FACE-TO-FACE VS SCREEN-TO-SCREEN TEACHING:
INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA METHODS IN TEACHING LINGUISTIC
THEORY
Julia Bogatikova, PhD
Associate professor, Department of Russian and Foreign Languages,
National University of Science and Technology “MISiS”, Moscow, Russia
bogatikova@gmail.com
Abstract
The paper deals with questions arising from the
necessity to combine traditional educational patterns with
elements of distant learning due to the challenges set by the
wide-spread of electronic communication technologies
(ECT). Lecturing, as a very conservative form of teaching,
resists interaction due to curriculum requirements and the
traditional time-information lecture outline. The
development of communication technologies as well as
Learning Managements Systems (LMS) sets multiple
challenges to the established order, and requires alternative
approaches to several aspects of teaching linguistics. The
results show that E-learning procedures should not
eliminate subjective heuristic approach in teaching
linguistic theory.
Index Terms: blended learning, distance learning,
intercultural communication, lecturing, teaching culture,
learning environment, teaching methods, teaching theory.
1. Introduction
One of the most conservative forms of teaching, lecturing
on linguistic theory, resists interaction due to curriculum
requirements of time spent on face-to-face sessions and the
traditional lecture outline with the dominating mode of
teacher speaking. Nowadays, the wide implementation of
ECT and LMS sets multiple challenges to the established
order of presenting theory in the traditional mode and
requires alternative approaches to several aspects of
teaching linguistics.
In contrast to language practice learning, lecturing
theory typically implies much more active speaker role of
the teacher and passive listener role of the student. Personal
interaction is mainly reduced to questions before/after the
lecture and a talk with the teacher during the examination.
This kind of teaching mode has become rather vulnerable
in contemporary communication technologies environment,
since it allows unauthorized recordings, free sharing of
electronic files with lectures and additional materials, other
means which undermine the role of the teacher in the
process of delivering basic theoretical knowledge.
On major scale this challenge can be interpreted as
culture and historical opposition of tradition and innovation
or, as a hypothesis, Eastern and Western teaching cultures,
which contrast in the understanding of teacher student
hierarchy in the educational environment.
This situation puts forward the following questions:
How can communication technologies be
legitimately introduced into theoretical courses?
What are the expected perspectives and practical
results of this combination?
What resistant patterns of educational processes
can be modified to fit the requirements of the
rapidly changing communication technologies?
Which traditional patterns should remain the
fundamental core of the educational practices?
2. Background
Here it is necessary to specify the terms „distance learning‟
and „blended learning‟ used in the paper to describe some
specific aspects of ECT and LMS usage in lecturing, which
includes elements of distance/home on-line self-study in
the form of instruments for blended learning, such as ECT,
LMS, web-sites, etc. That is to give students by means of
ECT and LMS effective instruments for more effective
organization of their self study periods.
As described by C.White „distance learning is an
educational system in which learners can study in a flexible
manner in their own time, at the pace of their choice and
without requiring face-to-face contact with a teacher‟ [1].
Blended learning in our case is understood as
incorporation of elements and practices of distance learning
into the regular face-to-face learning processes, which can
be facilitated and/or accelerated by ECT and LMS with the
aim to improve time/effort educational balance.
K. Stephens specifies that „it is not uncommon for
distance learning to be cited as a model of good educational
practice. The attention which distance learning courses pay
to the structuring of the learning process is seen as a model
for those forms of face to face education which have been
slow to address the question of learners‟ needs‟ [2]. Lecture
courses seem to be exactly the case or such reluctant
teaching forms. The principal target of linguistic theory
lectures in combination with blended learning is to
stimulate learner autonomy, increase students‟ awareness
about the importance of continuous self-study and its
influence on their achievements and course results.
In NUST “MISiS”, successful implementation of
blended learning in teaching English language practice,
based on generally accepted principles of distance learning
and LMS provided, showed practical perspectives for
theoretical linguistic courses as well. The lecturers got the
objective of introducing blended learning into the structure
of linguistic theory courses with the aim to develop
students‟ competences in new computer technologies used
for text processing, technical translation, web-site content
design and structure, etc. To meet the standard
requirements, each linguistic theory course was provided
with two web-sites, one for the teacher and one for the
students. The Teacher‟s Site contains course organization
instruments, such as calendar, announcements, student
rating information, reference literature information and,
what is the major point for discussion, the outline text of
lectures. The Students‟ Site includes current tasks from the
teacher for students to discuss or give answers, pages for
sharing additional information, blogging, commenting, etc.
The specific features of these web-sites have been already
discussed in “On-Line Blended Learning in Teaching the
Theory of Philology” [3]. As the traditional problems of
lectures are less keen student attendance and subjectivity of
the final exam in the form of personal teacher-student
discussion, the key targets of the web-sites were general
availability of information about lectures and transparency
of final assessment.
3. Methods
The practice of blended learning work during linguistic
theory lectures was observed and analyzed throughout the
school year. Students were informed about on-line
activities; and their response in the form of on-line work
participation was analysed. The results of students‟ on-line
work were presented during face-to-face sessions. The
traditional student-listener role was modified during such
sessions when on-line self-study results were presented; the
face-to-face sessions, thus, transformed from direct
lecturing to seminars, and the teacher‟s role modified from
instruction and prescription to managing and facilitating the
discussion. The results of practical observations were
compared with previous experiences of lecturing without
implementation of blended learning tools. Statistical
methods were used to get the assessment results for student
progress, and for teacher and student personal estimation of
blended learning performance, see [4].
4. Results
Simultaneously, on-line work practices have revealed
several controversial issues. First of all, the problem of
illegal content copying from/to the web-sites and faulty
referencing. Second, wide possibilities for cheating, as
students saw blended learning tools as a way to escape
from obligatory face-to-face sessions.
These drawbacks have already been specified in
previous discussions of distant learning as forms of learner
alienation. The expected self-responsibility and selfrealisation
in autonomous work may turn into division of
labour, mechanisation, automation and depersonalisation,
see [5], whereas the task of theory lectures is quite the
opposite: to make abstract fundamental knowledge part of
personal systematic mode of thinking.
The statistical results of the year have shown that
teachers appeared to be more optimistic about the
perspectives of blended learning in theoretical courses
teaching organization and assessment, rather than students.
The students were at times despondent with unclear
blended learning procedures, complaining about their
vague view of perspectives for theoretical studies on-line
[6]. Supposedly, this fact is connected with personal
cultural concepts of educational process taught in Russia
since primary school, which necessarily include the aspect
of teacher direct face-to-face instructions and prescriptions
in contrast to relative freedom of search of information for
on-line task completion offered by blended learning tools
introduced as innovative Western teaching techniques. At
the same time, both teachers and students generally
expressed sceptical subjective emotional view on using
screen-to-screen asynchronous sessions, that is, according
to C. White, sessions not „based around the provision of
multimedia software with no teacher or learning group‟ but
„group networks established by learners and teachers…
which do not require learners to synchronise their schedule
with anyone else or any other event‟ [7], with the limitation
of this type of activities to student self-study time.
The teachers continually state that blended learning
web-sites as an instrument for teaching theory is a timeconsuming
addition to their usual preparatory work, as it
doubles the time of preparation by the obligatory
requirement to transform the lecture material into the
electronic form. Subjectively, this requirement is viewed by
teachers as mechanisation of labour, while lecturing
demands inspirational heuristic approach to personalise
theory for students. Thus, transparency gets in the way of
professional insight and creative improvisation.
The other, more tangible, result was that teachers
were to share on-line their authorial lecture materials
without sufficient copyright protection. The standards for
this procedure are still under discussion and construction,
so that there still is a huge gap between the administrative
requirements to teaching standards and administrative
resource to protect the intellectual property of lecturers.
This situation is described in detail by many educational
officers [8] but the problem is still waiting for its solution.
Consequently, other than web-sites on-line
interaction tools, such as simple e-mailing and link sharing
seemed to be preferable enough, while the possibility of
screen-to-screen synchronous sessions were estimated
useless by teachers and students because of regular face-toface
communication during lectures. Teachers also guess
blended learning tools to be a good pretext for students not
to attend lectures and not to take notes, since the lecture
outline text and course literature is available on-line.
The aspect of note taking is of vital importance for
students of linguistics, as it is a powerful professional
device of text processing in translation and teaching jobs,
which activates mental processes of analysing, structuring
and language usage by means of multidimensional physical
functions. Note taking process simultaneously activates the
abilities of eyesight, listening, movement and intellectual
effort of analysis centred on linguistic targets. As a result,
basic linguistic approach is not only consciously perceived,
but also subconsciously fixed by the training of necessary
physical skills.
The given alternative of provided on-line lecture
outlines prevented students from careful and thoughtful
note taking. In fact, according to the requirements, lecturers
were to write notes instead of students, and as a result 1st
year students showed poorer results in text processing skills
than before the implementation of on-line tools for
linguistic theory lectures.
The role of the face-to-face teacher-student
communication in such a situation undergoes serious reestimation.
Seemingly, the direct usage of screen-to-screen
communication should have saved time and effort in the
educational process, but practice shows that the time „lost‟
for repeating and writing theory in traditional lecture
manner may be of essential importance in deep
understanding the fundamentals, making them private,
personalising up to the new form of thinking about the
language.
The key point here is that „informing‟ about theory
is not enough for understanding it, while blended learning
in teaching linguistic theory at this point is mainly about
making the information accessible and transparent.
Consequently, it seems that face-to-face lecture routines
cannot be eliminated both due to common physical and
psychological laws of knowledge acquisition and to such
less material aspects as professional intuition and insight.
5. Discussion
Integration of blended learning stimulates screen-to-screen
communication between the teacher and the student and has
twofold influence on the interpersonal teacher-student
working model.
The key oppositions for discussion in the new
teacher student communicational environment seem to be:
Psychological characteristics of teacher-student
interaction and the aspect of communicational
hierarchy in personal and distance forms of
teaching.
While in Western culture the principle of equality,
when the students are encouraged to challenge the teacher
and the teacher willingly stimulates interaction while
lecturing, dominates the teaching process, the Russian and
Eastern model presumes that the student should remain a
respectful „passive‟ listener, according to S.H.Bulatsev [9].
The introduction of blended learning is not so easy
in this case, since screen-to-screen communication implies
students‟ pro-active position, which is still not embedded
into their general cultural pattern of school education
processes scenario. Moreover, the word „passive‟ should
not be interpreted negatively in this context, as it has the
implication of self-discipline understood in an alternative
way. Being passive is not always being relaxed or absentminded;
it can also mean a good deal of self-organization
and tolerance to multiple viewpoints. Being silent during
language practice sessions may be counterproductive, but it
should not be interpreted like this during linguistic theory
lectures, as it may by actually the time of the most active
thinking processes, internal dialogue not revealed in
speaking activities.
Assessment based on transparent evaluation data
vs. based on teacher experience and intuition.
Statistical approach of assessment used in LMS is a
means to avoid subjectivity during the face-to-face part of
the examination. This tool is quite appropriate for
beginning teachers and teachers of practical language, but
may prevent the moment of professional theoretical
intuition or foreseeing by establishing too many routine
procedures for experienced teachers and/or exceptionally
gifted students. Regular statistical student progress data
collection gives objective support for final student
assessment, but prevents alternative modes of learning
strategies, which is one of the forms of depersonalisation
and neglect of students‟ needs. The variety of personal
phychophysiological patterns of learning could have been
incorporated into more flexible distance learning tools, but
what are the means of making them noticeable in screen-toscreen
communication? The answer to this question is
again twofold.
On the one hand, the LMS tools give wide rage of
possibilities for students to express themselves by means of
commenting, blogging, adding their own research
materials, etc. In some cases, when linguistically talented
students perceive theory lectures as very unpractical
addition to their active practical language studies, blended
learning tools may become the turning point for unlimited
creative resource. This is the case when screen-to-screen
communication may have all the psychological
characteristics of face-to-face interaction during lectures
and seminars should there be no time limitations for selfexpression.
On the other hand, there exist strict requirements
for deadlines and/or everyday usage of blended learning
tools may transform the inspirational attitude into humdrum
routine and distract learners from theoretical subjects, the
role of which is typically underestimated by students
especially of first years of university studies. Consequently,
the task of the linguistic theory teacher is to familiarise
students with reflective practices typical of linguistic
thinking, when it is necessary to carry on constant
observation of personal linguistic activities, to develop
permanent linguistic self-awareness of a future language
teacher and/or translator. This kind of familiarisation is
purely emotional process, commonly described by students
as „liking‟ or „disliking‟ lectures. What may make students
„like‟ lectures and lecture web-sites is uncontrollable and is
the same what may make them like any other on-line
activity or web-resource. Today is seems that only the
prescriptive usage of on-line blended learning web-sites
can provide regular student activity in this sphere.
The notions of objective/subjective and
individual/shared within digital environment.
As it has already been mentioned in the results of
the research, the idea of quality control by means of ECT
and LMS tools is widely discussed in the process of elearning
standards development [10], [11]. In the practice
of „blended lecturing‟ this evokes the notion of easy
cheating, as screen-to-screen communication is
psychologically perceived by students as partially
autonomous (or even anonymous) and forms a specific type
of narrative [12] without legitimate references. The attitude
to „cheating‟ is radically different in Western and Russian
traditions: it is absolutely inappropriate for Western
educational environment and may lead to serious
consequences for students; whereas in Russia cheating is an
ineradicable part of the learning process, which grows from
the common cultural stereotype of being smart and clever:
if one can cheat successfully, one is smart. Usually,
students are not punished strictly for cheating; the result of
cheating may be a lower grade or another day for
examination. Teachers know this and their typical
recommendation for students is: „Make your crib note and
try to forget it at home‟. Making cribs (cheat motes) is
useful because of the same reasons as manual note taking,
but ECT make them less productive because generations of
students can share one and the same crib-file for the theory
course.
The outline texts of lectures published on teachers‟
web-sites was interpreted in this situation as a legitimised
crib by default, even students questioned the legitimacy of
web-sites use as supporting material during the exam
preparation. Eastern experience in this question could be of
invaluable help. But at the time being the problem requires
further cultural research and discussion in comparison with
international experience in this sphere.
6. Conclusions
Overall, the questions set at the beginning of the
paper can have rather unambiguous answers. Blended
learning in teaching linguistic theory is to become
legitimate with the development of general standards for
web-site content intellectual rights protection, though it is
not the current situation.
The advantages of ECT and LMS web-sites are
obvious in terms of learning materials distribution, control
organization and time-management, but still the aspect of
teacher‟s intuition and the advantages of personal
emotional motivation are often eliminated in the growing
amount of screen-to-screen communication.
Seemingly, on-line practices help to manage time
and effort but in practice it is not the case of productive
regulation, it is rather another transformation of paper work
and this sphere definitely requires new administrative
regulations.
Cultural patterns in this or that way will adapt for
the new forms of social and education environment, which
includes a screen as a medium of interpersonal
communication, but the procedures of on-line learning in
this process of adaptation should not degenerate into
mechanical depersonalised routine and eliminate subjective
heuristic approach which is key for innovative problem
solving in teaching linguistic theory.
7. References
[1]. White, C. “Language Learning in Distance Education”,
11, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[2]. Stephens, K. “The Tale of the Autonomous Distance
Learner: Just Another Legitimating Narrative?”, in Going the
Distance: Teaching, Learning and Researching in Distance
Education, 51, University of Sheffield Division of Education,
1996.
[3]. Bogatikova, J. “On-Line Blended Learning v
prepodavanii teoreticheskih discipline filologii”, in
Multimediinye Sredstva v Prepodavanii Filologicheskih
Disciplin, XLII International Philological Conference,
St.Petersburg State University, St.Petersburg, March 11-16,
2013.
[4]. Shchaveleva E.N. Results of Blended Learning
Implementation for Students of Linguistics at NUST „MISiS‟
2012-2013, report presentation, NUST MISiS, Moscow,
June, 2013.
[5]. Stephens, K. ibid., 54.
[6]. Shchaveleva E.N. ibid.
[7]. White, C. “Language Learning in Distance Education”,
32, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[8]. Bairampas, T. “E-learning kak uslovie nepreryvnogo
obrazovaniya”, in Kachestvo Obrazovaniya, 9: 12-19, 2011.
[9]. Bulatsev S.H. Socialization of the Japanese. Lectures at
St. Petersburg State University, Faculty of African and Asian
Studies, 2004.
[10]. Soboleva, E. “Razrabotka mehzdunarodnyh standartov
po e-learning v Kitae”, in Kachestvo Obrazovaniya, 9: 42-43,
2011.
[11]. Soboleva, E. “Sovremennye podhody v otsenke
kachestva e-learning”, in Kachestvo Obrazovaniya, 9: 44-45,
2011.
[12]. Stephens, K. ibid., 50-60.