Towards Incorporating Schoology Blended Learning Model into ESP and EFL Classes: A Focus on Moroccan Schools of Engineering and Humanities

Youssef BOUTAHAR

Abstract


The integration of recent cloud-based tools and web 2.0 technologies into mainstream ELT curricula has reshaped the way we construct and disseminate knowledge. It has equally provided new circumstances for students’ active learning. Based on this premise, a substantial amount of research has been carried out on educational technology in an effort to corroborate how effective mobile learning platforms are at fostering learners’ autonomy, motivation, and self-paced learning.  Adopting a mixed methods approach, this paper then aims to investigate the impact of two ESP and EFL blended learning courses on students’ engagement, autonomy and collaborative learning. It also seeks to disclose the significant differences and/or similarities in their attitudinal perspectives about the acquisition of content through Schoology’s autonomous virtual learning environment (VLE). The current research made use of both qualitative and quantitative methods. A questionnaire administered to 142 first year engineering students and a cohort of 52 English Studies sophomores from Hassan II University- Casablanca sought to gauge students’ levels of interaction, autonomy and motivation to build online materials collaboratively with their peers and instructor. Data based on a survey instrument and the observation of students’ online interactions and reflection on their learning processes revealed that over 90 % of students in both institutions were satisfied with the Schoology blended learning platform as it facilitated the exercise of learner autonomy and boosted their interaction, communication and collaboration within the groups and with their instructor. The findings of this study equally proved that Schoology media rich learning materials provided Engineering and English studies students with great control over their ESP and EFL learning beyond the classroom, thus transcending spacial and temporal limitations.

Keywords


Blended Learning (BL), English for Specific Purposes (ESP), English as a Foreign Language (EFL), Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), Schoology LMS, Academic Engagement, Autonomy in language learning

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abas, Z. W. (2015). Fostering learning in the 21st century through student engagement. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 9(1), 3–15.

Alonso, F. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217–235.

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.

Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Delialioğlu, Ö. (2016). Student engagement in blended learning environments with lecture-based and problem-based instructional approaches. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 310–322.

Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dixson, D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.

Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. IBM Global Services. Retrieved June 6, 2020 from https://www-07.ibm.com/services/pdf/blended_learning.pdf.

Flannery, J. L. (1994). Teachers as co-conspirator: knowledge and authority in collaborative learning. In K. Bosworth, & S. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative learning and underlying processes and effective techniques (pp. 15–23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.

Hampel, R., & Pleines, C. (2013). Fostering student interaction and engagement in a virtual learning environment: An investigation into activity design and implementation. CALICO Journal, 30(3), 342–370. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.3.342-370.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Huang, J. & Benson, P. (2013). Autonomy, agency and identity in foreign and second language education. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 7–28.

Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy I: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.

Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14-29.

Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1),71–94.

Nakata, Y. (2011). Teachers’ readiness for promoting learner autonomy: A study of Japanese EFL high schools teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 900-910.

Neumeier, P. (2005). A closer look at blended learning: Parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 17, 163-178.

Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? E-learning and Digital Media, 2(1), 17−26.

Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595. doi:10.1037/a0032690.

Rovai, A.P., & Jordan, M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 1–13.

Sanprasert, N. (2010). The application of a course management system to enhance autonomy in learning English as a foreign language. System, 38, 109–123.

Sarrab, M., Elbasir, M., & Alnaeli, S. (2016). Towards a quality model of technical aspects for mobile learning services: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 100–112.

Schoology. (2015). Schoology named finalist in higher ed and K-12 education technology in CODiE awards [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.Schoology.com/news/codie-finalist-2015.

Sharma, P. & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom. Oxford: Macmillan.

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007

Snodin, N. S. (2013). The effect of blended learning with a CMS on the development of autonomous learning: A case study of different degrees of autonomy achieved by individual learners. Computer & Education, 61, 209–216.

Sung, Y., Chang, K., & Yang, J. (2015). How effective are mobile devices for language learning? A meta analysis. Educational Research Review, 16, 68-84.

Trust, T., Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. G. (2016). “Together we are better”: Professional learning networks for teachers. Computer & Education, 102, 15-32.

Valiathan, P. (2002). Blended learning models. Retrieved May 10, 2020 from https://purnima- valiathan.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Blended-Learning-Models-2002-ASTD.pdf.

Villanueva, M. L., Ruiz-Madrid, M. N., & Luzón, M. J. (2010). Learner autonomy in digital environments: Conceptual framework. In M. J. Luzón, M. N. Ruiz-Madrid, and M. L.Villanueva (eds.), Digital Genre, New Literacies and Autonomy in Language Learning (pp.1–16). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Whitelock, D., & Jelfs, A. (2003) Editorial: Journal of Educational Media Special Issue on Blended Learning. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2–3), pp. 99–100.

Young, J.R. (2002). ‘Hybrid’ teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(28), A33–34.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Online ISSN: 2605-762X

Print ISSN: 2605-6658