时间：2022-06-09 03:22:33
Abstract
In this study， we investigated the reactions and perceptions of ‘digital immigrant’ students to the adoption of blended learning combining the Moodle VLE and traditional face-to-face instructional delivery method on EAP courses in a Nigerian university of technology. Data sets from extractable online logs for activities， discussion board interaction and two online surveys are triangulated by focus group discussion responses. The data revealed that students’ use of the online components of the courses are high and perceptions of the various values such as relevance， reflective thinking， interactivity， tutor support， interpretation， learning experience and benefit are very positive， and are in the range of 60s to 90s in percentage points. However， peer to peer interaction while positive is not as high， indicating the additional work that need be done in addition to the challenges of infrastructure and cost that students would want addressed. Implications of the findings include the potentials of blended learning in difficult academic contexts and subject areas， the relevance of social interaction platforms in language learning and other subject areas， and the crucial role technology can play in large class contexts.
Key words： Digital immigrant； Moodle； Blended learning； Interaction； Critical thinking； Learner autonomy
INTRODUCTION
When Marc Prensky came up with the terminologies ‘Digital Natives’ and ‘Digital Immigrants’， he did not have Nigerian young students as referents. Most of these youths do not belong to the generation that had “Computer games， email， the Internet， cell phones and instant messaging [as] integral parts of their lives” （Prensky， 2001）. But the rapid developments in the last two decades in the application of Information and Communications Technologies （ICTs） to education is a major challenge to educators， even in Africa， particularly sub-Saharan Africa and specifically Nigeria where educational practices remain steeped deeply in the traditional mode of rote learning， and there is yet to emerge a dynamic ICT policy. Recent efforts at curriculum renewals by higher education institutions focus essentially on content rather than methodology， the vehicle for delivering that content. In these developing countries， transition to an industrial， and possibly a knowledge society will depend on deep and far reaching changes in the education sector. In advanced educational systems， learning has moved from the dominant behaviourist to social constructivist approaches （Bransford， Brown & Cocking， 2000）. The emerging world scenario places a heavy burden on educators with a concern for the system they continue to nurture. Transition from a teacher-fronted， rote learning， and large class （500+） English as a Second Language （ESL） programme to a Blended Learning one in low resourced， technology-poor context would therefore represent a quantum leap， in a Nigerian Higher Education institution. Of course， the much acknowledged digital gap therefore means that young adults in African contexts are far from being ‘digital natives’. Indeed， evidence shows they are ‘digital immigrants’ （Aborisade， 2005a）.
At FUTA the initial decision to look for alternative methods and pedagogies emanated from problems associated with teaching a language for proficiency course in very large classes （3000+ students and 5 teachers amid several other constraints）. As a first step， in 2005 Web 1.0 internet resources offered a useful alternative. At this stage， having earlier adopted the Communicative Language Teaching （CLT） model， a task-based， problem-based and process-product syllabus was adopted. The process was assisted by various accounts in second language （L2） teaching literature （e.g. Dudley-Evans， 1984； Hopkins， 1988； Bloor and St. John， 1988； Hyland and Hyland， 1992） and several workshops over three years. Our experience at that stage of development was reported in some detail （Aborisade， 2003）. Thus， the objective of the course necessitated setting up situations where interactions take place to achieve what Candlin （1987） referred to as “purposeful communication”. But implementing all this in the large classes made the inadequacies of the F2F ethos become only too glaring. Moreover， in resource-poor Nigerian higher education system where there are no ‘digital natives’ both faculty and students needed computer and digital information literacy skills. However， it was clear that the new learning technologies of Web 2.0 offered the best opportunities to innovate our curriculum and provide new learning opportunities for the students who are in any case， as with the youth of other climes， inquisitive， critical， explorative， manipulative， and nonconforming challenging and questioning established authorities （except that in our context they are not ‘digitally savvy’）. Indeed， some of the available technologies such as cell phones， television， computers and video play a major role in their everyday social interactions. As such， it is reasonable to assume that they have been apprenticed to the use of technology through communities of practice （home and peer groups） and would be able to apply technological skills in academic contexts.
The Blended Learning approach， which enabled us to keep the F2F （faculty’s comfort zone） and gradually incorporate Web 2.0 as we improve our competencies and adapt to the new tools， offered the best model. This approach is sometimes also referred to as ‘hybrid learning’ or ‘mixed mode learning’ （Doering， Veletsianos & Yerasimou， 2008）. Teaching and Learning literature confirms that when people learn with human and technological resources， the individuals can extend their knowledge and social connections. In this regard， Blended Learning is particularly useful especially in our context， as according to Krawiec， Salter， & Kay （2005， cited in Rodriguez and Anicete， 2010）， “creating learning tasks for students which involve an online discussion can be particularly effective.” Students learn from one another by receiving feedback from peers； threaded discussions allow students to respond in thoughtful ways to questions that stimulate critical thinking and promote the sharing of ideas. Citing Deliaglioglu （2004） Rodriguez and Anicete （2010： 792） quoted some of such reports：
To extend the classroom space beyond the walls， have more meetings and enable student-student and student-teacher interactions， the MOODLE （Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment） Virtual Learning Environment was introduced （）. This came after trying out the Wiki （） for the ‘Integrated Reading and Writing’ module with reports indicating high enthusiasm of students for online learning. The configuration and setting up of the Moodle was carried out on trial and error basis， without any expert involvement. One of the teaching team who had a brief experience of using it as a visiting researcher in a UK university worked with some software technologists to get it installed and running. University authorities paid for external hosting of the website.
The research methodology is that of practitioner led action research with the teacher as participant and researcher. The method engages with context rich qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis， searching for themes within and across data sets. About 3000+ students were collectively enrolled on the learning site in each semester but they were required to register individually using a passkey. All students have access to computers and Internet in the various cybercafés on and off campus. At the beginning of the session they have an orientation programme on the use of the VLE and are taken through the process of forming working teams for group work in the second semester. The Moodle site thus provides additional learning spaces， where they get learning materials， discuss their weekly topics on the forum and give support to each other， search links， collaborate to edit group work on the wiki， read course news and announcements posted by teachers， download and upload assignments， and submit term papers. A record of the use and access of the Moodle learning site was obtained for the purpose of this study. Some of the data collected from the LMS database was for eleven departments taught by this investigator in the first semester of 2010/2011 session； these data sets are indicated in the applicable tables for the end-of-course evaluation. The online end-of-course evaluation survey， available only on the VLE in addition to Moodle’s Constructivist On-line Learning Environment Survey （COLLES） were used for quantitative data while a focus group discussion with a few group leaders， to provide qualitative data， served to triangulate information for other data sets. The interview was meant to clarify some of the issues raised by students’ evaluation survey responses. All data sets were collated and analysed for themes and implications， and these are presented in the following discussion.
3. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two quantitative data sets were collected from the Moodle extractable statistics： the first comprises students’ access and use of the resources， that is， hits recorded of visits and activities. The second is the Constructivist On-Line Learning Environment Survey （COLLES）. The format of the survey questionnaire requires the respondent to indicate a level of agreement or disagreement using a 5-point Likert scale （1-almost never， 2-seldom， 3-sometimes， 4-often and 5-almost always）. The questions ask about the following： （1） the course’s relevance to student’s interests and professional goals， （2） the level of critical or reflective thinking that the student applies to the material in the course， （3） the level of interactivity the student engages in during the course， （4） the level of tutor support and （5） peer support the student is receiving in the course， and （6） the success of both student and tutor in making good sense of each other’s communication （Dougiamas & Taylor， 2002）. Three hundred and twenty six （326） returns from the same teacher-investigator’s group of eleven departments totalling about 800 registered online were received for the COLLES survey questions.
A third quantitative data set was generated by the End-of-course evaluation questionnaire available on-line also on the Moodle but only sets completed by this teacher-investigator’s group of students （647） were used for analysis. Six hundred and forty seven returned their responses； of this number only four hundred and three （403） properly completed questionnaires were analysed. Adapted from the University of Manchester Enquiry-based learning survey， the questions are in three sections focusing on the general but also emphasising specific issues peculiar to our context. Section one which is used for this study consists of 27 questions focusing on 3 areas： 1） Internet （VLE-supported） learning （9 questions）； 2） Learning experience （13 questions）； and， 3） Benefits （7 questions）. Some questions overlap and responses are counted twice. Responses are rated on a 5-point Likert scale （1 strongly disagree 5 strongly agree）. The frequency and percentage calculations of responses were calculated.
The fourth set of data generated was qualitative and came from the focus group discussion using semi-structured interview questions focusing on the more specific issues. Two group leaders were randomly selected from each of eleven departments， giving a total of twenty-two. This was split into two groups， and discussions held on two different days for each group. Both sets of interviews were tape-recorded， transcribed and open-coded. Similar open codes were clustered together and recurring themes linked to those in the three other sets of data. The specific issues addressed by the focus groups are： Team work dynamics， Drivers of interaction， Learning styles， and Challenges. There are methodological difficulties with investigating our online learning， some of these are well known in terms of limitations in our technical capacity. The limitations of the approach adopted in this study are therefore acknowledged. It is hoped that the multi-faceted nature of the evaluation here in part redresses this.
4. FINDINGS
4.1 Moodle Extractable Data
Data for two semesters are presented here. The two sets are for the foundation year cohort in the 2010/2011 session. Peculiarly， data for the first semester are always less than complete， for a number of reasons. First， students arrive at varying times during the first six weeks. Many are forced to change departments based on their entry qualifications. A good number settle down rather late to participate in the orientation programme and are therefore unable to activate their online registration. Typically， some 3000+ students （fresh and repeating） are registered for the course in each semester. More students successfully activate registration in the second semester than the first. We were unable to track students’ posts and threads by school in the first semester， due principally to our lack of technical capacity at this moment. In the second semester （GNS 102） students are normally grouped into teams of five for the project investigation and the groups are given number IDs by which we track their contributions； but we were also unable to track logins into the Wiki on the Moodle where students do their term paper drafts and editing in this semester for the same reason of capacity.
Table 1 gives details of numbers of students enrolled， registered online， discussion posts， discussion threads in each semester where possible， for all students. The table reveals that more students， by School and in total， succeeded in registering on-line in the second semester than the first （2656：2905）. Discussion posts follow a similar pattern while the threads initiated by students in the second semester almost doubled that in the first. Table 2 presents some statistics for activities in GNS 102 for this investigator’s group of 11 departments， for activities other than the students’ discussion board. Between them the students who registered online logged 1476 views of the News Forum posted by this teacher-investigator giving information about the course； teacher-investigator’s 6 discussion board posts logged 5117 views and 444 replies； resource-content materials had 10327 views， which included downloads； and， three （3） assignments logged 1061 views， which also included downloads， and 1971 uploads of completed assignments for submission.
4.2 COLLES Survey
Table 4 gives the overall results of the COLLES survey indicating the perception of students about their learning experience online. Only those who indicated ‘often’ and ‘almost always’ （4 and 5） are captured for this analysis. Of the six scales， Relevance， Reflective thinking and Tutor support received the highest percentage scores followed by Interpretation， Interactivity， and， Peer support that received less than 50%. While Relevance of the courses and the methods of delivery are rated highest （76.2%） followed by Reflective thinking （75.6%） and Tutor support （73.5%）， Peer support （49.7%） is rated lowest on the scales. Interactivity， one major aim of adopting the Blended delivery method is rated second lowest， 50%， and both are a cause for concern because it is indicative of the much work that needs to be done in getting students to work together and lean more on one another. Table 3 reveals item by item what students feel about each aspect of their learning experience. Making sense of the tutor’s message under Interpretation ranked highest overall （88.3%）， an indication that teacher-student interaction improved. Although overall Reflective thinking received high scores， students underline that thinking about their peers’ ideas is not one of their priorities， and this ranked very low with items under Interactivity and Peer support. Other individual items ranking high include， ‘I think critically about my own ideas’， ‘I think critically about how I learn’ （Reflective thinking）， and ‘I learn how to improve my professional practice’ （Relevance）. ‘Other students respond to my ideas’， ‘Other students ask me to explain my ideas’ and ‘Other students praise my contribution’ （Interactivity and Peer support） occupy the last rungs of the scale， suggesting that students are yet to learn to leverage each other’s potential advantages. Tutor support ranks highly with students to underline the changing paradigm and the new role of teachers within the paradigm a new learning ethos. Interactivity ranks low although high enough at this point for students who were never used to interacting on course materials； this requires a new look if the aims of Blended learning would be accomplished.
Krawiec， S.， Salter， D.， & Kay， E. （2005）. A “Hybrid” Bacteriology Course： The Professor’S Design and
Expectations； The Students’ Performance And Assessment. Microbiology Education， 6， 8-13 （cited in Rodriguez and Anicete， 2010）.
Kyriakicou， M. （1999）. Electronic-Conferencing： Promoting a Collaborative Community with Learning Opportunities for Developing Teachers. IN Proceeding of the British Educational Research Association Conference， 2-5 September， 1999. University of Sussex at Brighton
Prensky， Marc （2001）. Digital Natives， Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon， 9（5）， October. MCB University Press.
Reynard， R. （2007）. Hybrid Learning： Challenges for Teachers. THE Journal. Retrieved March 11， 2012 from http：///Articles/2007/05/17/Hybrid-Learning-Challenges-forteachers.aspx？Page=1
Rodriguez， Marissa A.， & R. C.A. Anicete （2010）. Students’ Views of a Mixed Hybrid Ecology Course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching ， 6（4）， 791 798.
Vygotsky， L. S. （1978）. Mind in Society： The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge ： Harvard University Press.
Wenger， E. （1998）. Communities of Practice. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.