THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
190
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
PUBLISHED DATE: - 24-06-2024
DOI: -
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume06Issue06-25
PAGE NO.: - 190-202
UTILIZATION OF BLENDED LEARNING
TECHNOLOGIES IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’
WRITING SKILLS: TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION MODELS
Solijon Azizov
Trainee Teacher, Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
INTRODUCTION
In today’s global world, the content and volume of
information continue to grow at an amazing rate,
resulting in a constant change in the skills and
knowledge that future professionals will need in
the 21st century. Generally, education is a social
reality that continuously and organically directs a
person (in the example of a pupil or student)
towards perfection based on the intersection of
three-way (society, teacher and individual)
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Abstract
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
191
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
beneficial goals, and in the same process, the task
of the teacher is to be able to successfully manage
the whole process with a full sense of
responsibility (Azizov, 2022a). In particular, we
are moving from the era of “universal schooling” to
the era of “lifelong learning”, that is, to the era of
continuous learning to meet the demands of new
contexts in the global world (Collins & Halverson,
2009) which is impossible to imagine without
blended learning technologies. Generally, all
teaching and learning processes in education are
“blended” with technology in some way (Masie,
2006). For example, in the context of modern
education, terms such as “blended learning”,
“hybrid learning”, and “flipped
learning” are
frequently mentioned. Also, blended learning can
be considered a hybrid format, in which online
classes are supplemented with offline (auditory)
forms of teaching (Zharina et al., 2021). Blending
effectively integrates offline and online learning
according to educational needs and goals, creating
an almost unlimited range of possibilities
(Garrison, 2009). However, we should note that
the standard, universally accepted definition of the
concept of “blended learning” has not yet been fully
developed, because the fact that this form of
learning incorporates offline, online and
independent forms and technologies creates
certain difficulties in creating its complete concept.
As a productive type of speech activity, the role of
writing in foreign language education is directly
related to the many relevant opportunities it
creates. It is not for nothing that writing is
recognized as the rarest source of the development
of human intelligence, because the role of writing
and written speech became important in the
process of polishing and further improving all
verbal thoughts, that is, ideas, which are called
time (Azizov, 2022b). In addition, although writing
is a secondary, additional means of communication
compared to spoken language, it has many
advantages. After all, the main task of language is
to ensure communication between people. The
communicative function of language cannot be
fulfilled without writing (National Encyclopedia of
Uzbekistan, 2002). Today, to create the most
effective source of d
evelopment of students’
writing skills in a foreign language, it is necessary
to conduct gradual and detailed experimental
research (Polio, 2017). Agreeing with his opinion,
we should note that we cannot say with full
confidence that it is possible to impr
ove students’
writing competence with the help of one or
another approach. Learning to write means not
only graphics and spelling, but first of all, learning
the activity of written speech, that is to say, the
process of forming and expressing thoughts and, as
a final result, polishing texts related to various
communicative speech genres and types of writing
(Tatarinova, 2005). Therefore, the improvement of
this type of speech activity of students as future
English language specialists in higher education is
directly related to its status as an educational goal
today and its inseparable integration with digital
technologies. To tell the truth, it is worth noting
that teaching writing in foreign languages
education has long been of secondary importance,
that is, writing has been mainly seen as (1) a means
of teaching other types of speech activity; (2) a
means that enables foreign language learners to
better master the program language material; (3)
a means of controlling the formation of speech
skills and competences (Azizov, 2022c).
Blended, offline, online and independent
learning
Firstly, we should draw important conclusions
about the differences between blended, offline
(auditory), online (distance) and independent
forms of learning. For instance, the form of offline
learning is limited by the traditional methods and
tools of teaching foreign languages, which cannot
guarantee that all students in the audience have
mastered the educational materials in the same
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
192
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
positive way. Secondly, online learning has its
problems, which are mainly related to the form of
educational implementation, and as a result, it is
not always possible to solve these problems due to
its general nature. In particular, this situation is
caused by the distant organization of education
and, the time and space dispersion of the
participants of the pedagogical process. The
unique characteristics of blended learning and the
availability of offline introductory classes for
practical familiarization with the individual
technologies used in it make it sharply different
from online learning (Fanday, 2012). Thirdly,
independent learning equips students with the
self-regulation, problem-solving, information
literacy, and adaptability skills necessary to
succeed in the context of a rapidly evolving digital
world. However, in the practice of teaching foreign
languages in higher education, insufficient
attention is paid to the role of independent
learning in improving students’ speech activities,
and the lack of a method of regular control of
students’
activities and mastery indicators using
certain technologies. such cases are observed. In
this regard, blended learning combines online
resources,
collaborative
activities,
and
independent learning opportunities to allow
students to conduct independent research and
master study materials. Online components of
blended
learning,
such
as
multimedia
presentations, interactive simulations, and online
discussions, provide students with opportunities
for independent learning, research, and reflection
on the topics being studied (Pramesworo et al.,
2023).
Historically, the term “blended learning” and the
terminology that describes it appeared in the late
90s, at the beginning of the Internet era. Later,
several similar terms began to be used
simultaneously in educa
tional literature: “blended
learning”, “hybrid learning”, “technology
-mediated
instruction”, “web
-
enhanced instruction”, and
“mixed
-
mode instruction” (Andreeva et al., 2016).
In particular, according to the results of the
analysis, blended learning is “an
educational
concept that incorporates an offline form of
learning
and
modern
information
and
communication technologies (online), allowing the
student to control the time, place, speed and
method of mastering the material” (Bekisheva,
2016); “includes the
integration of teacher and
online learning experiences” (Andreeva et al.,
2016); “technology of organizing the educational
process based on new didactic opportunities
provided
by
modern
educational
tools”
(Salavatulina, 2022); “provides effective, useful
a
nd flexible learning” (Stein & Graham, 2020); “in
which the online component promotes the natural
expansion of offline learning” (Collis & Moonen,
2001); “a program that has a series of blocks of
content arranged sequentially to create a learning
experienc
e” (Jennifer, 2018). These definitions
show that blended learning is a complex
educational process with several opportunities,
goals and tasks. At the same time, we cannot say
that the above definitions reveal the exact and
complete characteristics of the blended learning
environment, because all three forms of learning
have their characteristics formed based on internal
and external factors.
According to these definitions, blended learning is
the integration of offline and online forms of
learning. Still, our research, which is conducted
within the framework of improving the writing
competence of future English language specialists
in higher education, focuses on combining three
forms of learning: 1) traditional classes (face-to-
face
–
offline form of learning); 2) distance learning
activities of teachers and students and students in
cooperation (online form of learning); 3)
independent improvement of students’ writing
skills using electronic resources (form of
independent learning). The reason for our
attention to this aspect is that blended learning is
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
193
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
mainly focused on the combination of offline and
online forms of learning. After all, in the two-
component definitions of blended learning, the
second and third methods of organizing education
are unreasonably combined into one or one of
these methods is not taken into account (Blinov et
al., 2021). According to the analysis of the research
on this aspect, blended learning is a model based
on the interaction of the educational process with
computer technologies and active full-time and
distance forms under the supervision of the
teacher (Semenova & Slepukhin, 2014); “an
educational technology that includes three
mandatory components, namely (1) face-to-face
class activities of students with the teacher; (2)
remote, including online, activities between
teachers and students; (3) independent activity of
students organized by the teacher” (Vasilyeva et
al., 2019). Following that, it can be concluded that
the electronic component of blended learning
activates the learning process through the
systematic and continuous use of ICT, which helps
to develop the ability to consciously and
independently implement and manage learning
activities, while at the same time, the relationship
between the teacher and students’ intera
ction,
creating a single learning community. As a result,
the knowledge acquired independently in the
lesson is systematized, analyzed and used
creatively in practice (Krylova, 2020).
A new reform in conceptualizing ‘technology’ in
the blended learning environment
The practice of blending technologies requires
specific principles and detailed descriptions while
avoiding trying to prove which devices are most
effective in teaching (Hinkelman, 2018). It is also
worth noting that in the case of higher education,
blended learning for students as future
professionals can provide opportunities to create
transformative learning environments that can
effectively provide critical, creative, and complex
thinking skills (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). After all,
although the blended learning approach does not
guarantee the improvement of pedagogy, it
encourages teachers to revise their teaching
strategies, leading to improved educational results
(Graham & Allen, 2009). In general, any
educational technology is “a set of tea
cher and
student activity methods, a system that ensures the
effectiveness of education, the achievement of
educational goals and the acquisition of the
language in the most reasonable way, with the
least effort and expenditure” (Berdichevsky et al.,
2019). On the one hand, it is impossible to predict
how foreign language specialists will use
educational technologies in the future or how
technology will change during their professional
careers. Accordingly, it remains difficult for
teachers to teach students about technology
integration in a meaningful, effective and
sustainable way (Kimmons et al., 2020a). Blended
language learning, on the other hand, is “a
complete integration of technology in language
education” consisting of “a dynamic complex in
which technology, theory, and pedagogy are
closely related to each other” (Garrett, 2009). It
should also be noted that the successful integration
of technologies in blended language learning in all
three forms of learning depends on certain factors.
Firstly, the main factor for normalising
technologies in language education is their mutual
integration with the curriculum (Chambers & Bax,
2006). Secondly, it is desirable to support teachers’
regular use of various technologies in education
and to set a certain period for them to achieve
effective results. The most important aspect of this
process is that the theory of blended learning is not
about what devices can do, but about how teachers
can design (Hinkelman, 2018). American
professors D.Fisher and N.Frey, in their scientific
research, suggested to the representatives and
researchers of the educational field to treat
educational technologies based on the following
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
194
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
new approach: “We need to stop thinking about
technology in terms of nouns (PowerPoint,
YouTube or Twitter) and instead we should think
about verbs (present, share, communicate)”
(Fisher & Frey, 2010). Additionally, technology
consists of designs and environments that engage
language learners. Technology can also consist of
any reliable technique or method that engages
language learners, such as cognitive learning
strategies and critical thinking skills (Jonassen et
al., 2008). This kind of attitude toward technology
is driving its adoption as an experience rather than
a mere tool (McCarthy & Wright, 2004). In
particular, according to D.Hinkelman, to
understand technology as ecology, teachers should
pay attention to what it does in the lesson, that is,
its activity (Hinkelman, 2018). Therefore, the
concept of the “technology integration model”
(TIM) appeared in science. In particular, the TIM is
a theoretical structure that helps the participants
of the educational process to conceptualize the
non-orderly and complex use case of technology
integration. Accordingly, in the following parts of
the article, the analysis of TIMs is presented in the
example of improving students’ writing skills in a
blended language learning environment.
METHODS
As the article is based on the analyses of theoretical
features of utilizing blended learning technologies
in improvin
g students’ writing skills, especially
with the help of technology integration models, the
following methods have been implemented into
practice:
•
To begin with, the method of scientific
literature analysis was instrumental in
critically evaluating all the literature on the
chosen topic, although it was a time-
consuming theoretical research method.
Specifically, materials were grouped and notes
were taken in relevant places according to
research plans and tasks. During the critical
analysis of the literature, the achievements in
domestic and foreign scientific research on the
topic were considered, and the various points
of view put forward by researchers and
scientists on the given problem were clarified.
This process allowed for the identification of
research perspectives and the formulation of a
working hypothesis. In particular, this method
helped determine the history of the subject
under study, the updated principles of this
subject in the digital world, and the aspects
that should be further researched in this
direction.
•
As a blended language learning environment is
a complex process in the context of teaching
and learning foreign languages, the analytic-
synthetic method has played an integral role in
figuring out the beyond problematic issues of
the current process of implementing ICTs and
teaching writing skills to future personnel of
the English language at HEIs of Uzbekistan.
Especially, one of the basic merits of this
method leads to the conclusion of the following
hypothesis of the research:
–
How can blended learning combine offline,
online and independent aspects of learning
successfully?
–
To what extent has the concept of
‘technology’ changed in language education in a
blended learning environment?
–
What merits and demerits of TIMs are there
in teaching foreign languages in higher education?
–
In what ways, can the PICRAT TIM be
implemented into the practice of improving
students’ writing skills in a blended language
learning environment of higher education?
•
Since it is highly important to identify both
strong and weak points of TIMs in a blended
language
learning
environment,
the
comparative-contrastive method of the
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
195
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
research has assisted in highlighting the
productive functions of TIMs in practice
remarkably. For instance, while comparing
TIMs of TPACK, RAT, SAMR, and TIM with
PICRAT TIM in language education, not only
similarities but also differences between these
TIMs have been determined to accomplish the
research tasks. Furthermore, the dysfunctions
of the TIMs have been presented along with the
ways of dealing with them in the example of
PICRAT TIM by implementing blended
learning technologies in the combination of
offline, online and independent learning.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Technology integration models (TIMs)
Integrating technology into the educational
process means meaningful use of technology to
achieve educational goals (Kimmons, 2020b).
Today, Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK), Levels of Teaching
Innovation (LoTi), Substitution, Augmentation,
Modification,
and
Redefinition
(SAMR),
Replacement,
Amplification,
Transformation
(RAT), Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and
Evaluate (ADDIE), Technology Integration Matrix
(TIM), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),
Technology Integration Planning (TIP) and
Passive, Interactive, Creative, Replacement,
Amplification, and Transformation (PICRAT) TIMs
can be found in scientific research. In particular,
instead of the concept of model, such terms as
‘theory’, ‘paradigm’, and ‘framework’ are used in
research. Agreeing wi
th R.Kimmons’ opinion, we
can interpret these models as theoretical models,
because they show the conceptual, organizational
and reflexive nature of such structures (Kimmons,
2020a). American theorist D.A. Whetten explained
the four main elements of all theoretical models,
namely what, how, why and who/where/when.
According to him, the models: (1) include enough
variables, constructs, concepts, and details to make
theories comprehensive; (2) take into account how
the components are related, that is, the
categorization or structure of a model that allows
theorists to understand the world in new ways; (3)
reflect a logical and rational basis for expressing
why the components are connected in the way they
are proposed; (4) must be limited to a context that
expresses who, where and when it is used
(Whetten, 1989). In addition, TIM should promote
activities in an equally comfortable environment
for both sides
–
teachers and students. Certain
principles and criteria play an important role in
this, therefore, American scientists R.Kimmons
and C.Hall proposed the following six criteria for
choosing an effective TIM for educational
processes: (1) clarity; (2) compatibility; (3)
fruitfulness; (4) technology role; (5) scope; (6)
student focus (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). When
talking about the advantages and disadvantages of
the four main types of TIMs mentioned above, the
following important points should be noted:
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK)
TPACK (Technology, Pedagogy, and Content
Knowledge (TPACK)) is the most popular TIM
among educational researchers. In particular, it
aims to provide teachers with an important basis
for understanding the role of technology in
educational processes. Generally speaking,
teachers deal with three main types of knowledge
in their educational activities: technology
knowledge, pedagogy knowledge, and content
knowledge. In particular, teachers use technology,
pedagogy, and content knowledge to create
meaningful learning experiences for students in
specific situations that they can understand how it
is related to (Kimmons, 2020b). In turn, the TPACK
model may present several challenges in terms of
clarity, compatibility, fruitfulness, and scope (i.e.,
within the six criteria).
Replacement,
Amplification,
Transformation
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
196
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
(RAT)
RAT is interpreted as TIM, which is used to replace
the traditional approach in the educational
process, to strengthen the existing educational
process or to change it in ways that would not be
possible without technology (Hughes et al., 2006).
This model can cause some difficulties for teachers,
for example, in the practice of transformation, at
the same time, students are not the focus of the
educational processes in a complete way
(Kimmons et al., 2020).
Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and
Redefinition (SAMR)
According to SAMR TIM, substitution in this model
also implies the use of technologies that simply
replace or replace the previous practice without
any functional change in efficiency. Unlike RAT
TIM, in this model, augmentation represents small
positive changes and modification represents large
positive changes (Kimmons, 2020b). However, the
uncertainty of the boundaries of the stages in the
same model or the lack of significance of the
differences between them, at the same time, the
lack o
f detailed explanation of the student’s
participation and tasks in the same processes
(Kimmons et al., 2020) in practice can hinder the
effective work of both the teacher and the students.
Technology Integration Matrix (TIM)
TIM provides a framework for describing and
targeting the use of technology to improve
education. In particular, TIM includes five
interrelated characteristics of a meaningful
learning environment: active, collaborative,
constructive, authentic, and goal-directed. In
addition, these same characteristics are directly
related to the five levels of technology integration:
entry, adoption, adaptation, infusion, and
transformation. As a result, a matrix consisting of
25 cells is formed from the intersection of these
five features and five le
vels (“The technology
integration matrix”, 2023). It is worth noting that
the intersections in this order lead to performing
different tasks at the same time, there are too many
levels, they are not hierarchical when the time
comes, and the teacher does not have enough work
on
himself.
Moreover,
its
general
operationalization
limits
the
practical
effectiveness of the TIM model (Kimmons et al.,
2020a).
According to the above-mentioned features of
TIMs, it should be mentioned that technologies are
hybrids of human-programmed software and
designed hardware that can be incorporated into
the integration of synchronous and asynchronous
actions inside and outside the auditorium and
interact with spatial arrangements, multimodal
texts, and student groups (Hinkelman, 2018). In
turn, the environment should be considered as a
hybrid network, interconnected and combined
with human, social networks, virtual, and
technological networks. In general, we can
describe the process of designing or using
technologies in a blended learning environment as
a continuous process of collaboratively creating,
reforming, and facilitating a community
environment for foreign language learning with a
strategic and unique ecology of traditional and
online technologies (Hinkelman, 2018). After all,
the most important goal of blended learning design
is to find the most effective and useful combination
of learning methods for individual subjects,
contexts and goals. Its focus is not on choosing the
“correct” or “best” or “innovative” method as
o
pposed to the “traditional” one; rather, it is to
create an educational environment that works as a
whole (Neumeier, 2005).
PICRAT in the improvement of students’
writing skills in a blended learning
environment
One of the main features of higher education is
determined by the continuous support of advanced
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
197
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
ICTs at the same educational stage and their
continuous and integrated integration (Chan et al.,
2005). We chose the PICRAT TIM theoretical
model for the model of blended learning
technologies implemented in our research work. In
this TIM, PIC stands for passive, interactive, and
creative levels while RAT stands for replacement,
amplification
and
transformation.
PICRAT
provides teachers opportunities to support
reflection, provide practice guidance, and assess
teacher-student performance within the TIM. In
particular, PICRAT is a student-centred and
pedagogy-based model that is effective in the
specific context of future professional training, and
more precisely, easy to understand and use,
because it plays an important role in identifying
the most valuable feedback on TIM. In addition, the
basis of PICRAT TIM depends on two basic
questions that the teacher must answer
concerning using any technology during his
lessons. These include:
•
What are students doing with the
technology? (PIC: Passive, Interactive, Creative)
•
How does this use of technology impact the
teacher’s pedago
gy? (RAT: Replace, Amplify,
Transform) (Kimmons et al., 2020a)
If we explain all the above-mentioned important
aspects of PICRAT TIM, we can state the following
important analysis results:
1.
The level of passive learning (i.e., passive
acceptance of educational content) in the practice
of using technologies. In foreign language
education processes, it is known that offline
learning is adapted to provide basic theoretical
knowledge to students, therefore, it was taken into
account that the presentation of topics related to
writing competence (Power Point Presentation
(PPP)) in PICRAT TIM proposed in this study. Of
course, in this process, the teacher’s provision of
students with the necessary theoretical knowledge
and information shows the level of passivity of
students in the same process, at the same time, the
new topic presented as an effective tool of blended
learning technology is a form of online learning. It
was determined that the video prepared for the
program would be placed on the digital platform
designated by the PPP files. In the form of
independent learning, it is planned to present a
dictionary of written speech topics and
instructions for their effective creation in the form
of text, photo and video material, and to organise
online master classes based on a specific
procedure.
2.
The level of interactivity (i.e., learning
content and/or interactive communication with
other students). By its name, this stage promotes
students’ work based on a direct interactive
connection with technology, therefore, in a
blended learning environment, this feature is a
collaborative writing exercise, discussion of
mistakes and shortcomings (for offline learning);
and writing skills control (for online learning). It
was then determined that online writing platforms
could be reflected in online daily (for independent
learning) stages.
3.
The level of creativity helps create the
necessary conditions for students to use
technology as a platform to create learning
artefacts that emdiv their learning skills
(Kimmons et al., 2020a). Collaborative writing
exercises,
discussion
of
mistakes
and
shortcomings made in them (for offline learning);
and keeping an online diary can be reflected in the
practice of using online writing platforms (for
independent study).
4.
The level of replacement in which existing
offline learning technologies are replaced by
digital interpretations. At this level, it is important
not to directly replace the offline educational
practice with digital technologies, but to direct
each introduced technology to fulfil a specific
practical goal and task. According to this, in the
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
198
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
practice of writing lessons, students’ mastery
indicators and results will be presented
electronically (in the form of offline learning);
announcement of homework assignments and
their acceptance (for example, through ‘bots’),
electronic feedback and portfolio (for online
learning form). Examples of this stage include
using digital platforms (for independent learning)
to share ideas and thoughts.
5.
The level of amplification refers to the
process by which teachers use technology to
improve their current instructional practices and
outcomes. It should be noted that the use of
technology at this level gradually improves the
practice of teachers, but does not lead to a radical
change in their pedagogy (Kimmons et al., 2020a).
The use of the electronic form of feedback in
improving the skills of written speech genres
–
paragraph and essay writing, and the use of an
electronic portfolio during the general educational
process can represent the main content of the level
of amplification. After all, summarizing the types of
paragraphs and essays written by students during
a certain academic year in the electronic portfolio
creates a basis for both teachers and students to
continuously analyze their results while clearly
monitoring their results.
6.
The level of transformation is based on the
use of technology to not only enhance but also
enable existing pedagogical practices. Eschewing
technology, for example, destroys this pedagogical
strategy because the possibilities of technology
enable and connect with pedagogy (Kimmons et al.,
2020a). The role of self-directed learning is also
important in the continuous and organic
improvement of students’ writing competences as
at the final level of PICRAT TIM, the ideas and
points needed for written speech using online
journals and video content on the YouTube
platform for lower-level students to get acquainted
with; measures such as the use of online writing
platforms can be reflected in strengthening the
acquired knowledge, skills and qualifications.
The above-mentioned PICRAT TIM 6-level analysis
shows the practical effectiveness of the same
theoretical model. Also, based on the six criteria
put forward by R.Kimmons and C.Hall regarding
the selection of optimal TIM for educational
processes, the advantages of the PICRAT model are
as follows:
–
Clarity. PICRAT, a simple acronym, has three
levels in each bullet that are clear and easy to
understand. The concept of the model is very
simple, although its implementation can be quite
complex.
–
Compatibility.
PICRAT
complements
valuable learning practices such as project-based,
problem-based, cooperative/collaborative and
active learning by focusing on students and
pedagogy rather than on technology, its
application, or trivial relationships.
–
Fruitfulness. PICRAT challenges teachers to
think effectively about different ways to use
technology in the classroom. Teachers who are
unsure of how technology can support practice can
review their use of technology at each intersection
of the matrix and select the most effective
approaches accordingly.
–
Technology role. PICRAT posits that
technology integration is not an end in itself, but a
means to achieve improved and transformative
teaching practices, interactive and creative student
learning.
–
Scope. A weakness of PICRAT is that it does
not explain all aspects of technology/pedagogy
integration, but it does explain key practices that
are useful for teachers. Overall, it is a TIM that is
comprehensive enough to serve as a practice
guide, but short enough to meet the criterion of
accuracy.
–
Student focus. PICRAT aims to focus on
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
199
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
students by encouraging active and creative
learning activities (Kimmons & Hall, 2016).
On the other hand, we should note that, although
all the possibilities and conveniences listed above
guarantee the effectiveness of technologies in the
blended learning environment, it is possible that
PICRAT TIM will cause some problems in practice.
For example:
A.
Confusion about using creativity. It is
explained that teachers should teach students that
creativity is not in the same context as art, but that
students should use technology as a generative or
constructive tool to create knowledge artifacts.
B.
Confusion about the transformation
process. The level of transformation implies the
implementation of traditional foreign language
educational practices with the help of technologies
with a specific goal in mind, and it is important to
pay attention to the further development of the
quality and content of the lessons, rather than the
fundamental change of the current process.
C.
Application in other educational contexts.
PICRAT TIM promotes the implementation of each
educational process with a view to its specific
goals. Therefore, improving basic language skills in
the practice of foreign language education requires
their introduction based on their context and goals.
D.
Assessments beyond the performance level.
Assessment depends on the purpose of the
evaluator, which is usually to guide teachers to
transform thinking and use technology during the
lesson, which, in turn, becomes the lesson plan.
Thus, it is appropriate to evaluate the PICRAT
model based on the general content of the lesson,
and not through separate or one-time exercises.
E.
Not being related to student results. PICRAT
TIM focuses on the connection between student
activities and the technologies that enable them. Of
course, this theoretical model does not provide
teachers with clear guidance on how to link
technology integration practices to measurable
student outcomes. However, achieving such a
result depends on content, context, and evaluation
measures (Kimmons et al., 2020a).
So, the mutual integration of blended learning
technologies and writing competence not only
created a number of positive opportunities in
foreign language education, but also played an
important role in the systematic solution of
existing problems. For instance, the introduction of
PICRAT TIM into practice creates the ground for a
radical reform of the cross-sectional writing
practice sessions, which are formed based on the
attitude of students to technologies, and the extent
to which teachers use them in changing the
traditional form of learning. In particular, in the
process of improving writing competence, blended
learning technologies have a positive effect on the
effective organization of educational activities in
the form of ‘teacher
-
student’ and ‘student
-
student’
cooperation in higher education, that is, the
traditional educational environment limited to
classroom training is expanded by the blended
learning environment, which combines three
mandatory components.
CONCLUSION
To sum up, the most important aspect of using
technologies in teaching writing competence to
future specialists of the English language in higher
education is to create an innovative educational
environment for them. In particular, the
importance of PICRAT TIM in improving the
writing competence of students is determined by
the fact that it leads to a complex process of
intersections based on blended learning
technologies with the levels of passiveness,
interactivity, creativity, replacement, amplification
and transformation. Also, in this process, it is
important to move each technology in a targeted
and targeted manner.
In particular, today, when teaching students to
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
200
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
write paragraphs and essay genres of written
speech, it is necessary to focus on improving their
writing competence, taking into account their
content, organizational structure, word structure,
language use, mechanical aspects, and at the same
time, content processing, stylistic and ensuring
that they learn good decision-making skills.
However, in the context of the globalized digital
world, we cannot ignore the promising
possibilities of technologies in this process,
especially blended learning, which combines
offline, online and independent forms of learning,
as well as related technologies.
Although the form of blended learning is mainly
interpreted as an educational environment that
combines offline and online forms of learning, in
today’s rapidly developing educational context, its
scope has expanded, and it includes a mandatory
third component
–
independent learning. Besides
that, this issue was reflected in the development of
generally accepted definitions of blended learning.
In general, any educational technology is
interpreted as a set of methods that ensure the
effectiveness of education, the achievement of
educational goals and the most rational way of
teaching and learning the language, in practice the
integration of technology models
–
TPACK, RAT,
SAMR, TIM provide opportunities and, of course, it
is desirable to analyze in depth the existing
shortcomings in their implementation. In addition,
the continuous expansion of the sphere of
influence of technologies in educational processes
has caused conceptual changes in metaphors
related to them.
REFERENCES
1.
Andreeva, N.V., Rozhdestvenskaya, L.V., &
Yarmakhov, B.B. (2016). The school’s step into
mixed
education.
Moscow:
Rybakov
Foundation.
2.
Azizov, S. (2022a). Progress of implementation
of blended language learning environment in
the foreign language teaching system of higher
education. Scientific and Methodical Journal of
Wisdom of Thinking, 2, 149
–
152.
3.
Azizov, S. (2022b). Application of digital
learning technologies in improving the skills of
creating written speech genres in the English
language. Scientific Bulletin of Namangan State
University, 9, 423
–
428.
4.
Azizov, S. (2022c). Importance of improving
students’ writing competence while teaching
foreign languages. Philology Matters, 43(4),
109
–
131.
5.
Bekisheva, T.G. (2016). Blended learning:
current trends in universities. Modern Studies
of Social Problems, 11-2(67), 37
–
42.
6.
Berdichevsky, A.L., Giniatullin, I.A., & Tareva,
Y.G. (2019). Methods of intercultural foreign
language education at university. Moscow:
Flinta.
7.
Blinov, V.I., Yesenina, E.Y., & Sergeev, I.S.
(2021). Models of blended learning:
Organizational and didactic typology. Higher
Education in Russia, 30(5), 44
–
64.
8.
Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL
work: Towards normalization. System, 34,
465
–
479.
9.
Chan, A.Y., Chow, K.-O., & Jia, W.-J. (2005). A
framework for evaluation of learning
effectiveness in online courses. In R.W. Lau,
Q.Li, R.Cheung, and W.Liu (Eds.), Advances in
Web-based Learning-ICWL 2005 (pp. 383
–
395). Hong Kong, China: Springer.
10.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking
education in the age of technology: The digital
revolution and schooling in America. New
York: Teachers College Press.
11.
Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning
in a digital world: Experiences and
expectations. London: Kogan-Page.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
201
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
12.
Fanday, V.A. (2012). Theoretical and pragmatic
foundations of using a form of blended learning
of a foreign (English) language in a language
university. Diss. cand. ped. scien. Moscow:
Moscow State University named after M.V.
Lomonosov.
13.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2010). Preparing
students for mastery in 21st century skills. In
J.Ballanca & R.Brandt (Eds.), 21st Century
Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn (pp.
221
–
242). Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
14.
Garrett,
N.
(2009).
Computer-assisted
language learning trends and issues revisited:
Integrating innovation. The Modern Language
Journal, 93, 719
–
740.
15.
Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended
learning: Uncovering its transformative
potential in higher education. The Internet and
Higher
Education,
7(2),
95
–
105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.00
1.
16.
Garrison, D. (2009). Blended learning as a
transformative design approach. In P.Rogers
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Distance Learning (2nd
ed., pp. 200
–
204). Hershey: IGI Global.
17.
Graham, C., & Allen, S. (2009). Designing
blended
learning
environments.
In
Encyclopedia of Distance Learning (2nd ed., pp.
562
–
570). Hershey: IGI Global.
18.
Hinkelman, D. (2018). Blending technologies in
second
language
classrooms.
London:
Macmillan Publishers.
19.
Hughes, J., Thomas, R. & Scharber, C. (2006).
Assessing technology integration: The RAT
–
replacement,
amplification,
and
transformation
–
framework. In C.Crawford,
R.Carlsen, K.McFerrin, J.Price, R.Weber &
D.Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2006--
Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference (pp.
1616
–
1620).
Orlando,
Florida,
USA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing
in Education (AACE).
20.
Jennifer, H. (2018). Blended learning: What
works in talent development. USA: Association
for Talent Development.
21.
Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Marra, R., &
Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with
technology.
Upper
Saddle
River:
Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
22.
Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2016). Emerging
technology
integration
models.
In
G.Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and Innovation
in Digital Learning: Foundations and
Applications (pp. 51
–
64). Edmonton, AB:
Athabasca University Press.
23.
Kimmons, R., Graham, C.R., & West, R.E.
(2020a). The PICRAT model for technology
integration
in
teacher
preparation.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 20(1), 176
–
198.
24.
Kimmons, R. (2020b). Technology integration:
Effectively
integrating
technology
in
educational settings. In A.Ottenbreit-Leftwich
& R.Kimmons (Eds.), The K-12 Educational
Technology
Handbook.
EdTech
Books.
https://edtechbooks.org/k12handbook/techn
ology_integration
25.
Krylova, Y.A. (2020). Technology of blended
learning in the higher education system.
Bulletin of Tomsk State Pedagogical University,
1(207), 86
–
93.
26.
Masie, E. (2006). The blended learning
imperative. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.),
Handbook of Blended Learning: Global
Perspectives, Local Designs (pp. 22
–
26). San
Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.
27.
McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology
as experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
202
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
28.
National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan. (2002).
Hydrophilia
–
zebras. Tashkent: State Scientific
Publishing House of ‘National Encyclopedia of
Uzbekistan’.
29.
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.
30.
Polio, Ch. (2017). Second language writing
development: A research agenda. Language
Teaching, 50(2), 261
–
275.
31.
Salavatulina, L.R. (2022). Blended learning in a
digital
educational
environment:
Organizational
and
didactic
solutions.
Chelyabinsk: South Ural Scientific Center RAO.
32.
Semenova, I.N., & Slepukhin, A.V. (2014).
Didactic designer for designing models of
electronic, distance and blended learning at a
university. Pedagogical Education in Russia, 8,
68
–
74.
33.
Stein, J., & Graham, C.R. (2020). Essentials for
blended learning: A standards-based guide
(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
34.
Tatarinova,
M.A.
(2005).
Theoretical
foundations for the creation and use of a
distance learning course in foreign language
writing for 2nd-3rd year students of a
linguistic university (based on the English
language). Abs. diss. cand. ped. scien. Moscow:
Russian Academy of Education.
35.
The technology integration matrix. (2023). The
TIM: A project of the Florida Center for
Instructional Technology. USA: University of
South
Florida.
https://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix/.
36.
Vasilyeva, Y.S., Rodionova, E.V., & Chicherina,
N.V. (2019). Blended learning: Models and real
practices. Open and Distance Education, 1(73),
22
–
32.
37.
Whetten, D.A. (1989). What constitutes a
theoretical contribution?. The Academy of
Management
Review,
14(4).
https://doi.org/10.2307/258554.
38.
Zharina, O.A., Shulepova, A.D., Borisenko.
(2021). Blended teaching of business English
to students of non-linguistic specialties: the
“flipped classroom” model. Perspectives of
Science and Education, 1(49), 265
–
275.
