Learner reflections in virtual vs. blended EAP classes

Virtual learners were significantly more enthusiastic and collaborative.Mixed-method approach. Outstanding theme of blended class: personality clash.Outstanding themes of virtual class: anticipation in problems, communication.Blended class: goal oriented; wanted to enter graduate school.Virtual class: skills oriented; believed multidimensional thinking. This study compared students' group work experiences in virtual and blended classes in an EFL context. The study was conducted during an academic semester and the participants comprised of two groups of Iranian EAP students in mainstream education system and virtual education context. To probe the factors influencing student group work experiences and how these factors might affect student performances in virtual and blended environments, we adopted a mixed-method approach. For the collection of quantitative data, a survey adapted from Smith et al. (2011) was used. For further investigation, data were gathered through comments the participants made, semi-structured interviews, and teacher observations. The findings revealed that students in the virtual class proved significantly more enthusiastic about collaborative work compared to students in the blended class. Our analysis of qualitative data confirmed that anticipation of problems and development of communication plans were found in the learners in the virtual group, whereas personality clashes were commonly observed among the learners in the blended environment. The results promise implications for teachers in order to identify challenges the English learners may face in online instructional environments and think of strategies to help them overcome problems and engage in active participation in online activities.

[1]  H. B. Mann,et al.  On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other , 1947 .

[2]  Rena M. Palloff,et al.  Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. , 1999 .

[3]  Brian K. Payne,et al.  Improving Group Work: Voices of Students. , 2006 .

[4]  A. Paraskevas,et al.  A computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) approach in teaching research methods , 2007 .

[5]  Barbara Polnick,et al.  Classroom learning communities in educational leadership: A comparison study of three delivery options , 2010, Internet High. Educ..

[6]  Vanessa P. Dennen,et al.  From Message Posting to Learning Dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion , 2005 .

[7]  Mieke Caris,et al.  Overcoming student resistance to group work: Online versus face-to-face , 2011, Internet High. Educ..

[8]  Yu-Fen Yang,et al.  Engaging students in an online situated language learning environment , 2011 .

[9]  S. Susan Marandi,et al.  Wikis as discussion forums: exploring students’ contribution and their attention to form , 2014 .

[10]  P. Liamputtong Qualitative Research Methods , 2005 .

[11]  Robert J Crutcher A computer-aided digital audio recording and encoding system for improving the encoding of verbal reports , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[12]  Etsuko Toyoda,et al.  Categorization of Text Chat Communication between Learners and Native Speakers of Japanese. , 2002 .

[13]  Peter G. Cole,et al.  Teaching Principles and Practice , 1994 .

[14]  Manuela Paechter,et al.  Online or face-to-face? Students' experiences and preferences in e-learning , 2010, Internet High. Educ..

[15]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1993 .

[16]  Robert B. Hasbrouck,et al.  The structural factors that affect classroom team performance , 2003 .

[17]  Clare D. Klunk Collaborating Online: Learning Together in Community , 2005 .

[18]  James D. Klein,et al.  Computer-mediated instruction: a comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration , 2008 .

[19]  Dianne L. Conrad,et al.  Deep in the Hearts of Learners: Insights into the Nature of Online Community , 2002 .

[20]  Chin-Chung Tsai,et al.  Modeling primary school pre-service teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT) , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[21]  Rena M. Palloff,et al.  Book Review: The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners. , 2003 .

[22]  Reza Dashtestani,et al.  Iranian English for academic purposes (EAP) stakeholders' attitudes toward using the Internet in EAP courses for civil engineering students: promises and challenges , 2013 .

[23]  Piet Desmet,et al.  Podcasting in a virtual English for academic purposes course: learner motivation , 2016, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[24]  A. Artino Online or face-to-face learning? Exploring the personal factors that predict students' choice of instructional format , 2010, Internet High. Educ..

[25]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology : A Project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology , 1996 .

[26]  Leonard Springer,et al.  Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis , 1997 .

[27]  Rena M. Palloff,et al.  The Virtual Student. A Profile and Guide to Working with Online Learners. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. , 2003 .

[28]  Margaret Haughey,et al.  Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom by Rena M. Palloff and Keith Pratt , 2000 .

[29]  Trena M. Paulus,et al.  The Impact of Call Instruction on Classroom Computer Use: A Foundation for Rethinking Technology in Teacher Education , 2002 .

[30]  Melissa Houston Linux Makes the Grade: An Open Source Solution That's Time Has Come. , 2007 .

[31]  Mahmood Reza Atai,et al.  A Triangulated Study of Academic Language Needs of Iranian Students of Computer Engineering: Are the Courses on Track? , 2011 .

[32]  Felicity Wikeley *,et al.  Pedagogical implications of working with doctoral students at a distance , 2004 .

[33]  Diana G. Oblinger,et al.  Educating the Net Generation , 2005 .

[34]  Matthew J. Koehler,et al.  Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge , 2006, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[35]  Maryam Asoodar,et al.  Examining effectiveness of communities of practice in online English for academic purposes (EAP) assessment in virtual classes , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[36]  M. Atai,et al.  Exploring the practices and cognitions of Iranian ELT instructors and subject teachers in teaching EAP reading comprehension , 2014 .

[37]  L. Shulman Those who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching , 2013 .

[38]  James D. Klein,et al.  Type of Positive Interdependence and Affiliation Motive in an Asynchronous, Collaborative Learning Environment , 2006 .

[39]  Nada Dabbagh,et al.  Online Learning: Concepts, Strategies, and Application , 2004 .

[40]  Mike Moore,et al.  Distance Education: A Systems View , 1995 .

[41]  Tracey Wilen-Daugenti Technology and Learning Environments in Higher Education. , 2009 .

[42]  Angela D. Benson,et al.  Using Online Learning To Meet Workforce Demand: A Case Study of Stakeholder Influence. , 2002 .

[43]  Karrie A. Jones,et al.  Making Cooperative Learning Work in the College Classroom: An Application of the "Five Pillars" of Cooperative Learning to Post-Secondary Instruction. , 2008 .

[44]  R. Tanner,et al.  Building Virtual Communities: Can We Talk? , 2012 .

[45]  LI Jiandun,et al.  A Computer-supported Collaborative Learning Platform Based on Clouds , 2011 .

[46]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[47]  J. Michael Spector Finding Your Online Voice: Stories Told by Experienced Online Educators , 2007 .

[48]  George D. Kuh What We're Learning About Student Engagement From NSSE: Benchmarks for Effective Educational Practices , 2003 .