1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................. 1
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................ 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 5
1.1. Rationale ............................................................................................................. 5
1.2. Purposes .............................................................................................................. 7
1.3. Research questions ............................................................................................ 7
1.4. Scope of the research ......................................................................................... 7
1.5. Significance of the study .................................................................................... 8
1.6. Organization of the study .................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 10
2.1. Blended learning on framework ..................................................................... 10
2.1.1. Definition of Blended learning ................................................................... 10
2.1.2. Characteristics ............................................................................................ 12
2.1.3. Benefits....................................................................................................... 12
2.1.4. Classifications of Blended learning............................................................ 14
2.1.5. Factors affecting Blended learning ............................................................ 15
2.1.6. Advantages of applying Blended learning to learning English .................. 21
2.1.7 Disadvantages of applying Blended learning to learning English .............. 22
2.2 Previous studies about applying blended learning to learn English. ........... 23
2.2.1. Domestic researches ................................................................................... 23
2.2.2. Foreign researches ...................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 26
3.1. Participants of the study ................................................................................. 26
3.2. Methods of collecting data .............................................................................. 26
3.2.1. Quantitative methodologies........................................................................ 26
3.2.2. Qualitative methodologies.......................................................................... 27
3.3 Data processing methods .................................................................................. 28
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .................................................... 29
 2

4.1 Evaluation on course outcomes in blended learning ..................................... 32

4.2 Evaluation on the technology in blended learning ........................................ 36
4.3 Evaluation on the design and planning in blended learning ........................ 37
4.4 Evaluation on the content in blended learning. ............................................. 41
4.5 Evaluation on the interaction among students in blended learning. ........... 45
4.6 Evaluation on the interaction between student and lecturer in blended
learning .................................................................................................................... 48
4.7. Recommendations ............................................................................................ 50
4.7.1. Difficulties .................................................................................................. 50
4.7.2. Recommendations for students. ................................................................. 51
4.7.3. Recommendations for lecturers. ................................................................. 52
4.7.4. Recommendations for universities. ............................................................ 53
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 54
5.1. Summary of findings ....................................................................................... 54
5.2. Limitations of the study .................................................................................. 55
5.3. Suggestions for further studies ....................................................................... 55
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 56
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 61
Appendix 1: Questionnaire .................................................................................... 61
Appendix 2: Vietnamese questionnaire translation. ........................................... 65
 3

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Table

Table 1. The number of questions ................................................................................. 29

Table 2. Information about numbers of lecturers participating in the interview .......... 30
Table 3. Information about lecturer’s experience ......................................................... 30
Table 4. Information about the academic year of the students ..................................... 31
Table 5. Information about majors of the students ....................................................... 31
Table 6. Descriptive statistics of outcomes in the blended speaking skill lessons ....... 34
Table 7. Descriptive statistics of design and planning of the speaking skill lessons in
blended learning ............................................................................................................ 38
Table 8. Descriptive statistics of the content of speaking skill lessons in blended
learning.......................................................................................................................... 42
Table 9. Descriptive statistics of interaction between student & student in the blended
speaking skill lessons .................................................................................................... 46
Table 10. Descriptive statistics of interaction between students & lecturers in the
blended speaking skill lessons ...................................................................................... 49

Figure

Figure 1: Learners affected by school closures caused by COVID-19 as of February

2021. ................................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 2: Overview of blended learning ....................................................................... 12
Figure 3: Students’ evaluation on outcomes in blended speaking skill lessons............ 32
Figure 4: Students’ evaluation on technology in blended speaking skill lessons ......... 36
Figure 5: Students’ evaluation of design and planning in blended speaking skill
lessons. .......................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 6: Students’ evaluation on content in blended speaking skill lessons. .............. 41
Figure 7: Students’ evaluation on the interaction among students in blended speaking
skill lessons. .................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 8: Students’ evaluation on the interaction between student & lecturer in blended
speaking skill lessons. .......................................................................... 48_Toc101809777
 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

NEU National Economics University

LMS Learning Management System
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
ICT Information and communication technologies
EFL English Foreign Language
CMS Content Management Systems
SIS Student Information Systems
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization
BL Blended learning
F2F Face-to-face
FFL Faculty of Foreign Language
WiFi Wireless fidelity
 5

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
1
2 This chapter presents the general content of the entire study: rationale, the
purposes of the study, the research questions, the scope of the study, the organization
of the study and finally the conclusion of this chapter.

1.1. Rationale
People have entered a technology-driven age in which technology is touching
almost every area of our lives, including education. In contrast to the picture of
traditional classrooms with blackboards and chalk, the contemporary classroom
includes additional important items such as a projector or personal computer.
Additionally, because of the growing adoption of technology, instructors and students
now have easy access to a variety of technical gadgets. Almost every participant in the
educational process, whether learners or lecturers, possesses a digital device
(smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc....) for instructional reasons. Statistics indicate the
following:
“65% of teachers say they use digital learning tools to teach daily.
53% of teachers say students use digital learning tools to learn every day
57% of students say they use digital learning tools to learn daily.
More high school students (63%) and middle school students (64%) than elementary
school students (45%) report using digital learning tools daily.” (Source: (2019).
Education Technology Use in Schools. New School Venture Fund,4.).
Distances between conventional learning locations, web-based learning, and
virtual learning will vanish as learning technologies advance and accessibility
increases. Nowadays, information communication technology (ICT) is incorporated
into almost every course of higher education. In this sense, distance education colleges
have progressed toward designing and implementing blended learning in order to
advance educational equity, enhance the quality of training courses, increase course
delivery flexibility, and encourage students to engage in active learning.
In contrast to the favorable benefits of technological advancements, there are
other external influences that have a detrimental effect on how individuals learn.
Among these is the current COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has wreaked havoc
around the globe since its discovery in late December 2019, and education, like other
critical sectors, has been especially hard hit. Students, schools, universities, and
institutions have all been adversely affected. According to the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the disaster has
impacted over 800 million students worldwide; 1 in 5 students are unable to attend
 6

school; 1 in 4 students are unable to attend higher education classes; and 102 countries
have ordered nationwide school closures, with 11 implementing localized school
closures. (Fund, N. S. V. (2019). Making meaning of the NewSchools-Gallup survey
of educator and student perceptions of ed tech. Fordham Institute for Advancing
Educational Excellence).

Figure 1: Learners affected by school closures caused by COVID-19 as of

February 2021.

Full school closures

Partial school closures

Academic break

Online learning

No school closures

No data

(Source: Wikipedia)
The tragic worldwide spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in the
consecutive closure of academic institutions as a means of increasing social distance
and containing the pandemic's massive spread, has also brought to light the benefits of
blended learning. The basic rationale behind this approach is ubiquity: instructors' and
students' capacity to teach and learn regardless of geographical context. One of the
current hot debates is whether students learn better online or in a conventional
 7

classroom setting. Within the context of current global experience, this topic has
grown controversials. Blended learning has come to be seen as an unorthodox strategy
that aims to maximize the benefits of both online and conventional face-to-face
instruction.
The abrupt shift from in-class to online learning has raised problems for both
authors and lecturers: how to conduct online speaking skills instruction? As the nature
of speaking skills is to produce the language through interaction with interlocutors,
learning speaking skills alone seems challenging as learners cannot exchange
information. It was a problem for the writers to overcome during the academic years
2020/2021 while learning speaking skills. As the students were away from each other,
speaking practices could not be conducted in class. It ultimately impeded the learning
process by requiring students to apply what they learned during the speaking session.
Students must get experience utilizing the language in a real-world context, which first
appeared challenging given the online instruction. Regardless of the obstacles,
teaching speaking skills must be performed in order to develop students' speaking
abilities.

1.2. Purposes
The aim of this work is:
a) to summarize the student's perspective of studying with blended learning methods
applied in speaking skill lessons in NEU.
b) to analyze the difficulties of the implementation of this method.
c) to identify the ways to overcome the difficulties of applying blended learning on
teaching and learning speaking skills.

1.3. Research questions

1. What are some differences and similarities between applying blended learning and
traditional teaching methods on learning speaking skills for first-and-second-year
students of National Economics University (NEU)?
2. What are some difficulties of applying blended learning on learning speaking skills
for freshmen and sophomores of National Economics University (NEU)?
3. What can be done to overcome the deficiencies of applying blended learning on
learning speaking skills for freshmen and sophomores of NEU?

1.4. Scope of the research

It is vital to assess the success of integrating blended learning across all
academic topics. However, based on the subject the researchers have chosen and the
 8

limitation of time and resources, the study only focuses on the application of blended
learning to speaking skills in full-time freshmen and sophomores at National
Economics University.

1.5. Significance of the study

The purpose of this study is to determine whether blended learning can act as a
bridge between teachers and students at NEU, allowing them to collaborate more
effectively when it comes to developing speaking skills. By evaluating the learning
process using a variety of criteria, teachers could figure out novel approaches to
technology integration (blending learning) and “even give the lead to our students and
involve them in teaching and learning activities as partners" (Langa, 2016).
This study was undertaken with the aim of assisting educators, instructors,
administrators, parents, and anyone else involved in the education of young people in
comprehending how to effectively educate and prepare the future generation for the
diverse world they will soon inhabit.

1.6. Organization of the study

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION: Presenting of the general content of the entire
study: rationales, the purposes of the study, the research questions, the scope of the
study, and finally the conclusion of this chapter.
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW: First, the researchers present the theoretical
framework that set the foundation for the study. In this part, we discuss the definition,
the characteristics, the benefits, the classifications of the blended learning, the
requirements for implementation of blended learning, factors affecting blended
learning, and the advantages and disadvantages of the blended learning. The second
part is about previous studies on blended learning. We synthesize national and
international articles and then present the remaining limitations in the field that the
research is targeting.
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY: This chapter provides information on research
methods that researchers have used including quantitative and qualitative.
 9

Chapter 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The objective of this chapter is to

focus on presenting information graphically and analyzing the information gathered.
From there, the researchers draw conclusions to answer the research questions raised
at the beginning of the study. In addition, the researchers also made suggestions to
help overcome the difficulties that students and lecturers encountered through the
survey.
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION: Summarizing the key points of the results, pointing
out the study's shortcomings, and offering areas for future investigation.
 10

CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter analyzes the literature on the definition, characteristics, and

benefits of blended learning, as well as forms of blended learning, factors impacting
blended learning, blended learning implementation requirements, and previous study
on blended learning.

2.1. Blended learning on framework

2.1.1. Definition of Blended learning
The unfortunate unfolding of the Covid-19 pandemic globally with the
consequent closure of educational establishments in the concert of figuring out the
measures to encourage social distancing has brought to the fore the advantages of
online learning. The term "online learning" refers to learning environments that are
unit expedited by the web. Online learning refers to a variety of initiatives that use the
web to convey access to educational materials and permit interaction between lecturers
and students each among and outdoors of the schoolroom (Bakia, M., Shear, L.,
Toyama, Y., & Lasseter, A. ,2012) - understanding the Implications of Online
Learning for Instructional Productivity; Workplace of instructional Technology, U.S.
Department of Education). However, one of the up-to-date debates should be whether
students' learning quality will still be guaranteed once online regarding ancient
learning ways. This dialogue has become compelling in the context of the up to date
international expertise. Blended learning has come back to be seen as an Associate in
Nursing eclectic approach to learning which will optimize the simplest of two ways:
Online and ancient face-to-face ways.
Studies in BL in the education area are plentiful. For example, Singh (2003)
viewed blended learning as combining different delivery media to push purposeful and
motivating learning. Live chats, self-paced learning, instant electronic messaging,
social networking, diary and forums, applications, and webinars are unit samples of
tools instructors will use to include online opportunities in their categories. Another
clarification by Garrison and Kanuka (2004) offered a distinct angle: to mix merely
suggests desegregation of schoolroom teaching with online experiences. Driscoll
(2002) argues that four styles of mixes are often described:
Combining modes of web-based technology to accomplish an academic goal.
Combining education approaches to provide Associate in Nursing optimum learning
outcomes with or without educational technology.
Combining any variety of educational technology with face-to-face teacher crystal
rectifier coaching.
 11

Combining educational technology with actual job tasks (learning and working).
Many authors jointly shared similar reading points with Driscoll towards
process blended learning. Describe blended learning as a mix or integration of the
strengths of face-to-face instruction (e.g. live instruction and schoolroom interaction)
and computer-mediated instruction or online teaching (e.g. technologically mediate
interactions between students, lecturers, and learning resources) (Bliuc, Goodyear, &
Ellis, 2007; Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Graham, 2006; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003;
Watson, 2008). This exact definition seems comprehensive because it covers many
ways that would be utilized in blended learning; However, it is doable that the
specification makes it general. Consistent with Driscoll's definition, using technology
like a projector to help within the teaching method can even be thought-about a form
of blended learning. Though this definition might not answer all the problems relating
to what blended learning is and why it appeals to students in pedagogy, it will lay the
groundwork for future students to have a higher understanding of the subject.
Despite this, on top of delineating definitions, maybe the foremost common
interpretation is the mix of online and offline learning. Keeping these two assumptions
in mind (ill-defined idea and outlined mainly because of the mixture of on-and offline
instruction), the researchers tend to select the term blended learning as: the thoughtful
integration of face-to-face instruction and Internet-based delivering modalities applied
within the education system. From a broader perspective, it is often understood as
happiness to associate in the Nursing era of instructional technology within which
students learn through a mix of progressively various technologies, like desktop
computers, pill computers, mobile phones, wireless technology, and therefore the net,
sanctioning teaching and learning in a very face-to-face schoolroom and/or online
outside the schoolroom.
According to Jnr, B. A. (2021) and Trapp, S. (2006), Blended learning concepts
could be summarized as:
 12

Figure 2: Overview of blended learning

2.1.2. Characteristics
The following are the most common qualities mentioned by Egbert and Hanson
Smith (1999):
Students have occasions to connect socially and arrange meetings.
Students have sufficient opportunities to get feedback.
Students are guided to learn carefully during the learning process.
Students work in an environment with an ideal pressure level.
Blended learning's characteristics can be summarized as practical, efficient, and
adaptive. It motivates pupils to learn at an appropriate pace for their ability. It is a
combination of cutting-edge technology and face-to-face material. Students in blended
learning have plenty of opportunities to study and receive feedback from professors. It
is the most effective learning strategy for both lecturers and students.

2.1.3. Benefits
Numerous studies have reported on the advantages of BL in contemporary
education. For example, Medina (2018) suggests that BL increases learners'
engagement as it allows them the freedom to assemble resources from online and
offline sources and the opportunity for collaborative and self-paced learning. Moore et
al. (2017) argue that BL enables learners to learn independently, which enhances the
 13

rate of achieving learning outcomes compared to F2F learning (Bernard et al., 2014)
and entirely online learning (Atmacasoy & Aksu, 2018; Keengwe & Kang, 2013).
Besides, Atmaca Soy and Aksu (2018) found that the F2F part of a blended course
positively impacts learners' social connection, while the online part ensures quick
feedback and allows for diverse resources. BL provides learners with a pleasant,
economical, and flexible learning experience (Joosten, Barth, Harness & Weber, 2014)
due to synchronous and asynchronous learning facilities (Keengwe & Kang, 2013).
Different pedagogical approaches in BL such as collaborative learning, community
learning, and individual learning contribute to learner enthusiasm (Medina, 2018),
transforming the teaching-learning process from teacher-centered to student-centered
(Syamsuddin & Jimi, 2019). Due to its overwhelming benefits, BL is currently gaining
increased application in different areas of education, such as in pre-service teacher
education, where BL has been found to be more fruitful than traditional and online
learning separately (Atmaca Soy & Aksu, 2018).
As a result of these extensive studies, the researchers have concluded that BL
has the following significant advantages: (1) facilitating improved learning outcomes,
(2) access flexibility, (3) providing a sense of community, (4) the effective use of
resources, (5) and student satisfaction (Poon, J. (2013). Blended learning: An
institutional approach for enhancing students' learning experiences. Journal of online
learning and teaching, 9(2), 271-288.).

(1) Facilitating improved learning outcomes: Twigg (2003) claims that course
restructuring has resulted in higher marks, more knowledge, and a better
comprehension of course contents. López-Pérez et al. (2011) found comparable results
in their study of student performance at a Spanish institution. According to their
findings, blended learning positively lowers dropout rates and boosts test scores.

(2) Increased flexibility of access to learning: As BL modules combine face-to-face

and online components, this format allows learners at different geographical locations
to enroll in a program. In addition, the online components benefit other learners by
allowing them to work whenever and wherever they want since they can access the
Internet without making the journey to campus. Learning at a pace that suits each
learner is also improved. Via blended learning, students can catch up on a course if
and when they can. (Garnham & Kaleta, 2002; Owston, Wideman, Murphy, &
Lupshenyuk, 2008; Smyth, Houghton, Cooney, & Casey, 2012).
 14

(3) Providing a sense of community: Garrison and Kanuka (2004) research in higher
education institutions demonstrated that blended learning has transformative potential,
offering institutions the opportunity to embrace technology, encourage a community of
inquiry, and support active and meaningful learning. In addition, blended learning can
foster a professional learning community and yet still allow for the development of
social cohesion due to the inclusion of a face-to-face component (Owston et al. ,2008).

(4) The effective use of resources: Cost and resource effectiveness are also considered
an advantage of blended learning (Graham, 2006; Twigg, 2003; Vaughan, 2007).
Institutional costs are reduced since generated content can be uploaded to the Internet
and reused for an extended time. Additionally, the cohort size might be increased
while the class size is decreased. Blended learning minimizes the amount of time spent
in the classroom by staff and students, hence saving money on human resources costs.

(5) Promoting student satisfaction: Blended learning enables the students to become
more motivated and more involved in the learning process, thereby enhancing their
commitment and perseverance (Donnelly, 2010; Sharpe et al., 2006; Wang, Shen,
Novak, & Pan, 2009; Woltering, Herrler, Spitzer, & Spreckelsen, 2009). "Staff and
students have both reported that the online components of blended learning encourage
the development of critical thinking skills." (Poon, J. (2013). Student satisfaction has
also been higher in blended learning courses than purely face-to-face courses (Dziuban
et al., 2006; Owston et al., 2008; Twigg, 2003). "Therefore, blended learning is
beneficial to both students and institutions." (Poon, J. (2013).

2.1.4. Classifications of Blended learning

Blended learning is sorted by many different types, varying by technology,
purposes, learning spaces, scale, etc. NIIT (Valiathan, 2002) categorizes blended
learning into three models that supported the aim of learning: Skill-driven learning,
which mixes self-paced learning with instructor or facilitator support to develop
specific knowledge and skills; Attitude-driven learning, which develops new attitudes
and behaviors that require peer-to-peer interaction and a risk-free environment;
competency-driven learning, which blends performance support tools with knowledge
management resources and mentoring to develop workplace competencies.
Models of blended learning are classified at different organizational levels:
Activity level, Course level, Program level. Institutional level (Graham, 2006). At the
Course and Activity levels, lecturers play a really important role in blended learning,
they mark learning effectiveness and productivity. At the institutional and program
 15

levels, blended learning is principally the selection of the students. A course-level

blend requires a mixture of F2F and computer-mediated (CM) activities. However, this
sort is employed as a part of a course.
However, blended learning is typically categorized as enabling blend,
enhancing blend, and remodeling blend as a learning extent of blended learning
(Graham, 2006).
Enabling blend centers primarily specialize in addressing problems with access
and convenience for college students. They supply an “equivalent” learning experience
through F2F residential programs, entirely online programs, and blended learning
programs. During this system, learners pick the choice that best meets their cost and
time constraints. It helps students to possess more extra adaptability and supply
identical opportunities or learning experiences but through a unique modality to distant
learners. Enabling blend doesn't change the pedagogy of a course and is taken into
account as an extra decision for on-campus students (Lindquist, 2012).
Enhancing blend helps create gradual changes to the pedagogy but does not
transform the way teaching and learning occur. Teachers hunt for pedagogical methods
within which students benefit by using technology for learning. The inclusion of
supplemental online resources and also the implementation of online activities are
added to the standard face-to-face learning environment but they're small in scope in
comparison to the general course. In Enhancing blend, the pedagogy of a course may
well be changed, and sophistication time will be diminished so students don't have to
be co-located to figure (Graham, 2006). this is often the foremost widely known
reasonably blended learning in conventional college settings (Graham, 2012)
Transforming blend permits an extreme change in pedagogy. Transforming
types tend to facilitate active learner construction of information through dynamic
interactions. This sort should be applied with technology. There is a change from a
model where EFL students receive knowledge to a model where students effectively
learn with others in both face-to-face and online conditions. The teaching and learning
in face-to-face classes should be organized to strengthen online learning. This type of
blended learning is the "smart combination" (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008) of face-to-
face and online learning modalities, and both face-to-face and online learning
techniques are considered because of the fundamental instructional modes that help
each other.

2.1.5. Factors affecting Blended learning

Lim and Morris (2009) found that leaner, instructional, and motivational
variables had significant effects on learning outcomes. Salameh (2005, cited in Al-
 16

Zu’bi & Bani-Domi, 2012) identified some factors of blended learning success such as
student-teacher interaction, teamwork, flexible test, continuous communication,
content frequency, and enhancing student self-learning. Al-Hadhoud & Al-Hattami
(2017) indicated that the implementation of blended learning is still limited to some
obstacles such as lack of Internet access, classroom congestion, limited computerized
curriculum, and low skills of using Internet and computers, lack of training on the
implementation of blended learning, interrupted training of new teachers, and
theoretical training course.
Along with the numerous benefits cited in studies, schools and educators may
encounter some complex issues when implementing this blended method of teaching.
For instance, the majority of low-income schools struggle to satisfy the standards for
implementing necessary facilities, while several teachers may be hesitant to adopt this
mixed approach or may use it ineffectively due to a lack of knowledge and
capabilities. Ertmer (1999) describes these instances as hindrances for integrating
technology and gives an explanation of how these barriers can be classified as intrinsic
or internal.
In some researches, elements for blended learning have been identified:
Operating systems, Institutional support, Leadership; Technical infrastructure, Culture-
related factors, Teaching methods, Students’ and teacher attitudes, Technological skill.
These elements could be divided into internal and external factors.

a. External factors
Factor 1: Operating systems
Effective adoption of blended learning includes the use of interactive learning
programs that provide educators, university officials, and students with real-time
student results, student development, and the ability to quickly adjust student
achievement material and instruction. This includes Administrative systems like LMS,
Content Management Systems (CMS) or Student Information Systems (SIS), and
similar programs used in school to provide administrative, teacher, and student
records.
Tabor (2007) pointed out that blended learning requires organizational readiness,
sufficient technical resources, motivated teachers, good communication facilities, and
feedback channels. In addition, emerging curriculum models, new teaching and
learning policies to empower instructors, and effective adoption. Examples of
legislation that will need to be clarified include but are not limited to: seat-time as an
indicator of academic achievement; the amount of time an individual has to complete
the requisite classes; the selection of courses; educational qualifications; professional
 17

learning in favor of combined and online teachers; access to the infrastructure

necessary.

Factor 2: Institutional support

One of the factors that may affect the success of the implementation of blended
learning is institutional-related ones. Garrison and Kanuka (2004) stated that the
institution plays an indispensable part in the creation of suitable policy, resources, and
support systems to enable the successful implementation of a blended learning
program. Institutions implementing BL identify the goals they intend to achieve,
enhance pedagogy, increase access and flexibility, and improve cost-effectiveness and
resource use.
The attitude and mindset of the top management in most cases are an obstacle
to the adoption and implementation of the blended education system (Kamaludin et al.,
2021). Betts (2014) clarified in her report that the lack of institutional support led to
the encumbrance in teachers’ participation and retention in blended learning. In the
current situation where lectures and students gain little insight into knowledge and
skills to apply the blended learning course mentioned above, sufficient training and
support is a must to ensure the effectiveness of blended learning. These supports may
be the assistance in the design of the learning course or support for lecturers to gain a
grasp of technology used in blended learning to motivate regular online interaction
among students and help them overcome their online learning difficulties.

Factor 3: Leadership
Comprehensive, dedicated, and inclusive leadership is an important aspect required to
ensure the effective adoption of a blended learning initiative in a university.
Leadership serves as the framework around which all other parts are built, assisting
professors and students in effectively introducing and accepting blended learning.
Effective leaders collaborate to develop common objectives and priorities for blended
learning and then communicate and share those objectives and priorities effectively
with the individuals involved. After goals are established, formalized and informal
mechanisms are constructed to track and evaluate progress toward the goals on a
monthly basis. Leadership is required at all levels of the system to ensure the
successful execution and deployment of blended learning.

Factor 4: Technical infrastructure

External factors affecting blended learning might come from infrastructure-
related problems. This includes poor technology tools and equipment, a lack of
 18

required facilities, inadequate technical support. Since blended learning combines

online learning materials with the help of computer and web-based technology, it may
have negative effects on students’ comprehension process.
Technology is the main cause of blended learning happening smoothly (Lazar et
al., 2020). It depends on the technical resources, technical competencies. This
technology need has made the utilization of technology, expertise, and technical know-
how a requirement for all teachers and administrators together with the scholars
(Apandi et al., 2020). Blended learning allows for technology to get used for multiple
opportunities within the classroom at an identical time. Necessary technology
infrastructure is required for successful blended learning implementation. This
includes a dependable telecommunications network, software, and hardware devices
that can be accessed and utilized by students and teachers, a course management
system/platform has been provided for use by blended teachers, including
individualized student log-ins, discussion board, teacher assignments, and digital grade
book. "In addition to the technology infrastructure, educators and students need
effective technology support to maintain positive momentum in teaching and learning
in a digital environment." (Ezziane, Z. ,2007).
Moreover, the appliance of blended learning into teaching requires students and
lecturers to possess technical devices to get access to online platforms. It can be seen
from the NEU students' situation, they would often be faced with issues about the
internet connection during lessons on Microsoft Teams - an online learning platform.
This causes a disruption for both students and teachers to run the class smoothly.
Another problem is that they may not be able to access the website that provides
online lessons or they can not submit their assignments as a result of the overloading
systems.
These situations may result from the lack of on-campus Internet coverage and
additional software to design blended courses (Alebaikan, 2010), the lack of
accessibility to Internet-connected computers (Ocak, 2011), or the instability of
technological devices. However, these barriers could be easily solved by the allocation
of money to upgrade the learning system and online platforms.

Factor 5: Culture-related factors

Another factor that appears to contribute to the success of blended learning is
culture-related one because culture has played an important part in every aspect of life,
including education. Cultural attributes can indeed impact learner perceptions, and so
it is important to consider the cultural backgrounds of learners if the researchers are to
understand the ways in which they respond to computer-based learning. Furthermore,
 19

it is paramount that the impact of culture on learner behavior and acceptance of the
learning environment is considered something that becomes particularly important
when it comes to teaching and learning, as well as embedding tools and functions that
allow for different levels of learning and culture. As a result, numerous factors must be
considered before implementing particular blended activities, including the target
learners, their social, cultural, and economic backgrounds, their age range, and their
access to technology infrastructure. Moreover, states there are distinct features within
“online collaborative learning experiences, participation, and satisfaction of students
from different cultural backgrounds, additionally suggesting that social constructivism,
as well as the adoption of blended learning, can be directly related to cultural
differences” (Alsaif, M. , 2021). For example, Western students are seen to be more
accepting, comfortable, and confident in working within the student-centered
environment, compared to Asian students, who preferred the more traditional,
instructor-centered approach. In Vietnam, students often are passive recipients of
knowledge and may not dare to ask their teachers directly and express their ideas
honestly, which may not obtain the full potential of the blended approach while it
requires students to interact regularly with their educators in the online and offline
form to gain better insight into the subjects or courses. Consequently, it would be
difficult for them to adapt to self-study and self-regulated learning environments in
blended learning courses.

b. Internal factors
Factor 6: Teaching methods
A coordinated, intentional, and systematic professional development plan, based on
stated goals should be in place for both school leaders and participating teachers
(Ezziane, Z., 2007). Professional development, both formal and informal, and for both
leaders and teachers is a key component for the ongoing implementation of goals and
for the roadmap.
The classroom teacher is essential to the blended learning implementation. "Teachers
will need to understand and believe in the pedagogical shift in their teaching to
successfully transform their classrooms and teaching to a blended model." (Ezziane, Z.
,2007).The blended model chosen for implementation will determine how a teacher
organizes his/her classroom, schedules, their day, uses digital content and data and
transforms teaching. Teaching pedagogy and strategies will also change. Types of
strategies may include student grouping, peer-to-peer interaction, and the way in
which student learning is personalized and customized. Each blended learning model
will require all teachers to make a shift in their teaching and instructional practices.
 20

The adopted pedagogical approaches and the classroom teacher’s practices will be the
most important piece to a successful implementation of blended learning (Ezziane, Z. ,
2007). The collection of materials to be used by teaching staff is essential to the
effective adoption of a blended learning initiative. Teachers should consider the
accessible information and make choices on the basis of the needs of their students,
such as the available cost, evaluation of the effectiveness.

Factor 7: Students’ and teacher attitudes

The human factors are most important in the adoption and implementation of
the blended learning system (Aditya et al., 2021); (Huy et al., 2020). The major
resistance to any adoption comes from the teachers and students who find it difficult to
change and adopt new technology. So, the awareness of the need to change should be
spread, then the desire to change should be encouraged by knowing the benefits and
the ease of change.
Several studies indicate that learners’ attitudes play an important part in
academic performance. For this reason, the role of students must be considered.
Traditional studying habits may lead to the loss of the ability to judge the learning
materials or solve the problems by students and make them unable to fulfill all
potential elements of blended learning such as online discussion boards, online
tutorials, online submission, and so on. As a result, their interaction with educators
may also be less likely to happen, which hinders them from actively participating in
those online activities. Another research also shows that the learning attitude can affect
the success of blended learning.
Besides students’ attitudes, that of the teachers and their perception is also a key
factor that promotes or hinders blended learning. If they have a positive attitude
towards blended learning, they may funnel all their efforts into adopting and fostering
it (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby & Ertmer, 2010) and in contrast, if they are
obliged to implement blended learning without being fully aware of its benefits, they
may hold negative attitude and not try their best to apply it (Niemiec & Otte, 2010).
Consequently, it can badly affect the students’ learning experiences as well as their
learning effectiveness.

Factor 8: Technological skill

The second factor relates to the ability to use computer or web-based
technology. Students and teachers who are better at dealing with computers had a
likelihood of holding a positive of blended learning and devoting themselves more to
applying it. On the contrary, those lacking technological skills or being computer-
 21

inexperienced appear to be in fear of the use of technology in their learning. In some

cases, students may be faced with several technology-related problems in their online
learning part in blended courses such as Internet connection problems, or troubles with
assignment submission systems (Moskal & Cavanagh, 2013). Therefore, gaining a
basic understanding of computers can help them solve these problems easily.
Moreover, the teachers’ technological skills are also a crucial factor that
contributes to the success of blended learning implementation. This is because if
teachers acquire good knowledge of technical skills, they can deal with both expected
and unexpected issues during their teaching and students’ learning process in order to
ensure a smooth and efficient blended course, which may inspire students to utilize
this blended learning method effectively. However, several teachers find it difficult
and time-consuming to build the course (Abelson, 2008) while others restrict ICT
knowledge and competence (Thu & Nicolas and Lewis, 2012).
Although the term “blended learning” appeared at the beginning of the 21st
century, it has gained popularity in the education system from all over the world.
According to Allen and Seaman (2006), blended learning has been identified as a
major global trend in the knowledge delivery industry. Therefore, numerous researches
were conducted about different aspects of blended learning such as its implementation,
its effectiveness on educators and learners, and so on in order to bring out in-depth
knowledge about it.

2.1.6. Advantages of applying Blended learning to learning English

The primary benefit of blended learning is that it combines the advantages of
distance education with the effective aspects of traditional education (Buket
Akkoyunlu and Meryem Yilmaz Soylu, 2006). Here the researchers can understand
this benefit embodied in the combination of the face-to-face interaction of traditional
education and the limitlessness of time and place of e-learning. Because teachers and
students have more freedom and accessibility without compromising face-to-face
contact, the approach gives students the best of both worlds. “A blended learning
method is a cost-effective and low-risk solution for facing the challenge of higher
education's transformative changes brought on by technology advancements''
(Hancock & Wong, 2012).
The second benefit is that students can move at their own pace (Sarka
Hubackova and Ilona Semradova, 2016). As the researchers all know, not everyone
has the same capacity for learning and knowledge acquisition, when using the blended
learning technique, students have the chance of studying at their own pace. In other
words, adjusting based on receptive capacity. In addition, blended learning allows for
 22

greater customization, personalization, and relevance. “It lets the instructor tailor
learning content to the unique needs of different audience segments” (Buket
Akkoyunlu and Meryem Yilmaz Soylu, 2006).
A third benefit is offering learners the opportunity to be either together or apart
(Buket Akkoyunlu and Meryem Yilmaz Soylu, 2006). Blended learning is a
pedagogical approach that emphasizes the integration of online and in-person
classroom components. Additionally, because students often have a variety of different
learning styles, a mixed delivery system enables students to study and access
knowledge in a variety of different formats. Indeed, research indicates that blended
learning increases students' chances of completing courses more effectively than solely
online or even entirely face-to-face courses by lowering dropout rates, increasing exam
scores, and increasing motivation.
Fourth, blended learning represents a switch from passive learning to active
learning (Buket Akkoyunlu and Meryem Yilmaz Soylu, 2006). The classroom evolves
from a presentational approach to one that emphasizes active learning. This entails
putting students in settings where they are forced to read, talk, listen, and think. In
which, an important role is played by immediate feedback (Sarka Hubackova and
Ilona Semradova, 2016). So, blended learning adds a human touch to the teaching
(Buket Akkoyunlu and Meryem Yilmaz Soylu, 2006). The instructor may establish a
high degree of engagement, accountability, and meaningful evaluation of the
interactive content.
In a research involving first-year medical students, Liu, Hu, Zhan, and Yan
(2014) revealed that students considered blended learning was better and more
beneficial than traditional learning and elearning. Blended learning has a number of
advantages over traditional learning, according to this study: students have better
access to learning materials and greater study independence; it is convenient and
timesaving with an elearning platform; students' motivation is improved and course
involvement is increased; students feel more in control of their learning and learning is
more efficient.

2.1.7 Disadvantages of applying Blended learning to learning English

The drawback of technology difficulties should be the first to be mentioned.
“This was especially true for students who had to rely on sluggish Internet
connections” (e.g., dialup) (Smyth et al., 2012). Students' capacity to participate in
online discussions has been observed to be hampered by Internet access (King, 2002),
which can lead to dissatisfaction (Hara, 2000; Hara & Kling, 1999; Welker &
Berardino, 2005-2006) and poor negativity affects learning. The difficulty in acquiring
 23

new learning technology skills, such as how to develop online learning communities,
conduct online discussion forums, and supervise students, is also a hurdle for
universities, and colleges implementing blended learning (Dziuban & Moskal, 2013;
Voos, 2003). Technology may be a difficulty for colleges pursuing blended learning,
especially for students.
The absence of assistance for course creation is another disadvantage for
institutions. To provide students with a successful blended learning experience,
universities must support course redesign, which may include determining which
course objectives are best accomplished through online learning activities, what can be
accomplished best in the classroom, and how to integrate these two learning
environments (Dziuban) et al., 2006). The course design is also considered too simple
and all the lessons are organized in an identical way (Sarka Hubackova and Ilona
Semradova, 2016).
The third disadvantage in implementing blended learning for colleges is the
time commitment, just as it is a challenge for students. According to Johnson (2002),
planning and producing a large-enrollment blended learning course takes two to three
times as long as developing a similar course in a traditional format.
Finally, according to Dinh et al, blended learning has a number of
disadvantages for freshmen and sophomores. First, it is a new form of learning. The
form of blended learning is new and different from the traditional form of learning.
Especially the old concept in the teaching form of high school (teacher-centered:
teachers teach, students write; subject knowledge must be provided by teachers ...) still
exists. Second, students still have psychological barriers to applying blended learning
to learning. Many people mistakenly believe that applying blended learning to
teaching and learning jobs requires super computer skills that they cannot reach,
especially when the general education level is not high.

2.2 Previous studies about applying blended learning to learn English.

In the theory and practice of blended learning, there are several certain
experiences described in the scientific works of domestic and foreign scientists. In
general, most studies give us insights on the development of blended learning, the
benefits and drawbacks of blended learning, the difference between blended learning
and face-to-face classes, the prospects, and possibilities of blended learning, etc.

2.2.1. Domestic researches

For scientific research conducted in Vietnam, the blended learning method is
seen as an improvement to keep up with the progress of the times. Official Dispatch
 24

No. 5444/BGDĐT-GDĐH, November 16, 2017, of the Ministry of Education and

Training (2017) on the application of a specific mechanism for training majors in the
field of information technology (IT) at the university level, requires universities to
increase IT application in training, apply online training, blended learning, and
practical training at enterprises. Deploying a shared online training system, building
shared resources (Hung, 2019). Le Thai et al (2021) have defined that: "Blended
learning is a concept used in the field of education to describe a learning program that
combines interactive classroom time and learning time. online through the application
of information technology." This study also suggests that blended learning
environments provide opportunities for effective communication and interaction for
the participants. Blended learning here is not only cooperation in groups of students
but also the process of cooperation and communication between lecturers and students,
students with support tools, and learning materials. This process can happen anytime,
anywhere. Students-Teachers communicate and learn with the support of technology
products to form a large learning space. In addition, the survey by Bui, T. A. N. (2019)
also provides information that the majority of students find it convenient to use online
tools: the system is easy to use, fast, convenient, and suitable for readers. However,
only a very small percentage of students receive corrections and feedback from their
teachers.

2.2.2. Foreign researches

In terms of ICT integration in English language learning, Collis and Moonen
(2001) divide ICT integration into three groups, namely 'learning resources including
educational software, online resources, and resources. video. Tang and Chaw (2013)
tested with 95 students; specifically, the control group in the traditional classroom (22
students) and the experimental group in the blended classroom (73 students), when
tested for attitudes towards blended learning at the beginning of the classes for the
same score. Students learn better through instructor-led classroom-based activities.
The main finding at the end of blended learning and traditional classrooms was that
exposure to blended learning positively changed students' attitudes towards blended
learning, and lack of exposure did not change overall attitudes. of students but reduces
specific attitudes. Ibrahim & Yusoff (2013) indicated that the blended learning style
used for the speaking course provided additional opportunities for students to practice
speaking outside the classroom. It also allows students to develop and publish for real-
life audiences. They also found that using wikis in a blended learning atmosphere was
beneficial for the Public Speaking course.
 25

Similarly, Miyazoe et al. (2018) believe that blended learning is appropriate for
implementing language skills, especially in courses related to speaking and grammar.
Bandit Bhilai (2016) conducted a study focusing on improving students' language
skills using a blended learning approach. His research reveals that there are direct
effects of associative learning on language listening skills, while he believes that
blended learning enables students to become autonomous learners and motivates them
to improve their language skills. improve your listening skills.
According to author Naaj et al (2012), learner satisfaction is a factor
determining the quality of combined students and that satisfaction is enjoyed by
factors such as teachers, interaction, work technology and management classes.
Research by two authors Usta and Ozdemir (2007) at a Turkish university based on the
active experience of learners with the course content in the combined environment.
Accessibility to content, convenience, and usefulness are positive aspects that are
recognized by learners. Similarly, in the study by Sharafuddin and Allani (2011), the
large population surveyed agree/strongly agree that the learning materials include
books, manuals and effective video aids.
Flexibility in learning time and place are two factors expected by learners with
the combination of Paechter et al. (2010). They also emphasize the ease and speed of
exchanging information and knowledge with classmates and supporting each other
through active discussion groups. In a study by Pinto and Anderson (2013), students'
expectations with a hybrid course revolve around four factors: technology, learning
content, difficulty level, and communication with teachers and classmates. Most
students install the combined course as a rewarding experience; However, there are
some opposing opinions that allow the combination of pets and learning systems.

Although the phrase "blended learning" was recently introduced, it has grown
in popularity in educational systems worldwide. Blended learning has been highlighted
as a critical global trend in the knowledge delivery business, according to Allen and
Seaman (2006). As a result, multiple studies have been undertaken on various
elements of blended learning, such as its implementation, efficiency of educators and
learners, and a thorough understanding of it. However, blended learning is still a
relatively new concept in Vietnam's educational system, and the term gained currency
just recently during the Covid-19 when schools were under pressure to replace the old
method. Moreover, in English language teaching and learning, few studies have
discussed how a blended learning approach can be used to improve speaking skills.
 26

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the discussion on research methodologies of the study

including the subjects, quantitative and qualitative approach and statistical treatment
that will be used for accurate data analysis and interpretation.

3.1. Participants of the study

In this study, freshmen and sophomores studying English speaking skills at
NEU enrolled during school year 2020-2021 from various departments namely
Business English, Non-english major, AEP, POHE, English learning program (EBBA,
CFAB, EMQI,...) will be selected to participate in the process. All participants already
had or were having English speaking courses.The participants are clearly instructed to
fill in the prepared survey and given immediate assistance if any issues arise.

3.2. Methods of collecting data

During the study, a mixed-method approach using quantitative and qualitative
was employed.

3.2.1. Quantitative methodologies

For the purpose of the study, a questionnaire method on students' attitudes
toward applying blended learning methods on teaching and learning speaking skills is
adopted. The researchers have combed through hundreds of data relevant to the
assessment of blended learning in order to construct a set of critical goals for
accurately and objectively assessing students' opinions. Among the research criteria,
the researchers decided to pick the six most prominent aspects, including Technology
(4 questions), Design and planning (6 questions), Content of lessons (8 questions),
Interaction between students and students (4 questions), Interaction between students
and teachers (5 questions) and Course outcomes (5 questions). These six factors are
also familiar contributors to NEU students in their learning process. As a result, the
researchers can ensure 100% of participants can clearly understand all the questions in
order to receive the information needed for our study. By analyzing the data collected
from the survey, the researchers can figure out the similarities and differences between
the traditional teaching method and the blended learning approach. Simultaneously,
the survey questionnaire provides the researchers with the difficulties that Economics
freshmen and sophomores encountered, thereby suggesting some suggestions to
overcome.
 27

This survey is conducted in the form of online questionnaires via google docs
forms. There are two major sections of the questionnaire:
Part 1: Respondents' demographic data: majors and years of academic study.
Part 2: The questionnaire items were developed using Likert 5 scales and multiple-
choice questions in order to assess the success of blended learning in terms of
technology, course content, course result, design and planning, and interaction.
The survey is anonymously formatted to ensure the privacy of the individuals
participating in the questionnaire and get the most reliable responses.

3.2.2. Qualitative methodologies

a. Interview
The data collected from NEU lecturers is objective. A 15-minute-interview was
carried out with six lecturers coming from a variety of departments of NEU to limit the
students' bias. A set of questions are created as a form of assessment from lecturers'
perspectives in order to compare them with students’ viewpoints. Teachers were
interviewed online using online communication services such as Ms Teams, Google
Meet, and Zalo. The interview will be documented in two ways: verbally and in
writing. First, The interview follows a predetermined format, which includes eight
questions that lecturers must respond to in-depth from their perspectives.
Consequently, teachers were invited to join a created room to further explain their
answers and give a comparison between the traditional method and the blended
learning method.

b. Documentary study methodology

To achieve convergence and corroboration, qualitative researchers drew on a
variety of resources, including diverse data sources and methodologies from previous
research on the application of blended learning to the acquisition of speaking abilities.
The study makes use of the analysis of gathered materials, achievement theory, and
research findings on speaking skills, which makes documents a very accessible and
reliable source of data. In addition, collecting and analyzing records is often far more
cost-efficient than carrying out our own studies or experiments. As result, the research
may provide enough background information and extensive coverage of data, as well
as include factual data that informants have forgotten, and track change and progress.
 28

3.3 Data processing methods

The mean of the students' measurements on various elements was calculated
using the Likert scale of 5 and was utilized to evaluate their overall opinions. There are
five levels on the scale, including “strongly disagree”, “Disagree”, “Neutral”, “Agree”,
and “Strongly agree”. With regard to Technology, a special scale containing four
levels “bad”, “acceptable”,” good”, and “excellent” is utilized as a means to be easily
observed and analyzed. In addition, SPSS is utilized to analyze data by calculating the
mean attitude for six aspects of blended learning and then to draw conclusions about
the overall perspectives about applying blended learning in learning speaking skills in
NEU. The mean attitude of the students can be concluded based on predetermined
Likert scale range intervals that can be summarized as follows:
Scale 1: from 1.00 to 1.80 means Strongly disagree
Scale 2: from 1.81 to 2.60 means Disagree
Scale 3: from 2.61 to 3.40 means Neutral
Scale 4: from 3.41 to 4.20 means Agree
Scale 5: from 4.21 to 5.00 means Strongly agree
 29

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3

This chapter presents the detailed analysis of the collected data through six
main aforementioned aspected: Course outcomes, Technology, Design and planning,
Content, Interaction among students, and Interaction between students and lecturers in
blended learning speaking skills lessons.
The results are aggregated in the form of bar charts and tables. In addition, the
researchers use percentile calculations to get the percentage of survey results selected.
Regarding the survey questions, a table with two columns: contents of the questions
and number of each question are created:

Table 1. The number of questions

Contents Number of questions

Technology 4

Design and planning 6

Content of lessons 8

Interaction between students and 4

students

Interaction between students and 5

teachers

Outcomes 5
 30

The information of lecturers participating in the interview:

Table 2. Information about numbers of lecturers participating in the interview

Lecturer’s teaching department Numbers of lecturers Percentage (%)

Business English 05 83%

Non-major English 01 17%

(Source: Survey results from researchers)

The information about lecturers’ experience:

Table 3. Information about lecturer’s experience

Number of experience years Number of Percentage (%)

lecturers

Less than 10 years 02 33%

More than 10 years 04 67%

 31

The information of students participating in the survey:

Table 4. Information about the academic year of the students

Academic year Numbers of students Percentage (%)

First-year 23 15%

Second-year 130 85%

The information about majors of the students:

Table 5. Information about majors of the students

Major Numbers of participants

Business English 87

Non-English major 42

AEP 10

POHE 08

English learning program (EBBA, CFAB, 05

EMQI,...)

Others 01
 32

From the above results, the accurate conclusion is made about the students’
attitude towards applying blended learning on teaching and learning speaking skills for
freshman and sophomores of NEU. The detailed report are displayed as follows:

4.1 Evaluation on course outcomes in blended learning

Figure 3: Students’ evaluation on outcomes in blended speaking skill lessons.

The given bar graph presents information about the outcomes of blended
learning methods for speaking skill courses at NEU. As it is observed, the illustration
of the outcomes assessed by students expresses the “Neutral” and “Agree” opinions
towards all five statements, which means that the final results of most of the students
are fixed or slightly improved. In detail, both “Neutral” and “Agree” make up the
majority of roughly one third, with the “Neutral’ opinion fluctuating from 32.03% for
“I am satisfied with my final result in the speaking course” to 43.14% for “I have a
positive attitude towards the blended learning approach via speaking lessons”. In
addition, the percentage of students approving the prepared questionnaire is the highest
figure being reported, except for the fourth sentence in which the neutral student
proportion surpasses. Specifically, 43.1% of participants hold a neutral viewpoint
when they are asked if they have a positive attitude toward the new blended approach,
whereas 39.2% claim they do have. This trend can be explained by either the
frustration and concentration loss during the blended speaking skill lessons that were
encountered by the majority of the respondents, or blended learning is still challenging
at first. In contrast to the preceding picture, there is a clear majority of students who
agree with "The learning outcomes are distributed across the semester and the course
in the LMS is available in a week-by-week format," at 43.8 percent, which is 9.8
 33

percent higher than the "Neutral" figure and becomes the chart's most prominent
figure.
On the other hand, economics students who strongly disagree account for less
than 5%, while those who strongly agree on account for a maximum of 11.8 percent
and 14.4 percent, respectively.
As can be seen from the features above, the outcomes of speaking courses that
employ a blended learning method are not jeopardized by the abrupt switch to the new
method - blended learning. This is synonymous with the fact that students' learning
quality will be guaranteed despite the adoption of a new teaching model in recent
years. This is because, apart from the difficulties encountered during lessons, the
amount of knowledge required for the final examination is comparable. Regardless of
the difficulties inherent in imparting lessons, teachers always strive to assist students
in fully absorbing the material by utilizing a variety of tools designed to meet students'
interests and yield the best results.
 34

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of outcomes in the blended speaking skill lessons

Statements N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation

O1 There is a clear 152 1 5 3.57 0.918

alignment between
course goals and
learning objectives.

O2 Learning outcomes are 152 1 5 3.48 0.899

distributed over the
semester and the
course in LMS is
available in week-wise
format

O3 I am satisfied with my 152 1 5 3.44 1.002

final result in the
speaking course

O4 I have a positive 152 1 5 3.44 0.844

attitude towards the
blended learning
approach via speaking
lessons.

O5 I enjoy using blended 152 1 5 3.42 0.967

learning for my
English speaking skills

A blended learning method is a novel approach to education that was developed in

response to the stressful COVID epidemic situation. As a result, it is critical to conduct
an evaluation of this method's effectiveness with students and teachers. However, it is
difficult to provide 100% accurate results for satisfaction.
Because of the increasing number of cases nationwide, NEU students and
faculty have applied a blended learning approach to the curriculum. Therefore, all
learning materials and course content have been publicly posted on the school's LMS
system. From there, students can clearly understand the goal of the course they want to
 35

achieve and then set a suitable learning goal for themselves. That is the reason why the
opinion "There is a clear alignment between course goals and learning objectives" has
the highest approving average rate (approximately 3.57). In addition, the view
"Learning outcomes are distributed over the semester and courses in LMS are
available in a week-wise format" had an average rating of 3.48, ranking second. It
means that instructors posting materials and students posting their homework on a
weekly basis helps to break down course outcomes. This enables instructors and
students to easily track the course's learning outcomes and progress, allowing for
timely adjustments to help the course meet its objectives.
After gaining a thorough understanding of the course's content and objectives,
students evaluated their satisfaction with the use of blended learning to acquire and
teach speaking skills. The majority of students who responded to the survey expressed
a favorable attitude toward this novel method of instruction and expressed satisfaction
with their final grades (the average mean is 3.44). However, because this is a novel
method of instruction, both students and teachers will require time to adjust and
become accustomed to it. As a result, students demonstrated a low level of interest in
using blended learning to improve their English speaking skills, scoring only 3.42.
Because satisfaction is assessed based on personal experience, there is a margin
of error for each opinion. Based on the data table, the researchers can see that the
biggest error occurs in O3 opinion with 1,002. This means that this opinion has the
most mixed opinions. It can be explained that unfamiliarity with the new method of
instruction may result in some students being unable to adapt to the situation, thereby
lowering their learning outcomes. By contrast, students who can adapt quickly will
have the opportunity to thrive and earn higher grades than they did in previous
semesters.
The perspectives of many lecturers demonstrate the range of students' academic
outcomes. To be more specific, half of the lecturers perceived improvements in final
grades, whereas one-third believe that the output quality of students attending courses
has not improved significantly.
Notably, according to one survey of lectures from FFL, "the majority of
students (50 percent) favor traditional learning techniques, while others prefer online
learning."
In terms of learning outcomes, traditional learning is still preferable because
children may study autonomously". One may argue that the relative effectiveness of
various modes of distribution changes with the degree of learning outcomes, with
online and in-person delivery methods being comparable for lower-level capabilities
but superior for higher-level abilities.
 36

4.2 Evaluation on the technology in blended learning

Figure 4: Students’ evaluation on technology in blended speaking skill lessons

The bar graph provides data on economics students’ assessment of technology

in terms of the efficiency of using blended learning in speaking skill lessons. Overall,
the results are quite positive with the majority of participants confirming the
technological application to be “Good” and “Acceptable”. Almost all students, when
asked, believe the speaking lessons have been prepared properly considering the
technological aspect. Specifically, the “Acceptable” opinion only alters from 39.2% of
“Sound quality when communicating with other students and teachers during speaking
lessons” to 43.1% of “Internet streaming speed to play video material/lecture videos
and presentations”, while the viewpoint “Good” has higher percentage but with the
same fluctuation, from 40.5% to maximum 47.7%. Meanwhile, the “Excellent”
opinion accounted for 10% on average, and the “Bad” one took the most minority
percentage, which is no more than 6% for all four statements.
The reason for these statistics is obvious. With the development and advantage
of technology nowadays, and especially the popularity of online learning courses
during the past few years because of the Covid-19 pandemic, students can easily
access online classes, using varieties of technological devices. Familiarity with these
devices is critical to the effectiveness of speaking lessons. Another factor is the
widespread use of internet connections, such as wireless fidelity (WiFi) and local area
networks (LANs), which can be found in virtually every home in many cities.
According to lecturers participating in the interview, 100% have experienced
unstable Internet connection during blended learning lessons. In NEU, although the
internet is widespread, several classrooms still lack adequate network connectivity,
 37

leading to disruption in the classroom. In addition, lecturers must carry their own
converters in order to implement online classes, and the frequency of micro issues is
considerable, causing lecturers inconvenience.
In conclusion, the involvement of technology in blended learning courses is
much larger than the traditional classrooms, and so is the problem related to
technology. It is obvious to notice the difficulties are the unstable connection during
classes, things would not happen if studying in a normal classrooms with no
technological devices.

4.3 Evaluation on the design and planning in blended learning

Figure 5: Students’ evaluation of design and planning in blended speaking skill
lessons.

(Source: Survey results from researchers)

The bar chart illustrates the students’ attitudes toward the design and planning
of speaking skill lessons. As can be seen, the majority of students agree with all six
statements that English speaking lessons have been well-designed and prepared in
order to gain the maximum results for every lesson. However, besides the supporting
percentages, there are also a large number of opinions that do not fully agree with
these claims. In detail, the chart revealed that more than a quarter of the students have
neutral opinions; ranging from 22.2% for “The learning objectives are clearly stated in
the course syllabus”, to a maximum of 39.9% for “The course provides guidelines or
links to resources on how to succeed as a student in online or blended environments”.
The remaining percentage belongs to “disagree” and “strongly disagree” viewpoints
 38

which on average is just below 10%, except for 11.1% of disagreements in the
statement “the balance between online and classroom activities”. In conclusion, the
percentage statistics show that students were not totally satisfied with the design and
planning, with slightly more than half of the students favoring the incorporation of
blended learning applied in their speaking lessons.
This can be explained that although blended learning has been applied since the
beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, speaking is a subject that relies heavily on
interaction between people, so it is difficult for lecturers to innovate solutions to
replace face-to-face experience for learners. Moreover, the blended learning
techniques are also affected by the situation of the Covid-19 outbreak. Therefore, the
effectiveness of design and planning for speaking skill lessons will need time and
other innovations to get the best version and to meet students’ favorites.
The following table analyzes the design and planning of the speaking skill
lessons in a blended learning environment:

Table 7. Descriptive statistics of design and planning of the speaking skill lessons
in blended learning
Statements N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation

D1 The learning 152 1 5 3.80 0.984

objectives are clearly
stated in the course
syllabus.

D2 The organization of 152 2 5 3.70 0.764

lessons is easy to
follow.

D3 The presentation of 152 1 5 3.61 0.878

lessons
(e.g. demonstrations,
videos, links to
relevant websites,…)
is designed and
planned clearly and
carefully
 39

D4 The requirements for 152 2 5 3.59 0.833

student interaction
and progression
through the course
are clearly
articulated.

D5 The course provides 152 1 5 3.47 0.906

guidelines or links to
resources on how to
succeed as a student
in online or blended
environments.

D6 The balance between 152 1 5 3.36 0.902

online and classroom
activities.

This statistic demonstrates that the majority of students agree on the beneficial
effects of design and planning. In detail, the highest mean of 3.80 is assigned to the
learning objectives. This can be explained by the fact that regardless of whether
students attend speaking courses via online or offline learning methods, learners are
provided with a syllabus and objectives at the start of each course to assist them in
achieving a specific goal by the end of the course. D2 and D3 come in second and
third place, respectively, with 3.70 and 3.60. As mentioned in the introduction chapter,
English speaking ability is a unique subject that requires not only knowledge but also
interaction. To adapt to the new blended learning method in the Covid-19
environment, various techniques have been used to pique students' interest,
necessitating the development of new supporting tools such as minigames or other
activities by lecturers. The lowest mean is 3.36 for D6, which is understandable given
that offline activities are almost entirely prohibited during the Covid-19 outbreak's
tension, leaving only online platforms for studying.
One point of view that needs to be mentioned is the lecturer's viewpoint,
especially when preparing for individual speaking lessons. Teachers are responsible
for designing and planning the lessons carefully and meticulously. 100% of
interviewed lecturers agree there is a significant change compared to offline classes,
replacing technological tools. According to one surveyed lecturer from FFL of NEU:"
 40

Certainly there is change, there should be many different activities. Speaking skill
inherently requires many different activities, while in the past, teachers had to integrate
class activities with situations. However, teachers now need to combine many different
media (e.g. audio-visual media) and create many other activities in the curriculum".
Other lecturers also indicate that depending on the lessons and teaching purpose,
online documents such as PowerPoint slides, video demonstrations, and any relevant
materials can be added to the teaching process.
Compared with the traditional teaching method, the design and planning for
English speaking skill lessons has been innovated differently to match the online
platform, which included many tools and media similar to the technology aspect.
Difficulties are how to collaborate many tools perfectly in just a limited time of
lessons to make students interesting and absorb the knowledge.
 41

4.4 Evaluation on the content in blended learning.

Figure 6: Students’ evaluation on content in blended speaking skill lessons.

(Source: Survey results from researchers)

The table above explores the survey participants' content evaluation in blended
speaking skill lessons at NEU. Overall, most of the respondents agree with all eight
views displayed in the study, except for the timely aspect allowed to complete
assignments. In addition, there is an insignificant minority in the "Strongly disagree",
with the maximum rate of 4,6%, which falls in "The contents presented are interesting,
easy to keep up with". Approximately half of the reviewers consent to the adequate
theory and practicality of the speaking skill lessons, making this statement the highest
figure concerning agreement rate. The idea of "minigames and activities held during
school hours" and "The quizzes and tests on online platforms are useful in assessment"
share the same approval rate, at 43.1%. A similar pattern is witnessed in the "The
contents are designed to promote interaction (instructor-student, content-student,
student-student) that are appropriate to the course learning outcomes" section, with
39.2% support, equivalent to "The contents presented are interesting and easy to keep
up with". Also, here, there is a significant difference from the rest of the figures: the
proportion of students gravitating toward a "Neutral" viewpoint ranking number one,
nearly 40%. This trend is due to either default fixed topics in the curriculum or too
many academic vocabularies that not all students can stay interested in throughout the
lessons. What is also noticeable in the chart is an equal percentage of "Neutral" and
"Agree" opinions, at 37.9%, observed in the sentence "The length of assignments
enables students to finish on time". This phenomenon can be attributed to various
factors relating to the submission process, namely how well students manage their
workload, their time management skills, electronic devices malfunctions, or the
 42

likelihood of coincident deadlines, which all contribute to an insufficient amount of

time to submit their exercises. As a result, students lack sufficient grounds to agree or
disagree with the survey's point of view.

Table 8. Descriptive statistics of the content of speaking skill lessons in blended

learning
Statements N Minimum Maximu Mean Std.
m Deviation

C1 The theoretical & 152 1 5 3.67 0.897

practical contents are
adequate

C2 The contents 152 1 5 3.54 0.868

presented are up-to-
date.

C3 The contents 152 1 5 3.40 0.937

presented are
interesting and easy
to keep up

C4 The mini-games and 152 1 5 3.45 0.860

other activities held
during the speaking
lessons are relevant
and interactive.

C5 The contents are 152 1 5 3.44 0.897

designed to promote
interaction
(instructor-student,
content-student,
student-student) that
is appropriate to the
course learning
outcomes.
 43

C6 The assignments are 152 1 5 3.49 0.838

clearly
instructed/guided

C7 The length of 152 1 5 3.43 0.933

assignments enables
students to finish on
time

C8 The quizzes and tests 152 1 5 3.53 0.876

on online platforms
are useful in
assessment.
Overall, students studying English speaking skills at NEU show agreement with
the perspective of this research. C1 has the highest mean (3.67) on the chart, this could
be explained by the fact that, through online learning systems, theoretical contents
could be easily sent to students and with online learning platforms, students still have
an environment to practice English speaking skill. According to the survey, students
also highly evaluate the contents presented as up-to-date and intriguing, capable for
students to keep up with their means are 3.54 and 3.4 respectively. This could be seen
as a success of lecturers to implement hybrid learning as students could find interest in
the lessons. In terms of interactive activities in blended learning lessons, C4 and C5
hold the same figure (approximately 3.45), which could lead to a conclusion that
content in blended learning speaking classes helps to enhance the interaction between
students and students, students and teacher, which is also a factor that contributes to
students’ process of practicing the speaking skill. Moreover, the contents of
assignments receive a positive attitude from students. It is obvious that the content is
designed to be suitable for hybrid teaching methods.
From the viewpoint of lecturers, the curriculum of speaking skills is still heavy
on theoretical contents and does not provide enough core knowledge for actual
practice. The reason was given by one surveyed lecturer, a lecturer from FFL of NEU:
“Instructors need to learn deeply about each topic and apply and offer activities for
students to discuss”. Another opinion from a lecturer of FFL:” In theory, the lesson
design is balanced; however, because speaking skills (different from listening and
reading) need much active cooperation from students when doing the test, in terms of
practice, the ratio between theory and practice is very high. The performance will
depend on individual capacity. However, the instructor will adjust the ratio of theory
 44

and practice based on the overall capacity of the class and focus on individuals who
have more difficulties if given enough time”. Her responses imply that the current
speaking curriculum is not frequently upgraded and redesigned, leaving students
lacking practical knowledge. According to one surveyed lecturer, students’ academic
results and the acquisition of knowledge still remain. However, the revision after class
has not been appreciated due to the lack of competition in the university environment.
To summarize, the content of speaking skill courses using blended learning
methods in general are not much different from the offline classrooms. However, both
these two methods have the same problem, which is the balance between theory and
actual practice.
 45

4.5 Evaluation on the interaction among students in blended learning.

Figure 7: Students’ evaluation on the interaction among students in blended
speaking skill lessons.

The above-clustered chart indicates students’ evaluation on the attitude of

students about the interaction among students when blended learning is implemented
into their studying speaking skills. Overall, the vast majority of respondents claim that
they have good collaboration with others. According to the chart, above 30% of the
students studying speaking skills at NEU show their agreement for each category,
whereas the figures for “Strongly disagree” are quite low, staying under 4%.
Approximately 14% express their strong agreement for “I am able to interact
effectively with other students using online technologies”. In terms of in-class
activities on the blended learning method, the chart reveals positive results with 42.5%
of students rating “Agree”, and over 11% voting for “Strongly agree”.
In contrast, the figures for students who disagree with these statements are
relatively low with an average percentage of 13% of students. The statement “I can
collaborate well with other students in doing speaking assignments” experienced the
biggest disapproval with 14.4% of students and 36.6% of “Neutral”. The reason
behind this trend has to do with their partners predetermined by their English-speaking
teachers. Either unfamiliar partners or the difference in personalities, ages, and
knowledge levels leads to poor communication, thereby resulting in group work
issues. It also can be seen that only 3.3% of students show strong disagreement with
the statement about their collaboration involved in speaking class activities and
 46

revision after class through online platforms. With this statement, “Neural” opinion is
the most prominent figure, displaying 44.4%.

Table 9. Descriptive statistics of interaction between student & student in the

blended speaking skill lessons
Statements N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation

I1 I can collaborate well 152 1 5 3.48 0.942

with other students
involved in speaking
class activities.

I2 I can collaborate well 152 1 5 3.45 0.920

with other students in
doing speaking
assignments.

I3 I am able to interact 152 1 5 3.60 0.937

effectively with other
students using online
technologies (e.g.: email,
chat, discussion board.)

I4 My classmates are 152 1 5 3.32 0.925

always taking part in
lesson revision with me
through online platforms.

The table shows the average opinion of interaction between students & students
in the blended speaking skill lessons. It can be clearly seen that the majority of
viewpoints in this survey are “Agree (mean > 3.41). The willingness to take part in
lesson revisions is of the exception, with the I4 mean of 3.32 - the “neutral” opinion.
The reason behind this is that apart from the traditional classroom lessons, studying at
home offers a significant advantage - flexibility, but it is also a double-edged sword.
Students can join in lesson revisions at any time, but if there are no guidelines or
submissions from lecturers, learners prefer to work alone, making it difficult for
classmates to find an appropriate moment to interact, particularly on a topic like
 47

speaking skills. Meanwhile, I3 has the highest mean (3.60), which is a result of the
wide range of modern gadgets. Nowadays, every student carries a smartphone, and
there are countless methods to interact without meeting in person. The remaining
assertions, I1 and I2, have averages of 3.48 and 3.45 in head-to-head comparisons.
From the teachers’ point of view, 100% of lecturers doing the interview
claimed that students actively participated in-class activities on blended learning
models but there would be less interaction between them due to the discontinuation
between online and offline classes and the disruption during an online class.
With the help of technology, the interaction among students has proved to be
slightly better than in the traditional classes. The difficulties are the disruptions in
online classes, and also the students' voluntarily toward others.
 48

4.6 Evaluation on the interaction between student and lecturer in blended

learning
Figure 8: Students’ evaluation on the interaction between student & lecturer in
blended speaking skill lessons.

The chart delineates students’ opinions about lecturers and students' interaction
in blended learning settings. Overall, blended learning, however, maintains
engagement between students and lecturers, with around 10% of students expressing
strong agreement and over 36.6% of agreement on each question. When it comes to
"Blended learning improves student-lecturer interaction" the proportion of students
who are “Neutral” is the most substantial, at 41.8%, but the amount of students who
disagree or strongly disagree is still low (14.9 percent and 7.6 percent, respectively).
13.1% of students are unsatisfied with the statement "I can receive feedback from
professors in the time being" and the percentage of students who express a “Neutral”
attitude about the concept of lecturers' feedback helps them better understand the
lecture is fairly high (34.6%).
While more than 10% of the students show disagreement about the easy
approach to teachers during class, only 1.3% of individuals participating in the
research have strong disapproval of this statement. Approximately 11% of survey
participants show dissatisfaction with the statement “Lecturers often raise questions to
involve all the students in the lectures”.
 49

Table 10. Descriptive statistics of interaction between students & lecturers in the
blended speaking skill lessons
Statements N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation

L1 Blended learning 152 1 5 3.34 0.921

improves the
interaction between
students and lecturers.

L2 I can receive feedback 152 1 5 3.41 0.930

from lecturers for the
time being.

L3 Lecturers’ feedback is 152 1 5 3.52 0.899

helpful for me to
understand more about
the lecture.

L4 When online, I can 152 1 5 3.51 0.853

easily approach your
teacher during class.

L5 Lecturers often raise 152 1 5 3.47 0.934

questions to involve all
the students in the
lectures.
Blended learning is applied as a solution to help instructors and students
maintain their interaction and mutual support. Student assessment of lecturers'
interactions with students is of paramount importance since it assists the school and
institution in resolving shortcomings and issues encountered by students. Due to the
pandemic condition, instructors are expected to adapt classroom activities significantly
in order to keep the lecture interesting and engaging for students. The majority of
lecturers employ questions as one of their tactics, therefore the questions are also
designed and organized in a manner that meets the lesson plans. Economics students
also agree that they are involved in the lecture questions (mean = 3.47). Besides, the
interaction also improved when L4 had an average rate of 3.51, the second-highest in
 50

the table. It shows that blended learning has made it easier and more time for students
to interact with lecturers (for example, ask questions, give suggestions, etc.)
For after-school activities, the researchers can see that there is a relatively slight
difference between the two opinions L2 and L3 when L3 has the highest approving
rate with 3.52 and L2 with only 3.41. Students report that it takes longer than they
expect to receive feedback from the lecturers. This is understandable since the
lecturers need time to analyze, assess, and remark on the feedback provided by
students. However, the quality of this interaction was incredibly efficient, as students
claim that the teacher's comments really help in their comprehension of the course and
result in improved learning outcomes, standing at 3.52, the highest on the table.
Any assessment is based on personal experience only, so an error is inevitable. When
evaluating the interaction between students and lecturers, the opinion L5 shows the
greatest contradiction with an error index of 0.934. Because this is everyone's opinion,
everyone's interests and preferences are incompatible. From then, it will be subjective
to determine if the lecturer's question is intriguing to each individual. Additionally,
viewpoint L4 has the smallest error index, at 0.853. That is, the majority of students
think that blended learning has improved their ability to collaborate with instructors
throughout the instructional process.
From the teacher's point of view, they claim that they “have less control over
their students”, according to one surveyed lecturer from FFL of NEU. This could be
explained by the fact that without face-to-face interaction, students might lose
attention and be distracted from learning. Most teachers hold the opinion that
traditional classes have better interaction than hybrid ones. “Blended learning is not
reformative, it is just an alternative for students to learn during a pandemic,” according
to one surveyed lecturer. However, blended learning is beneficial in giving feedback to
students through online platforms instead of waiting for the following lesson.
Apart from the offline classes in which students’ questions can be answered
almost immediately, the distance makes the interaction between learners and teachers
become fixed or reduced slightly. Moreover, the distance creates another difficulty
which is the lack of control from lecturers.

4.7. Recommendations
4.7.1. Difficulties
Through surveys with students and interviews with lecturers, the research has
pointed out a number of difficulties. The first is the technical difficulties. These
include internet connection and the use of technology tools for learning. It was
mentioned in the research paper that both teachers and students face these difficulties.
 51

They reflect that the internet connection has negatively affected the quality of lessons
such as causing students to miss some parts of the lesson, causing teachers to delay
teaching lessons, etc. In addition, the use of technology tools for learning also causes
significant difficulties. If traditional learning does not require the use of many
technology tools, blended learning requires teachers and students to use support tools
proficiently and continuously. The second difficulty is the problem of interaction
between students and lecturers and among students. Because blended learning is a new
method, they can't immediately apply it competently, thereby creating a lack of
interaction among members.

4.7.2. Recommendations for students.

Prepare internet connection
Because technological glitches are brought up as one of the common problems
faced by most students. Therefore, students need to carefully prepare the internet
connection before and during the learning process. Some ways that students can use it
such as moving their study location to a place with a strong internet connection,
upgrading their internet package, using some more apps or devices that support
internet connection, etc.

Practice online learning tools fluently

Many students who participated in the survey expressed that they themselves
have not been able to adapt to new learning methods such as blended learning. The
reason is given here can be understood that Blended learning requires students to be
able to use some more technology devices and online software instead of just simple
tools like traditional teaching methods. Therefore, students need to practice using
blended learning facilities more so that when they enter the course they are able to use
and take full advantage of the benefits of these assistive devices.

Have specific learning goals and stick to both the course goals and the learning
path
In the student assessment of the Outcomes section of the course, students did
not have a clear view of their final results. From the survey data, the study proposes
the solution that students should build themselves an effective learning path and a
clear learning goal. More importantly, this learning objective needs to be relevant and
closely aligned with the course objectives. When there is a specific learning goal,
students will focus on learning and thereby have a better learning outcome.
 52

Give immediate responses to lecturers

Many students reported that they encountered a lot of problems during their
studies, including problems with network connections, and difficulties in downloading
and using documents on LMS and Teams systems, unable to keep up with the content
of the lesson, etc. Regardless of any problems students face, the first thing students
should do is give feedback to the instructor who is teaching directly to them. This will
help the lecturer grasp the situation of the students in the classroom, and give
appropriate solutions and suggestions to help students overcome and overcome these
difficulties.

4.7.3. Recommendations for lecturers.

Improve the speed of giving feedback to students
In the section Assessing Student-Teacher Interaction, many students expressed
the opinion that they did not receive the teacher's feedback on time and this caused
difficulties for students in the learning process. Therefore, teachers need to improve
the speed of their feedback. Some of the specific measures a research paper might take
are: First, instructors can agree with students on a specific time frame in which they
can post comments on student work to the system. LMS system or Microsoft Teams
application. Second, teachers can let students make their own comments and cross-
comment among class members. The teacher will then refer to this comment in class
briefly.

Develop a course syllabus that shows a clear learning path with learning
outcomes broken down by week
As mentioned in the Recommendations for students section, students feel quite
confused about their final learning results. One of the main reasons that they give is
that they do not see clearly the learning goals and learning path in the course syllabus.
What teachers need to improve here is to build a clear learning path with learning
outcomes broken down by week. For example, a 15-week-semester with 15 units
needs to clearly show which units, in turn, will be studied and the results each week
that students need to achieve. If so, students will easily review their knowledge and
understand their own learning progress.

Use a variety of teaching aids and activities during class time

Because there is a change in teaching methods, there is a need for a change in
lectures and learning materials. Moreover, blended learning makes it easier for
students to lose focus during class time and this also poses significant challenges for
 53

lecturers in the in-class teaching process. Lecturers all commented that they must use
more teaching tools such as slides, videos, and links to related documents to make the
lecture more lively and attractive to students.

4.7.4. Recommendations for universities.

Set up a tech support team
A technical support team is considered an extremely necessary solution that the
school should provide to students and faculty. As in the survey, almost all students and
faculty encounter technology problems. Besides the most common problem is the
internet connection, there are also some difficulties such as Microsoft Teams
application error, the error of not being able to access documents on the LMS system,
even errors occurring during testing, etc. These issues all require a professional
technical support team to quickly handle these issues.

Continuously upgrade and maintain the LMS system

In the process of applying Blended learning to teaching and learning, the LMS
system plays an extremely important role because this is where teachers can upload
learning materials and students can read the documents. necessary learning. So, the
researchers understand that every day there are a lot of hits on the LMS system. If the
school does not regularly maintain the system, it may lag leading to users not being
able to use it. In addition, the school also needs to upgrade the LMS system to make it
more modern, smarter, and more effective to support users.
 54

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION

5.1. Summary of findings

The original purpose of this research is to assess the attitude toward the blended
learning method used for the English speaking skill, with the focus on different majors
of National Economic University. This research analyzes blended learning in further
detail with a particular subject such as speaking, in the learning environment of the
National Economic University, as well as some feasible ways to assist students in
effectively using this blended method.
Overall, there is a significant difference between applying blended learning and
traditional teaching methods on learning speaking skills for first-and-second-year
students of National Economics University (NEU). The technological aspect is
involved heavily in each lesson compared to the offline classes, knowledge, and
content needs to be designed and planned completely differently in order to adapt with
the new learning technique. Besides, other aspects such as interaction and outcomes
still remain, due to the use of various techniques and changes in teaching and scoring
methods.
From the statistics featured in the research above, it can be concluded that the
application of blended learning methods seems promising. The majority of students
and lecturers agree that the new method can provide great advantages, such as mobility
and accessibility. The contents and design for speaking lessons can meet the student’s
expectations and interests, with the help of technology. Moreover, the interaction
between learners and teachers can be improved by using different means of
communication, and the outcomes afterward can help students to enhance their
knowledge. On the other hand, the curriculum of speaking skills is often judged by an
abundance of theory, and technological issues need to be adjusted in the future.
Derived from the evaluations of the preceding students, the next section will provide
some ideas, deficiencies, and recommendations for further study.
 55

5.2. Limitations of the study

The researchers have spent considerable time examining the effectiveness of
blended learning for speaking skill, however, limitations are inevitable.
Firstly, the scope of this research is only in the National Economic University
campus, with the majority of survey participants are students and lecturers from
English majors. As was the case in this instance, the paucity of response prevented us
from adequately generalizing the findings to a wider sample of students.
Secondly, the research is used to analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of
English languages, especially the efficiency of learning methods for speaking skills
only. After all, the language teaching quality in National Economic University cannot
be compared with other subjects.
To summarize, the aforementioned difficulties might be resolved and serve as a
platform for future research.

5.3. Suggestions for further studies

Researchers might make some recommendations for more research based on the
drawbacks outlined above. The researchers hope it serves as a roadmap for future
academics interested in expanding on our work.
Firstly, rather than using only interviews for lecturers and online surveys for
students, the researchers hope that future researchers may collect data by expanding
the use of different methods to collect information. If possible, the evaluation will be
more effective in terms of both quantity and quality. Secondly, various versions of this
research can be used to assess other languages teaching effectiveness, especially for
researchers working or studying in foreign language institutions, which will prove the
blended learning method’s ability in teaching languages.
 56

REFERENCES

Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2006). A study on students’ views on blended

learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 43-56.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2006). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United
States, 2005. Sloan Consortium (NJ1).

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Making the grade: Online education in the United
States, 2006. Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950.

Amenduni, F., & Ligorio, M. B. (2022). Blended Learning and Teaching in Higher
Education: An International Perspective. Education Sciences, 12(2), 129.

Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages, and
disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1), 29-42.

Badawi, M. F. (2009). Using Blended Learning for Enhancing EFL Prospective

Teachers' Pedagogical Knowledge and Performance. Online Submission.

Bakia, M., Shear, L., Toyama, Y., & Lasseter, A. (2012). Understanding the
Implications of Online Learning for Educational Productivity. Office of Educational
Technology, US Department of Education.

Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C.
(2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education:
From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-
122.

Boelens, R., Van Laer, S., De Wever, B., & Elen, J. (2015). Blended learning in adult
education: towards a definition of blended learning.

Bonk, C. J. & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (In press). Handbook of blended learning: Global
Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Bùi, T. Á. N. (2019). Ý KIẾN CỦA NGƯỜI HỌC VỀ HÌNH THỨC HỌC TẬP KẾT
HỢP (Doctoral dissertation, NHÀ XUẤT BẢN ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI).
 57

Bykova, T. B., Ivashchenko, M. V., Kassim, D. A., & Kovalchuk, V. I. (2021, June).
Blended learning in the context of digitalization. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.

Bykova, T. B., Ivashchenko, M. V., Kassim, D. A., & Kovalchuk, V. I. (2021, June).
Blended learning in the context of digitalization. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.

Cleveland-Innes, M., & Wilton, D. (2018). Guide to blended learning.

Communication & Society, 3(4), 557-579. doi:10.1080/13691180010002297

Darrow, R., Friend, B., & Powell, A. (2013). A roadmap for implementation of
blended learning at the school level. Int. Assoc. K-12 Online Learn., no. Oct, 1-96.

Datta, P. (2014). Pedagogical Perception of University Teachers towards Blended

Learning. Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity Science & English Language,
1(6), 996-1008.

Đinh, T. N. V. H. T., & Giang, L. Một số kinh nghiệm về hình thức học tập kết hợp tại
Khoa Việt Nam học. LỜI NÓI ĐẦU, 81.

Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2013). Distributed learning impact evaluation. Retrieved
from http://cdl.ucf.edu/research/rite/dl-impact-evaluation/

Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning
enters the mainstream. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended
learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 195-208). San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer.

Engelbrecht, E. (2003). A look at e-learning models: investigating their value for

developing an e-learning strategy. Progressio, 25(2), 38-47.

Fenech, R., Baguant, P., & Abdelwahed, I. (2021). Blended Learning: An Experiment
on Student Attitudes. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching
Technologies (IJWLTT), 16(6), 1-12.

Fund, N. S. V. (2019). Making meaning of the NewSchools-Gallup survey of educator

and student perceptions of ed tech. Fordham Institute for Advancing Educational
Excellence.

Groen, J., Ghani, S., Germain-Rutherford, A., & Taylor, M. (2020). Institutional
Adoption of Blended Learning: Analysis of an Initiative in Action. Canadian Journal
for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(3), n3.
 58

Hamilton, Z. (2019). Blended Learning: Internal Factors Affecting Implementation.

Hara, N. (2000). Student distress in a web-based distance education course.

Information, Communication & Society, 3(4), 557-579.
doi:10.1080/13691180010002297

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999). Students' frustrations with a web-based distance
education course. First Monday, 4(12). Retrieved from
http://www.firstmonday.org/article/view/710/620

Harris, P., Connolly, J., & Feeney, L. (2009). Blended learning: Overview and
recommendations for successful implementation. Industrial and commercial training.

Hubackova, S., & Semradova, I. (2016). Evaluation of blended learning. Procedia-

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 551-557.

Hưng, T. V. (2019). Dạy học kết hợp (B-Learning) dựa vào phong cách học tập cho
sinh viên ngành sư phạm tin học.

Impedovo, M. A., Khalid, MD. S., Kinley, K., & Yok, M. C. K. (Eds.) (2022).
Blended Learning in Higher Education. Aalborg Universitetsforlag.

Jnr, B. A. (2021). Institutional factors for faculty members' implementation of blended

learning in higher education. Education+ Training.

Johnson, J. (2002). Reflections on teaching a large enrollment course using a hybrid

format. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6). Retrieved from
http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/jjohnson.htm

King, K. P. (2002). Identifying success in online teacher education and professional

development. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 231-246. doi:10.1016/S1096-
7516(02)00104-5

Lê Thái, H., Thi, P. V. N., & Vu, H. H. (2021). HIỆU QUẢ CỦA HOẠT ĐỘNG HỌC
TẬP KẾT HỢP Ở BẬC ĐẠI HỌC: NGHIÊN CỨU TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC GIÁO
DỤC–ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI. SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL OF TAN TRAO
UNIVERSITY, 7(23).

López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended

learning in higher education: Students' perceptions and their relation to outcomes.
Computers & Education, 56(3), 818-826. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023
 59

Mahmodi, M., & Jalali Moghadam, M. (2017). Requirements of using the blended
educational system from the viewpoints of the faculty members. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 8(3).

Marhabo Avazmatova. (2020). The American Journal of Social Science and Education
Innovations (ISSN – 2689-100x). 02(08-82), 501-511. doi: 10.37547

Medina, L. C. (2018). Blended learning: Deficits and prospects in higher education.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1).

Miyazoe, T., Anderson, T., Yang, Y. T. C., Chuang, Y. C., Li, L. Y., Tseng, S. S., …
Barrett, B. (2018). Teaching public speaking in a blended learning environment.
English Language Teaching, 6(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.2592

Naaj, M. A., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012), "Evaluating student satisfaction with
blended learning in a gender-segregated environment" Journal of Information
Technology Education: Research, 11(1), 185-200.

Okaz, A. A. (2015). Integrating blended learning in higher education. Procedia-Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 600-603.

Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010), "Students' expectations of, and
experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course
satisfaction", Computers and Education, 54, 222- 229.

Pinto, M. B., & Anderson, W. (2013), "A little knowledge goes a long way: Student
expectation and satisfaction with hybrid learning", Journal of Instructional Pedagogies,
10, 1-12. Retrieved from http://aabri.com/manuscripts/121376.pdf

Poon, J. (2013). Blended learning: An institutional approach for enhancing students'

learning experiences. Journal of online learning and teaching, 9(2), 271-288.

Sharafuddin, H., & Allani, C. (2011), Measuring students' satisfaction in blended

learning at the Arab Open University - Kuwait. In V. Snasel, J. Platos, & E. El-
Qawasmeh (Eds.), Digital Information Processing and Communications. ICDIPC
2011, Part I, CCIS 188, 333-341. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Smyth, S., Houghton, C., Cooney, A., & Casey, D. (2012). Students' experiences of
blended learning across a range of postgraduate programs. Nurse Education Today,
32(4), 464-468. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2011.05.014
 60

Stapa, M. A., Ibrahim, M., & Yusoff, A. (2013). Social Media for Blended Learning in
Vocational Institutions. Journal of Asian Vocational Education and Training, 6, 21-29.

Stapa, M. A., Ibrahim, M., & Yusoff, A. (2013). Social Media for Blended Learning in
Vocational Institutions. Journal of Asian Vocational Education and Training, 6, 21-29.

Tang, C., & Chaw, L. (2013). Readiness for blended learning: Understanding attitude
of university students. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 6(2), 79-
100.

Trapp, S. (2006). Blended learning concepts-A short overview. In Innovative

Approaches for Learning and Knowledge Sharing, EC-TEL 2006 Workshops
Proceedings (pp. 28-35).

Tshabalala, M., Ndeya-Ndereya, C., & van der Merwe, T. (2014). Implementing
Blended Learning at a Developing University: Obstacles in the Way. Electronic
Journal of E-learning, 12(1), 101-110.

Twigg, C. A. (2003a). Improving learning and reducing costs: Lessons learned from
Round 1 of the Pew grant program in course redesign. Troy, NY: Center for Academic
Transformation. Retrieved from http://www.thencat.org/PCR/R1Lessons.html

Twigg, C. A. (2003b). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online
learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(5), 28-38.

Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ ERM0352.pdf

Usta, E., & Ozdemir, S. M. (2007). An Analysis of Students' Opinions about Blended
Learning Environment. Paper presented at the 7th International Educational
Technology Conference (IETC), Nicosia, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED500090.pdf

Voos, R. (2003). Blended learning – what is it and where might it take us? Sloan-C
View, 2(1), 3-5. Retrieved from
http://www.sloanc.org/publications/view/v2n1/blended1.htm

Welker, J., & Berardino, L., (2005-2006). Blended learning: Understanding the middle
ground between traditional classroom and fully online instruction. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 33-55. doi:10.2190/67FX-B7P8-PYUX-
TDUP
 61

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Questionnaire
1. General information
1.1. Students
What is your faculty?
a) Business English
b) Non-major English
c) AEP
d) POHE
e) International program (iBD, BIFA,...)
f) Others
Which year are you in?
a) first year
b) second year
1.2. Lecturers
In which department are you working or teaching?
How many years of experience do you have in teaching speaking?

2. Evaluating the technology in blended speaking skills lessons at NEU.

The Internet connection quality of accessing speaking skill lessons?
a) Excellent
b) Good
c) Acceptable
d) Bad
The Internet streaming speed for playing video materials/video lectures and
performing?
a) Excellent
b) Good
c) Acceptable
d) Bad
The sound quality when communicating with other students and lecturers during a
speaking skill lesson?
a) Excellent
b) Good
c) Acceptable
 62

d) Bad
The course instructions explain how students can access technical support?
a) Excellent
b) Good
c) Acceptable
d) Bad
3. Evaluation of applying blended learning methods on teaching and learning
speaking skills.

Code Content Opinion

Design and planning of speaking skill lessons

D1 The learning objectives are clearly stated in the 1 2 3 4 5

course syllabus.

D2 The organization of lessons is easy to follow. 1 2 3 4 5

D3 The presentation of lessons (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5

demonstrations, videos, links to relevant
websites,…) is designed and planned clearly
and carefully

D4 The requirements for student interaction and 1 2 3 4 5

progression through the course are clearly
articulated.

D5 The course provides guidelines or links to 1 2 3 4 5

resources on how to succeed as a student in
online or blended environments.

D6 There is a good balance between online and 1 2 3 4 5

classroom activities.
 63

Content of speaking skill lessons

C1 The theoretical & practical contents are 1 2 3 4 5

adequate

C2 The contents presented are up-to-date. 1 2 3 4 5

C3 The contents presented are interesting, easy to 1 2 3 4 5

keep up

C4 The mini games and other activities held during 1 2 3 4 5

the speaking lessons are relevant and
interactive.

C5 The contents are designed to promote 1 2 3 4 5

interaction (instructor-student, content-student,
student-student) that are appropriate to the
course learning outcomes.

C6 The assignments are clearly instructed/guided 1 2 3 4 5

C7 The length of assignments enables students to 1 2 3 4 5

finish on time

C8 The quizzes and tests on online platforms are 1 2 3 4 5

useful in assessment.

Interaction between student and student

I1 I can collaborate well with other students 1 2 3 4 5

involved in speaking class activities.

I2 I can collaborate well with other students in 1 2 3 4 5

doing speaking assignments.
 64

I3 I am able to interact effectively with other 1 2 3 4 5

students using online technologies (e.g.: email,
chat, discussion board.)

I4 My classmates are always taking part in lesson 1 2 3 4 5

revision with me through online platforms.

Interaction between student and lecturer

L1 Blended learning improves the interaction 1 2 3 4 5

between students and lecturers.

L2 I can receive feedback from lecturers in the time 1 2 3 4 5

being.

L3 Lecturers’ feedback is helpful for me to 1 2 3 4 5

understand more about the lecture.

L4 When online, I can easily approach your teacher 1 2 3 4 5

during class.

L5 Lecturers often raise questions to involve all the 1 2 3 4 5

students in the lectures.

Outcomes

O1 There is clear alignment between course goals 1 2 3 4 5

and learning objectives.

O2 Learning outcomes are distributed over the 1 2 3 4 5

semester and the course in LMS is available in
week-wise format.

O3 I am satisfied with my final result in the 1 2 3 4 5

speaking course.
 65

O4 I have a positive attitude towards the blended 1 2 3 4 5

learning approach via speaking lessons.

O5 I enjoy using blended learning for my English 1 2 3 4 5

speaking skills.

4. Questions for lecturers to evaluate the blended learning method for speaking skill.
1. Compared to the traditional teaching method, do you have to make any changes
in preparations for the presentation of lessons (e.g., demonstrations, videos,
links to relevant websites,…) or course syllabus?
2. How do you feel about the balance between online and classroom activities?
3. Are the contents of speaking lessons, including the theoretical & practical
contents, adequate?
4. The mini games, quizzes and other activities held during the speaking lessons,
are there any differences?
5. Do you receive any complaints or struggles related to technology, e.x the
Internet connections, lack of devices,...
6. Did students in your class collaborate well in doing activities such as games or
assignments? Do they take part in lesson revisions regularly?
7. Does blended learning improve interaction between students and you? E.x do
students raise questions about the lessons and how do they receive feedback
from you?
8. Can you compare the final result of blended learning with the traditional
method? Are students satisfied and enjoying this new learning technique?

Appendix 2: Vietnamese questionnaire translation.

1. Thông tin cá nhân chung
1.1. Dành cho sinh viên
Chuyên ngành của bạn:
a) Ngoại ngữ Kinh tế
b) Khối Tiếng Anh không chuyên
c) AEP
d) POHE
e) Các chương trình đào tạo quốc tế (iBD, BIFA,...)
f) Khác
Hiện tại bạn đang là sinh viên:
 66

a) Năm nhất
b) Năm hai

1.2. Dành cho giảng viên

Thầy/cô đang công tác, giảng dạy tại khoa nào?
Thầy/ cô đã có bao nhiêu năm kinh nghiệm trong việc giảng dạy bộ môn speaking?

2. Đánh giá dành cho sinh viên về khía cạnh công nghệ liên quan đến các bài học
kỹ năng Nói
Chất lượng kết nối Internet để tham gia các bài học kỹ năng nói?
a) Tuyệt vời
b) Tốt
c) Chấp nhận được
d) Tệ

Tốc độ phát trực tuyến Internet để phát tài liệu video / video bài giảng và trình bày?
a) Tuyệt vời
b) Tốt
c) Chấp nhận được
d) Tệ

Chất lượng âm thanh khi giao tiếp với sinh viên khác và giảng viên trong giờ học kỹ
năng nói?
a) Tuyệt vời
b) Tốt
c) Chấp nhận được
d) Tệ

Các hướng dẫn của khóa học giải thích cách sinh viên có thể tiếp cận hỗ trợ trong
trường hợp sinh viên gặp trục trặc về kỹ thuật?
a) Tuyệt vời
b) Tốt
c) Chấp nhận được
d) Tệ
 67

Code Nội dung câu hỏi Quan điểm

Thiết kế và lên kế hoạch cho các bài giảng kỹ năng nói

D1 Mục tiêu học tập được nêu rõ trong đề cương 1 2 3 4 5

môn học.

D2 Bài học được tổ chức để sinh viên dễ theo dõi. 1 2 3 4 5

D3 Việc trình bày các bài học (ví dụ: trình diễn, 1 2 3 4 5
video, liên kết đến các trang web có liên
quan,…) được thiết kế và lập kế hoạch rõ ràng
và cẩn thận

D4 Các yêu cầu về sự tương tác và tiến bộ của học 1 2 3 4 5

sinh trong suốt khóa học được trình bày rõ ràng.

D5 Khóa học cung cấp các hướng dẫn hoặc liên kết 1 2 3 4 5
đến các nguồn về cách học tốt với tư cách là
một sinh viên trong môi trường học online hoặc
học hỗn hợp (blended learning)

D6 Có một sự cân bằng tốt giữa các hoạt động trực 1 2 3 4 5

tuyến và lớp học trực tiếp.

Nội dung của các bài học kỹ năng nói

C1 Nội dung lý thuyết và thực hành đầy đủ. 1 2 3 4 5

C2 Nội dung bài được cập nhật sao cho phù hợp, 1 2 3 4 5
thức thời.
 68

C3 Nội dung được trình bày thú vị, dễ theo dõi. 1 2 3 4 5

C4 Các trò chơi nhỏ và các hoạt động khác được tổ 1 2 3 4 5

chức trong các bài học đều có liên quan và
tương tác.

C5 Các nội dung được thiết kế nhằm thúc đẩy sự 1 2 3 4 5

tương tác (giảng viên-học viên, nội dung-học
viên, học viên-học viên) phù hợp với kết quả
học tập của khóa học.

C6 Các bài tập được hướng dẫn rõ ràng. 1 2 3 4 5

C7 Thời lượng bài tập phù hợp giúp học sinh hoàn 1 2 3 4 5
thành đúng hạn.

C8 Các câu đố và bài kiểm tra trên các nền tảng 1 2 3 4 5

trực tuyến rất hữu ích trong việc đánh giá.

Sự tương tác giữa học sinh và học sinh trong giờ học kỹ năng nói

I1 Tôi có thể hợp tác tốt với các học sinh khác 1 2 3 4 5
tham gia vào các hoạt động nói trong lớp.

I2 Tôi có thể hợp tác tốt với các học sinh khác 1 2 3 4 5
trong việc thực hiện các bài tập nói.

I3 Tôi có thể tương tác hiệu quả với các sinh viên 1 2 3 4 5
khác bằng cách sử dụng công nghệ trực tuyến
(ví dụ: email, trò chuyện, thảo luận).

I4 Các bạn cùng lớp luôn tham gia ôn tập bài học 1 2 3 4 5
cùng tôi thông qua các nền tảng trực tuyến.
 69

Sự tương tác giữa học sinh và giảng viên trong giờ học kỹ năng nói

L1 Phương pháp học kết hợp (blended learning) 1 2 3 4 5

cải thiện sự tương tác giữa sinh viên và giảng
viên trong môn Kỹ năng Nói.

L2 Tôi có thể nhận được phản hồi từ các giảng viên 1 2 3 4 5

trong thời gian sớm nhất.

L3 Phản hồi của giảng viên rất hữu ích để tôi hiểu 1 2 3 4 5
thêm về bài giảng.

L4 Khi trực tuyến, bạn có thể dễ dàng liên lạc với 1 2 3 4 5

giáo viên của mình trong giờ học.

L5 Giảng viên thường đưa ra các câu hỏi để thu hút 1 2 3 4 5

sự chú ý của tất cả sinh viên tham gia vào bài
giảng.

Kết quả học tập

O1 Có sự liên kết rõ ràng giữa mục tiêu khóa học 1 2 3 4 5

và mục tiêu học tập.

O2 Kết quả học tập được phân bổ trong suốt học kỳ 1 2 3 4 5

và khóa học trong LMS có sẵn theo định dạng
tuần.

O3 Tôi hài lòng với kết quả cuối cùng của mình 1 2 3 4 5
trong khóa học nói.

O4 Tôi có thái độ tích cực đối với phương pháp học 1 2 3 4 5

kết hợp thông qua các bài học nói.
 70

O5 Tôi thích sử dụng phương pháp học kết hợp cho 1 2 3 4 5

kỹ năng nói tiếng Anh của mình.

4. Câu hỏi dành cho giảng viên đánh giá phương pháp học blended learning cho kỹ
năng Nói
1. Thầy/cô có cần tạo những thay đổi gì trong việc chuẩn bị trình bày bài giảng
(slides, videos, link tài liệu liên quan,..) so với phương pháp học truyền thống
(offline)?
2. Thầy/cô có cảm nghĩ gì về sự cân bằng giữa việc học online và các hoạt động
diễn ra trên lớp?
3. Theo thầy/ cô, nội dung lý thuyết và thực hành của các bài học nói đã đầy đủ
chưa?
4. Theo thầy/cô, trong việc tổ chức các mini games, câu đố và các hoạt động khác
được tổ chức trong giờ học nói có sự khác biệt nào không?
5. Thầy/cô có nhận được bất kỳ phàn nàn hoặc khó khăn nào liên quan đến công
nghệ (ví dụ: kết nối Internet, thiếu thiết bị học tập,...) hay không?
6. Các học sinh trong lớp của thầy/cô có hợp tác tốt trong việc thực hiện các hoạt
động như trò chơi hoặc bài tập không? Họ có tham gia ôn tập bài học thường
xuyên không?
7. Học tập theo hình thức Blended learning có cải thiện được sự tương tác giữa
sinh viên và thầy/cô không? (Ví dụ: có sinh viên nêu câu hỏi về bài học và họ
nhận phản hồi từ thầy/cô như thế nào?)
8. Thầy/cô có thể đưa ra so sánh về kết quả học tập sau khóa học speaking của học
sinh giữa việc học bằng hình thức Blended learning với phương pháp truyền
thống không? Học viên có hài lòng và thích thú với kỹ thuật học mới này
không?