The Effect of Blended Learning on Language Proficiency of an EFL Class: An Empirical Study, 2020 PDF

Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2020 The Effect of Blended Learning on Language Proficiency of an EFL Class: An Empirical Study Jamile Sulam Tango Rojas West Virginia University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd...

Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2020 The Effect of Blended Learning on Language Proficiency of an EFL Class: An Empirical Study Jamile Sulam Tango Rojas West Virginia University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Part of the First and Second Language Acquisition Commons, and the Online and Distance Education Commons Recommended Citation Tango Rojas, Jamile Sulam, "The Effect of Blended Learning on Language Proficiency of an EFL Class: An Empirical Study" (2020). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 7609. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/7609 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Effect of Blended Learning on Language Proficiency of an EFL Class: An Empirical Study Jamile Sulam Tango Rojas Thesis submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters in TESOL Nicole Tracy-Ventura, Ph.D., Chair Heiko ter Haseborg, Ph.D., Co-Chair Tania de Miguel Magro, Ph.D. Department of World Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics Morgantown, West Virginia 2020 Keywords: blended learning, online lessons, face-to-face lessons, language proficiency, language skills, English as a foreign language, asynchronous lessons Copyright 2020 Jamile Tango  Abstract The Effect of Blended Learning on Language Proficiency of an EFL Class: An Empirical Study Jamile Sulam Tango Rojas The combination of online learning and face-to-face lessons have become a relevant learning model in English Language Teaching in the last years. The goal of this research study was to investigate the integration of such a blended learning approach in an EFL class in Bolivia. The study was conducted at a binational language institution, and it focused on the effect of blended learning on the students’ overall language proficiency and each language skill individually. Data was collected via a proficiency pre-test at the beginning of the experiment, two quizzes during the module, and a final exam, all of them to assess the students’ learning. This study also investigated the students and teacher's attitudes towards the blended learning approach, for which individual interviews were conducted. The participants were 31 Bolivian students of parallel intermediate level classes of English. They were divided into a comparison group (n=18) and a treatment group (n=13). The results showed that, overall, the comparison group performed better than the treatment group. However, the treatment group performed equally or better than the comparison group in some language skills. Regarding the students’ and teacher's attitudes towards the online lessons, they were positive regarding the interactivity and the feedback, but negative regarding the opportunities of communication in the online lessons.  iii Dedication This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Graciela Rojas and José A. Tango, since wherever I have reached my career today, it is because of their love and endless support in all my decisions; and to my Access students for being the inspiration to write it.  iv Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the Fulbright program for making this degree and study take place. I would like to recognize the invaluable assistance of my thesis tutors, Dr. Nicole Tracy- Ventura and Dr. Heiko ter Haseborg. Their trust, encouragement, and great advice was whole- heartedly appreciated during the process of the research. I would like to pay my special regards to the language institution where the study was completed, more specifically, to the Executive Director Silvia Solares, to the Academic Director Raquel Torrico, to the teacher Melvin Urizar, whose assistance was a milestone in the completion of this investigation. I would also like to thank my parents, family, and friends for having being there for me when I needed it the most. Finally, an enormous thank you to Abi for arriving upon the scene of this journey when I least expected it and making it somehow even more special than it already was.  v Table of Contents Abstract……................................................................................................................................... ii Dedication.......................................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................iv Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................v CHAPTER 1 – Introduction.............................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2 – Literature Review...................................................................................................5 Students’ Perceptions, Insights, and Attitudes....................................................................5 Effectiveness of Blended Learning......................................................................................7 Blended Learning Models....................................................................................................9 Language Skills..................................................................................................................10 The Present Study..............................................................................................................12 CHAPTER 3 – Methodology.........................................................................................................15 Participants.........................................................................................................................15 Design................................................................................................................................16 Face-to-face instruction.........................................................................................18 Blended lesson instruction.....................................................................................18 Instruments.........................................................................................................................28 Procedures..........................................................................................................................29 Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................30 CHAPTER 4 – Results..................................................................................................................31 RSQ1..................................................................................................................................32 SQ1.1.....................................................................................................................33  vi SQ1.2.....................................................................................................................34 SQ1.3.....................................................................................................................35 SQ1.4.....................................................................................................................35 SQ1.5.....................................................................................................................36 RSQ2..................................................................................................................................36 Tools’ influence on language learning...................................................................37 Online course difficulty and not helpful elements.................................................40 Communication skills effect..................................................................................43 Reflection and self-feedback on their own skills...................................................44 Teacher’s attitudes towards blended learning........................................................46 CHAPTER 5 – Findings and Discussion.......................................................................................49 Summary of Findings.........................................................................................................49 Discussion..........................................................................................................................50 Limitations and Implications for Future Research.............................................................53 References......................................................................................................................................56 Footnotes.......................................................................................................................................58 Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation of Pre-Test Scores..........................................................31 Table 2: Independent t-test of Pre-Test Scores..............................................................................31 Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Tests’ Final Scores...................................................................32 Table 4: Tests of Within – Subjects Effects....................................................................................33 Table 5: Mean and Standard Deviation of All Skills Final Exam’s Scores...................................33 Table 6: Independent t test of Grammar & Vocabulary Final Exam’s Scores..............................34 Table 7: Independent t test of Reading Final Exam’s Scores........................................................34  vii Table 8: Independent t test of Listening Final Exam’s Scores.......................................................35 Table 9: Independent t test of Writing Final Exam’s Scores.........................................................35 Table 10: Independent t test of Speaking Final Exam’s Scores.....................................................36 Figure 1: Comparison and Treatment Groups Class Schedule.....................................................17 Figure 2: Canvas Home Page........................................................................................................19 Figure 3: Canvas Modules Distribution Page...............................................................................19 Figure 4: “Get Started” Module....................................................................................................20 Figure 5: Module’s Content...........................................................................................................21 Figure 6: Grammar Lesson Introduction.......................................................................................22 Figure 7: Explicit Grammar...........................................................................................................23 Figure 8: Grammar Practice..........................................................................................................23 Figure 9: Pronunciation Practice..................................................................................................24 Figure 10: Conversation Strategies...............................................................................................25 Figure 11: Vocabulary Lesson.......................................................................................................25 Figure 12: Writing Lesson..............................................................................................................26 Figure 13: Listening Practice.........................................................................................................27 Figure 14: Workbook Activities......................................................................................................27 Figure 15: Language Use Activity..................................................................................................28 APPENDIX A: Final Exam Units 3-4 (Pre-test)...........................................................................59 APPENDIX B: Students’ Interview...............................................................................................62 APPENDIX C: Instructor’s Interview...........................................................................................64 APPENDIX D: Post-Experiment Students’ Interview Spanish Translation..................................65  1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction As demonstrated over the last decades, technology has played an important and integral role in people's daily lives, and when combined with the internet, it has become an essential part in most humans' activities, such as communication, shopping, transportation, education and most importantly for this thesis, teaching and learning English as a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL). The integration of technology in ESL/EFL classrooms is advancing every day, and it has brought with it plenty of benefits and advantages not only for students but also for teachers such as phone learning apps, online learning platforms and sites, corpus-based online learner dictionaries, assessment online tools, and plenty of resources which help English teachers deal with different classroom challenges and develop successful instructional materials for their lessons. The present study focuses on one application of technology in the classroom: blended learning. Many studies describe and argue about the different definitions of blended learning and its integration effect on a language institution. According to Oliver and Trigwell (2005), blended learning has three different meanings in the field of education. The first one considers blended learning as an integration of the regular face-to-face kind of learning with online Learning Management Systems (LMS) such as Canvas, Schoology or Google classroom and web tools to promote learners' interaction outside the classroom. The second one defines blended learning only as the integration of different web tools, so lessons are only given in an e-learning environment rather than in a face-to-face class. Finally, the third definition refers to the combination of methodologies and/or approaches used in a class, such as a combination of  2 communicative language teaching with a total physical response approach, according to Claypole (2010, as cited by Sharma, 2010). Blended learning started to be used around twenty years ago in the corporate/business domain so employees could have the necessary availability to be able to work and study at the same time (Driscoll, 2002). This new form of technology primarily benefited employers because they did not need to give employees time off work to attend class, thus avoiding a loss of productivity. Instead of having lessons in a classroom, workers were exposed to digital materials such as books, videos or the web in general (Driscoll, 2002). Even though all of this was mainly to keep employees in the workplace, nowadays, the numerous goals and uses of blended learning have transcended much further than that. As an English teacher in a developing country, I am aware of the various improvements and advancements we need in EFL teaching, particularly in the area of integrating technology into the classroom. Learning a language is considered a dynamic and interactive process because learners need to be active and participate in a class to practice the language skills they are learning; however, in order to do that, a person who wants to study English needs to have enough time to dedicate to going to class every day until they achieve their desired language proficiency. People from all ages sometimes have little or no time to dedicate to language learning, and even less time to commute to a language school every day due to schoolwork, university schedules, or inconvenient office hours. Hence, blended learning can be considered a way to improve and innovate lessons by giving learners a chance to learn both in a face-to-face environment and at their own pace, with asynchronous lessons and practice allowing them to have their lessons part of the time from home.  3 The definition of blended learning adopted in the current study is a combination of face- to-face and online teaching comprising the use of synchronous and asynchronous electronic tools (Sharma, 2010). Even though, according to Driscoll (2002), it can be assumed that blended learning has more advantages than disadvantages thanks to all the benefits that entails and how positively described it is, some issues have been found in different studies as it will be described in the literature review. According to VanDerLinden (2014), blended learning also requires the combination of different roles, such as the role of technology, the role of faculty, and the role of institutions. Thus, it is not only about teachers and students anymore, but also about the result of everyone's collaborative work within an institution. This means that there are several aspects that should be considered and may affect the success of a blended classroom. For example, it depends on the context and situation of where it is applied (Ashby, 2015); if it is used to respond to learners' needs and designed based on their skills and access to technology, it might result in the same or a better impact than face-to-face lessons on learners' language proficiency. This thesis comprises five chapters. The first chapter, this introduction, outlines the rationale and significance of the study, and explains how the thesis is structured. The literature review is developed in the second chapter and presents the research on blended learning and the research questions investigated in the present study. The third chapter portrays the methodology used for this study, describing the participants, design, instruments, procedures, and a brief summary of the data analysis. The results and the answers to the research questions are presented in the fourth chapter. Finally, Chapter Five describes and discusses the findings, limitations, and implications of the research.  4 The following review of literature aims to synthesize primary and secondary research in order to provide an overview of definitions, models, approaches, and conditions for the integration of blended learning which has informed the current study.  5 CHAPTER 2 Literature Review In this literature review, I will focus on the most relevant points and/or themes of the study. The students’ attitudes, insights, and perceptions in different studies will be taken into consideration since they are important factors in assessing the effectiveness of blended learning. Furthermore, different models of blended learning integration in some studies will be presented in order to examine their procedure. Finally, since the focus will be on analyzing the effectiveness of blended learning on language proficiency, I will analyze the methods that some studies used and how well they helped to improve language proficiency. Students’ Perceptions, Insights, and Attitudes Students’ motivation and acceptance of being part of the integration of a blended learning course is important for this study since its effectiveness also depends on how students will experience and perceive it. Tayşı and Başaran (2018) investigated the perceptions of EFL students and instructors from a state university in Turkey toward the implementation of an online learning management system called MyELT which was utilized for the implementation of a blended learning course. MyELT allowed students to work at home for language boosting through extra practice exercises about vocabulary and pronunciation after having 20 hours of face-to-face instruction. The students participated in the project for two semesters. The overall findings showed that students had positive perceptions about the practicality of the MyELT system. The students’ average grade scores and the descriptive statistics for their perceptions of the usefulness of the platform on their language skills showed that there was also a positive outcome in the students’ listening, reading and grammar skills, but according the students’ interviews, they had more difficulties with the skills of writing and vocabulary when these  6 lessons were given in an online format; however, the study’s correlational statistics showed that there was not a significant relationship between the students’ perceptions of the language management system and their grade scores. A negative attitude was also shown due to the limited access some of them had to the internet and the technical problems they experienced with the program which affected their preference for having online quizzes and exams. Akbarov, Gönen, and Aydoğan (2018) aimed to examine students’ attitudes and perceptions towards blended learning and surveyed 162 university students from all language competence levels. In the case of this study, students were exposed to quantitative data collection through a questionnaire about their attitudes towards blended learning and its different components such as the combination of traditional and online classrooms, digital material in the classroom, the way of submitting assignments, etc. The results of this study showed that overall students preferred blended learning lessons rather than a face-to-face regular classroom. However, they also liked to take English exams in paper-and-pencil form, rather than in digital form. As for submitting English assignments online or in person, their opinions were divided. They also similarly trusted analog teaching/learning materials more than the ones that are digital; nonetheless, statistics showed that there was not a significant difference between the number of students who preferred one over the other. Students had a moderately positive attitude toward infographics and a paperless (digital) classroom within an EFL environment. Martín de Lama (2013) also carried out a study which partly focused on students’ perceptions regarding the deficiencies they found during the integration of the blended learning course. Qualitative data collected from interviews, such as the students and teachers’ perceptions and opinions about the tools that were available and the use of them were considered for data collection. These insights were also backed up by the quantitative data gathered from tests that  7 were given throughout the whole academic year to study their progress and improvement. In this study, students’ opinions were negative about some of the tools that did not allow prompt feedback from instructors due to the fact that some of those tools were misused by the students, which gave a space for the researchers’ suggestion of including other web tools that could be used for instant communication such as familiar social networks or Web 2.0. tools that could increase the opportunities of real interaction for feedback in English. In sum, the three studies showed positive student perceptions toward blended learning, with some negative opinions about the accessibility to mobile and computer devices or the lack of technological competence towards some of the learning management systems that were used. Furthermore, one relevant constraint that the students highlighted is the delayed response they received from the instructors in the online forums, and how much more difficult it was to ask their instructor about their doubts in comparison with their regular classroom lessons. These are important facts that need to be considered in future research. Effectiveness of Blended Learning One of the research questions investigated in this thesis is whether a blended approach is effective in comparison with a traditional (face-to-face) approach. Gill (2009) focuses her study on comparing a group with face-to-face lessons and another group with blended learning lessons to see which of the approaches is more effective and which techniques are better than others while implementing them. According to this research design, by combining face-to-face and online lessons, activities, and assessment that respond to the learners’ needs and measure their performance, attitudes, and motivation towards this kind of approach, the data from both groups can be compared and evaluated with the goal of making improvements and changes until the learners’ needs are met. By following this design, the research results showed that blended  8 learning activities were considered to be more relevant for learners than the ones that were face- to-face because they were more active and in a virtual learning environment. Moreover, some of those online activities had a better outcome and effect on students than others because they involved more participation, collaborative work between learners, games, threaded discussions, etc., which, according to the post-semester questionnaire that the participants answered, was interesting and helpful for them to prepare for the exams, and improve their overall language skills more. These results echo Rao (2006) who states that for a blended learning course to be effective, it has to be customized regarding the attitudes, beliefs, and needs of the learners. Motivation is an important factor; therefore, the students need to be aware of the importance and benefits of the course they are taking. Moreover, the content has to be designed in order to be relevant, current and utilizable. Finally, Rao states, “Blended learning is changing in its implementation mechanism and covers a number of interesting and imaginative ways in which course design, learning activity styles, and the information environment are changing” (Rao, 2006, p.35), all of which leads towards an effective blended learning process. Not all research has focused on the effectiveness of blended learning. Harrington (2010) focuses on the implications and potential problems it may have or cause regarding other areas such as forced individualism which, according to her, is more common in writing lessons. The author explains that most American writing courses, especially academic writing, are individualized because of elements such as voice, peer review, critical thinking, and textual ownership, which causes problems for English learners since in their native cultures they are used to have more collaborative work and harmonization instead of this individuality. As argued by Harrington, in a blended class, forced individualism is even more intense because students  9 have less time in face-to-face lessons, complete tasks alone while sitting in front of a computer isolated from their classmates, and therefore, have fewer opportunities for peer review or collaborative work. She also states that this process may raise the affective filter as a result of the constant requirement to participate from discussions and ideas sharing, making learners feel anxious, intimidated and pressured; however, the affective filter would raise in the same way or even more with the same activity in a face-to-face class. Nevertheless, it is still a concern to be considered while designing blended classes. Blended Learning Models The different platforms, web tools, strategies, and models the research studies used are also relevant in order to examine how useful they were, how well they performed, and their overall benefits and shortcomings. The study of Bañados (2006) proposed a model to be adapted to large classes of students in Chile. The research was conducted with a sample of 39 students who had to be part of one of four program modules that lasted an academic semester. This program merged the students’ self-directed learning through ICT (Information and Communication Technology) with a traditional face-to-face lesson with a teacher that was also the instructor who monitored their work with the ICT and guided a weekly discussion with English native speakers. At the end of the program, students finish with 100 hours of interactive language learning tasks concentrated on their needs, personal motivation, future plans and relevant information that could be useful for a person to communicate in an English-speaking country. The improvement of the pilot group’s language skills was examined through a comparison between an initial diagnostic test they took at the beginning of the program and a final end-of-term test. This result was as significantly positive as their approval with the whole course, which was evaluated with a satisfaction survey at the end of the module.  10 Alonso, López, Manrique, and Viñes (2005) conducted a similar study; however, their model focuses more on content structure, information-processing psychology, and social constructivism rather than in the technological part itself. For this model of blended learning to be successful, the author mentions some essential components such as an instructor who manages digital communication tools in the classroom and explains specific learning subjects to the group; learners who raise questions and interact with each other stimulating group learning, support, and a help forum for subjects related to learning management. Models can vary and should be adapted according to the context in which they are planned to be applied. As Bañados (2006) stated, it is important to analyze this context considering the learners’ needs, the educational contents, the environment where the model will take place, the faculty involved, and the available resources in order to achieve the goal of having learners be engaged by the blended learning program so they get can learn and understand content that they did not before. There are unlimited options since plenty of aspects have to be considered, such as the ones mentioned above, but once they are accordingly combined and adapted, a blended approach can be an efficient model (Bañados, 2006). Language Skills According to this study’s research questions, what is needed to be examined is whether blended learning has either positive or negative effects on students’ language competence. However, it is also possible that the effects may differ depending on the skill. For instance, in the study of Gleason (2013), one instructor gave the face-to-face lessons and another the hybrid lessons to 28 and 22 Spanish students, respectively. The model for the first group of 28 students comprised four 50-minute traditional lessons per week and the model for the second group consisted of only two 50-minute traditional lessons and one 25-minute online lesson in an online  11 communication platform called Adobe Connect. It is worth noting that whereas the blended course provided students 125 minutes of class per week, the traditional course provided students with 200 minutes giving less time of class to the blended learning group assuming students would have more extra time to work at home asynchronously according to their own pace rather than attending face-to-face lessons. In the analysis of the results related to language competence, it was found that students had more opportunities to produce their oral skills by thinking in the target language in the face-to-face lessons. Instead in the online lessons, there were only a few who participated actively and voluntarily in the different activities provided while the others were mostly just listeners answering only what they were asked to do. Feedback was also important in the online lessons since students had to give an oral presentation through the ICT and the teacher assessed that and paraphrased what the student said with the necessary corrections and comments through the chatbox. Zhang and Zhu (2018) conducted another study that focused on identifying the outcomes related to learning skills through the comparison of blended learning and face-to-face learning too but taking into account if the number of years of instruction, gender and discipline of the students affected the result. They worked with a big sample of 5376 first year and second year undergraduate students who were part of ESL courses in Beijing, China. Focusing on communication skills, students were able to interact with the instructor and their classmates in the target language through forums and chats. A comparative analysis of the results of a proficiency exam taken at the beginning and end of the academic year showed that students in the blended learning course obtained better academic achievement than students in the other group. In the case of this study, the author describes that due to the flexibility and convenience of blended learning; it enhanced student motivation and satisfaction with the learning environment  12 since they were able to interact with each other in the discussion forums, sharing opportunities they had and evidencing a sense of online interactive community for the students, which encouraged them to interact more and use the target language in their oral production when in the face-to-face lessons. One purpose of these studies was to improve oral communication skills through blended learning because it is hypothesized that students may not have the same opportunities to interact in an online environment as they would have in the classroom. Therefore, further research is needed focusing on the effect of blended learning on each of the skills that are normally assessed and evaluated in English language classes. To help address this gap, the current study investigates the effectiveness of blended learning at an English program in Sucre, Bolivia in order to examine if there were differences in students' language proficiency depending on whether they participated in blended learning or traditional face-to-face classes. The present study In general, this literature review suggests that the findings from empirical studies were mostly positive after the implementation of a blended learning approach, if the blended learning course was designed for a specific group of learners who were in a context where it was necessary to integrate such an approach. Nevertheless, there were also some limitations that interfered with the whole process. There is general acceptance that blended learning can be beneficial, not only from the students’ perspective but also the teachers’. However, as Tayşı and Başaran (2018) concluded, a lot of planning and analysis is needed before implementation since overlooking some details may cause big problems affecting students’ learning process, performance, attitude, and motivation towards this approach.  13 About the models, each study adapted similar models of blended learning and there are countless more out there. However, this again goes back to the importance of choosing the model that is the best fit for the institution, faculty, and students, so it can be appropriately adapted with the least possible constraints. Additionally, the models we saw in the empirical studies just described did not focus only on one skill specifically, they only considered final grades, result of all the skills combined, but not each skill separately. This is an important implication of the findings since it is relevant to know how blended learning affects each of the skills in order to see if the approach is more helpful or not in each of them. Therefore, what this research proposes is a combination of some of these studies. The study examines the effect of blended learning on language skills, such as writing, reading, listening, writing, grammar, and vocabulary considering the students’ needs of real-world communication. Another different procedure from all the studies reviewed is the length of each module in the implemented model. The present study is done in a module no longer than 17 weekdays where students are evaluated three times during the whole module. All of this is in order to have more quantitative data to measure language proficiency and obtain more specific results that can be compared. The study also utilizes a similar procedure to the study of Zhang and Zhu (2018) making a comparison between two classes of the same language competence level which have the same syllabus, and with the difference that one of them received blended learning lessons and the other face-to-face lessons. Therefore, the research questions guiding this study are the following:  Research question 1: Are there significant differences in overall proficiency between students in blended learning and students in face-to-face learning approaches?  14  Sub-question 1.1: Are there significant differences in grammar and vocabulary between students in blended learning and students in face-to-face learning approaches?  Sub-question 1.2: Are there significant differences in reading skills between students in blended learning and students in face-to-face learning approaches?  Sub-question 1.3: Are there significant differences in listening skills between students in blended learning and students in face-to-face learning approaches?  Sub-question 1.4: Are there significant differences in writing skills between students in blended learning and students in face-to-face learning approaches?  Sub-question 1.5: Are there significant differences in speaking skills between students in blended learning and students in face-to-face learning approaches?  Research question 2: What are the students and teacher's attitudes towards the blended learning approach in comparison to their regular face-to-face lessons?  15 CHAPTER 3 Methodology Participants The participants of this study were Spanish native speakers from Sucre, Bolivia, and as mentioned before, the study was done in an EFL context. They were young adult students who belong to a 39-month-long English program at a binational center, a non-profit institution whose main activity is teaching EFL to children, teenagers, and adults. Students who enroll in this program will have a C1 level of English once they finish it; thus, their overall goal is to be proficient enough in the language for their personal or professional purposes. The students who took part in this study were adults between 18 and 35 years old in a pre-intermediate / B1 level class. They were selected based on convenience, that is, in order to have two parallel classes that were studying the same content and had the same instructor. For this to happen, both classes had to be at different times. One of the classes was the comparison group which had regular face-to-face lessons as they usually do at the institution, with no change at all. The other class was the treatment group which had blended lessons, that is, half of their classes were face to face and the other half online. To ensure that the participants had the same proficiency level at the beginning of the study, the results of their final exam from the previous module was collected, compared and analyzed. The comparison group had eighteen students and the treatment group had thirteen students. All the participants volunteered to be part of the study. Hence, aspects such as gender, race or ethnicity were not considered as a variable since they were not relevant for the purposes of the study. All participants signed an informed consent document before the study began.  16 In the case of the administration and instruction part, one instructor taught both groups, using the same syllabus and content, but on different schedules. The instructor worked on the methodology and models to be used in the experiment with the researcher. The administrative staff such as the Executive and Academic Directors were also involved and helped throughout the study. Finally, another instructor conducted the interviews with the students and the instructor at the end of the module. Design The syllabus design that was employed for this research is based on the syllabus of the English program at the binational center. As part of their syllabus, they use the “Top Notch 3” textbook from Pearson editorial, and the data for this study come from their classes focusing on units 5 and 6 from the textbook. The comparison group had their regular face-to-face instruction for 1.5 hours a day, from Monday to Friday, following the regular class syllabus and lessons of the English program. In contrast, the treatment group had face-to-face instruction for 1.5 hours a day on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and asynchronous online instruction for 1.5 hours a day on Tuesdays and Thursdays. As shown in Figure 1, the module duration was seventeen days, where on the eighth day, both groups took a quiz about unit 5, on the 16th day, a quiz about unit 6, and on the 17th day a final exam about both units. For the treatment group, students followed the content of the syllabus with the same lesson order in a learning platform called CANVAS which is a cloud based LMS (Learning Management System) that is designed to be used on computers or mobile devices. With the utilization of this LMS, the treatment group studied the same content as the comparison group but with different activities such as forum discussions, voice discussions, and listening activities that involved authentic audio and video materials. The LMS allowed students  17 to interact with each other, and at the same time to interact with and receive feedback from the instructor. Figure 1 Comparison and Treatment Groups Class Schedule Day Duration COMPARISON GROUP (F2F Lessons) TREATMENT GROUP (Blended Learning) Final Exam, Units 3 and 4 (Previous course) 1 1.5 hours Unit 5: Natural Disasters. Introduction Unit 5: Natural Disasters. Introduction. 2 1.5 hours Lesson 1: SWBAT convey a message. Online lesson. Lesson 1: SWBAT convey a 3 1.5 hours Lesson 2: SWBAT report news. Lesson 2: SWBAT report news. Online lesson. Lesson 3: SWBAT describe 4 1.5 hours Lesson 3: SWBAT describe natural disasters. natural disasters. 5 1.5 hours Lesson 4: SWBAT prepare for an emergency. Lesson 4: SWBAT prepare for an emergency. 6 1.5 hours Writing Booster: Organizing detail statements. Writing Booster: Organizing detail statements. 7 1.5 hours Unit Review + Grammar Booster Online lesson. Unit Review + Grammar Booster. 8 Quiz # 1, Unit 5 Online lesson. Life Plans. Introduction to the 9 1.5 hours Unit 6: Life Plans. Introduction to the unit. unit. Lesson 1: SWBAT Explain a change in life and Lesson 1: SWBAT Explain a change in life and 10 1.5 hours work plans. work plans. Lesson 2: SWBAT express regrets about past Online lesson. Lesson 2: SWBAT express regrets 11 1.5 hours actions. about past actions. Lesson 3: SWBAT discuss skills, abilities, and Lesson 3: SWBAT discuss skills, abilities, and 12 1.5 hours qualifications. qualifications. Lesson 4: SWBAT discuss factors that promote Online lesson. Lesson 4: SWBAT discuss factors 13 1.5 hours success. that promote success. 14 1.5 hours Unit Review + Grammar Booster Unit Review + Grammar Booster. Online lesson. Writing booster: Dividing an 15 1.5 hours Writing booster: Dividing an essay into topics essay into topics. 16 Quiz # 2, Unit 6 17 Final Exam 18 Students and teacher's attitudes interview At the end of the module, a different instructor at the institution was in charge of conducting the semi-structured interviews with the treatment group and the instructor. These interviews (see Appendix B and C) were used to collect data about their attitudes, insights, and perceptions of the blended learning program they experienced. The present study has a quantitative and qualitative experimental design, for which the independent variable is the instruction type that students received, and the dependent variables are the students’ scores representing their overall language level and for each skill: grammar- vocabulary, reading, listening, writing, and speaking.  18 Face-to-face instruction. The regular face-to-face lessons at this language institution are part of a module of seventeen days. In each module, the content covered from the textbook is two units. In the Top Notch textbook, every unit has an introduction section to the unit: four lessons that include grammar, vocabulary, reading, listening, pronunciation, and speaking; a unit final review section; a grammar booster section; a writing booster section; and a workbook with review exercises. In a regular 1.5-hour class, one of the lessons from the textbookand in the workbook has to be covered (see Figure 1). The materials used by the teacher were mostly the textbook and the workbook. In the classroom, they had a projector and a computer where they could project the digital version of the textbook and have students complete exercises on the board. The teacher mostly used a deductive approach where each lesson started with a warmp-up mainly focused on authentic communication that introduced the topic of the lesson. Then, it continued with a structure of presentation, practice, and production. Although the book has extra material, such as videos, games, extra activities, etc., it was not possible to implement them in the face-to-face lessons since teachers are required to complete all the exercises of the book and workbook in class. Blended lesson instruction. The online lessons were designed in Canvas, an online learning platform that can be used from individual classrooms to large universities, and from blended learning to fully online learning. This LMS is known for being user-friendly and for allowing instructors and studens to easily connect both in and out of the classroom. It includes basic functionalities such as managing enrollments, sharing documents and media, submitting assignments, working collaboratively, assigning grades, etc.  19 As shown in Figure 2, Canvas has a user-friendly interface with a dashboard page that has a quick access to the assignments, modules, announcements, grades, and other convenient information that was useful for the online lessons used in this study. Students also conveniently received notification alerts via email, text message, and via the Canvas app if they were working on their cellphones. Figure 2 Canvas Home Page With the purpose of following the same lesson plan as a parallel class, in the online course, each module represented a lesson. The modules page was for students to see all the lessons and activites that were available, as illustrated in Figure 3. To complete each module, they had the prerequisite of first completing the one before; otherwise, the LMS did not allow them to continue with the next one. Figure 3 Canvas Modules Distribution Page  20 The “Get started” module was important in order to have them get acquainted with the platform. It was a guide that was available for them at any time where they could find a short orientation about the platform, information about where and how to ask for technical support and content help, the course syllabus, etc, as shown in Figure 4. It also had warm-up practice so they could introduce themselves through a discussion forum so they could have a first experience of the how to work in the platform. Figure 4 “Get Started” Module As mentioned before, each module represented a lesson. As presented in Figure 5, each lesson always began with a review activity of the previous lesson, an introductory authentic video about the unit or lesson’s topic followed by an illustration of the grammar or vocabulary they were going to study in the lesson using the video as an example. It should be noted that all the videos had either captions or a video script available. Then, on another page they had more examples and/or an explanation about the lesson. Next, practice exercises and activities about what they just learned were provided. After that, the following part was about the workbook assignment with answers so they could go back to the platform to check their work. Lastly, they had a production focused activity about the whole lesson they studied where they had to combine the skills they learned in order to communicate fulfilling the goal of the lesson. The online  21 lessons were planned and designed to adapt to the different types of learners’ intelligences. For example, there were illustrations representing language for visual learners; videos for visual and auditory learners; explicit grammar figures for linguistic and visual learners; audios, pronunciation and repetition activities for auditory learners; video recording activities for kinesthetic learners; discussion forums for interpersonal learners; finally, most of the online lessons and activities that were to be completed individually for intrapersonal learners. Figure 5 Module’s Content Grammar lessons were presented with an introductory video, and then, with some illustrations about what the grammar lesson was going to be. Perceptual salience was an important factor in this part of each module since the purpose of it was for students to notice the language that was being used without any explicit grammar about it yet, but with the highlighting of certain grammar structures to draw their attention to them, as seen in Figure 6.  22 Figure 6 Grammar Lesson Introduction After the introduction, students were presented with several more examples which were accompanied by illustrations of explicit grammar, as shown in Figure 7. This grammar explanation was then followed by a grammar couch video that was part of the textbook materials that the institution receives. These videos are almost never used in class because they show a teacher explaining a grammar point, which might be considered too repetitive if there is an actual teacher in the classroom doing the same.  23 Figure 7 Explicit Grammar Once they finish with the explanation of the grammar or reading lesson, students are presented with several kinds of exercises to practice, as shown in Figure 8. Among the types of exercises, there were multiple-choice, sentence completion, one-sentence answer, true and false, and cloze exercises. Once the students completed the exercises, they received instant feedback from the LMS so they could analyze their mistakes. Since these were practice exercises, they were given more opportunities to re-do them without making the same mistakes. Figure 8 Grammar Practice For pronunciation practice, as seen in Figure 9, they could listen to the different pronunciation types and read the examples at the same time; each audio also gave them the time to repeat afterwards. They also were presented with a video of the pronunciation coach from  24 their textbook that used a different approach to teach them the pronunciation lesson. Finally, they had the option and suggestion to record themselves using the LMS to compare their pronunciation with the models. Figure 9 Pronunciation Practice In the textbook, the lessons that were about grammar always had their communicative part with a conversation model that emphasized conversation strategies related to the lesson’s goal. In this part, the students had the opportunity not only to listen to it, as they used to do it with the textbook, but also to watch the video of it, as illustrated in Figure 10. Then, they also had comprehension exercises about the conversation content, and about the pragmatics of it since they had the visual representation of the conversation.  25 Figure 10 Conversation Strategies As shown in Figure 11, vocabulary lessons were more illustrated in the online course than they were in the textbook. For example, in the case of adjectives of severity, the textbook only had the list of adjectives with an intensity sign next to it: mild+, moderate++, severe+++, etc., but in the online lesson, more illustrations representing the vocabulary were added with their usage in order to improve understanding. Hyperlinks were also added to the vocabulary words, which sent them to the definition of the word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary website. Figure 11 Vocabulary Lesson Each unit had one writing booster lesson fully dedicated to a writing strategy related to the lesson topic. As presented in Figure 12, students were presented with an example of the kind  26 of writing they were expected to produce. Then, they had a small practice exercise about the strategy they were learning, and finally, they were asked to write a paragraph or paragraphs about what they just learned. They had to post that in the discussion part of the page to share with their classmates and received individual feedback from their teacher about it. Figure 12 Writing Lesson As it can be observed in Figure 13, in the case of the listening exercises, due to the distribution of the lessons, only grammar and reading focused lessons were assigned to be online leaving listening focused lessons to be during face-to-face instruction. However, they had the unit review part online where they had some listening exercises to complete, and also the conversation parts where they practiced the skill with the comprehension exercises all the time.  27 Figure 13 Listening Practice Since students had purchased the textbook and the workbook, they were meant to be used. Therefore, the workbook activities were completed in the experimental, blended learning group as well. As shown in Figure 14, the platform only provided them the answer key to it so after completing the lesson in the workbook, they could go back to it and check their work. The workbook is expected to be fully completed during the term, but sometimes it is not possible to do it in class, therefore, it is sometimes left as homework. There is also not a full correction or feedback about it because sometimes teachers run out of time in class. Nevertheless, in the online lessons, they had to complete everything and could self-correct their work all the time. Figure 14 Workbook Activities  28 Each lesson had a language production activity about the lesson’s goal. They had to put together the grammar, vocabulary, and the goal of the lesson in order to communicate what the goal said. For example, in the lesson shown in Figure 15, they had to use indirect speech and natural disasters vocabulary in order to convey a message from a news website. They also received direct feedback from the teacher in this activity. Figure 15 Language Use Activity Instruments In order to collect the quantitative data, the scores of their exams were used. These exams are designed by the institution’s faculty for every level at their English program. To examine whether both groups had a similar language proficiency level at the beginning of the module, the results of their final exam about units 3 and 4 of the previous module were considered (see Appendix A). Their learning proficiency level and outcomes in the skills mentioned before were collected through two quizzes—one about unit 5 and the other about unit 6—administered on the eighth and sixteenth days of the module, and the final exam —about both units (5 and 6)— administered on the seventeenth day of the module. These exams comprised items with all the  29 skills needed to be measured. Their grades were registered in the teacher’s grade keeper to which the researcher had full access. In the case of the qualitative data, interviews were conducted with the students of the treatment group (see Appendix B) and the teacher (see Appendix C) by another instructor at the institution. These interviews were semi-structured since they had a set of predetermined questions, yet the interviewer was free to follow up a question with additional questions that may have been required according to the answers they gave. The students’ interview was translated to Spanish so they would not have a language barrier to express their answers (see Appendix D). As mentioned before, the interviews were about their attitudes, insights, and perceptions of using blended learning and its usefulness, practicality, and general satisfaction. Procedures The experiment was programmed to start on the twelfth term/module on October 23rd; however, the twelfth term got canceled due to external reasons to the institution. 1 Consequently, it was conducted during the thirteenth term of the academic calendar at the institution, that is, from November 18th to December 6th, 2019. The scores of the final exam (pre-test) from the previous module were collected on the last day of class of the eleventh module on October 21 st. As mentioned before, the comparison group had their normal lessons at the institution, that is, they had face-to-face lessons for 1.5 hours from Monday to Friday. They studied the first unit of the module (unit 5 of the textbook) in the first eight days and the second unit (unit 6 of the textbook) from the ninth to sixteenth day of the module. Finally, on the seventeenth day, they took a final exam about units 5 and 6. The treatment group followed the same distribution of days for each unit with the difference of having them online on Tuesdays and Thursdays.  30 Lastly, the interviews were conducted by another instructor at the institution on the last days of the module, more specifically on December 6th. While the students were in class, they were requested to go one by one to have the interview with the other instructor in a separate classroom. It is worth saying that the instructor conducting the interview was previously trained to ask follow-up questions whenever necessary and made sure that each interview and timing was similar for each of the participants, lasting around eight to twelve minutes. The interviews were conducted in the participants’ first language, Spanish. Data Analysis For the analysis of the qualitative data, the interviews, a simple content analysis was used in order to investigate not only their attitudes, but also if there are some factors that were not taken into account by the researcher that may support the quantitative data. For the analysis of the quantitative data, parametric statistics were used since the data were normally distributed. In order to compare the results of the exams between the comparison group and the treatment group, a two-way mixed ANOVA was used to compare their overall proficiency, and an independent t-test was used to compare their language proficiency level of each skill to examine whether the results of the comparison group and the treatment group differed statistically. Furthermore, a Levene’s test for equality of variances was also conducted in the present analysis indicating a level of significance higher than 0.05 which means that it can be assumed that the distribution of test scores in the treatment group is similar in shape to the distribution of test scores for the comparison group.  31 CHAPTER 4 Results As mentioned in the literature review, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether there were significant differences in language proficiency between students in the blended learning group and students in the face-to-face learning group, as measured through performance in their tests, that is, the first quiz about unit 5, the second quiz about unit 6, and their final exam about both units. Each test was divided by language skills; therefore, the score the participants got in each skill is what was used for the data analysis. The skills that were considered were 1) grammar and vocabulary, 2) reading, 3) listening, 4) writing, and 5) speaking, and the scores of all of them were out of 100%. In order to confirm that all students had a similar level, their final exam from the previous module was considered as their pre-test. Table 1 Mean and Standard Deviation of Pre-Test Scores Variable Group n M SD SEM Treatment group 13.00 65.92 11.69 3.24 PTS Comparison Group 18.00 64.86 10.93 2.58 Note. n = Number of participants; PTS = Pre-Test Scores out of 20. Table 2 Independent t-test of Pre-Test Scores t-test Variable t df p MD SED Cohen's d PTS 0.26 29.00 0.80 1.07 4.10 0.09 Note. PTS = Pre-Test Scores. As it can be observed in Table 2, an independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the groups’ pre-test scores. There was not a significant difference in the scores of the treatment group (M = 65.92, SD = 11.69) and the comparison group (M = 64.86, SD = 10.93) as shown in Table 1; t (29) = 0.26, p < 0.80, d = 0.09. These results suggest that the scores of the  32 pre-test from the treatment group are not significantly different from the comparison group; thus, it can be assumed that all the students had a similar language level when they started the study. Research question 1: Are there significant differences in overall proficiency between students in blended learning and students in face-to-face learning approaches? As shown in Table 1, the blended learning treatment group was composed of thirteen students, and the comparison group was composed of eighteen students. Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of their overall scores on each test. Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Tests’ Final Scores Variable Group M SD n Treatment group 75.5 11.9 13 FSQ1 Comparison group 85.0 10.1 18 Treatment group 74.3 7.7 13 FSQ2 Comparison group 86.5 10.0 18 Treatment group 76.4 9.2 13 FSFE Comparison group 84.1 5.9 18 Note. n = Number of participants; FSQ1 = Final Score Quiz 1; FSQ2 = Final Score Quiz 2; FSFE = Final Score Final Exam. From the mean data, it can be observed that overall the comparison group performed better than the treatment group on all three assessments. It can also be seen that the standard deviation is mostly higher for the treatment groups, except in the second quiz, which represents how far apart the highest and lowest score are from the mean. The fact that the standard deviation is mostly high in the treatment group means that there is also a considerable score difference between the highest score and the lowest score in the group.  33 Table 4 Tests of Within – Subjects Effects Type III Variable Source SS df MS F p Sphericity Assumed 0.32 2 0.16 0.002 1 Greenhouse-Geisser 0.32 1.87 0.17 0.002 1 Time Huynh-Feldt 0.32 2 0.16 0.002 1 Lower-bound 0.32 1 0.32 0.002 0.96 Sphericity Assumed 78.65 2 39.33 0.54 0.59 Time * Greenhouse-Geisser 78.65 1.87 42.15 0.54 0.57 Group Huynh-Feldt 78.65 2 39.33 0.54 0.59 Lower-bound 78.65 1 78.65 0.54 0.47 Sphericity Assumed 4215.42 58 72.68 Error Greenhouse-Geisser 4215.42 54.11 77.90 (Time) Huynh-Feldt 4215.42 58 72.68 Lower-bound 4215.42 29 145.35 Note. SS = Sum of Squares. In order to investigate whether the differences between the groups and over time was statistically significant, a mixed between-within ANOVA was conducted. As presented in Table 4, there was not a significant effect of time, F (2, 58) = 0.02, p < 1, nor a statistically significant two-way group-time interaction effect between the three exams, F (2, 58) = 0.54, p < 0.59.  SQ1.1: Are there significant differences in grammar and vocabulary between students in blended learning and students in face-to-face learning approaches? Table 5 Mean and Standard Deviation of All Skills Final Exam’s Scores Variable Group n M SD SEM Treatment group 13.00 81.86 12.39 3.44 GVFES Comparison Group 18.00 83.16 9.29 2.19 Treatment group 13.00 92.30 11.01 3.05 RFES Comparison Group 18.00 95.37 11.14 2.63 Treatment group 13.00 66.92 25.94 7.20 LFES Comparison Group 18.00 89.44 15.14 3.57 Treatment group 13.00 61.54 14.05 3.90 WFES Comparison Group 18.00 64.78 8.35 1.97 Treatment group 13.00 79.69 6.97 1.93 SFES Comparison Group 18.00 87.64 9.49 2.24 Note. n = Number of participants; GVFES = Grammar and Vocabulary Final Exam Score; RFES = Reading Final Exam Score; LFES = Listening Final Exam Score; WFES = Writing Final Exam Score; SFES = Speaking Final Exam Score.  34 Table 6 Independent t-test of Grammar & Vocabulary Final Exam’s Scores t-test Variable t df p MD SED Cohen's d GVFES -0.33 29 0.74 -1.3 3.89 0.11 Note. GVFES = Grammar and Vocabulary Final Exam Score. In order to answer the sub-questions of the first research questions, the same independent samples t-test was conducted for each of the skills. Means (with standard deviations in parentheses) of the treatment group and comparison group for the grammar and vocabulary final exam’s scores were 81.86 (12.39), and 83.16 (9.29), respectively, as shown in Table 5. The independent-samples t-test, presented in Table 6, was t (29) = - 0.33, p < 0.74, d = 0.11. These results suggest that there is not a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of both groups’ grammar and vocabulary final exam.  SQ1.2: Are there significant differences in reading skills between students in blended learning and students in face-to-face learning approaches? Table 7 Independent t-test of Reading Final Exam’s Scores t-test Variable t df p MD SED Cohen's d RFES -0.76 29 0.45 -3.07 4.04 0.27 Note. RFES = Reading Final Exam Score. As presented in Table 5, mean scores (with standard deviations in parentheses) of the treatment group and comparison group for the reading final exam scores were 92.3 (11.01), and 95.37 (11.14), respectively. The independent-samples t-test, presented in Table 7, was t (29) = - 0.76, p < 0.45, d = 0.27. These results suggest that there is not a statistically significant difference between the mean score of both groups on the reading final exam.  35  SQ1.3: Are there significant differences in listening skills between students in blended learning and students in face-to-face learning approaches? Table 8 Independent t-test of Listening Final Exam’s Scores t-test Variable t df p MD SED Cohen's d LFES -3.05 29 0.005 -22.52 7.4 1.06 Note. LFES = Listening Final Exam Score. Mean scores (with standard deviations in parentheses) of the treatment group and comparison group for the listening final exam scores were 66.92 (25.94), and 89.44 (15.14), respectively, as indicated in Table 5. The independent t-test, as shown in Table 8, was t (29) = - 3.05, p > 0.005, d = 1.06. Since the level of significance is below.05 and the effect size is considerably large, these results indicate that the comparison group performed significantly better than the blended learning group on the listening final exam.  SQ1.4: Are there significant differences in writing skills between students in blended learning and students in face-to-face learning approaches? Table 9 Independent t-test of Writing Final Exam’s Scores t-test Variable t df p MD SED Cohen's d WFES -0.8 29 0.42 -3.24 4.03 0.28 Note. WFES = Writing Final Exam Score. As shown in Table 5, the means (with standard deviations in parentheses) of the treatment group and comparison group for the writing final exam scores were 61.54 (14.05), and 64.78 (8.35), respectively. Results of the independent t-test was t (29) = - 0.8, p > 0.42, d = 0.28, which means that the difference between the mean score of both groups is not statistically significant because the level of significance is above.05, as shown in Table 9.  36  SQ1.5: Are there significant differences in speaking skills between students in blended learning and students in face-to-face learning approaches? Table 10 Independent t-test of Speaking Final Exam’s Scores t-test Variable t df p MD SED Cohen's d SFES -2.56 29 0.01 -7.95 3.11 0.95 Note. SFES = Speaking Final Exam Score. Tables 5 and 10 show the data about the final exam’s speaking section score. Means (with standard deviations in parentheses) of the treatment group and comparison group for the speaking scores were 79.69 (6.97), and 87.64 (9.49), respectively. Results of the independent t- test was t (29) = - 2.56, p > 0.01, d = 0.95, demonstrating that there was a significant difference between the mean scores of both groups, with the comparison group performing significantly better than the blended learning group. In sum, the results of research question 1 demonstrated that students’ scores from the treatment group were not significantly different from the comparison group in the case of grammar and vocabulary, reading, and writing. In contrast, there was a statistically significant difference with respect to the skills of listening and speaking, with the comparison group performing better. Research question 2: What are the students and teacher's attitudes towards the blended learning approach in comparison to their regular face-to-face lessons? In order to examine this research question, students from the treatment group were interviewed by a different instructor at the language institution (see Appendix B for the interview questions). The interview’s goal was to gather the students and teacher’s attitudes towards the blended learning program they experienced. Questions 1, 5, and 6 emphasized the influence that  37 the online tools had on their learning. Question 2 and the follow-up of question 6 were about the difficulties they experienced in the online course and the elements that they did not find helpful for their language learning. Questions 3 and 4 were about the effect that the online lessons had on their communication skills, written and spoken. Finally, question 4 was about the opportunities of self-feedback that they had, and the opportunities of reflecting on their own skills. Tools’ positive influence on language learning. Students mentioned several online tools and characteristics of the platform that influenced their language learning in a positive way. Among these, most of them mentioned the videos that were used to introduce some lessons and discussion boards because they considered themselves visual learners, or because it was a different way of introducing a lesson since in class, they usually do not have the time to do it often. Participant 1 said, “Sometimes I am the kind of person who learns more by watching, so the videos help me understand some things, see, inform myself more, and learn a lot of new words.” Audiovisual materials are often appealing to students because of their authenticity; however, sometimes there is not enough time in a class for teachers to use them. For instance, Participant 4 affirmed, “I found useful the articles and videos they gave us when we started some new topic. They were different from the book and about what had happened in other countries.” Participant 13 agreed by saying, “We can see some videos and listen to some audios that we cannot see in the course for lack of time. I think they helped a lot to the understanding especially of those that already have some knowledge of English or the students who learn a little faster since they can maybe do it in much less time and save more time.” Two participants agreed about the importance of this kind of materials too. Participant 5 stated, “I think the videos are a  38 very important part because, in addition to being visual, you can listen to them, so you improve your ability to understand the language much better. When some words were not understood, the English subtitles could help you with the part or word that was not clear so you could have an idea about it or look for it.” Participant 8 also said, “I liked the videos and audios because that is not something you find in the book and when you see more fluid conversations you learn not only by reading.” One of the students found the authenticity in the videos very useful for their future-selves. Participant 11 said, “The videos where we had to comment were very useful because at some point in my life, I think I will have a similar situation where they only speak in English so I will know how to express myself and comment using the language from the videos as an example.” A feature that is possible with most online video players is that most of them have English captions and there is also the possibility of making them play slower or faster, a feature that participant 10 found useful by saying, “CANVAS had the option to make the audios and videos slower, so whenever you could not listen to it well, you could make it a little slower, and I liked that.” Another common useful feature of the online platform for many participants was the way grammar was presented and the amount of practice they had with it. Since they did not have a teacher to explain some grammar lessons because they had to be online, a lot of imagery representing examples was used to teach them how the grammar structures worked. Moreover, they also had the grammar couch videos and the extra grammar exercises, besides the ones they had in the textbook. All these extra materials were not possible to be used in the face-to-face lessons due to the fact that the time to finish a lesson in the book and the workbook is 90 minutes, which is not enough to include all the mentioned material. Some participants mentioned that grammar was easier to understand, because whenever they could not understand it, they  39 could always go back to the explanation as many times as necessary for each of them, something that it is not always possible to do in a classroom due to the time factor. This is because the teacher sets the pace in the classroom. That is, the teacher can solve doubts, but will not always spend the whole class on it, or there will always be shy students who will not say they did not understand some part of the lesson. For example, participant 6 mentioned, “The platform was useful mostly to learn grammar because each structure was well specified and explained with examples.” Participant 7 also said, “I think technology always influences language learning more, so I was able to understand (the grammar) better, and if I didn't understand, I could go back to review as many times as I wanted.” Similarly, participant 11 stated, “The platform has helped me a little more because it makes us practice, that helps us also, so at the same time I learned more (…) Also the practice itself gave us many opportunities to keep trying and trying.” Participant 2 also mentioned, “It was good to have the possibility of being able to do all the exercises that we could not do in class because of time, and maybe those exercises can be important.” Lastly, participant 9 said, “The way in which each exercise was described was very easy to understand and the time it gave us to do the exercises was unlimited.” They also mentioned the kind of exercises they were given to practice the grammar they just learned. While some of them mentioned they liked the multiple-choice exercises, such as participant 5 who said, “I liked best the multiple choice exercises, because they were faster to do and also showed you immediate results, so then you could correct them again and do it well.” Others mentioned they liked the open-ended questions, such as participant 3 who said, “I liked the extensive exercises; those that helped you develop writing because the vocabulary and writing part combined helped us a lot.”  40 Among other general opinions, participant 6 mentioned, “The platform progress report, the calendar, and the notifications of the activities you were missing reminded us to keep working.” This is a very simple feature of most online platforms and occasionally underestimated, but at the same time, very useful for students to keep track of their progress. Some participants also mentioned the efficiency of online lessons regarding the flexibility of when and where they could complete the lessons; for example, participant 9 affirmed, “I could practice at home at any time and in my spare time. That helped me remember quite a bit what we did in class.” Participant 12 said, “The fact that you can log in any moment, complete everything at any time, and in your home, technically, was more comfortable, especially for the people who live far from the institution like me.” Finally, a participant mentioned the voice recording as a very useful tool to practice speaking. Participant 13 stated, “The most useful tool for me was the one about sending recordings since for that you need to plan and have the context of what you are going to say because you cannot be sending stuttering or stopping, so it forces you to prepare it and do it correctly since you have to read it fluently so that you and everybody can understand it.” Online course difficulty and not helpful elements. While implementing new online learning tools and new elements to their regular English lessons, students encountered some difficulties and some elements that according to them were not helpful. There were also hindering circumstances beyond the structure of the lessons which will be discussed in Chapter 5. This section will focus only on those related to the blended learning aspect of the class. A difficulty that many of them mentioned the most was the fact that they did not have a teacher who was there to help them while completing the lessons. For example, participant 5  41 said, “With your teacher, if you have any doubts you can consult him immediately to clarify those doubts, but not on the platform.” Participant 6 also added, “In class you can ask at that moment, but when you are using the platform, you don't know who to go to, so you have to read again and teach yourself”. Participant 8 made a similar comment, “Although it has the grammar part with some examples, if you don't understand it you have to reread it until you do it, but with a teacher you can really ask as many times as you want until you get to understand.” The students also emphasized the fact that a teacher would find and try different ways and examples to solve a doubt, while in the platform that was limited to the content it had. About this, participant 3 mentioned, “If you have a question you can go online and look for it, but it is not the same as someone explaining and showing it to you with plenty of examples until you understand.” Participant 13 also said, “If in class you don't understand with an example, the teacher can give you another not only easier explanation, but also infinite examples, something that a program may never be able to do.” Another common disadvantage that students agreed on was the fact that all the responsibility of completing the tasks on their own at home was on them. They mentioned that in a regular class they are mostly focused and encouraged to work because of the environment of the classroom that surrounds them. However, with the online platform, it was their responsibility to organize their time and complete the modules on their own, which is something they found challenging. Participant 4 said, “With CANVAS, you didn't have a fixed schedule like when you go to class, so sometimes you ended up completing it at the last minute because of distractions.” To this, participant 7 added, “It's hard to have a schedule and not to complete the tasks messily. Having those routines is a difficult thing.” Participant 13 said, “CANVAS needs a lot more concentration than in a face-to-face class because if you are in your home or using the cell  42 phone, there are many things that can distract you and if you want to learn you need to be extra focused.” Their time management was also a difficulty for them since they had other responsibilities too, such as participant 10 who said, “The issue of time is complicated as sometimes I had many things to do.” Participant 3 who added, “The amount of time that needed to be invested in the online lessons was hard to manage because of the accumulation of school homework and exams I had after the strike” (See Footnote 1 for more information). One of the grammar points was about direct speech, and students were going to be assessed not only in the use of it but also in the writing of it; thus, the evaluation was strict in correcting the punctuation of direct or quoted speech. This was something some students found difficult since the platform corrected every single part of punctuation in their direct speech statements, and it was not something they were used to. About this, participant 1 said, “The part where you have to add the punctuation correctly was difficult because if you were wrong about a period or a comma, the whole answer was wrong, and you had to do it again. I believe punctuation was not as important as the language that was there, but it would always correct you as wrong if something was missing.” Participant 13 added, “It was difficult the fact that you had to give an exact answer, and that no other variations were possible.” Among some other external issues, participant 1 mentioned that she felt a lot of visual fatigue for being in front of the computer for a long time. She also mentioned that there were some students who had problems with getting the necessary resources, such as a reliable internet connection or device, and enough time to complete the online lessons. Then, participant 8 mentioned that at certain times, videos loaded very slowly, and also that some exercises were longer and that they had to pay much more attention than to those in the class. Lastly, participant  43 13 mentioned that the exercise where they had to report some news by recording an audio or filming themselves was something that he did not feel comfortable with. Communication skills effect. In this matter, most of students agreed that the platform gave them more opportunities for written communication rather than oral communication. Among the positive comments about how the platform helped their writing skills, students emphasized how helpful the discussion boards were where they had to give an opinion or tell a personal experience regarding the topic of the lesson. Participant 1 said, “I liked the tool that asks you for an opinion about some experience where you have to write, and then it takes you to a forum where you can share it.” Participant 8 also said, “The final parts of each topic that asked for your opinion or point of view about your past experiences were good because you had to try to identify yourself with those topics, and then you could share it and also see your peers’ responses too.” Moreover, participant 13 added, “I found the conversations at the end of each lesson useful since you could post your answer and see each other's answers. The truth is that being able to talk to other people is very good because I was asked for more by having to answer the questions with my own words, so that forces you to expand the vocabulary you have.” On the other hand, most of students also agreed that it is not possible for online lessons to give opportunities for oral communication since you do not have classmates or a teacher with whom to start a conversation. About this, participant 2 stated, “Talking to me is very important and the lack of it is the biggest disadvantage from the platform. Yes, you can learn with the platform at home, but you don't get to practice your speaking that much.” To this, participant 9 also added, “The practice was a little more difficult because the application gave you more material for the writing part, and there was not any practice for the oral communication.” Some  44 students also mentioned that this disadvantage made them prefer face-to-face lessons because at the end their goal is to communicate in English. For instance, participant 3 said, “I prefer more the face-to-face class because here you have the opportunity to talk to the teacher.” Participant 4 added, “I don’t think it was good for communicating in English. It (the platform) has been more useful as a learning method rather than an opportunity to communicate. To communicate, I'd prefer face-to-face classes.” There were also a few positive comments about oral communication since some of them agreed that although the platform did not give them too many opportunities for speaking, it gave them examples, vocabulary and models on how to do it. Participant 11 mentioned, “It (the platform) prepares you more for when you're in a situation where you really need to express your English and you don't have to wait for an example to do it later for yourself.” Lastly, participant 1 affirmed, “I have learned new vocabulary to be able to communicate, but beyond that, no.” Reflection and self-feedback on their own skills. Plenty of students agreed that a positive aspect of the online platform was that it gave them the opportunity to get instant feedback after completing the grammar and vocabulary practice exercises, and that besides that, they were able to realize their mistakes, go back, and make the necessary corrections at their own pace. For example, participant 6 mentioned, “There are more exercises and more practice, and when I thought I understood something, I realized I was wrong, so the platform helped me to notice what my mistake was and the reason for it.” Participant 11 also said, “The platform is something that helps you in a more direct way and the good thing is that it gives you opportunities to do it again, so then you learn from the mistakes and that is better.” Participant 13 also added, “One very good thing it had was that you could do the exercises again, so if you had the wrong answer you could do it again and with that help you  45 were able to improve because it gives you instant feedback. My results were better after going back to the examples.” They also mentioned that the platform allowed them to work on their own trying to understand the lesson and finding strategies to do so. Participant 2 said, “When you do these tasks online you realize that you're making a lot of mistakes in writing and this is not something you usually realize in face-to-face lessons because the teacher cannot correct our writing all the time.” Participant 7 also mentioned, “It helped me a lot because I could