Design Approach to Blended Learning in Teaching EFL for Indonesia University Students

With the rapidly increasing involvement of technology in the teaching and learning process in higher education, lecturers are constantly on the lookout for better ways to integrate technology into their classes. Blended learning emerged in 2000 and has been one of the most popular approaches to teaching EFL. Despite having been around for years, not many people fully understand the principle behind it and how to design an effective blended course. Such is the case in most higher education institutions in Indonesia. This article reports on the result of a survey-based research in which the aim was to investigate how EFL lecturers in Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia design their blended courses. As many as 9 lecturers were involved as respondents in an online survey, an interview, and documents inspection. The data from the survey were then analyzed using two major theories of blended learning design approach by Lai, Lam, & Lim, (2016) and Alammary, Sheard, and Carbone (2014). The findings revealed that EFL lecturers designed their blended learning based on the principle of extension by former authors and the low-impact model by the latter was preferred to the other models.


INTRODUCTION
English as Foreign Language (EFL) lecturers in university level are constantly being challenged to find the most effective method of teaching English. This continuous search for the most effective method to teach English has led to the exploration of several teaching approaches and learning methods. One of the most widely recognized and relevant to modern education is blended learning. As defined by Harrington (2010), blended learning is an approach to learning that combines Lingua Pedagogia Vol. 1 No. 1, September 2019 online (via internet) and offline (traditional face-to-face class) learning experience. It became popular following the concept of elearning but unlike e-learning, where all teaching and learning process happen online, blended learning system is a combination of face-to-face (FTF) instruction with online instructions (Graham, 2006, Davies, Dean, & Ball, 2013. By combining face-to-face traditional classroom and online learning, blended learning manages to accommodate multiple learning styles and create more flexibility in the way of what, why, and how of learning process. Despite all the benefits, blended learning is not without its drawbacks. Appropriate use of this teaching and learning approach requires lecturers to possess not just pedagogical skills and knowledge but also familiarity with technology and the concept of blended learning itself. The last one, in particular, is of utmost importance because '…it influences the process of designing blended learning' (Allamary, Sheard, and Carbone, 2014, p.4). Without understanding the principle of blended learning and how to use it, there is a good chance that blended learning will not be implemented successfully. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate whether the design of blended learning used by Indonesian lecturers are in line with the principles of blended learning and to come up with a suggested design for blended class.
In Indonesia, the importance of English is made apparent by the government making this subject as one of the mandatory courses in both high school and university. For university students, English is a mandatory course that needs to be taken in their first semester. The course lasts for one semester or about five to six months with 16 face-toface (FTF) meeting time, once per week, between the lecturer and the students. An English class normally has 35 to 60 students. The syllabus is designed around the concept of English for Specific Purpose (ESP), where the materials and activities are adjusted to support the students' area of study. The goal of English course is usually to equip students with vocabulary, grammar skills, and language skills related to their area of study. Due to the staggering number of students, the variety of learning materials, and the restricted face-to-face time, it is quite a challenge for English lecturers to teach this subject effectively. In the attempt to mitigate these challenges, EFL lecturers have been experimenting on blended learning. Hence, the design of blended learning in higher education in Indonesia is highly varied from one lecturer to another, depending on the challenges they face, the learning goals, and their perception of blended learning. While many researches have been done to investigate how activities in blended learning are designed, especially in increasing students' motivation (Wang, Chen, Tai, & Zhang, 2019)promoting autonomy Isiguzel (2014), and accommodating different learning styles (Reushle & McDonald, 2004), not enough studies have been conducted to examine how teachers' technological expertise and their understanding of blended learning affect their blended course design, as well as how they integrate the online aspect of their course into the traditional FTF course. Using two major theories of blended learning design approach by Lai, Lam, & Lim,. (2016) and Alammary, Sheard, and Carbone (2014)., this study attempted to further investigate how EFL lecturers in Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia design Moodle to accommodate blended learning and how their technological expertise affects their designs

The Concept of Blended Learning
Although blended learning is a term that has been around for years, the concept remains unclear (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005), which is to say, it can have different meanings to different people. The term blended learning is interchangeable with the term 'mixed learning', 'hybrid learning', and 'blended elearning'. Wu, J., & Liu, W. (2013) defines blended learning as a 'pedagogical approach' where learning materials are delivered in multiple ways and online selfaccess system are used to support traditional learning environment. Singh (2003) clarified that blended learning has become much more than linking traditional FTF class environment with online environment. In a blended learning, '…learning strategies or dimensions…' are combined and they may '…overlap…' with one another (p. 53). Alammary, Sheard, & Carbone, (2014) defined blended learning as a combination of face-to-face and online learning where the materials are systematically combined and thoughtfully integrated. This implies that designing blended learning is not just about mixing two traditional FTF approach and online approach, but the process has to be planned carefully.
From another perspective, Graham, Woodfield, & Harrison, (2013) and Picciano (2009) defined blended learning as an attempt to reduce classroom FTF time by replacing some of the face-to-face classroom interactions with online activities. In regard to how much materials in blended courses are blended, Allen and Seaman (2010) proposed 4 types of blended learning based on the amount of content is delivered online: 1) 0% or no online content, 2) up to 29% online content, 3) 30 -79% online content, and 4) 80% online content. The percentage of online content for each blended course is different based on several considerations: institutional policy, learning goals, the teachers' familiarity with blended learning, and learners' profile (Guan, Ding, & Ho, 2015).
The absence of definite meaning for the term blended learning leads to teachers having different understandings and designs on how blended learning should be carried out, and although this might pose as a major challenge for teachers whose theoretical knowledge, technological expertise, and practical experience with blended learning are lacking, the loose definition of blended learning can also be used as an opportunity to develop a blended course which is appropriate to the context of the teacher's course or institution (Alammary, Sheard, & Carbone, 2014).

Approach Designs to Blended Learning
Over the years, experts on blended learnings have put forward principles that emphasize designs for blended learning. One of the most notable ones was proposed by Lai, Lam, & Lim, who identified two major principles that underline the designs of blended learning: consolidation and extension (2016). The first principle, consolidation, focuses the use of various types of online activities such as '…lecturing, students presentation, and online discussion to think again and reflect' Lingua Pedagogia Vol. 1 No. 1, September 2019 (p.16). This implies that blended learning is used to provide various types of activities to better understand the learning materials. In this way, their knowledge can be 'consolidated'. The other principle, extension, implies the action of extending the range of activities, both FTF and online, to '…extend the space of learning and cater the diverse needs of students' (p. 16). Here, blended learning is used to solve the problem of limited classroom space, limited FTF time, and to accommodate different types of learning style. To sum up, the principle of 'consolidation' implies affirmation of knowledge where students revise and reflect on learned or partiallylearned knowledge while 'extension' suggests broadening of knowledge thorough students exploration self-study.
Another major concept of the principles behind the design of blended learning was proposed by Alammary, Sheard, & Carbone, (2014) who identified three different design approaches: 1) Low-impact blend, which means the addition of extra components to an existing traditional FTF class, 2) Medium-impact blend, which means the replacement of some activities in an existing traditional FTF class with online activities, and 3) High-impact blend, which means to build a blended learning design from the scratch. The low-impact approach aims to strengthen the effectiveness of traditional FTF class by adding online activities to the already existing FTF activities. In a study by Kaleta (2007), a low-impact blend is favored by teachers who are new to blended approach as this design does not require the teacher to fully change the course objective to suit the design of blended learning. This does not mean that this approach is easy because any addition of online activity to the existing traditional FTF class should be relevant and should support the existing materials.
Other challenges in implementing low-impact blend are increased students workload, increased teachers workload, and a high risk of turning the blended course into two separate courses, an occurrence further explained by Harrington (2010) who clarified that in the effort to create a blended course, two '…distinct classroom communities…' may exist and students may be forced to '…constantly switch between…' both (p.2).
Medium-impact approach operates under the assumption that some of the traditional FTF activities are better delivered online. For example, a FTF discussion is replaced by online discussion to accommodate timid students. This approach is suitable for teachers with some experience in blended learning who do not want to make drastic changes to their existing FTF course. These teachers are confident enough in their knowledge of blended learning so they are sure that replacing some FTF activities will not reduce the effectiveness of said activities. Challenges come in the form of identifying which parts of traditional FTF class needs to be replaced with online activities and striking a good balance between FTF and online interactions.
In high-impact approach, there is no existing traditional FTF course. Rather, the blended course is built on a set of new learning objectives. The teacher then builds a blended class where both the FTF and the online activities are created from the scratch. Graham (2012) revealed that this approach actually yielded the most successful attempt at creating blended course because teachers do not have to worry about whether the online activities will integrate well with the traditional FTF class. The high-impact design is not suitable for inexperienced teachers because this design requires familiarity with blended learning and technology. The untried and untested nature of the new course is also daunting for those unfamiliar with the concept of blended learning. Finally, designing a blended course from scratch takes time (Alammary, Sheard, & Carbone, 2014).

Learning Management System (LMS), Moodle as Platform for Blended Learning
LMS is a software application that facilitates the administration, delivery, tracking, and documentation of learning materials and process. One of the earliest and most popular LMS is Moodle. Moodle an acronym for Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment. It is a free and open source learning management system operated under the terms of the GNU Gneeral Public License (GPL). Moodle runs in windows, Mac, Linux, and Unix. The fact that it is free, user-friendly, and provides many features that enable teachers to create various tasks for learners are what makes it very popular choice among EFL teachers in supporting blended learning (Sahin-Kizil, 2014). According to Wright, P., & Wright, G. (2011), Moodle is an open software hosted on the internet that can be used by course creators to design a course and its contents so that the students can access them online. Moodle was developed based on two principles: constructivism and constructionism. The principle behinds constructivism is that students construct their knowledge through practice and reflection. Teachers who adopts this principle into their teaching encourages learners to evaluate how a certain activity helps them in learning. Constructionism, on the other hand, is a believe that students construct knowledge through building and sharing experience. Moodle can be used to create online courseware which provides opportunities for interaction. Teachers are provided Vol. 1 No. 1, September 2019 various tools to support students to learn and communicate. Moreover, it can be used to support traditional classroom instruction The most common Moodle features used by EFL lecturers are: 1) administrative functions, 2) activities, and 3) resources.

Figure 1 Administration menu from Moodle
The administration feature in Moodle is for controlling administrative tasks such as grading system, grouping, student enrollment, teachers enrollment, adding questions to questions bank, and importing/exporting materials and designs from other courses on the same platform.
Activities section consists of quizzes, assignments, glossay, survey, chat, video conference feature, forum, and other types of activities that students must do. Resources are all the materials that teachers upload to the server. This mostly consists of files, links, and other forms of resources that students have to access.

METHOD
This article is based on a survey, an interview, and document inspection on blended learning practices in Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia. The first source of data was a survey which was conducted online via Google Form. 18 multiple choices questions were used in the questionnaire to elicit easy responses from the respondents. As many as 9 lecturers teaching EFL in Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia were involved as respondents in the survey. These lecturers were blended learning practitioners who used Moodle as their main platform for blended course. The second data was retrieved through personal approach (interview). The third data were retrieved from document inspection. The writer was given limited access to observe as a guest in their blended courses to find out how these courses were designed. These data were then analyzed using the theory of two major principles that defined the designs of blended learning by Lai, Lam, & Lim, (2016) and Alammary, Sheard, and Carbone's (2014) three principle of blended approach.

Findings
The table below contains all the data retrieved from the survey result. Even though 9 respondents were involved in the study, in some questions, they may choose multiple answers so the numbers are higher than 9.  (3) Unfamiliar (0) Q8. TEFL experience 0 -2 years 3 -10 years (7 people) More than 10 years (2 people) Q9. Level of confidence in using technology Very confident (0) Confident (9) Not quite confident (0) Not confident at all (0) Q10. Institutional support Institution fully supports blended learning (0) Institution provides some support (3) Institution provides little support (6) Institution provides no support (0) Q11. FTF activities most likely to be supported by online content The findings indicate that the 3 most common reasons for using blended learning are 1) to accommodate students' different learning styles, 2) to support traditional FTF classroom, and 3) to help students review the materials. All lecturers seemed to agree that the online portion of their blended class should be about 30 -79% of the total teaching time. This was influenced solely by the institutional policy where the lecturers worked.
The lecturers designed their blended learning mostly by adding extra materials which were delivered online and replacing some of the activities in the traditional FTF class with online activities. None of the lecturers had attempted to design or redesign their blended classes from the beginning. This finding indicates that lowimpact and medium-impact designs were more popular than high-impact design.
Of all other types of resources or materials, online assignments in the form of group projects and online lecture in the form of video are the two most favorite resources that the lecturers delivered via LMS (online). As for the FTF activities that were substituted by online activities, the lecturers admitted to replacing FTF class assignments and quiz, also with group projects. From this finding, it can be assumed that the lecturers found blended learning useful particularly in giving the students more exercise.
Of all the challenges presented by blended learning, accommodating institutional policy is ranked as the most difficult challenge to overcome, followed by determining the most appropriate design for blended class. The lecturers also expressed dissatisfaction in institutional support towards blended learning.
Half of the number of the lecturers were either not quite familiar or never tried blended learning before. Interestingly, more than half of their number admitted to being familiar with the use of technology in reinforcing teaching learning process and all of them expressed a decent amount of confidence in using technology. It seems that they were only unfamiliar with the concept of blended learning but not the general used of technology in teaching.

Reasons for using blended learning
Based on the answer for Q1, it was revealed that the primary reason for lecturers to use blended learning is to accommodate different learning style followed by to support traditional FTF classroom and for the students to be able to review the materials after the class session. On this note, Chang-Tik (2018) explained that visual learners and those who prefer to learn through reading and writing tend to view blended learning in a more positive light. This is because they prefer to process information in the form of text, graphs and pictures which are abundant in online environment. Singh (2003) asserted that delivering lesson using single approach (either FTF or online) '...limits the reach of a learning program and critical knowledge transfer... ' (p.51-54). Blended learning allows the lesson to be extended in terms of geographical and time distance, as well as learning style. Materials become available for learners who cannot be present at the same time and for those who prefer a different learning style.
Upon being interviewed, some of the lecturers admitted to seeing blended learning as a mean to accommodate activities that are restricted by the condition of their class (the number of students, the space in the classroom, and the available teaching aids). This supports the writer's explanation that most English classes in higher education are big classes, which consist of up to 60 students in one class. The interviewed lecturers did not believe that the one-size-fit-for-all method should be applied when teaching EFL and thus they attempted to accommodate students' various learning styles through online activities. This finding proves that most lecturers were concerned with the extension principle of blended course, to be more specific, to use blended learning to extend the class reach (Lai, Lam, & Lim, 2016).
The second most popular reasons for using blended approach is to support traditional FTF delivery. The answer for Q11 supports this finding, which reported that EFL lecturers often give online assignments to support the existing conventional assignments from the FTF class (see Table  2). This means that aside from having had to work on class assignments, the students also had to complete online assignments. When not done carefully, this may end up increasing students' work load (Alammary, Sheard, & Carbone, 2014). The preferred online assignments given to the students to support the already existing class works were group projects and Webquests (Q13). Both assignments emphasis collaboration and cooperation. They are also customarily done in groups. A personal interview with a few of the lecturers yielded an information that they did this so that the students did not feel overloaded by works and the lecturers did not get bogged down by works that needed grading. Interestingly, while Table 2 indicated that projects were the preferred activity to both support and replace conventional classroom assignments, Webquests were seen primarily as a means to support FTF assignment whereas regular assignments were seen as the primary mean to replace FTF assignment (see Q13 and Q17). This implies that the lecturers felt more confident in using regular assignments (delivered online) to replace conventional classroom assignments than using Webquest. Further investigation through interview revealed that most of the lecturers were not very familiar with the concept of Webquest.
EFL lecturers were also very concerned whether the students were able to review the materials or not (Q1). This is supported by the answer to Q11 which indicates that next to class assignments, lectures are one segment of FTF class that was heavily reinforced by online content. The way the lecturers did this was through online video Figure 4 Videos to support FTF lecture (Q12). The result from document inspection also proved this. As shown in Figure 4, practices and summary of the lessons in the forms of videos and texts were provided to ensure that the students fully understand the materials.
The analysis of Table 2 shows that EFL lecturers are more concerned with extending the class space (accommodating different learning styles) than the consolidation of knowledge (supporting traditional FTF class and reviewing materials). The use of blended learning to extend class space was also discussed by Oliver & Trigwell (2005) who explained that learning occurs when learners experience variations when they are studying the same learning object. When learners move from traditional FTF class to blended learning, they go through new experience. In this way, the variety of learning activities has been improved. The variety may result from the online activities or the blended part of the course.

Amount of materials delivered online in blended course
The result from the survey (Q2) revealed that all lecturers agreed that online contents should take up to 30 -79% of the materials. The most common deciding factor is their institutional policies (Q3). This finding is supported by the result of a research by Allamary and Carbone (2015) which revealed that of the four possible criterias for determining the potion of online materials in a blended learning (course related criteria, students related criteria, teacher related criteria, institutional related criteria), institutional related considerations play the most important role. From the lecturer's perspective, this policy was based on the assumption that Indonesian higher education is still not ready for a fully-online English course (as online content above 80% is considered a fully-online course). They attributed this lack of readiness to the lack of technological supports (such as a stable internet access) and to the fact that both the lecturers and students are generally not ready for such commitment (lecturers worrying about students' lack of participation being one of the primary reasons). Another challenge in determining the online portion of a blended course is that it is not 'easily qualtified' (Graham, 2013, p.333-350). This implies that the online portion of a blended learning cannot be clearly defined.
Consequently, the respondents admitted that the most difficult part of designing a blended course is accommodating the institution policy (Q5) and that their institution provided some supports but not fully (Q10). This finding implies that there seem to be a discrepancy between what is required and what is provided by institutions of higher education in Indonesia.

Supports from institutions regarding blended learning
The result from Q10 indicated that higher education institutions need to provide more supports in the application of blended learning. The interview yielded further detailed information regarding this. Higher education institutions in Indonesia have provided several supports for blended learning such as workshops, free LMS, and technicians. However, based on the answers to Q5, what the lecturers needed the most was for the institution to revise their policy in blended EFL course, seeing as accommodating institution policies is the Vol. 1 No. 1, September 2019 most difficult part of designing a blended course.

How EFL blended course was designed
Based on the response to Q4, it was revealed that most lecturers designed their blended course by adding online support materials and activities to the already existing traditional while the rest of the respondents designed theirs by replacing some activities in their traditional FTF class with online activities. This finding supports the answer to Q1 which states that blended learning exists to support traditional class. Again, this may result in the students' getting overwhelmed by the amount of tasks and materials they need to study. According to Alammary, Sheard, & Carbone, (2014), this fits the 'low-impact' design where teachers do not feel confident enough to replace some of the activities in their traditional FTF class with online activities and instead, use the online activities as supplementary materials.
On this note, looking at the answer to Q6 and Q7, most lecturers seemed to be quite familiar with the concept of blended learning (they had designed blended learning before) and the use of technology to reinforce EFL. This level of familiarity seemed to bolster their confidence in using technology to help with the EFL teaching process (Q9). However, this level of familiarity with blended learning, technology, as well as this level of confidence contradict their preferred design of blended course, which is the 'lowimpact' design. Taking into account that the respondents were also seasoned EFL lecturers who had been teaching for more than 3 years, they should be quite comfortable with using the 'medium-impact' blended course design. The writer deduced that this is due to the institution policies and supports for blended learning, which was thought to be the most difficult part in designing a blended course (Q5).
The second most common answer for the question "what is the most difficult part about designing a blended course?' is choosing the most appropriate design (Q5). So far, there has not been an established design for blended EFL course in higher education. According to the interview, most lecturers agreed that this created more problem than freedom, especially to lecturers who were not very familiar with blended learning. They ended up creating an online course in which the goal and the materials are similar to their traditional FTF class. By doing this, they ended up creating two separated courses instead of one blended course Alammary, Sheard, & Carbone, (2014). This is also the reason why most of these lecturers preferred to use the low-impact design as previously explained. The low-impact design is a perfect start for a lecturer who is just getting to know blended learning. Kaleta (2007) indeed recommended adopting the low-impact design for teachers who are not familiar with the concept of blended learning. However, taking into considerationg the technological expertise and the confidence in applying technology in classroom setting, lecturers involved in this research is also recommended to try the high-impact design, considering that it also yielded the most successful attempt at creating an effective blended course (Graham, 2012).

Adding versus replacing activities in designing blended learning
From the previous discussion, we have established that the lecturers were more comfortable with adding online activities than replacing some of the activities in their traditional FTF class with online activities (Q4). What is worth noting is that the activities that the lecturers selected to both supplement and replace the activities in traditional FTF class were the same. The answer to Q11 and Q15 revealed that lecturers tend to reinforce classroom assignments, lectures, and quiz with online assignments, online lectures, and online quiz. The lecturers used projects and webquests as supplementary online assignments (Q13) but they were more reluctant to use webquest to replace some of the classroom activities (Q17). The complex nature of projects and webquests may encourage learners to seek their preferred way of completing the task. This is in accordance to the lecturers' main concern in blended learning, which is to be able to accommodate various learning styles (Q1).
Classroom lectures were supported and replaced by online lectures through the use of video and/or audio, web articles, and PPT (Q12). PPT were used more as a support for lectures while handouts were preferred to replace FTF lectures. This proves that the lecturers were more comfortable in using handouts to replace traditional FTF lectures.
The answer from Q11 also revealed that most discussions tend to be done during FTF sessions. Based on the interview, the main reason for lecturers' reluctance in conducting online discussions was because discussion requires synchronous activities. Synchronous activities require not only for both lecturers and students to be present at the same time but also for the technology to be reliable. The lecturers were not confident with the level of technological supports they had. However, even though they preferred to have discussion FTF, if they were to support and replace FTF discussion with online discussions, their preferred means would be forum discussion. Previous research by Ellis et al (2008) indicated that students developed positive learning perception through better management of online discussion. The result of this study might explain discussion is one of the preferred FTF activities to be replaced by online discussion. From this discussion, it can be concluded that the lecturers were not ready yet for the synchronous aspect of blended learning. Lai, Lam, & Lim, (2016) identified two major principles in which blended course may be based on: 1) consolidating knowledge and 2) extending knowledge. The term 'consolidating knowledge' means that online learning resources and activities are created to support the already existing traditional FTF while 'extending knowledge' means that the role of online resources and activities are to replace some resources and activities in traditional FTF classroom. Based on the previous discussion, it can be concluded that EFL lecturers in Indonesia use blended learning mostly to extend students knowledge, especially in accommodating different learning styles, and to consolidate knowledge by providing online supplementary materials and activities so that the students may review what they have learned in traditional FTF class.

CONCLUSION
The EFL lecturers were also experienced in teaching EFL and were generally confident in the knowledge and application of technology to enhance teaching learning process. According to Alammary, Sheard, & Carbone, (2014), EFL teachers with this level of experience and confidence in technology and the teaching of EFL should be comfortable with medium-impact design for blended learning. However, the lecturers still used low-impact design, and even though they also replaced some of the FTF activities with online contents, they still preferred to use online contents as supplementary materials and activities. The reason for this was because they lacked familiarity with blended learning and supports from institution. In fact, accommodating institution policies into their blended course design was thought to be the most difficult part of designing a blended course. This blended design is risky because without good balance, there is a chance that the blended course will turn into a two separate course that can add more workload to the students (Alammary, Sheard, & Carbone, 2014).
The area of blended learning in higher education may benefit further from suggestions of the most appropriate design for EFL blended course in higher education. This suggested design will also require a research on students' perspective on the use of blended learning in higher education. Further research may be conducted to find out exactly what aspects of institution policies that can pose as a challenge to EFL lecturers, seeing as accommodating institution policy has been proven to be the biggest challenge in creating a blended course design. Finally, it would also be interesting to find out more about how blended learning can accommodate different learning styles and what design is the most appropriate for this goal, seeing as it was the main purpose for EFL lecturers in Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia, to use blended learning.