Perceptions of Blended Learning in an EFL Setting

Final report

ERSİN BALCI
26 February 2017

Cambridge University Press Teacher Research Programme

Table of Contents

1. Practical context .................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Overall aims of research ..................................................................................................................... 1
3. Background reading ............................................................................................................................ 1
4. Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 3
5. Findings and discussion ...................................................................................................................... 5
5.1. RQ1. What are the students’ and instructors’ perceptions of blended learning instruction in one-
year English course? ........................................................................................................................... 5
5.2. RQ 2. To what extent does blended learning respond to the needs and expectations of the
students?.............................................................................................................................................. 9
5.3. RQ 3. Do the students’ perceptions change throughout one-year blended learning instruction?
.......................................................................................................................................................... 10
6. Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................................... 10
References ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Appendix 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 18

i
1. Practical context
The context for this study is an intensive English program at Dokuz Eylül University – School
of Foreign Languages in Turkey. The School of Foreign Languages provides intensive language
classes to students who come from different parts of Turkey and the world. Students who are to study
in English-medium faculties take a one-year compulsory English preparatory course if they do not
meet the English language proficiency requirements.
Students spend one academic year in this program to improve their English and pass the
proficiency test given at the end of the year. When they pass the proficiency exam or meet this
requirement in an alternative way (via equivalent exams such as TOEFL, YDS), they can start their
English-medium academic program in their faculties.
In the 2015/2016 academic year in which data collection took place, the program had 2400
students enrolled, with 140 instructors employed to teach these students.

Open Mind
Open Mind is an English adult course textbook series published by Macmillan Education. The
school of foreign languages used this textbook series for its main course. Additionally, institutions
blended their instruction with the publisher’s online component - Macmillan Online Workbook &
Resource Centre (Appendix 3). Students used their printed textbooks in class and signed in the online
platform outside the classroom for practice and revision purposes. Students’ performance in the online
platform was checked by class teachers and used as an added value for their final grades. Once
students signed up for the online workbook, they were able to start the exercises right away. The
instructors were required to sign up for the system to check their students’ progress.

2. Overall aims of research

No matter how new blended learning is for many of us, when the matter is the integration of
technology into language instruction, educators, doubtlessly, tend to adopt this innovation
immediately to improve their programs. However, it has never been as simple as that. In such cases,
an appropriate blend, teacher and student training, assessment, and technological literacy become key
concerns of institutions for blended instruction to run smoothly. In this research context, blended
learning is being used for the first time. Therefore, in this study, my objective was to find out the
attitudes of students’ and instructors to a one-year blended learning English course and their views on
its effectiveness.

Research Questions
1. What are the students’ and instructors’ perceptions of blended learning in a one-year English
course?
2. To what extent does blended learning respond to the needs and expectations of the students?
3. Do the students’ perceptions change throughout the one-year blended learning course?

3. Background reading
Is blended learning a new kind of technology-integrated learning or an approach for effective
teaching using the right blend? In fact, blended learning as an approach is not something new.
“Blended learning is a ‘buzz’ word in language teaching. However, it has been in use for almost 20
years and its meaning has been constantly changing during this period” (Sharpe, Benfield, Roberts, &
Francis 2006, cited in Sharma, 2010, p.456). Claypole (2003) has argued that “blended learning is not
a new matter, it is indeed the logical development of previous attempts involving the mixing of
methods of teaching.” Generally speaking, it is simply a teaching model including more than one

1
delivery mode. Basically, blended learning refers to the principle that teachers use different media, try
different modes and strategies to maximise learning. As such, blended learning has always been in the
ELT world.
What is new is that, today, the rapid development of technology, specifically computer
science, combines all different media and presents alternative and simpler delivery options. As Bath
& Bourke (2010) state, with advances in technology, teachers find new opportunities to rethink and
deliver their courses in which teachers’ roles and the students’ individual cognitive experiences are
being supported and facilitated. Considering the immense impact of developing technology in every
single part of the world, this natural evolution of learning, presumably, has been expected. Masie
(2006) and Massy (2006) state that it is very likely for blended learning to become such a frequent,
everyday educational convention that the “blended” foreword will be no longer in use and we will
refer it as just learning.
Osguthorpe & Graham (2003) identified six reasons why institutions should adopt blended
learning: (1) pedagogical richness, (2) access to knowledge, (3) social interaction, (4) personal
agency, (5) cost effectiveness, and (6) ease of revision. More specifically, Garrison & Kanuka (2004)
explained the effectiveness of blended learning with regards to social constructivism as follows:
What makes blended learning particularly effective is its ability to facilitate a
community of inquiry. Community provides the stabilizing, cohesive influence that
balances the open communication and limitless access to information on the Internet.
Communities also provide the condition for free and open dialogue, critical debate,
negotiation and agreement (p.97).

As for language skills, Garrison & Kanuka (2004) state that “a concomitant property of
learning with internet communication technology is that it has a significant educational implication
resulting from the emphasis on written communication” (p. 97). Additionally, blended learning has a
positive effect on students’ performance, increases students’ participation in class and their motivation
(López-Pérez et al.,2012; Liu, 2013; Hughes, 2007).
For many, blended learning could be just an integration of an online platform where you can
keep multimedia materials to use in language class. From that standpoint, Delialioglu &Yıldırım
(2008) simply summarize its effectiveness as follows: “a carefully designed and well implemented
online instruction can help students access more information faster, can give opportunity to use
multimedia environments to reach multiple senses of students, and provide support in understanding
the content” (p. 475).
In the last decade, numerous studies which examined the effectiveness and perceptions of
blended learning have been done in the field of ELT. Table 1 summarises several representative
studies which show the overall understanding of blended learning and its success. In particular,
students’ attitudes and effectiveness of programs were investigated. The common point of the studies
listed below is that blended learning has a positive effect on learning in an EFL/ESL context.

2
 The research in this study builds on existing knowledge in the field of blended learning in
ELT. The studies listed and categorized above were selected from the ones which examined the
integration of online tools into face-to-face instruction. These tools were online workbooks, wikis,
blogs, mobile applications, social media platforms, etc. All applications, technically, were serving the
purpose of blended learning. Therefore, considering the findings of studies illustrated above, there
seems to be a general consensus that blended learning has positive outcomes in EFL/ESL contexts.

4. Methodology
Concerning the aim of this study, Mackey & Gass (2005) suggest that a survey, as a form of
quantitative research method, mostly in the form of questionnaires, is one of the most commonly used
methods when the focus is investigating the opinions or attitudes of large groups of participants.
Likewise, Dörnyei (2007) argues that using quantitative methods removes the stress of idiosyncratic
human variability and personal bias and brings objectivity to the study. Therefore, primarily, a
questionnaire was developed and used as an instrument to gather information about participants’
attitudes. Dörnyei (2007) also points out that quantitative instruments are not always enough, and they
are limited in terms of judging the subjective variety of individual life. Hence, he suggests the
integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. Besides the surveys, a qualitative research method
(in the form of interviews) was included in this study to allow for an in-depth analysis of students’
and instructors’ attitudes towards blended learning. Such a combination of quantitative and qualitative
methods is called ‘mixed methods research’. Dörnyei (2007) emphasizes the importance of mixed
method research as follows: “the main attraction of mixed methods research has been the fact that by

3
using both quantitative and qualitative approaches researchers can bring out the best of both
paradigms, thereby combining quantitative and qualitative research strengths” (p.45). Dörnyei (2007)
also suggests that the strength of one method can compensate for the other’s weakness.

Participants
For the questionnaire, there were 400 students aged 18 to 22. All the participants were chosen
equally from four proficiency levels (A1-A2-B1-B1+). Additionally, at the end of the spring semester
100 instructors were given a questionnaire. For interviews, 16 students and 10 instructors participated.
All participants were chosen from those who volunteered to contribute to the study.
As for the sampling strategy, stratified random sampling (a form of probability sampling
strategy) was used in this research for the quantitative method (questionnaires). That is to say, the
levels to choose participants from were specified but the student participants were chosen randomly.
In a quantitative method the key is sampling size since representativeness of the outcomes is the
ultimate goal. However, as Dörnyei (2007) states, there is no simple rule to decide optimal size. In
this case, researchers either take similar studies as an example or use the published calculations and
tables. For this research, a stratified random sample of 400 students (from a population of 2400)
distributed equally across four levels was chosen. Additionally, 100 instructors were chosen from the
population of 140.
In addition, 16 students, equally selected from each proficiency level, and 10 instructors,
regardless of any sort of categorization, were interviewed.
Finally, I took ethical issues into account. All participants were clear about the purpose of the
research and what was expected of them as they were given a written explanation and consent form to
sign in advance. I also ensured that participants felt no pressure or stress.

Data Collection
Questionnaires
In order to examine the participants’ attitudes regarding blended learning instruction, two
questionnaires (for students and instructors) were used at the end of each term. These questionnaires,
adapted from Akkoyunlu & Soylu (2008), were originally designed to understand the perceptions of
students and instructors regarding blended learning. The questionnaires developed for the present
study were slightly modified to fit the blended learning format of the institution and for the purpose of
the study. The students’ questionnaire had 52 five-point items (I Strongly Disagree/ I Disagree /I am
neutral/ I agree/ I strongly agree) that focus on the perceptions of blended learning and its
implementation process under 4 categories: (a) Online platform, (b) Face-to-face sessions, (c)
Assessment, (d) Learners’ views on blended learning in general (Appendix 1). Besides, the
questionnaire developed for instructors had 13 five-point items (I Strongly Disagree/ I Disagree /I
partially agree/ I agree/ I strongly agree) that only focus on instructors’ views on blended learning
(Appendix 2). The reliability of the final forms of the surveys were calculated using Cronbach’s alpha
and scores were ; Online platform:.899, Face-to-face Instruction:.867, Assessment: 894, General
views: . 934) and .892 for instructors, which are satisfactory reliability levels.
Interviews
To triangulate the findings of surveys and for further in-depth analysis of participants’ views,
semi-structured interviews were conducted with students and instructors. Research questions were
prepared in English. However, to encourage respondents to speak more freely, all interviews were
conducted in participants’ native language.
Procedures

4
 At the end of the first term (January) and second term (May), four hundred students
completed the questionnaire during their class hours. Two weeks prior to the end of the 2nd term, the
questionnaire developed for instructors was administered to fifty participants for piloting purposes.
After its reliability analysis, in the following week the questionnaire was administered to the targeted
number of people, which was one hundred.
In the final week of the term, selected students and instructors were invited to have interviews
regarding their views about the blended learning environment in their institution.

5. Findings and discussion

5.1. RQ.1. What are the students’ and instructors’ perceptions of blended learning in a one-
year English course?

Students
In the first administration, the results indicate that students’ attitudes vary according to
different aspects of blended learning. When I analysed the results of the questionnaire in terms of
subcategories (a) Online Platform, (b) Face-to-face Instruction, (c) Assessment, (d) general views on
blended learning, I can see their perception towards these subcategories in detail. The mean scores
related to the relevant subcategories are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Students’ Views on Blended Learning
Items on N Mean Std. Deviation
Face-to-Face Instruction 400 3.91 .70

Assessment 400 3.01 .71

Online Platform 400 2.68 .76

General Views 400 2.42 .81

As can be seen in Table 2, our students still favour having face to face instruction in the
classroom (M=3.91; SD=.70). They partially agree that assessment activities and tasks are useful to
some extent as a blended instruction (M=3.01; SD =.71). On the other hand, they are not completely
satisfied with the online platform (M=2.68; SD =.76), and, their general views on blended learning are
negative (M=2.42; SD =.81), which justifies that the online tool used in this blended instruction seems
to be regarded as ineffective. This is also indicated in the following extracts from the interviews with
students.
The major complaint about blended learning was the implementation. Most students were
happy with the idea but they found some problems in practice. For example, students 2 and 5 stated:
“I think the idea is fine but the implication is rubbish. Especially, I really want to talk
about how inadequate the system is in term of technical features. I still – we have
almost finished the term- couldn’t enrol in online class. Online platform doesn’t help
me practice, it gives me trouble”. (S2)

5
 “I think blended learning is good as an idea but in terms of implication, it is not
sufficient I think. On the other hand, I think it also has complementary function. You
can revise the things you missed in class”. (S5)

The design of the online tool was not favourable for some students. For example, students 1 and 15
stated:
“I think blended learning format could be more effective. In this way, we (are) kind of
get bored and it seems like a burden to us”. (S1)

“I enjoyed this language program here very much, specifically our discussion based
lessons. But the only thing I don’t like is the online activities. They are more like
boring homework which I find useless”. (S15)

Student 13 expressed his desire to have more paper based exercises instead of online practice as
follows:
“If there was no online platform and we had more paper based exercises instead, it
would be easy for us to develop our proficiency. Online platform was a waste of time
at all”. (S13)

On the other hand, student 14 explained the causes of the problems reasonably as shown in the
following extract:
“In general, it is ok, but there are things to be developed. It is a new model in this
institution maybe that’s why there are some problems with it”. (S14)

In line with the general result of the students’ questionnaire, some students have had positive
perceptions about blended learning and stated their positive opinions during the interviews. For
example, students 3, 5, 8 and 14 expressed their contentment about listening practice as follows:
“I am personally happy with blended learning but I think listening audios could be
more difficult on the online platform because during the listening exam, what we
listen to is much more difficult. But I am generally positive to this blended learning”.
(S3)

“At the beginning of the year, I almost have no listening skills but with the help of
this online platform, I feel like I can understand more. I think it was definitely useful
for my listening skill. But, online system has no contribution to my speaking skills.”
(S5)

“Listening, all audios are uploaded to the system and I can listen many times with
even scripts. By this way, I always understand. This develops my listening skill.
Reading parts is also one of my favourites because they are very rich in terms of
content and visual design.” (S8)

As for the vocabulary development, students 3 and 11 found the online tools useful and stated their
satisfaction as follows:

6
 “To be honest with you, I am content with the blended learning and online platform. It
has some visual parts which helps me develop my vocabulary. In face-to-face
instruction, we have opportunity to interact in English with our teachers”. (S6)

“It is the first time I have tried such online platform for language learning, and I
cannot say it is completely successful but it still has good sides. For example, it
helped me to develop my vocabulary” (S11)
Instructors

Just like the students, the instructors were also involved in this blended learning experience.
One research question addressed instructors’ attitudes related to blended learning and its
implementation. Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were used to collect data. The
data gathered for this purpose suggest that instructors have slightly positive perceptions of blended
learning. The consensus view suggests that the online platform in blended learning is a practical,
innovative method for students to be more autonomous and to provide more input and individualized
practice. Table 3 illustrates the mean scores of instructors’ responses to questionnaire items.
Table 3. Instructors’ Views on Blended Learning
Std.
Items N Mean
Deviation
4. Students can study at their own pace with online
100 4.07 .93
platform.
3. I believe that students can learn language
effectively by integrating the materials in the class 100 4.02 1.08
with the online platform.

1. Blended learning has positive impact on students. 100 3.94 .87

9. Being able to practice through PC or mobile

100 3.92 1.01
devices provides huge practicality for students.
12. Blended learning helps learners develop
100 3.90 1.07
receptive skills (Listening - Reading).

2. Blended learning makes students autonomous. 100 3.66 .93

7. Blended learning motivates students. 100 3.49 .96

11. Blended learning makes the course more
100 3.45 .92
communicative.
8. Blended learning makes students responsible for
100 3.27 1.08
the course.
13. Blended learning helps learners develop
100 3.19 .92
productive skills (Speaking - Writing).

7
 6. Modules in the online platform meet students'
100 3.04 .87
needs.
5. Learning the contents through the online
activities is easier for students than face-to-face 100 2.62 .98
instruction.
10. I believe that students can learn English only
100 2.11 .70
through the printed materials.

First of all, questionnaire items 3 (M= 4.02, SD= 1.08) and 10 (M= 2.11, SD= .700) indicate
that instructors see online studies as a useful tool. However, the rating for the questionnaire item 5
(M= 2.62, SD= .982) shows that instructors consider face-to-face instruction as a primary medium
and online studies as more complementary. As for the views of instructors on the effectiveness of
blended learning in teaching skills, items 12 (M= 3.90, SD= 1.07) and 13 (M= 3.19, SD= .928)
indicate that blended instruction is efficient for receptive skills but not for productive skills that much.
Similarly, the instructors indicated during the interviews that they were mostly happy with the
idea of blended learning, and they also believe that blended learning has positive effect on students’
learning. The following extracts from the interviews with instructors reflect their ideas related to their
perception of blended learning.
With regards to language exposure, one instructor stressed the positive effect of blended
learning for amount of exposure as shown in the following extract:
“In language learning, we always try to raise the amount of the exposure in terms of
foreign language. I think the online platform, which students could access even with
their mobile phones, makes them spend more time with English. I like it.”

The following extracts show that instructors were content with the implementation of blended
learning as it provided practice opportunities for listening skill, grammar and vocabulary.
“As our students are never willing to read outside the classroom, they generally fail to
extend their vocabulary. But what I observed this year is, just because they practice
the words they learnt in online platform, their written productions were better in terms
of lexical richness.”

“Our blended system at schools has many advantages. First, it gives grammatical and
lexical practice to students. And, I find listening exercises very useful for them.”

“Vocabulary is the major problem of foreign language learners. One of the biggest
advantages of this online platform is that it gives students various – mostly fun –
vocabulary exercises. For example; puzzles, matching etc.

As for the practicality, two instructors expressed their opinions about how blended instruction made
learning easier for students as follows:
“It is a platform worth trying. It has more advantages than disadvantages. It allows
teachers to monitor their students’ progress more closely than traditional methods.
This way of learning is also very practical, and students can assess it anytime and

8
 anywhere. (…) I think blended learning boosted my students interest and
engagement.”

“I think technology always makes learning easy. Today with this practicality, one can
learn a language in a very short time.”

Turning the other side of the argument, some instructors – although they are happy with the
idea of blended learning – expressed some problems about the implication of the blended instruction.
The following extracts reflect instructors’ opinions with regards to drawbacks of the blended
instruction.
“Registration process was so long and painful. I think this demotivated the students at
the beginning of the course. It should be simpler. Not everybody is expert in
technology.”

“I couldn’t create my online class for a long time. There should be more technical
help for some teachers. The online activities are good but the students always tell that
they get bored. And online platform has nothing for speaking skill.”

“The online platform is much simpler than I expected. It is full of some gap filling
and matching exercises. I think it should be more interactive and more creative.”

5.2. RQ 2. To what extent does blended learning respond to the needs and expectations of the
students?
In the 21st century, in the new era of learning and teaching, the needs and expectations of
language learners are rather different and technology oriented. That is to say, all teaching is somehow
blended with technology or net-based solutions. No matter how highly rated the positive effect of
technology in education is, blended learning may not be successful unless it is designed according to
learners’ needs and expectations (Marsh, 2012). In the present survey, questionnaire items 10, 12 and
50 sought to find out learners’ opinions with respect to complementarity function of the blend (see
Table 4). The analysis of the related questionnaire items revealed that the blended learning format was
not fully satisfactory to fulfil students’ expectations and needs. This could be explained as
unsuccessful analysis of the needs prior to curriculum design or as the inability of the online platform
in serving its purpose.
Table 4. Students’ Views on Their Needs and Expectations in Blended Learning.

Items N Mean Std. Deviation

50. Online workbook is a useful tool for 400 2.65 1.21
me to study on my own.

10. Modules in the online platform meet 400 2.61 1.04

my needs.

12. I can study and practice language 400 2.51 1.15

items in the online platform parallel to
the face-to-face schedule.

9
 In particular, students are neutral with items 50 and 10 and disagree with item 12. In line with
these rating, following extracts justify the fact that students had both positive and negative opinion
about needs and expectations:
“It is good to have all skills practice in one place” (S13)

“Online platform is like a homework. Every time I go home I have something to do to

practice my English. Also it helps me to memorize the newly learnt vocabulary” (S3)

“With online studies I cannot develop myself, I get lost with them.” (S9)

“I think online studies are waste of time. Students do them just to get scores. I
wouldn’t do them if they weren’t compulsory and didn’t have additional value on my
final grade.” (S15)
5.3. RQ 3. Do the students’ perceptions change throughout one-year blended learning
instruction?

Table 4 illustrates the differences between students’ views towards blended learning in two
separate administrations. Same students were given a questionnaire both at the end of the Fall term
and Spring term. This research question seeks to find out whether students opinions change regarding
the use and effectiveness of blended learning throughout the academic year. The time for students to
perceive the blend may take longer or vary. Therefore, two separate administrations of the
questionnaire were considered as crucial. As can be seen in Table 4, the data reveal that the mean
scores of the students’ ratings for each questionnaire section in two separate administrations seem to
be close. When the ‘p’ levels are taken into consideration (online platform - .372, Face-to-face
Instruction - .932, Assessment - .656, General Views - .292), the results from the t-test suggest that
there is no significant difference between two administrations. That is to say, students’ attitudes
towards blended learning remained the same after the first data collection at the end of the Fall term.
Table 5. Comparison of the Students’ Views in Two Different Questionnaire Administrations
1. Administration 2. Administration
N Mean SD Mean SD t p

Online Platform 400 2.67 .75 2.71 .67 -.89 .37

Face-to-Face 400 3.91 .70 3.90 .69 .08 .93

Instruction

Assessment 400 3.05 .71 3.07 .67 -.44 .65

General Views 400 2.42 .81 2.48 .78 -1.05 .29

6. Conclusions and recommendations

The findings of the study provided detailed information about how teachers and students
experienced teaching and learning in a blended learning environment. The data yielded by this study
provide strong evidence that student participants have some positive attitudes as well as negative
towards blended learning English course in their institution. On the other hand, instructor participants
expressed relatively positive opinions about the idea and the implementation of blended instruction.

10
 With regards to students’ attitudes towards blended learning, the analysis of the
questionnaires revealed that majority of the students found face-to-face instruction more effective
than online studies. This could be explained by the students’ readiness level for a blended instruction
and adaptation. For students having only traditional face-to-face instruction in their previous
education, it is expected for them not to accept new teaching model readily. To get better results, the
new way of instruction should be piloted with small groups. Furthermore, interview transcripts
showed that students were in favour of the idea of blended learning but not satisfied with the
implementation and online tool. In such cases, amendment of the online tool should be the first action
plan since it plays the major role in the success of blended instruction.

References
Adas, D., & Bakir, A. (2013). Writing difficulties and new solutions: Blended
learning as an approach to improve writing abilities. International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science, 3 (9), 254-266
Akkoyunlu B., M., & Yılmaz-Soylu (2008). Development of a scale on learners' views
on blended learning and its implementation process. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 26–
32.
Al-Jarf, S. R. (2005). The Effects of Online Grammar Instruction on Low Proficiency
EFL College Students' Achievement. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly
7(4), 166-190
Amir, Z., Ismail, K., & Hussin, S. (2011). Blogs in language learning: Maximizing
students’ collaborative writing. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 18, 537–543.
Bath, D., & Bourke, J. (2010). Getting started with blended learning. Griffith Institute for
Higher Education.
Baturay, M. H., Daloglu, A., & Yildirim, S. (2010). Language practice with
multimedia supported web-based grammar revision material. ReCALL, 22, 313-331
Borau, K., Ullrich, C., Feng, C., & Shen, R. (2009). Microblogging for Language
Learning: Using Twitter to Train Communicative and Cultural Competence. In M. Spaniol et
al. (Eds.), ICWL- Lecturer notes in computer science 5686 (pp. 78–87). Berlin: Springer-
Verlag
Bueno-Alastuey M.C., & López Pérez, M.V. (2014) Evaluation of a blended
learning language course: students ‘perceptions of appropriateness for the development of
skills and language areas, CALL, 27(6), 509-527.
Caner,M. (2009). A study on Blended Learning Model for Teaching Practice Course
in Pre-service English Language Teacher Training Program. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis).
Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
Claypole, M.2003. ‘Blended learning: new resources for teaching business English’ in A.
Pulverness (ed.).IATEFL Brighton Conference Selections. Whitstable, UK:IATEFL
Comas-Quinn, A., Mardomingo, R., & Valentine, C. (2009). Mobile blogs in language

11
 learning: making the most of informal and situated learning opportunities. ReCALL, 21, 96-
112
Delialioglu, O., & Yıldırım, Z. (2008). Design and development of a technology
enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: Its effectiveness in comparison to
traditional instruction. Computers & Education 51, 474–483
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: quantitative, qualitative and
mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ekmekci, E. (2014). Flipped Writing Class Model with a Focus on Blended Learning.
(Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Gazi University, Ankara.
Garrison, R. D., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative
potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105.
Gray, P.S., Williamson, J.B, Karp, D.A., & Dalphin, J.R. (2007). The Research
Imagination: An Introduction to Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
GrGurović, M.(2011). Blended Learning in an ESL Class: A Case Study. CALICO
Journal, 29(1), 100-117
Hughes, G. (2007). Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve
retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 349-363
Hui W. Hu., P.J.-H, Clark T.H.K., Tam K.Y., & Milton J. (2007). Technology-assisted
learning: a longitudinal field study of knowledge category, learning effectiveness and
satisfaction in language learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 245–259.
Jia, J., Chen, Y., Ding, Z., & Ruan, M.(2012). Effects of a vocabulary acquisition and
assessment system on students’ performance in a blended learning class for English subject.
Computers & Education 58 (2012) 63–76
Kavaliauskienė, G. (2011). Blended Learning in ESP Listening. English for Specific
Purposes World, 10(31), 1-9
Kırkgöz, Y. (2011). A Blended Learning Study on Implementing Video Recorded
Speaking Task in Task-based Classroom Instruction. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 10(4), 1-13
López-Pérez, M.V., Pérez-López M. C., & Ariza., L. R. (2012) Blended learning in
higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes Computers &
Education 56, 818–826
Liu, M. (2013). Blended Learning in a University EFL Writing Course: Description
and Evaluation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(2), 301-309

Mackey, A. & Gass, S. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc

12
Marsh, D (2012). Blended Learning, Creating Learning Opportunities for Language
Learners. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Masie, E. (2006). The blended learning imperative. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.),
Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 22-26). San Francisco,
CA: Pfeiffer.
Massy, J. (2006). The integration of learning technologies into Europe's education and
training system. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning:
Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 419-431). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson T. (2012). Discuss, reflect, and collaborate: A qualitative
analysis of forum, blog, and wiki use in an EFL blended learning course. Procedia - Social
and Behavioural Sciences 34 146 – 152
Muscarà, M., & Beercock, S. (2010). The wiki – a virtual home base for constructivist
blended learning courses. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 2, 2885–2889.
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning systems: Definitions
and Directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227–234.
Pazio, M. (2010). Blended Learning and Its Potential in Expanding Vocabulary
Knowledge: A Case Study. Teaching English with Technology, 10(1), 3-30
Pop, A., & Slev, A.M. (2012). Maximizing EFL learning through blending. Procedia –
Social and Behavioural Sciences 46, 5516 – 5519
Sagarra, N., & C. Zapata, G. (2008). Blending classroom instruction with online
homework: A study of student perceptions of computer-assisted L2 learning. ReCALL, 20,
208-224.
Sharma, P. (2010). Key Concepts in ELT. ELT Journal Volume 64/4 October 2010, p.456.
Oxford University Press
Shih, R.C. (2010). Blended learning using video-based blogs: Public speaking for
English as a second language students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
26(6), 883-897.
Yang Y-F. (2012) Blended learning for college students with English reading
difficulties, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(5), 393-410.
Yang, Y.-T.C., Chuang Y-C., Li L-Y., & Tseng S-S. (2013). A blended learning
environment for individualized English listening and speaking integrating critical thinking.
Computers & Education 63, 285–305

13
Appendix 1

14
15
16
Appendix 2

17
Appendix 3

18