Theme 3: Blended Learning in the LangLit Discipline

This theme focuses on the pragmatic nature of the discipline and the blended learning adopted and students’ feedback of LangLit. Students reported that relevance and applicability of their learning to the real world were instrumental to their learning. As a result, this theme explores (1) the pragmatic nature of this subject and its applicability to the real world and (2) students’ perception of this discipline with blended learning.

5.4.1 Application to the Real World: Pragmatic Nature of LangLit

Most of the boys from the same school were exposed to the teaching of literature with limited exposure to non-literary texts in their Language Arts programme. Accordingly, these students, in their first year of the IBDP, found that the nature of the LangLit syllabus was a very different experience and they especially enjoyed the language part of this subject. As Don shared: “It’s very different from IP because what we have been doing from Year 1 to Year 4 has been basically lit, not really language … so it’s completely different” (Interview 2). Most students found “the language part” most enjoyable because of “the freedom of choice” given in the IAs and these experiences were regarded as “quite refreshing” (Jerome, Interview 2). Sally, though from another school, went through a similar Integrated Programme (IP), also found the language component of the LangLit “interesting because it [was] applicable to real life” (Interview 2). She noted that the text-types (e.g. advertisements) and topics studied, affected “culture” and were “happening in the real world” (Interview 2), which made the subject relevant. Given that this was their maiden exposure to this subject, the general sentiments were that they enjoyed the subject: “I like it better

than lit” (Don, Interview 2) because “there [was] more spontaneity” (Jerome, Interview 3). In fact, the language “felt less academic” (Regina, Interview 3) and hence, “a lot more interesting” (Sally, Interview 3) and “useful in the future” (Daryl, Interview 2).

Despite the novelty of the subject, students cited the pragmatic nature of this subject as an important factor of consideration. The subject was regarded as “more relevant, … straightforward” (Aron, Interview 2) and “practical” (Hugh, Interview 2). Pran also found that he could “apply it” to his other subjects and hence, “it was more helpful (Interview 2). The pragmatic nature of the subject, particularly, the study on the function of non-literary texts for the students were received with approval because of the clear relevance to the real world. Because they were exposed to “a variety of topics … it’s quite pleasing to learn more about how language is being used in current society” which provided students with “different perspectives” (Mike, Interview 2). Mike drew on one of the online tasks that required a deconstruction of video trailers and shared that he “never thought we [could] do that. I [found] that quite fun and interesting” (Interview 2). Hugh found “the Langlit experience … ha[d] been very enriching” and “a lot more useful” as compared to IP which was “limited to a lot more lit stuff” (Interview 3). The literature component was built on their prior knowledge taught in their IP years and “the lang portion” was deemed as most beneficial because of its applicability to the real world (Noel, Interview 3). The “eye- opening” (Nalany, Interview 3) aspect of the language aspect of LangLit provided them with better understanding and the pragmatic application to real life accelerated their learning process. Even the so-called boring parts of language where they had to memorise the names of the rhetorical devices were regarded as “a good learning experience” because they now had “a name … tagged” to these rhetorical devices they [saw] around them daily (Daryl, Interview 3). Furthermore, as Daryl rationalised, “in this modern age” with “so many technological advances … it [would] be … fool[ish] not to take advantage and use [them] to further enhance [their] learning styles and methods” (Interview 2). In short, students felt that the real-life relevancy of the subject was both practical and current to their lives.

Whilst most of the students, in Interview 2, agreed that the language component had more relevance to real life, by Interview 3, they found that there was relevance in both language and literature. For example, Navin who had constantly highlighted that LangLit was a difficult subject, in terms of content, discovered that “Langlit had made … [him] like English more” (Interview 3). When he reflected “at how deep The Great Gatsby was and [he was] like ‘Wow!” He never imagined that the literary devices studied in class could be “applied to daily life” (Navin, Interview 3). Georgia too found “the language part … more interesting” because she began “to understand why … advertisers use advertisements” to suit and support their objectives (Interview 3). However, she soon realised that the themes in The Great Gatsby were relevant even in today’s world (ibid). The applicability to real life was clearly important and students found that learning to understand “social cues” (Tim, Interview 3) and “implicit meaning” (Don, Interview 3) in texts could be “useful to what … [they] were going to do next time” (Tim, Interview 3). Aron too “appreciated the amount of depth” given to the study of “a single novel” (Interview 3) which “really helped … [him] to look at issues and situations … from multiple perspectives” (Interview 3). More importantly, blended learning was helpful because it served as a bridge between the real world and their curriculum. After all, “what better way would there be to study media through media” (Aron, Interview 3). Don added that “blended learning not only … helped … [to] construct texts so that [they] could understand the elements better” but also put what they had studied “into practice” (Interview 3). Thus, the applicability to real life complimented with the use of blended learning helped to enhance their learning of this subject.

In general, students agreed that blended learning included “hands-on ... [and] … experiential learning” (Daryl, Interview 2). After all, just listening to “lectures was boring” (Janson, Interview 2) and it was only when the students “actually [did] it” that they felt that they could learn (Janson, Interview 2). In short, LangLit is akin to “the modern world today” (Aron, Interview 2) and so was “useful” (Georgia, Interview 2).

5.4.2 Application of Blended Learning in LangLit: Students’ Perceptions

Besides the element of novelty, Ezekiel also found that LangLit, even for the literature examination papers, was not about answering “questions … but instead … [about] drawing evidence from the outside world” (Ezekiel, Interview 3), thus, adding merit to the study of this subject. It was not merely “what [was] in the book and what [was] written” but rather, “it [was] also what [was] happening around it that [was] affecting what’s written” (Don, Interview 3). This is a critical element of understanding displayed by Don because it reflected the objectives of LangLit. IB’s objectives in the creation of this subject was to allow students to understand that texts needed to be understood in the culture and context in which they were written. Tim exhibited similar understanding where he realised that “the questions … [were] context involved” and “could be anything, so it [was] impossible to spot the question unlike in IP” (Interview 3). Subsequently, they would “have to read outside of what [was] in the novel to ensure that [they were] sufficiently prepared” (ibid).

However, though the students enjoyed the language component of this subject more than literature, the syllabus required interrelated links and should not be regarded as two separate entities. Sally agreed and realised that “it [was] an interesting way to learn language and lit at the same time” and was “a good way to blend two different types” (Interview 2). More importantly, “it seemed like a very natural way to learn language” (ibid). This understanding that language and literature were not separate entities is also echoed by Tim who found that it was only through “analysing language” that they would “learn how to [read] social cues” or for lack of “a better phrase, … read between the lines so that” they could “gauge emotions” and understand “implicit meaning” (Interview 3). This was clearly different from what they had been previously exposed to. Furthermore, the inclusion of blended learning proffered clear merits for their learning. To Aron, “it was quite cool coz it [was] like hit[ting] two birds with one stone,” where students not only studied the literary text The Great Gatsby and the practical aspects of the language component but the online activities which acknowledged them as the so-called digital natives (Interview 2).

Another aspect worthy of consideration was the use of blended learning in the teaching of this subject. Students generally agreed that blended learning was a useful method of enhancing their learning experiences. It was not merely the convenience of accessibility but the online platforms provided them with opportunities to learn from “the different writing styles” which were “helpful” (Pran, Interview 2). Nathan found blended learning quite useful “for Paper 1, because [they got] … to look at a lot of different types of text types” (Interview 3). Georgia liked blended learning because it was not simply didactic teaching and the online tasks required them “to think and write, even though it [might] be quite hard” (Interview 3). Yet others found blended learning as one that afforded them hands-on practice which was beneficial because it was a way of putting their understanding into practice. In sum, blended learning “allowed … a greater depth of freedom in … learning” and students were “not … constricted to just simple classroom setting, like the style of lectures” (Mike, Interview 3).

Enzhan too found that “blended learning … helped [to] consolidate everything you learn” in class (Interview 3). Furthermore, he felt that “there [was] only so much you [could] do within the classroom lecture style” and instead when they took their learning online, they appeared to gain in terms of time because the peer work on GoogleDocs were resources that allowed them to attempt other questions beyond what was assigned (ibid). Furthermore, Google Drive allowed quick and ease of access and organisation (Noel, Interview 3).

However, in Interview 3, whilst students were agreeable to the benefits of blended learning, they were also more specific on the aspects of blended learning that could better support their preparation for the examinations. Whilst students did appreciate the online learning experiences, they were also concerned with an overuse of computers. Aron was worried that they might not have enough practice with “writing with … a pen” (Interview 3). Don observed that “it [was] easier to edit when … typing” (Interview 3). However, as a “fast typist”, Aron’s concern was that his thought- processes tended to flow at a faster pace than writing, and this was problematic

because writing was a “skill needed for the exam” (ibid). In short, they needed examination practice – to think and write coherently within the allotted time.

Nonetheless, this was not a subject without challenges. Students found that it was demanding with its broad scope and the seeming large amount “of work coming from LangLit” (Kelly, Interview 2). The need to deconstruct a text and understand the technicalities of a text was also highlighted as a concern: “You must know the terms to describe all those … also at the same time … [there is also] literature … there’s quite a lot of stuff” (Nathan, Interview 2). In short, as Janson shared, “Langlit had been very challenging … because there were a lot of new things” (Interview 3).

Another major challenge for this subject was the study of English literature. Some students who were not as proficient with English found that literature was a “very difficult subject because … there [were] deeper meaning[s]” (Janson, Interview 2). However, he admitted that literature had helped him to “identify the tone [in people’s] speech … [in] the way they actually [said] it” and in that way, he realised that words could “actually carry different meaning[s]” (Interview 2). Navin too found that they needed to acquire a level of understanding before being able to handle the subject efficiently. Students realised that one of the key issues was that they were not quite as “well versed” in their subject matter (Tim, Interview 3).

In short, students regarded the applicability of the subject to the real world and pointed out that the learning of non-literary texts instrumental for their learning. Whilst all agreed that blended learning was practical in aiding their internalisation of the content, there were also concerns in how it could perhaps hinder their preparation for the examinations.

5.5 Theme 4: Students in Blended Learning I: Independent Research or a Facet of It