Learning Environment
1. Introduction and context 1 Context
The teaching context is one in which students are doing a 2-year, blended learning, part-time Master’s degree in Knowledge Management at a university of applied sciences in Austria. During these two years, the students must take one 50-hour Professional English course per semester. All courses are hosted on a virtual learn- ing environment (VLE). By encouraging collaboration with the help of technology during the online phases of the blended learning language courses, the overall aim is to provide students with meaningful opportunities to develop their language skills and collaboratively build their knowledge base.
1.2 Advantages and disadvantages of blended learning
From the student’s perspective, blended learning offers a clear advantage in that students are more able to determine when and where learning takes place. Nearly all of our students work full-time in addition to pursuing their master’s degree.
Additionally, many of them travel distances of up to 100km to reach the university;
as such, the blended learning component of the course allows them to reduce by half the number of times they commute to the university.
A further advantage of blended learning is that it embodies mobile learning, i.e. learning inside and outside of the classroom using various devices (Hockly 2013: 80). We have found that use of mobile devices for language learning can also emerge without advice or assistance from the educator; in fact, learners are often the main initiators of technology in the classroom. We find it is the role of the teacher not only to encourage the use of technology and mobile learning, but also to actively hand to students the ownership of technology inside and outside of the classroom. Doing so heightens self-direction, which in turn increases mo- tivation. Feedback (Dal-Bianco 2012) has shown that the majority of our students are highly motivated, often spending more time working on their English than required.
A potential drawback to blended learning is that students might feel that tasks conducted during online learning phases are disconnected from face-to-face tasks. Students show a clear preference (84%) for tasks to be integrated through a flipped classroom model whereby online tasks either prepare students for future face-to-face tasks or where the online tasks reflect on and build upon the content of a previous face-to-face session (Moore-Walter/Dal-Bianco 2015).
1.3 Role of collaboration in blended learning
Collaboration encourages students to construct meaning together and take re- sponsibility for their own learning as well as for that of their peers (Dooly 2008:
21). By collaborating on tasks and conducting them together using English, stu- dents communicate resourcefully and negotiate meaning. Ílles (2012: 510) writes:
In order for learners to practise meaning making and the concomitant problem solving by activating their capacity, teachers have to create conditions that force students to go beyond conformity and actively participate in interpretative procedures. Language learning tasks should therefore present challenges that lead learners to make the extra effort to crack the code and find solutions that do not necessarily offer themselves in everyday interactions.
Blended learning is such a solution as an element of creativity is required to do tasks in an online environment as opposed to the traditional classroom, where gestures and facial expressions can help to convey meaning. We have, therefore, found that students need to be more exact in negotiating meaning due to this as well as to the asynchrony of some tasks. This necessary specificity in language expression results in increased creativity, detail and accuracy when communicating online.
When collaborating on blended learning tasks, students support and scaffold one another, providing input and creating content with each other. Instead of relying only on the teacher to set learning outcomes, students can also create their
own sub-goals within the framework of the task and can work together to achieve these goals. In addition, we find that collaboration in blended learning settings requires even more learner autonomy as the teacher is not physically present to oversee and direct learning. Thus, it is especially important that students find the tasks engaging and perceive collaboration as beneficial/a win-win situation. In our experience, students working alone are more likely to neglect tasks or assign- ments, but students working collaboratively are reluctant to let their peers down.
1.4 Role of technology in supporting collaboration
Technology-supported learning includes using apps, blogs, wikis, social media tools, websites etc. to facilitate learning in and outside of the classroom. The con- tent is typically user-generated, its creation involving a high degree of interactivity and user feedback, characteristics that are commonly associated with collaborative learning (Dooly 2008: 22). Consequently, technology can play an important role in supporting collaboration, especially in the online phases of a blended learning course. However, pedagogy must be the driver: “As with any technology, it is not the technology itself that enhances teaching or learning, but rather the use to which it is put” (Hockly 2013: 82). Further aspects that should not be overlooked are ac- cessibility, inclusivity and technical skills, i.e. Do all students have the hardware/
software to access these sites/tools? Is broadband internet access available? Do learners have the skills and expertise to use the technology effectively? The latter will be addressed in more detail in “The Role of the Teacher”. Nevertheless, we have found that technology, successfully employed, can be highly motivating, but it has to work. If this is not the case, e.g. the tool is not user-friendly or internet access is unreliable, then collaboration and task completion take longer, which 25% of our students mentioned as a drawback of technology and thus demotivating (Moore- Walter/Dal-Bianco 2015).
1.5 Role of the teacher in online collaborative language learning It is generally agreed that teacher role depends on the learning context and that there has been a steady shift to it becoming more facilitative (Dal-Bianco/Mac- Sween 2008: 3682). In addition, teachers should be doing their utmost to develop learners’ critical thinking skills, which can be achieved by actively engaging stu- dents in the learning process and encouraging them to take responsibility for their learning (Dooly 2008: 21). It follows, therefore, that the teacher is no longer the sole knowledge/content imparter, i.e. “the sage on the stage”, but rather the “guide on the side”, i.e. a facilitator of learning. In our teaching context and experience, there are three main areas where support/facilitation/scaffolding by the teacher
is paramount to ensure that collaboration is successful so that learning can take place. These are described below, and are also mentioned in “Description of prac- tice” in connection with the corresponding collaborative task and tool.
Prior to using technology, teachers need to make informed decisions about which tools can be used to promote collaborative learning, always bearing in mind the desired learning outcomes. In addition, teachers must acquire the ex- pertise and digital skills so that they can guide students to use these tools and to convince them of their benefit. During collaborative tasks, the teacher’s role is then to monitor and to troubleshoot if technological problems hinder students’
from doing tasks. In our experience, setting up a Help forum where students can report problems like this (as well as problems with task) enables support to be provided quickly either by the teacher or by classmates.
The second area concerns forum contributions. To ensure that communication is effective, students need to be made aware of what constitutes a quality forum post before doing collaborative tasks. We have found that giving students explicit tips and providing language starters to be helpful, e.g. “When responding, try to go be- yond a “yes” or “no” or “I agree”. Give advice, ask questions to clarify something you’re unsure about, suggest alternatives, extend on an idea, offer a resource link for more information, or otherwise engage with one another’s comments. Useful starters that you can use are: I was intrigued by…; When you mentioned …; it made me wonder….; Have you thought of…; What about…?” Students also need to be told how many postings are required, whether their postings will be assessed, and if yes, what will be assessed – collaboration, content and/or language. Last but not least, they need to know how their contributions effect their overall grade. Hence, the teacher’s role initially is to inform and guide students; during tasks, it shifts to monitoring, facilitating and providing appropriate assistance and feedback.
The last area deals with training students on how to provide quality peer feed- back, e.g. on each other’s written assignments, presentations etc. According to Morgan (2005: 29), this includes explaining why and how peer reviewing can benefit students, and then giving students several opportunities to review each other’s work. Since this is a time-consuming task, we have found that giving stu- dents credit for their reviews improves the quality, which is why we also provide models of sample reviews for a specific activity (e.g. of students’ thesis abstracts) that would receive full points, partial points and no points. In addition, students can be given a rubric that clearly outlines which aspects they should focus on in the feedback. Once again, the teacher’s role is to guide, scaffold and to provide timely feedback.
1.6 Drawbacks of collaboration
Although we are convinced that collaborative tasks can enhance learning and bene- fit all involved learners, we do occasionally encounter learners who resist collabo- rating with their classmates. This can be for a variety of reasons, but our students cite the fact that it takes longer to do tasks or because some group members shirk duties as key demotivating factors when collaborating (Moore-Walter/Dal-Bianco 2015). There are several ways to counteract this, the first being to clearly com- municate the goals and learning outcomes of collaborative tasks. If students know why they are conducting a task, they will be more motivated (Egbert 2015) While achieving a higher grade is sometimes a motivating factor for students, only 3.3% of our students mentioned that it is the main reason why they collaborate to increase their grade (Moore-Walter/Dal-Bianco 2015). In addition to grades assigned by the tutor, students can be responsible for allocating participation points to each other.
For example, each student has 5 points to divide up among the members of his or her group, with only the teacher knowing how the points are distributed. The points a learner receives constitute part of that learner’s overall mark for the assignment.
Another drawback to setting collaborative tasks during online phases of blended learning courses, this time from a language learning perspective, is that it is difficult to ensure that learners are working and communicating in English. It is possible to have students record themselves as proof that they speak English when collaborat- ing, but we find this inconsistent with self-directed learning and learner autonomy.
We can, therefore, only remind students to take advantage of this language learning opportunity and encourage them to use English rather than L1 –at least for the majority of their communication. We have mature learners who are mostly highly- motivated learners; however, it could be problematic to guarantee that younger, less-motivated learners speak English during collaboration.