Although the majority of institutions have made considerable investment in technological infrastructure, the maximum utilization of these resources and best practices applicable are not yet available (Rubio & Thoms, 2014; Vaughan et al., 2013). Participants in the higher education enterprise and especially higher education leaders should address the changing expectations regarding the quality of learning experiences and evaluate weather the current pedagogies are congruent with the technological innovations and meet institutional needs imperatives for efficiency and social accountability (Picciano et al., 2013). In literature, it is argued that although online learning is getting popular with working students or students living in remote locations, approximately 30% to 50% of distance learning students and specifically low income and low competency students fail to complete their course (Horzum, 2011). The main reasons that students report for their low engagement is the
63 level of difficulty of the course, motivation and course satisfaction. Taking this feedback into consideration many faculty have become to question the dualistic thinking of face to face or online learning, which was mainly used with the format of Learning Management systems, and report that blended learning is a promising approach that embraces the traditional values of higher education and optimally integrates the strengths of technology. Specifically, in the teaching of English as a second language the employment of blended learning is reported to offer an ideal environment for addressing individualized learners needs and facilitating active, reflective and collaborative learning (Rubio and Thoms, 2014).
There is not a universally accepted definition for blended learning in the literature due to the fact that the term can be used to refer to various dimensions and aspects of teaching and learning. It can be used to emphasize the combination of different delivery media and technological applications (synchronous and asynchronous learning activities), pedagogical approaches and learning directions, which are represented in the designs of learning curriculum. In this study blended learning is defined as a thoughtful infusion of educational technology and face-to-face instruction, aiming to transform the learning experience and increase the critical engagement of students via collaboration and reflection in new literate environments.
Effective implementation of blended learning model could increase students satisfaction (Safranj, 2013) “offering an “ideal site” for innovative pedagogy to optimize students’ active and interactive learning (Riley et al., 2013, p. 161), address the enrolment pressures of higher institutions, reduce the cost and the demand for quality teaching staff (Rubio et al., 2014, Moscal et al., 2013).
There are different types of blended hybrid learning in higher education. In terms of its learning scope, blended learning can be categorized into: enabling blend, enhancing blend and transformative blend (Graham, 2006, 2012). Enabling blends is not transforming pedagogy but is considered as a choice for on-campus students since it focuses on access to learning resource and convenience. This type of blend has received criticism for reinforcing non
64 participatory learning (Lindquist, 2012). The most common type is enhancing blends. The learning scope of this pedagogy is to provide supplementary online learning material so as to replace class lectures and to spend time in giving feedback to students. In this study the term blended learning is used with reference to transformative blend, since it mixes thoughtfully the pedagogy of face-to-face instruction with ICT with the aim to improve teaching methodology and facilitate students’ active and independent learning (Riley et. al., 2013). Research suggests that the transformative blend can bring numerous benefits for all stakeholders in education: students, instructors and higher education institutions (Graham, 2012; Oliver & Stallings, 2014; Picciano, 2006a).
The critical review of different blended learning models is beyond the scope of this study, but the pedagogical choice of the Community of inquiry (CoI) model will be articulated in accordance to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. The CoI model has been developed by Garisson et al. (2000) and is grounded in three elements of educational experience that are considered crucial for successful on line learning in higher education: cognitive, social and teaching presence. Social presence is established in a CoI when learners have a sense of belonging in the learning community and feel secure to share their emotions and collaborate in academic tasks. Social presence is a precondition for establishing cognitive presence. Cognitive presence is a process that encompasses active participation in the learning process through engagement in exploration of knowledge, co-creation, information exchange, testing of ideas and solving of problems. Both social and cognitive presence cannot secure the success of a CoI without the unifying force of teaching presence. Research suggests that students value instructors' online time and expect structure and leadership in a blended learning environment. Conrad (2005) reports in her research that students stated that “ Good instructors created community; poor instructors didn’t” (p.12).
Garrison and Vaughan (2017, p.15) argue that “education defined as a process of inquiry goes beyond accessing or even assimilating information.
65 Inquiry joins process and outcomes (means-end) in a unified, iterative cycle. It links reflection and content by encouraging students to collaboratively explore and reasonably question the organization and meaning of subject matter. The CoI framework was built on socio-constructivism, reflective thinking and practical inquiry (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008) and is in line with the aim of this project to enhance autonomy via collaboration and reflection.
In the next section, different approaches to ESL writing are discussed and the adoption of the genre approach is articulated. Autonomy, Vygotsky’s ZPD theory, peer feedback and reflection drive instructor’s choices regarding the writing model. The researcher will attempt to link new teacher’s role with different pedagogical theories for teaching ESL writing and will finally claim that the nature and instruction of writing have also changed due to technology advent.