219 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 
2020, Vol. 17 (2), 219-238(284)
revije.ff.uni-lj.si/elope
https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.17.2.219-238
UDC: 81'37.091.3
Polona Vičič
University of Maribor, Slovenia
A Fully Integrated Approach to Blended Language 
Learning
ABSTRACT
In the face of increasing demand for greater continuity and flexibility in language learning, 
online learning has gradually established itself as an important complement to face-to-face (F2F) 
language instruction. Typically, the resulting blend focuses on the two central learning modes, 
i.e., F2F and online; however, it leaves out the self-study component based on sources that do 
not form an integral part of the online component. Recognising the importance of the latter, 
Whittaker (2014) defines blended language learning as a blend of F2F, online, and self-study 
components. 
Drawing on this three-modal approach, the present paper first outlines two language courses 
designed and delivered by the author of the paper. Next, it analyses students’ feedback on their 
experience with blended learning collected via an end-of-course questionnaire including multiple-
choice statements, five-point Likert scale statements, and open-ended questions. The sample 
included fifty-two students, most of whom reported a positive experience, especially with the F2F 
component.
Keywords: blended language learning, continuity, fully integrated approach, three-modal approach
Celostni pristop h kombiniranemu jezikovnemu učenju
POVZETEK
Zaradi vse večje potrebe po kontinuiteti in fleksibilnosti pri jezikovnem učenju se računalniško 
podprto oziroma spletno učenje uveljavlja kot pomembna podpora jezikovnemu poučevanju in 
učenju v živo. Skladno z omenjenim kombinirano učenje praviloma temelji na kombinaciji učenja 
v živo in spletnega učenja, manj pozornosti pa posveča samostojnemu učenju, ki temelji na gradivih 
in virih, ki ne predstavljajo sestavnega dela spletne učne platforme. Zavedajoč se pomembnosti 
slednjega, Whittaker (2014) kombinirano jezikovno učenje definira kot kombinacijo učenja v 
živo, spletnega ter samostojnega učenja.
Izhajajoč iz omenjenega tri-modalnega koncepta kombiniranega jezikovnega učenja, pričujoči 
članek najprej predstavi dva tujejezikovna predmeta, ki ju je pripravila in izvedla avtorica članka. 
Nadalje empirični del članka analizira izkušnje študentov s kombiniranim učenjem. Mnenja 
študentov so bila pridobljena s pomočjo anonimnega vprašalnika, ki vključuje izjave izbirnega 
tipa, izjave z oceno po Likertovi lestvici (1–5) ter vprašanja odprtega tipa. Vzorec je zajemal 52 
študentov, večina katerih poroča o pozitivni izkušnji, pri čemer še posebej izstopa učenje v živo. 
Ključne besede: kombinirano jezikovno učenje, kontinuiteta, celostni pristop, trimodalni pristop

220 Polona Vičič A Fully Integrated Approach to Blended Language Learning
1 Introduction
Since the turn of the new millennium, online language instruction has become ubiquitous 
in foreign language instruction at all levels, especially in higher education and beyond, where 
it has primarily been used to enhance students’ learning experience by providing greater 
continuity in the learning process and greater flexibility of learning in terms of time, pace, and 
place. Whereas the rationale and motivation for the early implementation of online language 
learning typically included reasons of a more practical nature, in recent years the focus has 
increasingly been shifting to pedagogy and language learning theories as the main motivation 
for its implementation, this approach frequently being labelled a “principled approach/way” 
(Whittaker 2014, 9). Rather than being exclusive of each other, these shifts in focus imply 
that none of the three main determiners of online language learning (i.e., technology with 
its practical implications, pedagogy, and language theories) really dominate, because each 
of them is important in its own right and “evolves and changes in its relationships with 
the others” (Garret 2009, 720). Since its early application in the 1960s, another vital shift 
has occurred in online language learning – namely the shift from its predominant use in 
distance learning to bridge the time and place gap between a teacher and student(s), to its 
increasingly frequent use in combination with face-to-face (F2F) instruction. This blended 
approach allows language teachers to select the best of both worlds (i.e., traditional and 
online teaching and learning methods), whereby the F2F and online components should 
seamlessly transition from one to another (Dewar and Whittington 2004). The importance 
of effective blending of F2F and online language instruction that is based on a dynamic 
relationship between technology and pedagogy (Garret 2009; Anderson and Dron 2012) 
is stressed by a number of authors, including Hinkelman (2018, ix–x), according to whom 
blended language instruction should be viewed as an ecology embedding a variety of F2F and 
digital technologies “into a process that is communicative and task-based”.
Building on this view, this paper takes a holistic approach to exploring two blended ESP 
(i.e., English for Specific Purposes) courses, whereby the ultimate goal is to investigate and 
highlight the potential opportunities and challenges of the teaching and learning process. 
The two courses included in this study are ESP courses tailored to the needs of first-year 
undergraduate students at the University of Maribor’s Faculty of Logistics. Resonating with 
the post-modernist view that the main goal of research in blended language learning is to 
investigate and reflect on blended classrooms as “ecosystems” of relations (Hinkelman 2018, 
210), the study investigates and reflects on the blended language course components from 
both the teacher’s and students’ perspectives. Despite analysing a localised blended teaching 
and learning practice, this study provides insights that other teachers involved in blended 
language instruction can reflect on and apply to their own local environments.
The paper starts with an overview of some of the most relevant theoretical background and 
studies on blended language learning, through the prism of which it then outlines the two 
blended ESP courses tailored to the needs of logistics students and delivered in a blended 
format. Next, the empirical part analyses and discusses students’ feedback on their experience 
with blended language learning. Finally, it concludes with an insight into the main lessons 
learned in the process, and practical implications of the findings.

221 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
The empirical research addresses the following three research questions (RQs):
RQ1: Do students have a positive attitude toward the blended learning course?
This research question investigates whether students show a positive attitude toward the 
blended course as a whole. Related to this research question, two hypotheses are tested:
H.1.1 Gender affects students’ attitudes toward blended learning.
H.1.2 Prior experience with online learning affects students’ attitudes toward blended 
language learning.
RQ2: Do students show a preference for any of the three main components of the blended 
course?
This research question investigates whether students show a preference for an F2F, online, 
or self-study component. Related to this research question, the following two hypotheses are 
tested:
H.2.1 Gender affects students’ preference for a chosen blended learning component.
H.2.2 Prior experience with online learning affects students’ preference for a chosen 
blended learning component.
RQ3: Do students identify any overriding strengths or weaknesses of individual components?
This research question examines students’ perceptions of the most prominent strengths and 
weaknesses of individual course components, which can provide important guidelines for the 
future redesign of the two courses.
2 The Blended Approach in Foreign Language Instruction
The early beginnings of the use of computer technology in foreign language instruction 
date back to the 1960s, when it was predominantly used for language learning based on 
“memorising [and repetition of] a body of well-choreographed responses” within the 
framework of Skinner’s behaviourist learning theory (Blake 2008, 49). Since then, online 
language learning has changed profoundly, mostly because of technological advancements 
and the development of new language learning theories. Relatively scant and rudimentary 
computer technology has advanced to ubiquitous, highly sophisticated e-learning platforms 
and networked technologies. Likewise, the repertoire of pedagogy has been enriched with new 
language-learning theories, typically including cognitivism, socio-constructivism (Holmes 
and Gardner 2006, 79), and more recently also connectivism (Whittaker 2014, 23–24). 
However, it should be noted that none of the “old” theories has been eliminated or replaced 
by the new one(s). Instead, all four approaches remain in use for their continuing value 
and effectiveness in a given learning context: a) behaviourism for its focus on repetition and 
automated response (Holmes and Gardner 2006); b) cognitivism for its focus on the mind 
and learning process (Holmes and Gardner 2006); c) socio-constructivism for its focus on 
the mind and social dimension of learning (Holmes and Gardner 2006); and d) connectivism 

222 Polona Vičič A Fully Integrated Approach to Blended Language Learning
for its focus on “making [networked] connections with content, individuals and groups”, and 
applying them to problem solving (Anderson and Dron 2012, 8–9).
1
 Furthermore, a growing 
number of authors advocate the complementarity rather than dominance or even exclusivity 
of certain pedagogies (Mehanna 2004; Holmes and Gardner 2006; Hinkelman 2018) as 
well as technologies, because the latter evolve through the incorporation of parts of earlier 
designs into new ones (Arthur 2009, as cited in Anderson and Dron 2012, 2). As a result, 
blended language learning today offers many opportunities for enhanced language teaching 
and learning, and it has become widely used and almost indispensable in foreign language 
instruction at all levels of education. The increasing popularity of a blended approach to 
teaching and learning has given rise to a number of names for it, with the two most frequently 
used being blended and/or hybrid learning. Although the two terms are frequently used 
interchangeably – as also advocated by Graham and Dziuban (2007), Grgurović (2017), and 
Hinkelman (2018) – it should be noted that there are also authors who claim that blended 
and hybrid learning represent two different concepts. As summarised by Whittaker (2013, 
11–12), when the distinction is made, the two typically reflect the variety in percentages of 
online and F2F instruction in a blended course design, which could be further differentiated 
by extending the list with terms such as web-enhanced and fully online learning. Based on the 
postulate that the proportion between the two learning environments and their organisational 
structure largely depends on the nature of the course, here the terms blended learning and 
blended course are used as general terms for a course combining F2F and online learning 
regardless of the proportion between the course components.
The complexity and variety of the concept of blended learning are further reflected in a number 
of definitions, most of which focus on blending different modes of delivery and related teaching 
models and learning styles (Procter 2003), and stress the importance of the seamless transition 
between them (Dewar and Whittington 2004; Littlejohn and Pegler 2007) for effective and 
efficient learning. Most of these definitions focus on two modes – that is, face-to-face and 
online course delivery – thus elaborating on the two central components of a blended approach 
but leaving out the self-study component based on sources other than the ones forming an 
integral part of the e-learning platform. Recognising the importance of this third component, 
Whittaker (2013 and 2014) defines blended language learning as a blend of face-to-face, online, 
and self-study components. Because self-study components are an essential part of the two 
English for Logistics courses analysed in this study, this paper adopts Whittaker’s view.
3 The Teacher Perspective on a Blended Approach to ESP 
Teaching
Starting from the premise that because of the uniqueness of each teaching practice there is no 
“ideal ‘best practice’” that would fit all language teaching and learning situations (Hinkelman 
2018, 2), this paper does not aim to present a generally applicable, i.e., one-size-fits-all, design 
of a blended ESP course. Instead, it reflects on challenges and opportunities experienced 
1
 In contrast to behaviourism, cognitivism, and socio-constructivism, which “were developed in a time when learning 
was not impacted through technology” (Siemens 2005), connectivism has been developed in and for the digital age 
and thus inherently depends on networked technologies (Anderson and Dron 2012, 7–8).

223 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
by the author in her ten years of experience with blended ESP teaching, which could lead 
to the enhancement of the two ESP courses analysed and hopefully also prove useful to 
other language teachers planning to, or already using, a blended approach in their LSP (i.e., 
Languages for Specific Purposes) courses.
As explained above, the two English for Logistics courses discussed in this work are tailored to 
the needs of logistics students and follow Whittaker’s three-modal view of blended learning 
(Whittaker 2013 and 2014). It should, however, be noted that they significantly contrast 
with the model introduced by Whittaker in two respects: first, by putting equal weight on 
all three components (i.e., face-to-face, online, and self-study), and second, by incorporating 
all three modes within one topic of the course. In Whittaker’s model, the lead mode of 
the course developed for the military in Bosnia and Hercegovina (Whittaker 2013) was, 
for practical reasons, the face-to-face mode, whereby the three modes were introduced in 
consecutive blocks. Following the faculty’s established course format, the two English for 
Logistics courses take as the point of departure the course syllabus, whereby the three blended 
learning components, as mentioned above, present an integral part of each topic. In line 
with the widely promoted guidelines for effective and efficient learning, according to which 
blended learning components should seamlessly transition from one to another and be linked 
by a common focus (Dewar and Whittington 2004; Littlejohn and Pegler 2007), the three 
components build on and complement each other. As proposed by Whittaker (2013, 19), 
individual components could be connected by topic, vocabulary, and/or grammar; in the two 
English for Logistics courses, individual components are linked by at least two if not all three 
of the mentioned course elements.
Typically, the introductory mode of both courses is F2F lectures, in which new topics and 
related language structures and functions are first introduced through discussion framed by 
verbal and visual cues in PPT slides, audio and/or video clips, and short texts. Further live 
discussion and practice are based on language exercises of various types included in handouts. 
By incorporating various types of learning activities, F2F lectures seek to include most, if 
not all, levels of Anderson and Krathwohl’s revised model of Bloom’s taxonomy;
2
 that is, 
remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating (Anderson and 
Dron 2012). Language structures and functions introduced in F2F lectures are further 
developed and practised by e-lectures designed as weekly e-quizzes and occasional e-tasks. 
The first usually include language exercises focusing on topic-related vocabulary and 
grammar in the form of gap-fill exercises (drop-down and type-in) and matching exercises 
(e.g., matching word pairs and matching words with their definitions), which are followed 
by more contextualised listening- and/or reading-based exercises. The latter are designed with 
the view of furthering students’ knowledge and understanding of terminology and concepts 
through disciplinary content. E-quizzes round this off with an exercise explicitly assessing 
students’ knowledge of key vocabulary by checking whether they can associate the words 
2
 Bloom’s model with six levels of cognitive processes (i.e., knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, 
synthesis, and evaluation) has been widely used in educational practice. However, it is frequently criticised for its 
oversimplification of the nature of thought and its relationship to learning activities (Marzano and Kendall 2007). 
To compensate for this, Anderson and Krathwohl proposed a revised model that translates more easily into learning 
activities (Anderson and Dron 2012, 10).

224 Polona Vičič A Fully Integrated Approach to Blended Language Learning
they have learned with their native-language equivalents. To achieve this, students are given 
native-language equivalents of the new vocabulary covered in the previous exercises of the 
e-quiz, for which they are asked to provide the English terms. By incorporating these types 
of exercises, e-quizzes to some extent engage students in the first five levels of Anderson and 
Krathwohl’s cognitive processes (i.e., remembering, understanding, applying, and analysing, 
but they leave out creating). Accordingly, to encourage more independent use of target-
language structures, e-quizzes are occasionally complemented by e-tasks, in which students 
are involved in producing real-life outputs, the importance of which has also been stressed by 
Blake (2008, 39). The third (i.e., self-study) component is based on the independent study 
of course materials developed in-house and a supplementary commercial grammar book. 
For practical reasons, the first are uploaded onto an e-classroom; however, they do not form 
an integral part of it, and, unlike e-quizzes and e-tasks, they do not provide any feedback 
on students’ performance, be it automatically generated (e-quizzes) or personalised feedback 
for each student (e-tasks). Instead, they include an answer key, allowing students to check 
their answers. Given the nature of the explanation and related exercises in these two sources, 
in the framework of Anderson and Krathwohl’s model the self-study materials promote the 
development of the first five levels of cognitive processes. In sum, the three course components 
promote the first five levels of Anderson and Krathwohl’s model to differing extents, and the 
creation process is included only in the F2F and online components. Translated into the 
four language learning theories (i.e., behaviourism, cognitivism, socio-constructivism, and 
connectivism), the two courses as a whole thus to some extent accommodate all four of them, 
with the focus being on the first three, which, as proposed by Anderson and Dron (2012), fit 
well with the first five levels of Anderson and Krathwohl’s model.
As demonstrated above, the two English for Logistics courses are built around the F2F, 
online, and self-study components, with each of them playing an equally important role in 
the language teaching and learning process, and accordingly being allocated a proportionate 
amount of student learning time: F2F component 36 lessons, online component 24 lessons, 
and self-study component 120 lessons. However, it should be noted that the amount of 
time spent on F2F lessons is determined by the timetable, and is thus the same for all the 
students, whereas the time planned for the online and self-study components may vary 
from student to student because it largely depends on their General English competence 
and motivation for language learning. Compared to F2F lectures, the online and self-study 
components promote more “student-centered and student-autonomous” approaches to 
language instruction (Blake 2008, 127), in addition to offering the advantage of independent 
and self-paced study. Accordingly, the balance in the two courses is in favour of students’ 
independent and autonomous learning, which fits well with the fact that they have been 
developed for tertiary-level students, who should have already developed a relatively high 
degree of learning autonomy. Related to this, it should be stressed that, however independent 
and autonomous students may be, they are still likely to benefit from proper teacher guidance, 
the benefits of which have also been highlighted by Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006, 
75), according to whom “minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient 
than the instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student 
learning process”. As further explained by the authors, the need for guidance only lessens 
when students have gained “sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide ‘internal’ guidance” 

225 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
(2006, 75). Accordingly, given the fact that the two language courses analysed in this study 
are designed for first-year students, who have mixed experience of both English for Specific 
Purposes and online language learning, explicit guidelines are given for all activities forming 
an integral part of the online component of both courses.
Of the three components, the online teaching and learning component has been around 
for a relatively short period of time, especially when compared to F2F and self-study 
language instruction, and it thus deserves further attention. In online language instruction, 
a number of commercial and open-source Course Management Systems, or e-learning 
platforms, have been developed over the last two decades in response to the increasing 
popularity of technology-enhanced instruction. One of them is Moodle, which has been 
used as the Faculty of Logistics’ official course management system and thus also for 
English for Logistics courses. Moodle was released in 2002 and originally dedicated to 
the academic environment (Dodun et al. 2015, 245). The design of this platform largely 
draws on the principles of constructivism; that is, the idea that people can learn best by 
“involvement and experiences” (Educational Platforms online, as cited in Dodun et al. 
2015, 245). Accordingly, as suggested by Chowdhry, Sieler, and Alwis (2014, 13), the use 
of Moodle and other e-learning platforms promotes a “deep learning approach” that can 
improve students’ academic performance. As for the features promoting deep learning, they 
typically include discussion forums which play a vital role in building “a sense of online 
community” (Hockly and Clanfield 2010, as cited in Whittaker 2014, 14), assessment 
tools, as well as tools for sharing individualised feedback, easy monitoring of students’ 
submissions, uploading of course materials, and tools for the inclusion of links to authentic 
online sources (online texts, audio and video clips, and online dictionaries). The two 
English for Logistics courses take advantage of all these features to provide students with 
an enhanced language-learning experience as well as additional stimulus and motivation 
for keeping pace with the course progress. In pursuit of this goal, the automatic generation 
of feedback for e-quizzes has proved especially important because, in addition to providing 
feedback on the accuracy of the answers submitted, it allows students to continue working 
on the quiz until they have reached the desired percentage of accuracy. Here, it should 
be noted that to pass a quiz students need to score 60% or higher, this also being one of 
the prerequisites for taking the written exam. As argued by Whittaker (2014, 12), unless 
assessed, online work is typically not considered an integral part of the course and is treated 
as optional rather than compulsory, which is also the reason why successful completion of 
quizzes is deemed a prerequisite for taking the written exam.
As presented above, blended language teaching confronts language teachers with several 
challenges, with one of them being the challenge of continuously adapting their teaching 
practices to changes in pedagogy, language learning theories, and online technologies. Two 
other key factors for continuous course development are a teacher’s reflection on their teaching 
practice and students’ feedback on their satisfaction with the learning process. Accordingly, 
the empirical part of the paper analyses the results of the questionnaire on students’ experience 
with blended language learning in the framework of the two English for Logistics courses. 
Following a rich body of research on the potential influence of gender (Mehanna 2004; 
Muilenburg and Berge 2005; Shea et al. 2019) and prior e-learning experience (Brown 2001; 

226 Polona Vičič A Fully Integrated Approach to Blended Language Learning
Muilenburg and Berge 2005; Nikitenko 2009; Shea et al. 2019) on the students’ uptake 
of and satisfaction with the fully online or blended approach to language learning, the 
present study investigates students’ satisfaction with the course as a whole, as well as its three 
components in relation to these two factors.
4 Methods and Materials
Buil ding on the view that blended language learning is defined by “both an implicit 
change agenda and a desire to maintain continuity with useful practices of the past”
3
 
(Hinkelman 2018, 228), this small-scale study investigates and reflects on useful practices 
and opportunities for improvement in the two English for Logistics courses. Following these 
goals, after ten years of using the blended learning approach, during which the course has 
been constantly improved based on the teacher’s reflection and brief feedback from students 
on their experience with the course, this study analyses more comprehensive feedback on 
students’ experience with blended learning in the English for Logistics courses delivered in 
the academic year 2018/2019.
To elicit more comprehensive feedback, the author designed an anonymous, hard-copy 
questionnaire including multiple choice statements, five-point Likert scale statements, and 
open-ended questions. The decision to have an anonymous questionnaire was based on the 
fact that anonymous methods promote more honest and greater disclosure (Murdoch et al. 
2014) of students’ opinions. Given the purpose of the study, the benefit of this outweighs the 
possible insight into the correlation between students’ success in the course (i.e., their academic 
performance) and their course satisfaction that a non-anonymous questionnaire could offer.
The questionnaire consisted of twenty-one items divided into the following three parts:
a) The first part elicited students’ background information, including gender and 
prior language learning experience (i.e., type of language course in secondary school: 
General English or English for Specific Purposes, materials used during lectures, 
materials used for self-study, and information on whether the course incorporated an 
online component).
b) The second part focused on the English for Logistics blended course. It combined 
five-point Likert scale statements about students’ satisfaction with the course and its 
components (ranging from 1 = poorly satisfied to 5 = very satisfied) with open-ended 
questions inviting students to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of each course 
component.
c) The third part, in which students were invited to give their suggestions for the 
course, did not relate directly to this study and is therefore excluded from the ensuing 
analysis and discussion.
3
 Whereas Hinkelman (2018) explains stability in terms of teachers’ and researchers’ aversion to advanced technology and 
the attempt to change their attitude toward language learning technology, and defines change in terms of the introduction 
of thoroughly integrated F2F aspects into the teaching practices of computer-oriented teachers and researchers, here the 
terms are restricted to blended learning practice based on the already balanced relationship between pedagogy and 
technology. Accordingly, stability refers to practices perceived as efficient by both the teacher and students, and change is 
used for practices perceived as less efficient by either the teacher or students or both, thus calling for changes.

227 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
The questionnaire was administered to fifty-five first-year undergraduate students in English 
for Logistics courses during the last lectures for the course. Because three of the students 
gave incomplete answers to one or more questions, their responses were excluded from the 
analysis. The results of the remaining fifty-two questionnaires are presented and discussed in 
the following sections.
Analysis of students’ responses first focused on their background information elicited through 
multiple-choice statements. Next, the mean and median values were determined for the five-
point Likert scale statements. To check whether there were any differences based on gender 
or prior experience in students’ satisfaction with the course as a whole or with any of its three 
components, an independent samples t-test was performed. For this test, the significance 
threshold was set at p = 0.05, and p-values between 0.1 and 0.05 were interpreted as values 
showing only a tendency toward a statistically significant difference. The statistical analysis 
was performed with the statistical programme SPSS 24.0. Finally, the students’ open-ended 
responses on the strengths and weaknesses of individual course components were submitted 
to quantitative analysis, including manual coding
4
 and categorising into the main thematic 
categories that emerged from the data.
5 Results and Discussion
This part of the paper describes the questionnaire results and observations. It starts with an 
analysis of the students’ background information, the results of which are presented in T able 1.
T able 1. Students’ background information.
Gender male
27
51.9%
female
25
48.1%
Sec. school Eng. 
course
GE
25
48.1%
ESP
27
51.9%
Sec. school F2F 
materials
printed
35
67.3%
electronic
1
1.9%
combination
16
30.8%
Sec. school self-
study materials
printed
37
71.2%
electronic
1
1.9%
combination
14
26.9%
Sec. school 
e-classroom
no
47
90.4%
yes
5
9.6%
online activities (3x)
course timetable (2x)
HW instructions (4x)
add. study materials (3x)
forum discussions (1x) 
As shown in Table 1, the split between male and female students is 27 to 25, thus roughly 
equal. Regarding the students’ prior language learning experience, the results indicate that 
almost half of the students (48.1%) studied General English (GE) in secondary school, and 
just over half (51.9%) studied English for Specific Purposes (ESP). Regarding materials used 
4
 Manual rather than software-based coding and categorizing techniques were used because the manual techniques 
better fit the purpose of searching for emerging patterns in a relatively small database (Yin 2011).

228 Polona Vičič A Fully Integrated Approach to Blended Language Learning
during F2F lectures, most of the students (67.3%) indicated that the only form used was 
printed materials, which was followed by a combination of F2F and electronic materials 
(30.8%), and only one student (1.9%) indicated the exclusive use of electronic materials. 
Not surprisingly, the numbers for the type of materials used for self-study are similar, 
with the difference being a slightly higher use of printed materials (indicated by 71.2% of 
students) and a slightly lower use of a combination of printed and online materials (indicated 
by 26.9%). Furthermore, the questionnaire also investigated whether English courses in 
secondary school used an e-classroom. Quite surprisingly, the results show that only five out 
of fifty-two students had such a course, with only three of these five students having used 
an e-classroom for completing language exercises and tasks; that is, online activities. Other 
uses included receiving information on the course timetable (indicated by two students), 
receiving homework instructions (four students), accessing additional study materials (three 
students), and participating in forum discussions (one student). To sum up, the results for 
students’ background information show that before joining the course only a small portion 
of students had relatively limited experience with online learning, thus confirming the need 
for initial training, continuous support and guidance because most students are novices or 
relative novices in blended learning.
Table 2. Students’ satisfaction with the course and its components.
How satisfied were you with 1 2 3 4 5 mean and median values
the course as a whole? 1 1 4 25 21
mean: 4.2
median: 4
F2F lectures? 0 0 4 22 26
mean: 4.4
median: 4.5
e-lectures? 0 1 2 25 24
mean: 4.4
median: 4
self-study materials? 1 1 6 22 22
mean: 4.2
median: 4
Levels of satisfaction: 1 = poorly satisfied, 2 = slightly satisfied, 3 = moderately satisfied, 4 = well 
satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
The next questionnaire section focused on the blended language course that students took 
as part of their first year of undergraduate studies, and it elicited students’ feedback on 
their satisfaction with the course as a whole and each of its three components via five-point 
Likert scale statements. As presented in Table 2, the analysis of students’ responses yielded 
slight or no differences in mean values, with all four of them ranging between 4.2 and 4.4. 
In light of the first two research questions (i.e., whether students have a positive attitude 
toward the blended learning course as a whole and whether they show a preference for 
any of its three main components), the fact that the mean value for students’ satisfaction 
with the course as a whole is 4.2 (out of 5) indicates that students have a positive attitude 
toward the two language courses. Furthermore, the results also indicate the preference 
for F2F lectures, which are the only component yielding a median (average) value higher 
than 4 (F2F median = 4.5). This students’ bias here comes as no surprise, given the fact 

229 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
that F2F lectures were the dominant learning mode in their secondary education as well as 
being the generally preferred learning mode in language learning, which, as Blake (2008, 
1) puts it, has predominantly been viewed as “such a social, if not face-to-face, process”. 
Further comparison of the four mean and median values revealed some other interesting 
findings, including the same mean value for the course as a whole and self-study materials 
(mean=4.2) on the one hand, and the same mean value for F2F and e-lectures (4.4) on the 
other. Taken together, these similarities and differences could imply that students have a 
preference for some scaffolding and guidance over complete autonomy and self-reliance in 
language learning, the former two forming an integral part of F2F lectures and e-lectures, 
and the latter two representing the central features of the self-study component. The value 
and importance of ongoing guidance and support from the teacher have been addressed 
by various authors on blended learning, including Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006, 
75), Rosen (2009, 65–66), and Hirst and Godfrey (2013, 108). As for the same mean 
value (mean = 4.2) for the course as a whole and the self-study component, it could be 
speculated that the students’ attitudes toward the latter affect the overall level of course 
satisfaction, the latter being (slightly) lower than the level of satisfaction with F2F and 
e-lectures (mean = 4.4). The role of the study materials provided online has also been 
investigated by Chowdhry, Sieler, and Alwis (2014, 12). Their study on the impact of 
technology-enhanced learning on student academic performance yielded results suggesting 
that the complimentary use of study materials accessible through an e-learning platform 
and interactive online activities can improve students’ academic achievement in blended 
learning models. Given the potential role of the self-study component based on the materials 
provided online and the materials’ potential lack of ongoing guidance and support from 
the teacher, future research into the two ESP courses included in the present study could 
test the validity of speculations about the role of the self-study component in students’ 
satisfaction with the course as a whole through student interviews. Because this would 
exceed the scope of this study, it is tested here against students’ feedback on the strengths 
and weaknesses of individual blended learning components.
T o check whether there are any gender- or prior experience-based differences in the students’ 
attitudes toward the blended language course as a whole or any of its three components, an 
independent samples t-test was conducted. The results of the statistical analysis are presented 
in Table 3. They show that p-values range between 0.266 and 0.976, thus negating all four 
hypotheses on potential differences based on gender and prior experience:
H.1.1 Gender affects students’ attitudes toward blended learning.
H.1.2 Prior experience with online learning affects students’ attitudes toward blended 
language learning.
H.2.1 Gender affects students’ preference for a chosen blended learning component.
H.2.2 Prior experience with online learning affects students’ preference for a chosen 
blended learning component.

230 Polona Vičič A Fully Integrated Approach to Blended Language Learning
Table 3. Gender- and prior experience-based differences.
mean mean p-value
Course satisfaction_gender male_mean: 4.3 female_mean: 4.2 0.800
Course satisfaction_prior 
experience
no exp._mean: 4.2 yes exp._mean: 4.4 0.637
F2F lect. satisfaction_gender male_mean: 4.5 female_mean: 4.3 0.266
F2F lect. satisfaction_prior 
experience
no exp._mean: 4.4 yes exp._mean: 4.6 0.519
e-Lectures_gender male_mean: 4.4 female_mean: 4.4 0.874
e-Lectures_prior experience no exp._mean: 4.4 yes exp._mean: 4.2 0.517
Self-study material_gender male_mean: 4.2 female_mean: 4.2 0.976
Self-study material_prior 
experience
no exp._mean: 4.2 yes exp._mean: 4.2 0.928
As for the reasons why the results show no gender-based differences, it could be speculated 
that there are simply no significant differences between female and male students regarding 
their attitudes toward the course as a whole or its components. As pointed out by Shea 
et al. (2019, 73), these results may also be due to small-sample research, which, as they 
suggest, is less likely to show gender-biased differences. Relatedly, in their large-scale, cross-
institutional study (n=2,036) on developing an online learning community, they report small 
but potentially relevant gender differences which may imply that in online settings female 
students learn more
5
, experience more satisfaction and fewer technical problems, as well as 
engage in more interaction with their peers and teachers than their male counterparts (Shea 
et al. 2019). Likewise, Muilenburg and Zane (2005, 35–38), in their large-scale (n=1,056) 
study on student barriers to online learning, observe that gender is one of ten factors affecting 
student ratings of barriers to online learning. The other nine factors researched in their study 
being ability and confidence with online learning technology, effectiveness of online learning, 
online learning enjoyment, online courses completed, the likelihood of taking a future online 
course, age, ethnicity, and learning institution. A rich body of research on gender-based 
differences also gives examples of studies yielding no evidence for such differences, one such 
work being Mehanna’s (2004, 287–88) small-scale study (n=200) on the pedagogic aspect 
of online learning in higher education. Similarly, in Koohang and Durante’s (2003) small-
scale study (n=106) on learner’s perceptions of the web-based distance learning activities in 
a hybrid programme, gender does not show as a significant factor in learners’ perceptions. 
Given the mixed results of the previous studies and small sample size, a lack of evidence for 
gender-based differences thus comes as no surprise. Conversely, the fact that the results also 
show no statistically significant difference based on prior e-learning experience is somewhat 
contrary to expectations and, could be ascribed to the low number of students (five out 
of fifty-two) with limited secondary-school experience with online learning (see Table 2). 
In light of the previous research on the potential impact of prior e-learning experience, 
much of which did observe a positive correlation between prior experience and the level 
5
 Along these lines, Albert and Johnson in their study on socioeconomic- and gender-based differences in students‘ 
perceptions of e-learning observe that compared to their male counterparts female students “perceive e-learning 
systems as providing more control in their learning progress and over the materials they wish to learn” (2011, 429).

231 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
of students’ satisfaction with blended or fully online course (e.g. Brown 2001; Muilenburg 
and Berge 2005), the results yielded by the present work are more in line with those studies 
that did not observe such evidence (e.g. Nikitenko 2009; Shea et al. 2019). Based on the 
findings of the relevant studies and given the small sample size and percentage of students 
with prior experience included in the present study, further research is needed to check the 
influence of prior experience on students’ satisfaction with the blended learning course 
and its components. Accordingly, future studies could include the aforementioned student 
interviews, which could shed more light on the matter.
The final part of the study focuses on the analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the three 
course components (i.e., F2F lectures, e-lectures, and self-study component) as perceived by 
the students. The students’ responses, which were given in the form of open-ended statements, 
were carefully examined and compared against each other to spot emerging patterns, based 
on which they were grouped into thematic categories. Because some of the students gave 
responses including more than one theme, such responses were divided into thematic units, 
which were then included in respective thematic categories. The most frequently given 
responses are listed in Table 4.
The analysis of students’ responses first of all shows that the numbers of responses on the 
strengths of individual components (ranging between fifty-one and thirty-four) significantly 
outnumber the numbers of responses on the weaknesses (ranging between twenty-one and 
eight), thus resonating with the finding that students show a positive attitude toward the 
course as a whole as well as its components. Furthermore, it can be observed that a significant 
number of the reported strengths reflect the generally perceived benefits of blended learning, 
whereas the reported weaknesses seem to be of more personal relevance. Accordingly, a closer 
look at the listed strengths of F2F lectures shows that the most frequently mentioned benefits 
include a good explanation of the course content (13×), the possibility to ask questions for 
clarification (11×), and teacher-student interaction (7×), with all of them focusing on the social 
nature of F2F lectures, the importance of which has also been addressed by Blake (2008, 1), 
who suggests that a common perception of language learning is as a predominantly “social, 
if not face-to-face, process”. A brief overview of the most frequently mentioned strengths 
of e-lectures – that is, reviewing the content covered in F2F lectures (15×), continuity in 
learning (10×), language practice (9×), and flexibility and independence of learning (6×) 
– also shows that students value the benefits of online learning commonly addressed and 
described by a growing body of relevant studies (e.g., Blake 2008; Al-Mahrooqi and Troudi 
2014; Benta, Bologa, Dzitac, and Dzitac 2015; Rodríguez 2016), one of them being the 
study by Tomlinson (2013, 221), who points out the advantage of providing additional 
“opportunities for exposure, discovery and use” of the content covered in F2F lectures in 
a less teacher-dependent and more “self-reliant” way. Similar evidence for the benefits of 
online learning can be found in Fleet (2013, 204), who, based on students’ feedback on their 
experience of blended learning, observes that the vital benefits of the inclusion of an online 
component are “flexibility, provision for different learning styles, increased collaborative 
opportunities and greater independent study potential”. Furthermore, the author explains 
that in order to exploit the full potential of these benefits, there should be a clear link between 
topics and skills covered in F2F and online components, whereby online activities should 

232 Polona Vičič A Fully Integrated Approach to Blended Language Learning
“add value by compensating for the limitations of the classroom” (Fleet 2013, 205). Last but 
not least, the students’ responses on the self-study component show that its most important 
strengths are language practice and well-structured presentation of the content, with both 
of them also being highlighted as an important advantage of F2F and e-lectures, thus being 
important overriding advantages of the course as a whole. Conversely, the responses on the 
weaknesses of individual components, as already mentioned, do not show any overriding 
weaknesses and thus seem to reflect more personal views, some of which indicate areas for 
Table 4. Strengths and weakness of blended learning components.
F2F lectures STRENGTHS (51 responses):
– (Good) explanation of the course content (13×)
– Asking questions for clarification (11×)
– Teacher-student communication (7×)
– Practice based on handouts (6×)
– Practising pronunciation (6×)
– Better knowledge retention (4×)
– Practising listening skills (3×)
– Additional native-language explanation (3×)
– Student-student cooperation (3×)
WEAKNESSES (14 responses):
– Student presentations (3×)
– Progress too fast (2×)
– Timing of breaks (2×)
e-Lectures STRENGTHS (50 responses):
– Reviewing the content covered in F2F lectures (15×)
– Continuity in learning (10×)
– Language practice (9×)
– Flexibility in place and/or time of learning (6×)
– Independent learning (6×)
– Instant feedback (3×)
– Enough time for completion (3×)
– Complement F2F lectures (3×)
WEAKNESSES (21 responses):
– (Near) synonyms not accepted as correct answers (3×)
– Too much work (3×)
– Do not offer answers (3×)
– Based on the study of additional sources (2×)
– Open for a limited time (2×)
– Possibility of copying answers from other students (2×)
Self-study component STRENGTHS (34 responses):
– Good for learning and practice (10×)
– Covering the complete course content (8×)
– Clear and well-structured (7×)
– Accessibility (5×)
WEAKNESSES (8 responses):
– Too extensive (2×)
– Answer key to exercises is not given (2×)

233 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
which more detailed instruction could prove useful (e.g., information about the relevance 
of focusing on the chosen disciplinary vocabulary instead of synonyms and near-synonyms, 
which may better fit more general settings), whereas some others could be considered when 
planning the redesign of the course (e.g., the time for completing e-quizzes).
6 Concluding Remarks
The results of this small-scale study show that students participating in the two English for 
Logistics courses have positive attitudes toward the course as a whole as well as its components, 
especially F2F lectures. Regarding gender- and prior experience-based differences, further 
analysis of students’ responses shows no statistically relevant differences, which is why, given 
the sample size and percentage of students with prior experience with online learning, further 
evidence that could be collected through student interviews would be needed to either support 
or reject these results. Furthermore, because the three most frequently reported strengths of 
online learning are reviewing the content covered in F2F lectures, continuity in learning, and 
language practice, future research could also examine how students’ participation in online 
activities and their attitude toward it affects their academic performance. The potential impact 
of online learning on students’ academic performance has also been addressed by a number of 
authors, including Ellis, Greaney, and Macdonald (2007) and Chowdhry, Sieler, and Alwis 
(2014). Both studies provide evidence for a positive relation between students’ participation 
in online activities and their academic performance, with an important additional insight 
of Chowdhry, Sieler, and Alwis (2014, 13) being that online learning may positively affect 
students’ final marks only when it is based on “innovative learning activities” promoting 
a deep learning approach. However, to elicit information on students’ final marks for the 
course, in the case of the present study, which involved first-year students, who completed 
the questionnaire before taking the written exam, this would require the inclusion of their 
names, based on which the students’ responses could later be compared against their academic 
performance. Because this would make the questionnaire non-anonymous and could thus 
affect students’ honesty in their feedback, the drawbacks outweigh the potential benefit that 
the insight into the correlation between the students’ attitudes toward the course and their 
academic performance could bring. This direction of research, however, seems a viable option 
for the second-year students, who could be asked to list their final mark for the first-year 
English for Logistics course, the inclusion of which would not compromise the anonymity 
of the questionnaire.
This study also showed that teacher-student communication in the e-classroom is more or less 
limited to the teacher’s posts on the course, individualised teacher feedback on e-tasks, and 
students’ occasional messages and responses to the teacher’s posts and feedback. Accordingly, 
one of the challenges for future enhancement of the online component of the course is the 
inclusion of more teacher-student communication as well as peer-to-peer communication 
and collaboration, the importance of which has been addressed by several authors, including 
Swan (2003), Kerres and de Witt (2003), King and Arnold (2012). This focus would also 
pave the way for better alignment with connectivism as the pedagogy of the digital age 
and its focus on building “[networked] connections with content, individuals and groups” 
(Anderson and Dron 2012, 7–9).

234 Polona Vičič A Fully Integrated Approach to Blended Language Learning
To conclude, as evidenced in the relevant literature and supported by the results of this 
study, a blended language learning approach offers several advantages, including enhanced 
and enriched student contact with the target language (Blake 2008, 2; Chowdhry, Sieler, 
and Alwis 2014, 3) through a “facilitated, networked approach to knowledge sharing and 
learning” (Bielawski and Metcalf 2005, 136). Or, as argued by Pusack and Otto, technology-
enhanced learning, and thus also blended language learning based on e-learning platforms 
such as Moodle, promotes deep learning “through presentation of content of different types 
linked together in meaningful ways” (Pusack and Otto 1997, as cited in Otto 2017, 17). 
This approach to language learning can enhance either large-scale General English courses or 
English for Specific Purposes courses. The latter are typically tailored to “the communicative 
needs and practices” of smaller, more specialised groups of students (Hyland 2007, 391) and 
demand highly specialised activities and study materials that are constantly updated in line 
with current disciplinary developments. Accordingly, the blended format seems especially 
well-suited for this task because online learning environments provide a dynamic and flexible 
medium for language teaching and learning through disciplinary content (Garrett 2009).
As indicated at the outset of the paper, the main goal of the study reported in this paper was 
to evaluate and reflect on the current English for Logistics courses for the first-year students, 
the findings of which could serve as a starting point for their further development. Although 
focusing on a local educational setting, a small sample of students and only two factors that 
could affect students’ satisfaction with the course, i.e., gender and prior experience, the 
insights and findings presented in this work are also expected to prove useful to other teachers 
and researchers using and/or studying a blended approach to foreign language instruction.
References
Albert, Leslie Jordan, and Camille S. Johnson. 2011. “Socioeconomic Status- and Gender-Based 
Differences in Students’ Perceptions of E-Learning Systems.” Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative 
Education 9 (3): 42–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2011.00320.x.
Al-Mahrooqi, Rahma, and Salah T roudi. 2014. “Introduction.” In Using T echnology in Foreign Language 
T eaching, edited by Rahma Al-Mahrooqi and Salah T roudi, 1–7. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: 
Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 
Anderson, Terry, and Jon Dron. 2012. “Learning Technology through Three Generations of Technology 
Enhanced Distance Education Pedagogy.” European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning 2: 1–14. 
https://eric.ed.go v/ ?id=EJ992485 .
Benta, Dan, Gabriela Bologa, Simona Dzitac, and Ioan Dzitac. 2015. “University Level Learning 
and Teaching via E-Learning Platforms.” Procedia Computer Science 55: 1366–73. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.123 .
Bielawski, Larry, and David Metcalf. 2005. Blended eLearning: Integrating Knowledge, Performance Support, 
and Online Learning. Massachusetts: HRD Press.
Blake, Robert J. 2008. Brave New Digital Classroom: T echnology and Foreign Language Learning. 
Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Brown, Ruth. 2001. “The Process of Community Building in Distance Learning Classes.” Journal of 
Asynchronous Learning Networks 5 (2): 18–35.
Chowdhry, Sandeep, Karolina Sieler, and Lourdes Alwis. 2014. “A Study of the Impact of Technology-
Enhanced Learning on Student Academic Performance.” Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic 
Practice 2 (3): 1–15. hzttps://www .napier .ac.uk/~/media/wor ktribe/output-175414/vlejpaappdf .pdf
Dewar, Tammy, and Dave Whittington. 2004. Blended Learning Research Report. Canada: Calliope Learning.

235 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
Dodun, Oana, Ema Panaite, Nicolae Seghedin, Gheorghe Nagîţ, Petru Duşa, Gabriela Neştian, and 
Laurenţiu Slătineanu. 2015. “Analysis of an e-Learning Platform Use by Means of the Axiomatic 
Design.” Procedia CIRP 34: 244–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.07.059 .
Ellis, Joanne, Marleigh Greaney, and Judy Macdonald. 2007. The Effectiveness of Blended Course Instruction 
in Second Language Learning. Quebec, Canada: Cégep Vanier College. 
Fleet, Liz. 2013. “A Blended Learning Approach to Soft Skill T raining at Al Azhar University, Cairo.” In 
Blended learning in English Language T eaching: Course Design and Implementation, edited by Brian 
Tomlinson and Claire Whittaker, 201–5. UK: British Council.
Garret, Nina. 2009. “Computer-Assisted Language Learning T rends and Issues Revisited: Integrating 
Innovation.” The Modern Language Journal 93: 719–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4781.2009.00969.x.
Graham, Charles R., and Charles Dziuban. 2007. “Blended Learning Environments.” In Handbook of 
Research on Educational Communications and T echnology: A Project of the Association for Educational 
Communications and T echnology, edited by J. Michael Spector, M. David Merrill, Jeroen van 
Merriënboer and Marcy P . Driscoll, 269–76. New York: Routledge.
Grgurović, Maja. 2017. “Blended Language Learning: Research and Practice.” In The Handbook of 
T echnology and Second Language T eaching and Learning, edited by Carol A. Chapelle and Shanon 
Sauro, 149–68. Malaysia: John Wiley & Sons.
Hinkelman, Don. 2018. Blending T echnologies in Second Language Classroom, 2nd ed. UK: Palgrave 
Macmillan.
Hirst, Sally, and Tom Godfrey. 2013. “Creating a Blended Delta. Module One.” In Blended Learning in 
English Language T eaching: Course Design and Implementation, edited by Brian Tomlinson and Claire 
Whittaker, 101–9. UK: British Council.
Holmes, Bryn, and John Gardner. 2006. e-Learning Concepts and Practice. Great Britain: MPG Books 
Group.
Hyland, Ken. 2007. “English for Specific Purposes: Some Influences and Impacts.” In International 
Handbook of English Language T eaching, edited by Jim Cummins and Chris Davison, 391–402. New 
York: Springer.
Kerres, Michael, and Claudia de Witt. 2003. “A Didactical Framework for the Design of Blended Learning 
Arrangements.” Journal of Educational Media 28 (2–3): 101–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/135816503
2000165653.
King, Sara E., and Katie Cerrone Arnold. 2012. “Blended Learning Environments in Higher Education: A 
Case Study of How Professors Make it Happen.” Mid-Western Educational Researcher 25 (1-2): 44–59. 
Kirschner, Paul A., John Sweller, and Richard E. Clark. 2006. “Why Minimal Guidance During 
Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, 
Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.” Educational Psychologist 41 (2): 75–86. https://doi.org/10 
.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
Koohang, Alex, and Angela Durante. 2003. “Learners’ Perceptions toward the Web-based Distance 
Learning Activities/Assignments Portion of an Undergraduate Hybrid Instructional Model. ” Journal of 
Information T echnology Education 2: 105–13.
Littlejohn, Allison, and Chris Pegler. 2007. Preparing for Blended e-Learning. Abingdon: Routledge.
Marzano, Robert J., and John S. Kendall. 2007. The New T axonomy of Educational Objectives, 2nd ed. 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Mehanna, Wassila Naamani. 2004. “e-Pedagogy: The Pedagogies of e-Learning.” AJLT-J Research in 
Learning T echnology 12 (3): 279–93. https://doi.org /10.1080/0968776042000259582.
Muilenburg, Lin Y., and Zane L. Berge. 2005. “Student Barriers to Online Learning: A Factor Analytic 
Study.” Distance Education 26 (1): 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081269.
Murdoch, Maureen, Alisha Baines Simon, Melissa Anderson Polusny, Ann Kay Bangerter, Joseph Patrick 
Grill, Siamak Noorbaloochi, and Melissa Ruth Partin. 2014. “Impact of Different Privacy Conditions 
and Incentives on Survey Response Rate, Participant Representativeness, and Disclosure of Sensitive 
Information: A Randomized Controlled T rial.” BMC Medical Methodology 14: 90–100. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-90.

236 Polona Vičič A Fully Integrated Approach to Blended Language Learning
Nikitenko, Gleb. 2009. “Correlational Analysis of Adult Students’ Self-directed Learning Readiness, 
Affective Learning Outcomes, Prior Electronic Learning Experience, and Age in Hybrid and 
Online Course-Delivery Formats.” PhD diss., The University of San Francisco. https://core.ac.uk 
/download/pdf/216983572.pdf.
Otto, Sue E. K. 2017. “From Past to Present: A Hundred Years of Technology for L2 Learning.” In The 
Handbook of T echnology and Second Language T eaching and Learning, edited by Carol A. Chapelle and 
Shanon Sauro, 10–25. Malaysia: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Procter, Chris. 2003. “Blended Learning in Practice.” In Proceedings of the Education in 
a Changing Environment Conference (2003). Salford, UK: University of Salford. 
www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/cp_03.rtf.
Rodriguez, Migdalia Elizabeth. 2016. “Effective Pedagogical Practices in Online English Language Teacher 
Education.” PhD diss., The University of Arizona. 
Rosen, Lauren. 2009. “Reaching Students: A Hybrid Approach to Language Learning.” In Second Language 
T eaching and Learning in the Net Generation, edited by Raquel Oxford and Jeffrey Oxford, 65–84. 
Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center Ma ̄noa.
Shea, Peter, Chun Sau Li, Karen Swan, and Alexandra Pickett. 2019. “Developing Learning Community 
in Online Asynchronous College Courses: The Role of Teaching Presence.” Online Learning 9 (4): 
59–82. https://doi.org/10 .24059/olj.v9i4.1779 .
Siemens, George. 2005. “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age.” International Journal of 
Instructional T echnology & Distance Learning 2 (1). http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/index.htm .
Swan, K. 2003. “Learning Effectiveness: What the Research Tells Us.” In Elements of Quality Online 
Education, Practice and Direction, edited by J. Bourne and J. C. Moore, 13–45. Needham, MA: Sloan 
Center for Online Education.
T omlinson, Brian, ed. 2013. “Comments on Part 4.” In Blended Learning in English Language T eaching: 
Course Design and Implementation, edited by Brian Tomlinson and Claire Whittaker, 221–22. UK: 
British Council.
Whittaker, Claire. 2014. “Blended Learning in EFL: Adopting a Principled Approach to Integrating 
Technology.” In Using T echnology in Foreign Language T eaching, edited by Rahma Al-Mahrooqui and 
Salah T roudi, 8–29. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 
Whittaker, Claire, ed. 2013. “Conclusion.” In Blended Learning in English Language T eaching: Course 
Design and Implementation, edited by Brian Tomlinson and Claire Whittaker, 225–40. UK: British 
Council.
—. 2013. “Introduction.” In Blended Learning in English Language T eaching: Course Design and 
Implementation, edited by Brian Tomlinson and Claire Whittaker, 9–23. UK: British Council.
Yin, Robert K. 2011. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. USA: The Guilford Press.

237 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
Appendix: Student Questionnaire
Professional logistics terminology and communication in English 1  2018/2019
Gender:  a) male  b) female
First, please fill in the information on your English instruction in secondary school.
In secondary school I studied:      a) General English     b) English for Specific Purposes
In secondary school, the materials used in F2F lectures were:
a) printed materials
b) electronic materials
c) a combination of printed and electronic materials
In secondary school, the materials used for self-study were:
a) printed materials
b) electronic materials
c) a combination of printed and electronic materials
In secondary school, the English course was supported by an e-classroom: a) no b) yes
If your answer to the previous question was “yes,” please circle the corresponding answer(s) 
below and/or add additional options.
The e-classroom was used for:
a) uploading the course timetable
b) uploading homework instructions
c) forum discussions
d) uploading additional course materials
e) chatroom communication
f) completing language exercises and tasks
g) other: __________________________________________________________
Below, please give your feedback on blended learning in the course Professional logistics terminology 
and communication in English 1.
Answers: 1 = poorly satisfied; 2 = slightly satisfied; 3 = moderately satisfied; 4 = well satisfied; 5 = very satisfied
1. How satisfied were you with the course as a whole?       1     2     3     4     5
2. How satisfied were you with face-to-face lectures?      1     2     3     4     5
a) Could you point out any strengths of face-to-face lectures?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
b) Could you point out any weaknesses of face-to-face lectures?
…………………………………………………………………………………………

238 Polona Vičič A Fully Integrated Approach to Blended Language Learning
3. How satisfied were you with e-lectures?      1     2     3     4     5
a) Could you point out any strengths of e-lectures?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
b) Could you point out any weaknesses of e-lectures?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
4. How satisfied were you with the English for Logistics 1  
      1     2     3     4     5
 
self-study materials? 
a) Could you point out any strengths of self-study materials?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
b) Could you point out any weaknesses of self-study materials?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
5. YOUR SUGGESTIONS
Please give your suggestions for the future development of the course.
…………………………………………………………………………………………