Blended Learning Adoption in an ESL Context: Obstacles and Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of blended learning is well underway across diverse educational settings. Along with this shift in instructional method are obstacles and accompanying research. There has been less interest, however, in examining the adoption of blended learning in English as a second language (ESL) contexts. This study investigates what factors most influence instructors to adopt blended learning in different ESL settings. This research is informed by the work of Porter, Graham, Bodily, and Sandberg (2015) in a university context. Utilizing the same frameworks in a mixed methods exploratory research design, I surveyed 48 ESL instructors from three different ESL settings, then followed up with interviews of nine Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) instructors. Quantitative data point to similarities in the factors that most influence the technology-adoption decisions of instructors across different ESL settings, primarily the ability to quickly upload and download materials and the availability of professional development. Qualitative data suggest that adoption is primarily hampered by required time commitments and the lack of technical supports. This research contributes to the discussion on blended learning adoption, specifically in relation to government-funded LINC programs. Lessons learned will facilitate instructor implementation and program policies. L’intégration de l’apprentissage hybride avance bien dans bon nombre de milieux pédagogiques. Cette méthode pédagogique alternative s’accompagne d’obstacles et de recherches pertinentes. On s’est toutefois moins intéressé à l’examen de l’adoption de l’apprentissage hybride dans les contextes de l’apprentissage de l’anglais langue seconde (ALS). La présente étude examine les facteurs les plus susceptibles d’encourager les professeurs de langue à adopter l’apprentissage hybride dans divers milieux ALS. Cette recherche s’inspire des travaux de Porter, Graham, Bodily, et Sandberg (2015) dans un contexte universitaire. À l’aide des mêmes cadres à l’intérieur d’un plan de recherche exploratoire regroupant diverses méthodes, j’ai étudié 48 professeurs d’ALS œuvrant dans trois milieux ALS différents, et j’ai ensuite réalisé des entrevues avec neuf professeurs de Cours de langues pour les immigrants au Canada (CLIC). Les données quantitatives font ressortir des ressemblances entre les facteurs ayant la plus grande influence sur les décisions prises par les professeurs de divers milieux ALS relativement à l’adoption des technologies, principalement la possibilité de téléverser et de télécharger rapidement le matériel et la disponibilité de perfectionnement professionnel. Les données qualitatives suggèrent que l’adoption est surtout entravée par l’importance du temps nécessaire et le manque de soutiens techniques. Cette recherche contribue à la discussion sur l’adoption de l’apprentissage hybride, particulièrement en rapport avec les CLIC financés par le gouvernement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".