Our pilot project created blended/online courses to accommodate the growing needs of precollegiate and collegiate students interested in learning Korean and Japanese. In the initial phase, we conducted a survey of students’ experiences with and perceptions about blended/online Asian language learning. We found a general lack of familiarity with, and moderate resistance toward, online language learning modes. With learner attitudes in mind, we developed online modules for beginning Korean and Japanese courses. In this article, we report the survey results and the process of developing these innovative blended and online modalities of content delivery, focusing on the strengths of the modules and the unforeseen development challenges. The impacts that these technology-enhanced environments may have on student perceptions of transactional distance and tele-/copresence are explored. We suggest that transforming conventional East Asian language courses into blended/online modes is not only feasible but also beneficial for foreign language teaching and learning.
AllenI. E.SeamanJ. (2010) Class differences: Online education in the United States, 2010, Newburyport, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
2.
AndersonG. J.WalbergH. J. (1974) Learning environments. In: WalbergH. J. (eds) Evaluating educational performance: A sourcebook of methods, instruments and examples, Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, pp. 81–98.
3.
AndersonT.RourkeL.GarrisonD. R.ArcherW. (2001) Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network5(2): 1–17.
4.
AycockA.GarnhamC.KaletaR. (2002) Lessons learned from the hybrid course project. Teaching with Technology Today8(6): 9–21.
5.
BacowL. S.BowenG. L.GuthrieK. M.LackK. A.LongM. P. (2012) Barriers to adoption of online learning systems in U.S. higher education, New York, NY: Ithaka S+R.
6.
BartlettM. S. (1954) A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society16(Series B): 296–298.
7.
Bonk, C. J., Kim, K. J., & Zeng, T. (2005). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2005 (pp. 3644–3649). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/20646.
8.
CarlsonS. (2005) The net generation in the classroom. Chronicle of Higher Education52(7): A34–A37.
9.
CatellR. B. (1966) The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research1: 245–276.
10.
CronbachL. J. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika16: 297–334.
11.
DedeC. (2005) Planning for neomillennial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly1: 7–12.
Ekwunife-OrakwueK.TengT.-L. (2014) The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions of student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computers & Education78: 414–427.
14.
GarrisonD. R.AndersonT.ArcherW. (2001) Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education15(1): 7–23.
15.
GarrisonD. R.KanukaH. (2004) Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education7(2): 95–105.
16.
Goldberg, D., Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2015). Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, fall 2013. Retrieved from http://www.mla.org/pdf/2013_enrollment_survey.pdf.
17.
KaiserH. (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika35: 401–415.
18.
KressG.Van LeeuwenT. (2001) Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication, London, England: Edward Arnold.
19.
LimD. H.MorrisM.KupritzV. (2007) Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks11(2): 27–42.
MacIntyreP. D. (2007) Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal91(4): 564–576.
22.
MacIntyreP. D.ClémentR.DörnyeiZ.NoelsK. A. (1998) Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal82(4): 545–562.
23.
McGeeP.ReisA. (2012) Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks16(4): 7–22.
24.
McGlynnA. P. (2005) Teaching millennials: Our newest cultural cohort. The Education Digest71(4): 12–16.
25.
MooreM. G. (1993) Theory of transactional distance. In: KeeganD. (eds) Theoretical principles of distance education, London, England: New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 22–38.
26.
MunroJ. S. (1998) Presence at a distance: The educator–learner relationship in distance education. (Research Monographs 16). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
27.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978) Psychometric theory, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
28.
OliverK.KelloggS.PatelR. (2012) An investigation into reported differences between online foreign language instruction and other subject areas in a virtual school. CALICO Journal29(2): 269–296.
29.
O’TooleJ. M.AbsalomD. J. (2003) The impact of blended learning on student outcomes: Is there room on the horse for two?Journal of Educational Media28(2–3): 179–190.
30.
RovaiA. P.JordanH. M. (2004) Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning52Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/795.
ShedletskyL.AikenJ. E. (2001) The paradoxes of online academic work. Communication Education50(3): 206–217.
33.
SpryD. (2013) New media in Korea and Japan: Emergent trends. Education About Asia18(2): 10–15.
34.
WallenN. E.FraenkelJ. R. (1993) How to design and evaluate research in education, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
35.
YoungJ. R. (2002) ‘Hybrid’ teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education48(28): A33–A34.
