review of blending technologies in second language classrooms

7/27/2019 Review of Blending Technologies in Second Language Classrooms

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/review-of-blending-technologies-in-second-language-classrooms 1/4

MIGUEL A. VARELA

OCTOBER 2012

Book Review:‘Blending Technologies in Second Language Classrooms.’ Paul Gruba and DonHinkelman. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Summary

‘Blending technologies in second language classrooms’ brings together what ishappening today in many educational institutions around the globe. Although thebook concentrates on foreign language (FL) teaching, it could be very easily

adjusted to any other subject areas.Gruba and Hinkelman consider blended or hybrid approaches of teaching andlearning as ‘integrating technologies in face-to-face environments.’ The authorsrefer to technologies mainly as computers and, in so, are in line with computer assisted language learning (CALL) definitions of technologies that are primarilybased on computers and their wide use in different devices.The book starts with an introduction of what work has been done on blendedlearning, and what caused those approaches to succeed or succumb. At thesame time, the authors introduce considerations for blending technologies in FL.In chapter two the authors define technology as tools being used pedagogicallyin combination with multiple devices, connected to human and stored databases,configured in time and space. Chapter three introduces levels (micro, meso, andmacro) to have in mind when designing blended approaches to FL learning. Thenext two chapters refer to the importance of assessment with technologies for learning in a blended environment, and how action research and collaborationcan help plan and develop a successful blended program in a given institution.Sample blended lessons are presented in chapter 6; and chapter 7 describes twoJapanese universities and their blended programs. In the final chapter theauthors open the notion of blended approaches to discussion. They hope thateducators who are against adopting technologies in teaching, and those whosupport it will find a place in-between where face-to-face and online technologiesmeet, considering collaboration as key.

Review

When comparing traditional teaching institutions (any traditional university wouldfall into that category), and informal learning that happens today, we see how theworld has changed, and passing knowledge is no longer restricted to formaleducation. Today there are more people engaged in learning informally and



sharing information online, than people actually registered at educationalinstitutions. Davidson, C. & Goldberg, D. (2010) make an interesting commentregarding traditional institutions and how we need to adapt to the current worldwe are living in: ‘It is our hope that thinking about the potential of new ways of knowing might inspire the revitalization of those institutions of advanced formal

learning.’ In line with this concept, Gruba and Hinkelman get into thecontroversial topic of technologies employed in education. They focus their attention on ‘blending’ traditional teaching techniques and new technologies inforeign language education.

There is a lot discussion still around about using technology in today’sclassrooms, as well as what technology to use, and the amount of technologyemployed in teaching and learning.

Gruba and Hinkelman concentrate on teaching foreign languages mixingtraditional materials with the latest technologies. They wisely introduce someconsiderations for blending technologies, and they believe that for a blendedprogram to succeed and remain over an extended period of time a plan of actionshould be carefully set up having in mind the purpose of the program: What is thevision behind the plan? Why are we introducing something new, why do we needto change anything? At the same time, if changes are needed then, there shouldbe no point in delaying them.

The authors also refer to the importance of pedagogy as a starting point in anyblended program. They focus their attention on pedagogical views andimportance of technology in education with a solid methodological foundation,avoiding a 'Because we can' attitude (Meskill, 2007). Here Gruba and Hinkelmantake a step away from designing a lesson plan starting with the tools at hand,and instead agree with: ‘The computer and all that it can do should be at theservice of the teaching process (Patterson 1996)’ in (Ascough 2002). Therefore,the plan starts with what needs to be taught, and then choosing the appropriatetechnologies to achieve better learning. The authors decide to leave the notion of technology as a 'tool' to the last item of the list in a definition of what technologyis. Technology is defined here from a pedagogical perspective in order to createmore purposeful blends for a more engaging experience for learners.

Once the appropriate pedagogy has been chosen and plans made to start ablended program, the authors suggest some considerations to take into accountbefore developing a blended program: purpose, appropriateness, multi-modality,

and sustainability. The program should be appropriate for the academic context.Proper pedagogies should be employed, as well as right processes and contentsaccording to different proficiency levels. Variety will also lead to success. A multi-modality approach should be adopted where technologies and materials can becombined in different ways. Blending technologies means using a variety of resources from printed materials to latest technology within the same lessonplan. A program that runs for a short period of time, and then collapses cannot besuccessful. Sustainability will guaranty that resources are up-to-date, affordable,



and resources should ensure long-term results. Threats to sustainability could betechnologies that are out-of-date, expensive, or time consuming.

Teachers are not in isolation and they need the support of an institution to makea blended program work, and in order to stimulate the adoption of new practices

(Dodds, 2007) suggests that “’communities of innovation' can only flourish if institutional barriers are minimalized, possibilities for collaboration are opened,and communication processes are made continual”. Gruba and Hinkelmansuggest that solid foundations can be built only if several factors are taken intoaccount. Therefore, they introduce the concepts of Micro, Meso, and Macrolevels and how they have to work together for success. Micro level is seen aseverything that takes place inside the classroom. The Meso level encompassesschool wide decisions, courses, other colleagues, and even graduate attributesfor a certain teaching institution. The Macro level describes national andinternational guidelines and standards. It is interesting to see how the authorsrealize that without the support and encouragement of educational and

government authorities, many blended programs would not develop their fullpotential or would not take place, or last long.

‘Blending Technologies in Second Language Classrooms’ brings together manyaspects of technology integration in a teaching environment, and apart from allthe interesting contributions made, chapter 5 on “Action research in BlendedClassrooms” seems to be off topic at times, as it explains the whole concept of action research itself, rather than showing more thoroughly how it actually relatesto blended programs. At the same time, the idea in line with (Tomlinson 2003)that teachers developing their own materials are more appropriate to learners'needs, is true but more ideal than real. Most educational institutions use coursebooks to avoid course design. Teachers creating their own materials is not asimple goal to achieve, as teachers would need more planning time and moreprofessional development to be able to cope with the complications of coursedevelopment. It is also true that many educational institutions are moreconcerned about classroom management and students passing exams, rather than teachers creating their own materials.In chapter 7 we are presented with case studies of two Japanese universities andtheir blended programs. For privacy reasons names are not provided. Although, itis clear why the authors decided to protect universities’ and participants’ names,it does create a feeling of distrust and uncertainty on the reader. In case thereader wants to research further on the universities’ programs, it is not possibleas the institutions are never mentioned. Having access to these blendedprograms could have been a good starting point to take ideas from, and avoidmaking similar mistakes.

To conclude, ‘Blending Technologies in Second Language Classrooms’ readseasily and leaves the reader satisfied as it covers a wide range of topics relatedto using technologies in FL education. Gruba and Hinkelman focus ontechnologies employed in foreign language teaching but they consider traditional



teaching techniques as still necessary. They opt for ‘blended’ learning and alsofind that ‘the use of computer software is linked to learning gains and increasedlearning efficiency, but are still not replacements for creative and dedicatedteachers.’ (Emerson & Mosteller 1998a, 1998b) in (Myers, C. B. et al. 2004).Nouvelle teachers could benefit from reading this book as they can begin to

understand what a ‘blended’ lesson should look like. Seasoned teachers andadministrators are presented with reasons of why a blended program isnecessary, how it can lead to success, and the important of staying current withnew technologies. The book also shows the need for colleague collaboration, aswell as support and careful planning by administration at the educationalinstitution, but also the importance and commitment and serious projectsencouraged by provincial and national authorities for a serious and lastingprogram to succeed and remain.

REFERENCES:

Ascough, R. (2002): “Designing for Online Distance Education: Putting Pedagogy Before

Technology”. Teaching Theology and Religion. ISSN 1368-4868, 2002, vol. 5no. I, pp17-29.

Davidson, C.N., Goldberg, D.T. (2010). The Future of Thinking: Learning Institutions in a

Digital Age (MIT Press, forthcoming, 2010). John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Series

on Digital Media and Learning, MIT Press.

Dodds, T. (2007). Information technology: A contributor to innovation in higher

education. In T.S. Glickman, & S.C. White (Eds) Managing for innovation (pp. 85-95).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Emerson, J. D. & Mosteller, F. (1998a). Interactive multimedia in college teaching. Part I: A ten-year review of reviews. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 23, 43-58.

Emerson, J. D. & Mosteller, F. (1998b). Interactive multimedia in college teaching. PartII: Lessons from research in the sciences. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook,

23, 59-75.

Myers, C. B., Bennett, D., Brown, G. & Henderson, T. (2004). Emerging Online LearningEnvironments and Student Learning: An Analysis of Faculty Perceptions. Educational

Technology & Society, 7 (1), 78-86.

Patterson, E. (1996). “The Questions of Distance Education.” Theological Education

33:59-74.

Tomlinson, B. (2003). Materials evaluation. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.) Developing materials

for language teaching (pp. 15-36). London: Continuum.

review of blending technologies in second language classrooms

Documents