Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2014, 32(4): 447–460 Copyright © NISC (Pty) Ltd

Printed in South Africa — All rights reserved SOUTHERN AFRICAN LINGUISTICS

AND APPLIED LANGUAGE STUDIES
ISSN 1607-3614 EISSN 1727-9461
http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2014.999989

An experimental research on blended learning in the development of

listening and speaking skills in China

cui Guangying
School of Foreign Languages, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China
E-mail: cui-celia@163.com

Abstract: The experimental research conducted for this study is based on a blended learning
(BL) approach to the teaching of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in China. The purpose of
the study was to investigate the effectiveness of a blended learning approach aimed at improving
students’ listening and speaking skills. 59 students from the Huazhong University of Science
and Technology (HUST) represented the experimental group, and another 59 students from the
Wuhan Institute of Physical Education (WIPE) made up the control group. Over a two-year period,
the results of four standardised English language examinations were collected and statistically
analysed by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 17.0 (SPSS1 17.0). The results of
the research indicate that students’ listening and speaking skills did indeed improve. Compared
to the traditional method of teaching, the blended learning approach appears to combine the best
of face-to-face teaching with the best of online learning. The approach is effective in promoting
teacher and student initiative and in enhancing learner autonomy.

Introduction
College English, an English language course for non-English speakers in China, is a compulsory
course required for all college and university students since the 1980s. With the implementation
of an expanded enrolment policy in China’s colleges and universities, many problems have arisen
and these include a significant increase in student enrolment in most schools, the subsequent
inadequacy of faculty to cope, and reduced teacher-student communication in language classes.
Generally, there are more than 50 students in an English class at the Huazhong University of
Science and Technology (HUST). The largest class comprises more than 70 students, which is
the norm rather than the exception at many universities. How to interact with students and provide
individual assistance in such large classes poses a challenge to teachers. Rapid developments in
information technology, particularly in the area of computer network technology, have provided new
ways for teachers and students to communicate with one another. Blended Learning (BL), which
combines traditional teaching and e-learning, can be regarded as ‘a mixture of the various learning
strategies and delivery methods that will optimise the learning experience of the user’ (Kurtus
2004). Under this concept, HUST adapts its own characteristic blended learning model in order to
optimise learning and teaching features to the maximum extent. It integrates face-to-face traditional
teaching with cooperative learning under the New Era Interactive English (NEIE)2 autonomous
learning system. Figure 1 illustrates this innovative blended learning model.
What needs to be emphasised in Figure 1 is that this particular blended learning approach does
not simply combine traditional classroom teaching with an autonomous online learning system.
Rather, it is a hybrid of cooperative learning under the autonomous learning ideology reflected in
the teacher’s instruction. Cooperative learning and autonomous learning are especially important in
the learning process and constitute a special feature of this approach.
Since the blended learning approach is a new approach for both teachers and students in
their first English class at HUST, teachers explain the mode of the new approach in great detail,
including distributing user names and passwords to each subject for their autonomous learning
in the Self-Access Centre (SAC). The basic procedure for each unit is divided into three parts —
‘before class’, ‘during class’ and ‘after class’.

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies is co-published by NISC (Pty) Ltd and Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
448 Guangying

Instructor

Notice board
E-mail
Comments and feedback
Grades
Interview

Classroom
Technology

Lectures NEIE learning system

Presentations Cooperative Learning Internet speed
Role plays Face-to - face Multimedia software
Instruction under autonomous
Assignments Learning Satellite TV
Comments Capacity of videos
Grades

Peer response
E-mail
Self-reflection
Learning contract

Students

Figure 1: Blended learning model in HUST (designed by author)

Table 1 illustrates the various procedures followed for each unit. During the ‘Before class’
session, students are required to check the notice board on the NEIE learning platform. There they
receive requirements and assignments assigned by the teachers. For the most part, students are
put into clusters to form peer learning groups and cooperate with their classmates. Each group

Table 1 Blended learning procedures

Before class During class After class

Time Meet group Two periods Four periods Two periods Flexible
allocation members three (90 minutes) (180 minutes) (90 minutes)
times a week
Place Flexible Multimedia SAC Multimedia Flexible
classroom classroom
Task Check notice Face-to-face NEIE Checking and Students upload
board, lecture autonomous presentation, homework; teacher
cooperative learning homework selects and uploads
activities: role assignment the best and
play, drama, suggested parts
presentation, from the videoed
debate, etc. presentation, give
feedback and
comments
Apparatus Notice board, Computer, Camera, computer, Camera, computer, Computer, NEIE
e-mail, QQ, forum, projector, video, projector, video, projector, video, learning system
NEIE, CD-rom, CD-rom CD-rom CD-rom and platform
websites
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2014, 32(4): 447–460 449

consists of one student proficient in English and three to four less-proficient students. They must
meet three times a week to complete the assignments together. These tasks range from role-play
and drama to debates and presentations assigned by teachers. ‘During class’, the first two periods
are face-to-face lectures presented in a multimedia classroom, followed by four periods in the SAC
for autonomous learning, and another two periods in the multimedia classroom again for presenta-
tion, checking and homework assignment.
During the face-to-face learning periods, lectures focus on grammar and on the content of the
teaching materials. The four periods offered in the SAC are aimed at helping students consoli-
date and broaden their learning horizons. In addition, the SAC facilitates student-student communi-
cation through OICQ or QQ3, email, and forums. Students can also exchange ideas and search
for information on the internet to further prepare for their assignments to be presented during the
next face-to-face classroom period. During the face-to-face checking periods, all kinds of activi-
ties including presentations, role-plays or debates are recorded on video by teachers as learning
materials for future evaluations. In ‘After class’, the homework and new assignment can once again
be found on the notice board. Students work on the assignments independently and upload them
via the NEIE learning platform. Teachers read students’ homework and generate responses via the
NEIE learning platform.
At the beginning of each period, students receive a brief talk followed by a ten-minute video after
which they are required to answer five questions. This provides students with the opportunity to
develop their speaking and listening skills. Students, grouped by teachers and assigned different
tasks each time, attempt to complete the given task through cooperative learning at the autono-
mous learning centre.
The assignments vary according to the content of the learning materials and group members
also change in order to allow students the opportunity to collaborate with different people. They are
asked to make presentations, introduce anything they like, or give as much background informa-
tion as possible by utilising the internet during autonomous learning. They are also encouraged to
compose drama scripts by themselves and present them in class.

Literature review
Research into BL approaches has increased over the past few years. Looking at best-practice BL
programmes, Bersin (2004) conducted detailed interviews with more than 30 companies in the
United States and found that BL programmes were the most effective and cheapest way to drive
major corporate initiatives. The combination of face-to-face instruction with an e-learning method-
ology made training distinctive, flexible, rapid and powerful.
Few studies have explored how a BL approach can be employed to develop listening and
speaking skills in the field of foreign language teaching. Brett (1996) carried out an investiga-
tion into the affective domain of multimedia for listening skills and concluded that the majority
of students believed multimedia could improve their listening skills. In 2000, Brett compared the
language recall abilities of students using either multimedia, traditional audio, or video accompa-
nied by written tasks. Brett (2000) found that students had greater recall when using multimedia. In
2002, Barnum and Paarmann studied new teachers’ training and suggested that a BL model should
comprise four strategies:
1) web-based delivery, which promotes independence and self-reliance in learning;
2) face-to-face processing, in which human interaction is necessary to build a deeper
understanding;
3) creation of deliverables, expecting learners to create products; and
4) collaborative extension of learning – groups meet once a month to share and build upon each
other’s thinking.
In China, BL was first introduced at a 2003 conference on the application of computers in
education by He Kekang, a professor at Beijing Normal University. In 2004, several articles in
academic magazines were published one after another by both scholars and teachers. The princi-
ples and applications of BL were introduced by Li Kedong and Zhao Jianhua (2004). The definition,
implications and course design of BL were explored in a study by Tian Shisheng and Fu Gangshan
450 Guangying

(2004), while Senlin (2004) examined the implications of BL for the integration of information
technology and courses. Zhao Lijuan’s study (2004) dealt with the analysis of BL from the perspec-
tive of the teaching of English at college level.
The introduction of the theory of BL abroad and research into its implications and influence on
Chinese education is the main focus of these articles. However, the effectiveness of BL in Chinese
education and the implementation of BL for English language teaching at college level remain
unexplored.

Experimental research
This study examined the role of a blended learning approach in developing students’ listening
and speaking skills in English as a foreign language. To this end, it employed multidimensional
data collection, as well as qualitative and quantitative analyses. The research hypothesis was that
implementing a blended learning approach may be effective in improving students’ speaking and
listening skills.

Methods
In order to test the research hypothesis, a two-year empirical study (spanning four semesters from
15 September 2008 to 9 June 2010) was carried out. Over the two-year period, students’ listening
and speaking results on four standardised English language examinations (quantitative research)
were tracked and statistically analysed. Four standardised pre- and post-tests were conducted to
test the students’ improvement in English.

Participants
The 118 subjects of the study, who were non-English major undergraduates in 2008, were drawn
from two universities, HUST and the Wuhan Institute of Physical Education (WIPE). All the subjects
used the same text book, New Era Interactive English, when the experiment was carried out.
Since HUST was designated as one of the country’s 180 experimental academies by the National
Education Commission (NEC), it was decided to pilot the blended learning approach to several
classes in 2008, while WIPE would continue to implement the traditional way of teaching.
The experimental group was one of the pilot classes chosen from HUST and consisted of 59
participants: 29 were studying Forensic Medicine and 30 were studying Public Management.
The control group chosen from WIPE also comprised 59 participants: 27 were studying Sports
Journalism and 32 were studying Sports Economy. Before registering for their majors, students
in both groups had already received 6 to 13 years of formal instruction in English. For Chinese
universities, English is a required course which extends over four semesters. For both groups, the
average listening scores of the pre-tests (chosen from College English Test Band Four (CET 4), a
nationwide standardised English proficiency test, organised by the Higher Education Bureau, the
State Education Commission) were similar: 71.5932 for the experimental group and 70.3559 for the
control group, which is the main reason why they were chosen for the study.
The demographic information of the two groups from the two universities relates to gender, years
spent learning English, and the majors chosen. The pie charts below (Figure 2) reflect information
about gender.
Clearly, an overwhelming majority of the subjects in both groups were male, which is typical
of universities in China which offer science or sports. Though the gender variables could not be
changed, they did not affect the result of the research. After a one-way ANOVA test, there was no
statistical difference between the two groups.
In statistics, a one-way analysis of variance (abbreviated to one-way ANOVA) is a technique
used to compare means of two or more samples. In this experiment, it was deemed necessary to
determine if there was any difference between the genders in the two groups which could influence
the students’ listening and speaking levels before the experiment.
According to Table 2, the F values for listening and speaking were 0.713 and 0.051 respectively,
and Sig. value were 0.4 and 0.861 between the groups, which were all greater than 0.05. This
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2014, 32(4): 447–460 451

HUST WIPE
Female
24% Female
47%

Male Male
76% 53%

Figure 2 Demographic information of the two groups related to gender

Table 2 One-way ANOVA of genders between two groups

F Sig.
Pre-listening test between Groups 0.713 0.400
Pre-speaking test between Groups 0.051 0.861

indicated that there was no statistical difference between the two groups; namely gender did not
influence students’ speaking and listening levels.
When the two groups were compared with regard to the number of years spent learning English,
the data varied from 6 to 13 years (See Table 3).
The students’ experiences with regard to learning English were taken into consideration to control
relevant variables and verify the reliability of the experiment. The Pearson chi-square test was done
to determine if the learning experiences of each group reflected any significant differences.
From the Pearson chi-square test (See Table 4), we observed that 0.0% had expected a count
of less than 5 (it met the requirement of less than 20%), and the Sig. (two-sided) in chi-square was
0.378, which was over 0.05. This implied that there was no significant difference between the two
groups in terms of their experiences in English.

Table 3 Information pertaining to the learning experience of each group

Year
Group
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Experimental Group 2 22 20 7 3 2 2 1
2% 38% 35% 13% 7% 2% 2% 1%
Control Group 1 21 22 7 4 2 2 0
1% 21% 22% 7% 4% 2% 2% 0%

Table 4 Chi-square tests of learning experiences in the two groups

Chi-square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (two-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 0.778a 1 0.378
Likelihood Ratio 0.784 1 0.376
a 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.50.
b
Computed only for a 2x2 table
452 Guangying

The subjects at HUST were studying Forensic Medicine and Public Management, while subjects
at WIPE were studying Sports Economy and Sports Journalism. Usually, the Forensic Medicine and
Sports Economy students would be grouped under Science, while Public Management and Sports
Journalism students would be regarded as belonging to the domain of Arts. When we used the
Pearson chi-square test to examine the two groups in the different fields, we observed that there
was no significant difference between Science and Arts students. The number of students majoring
in the different courses is reflected in Figure 3.
Table 5 shows that the Sig. (two-sided) in both the Pearson chi-square and Likelihood Ratio
were 0.712, which were much higher than 0.05. It explicitly showed that there was no significant
difference between the two groups in terms of their majors and in terms of their English language
learning.

Instruments
The Paired Samples Test was used to compare the means of the listening and oral tests between
the control group and experimental group in order to determine the effects of different learning
programmes on their listening and oral performance. The listening pre-test was implemented
during the first lesson of the semester, while the post-test was carried out two years later during
the last lesson of the term. In order to ensure the validity and reliability of the tests, listening tests
were selected from the previous College English Test 44 (CET-4). Since some of the students had
begun to prepare for the CET-4 of December 2008, a mini-type survey was conducted to determine
students’ habits and test preparation for the sake of ensuring that the students had not done the
exercises before.
With regard to the speaking test, two experienced teachers, who served as the judges for the
CET-4, were invited to give the scores for the subjects in the face-to-face test. They followed the
CET-4 scoring criterion, which meant the scores were given according to the evaluation standard,

30

25

20

15

10

5 29 30 27 32

Forensic Public Sports Sports

Medicine Management Journalism Economy

Figure 3 The number of subjects enrolled in the various majors

Table 5 Chi-square tests of different majors in two groups

Chi-square tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (two-sided)

Pearson chi-square 0.136a 1 0.712
Likelihood Ratio 0.136 1 0.712
a 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 28.00.
b Computed only for a 2 x 2 table
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2014, 32(4): 447–460 453

such as fluency, flexibility and appropriateness in pronunciation, intonation and vocabulary. The
experiment employed the original CET-4 speaking test used in May and December 2006.

Variables
The approaches to English language teaching and learning were the independent variables in this
study. The experimental group was exposed to the blended learning environment where teaching
and learning occurred during face-to-face lectures combined with autonomous online learning. The
group was exposed to the NEIE learning system, task-based learning, project work, group work,
online lectures, and to a series of online communication tools such as the notice board, discus-
sion forums, QQ, e-mail, and so forth. The control group was given traditional and teacher-based
face-to-face lectures aided by ready-made courseware downloaded from the Internet during
intensive reading classes.
The experimental group had eight 45-minute periods of English language instruction per week:
two periods in the multimedia classroom focused on face-to-face intensive reading; four periods
in the SAC, which utilised the NEIE learning system, were devoted to autonomous learning;
and another two periods in the multimedia classroom focused on the self-learning report. The
control group also had eight 45-minute periods of English language instruction per week, with six
45-minute periods focusing on traditional intensive reading, and two periods in the sound laboratory
focusing on listening.
Students’ English proficiency was evaluated in the CET-4 examinations. In addition, 11 control
variables were included in this study:
1) Participants’ enrolled time at the two universities in 2008;
2) Participants’ previous listening and speaking performance on the CET-4 (approximately equals
to B1-level according to the Grading Standards of English in Europe);
3) Same number of students in both the control and experimental groups (59 students for each
group);
4) The same goal of teaching and learning — they need to finish 12 units each semester, i.e. 2 520
minutes (45 minutes per period x 56 periods = 2 520 minutes);
5) Same periods of English classes — eight periods per week during four semesters;
6) Same teaching materials and same amount of content covered (adapting same text book, all the
same units in every semester);
7) Teachers’ academic title and teaching experience (both teachers were associate professors and
had more than 15 years of teaching experience);
8) Student computer and Internet skill level — all the students are good at utilising computers,
e-mail, QQ, unloading and downloading files, etc.;
9) Students and teachers took a preparation course and had prior experience with web-based
courses;
10) The nature of the course (required and quantitatively-oriented);
11) Identical examinations — CET-4 listening and speaking tests.

Experimental procedure
Both the experimental group and the control group took the listening and speaking pre-test on 15
September 2008, and the listening and speaking post-test on 9 June 2010.
The listening pre-test items were chosen from the June 2006 CET-4 papers, while the listening
post-test items were taken from the December 2006 CET-4 papers. All the participants took the
oral tests in a multimedia classroom at HUST invigilated by two experienced teachers. A total of
150 questionnaires were given to the participants, including the pilot classes who were using the
NEIE learning system continuously at HUST for two years. In addition, all the students in the experi-
mental group were interviewed for about twenty minutes during the last week of the semester, from
3 June2010 to 9 June 2010 (See Table 6).
454 Guangying

Table 6 Information about the research procedure

Subjects Time Material Place

Listening Experimental group 15 Sept 2008, morning Cet-4 SAC of HUST
pre-tests and June 2006
control group
Listening Experimental group 9 June 2010, morning Cet-4 SAC of HUST
post-tests and December 2006
control group
Speaking Experimental group 15 Sept 2008, CET-4 SAC of HUST
pre-test and afternoon May 2006
control group
Speaking Experimental group 9 June 2010, CET-4 SAC of HUST
post-test and afternoon December 2006
control group
Questionnaire Experimental group, 9 June 2010, Self-designed SAC of HUST
other three classes afternoon
using the NEIE
Interview Experimental group 3 June 2010 to Structured Multimedia classroom
9 June 2010 and open in No.9 East teaching
questions building

Test results
Listening test results
The listening scores of the CET-4 in the pre-test between the experimental group and the control
group were first contrasted in order to determine if they were at the same level. To make the
description of the figures more intuitive, the researchers converted all the scores of the test from
142% (total score for CET-4 Listening) to 100%.
A Paired sample t-test was done to check the means of the paired groups. When pair 1 in Table
7 was examined, the means of the two groups could be found. For the listening pre-test, the control
group was 70.3559, which was a little bit lower than that of the experimental group: 71.5932. The
Independent t-test is used to check if there is any statistical difference between the pairs. So we
checked the results in Independent t-tests for pre-listening scores (See Table 8).
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances showed the F value was 0.059, which was greater than
0.05. Zero was included between 95% Confidence Interval and the two-tailed significance was
0.557, which was much bigger than 0.05. Therefore, we could be sure that there were no significant
differences between the two tests and these two groups got very similar starting level in listening.
After adapting different teaching approach two years later, the two groups received the post-test
again and a significant difference could be found between them.
Based on the results of the Paired Samples t-test, we observed that the mean score of the
post-listening test in the experimental group (79.1864) was 5.5322 higher than that in the control
group (74.2542). It indicated that students who did the listening course in the autonomous
NEIE-based environment achieved better in average scores than those who did the course in the
conventional instructor-led class. This supported our hypothesis that autonomous NEIE-based BL
listening may enhance students’ listening comprehension. Next, we examined the Independent
t-tests (See Table 9) in order to obtain more detailed information.
The Independent t-tests showed zero was not included between 95% Confidence Interval and the
two-tailed significance was 0.016, which was smaller than 0.05. Therefore we can safely conclude
that there was a significant difference between the two groups, and the experimental group did
achieve success compared with the control group. It proved that after adapting the NEIE-based
blended learning approach, the statistical difference was significant, and the experimental group
showed obvious improvements.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2014, 32(4): 447–460 455

However, in Table 7 of the Paired Samples test, we found that although there were also differ-
ences between the variables of pair 3 (from 70.3559 to 74.2542) in the results of the listening
pre-test and the listening post-test for the control group, it might indicate that the control group
also made some progress (3.8983 higher than the listening pre-test) in the traditional classroom
setting, although this progress was not as obvious as that made by the experimental group. We can
conclude that implementing the blended teaching approach was effective in improving students’
listening skills.

Table 7 Paired samples t-test for listening tests

Paired samples statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Experimental group: 71.5932 59 11.33064 1.47512
Between experimental listening pre-test
and control groups before
experiment
Control group: 70.3559 59 11.50227 1.49747
listening pre-test
Pair 2 Experimental group: 71.5932 59 11.33064 1.47512
Within experimental listening pre-test
group before and after BL
approach
Experimental group: 79.1864 59 11.90693 1.55015
listening post-test
Pair 3 Control group: 70.3559 59 11.50227 1.49747
Within control group listening pre-test
before and after traditional
approach
Control group: 74.2542 59 9.82009 1.27847
listening post-test
Pair 4 Experimental group: 79.1864 59 11.90693 1.55015
Between experimental listening post-test
and control groups after
experiment
Control group: 74.2542 59 9.82009 1.27847
listening post-test

Table 8 Independent t-tests for pre-listening tests between two groups

Pre-listening Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances Sig. (two-tailed) t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
F Sig. Lower Upper
0.059 0.809 0.557 −2.926 5.401

Table 9 Independent t-tests for post-listening tests between two groups

Pre-listening Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances Sig. (two-tailed) t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
F Sig. Lower Upper
1.076 0.302 0.016 0.952 8.912
456 Guangying

Speaking test results

The comparison of the speaking tests between the experimental group and the control group is
demonstrated in the following table:
According to Pair 1 in Table 10, the speaking pre-test of the experimental group was 77.1695,
which was higher than that of the control group: 73.5424.
However, when we compared the post-test of the two groups, the means of the experimental
group was 82.5254, which was higher than that of the control group: 77.9153.
We checked the Independent t-test of the two groups for pre-test (See Table 11); zero was
included between 95% Confidence Interval and the two-tailed significance was 0.103, which was
greater than 0.05. We observed that there were no significant differences between the two groups
in the pre-speaking test and these two groups reflected similar speaking levels from the outset.
After the different teaching approaches, the two groups received the speaking post-test two
years later. The results are presented in Table 12; zero was not included between 95% Confidence
Interval and the two-tailed significance is 0.028, which was smaller than 0.05 (See Table 12).
We can safely conclude that the experimental group did achieve success compared to the control
group. We also noticed that the mean of the speaking post-test of the experimental group was
82.5254, while that of the pre-test was 77.1695, which provides some indication that the experi-
mental group made significant improvements (5.3559 higher than the pre-test) in speaking, after
using the NEIE-based blended learning approach. However, there were also differences between
the variables of pair 3 in Table 10, i.e. the results of the speaking pre-test and the speaking
post-test for the control group, their means were 73.5424 and 77.9153 respectively, which indicated
that the control group had also made progress under traditional conditions.

Discussions

BL has both benefits and problems

By adopting a BL approach, students are more interactive and more closely aligned with real-world
challenges and social needs. Their learning abilities can be improved through seeking, selecting,
and evaluating information using higher-order skills and critical thinking, which is not the case
when it comes to a traditional classroom. Based on the tests, the advantages of a web-based BL
approach can be summarised as follows:
• It improves students’ listening and speaking skills and communicative proficiency more effectively
than the traditional approach does.

Table 10 Paired samples t-test for speaking tests

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 Experimental group: 77.1695 59 12.65749 1.64787
Between experimental speaking pre-test
and control groups before Control group: speaking 73.5424 59 11.27757 1.46821
experiment pre-test
Pair 2 Experimental group: 77.1695 59 12.65749 1.64787
Within experimental speaking pre-test
group before and after BL Experimental group: 82.5254 59 12.20282 1.58867
approach speaking post-test
Pair 3 Control group: speaking 73.5424 59 11.27757 1.46821
Within control group pre-test
before and after traditional Control group: speaking 77.9153 59 10.14428 1.32067
approach post-test
Pair 4 Experimental group: 82.5254 59 12.20282 1.58867
Between experimental speaking post-test
and control groups after Control group: speaking 77.9153 59 10.14428 1.32067
experiment post-test
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2014, 32(4): 447–460 457

• Both teachers and students are given more freedom to explore their creative abilities.
• The different needs of various students are given proper attention.
• Students can control and arrange their learning in an autonomous way, establishing a solid
foundation for life-long learning.
• Students’ personal ability can be improved through a BL approach, particularly their higher-order
thinking skills.
Though a blended learning platform reveals several benefits, problems remain and cannot be
ignored:
• Some students expressed their frustration with unexpected Internet disconnections while learning
online.
• The limited bandwidth at HUST could not accommodate mass access in a short time, which
handicapped online learning and activities.
• NEIE was occasionally attacked by viruses, the system was compromised and records were lost.
• When it comes to selecting suitable listening materials, students need teachers’ assistance.
• Some students are unfamiliar with the blended learning model, or do not find the degree of
independence and decision-making involved appealing. This in turn could result in feelings of
frustration and inadequacy.

A BL classroom is more student-centred and teacher-led

In the BL classroom, students are free to choose their own learning pace, learning style and level,
as well as time and place which is not the case when it comes to classroom-based, face-to-face
contexts. What is more, they may make decisions, think creatively and critically, investigate and
explore as well as solve problems that have a real-world focus. The teacher’s role now becomes
that of an organiser and facilitator of classroom activities and discussions. In addition, they have to
prepare for a heavier workload than that required of a traditional class to ensure the effectiveness
of students’ learning activities. A BL classroom environment is therefore more student-centred and
teacher-led.
To conclude, a BL approach to teaching English can provide a very distinctive and effective
teaching and learning environment in which genuine communication can be achieved. This
approach can help to promote learners’ engagement, collaboration, motivation, self-confidence and
sense of identity.
It should be reiterated that the BL approach and the software programme discussed here consti-
tute a significant leap forward in the teaching of listening and speaking skills to non-native speakers
of English. Owing to a new form of delivering knowledge and teaching, this course has been
accepted by the students. Different from the former teaching method, the system allows students to
learn at their own pace. The teacher gives guidance only when necessary.

Table 11: Independent t-tests for speaking pre-tests between two groups

Pre-speaking Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances Sig. (two-tailed) t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
F Sig. Lower Upper
0.000 0.997 0.103 -0.744 7.998

Table 12: Independent t-tests for post-speaking tests between two groups

Post-speaking Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances Sig. (two-tailed) t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
F Sig. Lower Upper
0.021 0.884 0.028 0.518 8.702
458 Guangying

Although the new learning approach has won popularity; some problems still exist and should
be taken into consideration. Firstly, future research needs to explore how to sensitise students to
various learning strategies through analysis of the connection between learning results and learning
strategies. Teachers should consider presenting some possible strategies, which may make the
process of strategy learning easier and more comprehensible. Teachers should also encourage
students to carefully analyse the content of the various strategies they have learned, making
strategy learning a personal process of positive exploration and development. Secondly, the NEIE
system should design a series of measures to control autonomous learning in and out of classes
and build a new teaching management system in accordance with the principles of independent
learning. Moreover, the university should supervise the learning process from both micro and
macro perspectives and monitor its situation to ensure that learning progresses smoothly under the
direction of the teachers.
What has to be noted is that no matter how useful the NEIE course is, students can only use
it once. There is no opportunity to review or complete the exercises again owing to the design of
the software. Moreover, the students’ exercises should not be limited to the software programme
alone. There is much more to learn online and owing to time constraints and/or a tight schedule,
the course does not teach students how to make use of the Internet to engage in self-learning. The
universities should negotiate with the NEIE company to deal with these problems.

The BL approach improves students’ listening and speaking skills

According to the results of the listening and speaking pre- and post-tests, the BL approach has a
more positive influence on improving students’ listening and speaking than the traditional teaching
method does.
There was a small difference (only 1 point) between the two groups in the listening pre-test
before the study. After the implementation of a BL approach, the difference between the two groups
can be seen in Figure 4. The control group is 74.25, while the experimental group is 79.19. There
is fine-point gap between them. Since this study takes the CET-4 listening exam as the research
instrument, the coefficient of difficulty for both the listening pre- and post-test paper can have no
significant difference. In China, the CET-4 paper takes the reliability of the coefficient of difficulty
into careful consideration, thus they can be safely used to check the difference before and after the
research.
According to the average scores of final exam in the fourth semester (the last semester for
learning English in the university) in HUST in recent years (from 2005 to 2008, see Table 13), the
students who take the traditional way of learning keep the listening scores quite stable. There is
hardly any difference between each year. The mean scores are quite similar to each other, thus a
five-point gap can be regarded as a great development in such case.

Cpost-listening 74.25

Epost-listening 79.19

Cpre-listening 70.36

Epre-listening 71.59

64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

Figure 4: The results of pre-test and post-test on listening between two groups
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2014, 32(4): 447–460 459

Table 13: The average scores on final exam on listening for the last semester in HUST from 2005−2008

2005 2006 2007 2008

70.87 72.52 71.18 72.64

It may be concluded that the implementation of the blended learning approach in the experi-
mental group might account for improvements in the participants’ listening skills.
The blended learning approach offers more opportunities for students to improve their listening
ability by combining an integrated multimedia learning system and listening practice in both face-to-
face multimedia and virtual online classrooms. The ten-minute audio-visual clips and multiple-choice
exercises provide students with wider horizons to their English learning. The NEIE learning system
assists them with a large amount of authentic materials as well as chances for practising. What’s
more, the BL learning and speaking practices reinforce the proficiency of their listening ability.
In a blended learning, spoken-English class, students first learn autonomously in authentic
situations with native speakers. They imitate their pronunciation and intonation, and try to master
many useful expressions in daily life. They are totally immersed in the pure English environment,
which is helpful to eliminate or reduce thinking in Chinese. Then face-to-face classroom instruction
is there to practise what they have learned online. Teachers organise the task-based activities and
problem-solving activities, which provide opportunities for students to develop their communica-
tive and interactive skills. By communication and interactions, students are stimulated to express
themselves actively. The scores on speaking post-tests between the two groups reflect the new
teaching result.
For the two groups a three-point gap existed before the study, but the Independent t-test shows
there was no significant difference between them (see Table 11), which means their mean scores
are very close to each other. Their speaking proficiency is almost the same. After the BL approach,
the two groups show significant difference in their achievements (see Table 12), though the gap
between the means seems close to each other. Qualitative research can offer strong support for the
great difference between the two groups.
Compared to their pre-tests, the control group did make progress both in the listening and
speaking skills. It indicates that the traditional way of teaching is also useful in China, especially
under the pressure of passing the CET-4, with both teachers and students trying their best to
improve the scores. It is a pity that the high scores that students obtained in the examination do not
reflect their true proficiency. This is consistent with the phenomenon in Chinese universities where
scores have been raised, but the language proficiency remains poor. When it comes to communi-
cative proficiency, which is the basic goal for language learning, students underperform. They
are quite nervous and inactive when being asked to explain their own opinions in English. During
conversation they use ‘Chinglish’ expressions to explain their ideas due to their limited vocabulary.
The experimental group experienced the BL approach. They were offered more opportunities
for all kinds of oral training − group discussion, debate, presentation, role-play, ‘morning-report’,
drama, and peer cooperation via QQ, e-mail, online chat rooms or forums, English corners. Thus
the listening and speaking proficiency in the experimental group was obviously higher than that of
the control group. Higher-order thinking skills and communication skills were also superior to those
of the control group.

Conclusion
This experimental research5 probed into the blended learning approach to see whether it played
a positive role in improving college students’ listening and speaking skills. Having analysed the
language test scores in HUST, the results are quite obvious. After the training, the experimental
group made much better progress when we look at their pre-tests in both listening and speaking
skills. Compared to the control group, the improvements for the experimental group were even
more obvious. The blended learning approach does improve the students’ academic performance
in listening and speaking.
460 Guangying

Despite a short history of educational reform in China, a BL approach has become one of the
most promising ways to take advantage of information technology for desired changes in the
language teaching field. A BL approach allows a large space for further integration of knowledge
sharing, trans-regional communication and cooperation, self-paced exploration and learner
autonomy.

Notes
1. SPSS: The abbreviation for Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. It is one of the major

computer packages permitting many types of statistical analysis.

2. NEIE: New Era Interactive English learning system (NEIE) is a multimedia English learning
system strongly recommended by the Ministry of Education in China. It is a campus network
learning system which contains three sections for viewing, listening and speaking.
3.
QQ: The largest social networking and instant messaging platform in China. It is a mega-amalga-
mation of chat, micro blogging, e-mail, games, personal avatars, dating, data storage,
community, and music (also known as OICQ).
4.
CET-4: College English TestBand-4, approximately equals to B1-level according to the grading
standards of English in Europe.
5.
This article is part of the research results for following projects in China: (1) Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities (Huazhong University of Science and Technology)
– Research on Croatian Foreign Language Education under multi-language background, and (2)
University teaching and research projects – Research and Countermeasures to Interactive status
in College English Classroom Group

References
Allan B. 2007. Blended learning: Tools for teaching and training. London: Facet Publishing.
Barnum C, Paarmann W. 2002. Bringing introduction to the teacher: A blended learning model.
Technical Communication 30: 56−64.
Bersin J. 2004. The Blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies and lessons
learned. San Francisco, California: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Brett P. 1996. Using multimedia: An investigation of learners’ attitudes. Computer Assisted
Language Learning 9: 191−212.
Brett P. 2000. Integrating Multimedia into the business English curriculum: A case study. English for
Specific Purpose 19: 269−290.
Graham CR. 2006. Models of blended learning in higher education. Presentation at the Sloan-C
Workshop on Blended Learning and Higher Education: Blended Learning, Localness, and
Outreach, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Kekang H. 2004. New development in educational technology from the perspective of blended
learning. E-education Research 3: 1−6.
Kurtus R. 2004. http://www.school-for-champions.com/elearning/blended.htm [accessed 6 April
2004, not available 4 February 2011]
Kedong L, Jianhua Z. 2004. The principle and application of hybrid learning model. E-education
Research 7: 1−6.
Lijuan Z. 2004. Perspective of blended learning in university English teaching. E-education
Research 11: 47−49.
Rooney JE. 2003. Blending learning opportunities to enhance educational programming and
meetings. Association Management 55: 26−32.
Senlin L. 2004. Enlightenment for Blended learning on integration of information technology and
courses. Elementary education 10: 67−69.
Shisheng T, Gangshan F. 2004. Preliminary study to blended learning. E-education Research 7:
7−11.
Copyright of Southern African Linguistics & Applied Language Studies is the property of
Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.