This presentation reports on the development, implementation, and evaluation phases of a blended course of English for general academic purposes targeting undergraduate Japanese students at Osaka University. The basic Successive Approximation Model and the Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric were utilized as major references informing course design, development, and quality assurance. Students' perception on the usefulness of the course, the use of learning analytics, and the measurement of learner achievement will also be discussed.

1. DEVELOPING A BLENDED COURSE:
WHY QUALITY MATTERS
Mehrasa Alizadeh Parisa Mehran
Osaka University
This poster presents the stages of developing, implementing, and
evaluating a blended course of English for General Academic
Purposes (EGAP) at Osaka University.
Practical English (e-learning)
Second-Year Undergraduate Students
Osaka University Global English Online (#OUGEO)
Linc English (Gold II) https://www.lincenglish.org/
80 – 90
British Council free online placement test
Open Educational Resources (OERs)
Some copy-righted materials with permission
http://breakingnewsenglish.com/
http://elllo.org/
The Basic Successive Approximation Model (SAM 1) proposed by Allen (2012) informed the stages of course design and
development, and evaluation.
• It is an improvement over earlier models of instructional design such as
the ADDIE model.
• It not only allows for but also necessitates iteration.
• It is a more appropriate choice for smaller projects.
Further details about each of the stages can be found in an upcoming publication (Mehran, Alizadeh, Koguchi, Takemura,
in press) to be published in the proceedings of the EUROCALL 2017 Conference.
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODEL
Allen, M. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An agile model for
developing the best learning experiences. Alexandria, VA: ASTD
Press.
Mehran, P., Alizadeh, M., Koguchi, I., & Takemura, H. (in press).
Designing and developing a blended course: Best practices for
Japanese learners. In K. Borthwick, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny
(Eds.), CALL in a climate of change: Adapting to turbulent global
conditions – Short papers from EUROCALL 2017. Dublin, Ireland:
Research-publishing.net.
• The students’ qualitative comments also reveals their
general satisfaction toward the course.
• As the course co-instructors, we feel there is great
room for improvement in particular with regards to
submitting and scoring assignments plus giving
feedback.
• More details about the different stages of course design
and development have been documented on the
following Google Site: https://sites.google.com/view/ougeo
• Links to materials used in the course can be found by
searching for #OsakaUniversityGlobalEnglishOnline
and #OUGEO Hashtags.
At the end of the semester, the students filled out a
detailed questionnaire with items asking them to evaluate
the course. Below is a summary of the student responses
to items on overall course evaluation.
COURSE EVALUATION
ADDITIONAL NOTES
REFERENCES
OVERVIEW
WHAT’S NEW?
Course Components /
Features
Old Course New Course
Placement Test ✘ ✔
Different levels ✘ ✔
Integration of Skills ✘ ✔
Speaking / Writing Tasks ✘ ✔
Focus on Global Themes ✘ ✔
Group Project ✘ ✔
Free of Charge ✘ ✔
Hosted on the OU LMS ✘ ✔
Quizzes ✔ ✔
Audio-Visual Materials ✔ ✔
f2f & Online Components ✔ ✔
QUALITY MATTERS® HIGHER EDUCATION RUBRIC
The Higher Ed Rubric can be used with fully-online courses or hybrid/blended courses. It consists of eight general and 43
specific review standards which aid course designers to ensure quality from the outset. The rubric is also used to assess the
level to which a given course has met those standards.
1) Course Overview and Introduction
2) Learning Objectives (Competencies)
3) Assessment and Measurement
4) Instructional Materials
5)Course Activities and Learner Interaction
6) Course Technology
7) Learner Support
8) Accessibility and Usability
The students took a placement test prior to the beginning of the course and retook the same test at the end of the semester.
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the pre-test with the post-test scores of 66 students. The results has shown
some improvement over time.
T = 2.36 (p < 0.05)
Mean 1 = 71.07
Mean 2 = 73.32
PRE-TEST POST-TEST COMPARISON
5.1 The learning activities promote the achievement of the
stated learning objectives or competencies. 
5.2 Learning activities provide opportunities for
“interaction that support active learning. 
5.3 The instructor’s plan for classroom response time and
feedback on assignments is clearly stated. 
5.4 The requirements for learner interaction are clearly
stated. 
Items
(N = 71)
No
%
To a certain
degree %
Yes
%
Mean
%
Has the course met your
English
language needs?
1.4 28.2 70.4 2.69
Do you feel that you have
learned useful English
skills?
4.2 31.0 64.8 2.60
Do you feel that in general
your English has improved
because of this course?
8.5 21.1 70.4 2.61
Was the pace of the course
appropriate for you?
1.4 19.7 78.9 2.77
Did you find the face-to-
face classes useful?
5.6 28.2 66.2 2.60
Was the standard of the
teaching good?
1.4 29.6 69.0 2.67
Did you receive enough
support regarding technical
issues?
14.1 32.4 53.5 2.39