Using a blended approach to teach English for academic purposes: Malaysian students' perceptions of redesigned course materials

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

1

Using a Blended Approach to Teach English for Academic Purposes: Malaysian Students’

Perceptions of Redesigned Course Materials

Siew Ming Thang ([email protected]), Fook Fei Wong ([email protected]),

Noorizah Mohd Noor ([email protected]), Rosniah Mustaffa ([email protected]),

Najihah Mahmud ([email protected]), Kemboja Ismail ([email protected])

School of Language Studies & Linguistics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia

Abstract

English for Social Sciences is a compulsory course for all students of the Faculty of Social

Sciences at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Recently, the course has been redesigned and a

new course book which includes an online component was introduced. The purpose of the

study reported in this article is to investigate students’ perceptions of the blended approach

for learning English for Academic Purposes (EAP). A qualitative approach, in the form of

nine focus group interviews involving 34 students from various disciplines, was used to

collect data. The thrust of the interviews is to investigate students’ perceptions of the course

book and its online component in meeting their English language needs, different proficiency

levels and diverse interests. The challenges and problems faced by them were also

probed. The findings of the study reveal that the students’ perceptions of the course book in

meeting their language needs were generally positive although some higher proficiency

students did not find the content challenging enough. The online component was also well

received but two major problems and challenges were identified: slow and unreliable internet

connection and too much online exercises to complete. Possible solutions to these problems

were also proposed.

Keywords: Blended learning, materials evaluation, course evaluation, English for academic

purposes

Introduction

It is compulsory for Malaysian students in institutions of higher learning to take English

courses which include English for academic purposes (EAP) courses. EAP here refers to the

learning of English in order to meet the academic standard required of students studying in an

institution of higher learning. In many cases, commercial textbooks are used to provide the

course materials for such courses though they are commonly accompanied by suitable

supplementary materials. Such course books relieve English Language teachers from the

burden of having to develop a course from scratch thus saving them a lot of time. In addition,

these course books are written by experts in the field of language teaching and learning and

are usually reviewed and field-tested, especially those produced by established publishers

such as Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. However, despite this there

are criticisms levied on these books claiming that they are inappropriate for the Asian

cultures. Thus, it would be interesting to explore the reception of students towards a

commercial text-book designed for the Asian market in the context of learning EAP in a

public university in Malaysia which is the purpose of this study. Most articles on course

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

2

evaluation are rather prescriptive in nature and focus on issues such as how to develop and

evaluate materials, how to select and use textbooks (Goh 1998; Richards 2001; Ur 1996), and

the role of textbooks in language teaching (Ball & Cohen 1996; Richards 1993). However,

there is a dearth in research on the evaluation of commercial textbooks by independent

researchers for the purpose of finding out how effective these materials are for target groups

of students. This study addresses this gap by investigating the effectiveness of the newly

introduced commercial materials, comprising conventional course book and web-based self-

access practice, to a group of English for Social Science students at the National University

of Malaysia. The use of these two modes for delivery (commonly described as the blended

approach) adds another dimension to the study as the investigation is on the students’

perceptions of the effectiveness of the course book as well as the online component.

Background

English language teaching and testing in Malaysia

The national concern with improving students’ proficiency in the English language was in

response to the alarming trend of declining English proficiency not only among school

leavers, but also among university graduates. The Malaysian Government realized the

country would not be able to achieve Malaysian’s national aspirations of having a workforce

that has know-how on current technical and scientific knowledge unless something was done

to address the decline. One major move was the introduction of a new English test, the SPM

1119, in 1997 (see Lee & Wong 2006). The new test was reportedly introduced as a reaction

to falling pass rates in the English paper in the national public examination administered at

the end of secondary schooling. It was seen as a means of inducing greater interest and

motivation to do well in the English paper.

Following this, the Malaysian University English Test (MUET) was introduced into the

Malaysian education system in 1999 as a mandatory requirement for admission into public

universities. It was believed that the introduction of an examination would motivate students

to continue learning English more seriously, especially in preparation for tertiary studies.

Hence, the original stated aims of the MUET in the 1999 guidebook were: (1) to bridge the

gap in English language needs between secondary and tertiary education; and (2) to

consolidate and enhance the English proficiency of students preparing to enter Malaysian

public universities. The MUET Regulations and Scheme of Test, Syllabus and Sample

Questions published by the Malaysian Examinations Council (1999) describes the test as a

competency test designed to measure students’ level of English proficiency in the skills

deemed necessary for effective academic study and critical thinking skills at tertiary level.

The focus is on the four skills: Listening (15%), Speaking (15%), Reading Comprehension

(40%) and Writing (30%) (MUET Guidebook, 2006). Performance on the test is reported in

terms of an aggregated score with respect to six levels of achievement, referred to as Bands 1

to 6, Band 1 being the lowest and Band 6 the highest. Band 6 indicates a Highly Proficient

User, Band 5 a Proficient User, Band 4 a Satisfactory User, Band 3 a Modest User, Band 2 a

Limited User and Band 1 a Very Limited User (MUET Guidebook, 2006).

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

3

With the introduction of the MUET, schools with form six classes were directed to allocate 6

to 8 periods (i.e., an average of 4 to 5.3 hours) per week for the teaching of English. Lee

(2004) refers to the teaching of MUET as “MUET coaching” because the teaching was

explicitly geared towards training students according to the test requirements, using “test-

wise” strategies to tackle the multiple-choice questions. She argues that MUET cannot be

expected to improve the proficiency of students who, “for eleven to thirteen years in school,

have not learnt the language in order to use it but merely to take exams” (p. 8). This view

seems to be supported by the experiences of many lecturers over the years who have

encountered countless undergraduates reportedly having achieved MUET Bands of 4

onwards but who could not cope with the demands of reading and writing in English in the

academic context. Universities have accordingly dealt with this problem by instituting

minimum MUET band requirements for certain disciplines. They have also made special

English proficiency programmes compulsory for undergraduates to help improve their

English competence for academic purposes.

History of the SKPD course

SKPD1033 English for Social Sciences (ESS) is a compulsory faculty course for all students

at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities (FSSH), University Kebangsaan Malaysia

(UKM). The primary aim of the course is “to enable students to develop study skills and

academic proficiency in the English language”. The course adopts an integrated approach that

incorporates the macro skills of reading, writing and speaking within the context of the social

sciences. At the end of the course, it is expected that the students should be able to utilize the

relevant academic reading skills and strategies to better comprehend reading materials related

to their programmes, interact confidently in group discussions, make short presentations as

well as express ideas and formulate opinions in writing. The course runs for 14 weeks with

two 2-hour classes per week. It is usually taken by students in the first year although there are

some second and third year students as well. It is offered every semester.

The course has been running for over a decade and for the last 10 years, a common textbook

was used for students of all levels of proficiency in English. No major redesign had been

undertaken until mid-2011 when a course review committee was formed to evaluate the ESS

course with the intention of improving the course. There was a general consensus at the

meeting that the prescribed course book was too difficult for students of low English

proficiency who made up approximately 70% of the FSSK student population based on the

2011/2012 intake statistics. The reading passages were also said to be outdated and activities

boring.

Starting from Semester 1, 2011/2012 session, the ESS course was revamped and a redesigned

course was introduced which used two different levels of a new commercial course series

published by Oxford University Press, the lower one for students of lower proficiency level

and the more advanced for those with higher proficiency. The course books come in tandem

with online practice exercises. The decision to include online-based materials was spurred by

the realisation that technology has impacted students’ lifestyles in a ubiquitous way. Almost

all UKM students have a mobile and a laptop and they are connected most of time to the

internet while they are in campus through the various wired and wireless systems available in

campus. In addition, they spend a substantial amount of their time communicating with

friends through texts, chats and social networking systems (Thang, Najihah, & Norizan,

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

4

2012). They are what Tapscott (1998) termed as the ‘Net generation’ and to engage them it

was felt that there was a need to incorporate 21st century-based pedagogical approaches.

Literature Review

Blended learning

The redesigned course used what is termed as a blended learning approach since it involves

the use of a course book and an online component. The term ‘blended learning’ refers to an

instructional approach that combines traditional (face-to-face) interaction with online

learning. An important distinction made is that classroom contact hours are still intact

(Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004). The learning content could include individualized

learning, face-to-face interactions or online interactions (Rubenstein, 2003; Watson, 2008).

However, Kerres and DeWitt (2003) suggest a balanced integration of components between

traditional approach and technology to ensure achievable learning outcomes.

Previous studies comparing the effectiveness of blended learning and conventional classroom

approach have reported higher achievement and attitude levels among instructors and

students. For example, using pre and post tools, Deghaidy and Nouby (2008) compared the

effectiveness of the e-learning approach on Egyptian teacher trainees’ achievement, attitudes

towards e-learning and cooperativeness. They found that the trainees in the e-learning group

had higher achievement levels and better attitudes towards learning via computers compared

to the face-to-face group. They attributed the more positive results of the former to cognitive

interaction and knowledge construction as the trainees were focused on task completion.

Bliuc, Ellis, Goodyear and Piggot (2011) explored students’ experiences of learning a social

science course where face-to-face delivery, in the form of lectures, was blended with both

online and face-to-face discussion. They found that students’ conceptions of learning through

discussion were associated with their approaches to both online and face-to-face discussion

and with academic performance, and that cohesive conceptions and deep approaches tended

to be more strongly related with a relatively higher mark and fragmented conceptions and

surface approaches with a lower mark. Their findings suggest that the blending of

instructional approaches has to take place at different levels of learning as well as across

different learning contexts, namely between online and face-to-face learning experiences. In

addition, Dziuban, Hartman and Moskal (2004) discovered high levels of student and faculty

satisfaction as the approach provided convenience and flexibility. Students reported

becoming active in their learning and valuing outside resources available in blended learning.

Similarly, faculty members indicated increased interaction with students and improved

competency in technology. Lee and Chong (2007) claimed that vocabulary and listening

skills of students could improve with more web-based learning activities and hence could

save time for knowledge management and for providing new learning opportunities.

Although the potential of blended learning is continuously expanding, some concerns have

been raised on its impact on students’ learning and development. Hisham Dzakaria, Che Su

Mustafa and Hassan Abu Bakar (2006) reported students having difficulty adapting to the

blended approach. These learners were apprehensive and appeared lost when explicit

instructions were not given for online tasks. Similarly, Piccoli, Ahmad and Ives (2001)

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

5

revealed learners expressing anxiety and confusion when dealing with blended learning.

These findings imply that, although new innovations involving technology can significantly

impact students’ learning in a positive manner, effective learning support such as adequate

training and available resources should be made available to students as well as instructors;

otherwise they will not be able to witness the benefits of such deliveries (Pineda-Herrero,

2011).

Characteristics of a good course book

According to Deuri (2012), a good English textbook should have an adequate subject matter

where psychological needs and interests of students are met. Various topics that are related to

students’ environment should be incorporated into it to engage learners as studies have shown

that students tend to be more interested in things that they already know about (Alexander,

Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995). Suitability of the vocabulary used in the textbook is also crucial

to avoid demotivating the students (Mahmood, 2011). Other elements, like readability of the

content and the accuracy of the information presented in the textbook, are also important.

Other than that, a good textbook should also meet the students’ needs by taking into account

the diverse background of the learners. The materials should be chosen based on what

students, in general, are likely to find interesting and motivating as there is no single subject

that could cater to individual students’ interest (Kitao & Kitao, 1997; Mahmood, 2011). It is

also essential to have a clear guide for students and the teachers in the textbook. As pointed

out by Kitao and Kitao (1997) and Mahmoud (2007), clear instructional procedure and

methods in a form of brief description of the textbook regarding units, subjects, and time

allotment for each chapter are the ‘key ingredients’ in a good textbook.

Although many have argued that teachers could be too dependent on course book, Kitao and

Kitao (1997) argue that course book could actually save students from teachers’deficiencies

in addition to saving teachers’ time in designing materials. Besides benefiting the teachers,

course book is described by Graves (2000) as “having a kind of road map of the course”

which provides a sense of security to students because they know what to expect and what is

expected of them. Furthermore, some course books come together with a CD, containing

interactive application for learning. Finally, the autonomy values of a course book needs to be

recognized. Students can learn and try out the exercises in the course book on their own, even

without instruction from their teachers. Students without a course book are more teacher-

dependent (Ur, 1996). Haycroft (1998) has pointed out that a course book allows students to

monitor their own progress since they can measure their own achievement through the use of

the answer key given in the course book.

However, Harmer (2004) expressed concern regarding teachers and students being ‘locked’

into the course book by being solely dependent on it. A serious scenario would be when the

content from the course book is treated as the only source material for teaching and learning.

Under such circumstances, the course book is no longer seen as an effective learning material

as the students have become over-dependent on the course book. Besides affecting students,

this over reliance on textbooks can also affect teachers, leading them to only use materials

prepared by others and not taking the time and initiative to devise materials to suit the needs

of their students.

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

6

The Study

Research questions

This study seeks answers to the following research questions:

1. What are the students’ perceptions of the ESS course book and its online component

in terms of the following?

(i) Appropriateness for their English language needs

(ii) Suitability for their level of English language proficiency

(iii) Ability to cater to their diverse interests

2. What are the challenges and problems they face in using the course book and its

online component?

Methodology

A qualitative approach was used in this study. Focus group interviews were conducted on 35

ESS undergraduates. Focus group was selected because it is widely considered as a useful

tool for exploring “not only how people think but what they think and why they think that

way” (Kitzinger, 1995, p. 299). Besides being useful for delving into people’s experiences

and attitudes, the group processes arising from the discussion, could help participants to

explore and to clarify their views and opinions in relation to those expressed by others in the

group. It was believed that the group dynamics would generate more authentic and richer data

that would not be as easily accessible in the more restrained one-to-one interview (Berg,

2004; Kitzinger, 1995). The interviews were conducted at the end of the semester and

students were allowed to answer both in Bahasa Malaysia (Malay language) and English. The

following questions were posed to each group. Probing questions were only asked when it

was deemed necessary.

1. How do you find the SKPD course book? What do you like and dislike about it?

2. How do you find the Q-Online activities?

3. Do you face any difficulties in accessing the website?

4. After you finished this course, are you still going to do Q-online activities?

5. What do you think of the SKPD 1033 course?

The interviews were recorded and transcribed and then analysed for emergent themes and

patterns in line with the research questions.

Description of sample population

All of the respondents were in their first or second year of studies. They were divided into

nine groups. Each group consisted of three to six members. There were five groups that

comprised students classified as lower proficiency (LP) students (i.e., those with MUET

Bands 1 & 2) and four groups with students classified as higher proficiency (HP) students

(i.e., those with MUET Bands 3 and above). There were no students of Bands 5 and 6 in the

sample. Each group comprised students of mixed disciplines. The language used was Bahasa

Malaysia (Malay Language) for all students except for those from the English Language

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

7

Studies (ELS) programme whose content courses are all taught in English. Altogether 31

female and 4 male students took part in the focus group interviews: 29 respondents are

Malay, 3 are Chinese, 1 is Indian and 2 are of other races. Since the majority of the

respondents are Malay female, ethnic origin and gender were not taken as variables in the

analysis of data.

Description of the course materials

The new course book

The Q: Skills for Success series is a six-level series with two strands: Reading and Writing,

and Listening and Speaking. It was published by Oxford University Press in 2011. As stated

in its website (http://elt.oup.com/teachers/qskillsforsuccess), the series is designed to equip

students with the skills needed to achieve academic success. Each course book in the series

has the following features:

Learning outcomes at the start of every unit so learners are aware of the instructional goals.

Unit questions to provide a “critical thinking framework” for the unit.

Reading passages that are academic in nature and yet interesting in content.

Post discussion questions after each reading passage.

Explicit instructions on grammar, vocabulary and writing to build language proficiency.

Teachers are also given an audio-CD of sample dialogs and audio of the reading passages for

use in the class, and a teacher’s handbook. The Reading and Writing strand is selected as the

main skill focus is reading. Nevertheless, there are listening and speaking activities and tasks

in each unit of the course book, so, both skills are not neglected. For students with MUET 1

and 2, Level 2 is used and for MUET 3 and above, Level 3 is used.

Description of the online component

The online exercises parallel the teaching points found in the course book and provide the

students with extra practice so that they can reinforce what have been taught in class at their

own time and pace. The items are scored immediately and this frees the instructors from

having to check and mark the students’ work. They can also attempt the exercises as many

times as they want until they get all the items right. Aside from discrete type exercises, there

are also supplementary notes on some salient teaching points and audio of the reading texts in

the textbook.

There is also an online management system which allows students to review, print, or export

reports of their online activities and performance. Similarly, through this system, teachers can

monitor their students’ online activities. They can access reports that provide information on

the number of exercises students have completed, their average scores and the amount of time

they spent on the exercises.

This component provides students with language learning activities that can be accessed

using a key code found in the course book. Access is given for a duration of 12 months from

the moment students activated the key code. Figure 1 is a screenshot of one of the activities

available in the online component. Exercises are marked by the system instantly and students

can choose to attempt the exercise again or see the answers.

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

8

Figure 1. An online activity.

For the ESS course, students were required to complete most of the online exercises of the

units that have been covered in class. The instructors used the scores obtained from the online

exercises to award the 15% allocated for this section. Online activities allow students to do

exercises on their own outside class time and promote autonomy among them. In order to do

the exercises, all the students need is a computer with Internet access and they can do it

whenever and/or wherever convenient. Furthermore, marking is done almost immediately and

report of performance can be easily generated making it easier for them to chart their own

progress.

Findings

An analysis of the entire palette of verbal data revealed a number of themes related to the

research objectives.

Students’ perceptions of the course book

The students’ overall comments on the content and structure of the book were mixed. Some

were very enthusiastic about the text and found it very helpful as illustrated below.

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

9

Student A (ELS, HP Group 4 [HP4]): [Translated from Bahasa Malaysia (BM)] I like

the book because the articles in it are the best ever!

Student B (HP4): I like the book. I really like the book because the vocabulary, it

improves a lot of grammar teachings like vocabulary.

Student C (LP4): (Translated from BM) I really like the book. It helps me a lot.

The strongest support came from student A (HP4) who claimed that “It's a magic book… We

speak in English all the time in the class because of the book.”

It is observed that the LP groups generally found the level of difficulty appropriate as

illustrated below:

Student A (LP4): (Translated from BM) To me, it’s all right because it has exercises

that are difficult and exercises that are easy. There are many levels. I think that’s ok.

Thus, it can be deduced that the simpler exercises helped these students gain confidence and

the difficult exercises were challenging but not formidable. They also appreciated the

language quality and the clarity of the text.

Student B (LP3): (Translated from BM) I really like the language. The language is

standard English.

Student C (LP3): (Translated from BM) Yes, the language is standard and easy to

understand.

What many found useful was the structure of the book. Student B (LP3) said:

(Translated from BM) I feel that the textbook is very helpful. It is because it revised

what we had studied. Besides, the book is step by step, there’s a clear connection

between one chapter and the next. So it’s easy for us to relate.

Likewise, student D (LP1) described it as:

“Suitable for us who are very weak in English language. For the activities provided

in the book, there are many basics things. For example, we learned about colours. We

started from the bottom, like the starting for us to improve our English.”

However, a number of students from the high proficiency groups found the reading texts and

exercises of their course book “too easy” [Students B (ELS), F and C (ELS), all from HP1]

and Student D (ELS, HP1) went even further and declared that the book was “quite boring”.

A similar opinion was also expressed by Student B (ELS, HP2) who even complained that the

book was “not up to university level”. She added, “The language used in this course was easy

compared to the materials in my course [programme]”. Student B (ELS) went further and

said:

(Translated from BM)… the question part… it is like simple. So easy that we just

close one eye and answer. (Student B, ELS)

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

10

However, it has to be pointed out here that almost all these students are from the English

Language Studies programme (ELS) where all courses are conducted in English and the

references are also all in English. In addition, it is noted that, despite expressing

dissatisfaction with the standard of the book, the majority of these HP students found the

course book beneficial in improving all their language skills. Student B (ELS, HP2) described

it as covering “grammar, reading, writing, grammar expansion and so on” and this was

supported by two students from HP1: Student B (ELS) and student C (ELS). Student A (ELS,

HP3) liked the vocabulary practices at the end of each article because they were related to the

topic. Finally, Student A (HP2) found the discussion at the end of each article particularly

helpful in enhancing her language skills. In addition, some of them described the ESS course

as rather stress-free and relaxing with not too many assignments in comparison to the other

subjects they were taking [Students A (ELS), B (ELS) and D, all from HP3] and Student A

(ELS, HP1) which was a good sign as this will create an environment conducive to language

learning. As for the LP learners, they went further and described the course as succeeding in

motivating and boosting their confidence:

Student B (LP1): Even when I finished this course, if I feel like it, I’ll practice using

English with my friends.

Student E (LP5): (Translated from BM) I feel it has helped a little with my confidence,

and the rest is up to our ability.

Students’ perceptions of the teaching approaches used

Further investigation revealed that the problems faced by some of the HP students described

above were not only in the content and structure of the book but also in the teaching

approaches used by their instructors. A few of these students complained that the teaching

approach used by their instructor was “not interesting”.

If you have to read it [reading passage] then answer the questions.. I don’t find it

very interesting to be conducted in class [Student B (ELS, HP1)]

… doing the same activity every week, read and answer, read and answer. Maybe we

can do something that is more interesting. [Student C (ELS, HP1)]

(Translated from BM) The lecturer asked us to read only the articles. [Student B (ELS,

HP3)]

In addition, Student B (ELS, HP3) also complained that they were asked to do exercises in

the text which appeared to her as rather repetitive. She said:

(Translated from BM) A lot of the questions are repeated. Like questions on topic

sentence, main idea, topic sentence, main idea. Those things keep repeating.

Sometimes it’s like I don’t feel like thinking. I understand the teacher wants us to get

used to it so that it becomes easier.

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

11

She recognised the reinforcement was to help her remember but she found the approach not

mentally stimulating.

Students’ perceptions of the online component

The online activities were well-received by both the HP and LP groups. They generally

enjoyed this new mode of studying. Student C (LP5) described it as (Translated from BM)

“like children playing game”. They were also generally aware of the main benefits of the

online practice:

Student C (LP1): In my opinion, this course ESS 1033, besides helping me to improve

my English, it also helps me to learn new technology using the computer.

They particularly liked it because it gave immediate feedback as described below:

Student D (HP3): (Translated from BM) For me, doing practice exercises online is

something new. After we’ve finished working on the questions, we can immediately

check if our answers are correct, and also check our marks.

Student B (ELS, HP1): I like Q online activities because I love to answer grammar

questions like that and online especially and after we answered the questions we get

to know our marks.

Student B (LP1) described the online component as beneficial because “we could do it

anywhere we like, bring our laptop to McDonald’s or KFC, go online, do the Q online

activities” and Student B (ELS, HP3) added:

(Translated from BM) Whenever I have nothing else to do, I think I’d go online to

do the exercises. It’s enjoyable.

Others pointed out that the online experience encouraged them to learn English

independently. Student B (LP4) explained:

Student B (LP4): (Translated from BM) We are independent (in front of the

computer), we use the dictionary, we look on our own for the meanings of words we

don’t understand. The book (online component) has really been a great help.

A few expressed interest to continue practising even after the course was over. However,

most admitted they would not be doing so and a few quickly pointed out that they would not

be able to access the online exercise (as the license is only for one year). For example,

Student A (HP2) said:

(Translated from BM) Because we are not allowed to use it for more than one year, so

I just used it to improve my reading and speaking skills.

Finally, Student A (LP1) pointed out that it would be better if the online practice was more

interactive and explanation was given instead of just wrong or right.

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

12

The students (all groups) unanimously agreed that the main problem that they had with the

online practice was getting connected to the Q-online website. They complained about the

loading speed of the website saying that the Q-online website was either “not responsive” or

took too long to load. The students’ frustration with the online system was expressed in the

following extracts:

Student B (ELS, HP2): Sometimes, it just hang there and I just can’t load it.

Student B (LP5): (Translated from BM) Difficult to open due to internet problems.

Sometimes loading problems, wait for half an hour for the questions to appear but

nothing... finally, I just close it … that’s me.

Student C (LP5): (Translated from BM) They are interesting, but if you experience

connection problems, we grow tired and lazy to do the online activities.

In addition, some LP students felt burdened with the amount of activities and tasks they had

to cover in each unit and they complained that many of them were repetitive and boring.

Student B (LP5): (Translated from BM) It’s a burden as there’s so much to do. So

many topics, so many units. In one unit, so many exercises. We need to complete the

exercises. But instructor A told us not to do the writing exercises. Just focus on reading

and vocabulary only.

Student C (LP3): (Translated from BM) Too many exercises in the Q-online.

Student A (LP3): (Translated from BM) It’s repetition…repetition.

Discussion

Course book

LP students’ perceptions of their course book were generally positive whereas HP students’

perceptions were mixed. A further point to note is that the majority of the complaints from

the HP group came from the ELS students. It is not surprising that these students, who are

exposed to English on a daily basis in lectures as well as in their course readings, would find

the ESS course book not challenging enough. Streaming is already practiced for the ESS

course in that students are divided or streamed according to their MUET results. Further

streaming by segregating the ELS students from the rest may not be a wise decision as it is

observed that the ELS students help improve interaction and competition in the various

classes they were in. In addition, findings on the advantages of streaming are not conclusive

with some studies supporting it (e.g., Ansalone, 2003; Joyce & McMillan, 2010) and some

against (e.g., Liu et al., 2005; Burris & Garrity, 2008; Mathews-Aydinli & van Horne, 2006).

However, on the whole positive comments outweigh the negative ones. This suggests that the

majority of the students were receptive to the organization of the book which they described

as systematic, user friendly and easy-to-follow. Some further praised the quality of the

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

13

language used and described the content as interesting and comprehensive in covering all the

required language skills. The LP learners were the ones who seemed to have benefitted the

most from the book in terms of perceived improvement in vocabulary and language skills and

they seemed not to be deterred by the frequent repetition and some even described them as

“step by step” with “a clear connection between one chapter and the next. So it’s easy for us

to relate”. Graves (2000) described a good course book as kind of road map of the course that

provides a sense of security to students because they know what to expect and what is

expected of them. Notably, the course book has managed to achieve this to a large extent and

it is particularly evident in the case of students who said the course book has motivated them

and helped to boost their confidence and moved them to independent learning.

The findings that some HP students found the reading passages and accompanying

comprehension questions too simple and repetitive cannot be ignored. A scrutiny of the

passages in the text indicated that they are organized to move progressively from the simpler

to the more difficult and cognitively demanding ones. A further check of the units covered by

the instructors revealed that they covered only the initial units which are simpler and they did

not move to the more demanding ones. Thus, a concern at this point is whether the instructors

of these classes were aware that their students were finding the lessons too simple. If yes,

why did they not move to more difficult units?

Another worrying issue is that some HP students lamented that all they did in class was ‘read

and answer’ comprehension questions. The tasks in Q-Skills for Success include a number of

activities in each unit where students are asked to discuss in pairs or groups. There are also

vocabulary, grammar and listening activities. The fact that the instructors in these ‘troubled’

classes focused more on reading skills and skipped activities that focused on other skills

makes us wonder whether it was due to the washback effects of the examination on teaching

(Lee & Wong, 2000) which made them focus only on areas that would be tested.

Finding a course book that fits all sizes is an impossible feat due to students’ mixed-ability

and their different needs and interests. Ur (1996) has further warned that the “set structure

and sequence of every unit” (p. 185) can lead to indifference and boredom. However, this

would not happen if the teachers were more judicious in the selection of passages and

exercises from the course book for class use, and not follow blindly what is prescribed.

Online component

The findings revealed that the online activities were generally well received. The students

enjoyed their online experience and were aware of the advantages of learning through this

mode. They also liked it for its immediate feedback and the concept of learning “any time,

any place and anywhere” independently. These findings are in line with the studies that

reported on the benefits of online learning (Kaler, 2012; Lai & Gu, 2011; Lee, 2005;

Mullamaa, 2010; Thang & Bidmeshki, 2010).

However, there were two major problems that need to be addressed to improve the online

learning experience of the students. The most imperative was the slow and unreliable internet

connection. This problem had been described by Thang, Najihah and Norizan’s study (2012)

on the use of wireless technology at UKM. When such technical problems occur, students

become stressed and frustrated and this will affect their flow of thoughts and as a result their

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

14

learning progress will be seriously hampered. Such bad experiences may even discourage

them from embarking on such activities in future.

The second problem is related to workload. Some students complained that they were asked

to do too many online exercises which were repetitive in nature, hence they were bored. It

was observed that such comments were from students in classes where the teachers asked

them to do all the exercises on reading and vocabulary. To avoid losing marks, students

struggled to finish these exercises and in the process found the experience tedious and

wearisome. Technology can empower students to be become more responsive and active in

their learning (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004) provided teachers know how to harness it

properly. In this case, the teachers should have given the students greater autonomy in the

selection of exercises to do. A limit should have been set beyond that students should be

allowed to choose whatever they fancy – thus putting them in control and making the

learning experience more meaningful and rewarding.

Teaching approaches used

The discussion so far has clearly revealed that one of the reasons for the dissatisfaction of

some students, especially the higher proficiency students, towards the course materials is not

due to the inadequacy of the course materials but the teachers’ lack of flexibility and

creativity in handling the course materials. As discussed earlier, it could be caused by the

washback effects of examination on teaching (Lee & Wong, 2000) which led teachers to

focus mainly on areas that would be tested. Thus, there is a need for the teachers to adapt the

teaching materials and supplement them when necessary (Graves, 2000; Richards 2001; Ur,

1996) and not be ‘locked’ into the course book by being solely dependent on it (Harmer,

2004). Good materials must contain content that learners can cope, that is neither too difficult

nor too easy (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). Motivation to learn can be affected if students

feel that they are not being challenged by the materials or that there is nothing new in terms

of language skills to learn. Hence, a reassessment of the appropriateness of the selected levels

to the students’ proficiency levels and further probing into the teaching approaches used by

the teachers are warranted.

Conclusion

The study has demonstrated that blended learning can help enhance the quality of language

learning, break the monotony of the traditional classroom and open a new avenue for learning

– thus enabling a “pedagogical approach that combines effectiveness and socialization

opportunities of the classroom with the technologically enhanced active learning possibilities

of the online environment” (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004, p. 2). However, before

maximum benefits can be reaped from this approach, there is a need to address infrastructure

problems and for both the instructors and students to understand what are involved in

learning through this approach, so that technology can be incorporated effectively without

creating unnecessary anxiety, stress and work pressure. Teachers also need to break away

from their conventional mode of delivering course materials, which normally entails

systematically and laboriously focusing on the components that will be tested in the

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

15

examination, and instead embrace innovative approaches that will enable them to create an

engaging, stimulating and enriching learning environment for their students.

Regarding technical difficulties, in the short term, instructors can help ease students’ stress

and anxiety by creating awareness among students regarding the possibility of such problems

occurring and suggesting appropriate back-up plans and strategies to overcome these

problems (Liyan et al., 2004; Rodriguez et al., 2008). This will challenge them to try to find

solutions to such problems, hence enriching their learning experiences and moving them

towards becoming more independent learners. However, in the long run, the university needs

to come up with a sustainable technological infrastructure to support students if it is serious

about utilizing online learning to enhance students’ acquisition of knowledge and experience.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a research grant provided by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

(UKM-PTS-2011-160).

References

Alexander, P. A., Jetton, T. L., & Kulikowich, J.M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge,

interest, and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 87, 559–575.

Ansalone, G. (2003). Poverty, tracking, and the social construction of failure: International

perspectives on tracking. Journal of Children & Poverty, 9(1), 3-20. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1079612022000052698

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of

curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational

Researcher, 25(9), 6-8.

Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for social sciences (5th

ed.). Boston:

Pearson.

Bliuc, A-M., Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., & Piggott, L. (2011). A blended learning approach to

teaching foreign policy: Student experiences of learning through face-to-face and

online discussion and their relationship to academic performance. Computers &

Education, 56(3), 856–864. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.027

Burris, C. C., &Garrity, D. T. (2008). Detracking for excellence and equity. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Deghaidy, H. E. & Nouby, A. (2008). Effectiveness of a blend-ed e-learning cooperative

approach in an Egyptian teacher education programme. Computers & Education, 51, 988-

1006.

Deuri, C. (2012). An evaluative study of text book in English at higher secondary level.

Imternational Journal of Science, Environment and Technology. 1(1), 24-28.

Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., & Moskal, P. (2004). Blended learning. Educause Center for

Applied Research, Research Bulletin. 7. Retrieved from

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0407.pdf

Comment [sm1]: Please add this.

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

16

Goh, C.C.M 1998. Emerging environments of English for academic purposes and the

implication for learning Materials. RELC Journal, 29(20), 20-33.

Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses. Canada: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Harmer, J. (2004). How to use textbooks: How to teach English. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:

Longman.

Haycroft, J. (1998). An introduction to English language teaching. Essex, UK: Longman.

Hisham Dzakaria, Che Su Mustafa, & Hasan Abu Bakar (2006). Moving forward with

blended learning (BL) as a pedagogical alternative to traditional classroom learning.

Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT), 3(1), 11-18.

Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A.(1987).English for specific purposes: A learning–centred

approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Joyce, P. & McMillan, B. (2010). Student perceptions of their learning experience in

streamed and mixed-ability classes. Language Education in Asia, 1(1), 215-227.

Kaler, C. B. (2012). A model of successful adaptation to online learning for college-bound

native American high school students. Multicultural Education & Technology

Journal, 6(2), 60-76.

Kerres, M. & C. de Witt (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning

arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28, 101-114.

Kitao, K. & Kitao, S. (1997). Selecting and developing teaching/learning materials. The

Internet TESL Journal, 4(4). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-

Materials.html

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing focus group. BMJ, 311, 299-301.

Lai, C. & Gu, M. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology.

Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 317-335.

Lee, K.C. & Chong, P.M. (2007). An observational study on blended learning for Japanese

language studies. In Fong, J. & Wang, F.L. (Eds.), Blended learning (pp. 88-100).

Edinburgh: Pearson.

Lee, K. S. & Wong, F. F. (2000). Washback effects of a new test on teaching: A Malaysian

perspective. STETS Language and Communication Review, 2, 11-18.

Lee, King Siong & Wong, Fook Fei. (2006). Washback effects of a new test on teaching: A

Malaysian perspective. In Shanta Nair-Venugopal et al. (Eds.) 2006 Writing the past

into the present: Reflections of 35 years of scholarship in language and literary

studies (pp. 88-101). Bangi: Penerbit UKM.

Lee, King Siong. (2004). Exploring the connection between the testing of reading and

literacy: The case of the MUET. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 4(1).

Lee, L. (2005). Using Web-based instruction to promote active learning: Learners'

perspectives. The CALICO Journal, 23(1), 139-156.

Liu, W. C., Wang, C. K. J., & Parkins, E .J. (2005). A longitudinal study of students’

academic self-concept in a streamed setting: The Singapore context. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 75(4), 567-586.

Liyan, S., Ernise, S. S., Janette R. H., &Myung H. K. (2004). Improving online learning:

Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet and Higher

Education, 7(1), 59–70.

Mahmood, K. (2011). Conformity to quality characteristics of textbooks: The illusion of

textbook evaluation in Pakistan. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education.

5(2), 170-190.

Mahmoud, A., A. (2007). Analysing ‘English for Palestine IV’ in terms of the characteristics

of a good English textbook. Islamic University Journal. 15(1), 663-691.

This paper is published in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2):

142-153.

17

Mathews-Aydinli, J., & van Horne, R. (2006). Promoting the success of multilevel ESL

classes: What teachers and administrators can do. Washington, DC: Center for Adult

English Language Acquisition. Retrieved from

http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/briefs/multilevel.pdf

Mullamaa, K. (2010). ICT in language learning: Benefits and methodological implications.

International Education Studies, 3(1), 38-44.

Piccoli, G, Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A

research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills

training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401-425.

Pineda-Herrero, P., Quesada, C., & Stoain, A. (2011). Evaluating the efficacy of e-learning in

Spain: A diagnosis of learning transfer factors affecting e-learning. Procedia – Social

Behavioral Sciences, 30, 2199-2203.

Richards, J. C. (1993). Beyond the text book: The role of commercial materials in language

teaching. RELC Journal, 24(1), 1–14.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Rodriguez, M. C., Ooms, A., &Montañez, M. (2008). Students’ perceptions of online-

learning quality given comfort, motivation, satisfaction, and experience. Journal of

Interactive Online Learning, 7(2), 105-125.

Rubenstein, H. (2003). Recognizing e-learning’s potential & pitfalls. Learning & Training

Innovations, 4(4), 38.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Thang, S. M. & Bidmeshki, L. (2010). Investigating the perceptions of UKM Undergraduates

towards an English for science and technology online course. Computer Assisted

Language Learning Journal, 23(1), 1-20.

Thang, S. M., Najihah, M., &Norizan A. R. (2012). The use of wireless technology in UKM:

Challenges faced and its impact on English language learning. 3L: The Southeast

Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(1), 129-143.

The Malaysian University English Test: Regulations, test specifications, format and sample

questions. (1999). Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Examinations Council.

The Malaysian University English Test: Regulations, test specifications, format and sample

questions. (2006). Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Examinations Council.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Watson, J. (2008). Blended learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education.

Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning.