Advertisement

Blended approach to learning and practising English grammar with technical and foreign language university students: comparative study

  • Ivana SimonovaEmail author
Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Blended design of teaching/learning foreign languages, in this case English grammar, has become widely spread within the higher education. The main objective of the article is to discover whether blended approach enhances the process of acquiring new knowledge in the field. The research was conducted at two institutions: faculty of informatics and management, University of Hradec Kralove (technical students) and faculty of education, University of Jan Evangelista Purkyne, Usti nad Labem (foreign language students), Czech Republic. Totally, the research sample included 123 bachelor students. Data were collected in three phases: (1) face-to-face pre-testing to monitor entrance knowledge before the process of blended learning starts, (2) post-testing 1 applied after the blended learning approach and (3) final face-to-face post-testing 2 administered at the end of semester. Phase 1 was followed by autonomous learning from the online course; teacher´s feedback was provided to the students after phase 2 so that they could correct their mistakes, and improve the knowledge in phase 3. Eight hypotheses were tested to discover whether there exist statistically significant differences in test scores between the technical and foreign language students. The results differ according to the students´ level of English knowledge. However, they entitle the described blended learning approach to be applied for acquiring English grammar for B2 and C1 levels of CEFR.

Keywords

Blended learning Higher education English grammar ESP English for specific purposes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was supported by IGA 2019 project.

References

  1. Amaral, K., & Shank, J. (2010). Enhancing student learning and retention with blended learning class guides. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/12/enhancing-student-learning-and-retention-with-blended-learning-class-guides. 2018, February 18.
  2. Bertrand, Y. (1998). Soudobe teorie vzdelavani [Current educational theories]. Praha: Portal.Google Scholar
  3. Blown, E. J., & Bryce, T. G. K. (2006). Knowledge restructuring in the development of children’s cosmologies. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1411–1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boekaerts, M. (2004). Motivation to learn. Paris: International bureau of education. UNESCO.Google Scholar
  5. Carey, M., Christie, M., & Grainger, P. (2015). What benefits can be derived from teaching knowledge about language to preservice teachers? The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(9), 16–30.  https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n9.2.Google Scholar
  6. CEFR. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment (CEFR). Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97. 2019, March, 14.
  7. Comenius, J. A. (1930). Didactica magna. Praha: Dedictvi Komenskeho.Google Scholar
  8. Comenius, J. A. (1947). Analyticka didaktika. [Analytical didactics]. Praha: State Pedagogical Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Craver, C. F. (2003). The making of a memory mechanism. Journal of the History of Biology, 36(1), 153–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Djiwandono, P. (2017). The learning styles of millennial generation in university: A study in Indonesian context. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319468187_The_Learning_Styles_of_Millennial_Generation_in_University_a_Study_in_Indonesian_Context. 2019, March, 08.
  11. Doulik, P. (2005). Geneze dětských pojetí vybraných fenoménů. [Genesis of learners´concepts of selected phenomena]. Acta Universitatis Purkynianae 107. Studia paedagogica. Usti nad Labem: UJEP.Google Scholar
  12. Elhoseny, H., Elhoseny, M., Abdelrazek, S., & Riad, A. M. (2018). Evaluating learners’ progress in smart learning environment. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, 639, 734–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gais, S., & Born, J. (2004). Declarative memory consolidation: Mechanisms acting during human sleeps. Learning and Memory, 11, 679–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hangen, E., Elliot, A. J., & Jamieson, J. P. (2018). Highlighting the difference between approach and avoidance motivation enhances the predictive validity of performance-avoidance goal reports. Motivation and Emotion 42. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9744-9. 2019, March, 08.
  16. Hawkins, D. (1994). Constructivism: Some history. In S. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 9–14). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  17. Huber, R., Ghilardi, M. F., Massimini, M., & Tonomi, G. (2004). Local sleep and learning. Nature, 430, 78–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kayaoglu, M. N., Akbas, R. D., & Erbay, S. (2015). The role of web-based grammar instruction in tertiary level of EFL students’ academic achievement. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 3(3), 499–507.Google Scholar
  19. Kim, C. (2012). The role of affective and motivational factors in designing personalized learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 563–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu, T., Chen, Z., Lesgold, A. M., Feng, X., & Wang, C. (2017). Novelty blended learning pattern and its application in English language teaching. In ICDTE 2017: International conference on digital technology in education, ACM international conference proceedings series volume, Part F, (vol. 131203, pp. 7–12).Google Scholar
  21. Mansouri, A. (2018). The importance of teaching english grammar in foreign language situations. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/importance-teaching-english-grammar-foreign-language-ali-mansouri. 2018, February, 22.
  22. Mitru, G., Millrood, D. L., & Mateika, J. H. (2002). The impact of sleep on learning and behavior in adolescents. Teachers College Record, 104, 704–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Netolicka, J., & Simonova, I. (2017). SAMR model and bloom’s digital taxonomy applied in blended learning/teaching of general English and ESP. In Proceedings of 2017 international symposium on educational technology (ISET), Hong Kong, (pp. 277–281).Google Scholar
  24. Payne, J. D., & Nadel, L. (2004). Sleep, dreams, and memory consolidation: The role of the stress hormone cortisol. Learning and Memory, 11, 671–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Piaget, J. (1951). Psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  26. Piaget, J. (1999). Psychologie inteligence [Psychology of intelligence]. Praha: Portál.Google Scholar
  27. Pinto-Llorente, A. M., Sanchez-Gomez, M. C., & Garcia-Penalvo, F. J. (2015). Student perception on the use of a blended-learning model to improve grammatical competence. In Alvez, G. R., Felgueiras, M. C. (eds). TEEM’15, Third international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality 2015 (pp. 91–98).Google Scholar
  28. Pinto-Llorente, A. M., Sanchez-Gomez, M. C., Garcia-Penalvo, F. J., & Casillas-Martin, S. (2017). Students’ perceptions and attitudes towards asynchronous technological tools in blended-learning training to improve grammatical competence in English as a second language. Computers in Human Behaviour, 72, 632–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poon, J. (2012). Use of blended learning to enhance the student learning experience and engagement in property education. Property Management, 30(2), 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Průcha, J., Walterova, E., & Mares, J. (2009). Pedagogicky slovnik [Pedagogical Science Dictionary]. Praha: Portal.Google Scholar
  31. Rican, J. (2016). Metakognice a metakognitivní strategie jako teoretické a výzkumné konstrukty a jejich uplatnění v moderní pedagogické praxi [Metacognition and metacognitive strategies as theoretical and research constructs and their application in moderm pedagogical practice]. Hnevin, Most.Google Scholar
  32. Riding, R. J., & Read, G. (1996). Cognitive style and pupil learning preferences. Educational Psychology, 16, 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shechter, D. A. (2015). Blended language learning using Moodle: analyzing the design of a university Turkish course as a model for other languages. In Chova, L. G., Martinez, A. L., Torres, I. C. (eds) INTED2015: international technology, education and development conference (pp. 1169–1169).Google Scholar
  34. Shors, T. J. (2004). Learning during stressful times. Learning and Memory, 11, 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simonova I. (2018) Enhancing learning success through blended approach to learning and practising english grammar: Research results. In Cheung S., Kwok L., Kubota K., Lee, L. K., Tokito, J. (eds.), Blended learning. Enhancing learning success. ICBL 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 10949, pp. 69–80). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Simonova, I., & Poulova, P. (2017) Engineering students’ needs in foreign language learning in the Czech Republic. In Auer, M., Guralnick, D., Uhomoibhi, J. (eds.), Interactive collaborative learning. ICL 2016. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 545). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Skoda, J., & Doulik, P. (2011). Psychodidaktika [Psychodidactics]. Praha: Grada.Google Scholar
  38. Spector, J. M., & Merrill, M. D. (2008). Effective, efficient and engaging (E3) learning in the digital age. Distance Education, Special issue, 29(2), 123–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. The SAMR Model. (2019). Retrieved from http://www.schrockguide.net/samr.html#. 2019, March, 14.
  40. Trembach, S., & Deng, L. (2018). Understanding millennial learning in academic libraries: Learning styles, emerging technologies, and the efficacy of information literacy instruction. College and Undergraduate Libraries. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327451228_Understanding_millennial_learning_in_academic_libraries_Learning_styles_emerging_technologies_and_the_efficacy_of_information_literacy_instruction. 2019, March, 14.
  41. Uskov, V. L., Bakken, J. P., Penumatsa, A., Heinemann, C., & Rachakonda, R. (2017). Smart pedagogy for smart universities. Smart Innovations, Systems and Technologies, 75, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Psychologie myšlení a řeči [Though and language]. Praha: Portál.Google Scholar
  44. Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectivists on science and mathematics learning. Science Education, 75(1), 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wright, B. M. (2017). Blended learnings student perception of face-to-face and online EFL lessons. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Jan Evangelista PurkyneUsti nad LabemCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations