Blended Learning: Towards a Conceptualization

Blended learning refers to integrating f2f teaching or a classic form of contact teaching with any online teaching experience that can be used online or offline (^{Garrison & Kanuka, 2004}; ^{Hubackova & Semradova, 2016}; ^{Whittaker, 2013}). ^{Ginns and Ellis (2007)} and ^{Picciano (2009)} agree with this definition and point out that the online component does not necessarily have to be based on written communication. Hence, different activities and means can set a blend to promote meaningful learning, student motivation, cooperative learning, and increase language performance (^{Shih, 2010}; ^{Singh, 2003}), for example, video-conferencing sessions, podcasting, wikis, blogs, and vlogs (^{Ginns & Ellis, 2007}; ^{Picciano, 2009}). In this sense, blended learning can also be considered “learning that happens in an instructional context which is characterized by a deliberate combination of online and classroom-based interventions to instigate and support learning” (^{Boelens et al., 2015}, p. 2).

Blended learning has been considered a complete modality of instruction (Driscoll, 2002, as cited in ^{Bernard et al., 2014}). The key in this modality is finding the right combination by differentiating between resources and activities that should take place in a traditional instructional context and those that should be delivered through a technological device or e-learning platform.

Among the reasons to integrate and use blended learning in higher education, the literature points out that “learners nowadays expect technology to be integrated into their language classes” (^{Whittaker, 2013}, p. 15). Likewise, they expect flexibility to study and work or do other activities, primarily when students work or study part-time. Blended learning provides these students with such opportunities, granting them an active role in their learning processes, which is the desired outcome. It is expected in institutions where language learning implies a constructivist or social-constructivist perspective. ^{Caulfield (2011)} states that “hybrid courses place the primary responsibility of learning on the learner, thus making it the teachers’ primary responsibility to create opportunities and foster environments that encourage student learning” (p. 4).

Notwithstanding, blended learning does not only use digital resources; some of its implementations use analogical resources as they were used, for example, in the correspondence model of distance education (e.g., printed textbooks). Combining digital and analogical resources allows for different blends and resource integration for a particular context. Therefore, with blended learning, higher education institutions might offer the best of f2f and online education.

Lastly, it should be noted that learning in a blended learning program happens in three scenarios (Christensen Institute, 2015, as cited in ^{Tucker et al., 2016}). The first one, where students learn partially through online learning with a control element such as place or pace; the second scenario, where they learn under supervision in a traditional classroom setting or institution; and the third one, where interconnected modalities enhance their learning experience.

In line with these scenarios, ^{Tucker et al. (2016)} claim that a successful implementation of blended learning may yield some benefits for teaching and learning practices, such as personalization, agency, authentic audience, connectivity, and creativity.

^{Tucker et al. (2016)} define each one of these benefits as follows:

• Personalization: providing unique learning pathways for individual students

• Agency: giving learners opportunities to participate in key decisions in their learning experience

• Authentic audience: giving learners the opportunity to create for a real audience both locally and globally

• Connectivity: giving learners opportunities to experience learning in collaboration with peers and experts locally and globally

• Creativity: providing learners individual and collaborative opportunities to make things that matter while building skills for their future. (p. 6)

In teaching English as a foreign language (EFL), scholarship has devoted efforts to studying what makes blended learning successful. For example, ^{Neumeier (2005)} and ^{Motteram (2006)} argue that blended learning courses can only be successful if they are designed considering the voices and nature of all communities involved. ^{Comas-Quinn (2011)} states that teacher professional development in online technologies is paramount for blended learning success. For this author, a professional development strategy designed for teachers’ needs should allow them to concentrate on improving their digital skills and understanding how online teaching and learning work.

Finally, in agreement with ^{Grgurović (2017)}, blended learning could be the favored language teaching and learning approach in the future, as newer technologies will keep molding newer learning contexts for students. As stated by ^{Quitián-Bernal and González-Martínez (2021)}, research in blended learning concurs that combining f2f and online settings stimulates the development of better pedagogies to improve classroom work.

Needs Analysis Studies in Language Learning

The origin of the term “analysis of needs” appeared first in India in the 1920s to differentiate two things: “(i) what learners will be required to do with the foreign language in the target situation, and (ii) how learners might best master the target language during the period of training” (^{West, 1994}, p. 1). Later, in the late sixties, the term reappeared, linked to the new development and interest in English for specific purposes, for which needs analysis became a key instrument. Then, in the early seventies, these types of studies began to take place, and ever since, they have evolved to answer questions related to adapting the teaching to the kind of learning audience, on the one hand, and training the learner on how to learn, on the other (^{West, 1994}). Needs analysis studies (NASs) also attempt to shed light on proper learning needs and goals, wants, and limitations in each context, as well as on appropriate learning strategies and materials.

External researchers initially carried out NASs without considering the opinion and knowledge of those directly involved in educational programs. It started to be problematized by perspectives such as ^{Jasso-Aguilar’s (1999)}, which points out the “‘value of insiders’ perspectives in needs analysis (NA) research for language teaching” (p. 27). This author adds that those directly involved, that is, teachers, learners, and program administrators-the insiders-, provide valuable information for improving a given program far beyond what external auditors do.

However, it is necessary to use multiple sources and methods to identify learners’ needs and triangulate the information obtained to validate its reliability regardless of its provenience, either from insiders or outsiders (^{Jasso-Aguilar, 1999}). In this sense, ^{Long (2005)} points to the need to include more primary respondents in NASs beyond learners. For example, domain experts, language teachers, and materials writers. The reason for this is the existence of an “urgent need for courses of all kinds to be relevant . . . to the needs of specific groups of learners and of society at large” (^{Long, 2005}, p. 19). Long describes learners as sources of information regarding their learning styles, preferences, and skills. Still, other insiders, such as administrators and teachers, are needed to obtain information about what language learners need to function successfully in their target discourse domains (^{Long, 2005}). All in all, there should be multiple sources to extend and deepen the analysis and allow for the triangulation of sources to properly validate findings (^{González-Lloret, 2016}; ^{Jasso-Aguilar, 1999}; ^{Long, 2005}).

More recently, NASs have included another element to adequately answer questions about the students’ needs for a given learning program: technology (^{González-Lloret, 2016}). Such inclusion of technology in the education realm originated from the design of technology-mediated or technology-supported learning programs. Yet, drawing from technology, an NAS requires an analysis of not only learner’s needs, wants, goals, and possible learning tasks but also technology needs, possibilities, and limitations. For instance, in the task-based language teaching curriculum and program design frame, ^{González-Lloret (2016)} suggests that analysis should find the technological tools needed to develop a task, participants’ digital literacies, technological accessibility, resources, and technical support available.

NASs should “acknowledge the role that technology plays in achieving the task, just as much as the language” (^{González-Lloret, 2016}, p. 20). For technology to work correctly in NASs, two aspects exist to consider. First, the resulting needs out of the intersection between technology and tasks; second, the technology-mediated environment needed to perform, support, and help execute the tasks and the general moderation of the course. In this vein, ^{González-Lloret (2016)} selects four aspects that should be analyzed in a NAS for a technology-supported program: (a) tasks, (b) tools, (c) digital literacies, and (d) access to technology, which are addressed as follows.

In terms of tools, ^{González-Lloret (2016)} suggests that an NAS should discover the most effective technologies for completing a task since selecting a particular technological tool defines the language skills required. In turn, using these tools requires specific digital literacies that should be recognized and defined for learners to develop. These literacies imply employing a variety of hardware and software to perform different communicative tasks, accessing information, and, overall, using technology for general-life tasks and academic or professional tasks. Hand in hand with this, access to technology and e-infrastructure are crucial to developing digital literacies and participating in a technology-supported program. The educational institution might provide this access to technology, or, possibly, learners can access different kinds of technologies at home. Both cases need to be identified and clarified as this is relevant for developing this program. To sum up, tools, digital literacies, technological accessibility, technical support, access to technology, and the identification of the type of task that learners prefer, as well as the understanding of what they need to do with the language, are fundamental to the design of a language learning program mediated by technology (^{González-Lloret, 2016}).

Participants

The participants of this study were 27 English language teachers, five program coordinators, and seven regional campus coordinators. Most English teachers have a bachelor’s degree in language education (77.8%). There are also a few professionals with bachelor’s degrees in translation (7.4%), philosophy (3.7%), natural sciences (3.7%), cultural studies (3.7%), and computer education (3.7%). Most of the teachers hold a graduate degree (81.5%). Table 1 summarizes this information.

These participants have an average teaching experience of 18.7 years in f2f learning contexts; their experience with blended learning environments is 3.5 years and with online learning environments is 1.9 years, as Table 2 shows. Finally, these participants’ average age is 46.6 years, the minimum being 33 and the maximum 64.

The second group of participants consists of five program coordinators and seven regional campus coordinators with varied professional backgrounds and experience and an average of 14 years of experience in education. Three program coordinators are engineers at the university’s Faculty of Engineering and coordinate how the main courses are offered and implemented at the regional campuses. The other two coordinators carry out the same task, one with a master’s degree in education and the other in a technical program in agriculture. The former holds a bachelor’s degree in education and the latter in animal husbandry engineering. Lastly, regarding the seven regional campus coordinators, three of them have graduate degrees in education, one holds an MBA, and the rest hold bachelor’s degrees in psychology (1), engineering (1), and plastic arts (1). Table 3 synthesizes this information.

Data Collection Instruments

This section describes the three data collection instruments employed in this study: an electronic questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, and focus group interviews.

Ethical Considerations

All participants signed a consent form detailing the study’s characteristics; how data would be treated, reported, and analyzed; the strategies to guarantee their anonymity; the potential risks; and their right not to participate in the study if they chose so. This study obtained approval from a research committee, an advisory board, and ethics committee for social sciences.

Data Analysis

Data analysis drew on grounded theory and was refined as the analysis advanced following the open, axial, and selective coding processes, which allowed us to code with a code system based on the literature review conducted for the project; the code system was reviewed and adjusted as the analysis advanced (^{Charmaz, 2006}; ^{Strauss & Corbin, 1998}). We relied on the qualitative data analysis software NVivo 12 for this analytical process.

Grounded theory allows for the development of substantive and formal theories (^{Glaser & Strauss, 2006}). In our case, this study is limited to a substantive theory and does not connote formal theory. In this vein, findings corresponding to the first level of analysis permitted a description and understanding of the situations under examination by presenting a coherent set of conceptual categories and their corresponding analysis.

Aligned with the preceding considerations, the code system was initially fed with in vivo codes that we discussed and adjusted as the analysis advanced; once a preliminary analysis was conducted, we agreed upon a fixed system of codes to analyze and make sense of the data (^{Miles et al., 2014}). In this sense, 58 codes were used in the initial coding in NVivo 12, which were later grouped into seven dimensions: participants’ background, network access, blended program characteristics, students’ issues and affordances, teachers’ issues and affordances, use of technology, and administrative issues. Finally, these were organized into three categories: (a) e-infrastructure and human resources; (b) course design, program principles, methodology, and materials; and (c) teachers’ and students’ characteristics and needs. Figure 1 presents the study’s categories and dimensions, described in the next section.

Figure 1 Categories and Dimensions of the Analysis 

e-Infrastructure and Human Resources

Electronic infrastructure (also known as e-infrastructure) refers to “all ICT-based resources (i.e., distributed networks, computers, storage devices, software, data, etc.) and support operations which facilitate the collaboration among research communities by sharing resources, analysis tools and data” (^{Barbera et al., 2009}, p. 248). These ICT-based resources are crucial for all activities at the university and, particularly, for teaching. Regarding computers and software, teachers reported that these tools are available to students for most regional campuses. However, computer and software quality are not as good as expected to support teaching and other activities. For example, at Regional Campus 1, one of the teachers said the following about the computers’ quality:

I would say it is not great as computers are rather old. We have been working with them for about three or four years, maybe more. [Teachers and students] sometimes complain about the quality of computers and wireless internet connection. (Teacher 1, interview)¹

It means that technological resources in computer rooms are outdated and probably do not work best for online or blended courses if students use university campus resources. Furthermore, some teachers manifested that, on some occasions, they must bring their technological equipment to teach:

Teachers have opted for bringing their computers to class . . . in my case, once, I had to change computers because the numeric [keypad] was not working, which made things difficult, so I decided to bring my own. (Teacher 2, interview)

However, even if most regional university campuses do not have updated computers and software, all teachers agreed that there is some e-infrastructure to support teaching, research, and extension activities and that computers have a wired and sometimes wireless connection to the internet.

Regarding internet access at the university’s regional campuses, there are still connectivity and speed issues, which should be considered a limitation for the design of the blended program. Most opinions from teachers and administrators evidence this. For instance, one of the coordinators at Regional Campus 1 asserted: “It may work during the day but intermittently. . . . There are moments when it won’t work, but half an hour later it is back to normal . . . it is very [unstable]” (Coordinator 1, interview).

These connection problems also affect telephone communications since they work with the Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), which is vital for several administrative activities that support the university’s mission: “Sometimes, when the network is down, it is frustrating because phones do not work; and, if phones do not work, we do not have contact with the main campus” (Coordinator 1, interview).

Even if internet connectivity is still an issue for most regional campuses, the situation with Regional Campus 2 is different. Conditions there allow for better internet connectivity, which is, according to teachers and administrators, more sophisticated and comparable in quality to the main campus. In this line, the campus coordinator claimed: “I think [internet speed and connectivity] are generally good. Here, we have a good connection” (Coordinator 2, interview).

However, according to the information obtained through the electronic questionnaire (see Figure 2), teachers access the internet mainly from home, where they have a better internet connection, so internet access from regional campuses is a secondary option. They reported their workplace and regional university campus as their second and third places to access the internet since they have a better internet connection at home.

Figure 2 Teachers’ Internet Access Locations 

Finally, in terms of human resources, administrative staff hired by the university to support teaching, research, and extension activities seem insufficient in most regional campuses. In this regard, most program and campus coordinators agreed on the need for more support personnel at the university’s regional campuses, especially for new programs. One campus coordinator affirmed:

It gets complicated at times when [working] conditions are not clear because in the . . . regional campus, I work at an office; but in two other regional campuses where I also have to work, I have to borrow a computer and do things here and there [since I do not have an office]. I cannot do much about it or find a solution. (Coordinator 3, interview)

Table 4 synthesizes this section’s findings through an analytical matrix (^{Miles et al., 2014}).

Course Design, Program Principles, Methodology, and Materials

Regarding the second category, the teachers interviewed agreed on the importance of students’ contextual conditions when designing an EFL blended program. Such conditions include internet access, technological tools availability, and online learning training. One of the teachers asserted:

In regional campuses, especially, the most complicated issue is related to students who live in remote rural areas with no internet access. If a blended program were to be created, students should be able to use computers lent by the university or work in a university’s computer room. (Teacher 3, interview)

The teachers also pointed out that students, not the teacher, should be the central figures in the classroom and the virtual learning environment (VLE). They stated that they ought to be knowledgeable of technological tools and educational platforms and flexible to new methodologies and working materials. Likewise, they should participate in the design of the program content, foster students’ autonomy, and be able to work in groups or teams. In this train of thought, one teacher manifested: “I think tutors should have excellent skills to use programs, platforms, and technology. They should know those tools very well; otherwise, they would be in serious trouble” (Teacher 4, interview).

On the other hand, when talking about methodological suggestions, some teachers believed that the new program should allow students to experience an interdisciplinary academic education, which, in turn, may benefit interaction in the classroom. One teacher affirmed: “When an academic program can interact with different areas of knowledge, [students’] interaction, classroom management, and [language] production are greatly enhanced” (Teacher 5, focus group interview).

Regarding materials and content, teachers reported that these should be graphically attractive, motivating, with clear instructions, and should discuss topics related to students’ personal and professional contexts. Furthermore, teachers suggested that traditional materials be considered alongside digital media to present content. Teachers claimed that materials and content for the program, which are available through a website or an e-learning platform, should also be offline or printed (e.g., a printed textbook). Also, online materials could be made offline through USB drives or SD cards. One teacher commented:

We often believe a blended learning program requires internet access, but that is not the case. We have other resources that can make blended learning feasible for regional campuses with difficult or no internet access since we have other materials (traditional or analog) that can provide ways for content acquisition without needing a computer or Wi-Fi network. (Teacher 11, interview)

Finally, some coordinators agreed that institutional commitment is essential for implementing a blended learning program. Central administrations should be concerned about supporting methodologies adapted to general and particular contexts for the current, fast-changing language teaching and learning realities. Table 5 synthesizes this section’s findings through an analytical matrix (^{Miles et al., 2014}).

Teachers’ and Students’ Characteristics and Needs

As for teachers’ and students’ characteristics and needs, teachers and administrators agreed that many students show a good disposition towards online learning and learning in general through technological means. They asserted that some learners exhibit good technical skills in their classes (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 Students’ Virtual Learning Environment Usage Skill Level From 1 (Lowest) to 5 (Highest) 

According to teachers and administrators, students’ competencies in technology depart from the fact that the latter is already used to support f2f teaching and learning practices. In this line, one teacher posited: “There are outstanding students for online learning because they are passionate about technology, they feel motivated by it, and that is why they like it so much” (Teacher 7, interview).

The preceding is important because it allows content designers to use different technological tools to operationalize a teaching methodology in a VLE. Nonetheless, according to one of the teachers interviewed, some students are experts when using social media, but not much for VLEs, although using them can be learned quickly: “Even if we think today’s students are technology experts, they seem to be experts when it comes to social media, but not so much when it comes to using VLEs” (Teacher 8, interview).

Another teacher added that older students need more assistance when doing online activities: “There are also non-digital native students. They are the older students in their classrooms, 30-year-olds or older who have difficulties [learning online] and need a lot more assistance [from the teacher] than others” (Teacher 9, interview).

Concerning teachers, even though they indicated that their VLE usage skills are good (40.74%) or outstanding (37.04%; see Figure 4), most of them agreed that they need training on the use of these kinds of environments before, during, and after their courses; the latter as a follow-up strategy to check on their technological skills learning. This is a recurrent theme for teachers and administrators as they also pinpointed that training should be included in their working hours and offered not only at the main campus but also at regional campuses. One teacher affirmed: “At the regional campuses, we are surprised to see the considerable professional development programming the School of Languages offers, but only for the main campus teachers” (Teacher 10, interview).

Figure 4 Teachers’ Virtual Learning Environment Usage Skill From Level 1 (Lowest) to 5 (Highest) 

Table 6 synthesizes this section’s findings through an analytical matrix (^{Miles et al., 2014}).