Blended learning: A rationale for implementing different approaches in language learning Throughout the history of second and foreign

language teaching, there has been a continual debate about how learning occurs and what procedures people involved in the learning process should perform to facilitate this learning. Old paradigms were called into question as a result of factors such as dissatisfaction with existing methods and changes in linguistic and learning theories. As a result, reform movements were carried out where new principles of teaching foreign language were developed. Care should be taken, however, not to polarise learning theories into black and white with regard to the nature and role they play in education (Biggs, 1996; Goldman, 1989; Goodyear, 2002; Palincsar, 1998; Prawat, 1992; Prince and Felder, 2006; Reeves, 1994; Resnick, 2002). Decoo (2001) described the tendency towards polarization as "a way to structure our grip on reality" by differentiating between things merely on the basis of particular characteristics. However, language theories not only diverge, but also overlap in many ways, especially from an educational, more than philosophical, perspective (Dahl, 2003; Wild and Quinn, 1998). In this context, Dahl (2003) observed that cognitive and socio-cognitive learning theories are not mutually exclusive and suggested various ways of overcoming the differences between the two learning theories through the concepts of synthesis, grand theory, and complementarity.

In parallel with this new synthesised paradigm, there has recently been a trend towards creating a synthesis of Piaget‘s cognitive constructivist and Vygotsky‘s social constructivist theories (Dahl, 2003; Driver et al., 1994; Felix, 2005, Kupetz and Ziegenmeyer, 2005; Simina and Hamel, 2005; Tobin and Tippins, 1993). This new trend does not reflect new philosophies in learning, but is seen rather as moderate versions of both cognitive constructivism and social constructivism nested with each

other (Phillips, 1995). No one theory is comprehensive enough to sufficiently describe all aspects of learning. Similarly, no single method, or what Whitehead calls "universal panacea method" exists (Whitehead, 1996). In many cases, language teachers prefer to use an eclectic approach in their teaching (Sinclair and Renouf, 1988:142) where they employ aspects from different learning theories.

The call for incorporating different approaches, rather than relying on one approach, is further supported as these approaches focus on some aspects of learning that have been ignored in previous or undervalued approaches. For example, Chomsky advocated cognitive-code notion with its emphasis on conscious understanding of rules and consequent production of patterns rather than on unconscious learning of the patterns themselves (e.g. through reinforcement and conditioning). This notion represented a strong criticism to the habit formation principle strongly advocated by behaviourism. A more balanced view was advocated by Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983: 9) who concluded that "both cognitive-code and habit formation theories (not one or the other) have a role to play in language acquisition and learning." The teacher should be attentive to the individual needs of language students and consequently "students should not be discouraged from thinking about the language and making use of generalizations-but equally the value of simple repetition, for many students, should not be ignored."

Another rationale for employing different approaches in language learning was advocated by Felix (2005) who suggested that the use of instructive practices that focus on drill-and-practice can not only improve student accuracy, but also free teachers‘ time for more constructive activities. The same argument applies to classroom interaction. Different approaches encourage different types of classroom interaction: behaviourism focuses on teacher centred interaction where knowledge is

transmitted from teacher to students while socio-cognitive approaches focus on student-student interaction where knowledge can be constructed.

Researchers argue that the use of different practices for classroom interaction can maximize learners‘ involvement in activities that lead to second language acquisition and help students achieve optimum learning outcomes. This is especially true if teachers, while engaged in teacher-centred activities, involve learners in classroom discourse and give them a chance to clarify and express themselves (Walsh, 2002) as well as when teachers have enough skills in managing the turn-taking structure where the discourse progresses smoothly from teacher centred to learner centred, or vice versa (Decoo, 2001 ). In any case, the teacher‘s use of language and learning activities should be in tune with their specific aims at different stages of the lesson. Walsh (2002: 5) maintained that:

Where language use and pedagogic purpose coincide, learning opportunities are facilitated; conversely, where there is a significant deviation between language use and teaching goal at a given moment in a lesson, opportunities for learning and acquisition are, I would suggest, missed.

With activities that aim to increase speaking fluency through oral production of language, students need to be involved in contexts that require a high level of student-student interaction. Other aspects of the language such as grammar explanation, confirmation checks, and requests for clarification from the teacher might need more talk on the part of the teacher, and in these cases the focus on teacher-student interaction in the class would be more valuable (Windschitl, 2002; Ellis, 2006).

This argument also applies to contexts where technology is used in education. The three paradigms of CALL discussed in the previous sections "do not fall into neatly contained timeline" (Warschauer and Healey, 2009: 58). The beginning of

each one of these phases does not necessarily involve the end of the practices and technology that are associated with previous phases. Current teaching practices and use of computer technology tools correspond to all three phases of CALL (Warschauer and Healey, 2009: 58). "One can find constructivist approaches to teaching by video-conferencing, didactic and behaviourist use of online learning, and cognitive approaches in classroom teaching" (Bates, 2008: 244). Each of these approaches has value. Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001: 29) stated that different types of software can be used to address different educational purposes and learning goals: "Drill-and-practice and tutorial software can be effective in helping students develop specific skills. Interactive, exploratory software can support teachers as they implement reform-oriented constructivist practices" (Niederhauser and Stoddart, 2001: 29).

In sum, the successful implementation of new technology depends on the successful implementation of sound pedagogical goals rather than on the technology itself. The inherent nature of technology and the specific function a specific technology is meant to facilitate. Emails, for example, are used for writing, not for speaking; in contrast, audio conferencing is used for real time voice communication rather than for discussions that require reflection, which are usually conducted through discussion forums. Thus, certain technologies have certain properties, potentials, and constraints that make them more applicable for certain tasks than others (Koehler and Mishra et al., 2007). The following example is given by Koehler and Mishra (2009: 2)

Using email to communicate […] affords (makes possible and supports) asynchronous communication and easy storage of exchanges. Email does not afford synchronous communication in the way that a phone call, a face-to-face conversation, or instant messaging does. Nor does email afford the

conveyance of subtleties of tone, intent, or mood possible with face-to-face communication.

Salaberry (2001: 50) maintained that "the most important challenge posed by technology assisted language learning will be the identification of the pedagogical objective that technology based teaching is intended to fulfil." The responsibility of exploiting online environments in teaching rests on the shoulders of the teachers. For teachers to exploit the strengths and affordances a specific technology has to offer they need to know the inherent functions of the technology and use it in a way that is consistent with its function (Zhao, 2003).