Overlaps: Pedagogical and Technological

Research question 3 aimed to explore three key areas in the design and implementation of blended learning but the findings showed that it was not possible to see them as such clear demarcations. Instead, these considerations are dichotomies that both contrast and complement each other which is explored in the following two sections.

This section explores the overlap between cultural and technological considerations. This is most critical to this study because it is essential to understand nuances of cultural considerations of the learning environment and how they best fit the technological demands of a blended learning research design. Within the findings reported in this study, it is noteworthy to observe that the students were not only Singaporean learners focused on academic performativity but also students that belonged to the digital generation.

Digital Generation. The findings showed that students were clearly digital

natives. They exhibited dexterity in the adoption of appropriate technological tools that best addressed the demands of their school curriculum, thus, echoing what Brown describes as “multiprocessing” (p. 13). As digital natives, they were clearly accustomed to speed and dynamic information and learning (Prensky, 2001a; 2001b; Tapscott, 1998; 2009). Furthermore, these students in seeking alternative recourse in completing their tasks, albeit, on social media platforms (e.g. WhatsApp, Google Chat, Skype, etc.), created a community of practice where they “networked, share[d] ideas, ask[ed] for help and [received] feedback” (Kennedy & Fox, 2013, p. 75). However, though students reported that online tasks were useful in their learning, they did not regard it as critical in their formal learning (Barnes, Marateo, & Ferris, 2007; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Philip, 2005). As mentioned earlier, though they found that tasks such as the creation of blogs and wikis were interesting, what they regarded as most rewarding was the examination preparation essays on GoogleDocs. This pragmatic

acquiescence of their want and need echoes Thompson’s (2013) observation of the digital natives’ “get in, get the answer out” (p. 21) behaviour. Furthermore, the findings from this study also found that there was little evidence of students’ inclinations toward “increased use of technology for teaching” (Waycott et al., 2010, p. 1209). Accordingly, whilst digital natives displayed a proclivity for social media, it did not quite extend to their formal learning. The findings, as described in the previous chapter and section 6.3.1, show students’ resistance to anything that diverts from traditional classrooms or what they have been previously acculturated to in terms of what constitutes learning within a classroom.

Digital Natives and Education. Despite being born into the digital age,

students were clearly uncomfortable with the introduction of technological tools or online activities in which they had little or no exposure and in this case, the forum. This corresponds with what Kennedy et al. (2007) found; that digital natives’ use of Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs and wikis are not necessarily as prolific as what Barnes, Marateo, and Ferris (2007b) claimed. In fact, Kennedy et al. (2007) argue that blogs are not quite the “staple” (p. 522) of the digital generation’s daily technologies use and that not all students are bloggers. Likewise, the findings presented in this current study echo similar results. Students visited blogs infrequently, forums were places to visit only when their computers needed “fixing” and wikis were only accessed for quick information. By highlighting that this is a matter that goes beyond everyday social habits, students’ alienation of these technological tools is a result of the academic performativity ethos. Moreover, students viewed teachers’ feedback as the voice of authority and subsequently, instrumental in their quest for distinctions in examinations. This is not to say that students rejected blended learning and did not regard it as beneficial to their learning. In fact, they found blended learning useful and would recommend this learning approach for their juniors. However, what they felt provided them with different perspectives in their learning were tasks placed on GoogleDocs that replicated pen-and-paper assignments. In a way, this is not unlike what Thompson (2013; 2015) observes on digital natives’ use of technological tools where they would choose the tools to fit the tasks. Their preference for GoogleDocs and not Wiki or blogs on LMS could be attributed to firstly, their past experiences with

GoogleDocs and secondly, the advantages afforded by the technological tool in academic performativity, thus, underscoring these as potential considerations in the design of a blended learning approach.

Independent Learners. One of the pedagogical demands of the LangLit

curriculum encourages students to embark on independent research. As IBDP students, independent research is a critical aspect. The IB learner profile details that students need to be inquirers and are expected to be imbued with the skills to “conduct inquiry and research and show independence in learning” (Bullock, 2011, p. 9). Even though these students were focused on high-stakes examinations, the findings reported in this study showed that these Singaporean learners were not averse to non-examinable tasks. Most of the students acknowledged that blended learning was useful in providing them with multi-perspective learning experiences and opportunities to engage in independent research through the world-wide-web. In fact, the interview findings revealed that students did embark on some form of research, regardless of whether they were online or written assignments. Students conducted research almost as a second nature as they embarked on an assignment. Thus, these students as digital natives appeared to automatically employ technological resources to assist them in their learning, thus, showing a symmetry between the curriculum and technology.

However, it is also necessary to highlight that students’ ideas of conducting research is limited to a Google search or to simply WhatsApp each other. This is not unlike what others have conjectured on this digital generation having developed a set of skills in their scholarly search for information (Brabazon, 2007; Griffiths & Brophy, 2005; Kennedy & Judd, 2011), albeit, in “a fairly unsophisticated manner” (Kennedy & Judd, 2011, p. 127). What this draws attention to is that though students were generally aware of the technological tools at their disposal, this did not automatically translate into an intelligent use of these tools for their learning. Instead, they needed to be taught how to search for academic articles as well as be made aware of the pagerank algorithm that Google employs. Furthermore, besides needing to encourage students to adopt and leverage on more sophisticated online information search,

students, too, need to be educated to exercise digital wisdom “to find practical, creative, contextually appropriate, and emotionally satisfying solutions to complicated human problems” (Prensky, 2009, p. 3). This is essential as the future is “unimaginably complex” and it is necessary for them to know “the tools of wisdom” that are accessible even to “the least wise digitally enhanced human” (Prensky, 2009, p. 1). Accordingly, as Kennedy and Judd (2011) emphatically state, “the answer is largely ‘no’” (p. 132) to whether students show digital wisdom in their scholarly search for information.

Implications. Nevertheless, what is more significant is that students need to learn and be taught (Prensky, 2009), a point of consideration for the design of a blended learning approach. All of this must not be detached from the pedagogical aims of the curriculum and needs to be addressed in any blended learning design. For example, one of the learning approaches of LangLit syllabus, as outlined by IB, is cyclically inquiry-based. In other words, an inquiry cycle when properly executed would scaffold knowledge construction, allow for critical and/or creative thinking and inculcate self-regulated learning skills. As a result, students would not only develop their metacognitive ability but also, communication skills. One of the ways in which this could be put into action in blended learning, would be planned group tasks that allow students to engage in research online. As mentioned in section 6.4.1., these learning approaches should not be regarded as neat compartments of pedagogy but rather viewed as integrated and applied according to curriculum demands. Hence, Table 13 maps the learning approaches as delineated in Li’s (2012) Approaches to Learning: Literature review and their key characteristics to suggested blended learning activities.

Table 13. Li’s (2012) Learning Approaches

In addition, though these students belonged to the digital generation, it is observed from the findings that they were digital natives only with the use of social media tools. For example, though 85% of students use text messaging or some form of social media every day, students were not correspondingly savvy with Web 2.0 technological tools. For some of the students, their maiden experience with the construction of Web 2.0 technological tools (i.e. Wiki, blogs) was viewed as interesting but not critical to their learning. Instead, GoogleDocs was revered as the most

pragmatic and useful platform. Students cited the functions provided in Google Drive/GoogleDocs (e.g. organisation of their work, chat, autosave, fewer clicks, real time updates, etc.) as pragmatic and user-friendly. However, this is because GoogleDocs is an electronic replication of their handwritten assignments. The technological benefits of saving the documents online were acknowledged but more notably, they served as important aids for examination preparation, thus, emphasising themselves as Singaporean learners preoccupied with the demands of high-stakes examinations and teacher guidance. Yet, interestingly, these students also regarded themselves as independent learners because they had to conduct more research as compared to a previous teacher-centric teaching pedagogy.

As such, in the design and implementation of a blended learning approach, it is not enough to recognise these students as Singaporean learners but that they are also digital natives. These two areas are not divorced from each other but rather work in tandem and the complexity needs to be acknowledged in any design and implementation of a blended learning approach.