digital kids, analogue students - qut · 2.3.2.2 beyond social constructivism toward connectivism...
TRANSCRIPT
Digital kids, analogue students: A mixed methods study of students’ engagement with a school-based Web 2.0 learning innovation
Jennifer Pei-Ling Tan
M.Ed, M.Bus (Research), GradDip (Tesol), B.Acc (Hons)
A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2009
Centre for Learning Innovation, Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
i
KEYWORDS
Learning innovation, digital learning, online learning
Information and communications technologies, virtual learning platforms
Web 2.0, new media technologies, social networking technologies
Innovation adoption, innovation diffusion
Technology uptake, technology use
Schooling, senior schooling, education
Generation C, youths, young people
Cognitive playfulness, cultural agility
Multimodality, multiliteracies
Classification and regression tree
Membership categorisation analysis
ii
ABSTRACT
The inquiry documented in this thesis is located at the nexus of technological
innovation and traditional schooling. As we enter the second decade of a new
century, few would argue against the increasingly urgent need to integrate digital
literacies with traditional academic knowledge. Yet, despite substantial investments
from governments and businesses, the adoption and diffusion of contemporary
digital tools in formal schooling remain sluggish. To date, research on technology
adoption in schools tends to take a deficit perspective of schools and teachers, with
the lack of resources and teacher ‘technophobia’ most commonly cited as barriers to
digital uptake. Corresponding interventions that focus on increasing funding and
upskilling teachers, however, have made little difference to adoption trends in the
last decade. Empirical evidence that explicates the cultural and pedagogical
complexities of innovation diffusion within long-established conventions of
mainstream schooling, particularly from the standpoint of students, is wanting.
To address this knowledge gap, this thesis inquires into how students evaluate and
account for the constraints and affordances of contemporary digital tools when they
engage with them as part of their conventional schooling. It documents the
attempted integration of a student-led Web 2.0 learning initiative, known as the
Student Media Centre (SMC), into the schooling practices of a long-established,
high-performing independent senior boys’ school in urban Australia. The study
employed an ‘explanatory’ two-phase research design (Creswell, 2003) that
combined complementary quantitative and qualitative methods to achieve both
breadth of measurement and richness of characterisation.
In the initial quantitative phase, a self-reported questionnaire was administered to
the senior school student population to determine adoption trends and predictors
of SMC usage (N=481). Measurement constructs included individual learning
dispositions (learning and performance goals, cognitive playfulness and personal innovativeness),
as well as social and technological variables (peer support, perceived usefulness and ease of
use). Incremental predictive models of SMC usage were conducted using
Classification and Regression Tree (CART) modelling: (i) individual-level predictors,
iii
(ii) individual and social predictors, and (iii) individual, social and technological
predictors. Peer support emerged as the best predictor of SMC usage. Other salient
predictors include perceived ease of use and usefulness, cognitive playfulness and learning goals.
On the whole, an overwhelming proportion of students reported low usage levels,
low perceived usefulness and a lack of peer support for engaging with the digital
learning initiative. The small minority of frequent users reported having high levels
of peer support and robust learning goal orientations, rather than being
predominantly driven by performance goals. These findings indicate that tensions
around social validation, digital learning and academic performance pressures
influence students’ engagement with the Web 2.0 learning initiative.
The qualitative phase that followed provided insights into these tensions by shifting
the analytics from individual attitudes and behaviours to shared social and cultural
reasoning practices that explain students’ engagement with the innovation. Six in-
depth focus groups, comprising 60 students with different levels of SMC usage,
were conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed. Textual data were analysed using
Membership Categorisation Analysis.
Students’ accounts converged around a key proposition. The Web 2.0 learning
initiative was useful-in-principle but useless-in-practice. While students endorsed the
usefulness of the SMC for enhancing multimodal engagement, extending peer-to-
peer networks and acquiring real-world skills, they also called attention to a number
of constraints that obfuscated the realisation of these design affordances in practice.
These constraints were cast in terms of three binary formulations of social and
cultural imperatives at play within the school: (i) ‘cool/uncool’, (ii) ‘dominant
staff/compliant student’, and (iii) ‘digital learning/academic performance’. The first
formulation foregrounds the social stigma of the SMC among peers and its resultant
lack of positive network benefits. The second relates to students’ perception of the
school culture as authoritarian and punitive with adverse effects on the very student
agency required to drive the innovation. The third points to academic performance
pressures in a crowded curriculum with tight timelines.
iv
Taken together, findings from both phases of the study provide the following key
insights. First, students endorsed the learning affordances of contemporary digital
tools such as the SMC for enhancing their current schooling practices. For the
majority of students, however, these learning affordances were overshadowed by
the performative demands of schooling, both social and academic. The student
participants saw engagement with the SMC in-school as distinct from, even
oppositional to, the conventional social and academic performance indicators of
schooling, namely (i) being ‘cool’ (or at least ‘not uncool’), (ii) sufficiently
‘compliant’, and (iii) achieving good academic grades. Their reasoned response
therefore, was simply to resist engagement with the digital learning innovation.
Second, a small minority of students seemed dispositionally inclined to negotiate the
learning affordances and performance constraints of digital learning and traditional
schooling more effectively than others. These students were able to engage more
frequently and meaningfully with the SMC in school. Their ability to adapt and
traverse seemingly incommensurate social and institutional identities and norms is
theorised as cultural agility – a dispositional construct that comprises personal
innovativeness, cognitive playfulness and learning goals orientation. The logic then
is ‘both and’ rather than ‘either or’ for these individuals with a capacity to
accommodate both learning and performance in school, whether in terms of digital
engagement and academic excellence, or successful brokerage across multiple social
identities and institutional affiliations within the school.
In sum, this study takes us beyond the familiar terrain of deficit discourses that tend
to blame institutional conservatism, lack of resourcing and teacher resistance for
low uptake of digital technologies in schools. It does so by providing an empirical
base for the development of a ‘third way’ of theorising technological and
pedagogical innovation in schools, one which is more informed by students as
critical stakeholders and thus more relevant to the lived culture within the school,
and its complex relationship to students’ lives outside of school. It is in this
relationship that we find an explanation for how these individuals can, at the one
time, be digital kids and analogue students.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Postmillennial schooling: More important but less relevant? 2 1.2 Digital engagement and innovation diffusion in schools 5 1.3 Research purpose and questions 8 1.4 Research setting 10 1.5 Research design 14 1.6 Significance of the study 16
1.6.1 Implications for theory 16 1.6.2 Implications for method 17 1.6.3 Implications for policy 17 1.6.4 Implications for practice 18
1.7 Overview of the thesis 18 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 21
2.1 Schooling for a digital world 21 2.1.1 Supply-push and demand-pull schooling 21 2.1.2 Beyond supply or demand 25
2.2 The technology revolution 27 2.2.1 Technology, speed and change 27 2.2.2 Web 2.0 and Generation ‘C’ learners 31 2.2.3 Implications for schooling and learning 34
2.3 What to learn? How to learn? 35 2.3.1 What to learn: Literacies and skills for the conceptual age 36
2.3.1.1 Digital-age literacies 37 2.3.1.2 Powers of adaptability, creativity and communication 38 2.3.1.3 Risk-taking, learning and performance 40
2.3.2 How to learn: Learning environments for the conceptual age 42 2.3.2.1 From Cartesian to ecological paradigms of learning 42 2.3.2.2 Beyond social constructivism toward connectivism 44
2.4 Responses from the schooling sector: Policy, practice and research 45 2.4.1 Policy and practice 46 2.4.2 Research and knowledge gaps in the field 47 2.4.3 Potential contributions of this thesis 51
2.5 Innovation adoption and diffusion in schools 56 2.5.1 Adoption and diffusion defined 59 2.5.2 Technological factors 64 2.5.3 Social/Contextual factors 68 2.5.4 Individual factors 72
2.6 Summary 75 CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 77
3.1 Overview of research purpose and questions 77 3.2 Research setting 81
3.2.1 The school and students 81 3.2.2 The student-led digital learning initiative 82
3.2.2.1 Technological design 83 3.2.2.2 Organisational design 86 3.2.2.3 Pedagogical design 88
3.3 Case study research approach 90 3.4 Design of the study 92
3.4.1 From methodology to design 92 3.4.2 Research phases, methods, tasks and outcomes 94 3.4.3 Validity and reliability 98
vi
3.4.4 Research participants 101 3.4.5 Data collection procedures and analysis 102
3.4.5.1 Numeric data: Self-report questionnaire 102 3.4.5.2 Questionnaire data analysis 108 3.4.5.3 Textual data: Focus group interviews 109 3.4.5.4 Textual data analysis 110
3.5 Ethical issues 112 3.6 Summary 114
CHAPTER FOUR: QUANTITATIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION DESCRIBING AND PREDICTING ADOPTION BEHAVIOUR
115
4.1 Overview 115 4.2 Review of the quantitative research instrument 118
4.2.1 Data collection procedures and research constructs 118 4.2.2 SRQ 1.1 – Reliability and validity of measures 124
4.2.2.1 Internal consistency 124 4.2.2.2 Convergent validity 126 4.2.2.3 Discriminant validity 131
4.3 Students’ engagement with and evaluation of the SMC 133 4.3.1 SRQ 1.2 – Trends and patterns of SMC engagement 133 4.3.2 SRQ 1.3 – Students’ evaluation of social & technological affordances 140
4.4 SRQ 2.1 – Individual level predictor variables 143 4.4.1 Descriptive statistics for individual learning dispositions variables 144 4.4.2 CART/Decision tree methodology 146 4.4.3 Decision Tree 1: Individual learning dispositions & SMC Usage 149
4.5 SRQ 2.2 & 2.3 – Social and technological predictor variables 155 4.5.1 Descriptive statistics for social & technological variables 155 4.5.2 Decision Tree 2: Individual learning dispositions, peer support & SMC usage 157 4.5.3 Decision Tree 3: Individual, social & technological variables & SMC Usage 159
4.6 Summary of key findings 162 CHAPTER FIVE: QUALITATIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION STUDENTS’ ACCOUNTS OF ADOPTION BEHAVIOUR
165
5.1 Revisiting key findings of the quantitative phase 166 5.2 Shifting the analytic focus from individuality to sociality 171
5.2.1 MCA as analytic framework 172 5.2.2 Applying MCA to the research problem 179 5.2.3 Focus group as method 180
5.2.3.1 Size and sampling 181 5.2.3.2 Practicalities and protocols 184 5.2.3.3 Analysing focus group data 188
5.3 Overview of the central thematic: SMC as both useful and useless 191 5.3.1 SMC: Useful-in-principle 196
5.3.1.1 Promoting student expression, agency and ownership in learning
196
5.3.1.2 Multimodal ‘one-stop’ learning resource for developing 21st century skills
199
5.3.1.3 Enhancing transboundary peer-to-peer interactions 208 5.3.2 SMC: Useless-in-practice 213
5.3.2.1 Social-reputational barrier 215 5.3.2.2 Institutional-pedagogical barrier 233 5.3.2.3 Academic-performativity barrier 253
5.4 Summary of key findings 277
vii
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION 282 6.1 Overview 282 6.2 Rationale and research questions revisited 283 6.3 Summary and synthesis of key findings 287
6.3.1 Phase One: Measuring digital engagement through description and prediction 287 6.3.2 Phase Two: Moving from measurement to characterisation of constraints and
affordances 290
6.3.3 Phase Three: Synthesising measurement and characterisation 294 6.4 Contributions to theory, methodology, policy and practice 299
6.4.1 Digital kids, analogue students 299 6.4.2 Complexities of digital innovation in mainstream schooling 306 6.4.3 Cultural agility and productive negotiations of contestations 310
6.5 Limitations and future research 313 6.5.1 Cultural agility as knowledge object 313 6.5.2 Study design 314 6.5.3 Data 315
6.6 Concluding remarks 316 REFERENCES 318 APPENDICES 356
Appendix A: QUT UHREC ethics approval for the research study in general 356 Appendix B: QUT UHREC ethics approval for the use of research instruments 357 Appendix C: Participant information sheets and consent forms 358 Appendix D: Screenshots of the SMC to illustrate its online design features 364 Appendix E: Student self-report questionnaire 368
viii
LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Techno-economic paradigms and governing ‘commonsense’ principles 30
Table 4.1 Specific research questions and sub-questions 116
Table 4.2 Brief review of research constructs and measurement scales 119
Table 4.3 Internal consistency of measurement scales 125
Table 4.4 Factor loadings of measurement scales 130
Table 4.5 Eigenvalues and variance explained 131
Table 4.6 Discriminant validity coefficients of measurement scales 132
Table 4.7 Descriptive statistics for individual learning dispositions variables 144
Table 4.8 Descriptive statistics for social and technological variables 156
Table 5.1 Focus group topic guide 187
Table 5.2 Transcription notations 191
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) 64
Figure 2.2 Categories of individual innovativeness and percentages with each category 72
Figure 3.1 SMC organisational structure 87
Figure 3.2 Case study components 92
Figure 3.3 Research phases, tasks and outcomes 97
Figure 4.1 Levels of student interest in key learning areas 134
Figure 4.2 Students’ usage levels of the SMC 135
Figure 4.3 SMC user categories 136
Figure 4.4 Student engagement level with SMC learning features 137
Figure 4.5 Student interest level in SMC learning features 138
Figure 4.6 SMC in school a good idea? Student mean responses by year levels 139
Figure 4.7 Student perceptions of peer support, usefulness & ease of use of the SMC 141
Figure 4.8 Perceived usefulness of the SMC for various learning & schooling aspects 142
Figure 4.9 Optimal Decision Tree One: Individual learning dispositions (predictors) and SMC usage (target)
149
Figure 4.10 Optimal Decision Tree Two: Individual learning dispositions & peer support (predictors) and SMC usage (target)
157
Figure 4.11 Optimal Decision Tree Three: Individual, social and technological variables (predictors) and SMC usage (target)
160
Figure 5.1 Social-reputational barrier – Cool/Uncool 230
Figure 5.2 Institutional-pedagogical barrier – Domineering staff/Dispossessed student 247
Figure 5.3 Academic-performativity barrier – Demanding teacher/Diligent student 266
Figure 5.4 Academic-performativity barrier – Good parent/Responsible child 274
Figure 6.1 Cultural agility 298
ix
ABBREVIATIONS
Becta British Educational Communications and Technology Agency
CART Classification and Regression Tree
CFA Confirmation Factor Analysis
ICTs Information and Telecommunication Technologies
KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
MCA Membership Categorisation Analysis
MCD Membership Categorisation Device
NCEE National Center on Education and the Economy
NCREL North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
NRC National Research Council
NSBF National Schools Boards Foundation
OECD Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development
Ofsted Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
OP Overall Position (a tertiary entrance rank used in the Australian State of Queensland for selection into universities)
PAF Principal Factor Analysis
QCS Queensland Core Skills Test (Queensland state-wide exam for selection into universities)
QUT Queensland University of Technology
RBS Pseudonym for the case study school
SD Standard Deviation
SMC Student Media Centre
SRP Standardised Relational Pair
SRQ Specific Research Question
TAM Technology Acceptance Model
UHREC University Human Research Ethics Committee
x
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or
diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and
belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another
person except where due reference is made.
Signed:
Date:
5 August 2009
xi
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
EMPIRICAL PIECES BASED ON RESEARCH DATA OBTAINED IN THIS STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLES (PEER REVIEWED)
Tan, J. P-L. (2009, forthcoming). Digital or diligent? How students negotiate academic
achievement and Web 2.0 learning. Journal of Learning Design, forthcoming, Special
issue: Agency of Technology in Learning Settings.
Tan, J. P-L., & McWilliam, E. (2009). From literacy to multiliteracies: Diverse learners
and pedagogical practice. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 213-225
(Special issue: Multiliteracies).
Tan, J. P-L., & McWilliam, E. (2008). Cognitive playfulness, creative capacity and
Generation ‘C’ learners. Cultural Science, 1(2). Available at http://www.cultural-
science.org/journal/index.php/culturalscience/article /view/13/51
McWilliam, E., Dawson, S., & Tan, J. P-L. (2009). From Vaporousness to Visibility:
What might evidence of creative capacity building actually look like? Invited
paper for The UNESCO Observatory, 1(2), Special issue: Creativity, policy and
practice discourses: projective tensions in the new millennium.
CONFERENCE PAPERS (REFEREED)
Tan, J P-L., & McWilliam, E. (2008). Digital or Diligent? Web 2.0’s challenge to
formal schooling. Proceedings of the 2008 Australian Association for Research in
Education (AARE) Conference. Brisbane, Australia, November 29―Dececember 4.
Available at http://eprints.qut.edu.au/14985/
Tan, J P-L., &McWilliam, E. (2008). Cognitive playfulness, creative capacity and
generation ‘C’ learners. ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation
(CCi) 2008 Conference ― Creating Value: Between Commerce and Commons. Brisbane,
Australia, June 25―27. Available at http://eprints.qut.edu.au/14986/
Dawson, S., McWilliam, E., & Tan, J. P-L. (2008) Teaching Smarter: How mining ICT
data can inform and improve learning and teaching practice. ASCILITE ,
Australia, November 30 – December 3.
xii
Tan, J. P-L. (2007). Trends in the adoption and diffusion of digital innovations in
mainstream schooling: Implications for the development of creative human
capital in the conceptual age. EIDOS Emerge Conference, Brisbane, Australia,
September 10.
THEORETICAL/CONCEPTUAL PIECES PRODUCED DURING THE CANDIDATURE
BOOK CHAPTERS
Tan, J. P-L. (2008). Closing the gap: A multiliteracies approach to English language
teaching for ‘at-risk’ students in Singapore. In A. Healy (Ed), Multiliteracies and
Diversity in Education: New Pedagogies for Expanding Landscapes. Melbourne: Oxford
University Press.
McWilliam, E., & Tan, J. P-L (2009, forthcoming). When quantitative meets
qualitative: Conversations about the nature of knowledge. In Melanie W. & Pat, T.
(Eds.), The Routledge Doctoral Companion. London: Routledge.
McWilliam, E., Dooley, K., McArdle, F., & Tan, J. P-L. (2008). Voicing Objections. In
A. Jackson and L. Mazzei (Eds). Voice in Qualitative Inquiry: Challenging
Conventional, Interpretive and Critical Conceptions in Qualitative Research.
London: Routledge.
xiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It gives me great pleasure to publicly acknowledge the people who have contributed significantly to the completion of this dissertation. My supervisory team First and foremost, I would like to thank Professor Erica McWilliam, who has been the principal supervisor for the majority of my doctoral candidature. In the last six months of my candidature, Erica accepted a prestigious research professorial position in the Singapore National Institute of Education and therefore could not continue in her role as my formal principal supervisor at QUT. Despite the demands of settling into a new country and a new position, Erica maintained a high level of commitment to my doctoral study and ensured that I continued to receive supervision of the highest quality. Without fail, Erica provided me with in-depth reviews and feedback on my draft chapters, usually within 48 hours, if not less. Thank you, Erica, for your insights that lifted this study from a mere project to a scholarly thesis. Over the past three years, your generosity of spirit has inspired me. You have taught me a great deal by modelling ‘useful ignorance’, mentoring me to ‘think about thinking about the research’, and meddling with my ‘linear structural equation modelling brain’ so I could grow in epistemological agility. I am indebted to you for showing me the ‘pleasure of the rigour of the work’. You have been the best teacher—model, mentor, and meddler—that any doctoral student could ask for. When Erica left for Singapore, Professor Kar-Tin Lee kindly stepped into the official role of principal supervisor and ensured that I received the institutional support and continuity that was absolutely essential to the timely completion of this thesis. Kar-Tin, I am grateful for your generosity, commitment to and confidence in my work, all of which have encouraged me greatly. In order to receive the completion scholarship in the last year of my program, I needed a cross-faculty supervisory team. Without a moment’s hesitation, Professor Greg Hearn from the Creative Industries Faculty came onboard as a second associate supervisor. Prior to this official supervisory role, he had been a critical advisor, mentor and friend since this research study kicked into gear. Greg, your intellectual verve, exuberant wit, and dependable accessibility have been key markers throughout my doctoral marathon. You were an excellent ‘trainer’—tweaking the training programs to suit my mental/physical/emotional fitness levels and needs—so that I could finish the PhD race with a more durable and deeper passion for future intellectual pursuits than when I started. For the many pearls of wisdom on-demand, Rabbito bows to the Sage. The participants This research inquiry could not have materialised without the participation of the school. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the Head of Senior School and the Lead Teacher of the Gifted & Talented program. Your commitment to pedagogical excellence and dedication to the education of young people have instilled a deep sense of purpose and enthusiasm in my work as an educational researcher. It has been a privilege to work with and learn from you. I also extend my sincere gratitude to all the senior school students who participated in this study, and more specifically, to the student leaders and core members responsible for the Web 2.0 learning innovation. Despite your heavy academic workloads and school commitments, you took the time to share your frank opinions and authentic experiences with me, and allowed me the privilege of documenting these accounts and explanations of ‘what is school’ and ‘how it is done’. Thank you for contributing so generously to my research endeavour and learning.
xiv
Institutional sponsors Commencing this degree as an international student and being an ‘Australian non-resident’ for most part of the degree involved significant monetary costs. Without the generous financial support from the university and various research institutes, completing this thesis would have been a significantly more arduous undertaking. For this, I sincerely thank the following parties who eased the financial/administrative burden so that I could learn, train and contribute as a researcher and scholar: 1) QUT Office of Postgraduate Studies under the leadership of Professor Rod Wissler,
for a two-year international student fee waiver;
2) The Institute of Creative Industries (ICI) under the leadership of Professor Philip Graham, for a one-year completion scholarship;
3) The ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries & Innovation under the leadership of Professor Stuart Cunningham, for a stipend top-up to the ICI completion
scholarship; and
4) The Centre for Learning Innovation under the leadership of Professor Carmel
Diezman for the administrative support received throughout my candidature. I
particularly thank the HDR Administrative Officer Ms Mary Clowes, and the Centre’s
excellent team of administrative staff, Ms Jeannean Botha, Ms Jennifer Yared, Ms Julie
Carroll and Ms Carol Partridge, for their help and assistance.
Critical advisors and friends
To Dr Ruth Bridgstock—thank you for your close friendship and support throughout this journey, which spanned the gamut from intellectual, methodological, analytical and detailed statistical input to emotional encouragement and invigoration. I could not have survived without the many deeply restorative ‘psych-sessions’ we shared.
To Dr Felicity McArdle—thank you for the many cups of English tea and conversations that not only got me over the ‘qualitative hump’ but developed in me a deep appreciation for qualitative rigour and the power of irony.
To my other flockmates—Dr Shane Dawson and Dr Sandra Haukka—thank you for your unwavering faith that I could complete this thesis and your gems of pep-talks that nudged me along the way. I could always count on you for the occasional brusque, albeit loving, reproof that whipped me into shape when needed.
To Mr Ray Duplock—thank you for sharing your statistical wizardry with me! That boiled fruit cake and bag of liquorice is coming your way.
To Dr Carly Butler—thank you for sharing your expertise on membership categorisation analysis, taking the time to review my draft qualitative chapter and encouraging an ‘MCA rookie’ along her way.
To Mr Andrew White, Ms Rowena McGregor and Ms Maria Spiranovic, for your friendship, enthusiasm and high quality research support in various phases of the project.
To my dependable neighbour and friend Ms Carol Adair—thank you for the many hot delicious meals and delectable snacks that filled my stomach, warmed my heart and uplifted my spirits throughout this challenging three-year endeavour.
To my best friend Lindsay, and my faithful cheering squad, Seng Lee, Winnie, Sonia and Ross, Tony and Cassy, Ann and Judy—thank you for your prayers, love and support.
Family I am very fortunate to have one of the most well-respected literacy educators of our time, particularly in Australia, Professor Peter Freebody, as my father-in-law. I am deeply thankful for his love, guidance and counsel over the past three years, for taking the time to
xv
review my final thesis draft, but most of all, for sharing his deep passion and profound knowledge on education and research with me. Papa, you have taught and inspired me to ‘never rush but never rest’ in my intellectual pursuits. For this, I am eternally grateful. To my mother-in-law Mrs Virginia Freebody, aunts Da Gu and Jessie, uncles Roland, Ronald and Robin (and the rest of the 105-strong Tan-Tay clan), brothers Jimmy and Jason, sisters-in-law Iris, Kelly and Georgia, and brother-in-law Nathan—thank you for your many practical acts of love, affirmation and support that have strengthened and encouraged me throughout the years. To my wonderful parents Ronnie Tan Swee Cher and Julie Tay Su Keng—you have dedicated a lifetime to my education and growth as a productive citizen of value to the society. Since young, I have observed your steadfast determination and indefatigable spirit in fulfilling your parental responsibilities to the best of your ability, whether it be working tirelessly to provide for my material needs, ferrying me to/fro long distances to attend school and piano lessons, or giving me the space to discover my interests and pursue my dreams even though they may be different from what you had planned or hoped. From you, I have learnt to appreciate the value of hard work, integrity, learning and giving back.
You have taught me from young that “学如逆水行舟,不进则退” (‘learning is like
rowing a boat upstream, if one does not move forward, then one regresses’), and that “一
字千金” (‘a written word is worth a thousand pieces of gold’). This thesis contains
approximately 90,000 words. I dedicate each and every one of them to you. 我永生感谢。 Last but not least, to my loving husband Simon Freebody—the countless intellectual-sparring matches about techno-economic paradigms, statistics, education and philosophy (among others), though often frustrating, have been particularly stimulating and rewarding as I was continually challenged to refine my ideas, concepts and arguments. You have, however, given me so much more than intellectual inspiration. When I was hungry, you cooked me mouth-watering beef fillets; when I felt overwhelmed, you showed me Ramsay’s kitchen nightmares; when I missed home, you took me to our favourite Singaporean restaurant at Sunnybank, and many more. These instances may seem trivial but it is in these little things that you demonstrated your enduring patience, perseverance, humour, dependability, commitment, love and dedication to me, without which this achievement could not have been possible. Thank you darling. Our adventure has only just begun.
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
“The future of learning is digital… What constitutes learning in the 21st century will be
contested terrain as our society strives towards post-industrial forms of knowledge
acquisition and production without having yet overcome the educational contradictions and
failings of the industrial age.”
― Mark Warschauer (2007, p. 41)
The research inquiry documented in this thesis is located at the nexus of
technological innovation and traditional schooling. It aims to document, explain and
theorise how students experience and account for the complexities of engaging with
contemporary learning technologies as part of their conventional schooling
experiences. To address this aim, the inquiry draws on theoretical and empirical
advances on the nature of schooling, social practice and technology, in a multi-
disciplinary field of education, social psychology and innovation diffusion. It also
brings together two rigorous quantitative and qualitative analytic tools afforded by
predictive statistical modelling and ethnomethodology to provide an empirical base
for augmenting existing understandings of technological and pedagogical innovation
in mainstream schooling.
The following sections of this introductory chapter outline the background to the
study and its rationale, the research questions guiding the inquiry, as well as the
research setting and design. Next, the chapter highlights the potential significance
and contributions of this study to theory, methodology, policy and practice. The
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 2
chapter concludes with an overview and synopsis of the subsequent chapters in this
thesis.
1.1 Postmillennial schooling: More important but less relevant?
This thesis takes as its starting point the paradox that in the current Conceptual Age
(Pink, 2005), schools are becoming more important but less relevant than ever
(McWilliam, 2008). New technologies are bringing about significant shifts in the
nature of knowledge, work and many aspects of everyday life, including the ways
that young people learn to access, store, share, create and apply knowledge. Put
simply, the young people now entering and leaving our schools are ‘digital kids’
(Prensky, 2001, 2006; Tapscott, 2009).
Meanwhile, the move from manufacturing to knowledge-based industries driven by
information & communications technologies (ICTs) has seen the replacement of
manual and routine mental labour with ideas, intellect and innovation as the key
commodities that drive economic growth (Freeman, 2004; Perez, 2004).
Correspondingly, the demand for educational qualifications has also escalated in an
environment characterised by credential inflation and competition. These trends are
reflected in the trade and industry figures, where education and training has been
reported to be amongst the world’s largest and fastest-growing businesses,
constituting at least six percent of the world’s GDP (Robinson, 2001). As
Warschauer (2007) pointed out, “[while] new opportunities increase for powerful
out-of-school learning, formal education is actually rising rather than falling in its
impact on people’s lives” (p. 46). What this means is that performance on
conventional high-stakes paper-and-pencil assessments of received, formal,
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 3
academic knowledge appears more important than ever, and particularly so in the
current times of recession when formal education credentials count for
workforce renewal as well as for initial employability. What is evident therefore,
at this historical time is a pressure on young people to be both ‘digital kids’ and
‘analogue students’. It is this point of tension―created by the importance of
being both a digital kid and an analogue student―that is the focus of this thesis.
Relating to this tension, there is growing evidence that the social and cultural norms
of professional and personal life have changed significantly even though formal
qualifications remain highly relevant to employability (e.g., Cunningham, 2005;
Florida, 2002; Leadbeater, 1999; National Centre on Education and the Economy,
2007). As futurist Welsman (2006) explained, formal educational qualifications
cannot be ignored, but neither should they be seen of themselves as sufficient to the
“edu-ventures” (p. 50) that young people will undertake in future professional life.
In a similar vein, McWilliam (in press) argued that the emergence of creativity as an
economic driver is having a profound effect on the identity and expectations of a
creative workforce. A creative workforce is more likely to be working in digitally-
enhanced environments, on short-term contracts and with few templates for
products and deliverables. McWilliam (in press) stated:
Creative workers engage in work that is less focused on routine problem-
solving and more focused on interactivity, navigation capacity, forging
relationships, tackling novel challenges and synthesising ‘big picture’
scenarios for the purposes of adding a competitive commercial edge to an
organisation or business. They are more likely than other workers to be
located in digitally-enhanced environments (including ‘home’ or ‘garage’
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 4
environments). With few transportable templates for project design, they
need to unlearn ‘solutions’ to higher order problems as quickly as they learn
them… They can quickly jettison ideas and formulae that do not ‘add value’.
There is burgeoning evidence that the skills McWilliam identified are being
developed and utilised in the main outside formal schooling. As reported by Lunn
(2007), the engagement of young people with new media had reached
unprecedented levels by mid-2007, and continues to show exponential growth.
MySpace International, for example, announced the creation of its 100 millionth
profile in August 2006, and has since reported a growth of approximately 200,000
accounts per day. In mid-2007, MySpace Australia reportedly reached the level of
3.8 million profiles, while Facebook reportedly grew by 270% in three months to
about 150,000 profiles (Lunn, 2007). The current statistics reported on Facebook
(2009) indicate that there are more than 200 million active users on the social
networking site, of which more than 100 million log on at least once a day. It is not
just that these sites are “worth billions” (Lunn, 2007, p. 2), but that they are spaces
where young people are practising the forms of navigation, networking and
communication skills necessary to the ‘creative worker’ identity. Lunn went on to
highlight the fact that these are not ‘command and control’ environments
(McWilliam & Dawson, 2008). Rather, the young people who are active users “tend
to avoid dealing with anyone who could hold power over them on these sites, such
as parents, teachers, bosses… [and] …those that want to prey on them” (Lunn,
2007, p. 2).
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 5
All this has profound implications for the nature of teaching and learning in schools.
High-aspiring students have to acquire formal academic skills, canonical disciplinary
knowledge and high levels of print literacy, as well as skill sets relevant to a digital
and conceptual age (Castells, 2000; Pink, 2005). At the same time, school leaders
and teachers are facing immense pressure to be relevant to digital times in their
institutional and classroom pedagogy, while ensuring that their students perform
well in traditional academic tasks and high-stakes assessments. Against this
background, understanding the cultural and pedagogical tensions at the nexus of
digital learning and traditional schooling is imperative, if researchers wish to inform
schools that are aiming to equip students with the essential skills, literacies and
dispositions required to succeed in an environment increasingly characterised by
online communication, learning and work.
1.2 Digital engagement and innovation diffusion in schools
As we enter the second decade of a new century, few would argue against the
proposition that young people need to engage early and often with digital
technologies as part of their educational experience. Nevertheless, the capacity of
schools to deliver close and meaningful digital engagement is being questioned.
Recent research distilled a number of concerns about the digital/traditional
schooling nexus. These include (i) a lack of clarity about the cost and benefits of
expensive technology, (ii) the underutilisation of technologies in classrooms and (iii)
confusion over whether the main goal of education is improved performance in
formal assessment or greater human capacity more broadly understood (e.g.,
Cummins, Ardeshiri & Cohen, 2008; Ware, 2008; Warschauer & Grimes, 2008).
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 6
This leaves educational practitioners and policy makers with a conundrum about
whether and how to invest in digital technologies in schools.
On the one hand, many social and educational commentators share Warschauer’s
(2007) concern that mainstream schooling ― designed and organised as it was for an
Industrial Age ― is struggling to keep pace with the social and learning needs of
young people in the ICT/Conceptual Age (Perez, 2004; Pink, 2005). As new and
emergent technologies continue to change the global landscape of work and the
economy, governments and businesses worldwide are looking to education as the
key to developing a workforce with “high levels of specialist knowledge…[in]
creativity and innovation particularly in the uses of new technologies” (Robinson,
2001, p. 5). At the same time, despite substantial investments from governments
and businesses, adoption and diffusion of innovative technologies in schools remain
sluggish (e.g., Ofsted, 2004; Russell, Bebell & O’Dwyer, 2005; Vrasidas & Glass,
2005). Optimal utilisation of contemporary digital tools and their attendant modes
of social engagement remain marginal to the daily life of formal schooling.
The adoption and diffusion of innovative learning technologies and pedagogies in
formal education is a complex issue. A comprehensive literature search of major
academic databases (e.g., EBSCOhost, ERIC, Proquest) showed that researchers in
the field tend to approach the phenomenon of slow uptake from a deficit
perspective, focusing on the barriers encountered by schools as institutions and
teachers as individuals 1 . The general conservatism of the schooling sector’s
institutional structures, as well as teachers’ anxieties and resistance to new
technologies and pedagogies, have been commonly cited as key contributors to a
1 This comprehensive literature search is detailed in Chapter Two, Section 2.4.2.
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 7
slow rate of change in classrooms (e.g., Becta, 2003, 2007; M. Cox, Preston & K.
Cox, 1999; Preston, M. Cox & K. Cox., 2000). While these studies contribute
valuable knowledge to the field, deficit models of schools and teachers of
themselves offer inadequate explanations of this phenomenon. Researchers are
increasingly acknowledging the need to approach the issue from a less judgemental
perspective by going beyond the concerns and constraints experienced by teachers
and schools. There is a need to move toward an understanding of the cultural and
pedagogical complexities of innovation adoption and diffusion within long-
established conventions of formal schooling, particularly from the standpoint of a
neglected yet critical group of stakeholders ― the students.
This thesis seeks to extend knowledge in the field of innovation adoption and
diffusion in education by critically examining the relationship between student-led
learning using new digital media tools and formal schooling, as it is experienced by
students in a long-established, well-resourced and high-performing senior schooling
environment. The study aims to investigate the ways in which students evaluate and
engage with a non-mandatory, peer-to-peer (P2P), Web 2.0 learning initiative in the
school, and how their engagement relates to the differential value, legitimacy and
priority they give to particular modes of learning and literacy practices, socio-
institutional conventions and schooling achievement. In conducting such an
investigation, the study enables consideration of the broader implications of the
technology/schooling nexus for pedagogical reform in the 21st century.
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 8
1.3 Research Purpose and Questions
In the context of the complex nature of schooling described above, this thesis aims
to move beyond deficit discourses of schools and teachers to examine the
educational complexities of innovation adoption and diffusion within established
conventions of formal schooling, as experienced by students as an under-researched
group of stakeholders. Specifically, the thesis inquires into the central question of
how students evaluate and account for the constraints and affordances of contemporary digital tools
when they engage with them as part of their conventional schooling. To address this central
research question, the inquiry focuses on a ‘case’ of innovative practice in the form
of a student-led digital learning initiative known as the Student Media Centre (SMC).
It documents the attempted integration of the SMC learning innovation into the
mainstream learning and teaching practices of a long-established, well-resourced and
high-performing independent secondary school in urban Queensland, Australia.
The SMC is a staff-endorsed, student-driven, P2P digital learning innovation set up
in the school with the specific purpose of engaging the whole senior school student
population in flexible networked digital learning. A detailed description of the SMC
is explicated in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2. Both teachers and students intended for
the SMC to extend learning opportunities beyond conventional classroom
pedagogies and traditional literacies, and so develop in the senior student cohort
certain autonomous and leaderly dispositions, as well as greater creative capability.
The adoption and diffusion process that followed the establishment of this non-
mandatory Web 2.0 learning innovation therefore, served as the point of entry for
analysing the educational tensions and affordances around traditional and digital
forms of learning, particularly in high-performing academic schooling contexts. It
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 9
provided a starting point for understanding how these complexities play out within
one formal senior school environment, in which the under-utilisation of technology
for pedagogical purposes cannot be readily attributed to resource constraints,
institutional inertia and/or teacher resistance.
Following this logic, this thesis sets up and tests the following central proposition: If
progressive school leaders and teachers in a well-resourced school endorse the implementation of a
student-led digital learning innovation built on cutting-edge Web 2.0 technologies that are embraced
by ‘digital kids’ in their personal sphere, then surely widespread uptake among these same ‘Net
Gen’ students in school will be assured.
This proposition is tested through the investigation of four specific research
questions (SRQ), namely:
(i) SRQ-1) What are the SMC engagement trends and patterns among the
senior school student community?
(ii) SRQ-2) What factors―individual, social and technological―predict the
extent to which students engage with the learning innovation?
(iii) SRQ-3) How do students describe, explain and account for the Web 2.0
learning initiative, its prospects and consequences for their schooling
experience?
(iv) SRQ-4) What are the implications of the nature and outcomes of this
study for innovation adoption and diffusion in postmillennial schooling?
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 10
These four research questions can be further broken down into a series of related
sub-questions that together serve as a precise framework for the collection, analysis,
and theorising of data pertinent to the phenomena under scrutiny. These are further
explicated in Chapter Three: Methods of this dissertation. The outcomes of the study
outlined in this thesis include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) better understandings of the complexities associated with the adoption
and diffusion of innovative technologies and pedagogies within formal
schooling environments;
(ii) theoretical and methodological contributions to the study of innovation
diffusion in educational contexts, particularly in terms of (a) extending
existing models of technology adoption and diffusion to reflect
individual learning dispositions and achievement goal orientations, as
well as (b) shared cultural understandings and socio-institutional norms
and identities that bear on students’ digital engagement in school; and
(iii) scholarly recommendations that assist policymakers and practitioners
move towards more effective and sustainable integration of online
learning technologies in formal teaching and learning contexts.
1.4 Research Setting
The research setting for this study is a long-established, well-resourced and high-
performing independent boys’ school in urban Queensland, Australia 2 . The
2 The student participants in this study consisted of senior school boys in Years 10, 11 and 12. This study does not engage in depth with gender roles and identities, but acknowledges that the scope, findings and implications of this study are constrained by this limited demographic feature, and should be interpreted
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 11
students, teachers and parents in this setting have high aspirations for the
professional future of the school’s graduates. They place a high value on the formal
qualifications that the school awards, as well as the development of skills and
dispositions that provide for future professional success in the workplace3.
This study focuses on the attempted integration of the SMC, a student-led digital
learning initiative built on contemporary ‘new media’ technologies, into the daily
learning and teaching practices of the school. The SMC is a multimodal P2P virtual
learning environment that (i) can be accessed by the whole student and teacher
community, and (ii) is designed to engage the whole student and teacher community
in flexible networked digital learning. The SMC is developed and managed by a core
group of approximately 30 senior school students from Years 10, 11 and 12. These
senior school students have been identified by the school leadership to be gifted,
creative and highly ‘aspirational’. As Warschauer (2007) and Albright, Walsh and
Purohit (2006) pointed out, there is a temptation for high-achieving academic
students to desert schooling activities that appear extraneous to performing well in
standardised tests. It is in this academically competitive schooling context,
therefore, that the tensions and affordances of innovation diffusion are most likely
to be acute, because the high levels of intellectual and technological resourcing that
are possible in this research setting bring with them an equally high level of
expectation to excel in traditional academic tasks and high-stakes assessments.
accordingly. This is discussed further in the concluding chapter on the limitations associated with this study and recommendations for future research.
3 This is clearly expressed in the school’s 2007 mission statement, which emphasises that their graduates should be “21st century learners replete with the skills to adapt to learning, delivered by modes not even invented yet in careers not yet thought of.”
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 12
Educational distinctions have been made about the way aspirational or middle-class
students view their schooling and are viewed in terms of their schooling. Bernstein
(1973, 2000), for example, has argued that expressiveness―through personal
fulfilment, cultivation, flexibility and creativity―is very much the province of middle
class students, while less advantaged others have been relegated to instrumentalist
activities for narrow economic ends. Much also has been made of the ‘digital divide’
as a class issue that privileges an already advantaged elite (Sassen, 2004). While it is
beyond the scope of this study to enlarge upon aspects of this topic related to social
class, it can however, be observed that such distinctions appear to have shifted in
contemporary schooling in that the values embodied in the expressive orientation
(personal fulfilment, cultivation, flexibility, and creativity) are themselves attracting
high instrumental value in 21st century cultures and economies. Using this class-
based distinction as a way of framing the interests of stakeholders, we can
hypothesise a variety of journeys that student-led digital innovations in a school
with high social, cultural and academic capital might take.
Furthermore, the fact that this inquiry focuses on a high-performing school as the
site for the case study is significant in terms of the push-and-pull of supply and
demand thinking about education (Brown, 2006; Bruns, Cobcroft, Smith & Towers,
2007; OECD, 2006). Queensland educators, in line with progressive educators
elsewhere, have advocated a more student-centred pedagogy for several decades. It
is therefore reasonable to presume that Queensland students in general, and high-
performing senior school students in particular, might anticipate student-centred
preferences as being an important mode of pedagogical engagement. We might even
imagine that, in a privileged and ‘progressive’ school, students would expect it. In
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 13
other words, a student-led digital learning initiative ought to be entirely compatible
with mainstream schooling practice in the 21st century.
Moreover, for students with high social and cultural capital attending a long-
established and well-resourced school, deep and sustained learning is presumed to
take place in a wide variety of settings beyond the school gates. Many such students
have access to social, material and technological networks during their school years
and presumably, they will have even more of such access after graduating from high
school. Many of these students will become future civil, political and professional
leaders. In this regard, there are long-term implications emerging from the ways in
which a well-established mainstream institution incorporates emerging demand-
based professional skills and dispositions. If it struggles to perform this task
successfully given the resources available, then the implications are serious indeed
for all other educational institutions, particularly those experiencing more standard
material, cultural and professional conditions. One general condition that may
militate against the imperative to develop 21st century skills and capacities is that
schools may value traditional academic literacies at the expense of a wide range of
new literacies (Albright et al., 2006; Sawchuk, 2009). Consequently, it is hardly
surprising if aspirational students in high-performing environments evaluate a
potential learning innovation in the school overwhelmingly in terms of its perceived
benefit for academic grades. The research questions addressed in this thesis examine
these various possibilities and their implications for systemic institutional transitions
and change within the schooling economy.
A premise that receives support from extant research literature and is further
explicated in Chapter Two: Literature Review is that simply introducing digital
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 14
technologies into schools is relatively easy. The challenge is to introduce the
practices, dispositions, and values that are able to be sustained within the local
context in ways that will ensure their relevance to the future of the students and the
culture of the school. It is acknowledged that these emerging practices, dispositions,
and values are in the process of being shaped by the rapid diffusion of existing and
emerging digital technologies. The increasingly widespread use of these technologies
of itself will not deliver these practices, dispositions, and values (Sassen, 2004). It is
the change of students’ school experiences in terms of emerging practices,
dispositions, and values that is most likely to make a difference, and it is therefore
the student experience that is of central interest to this thesis.
1.5 Research Design
The design of this study is informed by an empirical case study approach (Yin,
2003), using a combination of mixed methods to provide insights into the research
problem. The empirical case study approach is particularly appropriate for this study
because (i) local contextual conditions (i.e., the conventions of a well-resourced,
high-performing, and academically-competitive mainstream senior school) are
expected to be highly pertinent to the phenomena under scrutiny (i.e., the tensions
and accommodations experienced by students in their engagement with the
innovation), and (ii) a holistic and in-depth investigation of both the context and
phenomena is desired (Feagin, Orum & Sjoberg, 1991; Yin, 2003).
In addition, the multiple methodologies offered by the empirical case study
approach are invaluable in an inquiry of this nature, which seeks both richness and
range in explaining and theorising a complex and dynamic phenomena involving
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 15
multiple perspectives, variables and levels of analysis. This study employs an
‘explanatory’ two-phase research design, more recently known as the ‘New Political
Arithmetic’ (NPA) model (Creswell, 2003, 2005; Gorard & Taylor, 2004). This
design normally begins with a descriptive phase using a large-scale numeric dataset
designed to provide a general picture of the research problem in context, as
reflected in trends and patterns. This is followed by an explanatory phase in which
rigorous qualitative data collection and analysis are conducted with a subset of cases
selected from the preceding phase with a view to examining the identified trends
and patterns in greater depth.
For the purpose of this study, Creswell’s design has been augmented in a number of
ways. These are detailed in Chapter Three: Methods. In brief, data collection and
analyses in this study were carried out in three phases. In the first quantitative phase,
a self-report questionnaire was administered to the senior school student population
(N=600). Numeric data emerging from the questionnaire were analysed using
appropriate descriptive statistical techniques and Classification and Regression Tree
modelling (Breiman, Friedman, Olshen & Stone, 1984) to (i) identify trends and
patterns associated with the students’ evaluation of and engagement with the SMC,
as well as to (ii) determine the degree to which measured individual, social and
technological factors predict students’ SMC usage. This was followed by a
qualitative phase, in which six in-depth focus group interviews were carried out with
a selected sample of 60 students. Textual data emerging from the focus groups were
analysed using an ethnomethodological membership categorisation approach (e.g.,
Eglin & Hester, 2003; Freebody, 2003; Sacks, 1992) to obtain rich insights into
students’ shared cultural understandings, logic and reasoning practices that bear on
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 16
their evaluation of and engagement with the SMC innovation. The results and
findings from the quantitative and qualitative phases then were critically re-
examined and synthesised in the third and final phase of this study to develop
empirically grounded theoretical propositions related to the educational
complexities of innovation diffusion within established conventions of
contemporary formal schooling. As indicated earlier, the research methodology and
design of the study are further explicated in Chapter Three.
1.6 Significance of the Study
1.6.1 Implications for Theory
The study is significant in that it allows for the development of a theoretical
‘borderland’, in which business/organisational literature about technology adoption
and mainstream educational literature about the culture of schooling can be
mutually informative. While schools are organisations in a number of key respects,
the organisational literature that emanates from commercial enterprise (e.g.,
adoption and diffusion literature in the fields information systems and applied
economics) does not map neatly onto the learning and teaching practices in which
schools engage. It does, however, assist in opening up a parochial educational
literature by challenging some of the central tenets and assumptions of the
educational disciplines. This productive recruitment of conceptual, methodological
and empirical advances in multiple fields therefore, affords this study a ‘third way’
of theorising about technological and pedagogical innovation in schools: one that
moves beyond the more familiar identification of teacher skill deficits and resource
limitations by focusing on the attitudes, behaviours and reasoning practices of the
students themselves as a critical group of stakeholders.
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 17
1.6.2 Implications for Method
This study is significant in terms of method because it is strategically located at the
intersection of quantitative and qualitative approaches. This study is
methodologically innovative in that it combines (i) predictive statistical modelling that
focuses on individual dispositions, attitudes and behaviours with (ii) an
ethnomethodological membership categorisation analytic approach that foregrounds the
shared cultural understandings and socio-institutional ‘commonsense’ underpinning
students’ reasoning practices and social action in context. Taken together, this
methodological latitude has the potential to overcome the limitations of both
approaches, by providing both numeric and textual narratives―both broad empirical
trends and in-depth understandings―of how the realities of techno-pedagogical
innovation and deep institutional changes are experienced by members living out
the social order of schooling.
1.6.3 Implications for Policy
The fact that the study considers both numeric and textual forms of data expands
its relevance and validity for policy formulation and development. Educational
policymakers have been suspicious of ‘one-off’ studies, including case studies, which
rely heavily on qualitative data about human experience, and with good reason,
since these cannot be extrapolated to larger populations. On the other hand,
quantitative measures alone can probe issues amenable to measurement, but are less
well-suited to documenting and exploring deep socio-institutional and cultural
change. As indicated in Chapter Three, the approach taken in this study seeks to
produce results that are both plausible and rich in terms of their explanatory power
at the level of a school’s culture.
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 18
1.6.4 Implications for Practice
There is an increasing urgency to integrate digital and technological literacies and
skills with traditional academic knowledge and skills (Prensky, 2001, 2006; Tapscott,
2009). As indicated at the beginning of this thesis, simply introducing new
technologies into schools is necessary but insufficient, in terms of the ‘rubber’ of
digital tools hitting the ‘road’ of pedagogical practice in schools. The fact that the
focus of this inquiry is the student perspective is important in terms of daily
pedagogical practice. As indicated earlier, the intent is to extend current knowledge
in the field of ICT integration in schools, by moving beyond the tendency to focus
on barriers and deficits at the institutional and individual teacher levels. Implications
and recommendations emerging from the findings of this study include allowing
school leaders and teachers to engage with authentic data in their attempt to deliver
on their promise of a relevant education for postmillennial times. Findings from this
study have been and will continue to be shared with the community of learners and
teachers in the research setting, in the spirit of working with them, rather than on
them, to consider implications for pedagogical practice in this particular context.
1.7 Overview of the Thesis
The rest of this dissertation is organised in the following ways. The next chapter,
Chapter Two: Literature Review, provides a critical review and synthesis of extant
literature in the fields of knowledge relevant to this study. Literature in the fields of
learning and teaching in digital times, as well as the adoption and diffusion of
innovations in educational contexts, are presented and discussed. Research and
knowledge gaps in the relevant areas of study are identified and an argument is
presented for the conduct, significance and contributions of this thesis.
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 19
Chapter Three: Methods provides an overview of the research aims and restates the
generic and specific research questions guiding this study. It describes in detail the
research setting, which includes the school and the student-led digital learning
initiative. The chapter proceeds to outline the research strategy and design of the
study, and contains a detailed explanation of the proposed research phases, methods
of data collection, instrumentation and data analysis techniques. The validity and
reliability of the study, as well as ethical issues, are then discussed.
Chapter Four: Quantitative Phase―Describing and Predicting SMC Adoption Behaviour
reports on the results and findings of the initial quantitative phase of the study. The
chapter addresses two specific research questions, namely:
(i) What are the trends and patterns of students’ engagement with the
digital learning initiative?
(ii) To what extent do the selected individual, social and technological
factors predict students’ engagement with the digital learning initiative?
It does so by (a) reviewing and validating the research constructs and measurement
scales, (b) presenting and discussing appropriate descriptive statistical results on
usage trends and patterns, as well as (c) predictive modelling results emerging from
incremental Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analyses.
The discussion of the quantitative findings leads on to the qualitative phase of the
study, which is reported in Chapter Five: Qualitative Phase―Students’ Accounts of SMC
Adoption Behaviour. This chapter augments the descriptive and predictive work in the
preceding quantitative phase by addressing the specific research question of how
Cha p te r O ne : I nt ro duc t io n Pag e | 20
students describe, explain and evaluate the Web 2.0 learning initiative, including its
prospects and consequences for their schooling experience. Specifically, the chapter
provides in-depth and rich explanations of ‘why’ and ‘how’ the abstract numeric
narratives (i.e., the SMC usage patterns, trends and predictors) identified in the
quantitative phase are experienced, accounted for and made sense of by students in
the lived reality of their daily social and institutional interactions at school.
Finally, Chapter Six: Conclusion considers the broader implications of the nature and
outcomes of the quantitative and qualitative phases for innovation adoption and
diffusion in postmillennial schooling. It re-examines and synthesises the various
data corpuses and findings using theoretical lenses highlighted in the literature
review to develop scholarly propositions that aim to assist policymakers and
practitioners in moving towards more effective and sustainable integration of online
learning technologies in contemporary schooling contexts. The thesis concludes by
drawing attention to a number of limitations associated with the study and
proposing some possible directions for future research.
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 21
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides a critical review and synthesis of theoretical and empirical
literature in the fields of (i) schooling and learning in digital times, and (ii) the
adoption and diffusion of new and emergent technologies into mainstream
schooling practices. In so doing, it provides a scholarly context for this thesis,
pointing to knowledge gaps and areas where research is limited. In this way, it
makes an argument for the significance of this study.
2.1 Schooling for a Digital World
“The school in its present form will disappear over the next 30 to 40 years.”
― Gunther Kress (1999, p. 7)
2.1.1 Supply-Push and Demand-Pull Schooling
Schooling remains one of the most contested of our social institutions.
Propositions such as that reflected in the quote above are becoming increasingly
common. These prognoses come from a myriad of sources, from internationally
recognised educational scholars such as Kress, to social commentators, futurists
and economists alike (e.g., Brown, 2006; Plank, 2007; Robinson, 2001; Welsman,
2006). In historical terms, schools have been subjected to contested expectations
and pressures as society evolves and needs change, but they have proven highly
change-resistant in terms of overall structure and governance (Vollmer, 2003). A
decade on from Kress’s assertion about their disappearance, it may be possible
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 22
to echo Oscar Wilde by countering that rumours of their death have been greatly
exaggerated. Whether or not schools as they are currently understood will have a
long or short shelf-life, it is certain they are becoming increasingly problematic
in terms of the learning they offer young people, and therefore, increasingly
compromised as the potential solution to social and economic ills.
One way of understanding the challenges of contemporary schooling is to
characterise them in terms of the logic of economics, that is, as a struggle
between ‘supply-push’ and ‘demand-pull’. This struggle gets played out both at
the meta-level of educational theory, policy and practice (e.g., debates around
curriculum reform) as well as at the micro level on issues such as banning mobile
phone use in schools. Supply-push thinking is a dominant characteristic of
‘Industrial Age’ and ‘Information Age’ schooling. While it will continue to be a
feature of schooling for some time yet, there is increasing consensus that it
results in national education systems that are outmoded and inadequate
(Robinson, 2001) for the current Conceptual Age, in which creativity, innovation
and design skills are essential for economic competitiveness at individual,
national and global levels (Friedman, 2005; Greenspan, 2004; Pink, 2005). Put
simply, supply-push thinking reflects long-term mainstream attitudes and
practices that are aligned with schools as powerfully bureaucratic systems, with
strong top-down pressures towards uniformity and resistant of radical change
(OECD, 2007).
In this supply-push model of schooling, policy focuses on curriculum and
qualifications, accountability is driven by student assessments (though questions
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 23
persist over how far these develop capacities to learn), and predominant
pedagogical practice centres around individual classroom and teacher models
(OECD, 2007; Robinson, 2001). Schooling is valued, in broad terms, as a
credentialing and sorting process, as well as a means of preserving key social
traditions. Descriptions, improvements, and evaluations of educational practices
are supplied as the means by which young people can be connected to their past,
live in the present and be prepared for their future. Ideally, students emerge
from school with various combinations of foundational skills and dispositions,
such as basic literacy and numeracy, which can be further developed within
specialised, traditional discipline-based categories of knowledge and work-
relevant practice. The cultural and economic formations of the society then
make what they can of these combinations. In this sense, the educated child is a
product that schools supply to society, just as schools supply information and skill
building practices to the child. According to Plank (2007), these ‘supply-driven’
dynamics continue to drive educational policy and planning in most countries
around the world. In Egan’s (2008) negative framing, supply-push means that
schooling continues to render children “captives within specially designed
buildings, sitting more or less docilely in age sets, available for whatever the state
or influential interest groups want to try” (pp. 6-7).
Demand-pull thinking positions education as responsive, rather than simply
reactive (and often negatively), to new social and cultural formations and
demands. In this logic, schooling is valued in terms of its service to community
and direct relevance to the future growth of local and global economies, as
perceived by ‘stakeholders’, which include students, parents and future
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 24
employers (Brown, 2006; Lincoln, 1995; Sliwka & Istance, 2006). In other words,
students, parents and employers, as clients, demand skills and dispositions that
vary in terms of their potential for contributing to cultural and economic
development. Continuous assessment of that potential and how it is best
developed form the rationale for ongoing alterations to the content and
processes of schooling.
This approach stands in contrast to supply-push education by calling for a shift
from ‘learning about’ and building stocks of knowledge through ‘command-and-
control’ teaching methods (McWilliam & Dawson, 2008) to enabling students to
participate in flows of action and ‘learning to be’ through a process of
enculturation and collateral learning within niche communities of practice
(Brown, 2006). In recent years, the demand-pull approach to education has
gained an increasing number of advocates (e.g., Brown, 2006; OECD, 2007;
Plank, 2007; Robinson, 2001), as new and emergent technologies continue to
revolutionise the way people (especially young people) communicate and engage
in their personal and professional spaces.
In its most extreme form, a demand-pull approach to education is exemplified
by the two ‘de-schooling’ future scenarios posited by OECD (2007): (i) Learning
Networks and the Network Society, and (ii) Extending the Market Model. The
former scenario is characterised by the de-institutionalisation, even dismantling,
of school systems as part of an emerging Network Society (Castells, 2000),
where the dissatisfaction with institutionalised provision and expression given to
diversified demand leads to the abandonment of schools in favour of a multitude
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 25
of learning networks, quickened by the extensive possibilities of powerful,
inexpensive information and communication technologies (ICTs). In this
scenario, teachers as professionals are defunct, the boundaries between teachers,
students, parents, education and community blur and collapse, and new learning
professionals emerge in the form of consultants or locally employed tutors.
The latter scenario is responsive to the dissatisfaction of strategic consumers in
cultures where schooling is commonly viewed as a private as well as public good.
Governments reform funding structures, incentives and regulation, such that
public education authorities play a substantially reduced role. Many new
entrepreneurial providers enter the learning market, where the most valued
learning is determined by choices and demands, resulting in different learning
pathways. New and novel indicators, measures, and accreditation arrangements
begin to emerge, with a stronger focus on non-cognitive outcomes and values,
and these may displace direct public monitoring and curriculum regulation. The
high level of innovation brings with it painful transitions and inequities (OECD,
2007), as it moves towards the provision of different means by which young
people can be socialised, introduced to disciplinary knowledge, and developed as
individuals and citizens.
2.1.2 Beyond Supply or Demand
This thesis recognises both supply-push and demand-pull imperatives as having
strengths and limitations. The aim is to move beyond supply-push and demand-
pull as merely a contestation, by engaging with both perspectives to better
understand and inform 21st century schooling. Both supply-push and demand-
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 26
pull thinking are necessary to schooling as an educational project. However, their
contestation can produce a sort of paralysis in terms of educational reform, as
both forms of cultural logic wrestle for dominance. In the meantime,
unprecedented changes are occurring in terms of learning in and for a digital age
(Warschauer, 2007), changes that are confounding the logic of both supply-push
and demand-pull. The profound nature of the challenge to schooling and to
other traditional social institutions is well captured by Scott’s (2007) comments
on the future of media:
Watching my 15-year-old move across YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook, I
can see that her media experiences are about creating and sharing content,
rather than mine at the same age, which was listening to the radio and
watching TV. How will the [media]… engage her and her friends when …
they are turning 40? How do we stop [our institutions]… fading away? (p. 1)
Rather than mirror Scott’s concerns that our key social institutions such as
schools and traditional media organisations are in danger of being totally
irrelevant, this thesis seeks to inquire about whether and how young people’s
engagements in online content creation and sharing activities can complement
‘learner-centred’ schooling (Fullan, 1995; Rallis, 1995). In so doing, this thesis
recognises that significant changes, primarily brought on by the revolution
occurring in ICTs, are raising serious questions about the appropriateness of the
ways in which schools and schooling are currently conceived, organised and
judged (MacGilchrist, Myers & Reed, 2004). At the same time, it acknowledges
that change and progress need order rather than chaos, and should thus be
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 27
pursued in a measured and considered fashion, with an appreciation for the
essential custodial and credentialing roles that schools perform, and are expected
to perform, in contemporary societies. A focal point of this thesis is to enrich
current understandings of the educational complexities that arise from
introducing innovative learning initiatives framed by a demand-pull approach to
education within well-established conventions of schooling, where supply-push
thinking remains prevalent. How both can be simultaneously attended to is a
broad challenge that is of interest in framing this thesis.
2.2 The Technology Revolution
“We have in our time released a totally new social force – a stream of change so accelerated
that it influences our sense of time, revolutionises the tempo of daily life, and affects the very
way we feel the world around us… For this acceleration lies behind the impermanence, the
transience, that penetrates and tinctures our consciousness, radically affecting the way we
relate to other people, to things, to the entire universe of ideas, art and values.”
― Alvin Toffler (1970, p. 7)
2.2.1 Technology, Speed and Change
The major work by sociologist and futurologist Toffler, Future Shock (1970), was
one of the first to call attention to the global phenomenon of rapid social change
promoted by extraordinary and exponential advancements in technology. Toffler
argued that the accelerating rate of technological and social change would
overwhelm people and leave them disconnected, suffering from "shattering
stress and disorientation" (Toffler, 1970, p. 290). While the claims in his book
have since been subjected to much critical scrutiny from other thinkers and
scholars in a wide variety fields, including physics, economics, business and
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 28
technology (e.g., Huebner, 2005; Modis, 2002; Seidensticker, 2006), one fact
remains irrefutable: The pace of developments in computer technology,
particularly ICTs, over the past 50 years has been breathtaking (Robinson, 2001).
Moreover, the rate of change continues exponentially with each passing year.
Much has been made of the unprecedented pace of change in ICTs and its
impact on our collective professional and social lives (e.g., Brown & Adler, 2008;
Castells, 2000; Davies, 2003, Downes, 2004; Perez, 2002; 2004; van Dijk, 2006).
For instance, in his book Out of Our Minds, Robinson (2001) illustrated that the
length of time taken for major innovations in communications to be introduced
into our public lives has shortened dramatically over the last 200 years: Since the
invention of the Gutenberg printing press in 1450, it took another 400 years
before the Morse code was introduced. Subsequently, it took approximately 25
years each to introduce the telephone, radio and television, while the personal
computer, internet and mobile phone were invented and introduced to the
public within 15, 10 and 5 years respectively (Robinson, 2001). The same
phenomenon is evident when analysed in terms of the number of years it took
different forms of media to secure an audience of fifty million: Radio took 40
years, television took 13 years, while the internet took only 4 years (Davies,
2003).
Furthermore, businesses and workplaces have become heavily and increasingly
reliant on ICTs. This trend is not confined to new high technology industries but
is also evident in traditional industries such as mining, farming, manufacturing
and construction. In her book on the relationships between techno-economic
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 29
and socio-institutional change, Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The
Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages (2002), well-regarded social scientist and
applied economist Perez demonstrated that economic growth from the 1700s to
2000s have experienced five successive technological revolutions that can be
categorised as five distinct stages. These are: (i) the Industrial Revolution in the
1770s driven by the emergence of mechanised industry, wrought iron and
machinery in Britain, (ii) the Age of Steam and Railways in the 1820s driven by
steam engines, iron and coal mining, (iii) the Age of Steel, Electricity and Heavy
Engineering in the 1880s when steel replaced iron, and the sciences such as
chemistry and civil engineering transformed industry, (iv) the Age of Oil,
Automobile and Mass Production in the 1900s driven by cheap oil and oil fuels,
petrochemicals and the invention of the internal combustion engine leading to
mass-produced automobiles, and (v) the Age of Information and
Telecommunications from the 1970s onwards to date, driven by the information
revolution of cheap microelectronics, personal computers, telecommunications
hardware and software, as well as computer-aided biotechnology and new
materials.
Perez (2002, 2004) goes on to argue that each of these distinct stages comprised
a new techno-economic paradigm, governed by a set of pervasive generic
technological and organisational principles, which in turn bring about significant
changes in the socio-institutional spheres of society at large. These techno-
economic paradigms and their associated core technologies and socio-
institutional ‘commonsense’ principles are summarised in Table 2.1.
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 30
Table 2.1 Techno-economic paradigms and governing ‘commonsense’ principles
Technological Revolution/Country of initial development
New technologies, new/redefined industries and infrastructures
Governing ‘commonsense’ technological/organisational principles
FIRST
Industrial Revolution
Britain
Mechanised cotton industry
Wrought iron, Machinery
Water power, canals, turnpike roads
Factory production, mechanisation, productivity (time-keeping, time-saving), local networks
SECOND
Age of Steam & Railways
Britain spreading to Continent & USA
Steam engines & machinery (made in iron, fuelled by coal)
Railway construction, Steam power
Railways, telegraph, city gas
Great ports, worldwide sailing ships
Economies of agglomeration
Power centres with national networks
Standard parts/machine-made machines
Interdependent movement of machines & means of transport
THIRD
Age of Steel, Electricity & Heavy Engineering
USA & Germany overtaking Britain
Cheap steel, Steel ships (full development of steam engines)
Heavy chemistry & civil engineering
Paper & packaging, canned food
Copper and cables, telephone
Worldwide shipping, railways, tunnels
Giant structures (steel), empires, cartels
Economies of scale/vertical integration
Science as productive force
Universal standardisation
Cost accounting for control, efficiency
FOURTH
Age of Oil, Automobile & Mass Production
USA spreading to Europe
Mass-produced automobiles
Cheap oil and oil fuels
Petrochemicals & synthetics
Internal combustion engine for automobiles, airplanes, tanks
Electricity & home appliances
Refrigerated & frozen foods
Networks of roads, highways, ports, airports, oil ducts, worldwide analogue telecommunications
Mass production/mass markets
Economies of scale/horizontal integration
Hierarchical pyramids/Centralisation (metropolitan centres-suburbanisation)
Energy intensity (oil-based)
Standardisation of products
Synthetic materials
National powers, world agreements & confrontations
FIFTH
Age of Information & Telecommunications
USA spreading to Europe & Asia
Cheap microelectronics, computers, telecommunications, computer-aided biotechnology
World digital telecommunications (cable, fibre optics, radio & satellite)
Internet, email, e-services, high-speed global transport (land, air, water)
Information intensity (microelectronics-based ICT)
Economies of scope (specialisation combined with scale)
Network structures/Decentralisation
Heterogeneity, diversity, adaptability
Customisation/segmentation of markets
Globalisation/ Global-Local networks
Instant contact/action, synchronous global communications
(Adapted from: Perez, 2002, pp. 11-18)
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 31
As shown in Table 2.1, the move from the Industrial Revolution to the current
Information and Telecommunications Age has seen significant shifts from factory
production models that rely on routine mechanisation and local networks, toward
decentralised and globalised markets and production models that rely primarily on
ICT-enhanced knowledge as capital and value-add. Correspondingly, there is an
increasing demand for ‘knowledge workers’ (Drucker, 1995; Zuboff, 1988) with
high levels of proficiency in digital literacies (Robinson, 2001). The profound impact
of these trends on our political, economic and social realms more than a decade ago
is demonstrated in Castells’ influential book, The Rise of the Network Society (1996,
2000), which involved an in-depth analysis of the US and world political economy
in light of the technological and information revolution taking place. In this
landmark work, Castells pointed out that the ability to transform information into
knowledge using new technologies can be considered the critical factor contributing
to wealth and power in today’s world at both the individual and national level. In
light of the fact that education systems and schools are key social institutions
responsible to a large extent for the development of future knowledge workers
essential to maintaining a healthy economy, the extent to which they are able to
optimise the use of new technologies for this purpose is a pertinent research
problem.
2.2.2 Web 2.0 and Generation ‘C’ Learners
More recently, developments in ICTs have constituted a new era of advancement
known as Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005). The effects of Web 2.0 are already pervasive in
social, economic, and intellectual life (Bruns, Cobcroft, Smith & Towers, 2007)
within the exceptionally short period of approximately three years. Although the
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 32
phrase ‘Web 2.0’ is at times contested (Arola, 2006), it is most commonly
understood as a set of second-generation web-based communities and hosted
services and applications, such as social-networking sites, wikis, blogs and
folksonomies, which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing among users
(Downes, 2004; O’Reilly, 2005; Wikipedia, 2007). In the terms of the title of this
thesis, there has been a shift in the way information is encoded from an analogue
system to a digital system, with the latter reducing the cost of information sharing
techniques and making them more feasible and cost-effective. This shift has
brought unprecedented opportunities for learning outside the formal structures of
traditional classrooms.
Familiar examples of websites and e-communities that fall within the category of
Web 2.0 include the blogosphere (e.g., Blogger), MySpace, YouTube, Facebook,
Flickr, and Wikipedia, among others (see Korica, Maurer, & Schinagl, 2006 for
comprehensive descriptions). The Web 2.0 movement is gaining such
prominence that an April 2006 cover story of Newsweek by Levy and Stone
proclaimed it as “a new wave of start-ups [that are] cashing in on the next stage
of the internet… [and] empowering citizens to make themselves heard and seen
in online space” (Levy & Stone, 2006, p. 1). In similar vein, international public
relations watchdog Trendwatching.com (2004) identified the emergence of a new
‘generation’ of online citizens―‘Generation C’ (for ‘creative’, ‘content-driven’
and ‘community-oriented’)―who exhibit a strong preference for knowledge
commons (e.g., music-file sharing and Creative Commons) and open-source
software developments, which are characteristic of Web 2.0 applications
(Kaplan-Leiserson, 2005). ‘Generation C’ shares many similarities with previous
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 33
generational groupings such as the ‘Net-Gen’ or ‘digital natives’ (e.g., Prensky,
2001, 2006; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005), in terms of their levels of familiarity
and engagement with online technologies in daily life. Moreover, they move
beyond individually-based interests and pursuits of advancements and
entertainment “with scant regard for the common good or an equitable
distribution of knowledge and resources” (Bruns et al., 2007, p. 1) to become a
more collectivistic e-community of participants, active in global knowledge
creation and sharing.
While naming global participants in knowledge creation as an entirely new
generation risks over-generalisation (e.g., Bennett, Maton & Kervin, 2008; Oliver
& Goerke, 2007; Kennedy et al., 2006), ‘Generation C’ nonetheless comprises a
diverse but significant grouping of people who share some common
characteristics and aims. A synthesis of relevant literature (e.g., Bennett et al.,
2008; Brown, 2006; Bruns et al., 2007; Downes, 2004; Howe & Strauss, 2000;
Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001, 2006) pointed to three key features
of this group of young people in terms of their associations with technology and
each other. These are (i) prolific and extensive engagements with digital
technologies in everyday life for socialising, learning and working, (ii) multiple
modalities and mental pathways for accessing, processing and generating
information and knowledge, and (iii) a strong preference for social
connectedness and experiential learning, where they not only use, but are also
active producers of content, information and knowledge.
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 34
Specifically, the young people comprising ‘Generation C’ have been found to be
more digitally and visually literate than previous generations. Having grown up
in a world that is well-connected by new networked media, they “crave
interactivity… [and are] constantly connected and always on” (Oblinger &
Oblinger, 2005, p. 26). They are sometimes referred to as ‘natural born cyborgs’
(Clark, 2003; Gee, 2003, 2007a, 2007b) who are oriented towards inductive
discovery, enjoy figuring out the rules by ‘trial and error’, and are motivated by
‘learning to be’ (Brown, 2006) rather than by being told what to do. Importantly,
the ways in which they access, share and create knowledge (online and offline)
appear to challenge traditional production/consumption models characteristic of
late capitalism, in that they occupy a hybrid space where user and producer
identities become indistinct, a position referred to as that of a ‘prod-user’ (Bruns
et al., 2007; McWilliam & Dawson, 2008).
2.2.3 Implications for Schooling and Learning
The emergence of ‘Generation C’ learners as a distinct social formation
underpinned by Web 2.0 networking technologies brings with it considerable
and fundamental implications for the creation and provision of learning
environments (Tan and McWilliam, 2008). Few would disagree with the view
that schools have a crucial role to play in the lives and learning of their students,
in terms of preparing them for the present and future (e.g., Gee, 2007a; Kennedy
et al., 2009; MacGilchrist et al., 2004; The New London Group, 2000; Kress,
2000). Put another way, there is general consensus that formal schooling should
be relevant and appropriate to the needs of their learners and help them reach
their full potential by developing essential literacies and capacities that will allow
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 35
them to become active “everyday participant[s] in literate societies” (Freebody &
Luke, 2003, p. 53). Following from this central purpose of schooling and the
significant shifts in the nature of learners, nature of knowledge and the labour
market as a result of rapid technological advancements and economic re-
formations discussed in the previous sections, it is incumbent on schools and
educators to engage with and address these shifts in terms of what students learn
and how they learn (Warschauer, 2007) in their daily schooling practices.
The ‘what’ of learning refers to the encoded knowledge, literacies, skills and
capacities that schools need to help students develop in order to successfully
participate in this digital, conceptual age. The ‘how’ of learning relates to the
pedagogical frameworks and ensuing learning environments that best allow
students to develop those literacies and capacities. The following section
discusses in greater detail what these essential 21st century literacies and skills are,
as well as how to develop these capacities in particular learning environments
underpinned by appropriate pedagogical frameworks. The affordances of new
and emergent learning technologies for establishing such learning environments
are discussed in this context.
2.3 What to Learn? How to Learn?
“The driving force for the 21st century is the intellectual capital of citizens. Political, social
and economic advances… during this millennium will be possible only if the intellectual
potential of [our] youth is developed now. It should be no surprise that what students learn
―as well as how they learn it and how often they must refresh these skills sets―is
changing.”
― NCREL (2003, p. 9)
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 36
2.3.1 What to Learn: Literacies and Skills for the Conceptual Age
While the specifics of school curriculum remain contested, there appears to be
convergence among scholars, policymakers and practitioners in various fields
around a number of essential 21st century skills and literacies that schools need
to develop in their twenty-first century students. A comprehensive framework
describing essential digital-age skills and literacies recently published is the
enGauge 21st Century Skills: Digital Literacies for a Digital Age by the North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) (2003), a federally-funded research
and learning laboratory based in the United States. The framework was
developed on the basis of (i) extensive and in-depth literature reviews, (ii)
analysis of nationally-recognised skill sets, (iii) conceptual and empirical input
from recognised scholars and practitioners in the fields of education, economics
and labour market, business and technology, and (iv) responses from constituent
groups and stakeholders (NCREL, 2003).
The framework has since been widely referred to in scholarly publications, as
well as policy papers and frameworks (e.g., Cunningham, 2004; McWilliam &
Dawson, 2008; Warschauer, 2007). Several key elements proposed in the
framework have also been espoused by literacy educators, educational
psychologists and learning scientists. The following section describes a range of
essential skills and literacies identified from a synthesis of work by NCREL and
some educators of note, which schools are called to embed in their daily work of
developing and preparing students for successful participation in the 21st century
conceptual age. The skills and literacies are grouped into three major categories
and discussed below.
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 37
2.3.1.1 Digital-Age Literacies
NCREL (2003) defines digital-age literacies as comprising (i) basic functional
literacy in reading, writing, mathematics and science (Bransford, Brown &
Cocking, 1999; Nelson, 1999), (ii) visual literacy, (iii) technological literacy, (iv)
information literacy, and (v) cultural literacy, including global awareness. Visual
literacy refers to the ability to decode, interpret and communicate using a
combination of traditional print and digital imagery, graphics, charts, and videos;
Technological literacy refers to competence in the use of computers, networks and
applications; Information literacy refers to the competency to find, evaluate and use
off-line and online information appropriately within legal, ethical and social
guidelines.
Visual, technological and information literacies are not skills that can be
developed in isolation. Warschauer (2007) stressed the importance of
information literacy in conjunction with functional, visual and technological
literacies – what he terms ‘multimedia literacy’ – which he refers to as the ability
to interpret, understand, design and create content that uses (traditional and
digital) images, photographs, video, animation, music, sounds, texts and
typography. This extended concept of literacy that moves beyond basic
functional reading and writing using traditional print medium to incorporate
fluency in multiple modalities is strongly advocated by several other literacy
educators (e.g., Daley, 2003; Kalantzis & Cope, 2005; Kress, 2003) or groups of
educators (e.g., The New London Group, 2000). For instance, the transnational
New London Group (1996, 2000) built extensively on prior work in literacy
education that argued for the importance of multimodalities to promote the
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 38
concept of Multiliteracies―a new literacy framework that has been adopted
relatively extensively by educators and policy makers worldwide, including the
Education Department of Queensland. Essentially, the multiliteracies framework
stresses the equal importance of visual and verbal literacy, and calls for a focus
on developing learners’ ability to decode and engage with multiple modes of
literacy, including linguistic, gestural, spatial, visual and audio forms of
communication.
In summary, digital-age literacies underscore two important competencies: (i) the
ability to engage with content in multiple modalities in a critical manner using
current technologies, and (ii) the ability to access, search, evaluate and create
content in an efficient and appropriate manner using current technologies. The
latter stresses the importance of knowing ‘how to search’, rather than simple
‘mastery of facts’ (Warschauer, 2007). As Kress (2003) pointed out, the
predominant position of multimedia in today’s world of digital communications
has placed the abovementioned skills in high demand. It is for this reason that
the integration of digital tools into the mainstream pedagogical practices of
schooling is a priority issue for the educational sector.
2.3.1.2 Powers of Adaptability, Creativity and Communication
Another category of skills and competencies frequently mentioned in existing
relevant literature as pivotal in this conceptual age are dispositions of (i)
flexibility and adaptability, (ii) creativity, innovativeness and risk-taking, and (iii)
collaboration and effective communication. Robinson (2001) drew attention to
the existing skills gap that is causing employers to raise concerns about academic
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 39
programs (in schools and universities) being inadequate in the preparation of
young people for the workplaces. The main criticism is that traditional academic
curriculum is not designed to produce people who are flexible, adaptable,
imaginative, innovative, and most importantly, able to deal with failure
(Robinson, 2001). These dispositions and aptitudes are becoming increasingly
vital in a knowledge-centred economy characterised by complexity and rapid
change, in turn driven by the communications revolution, increasing bandwidth,
multiplying outlets and increasing global consumer demand.
Flexibility or adaptability can be defined as the ability to prioritise, plan, design,
and manage complexity, through anticipating changes, considering contingencies,
and understanding interdependencies within systems (NCREL, 2003; Rychen &
Salganik, 2003). It also involves being able to effectively use real-world tools to
achieve productivity and desired results despite complexities and challenges
(NCREL, 2003; Rychen & Salganik, 2003; Warschauer, 2007).
Creativity or innovativeness is defined here as the propensity to use imagination to
develop new, original and valuable inventions or solutions, as an individual and
as part of a team (Craft, 2005; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Kaufman & Sternberg,
2006; Sternberg, 1999). The importance of being able to create knowledge in this
digital age is emphasised in Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revised Bloom’s
taxonomy of knowledge in the cognitive domain. Their knowledge taxonomy
augmented Bloom’s (1956) landmark work by extending the conventional
taxonomy of remembering, understanding, applying, analysing and evaluating, to
include creating knowledge.
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 40
The propensity to create and innovate, individually and collectively, is in turn
closely related to effective collaboration and communication, or the ability to interact
well with others and work together towards common objectives, and to convey,
exchange, and understand information using current technologies (NCREL,
2003). Effective collaboration and communication does not refer solely to
technical skills but also to an understanding of communicative etiquette in the
relevant environments including cross-cultural settings, and an appreciation of
what counts as socially and personally responsible information in those
environments. Again, these are skills and capacities that are more likely to be
fostered by a digital rather than analogue electronic environment.
2.3.1.3 Risk-taking, Learning and Performance
A common denominator underlying these dispositions is the ability to take risks
and accept failure or welcome error (McWilliam, 2008). As Lemke (2002, p. 19)
aptly pointed out, “the very nature of learning requires risk taking ... [and we]
will never be able to learn new things if [we] are not ready to experience both
success and failure”. Dweck (2000) elaborated further on this point using
extensive empirical research in the field of self-theories to identify two sets of
qualities in learners: Mastery-oriented or helpless. Mastery-oriented qualities are
associated with adaptive responses to challenges and problems, self-confidence
which in turn brings about a form of optimistic persistence, and the ability to
take risks in learning, primarily because failure is not viewed as a measure of
personal inadequacy (Crocker & Park, 2004; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). By
contrast, learners who predominantly exhibit helpless responses are likely to
experience intellectual paralysis when faced with challenging problems and find
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 41
themselves in a position where they are unable to draw on their existing
knowledge to creatively think about potential solutions, being overwhelmed by
their inability to ‘get the right answer’ (Dweck, 2000).
These dispositions are in turn influenced by the learners’ achievement goal
orientations, which can be predominantly learning-oriented or performance-oriented.
The former is associated with mastery-oriented qualities, where the learner is
focused on increasing competence, learning new skills, understanding new
concepts and essentially “to get smarter” (Dweck, 2000, p. 15). As Dweck (2000)
went on to explain, students who are performance-oriented have a higher
tendency to exhibit helpless responses in the face of difficult challenges, as a
result of being primarily concerned with winning positive judgements about their
competence (“to look smart”, p. 15) and avoiding negative ones (“to avoid
looking dumb”, p. 15).
While both goals are universal and can lead to high achievement (ideally, Dweck
concludes, in a 50/50 ratio), the general consensus is that school systems, with
the numerous high-stakes standardised testing, tend to develop students who are
primarily performance-oriented. While these students may achieve the academic
grades and educational qualifications they desire, their inability to cope with
complexity and difficult challenges render them ineffective 21st century
intellectual knowledge workers who need to “know what to do when they [don’t]
know what to do” (Claxton, 2004, p. 1). If, as Dweck sees it, a 50/50
performance/learning orientation is ideal, then schools are challenged to develop
students who are oriented towards both learning and performance, rather than
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 42
performance alone. As Lemke (2002) argued, “students must be in
environments they perceive to be safe places in which to share ideas, reflect on
and discuss perspectives, and learn new things. Schools have an obligation to
ensure that all students are placed in such environments.” (p. 19). In simple
terms, ‘low threat, high challenge environments’ (McWilliam, 2010 forthcoming)
are likely to be most efficacious in getting this balance right.
The above discussion raises the question: What types of learning environments
are best suited to the task of achieving this balance of learning and performing
to develop the sets of 21st century skills and literacies discussed above? The next
section draws on existing literature and prior studies to address this question and
the issue of how students learn.
2.3.2 How to Learn: Learning Environments for the Conceptual Age
“The challenge, and thereby opportunity, for educators and business leaders, is the
redesign of the spaces and structures of knowledge and learning. Where classrooms and
courses fail, ecologies and networks succeed – due to greater alignment with societal
changes and needs of learners and organisations.”
― George Siemens (2006, p. 9)
2.3.2.1 From Cartesian to ecological paradigms of learning
The last four decades of educational scholarship has seen a strong movement
away from a Cartesian paradigm towards an ecological paradigm of learning and
pedagogy (Barab & Plucker, 2002; Brown, 2006; Frielick, 2004). As summarised
by Barab and Plucker (2002), the Cartesian model of learning, based on the
scholarship of prominent 17th century philosopher René Descartes, separates the
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 43
individual (knower) from the environment (known), which in turn promotes the
belief that knowledge is a self-sufficient substance that can be understood
independently from the environmental context in which it is learnt. The
Cartesian paradigm lies at the root of conventional transmissionist-oriented
approaches to teaching and learning, which leads to the production of passive or
inert knowledge (Barab & Plucker, 2002; Bransford et al., 1999; Freire, 1970; von
Glasersfeld, 1995).
An ecological paradigm of learning stands in sharp contrast with the traditional
Cartesian paradigm, by situating the learner within the learning context, which is
community-based rather than individual-based (Barab & Plucker 2002; Brown,
2006). As a study of knowledge, it shifts from focusing on individual forms of
cognition and rationality to multiple social forms of knowing, being and doing.
In so doing, it transcends the binary formulation of the individual or society by
shifting the object of analysis to the ‘socially-produced individual’ (Henriques,
Holloway, Urwin, Venn, & Walkerdine, 1984). It is this shift of focus to the
social production of a learner identity that lies at the heart of social-
constructivist approaches to teaching and learning, where situated cognition and
learning takes place within a community of learners (Brown, Collins & Duguid,
1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Swan & Shea, 2005; Vygotsky, 1978), through what
Vygotsky (1978) termed the “zone of proximal development” (p. 86). Social
constructivism emphasises how meanings and understandings grow out of social
interactions and encounters. It has been a powerful idea in shaping models of
learning and pedagogy in the past decade (Issroff & Scanlon, 2002).
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 44
2.3.2.2 Beyond social constructivism toward connectivism
More recently, with the growth of ecological perspectives in learning and
teaching, coupled with the rapid advent of networked communication
technologies in social and professional spaces, there has been a push for learning
theories and pedagogical practices to move beyond social constructivism
towards what has been termed as ‘connectivism’ (Siemens, 2005, 2006). This
model of learning was first articulated by George Siemens, a well-known theorist
on the changing nature of learning in a digitally-based society, in his compelling
paper Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age (2005). It is a model of
learning based on his analysis of the limitations of behaviourism, cognitivism
and constructivism to explain the effect technology has had on how we live, how
we communicate and how we learn. As Perrin (2005), editor of the International
Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning defined it, “connectivism
combines relevant elements of many learning theories, social structures, and
technology to create a powerful theoretical construct for learning in the digital
age” (p. 1). In other words, connectivism is to digital what behaviourism is to
analogue.
The connectivist approach to learning and teaching has its roots in the notion
that “the learning process must create interconnections for knowledge that is
distributed over many actual and virtual locations” so that “maintaining these
connections…becomes a learning skill essential for successful participation in a
technological information society” (Verhagen, 2006, p. 1). In so doing,
connectivism extends the social constructivist approach in two key aspects. First,
while social constructivism holds that learning is a socially enacted process, it
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 45
still promotes the principality of the individual in learning, that is, learning takes
place within the individual (Siemens, 2005, 2006). On the other hand, a premise
underlying connectivism is that learning not only takes place within the
individual, but also importantly occurs in a constantly changing or evolving
learning environment comprising networked individuals (Brown, 2006; Siemens,
2005, 2006). This premise is summed up clearly by Siemens (2006, p. 1) in his
insistence that “much of knowledge today is distributed across networks of
individuals, not held only in the mind of one”. Second, while the social
constructivist approach to learning merely advocates the use of modern
technologies to facilitate telecommunications and the social construction of
knowledge through engaging with multiple modes of representation (Hirumi,
2002; Wilson, 1996), a connectivist approach sees new and emergent forms of
networked technologies as not only an enabler, but more importantly,
paramount and intrinsically linked to powerful learning processes and
experiences (Weatherley, 2006).
2.4 Responses from the Schooling Sector: Policy, Practice and Research
The above discussion has briefly canvassed the means by which rapid
technological developments are impacting on what students learn, and how
learning environments might be structured to facilitate the development of the
identified 21st century essential skills and literacies. In the sections that follow,
the discussion moves to comment on how the schooling sector in general is
responding to such shifts.
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 46
2.4.1 Policy and Practice
Castells (1996, 2000) was emphatic that we can no longer speak of the ‘social’
without speaking of the ‘technological’. This works as a powerful imperative in
educational policymaking and leadership as educators in the schooling sector
worldwide come to recognise the need for reform in the education system in
order to prepare their young people to cope more effectively with the challenges
in this new digital era (Cheng, 2006; Cheng & Townsend, 2000). A general aim
of these reforms is to move towards curriculum, pedagogy and assessment that (i)
better reflect the types of skills and literacies relevant to a conceptual age as
those described earlier, and (ii) capitalise on the affordances of new and
emergent networked and media technologies to facilitate more learner-centred,
ecological configurations of learning in which ‘Generation C’ students are able
to co-design and co-create value in their learning pathways as ‘prod-users’ (i.e.,
producers and users, rather than mere consumers, of knowledge).
To this end, numerous countries (e.g., Chile, Finland, Singapore, United States)
have set national goals and policies that identify a significant role for new and
emergent information and communication technologies in improving education
systems and reforming their curricula and pedagogical practices (Kozma &
Anderson, 2002; Pearson & Naylor, 2006). Major investments have been made
by many OECD countries in recent years to increase the numbers of computers
in schools and to enhance the networking of learners in and beyond site-
bounded learning in classrooms (Becta, 2007; Cheng, 2006). Among these,
several innovative forms of ICTs are being recognised as having significant
affordances for reconfiguring and enhancing teaching and learning in digital
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 47
times. These include, in particular, virtual learning environments, digital
curriculum, multiplayer virtual games and mobile learning applications (see Becta,
2007; Korica et al., 2006).
Despite these trends and substantial fiscal investments in ICTs for schooling,
there is an increasing corpus of research indicating that the process of change in
schools, in terms of the adoption and diffusion of these innovative learning
technologies into mainstream teaching and learning practices, remains slow-
moving (e.g., Ofsted, 2004; Russell et al., 2005; Vrasidas & Glass, 2005).
Correspondingly, digital tools and their attendant modes of social engagement
remain marginal to the daily life of students and teachers in formal schooling.
This gap between policy and practice draws attention to the fact that the
adoption and diffusion of innovative learning technologies and pedagogical
practices in formal education is a complex issue, constituting a problem that
demands increasing attention from both educational practitioners and
researchers in the field.
2.4.2 Research and Knowledge Gaps in the Field
While many studies have examined the adoption and diffusion 4 of ICTs in
schools and tertiary institutions, a comprehensive literature search of major
academic databases (e.g., EBSCOhost, ERIC and Proquest) showed that the bulk
of existing research tends to approach the phenomenon from a deficit
perspective, focusing on the barriers encountered by schools as institutions, and
4 Other terms used in conjuction with ‘adoption and diffusion’ often include ‘uptake’, ‘use’, or ‘integration’. Detailed definitions of the terms ‘adoption’ and ‘diffusion’ are provided in the sub-section 2.5.1 Adoption and Diffusion Defined on page 57.
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 48
teachers as skill-deficient individuals. Findings often point to the lack of
institutional support or resourcing at the local or school administrative level, as
well as teachers’ anxieties and resistance to new technologies and pedagogies as
key contributors to the slow rate of change taking place in mainstream schooling
practices (e.g., Becta, 2005; Cox et al., 1999; Pelgrum, 2001; Preston et al., 2000;
Yuen & Ma, 2002). While these studies contribute valuable knowledge to the
field, deficit models of schools and teachers in and of themselves offer limited
explanations of this important and complex phenomenon, given that
corresponding interventions, which focus on increasing funding and upskilling
teachers, have made little difference to adoption trends in the last decade.
In 2005, the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency
(Becta) conducted a comprehensive examination of existing research literature in
the field of ICTs adoption and diffusion in schools, and in the process
highlighted several gaps in the literature informing future research. First, Becta
(2005) pointed out that, although there is a significant body of studies
investigating the uptake and use of ICTs by the schooling sector in general, there
is little evidence about its utilisation in specific phases of education; in other
words, research into specific primary or secondary schooling contexts would
contribute significantly to the field. In similar vein, other researchers have
highlighted the fact that there is a paucity of research into online learning in
secondary schools, despite the increasing use of online technologies in these
contexts, with the majority of available research being carried out in tertiary
education contexts (Chang & Tung, 2008; Chen, Wu & Yang, 2008; Clark, 2003;
Day, 2005; Ngai, Poon & Chan, 2007).
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 49
Second, Becta (2005) stated that almost all of the available literature explores
barriers associated with general uses of ICT, with the predominant focus on the
use of computers and the Internet in general. However, research that focuses on
specific technologies, particularly new networked technologies, is scarce despite
its importance for enabling targeted and informed policy making and practice in
the field going forward.
Third, Becta (2005, p. 9) stressed the need for research to go beyond focusing on
barriers and impediments to examine examples of “innovative practice” and
“effective use” of ICTs. Studies focusing on barriers tend to concentrate on
non-adopters and/or potential adopters of the technological or practice-related
innovation as the primary participant group. While it is useful for research on
innovation adoption and diffusion in schools to consider the perceptions and
attitudes of non-adopters and/or potential adopters at the institutional and
individual levels, it is also critical to expand the research focus to include
adopters (schools or individuals) and their experience of the use and diffusion
of the relevant innovation (NSBF, 2007). Currently, there are few empirical
studies examining the adoption and diffusion process from the perspective of
adopters and what enables them to engage with the innovation in their daily
practice (Becta, 2005). Research that can extend knowledge in this area is now
overdue. This is one knowledge gap that this study attends to.
Another area where research is needed is compelling empirical evidence on the
perspectives and experiences of students as a critical group of stakeholders in
schools’ adoption and use of ICTs. A literature search and review of relevant
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 50
studies over the past six years (2003-2008), using four major academic databases
(Proquest Dissertations, Proquest Education, ERIC via EBSCOhost,
ScienceDirect), showed that only 21% or 43 out of 197 studies took into
consideration the point of view of students5. The remaining 154 studies focused
primarily on teachers’ and school leaders’ perspectives and experiences.
Furthermore, of the small number of 43 studies that examined the process of
innovation (technological and practice-related) adoption and use from the
student’s standpoint, the majority (65%), that is, 28 studies were carried out in
tertiary settings. Only a small minority of 16% or 7 studies were conducted in
secondary schooling contexts. When this is coupled with the earlier matter of the
paucity of relevant research into secondary schools, it is evident that secondary
school students continue to comprise a strikingly under-researched and under-
represented group of critical stakeholders involved in the process of adoption
and use of innovative technologies and pedagogical practices in schools. While
the study embedded in this thesis is limited to a few hundred adolescent male
students in one school, it nevertheless makes a contribution to addressing this
problem of the lack of student perspective.
5 Key terms used in the search include numerous combinations of the following: technology, ICT, computers, adoption, diffusion, use, acceptance, uptake, integration, education, school, teaching, learning, student, teacher. A total of 197 relevant studies were found in the search. These were reviewed and classified into two major groups: (i) studies that focus on teachers and school leaders as research participants (N=154), and (ii) studies that focus on students as research participants (N=43). The studies in each group were further categorised into educational contexts of primary, middle, secondary, and tertiary settings. Of the 154 studies that focused on teachers and school personnel – 17 (11%), 10 (6%), 23 (15%) and 104 (68%) studies were conducted in primary, middle, secondary and tertiary settings respectively. Of the 43 studies that focused on students – 2 (5%), 6 (14%), 7 (16%) and 28 (65%) studies were conducted in primary, middle, secondary and tertiary settings.
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 51
2.4.3 Potential Contributions of this Thesis
In light of the knowledge gaps discussed above, researchers increasingly
acknowledge the need to approach the issue of innovation adoption and
diffusion from a wider systemic perspective, going beyond the concerns and
constraints experienced by teachers and schools toward an understanding of the
cultural and pedagogical complexities of innovation diffusion within long-
established conventions of formal schooling, particularly from the standpoint of
a critical group of stakeholders―the students. There is also a need to focus
research on specific technologies, especially new networked technologies, rather
than a general group of technologies such as ‘computers’ or ‘the Internet’.
Further, more empirical work in the area of specific schooling or learning
contexts, particularly secondary school settings is clearly needed.
This thesis seeks to contribute to the abovementioned body of knowledge and
theory in the field by critically examining the interactions and negotiations that
occur in the process of introducing student-led learning using new digital media tools
into the mainstream formal schooling, as it is experienced by students and teachers in
a long-established, well-resourced and high-performing senior schooling
environment. The inquiry focuses on a ‘case’ of innovative practice―a student-
led digital learning initiative using new networked technologies in the form of a
multimodal virtual learning environment. Of central interest to the inquiry are
the cultural and pedagogical complexities involved in the attempted integration
of its activities into the mainstream learning and teaching practices of the case
study senior school context. The study aims to document, explain and theorise
how students experience and account for the complexities of engaging with
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 52
contemporary learning technologies as part of their conventional schooling
experiences. It seeks to determine the extent to which pertinent
social/contextual, technological and individual factors that impact on students’
perceptions and experiences with the innovation, as well as examine students’
accounts and reasoning practices of engaging with the specific Web 2.0 learning
innovation in their everyday schooling practices.
In so doing, this thesis has the potential to address the aforementioned
knowledge gaps in four major aspects. First, the inquiry focuses on a specific
educational context, that is, the senior school context, which is an area identified
as significantly lacking in relevant literature. Second, the study focuses on a
specific technological innovation and its corresponding progressive pedagogical
elements, as called for by Becta (2005) and other researchers in the field.
Following Rogers’ (1995) widely-used innovation diffusion theory and Kozma
and Anderson’s (2002) cross-cultural study of innovative pedagogical practices
using ICT, ‘innovation’ is defined here as a technology or practice that is new in
the specific learning context, and one that:
(i) promotes active and independent learning, where students take
responsibility and create their own learning goals and activities;
(ii) provides students with competencies and technological skills, including
information literacy and multimedia literacy (as defined earlier);
(iii) engages students in collaborative and socially-enacted learning within a
network of learners to address complex extended and real-world-like
problems and projects;
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 53
(iv) ‘breaks down the walls’ of the classroom, taking learning beyond site-
bounded physical locations to multiple networked local and virtual
environments.
The specific technology being investigated in this study, a multimodal virtual
platform underpinned by Web 2.0 open-source networked applications
(including blogs, polls, interactive forums, digital videos and podcasts), meets
the abovestated criteria of what constitutes an innovation. More importantly, it
is one of several new and emergent learning technologies that is increasingly
acknowledged by educators and researchers as having significant affordances for
reconfiguring and enhancing teaching and learning in digital times (see Becta
2007; Korica et al., 2006).
Third, this study aims to go beyond examining barriers and impediments from
the perspective of non-adopters and potential adopters, to consider the
complexities of the adoption and diffusion process as experienced and described
by multiple groups of student stakeholders, including those who are engaged
with the innovation, those who reject the innovation, and those who are yet
undecided. In the case of this study, these stakeholders comprised the senior
school student community. The Web 2.0 learning innovation under scrutiny is
led and managed by a core group of approximately 30 senior school students in
Years 10, 11 and 12. It is a multimodal virtual learning environment that was
designed to engage the whole senior school community in flexible networked
digital learning, and can be accessed by all the students (and their teachers)
within the senior school. By focusing on multiple groups of student stakeholders
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 54
with diverse responses to and engagement with the innovation, the study is
designed as a comprehensive, multi-dimensional investigation of the factors that
act as both inhibitors and enablers of students’ utilisation of particular
technologies, the interactions of these variables, as well as the ways in which
students make sense of these interactions in the inherently complex nature of the
secondary schooling context (Pearson & Naylor, 2006).
It is important here that 21st century schools are not just sites of potential
technological engagement, but also powerful sites for the formation of social
identities outside the home. This is evidenced in two decades of sociological
analyses by McWilliam (McWilliam, 1989, 1997, 1998, 2006; McWilliam & Vick,
1995; McWilliam & Brannock, 2001) that demonstrated the work schooling does
in constituting young people as social subjects through the relations of power
that exist in schools, made available through the ways in which schooling is
discursively and materially organised. Naming practices such as the ‘non-
academic’ group, ‘manual’ group, ‘seniors’, ‘juniors’, ‘remedial’ group and so on
all do a particular kind of work in this regard. So a study of in-school practices is
necessarily a study also of social formations. It is for this reason that the design
of the study that follows is a study of social formation at the same time that it is
a study of technology adoption and diffusion. In this way, more than simply
addressing the gap in literature where students, and particularly secondary school
students, appear to be an under-represented group of critical stakeholders within
which active social learning is taking place, this thesis moves contemporary
schooling research beyond the tendency to remain in the rhetoric of student-
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 55
centeredness towards more authentic practice of privileging the student
perspective in their learning.
In the preceding sections, a critical review and synthesis of extant literature in
the area of schooling and learning in digital times has provided a scholarly
context for this study, particularly in terms of how rapid technological
advancements have brought significant changes to the nature of knowledge, the
nature of learners and the nature of learning, and the profound implications for
‘what’ students learn and ‘how’ they learn in the 21st century conceptual age.
Additionally, the discussion has shown that the rate of change in schools and
classrooms continues to be slow-moving despite the general consensus among
governments, scholars, policy makers and practitioners alike for the need to
reform mainstream schooling practices to reflect the significant shifts discussed
above and to prepare young people more effectively for their future professional
and personal pursuits. Correspondingly, richer understandings of this process of
change, in terms of innovation adoption and diffusion, were advocated. Several
literature gaps in the field were then highlighted as a rationale for this study, in
order to flesh out the ways in which the study can potentially contribute to
knowledge in the field.
As stated earlier, this thesis aims to document, explain and theorise how students
in a high-performing independent senior school setting experience, negotiate and
account for the complexities of engaging with a Web 2.0 student-led digital
learning initiative in their mainstream schooling practices. To address this
research aim, the study seeks to determine the extent to which pertinent
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 56
social/contextual, technological and individual factors impact on their
perceptions and experiences associated with the innovation, and the ways in
which students account for the affordances and constraints of integrating this
learning innovation within their conventional schooling practices. In this regard,
the adoption and diffusion process of the Web 2.0 learning innovation serves as
the point of entry for analysing the educational complexities around traditional
and digital forms of learning, and for understanding the ways in which these
complexities are played out in an academically-competitive senior schooling
context that is rich in both tradition and resourcing. Against this background,
the review and synthesis of literature that follows focuses more specifically on
existing research in the field of innovation adoption and diffusion, so as to
provide a conceptual framework for the conduct of this study.
2.5 Innovation Adoption and Diffusion in Schools
The adoption and diffusion of innovation, particularly technology-related
innovations, have been approached from macro and micro perspectives. Macro
theorists focus on reforming and restructuring educational institutions and
making systemic policy-level changes. On the other hand, micro theorists
approach the adoption and use of specific technologies, including instructional
and learning technologies, through understanding the perspectives and
experiences of relevant groups of adopters or potential adopters (Farquhar &
Surry, 1994; Leonard-Barton & Deschamps, 1988; Surry, 1997). As discussed
earlier, there is strong indication in the literature that significant investments and
changes are underway at a systemic policy level in OECD countries, including
Australia, to support the use and integration of new and emergent technologies
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 57
into education, but a more urgent and complex issue lies in the acceptance and
meaningful, sustained use of these technologies at the micro levels of schools
and classrooms. For this study therefore, it is the micro perspective that is most
relevant to understanding the adoption and diffusion process of the student-led
digital learning initiative within the school’s mainstream practices.
Surry (1997) explained that within the micro perspective to innovation adoption
and diffusion, there are two underlying views of technology. Technology determinists
view technology as the primary cause of social change and consequently,
diffusion can be achieved solely through the efficiency and effectiveness of the
relevant technology (Dunn, 2004). Put another way, this view is developer-based
and posits that technological superiority alone is sufficient in effecting change to
existing behaviours and practices. On the other hand, technology instrumentalists
view technology as a tool and emphasises social conditions and human
aspirations as the primary cause of change in behaviours and practice. A
fundamental premise of this view is that the needs, opinions, and perceptions of
the user or potential user are of primary importance to the acceptance and
diffusion of an innovation (Bijker, 2006; Dunn, 2004; Pinch, 1996).
Feenberg in his book Critical Theory of Technology (1991) suggested a third critical
perspective to understanding technology enacted in practice. Warschauer (2007)
summarised this approach as one that “situates technology use within real-world
power structures and inequities, and correspondingly views technology as neither
a neutral tool nor a determined outcome, but rather as a scene of struggle
between different social forces” (p. 47). In a similar vein, Perez (2004) argued
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 58
that there are inherent mechanisms in the way technologies diffuse that lead to
transitions in techno-economic paradigms every fifty or sixty years. These
paradigm shifts in turn bring patterns of stability and disruptions in the techno-
economic sphere, which require matching transformations at the socio-
institutional level. However, socio-institutional practices organised along the
entrenched ‘commonsense’ principles of the previous paradigm act as inertial
forces that make the socio-institutional framework more resistant to change and
slower to adapt to new conditions. This leads to a decoupling between the
techno-economic sphere and the socio-institutional sphere, which results in a
difficult period of irregular economic growth and deep, often painful,
institutional change. This struggle or push-and-pull of misalignment between the
techno-economic and socio-institutional spheres tends to last several decades
before the coherence of the total system is re-established, at which time the
wealth-creating potential of the new technology is optimised and a period of
prosperity ensues. The ‘core’ technologies of each successive techno-economic
paradigm therefore, were neither neutral tools nor determined outcomes, but
actively shape and were shaped by the dynamic, sometimes unpredictable, forces
of technical, economic and socio-institutional change.
Following Feenberg and Perez, this thesis works from the critical perspective of
technology adoption and diffusion. It acknowledges that technological,
social/contextual and individual factors are important in determining whether an
innovation is accepted and used in the relevant context, but holds that these
factors do not predict users’ decision processes in a linear fashion. Rather, an
appreciation of the tensions and accommodations involved in the introduction
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 59
and sustained use of such an innovation within the entrenched conventions of
mainstream schooling practices will provide more nuanced understandings about
why and how change takes place. In this regard, the study aims to investigate the
technological, social/contextual and individual factors, as well as their
interactions, contradictions and complementarities, in order to enrich
understandings of the underlying reasons and ways in which students resist or
engage with the student-led digital learning initiative to varying degrees in their
everyday schooling practices.
The next section clarifies the terms ‘adoption’ and ‘diffusion’ as they are used in
this study, and concludes with a discussion of the technological, contextual and
individual factors that may impact on the adoption and diffusion of a particular
innovation such as that which prompted this study.
2.5.1 Adoption and Diffusion Defined
A set of fundamental concepts appropriate for understanding innovation
adoption and diffusion are the Schumpeterian distinctions among invention,
innovation and diffusion (Schumpeter, 1939). According to Schumpeter, an
invention (of a new product or process) occurs within and can remain
perpetually in the technoscientific sphere. By contrast, an innovation is an
economic fact, in that the first commercial introduction transfers it to the
techno-economic sphere, albeit as an isolated occurrence until market forces
determine its viability. In the case of failure, it can disappear forever. In the case
of success, it can remain an isolated fact with minimal market impact or become
economically significant. In the event that an innovation experiences the process
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 60
of massive adoption, or diffusion, it is then transformed into a socio-economic
phenomenon with far-reaching social consequences. In sum, technical feasibility
is much more probable than economic profitability, which is in turn, much
higher in likelihood than widespread social acceptability. As Perez (2004, p. 219)
aptly pointed out, “not all inventions become innovations and not all
innovations diffuse widely”.
The basic Schumpeterian concepts such as those described above have informed
the field of innovation diffusion research in organisations to a significant extent.
Drawing on these concepts, a widely-recognised scholar in this field, Rogers
(1995), argued and demonstrated that the adoption of a technological innovation
is a decision process that evolves through different stages across time, usually
from (i) obtaining initial knowledge of an innovation, to (ii) forming a favourable
or unfavourable attitude toward it, to (iii) a decision to adopt or reject it, to (iv)
putting the innovation to use, and finally (v) seeking reinforcement of the
adoption decision made. This process is in part attributable to the nature of the
innovation. Key distinctions have been made between two major types of
innovation: incremental innovation and radical or disruptive innovation 6
(Christensen, 2003; Christensen, Horn & Johnson, 2008; Dosi, 1982; Freeman,
1984, 2004; f & Chang, 2007). Incremental innovations comprise primarily
improvements to products and processes within existing technological regimes,
6 The term ‘disruptive’ innovation was coined by Christensen (2003) in his book The Innovators Dilemma. While radical and disruptive innovations are generally taken as analogous concepts, some scholars have attempted to distinguish between the two, suggesting that the latter category can be developed in an attempt to improve existing products and process albeit in ways that the market does not expect, whereas the former category entail such fundamental technological changes that makes it impossible to result from efforts to improve an existing technology (Freeman, 2004; Perez, 2004; Smith, 2008). This ongoing conceptual debate is beyond the scope of this study, which follows the general conception of radical and disruptive innovations as akin to one another, in that, they both entail significant changes to existing mainstream products and practices.
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 61
such as enhanced speed and capabilities of microprocessors. By contrast, radical
and/or disruptive innovations tend to involve the introduction of a
fundamentally new product or process, rather than merely augmenting existing
ones, and tend to produce new practices, industries and structural changes in the
economy. For instance, the Television established a vibrant manufacturing
industry, as well as introduced programming and broadcasting services that
stimulated the growth of a systemic advertising industry. Predictably,
incremental innovations tend to experience higher levels of adoption and
diffusion than radical/disruptive innovations, given its higher degree of
compatibility with established trajectories of mainstream socio-institutional
practices. However, when these established trajectories approach exhaustion,
that is, when the returns derived from existing products and services reaches
maturity and plateaus, then there is a higher likelihood for radical/disruptive
innovations to be willingly adopted (Perez, 2004; Smith, 2008).
The type of innovation notwithstanding, ‘diffusion’ can be defined, following
Rogers, as the process by which an innovation is adopted and gains acceptance
by members of a certain community. In like manner, the Theory of Reasoned
Action (TRA), developed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) purports that technology
adoption is a decision process that occurs over time. The TRA is one of the first
intention models to gain widespread acceptance as a possible means of
predicting and explaining user acceptance of technology. According to the TRA,
an individual’s decision to behave in a given manner is influenced by the
person’s behavioural intention, in turn affected by the individual’s attitude (positive
or negative feelings about the target behaviour) and subjective norm (individual’s
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 62
perception that the target behaviour is desired by people important to the
individual). Given their dynamic and evolutionary nature, it is not uncommon
therefore to find different researchers using the terms ‘adoption’ and ‘diffusion’
to imply a variety of behaviours, ranging from the intention to adopt (Chwelos,
Benbasat & Dexter, 2001; Karahanna, Straub & Chervany 1999), the decision to
adopt (Bouchard, 1993; Grover, 1993; Iacovou & Benbasat, 1995), the likelihood
or propensity to adopt (Kendall, Tung, Chua, Ng & Tan, 2001; Tan & Fichman,
2002), to actual usage of the innovation (Grover, 1993; Premkumar &
Ramamurthy, 1994, 1995, 1997; Tan, 2003).
While researchers have stressed the importance of understanding actual usage
behaviours for successful innovation adoption and implementation (e.g.,
Limayem & Hirt, 2003; Premkumar & Bhattacherjee 2008), a large majority of
adoption studies to date, however, have focused more on behavioural intention
as a proxy of actual usage, rather than examining usage behaviour itself. This is
most commonly attributable to the fact that (i) behavioural intentions have been
shown in reviews of observational and experimental studies to account for a
significant proportion of the variance in actual behaviour, and (ii) the
practicalities of measuring behavioural intention is usually less challenging than
measuring actual behaviour (e.g., Bensaou and Venkatraman, 1996; Chwelos et al.,
2001; Zhu, Kraemer & Xu, 2003). For these reasons, the majority of adoption
studies conclude on behavioural intention despite concerns about potential
disparities in the intention-behaviour relationship, sometimes referred to as the
‘intention-behaviour gap’ (e.g., Eccles et al., 2006; Sheeran, 2002; Sniehotta,
Scholz & Schwarzer, 2005; Webb & Sheeran, 2006). Similarly, in the context of
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 63
ICTs in educational contexts, studies that examine determinants of actual usage
behaviour are few and far between. This thesis therefore, aims to contribute to
this empirical knowledge gap by going beyond behavioural intention to
investigate factors that predict students’ varying degrees of actual usage or
engagement with the implemented Web 2.0 digital learning innovation.
In other words, of the aforementioned adoption behaviours, this study is
primarily interested in actual usage, which can be further classified into (i) actual
usage sometimes known as current usage, and (ii) continued usage; in turn often
measured by the “extent or degree of use” in terms of volume and frequency of
usage (e.g., Hart & Saunders, 1998; Premkumar & Ramamurthy, 1994;
Karahanna et al., 1999; Thong, 1999). By considering actual usage and continued
usage behaviours, this study acknowledges that, while initial adoption is
important, it may not result in sustained and meaningful use or integration of the
innovation over a period of time to improve existing practices and dispositions
(Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck, 2001; Weston, 2005). Thus, it is the negotiations
and accommodations of engaging (or not engaging) with the innovation and the
resultant changes to practices, skills and dispositions embedded within
entrenched conventions of traditional mainstream schooling practices that is of
central interest to this study.
As discussed earlier, this study considers innovation adoption and diffusion to
be a complex process that is influenced by technological, social/contextual and
individual variables. These are discussed more fully in the following sections.
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 64
2.5.2 Technological Factors
To interrogate technological factors, Davis (1989) developed a simple yet
powerful empirical model of technology adoption and usage, known as the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), based on Ajzen and Fishbein’s Theory of
Reasoned Action (1980) discussed earlier. This model, illustrated in Figure 2.1,
posits that innovation adoption and use is influenced by two major technological
factors: perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness.
Figure 2.1: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
(Source: Davis, 1989)
Perceived ease of use is defined as the degree to which the user believes that using
the innovation is free of effort (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
Following this reasoning, Rogers (1995) stated that potential adopters evaluate
an innovation in terms of its complexity and the rate of diffusion increases when
the innovation is considered not overly complex and easy to use. Perceived
usefulness is defined as the degree to which the user believes that using the
innovation enhances his/her work or learning performance (Davis, 1989, Ngai et
al., 2007; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). In similar vein, Rogers (1995) and other
researchers have shown that the rate of diffusion of an innovation increases
Perceived
usefulness
Perceived
Ease of use
Attitude
toward using
Behavioral
intention to
use
Actual system
use
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 65
when it is perceived to provide users with relative advantage over existing
technology or modes of practice.
The TAM model has consolidated substantial theoretical and empirical support
since its conception, and is one of the most widely-used and accepted conceptual
frameworks to examine technological factors influencing users’ adoption of a
technology-related innovation. In recent years with the growth of the internet,
researchers have used TAM to investigate various web-related technologies,
including web browsers (Morris & Dillon, 1997), online course websites (Chang
& Tung, 2008; Selim, 2003) and web-based learning systems (Lou, Luo & Strong,
2000; Ngai et al., 2007).
A recent study, for example, conducted by Chang and Tung (2008) in Taiwan,
built on the TAM model and Rogers’ innovation diffusion theory discussed
above to determine the extent to which perceived usefulness and perceived ease
of use (and their related constructs of compatibility and perceived system quality
respectively), as well as an individual’s computer self-efficacy, influenced
undergraduate students’ behavioural intention to use online learning course
websites. A self-report questionnaire using items drawn from previously
validated studies (e.g., Chiu, Hsu, S. Sun, Lin & P. Sun, 2005; Venkatesh &
Davis, 2000; Vijayasarathy, 2004) was completed by over 200 undergraduates
(response rate of 29%). Results of structural equation modelling analyses showed
that all the measured exogenous variables (i.e., perceived usefulness, perceived
ease of use, computer self-efficacy) were significant determinants of the
endogenous variable, behavioural intention to use. Of the independent variables,
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 66
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use demonstrated the strongest
positive and direct effects on students’ intention to use the online course
websites (Chang & Tung, 2008).
Although perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness have been consistently
shown to predict technology usage behaviours, there is room for augmenting the
measurement of these technological factors – perceived usefulness in particular –
to reflect better the context of 21st century learning and schooling. Given that
the TAM has its roots in organisational behaviour and business information
systems fields, previous studies have tended to conceptualise the ‘work
performance’ aspect of ‘perceived usefulness’ as productivity, efficiency and
effectiveness. As a result, studies that utilised TAM in educational contexts
(including Chang and Tung’s (2008) study described above) have tended to
conceptualise ‘learning performance’ in an instrumental or functional manner, in
terms of increasing ‘learning productivity’, ‘learning efficiency’, and ‘learning
effectiveness’. As we move from the Industrial Age into the more recent
ICT/Conceptual Age, however, the notion of ‘usefulness’ is expanding and users
evaluate an innovation or practice for its aesthetic value, in addition to its
functional value (Pink, 2005). Education and schooling are being challenged to
move away from focusing primarily on academicism to include 21st century
skills of collaboration, creativity and networking for emerging ‘Generation C’
learners who ‘crave interactivity’ and enjoy experiential and inductive discovery
(Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005, p. 26; Gee, 2003). Thus there is a need to expand
the notion of ‘usefulness’ to include the more aesthetic aspects of schooling and
learning. These include (i) socialisation, (ii) identity and self-fashioning
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 67
(developing and expressing one’s personal and group identity), and (iii) exploring
new ways of learning, acquiring and creating knowledge beyond traditional
academic disciplines (Turvey, 2006; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). Brook and
Oliver (2006), in their study of online learning communities in K-12 classrooms,
also noted that users evaluate the usefulness of a learning community in terms of
their sense of belonging (identity), their influence and shared emotional
connections with other members (socialisation), and the degree to which they
perceive the environment to be ‘safe’, free from shame to experiment and
construct knowledge freely (exploration and creativity).
In light of these issues, this study will consider how the students’ decisions to
adopt and use the student-led digital learning initiative (SMC) are associated with
the ways in which they evaluate the SMC in terms of its ease of use and
usefulness to their learning and schooling. These include opinions about how
easy it is to access and use the SMC, as well as opinions about how useful the
SMC is for their (i) academic learning, (ii) socialisation, (iii) exploration and
expression of their identity and opinions, and (iv) development of creativity and
other 21st century skills and literacies beyond those taught in the classroom.
Given that this study is interested in the views of both adopters, potential and
non-adopters, the term ‘evaluate’ is used broadly here to account for both
perceptions (of non-adopters or potential adopters) and opinions developed
from actual use or engagement with the SMC (by adopters).
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 68
2.5.3 Social /Contextual Factors
In addition to the technological factors discussed above, this study holds that
technology use occurs in context, and is part of a system (social, personal and
educational) in which it acts and is acted upon in a multitude of planned,
unplanned, foreseen and unforeseen ways (Sclove, 1995). Specifically, Rogers
(1995), in his theory of perceived attributes, asserted that an innovation which is
perceived by users and potential users to be compatible with existing practices
and values will enjoy (i) a higher chance of being adopted, and (ii) a faster rate of
diffusion. In similar vein, researchers who use TAM have more recently moved
beyond technological factors alone, to consider social influences on users’
adoption and continued use of innovations (Chang & Tung, 2008; Chen et al.,
2008; Malhotra & Galletta, 2005; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh, Morris,
G. Davis & F. Davis, 2003).
For example, a recent study by Chen, Wu and Yang (2008) extended the
traditional TAM model to investigate the impact of social influence on 164
tertiary students’ intention to adopt Weblog technology in their second-year
introductory Management of Information Systems (MIS) unit in a private
university in Taiwan. Social influence was defined, following Venkatesh and
others (2003, p. 451) as “the degree to which an individual perceives that
important others believe he or she should use the new system”. The construct
consisted of six items: (i) five items that measured the levels to which
respondents perceived significant others in general (‘people’) and teachers to be
supportive of them using the technology, and (ii) one item measured their
perceptions of peer support from their fellow students associated with the use of
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 69
the technology. Results of a linear regression analysis showed that in addition to
technological constructs such as perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use,
social influence emerged as a significant predictor of students’ intention to use
the Weblog technology under study. Together the three constructs explained
47.2% of the variance in the ‘behavioural intention’ dependent variable (Chen et
al., 2008).
While Chen and colleagues’ (2008) study underscored the importance of social
influence, it is important to note that the Weblog technology examined was a
mandatory assessment-related activity within the unit. In this regard, the course
structure and teachers were likely to have played a significant role in influencing
students’ behavioural intentions. The importance of social influence and in
particular, peer-related social influence, have yet to be operationalised as a
distinct construct, and its impact on students’ actual usage of non-mandatory,
student-led, peer-to-peer new media learning innovations, such as the one under
scrutiny in this study, remains unclear. For this reason, peer social influence and
the ways in which it contests and/or complements students’ actual usage or
engagement with the Web 2.0 learning innovation becomes particularly relevant
in this thesis, and is therefore included as a measured predictor variable in the
quantitative phase of this study. The operationalisation of peer social influence
in this study is further discussed in Chapter Three, sub-section 3.4.5.1 and
Chapter Four, sub-section 4.2.1.
Contextual or socio-institutional practices and values range from those that are
readily observable to those that are less observable, or more abstract or implicit.
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 70
Readily observable aspects of the context include time, academic workloads and
administrative and technological resourcing (e.g., Betts, 1998; Covington,
Peterbridge & Warren, 2005; Waddoups & Howell, 2002). Less observable are
the socio-institutional culture and the vision, mission and ethos of the institution
(Berge, 1998; Birch, 2006; Spodark, 2003). Specific examples of these include the
extent of staff-determined regulatory practices and behavioural codes of conduct
within the school, and the levels of academic pressure and performativity
experienced by students (e.g., Faulkner & Cook, 2006; Goertz & Duffy, 2003;
Raby & Domitrek, 2007; Sloane & Kelly, 2003). These latter aspects often
remain tacit but nevertheless are significant for our understanding of the
institutional community. They lend themselves less readily to direct
measurement and may vary more idiosyncratically from institution to institution;
they call for more in-depth exploration and appropriately flexible forms of
analysis, as reflected in the qualitative phase of this study reported in Chapter
Five. Given that the context of this study is an independent well-resourced
school, both in terms of technology and technical human expertise, resourcing is
not anticipated to be a significant differentiating factor impacting on students’
decision to adopt and engage with the student-led digital learning initiative. On
the other hand, time and academic workloads have the potential to impact
significantly on the innovation adoption and diffusion process, particularly in
light of the academically competitive, high-performing culture and ethos of the
school.
As Warschauer (2007) pointed out, the move from the industrial age to a digital
knowledge economy sees education systems and schools currently experiencing
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 71
an awkward transition between what Bolter (1991) called the late age of print
and others such as Attewell and Winston (2003) have called a post-typographic
society. Viewed through the lens of supply-push and demand-pull approaches to
education and schooling discussed earlier, this transition is indeed a complex
process. In this late age of print, mainstream schooling practices generally
remain entrenched within the supply-push approach to education as explained
earlier, where credentialing through standardised testing and strong academic
performance remains imperative. Progressive school leaders who advocate the
need to expand learning opportunities for their students to acquire 21st century
digital-age literacies and skills in new and innovative ways that capitalise on
emergent networked technologies nonetheless have to negotiate immense
pressure from parents and other stakeholders to maintain high levels of print
literacy, in turn identified through high academic achievement and qualifications
amongst their students. In the same way, students are acculturated and socialised
to value the types of literacy practices that they, their families, and their
community believe will contribute to academic success and thereby enhancing
their life opportunities, while resisting others that are not perceived as directly
related to academic success, such as non-academic online activity (Albright et al.,
2006; Warschauer, 2007). Using this contextual paradox as a way of framing the
interests of this thesis, it is possible to hypothesise a variety of scenarios for
student-led digital innovations in a traditional high-performing senior school, in
terms of the ways in which a well-established mainstream institution can
incorporate emerging demand-based skills and disposition sets. This thesis seeks
to document these various possibilities and explore the implications for
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew
technological and pedagogical innovation in 21
students’ cultural and economic futures.
2.5.4 Individual Factors
In light of the contextual factors discussed above, several individual level factors
emerge as potentially significant to this study. These are (i) individual
innovativeness and cognitive playfulness, and (ii) achievement goal orientations.
The Individual Innovativeness Theory
individuals differ in terms of their propensity to accept a new idea or technology,
and for any given behaviour, the target audience comprises the five categories
shown in Figure 2.2 below. In
tend to adopt a new technology, idea or product earlier than most others.
Figure 2.2: Categories of individual innovativeness and percentages within each category
(Source: Surry, 1997)
Individual innovativeness is commonly defined as one’s willingness to change,
openness to new experiences and the propensity to go out of one’s way to
experience different and novel stimuli particularly of the meaningful sort (Hurt
L i t er at ur e R ev i ew
cal innovation in 21st century schooling for enhancing
students’ cultural and economic futures.
In light of the contextual factors discussed above, several individual level factors
emerge as potentially significant to this study. These are (i) individual
innovativeness and cognitive playfulness, and (ii) achievement goal orientations.
Innovativeness Theory developed by Rogers (1995) purports that
individuals differ in terms of their propensity to accept a new idea or technology,
and for any given behaviour, the target audience comprises the five categories
below. Individuals who are predisposed to being innovative
tend to adopt a new technology, idea or product earlier than most others.
Categories of individual innovativeness and percentages within each category
novativeness is commonly defined as one’s willingness to change,
openness to new experiences and the propensity to go out of one’s way to
experience different and novel stimuli particularly of the meaningful sort (Hurt
Pag e | 72
century schooling for enhancing
In light of the contextual factors discussed above, several individual level factors
emerge as potentially significant to this study. These are (i) individual
innovativeness and cognitive playfulness, and (ii) achievement goal orientations.
1995) purports that
individuals differ in terms of their propensity to accept a new idea or technology,
and for any given behaviour, the target audience comprises the five categories
dividuals who are predisposed to being innovative
tend to adopt a new technology, idea or product earlier than most others.
Categories of individual innovativeness and percentages within each category
novativeness is commonly defined as one’s willingness to change,
openness to new experiences and the propensity to go out of one’s way to
experience different and novel stimuli particularly of the meaningful sort (Hurt,
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 73
Joseph & Cook, 1977; Leavitt & Walton, 1975; Rogers, 1995). These behaviours
are the hallmarks of a learning disposition, in turn closely related to the concept
of cognitive playfulness (Glynn & Webster, 1993; Dunn, 2004, Tan &
McWilliam, 2008). Following Dunn (2004), cognitive playfulness is defined as a
characteristic within an individual that causes them to explore and ‘play’ with a
problem until it is solved. It follows that cognitively playful individuals have a
predisposition to curiosity, inventiveness and the need to play with novel ideas
and innovations, and this can result in increased individual learning
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Dunn, 2004). Studies have shown individual
innovativeness and cognitive playfulness to be closely related, and both have
been determined as highly and positively correlated with technology-related
innovation adoption behaviours, primarily in personal and organisation contexts,
as well as a small number in educational settings (e.g., Dunn, 2004; Glynn &
Webster, 1993; Kishore, Lee & McLean, 2001; Marcinkiewicz, 1993; Parveen &
Sulaiman, 2008; Webster, Tervino & Ryan, 1993; Yi, Tung & Wu, 2003). A
common explanation for their salience in predicting innovation adoption and use
is the fact that individuals who exhibit these characteristics have a higher
propensity to taking risks, as well as a higher tolerance for perceived failure
(Agarwal & Prasad, 1998; Dunn, 2004; Kishore et al., 2001; Myers, D.
Hendersen-King & E. Hendersen-King, 1997). Dunn (2004), for instance,
examined the relationships among personal innovativeness, cognitive playfulness
and generic information technology use by teachers in classrooms. The
participant sample comprised approximately 1000 P-12 teachers from 33 school
districts and one private school in north central Texas who were involved in a 3-
year Intel® Teach to the Future grant program. Although there were some
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 74
methodological setbacks associated with the low response rate (19%, N=206),
the findings of her correlational study indicated that (i) cognitive playfulness and
personal innovativeness were significantly and positively correlated, and (ii)
cognitive playfulness and personal innovativeness were significantly and
positively correlated with teachers’ sustained high levels of generic technology
use in the classroom. Other than Dunn’s study, there is limited empirical
research on the impact of personal innovativeness and cognitive playfulness on
technology adoption in P-12 schooling contexts. By determining the extent to
which cognitive playfulness and personal innovativeness predict senior school
students’ technology use at school, this thesis extends Dunn’s correlational study
in terms of statistical rigor (predictive modeling), unit of analysis (senior school
students), as well as technological specificity (a student-led Web 2.0 peer-to-peer
learning platform).
As discussed earlier, in addition to personal innovativeness and cognitive
playfulness, the nature of learning requires risk-taking. Learning cannot occur if
learners are not ready to experience both success and failure (Lemke, 2002). The
ability to take risks and tolerate error or failure thus becomes a critical issue
impacting on students’ (and their teachers’) decisions to engage with an
innovative student-led digital learning initiative, such as the SMC, particularly
when the ‘cost of failure’ is significant in a schooling context that highly values
traditional academic achievement. This ability to take risks and welcome error
(McWilliam, 2008) is in turn influenced by one’s achievement goal orientations.
As discussed earlier in Section 2.3.1.2, there are two distinct achievement goal
orientations: Learning goals and performance goals (Dweck, 2000). Again, in a
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 75
school and broader education context that continues to place high explicit value
on traditional academic literacies through standardised high stakes testing,
whether an individual student or teacher is predisposed to learning or
performance oriented achievement goals have the potential to significantly
impact on their decision to participate or reject the innovation of study. This
study makes a novel contribution by being the first to empirically examine the
relationship between individual learners’ achievement goal orientations and their
levels of innovation adoption/use. As Warschauer (2007) pointed out, there is a
great temptation for high-achieving academic students to desert anything that
appears extraneous to performing well in standardised tests. Where digital is
marginal, it is unlikely that ‘playfulness’ or learning (for the sake of learning) will
win out over mainstream schoolwork. Thus, the study focuses on the nexus of
digital learning and mainstream schooling as experienced by students in the
research setting, and the encompassing tensions and affordances of innovation
diffusion as a result of the differential value they place on particular modes of
learning, literacy practices and achievement goal orientations.
2.6 Summary
This chapter has provided a critical review and synthesis of extant literature in
the fields of (a) schooling and learning in digital times, and (b) the adoption and
diffusion of new and emergent technologies into mainstream schooling practices.
To this end, the chapter has:
Cha p te r T wo : L i t er at ur e R ev i ew Pag e | 76
(i) established the critical importance for mainstream schooling practices
to be relevant to digital times and respond accordingly to significant
shifts in the nature of knowledge, work and learners;
(ii) demonstrated how new technologies and new pedagogies are critical
aspects of change that need to take place in mainstream schooling;
(iii) identified a critical research problem facing educators and researchers
today, that is, the slow rate of change and uptake of innovation in
mainstream schooling, in terms of both technological and pedagogical
innovation;
(iv) highlighted literature and knowledge gaps in the field of innovation
adoption and diffusion in mainstream schooling contexts; and
(v) synthesised prominent theory and empirical studies in the field of
innovation adoption and diffusion, in order to provide a theoretical
frame for the conduct of this study.
Against this literature review and theoretical background, the next chapter sets
out the specific research questions of this thesis, and discusses the methodology
and design chosen to operationalise and address the key questions guiding this
research inquiry.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 77
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
This chapter provides an overview of the research purpose, the questions and
context for the study, as well as the methodological approach used. It then describes
the research design of the study and the methods of data collection and analysis that
will be used to pursue the research objectives and address the research questions.
3.1 Overview of Research Purpose and Questions
As set out in Chapter One, the general aim of this thesis is to move beyond deficit
discourses of schools and teachers to investigate the educational complexities of
innovation adoption and diffusion within established conventions of formal
schooling, as experienced by students—a critical yet under-researched group of
stakeholders. To accomplish this aim, the thesis addresses the central research
question of how students evaluate and account for the constraints and affordances of
contemporary digital tools when they engage with them as part of their conventional schooling. This
central research question is in turn addressed by focusing the inquiry on an
innovative ‘case’ of a student-led, peer-to-peer Web 2.0 learning initiative known as
the Student Media Centre (SMC), and the attempts to integrate its activities into the
mainstream schooling practices of a long-established, well-resourced, and high-
performing independent senior school in urban Queensland.
In so doing, this thesis sets up and tests the proposition: If progressive school leaders
and teachers in a well-resourced school endorse the implementation of a student-led digital learning
innovation built on cutting-edge Web 2.0 technologies that are embraced by ‘digital kids’ in their
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 78
personal sphere, then surely widespread uptake among these same ‘Net Gen’ students in school will
be assured.
This proposition is tested through the investigation of four specific research
questions (SRQ), namely:
(i) SRQ-1) What are the SMC engagement trends and patterns among
the senior school student community?
(ii) SRQ-2) What factors―individual, social and technological―predict
the extent to which the students engage with the learning innovation?
(iii) SRQ-3) How do the students describe, explain and account for the
Web 2.0 learning initiative, its prospects and consequences for their
schooling experience?
(iv) SRQ-4) What are the implications of the nature and outcomes of
this study for innovation adoption and diffusion in postmillennial
schooling?
The first two specific research questions pertain to the initial quantitative phase
of the study, the results of which are reported in Chapter Four. The third
specific research question guides the subsequent qualitative phase of the study,
the results of which are reported in Chapter Five. Specific research question four
is addressed in the concluding re-descriptive/theorising phase of the study
reported in Chapter Six. Of the four specific research questions listed above, the
first two consist of a series of corollary sub-questions that together serve as a
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 79
precise guide for the collection, analysis, and theorising of data pertinent to the
phenomena under scrutiny. These sub-questions are listed below.
Specific research question one (SRQ-1) consists of three sub-questions that are
addressed in the initial quantitative phase of the study via the self-report student
questionnaire.
SRQ 1.1 What are the statistical characteristics of the measurement scales used
in the questionnaire? Specifically, do the scales display satisfactory
reliability and validity?
SRQ 1.2 What are the adoption and diffusion patterns of the SMC within the
senior school student community? Specifically, to what extent do
students engage with the SMC in terms of usage volume and frequency,
generally and with regard to specific features?
SRQ 1.3 How do the student respondents describe and evaluate the SMC in terms
of its social and technological affordances for their learning and
schooling practice? Specifically, to what extent do students report (i) peer
support in engaging with the SMC, (ii) finding the SMC easy to use, and
(iii) valuing the SMC as a useful component of their learning and
schooling practice?
Specific research question two (SRQ-2) is addressed through a series of
incremental predictive modelling procedures carried out on the numeric
questionnaire data, as guided by the following sub-questions:
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 80
SRQ 2.1 How and to what extent do the students’ individual learning dispositions
(comprising Achievement Goal Orientations, Cognitive Playfulness and Personal
Innovativeness) predict their evaluation and use of the SMC?
SRQ 2.2 How and to what extent does the combination of individual and social
variables (comprising Achievement Goal Orientations, Cognitive Playfulness,
Personal Innovativeness and Peer Support) predict students’ evaluation and
use of the SMC?
SRQ 2.3 How and to what extent does the combination of individual, social and
technological variables (comprising Achievement Goal Orientations, Cognitive
Playfulness, Personal Innovativeness, Peer Support, Perceived Ease Of Use, and
Perceived Usefulness) predict students’ evaluation and use of the SMC?
The subsequent sections of this chapter are organised in the following manner.
First, the research setting, including the selected site of inquiry (the school and
students) and the SMC learning initiative, is described. Next, the research
methodology guiding this inquiry is discussed. A detailed explanation of the
research design and its operationalisation is then provided, with a view to explaining
how the specific and sub-research questions enumerated above are addressed.
Specifically, an overview of the research design is provided, followed by a
description of the research phases, participants, data collection procedures and
methods of analysis. Lastly, considerations concerning validity and reliability, as well
as ethical issues are discussed.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 81
3.2 Research Setting
3.2.1 The School and Students
The site of inquiry for this study is a long-established, well-resourced and high-
performing independent school in urban Queensland. The students, teachers and
parents in this setting have high aspirations for the professional future of the
school’s graduates. They place a high value on the formal qualifications that the
school awards, as well as the development of skills and dispositions that provide for
future professional success in the workplace.
This study focuses on the attempted integration of the Student Media Centre
(SMC), a student-led online learning initiative, into the school’s mainstream learning
and teaching practices. This online learning initiative is described in further detail in
the section that follows. In brief, the SMC is a multimodal virtual learning
environment that (i) can be accessed by the whole student and teacher community,
and (ii) is designed to engage the whole student and teacher community in flexible
networked digital learning. The SMC was designed and managed by a core group of
approximately 30 senior school students from Years 10, 11 and 12. This subset of
senior school students had been identified by the school leadership to be gifted,
creative, and highly aspirational. As previously mentioned in Chapter One (Section
1.4), this is where the tensions and affordances of innovation diffusion are most
likely to be acute, because the high levels of intellectual and technological resourcing
that are possible in this research setting bring with them an equally high level of
expectations to excel in traditional academic tasks and high-stakes assessments. Put
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 82
simply, there is a push to creativity and a pull to traditional academic performance
that invites research scrutiny.
3.2.2 The Student-Led Digital Learning Initiative
In late 2006, the Head of the Senior School expressed keen interest in introducing a
student-centred, student-led online learning initiative within the school. Field notes
of discussions7 between the researcher and the Head of Senior School over the
formative period January 2007 to May 2007 indicated that the SMC was set up to
achieve several key educational objectives: These include:
(i) enhancing opportunities for students to engage with learning through
the use of digital media and new technologies, thereby developing
their media and digital literacies;
(ii) creating a digital platform for students to be creative, innovative and
publish works that are relevant and useful for enhancing the learning
experience of the senior school’s student community at large;
(iii) increasing the level of student leadership, in the form of student
governance, control and mentoring;
(iv) increasing pedagogical flexibility through which students learn
differently and do new things in different ways using new digital
media; and
(v) achieving sustainability of the SMC over the medium and long term
through its integration with mainstream learning and teaching
practices in the school.
7 These discussions took place as part of the collaborative research project between the Creative Workforce 2.0 Program in the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creativity and Innovation at QUT and the case study school. The researcher engaged in these conversations in the role of Research Fellow documenting the development of the SMC.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 83
Consequently, the Head of Senior School, in consultation with the lead teacher of
the school’s Gifted and Talented Program selected a core group of 30 students to
set up, develop, implement and lead the SMC. This core group comprised Year 12
students with leadership roles in the school (e.g., the student leading the SMC is one
of the vice-captains of the school), and approximately 25 students from Year 10 and
11, who were identified as either gifted and talented students, or exhibited some
form of creative inclinations, such as creative writing (print literacy), digital media,
graphics and design, and the like. The SMC was set up in Term One (January to
March) of 2007, and officially launched in the wider senior school student
community at the commencement of Term Two (April) in 2007. The following sub-
sections describe the operationalisation of the SMC in terms of its technological,
organisational and pedagogical design aspects.
3.2.2.1 Technological design
The technological design of the SMC is that of a multimodal, interactive online
community platform based on a popular Web 2.0 open-source content management
system (CMS) known as Joomla. The Joomla CMS allows an individual or group of
content managers or creators to “manage the creation, modification, and removal of
content from their web site without the expertise of a professional Webmaster”
(Joomla, 2009). Features that Joomla users can access or incorporate into their
interactive web site include the following:
(i) creating menu items and page content using text and images;
(ii) creating secure site areas where only registered users may enter;
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 84
(iii) adding and editing content sections that include digital print media,
audio and image files such as podcasts and digital photos, video files
and streaming media;
(iv) creating user forums;
(v) conducting user polls; and
(vi) creating pop-ups, automatic latest news updates and adding
newsfeeds.
Open-source refers to a set of principles and practices that promote access to the
design and production of goods and knowledge, with the term most commonly
applied to the source code of software that is available to the general public with
relaxed or non-existent intellectual property restrictions (Wikipedia, 2007). The
open-source nature of the Joomla CMS therefore, allowed the group of students
responsible for the development and implementation of SMC to access and use a
comprehensive content management system at minimal cost. Given that Joomla
allows users to create software content through incremental individual effort or
through collaboration, its technological capabilities provided the students with the
flexibility to customise the content management system to the needs of the student
community, as well as to modify and improve the SMC as necessary over a period
of time.
Specifically, the online SMC was hosted on the school intranet server and
comprised the following learning features (or sections) that users could access and
engage with:
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 85
(i) a user log-in menu where all students and teachers in the school with a
valid school intranet username and password could access and use
specific features of the site. The different types of users and their
respective access levels and responsibilities are described in Section
3.2.2.2, which details the organisational design aspects of the SMC;
(ii) multimodal content organised and presented online in various sections
(tabs or web pages) as follows:
� News – designed to publish articles on news and events within
the school community;
� Your Work – designed to publish critical social commentaries on
issues relevant to students within and beyond the school
community, as well as exemplary student academic work from
various disciplines;
� Podcasts – designed to publish audio recordings of school events,
such as sports games and debates, as well as music performances
by bands or vocal groups within and beyond the school;
� Videos – designed to publish streaming media of videos created
by senior school students including documentaries and music
videos, either as part of their curriculum (e.g., Film and Media,
Religious Education) or out of personal interest in their own
time; and
� Images – designed to publish digital photos covering a range of
events at school, such as debating teams, competitions, sports
days, and the like.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 86
(iii) an interactive forum that allowed students to create and contribute to
forum discussions on a variety of topics that interested them;
(iv) online polls created by students to collect and tabulate public opinion
from the wider student community on issues of interest to them;
(v) a backend content management system that students assigned as SMC
online moderators and SMC technical team members can access in
order to manage and moderate content. This includes being able to
organise, add and edit relevant content, as well as remove
inappropriate content where necessary.
Visual representations of these online learning features are provided in Appendix D
to illustrate the design and functionalities of the SMC.
3.2.2.2 Organisational design
The organisational structure of the SMC is presented in Figure 3.1. The SMC was
implemented, set up, and run by a group of 30 senior school students. This group
was in turn managed by a student leader in the role of SMC chief editor. This
student liaised directly with the staff members who were overseeing this SMC
initiative, namely, the Head of Senior School and the Lead Teacher of the Gifted
and Talented program. These two staff members were primarily responsible for
providing the pedagogical framework within which the SMC initiative operates.
While the Head of Senior School served as the authority that approved any financial
expenses related to the SMC, and played a key role in the nomination of student
leaders for the SMC, the SMC was predominantly a student-centred and student-led
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 87
learning initiative. Staff members had to abide by the boundaries set by students in
terms of their participation and involvement in the SMC. For instance, although
teachers, including the principal, could view all content on the SMC site, as well as
contribute if they so desired, in terms of staff censorship and the levels of freedom
for students to voice their opinions, only the SMC Chief Editor and designated
SMC team leaders and moderators had administrative access on the site to censor
content and edit or remove inappropriate comments. These boundaries were mainly
negotiated between the Head of Senior School and the SMC Chief Editor, who
represented the views of other SMC student leaders and members.
Figure 3.1: SMC Organisational Structure
The SMC Chief Editor, who had a student leadership role in the school, together
with the core group of SMC team leaders and members, were responsible for all
aspects of the design, implementation, sustainable development and diffusion of the
Journalist Team Leader
Podcast Team Leader
Vodcast Team Leader
Photography Team Leader
Technical Team
Members
SMC Chief Editor
Technical Team Leader
Journalist Team
Members
Podcast Team
Members
Vodcast Team
Members
Photography Team
Members
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 88
learning initiative, including operational, financial and technical aspects. As
illustrated in Figure 3.1, the SMC comprised the Chief Editor and five teams: the
technical, journalist, podcast, vodcast, and photography teams. Each team was led
by a team leader and comprised approximately five members. The Chief Editor, all
team leaders and technical team members had administrative rights to the SMC site
and were able to moderate content. All other team members had ‘user level’ access
rights and were able to contribute content but were not able to access the backend
content management system to organise or moderate content.
Two extension study periods a week were allocated to SMC activities. In line with
the pedagogical design of student-centredness and leadership underpinning the
SMC initiative, students could negotiate the amount of time (in and out of school)
they spent on SMC activities. Mostly importantly, while the SMC was set up and
managed by this core group of students and started off as being primarily student-
oriented and co-curricular, the goal was to engage the whole school community in
using the online SMC site to (i) promote a well-rounded schooling experience, (ii)
develop critical and digital media literacies, as well as individual and collaborative
creative processes and relevant real-world skills, and (iii) encourage a stronger
student voice within the school community.
3.2.2.3 Pedagogical design
The pedagogical design underpinning the SMC is framed by an ecological paradigm
of learning and pedagogy (Barab & Plucker, 2002; Brown, 2006; Frielick, 2004), and
has its roots in social constructivism and situated learning (Brown et al., 1989; Lave
& Wenger, 1991; Swan & Shea, 2005; Vygotsky, 1978) as well as connectivism
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 89
(Frielick, 2004; Siemens, 2006, 2006). These learning and pedagogical approaches
were discussed and summarised in Chapter Two.
According to the field notes taken by the researcher in the formative period of
January to April 2007 during discussions with the Head of Senior School and the
lead teacher of the Gifted and Talented program overseeing the SMC initiative,
there are four key aspects to the pedagogical design of the SMC. These include:
(i) facilitating the development of students’ individual and collaborative
interests and abilities through the use of new digital media, which is
highly-engaging and relevant to the students’ lifeworlds;
(ii) providing students with the opportunity to learn in an environment
that is more flexible and less prescriptive than a structured traditional
classroom, in turn allowing students to explore their passions and
make competent choices regarding their learning;
(iii) creating opportunities for students to develop knowledge and skill
sets relevant to the 21st century, including digital literacies,
communicative competencies and abilities to lead and work in teams,
to enhance the students’ future career and professional opportunities;
(iv) allowing students to take ownership of their own learning process
and outcomes through self-directed learning and, at the same time,
engage in this process of knowledge construction with a broader
community of peer learners.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 90
3.3 Case Study Research Approach
The research strategy deemed most appropriate and therefore selected to guide this
inquiry is that of an empirical case study approach. According to Yin (2003), a case
study is an empirical inquiry that “investigates a contemporary phenomenon within
its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and
context are not clearly evident” (p. 13). It is a particularly useful research strategy
when how or why questions are being asked about a set of events or situations in
which the researcher has minimal or no control. Yin argued that a case study
strategy is distinct from qualitative research (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 1994) and can
be based on any combination of quantitative and qualitative methods and empirical
evidence. This methodological openness is also advocated by other well-recognised
case study researchers such as Stake and Lamnek. Stake (1995) explained that a case
study is defined by interest in a particular phenomenon or relationship, and not by
the methods of inquiry used. Lamnek (2005), on the other hand, argued that the
case study must be acknowledged as a research approach, situated between concrete
data collection techniques and methodological paradigms.
The case study is an ideal methodology when the researcher expects contextual
conditions to be highly pertinent to the phenomenon of study (Yin, 2003), and
when a holistic and in-depth investigation (Feagin et al., 1991) of both the
phenomenon and context is desired. In addition, the case study is a useful form of
empirical inquiry when examining contemporary events and behaviours that take
place in a naturalistic environment (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003), where limited
manipulation from an external party, such as the researcher, can occur.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 91
Based on the above discussion, the case study approach is highly appropriate for
guiding this study for three reasons. First, the inquiry focuses on an authentic or
naturally-occurring ‘experiment’ by the school to engage students and their teachers
in a case of innovative practice underpinned by progressive pedagogical principles
and involving new media technologies. Second, the research questions central to
this study are designed to guide a holistic, in-depth investigation into the tensions
and accommodations experienced by the students in their evaluation and use of the
innovation within the conventions of a mainstream senior school that insists on
both academic achievement and digital competencies. Both the phenomenon and
context of study are intertwined and essential to this thesis, and as Yin (2005)
pointed out, the case study approach is highly appropriate for an inquiry of this
nature. Lastly, the empirical case study approach offers methodological breadth
informed by theoretical rigour, a combination that is invaluable to an inquiry such as
this, which seeks both richness and range in explaining and theorising a dynamic
phenomenon involving multiple perspectives, variables and levels of analysis.
Yin (2005, p. 21) pointed out five essential components of a case study research
strategy. These are (i) a study’s questions, (ii) its propositions, (iii) the units of
analysis, (iv) the logic linking the data to the propositions, and (v) the criteria for
interpreting the findings. These components and their interactions are illustrated in
Figure 3.2.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 92
Figure 3.2: Case study components (Lee, 2003)
The research proposition, questions and sub-questions (Components 1 and 2)
pertinent to this study have been stated in Chapter One and were reiterated at the
beginning of this chapter. The unit/s of analysis (Component 3) is the case of
innovative practice in the form of the SMC and attempts to integrate its activities
into the mainstream practices and lives of the selected school and student
participants. This is further explained in the description of the research setting and
research participants. The logic linking the data to the propositions (Component 4)
and criteria for interpreting the findings (Component 5) are addressed in the following
sections that detail the design of the study, the methods of data collection and types
of data analyses performed.
3.4 Design of the Study
3.4.1 From Methodology to Design
Drawing on the methodological arguments outlined above, this study employs an
‘explanatory’ two-phase research design (Creswell, 2003), which emerges from an
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 93
integrated mixed methods research approach that is characteristic of an empirical
case study. This design combines complementary quantitative and qualitative
techniques to address the research questions of interest to the study. A variety of
authorities have identified mixed methods research and the combination of data
derived through the use of different methods as key elements in the improvement
of social science, including educational research (Gorard & Taylor, 2004). This view
is justified, according to the National Research Council (2002), because research
claims are stronger when based on a variety of methods.
An ‘explanatory’ two-phase research design (Creswell, 2003, 2005), more recently
known as the New Political Arithmetic (NPA) model (Gorard & Taylor, 2004),
typically starts with a large-scale numeric dataset, and then focuses on in-depth data
using a subset of cases selected from the first phase. It normally proceeds from the
definition and description of the research area through a relatively extensive
collection and analysis of relevant numeric (or quantitative) data, and is primarily
concerned with the importance of pattern rather than probability in terms of its
statistical approach (Gorard & Taylor, 2004; Mortimore, 2000). The first phase,
often referred to as the descriptive phase, is designed to provide a general picture of
the research problem, as reflected in trends, patterns or situations. In a subsequent
phase, often referred to as the explanatory phase, recognised techniques of textual (or
qualitative) data collection and analysis is conducted with a subset of cases selected
from the first phase, with a view to examining the identified trends and patterns in
more depth. This second explanatory phase is designed to collect new in-depth data
in a focused attempt to elucidate the more general findings from the initial
descriptive phase (Creswell, 2005; Gorard & Taylor, 2004). When employed
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 94
effectively and appropriately, this method tends to avoid the ‘Bartlett’ effect
(Brown, 1992) of producing plausible but false results when basing an analysis solely
on qualitative data, and also avoids the valid and reliable but often surface answers
gained from numeric analysis alone.
For the purposes of this thesis, Creswell’s (2003, 2005) framework has been
augmented in two ways. First, the quantitative descriptive phase was extended to
include predictive modelling that examined the degree to which selected individual,
social and technological factors explained SMC usage among students. Second, the
study design was augmented to include a third re-descriptive and theorising phase. This
third and final phase involved the re-examination and synthesis of the various data
corpuses and findings using appropriate theoretical lenses, in order to develop novel
and relevant theoretical propositions through “analytic generalisation” procedures
(Yin, 2003, p. 10). The specific research phases implemented in this study and their
corresponding research methods, tasks and expected outcomes are described in
more detail below.
3.4.2 Research Phases, Methods, Tasks and Outcomes
In order to address the research aims and questions for this study, complementary
quantitative and qualitative methods were carried out in three sequential phases to
both measure and characterise the students’ responses to the SMC. The aim was
that, taken together, the quantitative, qualitative and re-descriptive/theorising
phases would provide rich insights into the ways that students’ perceptions,
behaviours and accounts of their socio-institutional world at school are constituted
and organised.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 95
In the Quantitative Phase One of the study, a self-report questionnaire was
administered to the senior school student population (N=600) in order to (i)
identify trends and patterns related to students’ evaluation of and engagement with
the SMC, and (ii) determine the extent to which selected individual, social and
technological factors predict SMC usage among students. The numeric data
collected from the questionnaire included items that measured (i) students’ learning
dispositions (including their achievement goal orientations, levels of personal
innovativeness and cognitive playfulness), (ii) students’ evaluation of the SMC in
terms of its perceived ease of use and usefulness for their learning, as well as the
perceived level of peer support for engaging with the SMC, and (iii) students’ usage
behaviours related to the SMC, in terms of their frequency and volume of use.
These were analysed using descriptive and predictive statistical procedures and
techniques. The statistical techniques used, along with the results of this quantitative
descriptive and predictive phase are reported and discussed in Chapter Four. In
addition to identifying the ‘what’ of in-school innovation adoption in terms of the
key trends and predictors of SMC uptake among students, the results of this initial
quantitative phase called attention to a number of tensions experienced by students
around digital learning and traditional schooling that warranted further
investigation.
The following Qualitative Phase Two aimed to provide deeper insights into these
tensions by shifting the analytics from individual attitudes and behaviours to shared
social and cultural reasoning practices that explained students’ engagement with the
innovation. Six in-depth focus groups comprising 60 students with different levels
of SMC usage were conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed. Textual data from
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 96
the focus group interviews were analysed using Membership Categorisation Analysis
(MCA), an analytic framework particularly suited to the explication of shared
cultural understandings and logic that underlie the students’ responses to and
engagement with the SMC as part of their daily schooling practice. In this way, the
qualitative phase augmented the quantitative phase by revealing ‘why’ and ‘how’ the
abstract numeric narratives obtained from the descriptive and predictive
investigation were enacted in the experienced realities of these students’ daily social
and institutional practices. The MCA analytic framework, along with the results and
findings from this qualitative phase are reported and discussed in Chapter Five.
The third and final Re-description/Theorising Phase reviewed and synthesised the
empirical findings emerging from both the quantitative and qualitative phases in
light of the broad issues and theoretical underpinnings that motivated the study.
This allowed for the development of empirically grounded theoretical propositions
related to the educational complexities of Web 2.0 innovation diffusion within
established conventions of contemporary formal schooling. These in turn bear
implications for educational policymakers and practitioners in their move towards
more effective and sustainable integration of contemporary technologies in formal
learning contexts. This integrative synthesis and analytic generalisation work is
accomplished and explicated in Chapter Six, the concluding chapter of this thesis.
The research phases of this study and their corresponding research tasks and
outcomes are graphically represented in Figure 3.3.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 97
Figure 3.3 Research phases, tasks and outcomes
Tasks Outcomes Phases
Phase Two Explanatory phase
Conduct focus group interviews with sample of students selected from archetypal user categories identified in Phase One (N=60).
Perform Membership Categorisation Analysis (MCA) on textual data to explicate shared cultural understandings and reasoning practices related to SMC usage. Triangulate data from questionnaires, interviews and online data to accentuate areas of compatibility, resonance and/or divergence.
In-depth and rich explanations of ‘why’ and ‘how’ the abstract numeric narratives (SMC usage patterns, trends & predictors) identified in Phase One are experienced, accounted for and made sense of by students in the enacted realities of their daily social and institutional practices at school. Fresh insights into the educational tensions and affordances experienced by students in engaging with a Web 2.0 learning innovation as part of their mainstream schooling practice.
Phase Three Theorising/Re-descriptive phase
Re-examination of various data corpuses and findings using appropriate theoretical lenses
Develop theoretical propositions through ‘analytic generalisation’ procedures
Develop empirically grounded generalisations of theoretical propositions related to the educational complexities of innovation diffusion within established conventions of contemporary formal schooling Scholarly recommendations that assist policymakers and practitioners move towards more effective and sustainable integration of online learning technologies in formal learning contexts
Phase One Descriptive phase
Administer self-report questionnaire to senior school student population (N=600) Perform appropriate descriptive and predictive statistical analyses on numeric questionnaire data
Identify key patterns and trends related to students’ of and engagement with the SMC Determine the extent to which measured individual, social and technological factors predict students’ engagement with the SMC Identify archetypal student user categories and select sample for further qualitative inquiry
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 98
3.4.3 Validity and Reliability
The study will consider numeric and textual forms of data as equally valid and
important in the theoretical and analytic work to be undertaken in the service of this
inquiry. Due consideration also has been given to ensuring that both forms of data
converse with each other to achieve structure and coherence, so that the study does
not becomes a collection of two or more segregated pieces of work in the face of
greater theoretical and methodological diversity offered by a mixed methods
approach.
Despite the strengths of generalisability, repeatability and deductivity associated
with comprehensive survey methodology and regression statistical techniques (Chin
& Newsted, 1999) carried out in Phase One of this study, the cross-sectional nature
of this approach and the reliance on self-report data have some limitations. Such an
approach can provide only a ‘snapshot’ of the situation that is limited to a certain
time frame and the self-report data may be subject to the risk of participant
response bias or common method bias (P. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & N.
Podsakoff, 2003). On their own, they offer limited opportunities for understanding
the reasoning practices underlying the questionnaire responses of the students as
social members of their schooling community. To attend to these limitations, the
qualitative methods of focus group interviews and membership categorisation
analysis are employed in this study “after [the] extensive survey to dig into the why
of the results obtained” (Davis, 2000, p. 313), thus creating greater potential for
unpredicted perspectives and insights into the phenomena of interest to the study.
When integrated appropriately, these complementary approaches can result in a
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 99
sophisticated study with research outcomes characterised by strong explanatory
power, rigour and validity.
The study is thus designed to achieve the five major purposes (Greene, 2008;
Greene, Caracelli & Graham, 1989) of a mixed methods research approach,
generally acknowledged to enhance validity and reliability of findings. These include
triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation and expansion.
Triangulation tests the consistency of findings obtained through different
instruments. In this study, various corpuses of data will be collected to shed light on
the phenomenon of interest. These include (i) comprehensive numeric data from
self-report questionnaires to be administered to the school’s population of senior
school students (N=600), and (ii) in-depth textual data from focus group interviews
with selected students (N=60), whose questionnaire responses reflect a range of
characteristics emerging from archetypal categories of student respondents. Data
collected from these sources will be triangulated to accentuate the areas of
compatibility, resonance, and/or divergence.
Complementarity clarifies and illustrates results from one method with the use of
another method. In this case, while the self-report questionnaires may provide a
comprehensive picture of the patterns and trends associated with students’
evaluation of and engagement with the SMC, these patterns and trends can be
further explained and exemplified by the student focus group interview data, which
have been designed to address the same central research question but in a qualitative
way. Focus group interviews can elicit responses that are personal and
contextualised (Barbour, 2007), thereby offering insights into the why students
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 100
value, use or resist the integration of the SMC into their mainstream learning and
teaching practice.
Development refers to the process by which results from one method shape
subsequent methods or steps in the research phases. Importantly, development
needs to be considered as theoretical, even epistemological, not simply
methodological. This study starts with the extensive self-report student
questionnaire to understand broad patterns and trends associated with the
integration of SMC into mainstream schooling practice as experienced by the senior
school students. Appropriate analyses are carried out to understand the
questionnaire data in order to identify and select archetypal categories of student
respondents, whose experiences and engagement with the SMC are explored in
greater depth through the focus group interviews in the subsequent research phase.
The flexibility of this developmental design means that new findings can be
explored as the study progresses.
Expansion provides richness and detail to the study by exploring specific features of
each method. This richness and detail is more likely to emerge when the work is
under theoretical development rather than simply adding on new information. A
common critique of the use of questionnaires and numeric analysis on their own, is
the lack of depth in understanding the research phenomenon, resulting in simplistic
conclusions (Creswell, 2005; Gorard & Taylor, 2004). On the other hand, focusing
on a small subset of qualitative data brings with it the risk of producing plausible
but misleading results (Brown, 1992). Taken together, data from the questionnaires
and focus group interviews extend the flexibility, depth and breadth of this study.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 101
Initiation stimulates new research questions or challenges results obtained from one
method and the ways in which the combination of methods build new conceptual
logics. In this study, the focus group interviews are aimed at providing new insights
on (i) the patterns and trends identified from the students’ questionnaire responses,
and (ii) the relationships amongst variables of interest measured in the
questionnaires. More importantly, information gleaned from these focus group
interviews may highlight new issues, interactions or complexities associated with the
ways students approach a new innovation in their schooling practice, questions
beyond the scope of the self-report questionnaire. The combination of these
methods therefore, allows for a more comprehensive analysis and theorising of the
research problem and fields of interest to this thesis.
3.4.4 Research Participants
Research participants for Phase One of the study comprise the population of senior
school students enrolled in the case study school for the 2007 school year. The total
number of senior school students enrolled in the school year 2007 is approximately
600 students. All these students were invited to respond to the self-report student
questionnaire conducted in July 2007 as part of Phase One of the study. The
population of senior school students was selected to participate in the student to
achieve the objectives of a descriptive Phase One, which is to generate an extensive
picture of the patterns and trends of students’ learning dispositions and
achievement goal orientations, and their evaluation of and engagement with the
SMC initiative.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 102
In Phase Two, a smaller group of 60 students was selected to participate in six in-
depth focus group interviews. This subset of student participants were purposively
selected with the intention of allowing for some level of diversity and potential
differences of opinion and experience associated with the evaluation and use of the
SMC in school. Drawing on the findings from the quantitative phase of the study,
focus group participants were chosen collaboratively by the researcher and the lead
teacher in a manner that sought to incorporate students with differing levels of
SMC usage (e.g., non-users, moderate users, high-users) and potentially diverse
range of learning dispositions, interests, academic and schooling achievement
orientations. The number of participants in Phase Two constituted approximately
12% of the student population, a proportion that is higher than that generally
reported by prior empirical studies (5% of the population) which employ a similar
explanatory two-phase or NPA research design (e.g., Fitz, Gorard & Taylor, 2002;
White, Gorard, Fitz & Taylor, 2001).
3.4.5 Data Collection Procedures and Analysis
Following the mixed methods approach discussed above, data were collected using
a combination of a student self-report questionnaire and focus group interviews.
Each of these numeric and textual data collection procedures and corresponding
analyses are explicated in the sub-sections that follow.
3.4.5.1 Numeric data: Self-report questionnaire
The self-report questionnaire for students was developed to measure constructs of
interest to the study, by building on an extensive multidisciplinary literature review
that identified particular individual, social and technological factors which are likely
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 103
to predict the adoption and use of technology in schools and organisations.
Relevant validated measurement items were drawn from existing literature and
adapted for the purposes of the study. Where necessary or appropriate, new
measurement items were constructed. The section below describes the development
and instrumentation of the student self-report questionnaire in greater detail. This
student questionnaire was submitted and approved for use by the appropriate ethics
authorities (QUT University Human Ethics Research Committee and the Principal
of the independent case study school), and was implemented shortly after
modifications were taken into consideration. The questionnaire was developed in
three stages:
(i) relevant measurement items from existing validated scales were adapted
for the purposes of this study. Where necessary and appropriate, new
measurement items were constructed by the researcher;
(ii) four researchers with expertise in the area of questionnaire design,
student learning (including online learning) and innovation adoption
and diffusion were invited to review the draft questionnaire for face and
content validity; and
(iii) the draft questionnaire was trialled with 20 students from the SMC core
team, their comments and feedback were taken into consideration, and
final changes were made to the questionnaire.
The involvement of the student stakeholders in the design of the questionnaire
assists in ensuring that threats to construct validity (such as construct-irrelevant
variances and construct under-representation) are minimised, so that the
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 104
investigation is based on valid needs and the questions being asked represent, as
accurately as possible, the implementation, context and outcomes (Brandon, 1998)
of the student-led digital learning initiative under study.
The final version of the student self-report questionnaire that was administered to
student respondents is provided in Appendix E. The questionnaire consisted of 18
questions and 92 measurement items in total. These questions and measurement
items reflect the conceptual framework and constructs of interest discussed in
Chapter Two, and are grouped into three major sections in the presentation of the
questionnaire, as described in the following section.
Section One: About You
This section comprised five questions and was designed to obtain a general
demographic profile of the student respondents. Questions included their names,
student ID, year level, and interests, as well as two questions related to their
knowledge and ability to access the school’s student portal and the SMC website.
Students were invited to state their names and student ID to facilitate the selection
of student participants exhibiting archetypal respondent characteristics for the
conduct of focus group interviews in Phase Two of the study. It was, however,
made clear to students at the implementation of the questionnaire that these fields
were optional.
Section Two: About Your Learning
This section comprised three questions (42 measurement items) and was designed
to obtain a profile of the student respondents’ learning dispositions, particularly in
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 105
the area of achievement goal orientations, individual innovativeness and cognitive
playfulness. Achievement Goal Orientations consists of two distinct dimensions: Learning
Goal Orientation and Performance Goal Orientation. These were measured using two 8-
items scales first developed by Button and others (1996) that have exhibited
evidence of strong construct validity and internal reliability across several studies
(e.g., Button, Mathieu & Zajac, 1996; Dai, 2006). Examples of Learning Goal
Orientation items include “The opportunity to learn new things is important to me”
and “The opportunity to extend the range of my abilities is important to me”.
Examples of Performance Goal Orientation items include “The opinions others have
about how well I can do certain things are important to me” and “I feel smart when
I can do something better than most other people”. The items were rated on a five-
point likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Individual Innovativeness was measured using the abridged 10-item innovativeness scale
developed by Marcinkiewicz (1993) that have demonstrated strong reliability and
validity across a number of studies (e.g., see Dai, 2006). All items were scored on a
five-point likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and
summed up to calculate a single Innovativeness score.
Cognitive Playfulness consists of two distinct dimensions: Cognitive Curiosity and Cognitive
Creativity. 16 items were adapted from a 21-item playfulness scale developed by
Glynn and Webster (1993) and used in this questionnaire to measure (i) intellectual
curiosity and inquisitiveness (8 items) and (ii) cognitive creativity, spontaneity and
imagination (8 items). Items were summed up to calculate a single Playfulness score.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 106
All three measurement scales and items described above were re-validated for the
purpose of this study. A complete list of the measurement items pertaining to each
construct is reported along with the validation procedures and results in Chapter
Four, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.
Section Three: About Your Attitudes & Experiences with SMC
This section comprised ten questions (42 measurement items and 3 open-ended
questions) and was designed to obtain a general profile of the students’ opinions
about the SMC in terms of its ease of use and usefulness for their learning, as well
as their level of current usage and intention to use the SMC in future. The group of
student stakeholders who were invited to participate in the review and development
of the student questionnaire provided critical and valuable input in the construction
of items and questions in this section.
Current Use and Intention to Use were measured by two items each, reflecting the
frequency and volume of use (e.g., Karahanna et al., 1999; Thong, 1999). Frequency
of use/intention to use was rated on a scale of 1 to 6 (never, about once a term,
about once a month, about once a fortnight, about once a week, more than once a
week). Volume of use/intention to use was measured by the extensiveness of SMC
learning features (news, forum, your works, videos, podcasts, images, poll) accessed
and used by the student respondents. Three open-ended questions related to current
usage and intention to use were included to provide student respondents with the
opportunity to discuss reasons for their adoption and/or resistance of the SMC.
These questions included “List the top 3 reasons why you use the SMC”, “List the
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 107
top 3 reasons why you do not use the SMC”, and “List the top 3 incentives that
would make you use the SMC”.
Student opinions about the SMC’s Ease of Use were obtained using 5 items adapted
(to the SMC context) from previously validated and frequently used ‘perceived ease
of use’ scale in TAM studies (e.g., Ngai et al., 2007; Yi et al., 2003). Examples of
these items, rated on a 5-point likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree), include “I find the SMC user-friendly” and “I find the SMC sections8 easy to
navigate”. Student perceptions about the SMC’s Usefulness for their learning and
schooling were obtained using a total of 20 items that reflect different aspects of
learning and schooling, such as (i) academic learning, (ii) socialisation, (iii)
exploration and expression of their identity and opinions, and (iv) development of
creativity and other 21st century digital-age skills and literacies beyond those taught
in the classroom. Other items included more general questions of how interesting
students found the SMC learning features and whether having the SMC in school
was a good idea (9 questions). Students were also asked to indicate the level of peer
support they experienced in using the SMC (4 items). All items were measured on a
5-point likert scale, and depending on the phrasing of the questions, ranged from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), 1 (boring) to 5 (very interesting), or 1 (not
beneficial at all) to 5 (very beneficial). Examples of a broad range of items
measuring different aspects of learning and schooling include “Using the SMC can
help improve my academic performance” (academic), “Using the SMC can expand
my social network of friends at school” (social), “Using the SMC can increase my
opportunities for self-expression” (identity expression), “Using the SMC can help
8 Students in the school referred to the SMC learning features (e.g., videos, forums, polls) as ‘sections’. This term was therefore used in the questionnaire.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 108
me get inspiration for new ideas” (exploration), “Using the SMC can help me learn
new skills beyond those learnt in the classroom” (digital-age skills and literacies).
Similarly, appropriate validation procedures were carried out on the measurement
scales and items described above. A complete list of the measurement items and
their corresponding measurement construct is reported along with the validation
procedures and results in Chapter Four, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.
3.4.5.2 Questionnaire Data analysis
Quantitative data from the self-reported student questionnaire were analysed using
appropriate descriptive statistical procedures and a predictive modelling analytic
technique known as Classification and Regression Tree (CART) or Decision Tree
methodology in short. CART is a relatively modern statistical technique first
developed by Breiman and colleagues about twenty five years ago (Breiman et al.,
1984). In the last decade, this predictive modelling technique has gained increasing
interest and has been widely employed in business administration, agriculture,
medicine, industry and engineering (Chang & Wang, 2006) because of a number of
unique features that can be advantageous to linear regression models, particularly in
research contexts where relationships among predictors are nonlinear and complex.
These features include, among others: (i) the capacity for interactive exploration,
description and prediction, (ii) the ability to use different types of response
variables, (iii) invariance to transformation of explanatory variables, (iv) procedures
for handling missing values, and (v) easy graphical interpretation of complex results
involving interactions (De’ath & Fabricius, 2000). In this regard, CART is
particularly suited to research studies where relationships between variables are
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 109
nonlinear and involve high order interactions among predictors (Lemsky, Smith,
Malec & Ivnik, 1996), as is the case in this study. A more detailed description of this
statistical technique is provided in Chapter Four, Section 4.4.2 as a preview to the
discussion of results and findings, in order to enhance the readability and
interpretability of the quantitative phase of this study.
3.4.5.3 Textual data: Focus group interviews
Textual data was collected in Phase Two of this study through the conduct of six in-
depth focus group interviews with approximately 60 students across all three senior
year levels. The focus group interviews lasted approximately 60 to 90 minutes each
and were audio-recorded and transcribed with the permission of the participants.
Focus group discussions are particularly useful for exploring people's knowledge
and experiences and can be used to examine not only what people think but how
they think and why they think that way (Barbour, 2007; Kitzinger, 1995). When
conducted well, this strategy has the potential to tap into diverse forms of
communication used in daily interactions, such as jokes, anecdotes, teasing and
arguing, which can reveal dimensions of understanding that might not be
encapsulated or presented in reasoned responses to direct questions. It also allows
the participants to act as ‘check and balances’ on one another, in turn allowing the
identification of extreme views and/or factual errors (Krueger & Casey, 2000).
Importantly, focus groups can move beyond ‘private accounts’ in one-on-one
interviews to provide insights into public discourses (Kitzinger, 1994; Smithson,
2000). In this regard, it is the method of choice for a study such as this, where in-
depth explorations of group norms, group decision-making processes, negotiations
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 110
of competing priorities and qualifications of views in light of situational and
circumstantial factors are of import to the inquiry at hand (Barbour, 2007; Bloor,
Frankland, Thomas & Robson, 2001).
A growing number of researchers agree that focus groups can be usefully employed
in mixed-methods research to illuminate or clarify results from previous quantitative
phases (Barbour, 2007; Wilmot & Ratcliffe, 2002), by extending and “transforming
[numeric] results into ‘findings’ by furnishing explanations, particularly with regard
to surprising or anomalous associations identified in the first part of the study”
(Barbour, 2007, p. 45). In similar vein, the focus group interviews conducted in
Phase Two were designed (i) to explore in greater detail the student participants’
reasoning practices underlying their questionnaire responses, as well as (ii) to
uncover any significant issues that have a bearing on students’ evaluation of and
engagement with the SMC innovation, which may not be reflected in the survey
responses. In this regard, data from the focus group interviews were triangulated
with data collected from the self-reported questionnaires to accentuate areas of
compatibility, resonance and/or divergence. Details of size and sampling,
practicalities and protocols in the conduct of the focus groups are further explicated
in Chapter Five, Section 5.2.3.
3.4.5.4 Textual Data analysis
Textual data from the focus group interviews were organised using the textual
analysis software NVivo (QSR, 2000) and systematically analysed using
membership categorisation analysis (MCA). The MCA analytic framework is
particularly well-suited to this qualititative phase of the study because it can
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 111
provide rich insights into students’ shared cultural understandings, logic and
reasoning practices that bear on their evaluation of and engagement with the
SMC innovation. Put simply, MCA focuses on the use of categorisations in talk
as a way of gaining analytic insight into how speakers understand, make sense of
and engage as members of their social world (Sacks, 1979, 1992). As an analytic
framework, MCA comprises a set of procedures that collectively provide for the
documentation and analysis of how social identities, relationships and
institutions are produced and organised (Baker, 1997). It takes as a key premise
that members of a culture are “artful, reasoned and sophisticated cultural
practitioners” (Freebody, 2003, p. 169) who have commonsense or vernacular
understandings of social structures and norms relevant to their social world
(Baker, 1997). These comprise shared cultural knowledge that become available
to members as resources for reasoning and interaction. Membership
categorisation is one expression of this shared cultural knowledge and resource
for collective sense-making and interaction in a range of contexts, including
interviews of the sort conducted in this study. Using MCA, the analysis detailed
in Chapter Five examines how student participants articulate their ‘in-school’
social world in relation to the SMC. It does so by making explicit the range and
significance of relevant membership categorisations that are evoked in students’
accounts as they explain their various degrees of engagement with the SMC
innovation in school. A detailed exposition of the MCA analytic framework is
provided in Chapter Five, Section 5.2.1 as a preview to the discussion of the
qualitative analysis, in order to facilitate greater ease of readability and
interpretability of results and findings.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 112
3.5 Ethical Issues
The researcher sought guidance on the ethical conduct of this research from (i) the
ethics officer representing the University Human Research Ethics Committee
(UHREC) of Queensland University of Technology (QUT), (ii) the National
Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, 2007), (iii) the
nominated ethics advisors in QUT’s Faculty of Education, and (iv) the Headmaster
and Head of Senior School at the case study school9.
In line with the ethical requirements of QUT UHREC and the independent school,
appropriate ethics application forms were submitted (Human Research Level One),
and ethics approvals from both QUT UHREC and the independent school were
received in May 2007. Both research instruments―the questionnaire and focus
group interview protocol―employed in this study were duly approved for use in
June 2007. According to the requirements stipulated in the QUT Human Research
Ethics Manual, all data collection procedures and instruments were accompanied by
a Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form. The senior school students
selected for and invited to participate in this study were below 18 years of age and
considered minors. Parental consent was therefore required. Given the large
numbers of student participants involved in the student self-report questionnaire
phase of the study, ‘passive’ parental consent was sought. An email detailing the
project, ethics guidelines and participant involvement was sent by the Head of
Senior School to parents in May 2007. They were asked to respond to the researcher
by email should they not consent to their child’s participation in the research project
9 The case study school is a non-government school, and therefore does not fall under the jurisdiction of Education Queensland. The ethics authority of the case study school was the Principal. The Head of Senior School was also consulted in the ethics application and approval process, given his direct involvement with the student-led digital innovation under study.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 113
by a specified date. Twelve parents indicated that they did not consent to their
child’s participation in the study. Correspondingly, due care was taken to ensure that
these students were not involved in any research activities throughout the course of
this study. In addition to parental consent, all student participants were asked to
provide written consent at each phase of the data collection.
In the information sheet to participants, it was made clear that participation was
voluntary and the participants could choose to withdraw from the study at any stage
without penalty or comment. All comments and responses were anonymous and
treated confidentially. Questionnaire data were reported in aggregate such that no
individual was identifiable. Focus group interviews were audio-recorded with the
student participants’ verbal and written consent, and transcribed verbatim.
Participants had the opportunity to review and edit their transcripts before the data
was analysed and reported. The contact details of the researcher, as well as the QUT
Office of Research Ethics Officer, were clearly stated on the Participant
Information Sheet should the participants have any questions, concerns or
complains about the conduct of the research.
Copies of the ethics approval from QUT UHREC for the research study in general
and the use of specific research instruments are provided in Appendix A and B
respectively. While an ethics approval letter from the case study school, duly signed
by the Headmaster, was received, the document is not included as an appendix for
purposes of anonymity and confidentiality. Copies of the participant information
sheets and consent forms provided to the senior school students and their parents
are included in Appendix C.
Cha p te r T hr ee : Me tho d s Pag e | 114
3.6 Summary
In summary, this chapter has specified the research purpose and questions guiding
this study. It has also outlined the research methodology and methods chosen and
implemented to address the research questions. Ethical considerations and
procedures were then discussed. In so doing, this chapter sets the scene for the
results and discussion chapters that follow. The next chapter describes and
discusses the quantitative results and findings emerging from Phase One of the
study.
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 115
CHAPTER FOUR
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
DESCRIBING AND PREDICTING ADOPTION BEHAVIOUR
4.1 Overview
The school within which this study is located has a strong focus on high academic
achievement as a key graduate attribute. Thus the extent to which an initiative such
as the SMC is perceived by the senior school students as either valuable to or a
distraction from their schooling success, or some combination of the two, is
noteworthy. In this regard, a range of individual, social and technological factors
that bear on students’ decision-making about engagement or non-engagement with
SMC are central to understanding whether and how new technologies such as the
SMC can be integrated into traditional educational practices. An analysis of these
factors, when taken together, can provide insights into the ways that students
experience and negotiate the educational tensions and complexities associated with
the adoption and diffusion of digital learning within their conventional schooling
practice, an inquiry of central interest to this thesis.
This chapter describes and reports on the quantitative component of the study
designed to (i) identify the SMC engagement trends and patterns among the senior
school student community (SRQ-1), and (ii) determine the extent to which selected
individual, social and technological factors predict students’ levels of engagement
with the non-mandatory, student-led Web 2.0 learning innovation as part of their
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 116
conventional schooling practice (SRQ-2). These two specific research questions in
turn consisted of a series of sub-questions, as shown in Table 4.1. Together, these
specific research questions and sub-questions guided the quantitative phase of the
study reported in this chapter.
Table 4.1 Specific research question and sub-questions
Specific research question (SRQ)
Sub-question Addressed in/by:
SRQ 1
What are the SMC
engagement trends
and patterns
among the senior
school student
community?
SRQ 1.1 What are the statistical characteristics
of the measurement scales used in the
questionnaire? Specifically, do the
scales display satisfactory reliability
and validity?
SRQ 1.2 What are the adoption and diffusion
patterns of the SMC within the senior
school student community? Specifically,
to what extent do students engage with
the SMC in terms of usage volume and
frequency, both generally and with
regard to its specific features?
SRQ 1.3 How do the student respondents
describe and evaluate the SMC in terms
of its social and technological
affordances for their learning and
schooling practice? Specifically, to what
extent do students (i) experience peer
support in engaging with the SMC, (ii)
consider the SMC easy to use, and (iii)
value the SMC as a useful component of
their learning and schooling practice?
Section 4.2.2 (p. 124) Section 4.3.1 (p. 133) Section 4.3.2 (p. 140)
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 117
Specific research question (SRQ)
Sub-question Addressed in/by:
SRQ 2
What factors –
individual, social
and technological
– predict the
extent to which
students engage
with the non-
mandatory,
student-led Web
2.0 learning
innovation as part
of their
conventional
schooling practice?
Put another way,
To what extent do
the measured
individual learning
dispositions, social
and technological
variables predict
students’
engagement with
the SMC?
SRQ 2 is addressed through a series of incremental
predictive models guided by the following sub-
questions:
SRQ 2.1 How and to what extent do the
students’ individual dispositions
(comprising achievement goal orientations,
cognitive playfulness and personal
innovativeness) predict their evaluation
and use of the SMC?
SRQ 2.2 How and to what extent does the
combination of individual and social
variables (comprising achievement goal
orientations, cognitive playfulness, personal
innovativeness, and peer support) predict
students’ evaluation and use of the
SMC?
SRQ 2.3 How and to what extent does the
combination of individual, social and
technological variables (comprising
achievement goal orientations, cognitive
playfulness, personal innovativeness, peer
support, perceived ease of use, and perceived
usefulness) predict students’ evaluation
and use of the SMC?
Section 4.4 (p. 143) Decision Tree 1 (p. 149) Section 4.5 (p. 155) Decision Tree 2 (p. 157) Decision Tree 3 (p. 159)
The chapter now proceeds to address SRQ 1.1 by providing a review and discussion
of the research constructs and scales, as well as the validation procedures
undertaken to assess the psychometric properties of the measurement scales
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 118
operationalised in the research instrument. It then addresses the remaining specific
research questions and sub-questions by describing and discussing the results of
statistical analyses carried out on the numeric data collected from the student self-
report questionnaire.
4.2 Review of the Quantitative Research Instrument
4.2.1 Data Collection Procedures and Research Constructs
The mode of data collection for this phase of the study involved an extensive
quantitative self-report student questionnaire administered to the senior school
student population of approximately 600 students. This student questionnaire was
implemented in June 2007, by which time the SMC had been in operation for
approximately 10 months. As discussed in Chapter Three, Section 3.4.5.1, the
quantitative research instrument (self-report student questionnaire) was designed to
identify trends and patterns of students’ evaluation and engagement with the SMC.
In brief, the numeric data from the questionnaire included items that measure
students’ (i) learning dispositions (including their achievement goal orientations, levels of
personal innovativeness and cognitive playfulness), (ii) evaluation of the SMC in terms of its
ease of use and usefulness for their learning, as well as the perceived level of peer support
for engaging with the SMC, and (iii) usage behaviours related to the SMC, in terms of
frequency and volume of use. Table 4.2 provides a brief review of these research
constructs and their respective measurement items operationalised in the self-report
student questionnaire. A detailed description of these questionnaire items has been
discussed in Chapter Three, and a copy of the full questionnaire is included in
Appendix E.
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 119
Table 4.2 Brief Review of Research Constructs and Measurement Scales
Research Constructs
Description Measurement Scales and Items (included in the questionnaire)
Source of Scales
Personal-level Constructs: Individual Learning Dispositions
Learning goals orientation
Learner is focused on increasing competence, learning new skills, understanding new concepts and ‘to get smarter’. Learner tends to exhibit more adaptive responses to complexities and challenges.
(Dweck, 2000)
Likert scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
1. The opportunity to do challenging work is
important to me.
2. When I fail to complete a difficult task I
plan to try harder the next time I work on it.
3. I prefer to work on tasks that force me to
learn new things.
4. The opportunity to learn new things is
important to me.
5. I do my best when working on a fairly
difficult task.
6. I try hard to improve on my past
performance.
7. The opportunity to extend the range of my
abilities is important to me.
8. When I have difficulty solving a problem, I
enjoy trying different approaches to see
which one will work.
Adapted from:
Button et al., 1996
Performance goals orientation
Learner is primarily focused on ‘getting the right answer’, winning positive judgments of their competence and ‘avoid looking dumb’. The learner may have a higher tendency to experience (i) intellectual paralysis in the face of challenging problems and complexities, and (ii) feelings of being overwhelmed by inability to get the right answer.
(Dweck, 2000)
Likert scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
1. I prefer to do things that I can do well rather than things that I do poorly.
2. I am happiest on tasks which I know I won’t
make any errors.
3. The things I enjoy the most are the things
that I do best.
4. The opinions others have about how well I can do certain things are important to me.
5. I feel smart when I do something without
making any mistakes.
6. I like to be fairly confident that I can
successfully perform a task before I try it.
7. I like to work on tasks that I have done well on in the past.
8. I feel smart when I can do something better
than most other people.
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 120
Research Constructs
Description Measurement Scales and Items Source of Scales
Personal-level Constructs: Individual Learning Dispositions (cont’d)
Personal Innovativeness
(INV)
Refers to the learner’s propensity to:
(i) accept new ideas, and (ii) use imagination to develop new, original and valuable inventions and/or solutions, as an individual and as part of a team.
(Craft, 2005; Sternberg, 1999)
Likert scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Items marked * were reverse-scored. All items were then summed to calculate a single Innovativeness score.
1. I am generally cautious about accepting
new ideas.*
2. I rarely trust new ideas until I can see whether the vast majority of people
around me accept them.*
3. I am usually one of the last people in my
group to accept something new.*
4. I am reluctant about adopting new ways
of doing things until I see them working
for people around me.*
5. I must see other people using new
innovations before I will consider them.*
6. I often find myself sceptical/wary of new
ideas.*
7. I find it stimulating to be original in my
thinking or behaviour.
8. I tend to feel that the old way of living and doing things is the best way.*
9. I am challenged by ambiguities and
unsolved problems.
10. I am challenged by unanswered questions.
Adapted from:
Marcinkiewicz, 1993
Cognitive Playfulness
(CP)
Focuses on the learner’s dexterity and agility in cognitive domains. This construct have been conceptualised to include two dimensions:
(i) intellectual curiosity
(ii) imagination/ creativity
Learners with higher levels of cognitive playfulness generally exhibit higher tendencies to be intellectually inquisitive and imaginative.
(Dunn, 2004; Glynn & Webster, 1993)
Likert scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items marked * were reverse-scored. All items were then summed to calculate a single Playfulness score for each sub-dimension. Cognitive Playfulness – Curiosity (CPcu)
Indicate what best describes you in general:
1. Questioning
2. Inquisitive 3. Inquiring
4. Scrutinising/Analytical
5. Investigative 6. Intellectually active
7. Curious
8. Conscientious/Hardworking*
Adapted from
Dunn, 2004
Glynn & Webster, 1993
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 121
Research Constructs
Description Measurement Scales and Items Source of Scales
Personal-level Constructs: Individual Learning Dispositions (cont’d)
Cognitive Playfulness
(cont’d)
As before Likert scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items marked * were reverse-scored. All items were then summed to calculate a single Playfulness score for each sub-dimension. Cognitive Playfulness – Creativity (CPcr)
Indicate what best describes you in general:
1. Spontaneous
2. Experimenting
3. Inventive
4. Imaginative
5. Creative
6. Flexible
7. Mechanical*
8. Unoriginal*
As before
Social Variable
Peer support
(PS)
Refers to the level of peer encouragement and social acceptance that the learner perceives in the use of the technology or innovation.
(e.g., Chen et al., 2008; Malhotra & Galletta, 2005;)
Likert scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
1. I am encouraged by my good friends to use
the SMC.
2. Students that I respect/like use the SMC.
3. My good friends use the SMC.
4. Using the SMC is ‘cool’.
Adapted from
Malhotra & Galletta, 2005
Technological Variables
Perceived
ease of use
(PEoU)
Refers to the learner’s perceived level of complexity associated with the access and use of the technology or innovation.
(e.g., Davis, 1989; Ngai et al., 2007; Rogers, 1995; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000)
Likert scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
1. I have no problems logging into and using
the SMC.
2. I find the SMC user-friendly.
3. I find the SMC sections easy to navigate.
4. I find the SMC sections clear and
understandable.
5. I find it easy to add and contribute to
forums.
Adapted from
Davis, 1989; Ngai et al., 2007
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 122
Research Constructs
Description Measurement Scales and Items Source of Scales
Technological Variables (cont’d)
Perceived usefulness
(PU)
Refers to the learner’s perceived relative advantage and benefits associated with the use of the technology or innovation for their learning and schooling purposes, in terms of
(i) socialisation (ii) exploration and
expression of identity and opinions
(iii) developing 21st century literacies and creativity
(iv)academic learning and performance
(Davis, 1989; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Rogers, 1995; Turvey, 2006; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000)
Likert scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Using the SMC can:
1. …enhance my personal profile at school.
2. …keep me up-to-date with what is going
on in school.
3. …help me feel more connected to the
student community.
4. …expand my social network of friends at
school.
5. …increase my opportunities for self-
expression.
6. …enhance opportunities to voice my
opinions.
7. …give me a place to share/publish my
works.
8. …help me get inspiration for new ideas.
9. …allow me to engage with visually
captivating content.
10. …help develop my creative skills.
11. …help develop my digital/technology
skills.
12. …help develop my critical/analytical
skills.
13. …help develop my interests and pursuits.
14. …help me learn to approach issues from
different perspectives.
15. …help me learn new skills beyond those
learnt in the classroom.
16. …stimulate me intellectually (provoke
new ideas and conversations).
17. …allow me to engage with content of a
high quality.
18. …expose me to exemplary work from
peers.
19. …expose me to more tips/ideas from
others on how to do well in exams (eg,
QCS).
20. …help improve my academic
performance.
Items are self-developed, to reflect the various dimensions of usefulness associated with learning and schooling, drawn from:
Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005
and
Turvey, 2006
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 123
The next section provides an analysis and discussion of the instrumentation, in
terms of the reliability and validity of the measurement scales used in the student
questionnaire. Subsequent sections report the results and findings pertinent to each
specific research question. The chapter concludes with a summary of key findings
emerging from the numeric data that informs the in-depth qualitative inquiry
conducted in the subsequent explanatory phase of the study, the findings of which
are discussed in Chapter Five.
Research Constructs
Description Measurement Scales and Items Source of Scales
Dependent Variable
Usage
(USE)
Refers to the extent of SMC adoption and use, measured by the learner’s actual current usage and continued usage, in terms of:
(i) Frequency (how often the student uses and will continue to use the SMC in future).
(ii) Volume (the number of SMC sections the student uses and will continue to use in future).
( e.g., Karahanna et al., 1999; Premkumar & Ramamurthy, 1994; Thong, 1999; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000)
Likert scale 1 (never), 2 (about once a term), 3 (about once a month), 4 (about once a fortnight), 5 (about once a week), 6 (more than once a week).
1. How often do you login/use the SMC
now?
2. To what extent will you continue to login/use the SMC?
3. Tick the SMC sections that you
access/use now?
• News
• Forum
• Your works
• Videos
• Podcasts
• Images
• Poll
4. Tick the SMC sections that you will
continue to access/use in future?
• News
• Forum
• Your works
• Videos
• Podcasts
• Images
• Poll
Items are self-developed to reflect the specific features of the innovation.
The items were self-developed by adapting from conventional measures of usage employed in technology adoption and diffusion studies in the Information Systems field
(e.g., Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 124
4.2.2 SRQ 1.1 – Reliability and Validity of Measures
The reliability and validity of measurement scales, as indicated by their psychometric
properties, are assessed in terms of their internal consistency and construct validity.
The latter can be further broken down into convergent and discriminant validity.
4.2.2.1 Internal consistency
The most common measure of internal consistency is the reliability coefficient
Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951; Murphy, Reed-Rhoads, Stone, Terry & Allen,
2008). Cronbach's alpha (α) will generally increase when the correlations between
the items increase. For this reason the coefficient is also called the internal
consistency or the internal consistency reliability of the test. The recommended
threshold of α ≥ 0.70 is commonly used in social behavioural sciences to assess the
internal consistency of scales measuring psychological constructs. When the
reliability coefficient is below the acceptable threshold, a common corrective
procedure is to review the improvement in the alpha coefficient when specific items
in the original scale are removed (Cortina, 1993; Streiner, 2003). This is performed
with due consideration given to (i) the theoretical underpinnings in the development
of the scale, as well as (ii) the need to maintain construct validity of the scale. Table
4.3 on the following page reports the internal consistency of all the measurement
scales used in this study.
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 125
Table 4.3 Internal Consistency of Measurement Scales
As shown in Table 4.3, with the exception of Personal Innovativeness and Cognitive
Playfulness, the measurement scales of all the constructs pertinent to the study
exhibited strong levels of internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
exceeding 0.70 without modification to the original scale items.
The original Personal Innovativeness comprised ten items adapted from measures
developed by Marcinkiewicz (1993). The Cognitive Playfulness scale can be further
broken down into two sub-scales, Cognitive Playfulness: Curiosity dimension and Cognitive
Playfulness: Creativity dimension, which comprised eight items respectively adapted
from measures developed by Glynn and Webster (1993). When applied to the
context of this study, four items from Personal Innovativeness and three items from
Cognitive Playfulness: Creativity proved to be problematic for the internal consistency of
the scales in terms of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients; whereas one item from Cognitive
Playfulness: Curiosity proved problematic in terms of convergent validity as
preliminary confirmatory factor analysis results conducted on the original scales
showed that this item did not load satisfactorily on the factor. These items were
therefore dropped to improve the reliability and validity of the scales for the
Constructs / Notation Original Scale
(see Table 4.2)
Modified Scale
(used for further data analyses)
Cronbach’s α Modified scale
(original scale)
Performance Goal Orientation PG 8 items 8 items 0.751 Learning Goal Orientation LG 8 items 8 items 0.854 Personal Innovativeness INV 10 items 6 items 0.775 (0.622) Cognitive Playfulness: Curiosity CPcu 8 items 7 items 0.817 (0.680) Cognitive Playfulness: Creativity CPcr 8 items 5 items 0.778 (0.637) Peer Support PS 4 items 4 items 0.817 Perceived Usefulness PU 20 items 20 items 0.963 Perceived Ease of Use PEoU 5 items 5 items 0.866 Usage (dependent variable) USE 4 items 4 items 0.885
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 126
purpose of further descriptive and predictive data analyses. The modified scales
comprising six items (Personal Innovativeness), seven items (Cognitive Playfulness: Curiosity)
and five items (Cognitive Playfulness: Creativity) were used for further data analysis.
These modified scales exhibited strong levels of internal reliability, with Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients well above the recommended 0.70 threshold for social sciences
(Cortina, 1993; Streiner, 2003).
A minimum of two items is required for scales measuring latent variables in the
social sciences. In this respect, all three modified scales consist of an ample number
of items designed to measure the latent variables of Personal Innovativeness and
Cognitive Playfulness, and the corrective procedure of removing the four problematic
items from the original scales did not pose any threat to the validity of the scale;
rather, the corrective procedure has strengthened the convergent validity of the
scales. This is evident from the results of a confirmatory factor analysis procedure
performed on the modified scales, as discussed in the section that follows.
4.2.2.2 Convergent Validity
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) seeks to determine if the number of factors and
the loadings of the measurement items on them, otherwise known as factor loadings,
conform to what is expected on the basis of pre-established theory and empirical
evidence (Gorsuch, 1983; Stevens, 2002). In other words, the CFA procedure seeks
to determine if the measures created to represent a latent variable really belong
together (Kim and Mueller, 1978; 1994). There are two main approaches to CFA: (i)
the traditional method of confirmatory factor analysis can be accomplished using a
number of general-purpose statistical packages such as SPSS with a range of factor
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 127
extraction methods such as principal components analysis or common factor
analysis among others, and (ii) the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach
of analysing alternative measurement (factor) models using using SEM statistical
packages such as AMOS or LISREL. The traditional CFA method allows the
researcher to examine factor loadings of indicator variables to determine if they load
on latent variables (factors) as predicted by the researcher's model. This can provide
a more detailed insight into the measurement model than can the use of single-
coefficient ‘goodness of fit’ measures used in the SEM approach, which is more
appropriate when the main purpose of the study is to establish and validate causal
relationships between variables. Given that the primary objective of the quantitative
component of this study is to provide a broad descriptive analysis of the patterns
and trends of students’ engagement with the SMC to facilitate further qualitative
inquiry, rather than establishing causal relationships between the measured
constructs of interest to the study, the traditional CFA approach is arguably the
appropriate choice of analysis, and thus it is the method employed in the study to
assess the validity of the measurement scales.
Within the traditional CFA approach, there are two prominent options for factor
extraction, namely components analysis and common factor analysis, within which
principal components analysis (PCA) and principal axis factoring (PAF) respectively
are among the most widely used factor extraction methods. Extended and
prominent treatments of the similarities and differences across both methods are
available in the works of Gorsuch (1973), Kim and Mueller (1978, 1994), and Hair,
Anderson, Tatham and Black (1998). In brief, both these methods have been shown
to frequently produce the same substantive results, but differences in the solutions
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 128
tend to increase along with (i) differences in the communality estimates of the
variables, (ii) smaller sample sizes, and (iii) lower number of variables (Thompson &
Vidal-Brown, 2001). Two major distinctions are worth noting here. First, PAF is a
correlation-focussed approach where the factors reflect the common variance of
variables excluding unique variance, whereas PCA is a variance-focussed approach
where the factors (or components) reflect the common variance shared by the
variables as well as the unique variance. Second, PCA is widely acknowledged to be
the preferred method if the objective of the factor analysis is data reduction, while
PAF is the method of choice for causal modelling or structural equation modelling
research studies (Gorsuch, 1973; Kim & Mueller, 1994; Thompson & Vidal-Brown,
2001).
Given that the main purpose of factor analysis in this study was not to establish
causal relationships and models, but rather to reduce the large number of
measurement items to a smaller number of latent variables for analysis (i.e., data
reduction), PCA with Varimax rotation (Kaiser, 1958) was carried out on all the
measurement items using the SPSS Version 15 statistical package. Rotation serves to
make the output readily interpretable and is usually necessary to facilitate the
interpretation of factors. There are a number of rotation methods, primarily
categorised as orthogonal (factors uncorrelated with one another) and oblique
(factors correlate with one another). The Varimax rotation used in this study is
known to be one of the most popular, if not the most common criteria for
orthogonal rotation, because it maximises the correlations among the variables
within each component and minimises correlations between components and In so
doing, simplifies the model structure and increases interpretability (see Fabio,
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 129
Sauber-Schatz, Barbour & Li, 2009; Hair et al., 1998; Kim & Mueller, 1978; 1994;
Kline, 1994; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy for the
confirmatory factor analysis carried out in this study was a strong 0.899 and the
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (P<0.000). Together, these measures
indicate that the strength of the relationships among the variables is robust and the
factor analysis is appropriate for the dataset. The factor loadings, eigenvalues and
variance explained for the factors/components pertinent to the study are reported
in Tables 4.4 and 4.5 respectively.
The nine principal components (or factors) measured in this study accounted for 58%
of the variance. Following significant work on multivariate data analysis in the social
sciences (e.g., Hair et al., 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), it is generally
acknowledged that acceptable item loadings (on their respective factors) range from
0.4 (satisfactory) to 0.7 and above (strong). All the measurement items loaded
satisfactorily on their respective constructs, with no significant cross-loadings on
other constructs. In this regard, the measurement scales exhibit an acceptable level
of convergent validity.
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 130
Table 4.4 Factor loadings of measurement scales
CONSTRUCTS ITEM LOADINGS
CONSTRUCTS ITEM LOADINGS
INDIVIDUAL LEARNING DISPOSITIONS
TECHNOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL PREDICTORS
Learning Goal Orientation (LG) Perceived Usefulness (PU) LG1 0.647 PU1 0.486 LG2 0.714 PU2 0.509 LG3 0.754 PU3 0.449 LG4 0.773 PU4 0.697 LG5 0.642 PU5 0.707 LG6 0.675 PU6 0.753 LG7 0.698 PU7 0.759 LG8 0.504 PU8 0.689 Performance Goal Orientation (PG) PU9 0.814 PG1 0.658 PU10 0.768 PG2 0.700 PU11 0.768 PG3 0.702 PU12 0.748 PG4 0.400 PU13 0.850 PG5 0.637 PU14 0.829 PG6 0.483 PU15 0.839 PG7 0.601 PU16 0.861 PG8 0.650 PU17 0.827 Personal Innovativeness (INV) PU18 0.780 INV1 0.605 PU19 0.782 INV2 0.732 PU20 0.835 INV3 0.673 Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) INV4 0.736 PEOU1 0.639 INV5 0.721 PEOU2 0.793 INV6 0.657 PEOU3 0.871 Cognitive Playfulness – Creativity (CPcr) PEOU4 0.848
CPCr1 0.420 PEOU5 0.660 CPCr2 0.826 Peer Support (PS) CPCr3 0.528 PPS1 0.680 CPCr4 0.851 PPS2 0.732 CPCr5 0.591 PPS3 0.770 Cognitive Playfulness – Curiosity (CPcu) PPS4 0.559 CPCu1 0.548 CPCu2 0.554 DEPENDENT VARIABLE CPCu3 0.704 Usage (USE) CPCu4 0.642 USE1 0.790 CPCu5 0.653 USE2 0.768 CPCu6 0.722 USE3 0.766 CPCu7 0.753 USE4 0.742
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 131
Table 4.5 Eigenvalues and variance explained
Factors/ Components Eigenvalue
Variance explained, %
Cumulative Variance Explained, %
1 Perceived Usefulness (PU) 15.17 22.31 22.31
2 Learning Goals Orientation (LG) 6.72 9.89 32.19
3 Cognitive Playfulness: Curiosity (CPcu) 3.78 5.55 37.75
4 Perceived Ease of Use (PEoU) 3.41 5.01 42.76
5 Performance Goals Orientation (PG) 2.50 3.67 46.43
6 Personal Innovativeness (INV) 2.29 3.36 49.79
7 Usage (USE) 1.87 2.75 52.55
8 Peer Support (PS) 1.80 2.65 55.20
9 Cognitive Playfulness: Creativity (CPcr) 1.74 2.56 57.76
4.2.2.3 Discriminant Validity
In addition to internal consistency and convergent validity, the discriminant validity
of the measurement scales was also assessed using Campbell and Fiske’s (1959)
discriminant validity test formula (with correction for attenuation), where rxy is the
correlation between x and y, rxx is the reliability of x, and ryy is the reliability of y:
. A successful evaluation of discriminant validity shows that the
measurement items of a construct are not highly correlated with other scales
designed to measure theoretically different constructs. When measurement scales
pertinent to a study are demonstrated to have acceptable convergent and
discriminant validity, then by definition, the measurement scales are demonstrated
to have evidence for construct validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; John & Benet-
Martinez, 2000). Although there is no standard value for discriminant validity, a
result less than 0.85 demonstrates that discriminant validity likely exists between the
two scales. Conversely, a result greater than 0.85 suggests that the two constructs
overlap greatly and they are likely to be measuring the same thing, and therefore,
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 132
one cannot claim discriminant validity between them. The discriminant validity
coefficients computed using the correction for attenuation formula, as reported in
Table 4.6, are well below 0.85 for all the measurement scales, ranging from 0.08 to
0.621. This provides evidence of discriminant validity among all the measurement
items and their respective scales.
Table 4.6 Discriminant validity coefficients of measurement scales
When coupled with the internal consistency and convergent validity results reported
earlier, these discriminant validity test results provide adequate evidence that the
psychometric properties of the measurement scales demonstrate satisfactory levels
of reliability and validity. This serves as the basis for carrying out further statistical
analysis on the numeric questionnaire data to address the relevant research
questions, the results of which are presented and discussed in the following sections.
Constructs LG PG INV CPcr CPcu PS PEoU PU USE Learning Goals Orientation (LG) 1.00 Performance Goals Orientation (PG) 0.29 1.00 Personal Innovativeness (INV) 0.60 0.21 1.00 Cognitive Playfulness — Creativity (CPcr) 0.45 0.28 0.19 1.00 Cognitive Playfulness — Curiosity (CPcu) 0.55 0.24 0.24 0.60 1.00
Peer Support (PS) 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.14 1.00 Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) 0.33 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.25 0.46 1.00 Perceived Usefulness (PU) 0.21 0.10 0.10 0.23 0.14 0.64 0.51 1.00
Usage (USE) 0.37 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.25 0.54 0.62 0.47 1.00
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 133
4.3 Students’ engagement with and evaluation of the SMC
4.3.1 SRQ 1.2 – Trends and patterns of SMC engagement
This section addresses SRQ 1.2: What are the adoption and diffusion trends and patterns of
the SMC within the senior school student community? Specifically, to what extent do students
engage with the SMC in terms of usage volume and frequency, generally and with regard to specific
features? To address this research question, the discussion starts with an analysis of
students’ engagement with the digital learning innovation. A brief demographic
overview of the student respondents is provided at the outset, followed by a
description of the extent to which these senior school students engaged with the
SMC and its various features, as reflected in their measured levels of usage.
The student self-report questionnaire was administered during a senior school
assembly to all the senior school students present. According to the school’s
enrolment records, the total senior school population at the time of administering
the student questionnaire approximated 600 students. Three classes of senior school
students (approximately 75 students) were not present at the senior school assembly
due to co-curricular activities. Of the remaining 525 senior school students present
at the assembly, 488 responded to the student questionnaire, of which a total of 8
were considered to be invalid due to a significant number of missing responses. In
total, 481 valid student questionnaire responses were received, resulting in an
effective response rate of 92.9% (or 81.3% of the total senior school population). A
qualitative evaluation of the three classes of senior school students who were not
present at the senior school assembly emerging from subsequent class-based
discussions with these students and key teaching staff identified that these students
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 134
did not exhibit any substantive qualitative differences in terms of their demographic
or engagement profile as compared to the general senior school student population.
Coupled with the high questionnaire response rate and pragmatic considerations of
not causing undue disruption to regular schooling activities, a re-administration of
the student questionnaire to include these 75 students was deemed to be
unnecessary for the purposes of this study.
The demographic profile of the student respondents in terms of year levels and
interest in key learning areas are as follows. On the whole, the 481 student
respondents comprised a comparable percentage of students across all three senior
year levels: Year 10 (N=160, 33%), Year 11 (N=154, 32%), and Year 12 (N=159,
33%); 8 student respondents did not indicate their year levels (missing values N=8,
2%). Figure 4.1 illustrates the students’ level of interest in key learning areas.
Students indicated the highest level of interest in English, Languages, Arts and
Humanities, followed by Maths and Science, and Sports respectively. Students showed a
moderate level of interest in Technology and Multimedia, while Religious Education and
Health demonstrated the lowest levels of student interest.
Figure 4.1 Levels of Student Interest in Key Learning Areas
406 (24%)
319 (19%)
302 (18%)
245 (14%)
182 (11%)
161 (9%)
91 (5%)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
1Key Learning Areas
Counts of Responses
Health & RE
Music & Drama
Business & Communication
Technology & Multimedia
Sports
Maths & Science
English, Languages, Arts & Humanities
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase
The overall SMC adoption and diffusion patterns within the senior school
community in terms of students’ usage levels are depicted in
discussed in Chapter Three Section 3.4.5.1 and Chapter Fo
usage level of the SMC is a composite measure obtained by aggregating four items
that measure the respondent’s current and continued
1=never to 6=more than once a week
of SMC learning features
sections used). The composite usage level measure
2 (non-user) to 26 (highest
Figure 4.2 Students’ Usage Levels of the SMC
It is clear from the usage trends depicted in Figure 4.
engagement with the SMC is generally low, with a sizeable 24% of the senior school
student community
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2 3 4 5
24%
3%
9%
6%
9%
Counts
Where 2=Non
Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour
The overall SMC adoption and diffusion patterns within the senior school
community in terms of students’ usage levels are depicted in
in Chapter Three Section 3.4.5.1 and Chapter Four Section 4.2.1,
of the SMC is a composite measure obtained by aggregating four items
that measure the respondent’s current and continued usage frequency
6=more than once a week), as well as usage volume tabulated by
learning features used (ranging from 0=no SMC sections used
). The composite usage level measure therefore, has a theoretical range of
user) to 26 (highest/maximum-user).
s’ Usage Levels of the SMC
It is clear from the usage trends depicted in Figure 4.2 that the level of student
engagement with the SMC is generally low, with a sizeable 24% of the senior school
student community (N=115) who are non-users. These students
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
9%
6%5%
3%
5%
3%4%
3%4%
3%2%
1%3% 2%
1%
Usage Levels/Scores
2=Non-Usage, 26=Maximum Usage (more than once a week, all 7 learning features)
Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 135
The overall SMC adoption and diffusion patterns within the senior school
community in terms of students’ usage levels are depicted in Figure 4.2. As
ur Section 4.2.1, students’
of the SMC is a composite measure obtained by aggregating four items
usage frequency (ranging from
tabulated by the number
sections used to 7=all SMC
has a theoretical range of
that the level of student
engagement with the SMC is generally low, with a sizeable 24% of the senior school
users. These students had neither
20 21 22 23 24 26
1% .6%.6%.6%.2%1%
Usage, 26=Maximum Usage (more than once a week, all 7 learning features)
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase –
accessed nor engaged with the SMC
the school. On the other hand, only a handful of students
the senior school student respondents report
seven of the SMC learning features
7.96 (SD=5.69) indicates that the average student user is likely to
SMC only once a term and on those occasions,
three of the seven learning features on
mid-point reference, the senior school student respondents can be grouped into
four categories of users as depicted in Figure 4.3
emerge correspond to the usage trends analysis
organised as follows: Other than the significant 24% of non
(N=184) can be categorised as
users. Only a minority 15%
students who engaged with at least four SMC learning features about once a
fortnight.
Figure 4.3 SMC User Categories
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
24%
(N=115)
Non-Users
(Usage score = 2) (Usage
Counts
– Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour
the SMC in the ten months since its implementation in
On the other hand, only a handful of students, comprising 1%
the senior school student respondents reported that they accessed and used all
learning features more than once a week. The mean usage level
indicates that the average student user is likely to have access
only once a term and on those occasions, only engaged with about
learning features on the SMC. Using the mean usage level as a
point reference, the senior school student respondents can be grouped into
depicted in Figure 4.3. The SMC user categories
age trends analysis reported in Figure 4.2, and can be
organised as follows: Other than the significant 24% of non-users, a majority 38%
=184) can be categorised as low users, 23% (N=111) can be classified as
(N=71) can be categorised as high users. These were
with at least four SMC learning features about once a
SMC User Categories
38%
(N=184)
23%
(N=111)
15%
(N=71)
Low Users
(Usage scores = 3 to 8)
Moderate Users
(Usage scores = 9 to 14)
High Users
(Usage scores = 15 to 26)
Pag e | 136
in the ten months since its implementation in
comprising 1% (N=5) of
accessed and used all
The mean usage level of
accessed the
about two to
the SMC. Using the mean usage level as a
point reference, the senior school student respondents can be grouped into
. The SMC user categories that
reported in Figure 4.2, and can be
majority 38%
=111) can be classified as moderate
. These were
with at least four SMC learning features about once a
=71)
High Users
scores = 15 to 26)
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 137
An analysis of student engagement levels10 for each of the seven different learning
features of the SMC, as shown in Figure 4.4, indicates that the senior school student
respondents used the Video feature the most, followed by the Photos and Forum
features. These three top-rated SMC learning features shared some common
characteristics, in that they engaged with multimodalities (both visual and print
literacies) and allowed for a high level of social interaction among the users, such as
the user review/comments functionality available in the Video and Photos features, as
well as the user post/reply/add thread functionality in the Forum feature. Podcast and
Student Works emerged as features that were accessed/used the least by the student
respondents. It is noteworthy that in contrast with the three top-rated features, the
design of both the Podcast and Student Works sections were more didactic in nature,
in that such tools allowed users merely to listen or read content without an
interactive user review/comment functionality embedded, and they engaged
primarily with a single modality (either audio or print).
Figure 4.4 Student Engagement Level with SMC Learning Features
10 Engagement level has a theoretical range from ‘0=No engagement’ to ‘1=Maximum engagement’, and is calculated by aggregating the usage volume measure per feature (0=Non-use; 1=Use) across the whole student sample, then dividing this aggregated usage volume per feature by the total number of cases.
0.26
0.28
0.42
0.48
0.59
0.60
0.84
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Podcasts
Student …
News
Poll
Forum
Photos
Videos
SMC Learning Features
Students' Engagement with SMC Learning Features
(0=Non-engagement, 1=Maximum Engagement)
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 138
Students were also asked to rank, on a scale of 1 (boring) to 5 (very interesting), the
various SMC learning features in terms of how interesting they perceived them to
be. Figure 4.5 reports the mean value of aggregated student responses to the
question of how interesting they found each SMC learning feature. Results were
consistent with the student engagement trends reflected in Figure 4.4, in that Videos,
Photos and Forum emerged as the SMC learning features that students found most
interesting. In contrast, students generally found the Student Works and Podcasts
features to be uninspiring. It is worth noting that, despite being rated as the most
interesting feature, the mean student interest level for the Videos feature was only
marginally higher than the mid-point scale of 3 (mediocre), while all other features
were rated as less than mediocre. This suggests that on the whole, students did not
find the various SMC features and their respective content to be particularly
appealing, and while a majority of students engaged to some extent with the Videos,
Photos and Forum features (as indicated in Figure 4.4), the content in these features
garnered low levels of interest from the student users.
Figure 4.5 Student Interest Level in SMC Learning Features
2.13 (SD=1.18)
2.22 (SD=1.21)
2.44 (SD=1.29)
2.57 (SD=1.39)
2.62 (SD=1.37)
2.83 (SD=1.36)
3.27 (SD=1.38)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
News
Student …
Podcasts
Forum
Poll
Photos
Videos
SMC Learning Features
Students' Interest Level in SMC Learning Features
(1=Boring, 3=Mediocre, 5=Very Interesting)
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 139
Finally, to better understand how the senior school students’ evaluated the
relevance of the SMC in terms of the relative advantage it bore for their school life,
they were asked to indicate, on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree),
if they thought having the SMC in the school was a good idea. Students’ responses
were tabulated by year level and the results are presented in Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6 SMC in School is a Good Idea? Student Mean Responses by Year Levels (Range of responses: 1=strongly disagree, 3=neutral, 5=strongly agree)
In light of the patterns of low student engagement and interest levels in the SMC,
the low mean values of students’ responses to the question of whether “having the
SMC in school was a good idea” was predictable. This trend was consistent across
all three year levels: Year 10 reported the lowest mean of 2.49 (SD=1.23), followed
: Student mean responses by year levels
9 outliers 5 outliers
: Range : Standard deviation (SD)
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 140
closely by Year 11 (mean=2.54, SD=1.19) and Year 12 (mean=2.59, SD=1.15). The
boxplot results shown in Figure 4.6 suggest that among these three year level groups,
Year 11 students appear to be slightly more resistant to the SMC than the other two
year levels, in that the median value of 2.0 is lower than the median values of the
other two groups, and also approximately 50% of the Year 11 respondents either
strongly disagreed or disagreed with the proposition that having the SMC in school
was a good idea. The level of disagreement from student respondents in the other
two groups were relatively, albeit marginally, milder. Results of one-way ANOVA
comparison of means, however, reported no statistically significant differences in
the means across the three groups. The aggregated mean student response for the
total student sample was an unremarkable 2.56 (SD=1.19), suggesting that on the
whole, the senior school student community remain unconvinced that having the
SMC at school was a good idea in terms of any relative advantage it might add to
their school life.
4.3.2 SRQ 1.3 – Students’ evaluation of social and technological affordances
This widespread ambivalence on the part of the senior school student community
towards the SMC is reinforced by students’ responses to the perceived level of peer
support and perceived usefulness aspects of the SMC. Figure 4.7 reports the mean
student responses of the composite Peer Support, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease
of Use measures. The results suggest that while students did not find the SMC
excessively difficult to access or use, they did not rate the SMC as being particularly
useful for their learning and schooling purposes. At the same time, students
reported a low level of encouragement and support from their peers with respect to
using the SMC. In other words, the perceived level of peer encouragement, support
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 141
and social acceptance among the senior school community regarding the use of the
SMC was unequivocally low.
Figure 4.7 Student Perceptions of Peer Support, Usefulness and Ease of Use of the SMC
In terms of the perceived usefulness of the SMC for different aspects of learning
and schooling, students indicated that the SMC was most useful for developing their
identity and expressing their opinions, but was least useful for socialisation purposes,
such as raising their profile in school, helping them feel more connected, and
extending their social network of friends within the school student community.
Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the perceived level of usefulness of the SMC
across all four aspects of learning and schooling were reported to be less than
mediocre by the senior school student community taken as a whole. This finding,
graphically presented in Figure 4.8, corresponds with the low levels of peer support
and social acceptance associated with using the SMC as experienced and reported by
the students.
2.13 (SD=0.91)
2.34 (SD=0.83)
3.21 (SD=1.00)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Peer Support
Perceived Usefulness
Perceived Ease of Use
Students' Mean Responses
(1='Not beneficial at all' or 'Strongly disagree', 5='Very beneficial' or 'Strongly agree')
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 142
Figure 4.8 Perceived Usefulness of the SMC for Various Learning and Schooling Aspects
Taken together, the results emerging from the analysis of SMC adoption and
diffusion patterns among the senior school student community discussed above
consistently underscore a general attitude of ambivalence towards the digital
learning innovation, in terms of both attitudes towards the SMC, and actual SMC
usage behaviour. On the whole, students did not seem convinced that having the
SMC in the school was a good idea, and found the various SMC features to be less
than compelling in terms of its appeal and usefulness for their learning and
schooling purposes. Correspondingly, at the point of data collection, that is, ten
months subsequent to the implementation of the SMC in the school, a considerable
24% of the senior school student community reported that they did not access or
use the SMC at all. A significant 38% and 24% can be categorised as sporadic/low
and moderate users respectively. These students’ engagement with the SMC ranged
from once a term to once a month in terms of frequency, and on those occasions of
use, tended to access about only two to four out of seven SMC learning features.
Barely 15% of the senior school students accessed the SMC approximately once a
2.34 (SD=0.95)
2.41 (SD=0.98)
2.46 (SD=0.90)
2.67 (SD=1.09)
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Socialisation
Academic learning and performance
Develop creativity and new literacies
Self-expression and identity development
Students' Mean Responses
(1=Not beneficial at all, 5=Very beneficial)
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 143
fortnight or once a week, and on those occasions of use, engaged with about half of
the SMC features. Of these high users, only a negligible 1% engaged with the SMC
more than once a week and used all seven learning features.
From this broad picture of students’ evaluation of and engagement with the SMC,
the chapter proceeds now to consider more closely the individual, social and
technological aspects of the innovation adoption and diffusion process that may
play important roles in predicting the SMC usage behaviour among senior school
students. The next section aims to provide a richer understanding of the individual
attitudes and learning dispositions of the senior school students, and how these
different individual-level factors explain students’ levels of engagement with the
SMC. The analysis then extends to consider the roles that social and technological
factors play in the SMC adoption and diffusion process.
4.4 SRQ 2.1 – Individual Level Predictor Variables
This individual micro-level analysis of the adoption and diffusion of the SMC within
the senior school student community addresses the sub-research question of how and
to what extent the measured individual learning dispositions of the senior school students, namely,
their learning and performance goals orientation, levels of personal innovativeness and cognitive
playfulness (curiosity and creativity), predict engagement with the SMC. The definitions and
operationalisations of these individual learning dispositions have been discussed in
detail in Chapter Three Section 3.4.5.1 and reviewed in Section 4.2 of this chapter.
This section builds on those earlier discussions. It begins by providing some
descriptive statistics related to these individual factors, then moves on to discuss the
results of a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) or decision tree predictive
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 144
modelling approach that was used to analyse the extent to which these individual
factors predict SMC usage behaviour.
4.4.1 Descriptive Statistics for Individual Learning Dispositions Variables
There are three constructs associated with the individual learning dispositions
considered in this study, namely, Achievement Goal Orientations, Personal Innovativeness
(INV) and Cognitive Playfulness. Achievement goal orientations comprise two distinct
dimensions, Learning Goals Orientation (LG) and Performance Goals Orientation (PG).
Similarly, cognitive playfulness consists of two distinct dimensions, Curiosity (CPcu)
and Creativity (CPcr). The descriptive statistics for the composite measure of these
three constructs and their sub-dimensions, as well as the dependent variable (Usage)
are presented in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistics for Individual Learning Dispositions Variables
Variables (composite
measure)
Theoretical
range Min Max Median Mean
Mean
Rank
(as % of
max.
value)
SD
Performance goals orientation
(PG)
Min: 8
Max: 40 15 40 27.5 31.5 78.7% 4.4
Learning goals orientation
(LG)
Min: 8
Max: 40 11 40 25.5 30.6 76.6% 5.2
Personal innovativeness
(INV)
Min: 6
Max: 30 6 30 18.0 20.0 66.7% 4.2
Cognitive playfulness
— Creativity (CPcr)
Min: 5
Max: 25 5 25 15.0 18.2 72.9% 3.5
Cognitive playfulness
— Curiosity (CPcu)
Min: 7
Max: 35 10 35 22.5 25.3 72.4% 4.4
Usage
(USE)
Min: 2
Max: 26 2 26 14.0 8.0 30.6% 5.7
On the whole, the descriptive statistics for individual learning dispositions indicate
that the senior school student community exhibited above-average levels of
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 145
achievement goal orientations, cognitive playfulness and personal innovativeness,
with the mean rank for the first two constructs scoring at least 70% of the
maximum value, while personal innovativeness exhibited a slightly lower mean rank
score of 66% of the maximum value. In terms of achievement goals orientations,
both learning and performance goals orientations scored highly among the senior
student respondents, with performance goals orientation scoring a marginally higher
mean than learning goals orientation. One interpretation that follows is that the
senior school student community, on the whole, exhibited a tendency to be more
performance goals-oriented than learning goals-oriented, although this difference
was not shown to be statistically significant. On the other hand, no discernable
differences were noted in the mean rank scores for both dimensions of cognitive
playfulness. This suggests that the senior school student community exhibited
comparably high levels of cognitive creativity and cognitive curiosity. In addition,
the low mean value (30% of maximum range) of the usage variable underscores the
low adoption rates of the SMC among the senior school students.
Against this general picture of the senior school student community’s individual
learning dispositions, the discussion moves on to analyse the relationships between
these individual learning dispositions and students’ SMC usage behaviour. A
Classification and Regression Tree (CART), or decision tree in short, was generated
to understand these relationships. Before moving on to discuss the results, it is
useful to provide an overview of the CART analysis technique.
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 146
4.4.2 CART/Decision Tree Methodology
Classification and Regression Tree (CART) modelling was first developed more
than twenty years ago as a statistical method of analysing relationships among
variables (Breiman et al., 1984), and has since been used widely in scholarly fields
that engage primarily with non-parametric data sets, such as finance and banking,
international relations, social welfare policy, epidemiology and biomedical
engineering (e.g., Bridgstock, 2007; Furnkrantz, Petrak & Trappl, 1997; Gibb,
Auslander & Griffin, 1993; Yohannes & Webb, 1999). In brief, the CART method
of predictive modelling aims to obtain the most accurate prediction of the
dependent or target variable through a process of binary recursive partitioning of
data (Breiman et al., 1984; Salford Systems, 2003) whilst maintaining maximal levels
of parsimony, non-triviality and interpretability (Moore, Jesse & Kittler, 2001).
When the value of the target variable is categorical, a classification tree is developed,
whereas a regression tree is developed for quantitative (discrete and/or continuous)
target variables.
Binary recursive partitioning is acknowledged to be the most well-established and
commonly used decision tree algorithm developed by Breiman and colleagues
(1984), and is an essential first step in a CART analysis. This process is considered
binary because each split of a group of participants or cases (parent node) results in
two groups (child nodes). This partitioning procedure asks successive questions
with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers to split the data, where all possible splits for all variables
included in the analysis are considered and ordered using a goodness-of-split
criterion. The best split is the one that maximizes the homogeneity of the resulting
two child nodes, by maximizing the between-nodes sums of squares (Breiman et al.,
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 147
1984). In other words, CART examines each predictor variable and every possible
cutoff score at each decision point to determine which variable will yield child
nodes that are as ‘pure’ as possible, that is, they exhibit minimal variance on the
target measure. The predicted value at each node is the mean of the target variable
for all cases included in that node. CART then repeats this search process
continuously for each child node until further splitting is impossible or stopped,
that is, when a single case remains in a node or if all the cases in a node are exact
copies of each other on the predictor variables (Bridgstock, 2007; Salford Systems,
2003).
After this process of generating the maximal tree, the CART analysis proceeds to
determine the optimal tree with the lowest error cost and highest explanatory power
(Moore et al., 2001) using the technique of v-fold cross-validation (deVille, 2006;
Salford Systems, 2003). The cross-validation procedure essentially divides the
dataset into v groups, and takes the first v-1 group of data (test sample) to construct
the largest possible tree while using the remaining groups of data to obtain initial
error cost estimates of the sub-trees. This process is carried out in an iterative
fashion until each data group has been used as a test sample at least once. The
results of the v-tests are then combined to calculate the error cost for trees of each
possible size, and these error costs are applied to the tree generated from the entire
dataset. While the researcher can exercise discretion in choosing how many splits
the tree should include, in a CART analysis software program 11 , the optimal
decision tree solution presented is the one that reported the lowest error cost along
11 There are several commercial CART analysis software programs available. These include CART®6.0 (Salford Systems, 2008), DTREG, and SAS® Enterprise Miner 9.1. The last of these was used in this study because the university had an institutional licence for the software and it was thus freely available to the researcher.
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 148
with the highest explanatory power (Lemsky et al., 1996). A comprehensive
discussion of the decision tree predictive modeling technique is expounded in
Breiman and others’ (1984) definitive text on classification and regression trees.
In sum, the CART method analyses the extent to which the predictor variables (in
this illustrative case, the individual learning dispositions) explain the variance in the
dependent variable (in this case, SMC usage behaviour), in a way that (i) represents
and generalises the relationships succinctly (parsimony), and (ii) generates
interesting results that are easy to interpret (non-triviality and interpretability). The
decision tree method does not rely on statistical assumptions such as normality and
collinearity that are imperative in traditional parametric regression techniques
(Murthy, 1998; Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). It is therefore particularly useful for
predictive modelling of data when the data set is non-parametric in nature, as is the
case in this study.
Against this background, the next section focuses more squarely on the CART
modelling results. Specifically, three decision trees were generated in analysing the
relationships among the individual, technological, social and usage variables
pertinent to this study. The first decision tree provides insights into how individual-
level factors predict students’ usage of the SMC, while the latter two decision trees
build on the individual-level factors to consider the interaction of individual-level
factors with technological and social factors, and how these factors collectively
predict students’ decision to engage with or resist the SMC in their schooling
practice.
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 149
4.4.3 Decision Tree 1: Individual Learning Dispositions and SMC Usage
The first decision tree documents the relationships among individual learning
dispositions (predictor variables) and SMC usage behaviour (target variable). The
results of Decision Tree One presented in Figure 4.9 provide an indication of the
individual learning dispositions that emerge as salient predictors of students’ level of
SMC usage.
Figure 4.9 Optimal Decision Tree One: Individual Learning Dispositions (predictors) and SMC Usage (target)
Model R2 = 0.44
Where:
Mean SMC Usage ≤ 6.0 but ≤ 6.9 (very low)
Mean SMC Usage ≥ 7.0 but ≤ 8.5 (moderately low)
Mean SMC Usage ≥ 8.6 but ≤ 11.0 (moderate)
Mean SMC Usage ≥ 11.1 but ≤ 12.9 (moderately high)
Mean SMC Usage ≥ 13.0 (high)
CART modelling, though widely employed in multiple disciplines and professional
settings over the last decade, is still less common than traditional linear regression
≥22.5 ≤22.5 ≥38.5 ≤38.5
N = 9
Mean = 13.0
(SD=5.8)
N = 34
Mean = 7.3
(SD=5.1)
N = 7
Mean = 6.0
(SD=6.1)
N = 83
Mean = 11.2
(SD=6.6)
Personal Innovativeness ≥19.5 ≤19.5
N = 43
Mean = 8.5
(SD=5.7)
N = 90
Mean = 10.8
(SD=6.7)
Performance goals CP-Creativity
Learning goals ≥36.5 ≤36.5
N = 326
Mean = 6.9
(SD=4.8)
N = 22
Mean = 11.5
(SD=6.6)
N = 481
Mean = 8.0
(SD=5.6)
CP-Curiosity ≥27.5 ≤27.5
N = 133
Mean = 10.0
(SD=6.5)
N = 348
Mean = 7.2
(SD=5.1)
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 150
models. In that light, this discussion starts with a technical explanation of how the
results of the optimal tree solution presented in Figure 4.9 are to be understood.
This is followed by a richer interpretation of the decision tree results in light of the
conceptual underpinnings and research question pertinent to this inquiry. In other
words, this report of the first decision tree findings also serves as an illustration of
the analytic and interpretive process.
First, all the individual-level variables (learning and performance goals, cognitive
playfulness and personal innovativeness) emerged as significant predictors that
together explained 44% of the variance in the target variable SMC usage. Second,
the predictor variable that emerged as the first child node, positioned at the top of
the tree (Cognitive Playfulness: Curiosity), is referred to as the primary or best splitter
variable for this optimal solution, and is therefore, the strongest predictor of SMC
usage. The Cognitive Playfulness: Curiosity cut-off score of 27.5 partitioned the student
respondents into two groups: ‘low cognitive curiosity’ (≤27.5) and ‘high cognitive
curiosity’ (≥27.5). The ‘low cognitive curiosity’ group consisted of 348 students and
yielded a predicted mean SMC usage value of 7.2 (moderately low; SD=5.1). The
‘high cognitive curiosity’ group consisted of 133 students and yielded a predicted
mean SMC usage value of 10.0 (moderate; SD=6.5). The ‘low cognitive curiosity’
group was split further into two groups according to their learning goals orientation:
‘low learning goals’ (≤36.5) and ‘high learning goals’ (≥36.5). The ‘low learning
goals’ group consisted of 326 students and yielded a predicted mean SMC usage
value of 6.9 (very low; SD=4.8). The ‘high learning goals’ group consisted of 22
students and yielded a predicted mean SMC usage value of 11.5 (moderately high;
SD=6.6). Learning goals therefore, emerged as a variable that had mediating effects
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 151
on the relationship between cognitive curiosity and SMC usage. If a student was low
in cognitive curiosity but high in learning goals, then they would still engage with
the SMC to a comparatively high degree. On the other hand, students who reported
very low levels of SMC usage ranked low on both cognitive curiosity and learning
goals.
On the right side of the decision tree solution, the ‘high cognitive playfulness’ group
was further split further into two groups based on their levels of personal
innovativeness. The ‘low personal innovativeness’ group (≤19.5) consisted of 43
students and yielded a predicted mean SMC usage value of 8.5 (moderately low;
SD=5.5). The ‘high personal innovativeness’ group (≥19.5) consisted of 90 students
and yielded a predicted mean SMC usage value of 10.8 (moderate; SD=6.7).
Students with higher levels of personal innovativeness therefore, generally reported
higher levels of SMC usage. However, this relationship between personal
innovativeness and SMC usage is in turn mediated by two other variables: cognitive
creativity and performance goals, as evidenced through the subsequent splits on the
personal innovativeness node.
The ‘low personal innovativeness’ group was further partitioned into two groups
based on cognitive creativity. The ‘low cognitive creativity’ group (≤22.5) consisted
of 34 students and yielded a mean SMC usage value of 7.3 (moderately low;
SD=5.1). The ‘high cognitive creativity’ group (≥22.5) consisted of 9 students and
yielded a mean SMC usage value of 13.0 (high; SD=6.5.8). On the other hand, the
‘high personal innovativeness’ group was further partitioned into two groups based
on performance goals orientation. The ‘low performance goals’ group (≤38.5)
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 152
consisted of 83 students and yielded a mean SMC usage value of 11.2 (moderately
high; SD=6.6). The ‘high performance goals’ group (≥38.5) consisted of 7 students
and yielded a mean SMC usage value of 6.0 (very low; SD=6.1). These results
suggest that cognitive creativity mediates the relationship between personal
innovativeness and SMC usage in a positive way, whereas performance goals have a
converse effect. More importantly, when these results are interpreted in light of the
whole decision tree solution, the characteristics of the students who report the
highest, moderately high and lowest levels of SMC usage can be identified. The
highest users (mean=13.0, SD=5.8) ranked (i) high on cognitive curiosity, (ii) low on
personal innovativeness, but (iii) high on cognitive creativity. This emphasises the
importance of cognitive playfulness, in terms of both cognitive curiosity and
creativity, in predicting high SMC usage levels. Students who reported the second-
highest (moderately high) levels of SMC usage (mean=11.5, SD=6.6) ranked (i) low
on cognitive curiosity, but (ii) high on learning goals. This underscores the
significance of learning goals in predicting high levels of SMC usage among students.
Students who reported the lowest levels of SMC usage (mean=6.0, SD=6.1) ranked
(i) high on cognitive curiosity, (ii) high on personal innovativeness, but (iii) high on
performance goals. This calls attention to the fact that high levels of cognitive
curiosity and personal innovativeness notwithstanding, high performance goals may
undermine an individual student’s frequent and meaningful engagement with the
SMC in school.
A richer interpretation and re-description of the abovestated findings are now
provided in light of the broader conceptual issues framing this study. First, and
most importantly, at the individual level, cognitive playfulness (in terms of cognitive
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 153
curiosity) emerged as the primary splitter variable and strongest predictor of SMC
usage. In other words, students who exhibited higher levels of intellectual
inquisitiveness, the learning disposition that causes them to ‘explore and play with a
problem until it is solved’ (Glynn & Webster, 1993; Dunn, 2004), were most likely
to sustain their engagement with the SMC learning innovation, in comparison with
the general student population.
Second, students who exhibited higher levels of cognitive playfulness in terms of
both curiosity and creativity, relative to their peers, emerged as the learner category
that reported the highest levels of SMC usage (mean=13.0, SD=5.8). On the other
hand, students who reported low levels of engagement with the SMC (means=6.0;
7.2; 7.3; SD=6.1; 5.1; 5.1 respectively) exhibited relatively low levels of cognitive
playfulness (both cognitive curiosity and creativity) and learning goals orientation.
This finding underscores the importance of cognitive playfulness as a learning
disposition that motivates individuals to engage with and embrace novel situations
and affordances within their environment. It indicates that cognitive playfulness, as
symptomatic of an orientation towards learning rather than performance, may be a
decisive learning disposition for students in a high-performing school when seeking
to negotiate the tensions around ‘being diligent’ in the conventional academic sense
while at the same time engaging closely with innovative digital learning initiatives.
Two other notable trends emerge from the results of Decision Tree One, which call
attention to the value of being both learning-oriented and performance-focused.
Specifically, the profile of the lowest SMC user group (mean=6.0, SD=6.1) suggest
that despite possessing high levels of cognitive playfulness and personal
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 154
innovativeness, an individual who tends towards being highly performance-driven,
may value ‘performing’ in ways that overwhelm the former learning dispositions.
This in turn may act as a barrier to the individual’s capacity to experiment with new
ideas, innovations and learning opportunities. On the contrary, as indicated by the
profile results of the second-highest SMC user group (mean=11.5, SD=6.6),
individuals who may not be particularly dexterous or agile in the cognitive domain,
but who exhibit robust levels of learning goals orientation, may nonetheless be open
to experiencing new ways of living and learning by engaging with innovative
technologies available to them. Once again, these students may be able to ‘self-
fashion’ in ways that incorporate both academic achievement and new strategies for
learning.
In summary, the analysis indicates that students who are intrinsically motivated to
learn new things and acquire new skills are likely to appreciate the opportunities
presented by digital learning innovations such as the SMC to extend their range of
abilities and competencies. By contrast, individuals who are primarily focused on
‘getting the right answer’ and winning positive judgments of their competence while
avoiding ‘looking dumb’, are likely to resist experimenting with new learning
technologies that challenge the comfort zones of traditional pedagogical practices.
This resistance or unwillingness to take on new ways of learning and engaging
militates against the sort of robust learning disposition needed for 21st century
digital-age lifeworlds characterised by forces of rapid change, shifting and multiple
identities, and exponential technological advancements and growth.
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 155
The above discussion on the individual learning dispositions and the extent to
which they predict SMC usage behaviour models the analytic and interpretive
process of CART, and provides insights into the SMC adoption and diffusion
process within the senior school community. The next section presents a more
economical discussion that builds on this individual-level analysis. In order to gain
a more systemic understanding of the SMC adoption and diffusion process in the
formal senior schooling environment, two further decision trees are generated to
analyse the interactions that occur among the individual, social and technological
variables. These are reported and discussed in turn.
4.5 SRQ 2.2 and 2.3 − Social and Technological Predictor Variables
This interactional level of analysis addresses the sub-research questions of how and to
what extent the measured social and technological variables, namely perceived peer support, ease of
use and usefulness of the SMC, predict students’ engagement with the SMC. These
relationships are considered in light of the individual learning dispositions variables
discussed in the preceding section. Descriptive statistics for the social and
technological variables are first described, after which the results of two decision
tree models are presented and discussed.
4.5.1 Descriptive Statistics for Social and Technological Variables
There are three constructs associated with social and technological aspects of
innovation adoption and diffusion that are of interest to this study, namely Perceived
Peer Support (social variable), Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness (technological
variables). The descriptive statistics for the composite measure of these three
constructs and the dependent variable SMC Usage are presented in Table 4.8.
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 156
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics for Social and Technological Variables
Variables
(composite measure)
Theoretical
range
Min Max Median Mean Mean
Rank
(as % of
max.
value)
SD
Perceived peer support (PS) Min: 4
Max: 20 4 19 11.5 8.5 44.7% 3.7
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) Min: 5
Max: 25 5 25 15.0 16.1 64.2% 5.0
Perceived usefulness (PU) Min: 20
Max: 100 20 92 55.5 46.8 50.9% 16.7
Usage (USE) Min: 2
Max: 26 2 26 14.0 8.0 30.6% 5.7
It is evident from the descriptive statistics shown in Table 4.8 that the senior school
students perceived low levels of peer support associated with using the SMC, as
reflected in the low mean score, which only amounts to 45% of the maximum value.
This suggests that students were likely to have encountered the idea, or were of the
opinion, that using the SMC was associated with low levels of peer encouragement
and social acceptance. On the other hand, the senior school student community
generally considered the SMC to be relatively uncomplicated and easy to use, with
the mean rank scoring a moderately high 65% of the maximum value. The mediocre
mean value of the composite perceived usefulness variable highlights the fact that
the senior school students did not consider the SMC particularly useful for their
learning and schooling practices. The SMC usage target variable had been previously
discussed in Section 4.4.1. In order to gain richer insights into how these variables
interact with the individual learning dispositions variables to predict the senior
school students’ SMC usage behaviour, two decision trees were generated. The first
builds on Decision Tree One (individual learning dispositions) by including the
social variable Peer Support in the analysis, the results of which are presented in
Figure 4.10. The second decision tree, presented in Figure 4.11, builds on all prior
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 157
decision trees to examine the combination of the individual, social and technological
variables (Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness) that is significant in explaining
the SMC innovation and diffusion process.
4.5.2 Decision Tree 2: Individual Learning Dispositions, Peer Support and SMC Usage
Decision Tree Two documents the relationships between individual learning
dispositions, perceived peer support and the target variable SMC usage. The results
are presented in Figure 4.10.
Figure 4.10 Optimal Decision Tree Two: Individual Learning Dispositions & Peer Support (predictors) and SMC Usage (target)
Model R2 = 0.58
Where:
Mean SMC Usage ≤ 4.5 (very low)
Mean SMC Usage ≥ 4.6 but ≤ 7.0 (moderately low)
Mean SMC Usage ≥ 7.1 but ≤ 10.0 (moderate)
Mean SMC Usage ≥ 10.1 but ≤ 13.0 (moderately high)
Mean SMC Usage ≥ 13.0 (high)
≥36.5 ≤36.5 ≥14.5 ≤14.5
N = 249
Mean = 10.3
(SD=5.9)
CP-Curiosity ≥27.5 ≤27.5
N = 172
Mean = 9.2
(SD=5.4)
N = 77
Mean = 12.5
(SD=6.3)
Peer Support Learning goals
N = 14
Mean = 14.4
(SD=6.8)
N = 158
Mean = 8.8
(SD=5.0)
N = 10
Mean = 18.2
(SD=5.6)
N = 67
Mean = 11.7
(SD=5.9)
≥32.5 ≤32.5 ≥31.5 ≤31.5
N = 481
Mean = 8.0
(SD=5.6)
Peer Support ≥7.5 ≤7.5
N = 232
Mean = 5.5
(SD=4.1)
Peer Support ≥4.5 ≤4.5
N = 123
Mean = 4.3
(SD=3.4)
N = 109
Mean = 6.9
(SD=4.4)
Learning goals Learning goals
N = 42
Mean = 8.4
(SD=4.8)
N = 67
Mean = 5.9
(SD=3.9)
N = 47
Mean = 5.4
(SD=4.1)
N = 76
Mean = 3.6
(SD=2.6)
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 158
By including the social variable Peer Support, Decision Tree Two allows the
identification of those individual learning dispositions that remain salient predictors
of usage behaviour when the social context is taken into consideration. The
inclusion of the peer support variable has significantly improved the explanatory
power of the model, as reflected in the increase in R2 value from 0.44 (Decision
Tree One) to 0.58. Indeed, the incorporation of this social variable in the predictive
model has improved the explanation of the variance in the target variable SMC
usage by approximately 30%. This underscores the important role that perceived
peer support plays in encouraging senior school students’ to engage with the SMC
learning innovation.
In line with the abovementioned point, peer support emerged as the primary split
variable, and was therefore, the most significant predictor of SMC usage. Students
who perceived a high level of peer support and ranked high on cognitive curiosity
reported the highest levels of SMC usage (mean=18.2, SD=5.6). This suggests that
students who scored high on intellectual inquisitiveness and dexterity, and at the
same time experienced peer encouragement and social acceptance in using with the
SMC, were likely to engage with the learning innovation to a large extent.
Notably, students who reported high levels of perceived peer support but ranked
low on cognitive curiosity still tended to engage with the SMC to a large extent if
they had a strong orientation to learning goals. This is reflected in the characteristics
of the second-highest user group (mean=14.4, SD=6.8), which consisted of
students who reported (i) high levels of peer encouragement and social acceptance
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 159
in using the SMC, (ii) low levels of intellectual inquisitiveness, but (iii) high levels of
learning goals orientation. This finding reinforces the results of Decision Tree One.
Against this background, it was not surprising to find that students who reported
the lowest levels of SMC usage also reported low levels of perceived peer support
and learning goals orientation. In other words, students who did not experience
positive levels of peer encouragement and social acceptance associated with using
the SMC, and were not intrinsically motivated to learn new skills by embracing
opportunities to extend their abilities, were least likely to engage with the SMC
learning innovation at school.
4.5.3 Decision Tree 3: Individual, Social and Technological Variables and SMC Usage
Decision Tree Three documents the relationships between individual learning
dispositions, peer support, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and the target
variable SMC usage. The results are presented in Figure 4.11.
The inclusion of the social and technological variables, namely, Peer Support, Perceived
Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness in the analysis, allowed for a more sophisticated
predictive model with a strong R2 value of 0.6112. This emphasises the importance
of examining not only individual factors but also contextual, technological and
institutional issues, in order to understand better the complexities at work in the
implementation and uptake of new technologies in any given context.
12 This is a relatively strong predictive model outcome in the field of innovation adoption and diffusion. In comparison, a landmark innovation adoption predictive model proposed by Chwelos et al. (2001) which considered the impact of a range of individual, technological and institutional factors on the adoption of Business-to-Business (B2B) Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) technology among commercial enterprises reported an R2 value of 0.32.
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 160
Figure 4.11 Optimal Decision Tree Three: Individual, Social and Technological Variables (predictors) and SMC Usage (target)
Model R2 = 0.61
Where:
Mean SMC Usage ≤ 4.5 (very low)
Mean SMC Usage ≥ 4.6 but ≤ 7.0 (moderately low)
Mean SMC Usage ≥ 7.1 but ≤ 10.0 (moderate)
Mean SMC Usage ≥ 10.1 but ≤ 13.0 (moderately high)
Mean SMC Usage ≥ 13.0 (high)
Specifically, the Decision Tree Three results presented in Figure 4.11 showed peer
support as the primary splitter variable and the most significant predictor of SMC
usage, while both technological factors perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness also emerged as important predictors of the target variable. The
significance of peer support in predicting SMC usage buttresses the findings of
Decision Tree Two. In addition, the importance of perceived ease of use and
usefulness is consistent with prior empirical studies in technology adoption models
(TAM), in which both technological variables were consistently found to
≥62.5 ≤62.5 ≥29.5 ≤29.5
Perceived Ease of Use ≥18.5 ≤18.5
N = 159
Mean = 8.5
(SD=5.6)
N = 90
Mean = 13.3
(SD=5.1)
Learning goals Perceived Usefulness
N = 19
Mean = 11.9
(SD=4.7)
N = 140
Mean = 8.1
(SD=5.6)
N = 62
Mean = 14.6
(SD=4.9)
N = 28
Mean = 10.6
(SD=4.4)
N = 481
Mean = 8.0
(SD=5.6)
Peer Support ≥7.5 ≤7.5
N = 249
Mean = 10.3
(SD=5.9)
≥20.5 ≤20.5
N = 232
Mean = 5.5
(SD=4.1)
Perceived Ease of Use ≤15.5
N = 144
Mean = 4.3
(SD=2.9)
Perceived Usefulness
N = 75
Mean = 5.1
(SD=3.1)
N = 69
Mean = 3.3
(SD=2.3)
≥59.0 ≤59.0
≥15.5
N = 88
Mean = 7.5
(SD=5.0)
Perceived Usefulness
N = 12
Mean = 13.0
(SD=5.6)
N = 76
Mean = 6.7
(SD=4.3)
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 161
significantly predict usage intentions and behaviours (see for example Davis, 1989;
Ngai et al., 2007; Rogers, 1995; Turvey, 2006; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). The
results of Decision Tree Three presented above, however, extend the TAM model
by providing empirical evidence demonstrating the vital role that peer support plays
in predicting users’ engagement with a new innovation, in this case the SMC.
Correspondingly, students who (i) perceive low levels of peer support in using the
SMC, (ii) find the SMC to be difficult to use, and (iii) consider it to be lacking in
usefulness or relevance for their learning and schooling practice, reported the lowest
levels of SMC usage (mean=3.3, SD=2.3). This indicates that students who
considered the SMC as a socially marginalised or irrelevant space in school were
unlikely to engage with it whether or not they were digital enthusiasts outside the
school context.
Two other insights emerge from the results of Decision Tree Three. First, students
who perceived low levels of peer support but considered the SMC easy to use and
useful for their learning and schooling practice may still engage with the SMC to a
reasonably large extent (mean=13.0, SD=5.6 or the second-highest user group).
Second, and more importantly, students who reported the highest levels of SMC
usage (mean=14.6, SD=4.9) displayed the following characteristics: (i) they
experienced high levels of peer support and social acceptance in using the SMC, (ii)
they perceived a low level of complexity associated with accessing and using the
SMC, and (iii) they exhibited greater tendencies towards being learning-oriented
rather than merely performance-oriented. In other words, students who engaged
with the SMC most frequently and most comprehensively (in terms of learning
features) experienced high levels of peer support and encouragement in using the
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 162
SMC, considered the SMC was easy to use, and at the same time, exhibited a strong
orientation towards learning by relishing new opportunities to master new skills and
extend their competencies. Again, this finding reinforces the value of students being
learning-oriented rather than merely performance-focused, because such a learning
disposition allows them to negotiate more effectively the affordances of engaging
with innovative technologies available to them, despite the pull of a traditional
schooling culture that privileges academic achievement and measures diligence
primarily in terms of academic success.
4.6 Summary of Key Findings
The key findings of the quantitative investigation of student engagement with the
SMC can be summarised as follows. First, an evaluation of students’ perceptions
and usage of the SMC approximately ten months after its implementation indicated
widespread ambivalence on the part of the senior school student community
towards the SMC in terms of its relevance for their learning and schooling practice.
This was reflected in the low usage levels of the SMC, as well as unconvincing levels
of peer support and perceived usefulness of the SMC. The mean levels of peer
support experienced by students in using the SMC, as well as their perceptions of
the usefulness of the SMC were both well below average. In terms of usage, a
noteworthy 24% of the senior school students reported that they have not accessed
and did not use the SMC. By contrast, only 1% of senior school students reported
that they accessed and used all seven SMC learning features more than once a week.
The average student user is likely to have accessed the SMC only once a term and
on those occasions, engaged with only about two to three of seven SMC learning
features.
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 163
Second, peer support emerged as the most salient predictor of students’ decisions to
engage with the SMC. This is evidenced by the results of a comprehensive decision
tree model that considered all the measured individual, technological and social
variables in predicting SMC usage behaviour. In other words, peer encouragement
and social acceptance play a vital role in determining students’ decisions to engage
with and/or move away from new learning innovations such as the SMC in their
schooling practice. Other significant determinants of SMC usage include the
technological factors perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, as well as the
individual dispositions of cognitive playfulness (particularly cognitive curiosity) and
learning goals-orientation (as distinct from performance goals orientation, Dweck,
2000).
Third, the findings indicate that students who reported the highest levels of SMC
usage experienced high levels of peer support in using the learning innovation,
found it easy to use, and exhibited a strong orientation towards learning rather than
being merely performance-focused. By contrast, students who reported the lowest
levels of SMC usage reported a lack of peer support for using the learning
innovation, found it relatively complex to use, considered it lacking in usefulness for
their learning and schooling purposes, and exhibited strong orientations towards
performance rather than learning. It is therefore possible to infer from these
findings that students who are more focused on performance rather than learning
were less likely to be mobilised to engage beyond what seemed to be necessary to
their academic pursuits, and so were not particularly motivated by opportunities to
learn new skills or enhance their repertoire of competencies, especially if these were
not directly related to achieving better academic grades.
Cha p te r Fo u r : Quantitative Phase – Describing & Predicting Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 164
In summary, this chapter has documented the novel use of a relatively modern yet
powerful technique particularly suited to the predictive modelling of nonlinear and
complex relationships among multiple variables, to investigate students’ evaluations
of and engagement with the SMC innovation. This quantitative investigation has
provided some notable insights into the complexities of digital technology adoption
and innovation diffusion in schools that go beyond well-rehearsed explanations of
teacher and/or school deficiencies. Despite the fact that the school was well-
resourced technologically and financially, and the school leaders endorsed the
learning initiative, the quantitative findings indicate that the SMC learning
innovation was not utilised to a large extent by the senior school students. In fact,
the learning innovation was largely sidelined by students as an activity not worth
pursuing in school. This trend in turn appeared to be largely associated with the
pitiable levels of peer support experienced by students in engaging with the learning
innovation, and the general perception that it lacked usefulness for their schooling
practices.
In the subsequent explanatory Phase Two of this study, these observed trends and
interactions among the measured individual, social and technological levels and
students’ engagement with the SMC were further examined to provide in-depth
insights into the ways these abstract numeric narratives are enacted in the social
realities and interactions of the students’ schooling practice. The next chapter
provides an account of this further examination.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 165
CHAPTER FIVE
QUALITATIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
STUDENTS’ ACCOUNTS OF ADOPTION BEHAVIOUR
To investigate practices and behaviours at the intersection of formal schooling
and digital online learning is a demanding task, not only because of the multiple
contexts, attitudes and behaviours, but also because of the complexity of the
social identities being formed and re-formed in a relatively short timeframe. This
chapter augments the quantitative investigation and analysis discussed in the
previous chapter by focusing on gaining deeper insights into the different ways
that the senior school students responded to and made sense of the attempted
integration of the SMC innovation within their existing schooling context. By
doing so, this chapter addresses specific research question three (SRQ-3): How do
students describe, explain and account for the Web 2.0 learning initiative, its prospects and
consequences for their schooling experience?
The chapter begins by revisiting the key findings of the preceding quantitative
phase and highlighting some significant tensions around SMC engagement and
conventional schooling practice that warrant closer examination. The analytical
framework and method are then outlined, followed by a detailed discussion of
the qualitative analysis and findings.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 166
5.1 Revisiting key findings of the quantitative phase
To revise, the specific context of the research is a long-established, well-
resourced independent senior school that is committed to providing its students
with a comprehensive learning environment that focuses on both academic
excellence as well as moral and personal growth. The key findings of the
quantitative investigation indicate that students in the senior school community
experience real and palpable tensions in engaging with the SMC innovation
within the context of their mainstream social and cultural schooling practices.
The first tension is related to the marked disparity in the levels of popularity and
social endorsement for contemporary peer-to-peer digital engagement within and
beyond the school. That is, the use of social networking technologies may be
highly popular among the senior school students in their personal spaces
(outside of school), but the use of such technologies in school seem far from
being socially mandated. The second tension pertains to the ways in which
students, under constant pressure to perform well in high-stakes tests, make
sense of their choices to engage or otherwise with school-sanctioned digitally
enhanced learning opportunities. These findings emerged from the descriptive
analysis and predictive modelling of the numeric questionnaire data.
Specifically, the descriptive analysis of numeric data indicated an unexpectedly
ambivalent response on the part of the senior school student community
towards the SMC innovation. At the outset, the low level of peer support is
indicative of the general lack of peer encouragement and social acceptance
experienced by the students with regard to using the SMC. Results also
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 167
suggested that students were generally unenthusiastic about the benefits of the
SMC and perceived it as lacking in usefulness for their schooling practice.
Following this, the predictive modelling conducted on the numeric dataset
established both peer support and perceived usefulness as salient predictors of
SMC adoption behaviour. Put simply, students who perceive a high level of
support from peers in using the SMC, and evaluated the SMC as a useful tool for
their learning and schooling purposes were significantly more likely to use the
SMC to a large extent, as compared to the rest of the senior student community.
In light of the low levels of peer support and perceived usefulness then, it is not
surprising to find that reported levels of SMC usage by the senior school
students were low, with the average student user accessing the learning
innovation only once a term. Furthermore, when asked whether having the SMC
in school was a good idea, the senior school student community’s aggregated
response indicated a less than sanguine attitude to the SMC.
These findings may seem counter-intuitive in light of all that is documented in
extant literature of ‘Net-Gen’, more recently referred to as Generation ‘C’, and
their preferred modes of social engagement, inquiry and learning (e.g. Brown,
2006; Bruns et al., 2007; Downes, 2004; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky,
2001, 2006). On the other hand, recent research by Albright and others (2006)
and Warschauer (2007), have indicated that students, especially high-performing
ones, tend to be acculturated into a set of schooling norms that implicitly and
explicitly privilege academic success. These researchers argue that this socialised
‘performance-oriented’ schooling disposition in turn militates against any serious
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 168
engagement with activities, digital or otherwise, which are not explicitly related
to high academic performance.
In a similar vein, the quantitative results of this study suggest that contemporary
social networking digital technologies such as the SMC, which are popular
among youths beyond school, may not necessarily be seen by these same young
people as relevant, useful or worth engaging with in school. In fact, these same
digital tools that are essential to their lives outside of school may, perhaps not so
paradoxically, be perceived as distractions from ‘in-school’ activity, inappropriate
to the conventional expectations and/or obligations of ‘normal’ or ‘mainstream’
student practice. These senior school students, under constant pressure within
the academically-competitive schooling environment to perform well in high-
stakes assessments, make context-specific decisions about the extent to which
they take up school-sanctioned ICT-enhanced learning opportunities―decisions
that are made more complex and therefore, harder to negotiate, when these
digital learning opportunities do not explicitly address academic performance.
This diligent-or-digital conundrum experienced by these students is potentially
exacerbated by the high value that the case study school places on both
traditional academic achievement and learning through digital innovation. It is a
conundrum that is being noted in recent discussions of young people’s
experience of schooling as “divide[d]… between academic and creative”
(Roberts, 2008, p. 31). This phenomenon is intensified “because of the pressures
on schools to achieve top academic results” (Asthana, 2008, p. 7). While the
students’ ambivalence to the learning opportunities afforded by the digital
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 169
environment of the SMC initiative may be seen by its champions as
disappointing―even inexplicable―in light of recent research on adolescent
preferences in digital times (Bruns et al., 2007; Prensky, 2006; McWilliam, 2008;
Tapscott, 2009), the students’ ambivalence may well be a very reasonable (and
reasoned) response to a problematic set of contradictory options. It could be
symptomatic of just how well these students are ‘schooled’ in knowing what
their priorities need to be when inside the institutional gates. While young
people are constantly monitoring―influencing and being influenced by―the
attitudes and behaviour of their peers, the fact that the very mode of social
engagement that counts as ‘normal’ (or in their colloquial jargon ‘cool’) everyday
practice beyond the institutional walls is judged to be less socially acceptable in-
school warrants further investigation. Moreover, in light of increasingly urgent
calls for the development of flexibility, creativity and digital literacies as essential
skills for the new creative economy (Howkins, 2002; McWilliam, 2008), the fact
that an overwhelming proportion of student participants in the study appear to
make the choice of resisting contemporary digital engagement in favour of
traditional academic achievement is a trend that needs to be examined in greater
depth.
Of equal significance is the fact that the predictive modelling results point to a
small minority of students that seem dispositionally inclined to negotiate across
this diligent/digital identity conundrum. These are students who report a
relatively high level of SMC usage contrary to the generally low usage trend, and
comprise approximately 15% of the senior school student community. This is an
important finding given that this sort of proactive negotiation (Bauman, 2000)
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 170
across diligent and digital student identities appears to be more complex than the
extant literature on individual attributes and technology adoption in schools may
suggest. Taken together, these quantitative findings point to the need to delve
more deeply into student accounts of why and how they come to hold particular
viewpoints and/or make particular choices associated with the SMC innovation.
Specifically, the analysis that follows is designed to serve two key purposes
commonly cited for undertaking a mixed-method study, namely,
complementarity and initiation (Greene, 2008; Greene et al., 1989). First, the
qualitative investigation of students’ textual accounts complements the more
abstract narratives derived from the variables examined in the quantitative
analysis by way of providing concrete instances of how these abstractions get
enacted in various ‘real situations’. Second, the qualitative data may initiate
further understandings or explanations not previously considered, by drawing
attention to consistencies and/or discrepancies between the qualitative and
quantitative data. These initiations may take several forms, such as (i) potential
qualifications to and around the generality of the narratives drawn from
questionnaire results, and (ii) the identification of antecedent influences
impacting on the students’ perceptions and evaluation of the SMC innovation as
measured in the questionnaire. These points of convergence and/or divergence
in both corpuses of data in turn provide an additional layer of texture closer to
the ‘experienced realities’ of these young people in their daily schooling practices.
Put simply, the variety of opinions and reactions that emerge from the students’
accounts of the SMC innovation process may bring to bear some complementary
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 171
and fresh perspectives on the key tensions drawn from the quantitative
investigation that warrant further explication.
In summary, this chapter documents, analyses and discusses how students make
sense of the key tensions discussed earlier, in terms of the accounts and
explanations they provide of their experiences associated with the SMC
innovation adoption and diffusion process. The interest here is to explicate the
shared cultural logic and reasoning practices that students draw on and use in
their talk to reflect on and reconstruct the social order of schooling, that is, what
they do in school and how they do it while they are at school. The particular
experiences under scrutiny are the ways in which the students, as members of
the school community, draw on their socio-cultural and institutional identities to
build accounts that describe and substantiate particular opinions, choices and
actions related to their evaluation and use of the SMC.
5.2 Shifting the analytic focus from individuality to sociality
The quantitative phase of this study focused on the individual attitudes,
dispositions & behaviours of student participants, and identified tensions that
they appear to negotiate with varying degrees of success around their learning
and academic performance. In order for the research to gain deeper insights into
how students in the research setting experience, negotiate and account for the
complexities of technology-based innovation and change in their schooling
practices, it is necessary to move the focus of the analysis from individual
attributes to social identity formations, that is, how individual students shape
and are shaped by their social/cultural context of formal schooling. An analytical
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 172
framework that is particularly well-suited to this qualititative phase of the study
is Membership Categorisation Analysis (MCA). The following section elaborates
on this analytic framework as it applies to this study.
5.2.1 MCA as analytic framework
MCA originated from Harvey Sacks’ (1972) ethnomethodological work on
description and recognisability in conversation. This qualitative analytic method
has since been applied in rich and diverse ways by a growing body of social
scientists (e.g., Baker, 1997; Butler & Weatherall, 2006; Eglin & Hester, 2003; K.
Freebody, 2008; P. Freebody, 2003; Housley & Fitzgerald, 2002; Jayyusi, 1984;
McHoul & Watson, 1984; Schegloff, 1992, 2007; Vallis, 2001; Watson, 1997).
This section provides a brief description of MCA and its key premises, concepts
and features, as they apply to this study. Extended treatments of
ethnomethodology and membership categorisations are available in the works of
Sacks (1972, 1979, 1992), Jayyusi (1984), Eglin and Hester (2003), Hester and
Eglin (1997), Housley and Fitzgerald (2002), and Butler (2008).
MCA takes as its starting point the fact that interviews are neither “authentic
gazes into the soul of another” nor “dialogic revelation of selves” (Atkinson and
Silverman, 1997, p. 305). Rather, interviews make available for analysis how
individuals or groups collectively produce, construct and generate accounts of
their social reality, in turn based around the use of social categories and their
recognisable descriptors (Baker, 1997; P. Freebody, 2003). MCA focuses on the
use of these categorisations in talk as a way of gaining analytic insight into how
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 173
speakers understand, make sense of and engage as members of their social world
(Sacks, 1972).
In Sacks’ (1972) terms, members of society interact in ways that are methodical,
mutually constitutive and socially recognisable. This is commonly displayed
through members’ reciprocal and systematic use of social categories and their
associated implications (Housley & Fitzgerald, 2002). It has been observed that
people commonly understand each other and their world through grouping and
identifying themselves and others into culturally defined types, and routinely
assume a shared understanding of those types when interacting with others
(Austin & Fitzgerald, 2007; Baker, 1997; Eglin & Hester, 1992; Sacks, 1972, 1992;
Watson, 1997). These categorisations typically relate to people, but may also
extend to non-personal categories, such as things, places, ideas, contexts,
structures and the like (Austin & Fitzgerald, 2007; Housley & Fitzgerald, 2002;
McHoul & Watson, 1984).
A person can be, at once, referred to or classified in multiple ways. For example,
one could, at any given point in time, be a male, bachelor, son, middle-aged,
Anglo-Saxon, alcoholic, lawyer; or a female, mother, widow, professor,
Sagittarian, musician, immigrant. In any given interactional setting, participants
may choose to invoke any one particular category out of the many available
categories, or call upon any combination of these categories to describe
themselves and others in accomplishing the interactional purposes at hand. To
illustrate the point further, take for instance the latter case of the Female in the
context of delivering a keynote address at an academic conference. In this
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 174
situation, following the ‘economy rule’ developed by Sacks (1972), which states
that the application of one category is usually sufficient in making a description,
the occupational category of Professor is likely to be a pertinent and sufficient
identity frame for the speaker and her audience as they interact in that context.
Other available categories such as Mother, Widow, Immigrant, and/or Sagittarian are
unlikely to be relevant or necessary to the task at hand, unless her talk
specifically revolves around topical issues related to these categories. MCA
therefore, holds that the categorisation choices made by members in their talk
are rationally conceived and skilfully enacted. In other words, a key premise of
MCA is that members of a culture are “artful, reasoned and sophisticated
cultural practitioners” (P. Freebody, 2003, p. 169) who have commonsense or
vernacular understandings of social structures and norms relevant to their social
world (Baker, 1997). These in turn comprise shared cultural knowledge that
become available to members as resources for reasoning and interaction.
Membership categorisation is one expression of this shared cultural knowledge
and resource for collective sense-making and interaction in a range of contexts,
including interviews of the sort conducted in this study.
As an analytic framework, MCA comprises a set of procedures that provides for
the documentation and analysis of how social identities, relationships and
institutions are produced and organised (Baker, 1997). Specifically, these
analytical procedures examine the ways in which “speakers draw on and
reconstruct common cultural sense in specific situations” (P. Freebody, 2003, p.
156), through their use of culturally-recognisable categorisations and associated
descriptions in interactions. Central to this work is how interview participants
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 175
make relevant in their talk particular membership categories to which they
and/or those that are being discussed belong. This categorisation work can be
accomplished either explicitly or inferentially through speakers’ descriptions in
their talk. By focusing on the way speakers display their social and cultural
knowledge within interaction, MCA investigates the way members’
‘commonsense’ is locally organised in a complex yet methodical fashion around
membership categories, the grouping of these categories into collections of
categories through Membership Categorisation Devices (MCDs), and the mapping of
culturally-recognisable category-bound attributes and activities (or predicates) to these
categories. These three key concepts are discussed in turn.
Membership categories are classifications of people (as well as things, ideas, and so
on) that comprise a number of culturally-recognisable, standard and expected
predicates and activities (otherwise known as attributions) that can be
commonsensically attributed to these categories (Sacks, 1972, 1992; P. Freebody,
2003; Housley & Fitzgerald, 2002; Silverman, 2006). According to Eglin and
Hester (1992), membership categories frequently used by speakers include those
that are (i) activity/action-consequent (e.g., a Bully is understood as such for
engaging in activities that are cruel to others, particularly those who are weaker
or have less power), (ii) event-consequent (e.g., a School Dropout is understood as
such as a consequence of the event of quitting school before completion of the
stipulated course), and (iii) ability/competency-based categories (e.g., a Gifted and
Talented Student is understood as such for exhibiting intellectual abilities
significantly higher than the average; an ‘At-Risk’ Student is understood as such
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 176
for lacking in the necessary competencies to meet the average educational
requirements at school13).
Membership categories are linked in interaction into larger collections, known as
membership categorisation devices (MCD). An MCD consists of two features (Hester
& Eglin, 1997; Schegloff, 2007). First, an MCD refers to a larger collection (or
collections) of membership categories that can be used and heard
commonsensically as ‘going together’ to the exclusion of others. For instance,
the MCD: University may include membership categories such as Undergraduate
Student, Doctoral Candidate, Lecturer, Professor, Dean, Vice-Chancellor, and Registrar,
but excludes Colonel, General, Lieutenant, Private, Quartermaster, Pilot, Sniper (MCD:
Military). Second, this larger collection/s of categories may be applied to some
population (containing at least one member) through the use of some rules of
application 14 for the pairing of members within the population and the
categorisation device (Psathas, 1999; Sacks, 1972, 1992). This pairing of
conventionally-collected categories within an MCD, otherwise known as
Standardised Relational Pairs (SRPs), such as Undergraduate Student–Lecturer;
Doctoral Student–Research Supervisor, Doctor–Patient, is often used and heard by
13 Eglin and Hester (1992) go on to highlight that participants in any given interactional context tend to invoke relevant categories through the following common procedures in talk: (i) perception (either ‘natural’ such as age or gender, or ‘emblematic’ such as occupation); (ii) behaviour; (iii) first person avowal; (iv) third person declaration; and (v) credential presentation. 14 See Sacks (1979, 1992), Eglin and Hester (2003), Jayyusi (1984), Housley and Fitzgerald (2002), and Schegloff (2007) for extended discussions on rules of application. In brief terms, Sacks’ (1972, 1992) formalised two rules of application, namely the economy rule and the consistency rule. The economy rule holds that one membership category is “referentially adequate” for describing a member of some population, even though more may apply (Sacks, 1992, p. 246; Schegloff, 2007; Psathas, 1999). The consistency rule holds that “when two or more categories are used to describe two or more members and it is possible to hear those categories as belonging to the same MCD, then we hear them that way” (Ruane & Ramcharan, 2006, p. 313; Sacks, 1972). A well-known illustration of these rules used by Sacks (1972) is the statement “The baby cried, the mommy picked it up”. The categories ‘baby’ and ‘mommy’ tend to be heard as members belonging to the same family (MCD: Family), even though no further information is provided in relation to either the child or mother, who could very well be strangers.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 177
interactional participants as bearing particular institutional, social and moral
implications for the social reality being discussed and accounted for. These
implications stem from the fact that categories and devices are inference-rich
(Sacks, 1972). That is, membership categories and their collections appeal to and
are shaped by commonplace cultural knowledge shared by ordinary members of
a given society. These often include reciprocal rights and obligations associated
with specific categories evoked in the talk then-and-there. These expected
institutional, social and moral norms can in turn be understood in terms of
category-bound predicates.
Category-bound predicates refer to the culturally-recognisable attributes and activities
that are commonsensically associated with specific membership categories.
These predicates or attributions may include personality traits, characteristics,
motives, expectations, rights, obligations, needs, preferences, competencies and
possible actions, among others. For instance, some category-bound predicates
associated with the category Gifted Student could be strong academic performance,
learns fast with good memory, intensely curious but easily bored, motivated by
challenging problems, a highly-developed sense of humour in relation to
chronological age, potential social isolation and behavioural problems, and so
on15. As P. Freebody (2003) stressed, these attributions may not necessarily be
‘correct’ in some empirical sense, but rather, are normative attributions assigned
15 Part of the descriptive work produced by members (or interactional participants) could involve disrupting and/or resisting these category-bound attributions, through the use of pre-emptive “modifiers” (Sacks, 1992, p. 45) such as the terms ‘but’, ‘however’, ‘except’. For example, ‘he’s a geek but is popular’ indicates that although the individual being discussed is geeky, he does not align fully with the attributions generally allocated to the categorisation Geek, such as being generally introverted, unpopular and socially-challenged. Speakers may also use modifiers to indicate that they may be part of a group but do not identify or feel a sense of belonging to that group, for instance, ‘I am in the rugby team but I joined only because the school requires me to participate in sports’.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 178
by members in their interaction as they describe and make sense of the topical
issue or social phenomenon at hand.
These categorisations, collections of categories and category-bound predicates
serve as building blocks for the explanations afforded by participants of the
topic at hand. Together they form reasoning practices, that is, ways of making
the talk reasonable, not necessarily logical or correct in some abstract sense, but
‘having reason’ then and there, at that point in the interview, to produce orderly
sensible accounts of everyday experience (P. Freebody, 2003). More importantly,
these explanations and reasoning practices bear cause-effect relationships and
consequences for the local context. That is, the descriptive work of selecting
categories and attributes, as accomplished by participants, are actions that not
only have empirical consequences, but also have consequences for the expected
moral order and relations among the participants as they produce accounts of
the topic at hand (Jayyusi, 1991; P. Freebody, 2003). In this way, categorising an
individual necessarily invokes a commonsensical categorial framework through
which perceptions, judgments and consequences can flow. This is summed up in
the following quote by Sacks (1979, p. 13):
any person who is a case of a category is seen as a member of the
category, what’s known about the category is known about them, and the
fate of each is bound up in the fate of the other, so that one regularly has
systems of social control built up around these categories which are
internally enforced by the members because if a member does something
like rape a white woman, commit economic fraud, race on the street, etc.,
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 179
then that thing will be seen as what a member of some applicable
category does, not what some named person did. And the rest of them
will have to pay for it.
5.2.2 Applying MCA to the research problem
In order to apply these set of concepts to the problem of how students in the
research setting experience, negotiate and account for the complexities of
technology-based innovation and change in their schooling practices, it is
necessary to interrogate textual data produced in authentic contexts by the
students themselves. Using MCA, the analysis that follows focuses on how
students articulated their ‘in-school’ social world in relation to the SMC. In other
words, the analysis in this qualitative phase of the study aims to make explicit the
range and significance of relevant membership category types that appear in
student accounts of their rationales for their various degrees of engagement with
the SMC.
Because MCA is a tool for unpacking social identities as they are being played
out ‘in the real’, the method for collecting relevant data must be aligned with this
purpose. Clearly, self-report questionnaires does not offer the sort of rich
dialogic text to which MCA can be meaningfully applied. It is for this reason that
focus groups were used to generate the textual data for closer analysis of the
research problem. The dynamics of focus groups allow for more than individual
interviews or questionnaires because the texts that are produced are intended to
be as meaningful for peer-to-peer participation as they are for the researcher:
Focus groups, when properly conducted, produce ‘social texts’. Accordingly, on
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 180
the collective grounds presented above, focus groups emerge as a highly
appropriate method of choice for the purposes of this qualitative inquiry phase.
5.2.3 Focus groups as method
A focus group is commonly defined as a group of interacting individuals having
some common interest or characteristics, brought together by a moderator (or
facilitator), who uses the group and its interaction as a method of collecting
textual data on and gaining insights into a specific or focussed issue of interest
(Barbour, 2007; Marczak & Sewell, 2006). This method originated in the 1950s
after the second World War to evaluate audience response to radio programs
(Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), and have since been employed by social scientists
as a useful research tool for understanding how or why people hold particular
beliefs about an issue, program or phenomenon of interest (Marczak & Sewell,
2006).
In recent years, a growing number of researchers agree that focus groups can be
usefully employed in mixed-methods research to illuminate or clarify results
from previous quantitative phases (Barbour, 2007; Wilmot & Ratcliffe, 2002). In
other words, focus groups have the potential to extend, or according to Barbour
(2007, p. 45), “transform [numeric] results into ‘findings’ by furnishing
explanations, particularly with regard to surprising or anomalous associations
identified in the first part of the study”. Importantly, focus groups provide
insights into public discourses (Kitzinger, 1994). In this regard, the ‘public’
accounts offered by participants in focus group discussions may well be different
from ‘private’ accounts made available in one-on-one interviews (Smithson,
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 181
2000). Consequently, the use of focus groups as method is likely to be
inappropriate when the research is concerned with eliciting individuals’
narratives, accessing and measuring individuals’ attitudes for statistical
generalisations to the larger population. Barbour (2007) noted that while
marketing research may employ focus groups to obtain inferences regarding the
perceptions or preferences of the wider consumer masses, this is not generally
the preferred outcome in social science research. Instead, within the social
sciences, focus groups are particularly relevant and useful when the research
concern is to investigate and elucidate the process of analytic decisions that take
place during the talk of focus group participants, where shared cultural
understandings and attitudes are expressed, negotiated and “performed” rather
than considered as being “pre-formed” (Puchta & Potter, 2004, p. 27).
Furthermore, Barbour (2007) explained that focus group as method is
particularly well-suited to in-depth explorations of decision-making processes of
institutional or cultural groups of people, where negotiations of competing
priorities and qualifications of views in light of situational and circumstantial
factors are of import to the inquiry at hand. In this regard, focus groups arguably
emerge as the method of choice when it is of central interest to understand
group norms, group meanings and group processes (Bloor et al., 2001), as is the
case in this inquiry.
5.2.3.1 Size and sampling
In relation to size and sampling, a focus group typically comprises about seven
to ten participants who are purposively selected (Kuzel, 1992) because they
exhibit certain characteristics or belong to a particular identifiable collection of
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 182
people, for instance, teachers, students, parents, adolescents, and so on, that are
relevant to the inquiry at hand. In deciding the composition of each focus group,
however, due consideration should be given to the selection of individual
participants that reflect diversity within the group and/or the population under
study (Kuzel, 1992; Mays & Pope, 1995).
In contrast to quantitative sampling in which the chief aim is often to recruit a
representative sample, such qualitative sampling seeks to capitalise on any
identified ‘outliers’ and aims to incorporate, rather than dismiss, these
individuals or subgroups (Barbour, 2007). As for the recommended number of
participants to recruit in focus groups, Barbour (2007) points to distinctions
across different fields of research. For instance, marketing research tends to
subscribe to an ideal size of 10-12 participants, contingent on the skill of the
facilitator and also the desired levels of depth and complexity in the discussions.
On the other hand, in social science research where the general interest lies in
exploring in depth participants’ accounts, sense-making and the ways in which
beliefs and explanations are socially constructed, a minimum of three to a
maximum of ten participants is recommended (Barbour, 2007; Bloor et al., 2001;
Kitzinger & Barbour, 1999; Seymour, Bellamy, Gott, Ahmedzai & Clark, 2002).
In terms of the number of focus groups to hold, Barbour (2007, p. 59) stressed
that “there is no magic number and more is not necessarily better”, but rather,
the choice is contingent on the research topic, as well as the desired comparisons
across groups, types of data to be generated and forms of analysis to be carried
out, among others.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 183
In line with these suggestions, a total of six focus groups were conducted for the
purposes of this qualitative phase. Each focus group was approximately 60 to 90
minutes in length, and comprised between eight to ten student participants each.
Given that the SMC learning initiative was designed for the whole senior school
community, students from all three senior grades (i.e., Years 10, 11 and 12) were
recruited to participate in the discussions and two focus groups were conducted
for each senior grade.
Further to the recommended number of participants for each focus group, the
decision to hold two focus groups per year level was made for the following
reasons. First, given the logistical complexities of school timetabling, it was
considered pragmatically viable for the researcher and staff to organise, and
more importantly for the students to participate in year-level specific focus
groups. Of secondary concern was the potential opportunity to make
comparisons across year levels and draw out any similarities and/or
dissimilarities in terms of the academic and social pressures, expectations and
negotiations that these students may experience as they progress towards higher
grades and therefore, closer to high-stakes standardised assessments (in this
instance, the Queensland Core Skills Test in Year 12 that largely determines
students’ access to tertiary educational pathways), and how these may
differentially impact on their opinions and choices related to the SMC.
Within each focus group, student participants were selected with the intention of
allowing for some level of diversity and potential differences of opinion and
experience associated with the evaluation and use of the SMC in school.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 184
Drawing on the findings from the quantitative phase of the study, focus group
participants were chosen collaboratively by the researcher and the lead teacher in
a manner that sought to incorporate students with differing levels of SMC usage
(e.g., non-users, moderate users, high-users) and potentially diverse range of
learning dispositions, interests, academic and schooling achievement orientations.
In this way, the focus groups conformed to the recommendation that they
“should be homogeneous in terms of background but not attitudes” (Morgan,
1988; cited in Barbour, 2007, p. 59), in that the participants share particular
homogeneous background characteristics (i.e., year levels and year-level specific
social and cultural norms and expectations), but are likely to offer some level of
heterogeneity in terms of their attitudinal beliefs, perceptions, intentions and
behaviour associated with the SMC innovation in school. As Barbour (2007)
pointed out, such variation in participants is useful in terms of generating
discussion for documenting reasoning practices concerned with opinions, and
can allow both the participants and the researcher to clarify their own and others’
perspectives, making for rich data and potentially enriched understandings.
5.2.3.2 Practicalities and protocols
In the conduct of focus groups, researchers that specialise in focus groups (e.g.,
Barbour, 2007; Krueger & Casey, 2000; Marczak & Sewell, 2006) highlight
several important guidelines regarding practicalities and protocols involved.
These concern moderators’ skills in creating environments constructive to rich
discussions, managing difficult situations, developing and using interview
protocols (more commonly referred to in focus groups as topic guides), as well
as ethical and logistical issues including the recording and transcribing of data.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 185
While there are differences in literature about what constitutes ‘best practices’ in
conducting effective focus groups, there is general agreement that a skilful
moderator (or facilitator) is one that has the ability to foster a permissive and
comfortable environment that encourages participants to present and discuss
diverse opinions and viewpoints, without feeling any particular pressure to reach
consensus, vote or align to one particular dominant viewpoint (Krueger & Casey,
2000; Marczak & Sewell, 2006). Some useful guidelines include (i) adequate
preparation, (ii) appropriate management of difficult situations that many
involve excessively dominant and opinionated individuals, and
disproportionately emotive or unconstructive “slanging matches”, as well as (iii)
a readiness to identify and capitalise on “distinctions, qualifications and tensions
that have analytic promise” as and when they occur (Barbour, 2007, p. 80).
While these skills are expectedly developed over time, Bloor and others (2001)
provided a useful reminder that the key role of the moderator is to facilitate the
group discussions rather than to control it. This includes allowing sufficient time
for participants to formulate their responses, and therefore tolerating silence
where necessary and avoiding the rush to use prompts which, although useful
for stimulating discussion and clarification, may also prematurely foreclose an
important line of discussion (Barbour et al., 2000).
The development and use of an appropriate topic guide or interview protocol
may also have significant bearing on the quality of the focus group discussion.
Barbour (2007) recommended the use of a semi-structured topic guide that
consists of a few targeted brief questions and well-chosen stimulus materials,
and also avoids questions that are too individually focussed and too detailed
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 186
such that participants may feel too embarrassed to respond. Stimulus materials
may include hypothesised scenarios, physical artefacts such as photographs,
vignettes and media resources that are culturally accessible and relevant to the
topic of inquiry (Crossley, 2003; Umana-Taylor & Bamaca, 2004). These have
been found to be particularly useful in focusing group participants to the topical
interest at hand and generating impassioned discussions and debates that go
beyond mere descriptions of individual narratives to provide a window into
processes of collective sense-making and negotiations of meaning and identities
that may otherwise remain hidden or difficult to penetrate (Wilkinson, 1999). To
this end, the focus group topic guide for this qualitative phase consisted of four
questions based on hypothesised scenarios. These are listed in Table 5.1.
With regard to ethical and logistical issues, the focus groups were conducted in
school during school hours, in the last week of Term Four (December 2007)
when students had completed their scheduled classroom activities and
assessments for the school year, so as to minimise any potential disruption to
their regular schooling activities. In accordance to UHREC ethical requirements,
selected students and their parents were provided with a comprehensive
information sheet detailing the project and requesting their consent for
participation. Given that these students were minors, the consent of their
parents was required for their participation. Students (and their parents) were
assured that participation was voluntary and non-participation would not bear
any adverse consequences for their future trajectories and relationships with the
school as well as the researcher’s tertiary institution. Student participants were
also assured of confidentiality and anonymity in the reporting of data. The focus
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 187
group discussions were audio-recorded with the verbal consent of the students,
and transcribed verbatim. The student participants were provided with a copy of
the relevant transcripts and the option of editing their comments prior to
analysis and reporting. While this option was provided, none of the student
participants made any changes to the transcripts.
Table 5.1 Focus Group Topic Guide Hypothesised Scenarios Questions (and prompts, if any)
Scenario 1: Future of the SMC in school In your opinion, what is the future of SMC in your school five years’ on?
• What role does the SMC play in terms of learning and school life in general?
• What place does the SMC have in the lives of the students and teachers?
• How would it be different or similar to the current situation?
Scenario 2: You as Head of Senior School Would you endorse and support a student-led initiative like the SMC? Would you do anything differently? If so, in what ways, and why?
Scenario 3: You as Parent Would you endorse and support your child’s participation in a student-led initiative like the SMC? Yes or no, and why?
Scenario 4: You as Senior School Student (Five Years On)
Would you participate in a student-led initiative like the SMC? Yes or no, and why?
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 188
5.2.3.3 Analysing focus group data
At the start of this chapter, two key tensions that warrant examination in greater
depth were raised, namely (i) the schooling practices that are perceived by the
students to be socially mandated within the school as an academic community,
and (ii) the ways in which students, under constant pressure to perform well in
high-stakes academic tests, make sense of their choices to engage or otherwise
with school-sanctioned digitally enhanced learning opportunities. These tensions
relate specifically to the quantitative variables of Peer Support, Perceived Usefulness,
and SMC Usage. These tensions, and their related variables, serve as the broad
lines of inquiry guiding the qualitative analysis that follows. Consequently, the
application of MCA to the focus group textual data is framed within the broader
thematics arising from these key tensions, with the aim of gaining deeper
insights into how and why students, as members of their schooling community,
come to hold particular opinions, negotiate contesting expectations and
obligations, and “produce orderly sensible accounts” (P. Freebody, 2003, p. 157)
of specific choices associated with the SMC learning initiative in their everyday
experience at school. Informed by the MCA analytical guidelines set out by P.
Freebody (2003), the following questions are asked when examining selected
excerpts of student focus group transcript data:
(i) What categories of people (and/or things) and collections of categories
(MCDs) do the student participants rely on, call on or make
relevant in their responses to the hypothesised scenarios and
topics discussed? In explicating the categories that are made
hearable in the talk, the analytic task is also concerned with
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 189
drawing out the paired/relational categories of people, whether
contrasting, supplementary and/or complementary, that are
overtly produced or implied by the speakers in their accounts.
(ii) What predicates and attributes are attached to or assumed of the
members of these categories and collections of categories, and
how are these attributions accomplished in the talk, whether
explicitly stated or by implication?
(iii) What explanations―cause-effect sequences and moral
evaluations―are enabled by this combination of categories and
attributions? That is, what are the explanations of social activity
that are made pertinent, permissible and predictable by this
process of categorising and attaching attributes to people
implicated in the talk?
(iv) Where relevant, what are the substantiation procedures used by the
student participants to support and legitimise the categorisations,
attributions and explanations accomplished in their accounting
work? A number of common substantiation procedures used in
talk that may be relevant to this study include:
• Shared understandings, in which the speaker takes it as commonly
understood and accepted that their accounting procedures are
self-evident (e.g., “everybody knows that…”)
• Anecdotal evidence, in which stories from the past are presented
as iconic narratives that support the account (e.g., “my teacher
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 190
went on Myspace and told me to take stuff off…”). This may
include dramatic techniques and extreme case formulations. The
former may include direct quotes or enlivened re-enactments
of events (e.g., “…yeah, a lot of people haven’t even been on it
and say “oh it’s crap!”). The latter may comprise descriptions
of cases as maximum cases so as to provide for a sense of the
severity of the present problem (e.g., “with blocking and
restrictions… we had to choose a topic on terrorism and stuff
and I was doing 9/11 and I couldn’t get any videos of it to
work, like anything with the word ‘war’, ‘terror’ or anything
like that all sites were just blocked…”)
• Personal experience is drawn to support a generalisation (e.g., “I
use the SMC abit and what I’ve experienced…”)
• Official discourses, in which formal documents and accounts are
presented as substantiation (e.g., “I’ve come across a page in
the school diary, page two… commitment to learning and
academic success in all subjects…”)
By asking these questions of the textual data generated through the student
focus group discussions, the analytic task was to locate the central categories that
underpin students’ accounts of their opinions, experiences, choices and actions
associated with the adoption and diffusion of the SMC learning initiative in
school. The identification of the central categories in students’ accounts is
followed by a close analysis of students’ descriptions of category-bound
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 191
attributes and activities, and their consequential moral and institutional
implications. The interest here is to document the shared cultural logic and
reasoning practices that students draw on and use, in their talk, to reflect on and
reconstruct the social order of schooling, as it applies to the complexities of
technology-based innovation and change in their schooling practices.
Pseudonyms are used to describe the school (RBS) and student participants.
Their year levels are indicated in square brackets. Detailed transcription
notations are provided in the Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Transcription Notations
Turn A proposed unit of conversation, that is, something said by one speaker and preceded, followed by or both by a ‘turn’ of some other.
under Underlining indicates emphasis
run= / =on ‘=’ sign link material that runs on
↑word / ↓word
Arrows indicate the onset of a rising or falling intonational shift
[…] Indicates material that has been left out of the extract
lo:ng Colons show that the speaker has stretched the preceding letter or sound
[high pitch] Material in square brackets indicates transcriber’s commentary
<slow> ‘less than’ signs indicate that the talk they encompass was produced noticeably slower than surrounding talk
(.) The shortest hearable pause, less than about 0.2 of a second
⁰soft⁰ Degree signs indicate speech spoken noticeably more quietly than surrounding talk
Source: Transcription symbols developed by Gail Jefferson (see Atkinson and Heritage, 1984: ix-xvi)
5.3 Overview of the central thematic: SMC as both useful and useless
The textual data was most relevant to the study when it foregrounded the
‘experienced realities’ of the schooling order and its associated cultural norms
and practices. A central thematic of the textual data was embedded in students’
accounts of the SMC as either useful and/or not useful for their schooling
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 192
activities. A major point of resonance across all six focus group discussions was
that students, in their individual and collective accounting work, frequently
framed their responses directly or implicatively, in explanation of and impacting
on this issue of low SMC adoption and use by senior school students. This was
so despite the fact that the focus group topic guide did not explicitly address the
issue of low adoption/usage levels of the SMC within the senior school student
community. It was evident therefore, that since the implementation of the SMC
in school, students have had to come to grips with the opportunities and
challenges afforded by the SMC innovation in relation to their ‘normal’ or
‘mainstream’ schooling life, whatever that may be in terms of their existing
commitments, priorities, preferences and affiliations at school.
The explanations of SMC usage patterns offered by student participants,
regardless of whether they were part of the student leadership group overtly
responsible for the implementation of the SMC initiative, frequent users,
infrequent users or non-users, tended to involve the association of favourable
and/or unfavourable responses to the SMC with distinct categories of persons,
attributes, norms and practices. Low SMC usage rates were explained in terms of
an elaborate weave of culturally defined attributes and practices associated with
(i) social identities and peer validation, (ii) perceptions of unequal power
relations among executive leadership staff and students as reflected in the push-
and-pull of staff governance and student agency, and (iii) student roles,
obligations and pressures in a culture of academic performativity. It was evident
from the students’ accounts that these issues buttressed one another in complex
and mutually constitutive ways. In other words, these issues impacted on one
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 193
another and also served to explain as well as confer meaning to the actual
phenomenon of low SMC usage among students, which in turn reinforced
and/or sustained the salience of these culturally defined attributes and practices.
Interwoven with these discussions were students’ assertions of possible solutions
or ways of overcoming these barriers to widespread adoption of the SMC by the
student body.
The focus groups generally started with the students responding to the first
question and discussing their positions on the future of the SMC in five years’
time. Some students expressed a positive view of the SMC’s future as one that
will continue to grow and develop in the next five years, not only within and for
the school but for similar senior schooling environments (e.g., “I can see the SMC
being, um, involved with multiple schools, even around the country or around the world, being
an international network where each school has set up their own SMC and they’ve become
inter-connected” – Akmal[11], Turn 51, Excerpt 6). This was counterposed by the
less sanguine view that the SMC would not recover from its current ‘comatose’
phase and that the five year prognosis would be a ‘total miss’ (e.g., “In the end the
SMC might just be a total miss, not a hit at all and it is pretty much, this whole factor is
because it is a school” – Adam[11], Turn 553). The shared sentiment among
students taking this position was that the SMC held great appeal when it was
first launched but then ‘fizzled out’ and ‘died’ because of specific institutional
constraints that worked against the ‘promise’ of the SMC, and that these
constraints were not expected to change in the near future. A further position
was also evident in their talk, reflecting a view that ongoing success would be
contingent on whether existing constraints could be overcome, including the
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 194
matter of improved popularity with students and staff as a whole. The
importance of attaining a critical mass of advocates among students and staff
users was held to be absolutely essential for the sustainability and growth of the
SMC (e.g., “I don’t see the SMC … as having any possibility of success without the complete
endorsement of the majority of students, all staff… all executive staff, as well as the wider
school community. And that’s something that is absolutely essential for the establishment and
maintenance of this sort of program” – Ben[11], Turn 13).
When students were probed, either by the facilitator or their focus group peers
to justify their positions in these discussions, regardless of their positions, their
accounts across all six groups tended to converge around a key proposition,
namely that the SMC is ‘useful-in-principle’. That is, it holds much promise and
usefulness for their learning and development as young adults, particularly in
terms of exploiting multimodal learning and enhancing peer-to-peer networks
for developing academic, social and real-world skills. Before examining this key
proposition in greater detail (in Section 5.3.1), it is worthwhile to highlight the
importance of this convergence in the students’ collective accounts.
This convergence is noteworthy because, according to the quantitative analysis,
the students were less than convinced of the usefulness of the SMC for their
learning and schooling purposes, a finding made even more important by the
fact that perceived usefulness emerged as a salient predictor of SMC usage.
Following Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) and Turvey’s (2006) conceptualisation
of the various purposes of learning and schooling, the self-report questionnaire
measured students’ perceptions of how useful the SMC was in terms of its
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 195
contribution to their (i) socialisation at school, (ii) academic learning and
performance, (iii) development of multiliteracies and creativity, and (iv) self-
expression and identity-formation. In their questionnaire responses, students
rated the SMC’s usefulness across all four aspects as less than mediocre. By
contrast, the students’ accounts in the focus group discussions presented
inflections on and qualifications to the more abstract numeric measurement of
students’ perceptions. In all six focus group discussions, the students repeatedly
spoke favourably of the SMC and its potential benefits for their learning and
schooling in concrete terms, with clear descriptions and examples of how they
saw the SMC as making, or more often, potentially making significant
contributions to the diversity and quality of their schooling experiences and
outcomes. These are discussed in detail in Section 5.3.1.
This raises the question of why, then, the students had rated the SMC as lacking
in usefulness. A closely bounded issue emerged from the students’ discussions
concerning why, despite its potential for enhancing their learning and schooling
activities, the SMC had failed to achieve more extensive usage rates among the
senior school student community. According to the students’ accounts of the
patterns of SMC usage, in practical terms and unfortunately for its advocates, the
very aspects of the SMC that bore the greatest rewards for peer-to-peer learning
were also its key weaknesses. In their collective interactions, the students alluded
to a number of key practices, dispositions and norms embedded within their
schooling institution as militating against―or in their words―‘castrat[ing]’ the
potential of the SMC, thereby rendering the SMC ‘useless-in-practice’. This was
the rationale given for the small number of students who engaged regularly and
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 196
meaningfully with the SMC. Consequently, the lack of mass buy-in from the
senior school student population sealed its place as a tangential learning space
within mainstream schooling life.
5.3.1 SMC: Useful-in-Principle
To bring a deeper understanding of engagement and non-engagement, it is
necessary to explore the theme of ‘useful-in-principle’ in greater detail through a
closer examination of selected excerpts from students’ accounts. The analyses
that follow examine the talk of the students on the benefits of having a
contemporary peer-to-peer digital learning initiative such as the SMC in the
senior school, and how these perceived benefits relate to the adoption and
diffusion of the SMC learning initiative within their formal schooling
environment.
5.3.1.1 Promoting student expression, agency and ownership in learning
The usefulness of the SMC, not only for promoting the expression of students’
opinions, but also for allowing more students’ agency and ownership in their
schooling community, is reiterated and reinforced in all focus group discussions
to varying degrees. In general, students spoke of the SMC as a useful medium
for students to publish their works and express their opinions about school-
related issues, in ways that may productively challenge existing power relations
within the school by contesting excessive staff authority and promoting parity of
esteem between staff and students. Excerpt 1 provides a relevant exchange
between three Year 12 focus group student participants.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 197
Excerpt 1.
108. Hugh[12]: […] The SMC is all about an online community that you can put
forward your own opinions, your own work, anything like that,
on an equal playing field to somebody like a teacher. So anybody
who’s got an [RBS] login can go onto the SMC and look around
and post something […] but the point, the ma:in task that I see
SMC performing is providing a place where a student can go on
[…] and if they feel that something needs to change in the
school to benefit the boys (..) then they can say something about
↑it, without fear of repercussion from, you know, teachers or
anything like that. So you know we have had articles up there
going on about [Religious Education] and you know the English
faculty and I reckon that sort of critical feedback is actually
really necessary, particularly in a school like [RBS], it’s just that a
lot of people, unless they had that sort of forum to do it,
wouldn’t put themselves into that situation because as students,
we ↓aren’t in a position to challenge the authority of teachers=
109. Eric[12]: =Yeah, yeah… I have always like=
110. Ben[12]: =Yeah, SMC is like putting us on an equal field
In the opening Turn 108, the speaker recurrently evoked the standardised
relational pair of ‘teachers’ and ‘students’ within the MCD School and, in so doing,
made hearable two key points: (i) the asymmetric authority/power relations
between students and teachers in the social order of the school, and (ii) the
idealised formulation of the SMC as an online learning tool that ‘can’ level the
‘playing field’ between these two groups by providing students with a safe place
(‘without fear of repercussion’) to express their honest opinions and ‘critical feedback’
to the staff/teachers about their schooling experience. This position was heard
as a shared cultural understanding among the three speakers as they coordinated
and buttressed one another’s arguments by completing each other’s turn of talk.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 198
Through the repetitive use of verb ‘can’ in the first half of Turn 108, the speaker
underscored the possibility and potentiality of the SMC to promote student
expression and agency in the school, which according to him, is a ‘necessary’ part
of learning, but one that is not afforded students in the current social reality of
the school (‘because as students, we ↓aren’t in a position to challenge the authority of
teachers’).
The same sentiment was expressed in another Year 12 focus group but, this time,
the student spoke of the SMC’s usefulness for the membership category of
‘teenage boys’ within the MCD Stage-of-Life.
Excerpt 2.
“[…] Yeah, it is really good, I suppose, for teenage ↑bo:ys, it’s when you
really start to think about or challenge authority and come up with your own
view of the world. So getting back to what [Gerald] said about a place to
express ↓yourself […] putting forward your own opinion and trying, I
suppose as a teenager trying to le:arn how to do that in a way that won’t
really offend others. If there is a community, like the SMC is an online
community for doing that, a place where you can voice your opinion without
really having anything to worry about, you know, any ↓repercussions and
then if somebody doesn’t agree with you, them telling you and you being
able to defend yourself, instead of just getting a detention ↓straightaway. I
think that that’s such a gre:at positive learning experience.” (Joe[11], Turn
164).
As evidenced in Excerpt 2, the speaker drew attention to the social-
psychological developmental attributes commonly associated with the
membership categories of young people in general and male adolescents in
particular. The student appealed to the ‘commonsense’ understanding that young
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 199
adults growing in independence and autonomy, are (i) more responsive to
respectful learning environments that afford ‘gre:at positive learning experience[s]’ by
allowing students to put forward their ‘own view of the ↑world’ and their ‘own opinion’
(i.e., the SMC learning space), and (ii) less receptive to the kind of rigid punitive
measures (‘just getting a detention ↓straightaway’) that staff in authority employ to
shape students’ social and behavioural development (by implication, the
prevailing status-quo or conventional practice at school). In this way, the speaker
artfully accomplished a moral inferential logic of educational practice that
positioned the asymmetrical staff/student authority relations and rights within
the prevailing traditional school culture as oppositional and inferior to the
egalitarian organisation of these same staff/student roles-in-interaction afforded
by the innovative Web 2.0 learning ecology. The latter was established in the talk
as affording significant benefits for the development of teenagers, particularly in
the essential areas of self-expression, opinion-making and autonomous learning.
5.3.1.2 Multimodal ‘one-stop’ learning resource for developing 21st century skills
The ‘useful-in-principle’ theme is further exemplified in two Year 10 students’
responses to a question posed by the facilitator about whether the SMC had a
place in their current education system. These students spoke explicitly and
assertively of the SMC’s current and potential contribution to the development
of real-world, profession-related skills, digital literacies and creative dispositions
such as ‘lateral thinking’, ‘flexibility’ and risk-taking. This is shown in Excerpt 3.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 200
Excerpt 3.
144. Justin[10]: To program the SMC you’ve gotta use that lateral thinking (…)
thinking outside the box (..) and flexibility (..) to actually get the
add-ons, the mambots16, you have to take risks.
145. Slim[10]: Um, never in normal life in school (..) and outside school (.) at
this age, can you (..) I mean maybe oc↓ca:sionally in an English
assignment you could write some articles but you could never
write journalist-like articles and be critiqued by your peers,
which I think is a ↓plus of the SMC.
146. Spuds[10]: Well, I agree with that. There’s a lot of avenue for creative
writing on the SMC, uh, I know there is one really, really, re:ally
good story there called Sanjoe versus Nathan, which was a small
set of creative writing (.) um (.) stories that did encapsulate a
large portion of the school for at least a short amount of time.
In Turn 145, the speaker oriented to the membership categories of
teenagers/young adults (‘at this age’) and working professionals (‘journalist’),
evoking the MCDs Stage of Life and Workplace respectively. In so doing, he made
available a number of practical-moral inferential trajectories that, at the one time,
affirm the significance and usefulness of the SMC learning innovation, while
framing it as an unconventional, even ‘abnormal’, learning activity within the
social reality of the school. In his account, he drew attention to the mismatch
between (i) the conventional (‘normal’) activities such as ‘English assignment[s]’
afforded senior school students by formal (‘in school’), even informal (‘outside
school’) learning environments in the main, and (ii) the ‘real-world’ technology-
driven social and professional knowledge and skills pertinent to the workplace
16 A small program which is executed immediately before any content item is displayed in the website front end. It is an application specific to open-source Web 2.0 technology such as the SMC’s Joomla platform.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 201
(e.g., ‘journalist-like articles’, ‘critiqued by peers’). Consequently, the SMC innovation
was framed as bearing relative advantage (‘a ↓plus of the SMC’) to conventional
learning and teaching practices, in that it provides valuable opportunities, that are
at best few and far between (‘never in normal life… I mean maybe oc↓ca:sionally’), for
the development of 21st century digital literacies and profession-relevant skills
and dispositions in young adults who constitute an important part of the
emerging workforce. This positive evaluation of the SMC was substantiated by
another student in Excerpt 4 with the use of anecdotal evidence indicating one
explicit instance of this affordance enacted in the school, albeit for only ‘a short
amount of time’ (Excerpt 4, Turn 146). The fact that this relative advantage of the
SMC did not yield sustained engagement from the senior school student
population at large hints at a pervasive underlying reasoning practice that
characterises the SMC as a beneficial but nonetheless ‘outlier’ activity to the main
of ‘normal’ school life and its associated socio-institutional priorities and
imperatives. The persistence of this reasoning practice that frames the SMC as
useful and advantageous, but nonessential and expendable with regard to the
main of schooling, is further exemplified in Excerpt 4.
Excerpt 4.
97. Rump[11]: I think [the SMC] is more about, like, learning outside the
square and alternative styles of learning, like, when I was in
primary school I know we hardly did anything that was
abnormal but then my teacher in, like, five, six and seven was
doing a PhD. On, like, philosophy and all this sort of stuff so
we did all these things that were different that none of the
other classes were doing and I think that’s a bit of what we’re
doing here, like, having this online learning thing where we’re
going to put all of this exemplary work and we allow people to
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 202
express their opinion is just a good way to develop people’s
brains, like, in a different way and not to be so ↓boring that
people usually see school as.
[…]
109. Ben[11]: …it’s part of the learning experience at [RBS] … and I feel
with so many different opportunities at this school I think
we’ve probably got more co-curricular activities than half the
schools in, like, the world probably, there’s so many
different opportunities. And this is just another opportunity
and it’s something really different. I don’t think people get
to express their opinions and especially when we’re kids, you
know, we’ve got teachers at school that say, you know, “your
opinion doesn’t really matter unless you have a PhD or a
university degree” and it’s probably true in the real world
and, you know, this is where we’re all equal (.) we can all
express our opinions and people can learn from each other.
In their talk, the Year 11 students repeatedly acknowledged the SMC’s significant
benefits for ‘develop[ing] people’s brains… in a different way’ by (i) reorganising the
conventionally didactic pedagogical relations between students and teachers
(‘we’ve got teachers at school that say, you know, “your opinion doesn’t really matter… [SMC] is
where we’re all equal’) and (ii) providing an outlet for students to express their
opinions and make their voices heard (‘we can all express our opinions and people can
learn from each other’) and potentially effect change within the school community,
especially in a schooling culture generally perceived to be more focused on
compliance than on creativity. At the same time, however, the adjectives used by
both students to characterise the SMC hint at its unconventional and ancillary
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 203
place in the lives of students and teachers within the social reality of the school
(e.g., ‘learning outside the square’, ‘alternative’, ‘just another opportunity’, ‘really different’).
Despite its ‘alternative’ place in the school, students stressed the positive
multimodal affordances of the SMC’s Web 2.0 features for enhancing student
learning as compared to the conventional print ‘published medium’ that is
pervasively used at school. This is exemplified in the talk of two Year 10
students shown in Excerpt 5.
Excerpt 5.
157. Peter[10]: I just think that probably the main thing the SMC’s got going for
it is the fact it’s, you know, live updating, anyone that’s got the
[login] privileges can update the work (.) can go on to the back
end of the site and update the work that’s waiting there (.)
anyone that wants to can update an article and that really
wouldn’t be possible on a published medium because that would
just take too ↓long, going through and sifting each one. I
remember the SMC originally started as a student newsletter↑ (..)
I think the actual current way the SMC is organised is much
more effective than a newsletter in the fact that it has videos and
everything, a [picture] gallery, it hasn’t really been used to its full
extent yet, it has a lot of potential but hasn’t really been utilised
that much.
[…]
162. Max[10]: The potential of the SMC is an exciting vibrant website that
contains numerous updates on student activities and it’s a good
social and academic resource, individual pages for each person,
lots of videos documenting the life of the school. It’s a one-stop-
shop for all your academic school information.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 204
In Turn 157, the speaker oriented to the MCD School and the membership
category of students of which he is an incumbent, in order to point out the
contrasting pedagogical affordances of conventional schooling and the digital
SMC learning innovation. The student highlighted the accessibility and
responsiveness of the online SMC as superior to conventional print in two ways.
First, through the repetitive use of the hyperbolic pronoun (‘anyone’), he asserted
that the SMC extends participatory learning opportunities to a much wider
proportion of the student community, a pedagogic practice that is otherwise
impossible given the logistical constraints of the print medium (‘that really
wouldn’t be possible … because that would just take too ↓long, going through and sifting each
one’). Second, the student described the SMC as a cut above the conventional
print format of a ‘student newsletter’ by highlighting its multimodal functionalities
and consequent ‘potential’ and capacity to generate a more diverse collection of
student products and also cater to a wider range of student interests and needs
(‘much more effective… videos and everything… a [picture] gallery’). When prompted by
the facilitator to elaborate on this ‘potential’ of the SMC, another student in Turn
162 substantiated his schoolmate’s account by articulating a detailed list of the
SMC’s potential affordances, which culminated in the idealised formulation of
the SMC as an exceptional ‘one-stop shop for all your academic school information’ that
significantly augments existing social and academic programs available at school.
This notion of the SMC as a one-stop learning resource encompassing multiple
modalities and learning experiences, both social and academic, was echoed in
another Year 11 focus group discussion, as shown in Excerpt 6. These accounts
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 205
were embedded within a larger discussion of the ‘state’ of the SMC (i.e., ‘dead’)
and its expected future within the school.
Excerpt 6.
24. Fred[11]: I think the SMC was a short term thing in the beginning to just
promote what people wanted to say, like, in the forums and
once that, sort of, the hype over that got over, it soon died
down and become dead. What I think the SMC could be used
as (.) and it needs the support from the teachers and the
school, as sort of a body where a lot of work is put forward
perhaps, um, as we see in videos that people enjoy, places that
people can go to reference, perhaps news about sports and
those things, that people need to go and look at if they’re
really involved.
[…]
27. Graeme[11]: I think the SMC for teachers it can be a good way for
intellectual discussion. I think it’s sort of cool now not to
really know what’s happening in the world and, you know, I
know people who still don’t e:ven know [politician’s name] is
the new [state] premier which scares me and I think the SMC
is a perfect vehicle for intellectual discussion to happen and
for people to voice their opinions, you know, teachers don’t
enjoy when their classes get disturbed, when people start to
have discussions about things ‘cause it goes off-topic and it’s
not good for the ↓exam etcetera etcetera. The SMC is
somewhere where it can be done in an enjoyable medium but
it can also be really beneficial to the person starting the
discussion when everyone else contributes, cause this is, you
know, real learning, this is not in the textbook, this isn’t stuff
you’re gonna be taught and lectured about in the class, this is
stuff which has real world applications.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 206
In Turn 24, the speaker appealed to the commonsense understanding that within
the schooling order (MCD School), learning tools that provide an outlet for
expressing opinions, while beneficial, are neither sufficient nor sustainable in
promoting widespread adoption and deep engagement among the membership
category of senior school students. The underlying reasoning practice here is that
students, as members of the schooling order, have particular school-based
obligations and priorities that are more of the essence than merely ‘the hype’ of
putting forward personal views (‘to just promote what people wanted to say’); rather, all
the members in the school, teachers and students alike, need to collaboratively
build on and exploit the multimodal and social networking functionalities of the
SMC to establish a vibrant and inclusive virtual learning community that is
relevant not only to the social aspects (‘videos that people enjoy… news about sports’),
but also the academic priorities at school (‘that people can go to reference’).
Along with this perspective of the SMC as a ‘one-stop-resource’ was more
explicit endorsement of the SMC’s potential benefits in terms of promoting
student expression and ‘intellectual discussions’ (explicated in Section 5.3.1.1), as
well as the opportunities it afforded for ‘real learning’ and its relevance to ‘real
world’ knowledge and applications. The speaker in Turn 27 augmented his
schoolmate’s description by adding two key benefits of the SMC. He evoked the
MCD School, the member categories of students and teachers, and oriented to
two distinct, contrasting types of learning ecologies within the school: conventional
classroom learning and learning via the SMC. The upshot of drawing on these
categorisation devices, members and predicates, is the formulation of the SMC
as a useful learning environment that augments the prevailing classroom
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 207
teaching and learning model―a model that can be heard as characteristically
teacher-centred, transmissionist-oriented, and primarily focused on memory-
and-recall of prescribed ‘textbook knowledge’ and rigid test-based curriculum (e.g.,
‘teachers don’t enjoy when their classes get disturbed, when people start to have discussions
about things ‘cause it goes off-topic and it’s not good for the ↓exam etcetera etcetera.’).
Consequently, teachers perceive activities outside of these strict boundaries as
‘disturb[ances]’ and ‘don’t enjoy’ them, even if they are productive discussions. The
speaker proceeded to make a negative moral assertion of how this form of rigid
classroom pedagogy is contributing to a more severe moral-civic problem of
producing students who are politically apathetic, lacking in current world
knowledge, and therefore, inadequate as participatory citizens and/or productive
members of the wider MCD Society. He substantiated his opinion through an
extreme case formulation of how it seemed socially-mandated (‘cool’) for ‘people’
(by implication, peers or young people in senior school) to be ignorant of and
parochial to basic general knowledge such as the name of local political leaders.
The speaker’s use of the intensive adverb ‘don’t e:ven know’ further accomplished
his emphatic stance that this level of ignorance and political apathy, which not
only troubles but ‘scares’ him, is a problematic, even unacceptable condition for
educated youths and civic participants like himself. By contrast, the SMC is
characterised in the talk as a learning environment that bears significant potential
and opportunities for engaging students in ‘real learning’, which include
intellectually productive and stimulating debates on issues that constitute
knowledge, skills and dispositions with ‘real world applications’.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 208
5.3.1.3 Enhancing transboundary peer-to-peer interactions
In a separate focus group discussion, two other Year 11 students called attention
to the potential of the SMC’s ‘digital medium’ for significantly enhancing peer-to-
peer student networks by facilitating transboundary communications among
student groups that belonged conventionally to discrete membership categories
and sub-categories within the current MCD Education System with which they
were familiar (e.g., ‘Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Muslims, Jews’). As evidenced in
Excerpt 7, these students oriented to the potentially extensive network benefits
or network externalities of the SMC for bringing together, on a ‘much greater level’,
students from different grades and classes, even students from different schools
that predominantly cater for gender-specific, religion/denomination-specific, or
locality-specific groups.
Excerpt 7.
51. Akmal[11]: I can see the SMC being involved with multiple schools, even
around the country or around the world, being an
international network where each school has set up their own
SMC and they’ve become inter-connected.
52. Rump[11]: Long term (.) I think that [SMC] would be a brilliant medium
of breaking down the um (.) traditional, historic (.)
segregations between, say, Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans,
Muslims, Jews and any other denomination that’s involved in
schooling (..) it’s a digital medium for schools to communicate
via (.) it takes away the kind of tradition that Anglicans can
only organise things with Anglicans and stuff like that. So I
think the SMC in that regard would be perfect for solving that
problem. And, also, it allows you to organise things on a much
greater level.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 209
In Turn 52, the student explicitly named this lack of inter-school connectedness
and cross-category collaboration in their current mainstream educational practice
as a ‘problem’―one that the SMC, as a digital social networking learning platform,
has the potential to resolve. Taken together with his schoolmate’s account in
Turn 51, these speakers made hearable the inferential logic that contemporary
schools and students, as members of the MCD Global Society, should no longer
be predicated on or constrained by ‘traditional, historic segregations’ in schooling that
emerge from religious, ethnic and geographical attributions. Rather, learning
should occur ‘on a much greater level’ and these socio-institutional norms and
relationships among the member categories of students and schools have the
potential to be profoundly reorganised by capitalising on the technological
affordances of new forms of social networking tools such as the SMC.
Furthermore, student participants frequently characterised these enhanced social
interactions afforded by the SMC as neither ‘random’ nor trivial (as sometimes the
case in social networking sites outside of school such as MySpace) but as
particularly relevant for schooling. The essence of this characterisation is
reflected in the following Year 12 student’s account.
Excerpt 8.
“[…] you know everyday we just talk about random stuff and I don’t see SMC
as being, you know, really ran↑dom. I like the idea that everything there has a
point, like, a message you are trying to get ac↑ross and um, we were talking
before about it being an academic or a social community but really it is sort of
↓both. It is not social in that you talk about what you’re doing on the weekend
or something like that, or you know, “Hey, so and so is going to have a sweet
party” ‘cause you can just talk about that face to face with somebody anyway.
But it is, sort of like, you’re putting forward, articulating an argument or um, a
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 210
view of something and looking for feedback or, you know, just trying to get it
out there, maybe spread the ↑word. It is so:cial in an academic sense. (Moe[12],
Turn 203)
In his account, the speaker evoked the MCD School and oriented to the
membership category of students, of which he is an incumbent (‘we’). In so doing,
he described the online interactions that take place on the SMC as bearing both
‘social’ and ‘academic’ benefits for student learning, rather than one or the other.
In formulating his account, he appealed to the commonsense understanding that
in conventional schooling practice, the social and academic aspects while both
present, tend to occur in predominantly distinct spaces, whereas the SMC offers
a richer learning experience for student members by integrating these two key
aspects of learning and schooling (‘everything there has a point… articulating an
argument… looking for feedback’).
Another group of Year 12 students, despite their self-identification as infrequent
and non-users of the SMC, nonetheless ascribed potential benefits to the SMC
and provided concrete examples of how it can (i) allow for the development of
social/interpersonal skills by promoting transboundary interactions among
students, and (ii) enhance schooling engagement and facilitate peer mentoring
between middle-school and senior-school students. These benefits were
explicitly expressed in the students’ interactions that took place between Turns
106 to 245 of the focus group discussion. Examples of these accounts include
students characterising the SMC as a beneficial space for ‘meeting people’, ‘having a
conversation’ and ‘mak[ing] talking to anyone easier’, especially for students who are
‘too shy to talk’ in person to ‘have confidence’. Others noted the SMC as bearing
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 211
opportunities for students in the younger grades to be mentored by students in
the senior grade, both explicitly, in terms of referring to work or getting advice
on subject options without wasting a semester, as well as being motivated and
inspired by senior students to ‘get involved’ and ‘try harder’ in a range of schooling
activities, whether academic (‘Bio and Chem’), artistic (‘artwork’) or athletic
(‘sporting thing’).
The usefulness of the SMC in principle was further supported in students’
responses to the question of whether they would endorse the SMC if they were in
the position of the school’s executive leadership, and if they would do anything
differently. Two key points are worth noting here. First, when students imagined
themselves in the role of an executive staff member such as the Head of Senior
School or Headmaster, their talk conveyed a consistent view of unequivocal and
universal endorsement for a student-run learning initiative such as the SMC in
school. Students’ accounts such as ‘If I was the head of the school I would definitely endorse
the SMC’ (Tom[12], Turn 93) and ‘Yeah. I would definitely endorse the SMC’ (Sol[10],
Turn 384) were recurrently heard. This striking convergence in the students’
accounts, regardless of whether they were high, moderate, low or non-users of the
SMC, served to substantiate the proposition of a shared perception that the SMC
was, in principle, a highly valuable learning tool for students and for their schooling
context.
Second, they qualified their strong support for the SMC by talking about some
specific ways that they would, in the role of the school’s executive leadership,
possibly do things differently, in such a way as to improve significantly the
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 212
reputation of the SMC and promote students’ usage of the SMC. These measures
included making structural changes related to (i) curriculum and timetabling so as to
provide students with more time to work on the learning innovation (e.g. ‘Yeah, [as
Head of Senior School] I would definitely endorse the SMC, I’d keep it much the same but give
students more time to work on it so that they can uphold it better themselves.’ Reet[12], Turn
96), (ii) removing online web restrictions that are perceived to be excessive (e.g.,
‘And with that blocking and restrictions, I think that I would block, of course, all pornographic
sites and things like that but [...] for my history [assignment] I was doing 9/11 and I couldn’t get
any videos of it to work […] anything like with the word ‘war’, ‘terror’ or anything like that, all
sites were just ↑blocked. I think sites like that I would unblock, I would let them have access.’
Chip[10], Turn 383), and (iii) allowing students more ownership of the learning
initiative, rather than monitoring the students’ content too closely (e.g., ‘I’d probably
try and disassociate myself from the SMC to try and (..) at least give the image that I’m ↓not
looking over the shoulder of the SMC and writing through people’s posts.’ Ben[11], Turn 179).
These proposed institutional/structural changes highlighted by the student
participants are discussed in greater detail in Section 5.3.2: SMC Useless-in-Practice
and sub-section 5.3.2.2: Institutional-Pedagogical Barrier.
In summary, students provided a wealth of descriptive detail concerning the
perceived usefulness of the SMC in principle, as it was conceptualised and
designed, and its relevance and potential affordances as a Web 2.0 digital and
social networking platform for enhancing their learning and schooling
experiences. In their accounts, student participants recurrently framed the
learning affordances of the SMC as oppositional and superior to conventional
schooling practices, in terms of reorganising traditional staff/student authority
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 213
relations, student/student learning interactions, as well as traditional
print/multimodal and social/academic schooling distinctions. These articulated
benefits, however, came alongside formulations of the SMC as an
unconventional ‘alternative’ learning activity within the social reality of the school,
and therefore, tangential to the main of ‘normal’ school life and its associated
socio-institutional priorities and imperatives.
Given the ubiquity of this thematic of useful-in-principle, the widespread
ambivalence of the students towards the SMC, as indicated by the markedly low
actual usage levels of the SMC among the senior school community, is all the
more compelling as a phenomenon worthy of investigation. Clearly, insights are
required into students’ accounts of the phenomenon of low SMC adoption and
usage, that is, how it is known, understood and talked about by students
themselves. Students’ accounts of the SMC show it, in general terms, as being
rendered ‘useless-in-practice’ by existing mainstream schooling norms and
practices, whether social, academic and/or institutional. Of interest here are
students’ accounts of why, given all its potential in principle, the SMC was
unable to deliver on these promises in practice.
5.3.2 SMC: Useless in Practice
In the focus group discussions, students devoted a significant proportion of time
to the issue of why the SMC is not as popular and widely used by the general
senior school population, despite its potential strengths and benefits. Students
made clear in their talk that the unfortunate ‘truth’ was that the design
affordances of the SMC were unable to be translated into actual practice.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 214
Students’ accounts of the problems associated with the SMC in practice centred
on three key issues, namely, (i) the social stigma or negative reputation of the
SMC among some categories of their peers and the resultant lack of peer critical
mass or network externalities associated with the SMC, (ii) the perceived
authoritarian, punitive culture of the school and the perceived lack of student
autonomy and agency in light of excessive teacher-determined regulatory
practices, and (iii) the pressures to perform academically within a crowded
curriculum with tight timelines. It was clear from the students’ talk that these
issues, while distinct, were far from discrete. The students often constructed and
ascribed correlations, even causal associations among these perceived constraints
or barriers in their schooling that accounted for the low SMC uptake among
students in the school. By and large, such contributions followed from responses
to the initial question regarding the future of the SMC, and tended to expand in
breadth and depth as the student participants explained, justified and
substantiated their positions at length.
The MCA analysis shows that student rationales for the uselessness of the SMC
in practice appear to be cast in terms of three key barriers. These are (i) social-
reputational barrier, (ii) institutional-pedagogical barrier, and (iii) academic-
performativity barrier. The first concerns students’ perceptions of and responses
to peer groups and social status, social stigma and limited social network benefits
associated with the SMC. The second is related to the students’ perceptions of
and responses to issues of staff governance and student agency in the wider
schooling order, which extended to and impacted on the SMC digital learning
space. The third is associated with the students’ perceptions of and responses to
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 215
expectations from the school, parents and themselves to strive for academic
excellence by focusing on schoolwork and performing well in summative and/or
high-stakes assessments. While articulations of these barriers were interwoven in
the student talk, it was possible to draw out exemplars of the way each of the
three barriers were understood to be impediments to usage. These are discussed
in turn.
5.3.2.1 Social-Reputational Barrier
The social-reputational barrier was identifiable most commonly in students’
discussions of the SMC as ‘geeky’ and by implication ‘uncool’, which in turn was
taken to account for its lack of popularity among the senior school students.
This social stigma associated with the SMC was established by the student
participants as a major problem, if not the main reason, that the SMC was not
being used more extensively by the majority of the senior school student
population. This line of reasoning, exemplified in the excerpt of student talk
below, was ubiquitous in participants’ accounts across all six focus groups.
Excerpt 9 was taken from the talk of a group of Year 10 students who were
members of the SMC team primarily responsible for contributing and editing
content on the SMC. These students were regular users of the SMC.
Excerpt 9.
16. Spud[10]: I think the major problem and goal we should have is to remove
all the negative stigma that comes with the name, the <S:M:C>
and the thought of it (.) and that should just basically be the
main goal for the moment, just making it (.) just bring it back to
a neutral level, where not everybody hates its ↓guts.
17. Facilitator: Why do you think everybody hates it guts?
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 216
18. Slim[10]: […] ↓ba:sically I think a lot of the negative stigma comes from it
being associated with school and I think in the name having
<student media ↓centre>, I think that’s already getting it off to
a bad start […] ‘stu:dent’ still sort of sounds academic, and
that’s not really what the general cool, inverted comas,
population of the school wants. And ↓so if we are trying to
target the whole group, then it kind of needs to be something
not necessarily associated with, uh, ↓ner:dy student stereotypes.
In the above excerpt, the social stigma of the SMC was named in the opening
sequence as a ‘major problem’ associated with the SMC initiative. The severity of
this problem was indicated through the student’s use of an extreme case
formulation of graphic detail: ‘everybody hates its guts’, with the ‘it’ referring to the
SMC. By invoking this hyperbole, the speaker framed his claim as a widely-held
commonsense view of social life in the school, where empirical evidence to
warrant the claim was neither given nor needed. In this way, the assertion was
constituted as one that was generally acknowledged to be true, or simply known
to be so, by the student population of the school. In fact, he asserted that the
mere ‘thought’ of the SMC was sufficient to evoke a strong sense of aversion to
this digital learning initiative. Given that the speaker was a member of the SMC
team, the plural pronoun ‘we’ in his statement can be taken to refer to the SMC
student leaders and team members, which comprised thirty students from Years
10, 11 and 12. In his opinion, the immediate priority and primary objective of
the SMC team should be to improve the reputation of the SMC. The difficulty of
this task was implied by the statement ‘just bring it back to neutral level’, with the
adverb ‘just’ suggesting that the task of elevating the social reputation of the
SMC to a level where the student population is merely apathetic (‘neutral’) would
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 217
constitute significant progress. By implication, establishing a positive reputation
is simply unrealistic, which again conveyed his sense of the gravity of the
problem.
When probed by the facilitator to justify the strong claim that ‘everybody hates its
guts’, a fellow student in Turn 18 elaborated on what he considered to be a
significant antecedent or cause of the problem by evoking two social
membership categories at play in the school, namely, the ‘cool population’ and its
standardised relational pair (SRP) the ‘nerdy student’. It is useful to note that the
student indicated that these groups were based more on perceptions rather than
reality through his use of the qualifiers ‘inverted commas’ and ‘stereotypes’ when
naming the ‘cool’ and ‘nerdy’ categories respectively. Nonetheless, according to
him, these perceptions accounted for a significant proportion (‘a lot’) of the
problem of the SMC’s social stigma. In his account, this problem was initially
articulated as a consequence of the SMC’s association with the ‘academic’ attribute
conventionally associated with ‘school’, an attribute that is at best unappealing,
and at worst, actively resisted by members of the ‘cool’ category. This initial
formulation, however, was immediately followed by an if-then proposition
stating the solution to the problem: if the aim was to attract the ‘cool’ students
who were considered to be the majority (‘the whole group’), then the SMC must
(‘needs to’) be disassociated with ‘nerdy’ students.
Two analytical points are worth making here. First, ‘cool’ and ‘nerdy’ student types
were accomplished in the talk as contrasting member categories. These social
types could in turn be plausibly collected into a larger category through the
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 218
MCD Peer Social Status, although this term was not explicitly used in the talk.
Second, the attribute of ‘academic’, while associated with ‘school’ in general, was
more specifically associated with members of the ‘nerdy’ student category within
the school. Taken collectively, one could reasonably argue that the active
resistance of the SMC by the ‘cool’ students represented an aversion to being
classified as a member of the ‘nerdy’ student category, rather than a simple
rejection of the ‘academic’ aspect of schooling.
The need to improve the social reputation of the SMC as a matter of priority was
echoed in a Year 11 focus group, as shown in Excerpt 10. The speakers
comprised SMC team members earmarked for SMC leadership when they
advance to Year 12. As with the Year 10 group in Excerpt 9, these students
made the observation that the SMC was seen by the wider student population as
an initiative closely associated with ‘a bunch of nerds’, and, unless this unfavourable
‘perception’ is modified, the SMC will remain an unappealing and marginal activity
in the school.
Excerpt 10.
54. Akmal[11]: […] our group is seen as like maybe elitist or the upper echelon
of the students and I think that’s, like, we were put (hehh hh)
in the program for that reason↑. And so I think it’s maybe
something that we find hard sometimes to try and relate to the
middleman and, um, a few of us were actually told this
yesterday that we need to sort of represent the whole school
and not just the people who are in this room.
55. Ben[11]: Basically we need to, um, seeing as we are the leaders of this
group, at this point in time, we need to change the image of
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 219
this group, as someone in, um, high up, referred to this group
of boys as um=
56. Isaiah[11]: =a bunch of nerds=
57. Ben[11]: = ‘geeksville’. We need to change that perception so that we
appeal a bit more to the ↑plebs (hehh hh)
58. Graeme[11]: =⁰get some street cred⁰=
59. Ben[11]: =and, uh, get a bit of street cred with those other boys in the
↑school and without that we’re never gonna have the
viewership that’s essential to the success of something like
this, and none of our aims can be achieved without that
viewership so our first priority needs to be establishing that
street cred with those boys.
In Turn 54, the speaker evoked two competing social categories in the school by
first characterising himself as a member of a minority elite group in the school
(‘our group…elitist…a few of us’) that comprised the ‘upper echelon of students’ and
then, by contrasting his group with the majority of students in the school (‘the
whole school’) whom he named as the collective ‘middleman’. He went on to point
out the existence of a gap between these two categories of students who ‘find it
hard to relate’ to one another. In Turns 56 and 57, we are to hear that this ‘elite’
category of students are definitively characterised and perceived as ‘a bunch of
nerds’ and ‘geeksville’. By inference, their elite status stems from academic
excellence rather than social prominence or reputational prestige. The terms
‘upper echelon’ (Turn 54), ‘middleman’ (Turn 54) and ‘plebs’ (Turn 57) also connote a
hierarchical social structure in the school, where the speakers considered
themselves a cut above the ‘other boys’ in the school. This proposition that they
were the superior group was qualified to some extent by the occasions of mild
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 220
laughter (‘hehh hh’) observed in the students’ talk, which could be construed as a
tone of irony or even self-satisfaction (‘we were put [hehh hh] in the program for that
reason’) and slight derision (‘the plebs [hehh hh]’). The combination of these
discursive devices suggests that the speakers were aware of the problematics of
such a form of social classification enacted by themselves and others in the
school (‘someone…high up’). Nevertheless, they seemed to insist on it as a logical
and pertinent explanation for the widespread ambivalence exhibited by the wider
student population towards the SMC. Consequently, the students asserted that a
prime solution for improving SMC usage rates among students was to have the
SMC leadership team shed its geeky image in order to establish ‘street cred’ with
‘those boys’. This was framed emphatically as a necessity rather than an option, as
indicated by the continual repetitions of ‘need to’ infused throughout the
sequence of talk. Given that ‘street cred’ is the abridged variation of a colloquial
term conventionally used to refer to fashionable young urban individuals
(Wordnetweb, 2008), the categorisation of ‘those boys’ could be taken as referring
to the ‘hip’ or ‘cool’ students who enjoyed a high level of social validation in the
school. By contrast therefore, the ‘nerdy’ SMC team members were perceived as
their doppelganger, the ‘uncool’. Thus the solution produced by the students can
be reframed in simple terms as the need for the SMC to be both ‘less uncool’
and ‘more cool’.
This proposition was not produced exclusively by SMC team members. Students
who described themselves as infrequent users (approximately once a term)
and/or non-users of the SMC initiative also articulated a similar logic when
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 221
accounting for the low adoption rates of the SMC in the school. An example is
shown in Excerpt 11.
Excerpt 11.
45. Chip[10]: It’s been labelled geeky. It’s been given a stereotype.
46. Hec[10]: Like the population of the school just think it’s, you know, some
people who are so called co:ol have said it’s geeky and everyone
else seems to want to follow them. To conform.
47. Sol[10]: ⁰peer pressure⁰
48. Chip[10]: I think it was because of the fact that it’s on a computer and that
group that’s cool so to speak in the school yard, they just decided
“Well it’s a computer, it’s got to be for nerds” and everyone
follows them into the next thing or the next craze or whatever.
49. Hec[10]: I’d say half the people who say it’s geeky haven’t even tried it.
50. Chip[10]: Yeah, a lot of people haven’t even been on it and say “Oh that’s
crap!”
[…]
109. Max[10]: I’d say it’s probably the main reason why it doesn’t get ↓used.
110. Chip[10]: Definitely, it would have to be.
Once again, the unfavourable reputation of the SMC among some categories of
students was established by the speakers, explicitly (‘the main reason why’) and
confidently (‘definitely, it would have to be’), as the primary cause of low usage
among the senior school student population. According to these students, the
low usage was a result of the SMC digital learning initiative being labelled ‘geeky’
by the ‘cool’ students in the school. Together, the speakers pointed to a regime of
conformity to the ‘cool’ category among students that exacerbated the effect of
this negative stereotyping. ‘Cool’ and ‘geeky’ were formulated as contrasting
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 222
categorial attributes. As in Excerpt 9, the speakers in Turns 46 and 48 used two
qualifiers ‘so-called’ and ‘so to speak’ immediately before and after the adjective ‘cool’
respectively. The purpose of using these qualifiers is plausibly this: the speakers
considered it necessary to disrupt any routine assumptions of the term ‘cool’ as an
authentic measure of enviable or positive character. Rather, others involved in
the discussion, including the facilitator, were to hear the term ‘cool’, and more
pertinently, the ‘cool’ students of the school that they were referring to in their
accounts, as more of an image or facade that was shallow in nature. Furthermore,
this ‘cool’ group was characterised in the talk as being prone to hasty and ill-
informed decision-making. This claim, made in Turn 48, was substantiated by
the intensifier ‘they just decided’ and a dramatic portrayal or mimicry of what was
held to be rash reasoning practices and prejudices of the ‘cool’ students: ‘well it’s
a computer, it’s got to be for nerds”. Nonetheless, the cool label was established as
socially desirable according to peer conventions within the school. The subtle
and artful critique of the ‘cool’ category incumbents was accompanied by a more
overt criticism of the ‘cool-wannabes’―the generic ‘everyone’ of the
school―characterised as undiscerning and gullible followers who simply adopted
or replicated the activities that defined ‘cool’ without critical or independent
thought (see Turns 49 and 50). The use of the intensifier ‘even’ by both speakers
(e.g., ‘haven’t even tried it’) and their confirmation of one another’s accounts in
quick succession and with increasing dramatic effect (‘they haven’t even been on it
and say “Oh it’s crap!”’) serve the function of (i) establishing the accuracy and
validity of their negative assertion, and (ii) reinforcing the extent of the peer
pressure to conform to the ‘cool’ social category that is experienced by every
student in the school.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 223
This peer pressure to conform meant that the negative characterisation of the
SMC as geeky and uncool was costly to the reputation of those who were known
to be regular users of it. It was clear that students perceived this as a circular
problem inasmuch as the students who ran the SMC were identified
unequivocally as ‘nerds’ and/or ‘geeks’ and so were not in a position to do
anything but reinforce this unfavourable reputation for those who might
otherwise be interested in engaging with the SMC. As a Year 10 student asserted
matter-of-factly through a series of cause-and-effect sequences, this issue of
social stigma was a particularly problematic one, given that:
Excerpt 12.
“…[i]t’s a bit of a circular problem. Since the SMC is considered to be geeky, if
you do the SMC, you’re automatically a geek, and therefore a geek does SMC,
which contributes to its geekiness, which contributes to its stigma.” (Jus[10],
Turn 22).
Given the inherent unattractiveness of ‘geekiness’, resistance to the ‘geeky’ and ‘not
cool’ peer categories was articulated as matter of social survival in the school, in
turn characterised as a place of closely networked proximity, particularly for
students who were boarders or students who resided in student accommodation
on the school grounds. In Excerpt 13 below, circumventing the ‘uncool’
categorisation was produced as a salient commonsense logic underpinning the
social reality of schooling.
Excerpt 13.
288. Imam[11]: […] the reason that people don’t go on the SMC, like say the
boarding house, one person says it’s bad and then it catches on
to a couple of people and then the whole boarding house says
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 224
it’s bad […] now I don’t think there’s any chance that we’ll get
anyone in the boarding house to like it because as soon as
someone goes into their room and sees that they’re on the
SMC they get paid out and=
289. Ben[11]: =‘cos that’s culture.
[…]
292. Stew[11]: […] At this school the impression is if […] it’s not as
mainstream then you’ve got the whole <not cool> factor and
[…] in boarding houses, which is a twenty four hours a day
environment where you’re amongst your peers, I mean, you
really don’t want to be different because you don’t want to
make yourself a large target because if you’re in a twenty four
hour high stress (.) what could possibly be a high stress
environment, you don’t want to make yourself a target. You
want to make life as easy for yourself as possible so, you
become mainstream.
According to the student participants, ‘paying out’ is a slang/term commonly used
by adolescents to refer to ‘ragging, just destroying them’ (Ben[12], Turn 157). In
other words, when someone is ‘paid out’, it means that they are being ‘ragged,
bullied’ (Pete[12], Turn 161) or a ‘joke is made at [their] expense' (Hugh[12], Turn
163). To engage with the SMC meant therefore, to create significant problems
for ‘getting-by’ socially, because one would be identified as not only a ‘target’ but a
‘large target’ for social sanction by peers, as a result of going ‘against the grain’ of
conventional peer-group norms and socially validated mainstream opinions and
activities. Given this logic, regressing to the social mean, that is, ‘becom[ing]
mainstream’, was formulated as a strategic and valuable mode of social behaviour
in the school, and more pertinently, in the boarding houses. In these potentially
hostile environments, not being identified as exceptional in a negative way was
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 225
seen as equally important, if not more important than being recognised as ‘cool’
or popular. Put another way, while being ‘cool’ may be preferable, not being
‘uncool’ is absolutely vital.
It is worth noting at this point that the focus group participants comprised a
wide range of students who expressed an alignment or association with either
the ‘cool’ or ‘uncool’ peer crowd. Regardless of their category affiliation, students
consistently characterised these two social groups in terms of contrasting or
competing categorisations. Not only did the students articulate clear distinctions
between the members and predicates of these two social categories, they tended
to position themselves as superior to the other group in some way. This was
most often accomplished in their talk by way of disapproving assertions and
negative attributions in their characterisations of the other group. The group of
students in Excerpt 11 were critical of the ‘cool’ students for being prejudiced
against the SMC as a matter of stereotyping rather than informed evaluation.
Furthermore, ‘cool’ students were depicted as perpetuating the ‘tall poppy syndrome’
(Chip[10], Turn 54), which is a pejorative term frequently used to describe a
levelling social attitude in which people of self-determined and often genuine
merit are criticised or resented, albeit without basis, because their talents or
achievements elevate them above or distinguish them from their peers
(Wikipedia, 2008). Following this logic, the ‘cool’ students were described as
actively ‘cutting down’ (Sol[10], Turn 55) the SMC and applying peer pressure on
others to conform to their opinions and resist the SMC. These students went on
to describe the majority of the student population as ‘bandwagon people’ who were
‘easily influenced’ (Chip[10], Turn 56). These negative assertions served to portray
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 226
the majority of students in the school as not only mindless followers deficient in
critical thought, but also as weak characters who lacked the necessary moral fibre
to withstand the peer pressure to be or look ‘cool’.
Interestingly and by contrast, another group of students who were (i) non-users
of the SMC, and (ii) members of the ‘cool’ group in the school as inferred from
earlier sequences of talk, asserted in Excerpt 14 that the SMC was an ‘exclusive
club’ comprising a group of ‘suck up[s]’ who were ‘nerdy’, ‘have no friends’ and had
‘nothing else to do, nothing better to do’.
Excerpt 14.
132. Ollie[12]: One thing that I’ve noticed within [SMC] is that it’s a bit of an
avenue for a lot of boys to um (..) suck up in a way.
133. Facilitator: To who?
134. Ollie[12]: To senior executives. ‘Cause they do know that they read it, so
they write stuff regarding forums about traditions of the
school and how we’re not upholding them and it’s a bit of an
avenue for students to get a bit of a head start and impress the
teachers a bit.
[…]
146. Ben[12]: Like, in the school at the moment, the SMC sort of gets a bad
rap, because it sort of has something to do with school, like
people on the outside, when they see people logging on to
SMC for fun it, sort of, seems a bit (.) I don’t know, nerdy or
stuff like that=
147. Jon[12]: =or you have no friends, nothing to do=
148. Ben[12]: =Yeah like you have nothing else to do, nothing better to do
with your time then log onto a school based website where
there is no, like, everything is restricted for ↑you, so it gets a
bad rap […]
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 227
[…]
267. Cox[12]: Well, I think at the moment it’s just an exclusive club.
268. Paul[12]: Yeah, you’ve got to be into computers and all that to get into it
so it’s not really interesting.
Through this clear demarcation between peer groups and inclinations of self-
legitimisation that permeated the reasoning practices of students, the students
performed a series of blaming attributions that saw the SMC as a pawn and
casualty in their game of mutual ‘othering’. In fact, according to one student, the
demarcation between the two groups were so deeply embedded in the social
order of the school that “it’s like West Side Story, we have dance-offs.” (Joe[10], Turn
28). More importantly, one consequence of this reductionist approach to social
identity categorisation is that it does not provide the students, as a collective
whole, with a productive recourse for social action in relation to promoting
wider and more frequent usage of the SMC among the senior school student
community. Instead, students frequently oriented to the recruitment of ‘cool’
people into the SMC team who were to act as ‘popular figureheads’ (Stew[11], Turn
31) for the SMC as a primary solution to low usage rates. Members of the ‘cool’
social category were often named as athletically-inclined students or ‘jocks’. In
particular, the sports captains of Rugby and Rowing were generally
acknowledged to be the ‘two biggest jocks’ (Graeme[11], Turn 70) in the school
with an extensive sphere of influence over the student body.
A final excerpt worthy of discussion in this section is taken from a Year 10 focus
group comprising SMC team members and content editors. As shown in Excerpt
15, this sequence of student talk was dense in categorisation work and provided
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 228
a representative example of how students simultaneously understood the
polarisation of ‘cool/uncool’ as problematic and at the same time insisted on it as
crucial to the shaping of their daily practices.
Excerpt 15.
13. Spud[10]: Well, a good business model for this is what MTV has done […]
they have managed to keep up with the image of cool and if the
SMC wants to really succeed it ↓has to be cool.
14. Joe[10]: Um, I think Spud has a bit of a point there, in the fact that we
ne:ed to be cool. At the moment we have pretty much the
academic students working on it and only the academic
students, because they are the only ones that can get out of
class whereas um to actually bring most of the school
populous in we need to have more sports correspondence,
more of the average folk, so we can actually have an accessible
face.
15. Facilitator: Anyone agrees or disagrees with him, or would like to add to
that?
16. San[10]: I sort of agree with most of the people here that the SMC is
sort of seen as something that people aren’t interested in just
because it’s sort of the nerdish type of phase that people are
sort of going through. They don’t see a sort of side of it that
some of the other people working on it might see. We have a
lot of journalists and editors that are working really hard but
it’s just sort of disappointing to see that all of the rewards
aren’t getting reaped out of, um, what everyone’s doing.
17. Pete[10]: It would be hard to get the sporty kids to sort of join the cause
of the SMC, if they’re the ones that aren’t using it at the
moment anyway, so, yeah=
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 229
18. Spud[10]: = yeah, I think (..) getting time off class is a major incentive
enough to draw in some of the jocks per se. That would bring
about popularity for the SMC. A lot of them aren’t
compl:etely stupid, I mean, some of them do have a couple of
brain cells that would allow them to miss out on a bit of time
and not fall behind in class, which is the major problem with
bringing them into the program at the moment.
19. Joe[10]: […] we need to get people aware that it’s not just a geek-fest,
so we can actually get those jocks, per se=
20. Mac[10]: =⁰make it rad⁰=
21. Slim[10]: As Mac said, we have to make it rad17.
In the sequence of talk presented above, the student participants collectively
produced and constructed a version of social reality that made sense of low SMC
adoption rates among the senior school student population. In building and
substantiating their accounts, these students once again drew attention to a
powerful system of peer-to-peer social membership and relationships operating
in the school. The ‘social system’ constituted by the students in the selected
segment of talk can be synthesised and re-presented in Figure 5.1, using the
MCA analytical concepts of MCD, membership categories and category-bound
predicates.
17 An abbreviation of 'radical'-- a term made popular by the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Still primarily used by people on the West Coast who find words like 'cool', 'awesome', and 'tight' to be tired and overused; 'rad' is generally considered to be a much higher praise than the aforementioned superlatives. Also used as a general expression of awe. (Urban Dictionary, 2009)
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 230
Figure 5.1 Social-reputational barrier ― Cool/Uncool
The above analysis foregrounds the ways in which student participants
accomplished social identities, namely ‘cool’ and ‘uncool’, as a powerful form of
peer validation and conversely, peer sanction. One analytical insight gleaned
from the MCA analysis is that there exists very little room for troubling the
prevailing social identities in the schooling order constructed by the students in
their accounting work. The conditions of possibility for SMC engagement in the
school were severely limited by the fact that there was so much agreement about
the commonsense of SMC as ‘uncool’. This agreement could be understood in
political terms as evidence of a hegemonic principle (Gramsci, 1971) at work at
‘Uncool’ ‘Cool’ MCD: Peer Social Status
Contrasting pair/ categorisations
Member categorisations
Sporting person Jocks
Average folk
Geeks Nerds Academic elites
• SMC initiative closely bound to incumbents of the ‘uncool’ social category, which comprises geeks/nerds/academic students who are the minority group in school.
• Therefore, SMC attributed negative stigma of being ‘nerdish’ and a ‘geek-fest’.
• By contrast, majority of students were collected into the ‘cool’ category, comprising jocks/sporty kids/average folk. These students were heard as primarily concerned with social aspects of schooling and keeping an image of ‘cool’.
• Using the SMC was an activity bound to the ‘uncool’ social category, and therefore resisted by the majority of the student population.
Explanations (ie. cause-effects,
moral evaluations)
MajoritySporty, social
Popular, influentialAcademically-disinclined
Social aspects of school as focusPrejudiced against/not using the SMC
Category-bound predicates
and attributes
Minority Nerdy, geeky Negative stigma, inaccessible Academically-inclined Academic aspects of school as focus Working hard on the SMC
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 231
the local level of the school. In other words, the high degree of agreement
around the ‘uncoolness’ of SMC as well as the unlikelihood of its becoming
either ‘cool’ or sufficiently ‘un-uncool’ connotes a high degree of fixity around
the SMC as socially illegitimate in the context of the school. Based on the
students’ accounts, it is difficult to imagine this negative framing of the SMC
being overturned.
In summary, the binary formulation of ‘cool-uncool’ was produced recurrently
by students in all six focus groups as active social categories that served as a
powerful measure of peer validation. In light of its acknowledged prevalence in
adolescent literature as fundamental to youth culture (Erikson, 1968;
Widdicombe & Woofitt, 1995), a useful starting point for explaining students’
resistance towards the SMC is the students’ understanding of this binary in terms
of what practices it enables and disables among the students themselves. As
McWilliam (2008, p. 32) argued, “the Yuk/Wows … want to be where the action
is, somewhere cool with cool people doing cool things”. Similarly, a classic study
carried out by Coleman (1961) on high school peer relations found that not only
were most students aware of a leading crowd and the attributes that define this
group, many aspired to membership in this leading crowd.
In line with this description of contemporary youth’s fascination for and
insistence on the importance of what is popular or ‘cool’, the student
participants in this qualitative phase of the study repeatedly evoked ‘cool’ and its
binary opposite, ‘uncool’, in their talk. They used these terms as collective
descriptors of particular social members with distinct attributes, drawing on
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 232
them as part of the ‘commonsense’ of student life in the school. In other words,
the binary formulation of ‘cool/uncool’ was accomplished in the accounting
work as a powerful reasoning practice for students to make sense of their social
world and experiences in school.
‘Cool’ as a discursive organiser was certainly formulated by the students as a
privileged category of young adult identity. It was, however, not seen as a neat or
unadulterated category. Indeed, many of the students questioned its authenticity
at the same time that they recognised its power to shape the conduct of students
at all levels in the school. In this sense, ‘cool/uncool’ was produced in the talk as
powerful organisers of social and moral relationships, or further, as a form of
politicised and politicising work through which students governed themselves
and their peers, in terms of attitudes and activities that were either socially
mandated or marginalised. In the case of the SMC initiative, not only did the
binary formulation of ‘cool/uncool’ serve as an explanation for the limited social
network benefits associated with SMC use, but it also emerged as the very
language system through which the negative network externalities of the SMC
were constituted and perpetuated by students in the school.
In sum, what this analysis has made possible is the revelation of those
propositions about the social order of the school that have gained the status of
hegemony, in that they have congealed into a powerful, long-term, shared
cultural logic that legitimises certain practices and delegitimises others. Most
importantly for this study, when taken together, these propositions served to
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 233
militate against the SMC innovation as a well-utilised and valued component of
school life.
5.3.2.2 Institutional-Pedagogical Barrier
Binary formulations of role-based identities in the social order of the school
were just as prevalent in students’ talk relating to the second barrier around the
press of institutional/pedagogical norms. In their accounts, students recurrently
framed themselves as being dispossessed in terms of agency by a schooling
culture that, despite progressive rhetoric, demanded compliance and was highly
controlling and restrictive. In theoretical terms, ‘school’ was discursively organised
in student talk as a delimited and highly regulated social space. It was a space
characterised by ‘control, restriction and rules’, where activities such as the SMC that
were meant to privilege or enhance student autonomy and ‘free’ expression were
inexorably rendered ‘clinical and contrived’ (Moe[12], Turn 67), unauthentic and
unappealing in practice. This characterisation was reiterated consistently by
student participants across all the senior year levels, as shown in the excerpts
below. Excerpt 16, taken from the talk of a group of Year 10 students who were
minimal users of the SMC, provides an account that ties the unpopularity of the
SMC to its close identification with ‘school’.
Excerpt 16.
545. Sol[10]: […] People don’t really want to go on the SMC because it’s
sort of run by school.
546. Facilitator: Why is that an issue?
547. Hec[10]: Well, there are restrictions and things […]
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 234
548. Chip[10]: I think that has got a big part of it, the fact that it’s a school.
That immediately gives a person an image of control,
restriction, rules. At home you are ↓free but you come to
school and as soon as the word school is used, immediately
your mind goes “Well, that’s not going to be as free, that’s
going to be more controlled.” It immediately puts that bad
image.
In Turns 545 and 548, both speakers invoked the generic nouns ‘people’ and ‘a
person’ to establish that this negative perception (‘bad image’) of the school was
not restricted to a small number of identifiable individuals. Rather, this was a
commonsense view shared by members of the senior school student population
in the school. In fact, the first part of Turn 548 points to the self-evident
attribute of ‘restrictions’ to ‘schooling’. It is the axiomatic nature of this assertion
that is emphasised by the speaker, pointing directly to its commonsense status.
Furthermore, the speaker’s repeated use of the adverb ‘immediately’ and adverb
clause ‘as soon as’ in Turn 548 served to emphasise the deep and protracted
nature of this unfavourable characterisation of the schooling environment
among students in the school. The depiction of this negative perception of
school as an inherent and entrenched student mindset was also observed in
another focus group discussion where one participant emphatically asserted that
the reason for low SMC usage rates among students was ‘because it’s got school
associated with it! As soon as you hear the word ↓school, you ↓stop!’ (Jus[10], Turn 99). In
Excerpt 17, three Year 11 students provide an explanation of SMC un popularity
among students in the school, that resonates with the account given above, in
that the institutional ‘norm’ is held to be that ‘things are restricted’. Their accounts
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 235
also provided additional insights into the reasoning processes of students as they
engaged or considered engaging with the SMC.
Excerpt 17.
34. Hugh[12]: I think that one of the reasons the SMC is failing is because when
people post comments and things in the forum they’re knowing
that what they post falls under school rules and they don’t post
what they really want to say which wouldn’t normally be accepted
in school.
35. Pete[12]: Yeah, in [RBS] it just seems to be the norm that things are
restricted […] maybe it’s because we haven’t had SMC in the past
and teachers don’t know what to think of it, teachers don’t know
how to, like, restrict it in the best sense to make sure that most
opinions are passed through besides absolutely ridiculous ones,
so […] I think it is a learning curve for the school to, sort of,
know how to let the students have their ↓say but not take away
everything that we put up there.
36. Foo[12]: When the SMC came out we were told that teachers didn’t have a
say in what was going on in it and now they’re ↓censoring it.
In the above account, the students evoked two role-based member
categorisations within the social order of the school, namely, ‘students’ and
‘teachers’. The interactional relations between these two member categories were
taken to contribute to the problem of ‘the SMC failing’. Members of the ‘teacher’
category were depicted as ‘restrict[ors]’ and regulators, who tended towards
excessive censorship (‘not take away everything that we put up there’) due to insecurity
or inexperience with a student-led initiative such as the SMC, which was
designed, at least by way of the rhetoric of its motto ‘Your Way, Your Say’ to
privilege the student voice. By contrast, ‘students’ were characterised as discerning
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 236
but impotent political actors in the context of the SMC and the school.
Discernment of what ‘wouldn’t normally be accepted in the school’ meant that students
could not and did not express their authentic views on the SMC, which
inadvertently rendered the ‘Your Way, Your Say’ ideal of the SMC useless-in-
practice. This was reinforced by the the participants’ observation that they were
less than active players in the negotiation and establishment of rules and
boundaries in the social reality of the school, which included the SMC space
(‘when the SMC came out we were told teachers didn’t have a say… now they’re censoring it’).
Rather, the role of the students was portrayed as one of waiting passively, even
patiently, for ‘the school’ and by implication, the ‘teachers’, to learn to ‘let’ the
students ‘have their say’. Once again, the collective use of the generic noun ‘people’
in Turn 34 and the explicit use of ‘norm’ in Turn 35 to preface an elaboration of
the relevant role categorisations and attributions served to substantiate these
explanations as pervasive among the wider student population rather than
exclusive to a few students in the school context. In other words, the speakers
accomplished this form of ‘knowing’ (Turn 34)―of the school being censorious
rather than enabling of genuine student-led innovation―as ‘just’ (Turn 35) the
way it is, unchangeably, in their schooling context. In pursuing and detailing this
point, Excerpt 18 exemplifies how a group of Year 12 students drew analogies
with a top-down commercial enterprise, characterising the school as a large
corporate entity (‘[RBS] is run like a big corporation’) that was impersonal,
authoritarian and punitive.
Excerpt 18.
50. Ben[12]: School tries to control a lot of what you ↑do. Like at [RBS], you
have to wear a uniform, you have to do your homework, you have
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 237
to do all this stuff […] so what happens is that students want to
get away from that […] and the SMC unfortunately falls into the
basket of school-related stuff that you won’t go to. That is my
opinion.
[…]
67. Moe[12]: Yeah. I think because sadly it’s sort of the age where everybody is
afraid of getting ↑sued. So, um, the school’s really picked up on
that and everything that is done at [RBS] always seems quite
clinical and contrived […] There was a big push towards
becoming more conservative […] [RBS] is run like a big
corporation, rather than what most people would say a school
should be run like. It doesn’t really have that family ↑dynamic […]
where every person in the school […] feel like they belong, they
don’t have to feel like “if I mess up I’ll get kicked out”. Every
time somebody does mess up, what we’ve seen recently, is that
they get punished, they are prescribed a punishment […] not
wearing your hat equals sus↓pension or something like that. It’s
almost as though no effort is put into making the student in
particular under:stand why what they did is wrong, rather than
punishing them so ↓strictly that the next time all they will
remember is fear ‘cause they don’t want to get the same
punishment ↑again. If everybody in the school has to walk such a
fine line that they are too scared to push the boundaries a little bit,
then, I don’t really think that that’s the sort of environment that is
going to extend anybody […] other people have described it as
car:bon copy kids.
68. Tom[12]: I think Moe’s hit the nail on the head.
[various other students signal agreement]
70. Ray[12]: Yeah, I think that’s been one of the main problems that they are
just afraid to take risks and like “What’s too far?” and like “What
won’t be accepted by the Heads of the School?” and all that.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 238
In Turn 67, the student invited the analogy of the school to ‘a big corporation’. In
this regard, the speaker mapped onto this specific school, by implication, and
further explicitly, the key features of a traditional corporation as commonly
understood: (i) the imperative of the bottom line, in this school’s case, grades, (ii)
the rigid hierarchical nature of the institutional relationships, in this case,
teachers and students, and (iii) the culture of risk minimisation in light of legal
vulnerabilities. In accomplishing this characterisation of the school, the students
oriented to the standardised relational pair of ‘teacher’ and ‘student’ membership
categories collected within the MCD: School. The ‘teacher’ category, however, was
clarified as referring specifically to executive staff members, such as ‘Heads of
School’, rather than the classroom teacher. As one of the students in the focus
group asserted in a later part of the discussion not included in the segment of
talk below, “when I say teachers I don’t necessarily mean in the classroom, it’s more of a
management sort of thing” (Moe[12], Turn 80). In this regard, the ‘teacher’ category
has within it a sub-category of ‘school executive staff’ to reflect a more accurate
understanding of the system of social relationships that framed the students’
reasoning practices and explanations for the widespread student ambivalence
towards the SMC in school.
In the opening Turn 50, the speaker produced a negative characterisation of
‘school’ as a space where students felt controlled to a large degree through an
extensive range of institutional rules that must be adhered to. To substantiate his
claim, he provided a list formation that ranged from dress codes to academic
work, and concluded with an extreme case formulation pointing to ‘all this stuff’,
the implication being that these behavioural conventions imposed on the student
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 239
body by the executive staff were innumerable and impossible to list individually.
According to the speaker, an upshot of this stringent system of control was the
production of disenfranchised students who tended to a default position of
disengagement from any activity that ‘falls into the basket of school-related stuff’
wherever possible. The SMC was constituted through this talk as an unfortunate
casualty of this push-and-pull of staff governance and student agency.
This tension between the invitation to be part of a student-led initiative and the
highly regulated space that is ‘school’ was further elaborated by other students as
a problem grounded in the school being ‘conservative’ and ‘run like a big corporation’.
According to the speaker in Turn 67, this contravened the normative standards
of how ‘a school should be run’. In his view, a school should have more of a ‘family
dynamic’, where students felt a sense of belonging, validation and security. The
student went on to express this problem in moral terms: he proposed that the
fear of legal complications had caused the school to regress to the traditional
historical model of student behaviour management through corporal punishment
and threat of expulsion. As a result, he surmised, the student body had been
instilled with a general sense of fear and docility, where ‘everybody… has to walk
such a fine line that they are too scared to push the boundaries’. At worst, students were
inflexible clones lacking a sense of individuality (‘car:bon copy kids’), who tended
to experience paralysis in the face of uncertainty and risk (‘they are just too afraid to
take risks’). This was in turn taken to constitute ‘one of the main problems’ that
thwarted the SMC’s credibility as an innovation that could productively
challenge prevailing staff/student relations by being the ‘student voice of change and
development’ (Moe[12], Turn 278) in the school.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 240
The validity of this detailed and compelling account of the schooling
environment as one that was not ‘going to extend anybody’ was endorsed by another
student as having ‘hit the nail on the head’ and a general consensus was indicated by
a number of other students in the focus group. Furthermore, students in the
same group went on to describe a sense of paranoia that seemed to permeate the
student population as a result of what students’ perceived to be a pervasive form
of staff-dominant, top-down and exacting institutional pedagogy. For instance, it
was held that a specific member of staff―the leading disciplinarian of the school
(Dr G)―‘hasn’t been on the SMC for the whole ye:ar’ to moderate students’ online
posts, and yet the students in the school ‘still have the preconception that he is Big
Brother and he is always watching … just waiting for someone to say something a little bit off-
hand’ (Moe[12], Turn 79). The sense of this staff member as a ubiquitous and
potentially punitive presence in school was reinforced by a fellow student’s
extreme case formulation: ‘everyone is scared of him, he’s got the fe:ar ↓factor over us’
(Ray[12], Turn 80).
The emphasis placed on this individual member of staff in students’ accounts of
SMC non-use was not exclusive to Year 12 student talk. In Excerpt 19, a group
of Year 10 students provided a detailed account of perceived excesses of rigid
staff-determined regulatory practices in the school as a major source of tension
for the ‘teenage boys’ at school, with adverse effects on their schooling engagement,
as well as their predicated and projected social and psychological development.
Excerpt 19.
396. Hec[10]: That is why I think our current senior school head’s gone wrong.
[…]
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 241
408. Max[10]: His values, I think, he has taken a little bit too far. People just
don’t like him anymore. He is not a bad person but the way he is
enforcing it…
409. Sol[10]: Yeah, he is enforcing his own personal beliefs into his job, like,
what he may want his kids to become; he has made the entire
school to become.
410. Chip[10]: He has taken away our independence and our own decisions and
just cutting it off, like we don’t get to choose almost anything
that goes on. We don’t have a decision on how our hair can
look, how we wear our uniform or like how we have our hats or
anything like that. We don’t have any independence or any choice
or any freedom. He makes all of our decisions↑. I think it’s not
good for teenage boys to be grown up and about to head out to
the real world without having any of our own say, our own
choice, sort of shaping how we do what we do. He’s just taken it
and he’s moulded it with his hands and his beliefs, which doesn’t
give you much room for independence=
411. Hec[10]: =individuality. There is no individuality in this school.
412. Max[10]: The rules aren’t bad. Like I can see why he’s put them in place.
Just=
413. Chip[10]: =They’ve gone too far.
414. Max[10]: Yeah. He sort of, just for a young group, a cohort of fifteen,
sixteen year olds, it’s sort of a bit too strict. Like, the rules aren’t
bad.
In the above excerpt, participants used a series of extreme case formulations and
list formations, which act as evidence or exhibits supporting the point
concerning teachers’ authority at the expense of students’ independence. These
are found in Turns 410 and 411 (‘we don’t have any independence, or any choices or any
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 242
freedom’, ‘he makes all of our choices’ ‘there is no independence… no individuality in this
school’). In addition, to emphasise their point, they oriented to a new member
category ‘teenagers’, or a ‘young… cohort of fifteen and sixteen year olds’, that can be
understood as belonging to the MCD: Stage of Life. One consequence of orienting
to the categorisation device of ‘Stage of Life’ is that the personal, social and
developmental needs of students as ‘teenage boys… head[ing] out into the real world’
were accentuated. Speaking in this way allowed the students to see themselves as
more than individuals and more than members of a school: Their own and their
school’s moral responsibility as contributors to The Good Society, The Orderly
Society, is foregrounded. They thereby underscored the school’s role in and
responsibility to society to provide for their perceived developmental needs. In
their view, drawing on prevailing normative discourses that constitute
‘adolescence’, the ‘teenage’ stage of life was a critical phase for developing
certain dispositions that were essential predicates of ‘adulthood’. In line with
commonly accepted Anglo/Western conceptions of adulthood, they named
‘adults’ as independent, autonomous, enterprising and democratic. The negative
moral valuation accomplished in the talk therefore, was that the top-down and
adversarial governance mechanisms applied by the executive staff to shape
student behaviour meant that the school was not only failing to meet the
developmental needs of the adolescent students, but more importantly, the
school was failing to fulfil its central role and responsibility in society of
cultivating productive and participatory citizens.
At the same time that they expressed such criticisms, the students nevertheless
expressed a general affirmation of the need for rules―that rules, in and of
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 243
themselves ‘aren’t bad’ but rather fulfilled a particular purpose. This purpose was
not explicitly stated; instead, the problem was articulated in the opening turn as a
problem associated with a specific member of staff, not as an individual (‘he is not
a bad person…’), but rather, in his role as the Head of Senior School (‘…but the
way he is enforcing it’). In MCA terms, the problem articulated by the students can
be understood as a violation of the set of rights and privileges normally
attributable to the ‘school executive staff’ member category in the standard expected
moral order of contemporary senior schooling. The proposition asserted
repeatedly by the student participants, positioned the staff member, who was
representative of school authority, as ‘too strict’ and going ‘too far’ by way of
imposing his ‘personal’ values, taken from the private domain of family (‘what he
may want his kids to become’) onto his professional role in the public domain of
school (‘he has made the entire school to become’). The consequences were described as
severe for the standardised relational pair category of ‘student’, but also for the
staff and the school as a whole (‘people just don’t like him anymore’).
In Excerpt 20, the student participants elaborated on what they considered to be
the adverse consequences and ‘negative influence’ that a repressive school culture
with excessively ‘strict guidelines’ had on students as young adults.
Excerpt 20.
415. Hec[10]: Like, from the scenes of last year, I know a few of them who
were like really, really bright, really, really sort of, they followed
these rules and stuck to them. Then they’ve just gone off the
tracks because they’ve been on this <really, really> strict
guidelines for so long, when they get their own freedom, they’re
not used to it and go off the track.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 244
416. Chip[10]: I think with these rules he’s put in, it affects us a lot more
because (..) I think a large group of us, because of those rules,
become rebellious. We decide that we’re not having any fun
here, we’re going to rebel against this suppression we’re living
under. […] Our minds work in different ways like, it puts a
negative influence on us↑. We don’t get any choice ourselves (.)
which is natural for teenage boys to make their own decisions
and want to be independent. And because he’s suppressing us
we get this negative influence on the way we think=
417. Hec[10]: =and saying like you shouldn’t have your own opinion.
418. Sol[10]: Yeah, it’s sort of making that we’re just thinking “Well, this isn’t
very good” and it just becomes like (.) school (…) no one enjoys
school↓, I don’t think.
[…]
532. Chip[10]: I think that they should, yeah, they should try and mould us but
not so much that it is like, a <steel mould>, using a metaphor, it
might be like rubber or something like that, or like jelly, where
you can sort of have a bit of movement, you get a bit of choice
how your mould is going to turn out. Just that they should have
some freedom in, have some friction and movement where they
can change their mould, whereas what is going on at the moment
they are just giving us, sort of, like, a steel mould, there is no
movement, you are just either that or you are out of here. There
should be one that you should be able to ↓have a bit of freedom
and a bit of space.
In the formulation of his argument, the speaker in Turn 416 again reinforced the
proposition that it was ‘natural’ for ‘teenage boys’ to have a developmental need to
be independent thinkers and autonomous decision-makers. This attribution is an
appeal to a commonly understood aspect of MCD Stage of Life. But, he went
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 245
further to explain that the excessive containment or ‘suppression’ of this inherent
adolescent aspiration by staff at the school provoked rebellious dispositions
among students. In this way, the student artfully established the institutional-
pedagogical practices of the school as contravening the ‘natural’ order of positive
adolescent growth and development, and therefore, as unreasonable and
illegitimate.
The consequences of the school employing this unbending form of ‘steel mould’
institutional pedagogy to shape students’ behaviour were taken to be severe. In
their view, not only would students lack the necessary self-discipline,
independent thinking and competent decision-making skills to cope successfully
beyond school, but their motivation and engagement in school would be
adversely affected (‘no one enjoys school’). At worst, student graduates were
purported either to lack the necessary social resilience or to develop a rebellious
disposition in and beyond school that would be dysfunctional (‘go off the tracks’)
and unconstructive in terms of participatory citizenship in the wider society.
According to the students, this ‘steel mould’ pedagogy had specific consequences
for the SMC initiative. As in Excerpt 19, these students shared the perception
that, despite the rhetoric of the SMC being ‘run by students’ (Hec[10], Turn 471),
the SMC was in reality ‘monitored by teachers anyway’ (Hec[10], Turn 471), and
therefore, students, as a collective category, were unable to ‘speak to who we want,
when we want and whatever we want about’ (Max[10], Turn 470). By contrast, this
degree of freedom was perceived to be entirely possible on the public Web 2.0
social tool MySpace: ‘that’s why we enjoy MySpace because there’re no teachers there to
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 246
restrict us and say you can’t say that’ (Chip[10], Turn 469). By invoking the plural
pronoun ‘we’ in his talk, the speaker spoke as an incumbent of the ‘student’
category, thereby establishing his view as a commonplace perspective shared by
other students in the school. Put another way, the speakers posited that the
general student population at school preferred using MySpace to the SMC
because of their widely shared cultural logic that the SMC’s potential for
enhancing students’ learning experiences―by promoting student agency and
encouraging students’ expression of opinions―was put as purely a theoretical
one, unrealistic and unachievable in practice within the staff-dominant, rigid
institutional boundaries of the school.
In the preceding excerpts of students’ accounts, the binary formulation of
‘dominant-staff/dispossessed-student’ member categories was recurrently
produced across all six focus groups. The extensive categorisation work and the
consequential implications produced by students that both constituted and
reflected this binary logic can be summarised in Figure 5.2.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 247
Figure 5.2 Institutional-pedagogical barrier ― Domineering staff/Disposessed student
The synthesis of the analysis in Figure 5.2 distils the version of social reality
constituted in the students’ talk, through which sense is made of the low SMC
adoption rates among senior students in the school. In accomplishing their
explanations, students called attention to a pervasive system of role-based
identities and relationships operating in the school. In other words, the student
participants pointed to a version of in-school social relationships between staff
and students that has congealed as a relatively stable commonsense feature of
‘Domineering-Staff’ ‘Dispossessed-student’ MCD: School
Contrasting pair/ categorisations
Member categorisations
Management/Executive Staff Big Brother Enforcer/Punisher/Censor
• SMC initiative, by virtue of a school-based activity, was perceived to reflect the problematic relations between domineering-staff/dispossessed-student in the wider school context.
• SMC initiative perceived to be closely bound to ‘domineering-staff’ category and therefore, category-bound activities of excessive staff surveillance, censorship, punishment at institutional level extended to the SMC space.
• By contrast, ‘dispossessed-student’ category formulated as resistant of staff control, fearful of punishment and therefore risk-averse.
• Using the SMC to present authentic student views taken to be unstrategic and risky. SMC’s ‘Your Way, Your Say’ ideal rendered useless-in-practice.
• Resistance/disengagement from SMC posited as commonsense, strategic and legitimate response to the conservative school culture/staff-dominant institutional pedagogy.
Explanations (ie. cause-effects,
moral evaluations)
Restricted and controlledDiscerning of rules but ‘powerless’
Dispossessed, disenfranchised, defiantInsecure, risk-averse, fearful
Reluctant to post content on SMC
Category-bound predicates
and attributes
Restrictive and controlling Authoritarian and ‘powerful’ Domineering, dominant, dictatorial Corporate, impersonal, punitive Surveilling/censoring content on SMC
‘Steel Moulded’ Student Carbon Copy Kids
‘Suppressed’ Teenagers
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 248
the categorisation system. It is important to note, however, that this version of
social reality shared by students in their talk is not the Truth about the school,
nor does it necessarily reflect the actualities of the school, especially the degree
of staff surveillance or censorship in relation to the SMC. This is reflected in
one Year 11 student’s account, shown in Excerpt 21. This student has been
earmarked for SMC leadership in Year 12.
Excerpt 21.
“… the truth is we’ve only got two major rules for the SMC […] One rule is
that there’s no bullying, no discriminatory views or anything like that coming
across that would be offensive. The second one is, you know, not taking aim at
the headmaster. Other than that there’s pretty much anything that you can do
with the site and I think people are just scared that they think “Oh, I’ll get in
trouble for this” but they haven’t really got the balls to just come out and say it.
The truth is it shouldn’t be any different to any other medium.” (Graeme[11],
Turn 35)
In his view, the problem of low SMC usage rates was not so much attributable to
the staff or the school, but rather, in the general student population lacking the
initiative and strength of character to negotiate pro-actively institutional
boundaries by voicing their opinions. This perspective was, however, exceptional
in the student talk, just as the earmarking of this student for future SMC
leadership marked him as exceptional.
As with the binary formulation Cool/Uncool, the deep-seated polarisation of
‘Domineering-staff/Dispossessed-student’ fails to provide the students, as a collective
whole, with a productive recourse for social action in relation to promoting
wider and more frequent usage of the SMC among the senior school student
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 249
community. Instead, the student participants frequently aligned themselves with
one of two possible solutions, both of which were heard to be highly contested
and inconsistent within and across the groups. The first and most commonly
proposed solution was the complete disassociation of executive staff from the
SMC. That is, the SMC ought to be completely free of any involvement from
staff, particularly involvement that may be perceived to enfeeble student
ownership and autonomy on the site. This is the logic exemplified in Excerpt 22.
Excerpt 22.
“The executives certainly need to disassociate themselves from the SMC so
that its i:mage is built up as something that’s entirely student run. Because
that’s where the magic of the SMC comes in, that it’s a student voice and
nothing else. (Stew[11], Turn 186)
A more moderate inflection of this proposed solution was that executive staff
should be granted access to the SMC, in accordance with the SMC’s ideals of
equity among staff and students. However, executive staff have to ‘agree to
relinquish all power that they have at school whilst they’re on the SMC’ (Ben[11], Turn
246), which would mean that on the SMC space, students and staff ‘must be
equal… there is no retribution’ (Rump[11], Turn 247). This proposition, however,
was contested by other students in the group as fanciful and unrealistic in
practice (‘as long as he has power in school it doesn’t work’, Imam[11], Turn 246),
because:
Excerpt 23.
“He has a role to protect the students ‘cause one of the concerns, one of the
↓rules is that there is no harassment or bullying. If he relinquishes all control
and makes it entirely student-run, there’s a chance that stuff could be missed
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 250
and he has a responsibility to the students in this school to look after them.”
(Stew[11], Turn 248)
Taken together with previous segments of talk, a paradoxical characterisation of
the executive staff as both problematically-ever-present and potentially-missing-
in-action is produced in the student accounts. The incongruity of this logic is
strongly reflected in students’ criticisms of the staff member for his ‘Big Brother’
role in the school alongside an insistence on his responsibility to ‘look after’ the
student population by ensuring that no one was harassed or bullied. The
students’ talk reflected the conundrum of competing desires, that is, the desire to
be free from staff authority and monitoring, and the paradoxical desire that staff
be accountable in terms of their duty to surveil and control in order to safeguard
students from the potential danger of discrimination or corrupting influences.
This is exemplified in the following turns of talk by two Year 12 students:
Excerpt 24.
135. Oz[12]: I don’t reckon we can have it completely student-run because
teachers can’t let stuff, like, inappropriate stuff, be said on a
school website (..) I mean (..) like, what if somebody was, like,
some little kid was getting bullied the shit out of.
136. Cal[12]: I know, and like, selling drugs and stuff like that.
In this exchange, the students’ talk reclaimed the institutional norms of ‘school’
as a social space where staff, rather than peers, are assigned the role and
responsibility of regulator and rule-enforcer for the sake of safety. Students’
internalisation and reproduction of the institutionally-traditional pedagogy was
also reflected in the second proposed solution to promote higher levels of SMC
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 251
usage among students. According to some students, the only way to increase
students’ engagement with the SMC would be to mandate the use of the SMC,
particularly for student leaders and sports captains. For example, one student
asserted:
Excerpt 25.
“[…] the whole premise of leadership at [RBS] in the coming year should be
forced to be based around the SMC, um, there’s no other alternative, whether
people like it or not” (Ben[11], Turn 360).
This perspective, however, was highly contested. Some students expressed the view
that ‘that’s a very bad thing’ because ‘it just goes to show that there’s no point to having it if
you’re forced to have it’ (Hugh[11], Turn 360), while another candidly asserted, ‘I
personally think being forced to go through the SMC […] would give me the complete shits’
(Ben[11], Turn 361). This issue was strongly debated in the focus groups and
students failed to reach any clear consensus. The difficulty of achieving a consensus
in turn reflects the internal inconsistency or problematics of the binary logic that
underpinned the student’s categorisation work around staff and students in their
respective institutional roles.
In summary, the above analysis reveals a further logic underpinning students’
reasoning practices beyond that of the ‘Cool/Uncool’ peer social system at play in
the school. This logic is most evident in the students’ discursive framing of ‘school’
as a hierarchical institutional structure with two contrasting categories: The ‘executive
staff’ emerged as the dominant category and are described in morally negative terms
(e.g., ‘totalitarian’, Hugh[11], Turn 150); in contrast is the ‘student’ category, which is
constituted as the repressed and powerless standardised relational pair (e.g., ‘we don’t
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 252
get any choice ourselves’, Chip[10], Turn 416). This is consistent with observations from
Raby and Domitrek’s (2007) recent study of Canadian secondary students’
engagement with school rules, where it was found that, although students made
some attempts to negotiate and circumvent school rules, they were “already caught”
within the “dominant language that frames the rules and their top-down
application” and “felt that they had little say in how their lives were governed” (p.
950-951). The data here supports this general conclusion. In simple terms, in the
talk, there seems to be no ‘outside’ to institutional identity―one is always already
constituted as an insider.
The overarching pattern that emerges in students’ accounts in this phase of the
study is of student participants being more likely to reproduce, rather than disrupt,
the binaries and boundaries of the institutional structure in their collective sense-
making. This does not surprise. Although students acknowledged, at least in part,
the inherent paradox of requiring executive staff to be both present and absent, they
nevertheless insisted on the polarised categories of ‘domineering-staff/dispossessed-
student’ as having significant consequences for the students’ choices and decisions
about engaging with non-mandatory activities in school. Drawing on a common
cultural logic, the students characterised themselves as institutional members
resigned to a repressive, even ‘oppress[ive]’ (Spud[10], Turn 108) structural
environment, with little sense that they could or should negotiate the governance or
disciplinary practices of the school. More importantly, the inferential consequence
of this form of rationalisation produced by the students in their talk served to
legitimise and normalise their deep scepticism about any authentic possibility for the
SMC to be the productive ‘student voice of change and development’ in the school
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 253
environment. In other words, the students established a sense of ‘unfreedom’ within
school as a non-negotiable cultural system, in which engagement in non-mandatory
activities such as the use of the SMC, is always inevitably compromised by the
prevailing relations of power.
5.3.2.3 Academic Performativity Barrier
Beyond the ‘cool/uncool’ and ‘domineering-staff/dispossessed-student’ binary
formulations, a further barrier to student engagement with the SMC may be
argued to be the formulation of digital learning opportunities as lesser than and
oppositional to traditional academic performance expectations of mainstream
schooling. According to the focus group participants, all students at every level
are expected first and foremost to meet the high expectations of teachers and
parents around academic excellence. This is mirrored in their academic
expectations of themselves. In practical terms, the ‘good student’ prioritises
schoolwork and performing well in summative and/or high-stakes academic
assessments over every other schooling objective. In the absence of any explicit
integration of the learning possibilities afforded by the SMC and the
performance expectations of the school, the either-or-binary of ‘digital-or-
diligent’ serves to pit the SMC against performative norms notwithstanding any
rhetoric to the contrary. What follows is a closer investigation of how this binary
formulation shapes and is shaped within the students’ talk.
In students’ accounts, high academic performance in conventional or prescribed
curriculum subjects was accomplished as the prioritised goal of schooling. In
particular, students who specialise in the traditional ‘academics, like sciences and math’
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 254
were understood to be ‘living the dream’, whereas ‘elective subjects like drama, art, film
and television… [are] not given the same sort of acclaim’ (Goku[12], Turn 357).
Consequently, students spoke of how they felt, as responsible members of the
school’s academic community, that they ‘should be doing’ or focusing on the
privileged science and math subjects ‘instead of the other more elective subjects’
(Moe[12], Turn 358). In light of this shared cultural knowledge of schooling
priorities and academic performativity pressures, learning opportunities such as
the SMC, which do not map neatly onto the formal curriculum or contribute in
precise and demonstrable ways to better performance in exams, were often
commonsensically characterised by the students as a ‘waste of time’ (e.g., Slim[10],
Turn 236; Dwayne[11], Turn139; Odie[12], Turn 205).
A close analysis of the students’ accounts revealed two distinct sources of
academic performance pressures―School and Family―both of which impacted
on students’ decisions to engage with and/or disengage from the SMC. In brief,
students frequently framed the academic pressures of School as primarily about
coping with the relentless quantity of schoolwork delegated by teachers and
avoiding the punitive consequences that come with the failure to complete
designated homework and assignments on time. In this fraught context, the
learning affordances of the SMC become a distraction from the ‘main game’, in
ways that are reminiscent of Dweck’s (2000) concerns about a potentially
dysfunctional ‘learning-or-performing’ binary. The privileging of academic
performance at the expense of SMC-based opportunities for new and different
sorts of learning is a strong thematic in discussions around students’ perceived
lack of time and space to engage with the SMC in-school. For them, the crowded
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 255
curriculum and the constant press of academic demands exacted by teachers in
terms of large amounts of homework and assignments rendered the SMC as
neither a practical option nor one likely to be rewarded in their record of
achievement.
Academic pressures emanating from Family served to reinforce this binary, but in
more qualitative ways, in that many of the students recurrently expressed a deep
sense of obligation to meet parental expectations of achieving good grades,
rather than merely to complete the assigned quantity of work. This was evident
in students’ accounts that framed the SMC as a peripheral activity and potential
distraction from ‘real work’ (Foo[11], Turn 251) at school. For many of them, it
did not constitute part of the formal curriculum and therefore did not have any
direct bearing on students’ achievements in the annual state-wide high-stakes
assessment conducted at the end of their senior schooling. This high-stakes
examination, known as the Queensland Core Skills Test (QCS), had significant
bearing on students’ access to future pathways in tertiary education programs. In
Excerpt 26, a group of Year 10 students, all of whom had used the SMC to
varying degrees, commented on the high levels of pressure they experienced
around schoolwork and academic performance. They also distinguished the
types of pressure emanating from ‘teachers’ and ‘parents’ as being qualitatively
different.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 256
Excerpt 26.
179. Max[10]: There is no time of the year when there is less pressure, there’s
always pressure, just at points there are more pressure than
often.
180. Hec[10]: There’s always pressure, just close to the end of year, there’s
more pressure than usual.
181. Facilitator: And what is this pressure that you feel?
182. Hec[10]: The amount of work to get done.
183. Chip[10]: Generally, it’s threats usually=
184. Sol[10]: =threats from teachers and things.
185. Facilitator: ↑Threats?
186. Sol[10]: If you have an assignment due the next day they’ll say, “If you
haven’t got it done and you don’t bring it, you get a Saturday
detention”.
187. Chip[10]: Yeah, there’s a lot of pressure.
188. Hec[10]: ↑Yeah! You get into lots of trouble and then you might fail or
whatever or not get marked.
189. Max[10]: It’s also, the pressure is […] you get your assignments done but
there’s still assignments, homework every night, sort of builds
up and if you don’t get it done the night it’s meant to be done
then it builds up and you have more and more to do closer to
the actual due date.
190. Chip[10]: The teacher puts pressure on you to get it done and then
you’ve got your pa:rents on your back for doing it at a ↓decent
level. So you can’t just rush through it and get it done like the
teachers would like you to get it done on time, you have to do
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 257
it at a decent level or else parents will, at least my parents
definitely would get upset.
191. Facilitator: How many of you sense this pressure from your parents?
192. Various: Yeah, yeah [many students nod and mumble agreement]
In the above account, the students expressed the view that the pressure they felt
at school was not only substantial (‘a lot of pressure’) but also constant (‘there’s
always pressure, just at points… more’). When asked to elaborate on this pressure,
students characterised this ‘pressure’ as being academic in nature (‘the pressure is…
assignments’; ‘the amount of work to get done’). Further, students were heard to evoke
two different membership categories that these academic expectations stemmed
from, namely ‘teachers’ and ‘parents’. Moreover, the speakers distinguished
between the types of expectations, obligations and motivations that
corresponded to the two different standardised relational pairs (SRP) of
Teacher-Student (MCD School), and Parent-Child (MCD Family). In the former
SRP Teacher-Student, ‘teacher’ expectations and corresponding ‘student’
obligations revolved around the timely completion and submission of designated
homework and assignments (‘the teacher puts pressure on you to get it done’). The
primary motivational mechanism for meeting these obligations was framed as
punitive in nature, namely, ‘threats’ of ‘Saturday detention’ and ‘not get[ting] marked’.
By contrast, in the case of SRP Parent-Child, the pressure experienced and
articulated by the students had less to do with the daily pragmatics of schooling,
such as the completion and submission of work. Instead, the focus was on the
quality of performance in the academic subjects (‘you’ve got your parents on your back
for doing it a decent level’), where the consequence of low performance was heard to
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 258
be emotional reproach from parents (‘my parents definitely would get upset’), rather
than the more functional penalties meted out by teachers (‘detention’). Although
the speaker in Turn 190 used a personal anecdote ‘at least my parents definitely would
get upset’ to both qualify and substantiate his claim, a general agreement was
heard among most other student participants in the room. By distinguishing
between these two forms of academic pressure discussed above, the students
painted a picture of the intensity of the overall pressure they experienced in
terms of both quantity and quality of academic work that they had to negotiate
constantly in their daily schooling.
The nature and extent of this ‘performance drive’ in the school was further
elaborated and substantiated in the accounts of a group of Year 12 students in
Excerpt 27. These students described the formalisation of the school’s ‘scholastic
attainment expectations’ by way of explicit statements in whole-school policy
documents, such as the ‘school diary’. The formalised academic expectations
established by the school were criticised as neither feasible nor achievable (‘I
can’t believe that … no one would do that’). The implication was that this ‘who:le
performance drive we’ve got ↑going’ has resulted in an excessively crowded curriculum,
leaving the student population with hardly enough time or space to engage in
basic essential activities such as ‘sleep’, much less engage meaningfully with non-
mandatory and non-assessed learning initiatives such as the SMC.
Excerpt 27.
383. Moe[12]: […] I’ve come across a page in the school diary, page two, so
it’s right at the sta:rt, […] it says this “The school rules or
expectations are defined for the good of the entire school
↓community” [various mild laughter] … “They define the
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 259
boundaries within which the life of the school functions,
<maintaining a place at the school> and gaining promotion
from year to year is based on the commitment to, and
achievement of these expectations.” So this is the who:le
performance drive that we’ve got ↑going and then […] they
like even quantify things like “academic achievement is going
to be measured on this”. […] then the diary tells us ↓that in
each year level how many hours of homework we should be
doing per ↓week. So in Year Twe:lve, if you’re not doing
twenty to twenty four hours per week you have fa:iled the
scholastic attainment expectations of the school.”
384. Reet[12]: Oh, I can’t believe that they’ve said twenty to twenty four
hours. That’s like four hours a night, three, four hours a night,
no one would do that.
385. Moe[12]: Well let’s make it a nice rounded figure of twenty five […]
we’re doing five hours of work a night and being a boarder
I’ve most often got training in the afternoon. So from 3:05 to
5:00 I’ve got training, then I get ready for dinner. That goes
until about 6:45. So from 6:45 until (.) when’s ↑that (.) ele:ven
I’m meant to be studying.
386. Reet[12]: Then you miss out on too much sleep.
387. Ray[12]: So the downward spi:ral. It’s you know, a perpetuation of our
↓loss of sanity.
In Turn 382, the statement ‘school rules or expectations are defined for the good of the
entire school ↓community’ drew mild laughter from various participants, including
the speaker. The somewhat scornful laughter could arguably be taken as an
indication of mild contempt aimed at the school’s claim that these expectations
were for the benefit of the student body. Students were heard to take this
statement as rhetoric rather than reality. In fact, the speaker elongated his
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 260
reading of the following phrase ‘<maintaining a place at the school>’ in order to
emphasise what he took to be a paradoxical, even hypocritical, parallel threat,
albeit a subtle one, of parting company in the event that these ‘expectations’ were
not met. In Turn 384, the same speaker added credibility to his assertion that the
‘scholastic attainment’ expectation was unrealistic by providing a detailed list of
activities that included ‘training’, ‘dinner’ and ‘studying’, which showed the
compactness of a regular schooling day that left neither space nor time for
leisure activities. This was then accentuated by another students’ extreme case
formulation that this ‘pressure cooker’ lifestyle inadvertently leads to ‘a
perpetuation of [the students’] ↓loss of sanity’. The moral allocation here is that the
school’s insistence on ‘performance’ was not only unreasonable but harmful to
students’ physical and mental health (‘miss out on too much sleep’; ‘loss of sanity’).
The school’s prioritising of academic performance was also heard to impact
problematically on teachers’ pedagogical orientations and perceptions of the
SMC, with this in turn being a negative influence on students’ engagement with
the SMC, as illustrated in the segment of talk between two Year 11 students
shown in Excerpt 28.
Excerpt 28.
25. Stew[11]: When the SMC first came out there was this whole hype
about it and […] it was sort of foregrounded to the teaching
population that the SMC is bad cause all that was going on
was the forums and everyone was just wasting a lot of time
[…] You’ve got teachers who really see it as just a student
forum and nothing more and nothing less and that there’s
no positive learning that can be produced from the SMC.
Rather it’s just a little place where students have a chat and
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 261
say silly things. So to get support from the staff you really
have to change their perception of what the SMC is…
26. Facilitator: Do you think it is possible to change their perception?
27. Graeme[11]: […] I think the SMC is a perfect vehicle for intellectual
discussion to happen and for people to voice their opinions,
you know, teachers don’t enjoy when their classes get
disturbed, when people start to have discussions about
things ‘cause it goes off-topic and it’s not good for the
↓exam etcetera etcetera. The SMC is somewhere where it
can be done in an enjoyable medium but it can also be really
beneficial to the person starting the discussion when
everyone else contributes, cause this is, you know, real
learning, this is not in the textbook, this isn’t stuff you’re
gonna be taught and lectured about in the class, this is stuff
which has real world applications.
In the above accounts, the ‘teaching population’ rather than individual teachers,
were described as prejudiced against the SMC because it was seen as an
inconsequential (‘just a little place where students have a chat and say silly things’), even
distracting (‘wasting a lot of time’), digital space in the school that produced ‘no
positive learning’. In Turn 27, the student characterised the ‘teacher’ member
category as primarily concerned with teaching ‘what is good for the ↓exam’ and
other similarly narrow test-oriented curriculum that were commonly understood
by fellow students and therefore did not require explicit naming (‘etcetera etcetera’).
This ‘etcetera’ procedure indicates widespread recognition of the point. This
finding confirms observations documented in extant literature about the
constraining impact of a high-stakes assessment culture on teachers’ pedagogical
practices. For instance, Faulkner and Cook (2006) and Passman (2000) have
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 262
observed that in response to state-wide testing, teachers often reverted to a
narrow focus on test-based curriculum and teacher-centred instructional
methods, despite acknowledging the importance of active and student-centred
pedagogies for enhancing student learning. In similar vein, teachers in this
context were characterised by the speakers as strongly focused on exam-oriented
‘topic[s]’, preferential to teacher-centred pedagogical approaches (‘taught and
lectured about in class’), as opposed to more student-centred approaches that
support authentic discovery through questioning, discussion and debate (‘teachers
don’t like it when their class gets disturbed when people start to have discussions’).
By contrast, the SMC was purported to be a genuinely useful alternative learning
space in the school for students to engage in ‘real learning’ with ‘real world
applications’ outside of the formal ‘textbook’ curriculum. This viewpoint of the
SMC being a practical learning tool for encouraging ‘intellectual discussion’ and
developing digital-age skills was, however, contested by another student in the
group as idealism rather than reality. This is illustrative of the extent to which
many students were more concerned with ‘achi:evement’ rather than the ‘whole real
world learning… and that kind of stuff’, as illustrated in Excerpt 30.
Excerpt 29.
137. Dickie[11]: It’s a bit hard though to change, like, the attitudes that are hit
down at us from middle school about achi:evement, so it’s
kind of difficult for the whole real world learning,
interpersonal (development) and that kind of stuff.
139. Dwayne[11]: […] the school pretty much ↓dri:lls into you, as most schools
do, that the most important thing in your schooling career is
grades (..) and then at the end of your schooling career
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 263
getting an OP18 and then getting into university ‘cause if you
can’t do that then you have to go to college or TAFE and ⁰be
an idiot⁰ (hehh hh) […] even though like in the real world
that’s not true↑ and I think most people in this room realise
that once you leave school your OP really doesn’t count […]
and so this alternative way of doing things is getting people
to not just focus on their schoolwork. But then maybe people
don’t want to do that because it’s been drilled into them that
school’s the most important thing and they don’t want to
waste their time on the computer.
140. Hugh[11]: Yeah, I tend to agree with that. Because a lot of people at
[RBS], you know, we’re drilled in with the grades and we do,
like, try to concentrate and do well with the grades […]
people aren’t going to be drawn to the SMC […] ‘cause
they’re going to be like “Ok, I go to school, I do academics,
I’m not going to do this extra thing and waste my time with
it.” […] To be blunt, I think when you get into year eleven
and twelve […] people start realising “Oh, you know, this
isn’t counting for my OP” which is a big thing and I think
that the SMC may be more successful for the younger years.
In the above accounts, the speakers were heard continually to reinforce one
another’s description of the relentless top-down pressure from the school and
staff that ‘the most important in your schooling career is grades’. This was framed as an
exceptionally powerful logic of the schooling order that has permeated the
collective consciousness of the student population (we’re drilled in with the grades’).
Thus, despite the knowledge that this logic may not hold in ‘the real world’ where
the OP test scores on the state-wide exam ‘really doesn’t count’, students insisted
18 OP or ‘Overall Position’ is a tertiary entrance rank used in the Australian state of Queensland for selection into universities. Like similar systems used throughout the rest of Australia, the OP shows how well a student has performed in their senior secondary studies compared to all other OP-eligible students in Queensland.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 264
on the importance of ‘grades’ to the exclusion of activities such as the SMC,
which is ‘this extra thing’ and essentially a ‘waste [of] time’.
Some Year 11 and 12 students, however, asserted that ‘OP… is a big thing’ and
therefore, students in the younger grades who are not facing high-stakes
assessments such as the QCS would feel less pressure to perform academically.
Yet Year 10 students were found to articulate similar experiences of high levels
of academic pressures. This was first exemplified in Excerpt 26, and again in
Excerpt 30.
Excerpt 30.
162. Max[10]: Well, we’re in year ↓ten, we have assessment, assignments and
like also=
163. Sol[10]: =especially towards the end of the year.
164. Max[10]: Yeah like especially for me, I live further out so by the time I get
home it’s like 4.30 and then I have to do assignments and eat and
all that.
165. Chip[10]: ⁰We have to eat, keep going⁰.
166. Max[10]: =and get to bed at a time that I will be able to sort of get out of
bed the next morning, cause if I am up too late then, I sleep in
and then miss the bus or something. So it’s sort of just, we have
<so much work> that we don’t really have that much time at
↓home. Like if, on the SMC it’s more sort of at school we get
the opportunity=
167. Sol[10]: =Yeah, that relates back to the in-class distraction on teachers
and students, that sort of thing.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 265
Similar to the Year 12 students in Excerpt 27, the Year 10 students in the above
segment of talk collectively produced a graphic depiction of the density of their
regular schooling day, which was given weight and credibility through their
personal anecdotes and detailed list of mundane yet essential activities. The
implication here was that the SMC had been crowded-out by existing
commitments and responsibilities, both in and out of school. In light of the
countless ‘must-dos’ of the day that ranged from important responsibilities such
as ‘assignments’ to basic necessities (‘eat’, ‘sleep’, ‘get out of bed’), the wider student
population’s ambivalence towards the SMC was accomplished as a normal and
reasonable response, one that might be expected of any conscientious student
given the moral order and institutional priorities of the school.
The MCA analytical diagram presented in Figure 5.3 provides a summary of the
moral order within the school as formulated by students in their talk. This moral
order is constituted out of normative expectations and responsibilities bound to
the standardised relational pair categories of ‘demanding-teacher/diligent-
student’. It has specific consequences for the low uptake of the SMC innovation
among students in the school.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 266
Figure 5.3 Academic Performativity Barrier ― Demanding teacher/Diligent student
It is apparent from the above distillation that a key node around which the moral
order is organised comprises the speakers’ sense of obligation as ‘diligent
students’ to meet the rigorous academic demands of teachers in the school. The
imperative of being ‘diligent’ meant that students and their teachers, when faced
with time constraints, have to prioritise and concentrate on activities that are
likely to result in high performance in the traditional academic domain. By
implication, activities such as the SMC that are not deemed to have direct
bearing on students’ academic performance in high-stakes assessments, should
‘responsibly’ and ‘commonsensically’ be rejected in favour of the foremost
schooling priority of completing schoolwork and achieving good grades. The
above analysis provides evidence that the low uptake of the SMC innovation
MCD: School
Standardised relational pair
Member categorisations
Demanding-Teacher
• Most important priority at school is high performance in local and statewide assessments. This is reflected in high demands from teachers in terms of schoolwork (homework, assignments), and high pressure for students to be diligent in managing a crowded curriculum.
• The SMC, despite affordances for ‘real world learning’, does not contribute directly to this foremost priority of schooling.
• Therefore, the SMC is generally perceived to be inconsequential to schooling―a distraction and waste of time―by ‘responsible’ members of the school, both teachers and students.
• Disengagement from SMC posited as either a commonsense and/or responsible response to a schooling culture that privileges academic performativity, both explicitly (policy) and implicitly (in everyday classroom practices).
Explanations (ie. cause-effects,
moral evaluations)
Internalises high academic expectationsResponsibility to perform well in exams
Fear of punishment motivates performancePerceives SMC as distraction, waste of time
Category-bound predicates
and attributes
Imposes high academic expectations Responsibility to focus on teaching to exams Threats to motivate performance Perceives SMC as distraction, waste of time
Diligent-Student
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 267
among students is an effect of this perception having congealed into a relatively
stable commonsense. The conditions of possibility for SMC engagement in
school are thus severely limited by the high degree of fixity around the moral
obligations of students and teachers in a schooling culture that privileges
academic performativity over other modes and objectives of learning. In simple
terms, the rhetoric of open-ended inquiry collapses under the weight of the
cultural logic of the mainstream academic order.
Other than negotiating exacting teachers’ demands around schoolwork, students
also expressed a deep sense of obligation to parents to perform well academically
at school and not ‘waste time’ on learning opportunities that were tangential to the
achievement of good grades. This issue is elaborated in Extract 31.
Excerpt 31.
193. Chip[10]: […] you have to do it at a decent level or else parents will, at
least my parents definitely would get upset.
194. Facilitator: How many of you sense this pressure from your parents?
195. Various: Yeah, yeah [many students nod and mumble consensus]
196. Chip[10]: Definitely, mine would get upset.
197. Hec[10]: =They pressure me but they don’t look at my work. I do fairly
well anyway so=
198. Sol[10]: My mum doesn’t pressure me↑ but she just sort of likes me to
do the best I can.
199. Facilitator: How do you know she wants you to do the best you can?
200. Chip[10]: They ↓tell you like=
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 268
201. Sol[10]: No no, she implies it, she won’t get mad at me unless I sort of
do badly, like if I’m getting ‘A’s and that, she’s happy she’s
fine it doesn’t really matter, but if I start slipping(hh) down
then…
202. Max[10]: Like “If you get a B plus in your English!” [dramatic tone]
In the above account, students provided personal experiences of parental
pressure to do well in school. While some experienced this pressure in more
explicit ways (‘they ↓tell you’), others considered their parents’ expectations to be
more implicit (‘she just sort of likes me to do the best I can’). Regardless of whether the
pressure was overt or covert in nature, the intensity and weight of these
expectations were heard to be substantial. According to one speaker, his
mother’s emotional state (‘happy’) was dependent on him achieving distinctions
(‘getting As’). In the event that his grades ‘start slipping’, the consequences were
formulated to be so problematic that they defied explicit description. This was
achieved by an artful use of ending the sentence on an open adverb ‘then…’ in
Turn 201. This was further substantiated in the next turn when another student
pointed out that even a negligible ‘slip’, from an ‘A’ to a ‘B plus’ could be
construed as ‘do[ing] badly’ by parents, which would result in parental reproach
(‘upset’, ‘mad’).
Other students in Year 12 were heard to associate this sense of obligation to
parents with the substantial cost of school fees that were being invested in their
schooling. For example, one student pointed out in Excerpt 32:
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 269
Excerpt 32.
“It may be different in state schools, but most people that go to this school,
whether or not they’re smart, they sort of have the respect of their parents to
worry about their grades, seeing that they’re paying the best part of seventy
↓gra:nd to send us here from year seven to whenever we can […] yeah, you still
just have that respect where you (.) everyone sorta has a little bit of a worry
about their academic grades (Cal[12], Turn 198).
From the above excerpt of talk, MCD Family and MCD School are heard to be
aligned on the matter of the Good Child/Diligent Student’s responsibility to
‘worry’ about grades, regardless of their individual academic capabilities and
potential. The moral inferential logic here is that it is legitimately the business of
the family to be concerned about their child’s diligence as reflected in good
grades, and, reciprocally, the legitimate business of the school to respect the
family concern by emphasising students’ high performance in academic tasks and
assessments. In the above excerpt of talk, the speaker clearly established that
‘everyone’ enrolled as students in ‘this school’, had a duty to their parents to focus
on their schoolwork and achieve good grades, regardless of whether they were
innately intelligent (‘smart’) or otherwise. The reason for this was declared to be
the extensive financial cost borne by parents to enrol and maintain their
children’s place in the school. As a result, it was held to be only reasonable that
parents have the expectation (‘just have that respect’) that their children put in
substantial effort to achieve good ‘academic grades’. Indeed, according to another
fellow focus group participant, the general student population (‘everyone’) is so
concerned about their grades that they would ‘put more effort into their work rather
than going and wasting time on the SMC’ (Odie[12], Turn 203). These same students
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 270
had been noted earlier to espouse the potential benefits of the SMC for
developing ‘real world’ digital-age skills and promoting student agency in learning.
When pitted against their obligation to parents to focus on ‘academic grades’,
students’ use of the digital affordances of the SMC were a luxury activity, an
indulgence that could and should be relinquished in favour of ‘proper’ exam-
related ‘work’.
This binary formulation of digital-learning-versus-academic-performance also
emerged strongly in discussions addressing the questions of whether they would
endorse the future growth of the SMC as parents. When asked to imagine
themselves in the role of parents, they responded in ways that recurrently and
problematically tied the matter of the SMC’s usefulness to expectations of high
academic performance. Yet again, with academic achievement the main
schooling priority, internet-based digital learning opportunities such as the SMC
were articulated as a distraction from ‘proper’ schoolwork and achieving ‘good
grades’. In some instances, a more ‘empowering’ or ‘hands-off’ approach to
parenting and SMC endorsement was heard (‘I’d want my children to have freedom to
make their own decision’ Isaiah[11], Turn 250; ‘I wouldn’t care at all’ Spud[10], Turn
232). These statements were, however, exceptions to the rule. Most student
participants saw parents reasoning the SMC as an activity that was at best,
peripheral to schooling and at worst, a distraction from ‘work’ and a ‘waste of time’.
Some students proposed that this may be due in part to the type of schooling
experience their parents went through, which was conservative (‘strict’), skill-and-
drill (‘copied out in the textbook’) and exam-driven (‘do the test, if you pass good, if you
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 271
fail you suck’), where ‘computers’ were mere novelty and ‘textbooks’ the norm. An
illustration is provided in Excerpt 33.
Excerpt 33.
243. Hugh[11]: All of our parents, who are at least 35 years old […] They all
grew up decades ago when there was maybe computers and,
like, all learning was strict, in the classroom type stuff, copied
out in text book, do the test, if you pass good, if you fail you
suck and you fail life, you get to go and drop out of school.
So, most of them are not going to be really aware of any
alternative learning unless they’re in the field of alternative
learning as their occupation. And so most of them aren’t
going to support the SMC, they are just going to want you to
sit down at your desk and do your homework and not watch
TV and then go to bed.
244. Stew[11]: Yeah that’s something that I do con:stant↓ battle with my
parents to do with study and, um, with something like this
[the SMC], it’s not an idea that’s going to appeal to them
because it’s a website and […] it’s got the videos and the
forum. So as a parent, I’m not sure my parents would
endorse it (..) if I were my parents I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t
endorse it.
The SMC was here characterised as an ‘alternative learning’ space that was not
‘going to appeal’ to the parents for two reasons. First, parents were held to be
imposing or reproducing their own experiences with school by way of insisting
on a strict routine of ‘homework’ and ‘bed’. Second, parents were characterised as
conservative in their attitudes towards media and new media technologies such
as ‘TV’, ‘website’, ‘videos’ and ‘forum’, which were taken to be distractions from
schooling rather than productive learning tools. Consequently, students
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 272
subscribed to the view that their parents would not endorse their engagement
with the SMC. This reflects to a large extent the phenomenon that Popkewitz
(2003) terms the ‘pedagogicalisation’ of parents. In simple terms,
‘pedagogicalised’ parents are those who are deemed particularly ‘good’ and
‘responsible’ for their willingness to become enlisted as like-minded partners
into perpetuating the dominant values and priorities of the prevailing or
normalised schooling process. In this case, the emphasis lies with the
endorsement that parents are perceived to give to strong academic performance
in academic assessments, to the exclusion of meaningful participation in any
other learning opportunities at school that are not perceived to have a direct
bearing on exam scores. As a site of learning opportunities, the SMC is
nevertheless deemed to fit this latter category.
What is more important here than the alignment of school and parent values is
that some students were heard to have internalised this same propensity to
‘alignment’ and reproduced it as their own. For instance, as shown in Excerpt 34,
a Year 11 student pointed out that his mother had a ‘significant involvement with
education’ and was well-informed on ‘boys’ education’, and as far as he knew, she
was ‘entirely in support of the SMC program’. Nonetheless, he went on to assert that
this positive response was likely to be predicated on whether the child (in
abstract) was a ‘good learner’, and this in turn would be defined by the child’s
performance in academic subjects.
Excerpt 34.
“[…] So if I was a parent I know that I’d definitely look at whether my child is a
really good learner or whether he or she isn’t. Because if they are, well then I’d
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 273
definitely be looking for extension programs in order to further their learning
because it’s important that you keep learning new things all the time but in saying
that if they were mentally challenged and had difficulty doing Maths A↑ (hehh hh)
[mild laughter from other students], then I would be telling them to sit down at
the bloody desk and do some proper study and stay off the SMC!” (Rump[11],
Turn 245)
The students went on in subsequent turns to assert that Maths A was generally
considered to be a very simple Maths subject that only poor-performing, or in
their own terms―‘mentally challenged’―students struggled with. The logic
accomplished in their talk was that the SMC would be useful as an ‘extension’ for
students who were already high achievers at school, but a prohibited zone for
students who were struggling with basic subjects in the formal curriculum.
Despite the fact that one student reminded the group to consider the academic
benefits of the SMC because of ‘past study guides or past exams that could be used’
(Isaiah[11], Turn 247), the majority of students in the group agreed with the
proposition that the SMC should be reserved for students who had no trouble
fulfilling their primary obligation of achieving good grades in academic subjects.
If unable to achieve strong academic performance, a student should not consider
engaging with the SMC, despite its recognised benefits for developing skills
relevant to work futures.
The students’ expressed obligation to their parents in terms of academic
achievement and the necessary implications for their engagement with non-
assessed learning initiatives such as the SMC are summarised in the Figure 5.4.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 274
Figure 5.4 Academic Performativity Barrier ― Good Parent/Responsible Child
The high degree of agreement produced by students around the importance of
academic achievement, often to the exclusion of other non-assessed learning
opportunities offered at school, calls attention to this binary as a third cultural
imperative entrenched in students’ mindset of the moral order of school. While
accounts of teachers’ and parents’ responses to high-stakes assessment and
academic performativity culture in the enterprise of schooling have been well-
documented in extant literature (e.g., Faulkner & Cook, 2006; Goertz & Duffy,
2003; Passman, 2000; Sloane & Kelly, 2003), less is known about how students
respond to and negotiate such academic pressures. The above analysis of
students’ accounts provides insights into the ways that young people, under
constant pressure to perform well in local and state-wide assessments, make
sense of their choices to engage or otherwise with school-sanctioned digital
MCD: Family
Standardised relational pair
Member categorisations
Good Parent(s) (‘mother’ sometimes specified)
• Main responsibility as a child is to strive for academic excellence in the curriculum subjects.
• The SMC, despite affordances for ‘real world learning’, is seen as an indulgence that detracts from the fulfillment of this responsibility.
• Therefore, the SMC is generally perceived to be at best, an ‘extension’ to learning reserved for academic elites, and at worst, a distraction, waste of time and forbidden zone for low-performing students.
• Disengagement from SMC posited as either a commonsense and/or responsible response in light of their moral obligation to parents who bear the substantial costs of their secondary education (~$70,000).
Explanations (ie. cause-effects,
moral evaluations)
Responsibility to strive for good gradesBears emotional reproach if standards dropPerceives SMC as distraction, waste of time
Category-bound predicates
and attributes
Responsibility to pay substantial school fees Gets ‘upset’/‘mad’ at marginal slip in grades Perceives SMC as distraction, waste of time
Responsible-Child
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 275
learning opportunities which do not explicitly address academic performance.
The analysis reveals a high degree of fixity around the commonsense that as a
‘diligent student’ and a ‘responsible child’, their main obligation to the school
and to parents is to concentrate on academic achievement rather than ‘waste time’
on peripheral activities such as the SMC. The power of this prevailing logic is
further reinforced by the students’ concurrent acknowledgement that the SMC
held significant benefits for ‘real world’ learning relevant for their work and
citizenry futures.
As with the binary formulations of ‘cool/uncool’ and ‘domineering-
staff/dispossessed-student’, the students’ continual polarisation of ‘digital-
learning’ and ‘academic-performance’ fails to provide them with a logic for
promoting wider SMC usage among the senior school student community.
Instead, students pointed to two solutions that were both heard to be highly
contested among the participants. The first relates to making the SMC ‘compulsory’
(Jon[11], Turn 250) by integrating it with formal curriculum and ensuring that
the SMC is primarily about ‘schoolwork’ (Various[11], Turn 251). Many student
participants contended that this stands in direct contrast with the SMC’s current
design, which privileges a range of student interests and creations that include
but are not limited to conventional academic disciplinary boundaries.
The second proposed solution involves the award of ‘academic colours’, defined by
the students as ‘performance-based rewards’ that students get for ‘winning one game in
Open Chess’ or for joining ‘stage crew’ (Various[10], Turn 191-196). This suggestion
appeared to be highly contentious. Students engaged in an impassioned debate
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 276
about the tendency for ‘materialistic colours-based performance reward system’ to detract
from the ‘real appeal of the SMC’ (Peter[10], Turn 196). The ‘real appeal’ of the
SMC was in turn described as it being an authentic and ideal space for students
with a ‘fundamental passion’ (Slim[10], Turn 204) in new media, publishing and
digital-age literacies to engage in flexible digital-networked learning. Some also
raised the challenge of appropriately assessing participation in the SMC (‘… how
do you sort of assess how they’re performing in the SMC?’ San[10], Turn 215). Others,
however, were of the view that the ‘material gain’ would merely act as ‘catalyst for
them [non-users] to get started’ on the SMC, and in particular, ‘an incentive for the jocks
to come in’ (Jus[10], Turn 209, 223). The fact that students failed to reach a clear
consensus on this issue reinforces the significant tensions they experience in
negotiating ‘authentic learning’ and ‘conditioned performing’ in their everyday
schooling practices.
There are echoes here of the observations of Albright and others (2006) and
Warschauer (2007), that students tend to be acculturated and socialised to
privilege particular types of literacy practices that their school, families and
communities believe will contribute to academic success and therefore life
futures. Student participants in this study were heard to justify their resistance
towards the SMC initiative as a commonsensical and responsible choice given its
lack of direct relevance to the chief schooling priority―academic success. Put
simply, when faced with the conundrum of being called simultaneously to
develop powerful digital capacities and to perform as diligent members of their
school community, as a general rule―‘diligence’ prevails. The SMC therefore,
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 277
came to be framed by most of these students as an expendable casualty in the
push-and-pull of digital learning and diligent performing in school.
5.4 Summary of Key Findings
This chapter has presented and discussed the findings that emerged from the
qualitative phase of this study. Specifically, the chapter has provided a detailed
exposition of how student participants describe, explain and account for the
tensions and affordances presented by the SMC innovation, as well as its
consequences and prospects for their schooling experience. This qualitative
phase of the study represents a purposeful analytic shift from individual attitudes,
dispositions and behaviours of student participants to their shared social and
cultural knowledge, and the reasoning practices and imperatives that shape and
are shaped by students’ opinions and decisions about the SMC innovation. The
central analytic task undertaken in the chapter has been to explicate the shared
logic and reasoning practices that students draw on and use, in their talk, to
reflect on and reconstruct the social order of schooling, as it relates to their
evaluation and use of the SMC. The chapter has performed this analytic task by
applying MCA to textual data from six in-depth student focus group interviews.
The outcomes of this qualitative phase augment the preceding quantitative phase
by providing deeper insights into how students in the research setting experience,
negotiate and account for their behaviour in light of the complexities of
technology-based innovation and changes in their schooling practices. While the
quantitative phase has identified the ‘what’ of the SMC adoption and diffusion
process, that is, key trends and predictors of SMC uptake among students, this
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 278
qualitative phase has gone further to reveal the complexities surrounding why and
how these trends and predictor variables were prevalent and significant to their
daily social and institutional practices. The key findings that emerged from this
phase of the study are summarised below.
First, students’ accounts across all six groups were found to converge around a
key proposition, namely that the SMC is both useful-in-principle and useless-in-
practice. Student participants gave in principle support to the proposition that the
SMC holds much promise and usefulness for their learning and development as
young adults, particularly in terms of exploiting digital and multimodal
engagement, as well as enhancing peer-to-peer networks for developing
academic, social and real-world skills. At the same time that student participants
acknowledged the relevance and potential affordances of the SMC as it was
conceptualised and designed for broadening their learning and schooling
experiences, they were quick to point out the problems associated with
translating these design affordances into actual practice. In the focus group
discussions, the students alluded to a number of key practices, dispositions and
norms embedded within their schooling institution that militated against―or in
their terms ‘castrated’―the potential of the SMC, thereby rendering the digital
learning initiative useless-in-practice. This was the rationale given by them for
the low SMC usage rates and the small number of students who engaged
regularly and meaningfully with the SMC.
Second, it is evident from the students’ talk that the affordances and
problematics of the SMC, while distinct, buttressed one another in complex and
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 279
mutually constitutive ways. According to the students, the potential benefits of
the SMC were significant across three areas. These include enhancing social and
learning networks, promoting student expression and agency, as well as
developing real-world skills and dispositions beyond ‘textbook’ knowledge.
Specifically, the SMC was characterised by students as (i) a digital social
networking platform that could significantly enhance peer-to-peer student
networks by facilitating transboundary communications among students that
belonged to conventionally-discrete groups, such as students from different
localities, grades, classes, and schools, (ii) a useful medium for promoting the
expression of students’ opinions, thereby enhancing student agency and
ownership in their schooling community, particularly in ways that may
productively challenge existing power relations within the school by contesting
excessive staff authority and promoting parity of esteem between staff and
students, and (iii) a multimodal and multifunctional one-stop resource that could
publish a diverse collection of student products, cater for a wider range of
student interests and needs, and extend classroom learning to facilitate the
development of creative dispositions and real-world, profession-related skills.
At the same time, the student participants pointed to three corresponding social
and institutional barriers to engagement. These pertain to (i) the social stigma or
negative reputation of the SMC among peers and the resultant lack of peer
critical mass or network externalities associated with the SMC, (ii) the
widespread perception held by students that the institutional-pedagogical culture
was authoritarian and punitive due to excessive staff-determined regulatory
practices, with adverse effects on student autonomy and agency, and (iii) the
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 280
pressures to perform academically within a crowded curriculum with tight
timelines.
A key issue within the social stigma barrier is students’ accomplishment of social
identities framed in terms of ‘Cool/Uncool’ as a powerful form of peer
validation and conversely, peer sanction. The MCA analysis revealed a high
degree of fixity around the ‘uncoolness’ of the SMC and the unlikelihood of its
becoming either ‘cool’ or sufficiently ‘un-uncool’ in the short or even medium
term. This lack of social desirability served as a significant impediment to the
SMC’s potential network benefits. The second barrier was framed by students in
terms of the polarised categories of ‘Domineering Staff/Dispossessed Student’
within an institutional space characterised by high levels of staff-determined
controls and regulations, where activities such as the SMC that were meant to
privilege or enhance student autonomy and expression were inexorably rendered
unauthentic, unappealing, even unsafe (as a result of potential punitive action) in
practice. Third, students justified their resistance towards the SMC initiative as a
commonsensical and responsible choice given its lack of direct relevance to the
chief schooling priority―academic success in high-stakes assessments. Despite
their recognition of the SMC’s benefits for extending real-world skills and
dispositions, student participants repeatedly expressed a strong sense of
obligation to fulfil exacting academic demands, expectations and pressures from
both school and family. In this way, the SMC came to be framed as an
expendable casualty in the push-and-pull of digital learning and diligent
performing when at school.
Cha p te r F i ve : Qualitative Phase – Students’ Accounts of Adoption Behaviour Pag e | 281
An important point to note is that these accounts of social realities provided by
students are not taken as ‘correct’ reflections on the actualities of the school, but
rather, they are normative attributions assigned by students in their collective
interactions as they describe and make sense of the SMC innovation adoption
and diffusion process in their schooling experiences. What the MCA analysis has
revealed are three key shared reasoning practices that have congealed as
relatively stable commonsense among the student population. Together, these
constitute deep-seated cultural imperatives that obfuscate students’ extensive
engagement with the SMC innovation and its utilisation as a valued component
of school life.
In summary, this qualitative chapter has extended the rigorous measurement
conducted in the quantitative phase to provide an in-depth characterisation of
the social phenomena pertinent to this study. In the following concluding
chapter of this thesis, the key findings that have emerged from both the
quantitative and qualitative phases are synthesised and discussed in light of the
central and specific research questions that guide this inquiry. Implications of
these findings for theory, methodology, policy and practice are considered, after
which the limitations of this study and corresponding opportunities for future
research are highlighted and discussed.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 282
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION
“… an historical, dialectical conception of the world … understands movement and
change, and appreciates the sum of effort and sacrifice which the present has cost the
past and which the future is costing the present, and … conceives the contemporary
world as a synthesis of the past, of all past generations, which projects itself into the
future"
(Gramsci, 1935, trans. 1971, p. 34-35).
6.1 Overview
This chapter concludes the thesis by reviewing and synthesising the findings
from the preceding quantitative and qualitative phases, and interpreting these
empirical findings in light of the broad issues and theoretical underpinnings that
motivated the study. In so doing, this third and final phase of the study allows
for the development of empirically-grounded theoretical propositions related to
the educational complexities of Web 2.0 innovation diffusion within established
conventions of contemporary formal schooling, which in turn bears implications
for educational policymakers and practitioners in their move towards more
effective and sustainable integration of contemporary technologies in formal
learning contexts. This concluding phase and chapter of the thesis therefore,
addresses SRQ-4) What are the implications of the nature and outcomes of this study for
innovation adoption and diffusion in postmillennial schooling? This integrative synthesis
and analytic generalisation work is accomplished by revisiting the research
questions and indicating how the empirical research conducted within the thesis
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 283
informs us not only about what has happened in a particular school at a
particular time, but also about how schools as social institutions are coming to
terms, and might come to terms, with the significant and inevitable transition
from an Industrial Age to the current ICT-driven Conceptual Age (Hobsbawm,
1994; Perez, 2007; Pink, 2005). Drawing on Gramsci’s (1935/1971) remarks
about education, we can observe certain residual, hegemonic and emergent
values and practices that are presenting distinctive contradictions and challenges
in the schooling of young people. As the following discussion shows, one overall
implication of this thesis is that those contradictions and challenges need to be
the focus of the sum of educators’ “effort and sacrifice”.
This chapter first revisits the rationale and research questions guiding this
inquiry set out in Chapter One. Second, it summarises the key findings as a
synthesis of both the quantitative and qualitative components of the study. Next,
it discusses the significance of the study in terms of the tensions that exist
between the techno-economic and socio-institutional spheres of society, tensions
that are direct effects of technological innovation. Out of this discussion,
contributions to theory, methodology, policy and practice are presented. Finally,
the limitations of this study are acknowledged and possibilities for future
research proposed.
6.2 Rationale and research questions revisited
The inquiry documented in this thesis is located at the nexus of technological
innovation and traditional schooling. This inquiry began with the observation
that, despite substantial investments from governments and businesses globally,
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 284
widespread adoption and diffusion of contemporary digital technologies in the
schooling sector is yet to eventuate (e.g. Ofsted, 2004; Russell et al. 2005;
Vrasidas & Glass, 2005). While old routines of work and productivity are being
overturned by the revolutionary impact of contemporary digital technologies in
social and economic spheres, it is apparent that schools are struggling to come to
terms with the implications of all this for education, clinging to the well-worn
routines of content transmission, worksheets and pen-and-paper memory tests.
Educators and social commentators alike have made the observation that at best,
we are seeing gestures towards contemporary digital innovations such as Web
2.0 and related technologies, and at worst, that schooling is a sector in digital
denial (Lunn, 2007; Tan & McWilliam, 2008; Tapscott, 2009; Warshauer, 2007,
2008).
To date, the most common explanations of this phenomenon centre on
deficiency discourses of schools and teachers, such as institutional inertia,
resource constraints, and teacher technophobia. Despite interventions that
specifically address budgetary funding and teacher training, no significant
changes have yet been observed in adoption trends over the last decade (see
Becta, 2003, 2007; Cox et al. 1999; Preston et al., 2000; Warschauer, 2007, 2008).
Meanwhile, little is known about the cultural and pedagogical complexities of
innovation diffusion within long-established conventions of mainstream
schooling, particularly from the standpoint of students as critical stakeholders.
The study reported here has attempted to address this gap by moving beyond
the deficiency discourses of teacher technophobia and school resource
constraints to inquire into how students evaluate and account for the constraints and
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 285
affordances of contemporary digital tools when they engage with them as part of their
conventional schooling. To investigate this central research question, the thesis has
focused on a ‘case’ of innovative practice in a traditional, well-resourced and
high-performing independent secondary school in urban Australia. It has
documented the attempted integration of a student-led Web 2.0 learning
initiative known as the Student Media Centre (SMC) into the mainstream
learning and teaching practices of everyday schooling. This staff-endorsed,
student-driven, peer-to-peer (P2P) learning initiative was set up in the school
with the specific purpose of engaging the whole senior student population in
flexible networked digital learning that extends beyond conventional classroom
pedagogies and traditional literacies, in order to develop in the senior student
cohort autonomous and leaderly dispositions, as well as creative capacities in
relation to student learning. According to its design principles―technological,
organisational and pedagogical (see Chapter Three, Sections 3.2.2.1 to
3.2.2.3)―the SMC had the potential to reshape the learning culture of the school
in quite profound ways. Therefore, the adoption and diffusion process of this
potentially ‘disruptive’ or ‘radical’ innovation (Christensen et al., 2009; Freeman,
1984; Hedberg & Chang, 2007; Perez, 2004) served as the point of entry for
analysing how students experienced the complexities of being simultaneously
called to engage with conventional and digital forms of learning, particularly in
competitive academic schooling contexts.
Specifically, this thesis set up and tested the proposition: if progressive school leaders
and teachers in a well-resourced school endorse the implementation of a student-led digital
learning innovation built on cutting-edge Web 2.0 technologies that are embraced by ‘digital
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 286
kids’ in their personal sphere, then surely there will be no question of widespread uptake
among these same ‘Net Gen’ students in school. It was argued in Chapter One, that, if
this proposition does not hold, then three research questions (SRQ) ensued,
namely: (i) SRQ-1) What are the SMC engagement trends and patterns among
the senior school student community?; (ii) SRQ-2) What factors―individual,
social and technological―predict the extent to which students engage with the
learning innovation?; and (iii) SRQ-3) How do students describe, explain and
account for the Web 2.0 learning initiative, its prospects and consequences for
their schooling experience?
To address the research questions, the study employed an ‘explanatory’ two-
phase research design (Creswell, 2003, 2005) that combined complementary
quantitative and qualitative methods both to measure and characterise the
students’ responses to the SMC. The first two research questions were addressed
in the initial quantitative phase outlined in Chapter Four, in which a self-
reported questionnaire was administered to the senior school population of 600
students. The numeric data was analysed through descriptive statistics and a
series of incremental Classification and Regression Tree (CART) predictive
models. The third specific research question was then evidenced by the
qualitative phase that followed (outlined in Chapter Five), in which six in-depth
focus groups were conducted with 60 students who reported varying levels of
SMC usage. The textual data was analysed using Membership Categorisation
Analysis (MCA). Taken together, the quantitative and qualitative phases
provided complementary and rich insights into the ways that students’
perceptions, experiences and understandings of their socio-institutional world at
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 287
school were constituted and organised. The key findings of both phases of the
study are highlighted and synthesised in the following section.
6.3 Summary and synthesis of key findings
6.3.1 Phase One: Measuring digital engagement through description and prediction
As indicated above, the initial quantitative phase utilised a student questionnaire
to measure trends and patterns of student engagement with the SMC as well as
identify significant individual, social and technological factors that predicted
students’ SMC engagement. Measurement constructs included individual learning
dispositions (learning and performance goals, cognitive playfulness and personal
innovativeness), as well as social and technological variables (peer support, perceived
usefulness and ease of use). The effective response rate was extremely high. After
the statistical characteristics of the measurement scales used in the questionnaire
were tested and proven to display satisfactory internal consistency and construct
and discriminant validity, more specific descriptive and predictive analyses were
conducted.
In terms of the SMC engagement trends and patterns among the senior school
student community (SRQ-1), the quantitative findings indicated widespread
ambivalence towards the SMC. A significant 24% of the student population did
not engage at all with the digital innovation (non-users); a majority 38% engaged
with the SMC only about once a term and used approximately two of seven SMC
learning features (low-users); 23% engaged with the SMC about once a month and
used approximately three of seven SMC learning features (average-users); only a
small minority of 15% used the SMC at least once a fortnight and engaged with
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 288
about three to four of seven SMC learning features (high-users). Of these high-users,
a negligible 1% reported that they used all seven learning features afforded by the
SMC more than once a week. In addition to low usage levels, students also reported
low levels of peer support for using the SMC and low perceived usefulness of
the SMC for their schooling practice. Most telling of all, student respondents
across all senior year levels generally disagreed with the proposition that having
the SMC in school was a good idea.
Next, three predictive models of SMC usage were conducted using CART
modelling in order to ascertain the extent to which the measured individual
learning dispositions, social and technological factors predicted students’ levels
of engagement with the SMC (SRQ-2). The predictive modelling was carried out
in an incremental fashion that yielded increasing explanatory power in
accounting for the variance in the target variable, that is, students’ SMC usage
behaviour. First, only individual-level predictors were considered, followed by a
combination of individual and social predictors. Finally, all individual, social and
technological predictors were included in the cumulative regression tree model.
This incremental CART analysis provided a comprehensive yet parsimonious
solution when all variables were included in the model. It allowed simultaneously
for a ‘drilling-down’ of influential variables at different levels for richness of
characterisation.
Taken collectively the key findings of the CART layered analysis can be
summarised as follows. The social variable Peer Support emerged as the best
predictor of SMC usage. Both technological factors Perceived Ease of Use and
Usefulness also emerged as salient predictors. In terms of individual-level factors,
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 289
Learning Goal Orientations and Cognitive Curiosity were particularly significant in
explaining SMC usage among students. This being said, all the individual
learning dispositions: (i) Achievement Goal Orientations (both learning and
performance, albeit in opposite ways), (ii) Cognitive Playfulness (both curiosity and
creativity dimensions), and (iii) Personal Innovativeness, emerged as significant
predictors of SMC usage in the individual-level regression tree analysis.
On the whole students who reported the highest levels of SMC usage
experienced high levels of peer support in using the SMC, perceived the SMC as
both easy to use and useful, and were characterised as possessing high levels of
cognitive playfulness and robust learning goal-orientations rather than being
merely performance-focused. On the other hand students who reported the
lowest levels of SMC usage experienced low levels of peer support, considered
the SMC complex to use and lacking in usefulness, and were characterised by
low levels of curiosity and learning goal-orientations but high performance goal-
orientations. Also noteworthy are the mediating effects that performance goals
and cognitive creativity exerted on personal innovativeness. Generally, students
with higher levels of personal innovativeness used the SMC to a larger extent.
However, if they were low in personal innovativeness but high in cognitive
creativity, they would still engage significantly with the SMC. On the other hand,
students who exhibited high levels of personal innovativeness but were
particularly performance-focussed (i.e., high performance goals), then they tend
to emerge as the lowest SMC users.
In sum, these findings suggest that Web 2.0 technological affordances in
themselves are necessary but insufficient to motivate digital engagement among
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 290
students. Peer endorsement is crucial to students’ adoption decisions. In
addition, a healthy learning disposition comprising cognitive playfulness,
personal innovativeness and robust learning goals motivate students’
engagement with new media technologies in mainstream schooling, but high
performance goal-orientations have the opposite effect on students’ adoption
decisions. These findings pointed to tensions around (i) the social validation of
contemporary technologies within and beyond school, (ii) the relevance of
Web2.0 technological affordances for mainstream schooling and contrariwise,
and (iii) the push-and-pull of digital learning innovations and conventional
academic performance pressures experienced by students in an institution
boasting a long tradition of success but concurrently coming to terms with the
significant transitions brought on by momentous shifts in the wider
technological, social and economic landscape. Compatible with Warschauer
(2008) and Ware (2008), the results of the quantitative analyses indicate that
simply giving students access to contemporary digital resources does not of itself
lead to successful adoption and diffusion in schools.
6.3.2 Phase Two: Moving from measurement to characterisation of constraints and affordances
The qualitative phase that followed provided deeper insights into these tensions
by shifting the analytics from individual attitudes and behaviours to shared social
and cultural reasoning practices underpinning students’ evaluations of and
engagement with the SMC innovation. The objective of this phase was to
provide an in-depth characterisation of how students described and accounted
for their adoption behaviour in light of the complexities of digital innovation in
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 291
conventional schooling, as well as its consequences and prospects for their
schooling experience (SRQ-3). As indicated earlier, six focus groups were
conducted, comprising 60 student participants with varying levels of SMC usage.
Textual data from the focus group transcripts were analysed using MCA, an
analytic framework particularly suited to the explication of underlying
‘commonsense logic’ that social members share, draw on and use in their talk to
reflect on and reconstruct the social order pertinent to the discussion, in this
case, contemporary digital innovation in traditional mainstream schooling.
The qualitative findings showed that students’ accounts across all six focus
groups converged around a key proposition: The SMC was useful-in-principle but
useless-in-practice. Student participants consistently endorsed the usefulness that
the SMC held for augmenting their current schooling practice and personal
development as young adults. In particular, students pointed to the value of the
SMC for enhancing multimodal engagement, extending P2P learning networks,
promoting student expression and agency, developing creative dispositions and
acquiring real-world, profession-related skills that go beyond textbook
knowledge. At the same time, however, the students were quick to point out that
despite these prospects for learning, few were willing to engage with the SMC to
any significant degree, citing a number of socio-institutional constraints that
impeded the realisation of these design affordances in practice.
Student rationales for the uselessness of the SMC in practice were cast in terms
of three key cultural ‘norms’ or imperatives at play within the school. These
include: (i) social-reputational norms, (ii) institutional-pedagogical norms, and (iii)
academic-performativity norms. The premises of MCA hold that members’
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 292
accounts should not be taken as ‘fact’ or ‘true’ reflections of the actualities of the
pertinent social order, but rather as a tool for gaining analytic insight into how
members understand and make sense of their socio-institutional norms and
identities as they are being played out ‘in the real’. In this study therefore, the
MCA analysis revealed three key reasoning practices that have coalesced as
relatively stable commonsense among the student population and together, these
constitute a powerful, long-term, shared cultural logic that undermines the
potential of the SMC innovation as a valuable affordance of the school.
There are three imperatives arising out of this cultural logic that are particularly
noteworthy in setting up an ‘either-or’ rather than ‘both-and’ identity norm for the
students involved in the study. The first cultural imperative concerns students’
perceptions of and responses to peer groups and social status, the negative
stigma associated with the SMC and its resultant lack of network externalities or
positive network benefits, which is in turn crucial to the success of any P2P
social networking platform. This was identifiable most commonly in students’
binary formulation of themselves and their peers as either ‘cool’ or ‘uncool’. The
SMC, associated as it was in their talk with the ‘geek’ crowd rather than the ‘jock’
crowd, was perceived as ‘uncool’ and thus unappealing to the wider majority. Put
another way, the low SMC adoption rates among the senior school community
may be attributed to an overwhelming number of students sharing the opinion
that the social pressure of performing ‘cool’ or at least ‘not uncool’ outweighed
the learning opportunities afforded by the SMC.
The second cultural imperative relates to students’ perceptions of and responses
to issues of staff governance and student agency in the wider schooling order,
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 293
which extended to and impacted upon the SMC digital learning space.
Specifically, student participants recurrently framed themselves as dispossessed
in terms of agency by a schooling culture that, despite progressive rhetoric and
even student-centred pedagogical practice at the classroom-level, demanded
compliance and was perceived by many of the students as highly controlling and
restrictive at the institutional school-level. According to the students, this
authoritarian and punitive culture undermined the very student agency required
to drive the SMC innovation designed to privilege students’ intellectual and
creative expression of opinions and works. In terms of institutional role
identities therefore, the majority of students were not able to imagine
possibilities beyond the binary or contrasting pair of the domineering, censorious staff
and the dispossessed, compliant student. They expressed reluctance to exploit the
SMC’s potential for disseminating their opinions in any honest, authentic fashion
due to preconceived notions of excessive staff censorship or due to fears of
undue punishment in the case of inappropriate comments. This appeared to limit
their participation in student/staff negotiations of relational boundaries in this
transitional institutional environment. In other words, students accepted
limitations of the SMC’s use within the institutional hierarchy.
The third cultural imperative is associated with students’ perceptions of and
responses to expectations from the school, parents and themselves to strive for
academic excellence by focusing on schoolwork and performing well in
standardised assessment. This imperative to academic performativity is
characterised in their talk by the recurrent formulation of digital learning
opportunities as lesser than, and oppositional to, traditional academic
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 294
performance expectations of mainstream schooling. The majority of students
spoke of digital learning as a distraction from ‘main game’ of academic performance.
There was general agreement that the chief schooling priority was achieving
good grades in high-stakes tests and assessments that together determined
tertiary educational pathways and future employment prospects. In this regard,
digital engagement with non-mandatory learning innovations such as the SMC,
while beneficial in terms of its potential for personal and skill enhancement, was
at best garnish to the roast of high test scores. In the context of the school’s
crowded curriculum and demanding co-curricular commitments, students were
found to vote with their feet away from engaging extensively with the learning
innovation. In this case, the high-performing students seeking to negotiate the
fundamental tensions around a digital-or-diligent student identity guarded
against failure rather than look for innovative ways to extend their skills and
capacities through digital engagement.
6.3.3 Phase Three: Synthesising measurement and characterisation
By integrating both numeric and textual data corpuses, the mixed-methods study
has identified the ‘what’ of in-school innovation adoption in terms of the key
trends and predictors of SMC uptake among students, and revealed ‘why’ and
‘how’ these numeric narratives were enacted in the experienced realities of these
particular students’ daily social and institutional practices.
First, although the numeric data suggested that students perceived the SMC as
low in usefulness, the MCA analyses provided a richer understanding of students’
reasoning behind this evaluation of the SMC. As evidenced through the student
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 295
talk, the digital learning innovation of itself, in principle, was not lacking in
usefulness. Rather, students recognised and endorsed the significant value-add
and learning affordances of contemporary digital engagement such as the SMC
to their current schooling practices. In particular, students described the SMC as
having considerable merit for promoting student autonomy and ownership in
their learning and schooling, extending print-based ‘textbook knowledge’ to
multimodal ‘real-world competencies’, as well as transforming conventional
learning networks by breaking down communicative barriers between
traditionally disparate learner groups and augmenting productive associations
within and beyond the school, locally and globally. The quandary, however, lies
in translating these design affordances into practice. For the majority of students,
these learning affordances were overshadowed by the performative demands of
schooling, both social and academic. These students saw any significant level of
engagement with the SMC in school as distinct from, even oppositional to, the
conventional social and academic performance indicators of schooling, which
are (i) being ‘cool’ (or at least ‘not uncool’), (ii) sufficiently ‘compliant’, and (iii)
achieving good academic grades. Governed primarily by this binary either-or logic
that positions the SMC’s digital learning affordances as incompatible with
conventional performance indicators at school, students’ decision to resist any
serious engagement with the digital learning innovation had become normalised
among the wider senior school community.
Second, in spite of the considerable tensions between engaging with the SMC
learning innovation and mainstream schooling practice described above, a small
proportion of senior school students were able to engage more frequently and
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 296
meaningfully with the SMC in school. These were the students who engaged
with approximately half of the SMC’s seven learning features at least once a
month (24% – moderate users), or even once a fortnight (15% – high users). As
identified in the quantitative phase of the study, these frequent users shared a
number of common dispositional characteristics. These include a high level of
personal innovativeness, but more importantly, robust learning goal orientations (as
distinct from performance goals) and high levels of cognitive playfulness in terms of
both intellectual curiosity and creativity. An argument can therefore be made
that this small minority of students seemed dispositionally inclined to negotiate
the tensions of digital learning and traditional schooling more effectively than
others. That is, these students seemed to possess the necessary learning
dispositions that enabled them to accommodate contestations and find
complementarities between the SMC innovation and the socio-institutional
norms of conventional schooling practice. This ability to productively negotiate
the affordances of Web 2.0 learning and the performative demands of
conventional schooling can in turn be conceptualised as a form of in-situ cultural
agility, that is, an ability to adapt and traverse seemingly incompatible social,
cultural and institutional identities and norms in order to engage with
opportunities for innovation and learning.
Following this argument, the concept of cultural agility as defined above, can be
theorised as a dispositional construct that comprises three distinct dimensions: (i)
a disposition to learning, (ii) a disposition to ‘playing’, and (iii) a disposition to
innovating. The disposition to learning is characterised by robust learning goal
orientations. This refers to a healthy orientation to learning rather than being
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 297
merely performance-focussed, where an individual’s motivation to master new
skills and expand their repertoire of capabilities overwhelms the fear of ‘looking
dumb’ and the tendency to ‘stick to what I know best’ rather than embrace new
learning opportunities in order to avoid making errors (Dweck, 2000). The
disposition to ‘playing’ is characterised by high levels of cognitive playfulness, that is,
a high level of individual dexterity and agility in the cognitive domains (Dunn,
2004; Glynn & Webster, 1993). Such individuals are intellectually inquisitive and
imaginative, motivated by complexity and predisposed to finding pleasure in the
challenge of making novel associations across seemingly oppositional ideas (Tan
& McWilliam, 2008). The disposition to innovating, that is, high levels of personal
innovativeness (Rogers, 2005; Sternberg, 1999) refers to an individual’s
motivation or propensity to take risks and engage with novel ideas, inventions
and practices, which overwhelm the need to observe substantial evidence of
benefits and/or mainstream acceptance before engaging with any new invention
or practice. A visual summary of this new knowledge object and its key
dimensions is presented in Figure 6.1.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n
Figure 6.1 Cultural agility
Where:
Cultural Agility Defined as an ability to adapt and traverse seemingly incommensurate social,
cultural and institutional norms and identities, to engage with novel opportunities for innovation and learning
Disposition to Learn Demonstrated in An individual’s motivation to master new skills and expand capabilities is greater than the fear of making errors and ‘looking dumb’
Disposition to Play Demonstrated in An individual is motivated to imagination to make novel associations across conventionally disparate ideas and practices
Disposition to Innovate Demonstrated in An individual is motivated to take rand practices despite the lack of mainstream acceptance
Taken together, these individual attributes
cognitive playfulness and personal innovativeness
disposition that, in the context of th
effectively the affordances of engaging with innovative technologies
despite the pull of a traditional schooling culture that privileges particular social
groups (cool/uncool), requires compliance
measures success primarily in terms of academic achievement
learning/academic performance).
these culturally agile individuals
performance in school, whether in terms of digital engagement
Disposition to Learn
efined as an ability to adapt and traverse seemingly incommensurate social, cultural and institutional norms and identities, to engage with novel opportunities for innovation and learning emonstrated in high learning goal orientations, where:
An individual’s motivation to master new skills and expand capabilities is greater than the fear of making errors and ‘looking dumb’ emonstrated in high cognitive playfulness, where:
An individual is motivated to engage with complexity and use inquisitiveness and imagination to make novel associations across conventionally disparate ideas and practices emonstrated in high personal innovativeness, where:
An individual is motivated to take risks and engage with novel ideas, inventions and practices despite the lack of mainstream acceptance
er, these individual attributes ― high learning goal orientations,
cognitive playfulness and personal innovativeness ― constitute a culturall
n the context of the school, enables students to negotiate more
the affordances of engaging with innovative technologies. This is so
despite the pull of a traditional schooling culture that privileges particular social
, requires compliance (dominant-staff/compliant-student)
measures success primarily in terms of academic achievement
. The logic then is ‘both and’ rather than ‘either or
individuals; that is, they can accommodate both learning
whether in terms of digital engagement and
Cultural Agility
Disposition to Play
Disposition to
Innovate
Pag e | 298
efined as an ability to adapt and traverse seemingly incommensurate social, cultural and institutional norms and identities, to engage with novel opportunities
An individual’s motivation to master new skills and expand capabilities is greater
engage with complexity and use inquisitiveness and imagination to make novel associations across conventionally disparate ideas and
isks and engage with novel ideas, inventions
high learning goal orientations,
a culturally agile
enables students to negotiate more
. This is so
despite the pull of a traditional schooling culture that privileges particular social
student), and
measures success primarily in terms of academic achievement (digital
either or’ for
that is, they can accommodate both learning and
academic
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 299
excellence, or successful brokerage across multiple social identities and
institutional affiliations within the school.
6.4 Contributions to theory, methodology, policy and practice
At the most general level this study directs the attention of educators beyond the
familiar terrain of deficit discourses that tend to blame institutional conservatism,
lack of resourcing and teacher resistance for low uptake of digital technologies in
schools. It does so by providing an empirical base for the development of a
theoretical ‘borderland’, that is, an alternative way of theorising technological
and pedagogical innovation in schools, one which is more informed by students
as critical stakeholders and thus more relevant to the lived culture within the
school. This was afforded in part by the mixed methods used in the study, but
more importantly, by the productive recruitment of multi-disciplinary
theorisation and research evidence on the nature of technology, schooling and
social practice from the fields of business and information systems, social
psychology and mainstream educational literature. In this regard, the thesis
contributes to a growing body of knowledge about the promises and
problematics of 21st century learning, and has implications for theory and
practice in the field of ICT adoption and schooling in postmillennial times.
Significant implications drawn from this study are outlined below.
6.4.1 Digital kids, analogue students
While much has been written about contemporary youth and their attendant
modes of socio-technological engagement outside of formal schooling, little is
known about the ‘new youth culture’ in school. On the one hand, literature on
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 300
‘digital natives’ or Generation ‘C’ learners and contemporary Web 2.0
technologies (such as YouTube, Facebook, online gaming) abound, but these
studies are generally situated within informal learning contexts (see Bruns et al.,
2007; Gee, 2007a, 2007b; Prensky, 2006; Tapscott, 2009; Oblinger & Oblinger,
2005). On the other hand, as argued in the literature review in Chapter Two,
empirical evidence is lacking on innovation adoption and diffusion from the
student perspective in formal learning or mainstream schooling contexts. While
insights can be drawn from studies conducted by Albright and others (2006) and
Warschauer (2007), which show that students acculturated into privileging
traditional academic achievement tend to shy away from learning opportunities
that are not directly perceived to contribute to higher test scores, these insights
have yet to be tested specifically with regard to the adoption of Web 2.0
technologies in schools. Rich understandings of youths and digital engagement,
its prospects and consequences for the conventional socio-institutional norms
and practices of formal schooling are overdue.
This study bridges this knowledge gap in several ways. The findings not only
support the observations of Albright and others (2006) and Warschauer (2007)
but extend them to technology adoption and Web 2.0 digital engagement in
mainstream schooling. The empirical evidence suggests that where the governing
institutional culture privileges and rewards traditional print-based academic
literacies, high-performing students negotiating the fundamental tensions around
digital learning and academic performance can and will step around digital
engagement as it suits them. The bottom line seems to be that, no matter how
welcoming the school is to digital kids, when test performance is threatened, it is
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 301
more sensible to remain an analogue student. It is this dichotomy that the title of
this thesis attempts to capture.
Beyond the insights of Albright and colleagues (2006) and Warschauer (2007),
the study goes on to show that what ‘suits’ the students is more than a simple
matter of personal choice between academic performance and digital
engagement. It involves a complex interaction of in-school identity formations
and its attendant expectations, of which academic achievement is but one of
several critical considerations. In particular, social identities among peer groups
are vital in determining digital engagement in school. For Web 2.0 contemporary
technologies, network externalities or positive network benefits are particularly
critical to widespread use. For the young people in the school under study, this
aspect of network externalities for the given innovation is predicated or negated
through a system of language use most commonly identified through the binary
formulation of ‘cool/uncool’. This binary logic was a powerful influence on
decisions about the types of schooling practices that were socially-mandated or
marginalised by the students. This is evident in the paradoxical finding that,
however ‘cool’ digital may be for Generation ‘C’ in their own personal time and
place, it may not follow that in-school digital use will be considered ‘cool’ for a
range of reasons to do with the perceived social identity of student users and
non-users. In the students’ own terms, if being digital in-school means an
affiliation with the ‘geeky’ or ‘uncool’ peer crowd, then remaining ‘analogue’ is
by far the smarter and more sensible choice.
This finding challenges the more widespread understanding that digital is ipso
facto ‘cool’ to young people regardless of the setting. In his recent book, Grown
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 302
Up Digital (2009), Tapscott implied as much in his characterisation of The Net
Generation as “conquering fear with knowledge” (p. 7), and that is leading, in
turn, to “a new fervour in …education, a new creativity – driven in part by this
generation of tech-savvy students” (p. 143). It is difficult, in light of the findings
of this study, to be as sanguine as Tapscott about the power of digital tools to
transform learning in school settings. In cases where a student identity that is
endorsed both by the school and the immediate community of peers is not
equivalent to ‘going digital’, as instanced in this the school setting studied here,
then it is difficult to support Tapscott’s celebratory and triumphalist conclusions.
This thesis has presented a more empirically complex picture of students’
institutional identities and lives than that provided by Tapscott; it has therefore
been necessary to provide a more sophisticated conceptual analysis of that
picture.
A further important consideration concerns the extent to which a ‘proper’
student identity is performed in relation to staff-determined regulatory practices
and rules of conduct within the school. The students here appear to understand
school as a social space run or at least regulated to a large extent by significant
adults – the principal, heads of department, the teachers, and so on. Within this
social space, there are tolerable levels of agency and autonomy afforded to
students, and the violation of these institutional role boundaries is likely to have
consequences that are at best unpleasant and at worst, demeaning and punitive.
For the students therefore, the ability to comply with and manoeuvre skilfully
through the performative demands of conventionally-accepted institutional role
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 303
identities and stay on the ‘good side’ of teachers is a critical factor in surviving
the schooling venture, let alone thriving in it.
In sum, when innovative digital learning opportunities are perceived to be in
conflict with conventional social or academic performance indicators in school,
that is, being ‘cool’ (social identity), ‘compliant’ (institutional role identity) and
‘conscientious’ (academic performance), then digital learning opportunities such
as those afforded by the SMC are likely to be sidelined, particularly if
engagement is not mandatory: Performance, both academic and social―rather
than learning―prevail. The argument here is not that it is possible to extrapolate
from this one example to an entire generation of young people, or even to the
population of high-achieving students in Australia. However, this study assists in
understanding the complexity of the schooling/digital use nexus. Students’
perceptions of, and engagement with, contemporary digital tools in school is in
this case a complicated matter, involving peer sub-cultures, school priorities,
parent expectations and the affordances of the innovation itself, as well as the
extent to which it is normalised and/or mandated in the pedagogy of the school
and classrooms. In this regard, students are powerful carriers of deep-seated
social and institutional norms in school that can obfuscate widespread uptake
and optimal use of digital innovation. This may be so in spite of their preferred
modes of digital engagement beyond school. The findings of this thesis affirm
the need for educational theorising of the digital/school nexus to move beyond
teacher deficits, school resource constraints and institutional inertia to consider
the perspectives and experiences of students as a key group of stakeholders.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 304
The findings also contain insights for policymakers and practitioners with regard
to the implementation and optimal utilisation of contemporary technologies in
schools. What the study suggests is that good intentions on the part of school
leaders and teachers, coupled with the learning affordances of Web 2.0 tools of
themselves, cannot be guaranteed to evoke authentic and extensive student
engagement with digital learning innovations. To promote widespread adoption
of student-led learning innovations, there needs to be an alignment between the
use of the digital tools and the preferred social identities and the academic
performance enhancement measures of schooling.
Policymakers are primarily responsible for guiding, if not determining, the
formal academic agenda and assessment regimes. If the aim of 21st century
policymakers is widespread adoption of contemporary digital learning tools in
schools, then it is imperative that the academic agenda and corresponding
performance measures acknowledge and validate students’ frequent and
meaningful engagement with any digital innovation. In other words, if the
development of 21st century literacies, skills and dispositions through
engagement with contemporary digital learning innovation is indeed a priority of
schooling, this needs to be made explicit to students as an incorporation of
digital learning into the formal curriculum in ways that render it assessable and
rewarded.
At the local level of policy formulation in schools, the findings outlined in this
thesis call attention to the fact that bringing in a digital learning innovation that
seems relevant to students’ life outside school does not guarantee uptake and
optimal use among students in the school. To promote students’ adoption and
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 305
authentic engagement with contemporary digital tools, due consideration must
be given to the implementation process, particularly in terms of three aspects.
First, particular attention needs to be paid to the dynamic of peer social
identities and status among students. That is, a successful student-led peer-to-
peer technology needs to be driven by, or at least affiliated with, students with
significant social standing among their peers. Second, the study’s findings imply
that it is useful to understand that the ‘institutional pedagogy’ or disciplinary
routines and standards at the school level may work directly against the very
student autonomy or agency that is required to drive the adoption process
among students. If there are strict rules of conduct and punitive consequences
for violating those rules at the school level, then opportunities for exercising
student agency and autonomy through the voicing of opinions and ideas on
digital platforms that are accessible by staff are likely to be perceived as a threat
rather than a promise. Third, the adoption process should not be in relative
isolation from the central ecology of learning and teaching activities - the
classroom. This does not mean that digital engagement needs to take place
within the physical space of the classroom but rather, that the learning
affordances of the digital innovation need to be allied with and responsive to the
enacted curriculum in the school setting. This is because the nexus between the
disposition to perform and the disposition to learn is a complex and contested
one, as this study has demonstrated.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 306
6.4.2 Complexities of digital innovation in mainstream schooling
The push-and-pull of learning and performance is one of several key tensions
identified in this study as a phenomenon that arises out of the complexities of
digital innovation in mainstream schooling. Such complexities have been
previously foregrounded by two prominent educators in a well-documented
debate about the relation of new technologies and education (see Postman,
Kenner & Perelman, 1993). Lewis Perelman first argued that “the role of
modern technology in education is precisely the same as the role of the
automobile in the horse economy ― replacement”, to which Postman responded
that introducing new technologies in society and mainstream schooling is more
akin to “bringing a case of gin to celebrate an opening meeting of Alcoholics
Anonymous” (Postman et al., 1993, cited in Richards, 1997, p. 1). Both
propositions are true, but insufficient of themselves. While the automobile may
replace the horse as a core technology, the ‘replacement process’ is not simply
that of a superior technology supplanting its outmoded counterpart. The
‘economy’ involves an interconnected system of significant social, institutional
and political agents. New technologies therefore, offer exciting possibilities; they
also pose significant threats to the stability of prevailing social, institutional and
political structures and their attendant norms, identities, aspirations, obligations
and practices for an educational sector with a long-term culture and policy
climate of risk minimisation (McWilliam & Dawson, 2008).
The empirical evidence generated in this study supports Feenberg’s (1991)
critical theory of technology in showing the digital innovation to be neither a
determined outcome based solely on its technological superiority, nor a neutral tool
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 307
whose proliferation depends primarily on human aspirations and/or conducive
social conditions (Bijker, 2006; Dunn, 2004; Surry, 1997). Well-meaning
aspirations and significant monetary investments on the part of the school
leaders coupled with the notable technological affordances of the Web 2.0
technology were insufficient of themselves in promoting high usage levels
among students. Rather, engagement with the digital innovation was observed to
be a “scene of struggle between different social forces” (Warschauer, 2007, p. 47)
within the institutional setting. These social forces, in turn, shape and were
shaped by a set of prevailing socio-institutional norms, identities and imperatives
within the mainstream school setting that were not congruent with one another.
This is a reminder that, unlike individual businesses or commercial organisations,
the bottom line pertinent to the schooling venture is not as clear-cut as
accounting for financial profit and loss (Warschauer, 2008). Rather, the
education enterprise answers to multiple stakeholders and fulfils a number of
core functions in society that may be mutually incompatible during specific
historical periods in time, especially in periods of transition between two distinct
technological styles (e.g., from the preceding Age of Oil, Automobile and Mass
Production to the current Age of Information and Telecommunications) where new
modes of growth are being constructed in the wider economy. These contesting
expectations and demands made of schooling are in turn reflective of a larger
decoupling or mismatch between the techno-economic and socio-institutional
spheres of the societal system as a whole (Perez, 2002, 2004). On the one hand,
schools are called upon to respond to the changing requirements in workplaces
and economies by developing 21st century creative human capital with digital-age
literacies, dispositions and knowledge competencies. On the other, they are
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 308
called upon to continue to perform their core functions in society―that of
custodianship, sorting and credentialing (Luhmann, 1995)―and the performance
of these roles often entails responding to politicised demands for ‘digging deep’
and ‘anchoring down’ on a traditional curriculum that privileges core cultural
values, canonical disciplinary knowledge, basic print literacies and high stakes
assessments. This is especially so when the instability, ambiguity and change in
the wider society and economy are perceived by many to be overwhelming.
The findings of this study provide clear insights into the ways in which these
contestations and conundrums were enacted in the lives of a particular group of
students. The ambivalent response of the student community to the Web 2.0
learning initiative in school showed them to be both digital and analogue, both
autonomous and disenfranchised, both keen to learn and constrained by
performance in the context of digital innovation and traditional schooling.
Correspondingly, the technology proved both relevant and unpopular, both
useful and impractical. Thus the study suggests that explanations of schooling
models informed by supply-push or demand-pull approaches to education (see
OECD, 2007; Plank, 2007) may be inadequate to account for the changes and
transitions taking place within mainstream schooling, particularly with regard to
digital innovation and diffusion. The supply-push and demand-pull binary sets
up a false dichotomy of education and posits a static view of schools as either
resistant or responsive, outmoded or relevant, authoritarian or egalitarian. It also
tends to pit the core functions of custodianship, sorting and credentialing against
the ‘service provider’ role of developing necessary knowledge, skills and
literacies in young people. The research outlined in this study makes apparent
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 309
that the schooling site under study was in fact (i) both responsive and resistant
(endorsed digital innovation yet experienced low uptake), (ii) both relevant and
outmoded (engaging Web 2.0 tools while privileging traditional academic print
literacies and canonical disciplinary knowledge), and (iii) both egalitarian and
authoritarian (supporting student-led learning initiative while maintaining high
levels of staff-determined regulatory practices). Most importantly, the school was
simultaneously serving, or at least attempting to serve, all three core functions of
(i) custodianship, (ii) sorting and credentialing, and (iii) developing 21st century
skills, literacies and competencies amongst its students.
In summary, the binary either-or logic of supply-push and demand-pull schooling
leaves us with limited productive recourse for social, intellectual and political
action. Theoretical frameworks for understanding the complexities of innovation
diffusion in mainstream schooling may need to take into account issues of socio-
institutional transitions as part of a larger whole of techno-economic paradigm
shifts and ‘creative destruction’ processes (Freeman, 2004; Perez, 2002, 2004;
Schumpeter, 1939) at the systemic level, as well as issues of identity, multiple
roles and affiliations (Sen, 2006) at the individual school, staff and student level.
An argument can be made for going beyond studies of barriers and enablers as
static, linear predictors of digital engagement, to documenting and characterising
the dynamic nature of contestations and complementarities embedded within the
innovation diffusion process. This conceptual expansion signals the need to
extend the disciplinary and empirical knowledge base upon which educational
researchers, practitioners and policymakers draw to understand techno-
pedagogical innovation and institutional change. This will in turn help shift
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 310
debates away from ‘naming, blaming and shaming’ (Reason, 2000) discourses
that are prevalent but unproductive for the educational community as a whole.
6.4.3 Cultural agility and productive negotiations of contestations
The research outlined has sought to extend existing models of technology
adoption and diffusion by examining a combination of individual learning
dispositions, attitudes and behaviours of students that have not been previously
considered. In particular, as highlighted in the synthesis of quantitative and
qualitative findings (Section 6.3.3), it is evident that a small proportion of
learners seemed dispositionally inclined to negotiate the complexities of digital
innovation in mainstream schooling more effectively than others. These students
seemed able to hold open the possibilities of digital use in school while
simultaneously paying attention to the larger demands of academic pressure and
social validation from peers and teachers. This disposition to negotiate across
the traditional and the digital spheres of schooling has been conceptualised as a
form of ‘cultural agility’, which comprises three key dispositional attributes:
innovating, playing and learning (see Figure 6.1).
The disposition to innovate is measured by one’s personal innovativeness, which
has been previously tested and confirmed in this study to lead to higher digital
engagement levels among students (Marcinkiewicz, 1993; Yi et al., 2003). The
disposition to engage in serious ‘play’ is measured by one’s cognitive playfulness,
which comprises both intellectual curiosity and creativity. This disposition has
been previously shown to predict higher technological usage among teachers
(Dunn, 2004), but has yet to be extended to student users until this study. The
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 311
disposition to learn is based on Dweck’s (2000) conceptualisation of
achievement goal orientations and measured by an individual’s learning goal
orientations (as distinct from their performance goal orientations). This is the
first study to examine the impact of an individual’s learning and performance
goal orientations on digital adoption and engagement. The findings show that
students who reported high levels of digital engagement were characterised by
high levels of personal innovativeness, cognitive playfulness and learning goal
orientations, and together, these three individual attributes lend themselves to a
culturally agile disposition that enabled students to engage in skilful
manoeuvrings and productive negotiations across the contestations and
complementarities of digital learning and the conventions of mainstream
schooling.
In addition to making theoretical and methodological contributions, this finding
also has implications for policy and practice. Within any given population of
schools and students, a number of learning sites and individuals are likely to
possess this combination of dispositions. Therefore, instances of schools and
students that can accommodate the complexities, even relish the opportunities
that come with the digital innovation in mainstream schooling practices are likely
to be observed. The fact that some ‘culturally agile’ learners and learning sites
exist, even flourish, in individual schools and within the larger schooling system
may make it easy for school leaders and to point to these self-contained
occurrences as evidence of progress and reform. However, effective techno-
pedagogical work in one program or one school does not shift mainstream
schooling culture; indeed it can keep it squarely in place. As a partial adoption, it
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 312
can be to mainstream pedagogy as historically, Carnival was to Church. Carnival
never threatened the authority and power of the Church, but allowed it to
remain intact as ‘playful alternatives’ flourished in spaces that were bounded and
delimited by cultural tradition. Like Carnival, digital spaces can be different,
exciting, and seductive. However, like Carnival, they may remain on the edge of
‘real schooling’, which remains resilient for the very fact that it can point to this
myriad of ‘innovative instances’ without having to fundamentally rethink daily
practice in mainstream schooling (Tan & McWilliam, 2009 forthcoming).
Meanwhile, the need for deep institutional renewal and transformation in the
schooling economy is becoming increasingly self-evident. Perez (2004) argued
that while these profound shifts will no doubt come with significant social costs,
it is only when the diffusion of new techno-pedagogical innovation and its
modernising logic has reached a certain critical mass that the benefits of a
systemic deployment of the new potential become fully visible. To this end, this
thesis has argued the value of ‘cultural agility’ as a new knowledge object that
can be empirically investigated in terms of its potential contribution to achieving
widespread and sustainable techno-pedagogical innovation in mainstream
schooling. This empirical grounding is significant in that it makes terms and
notions such as ‘innovation adoption and diffusion’, ‘institutional change’, ‘productive
negotiations’ and ‘successful transitions’ in mainstream schooling less nebulous and
rhetorical.
It is clear that there is still much work to be done in translating this knowledge
object into mainstream curriculum reform, assessment and accountability
benchmarks, and professional development. Larger scale studies in a wide
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 313
diversity of sites will be important in building on this modest platform of one
student cohort in one Australian school. Nonetheless, this thesis does
underscore the point that digital innovation in mainstream schooling cannot be
relegated to the sideline as either extension programs for high-performing
students/schools or ‘quick-fix’ interventions for disengaged students/schools if
sustained integration of digital and pedagogical is to be the new reality.
6.5 Limitations and Future Research
There are a number of limitations associated with this research study. These are
highlighted in the following sections and corresponding areas for future research
outlined.
6.5.1 Cultural agility as knowledge object
The conceptualisation of cultural agility as a dispositional construct, with three
underlying dimensions comprising of the individual-level variables of personal
innovativeness, cognitive playfulness and learning goal orientation, has emerged through
an inductive synthesis of the quantitative and qualitative components of this
study. Correspondingly, the implications of this new knowledge object for digital
innovation in mainstream schooling are explicated specifically in the context of
this study and should be interpreted with due caution in terms of their
generalisability. Although the factor analysis and discriminant analysis conducted
in the quantitative phase has shown the three individual-level variables to be
distinct, no further statistical validation has been undertaken to explore the
relationships between them and establish cultural agility as a second order factor.
This was beyond the scope and purpose of this present study, but it would be
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 314
important that they be validated more fully in future research through the
conduct of a series of appropriate confirmatory statistical procedures using
additional data sets.
In similar vein, although the empirical findings provide a view of the value of
cultural agility (as it is conceptualised in this study) in terms of individuals’
preparedness to engage with new ways for learning, they do not offer any
insights into whether or how this disposition can best be engendered in
individuals. Further studies that examine the importance of cultural agility for
21st century living and engaging will point the way for developing pedagogical
strategies to build such dispositions systematically in young people, teachers and
school leaders.
6.5.2 Study design
There are some methodological limitations associated with the design of this
study. Although this research site was purposively selected for the reasons set
out in Chapter One: Section 1.4, it is nonetheless bounded. Caution needs to be
exercised in generalising the findings and implications. Second, the study was
cross-sectional in design. Although mixed methods were employed to enrich
understandings and extend explanatory power, innovation diffusion and
institutional transitions are dynamic processes that would benefit from
observations over a longer timeframe. In this regard, there exist significant
possibilities for any future research project seeking to build on or extend this
work to incorporate a longitudinal element, and to conduct comparative studies
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 315
across schooling sites with diverse geographical, financial, political, social and
cultural parameters.
6.5.3 Data
Finally in terms of the study’s limitations, it is worth noting that the
questionnaire and focus group interview data collected and analysed were
primarily print-based and ‘old-school’. On the surface, this might seem an
underutilisation of the naturally-occurring digital data captured on the Web 2.0
platform of the learning innovation examined in the study. These digital data
included, among other things, online forum posts and backend online user
statistics. The latter would have provided objective measures of students’ usage
that can triangulate or complement the self-report measures used in the
questionnaire. In the design and execution of the study, collection of digital data
afforded by the SMC technical platform was indeed planned. Moreover, ethical
clearance and due consent had been obtained from the relevant research bodies
as well as the school, the students and their parents to collect and use this data in
the analyses. This intention, however, did not materialise in practice. The school
engaged in a major server migration exercise towards the end of the data
collection phase. In this process, the SMC’s open-source platform and all the
backend data were lost due to a technical incompatibility and were not able to be
retrieved. Unfortunately, the recovered data and backups were found to be
corrupted and unusable. This experience shows that the research process itself is
not immune to the teething problems of technological transitions. In this case,
the potential value-add afforded by the innovation was unable to be optimised in
the research practice. By implication, there is a growing need for increased
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 316
knowledge, understandings and expertise on how to optimise the affordances of
contemporary technologies for the research process as a whole, and this
constitutes an area that lends itself to worthwhile future research.
6.6 Concluding remarks
This thesis took as its starting point the paradox of schools becoming more
important and less relevant in the current Conceptual Age (Pink, 2005). It now
concludes by revisiting this proposition. The findings of this study reaffirm the
significant role that schools continue to play in wider society as sites of
custodianship, sorting and credentialing, a role that has been amplified in recent
decades since knowledge and ideas became the core drivers of economic value.
At the same time, the study provides particular insights into the ways that
schools are making sense of, and coming to terms with, the transition to post-
industrial knowledge and modes of production. Contrary to popular critique, this
study shows that mainstream schooling at both the centre (Ministries) and
periphery (schools) is neither passive nor regressive. Rather, it is actively
enrolled in the fraught process of deep, though gradual change to its governing
techno-pedagogical ‘commonsense’ principles and their attendant socio-
institutional norms, practices and identities.
Like all other social institutions, schools are not immune from the challenges of
transition, and it may well be argued that they have significantly more
responsibilities to society in general than an individual corporation or
commercial enterprise. Schools, as educational sites, do not operate as internal
‘silos’ but have obligations and responsibilities to a wide range of stakeholders
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 317
that have specific expectations and demands which may not necessarily be
compatible. In fact, the ‘bottom line measures’ for these different stakeholders
may often be in conflict with one another. On one hand, schools need to be
guided by and accountable to the governing public body that sets system-level
policy directions, curriculum and assessment requirements. On the other, there is
an implicit yet undeniable obligation to develop literate and responsible citizens
with relevant skills and dispositions that add value to the wider economy,
workplaces, and civic life. Put simply, introducing new technologies into schools
is a relatively straightforward move, yet it is one that is both necessary and
insufficient in terms of the ‘rubber’ of digital tools hitting the ‘road’ of
pedagogical practice in schools. The challenge is to introduce the practices,
dispositions, and values that are able to be sustained within schooling, by being
relevant to the culture of the school and the life futures of its most important
stakeholders―the students.
As pointed out by Gramsci in the head quote to this chapter, it is the “sum of
effort and sacrifice” invested by one generation that shapes the conditions of life
that the next generation experiences and often takes for granted. This thesis has
shown that a particular focus of ‘effort and sacrifice’ for the current generation
of educators is to commit to techno-pedagogical innovations that enhance the
rigor of traditional academic knowledge by recruiting more powerfully the digital
affordances of contemporary technologies that pervade young people’s lives. For
all members with stakes in the schooling venture, this challenge is necessarily
problematic and inevitably painful, but also compelling and exciting.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 318
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting behaviours. NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A Conceptual and Operational Definition of
Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology.
Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204-215.
Albright, J. Walsh, C. S. & Purohit, K. (2006). Hybridity, Globalization and Literacy
Education in the Context of NYC’s Chinatown. Pedagogies: An International
Journal, 1(4), 221-241.
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. NY: Longman.
Arola, K.L. (2006). Invitational listening: Exploring design in online spaces. Retrieved from
Proquest Dissertation and Theses. (ATT 3231761).
Asthana, A. (2008). Developing national talent for all our futures. New Statesman,
Special Issue on Creativity and Culture, London, September 22 (pp. 6-7).
Atkinson, Paul & Silverman, David (1997). Kundera's immortality: The interview
society and the invention of the self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 304-325.
Attewell, P., & Winston, H. (2003). Children of the digital divide. In P. Attewell, &
N.M. Seel (Eds.), Disadvantaged teens and computer technologies (pp. 117-136).
Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 319
Austin, H., Fitzgerald, R. (2007). Resisting categorisation: an ordinary mother.
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(3). Retrieved November 17, 2008,
from http://publications.epress.monash.edu/loi/aral
Baker, C. (1997). Membership categorization and interview accounts. In D.
Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 130-143).
London: Sage Publications.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Maldan, MA: Polity Press.
Barab, S.A., & Plucker, J.A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition,
ability and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing
and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165-182.
Barbour, R.S. (2007). The SAGE qualitative research kit: Doing focus groups. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Barbour, R.S., Featherstone, V.A. & Members of WoReN. (2000). Acquiring
qualitative skills for primary care research: review and reflections on a three-
stage workshop. Part 1: Using interviews to generate data. Family Practice,
17(1), 76-82.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Lisa, K. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical
review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.
Bensaou, B.M. & Venkatraman, N. (1996). Inter-organizational relationships and
information technology: a conceptual synthesis and a research framework.
European Journal of Information Systems, 5 (2), 84-91.
Berge, Z.L. (1998). Barriers to online teaching in post-secondary institutions: Can
policy changes fix it? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(2).
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 320
Retrieved January, 30, 2006, from
http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/summer12/berge12.html
Bernstein, B. (1973). Class, codes and control. Cornwall: Routledge & Keagan Paul Ltd.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research, critique (revised
ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Betts, K.S. (1998). An institutional overview: factors influencing faculty
participation in distance education in the United States: An institutional
study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(3). Retrieved January,
30, 2006, from
http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/fall13/betts13.html
Bijker, W. E. (2006). Why and how technology matters. In R.E. Goodin, & C. Tilly
(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis (pp. 681-706).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Birch, D. (2006). Factors influencing academics’ adoption and integration of educational
technology for the design and delivery of multimodal distance higher education courses.
Unpublished doctoral confirmation portfolio, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. NY: McKay.
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social
research. London: Sage Publications.
Bolter, J.D. (1991). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 321
Bouchard, L. (1993). Decision criteria in the adoption of EDI. Proceedings of the 14th
International Conference on Information Systems, December 5-8, Orlando, Florida (pp.
365-376).
Brandon, P.R. (1998). Stakeholder participation for the purpose of helping ensure
evaluation validity: Bridging the gap between collaborative and non-
collaborative evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(3), 325-337.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A. and Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and
Regression Trees. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books
& Software.
Bridgstock, R. (2007). Success in the protean career: a predictive study of professional artists
and tertiary arts graduates. (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of
Technology, 2007). Retrieved November 17, 2008, from
http://www.eprints.qut.edu.au/16575/
British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta). (2003).
Barriers and enablers to teachers’ use of ICT. Retrieved April 3, 2006, from
http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&catcode=_re_rp_02_a
&rid=13642
British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta). (2007). Becta:
2007 Annual Review. Retrieved August 17, 2007, from
http://publications.becta.org.uk/download.cfm?resID=33625
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 322
Brook, C. & Oliver, R. (2006). Online learning communities: Enhanced learning in
the K-12 setting. In L. Tan, & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research
on literacy in technology at the K-12 level (pp. 552-573). London: Idea Group
Reference.
Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges
in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
Brown, J.S. (2006). New learning environments for the 21st century: Exploring the
edge. Change, September/October, 18-24. Retrieved 1 June, 2006, from
http://www.johnseelybrown.com/Change%20article.pdf
Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and
learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16–32.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Bruns, A., Cobcroft, R., Smith, J., Towers, S. (2007). Mobile learning technologies
and the move towards ‘user-led education’. Proceedings of the Mobile Media
2007 Conference. Sydney. Retrieved August 22, 2007, from
http://snurb.info/files/Mobile%20Learning%20Technologies.pdf
Butler, C.W. (2008) Talk and Social Interaction in the Playground. Aldershot: Ashgate
Butler, C.W., & Weatherall A. (2006). “No, we're not playing families": membership
categorization in children's play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39,
441-70.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 323
Button, S.B., Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1996). Goal orientation in organisational
research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organisational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 67, 26-48.
Campell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by
the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
Chang, S-C., & Tung, F-C. (2008). An empirical investigation of students’
behavioural intentions to use the online learning course websites. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 71-83.
Chang, L.Y., & Wang, H.W. (2006). Analysis of traffic injury severity: An
application of non-parametric classification tree techniques. Accident Analysis
and Prevention, 38, 1019-1027.
Chen, C., Wu, J-P., & Yang, S.C. (2008). Accelerating the use of weblogs as an
alternative method to deliver case-based learning. International Journal on E-
Learning, 7(2), 331-349.
Cheng, Y.C. (2006). New paradigm of learning and teaching in a networked
environment: Implications for ICT literacy. In L. Tan, & R. Subramaniam
(Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy in technology at the K-12 level (pp. 1-20).
London: Idea Group Reference.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 324
Cheng, Y.C., & Townsend, T. (2000). Educational change and development in the
Asia-Pacific region: Trends and issues. In T. Townsend, & Y.C. Cheng
(Eds.), Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacific region: Challenges for
the future (pp. 317-344). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Chin, W. W. & Newsted P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with
small sample using partial least squares. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical
strategies for small sample research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Inc.
Chiu, C.M., Hsu, M.H., Sun, S.Y., Lin, T.C. & Sun, P.C. (2005). Usability, quality,
value and e-learning continuance decisions. Computers and Education, 45(4),
399-416.
Christensen, C.M. (2003). The innovator's dilemma: the revolutionary book that will change
the way you do business. New York: HarperCollins
Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B., & Johnson, C.W. (2009). Disrupting class: how
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Crossley, M.L. (2003). Would you consider yourself a healthy person? Using focus
groups to explore health as a moral phenomenon. Journal of Health Psychology,
8(5), 501-514.
Chwelos, P., Benbasat, I., & Dexter, A.S. (2001). Empirical test of an EDI adoption
model. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 304-321.
Clark, A. (2003). Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human
Intelligence. NY: Oxford University Press.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 325
Claxton, G. (2004). Learning is learnable (and we ought to teach it). In J. Cassell
(Ed.), Ten Years On. London, UK: The National Commission for Education.
Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society: The social life of teenagers and its impact on
education. New York: Free Press.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and
applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
Covington, D., Peterbridge, D., & Warren, E.S. (2005). Best practices: A
triangulated support approach in transitioning academic to online teaching.
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1). Retrieved January 30,
2006, from
http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/spring81/covington81.htm
Cox, M., Preston, C. & Cox, K. (1999). What factors support or prevent teachers
from using ICT in their classrooms? Proceedings of the British Educational
Research Association Annual Conference, September 2-5. University of Sussex,
Brighton.
Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. NY: Routledge.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Crocker, J., & Park, L.E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological
Bulletin, 130(3), 392-414.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 326
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika. 16, 297-334.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of
technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
Cummins, J., Ardeshiri, M., and Cohen S. (2008). Computer-Supported Scaffolding
of Literacy Development. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 4–21
Cunningham, A. (2004, Spring). Aiming higher: Technology and 21st century skills.
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 20(2).
Cunningham, S. (2005). Creative enterprises. In J. Hartley (Ed.) Creative industries.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 282-298.
Dai, G. (2006). Functional universal of goal orientation: A cross-cultural study. Retrieved
from Proquest Dissertation and Theses. (ATT 3246916).
Daley, E. (2003). Expanding the concept of literacy. Educause Review. March/April
2003, 33-40. Retrieved January 15, 2006, from
http://iml.usc.edudownloads/news_articles/erm0322.pdf
Davies, J.P. (2003). Education in the electronic culture. Maryland: Scarecrow Publishing
Inc.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 327
Day, D. (2005). Online learning in a senior secondary school: technological affordances in context.
Unpublished doctoral confirmation portfolio, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
De’ath, G. & Fabricius, K.E. (2000). Classification and regression trees: A powerful
yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology, 81(11), 3178-3192.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
DeVille, B. (2006). Decision trees for business intelligence and data mining: Using SAS®
Enterprise Miner. Cary, NC: SAS Press.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research
Policy, 11(3), 147-162.
Downes, S. (2004). E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine: Education and Technology in
Perspective. Retrieved, December 28, 2006, from
http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1
Drucker, P. (1995). Managing in a time of great change. Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Dunn, L.L.S. (2004). Cognitive playfulness, innovativeness, and belief of essentialness:
Characteristics of educators who have the ability to make enduring changes in the
integration of technology into the classroom environment. Retrieved from Proquest
Dissertation and Theses. (ATT 3144983).
Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development.
Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 328
Eccles, J.S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values and goals. In S.T.
Fiske, D.L. Schacter, & C. Sahn-Waxler (Eds.), Annual review of psychology.
Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Eccles, M.P., Hrisos, S., Francis, J., Kaner, E.F., O Dickinson, H., Fiona Beyer, F.,
& Johnston, M. (2006). Do self- reported intentions predict clinicians'
behaviour: a systematic review. Implementation Science 1(28). Retrieved April 6,
2009, from http://www.implementationscience.com/content/pdf/1748-
5908-1-28.pdf
Egan, K. (2008). The Future of Education: Reimagining our schools from the ground up. Yale:
New Haven and London.
Eglin, P., & Hester, S. (1992). Category, predicate and task: the pragmatics of
practical action. Semiotica 88, 243–68.
Eglin, P., & Hester, S. (2003). The Montreal Massacre A Story of Membership
Categorization Analysis. Waterloo, ONT, Ca: Wilfrid Laurier University Press
Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. NewYork: Norton.
Fabio, A., Sauber-Schatz, E.K., Barbour, K.E., and Li, W. (2009). The Association
Between County-Level Injury Rates and Racial Segregation Revisited: A
Multilevel Analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 99(4), 748-753.
Facebook (2009, April). Facebook Statistics. Retrieved 13 April, 2009, from
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics.
Faulkner, S.A., & Cook, C.M. (2006). Testing vs. teaching: the perceived impact of
assessment demands on middle grades instructional practices. Research in
Middle Level Education Online, 29(7), 1-13.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 329
Farquhar, J.F., & Surry, D.W. (1994). Adoption analysis: An additional tool for
instructional developers. Education and Training Technology International, 31(1),
19-25.
Feagin, J., Orum, A., & Sjoberg, G. (Eds.). (1991). A case for case study. Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Feenberg, A. (1991) Critical theory of technology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fitz, J., Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2002). School admissions after the School
Standards and Framework Act: Bringing the LEAs back in? Oxford Review of
Education, 28(2), 373-393.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. NY: Basic Books.
Freebody, K. (2008). Opportunity structures and the drama classroom: Socio-economic status as
interactional topic and resource. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The
University of Melbourne, Australia.
Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. London:
Sage Publications.
Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (2003). Literacy as engaging with new forms of life: The
‘four-roles’ model. In G. Bull and M. Anstey (Eds.), The Literacy Lexicon (pp.
51-66). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Freeman, C. (1984). Prometheus unbound. Futures, 16(5), 494-507.
Freeman, C. (2004). Income inequality in changing techno-economic paradigms. In
S. Reinert (Ed.), Globalization, economic development and inequality (pp. 243-257).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 330
Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. NY:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Frielick, S. (2004). Beyond constructivism: An ecological approach to e-learning.
Proceedings of the ASCILITE Conference, December 5-8, 2004. Perth, Western
Australia. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/frielick.html
Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. NY: Penguin Books.
Fullan, M. (1995). The school as a learning organization: distant dreams. Theory into
Practice, 34(4), 230-235
Furnkrantz, J., Petrak, J., & Trappl, L. (1997). Knowledge discovery in international
conflict databases. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 11, 91-118.
Gee, J. P (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2007a). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games,
learning, and literacy. New York: Peter Lang.
Gee, J. P. (2007b). Are video games good for learning? In S. de Castell & J. Jenson
(Eds.), Worlds in play: International perspectives on digital games research (pp. 323–
332). New York: Peter Lang.
Gibb, W., Auslander, D., & Griffin, J. (1993). Selection of myocardial electrogram
features for use by implantable devices. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering, 40(8), 727-735.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 331
Glynn, M.A., & Webster, J. (1993). Refining the nomological net of the Adult
Playfulness Scale: personality, motivational and attitudinal correlates for
highly intelligent adults. Psychological Reports, 72, 1023-1026.
Goertz, M., & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and
accountability programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 4-12.
Gorard, S. & Taylor, C. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research.
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gramsci, Antonio. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans. Q. Hoare
& G. Nowell-Smith. New York: International Publishers.
Greene, J.C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual
framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
Greenspan, A. (2004, February 20). The critical role of education in the nation's
economy. Speech at the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce Annual
Meeting. Retrieved August 15, 2007, from
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardDocs/Speeches/2004/200402202/def
ault.htm
Grover, V. (1993). An empirically derived model for the adoption of customer-
based interorganizational systems. Decision Sciences, 24(3), 603-640.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 332
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hart, P. & Saunders C. S. (1998). Emerging electronic partnerships: Antecedents
and dimensions of EDI use from the supplier's perspective. Journal of
Management Information Systems 14(4), 87-111.
Hedberg, J. G. & Chang, C. H., (2007) The G-portal digital repository as a
potentially disruptive pedagogical innovation. Educational Media International,
44(1), 3-15.
Henriques, J., Holloway, W. Urwin, C., Venn, C., & Walkerdine, V. (1984). Changing
the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. London and NY: Methuen.
Hester, S. & Eglin, P. (1997). Culture in action: studies in membership categorization analysis.
Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-centred, technology-rich environments: Operationalising
constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 10(4), 497-537.
Housley, W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2002). The reconsidered model of membership
categorization analysis. Qualitative Research, 2, 59-83.
Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: the next great generation. New York:
Vintage.
Howkins (2002). The creative economy: how people make money from ideas. London:
Penguin.
Huebner, J. (2005, October). A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation.
Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 980-986.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 333
Hurt, H.T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C.D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of
innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58-65.
Iacovou, G. L., & Benbasat, I. (1995). Electronic data interchange and small
organisations: Adoption and impact of technology. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 465-
485.
Issroff, K. & Scanlon, E. (2002) Educational technology: The influence of theory.
Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 6. Retrieved August 5, 2007, from
http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/6/issroff-scanlon-02-6-paper.html
Jayyusi, L. (1984). Categorization and the moral order. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Jayyusi, L. (1991). Values and moral judgement: communicative praxis as moral
order. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 227-251).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
John, O.P., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Measurement: reliability, construct
validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.),
Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 339-369). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Joomla (2009). What is Joomla? Retrieved April 13, 2009, from
http://www.joomla.org/about-joomla.html
Kaiser, H.F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis,
Psychometrika, 23, 187-200.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 334
Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B, & the Learning by Design Project Group. (2005). Learning
by design. Melbourne: Victorian Schools Innovation Commission and
Common Ground Publishing.
Kane, P. (2004). The play ethic. London, UK: Macmillan.
Kaplan-Leiserson, E. (2005) Trend: Content copyright, the commons, and the C
generation. Learning Circuits. Retrieved August 22, 2007, from
http://www.learningcircuits.org/2004/aug2004/0408_trends.htm
Karahanna, E., Straub D. W., Chervany, N.L. (1999). Information technology
adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and
post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183-213.
Kaufman, J.C., & Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.). (2006). The International Handbook of
Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kendall, J., Tung, L.L., Chua, K., Ng, C., Tan, M. (2001). Electronic commerce
adoption by SMEs in Singapore. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, January 3-6, Maui, Hawaii. Retrieved May 5, 2006,
from
http://computer.org/proceedings/hicss/0981/volume\%207/09817037abs
.htm
Kennedy, G., Dalgamo, B., Bennett, S., Gray, K., Waycott, J., Judd, T., Bishop, A.,
Maton, K., Krause, K-L., & Chang, R. (2009). Educating the Net Gen: A
handbook of findings for policy and practice. Retrieved July 30, 2009, from
http://www.netgen.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/handbook/NetGenHandbo
okAll.pdf
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 335
Kennedy, G., Krause, K., Judd, T., Churchward, A. & Gray, K. (2006). First year
students’ experiences with technology: are they really digital natives? Melbourne,
Australia: University of Melbourne. Retrieved June 28, 2009, from
http://www.bmu.unimelb.edu.au/research/munatives/natives_report2006.r
tf
Kim, J-O. and Mueller, C.W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical
issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Kim, J-O. and Mueller, C.W. (1994). Factor analysis: Statistical models and practical
issues. In M.S. Lewis-Beck (Ed.), Factor Analysis and Related Techniques, Vol. 5
(p. 111). London: Sage Publications.
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of
interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness,
16(1), 103-121.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. British Medical
Journal, 311, 299-302.
Kitzinger, J., & Barbour, R.S. (1999). Introduction: the challenge and promise of
focus groups. In R.S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group
research: politics, theory and practice (pp. 1-20). London: Sage Publications.
Kishore, R., Lee, J-W., McLean, E.R. (2001). The role of personal innovativeness
and self-efficacy in information technology acceptance: an extension of tam
with notions of risk. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Information
Systems, December 16-29, New Orleans, USA. Retrieved April 6, 2009 from
http://cq-pan.cqu.edu.au/david-jones/Reading/ICIS_2001/01RIP10.pdf
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 336
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage
Publications.
Korica, K., Maurer, H., & Schinagl, W. (2006). The Growing Importance of e-
Communities on the Web. Proceedings of IADIS International Conference on Web
based Communities, February 26-28. San Sebastian, Spain. Retrieved January 4,
2007, from
http://www.iicm.tugraz.at/iicm_papers/growing_importance_of_e-
communities.doc
Kozma, R.B., & Anderson, R.E. (2002). Qualitative case studies of innovative
pedagogical practices using ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 387-
394.
Kress, G. (1999). Educating for an unknowable future. Telemedium: The Journal of
Media Literacy, 45(1), 7-10.
Kress, G. (2000). Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In B. Cope
and M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social
futures (pp. 153-161). London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge Falmer.
Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
London: Sage Publications.
Kuzel, A.J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B.F. Crabtree & W.I. Miller
(Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 31-44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lamnek, S. (1995). Qualitative social research (4th ed.). Weihnhein, Basil: Beltz
publishing house.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 337
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leadbeater, C. (1999). Living on thin air: The new economy. NY: Viking.
Leavitt, C., & Walton, J. (1975). Development of a scale for innovativeness. In M.J.
Schlinger (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 545-554). Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research.
Lemke, C. (2002). enGauge 21st century skills: Digital literacies for a digital age. Naperville,
IL and Los Angeles, CA: North Central Regional Educational Lab and the
Metiri Group. Retrieved July 11, 2007, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01
/0000019b/80/29/cf/24.pdf
Lemsky, C.M., Smith, G., Malec, J.F., & Ivnik, R.J. (1996). Identifying risk for
functional impairment using cognitive measures: An application of CART
modelling. Neuropsychology, 10(3), 368-375.
Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1988). Managerial influence in the
implementation of new technology. Management Science, 34(10), 1252-1265.
Levy, S., & Stone, B. (2006, April 3). The new wisdom of the web. Newsweek.
Retrieved April 5, 2006, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/45976
Limayem, M., & Hirt, S. G. (2003). Force of habit and information systems usage:
theory and initial validation, Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
4(3), 65-97.
Lincoln, Y.S. (1995). In Search of Students' Voices. Theory into Practice, 34(2), 88-93.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 338
Lou, H., Luo, W., & Strong, D. (2000). Perceived critical mass effect on groupware
acceptance, European Journal of Information Systems, 9, 91–102.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lunn, S. (2007, July 27). Face to face in cyberspace. The Australian. Retrieved August
1, 2007, from
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22143354-
15302,00.html
MacGilchrist, B., Myers, K., & Reed, J. (2004). The Intelligent School. London: Sage
Publications.
Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D.F. (2005). A multidimensional commitment model of
volitional systems adoption and usage behavior. Journal of MIS, 22(1), 117-
151
Marczak, M., & Sewell, M. (2006). Using focus groups for evaluation. Retrieved
November 18, 2008, from
http://ag.arizona.edu/fcs/cyfernet/cyfar/focus.htm
Marcinkiewicz, H.R. (1993). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer
use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220-
237.
Mays, N. & Pope, C. (1995). Rigour and qualitative research. British Medical Journal,
311, 109-112.
McHoul, A., & Watson, D.R. (1984). Two axes for the analysis of “commonsense”
and “formal” geographical knowledge in classroom talk. British Journal of the
Sociology of Education, 5(3), 281–302.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 339
McWilliam, E. (1989). Teaching Kylie Mole. Journal of Australian Studies, 25, 5-10.
McWilliam, E. (1997). Gender Im/material: Teaching bodies and gender education,
Australian Journal of Education, 41(1), 48-58.
McWilliam, E. (1998). On the proper governance of children. In M. Alexander, S.
Harding, P. Harrison, G.Kendall, Z. Skrbis and J. Western. (Eds.).
Refashioning Sociology: Responses to a New World Order. Proceedings of the TASA
Conference, Brisbane Australia (pp. 395-401).
McWilliam, E. (2006 May). Schooling the Yuk/Wow Generation. The Bassett Oration
Ed. Ventures Paper (No. 3). Camverwell, Victorial: Australian College of
Educators.
McWilliam, E. (2008). The Creative Workforce: How to launch young people into high-flying
futures. Sydney, Australia: UNSW Press.
McWilliam, E. (in press). The creative workforce. In M. Keane (Ed.), Executive
leadership in the creative industries: The Queensland Model. Brisbane, Australia:
Queensland University of Technology.
McWilliam, E. (2010 forthcoming) Learning Culture, Teaching Economy, Pedagogies:
An International Journal, 5(4).
McWilliam, E., & Brannock, J. (2001). The Way to a Boy’s Heart? New mechanisms
for making boys better. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29(1), 7-18.
McWilliam, E. & Dawson, S. (2008). Pedagogical practice after the information age.
Journal of Futures Studies, 12(3), 1-14.
McWilliam, E. and Vick, M. (1995). Bodies of Knowledge: Teachers, students and
gender education. Proceedings from Girls and Boys: Challenging Perspectives, Building
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 340
Partnerships, Brisbane, Australia, June (pp. 43-58). Ministerial Advisory
Committee on Gender Equity.
Modis, T. (2002). Forecasting the growth of complexity and change. Technological
Forecasting & Social Change, 69(4). Retrieved December 6, 2007, from
http://www.ncap.gr/tmodis/articles/TedWEB.htm
Moore, T., Jesse, C., & Kittler, R. (2001). An overview and evaluation of decision
tree methodology. Paper presented at the American Statistical Association Quality
and Productivity conference, Austin, Texas, May 23-25.
Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Mortimore, P. (2000) Does educational research matter? British Educational Research
Journal, 26(1), 5-24.
Morris, M.G., & Dillon, A. (1997). How user perceptions influence software use.
IEEE Software, 14(4), 58-65.
Murphy, T. J., Reed-Rhoads, T., Stone, A. D., Terry, R. A., and Allen, K. (2008,
January). Coefficient Alpha: An Engineer's Interpretation of Test Reliability.
Journal of Engineering Education. Retrieved 21 April 2008, from
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1428822571.html
Murthy, S. (1998). Automatic construction of decision trees from data: a
multidisciplinary survey. Data Mining & Knowledge Discovery, 2(4), 345-389.
Myers, J.R., Henderson-King, D.H., & Henderson-King, E.I. (1997). Facing
technological risks: The importance of individual differences. Journal of
Research in Personality, 31, 1-20.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 341
National Center on Education and the Economy. (2007). Tough Choices or Tough
Times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the America workforce.
Washington DC: Jossey-Bass, Wiley Imprint.
National Research Council (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington: National
Academy Press.
National School Boards Foundation (NSBF). (2007). Are we there yet? Research and
guidelines on schools’ use of the Internet. Retrieved August 5, 2007, from
http://www.nsbf.org/thereyet/fulltext.html
Nelson, G. (1999). Science literacy for all in the 21st century. Educational Leadership,
57(2), 14-16.
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social
futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
The New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social
futures. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and
the design of social futures. London: Routledge.
Ngai, E.W.T., Poon, J.K.L., & Chan, Y.H.C. (2007). Empirical examination of the
adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250-267.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). (2003). enGauge 21st
century skills: Literacy in the digital age. Naperville, IL and Los Angeles, CA.
Retrieved July 11, 2007, from
http://www.grrec.ky.gov/SLC_grant/engauge21st_Century_Skills.pdf
O’Reilly, T. (2005, September 30). What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models
for the next generation of software. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 342
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-
web-20.html
Oblinger, D.G., & Oblinger, J.L. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps towards
understanding the Net Generation. In D.G. Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger
(Eds.), Educating the Net Generation. Educause.
OECD. (2006). Demand-sensitive schooling: Evidence and issues. Centre for
Educational Research and Innovation: Education & Skills, 15, 1-153. Retrieved
May 17, 2007, from
http://oberon.sourceoecd.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/vl=859335/cl=12/n
w=1/rpsv/ij/oecdthemes/99980029/v2006n15/s1/p1l
OECD. (2007). The OECD Schooling Scenarios in Brief. Centre for Educational
Research and Innovation, OECD. Retrieved Mar 20, 2007, from
http://www.oecd.org/document/10/0,2340,en_2649_34521_2078922_1_1
_1_37455,00.html
Ofsted. (2004). ICT in schools: The impact of government initiatives five years on. UK:
Oxford Publications Centre. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-
research/Browse-all-by/Education/Curriculum/Information-and-
communication-technology/Primary/ICT-in-schools-2004-the-impact-of-
government-initiatives-five-years-on/(language)/eng-GB
Oliver, B. and Goerke, V. (2007). Australian undergraduates’ use and ownership of
emerging technologies: implications and opportunities for creating engaging
learning experiences for the Net generation. Australasian Journal of Educational
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 343
Technology, 23(2), 171–186. Retrieved June 28, 2009 from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/oliver.html
Passman, R. (2000). Pressure cooker: Experiences with student-centered teaching
and learning in high-stakes assessment environments. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Dallas, Texas,
January 27-29. Retrieved November 12, 2008 from ERIC Document
Reproduction Service (No. ED 440 146).
Parveen, F., and Sulaiman, A. (2008). Technology complexity, personal
innovativeness and intention to use wireless internet using mobile devices in
Malaysia. International Review of Business Research Papers, 4(5), 1-10.
Pearson, M., & Naylor, S. (2006). Changing contexts: Teacher professional
development and ICT pedagogy. Education Information Technology, 11, 283-291.
Pelgrum, W. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from
a worldwide educational assessment. Computers and Education, 37, 163-178.
Perez, C. (2002). Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and
golden ages. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Perez, C. (2004). Technological revolutions, paradigm shifts and socio-institutional
change. In S. Reinert (Ed.), Globalization, economic development and inequality (pp.
217-242). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Perrin, D.G. (2005). Editor’s note. International Journal of Instructional Technology and
Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved February 2, 2007, from
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 344
Pinch, T. J. (1996). The Social Construction of Technology: a Review. In R. Fox
(Ed.), Technological Change: Methods and Themes in the History of Technology (pp. 17
- 35). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Plank, D. (2007). Understanding the demand for schooling. Centre for Educational
Research and Innovation, OECD. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from
http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3343,en_2649_34859774_35415010
_1_1_1_1,00.html
Pink, D.H. (2005). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. NY: Penguin
Group.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common
method bias in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Popkewitz, T. (2003). Governing the child and pedagogicalization of the parent: A
historical excursus into the present. In M. Bloch, K. Holmlund, I. Moqvist,
& T. Popkewitz (Eds.), Governing children, families and education: restructuring the
welfare state (pp. 35-61). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Postman, M., Kenner, H., & Perelman, L. (1993). The new technology: Three views
(reprinted with permission from The Washington Post, November 1, 1992).
Australian Educational Computing, 8(1), 17-20.
Premkumar, K., Bhattacherjee, A. (2008). Explaining information technology usage:
a test of competing model. Omega, 36, 64-75.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 345
Premkumar, G., & Ramamurthy K. (1994). Implementation of electronic data
interchange: An innovation diffusion perspective. Management Information
Systems, 11(2), 157-186.
Premkumar, G. & Ramamurthy K. (1995). The role of interorganizational and
organizational factors on the decision mode for adoption of
interorganizational systems. Decision Sciences, 26(3), 303-336.
Premkumar, G. & Ramamurthy K. (1997). Determinants of EDI adoption in the
transportation industry. European Journal of Information Systems, 6(2), 107-121.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1.
Prensky, M. (2006). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8 -13.
Preston, C., Cox, M., & Cox, K. (2000). Teachers as Innovators in learning: What motivates
teachers to use ICT. London: MirandaNet.
Psathas, G. (1999). Studying the organization in action: Membership categorization
and interaction. Human Studies, 22, 139-62.
Puchta, C. & Potter, J. (1999). Asking elaborate questions: focus groups and the
management of spontaneity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(3), 314-325.
QSR International Pty Ltd (QSR). (2000). NVivo qualitative analysis program: Version
1.7. Melbourne.
Raby, R. & Domitrek, J. (2007). Slippery as fish… but already caught? Secondary
students’ engagement with school rules. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3),
931-958.
Rallis, S.F. (1995). Creating learner-centered schools: dreams and practices. Theory
into Practice, 34(4), 224-229.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 346
Reason, J. (2000) Human error: Models and management. British Medical Journal, 320,
768-770.
Richards, C. (1997). Researching the ‘organising metaphors’ which inform teachers’
uses of computers in classrooms. Paper presented at the Australian Association for
Research in Education (AARE) Annual Conference: Researching Education in New
Times, Brisbane, Australia, November 30 - December 4. Retrieved January 12, 2009,
from http://www.aare.edu.au/97pap/richc277.htm
Roberts, P. (2008). Roundtable: What’s the point of creativity in the classroom? New
Statesman, Special Issue on Creativity and Culture, London, September 22 (pp. 21-31).
Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. West Sussex: Capstone
Publishing Limited.
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). NY: The Free Press.
Ruane, J., & Ramcharan, P. (2006). Grounded theory and membership
categorisation analysis: Partner methodologies for establishing social
meaning — A research example. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, 9(3), 308-316.
Russell, M., Bebell, D. & O’Dwyer, L.M. (2005) Tracking the arc of new teachers’
technology use. In C. Vrasidas & G.V. Glass (Eds.), Preparing teachers to teach
with technology (pp. 45-63). Greenwich: Information Age publishing.
Rychen, D.S., & Salganik, L.H. (Eds.). (2003). Key competencies for a successful life and a
well-functioning society. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Sacks, H. (1972) An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for
doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31-74).
New York: Free Press.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 347
Sacks, H. (1979). Hotrodder: a revolutionary category. In: G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday
language: studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 7-14). New York: Irvington.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vols. I and II). In G. Jefferson (Ed.) with an
introduction by E.A. Schegloff. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Salford Systems. (2002). An overview of the CART methodology. Retrieved November
17, 2008, from http://www.salford-systems.com/421.php
Sassen, S. (2004) Space and Power. In N. Gane (Ed.) The Future of Social Theory (pp.
125-142). London: Continuum.
Sawchuk, S. (2009, March 4). Backers of ‘21st century skills’ take flak. Education
Week, pp. 1-4.
Schegloff, E.A. (2007). A tutorial on membership categorisation. Journal of Pragmatics,
39, 462-482.
Schumpeter, J. (1939). Business cycles. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sclove, Richard E. (1995). Democracy and Technology. NY: The Guilford Press.
Scott, M. (2007, June 30). Primped and primed to hang on to the young ones. The
Sydney Morning Herald, p. 13.
Seidensticker, B. (2006). Future hype: the myths of technology change. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Selim, H.M. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course
websites. Computers and Education, 40, 343-360.
Sen, A.K. (2006). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. New York: W.W. Norton
& Co.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 348
Seymour, J., Bellamy, G., Gott, M., Ahmedzai, S.H. & Clark, D. (2002). Using focus
groups to explore older people’s attitudes to end of life care. Ageing and
Society, 22(4), 517-526.
Sheeran P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review.
European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 1-36.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International
Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved February
2, 2007, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
Siemens, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning and knowledge today. Global Summit
2006: Technology connected futures. Sydney. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from
http://www.educationau.edu.au/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/users/root
/public/globalsummit/gs2006_siemens.pdf
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analysing talk, text and
interaction (3rd ed). London: Sage Publications.
Sliwka, A. & Istance, D. (2006). Parental and stakeholder 'voice' in schools and
systems. European Journal of Education, 41(1), 29–43.
Sloane, F., & Kelly, A. (2003). Issues in high-stakes testing programs. Theory into
Practice, 42(1), 12-18.
Smith, K. (2008, May). The challenge of environmental technology: promoting radical innovation
in conditions of lock-in. Final report to the Garnaut Climate Change Review.
Australian Innovation Research Centre: University of Tasmania. Retrieved
January 20, 2009 from
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/Thechall
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 349
engeofenvironmentaltechnologypromotingradicalinnovationinconditionsoflo
ck-in/$File/The%20challenge%20of%20environmental%20technology%
20promoting%20radical%20innovation%20in%20conditions%20of%20lock
-in.pdf
Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analyzing focus groups: limitations and possibilities.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(2), 103-119.
Sniehotta F.F., Scholz U., Schwarzer R. (2005). Bridging the intention-behaviour
gap: planning, self-efficacy, and action control in the adoption and
maintenance of physical exercise. Psychology & Health, 20,143-160.
Spodark, E. (2003). Five obstacles to technology in small liberal arts university.
T.H.E. Journal Online. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from
http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A4344.cfm
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Streiner D (2003) Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and
internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99-103.
Surry, D.W. (1997). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Proceedings of the
Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 350
(AECT), Albuquerque, New Mexico, February 12–15. Retrieved January 22,
2006, from http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/
Swan, K. & Shea, P. (2005). The development of virtual learning communities. In S.
R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: research on asynchronous
learning networks (pp. 239-280). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
Tabachnik, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham
Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
Tan, J. P-L. (2003). An empirical analysis of B2B electronic purchasing usage by
firms: a post-adoption model integrating trust. Unpublished Masters
Dissertation. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Tan, J. P-L., & McWilliam, E. (2008) Cognitive playfulness, creative capacity and
generation ‘C’ learners. Cultural Science, 1(2). Retrieved April 13, 2009, from
http://www.cultural-science.org/journal/index.php/culturalscience/article
/view/13/51
Tan, J. P-L., & McWilliam, E. (2009). From literacy to multiliteracies: Diverse
learners and pedagogical practice. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 213-
225 (Special issue: Multiliteracies).
Tan, S.S.L., and Fichman, M. (2002). Adoption of web-Based transactional banking:
Efficiency-choice and neo-institutional perspectives. Proceedings of the 23rd
International Conference on Information Systems, December 15-18, Barcelona, Spain
(pp. 143-152).
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing the world. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 351
Thompson, B., & Vidal-Brown, S.A. (2001). Principal components versus principle
axis factors: when will we ever learn? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, February 1-3.
Retrieved 5 May, 2008, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01
/0000019b/80/16/cc/42.pdf
Thong, Y. L. (1999). An integrated model of information systems adoption in small
businesses. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 187-214.
Toffler, A. (1970). The Future Shock. NY: Random House.
Trendwatching. (2004, March). Generation C. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from
http://www.trendwatching.com/trends/GENERATION_C.htm
Turvey, K. (2006). Towards deeper learning through creativity within online
communities in primary education. Computers and Education, 46(3), 309-321.
Umana-Taylor, A.J. & Bamaca, M.Y. (2004). Conducting focus groups with Latino
populations: lessons from the field. Family Relations, 53(3), 261-272.
van Dijk, J. (2006). The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media (2nd ed.). London:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology
adoption model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2),
186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance
of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-
478.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 352
Verhagen, P. (2006). Connectivism: A new learning theory? Retrieved February 2, 2007,
from http://www.elearning.surf.nl/e-learning/english/3793
Vijayasarathy, L.R. (2004). Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping:
the case for an augmented technology acceptance model. Information and
Management, 41(6), 186-204.
Vollmer, J. (2003). The increasing burden on America’s public schools. Fairfield, IA:
Vollmer and Associates.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995) A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J.
Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education (pp. 3-15). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vrasidas, C., & Glass, G.V. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach with technology. Greenwich:
Information Age publishing.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waddoups, G.L. & Howell, S.L. (2002). Bringing online leaning to campus: the
hybridization of teaching and learning at Brigham Young University.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(2), 1-13.
Ware, P. (2008). Language learners and multimedia literacy in and after school.
Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3, 37–51.
Warschauer, M. (2007). The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry,
1(1), 41-49.
Warschauer, M. (2008). Technology and literacy: Introduction to the special issue.
Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3, 1–3.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 353
Warschauer, M. (2008). Laptops and Literacy: A Multi-Site Case Study. Pedagogies:
An International Journal, 3(1), 52-67
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the
classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 22–36.
Watson, R. (1997). Some general reflections on 'Categorization' and 'Sequence' in
the analysis of conversation'. In S. Hester & P. Eglin (Eds.), Culture in action:
studies in membership categorization analysis (pp. 49-76). Washington, DC:
University Press of America.
Weatherley, R. (2006). Connectivism. NSW: International Centre for VET Teaching
and Learning. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from
http://www.icvet.tafensw.edu.au/resources/connectivism.htm
Webb T.L, & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioural intention engender
behaviour change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological
Bulletin, 132, 249-268.
Webster, J., Tervino, L.K., & Ryan, L. (1993). The dimensionality and correlates of
flow in human-computer interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 9(4), 411-
426.
Welsman, S. (2006, January 11). Enterprise is the key to the future. The Australian:
Higher Education Supplement, p. 50.
Weston, T.J. (2005). Why faculty did (or did not) integrate instructional software in
their undergraduate classrooms. Innovative Higher Education, 30(2), 99-115.
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 354
White, P., Gorard, S., Fitz, J., & Taylor, C. (2001). Regional and local differences in
admission arrangements for schools. Oxford Review of Education, 27(3), 317-
337.
Wikipedia. (2007). Web 2.0. Retrieved August 22, 2007, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
Wilkinson, S. (1999). How useful are focus groups in feminist research? In R.S.
Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: politics,
theory and practice (pp. 64-78). London: Sage Publications.
Wilmot, S. & Ratcliffe, J. (2002). Principles of distributive justice used by members
of the general public in the allocation of donor liver grafts for
transplantation: A qualitative study. Health Expectations, 5, 199-209.
Wilson, B.G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design.
Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.
Widdicombe, S., & Wooffitt, R. (1995). The language of youth subcultures: social identity in
action. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Wordnetweb. (2008). Street cred. Retrieved November 18, 2008, from
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=street+cred&sub=Search
+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=
Yi, Y., Tung, L.L., & Wu, Z. (2003). Incorporating Technology Readiness (TR) into
TAM: Are individual traits important to understand technology acceptance?
Paper presented at the Diffusion Interest Group in Information Technology (DIGIT)
Workshop. Seattle, WA. Retrieved, March 2, 2007 from
www.mis.temple.edu/digit/digit2003/files/DIGIT-2003-yi.pdf
Cha p te r S i x : Co nc l u s io n Pag e | 355
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Yohannes, Y., & Webb, P. (1999). Classification and Regression Trees (CART): A user
manual for identifying indicators of vulnerability to famine and chronic food insecurity.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Yuen, A. & Ma, W. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365-382.
Zhu, K., Kraemer, K., Xu, S. (2003). Electronic business adoption by European
firms: a cross-country assessment of the facilitators and inhibitors. European
Journal of Information Systems, 12(4), 251-268.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. NY: Basic
Books.
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 356
APPENDIX A
QUT UHREC ethics approval for the research study in general
From: Research Ethics [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 6 June 2007 10:40 AM To: Miss Jennifer Puay Leng Tan Cc: Janette Lamb Subject: Ethics Application Approval -- 0700000538 Dear Miss Jennifer Tan Re: Student Media Centre research project This email is to advise that your application 0700000538 has been reviewed as Human Ethics Level 1 and confirmed as meeting the requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans. Please note that before data collection can commence you should submit copies of the questionnaire, interview items and any other related documentation for approval. Whilst the project has received ethical clearance, the decision to commence and authority to commence may be dependant on factors beyond the remit of the ethics committee (eg ethics clearance/permission from another institute/organisation) and you should not commence the proposed work until you have satisfied any other requirements. If you require a formal approval certificate, please respond via reply email and one will be issued. Decisions related to Level 1 and 2 ethical review are subject to ratification at the next available committee meeting. You will only be contacted again in relation to this matter if the Committee raises any additional questions or concerns. This project has been awarded ethical clearance until 6/06/2010 and a progress report must be submitted for an active ethical clearance at least once every twelve months. Researchers who fail to submit an appropriate progress report when asked to do so may have their ethical clearance revoked and/or the ethical clearances of other projects suspended. When your project has been completed please advise us by email at your earliest convenience. Please do not hesitate to contact the unit if you have any queries. Regards Research Ethics Unit Office of Research | O Block Podium | Gardens Point | p: +61 7 3138 5123 | f: +61 7 3138 1304 | e: [email protected] | w: http://www.research.qut.edu.au/ethics/
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 357
APPENDIX B
QUT UHREC ethics approval for the use of research instruments
From: Research Ethics [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2007 12:23 AM To: Miss Jennifer Puay Leng Tan Cc: Janette Lamb Subject: Ethics Minor Amendments -- 0700000538 Dear Miss Jennifer Tan Project Title: "Student Media Centre research project" Project #: 0700000538 End Date: 6/06/2010 This email is to advise that your application for a minor amendment has been received by the Research Ethics Unit and approval has been provided for the roll-out of the SMC Student Questionnaire and the Student Focus Group Interview Protocol. This decision is subject to ratification at the next meeting of UHREC and you will only be contacted again in relation to this matter if the Committee raises any additional questions or concerns. Regards Research Ethics Unit Office of Research | O Block Podium | Gardens Point | p: +61 7 3138 5123 | f: +61 7 3138 1304 | e: [email protected] | w: http://www.research.qut.edu.au/ethics/
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 358
APPENDIX C
Participant Information Sheets & Consent Forms
Participant Information for Students
Student Media Centre Research Project
Research Team Contacts Jennifer Tan
Research Fellow & PhD Candidate Professor Erica McWilliam PhD Research Supervisor
+617 3138 5417 +617 3138 3412 [email protected] [email protected]
Description
This project is being undertaken as part of a collaborative research process between [RBS] and the Creative Workforce Program (ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation at Queensland University of Technology, QUT). A component of this research project involves a PhD study for the named Research Fellow, Jennifer Tan. The purpose of this project is to evaluate the impact of the Student Media Centre (SMC) on student learning and teaching practices. In particular, the study will focus on exploring the role of the SMC in (i) developing student leadership, engagement and creativity, as well as (ii) facilitating innovative teaching practices through engagement with digital new media technologies. SMC was set up at the beginning of this school year with a vision to become a student-directed online creative learning ecology that promotes student publishing of creative works. These include podcasts, vodcasts, creative and journalistic writing, digital art and music and other media products. SMC starts off as being primarily student-oriented and co-curricular, but seeks to ultimately engage the whole school community in using the online environment to promote both individual and collaborative creative processes. The research team requests your assistance in this project by participating in our research activities detailed in the next section. Your participation and opinions would be most valuable to this study. Participation
Your participation in this project is voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from participation at any time during the project without comment or penalty. Your decision to participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with the school and QUT.
This project will span a period of seven months, from June to December 2007. During this time, we will invite you to participate in one or more of the following research activities: � Completion of a short survey (June 2007) � Participation in focus group discussions or semi-structured interviews (July to September 2007)
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 359
The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. The focus group interviews will last approximately 30 minutes each. These research activities will be conducted by members of the QUT research team stated above.
Confidentiality
All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially. Utmost care will be taken to ensure that any information that can identify you is removed. All data will be presented in aggregate form. You are requested to provide your name in the survey response to facilitate further selection of participants for follow-up semi-structured interviews. We stress that this information will only be available to the researchers for data analysis purposes, and will not be accessible in any way nor at any time to the school, teachers, and parents.
All the interviews will be audio-recorded with your permission and transcribed verbatim. You will be provided with a copy of the transcript for verification and edit prior to final inclusion in any research reports. Similarly, the interview recordings and transcriptions will only be available to the researchers for data analysis purposes, and will not be accessible in any way and at any time by the school, teachers, and parents. All data collected for this project will be stored in a secure filing cabinet or a secure network folder within QUT. Only the research team will have access to the data. Data will be retained for five years after research findings have been published. These will be appropriately disposed of thereafter. Expected benefits
It is expected that this project will benefit you in terms of helping schools and teachers better understand how to design learning environments that are more student-centred and better meet the learning needs of senior school students like yourself.
Risks
There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project.
Consent to Participate
We would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement for you to participate in this project.
Questions / further information about the project
Please contact the Research Fellow (Jennifer Tan) or any other research team member named above if you have any questions or if you require further information about the project.
Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project
QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or [email protected]. The Research Ethics Officer is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 360
Consent Form for Student Participants
Student Media Centre Research Project
Statement of consent
By signing below, you are indicating that you:
• have read and understood the information document regarding this project
• have had any questions answered to your satisfaction
• understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team
• understand that the project may include audio recording
• understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty
• understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or [email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project
• agree to participate in the project
Name
Signature
Date / /
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 361
Information Sheet for Parents/Guardians
Student Media Centre Research Project
Research Team Contacts
Research Team Contacts Jennifer Tan
Research Fellow & PhD Candidate Professor Erica McWilliam PhD Research Supervisor
+617 3138 5417 +617 3138 3412 [email protected] [email protected]
Description
This project is being undertaken as part of a collaborative research process between [RBS] and the Creative Workforce Program (ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation at Queensland University of Technology, QUT). A component of this research project involves a PhD study for the named Research Fellow, Jennifer Tan. The purpose of this project is to evaluate the impact of the Student Media Centre (SMC) on student learning and teaching practices. In particular, the study will focus on exploring the role of the SMC in (i) developing student leadership, engagement and creativity, as well as (ii) facilitating innovative teaching practices through engagement with digital new media technologies. SMC was set up at the beginning of this school year with a vision to become a student-directed online creative learning ecology that promotes student publishing of creative works. These include podcasts, vodcasts, creative and journalistic writing, digital art and music and other media products. SMC starts off as being primarily student-oriented and co-curricular, but seeks to ultimately engage the whole school community in using the online environment to promote both individual and collaborative creative processes. According to ethical guidelines, parental/guardian consent must be sought for participants below 18 years of age. The research team requests your assistance in consenting to your child’s participation in this project. Your child’s participation would be most valuable to this study. Details of the research activities and ethical policies guiding this project are provided in the following sections. Participation
Your child’s participation in this project is voluntary. If he agrees to participate, he can withdraw from participation at any time during the project without comment or penalty. His decision to participate, and your decision to give parental consent, will in no way impact upon you and your child’s current or future relationship with the school and QUT.
This project will span a period of seven months, from June to December 2007. During this time, we will invite your child to participate in one or more of the following research activities: � Completion of a short survey (June 2007) � Participation in focus group discussions or semi-structured interviews (July to September 2007)
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 362
The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. The focus group interviews will last approximately 30 minutes each. These research activities will be conducted by members of the QUT research team stated above.
Confidentiality
All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially. Utmost care will be taken to ensure that any information that can identify your child is removed. All data will be presented in aggregate form. Your child will be requested to provide his/her name in the survey responses to facilitate further selection of participants for follow-up semi-structured interviews. We stress that this information will only be available to the researchers for data analysis purposes, and will not be accessible in any way nor at any time by the school, teachers and fellow students.
All the interviews will be audio-recorded with your child’s permission and transcribed verbatim. Your child will be provided with a copy of the transcript for verification and edit prior to final inclusion in any research reports. Similarly, the interview recordings and transcriptions will only be available to the researchers for data analysis purposes, and will not be accessible in any way and at any time by the school, teachers and fellow students.
All data collected for this project will be stored in a secure filing cabinet or a secure network folder within QUT. Only the research team will have access to the data. Data will be retained for five years after research findings have been published. These will be appropriately disposed of thereafter. Expected benefits
It is expected that this project will benefit you and your child in terms of helping schools and teachers better understand how to design learning environments that are more student-centred and better meet the learning needs of senior school students.
Risks
There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your child’s participation in this project.
Consent to Participate
Your child’s consent to participate in this project will be sought separately via a written consent form addressed to him.
Due to the large number of students invited to participate in this research project (whole senior school student population), we are seeking parental/guardian consent in the following way:
1) If you do not agree to your child’s participation in this project, please send a short email to Jennifer Tan at [email protected] by Friday, 1 June 2007.
2) If you agree to your child’s participation in this project, no further action is required on your part. If we do not hear from you via email by Friday, 1 June 2007, you are indicating that you:
• have read and understood the information document regarding this project
• have had any questions answered to your satisfaction
• understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team
• understand that the project may include audio recording
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 363
• understand that your child is free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty
• understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or [email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project
• agree to your child’s participation in the project
Questions / further information about the project
Please contact the Research Fellow (Jennifer Tan) or any other research team member named above if you have any questions or if you require further information about the project.
Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project
QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or [email protected]. The Research Ethics Officer is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 364
APPENDIX D
Screenshots of the SMC to illustrate its online design features (Note: The name of the school has been erased from the screenshots)
Home page: Login/out, sections as tabs, featured articles, online polls
Section: Online polls created by students
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 365
Section: Your Work (academic exemplars and social commentaries)
Section: Podcasts created by studets
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 366
Section: Videos created by students
Section: Picture gallery
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 367
Section: Forums
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 368
APPENDIX E
Student Self-Report Questionnaire
SMC STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE THANK YOU for agreeing to fill in this questionnaire – there are only 2 pages and it takes about 10 minutes to complete. 1.1 The questionnaire covers a range of areas about how you learn and your attitudes towards the Online Student Media Centre
(SMC). 1.2 Your accurate and honest opinions are highly valued and deeply appreciated. 1.3 Please answer all the questions. There is no right or wrong answer. 1.4 The information in this questionnaire is confidential. Only aggregate data will be reported. 1.5 If you wish, a brief personal report of your results (compared to average responses) can be emailed to you when analysis is
completed. For further information about the questionnaire please contact Jen Tan (QUT) on 3138 5417, email [email protected]
ABOUT YOU
(i) 1. First name Last name
2. [RBS] ID Year Level 3. What are your interests? (Circle as many as you wish) English Languages Maths Science Multimedia Technology
Arts Humanities Music Drama Business Communication
RE Sports Health Others (please specify):
(ii) 4. Do you have problems logging in to the
[RBS] portal? Yes 1 No 2
5. Do you know how to access the new SMC website? Yes 1 No 2
ABOUT YOUR LEARNING
6. This question is about your achievement goals. Indicate (√) your level of agreement with each of the following statements. S
trongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
I prefer to do things that I can do well rather than things that I do poorly
1
2
3
4
5
I am happiest when I perform tasks on which I know that I won’t make any errors
1
2
3
4
5
The things I enjoy the most are the things that I do the best
1
2
3
4
5
The opinions others have about how well I can do certain things are important to me
1
2
3
4
5
I feel smart when I do something without making any mistakes
1
2
3
4
5
I like to be fairly confident that I can successfully perform a task before I try it
1
2
3
4
5
I like to work on tasks that I have done well on in the past
1
2
3
4
5
I feel smart when I can do something better than most other people
1
2
3
4
5
The opportunity to do challenging work is important to me
1
2
3
4
5
When I fail to complete a difficult task, I plan to try harder the next time I work on it
1
2
3
4
5
I prefer to work on tasks that force me to learn new things
1
2
3
4
5
The opportunity to learn new things is important to me
1
2
3
4
5
I do my best when I’m working on a fairly difficult task
1
2
3
4
5
I try hard to improve on my past performance
1
2
3
4
5
The opportunity to extend the range of my abilities is important to me
1
2
3
4
5
When I have difficulty solving a problem, I enjoy trying different approaches to see which one will work
1
2
3
4
5
7. This question is about your learning style. Indicate (√) your level of agreement with each of the following statements. S
trongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
I am generally cautious about accepting new ideas
1
2
3
4
5
I rarely trust new ideas until I can see whether the vast majority of people around me accept them
1
2
3
4
5
I am usually one of the last people in my group to accept something new
1
2
3
4
5
I am reluctant about adopting new ways of doing things until I see them working for people around me
1
2
3
4
5
I find it stimulating to be original in my thinking or behaviour
1
2
3
4
5
I tend to feel that the old way of living and doing things is the best way
1
2
3
4
5
I am challenged by ambiguities and unsolved problems
1
2
3
4
5
I must see other people using new innovations before I will consider them
1
2
3
4
5
I am challenged by unanswered questions 1
2
3
4
5
I often find myself sceptical / wary of new ideas
1
2
3
4
5
8. This question is about how you see yourself as a learner. Indicate (√) what best describes you in general. st
rongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
somewhat agree
strongly agree
Spontaneous 1 2 3 4 5
Conscientious / Hardworking 1 2 3 4 5
Imaginative 1 2 3 4 5
Experimenting 1 2 3 4 5
Flexible 1 2 3 4 5
Mechanical 1 2 3 4 5
Creative 1 2 3 4 5
Curious 1 2 3 4 5
Intellectually Active 1 2 3 4 5
Inquiring 1 2 3 4 5
Investigative 1 2 3 4 5
Unoriginal 1 2 3 4 5
Scrutinizing / Analytical 1 2 3 4 5
Inventive 1 2 3 4 5
Inquisitive 1 2 3 4 5
Questioning 1 2 3 4 5
APPE NDI CES Pag e | 369
ABOUT YOUR ATTITUDES & EXPERIENCES WITH SMC
9. How often do you login / use the SMC now?
Never About once a term
About once a month
About once a fortnight
About once a week
More than once a week
1 2 3 4 5 6
10. How often do you intend to login / use the SMC in future?
Never About once a term
About once a month
About once a fortnight
About once a week
More than once a week
1 2 3 4 5 6
11. Tick (√) the SMC sections that you access / use now? News
Forum
Your Works
Videos
Podcasts
Images
Poll
12. Tick (√) the SMC sections that you intend to use in future? News
Forum
Your Works
Videos
Podcasts
Images
Poll
13. Please rate (√) how interesting you find each SMC section :-
Boring
Mediocre
Very
interesting
News 1 2 3 4 5 Forum 1 2 3 4 5
Your Works 1 2 3 4 5 Videos 1 2 3 4 5
Podcasts 1 2 3 4 5 Images 1 2 3 4 5
Poll / Poll Results 1 2 3 4 5
14. This question is about your beliefs and opinions about the SMC. Indicate (√) your level of agreement with each of the following statements. st
rongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
somewhat agree
strongly agree
I am encouraged by my good friends to use the SMC
1
2
3
4
5
Students that I respect/like use the SMC 1
2
3
4
5
My good friends use the SMC 1
2
3
4
5
There is positive support from the [RBS] student community to use the SMC
1
2
3
4
5
It is a good idea to have SMC at [RBS] 1
2
3
4
5
Using the SMC is ‘cool’ 1
2
3
4
5
I have no problems logging-in/using the SMC 1
2
3
4
5
I find the SMC user-friendly 1
2
3
4
5
I find the SMC sections easy to navigate 1
2
3
4
5
I find the SMC sections clear/understandable 1
2
3
4
5
I find it easy to add / contribute to forums 1
2
3
4
5
I find the SMC useful for my learning 1
2
3
4
5
I find the SMC content intellectually stimulating (provokes new ideas and conversations)
1
2
3
4
5
I find the SMC content visually captivating 1
2
3
4
5
15. This question is about how you think using the SMC can benefit you. Indicate (√) your level of agreement with each of the following statements. Using the SMC can : N
ot beneficial at all
Neutral
Very beneficial
enhance my personal profile at school 1
2
3
4
5
keep me up-to-date with what is going on at school
1
2
3
4
5
help me feel more connected to the [RBS] student community
1
2
3
4
5
expand my social network of friends at school 1
2
3
4
5
expose me to exemplary work from peers 1
2
3
4
5
help me get inspiration for new ideas 1
2
3
4
5
increase my opportunities for self-expression 1
2
3
4
5
enhance opportunities to voice my opinions 1
2
3
4
5
give me a place to share / publish my works 1
2
3
4
5
help develop my creative skills 1
2
3
4
5
help develop my digital / technology skills 1
2
3
4
5
help develop my critical / analytical skills 1
2
3
4
5
help develop my interests and pursuits 1
2
3
4
5
help me learn to approach issues from different perspectives
1
2
3
4
5
expose me to more tips/ideas from others on how to do well in exams (e.g. QCS)
1
2
3
4
5
help improve my academic performance 1
2
3
4
5
help me learn new skills beyond those learnt in the classroom
1
2
3
4
5
16. List the top 3 reasons why you use the SMC?
17. List the top 3 reasons why you DO NOT use the SMC?
18. List the top 3 incentives that would make you use the SMC? Thank you again for taking time to complete this survey.
Your effort is very much appreciated! If you would like a brief personal report when analysis is complete,
please indicate your email address here: