Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:28:48.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

Daria Mizza  and
Fernando Rubio
Daria Mizza
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University
Fernando Rubio
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses
A Research-Based Guide from Planning to Evaluation
 , pp. 242 - 280
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary Sources

Arispe, K., & Blake, R. J. (2012). Individual factors and successful learning in a hybrid course. System, 40(4), 449–465.Google Scholar
Beatty, K. (2013). Teaching and researching: Computer-assisted language learning. London, England: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. (1987). Mapping the boundaries of distance education: Problems in defining the field. American Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 7–13.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The sense considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In Stewart, D, Keegan, D, & Holmberg, B (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 114–122). London, England: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Keegan, D. (1986). The foundations of distance education. Kent, England: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Mood, T. A. (1995). Distance education: An annotated bibliography. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
Simonson, M., & Berg, G. A. (n.d.). Distance learning education. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from www.britannica.com/topic/distance-learningGoogle Scholar
Willis, B. (1992). Making distance learning effective: Key roles and responsibilities. Educational Technology, 32(6), 35–37.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Adair-Hauck, B., Willingham-McLain, L., & Youngs, B. E. (1999). Evaluating the integration of technology and second language learning. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 269–306Google Scholar
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/going_distance_2011Google Scholar
Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web‐based e‐learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217–235.Google Scholar
Bañados, E. (2006). A blended-learning pedagogical model for teaching and learning EFL successfully through an online interactive multimedia environment. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 533–550.Google Scholar
Barr, D., Leakey, J., & Ranchoux, A. (2005). TOLD like it is! An evaluation of an integrated oral development project. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 55–78.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, K. (2015). Strategies for hybrid course design in second‐year German. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 48(2), 211–228.Google Scholar
Bijeikiene, V., Rasinskiene, S., & Zutkiens, L. (2011). Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of blended learning in general English classroom. Studies About Languages, 18, 122–127.Google Scholar
Blackboard Inc. (n.d.). Wimba voice (Version 6.0) [Computer software]. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.wimba.com/products/wimba_voiceGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. (2014). Best practices in online learning: Is it for everyone? In Rubio, F & Thoms, J. J. (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 10–26). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Blake, R., Wilson, N. L., Cetto, M., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 114–127.Google Scholar
Blended Learning. (n.d.). The Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation. Retrieved from www.christenseninstitute.org/blended-learning/Google Scholar
Blended Teaching. (2008, January 26). Hybrid vs. blended learning [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://hybridteaching.blogspot.com/2008/01/hybrid-vs-blended-learning.htmlGoogle Scholar
Borg, S. (2006). The distinctive characteristics of foreign language teachers. Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, M. (2014). The online university classroom: One perspective for effective student engagement and teaching in an online environment. Journal of Effective Teaching, 14(1), 99–110.Google Scholar
Cerezo, L. (2014). Beyond hybrid learning: A synthesis of research on e-tutors under the lens of second language. In Rubio, F & Thoms, J. J. (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 50–66). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
CETL. (2014, October 15). Understanding technology-enhanced courses models: Online, hybrid, and blended courses [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://wheel.ucdavis.edu/hybrid-online/Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., & Murday, K. (2003). Measuring student learning in an online French course. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 285–314.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., Ushida, E., & Murday, K. (2006). Student learning in hybrid French and Spanish courses: An overview of language online. CALICO Journal, 24(1), 115–145.Google Scholar
Comas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach online or learning to become an online teacher: An exploration of teachers’ experiences in a blended learning course. ReCALL, 23(3), 218–232.Google Scholar
Cubillos, J. (2007, January). A comparative study of hybrid versus traditional instruction in foreign languages. News from Northeast, pp. 20–60.Google Scholar
Daulton, F. E. (2008). Japan’s built-in lexicon of English-based loanwords. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Stuttgart, Germany: Ernst Klett Sprachen.Google Scholar
Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. E-learning, 1(4), 1–4.Google Scholar
Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology. Harlow, England: Pearson.Google Scholar
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., Moskal, P. D., Sorg, S., & Truman, B. (2004). Three ALN modalities: An institutional perspective. In Bourne, G & Moore, J. C. (Eds.), Elements of quality online education (pp. 127–148). Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium.Google Scholar
Echávez-Solano, N. (2003). A comparison of student outcomes and attitudes in technology-enhanced vs. traditional second-semester Spanish language courses (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 305330859)Google Scholar
Enkin, E., & Mejías‐Bikandi, E. (2017). The effectiveness of online teaching in an advanced Spanish language course. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 176–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friesen, N. (2012). The questionable promise of social media for education: connective learning and the commercial imperative. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 183–194.Google Scholar
Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 74–101.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. (1987). Mapping the boundaries of distance education: Problems in defining the field. American Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 7–13.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R., Kanuka, H., & Hawes, D. (2002). Blended learning in a research university. University of Calgary. Retrieved from www.commons.ucalgary.ca/documents/BlendedLearning_1.pdf.Google Scholar
Gascoigne, C., & Parnell, J. (2014). Hybrid language instruction: Finding the right fit. In Dhonau, S (Ed.), Unlock the gateway to communication: Selected papers from the 2014 Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (pp. 53–64). Richmond, VA: Robert M. Terry.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. D. (2001). How to be a successful online student. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Goertler, S. (2014). Theoretical and empirical foundations for blended language learning. In Rubio, F & Thoms, J. J. (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 137–159). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Gruba, P., & Hinkelman, D. (2012). Blending technologies in second language classrooms. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haworth, T., & Parker, R. (1995). The contribution of a face-to-face component in initial teacher training at a distance. In Howard, R & McGrath, I (Eds.), Distance education for language teachers: A UK perspective (pp. 78–94). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Henri, J., & Lee, S. (2007). Why Hong Kong students favour more face-to-face classroom time in blended learning. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 11(SPE), 103–111.Google Scholar
Hofmann, T. (2001). Unsupervised learning by probabilistic latent semantic analysis. Machine Learning, 42(1), 177–196.Google Scholar
Holden, C. L., & Sykes, J. M. (2011). Leveraging mobile games for place-based language learning. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 1(2), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, K. H., & Samimy, K. K. (2010). The influence of L2 teachers’ use of CALL modes on language learners’ reactions to blended learning. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 328–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132.Google Scholar
Isabelli, C. A. (2015) Student learning outcomes in hybrid and face-to-face beginning Spanish language courses. In Pixel (Ed.), Conference proceedings: The Future of Education (pp. 649–654). Padova, Italy: Edizioni Webster.Google Scholar
Larson, D. K., & Sung, C. H. (2009). Comparing student performance: Online versus blended versus face-to-face. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 31–42.Google Scholar
Laster, S., Otte, G., Picciano, A. G., & Sorg, S. (2005, April). Redefining blended learning. Paper presented at the 2005 Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Lewis, A., & Atzert, S. (2000). Dealing with computer-related anxiety in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4–5), 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ligorio, M. B., Cacciamani, S., & Cesareni, D. (2006). Blended learning: Dalla scuola dell’obbligo alla formazione adulta. Rome, Italy: Carocci.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. R. & Bhatia, T. J. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, D. (2012). Blended learning. Creating learning opportunities for language learners. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Masie, E. (2002). Blended learning: The magic is in the mix. In Rossett, A (Ed.), The ASTD e-learning handbook (pp. 58–63). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
McCracken, J., & Dobson, M. (2004). Blended learning design. In Uskov, V (Ed.), Proceedings of the seventh IASTED International Conference: Computers and Advanced Technology in Education – 2004 (pp. 491–496). Calgary, AB: ACTA Press.Google Scholar
Murday, K., Ushida, E., & Ann Chenoweth, N. (2008). Learners’ and teachers’ perspectives on language online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 125–142.Google Scholar
Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 5(2), 1–8.Google Scholar
Nation, P., Goulden, R., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics, 11(4), 341–363.Google Scholar
Neumeier, P. (2005). A closer look at blended learning. Parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 17(02), 163–178.Google Scholar
Nicolson, M., Murphy, L., & Southgate, M. (2011). Language teaching in blended contexts. Edinburgh, Scotland: Dunedin Academic Press.Google Scholar
Novak, G. M., Patterson, E. T., Gavrin, A. D., & Christian, W. (1999). Just-in-time teaching blending active learning with web technology. American Journal of Physics, 67, 937–938.Google Scholar
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227–233.Google Scholar
PBworks Inc. (n.d.). PBworks [Computer software]. San Mateo, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.pbworks.com/wikis.htmlGoogle Scholar
Picciano, A. G. (2006). Blended learning: Implications for growth and access. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(3), 95–102.Google Scholar
Picciano, A. G., & Dziuban, C. D. (2007). Blended learning: Research perspectives (Vol. 1). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.Google Scholar
Picciano, A. G., Dziuban, C. D., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2014). Blended learning: Research perspectives (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reid, J. M. (Ed.). (1998). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar
Reid-Young, A. (n.d.). The key to e-learning is b-learning. Retrieved from www.hci.com.au/b-learning/Google Scholar
Ross, B., & Gage, K. (2006). Global perspectives on blending learning. In Bonk, C. J. & Graham, C. R. (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 155–168). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
Rubio, F. (2014). Blended learning and L2 proficiency. In Rubio, F & Thoms, J. J. (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 137–159). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Rubio, F., & Mizza, D. (2019). High-leverage practices for blended language learning: Towards a successful implementation in the blended language learning path. In Palalas, A (Ed.), Blended language learning: International perspectives on innovative practice (pp. 24–61). Beijing, China: Open University of China Press.Google Scholar
Rubio, F., & Thoms, J. J. (2014). Hybrid language teaching and learning: Looking forward. In Rubio, F & Thoms, J. J. (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 1–9). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Zapata, G. C. (2008). Blending classroom instruction with online homework: A study of student perceptions of computer-assisted L2 learning. ReCALL, 20(02), 208–224.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(4), 357–385.Google Scholar
Scida, E. E., & Saury, R. E. (2006). Hybrid courses and their impact on student and classroom performance: A case study at the University of Virginia. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 517–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seaman, J. E., Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Research Group. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sharma, P., & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning. London, England: Macmillan Books for Teachers.Google Scholar
Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning. Centra Software, 1, 1–11.Google Scholar
Smith, G. G., & Kurthen, H. (2007). Front-stage and back-stage in hybrid e-learning face-to-face courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 455–474.Google Scholar
Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics (52nd ed.). U.S. Department of Education, Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017094.pdfGoogle Scholar
Stracke, E. (2007). A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners dropout of a blended language learning (BLL) environment. ReCALL, 19(01), 57–78.Google Scholar
Swender, E., Conrad, D., & Vicars, R. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. Alexandria, VA: American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Google Scholar
Thoms, B. (2012). Student perceptions of microblogging: Integrating Twitter with blogging to support learning and interaction. The Journal of Information Technology Education, 11, 179–197.Google Scholar
Thoms, J. J. (2014). An ecological view of whole-class discussions in a second language literature classroom: Teacher reformulations as affordances for learning. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 724–741.Google Scholar
Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning: How to integrate online and traditional learning. London, England: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Twigg, C. A. (2001). Innovations in online learning. Moving beyond no significant difference. Troy, NY: Center for Academic Transformation.Google Scholar
Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: Lessons learned from round I of the PEW grant program in course redesign. Troy, NY: Center for Academic Transformation.Google Scholar
Valiathan, P. (2002). Blended learning models. Learning Circuits, 3(8), 50–59.Google Scholar
Van Aacken, S. (1996). The efficacy of CALL in Kanji learning. On-Call, 10(2), 2–14.Google Scholar
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language classroom: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London, England: Longman.Google Scholar
Walczynski, S. (2002). Applying the job characteristics model to Mallard web-based classes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Illinois State University, Normal, IL.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer‐mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–481.Google Scholar
Western Cooperative for Educational Technologies. (2016). WCET Distance Education Enrollment Report 2016. Retrieved from https://wcet.wiche.edu/sites/default/files/WCETDistanceEducationEnrollmentReport2016.pdfGoogle Scholar
White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education (Cambridge Language Teaching Library). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, C. (2006). Distance learning of foreign languages. Language Teaching, 39(04), 247–264.Google Scholar
Young, D. J. (2008). An empirical investigation of the effects of blended learning on student outcomes in a redesigned intensive Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 26(1), 160–181.Google Scholar
Young, D. J., & Pettigrew, J. L. (2014). Blended learning in large multisection foreign language programs: An opportunity for reflecting on course content, pedagogy, learning outcomes, and assessment issues. In Rubio, F & Thoms, J. J. (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 92–120). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Young, R. F. (2008). Language and interaction. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ziegler, M. F., Paulus, T. M., & Woodside, M. (2006). This course is helping us all arrive at new viewpoints, isn’t it? Making meaning through dialogue in a blended environment. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(4), 302–319.Google Scholar
Alebaikan, R., & Troudi, S. (2010). Blended learning in Saudi universities: Challenges and perspectives. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 18(1), 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Mahrooqi, R., & Troudi, S. (Eds.). (2014). Using technology in foreign language teaching. Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2017). Statement on the role of technology in language learning. Retrieved from www.actfl.org/news/position-statements/statement-the-role-technology-language-learningGoogle Scholar
Arispe, K., & Blake, R. J. (2012). Individual factors and successful learning in a hybrid course. System, 40(4), 449–465.Google Scholar
Arvan, L., & Musumeci, D. (2000). Instructor attitudes within the SCALE efficiency projects. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 4(3), 196–215.Google Scholar
Arvan, L., Ory, J. C., Bullock, C. D., Burnaska, K. K., & Hanson, M. (1998). The SCALE efficiency projects. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(2), 33–60.Google Scholar
Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 19–35.Google Scholar
Blake, R. J., & Delforge, A. M. (2007). Online language learning: The case of Spanish Without Walls. In Lafford, B & Salaberry, R (Eds.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language acquisition from research to praxis (pp.127–147). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Blake, R. J., Wilson, N. L., Cetto, M., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 114–127.Google Scholar
Blake, R., Blasco, J., & Hernández, C. (2001). Tesoros CD-ROM: A multi-media-based course [CD-ROM]. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Blanco, J. A., & Redwine Donley, P. (2018). Vistas: Introducción a la lengua española (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Vista Higher Learning.Google Scholar
Branon, R. F., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education. TechTrends, 45(1), 36–36.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., Ushida, E., & Murday, K. (2006). Student learning in hybrid French and Spanish courses: An overview of language online. CALICO Journal, 24(1), 115–145.Google Scholar
Condruz-Bacescu, M. (2012). Foreign language teaching methods. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Strategies XXI”, Bucharest (Vol. 1, pp. 197–202). Bucharest, Romania: Editura Universitara.Google Scholar
D’Halluin, C. (2001). Usages d’un environnement médiatisé pour l’apprentissage coopératif. Les Cahiers d’études du CUEEP, 43.Google Scholar
Echávez-Solano, N. (2003). A comparison of student outcomes and attitudes in technology-enhanced vs. traditional second-semester Spanish language courses (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 305330859)Google Scholar
Esmaili-Sardari, M. T., & Mizza, D. (in press). Persian (Farsi) in international relations and foreign policy. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Foderaro, L. W. (2010, December 5). Budget-cutting colleges bid some languages adieu. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/education/05languages.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gazaille, M. (2009). Successful IT integration: The human factor behind it. In EDULEARN09 Proceedings (pp. 454–462). Valencia, Spain: IATED.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. D. (2001). How to be a successful online student. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Goertler, S. (2011). Blended and open/online learning: Adapting to a changing world of foreign language teaching. In Arnold, N & Ducate, L (Eds.), Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and research to new directions in language teaching (pp. 471–501). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Google Scholar
Hines, R. A., & Pearl, C. E. (2004). Increasing interaction in web-based instruction: Using synchronous chats and asynchronous discussions. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23(2), 33.Google Scholar
Hipwell, L., & Melucci, D. (2016). From traditional to hybrid: A comparative study of student performance and perceptions. Teaching Italian Language and Culture Annual, pp. 19–70.Google Scholar
Hiss, A. (2000). Talking the talk: Humor and other forms of online communication. In White, K. W. & Weight, B. H. (Eds.), The online teaching guide (pp. 24–36). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Hughes, N., Lo, L., & Xu, S. (2019). Blended Chinese language learning design: An integrative review and synthesis of the literature. The Language Learning Journal, 47(3), 313–331.Google Scholar
Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2011). Projections of education statistics to 2020 (Report No. 2011-026). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
Isabelli, C. A. (2015). Student learning outcomes in hybrid and face-to-face beginning Spanish language courses. In Pixel (Ed.), Conference proceedings: The Future of Education (pp. 649–654). Padova, Italy: Edizioni Webster.Google Scholar
Istrate, O. (2011). Education staff working in elearning environments: Skills and competences. In Roceanu, I (Ed.), The 7th international scientific conference ELearning and Software for Education. Bucharest, Romania: Editura Universitara.Google Scholar
Jaschik, S. (2011, October). Not so foreign languages. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com/news/192011/10/05/colleges_are_replacing_foreign_language_departments_with_world_language_departmentsGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. P., & Marsh, D. (2014). Blended language learning: An effective solution but not without its challenges. Higher Learning Research Communications, 4(3), 23.Google Scholar
Kraemer, A. (2008). Formats of distance learning. In Goertler, S & Winke, P (Eds.), Opening doors through distance language education: Principles, perspectives, and practices (CALICO Monograph 7, pp. 11–42). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Google Scholar
Lancashire, I., & Uscinski, I. (2009). Teaching literature and language online. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 173–176.Google Scholar
Lewis, A., & Atzert, S. (2000). Dealing with computer-related anxiety in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4–5), 377–395.Google Scholar
Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2018, February). Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, summer and fall, 2016. New York, NY: Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
Marjanovic, O. (1999). Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(2), 129–138.Google Scholar
Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(1), 77–91.Google Scholar
McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 194–204.Google Scholar
McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22.Google Scholar
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.Google Scholar
Mizza, D., & Esmaili-Sardari, M. T. (2015, May 7). Video testimonial of the pilot blended courses – French and Persian [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/4Al7GtpD0vwGoogle Scholar
Mizza, D., & Esmaili-Sardari, M. T. (2020). The Persian language educator’s role in developing effective blended language learning: From principles to practice. In Shabani-Jadidi, P (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Murphy, L., & Southgate, M. (2011). The nature of the “blend”: Interaction of teaching modes, tools and resources. In Nicolson, M, Murphy, L, & Southgate, M (Eds.), Language teaching in blended contexts (pp. 13–28). Edinburgh, Scotland: Dunedin Academic Press.Google Scholar
Narcy-Combes, M. F., & McAllister, J. (2011). Evaluation of a blended language learning environment in a French university and its effects on second language acquisition. ASp la revue du GERAS, 59, 115–138.Google Scholar
National Center for Academic Transformation. (2014). Redesign a college course using NCAT’s technology. Retrieved from www.thencat.org/Guides/AllDisciplines/How%20to%20Redesign%20A%20College%20Course.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nelson, C. E. (2001). What is the most difficult step we must take to become great teachers? National Teaching and Learning Forum, 10(4), 10–11.Google Scholar
Neumeier, P. (2005). A closer look at blended learning – parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 17(02), 163–178.Google Scholar
Newby, D., Matzer, E., & Penz, H. (Eds.). (2009). Languages for social cohesion: Language education in a multilingual and multicultural Europe. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Nicolson, M., Murphy, L., & Southgate, M. (2011). Language teaching in blended contexts. Edinburgh, Scotland: Dunedin Academic Press.Google Scholar
Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On the Horizon, 19(3), 207–216.Google Scholar
Picciano, A. G., Dziuban, C. D., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2014). Blended learning: Research perspectives (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rubio, F. (2014). The effects of blended learning on second language fluency and proficiency. In Rubio, F & Thoms, J. J. (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 137–159). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Rubio, F., & Cannon, T. (2018). Juntos. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Rubio, F., & Thoms, J. J. (2014). Teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Scida, E. E., & Saury, R. E. (2006). Hybrid courses and their impact on student and classroom performance: A case study at the University of Virginia. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 517–531.Google Scholar
Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice. York, England: The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
State Higher Education Executive Officers’ Association. (2014). State higher education finance: FY2013. Retrieved from www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/SHEF_FY13_04292014.pdfGoogle Scholar
Strambi, A., & Bouvet, E. (2003). Flexibility and interaction at a distance: A mixed mode environment for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 81102.Google Scholar
Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (Eds.). (2013). Contemporary computer assisted language learning. London, England: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Thoms, J. J. (2014). Analyzing linguistic outcomes of second language learners: Hybrid versus traditional course contexts. In Rubio, F & Thomas, J. J. (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical, and curricular issues (pp. 177–195). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94. Retrieved from www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/6310/Google Scholar
Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2008). Who is responsible for e-learning success in higher education? A stakeholders’ analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 26–36.Google Scholar
White, S. (2000). Quality assurance and learning technologies: Intersecting agendas in UK higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 8(1), 7–16.Google Scholar
White, S. (2007). Critical success factors for e‐learning and institutional change – some organisational perspectives on campus‐wide e‐learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 840–850.Google Scholar
Young, D. J., & Pettigrew, J. L. (2014). Blended Learning in large multisection foreign language programs: An opportunity for reflecting on course content, pedagogy, learning outcomes, and assessment issues. In Rubio, F & Thoms, J. J. (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 92–120). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Young, J. R. (2002). “Hybrid” teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(28), A33–A34.Google Scholar
Youngs, B. L., & Green, A. (2001). A successful peer writing assistant program. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 550–558.Google Scholar
Adair-Hauck, B., Willingham-McLain, L., & Youngs, B. E. (1999). Evaluating the integration of technology and second language learning. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 269–306.Google Scholar
Alderete Diez, M. P. (2008). Reflection in language teaching/learning: Is the European portfolio the answer? In Pérez Ruiz, L, Pizarro Sánchez, I, & González-Cascos Jiménez, E (Eds.), Estudios de metolodogía de la lengua Inglesa [Studies on English language methodology] (Vol. 4). Valladolid, Spain: Ediciones Universidad de Valladolid.Google Scholar
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518–529.Google Scholar
Azher, M., Anwar, M. N., & Naz, A. (2010). An investigation of foreign language classroom anxiety and its relationship with students’ achievement. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(11), 33.Google Scholar
Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Bañados, E. (2006). A blended-learning pedagogical model for teaching and learning EFL successfully through an online interactive multimedia environment. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 533–550.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Barr, D., Leakey, J., & Ranchoux, A. (2005). Told like it is! An evaluation of an integrated oral development project. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 55–78.Google Scholar
Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (1996, April 8–14). Designing an activity in the knowledge integration environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Benson, P. (2001) Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London, England: Longman.Google Scholar
Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), 21–40.Google Scholar
Benson, P., & Voller, P. (2014). Autonomy and independence in language learning. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online engineering education: Learning anywhere, anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 131–146.Google Scholar
Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative language teaching in action: Putting principles to work. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Buckley, C. A., Pitt, E., Norton, B., & Owens, T. (2010). Students’ approaches to study, conceptions of learning and judgements about the value of networked technologies. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 55–65.Google Scholar
Burden, R., & Williams, M. (1998). Language learners’ perceptions of supportive classroom environments. The Language Learning Journal, 17(1), 29–32.Google Scholar
Cavage, C. (2014, January 31). Blending instruction through a flipped model [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://longmanhomeusa.com/blog/blending-instruction-through-a-flipped-model/Google Scholar
Chatfield, K. (n.d.). Content “loading” in hybrid/blended learning. Retrieved from https://secure.onlinelearningconsortium.org/effective_practices/content-quotloadingquot-hybridblended-learningGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., & Murday, K. (2003). Measuring student learning in an online French course. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 285–314.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., Ushida, E., & Murday, K. (2006). Student learning in hybrid French and Spanish courses: An overview of language online. CALICO Journal, 24(1), 115–145.Google Scholar
Chew, E., Jones, N., & Turner, D. (2008). Critical review of the blended learning models based on Maslow’s and Vygotsky’s educational theory. In Fong, J, Kwan, R, & Wang, F. L. (Eds.), Hybrid learning and education ICHL 2008 (pp. 40–53). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Day, C. (1993). Reflection: A necessary but not sufficient condition for professional development. British Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 83–93.Google Scholar
Dorwick, T., & Glass, W. R. (2003). Language education policies: One publisher’s perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 592–594.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). “Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305–325.Google Scholar
Echávez-Solano, N. (2003). A comparison of student outcomes and attitudes in technology-enhanced vs. traditional second-semester Spanish language courses (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 305330859)Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2014). Investigating language instruction. Language Teaching Research, 3(18), 269–271.Google Scholar
Freeman, D. (1982). Observing teachers: Three approaches to in‐service training and development. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 21–28.Google Scholar
Furstenberg, G., & Levet, S. (2010). Integrating telecollaboration into the language classroom: Some insights. Telecollaboration, 2, 305–336.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Graham, S. J. (2004). Giving up on modern foreign languages? Students’ perceptions of learning French. The Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 171–191.Google Scholar
Green, A., & Youngs, B. E. (2001). Using the web in elementary French and German courses: Quantitative and qualitative study results. CALICO Journal, 19(1), 89–123.Google Scholar
Hauew, F. (2004). Epistémologie et modèles pédagogiques: des liens cachés. Actualité de la Formation Permanente, 191, 20–23.Google Scholar
Hofmann, J. (2001). Blended learning case study. Learning Circuits, 2(4).Google Scholar
Holec, H. (1979). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Holmberg, B. (1986). Growth and structure of distance education. London, England: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. L., & Ramos, R. (1992). Talking about learning: Establishing a framework for discussing and changing learning processes. In James, C & Garrett, P (Eds.), Language awareness in the classroom (pp. 198–212). London, England: Longman.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. L., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998, January). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1187–1194). Los Angeles, CA: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. P., & Marsh, D. (2014). Blended language learning: An effective solution but not without its challenges. Higher Learning Research Communications, 4(3), 23.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, S., Jones, T., & Barrett, M. (2003). Defining learning communities. Launceston, TAS: Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia.Google Scholar
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5–20.Google Scholar
Ladkin, D., Case, P., Gayá Wicks, P., & Kinsella, K. (2009). Developing leaders in cyber-space: The paradoxical possibilities of on-line learning. Leadership, 5(2), 193–212.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2), 232–244.Google Scholar
Little, D. (1996). Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: Promoting learner autonomy through the use of information systems and information technologies. In Pemberton, R, Li, E. S. L., Or, W. W. F., & Pierson, H. D. (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 203–218). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Little, D. (2003). Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning. In The guide to good practice for learning and teaching in languages, linguistics and area studies. Southampton, England: LTSN Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Little, D., & Perclová, R. (2001). The European language portfolio: Guide for teachers and teacher trainers. Strasbourg, France: Language Policy Division, Council of Europe.Google Scholar
LKCollab. (n.d.). Bubbl.us [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://bubbl.us/Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, D. (2012). Blended learning: Creating learning opportunities for language learners. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, G. E., McFadden, A. C., & Price, B. J. (2003). Blended instruction: Adapting conventional instruction for large classes. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(4). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1068350Google Scholar
Means, B., Shear, L., Novais, G., Gallagher, L., & Langworthy, M. (2010). ITL research design. Retrieved from www.sri.com/sites/default/files/publications/itl_research_design_15_nov_2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
Neumeier, P. (2005). A closer look at blended learning: Parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 17(2), 163–178.Google Scholar
Nielson, K., González-Lloret, M., & Pinckney, K. (2008). Learning foreign languages at a distance. Retrieved from www.casl.umd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/LEARNING-FOREIGN-LANGUAGES-AT-A-DISTANCE-tech-report-2009.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nissen, E. (2016). Combining classroom-based learning and online intercultural exchange in blended courses. Online Intercultural Exchange: Policy, Pedagogy, Practice, 4, 173.Google Scholar
Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 23–34.Google Scholar
Oller, J. W., Jr. (1978). Pragmatics and language testing. In Spolsky, B (Ed.), Advances in language testing series: Approaches to language testing (pp. 39–58). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Omaggio Hadley, A. (1978). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Orsini-Jones, M., Brick, B., & Pibworth, L. (2013). Practising language interaction via social networking sites: The “expert student’s” perspective on personalized language learning. In Zou, B (Ed.). Computer-assisted language teaching and learning: Technological advances (pp. 40–53). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227–233.Google Scholar
Padlet. (n.d.). Padlet [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://padlet.com/Google Scholar
Pemberton, R., Li, E. S. L., Or, W., & Pierson, H. (Eds.). (1996). Taking control: Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. (2010). Competence and performance in language teaching. RELC Journal, 41(2), 101–122.Google Scholar
Rossomondo, A. (2014). Integrating foundational language and content study through new approaches to hybrid learning and teaching. In Rubio, F & Thoms, J. J. (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 219–238). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage.Google Scholar
Rubio, F., & Thoms, J. J. (2014). Hybrid language teaching and learning: Looking forward. In Rubio, F & Thoms, J. J. (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 1–9). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage.Google Scholar
Scida, E. E., & Saury, R. E. (2006). Hybrid courses and their impact on student and classroom performance: A case study at the University of Virginia. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 517–531.Google Scholar
Senior, R. (2010). Connectivity: A framework for understanding effective language teaching in face-to-face and online learning communities. RELC Journal, 41(2), 137–147.Google Scholar
Sharma, P., & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom. Oxford, England: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
Shaw, S., & Igneri, N. (2006). Effectively implementing a blended learning approach: Maximizing advantages and eliminating disadvantages. Nashua, NH: Eedo.Google Scholar
Shear, L., Means, B., Gallagher, L., House, A., & Langworthy, M. (2009). ITL research design. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar
Skype Technologies. (n.d.). Skype [Computer software]. Palo Alto, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.skype.com/Google Scholar
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
So, H. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2010). Examining the roles of blended learning approaches in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments: A Delphi study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 189–200.Google Scholar
Southgate, M., & Murphy, L. (2011). The nature of the “blend”: Interaction of teaching modes, tools and resources. In Nicholson, M, Murphy, L, & Southgate, M (Eds.), Language teaching in blended contexts (pp. 13–28). Edinburgh, Scotland: Dunedin Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stracke, E. (2007). A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners drop out of a blended language learning (BLL) environment. ReCALL, 19(1), 57–78.Google Scholar
Strambi, A., & Bouvet, E. (2003). Flexibility and interaction at a distance: A mixed mode environment for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 81102.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S & Madden, C (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G & Seidlhofer, B (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive process they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337.Google Scholar
Thanasoulas, D. (2000). What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered? The Internet TESL Journal, 6(11), 37–48.Google Scholar
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language classroom: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Theory and practice. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VoiceThread. (n.d.). VoiceThread [Computer software]. Boca Raton, FL: Author. Retrieved from https://voicethread.com/Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Studies in communication: Thought and language (Hanfmann, E & Vakar, G, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Spencer, K. A., & Wang, D. (2012). A double-channel model for developing learner autonomy in an EFL context. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. (2005). Classrooms as learning communities: What’s in it for schools? London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537.Google Scholar
Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In Willis, J & Willis, D (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 52–62). Oxford, England: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Young, D. J. (1990). An investigation of students’ perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23(6), 539–553.Google Scholar
Young, D. J., & Pettigrew, J. L. (2014). Blended learning in large multisection foreign language programs: An opportunity for reflecting on course content, pedagogy, learning outcomes, and assessment issues. In Rubio, F & Thoms, J. J. (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 92–120). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage.Google Scholar
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.Google Scholar
Adobe Inc. (n.d.). Adobe presenter (Version 11) [Computer software]. San Jose, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.adobe.com/products/presenter.htmlGoogle Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (n.d.). Assigning CEFR ratings to ACTFL assessments. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/reports/Assigning_CEFR_Ratings_To_ACTFL_Assessments.pdfGoogle Scholar
Articulate Inc. (n.d.). Articulate storyline 360 [Computer software]. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from www.articulate.com/Google Scholar
Fabbian, C., Zanotti Carney, E., & Grgurović, M. (2017). Lessons learned: Design and implementation of Italian blended language courses. Italica, 94(2), 314–353.Google Scholar
Heining-Boynton, A. L., & Cowell, G. S. (2009). ¡Anda! Curso elemental [Come on! Elementary course]. London, England: Pearson.Google Scholar
Hughes, N., Lo, L., & Xu, S. (2019). Blended Chinese language learning design: An integrative review and synthesis of the literature. The Language Learning Journal, 47(3), 313–331.Google Scholar
iSpring Solutions Inc. (n.d.). iSpring suite (Version 9.7) [Computer software]. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from www.ispringsolutions.com/Google Scholar
LearningApps. (n.d.). LearningApps [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://learningapps.org/Google Scholar
McLoughlin, L. (2018, July 23). Information webinar [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://italianonlinenuig.wordpress.com/Google Scholar
Microsoft Corporation. (n.d.). Sway [Computer software]. Redmond, WA: Author. Retrieved from https://sway.office.com/Google Scholar
Mizza, D., & Esmaili-Sardari, M. T. (2015, May 7). Video testimonial of the pilot blended courses – French and Persian [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/4Al7GtpD0vwGoogle Scholar
Mizza, D., & Esmaili-Sardari, M. T. (2020). The Persian language educator’s role in developing effective blended language learning: From principles to practice. In Shabani-Jadidi, P (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
National Center for Academic Transformation. (2008). Colleagues committed to redesign (C2 R). Retrieved from www.thencat.org/RedesignAlliance/C2R/R1/Abstracts/UNCCH_Abstract.htmGoogle Scholar
Pearson. (n.d.). MySpanishLab [Digital learning environment]. London, England: Author. Retrieved from www.myspanishlab.com/Google Scholar
Quizlet. (n.d.). Quizlet [Computer software]. San Francisco, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://quizlet.com/Google Scholar
Branch, R. M., & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional design models. In Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., van Merriënboer, J, & Driscoll, M. P. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 77–87). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Driscoll, M., & Carliner, S. (2005). Advanced web-based training strategies: Unlocking instructionally sound online learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R. (2016). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2010). Teaching online: A practical guide. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lee, J., & Van Patten, B. (2003). Making communicative language happen. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ravi, V. (2016). Educational technology. Raleigh, NC: Lulu.Google Scholar
Serhat, K. (2015, December). Instructional design models and theories. Educational Technology [Blog]. Retrieved from http://educationaltechnology.net/instructional-design-models-and-theories/Google Scholar
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Allison, D., Corcos, R., & Lam, A. (1994). Laying down the law? Reflecting on course design in progress. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 17, 1–11.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. (1989). Needs assessment in language programming: From theory to practice. In Johnson, R. K. (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 48–62). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brindley, G. (1989). The role of needs analysis in adult ESL program design. In The second language curriculum (pp. 63–78). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning at OU. (2014, November 23). Goals, objectives, and learning outcomes [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/4Al7GtpD0vwGoogle Scholar
Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 55–63.Google Scholar
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The systematic design of instruction. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Finney, D. (2002). The ELT curriculum: A flexible model for a changing world. In Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 69–79). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1974). Principles of instructional design. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2000). English for specific purposes: Discourse analysis and course design. Vizcaya, Spain: Universidad del País Vasco, Servicio Editorial.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goertler, S. (2011). Blended and open/online learning: Adapting to a changing world of language teaching. In Arnold, A & Ducate, L (Eds.), Present and future promises of CALL (pp. 470–501). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Google Scholar
Hamp‐Lyons, L., & Lumley, T. (2001). Assessing language for specific purposes. Language Testing, 18(2), 127–132.Google Scholar
Haseli Songhori, M. (2008). Introduction to needs analysis. English for Specific Purposes World, 4(20), 1–25.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iwai, T., Kondo, K., Lim, D. S. J., Ray, G. E., Shimizu, H., & Brown, J. D. (1999). Japanese language needs analysis 1998–1999 (NFLRC NetWork 13). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved from www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW13/Google Scholar
Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials. English Language Research, University of Birmingham, 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D., Hyland, A., & Ryan, N. (2006). Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guide. In Froment, E, Kohler, J, Purser, L, Wilson, L, Davies, H, & Schurings, G (Eds.), EUA Bologna handbook: Implementing Bologna (C 3.4). Berlin, Germany: European University Association.Google Scholar
McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mizza, D. (2018). Instructional design for blended language learning: Methodological considerations and course applications guiding the effective design of blended language courses. In Palalas, A, Norman, H, & Pawluk, P (Eds.), Blended learning in the age of social change and innovation (pp. 132–144). Kavala, Greece: International Association for Blended Learning.Google Scholar
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centered curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palacios Martínez, I. (1992). An analysis and appraisal of the English language teaching situation in Spain from the perspectives of teachers and learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.Google Scholar
Palacios Martínez, I. M. (1994). La enseñanza del Inglés en España a debate [English teaching open to debate in Spain]. PCSelemliteracy. (n.d.). Revised Bloom’s taxonomy [Online image]. Retrieved from http://pcs2ndgrade.pbworks.com/w/page/46897760/Revised%20Bloom’s%20TaxonomyGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richterich, R., & Chancerel, J. J. (1987). Identifying the needs of adults learning a foreign language. Oxford, England: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. (1991). Double-level languages and co-operative working. AI & Society, 5(1), 34–60.Google Scholar
Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Servicio de Publicaciones e Intercambio Científico da Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Seaman, J. E., Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdfGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (1995). Needs analysis and the general English classroom. ELTjournal, 49(1), 59–65.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., & Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the language learner: Approaches to identifying and meeting the needs of second language learners. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. Language Teaching, 27(01), 1–19.Google Scholar
White, R. (1988). The ELT curriculum. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005a). Three stages of backward design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005b). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Abrams, Z. A. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157–167.Google Scholar
Adair-Hauck, B., Willingham-McLain, L., & Youngs, B. E. (1999). Evaluating the integration of technology and second language learning. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 269–306.Google Scholar
Adobe Inc. (n.d.-a). Adobe captivate [Computer software]. San Jose, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.adobe.com/products/captivate.htmGoogle Scholar
Adobe Inc. (n.d.-b). Adobe connect [Computer software]. San Jose, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.htmlGoogle Scholar
Adobe Inc. (n.d.-c). Adobe presenter [Computer software]. San Jose, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.adobe.com/products/presenter.htmlGoogle Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). Performance descriptors for language learners. Retrieved from www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ACTFLPerformance-Descriptors.pdfGoogle Scholar
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. London, England: Longman.Google Scholar
Animoto Inc. (n.d.). Animoto [Computer software]. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://animoto.com/Google Scholar
Articulate Global Inc. (n.d.). Articulate storyline [Computer software]. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://articulate.com/Google Scholar
ATi Studios. (n.d.-a). An example of activity with virtual reality [Online image]. Brasov, Romania: Author. Retrieved from www.mondly.com/Google Scholar
ATi Studios. (n.d.-b). Mondly [Computer software].Brasov, Romania: Author. Retrieved from www.mondly.com/Google Scholar
Automattic Inc. (n.d.). WordPress blog [Computer software]. San Francisco, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://wordpress.com/Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2014). Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online classes. In Baralt, M, Gilabert, R, & Robinson, P (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 95–122). London, England: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., & Morcillo Gómez, J. (2017). Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 28–43.Google Scholar
Bartalesi-Graf, D. (2017). Com’è nata la Costituzione italiana [The birth of the Italian constitution] [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from www.edx.org/school/wellesleyxGoogle Scholar
Berti, M. (2018). An example of a 360-degree VR video of a “Panificio” (bakery) in Italy. [Screenshot of a 360-degree VR video]. Retrieved from https://italianopeneducation.com/videos/Google Scholar
Berti, M. (2019). Italian open education: Virtual reality immersions for the language classroom. In Beaven, A, Comas-Quinn, A, & Sawhill, B (Eds.), New case studies of openness in and beyond the language classroom (pp. 37–47). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596853.pdfGoogle Scholar
Berti, M., Maranzana, S., & Monzingo, J. (2020). Fostering cultural understanding with virtual reality: A look at students’ stereotypes and beliefs. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 47–59.Google Scholar
Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative language teaching in action. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shillcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruce, B. C., & Levin, J. A. (1997). Educational technology: Media for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 79–102.Google Scholar
Burgstahler, S. (2002). Working together: People with disabilities and computer technology. Retrieved from www.washington.edu/doit/working-together-people-disabilities-and-computer-technologyGoogle Scholar
Caladine, R. (2006). A taxonomy of learning technologies: Simplifying online learning for learners, professors, and designers. In Khosrow-Pour, M (Ed.), Emerging trends and challenges in IT management (pp. 247–251). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc. Retrieved from www.irma-international.org/searchGoogle Scholar
Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning at OU. (2014, November 23). Goals, objectives, and learning outcomes [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/4Al7GtpD0vwGoogle Scholar
Conole, G., De Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2008). “Disruptive technologies,” “pedagogical innovation”: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50(2), 511–524.Google Scholar
Cram. (n.d.). Flashcard exchange [Computer software]. Hollywood, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.cram.com/Google Scholar
Da Rozze, G. (2018, August 20). L’unità d’Italia: date, eventi, protagonisti [The unification of Italy: Dates, events, characters] [Web log comment]. Retrieved from www.focusjunior.it/scuola/storia/storia-lunita-ditalia/Google Scholar
Dodge, B. (n.d.). WebQuests [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://webquest.org/Google Scholar
Edublogs. (n.d.). Edublogs [Computer software]. Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from https://edublogs.org/Google Scholar
eLearners. (n.d.). Added value in e-learning: 3 valuable benefits of online study. Retrieved from www.elearners.com/education-resources/online-learning/added-value-in-e-learning-3-valuable-benefits-of-online/Google Scholar
Er, E., Özden, M., & Arifoglu, A. (2009). A blended e-learning environment: A model proposition for integration of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. International Journal Of Learning, 16(2), 449–460.Google Scholar
Esmaili-Sardari, M. T. (2018). Exploring key words. Retrieved from the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University Advanced Low Persian (Farsi) Course: https://blackboard.jhu.eduGoogle Scholar
Facebook Inc. (n.d.). Facebook group [Computer software]. Menlo Park, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.facebook.com/groupsGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323.Google Scholar
Gillespie, J., & McKee, J. (1999). Does it fit and does it make any difference? Integrating CALL into the curriculum. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(5), 441–455.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2016). A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Google. (n.d.-a). Google docs [Computer software]. Mountain View, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/documentGoogle Scholar
Google. (n.d.-b). Google expeditions [Computer software]. Mountain View, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://edu.google.com/expeditionsGoogle Scholar
Google. (n.d.-c). Google hangout [Computer software]. Mountain View, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://gsuite.google.comGoogle Scholar
Google. (n.d.-d). Google maps [Computer software]. Mountain View, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://google.com/mapsGoogle Scholar
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86.Google Scholar
Hobbs, D. (2002). Constructivist approach to web course design: A review of the literature. International Journal on E-Learning, 1, 60–65. Retrieved from www.editlib.org/p/10821Google Scholar
Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(4), 51.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. (2018). Discusión [Discussion] [Screenshot of online discussion]. Retrieved from University of Nottingham Business & Society in Spain Module Moodle: https://moodle.nottingham.ac.ukGoogle Scholar
Hughes, N., Lo, L., & Xu, S. (2017). Lesson #12: Activity #1 & #2 [Screenshot of Moodle Book learning activities]. Retrieved from University of Nottingham Beginner Chinese Moodle: https://moodle.nottingham.ac.ukGoogle Scholar
Hurley, D. (2017). An example of activity with augmented reality [Online image]. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@denishurley/the-future-of-language-learning-augmented-reality-vs-virtual-reality-679d6668db5bGoogle Scholar
Hurley, D. (2017). The future of language learning: Augmented reality vs virtual reality. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@denishurley/the-future-of-language-learning-augmented-reality-vs-virtual-reality-679d6668db5bGoogle Scholar
Impulse Communications Inc. (n.d.). Digital films [Computer software]. North Kingstown, RI: Author. Retrieved from www.digitalfilms.com/Google Scholar
iSpring Solutions. (n.d.). iSpring [Computer software]. Alexandra, VA: Author. Retrieved from www.ispringsolutions.com/ispring-suiteGoogle Scholar
IXL Learning. (n.d.). Quia [Computer software]. San Mateo, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.quia.com/webGoogle Scholar
Izadpanah, S. (2010). A study on task-based language teaching: From theory to practice. US-China Foreign Language, 8(3), 47–56.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. W., & Sherlock, D. (2014). Beyond the personal learning environment: Attachment and control in the classroom of the future. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(2), 146–164.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66.Google Scholar
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Oxon, England: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
Li, L., Finley, J., Pitts, J., & Guo, R. (2011). Which is a better choice for student–faculty interaction: Synchronous or asynchronous communication? Journal of Technology Research, 1(2), 1–12.Google Scholar
Lin, B. (2003). Technology transfer as technological learning: A source of competitive advantage for firms with limited R&D resources. R&D Management, 33(3), 327–341.Google Scholar
LinkedIn Corporation. (n.d.). SlideShare [Computer software]. Sunnyvale, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.slideshare.net/Google Scholar
LogMeIn. (n.d.). GoToMeeting [Computer software]. Boston, MA: Author. Retrieved from www.gotomeeting.com/Google Scholar
Luo, S. (2007). Re-examining factors that affect task difficulty in TBLA (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 304718123)Google Scholar
McLoughlin, L. (2017). Divi di ieri e divi di oggi [The celebrities of today and yesterday] [Screenshot of interactive image]. Retrieved from the National University of Ireland Galway Beginner Italian Course Blackboard: https://nuigalway.blackboard.com/Google Scholar
McLoughlin, L. (2017). Il Grand Tour – Itinerario [The Grand Tour – Itinerary] [Screenshot of interactive image]. Retrieved from the National University of Ireland Galway Beginner Italian Course Blackboard: https://nuigalway.blackboard.comGoogle Scholar
Meloni, J. (2010, January 11). Tools for synchronous and asynchronous classroom discussion [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/tools-for-synchronousasynchronous-classroom-discussion/22902Google Scholar
Movavi. (n.d.). Movavi [Computer software]. Saint Louis, MO: Author. Retrieved from www.movavi.com/Google Scholar
Nulab Inc. (n.d.). Cacoo [Computer software]. Fukuoka, Japan: Author. Retrieved from https://cacoo.com/Google Scholar
Oddcast Inc. (n.d.). Voki [Computer software]. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from www.voki.com/Google Scholar
Oguro, Y. (2018a). イントロ [Advance organizer] [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University Intermediate Low Japanese Course Blackboard: https://blackboard.jhu.edu/Google Scholar
Oguro, Y. (2018b). 前後関係 [Before or after] [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University Intermediate Low Japanese Course Blackboard: https://blackboard.jhu.edu/Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Re-thinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Padlet. (n.d.). Padlet [Computer software]. San Francisco, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://padlet.com/Google Scholar
Papaly. (n.d.). Papaly [Computer software]. Palo Alto, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://papaly.com/Google Scholar
PBworks. (n.d.). PBworks [Computer software]. San Mateo, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.pbworks.com/Google Scholar
Pixton Comics Inc. (n.d.). Pixton [Computer software]. Parksville, Canada: Author. Retrieved from www.pixton.com/Google Scholar
Poll Everywhere. (n.d.). Polleverywhere [Computer software]. San Francisco, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.polleverywhere.com/Google Scholar
Prezi Inc. (n.d.). Prezi [Computer software]. Budapest, Hungary: Author. Retrieved from https://prezi.com/Google Scholar
Quizlet Inc. (n.d.). Quizlet [Computer software]. San Francisco, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://quizlet.com/Google Scholar
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101–109.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner’s guide. London, England: Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognition and second language syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In García Mayo, M. P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7–26). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Rowntree, D. (1992). Exploring open and distance learning (1st ed.) London, England: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Russelburg, S. (2015). L’extrémisme politique: Discussion [Political extremism: A discussion] [Screenshot of online discussion]. Retrieved from the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University Intermediate High French Course Blackboard: https://blackboard.jhu.edu/Google Scholar
Schwienhorst, K. (2002). The state of VR: A meta-analysis of virtual reality tools in second language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(3), 221–239.Google Scholar
Screencast-o-matic. (n.d.). Screencast-o-matic [Computer software]. Seattle, WA: Author. Retrieved from https://screencast-o-matic.com/lp/screen-recording-video-editingGoogle Scholar
Seaman, J. E., Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, R., & Oliver, M. (2007). Designing courses for e-learning. In Beetham, H & Sharpe, R (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age (pp. 41–51). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–286.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In Bygate, M, Skehan, P, & Swain, M (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 167–185). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 185–211.Google Scholar
Skylar, A. A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchronous interactive web conferencing lectures. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 69.Google Scholar
Skype Technologies. (n.d.). Skype [Computer software]. Palo Alto, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.skype.com/Google Scholar
SoundCloud. (n.d.). SoundCloud [Computer software]. Berlin, Germany: Author. Retrieved from https://soundcloud.com/Google Scholar
Spotify. (n.d.). Spotify [Computer software]. Stockholm, Sweden: Author. Retrieved from www.spotify.com/Google Scholar
Start.me. (n.d.). Start.me [Computer software]. The Hague, Netherlands: Author. Retrieved from https://start.me/start/us/startpageGoogle Scholar
Sun Associates. (2001). Finding the right tool for the task: Four categories of technology use. Retrieved from https://resources.sun-associates.com/categories.htmlGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Symbaloo. (n.d.). Symbaloo [Computer software]. Delft, Netherlands: Author. Retrieved from www.symbaloo.com/welcomeGoogle Scholar
Tactivos Inc. (n.d.). Mural.ly [Computer software]. San Francisco, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://mural.com/Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In Ellis, R (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
TechSmith Corporation. (n.d.). Camtasia [Computer software]. Okemos, MI: Author. Retrieved from www.techsmith.com/video-editor.htmlGoogle Scholar
TechSmith Corporation. (n.d.). Snagit [Computer software]. Okemos, MI: Author. Retrieved from www.techsmith.com/screen-capture.htmlGoogle Scholar
Thinglink. (n.d.). Thinglink [Computer software].Palo Alto, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.thinglink.com/Google Scholar
Thomas, M., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2012). Task-based language learning and teaching with technology. London, England: Continuum.Google Scholar
Twitter. (n.d.-a). Twitter [Computer software].San Francisco, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/Google Scholar
Twitter. (n.d.-b). Twitter hashtags [Computer software]. San Francisco, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/hashtagsGoogle Scholar
Upton, D. (2006). Online learning in speech and language therapy: Student performance and attitudes. Education for Health, 19, 22–31.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In Eckman, F. R., Highland, D, Lee, P. W., Mileham, J, & Weber, R. R. (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
VoiceThread. (n.d.). VoiceThread [Computer software]. Boca Raton, FL: Author. Retrieved from https://voicethread.com/Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Studies in communication. Thought and language (Hanfmann, E & Vakar, G, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Walz, J. (1998). Meeting standards for foreign language learning with World Wide Web activities. Foreign Language Annals, 31(1), 103–114.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–481.Google Scholar
WhatsApp Inc. (n.d.). WhatsApp [Computer software]. Menlo Park, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.whatsapp.com/Google Scholar
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London, England: Longman.Google Scholar
Wordle. (n.d.). Wordle [Computer software]. Retrieved from www.wordle.net/Google Scholar
XMind. (n.d.). XMind [Computer software]. Hong Kong: Author. Retrieved from www.lucidchart.com/Google Scholar
Yahoo! Inc. (n.d.). Flickr [Computer software]. San Francisco, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.flickr.com/Google Scholar
YouTube. (n.d.). YouTube [Computer software]. San Bruno, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Zunal. (n.d.). Zunal [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://zunal.com/Google Scholar
Abrami, P. C., & Bernard, R. M. (2006). Research on distance education: in defense of field experiments. Distance Education, 24, 5–26.Google Scholar
Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(6), 65–83.Google Scholar
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2009). Collaborative writing in wikis: Insights from culture projects in German classes. In Lomicka, L & Lord, G (Eds.), The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 115–144). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Google Scholar
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing group dynamics and revision process in wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 431–448.Google Scholar
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2011). Building a common core for learning to teach and connecting professional learning to practice. American Educator, 35, 17–21, 38–39. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ931211.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T. A., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 458–474.Google Scholar
Benson, P. (1997). The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, 7, 18–34.Google Scholar
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London, England: Longman.Google Scholar
Benson, P., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (2005). Learners’ stories: Difference and diversity in language learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289.Google Scholar
Bethell, S., & Morgan, K. (2011). Problem-based and experiential learning: Engaging students in an undergraduate physical education module. The Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism, 10(1), 128–134.Google Scholar
Blake, R., Wilson, N., Cetto, M., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language Learning and Technology, 12(3), 114–127. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num3/blakeetal.pdf?origin=publication_detailGoogle Scholar
Blin, F. (2004). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective. ReCALL, 16(02), 377–395.Google Scholar
Blin, F. (2005). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: An activity theoretical study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Open University, Milton Keynes, England.Google Scholar
Blin, F., & Appel, C. (2011). Computer supported collaborative writing in practice: An activity theoretical study. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 473–497.Google Scholar
Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative language teaching in action: Putting principles to work. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Briggs, A. R., Morrison, M., & Coleman, M. (2012). Research methods in educational leadership and management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Brown, H. D. (2002). English language teaching in the “Post-Method” era: Toward better diagnosis, treatment, and assessment. In Richards, J. C. & Renadya, W. A. (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 9–18). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cai, Y. (2006). A case study of academic staff integration in a post-merger Chinese university. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(3), 215–226.Google Scholar
Chen, W. Z., & Qu, H. D. (2002). Three key point in postgraduates’ English teaching reform: Web, specialty, and organization. Academic Degrees and Graduate Education, 4, 37–41.Google Scholar
Clarke, L. W., & Bartholomew, A. (2014). Digging beneath the surface: Analyzing the complexity of instructors’ participation in asynchronous discussion. Online Learning, 18(3) 1–22.Google Scholar
Comas-Quinn, A., Mardomingo, R., & Valentine, C. (2009). Mobile blogs in language learning: Making the most of informal and situated learning opportunities. ReCALL, 21(1), 96–112.Google Scholar
Davin, K. J., & Troyan, F. J. (2015). The implementation of high-leverage teaching practices: From the university classroom to the field site. Foreign Language Annals, 48(1), 124–142.Google Scholar
de la Varre, C., Keane, J., & Irvin, M. J. (2011). Dual perspectives on the contribution of on-site facilitators to teaching presence in a blended learning environment. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 25(3), 1–14.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80.Google Scholar
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Bulletin, 7(1), 12.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428.Google Scholar
Enkin, E., & Mejías-Bikandi, E. (2016). Using online translators in the second language classroom: Ideas for advanced level Spanish [Uso de traductores en línea en la clase de una segunda lengua: ideas para español de nivel avanzado/Uso de tradutores on-line na aula de uma segunda língua: ideias para espanhol de nível avançado]. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 138.Google Scholar
Fogo, B. (2014). Core practices for teaching history: The results of a delphi panel survey. Theory and Research in Social Education, 42(2), 151–196.Google Scholar
Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357–368.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles and guidelines. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 2–3.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gerbic, P. (2009). Including online discussions within campus-based students’ learning environments. In Stacey, E & Gerbic, P (Eds.), Effective blended learning practices: Evidence-based perspectives in ICT-facilitated education (pp. 21–38). Hershey, NH: IGI Publishing.Google Scholar
Glisan., E. W., & Donato, R. (2017). Enacting the work of language instruction: High-leverage teaching practices. Alexandria, VA: The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2011). Conversation analysis of computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 308–325.Google Scholar
Guo, X., & Yan, X. (2007). Impact of learner autonomy on metacognitive strategy and English achievement: A study of college non-English majors in China. CELEA Journal, 30(3), 45–50.Google Scholar
Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 66–82. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/hampel/default.htmlGoogle Scholar
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). London, England: Pearson.Google Scholar
Hartnett, M. (2009, December). Factors undermining motivation in place-based blended learning. In Atkinson, R. J. & McBeath, C (Eds.), Same places, different spaces: Proceedings Ascilite Auckland 2009 (pp. 443–449). Retrieved from www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/Google Scholar
Hedge, T. (2001). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hlas, A. C., & Hlas, C. S. (2012). A review of high‐leverage teaching practices: Making connections between mathematics and foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 45(s1), 76–97.Google Scholar
Holec, H. (1979). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132.Google Scholar
Hu, G. (2005). English language education in China: Policies, progress, and problems. Language Policy, 4(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
Isabelli, C. A. (2015). Student learning outcomes in hybrid and face-to-face beginning Spanish language courses. In Pixel (Ed.), Conference proceedings: The Future of Education (pp. 649–654). Padova, Italy: Edizioni Webster.Google Scholar
Jeon-Ellis, G., Debski, R., & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Oral interaction around computers in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 121–145. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/jeon/default.htmlGoogle Scholar
Jeon-Ellis, G., Debski, R., & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Oral interaction around computers in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 121–145.Google Scholar
Kearney, E. (2015). A high-leverage language teaching practice: Leading an open-ended group discussion. Foreign Language Annals, 48(1), 100–123.Google Scholar
Kenning, M.-M. (2010). Collaborative scaffolding in online task-based voice interactions between advanced learners. ReCALL, 22(2), 135–151.Google Scholar
Kloser, M. (2014). Identifying a core set of science teaching practices: A Delphi expert panel approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 1185–1217.Google Scholar
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York, NY: The Adult Education Company.Google Scholar
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 53–72.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.Google Scholar
Little, D. (1996). Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: Promoting learner autonomy through the use of information systems and information technologies. In Pemberton, R, Li, E. S. L., Or, W. W. F., & Pierson, H. D. (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 203–218). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71–94.Google Scholar
Loewen, F., & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2 F and CM contexts. In Sato, M & Ballinger, S (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning (pp. 163–184). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task‐based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27–56.Google Scholar
Lunsford, A. (1991). Collaboration, control, and the idea of a writing center. The Writing Center Journal, 12(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2015). Using form-focused tasks to integrate language across the immersion curriculum. System, 54, 4–13.Google Scholar
Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36(3), 437–455.Google Scholar
Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educause Quarterly, 26(1), 18–23.Google Scholar
McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22.Google Scholar
McLeskey, J., & Brownell, M. (2015). High-leverage practices and teacher preparation in special education (practice review). Gainesville, FL: CEEDAR Center.Google Scholar
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdfGoogle Scholar
Melucci, D. (2016). Viaggiare [Traveling] [Screenshot of VoiceThread]. Retrieved from Georgetown University Intermediate Italian Course Canvas: http://canvas.georgetown.edu/Google Scholar
Miceli, M., Visocnik Murray, S., & Kennedy, S. (2010). Using an L2 blog to enhance learners’ participation and sense of community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(4), 321–341.Google Scholar
Murray, L., & Hourigan, T. (2008). Blogs for specific purposes: Expressivist or sociocognitivist approach? ReCALL, 20(1), 82–97.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In Benson, P & Voller, P (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 192–203). London, England: Longman.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (2010). A task-based approach to materials development. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 1(2), 135–160.Google Scholar
Omaggio-Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Online Learning Consortium. (2017). OLC quality scorecard for blended learning programs. Retrieved from http://info2.onlinelearningconsortium.org/rs/897-CSM-305/images/Quality%20Scorecard%20Blended.pdfGoogle Scholar
Orsini-Jones, M., Brick, B., & Pibworth, L. (2014). Practicing language interaction via social networking sites: The expert student’s perspective on personalized language learning. In Cross-cultural interaction: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (Vol. 1, pp. 385–398). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2014). Promoting foreign language collaborative writing through the use of Web 2.0 tools and tasks. In Ortega, L & González-Lloret, M (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 115–147). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7–32.Google Scholar
Pemberton, R., Li, E. S., Or, W. W., & Pierson, H. D. (1996). Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (Vol. 1). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Picciano, A. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 7–18.Google Scholar
Rossomondo, A. (n.d.). An example of a self-directed learning activity [Screenshot of video clip]. Retrieved from http://acceso.ku.edu/about.shtmlGoogle Scholar
Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N. (2016). A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In Sato, M & Ballinger, S (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning (pp. 267–289). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88.Google Scholar
Rubio, F. (2014). Blended learning and L2 proficiency. In Rubio, F & Thoms, J. J. (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 137–159). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Rubio, F. (2015). The role of interaction in MOOCs and traditional technology-enhanced language courses. In Dixon, E & Thomas, M (Eds.), Researching language learner interactions online: From social media to MOOCs (pp. 63–88). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Google Scholar
Rubio, F., & Cannon, T. (2018). Juntos. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Rubio, F., & Mizza, D. (2019). High-leverage practices for blended language learning: Towards a successful implementation in the blended language learning path. In Palalas, A (Ed.), Blended language learning: International perspectives on innovative practice (pp. 24–61). Beijing, China: Open University of China Press.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., & Rangan, P. (2010). A re-examination of the community of inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 10–21.Google Scholar
Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics (52nd ed.). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017094.pdfGoogle Scholar
Solares, M. E. (2014). Textbooks, tasks, and technology: An action research study in a textbook-bound EFL context. In Ortega, L & González-Lloret, M (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 79–113). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Teaching Works. (2016). High-leverage practices. Retrieved from www.teachingworks.org/work-of-teaching/high-leverage-practicesGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M., & Reinders, H. (2010). Task-based language learning and teaching with technology. London, England: Continuum.Google Scholar
Troyan, F. J., Davin, K. J., & Donato, R. (2013). Exploring a practice-based approach to foreign language teacher preparation: A work in progress. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 69(2), 154–180.Google Scholar
Tudini, V. (2010). Online second language acquisition: Conversation analysis of online chat. London, England: Continuum.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Studies in communication: Thought and language (Hanfmann, E & Vakar, G, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Spencer, K. A., & Wang, D. (2012). A double-channel model for developing learner autonomy in an EFL context. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
Wang, Y. (2007). Task design in videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. CALICO Journal, 24(3), 591–630.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G. (2012). Seven keys to effective feedback. Feedback for Learning, 70(1), 10–16.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.Google Scholar
Yanguas, I. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time. Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 72–93.Google Scholar
You, X. (2004). “The choice made from no choice”: English writing instruction in a Chinese university. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 97–110.Google Scholar
Yukawa, J. (2010). Communities of practice for blended learning: Toward an integrated model for LIS Education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 51(2), 54–75.Google Scholar
Bowyer, J., & Chambers, L. (2017). Evaluating blended learning: Bringing the elements together. Research Matters, 23, 17–26.Google Scholar
Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., & Pickard, P. (2003). Using blended learning to improve student success rates in learning to program. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2–3), 165–178.Google Scholar
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.Google Scholar
Fritz, J., & Whitmer, J. (2017, February 27). Learning analytics research for LMS course design: Two studies. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/2/learning-analytics-research-for-lms-course-design-two-studiesGoogle Scholar
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86.Google Scholar
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–276.Google Scholar
Lock, J. V., & Redmond, P. (2015). Empowering learners to engage in authentic online assessment. In Koç, S, Liu, X, & Wachira, P (Eds.), Assessment in online and blended learning environments (pp. 21–38). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based language teaching and assessment. In Byram, M (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 597–603). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2002). Design and analysis in task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 477–496.Google Scholar
Norris, J. (2016). Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 230–244.Google Scholar
Pombo, L., & Moreira, A. (2012). Evaluation framework for blended learning courses: A puzzle piece for the evaluation process. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(3), 201–211.Google Scholar
Pozzi, F., Manca, S., Persico, D., & Sarti, L. (2007). A general framework for tracking and analyzing learning processes in computer‐supported collaborative learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(2), 169–179.Google Scholar
Quality Matters. (2016). Course design rubric standards (6th ed.). Retrieved from www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubricGoogle Scholar
Rubio, F., & Cannon, T. (2018). Juntos. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Rubio, F., Thomas, J., & Li, Q. (2017). The role of teaching presence and student participation in Spanish blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(3), 226–250.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task-based language teaching: From theory to practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Daria Mizza, The Johns Hopkins University, Fernando Rubio, University of Utah
  • Book: Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses
  • Online publication: 18 September 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108355285.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Daria Mizza, The Johns Hopkins University, Fernando Rubio, University of Utah
  • Book: Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses
  • Online publication: 18 September 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108355285.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Daria Mizza, The Johns Hopkins University, Fernando Rubio, University of Utah
  • Book: Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses
  • Online publication: 18 September 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108355285.010
Available formats
×