In separate document: Appendix 3: sample NA and DA papers a) Needs Analysis: Sara b) Diagnostic Test: Dimitrios Appendix 4: Course Evaluation Procedural Outline Appendix 5: Sample Materials Appendix 6: Sample Assessment Word Count (excluding bibliography and appendices):4499

Part One: Introduction: Review and Key Issues Reasons for choosing this specialism I have chosen to look at designing a course for blended learning for several reasons. Firstly, I have been working in FE for eleven years and I have become interested in how our learners use technology, and how they react to our Virtual Learning Environment. My current workplace is also aiming to deliver more courses online, so establishing and evaluating a blended learning course seems appropriate. Lastly, one thing that has always interested me is why certain students go on to study at CEFR B2 and above, while many others seem to reach an intermediate level (B1) and have difficulty progressing. It would be interesting to see whether a flexible, blended learning pathway may increase the ability of our students to progress. Key issues Two issues became apparent when I began conducting research. The first was that the amount of printed literature available seemingly cannot keep pace with the speed of technology. Dudeney (2000) and Teeler & Gray (2001) wrote about an internet-based learning and teaching experience that already looks somewhat antiquated, based as it is on search engines and gathering information from the Internet to draw into class-based activities. In essence, they were advocating using technology as an adjunct to more traditional class-based exercises, rather than integration. The second issue is how educators have risen to the challenge of adapting their approaches and methodologies. While the concept of blended learning has been around for some time, it is arguably only in the past ten years that it has become increasingly mainstream. The flipped, or inverted, classroom, where students study at home and practise in the classroom (Peachey, 2011, Morrish, 2012) was a relatively new idea in 2000, but with the rise of social networking, better Virtual Learning Environments, online educational software, and mobile platforms such as tablet computers and smart phones, both concepts now look like increasingly viable ways of pursuing language learning. Blended Learning Blended learning is a combination of traditional classroom learning with interactive online technology (Mason & Rennie (2006), quoted by Hampel (2010)).The amount of online work against class-based work may vary. Morrish, (2012), explains how Cambridge ESOL online courses feature 60-70% online work and 30-40% face-to-face work. The advantages of having a mix of class time and online time include flexibility of study and greater learner autonomy, while still having the reassurance of teacherpupil contact. For the teacher, benefits include being able to accommodate greater differentiation. However, there are also drawbacks, the main ones being learner motivation and the learner being able to find time to study flexibly outside the classroom. For the teacher, there is also the issue of student selection a needs analysis may be better than a diagnostic test to see who would have the aptitude for online learning. 2

One of the advantages of blended learning is that it allows for synchronous (real-time, e.g. chatrooms) and asynchronous (delayed, e.g. blogs, message boards) communication (Thornbury, 2006), leading to a greater balance of student participation and, with asynchronous communication, an opportunity to use greater lexical density and variety. The Flipped Classroom A flipped classroom, also known as reverse teaching, essentially involves switching the way in which teachers and students work. Learning takes place online using VLEs, videos and web-based tools; practice and doing occur in the classroom (Tucker, 2012). This has the advantage of freeing up the teacher to be a tutor in face-to-face lessons, increasing differentiation, and encouraging learner autonomy. Gerstein (2011) provides an explanation of how it operates in schools, as well as the diagram below: This model lends itself well to language teaching, with the activity section occurring largely in class, and the now what section taking place in class and online. Digital Literacy One issue that arises is that of digital literacy and how well students cope (Hockley, 2012, Guth & Helm, 2012). In other words, can the learners actually use IT, and can they distinguish the different ways of communicating using technology? Clearly, if a student cannot operate a computer effectively, they will not be able to use blended learning. Another important issue with digital literacy is being able to use online tools and work around technical issues such as bandwidth problems (Hempel, 2010). Cook and Simpson (2008) suggest that ESOL students are particularly affected by issues with electronic literacy due to their life circumstances and learning backgrounds, yet these are arguably issues that can affect any language learner. Task-Based Language Teaching and Technology A blended learning course using a flipped model may benefit from using a Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)-type methodology. However, there is relatively little literature dealing with it in relation to technology, as Ellis (2010) admits, as most TBLT is concerned with face-to-face (FTF) classrooms rather than online learning. Despite this, both Hempel (2010) and Reeder (2010) give insights into the design of blended courses with TBLT and an analysis of the efficacy of online work, although both also point out that it has issues with learner motivation and practicality. In particular, Hempels learners were university students, while the cohort for this study are ESOL learners, which will present different issues, such as dealing with a wider range of learning styles and backgrounds.

Ideas from personal observation and experience I have made the following observations from my own experience: CALL-type classes can be disruptive and counter-productive, an experience Nik Peachey reflects in an article (2012) bemoaning this. Any Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) must not only be easily accessible, it must be easily usable. Just putting class materials online is often not enough to engage learners. A teachers enthusiasm for IT is not enough learners need to be shown how it can be integrative. The rise of smartphones has introduced learners to new ways of using IT to learn. Students are at ease using their phones as learning aids, for example as dictionaries or using grammar apps.

Implications for course design and development The key implications are the following: The online part of a blended learning course must be integrative with the teaching as a whole. It cannot simply be an add-on to what happens in the classroom. Both learners and teachers need to have a certain level of digital literacy and confidence. If they dont, there is little point in attempting to use blended learning. Exercises to increase digital literacy should be included in the course. Online course content must be as accessible as possible. If it is not, both learners and teachers will avoid it. Consideration must be given to how much of the course is online and how much in class, and how learners communicate outside the class. Online content is more likely to be instructive and reflective with some collaboration: Classroom content is more likely to be collaborative and focused on practice.

Part Two: Needs Analysis & Commentary Specialist group characteristics The specialist group for this course are the part-time ESOL Entry 3 students at Reading College, which I identified as a cohort that may benefit from blended learning. The cohort consisted of 21 females and 6 males, of different ages (diagram 1, app 2a) and nationalities. The majority of the learners had completed high school (diag. 2, app 2a). Almost half the group had some form of employment (diag. 3, app 2a). 45% indicated they had been studying English between two and four years (diag. 4, app 2a) and almost half (13) indicated that they wanted to go on to study a different subject. Identifying needs

In designing my needs analysis, I decided to follow Nunan (1988a) and include both objective and subjective data, using an initial focus group and a questionnaire. Initially, the form was designed to capture background information, the individual learning styles and what learners needed to learn, following Yalden (1987). However, I altered this to include an analysis of how the learners use IT rather than language needs, as I felt the Diagnostic test would provide this data. I began by conducting a focus group, asking the students initially to discuss how they use computers, and what they thought about learning at home. In general feedback, one student explained that she thought online learning at home was not good, because the teacher is not there to help you. He cannot explain your mistakes. When asked whether they would consider online presentations by a teacher, the majority of the group reacted positively. Some learners said they felt class work could be slowed down by other students, and online content would help them concentrate. When asked how much work should be online and how much in class, the group almost unanimously said fifty per cent online. I followed this up with the Needs Analysis, prepared both as an online document and a paper version. After asking for background information (as above), I then asked about learning attitudes, seeking to establish what they felt about individual compared to group learning, and about speaking English:

Attitudes to Learning
30 25 20 5 - s agree 15 10 5 0 I enjoy I prefer I can study I can I am an studying by working in outside the manage my organised myself. groups. classroom. own learner. timetable. I enjoy I find it talking to difficult to people in study by English. myself. 4 - agree 3 - neutral 2 - disagree 1-s disagree

This indicates: A tendency to neutrality about autonomous study and study outside the class Agreement about group work and being organised 5

Very strong agreement about enjoying talking in English.

The third section looked at what devices they used and how they used them (appendix 2a). Responses to use are below:

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

What do you use your computer for?

This indicates: A significant use of IT is for social purposes. Learners may use IT in fairly passive ways. There appears to be an overall decent level of digital literacy, although some may benefit from some training.

The Diagnostic Test For the diagnostic testing, I used an in-house test that we deploy to identify which of our learners are ready to progress on to our ESOL Level One courses. It was devised in order to ensure that learners have sufficient skills and systems knowledge to be able to progress successfully. It is based on the ESOL Core Curriculum achievement descriptors, and there is a strong focus on reading and writing, as these had been previously identified as areas in which progressing E3 ESOL students are weakest in our institution (Gallantry, 2009). While it attempts to cover a wide range, practical considerations mean it remains as brief as possible in order to administrate it effectively. The test comprises three parts: grammar, reading, and writing, giving it stronger construct and content validity, and hopefully ensuring that more than only easily testable items are tested, an issue with

examinations that Hughes (2003) points out. It takes one hour to administer. Twenty-three students took the test out of the twenty-seven respondents to the NA. Diagnostic test results The overall results for the first two parts are shown below:

Grammar and Reading

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 Rasha Marina Shelley Sulaxay Narkaji Patrizia Randa Thongmai Mariya Michala Beata Dimitrios Gosia Bozena Shahrokh Sara Rahila Tomasz Louies Sandra Hina Magdalena Asmahan

There is a detailed breakdown in appendix 2b. The average overall score for this part of the test was 38, or 67.9% of the maximum possible score of 56, with 16 of the group achieving higher than this score. Scoring for the written section was based on the ESOL Core Curriculum (2001) writing achievement criteria, focusing on six key areas (see diagram 2.b.3, appendix 2b). The aim was to establish whether a learner showed emergent, consolidating or established features in each of the six: for someone ready to begin a Level One course, we would expect them to show that they had established features in at least three of these.

The results indicated that while seven of the students were ready to progress, the remainder would need further study before progressing (see appendix 2b). While the written section tested integrative skills, it verified the more discrete points tested in the first section. The results from all three sections indicated that the students needs were in the following areas: Written discourse and cohesive devices Reading texts for specific information Use of auxiliary verbs Lexical range Spelling Knowledge of collocations

A full breakdown is in Appendix 2b. Priorities From the Needs Analysis and Diagnostic Test, the priorities are the following: An induction module is required for learners who need to feel more confident about using IT. Use techniques that encourage autonomous study and foster a positive attitude towards it. Tasks should be devised that allow for differentiation. Course tasks should be focused around reading, writing and lexis and some grammar. However, there should be considerable audio-visual input.

Part Three: Course Proposal My course proposal is based on the following principles derived from the review of key issues and the survey of the students: The lessons are to be delivered partly online and partly in class. Online-based course delivery will principally be in the form of video and audio guides, online task exercises, individual records and reflections in the form of blogs or online documents, and collaborative tasks requiring learners to contact at least one other learner in order to work towards a learning target. In-class activities will principally be collaborative tasks. In order for learners to be successful, they will need to complete online work as well as the classroom-based tasks. The course will use a flipped model, with the more traditional aspects of language teaching, e.g. explaining a grammar point or the structure of a formal letter being online, leaving the classroom as an area for practice and differentiation. A Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) methodology will be the main teaching method in the class-based activities.

Following Morrish (2012), the content of the course will follow a format of sixty per cent online and forty percent in class. For a twenty-hour programme, this entails twelve hours of online content and eight hours of face to face (FTF) sessions.

Learning aims and objectives By the end of the course, students will be able to: Understand the different layout conventions of different text types; Find key information quickly in a text ; Use various sources including online documents to find information more efficiently; Create a report, a leaflet, a presentation and an advert using appropriate register, range and style; o Use some cohesive devices effectively; o Identify and use some collocations and phrasal verbs effectively. It is also hoped that students will: o Find internet-based work easier to do; o Use a variety of techniques to record their thoughts and reflections e.g. blog, video, audio; o Use different methods of online communication, e.g. forums, IM, Skype to work with others more easily. o o o o

It is also expected that learners will be more prepared to move up to an ESOL Level One course. Proposed course content The course comprises four main sections, delivered either online or in class, as below: section Demonstration Activities and and Applying tasks Type of work done Working with Group others, sharing collaboration on knowledge and tasks, practice of understanding, activities, contact via email, feedback Skype etc. Mode of work Asynchronous, Asynchronous, Synchronous, Synchronous, Individual Individual group group Location of work Online Online Online/FTF In class In addition to the main course, I also propose a short induction session. This will be delivered in one of our IT classrooms, with the aim of ensuring that students are comfortable working online. The course will cover the areas in the chart below: Induction Using IT videos and podcasts; completing online work; writing and recording online; working with people online; team tasks 9 Exploration and explanation Video lectures, podcasts, presentations and worksheets Reflection and understanding Individual thoughts, reflections on work, Blogs, video logs,

Module One Module Two Module Three Module Four

Auxiliary verbs; question and tense formation; gathering and presenting information Writing; creating a report; formal and informal language; giving a presentation Reading; reading different texts and text features; finding key information in a text; creating a leaflet Lexis and dictionary use; phrasal verbs; lexical range; making an advert

Appendix 1 provides a more detailed outlay of the course, included what components are delivered online and in class. Teaching Approach The classroom approach will be based on Task Based Language Teaching, as outlined by Willis (1996) and Richards and Rodgers (2001). The reason for this is that it fits the ethos of blended learning well (Ellis, 2010). Online individual work will both feed into, and be derived from, class-based tasks. For example, students may be set a reading task to do online and asked for their questions about it. These questions can be emailed between learners and/or the teacher, who then uses these to formulate (or re-frame) the upcoming lesson. Similarly, emerging classroom issues feed into online work. Considering the online and class-based content, the overall syllabus is more a multi-strand approach, as defined by Ur (1991) and Klimova and Suchankova (2011). However, the class-based work will inform online work, leading to the course being more procedural. In turn, the online work also allows students time to plan and reflect, something that Skehan and Fosters work (1996) (in Foster, 1999) suggests increases student fluency and accuracy in tasks. Materials The core course content materials will be devised in-house, initially aimed at the specific group described above, but with gradual widening of materials and contents following post-course evaluation. The online content of video and podcast presentations will be delivered by the course tutor(s), as the focus group indicated that one issue they had with online learning was the lack of my teacher in internet-based materials. Task-based class work, worksheets and quizzes will be devised by the learning team. See appendix 5 for a sample worksheet. In addition to the devised materials, learners will be encouraged to pull content (Hockley, 2012) from the internet. This will consist of either generic language learning sites such as BBC Learning English or ELLLO or sites of specific interest to individual learners. The benefits of using these sites are that the student can act more independently, find more opportunities to practise and support their learning and their digital literacy skills. At the end of class-based lessons, teachers will direct students to what they need to do before the next session, and indicate recommended and additional sites to individual learners. Institutional requirements and constraints 10

The institute has teachers capable of teaching the course. This programme of study should require a maximum of 2 teachers. However, they would need to be digitally literate enough to use the required online tools. Fortunately, the college is currently investing a considerable amount of time and effort in ensuring that staff can use all the software available to them. As the aim of timetable is to offer a greater degree of flexibility to both student and teacher, it will entail using less room time, meaning the course can be delivered at significantly less cost to the institution and student. One area of concern to teachers may be in the creating of materials to place online. This would appear to be an onerous task initially. However, in the long run it promises to be a labour-saving approach, as materials can easily be recycled.

Part Four: Assessment Proposal Monitoring learning progress Progress will be monitored through four strands: Monitoring online work. Using tools on the Virtual Learning Environment, student access, work and progress can be tracked and analysed. The learners will also be able to see an analysis of their performance, assisting them in autonomous assessment. Assessing reflective blogs/documents. These are a more qualitative assessment, and should be seen primarily as an indication of confidence and fluency rather than necessarily one of accuracy. Monitoring collaborative tasks. The learners will be assessed for task achievement, language used to achieve the task and language produced in the task. The focus is on accuracy of the final product. Monitoring and assessing in-class work. This looks at production of language, collaboration on tasks and engagement with the materials. Because the presentational teaching is online, it frees the teacher to act more as a tutor and assess individual needs more closely.

Assessing learning outcomes Learning outcomes will be assessed through the course and in a summative test, which will also be used to help evaluate the course as a whole. Tests will involve discrete-point tests, which will be delivered as online materials, as well as the outcomes of integrative tasks, which may be the product of online or inclass work. Assessment principles As Thornbury (2006) points out, testing and assessment are not necessarily the same thing the ways in which the learners knowledge and progress are tested are only one part of the evaluation of the whole course. Richards et al (1985) give a rather broad definition of evaluation as the systematic gathering of information for the purposes of decision making (p.130). Clearly, while gathering as many data points 11

as possible is desirable, it must be tempered by pragmatic considerations, for example the amount of time available to gather information, course length and manpower to process data. Brown (in Johnson, 1989) gives a somewhat narrower definition: Evaluation is the systematic collection and analysis of all relevant information necessary to promote the improvement of a curriculum, and assess its effectiveness and efficiency, as well as the participants attitudes within a context of particular institutions involved. (p.223, my italics) As for student evaluation, it is hard to find fault with Chapelle and Brindleys definition that assessment is essentially the capture of data and making judgements on the students language knowledge and ability to use it (2002). However, we should also consider who is capturing data and making judgements the teachers alone, the institution, or the students as well? As one of the course aims is to encourage learners to be autonomous, it follows that students should be able to assess their own progress. The Common European Framework (2001) provides a scaffold for them to be able to do this in the shape of can-do statements, aimed at demonstrating ability across the grade specifications of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). Consideration also needs to be given to the balance of qualitative to quantitative assessment. The latter is good for measurable, objective facts, and can be used to assess the reactions of a large set of people to a given set of questions, as Weir and Roberts (1994) state. It is also easier to process data from such evaluations. Qualitative assessment, on the other hand, is more holistic, and may capture information that can easily be left out by a quantitative method alone, such as opinions and descriptions of what is actually happening on a course. The clear disadvantage of this type of assessment is that it may lack reliability, as LeCompte and Goetz (1982, quoted by Lynch 1996) point out, although they go on to mention that the approach can have great validity. Influence of principles Overall, I follow Brown (1995), Lynch (1996), and Weir and Roberts (1994) in advocating a combination of both qualitative and quantitative assessment. I have endeavoured to keep a mix of both modes, reflected in the initial NA and DT, and following through the course. It is important to the learners autonomy and confidence that they feel capable of self-assessment, so incorporating methods for them to be able to do so is vital. One method of doing this is to have the CEFR can-do descriptors available online so that learners can gauge their performance independently. Much of the informal class-based assessment will be qualitative, and help inform the direction of the course, but the use of more quantitative online worksheets will help in developing a holistic view of each learners progress. Constraints The main constraint on assessment and testing is one of practicality, as mentioned. This is a short course with limited manpower to analyse all the data that would be possible to collect. There should also be a pragmatic consideration of how much testing is done compared to how much learning. Fitness of assessments to the group and course

12

The whole thrust of assessment in ESOL and Further Education is based upon differentiation and individual learning and progression, with the aim of producing a holistic learning and teaching experience. As such, the learner assessments I propose fit very much into this ethos. The overall assessment and evaluation of the course reflect the ethos of FE, and should provide a valuable insight into the effectiveness of Blended Learning within this education sector. Course evaluation for future use The course will be evaluated in the following ways: Student outcomes will be measured against objectives. A summative test will be conducted with the aim of seeing whether learners have demonstrated progress in the expected areas. At the end of the course, the learners will be given a survey to indicate how they felt the course ran and whether they have any suggestions for changes. Teachers will give suggestions, evaluation and feedback, using questionnaires at the beginning and end of the course. Data from the learner and teacher surveys, along with summative test results, will be processed into a report in order for a full evaluation. Student progress will be monitored for the next academic year to determine retention and achievement.

Part Five: Conclusion Application of principles The course design follows the principles outlined in Part One in the following ways: Digital Literacy: there is an induction section aimed at boosting learner confidence with IT and learning online, and the online exercises all provide opportunities to boost digital literacy Course content: online work is designed to be instructive and reflective and classwork to be practical Accessibility: materials will be accessible through the college VLE and sites such as Google docs, Podbean and Youtube. Approach and methodology: a flipped approach to the content has been applied, with a TBLT methodology used for class sessions. Online to Face to Face (FTF) time: I have decided on a mix of sixty per cent online to forty per cent in class, although with post-course evaluation this may change.

Benefits The key benefit that I expect the students will receive is greater learner autonomy. If learners are capable of learning by themselves and at their own pace, and can then incorporate that into lessons, they are likely to become more confident learners and users of language. There has been considerable

13

research into this field, e.g. Little(2000), and It is suggested that an independent learner is more likely to succeed. Other benefits I would hope to see are: Students being more prepared for entering a Level One class; A greater confidence with using materials and tools online; Increased digital literacy, facilitating different means of communication with other people; A greater lexical range and an understanding that there is more than one solution to a given language task.

Limitations There are several limitations that should also be considered: Learner styles: some students will find online, autonomous language learning impossible and alienating. Teaching styles: Teachers may also find it alienating, and may not relish the front-loaded aspect of delivering content. Learner motivation and opportunity: some learners will not be able to motivate themselves for this type of course, or will find it hard to learn outside the classroom. Availability, accessibility, reliability and usability of the technology: without these, there is no course.

In a busy always-available world, it may seem that blended learning is a way forward everyone can learn at their own pace, and in their own time. However, it is not a universal panacea. It is, I think, likelier to remain one option alongside class-based work.

14

Bibliography

Brown, J. D. (1989). Language program evaluation: a synthesis of existing possibilities. In Johnson, K. (ed.). The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: CUP. Brown, J. D. (1995) The Elements of Language Curriculum. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Chapelle, C.A. & Brindley, G (2002). Assessment. In Schmitt, N (ed.) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics (pp267-88). London: Arnold. Cook, M. & Simpson, J. (2008). ESOL: A Critical Guide. Oxford: OUP
Dudeney, G (2000). The Internet and the Language Classroom. Cambridge: CUP DFES (2001). The ESOL Core Curriculum. London:Basic Skills Agency Ellis, R (2010). Foreword, and Hampel, R (2010). Task Design for a Virtual Learning Environment in a Distance Language Course in Thomas, M & Reinders, H (2010)(eds). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology. London: Continuum Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9: 12-20 in Foster, P (1999). Task-based learning and pedagogy, ELT Journal Volume 53/1 January 1999. OUP Gallantry, P.(2009). Moving on, moving out: A study of students moving from Intermediate (E3) English study to Upper Intermediate (L1)in an FE ESOL context and what happens to retention, progression and achievement. http://www.scribd.com/doc/16341547/Dtlls-Research-Project last accessed 19.05.12 Gerstein, J (2011). User Generated Education. http://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/the-flipped-classroom-model-a-fullpicture/ last retrieved 25.05.12 Guth, S & Helm, F (2012). Developing Multilitracies in ELT through Telecollaboration and Hockley, N (2012). Digital Literacies. ELT Journal Vol 60/1 January 2012 Hockly, N. The E-moderation station. The 1-minute guide to teachers concerns about mLearning http://www.emoderationskills.com/ last retrieved 19.05.12 15

Hockly, N., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Clanfield, L and guests (2012). Symposium enhancing students language acquisition through mobile tehnologies. IATEL Conference Glasgow 2012 http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2012/sessions/2012-03-21/enhancing-students%E2%80%99-languageacquisition-through-mobile-technologies. Last retrieved 19.05.12 Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for Language Learners, 2nd ed. Cambridge: CUP Klimova, B. & Suchankova, H. (2001). Some Tips for Syllabus Design, IATEFL Issues, June-July 2011, p 9-10

Little, D. (2000b). Learner autonomy: why foreign languages should occupy a central role in the curriculum. In S. Green (ed.), New Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Modern Languages, 24-45. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. And Little, D. (2002). The European Language Portfolio: structure, origins, implementation and challenges, Language Teaching 35.3: 182-9., quoted in Little, D (2011). Learner Autonomy and Second/Foreign Language Learning. LLAS. http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1409 last retrieved 28.05.12 Lynch, M (1996) Language Programme Evaluation. Cambridge: CUP.
Mason, R & Rennie, F (2006). Elearning: The key concepts. London: Routledge, pp12-17, quoted by Hampel R (2010). Task Design for a Virtual Learning Environment in a Distance Language Course, as above.

Nunan D. (1988a) Syllabus Design. Oxford:OUP. Peachey, N. (2011).Technologies for Teacher Training presentation at the English UK Teachers Conference, November 2011.
Peachey, N. 15th May 2012. Technology can sometimes be wasted on English Language Teaching http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/may/15/technology-failselt?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038 last retrieved 16.05.12

Richards et al (1985) Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Harlow: Longman Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, 2 nd Edition. Cambridge: CUP
Teeler, D. & Gray, P (2000). Use the Internet in ELT. Harlow: Longman

The Council of Europe (2001). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: CUP
Thornbury, Scott (2006). An A-Z of ELT. Oxford: Macmillan, pp 18, 43

16

Thornbury, Scott (2012). http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/e-is-for-ecoursebook/ retrieved 18.05.12 Tucker, B (2012). The Flipped Classroom. Education Next. Winter 2012/Vol 12.no1, accessed from http://www.educationnext.org/the-flipped-classroom , last retrieved 24.05.12 Ur, P. (1991). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge:CUP

Weir, C. & Roberts, J. (1994) Evaluation in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell

Willis, J (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow: Longman Yalden, J. (1987). Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP

17

Appendix 1: Course Plan

Text in blue represents features being assessed from the Diagnostic Assessments Exploration and explanation e.g.
lectures, slides, presentations

Reflecting and understanding

e.g.blogs, diaries,emails

Demonstration and applying e.g.

working in collaboration, skype, email, chat fora

Activities and Tasks

whole class work, task-based learning, feedback

Delivery mode Module Induction to be done in-class with access to IT resources

Online Working with the VLE playing a video/podcast/slide show; completing an online worksheet

Online Starting a blog: How do you feel about working online?

Online/FTF Whats the best way to communicate online? Group Discussion using IM/Skype/email

In class Task write an email to a friend about your new course [writing, discourse features, spelling] Total time 2 hours

Differentiation/ Teacher activity

Module one

Presentation: auxiliary verbs, tense review Task sheets gap fill

Set up individual blogs on VLE: establish prompt questions Write a short diary entry about how you feel about learning and going to class CEFR B1-B2 can do statements quiz to complete and send writing scaffold for weaker ss

Analyse for issues with e.g. auxiliary verbs, spelling Online pair/groupwork: find out as much information about each other as possible Feedback on online work Task find out from class general information, devising and using questionnaire. [use of auxiliaries, lexical range]Present results to class Challenge stronger ss to produce wider range of question types, e.g different tenses/Analyse questionnaires for feature 18 5 hours

Differentiation/ Teacher Point to additional activity tasks online based on analysis of induction work/ T records

T sets up chat for a on VLE or encourages ss to use IM/texting

Exploration and explanation e.g.

lectures, slides, presentations

Reflecting and understanding

e.g.blogs, diaries,emails

Demonstration and applying e.g.

working in collaboration, skype, email, chat fora

Activities and Tasks

whole class work, task-based learning, feedback

Delivery mode

Module two

Online video/podcast(s);T sets up working groups Presentation: writing up a report; cohesive devices, conjunctions

Online

In class strengths/weaknesses / t prepares model questionnaire Reflection: Discussion: are you a Feedback on online how did you feel confident speaker? discussion about previous How do you prefer session and working to communicate? Task create and deliver online? How do you Have you ever given short presentation about feel about working a presentation? class info; audience take with a partner? short notes of key info CEFR B1-B2 can do [cohesive devices, writing statements discourse, lexical range] quiz to complete and send Set more confident learners task of making video log (Vlog) T sets up chat forum/thread on VLE Ensure sample data/info available to complete task; analyse for issues with above, plus any pron issues/ prepare model presentation as video Feedback on webquest Task finding key information; use information from leisure centre brochures and tourist leaflets to produce a poster/leaflet for

Online/FTF

5 hours

Differentiation/ Teacher activity T creates video and slide presentation plus worksheets

Module three

Presentation: Reading different texts; noticing different text features; style and register differences

Reflection: What do you read? How often do you read? Do you prefer TV/Films or reading? CEFR B1-B2 can do reading statements

Webquest: ss work together to find information from Internet using worksheets to complete an answer page. Page submitted to T

5 hours

19

Exploration and explanation e.g.

lectures, slides, presentations

Reflecting and understanding

e.g.blogs, diaries,emails

Demonstration and applying e.g.

working in collaboration, skype, email, chat fora

Activities and Tasks

whole class work, task-based learning, feedback

Delivery mode

Online

Online quiz to complete and send

Differentiation/ Teacher T prepares slide activity show/video and tasksheets

Encourage ss to try video logs or audio as well as writing

Online/FTF [Reading text for specific information, increasing digital literacy] Give weaker ss easier tasks/ create webquests

In class tourists to the town. [Reading text for specific information/ lexical range/ spelling] Grade realia according to abilities of groups set extension task for better learners/ T prepares model leaflet Feedback on online discussion

Module four

Presentation(s): using dictionaries; phrasal verbs

Task create an advertisement for the college/course, using video, audio, text or slide presentation [lexical range/spelling/knowledge of collocations] Differentiation/ Teacher T prepares slide Set online Question scaffold Encourage learners to activity show, podcast and questionnaire for for weaker learners bring mobile devices worksheets, weaker learners/ (laptops/tablets and including use data for course mobiles) to use in this summative test evaluation session /T prepares model advertisement It should be noted that this is representational for the specific group mentioned, and may change according to further needs and issues becoming evident from the work done online and in class. For example, there may be a change of focus from one skill to another.

Reflection: How do you feel about the course now? What has improved?

Online discussion: how does your language change when you speak, write, text or chat? What are the differences?

5 hours

20

NOTE: The first two sections (exploration and explanation, and reflection and understanding) are asynchronous and individual. The learners can work at their own pace through the online tasks without worrying whether someone else is relying upon them to finish. The second two sections are synchronous and group-based. They require the learners to interact with each other in real time in order to complete a given task. The course is twenty hours long, with twelve hours work being based online and eight hours of class-based activity. It is envisaged that it will be a four-week programme. The number of hours of online work will be what we might reasonably expect a hypothetical average student to achieve, especially in the Exploration and Explanation section. Of course, some learners may work faster and others require more time.

21

Appendix 2: Results of Needs Analysis and Diagnostic Test 2.a Needs Analysis results

Diag.1 Age Range

4% 11% 20-30 44% 31-40 41-50 41% 51-60

Diag. 2 Educational Background

postgradu ate and above 4% university - first degree 15% high school 66% secondary school 15%

unemployed 9%

Diag. 3 Occupation
Employed - full time 25%

other 13% Employed - part time 22%

housewife /house husband 31%

less than 1 yr more than 4% 8 yrs 14% 1-2 yrs 14% 6-8 yrs 9% 2-3 yrs 4 - 6 yrs 27% 14% 3-4 yrs 18%

Diag. 4 Time studying English

Which age range are you in?

What is your nationality?

What is your gender?

What is your main language?

22

20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60

12 11 3 1

British (other) Italian Thai Portuguese Laotian Nepalese German Iranian Polish Sudanese Ethiopian Czech Brazilian Bulgarian Latvian Greek Lithuanian Pakistani

3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Female Male

21 6

Urdu Amharic Arabic Thai Portuguese Nepalese Mandarin Farsi Polish Czech Bangla Bulgarian Russian Italian Laotian Lithuanian Greek

2 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

Collated Needs Analysis results age, gender, nationality, language

Do you speak any other languages? yes 10

What is your level of education? secondary school 4

Why are you learning English? for pleasure 5

What do you do? Employed - full time

How long have you been learning English? 8 1-2 yrs 3

23

17 no

high school

18

university - first degree

postgraduate and above

for study - I can't progress on my course without it for study - I want to go on to study another subject for work - I am looking for job my job requires me to learn English other

Employed - part time

2-3 yrs

13 housewife/house husband 11 other 3 unemployed 1

10

3-4 yrs

4 - 6 yrs

6-8 yrs more than 8 yrs less than 1 yr

2 3 1

Collated results from Needs Analysis education, reasons for learning English, occupation, length of time learning English

1-s disagree I enjoy studying by myself. I prefer working in groups. 2 1

2disagree 5 5

3neutral 16 6

4agree 2 9

5-s agree 2 6

24

I can study outside the classroom. I can manage my own timetable. I am an organised learner. I enjoy talking to people in English. I find it difficult to study by myself.

2 0 0

3 4 3

12 11 10

7 8 11

3 4 2

3 4

2 6

0 11

9 3

13 3

Needs analysis learner attitudes

Do you have a smart phone?

If you answered 'yes', do you use it to help with your English? 16 11 yes no 15 1

if you answered 'yes' to the last question, how do you use it?

which of the following do you have?

what do you use it for?

yes no

dictionary only dict

15 5

all learners have access to computer at home

browse internet shopping

25 17

dict and other purposes

10

social networks

12

25

chat skype gaming email study films/tv/music other

2 14 3 23 19 16 3

Needs analysis use of IT The online version of this needs analysis can be found at this site and the uncollated data is here.

2.b Diagnostic Test Results

Diagram 2.b.1: collated grammar and reading scores

26

DELTA Mod 3 Diagnostic test results Rasha Narkaji question answer part 1a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 part 1b 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 part 1c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 part 1d 42 43 44 45 46 47 part 1e 48 49 50 51 part 2 1 2 3 4 5 prepositions on to in to before at at at total: tenses didn't like lives has lived had gone was watching rang hurt was working would any some could total: articles a a the the the the an the a a the a the the a the the total: comp & super stronger more difficult the most important tall shortest worse than total: phrasal verbs sit down flew away speak up get by total: reading c d a d b total: total score:

Mariya

Gosia

Rahila

Hina

Marina

Patrizia

Michala

Bozena

Tomasz

Magdalena Shelley

Randa

Beata

Shahrokh Louies

Asmahan Sulaxay

Thongmai Dimitrios Sara

Sandra

total correct

1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 6 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 35

1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 40

1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 6 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 19 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 3 46

1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 16 1 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 4 45

1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 10 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 3 43

1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 16 1 1 0 1 1 0 4 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 3 45

1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 6 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 31

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 20 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 47

1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 16 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 4 46

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 10 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 15 1 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 3 40

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17

1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 15 1 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 3 42

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 16

1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 5 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 3 31

1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 13 1 1 0 1 1 0 4 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 42

1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 14 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 40

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 10 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 15 1 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 44

1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 17 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 3 41

1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28

1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 5 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 11 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 27

1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 10 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 15 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 37

0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 18 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 40

1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 6 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 16 1 1 0 1 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 4 42

20 10 16 21 17 10 18 15 6 average 20 20 14 17 17 18 21 20 16 22 23 16 10 average 21 18 20 19 9 23 8 15 19 18 20 21 23 15 7 18 2 20 15 18 7 15 average 22 12 11 11 12 1 3 average 20 1 19 9 2 average 13 6 15 12 16 3 average 38 average

27

2.b.2 Grammar and reading score breakdown

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Score

Ma Sh As Th Ra Na Ma Ra Ma Pat Mi Bo To Sh Ra Lo Sul Go Hi Be ah gd ma on sh rka riy hil rin rizi ch ze ma ell nd uie ax ale ha gm sia na ata rok a ji a a a a ala na sz ey a s ay na h n ai 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 5 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 3 4 2 1 1 1 3 3 4 3 5 3 2 4 0 0 1 3 3 4 2 0 1 3 2 2 5 3 4 5 3 3 5 2 4 3 3 2 0 0 1 0 2 3

Di Sa mi Sar nd tri a ra os 3 1 5 2 2 3 4 2 4

reading 5 phrasal vbs 4 articles 20 tenses 12 prepositions 8

comp & super 6 1

14 16 19 16 18 16 11 20 16 15 10 15 7 13 13 14 15 17 11 11 15 18 16 10 12 11 12 10 12 10 12 12 10 4 11 4 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 6 2 6 2 5 12 10 10 10 10 6 10 11 10 6 5 5 8 6 6 5 3 4 6

28

code descriptor Wt/L1.1a Apply appropriate planning strategies Wt/L1.3a Present information in a logical sequence Ws/L1.1 Write in complete sentences Ws/L1.1 Use correct grammar, e.g. subject-verb agreement, correct tense Ws/L1.3 Punctuate sentences correctly, and use punctuation so that meaning is clear Ww/L1.1a Spell words in a wide range of spelling patterns accurately with some consistency 1 = emergent, 2 = consolidating, 3= established
DELTA Mod 3 Diagnostic test results - writing Rasha code descriptor Wt/L1.1a Apply appropriate planning strategies Wt/L1.3a Present information in a logical sequence Ws/L1.1 Write in complete sentences Ws/L1.1 Use correct grammar, e.g. subject-verb agreement, correct tense Ws/L1.3 Punctuate sentences correctly, and use punctuation so that meaning is clear Ww/L1.1a Spell words in a wide range of spelling patterns accurately with some consistency outcome score 1 = emergent, 2 = consolidating, 3= established complete task? no Narkaji 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 no 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 yes Mariya 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 yes Gosia 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 yes Rahila 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 yes Hina 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 yes Marina 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 yes Patrizia Michala Bozena 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 yes 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 no Tomasz 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 almost Magdalena 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 no

2.b.3 writing grade descriptors

2.b.4 writing results

Shelley Randa 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 almost 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Beata 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 almost

Shahrokh Louies 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 no no 2 2 2 1 2 2 2

Asmahan Sulaxay Thongmai Dimitrios Sara 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 no 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 no 2 1 2 2 2 1 2

Sandra 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 yes

no attempt no attempt yes

Note: having conducted the Diagnostic assessment, it has become clear that some questions in the first section have some issues with construct validity, particularly in the sections dealing with comparatives and superlatives, and phrasal verbs. As a result of this assignment, the test is being reviewed and reconstructed.

29