Abstract:

In this session I will discuss the Blended (Tomlinson & Whittaker, 2013), Remote (Radić, Atabekova, Freddi & Schmied, 2021) and Hybrid (Beatty, 2019; Lederman, 2020) modes of delivery in the case of the Cambridge University Language Programme (CULP) and will conclude by outlining a flexible model of teaching delivery that may be of interest to the wider academic community.

It has been fifty years that language teaching has been at the forefront of pedagogical advancements in teaching with technology (Butler-Pascoe, 2011). This is mainly due to the complex nature of language acquisition that apart from the explicit teaching and learning of grammatical structures and other culture-related contents, requires the development of four skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking.

Two of these skills, listening and speaking require exposure to, in technical terms, multimedia content and interactivity. The listening skill is best developed by extensive exposure to authentic audio and video materials while speaking requires real-time, open-ended social interaction.

CULP started in 2000 and from the outset the courses were designed for delivery in a blended-learning format that integrates face-to-face, classroom teaching with self-study in a dedicated Virtual Learning Environment (Moodle). The University Language Centre has a dedicated technical session that designs and develops multimedia, interactive teaching/learning resources and delivers them online.

In spring 2020, due to the pandemic, all CULP courses moved online for remote delivery and post-pandemic, when the University reverted to face-to-face teaching, we decided, based on our remote teaching experience and feedback from students, to offer our courses in both a blended and remote mode of delivery. We conducted students/teacher surveys and collected data that I will showcase and comment upon.

Technological advancements and social changes, however, make the hybrid form of teaching delivery a proposition that cannot be disregarded.

I will conclude by briefly outlining the merits of a flexible approach to the design and delivery of blended and hybrid teaching/learning and by stressing the critical importance of teacher training as well as student and staff empowerment.

References:
[1] Beatty, Brian. Hybrid-flexible course design. EdTech Books, 2019.
[2] Butler-Pascoe, Mary Ellen. "The History of CALL: The Intertwining Paths of Technology and Second/Foreign Language Teaching." IJCALLT vol.1, no.1 2011: pp.16-32. http://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2011010102
[3] Lederman, D. (2020). “The HyFlex option for instruction if campuses open this fall”. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/05/13/one-option-delivering-instruction-if-campuses-open-fall-hyflex
[4] Radić, N.; Atabekova, A.; Freddi, M.; Schmied, J. (2021). “Introduction to The world universities’ response to COVID-19: remote online language teaching”. [5] In Radić, N.; Atabekova, A.; Freddi, M.; Schmied, J. (Eds), The world universities’ response to COVID-19: remote online language teaching (pp. 1-30). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2021.52.1261
[6] Tomlinson, Brian, and Claire Whittaker. "Blended learning in English language teaching." London: British Council 252 (2013).

Keywords:

Modes of delivery, communication, technology, language-teaching, methodology.