Sustainability of Blended Language Learning Programs

Technology Integration in English for Academic Purposes

Cynthia Nicholas Palikat, Paul Gruba

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9781032115832
• eBook ISBN: 9781000534306
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Linguistics

This book focuses on the investigation of the sustainability of technology integration in the context of language programs and is based on an 18-month longitudinal study of a blended EAP (English for Academic Purposes) language program situated within a university pathways course.

The integration of technology into language teaching and learning in academic English programs often demands substantial investment in professional development, curriculum change, and technological resources. Given the intense effort required, sustainability of such efforts has gained importance, focus, and urgency. Situated in the context of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) programs, this book frames, and investigates, the sustainability of technology integration through a series of case studies of specific technologies: tablet devices, a Learning Management System, and an interactive presentation app. The authors explore sustainable integration of technology; the use of argument-based approaches as a basis for research design; and participant ethnography as a form of data collection. The book concludes by looking at the implications of the research and proposes that change management concepts be applied to better introduce, implement, and most importantly, sustain change involving educational technology integration.

The content will be of interest to scholars in TESOL and applied linguistics as well as professional language educators who will benefit from insights into sustaining technology integration in their programs.

1

Situating sustainability in blended learning

DOI: 10.4324/b22794-1

Though often associated with environmental concerns, a body of work that revolves around the concept of sustainability can be found in areas of ‘sustainable development’ (Stepanyan, Littlejohn, & Margaryan, 2013) that can be traced to the 1987 United Nations Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: ‘Our Common Future’ (commonly known as the Brundtland Report). The report outlines strategies for increasing environmental sustainability and promotes a view of “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987, chap. 2, item 1). Other researchers focus on ‘sustainability education’ (Hooey, Mason, & Triplett, 2017), ‘sustainable practices in food production’ (Borowy, 2013), and the ‘appropriate use of resources’ (Jones & Johnstone, 2016), stressing the use of limited resources in ways that are socially just, viable, and long-term, such that they are made available to future generations.

The concept of sustainability, of course, has also moved into education (Cerone, 2014) in ways that either promote “education for sustainability” or the “sustainability of education” (Stepanyan, Littlejohn, & Margaryan, 2013, p. 94). As with the environment, ‘education for sustainability’ seeks to maintain the ‘economic, social and ecological well-being’ of present and future stakeholders (Jones, Selby, & Sterling, 2010, p. 261). Accordingly, such a focus entails embedding principles of sustainable development into institutional course content, classroom practices, and an overall curriculum (e.g., Tatum, 2013; Barlett & Chase, 2013). Additionally, there has been a shift towards the ‘sustainability of education’. Here, sustainability entails a move towards long-term efforts to bolster teaching and learning practices, such as scaling innovations (Nworie, 2014), effective use of limited learning resources (McDonald, 2014; Timmis, 2014), and ongoing teacher training (Bennett, Lockyer, & Agostinho, 2018). In so doing, researchers investigate how aspects of education, leadership, and innovation can foster long-term pedagogical initiatives (Davies & West-Burnham, 2003; Cerone, 2014).

Building on the previous discussion of sustainability of education, an indepth understanding of sustainability, and what this means in the context of language programs could illuminate under-developed aspects regarding the long-term viability of educational technology. Nonetheless, studies show that many of these innovations have failed to secure long-term currency as issues of sustaining learning gains (Stepanyan et al., 2013), institutional practice (Cerone, 2014), teacher training (Gimeno Sanz et al., 2015), and professional development (Bennett et al., 2018) continue to hinder sustainability. For McDonald (2014), long-term viability comes about when existing resources (1) complement already developed materials that align with existing curriculum requirements, and (2) facilitate students in the process of exploring how technology can transform their learning experiences. A review of the history of sustainability in education may help to illuminate how we have arrived here.

Sustainability of educational technology in education

Historically, the 1960s marked the time when universities began to make large-scale technological enhancements in a bid to retain a competitive edge and transform teaching and learning experiences through the perceived power of technology (Cuban, 2001). Over decades, technology came to be seen to improve, and indeed even transform, the education sector (Stern & Willits, 2011). Nonetheless, failed attempts to integrate educational technology have left behind a range of unfulfilled expectations and suspicion regarding their long-term viability (Toh, 2016).

To foreground our discussion of sustainability concepts, an early example of technology integration showing how the concept of sustainability has evolved can be seen in the widespread installation of ‘language labs’, particularly those manufactured by Sony. Although language labs were popular in the 1990s, they have become absent from contemporary language programs and have lacked sustained uptake. To illustrate the promises of technology, Table 1.1 shows our analysis of an advertisement of a Sony Language Lab console that we found in a 1987 issue of Foreign Language Annals.

Table 1.1 Analysis of an advertisement

Aspects	Descriptors	Quotes from advertisement
Cost effectiveness	How technology is affordable	1. High technology doesn't have to be a budget buster. 2. Move up to today's high tech language lab at the same old price.
Ease of technology use	How technology streamlines and simplifies usage	1. CPU control means you don't have to worry about mastering a sequence of knob-turning, switch settings and volume controls. 2. If you can set your microwave oven, you will be a whiz on the Sony LLC 4500 instructor console.
Ease teacher burdens	How technology saves teachers time and energy	1. Best of all, you get to concentrate on the job you know best, teaching!
Comparison to past technology	How current technology is better than its predecessors	1. High technology also means greater reliability. 2. … eliminates repair problems found in those older systems employing electromechanical switches, rotating volume controls and mechanical selectors.
Source: Foreign Language Annals (1987)

Table 1.1 summarises the four main aspects from which technology integration can transform teaching and learning. The first aspect is cost, where the promise is the affordability of the technology offered, in this case the Sony LLC 4500 instructor console. For the price offered, the technology promises two benefits. The first is the ease of use, where the instructor console offers an efficient system of controlling volume and related settings. More importantly, the advertisement likens the ease of using the technology to the ability of operating a microwave oven, as if teaching were only about mastering a set of controls, upon which such technology would solve all the teacher’s problems. A second related benefit is relieving teachers’ burdens, which would enable them to concentrate on the core business of teaching. The final part of the advertisement suggests that the product’s improved features can solve the technological issues of the past.

Cuban (2001) studied the lack of technology uptake at the Stanford Center for Research, Development and Teaching from the late 1960s. At the time, the state-of-the-art facility included an audio-visual studio complete with technology that included cameras, video recorders, and monitors. Besides the studio, the facility also housed a 160-seat lecture theatre that was fully equipped with a large-screen projector, an assortment of TV monitors, and a dedicated space for support staff to provide on-site technical assistance. The highlight of the lecture theatre was an interactive device named the “student responder” (Cuban, 2001, p. 99), which enabled students to provide realtime feedback regarding the delivery and understanding of lecture content so that professors could make the necessary adjustments to their lesson con-tent as the class progressed.

Cuban (2001) conducted periodic surveys of doctoral candidates, faculty members, and administrative staff to gather data about technology integration practices. The surveys considered the frequency of use, the perceived reasons of uptake, and the uses of technology in classroom settings. The results begin to reveal the many factors that influence sustainability (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2 Summary of Cuban (2001)

Key findings (Cuban, 2001)	Examples	Descriptions
Influence of commercial agreements between the corporate sector and universities which resulted in a proliferation of technologyNeed for continuous equipment upgrades requiring significant financial investment	Large-scale investments in hardware, software, and wired classrooms	Fulfilling economic motivations may not necessarily be accompanied by thought-out pedagogical applications/benefitsOne economic aspect that was not considered is the long-term viability of technology (requires continuous maintenance, upgrades in software and hardware, risk of technology being obsolete)Another aspect of long-term financial viability is the investment in technology support staff, which can be unsustainable in the long term
Abundance of investment and access to technology, but students and faculty use it for non-educational purposes	Technology is used for electronic communication, research, and class preparation rather than instructional/educational applications	The economic component has been considered, evident from the large-scale financial investment in technology and infrastructureHowever, the social aspect (instructors) was not sufficiently attended toIt is possible that instructors were not prepared/trained to apply more constructivist/cognitivist methods of technology integration
Lack of technology uptake	Technology adopters/innovators integrating technology through non-traditional teaching methods make up a small minority of faculty	In terms of the environment, it may be possible that the lack of technology uptake produced an inconducive environment for technology to be scaled as only a small fraction of instructors integrated technology in innovative non-traditional methods
Lack of evidence to show that technology is transforming classroom experiences	Substantial percentage of faculty still use traditional modes of teaching (lectures, seminars)Low percentage of technology integration	In terms of the social component, technology has not been seen as beneficial by the relevant stakeholdersThis may imply that a conducive environment is crucial in encouraging more innovative applications of technology though building a community of practice and sharing of best practices
Source: Adapted from Cuban (2001)

As Table 1.2 shows, there are a range of factors that influence sustainable practices. Why have efforts to integrate technology into language programs faced so many issues of long-term sustainability? In their research, Niederhauser et al. (2018) came to see the sustainability of technology integration as a highly contextual challenge that varied across case studies. Key, however, was to understand that sustainable practices can be embedded when technology benefits both students and learning experiences in purposeful and meaningful ways. Nonetheless, the fact remains that sustainability of technology integration is far from achieved, partially because sustainability barriers are far more complex than originally anticipated (see, for example, Singh & Hardaker, 2014). As scholars have pointed out, building sustainable practices requires support, incremental changes across cycles of iteration, and a long-term strategy (Fridley & Rogers-Adkinson, 2015; Gruba, Cardenas-Claros, Suvorov, & Rick, 2016; Toh, 2016). Although such observations may seem simplistic, the sustainability of technology integration relies on a network of components that support one another.

Themes of sustainability

We have seen how the concept of sustainability has evolved through the years. To advance a deeper understanding, the nature of research surrounding sustainability in the context of educational technology can explored to situate the concept into a coherent understanding of the field (Stepanyan et al., 2013). As we reviewed such studies, however, we were not surprised to find a range of overlaps, conflicting terminology, and various levels of focus. To bring together our analysis, we set out the concepts and the dimensions of sustainability as shown in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3 Concepts and dimensions of sustainable practices

Area of focu...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents Page
• List of tables Page
• Preface Page
• 1 Situating sustainability in blended learning
• 2 The sustainability of technology as a device in blended language programs
• 3 The sustainability of a system in blended language programs
• 4 The sustainability of an application in blended language programs
• 5 Towards improved sustainability of technology in blended language programs
• Author Index
• Subject Index