Switching to Fully Online EFL Learning Environments: An Exploratory Study on Learners’ Perceptions

Мұқаба

Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Аннотация

One aspect of online classes that has recently experienced a paradigm shift is fully online language environments (FOLEs) – that is, learning settings where 100% of the content of the class is being delivered online. The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) outbreak in 2020 called for the use of fully online teaching in schools and universities in many countries due to confinement measures. Accordingly, schools have made extraordinary efforts towards implementing home-based schooling and delivered online courses to their students during the pandemic. In many universities, online platforms such as Blackboard Collaborate are being used to fulfil the need to keep up with the requirements of academic programmes. However, research findings addressing specific FOLE platforms are scarce, with even fewer studies focusing on learners’ engagement perceptions in those settings. Therefore, the purpose of this mixed-methods exploratory study was to delve into aspects involved in engagement, such as participation, group work, instructional materials, and learning strategies, regarded as key factors influencing the success of FOLEs. Thus, a FOLE questionnaire was administered to 54 EFL university learners, which was followed by semi-structured interviews conducted with seven participants. Our analysis drew from FOLE engagement research (Sun, 2014) and the community of inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison et al., 2000). The main findings revealed that the poor interactions with peers and the lack of peer rapport negatively influenced the social presence of students (Garrison Arbaugh, 2007), that the instructor can use teaching presence to increase student awareness of the relevance of the online environment and overcome adaptation issues (Kebritchi et al., 2017), and that teaching presence can help increase cognitive presence and facilitate effective interactions with the content. Implications for pedagogy were put forward as part of a FOLE approach.

Авторлар туралы

Marco Cancino

Universidad Andres Bello

Email: marco.cancino@unab.cl
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2450-8197

Daniel Avila

Universidad Andres Bello

Email: daniel.avilar@hotmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3466-0704

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group.http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf.
  2. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i2.1875
  3. Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Finch, R. (2006). An investigation of epistemological and social dimensions of teaching in online learning environments. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 435-447. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2006.23473204
  4. Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2010). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(1), 38-43. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2011.533096
  5. Ayebi-Arthur, Kofi (2017). E-learning, resilience and change in higher education: Helping a university cope after a natural disaster. E-Learning and Digital Media, 14(5), 259-274. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753017751712
  6. Bailey, D. R., & Lee, A. R. (2020). Learning from experience in the midst of covid-19: Benefits, challenges, and strategies in online teaching.Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 21(2), 178-198.
  7. Bañados, E. (2013). A blended-learning pedagogical model for teaching and learning EFL successfully through an online interactive multimedia environment. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 533-550. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v23i3.533-550
  8. Baran, E., Correia, A.-P., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421-439. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.610293
  9. Barnard-Brak, L., Paton, V. O., & Lan, W. Y. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment.International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 61-80. DOI:https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.769
  10. Beatty, K. (2013). Teaching & researching: Computer-assisted language learning. Routledge. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833774
  11. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
  12. Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. M., & Walti, C. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3), 1-18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.675
  13. Cancino, M. & Díaz, G. (2020). Exploring the code-switching behaviours of Chilean EFL high school teachers: A function-focused approach. Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 22(2), 115-130. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v22n2.81152
  14. Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9
  15. Caskurlu, S., Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., & Kozan, K. (2021). The qualitative evidence behind the factors impacting online learning experiences as informed by the community of inquiry framework: A thematic synthesis.Computers & Education, 165, 404111. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104111
  16. Cavus, N. (2013). Selecting a learning management system (LMS) in developing countries: Instructors' evaluation.Interactive Learning Environments, 21(5), 419-437. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011.584321
  17. Chametzky, B. (2014). Andragogy and engagement in online learning: Tenets and solutions. Creative Education, 5(10), 813-821. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.510095
  18. Chen, P. S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement.Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222-1232. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
  19. Chen, R. T. H., Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2008). The adaptation of Chinese international students to online flexible learning: Two case studies. Distance Education, 29(3), 307-323. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910802395821
  20. Chung, E., Subramaniam, G., & Christ Dass, L. (2020). Online Learning Readiness Among University Students in Malaysia Amidst Covid-19. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(2), 46-58. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i2.10294
  21. Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600801878
  22. Comas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach online or learning to become an online teacher: an exploration of teachers' experiences in a blended learning course. ReCALL, 23(3), 218-232. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344011000152
  23. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
  24. Crystal, D. (2006). English worldwide. In R. Hogg, & D. Denison (Eds.), A history of the English language (pp. 420-439). Cambridge University Press.
  25. Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering student engagement in online learning environments. TechTrends, 60(6), 532-539. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0110-z
  26. Dahlstrom-Hakki, I., Alstad, Z., & Banerjee, M. (2020).Comparing synchronous and asynchronous online discussions for students with disabilities: The impact of social presence.Computers & Education, 150, 103842. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103842
  27. Delen, E., Liew, J., & Willson, V. (2014). Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments.Computers & Education, 78, 312-320. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.018
  28. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018
  29. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University press.
  30. Duncan, K., Kenworthy, A., & McNamara, R. (2012). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous participation on students' performance in online accounting courses. Accounting Education, 21(4), 431-449. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2012.673387
  31. Dunn, K. (2005) ‘Interviewing'. In I. Hay (Ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography (pp. 79-105). Oxford University Press.
  32. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  33. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
  34. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/s1096-7516(00)00016-6
  35. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
  36. Hampel, R., & de los Arcos, B. (2013).Interacting at a distance: A critical review of the role of ICT in developing the learner-context interface in a university language programme. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 158-178. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2013.776051
  37. Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online.Computer assisted language learning, 18(4), 311-326. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220500335455
  38. Herring, S. C. (1996).Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Pragmatics and beyond series. John Benjamins.
  39. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause review, 27, 1-12.
  40. Hussein, H. E. G. M. (2016). The effect of blackboard collaborate-based instruction on pre-service teachers' achievement in the EFL teaching methods course at faculties of education for girls. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 49-67. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n3p49
  41. Hwang, A., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2006). Virtual and traditional feedback-seeking Behaviors: Underlying competitive attitudes and consequent grade performance. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(1), 1-28. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00099.x
  42. Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58-71. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197
  43. Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4-29. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239516661713
  44. Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08283.x
  45. Lambert, J. L., & Fisher, J. L. (2013).Community of inquiry framework: Establishing community in an online course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(1), 1-16.
  46. Lee, S. J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 158-163. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.04.001
  47. Liu, I. F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wible, D., & Kuo, C. H. (2010). Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community.Computers & education, 54(2), 600-610. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.009
  48. Lundberg, C. A., & Sheridan, D. (2015). Benefits of engagement with peers, faculty, and diversity for online learners. College Teaching, 63(1), 8-15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2014.972317
  49. Luyt, I. (2013). Bridging Spaces: Cross-cultural perspectives on promoting positive online learning experiences. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 42(1), 3-20. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2190/et.42.1.b
  50. Marzban, A. (2011). Improvement of reading comprehension through computer-assisted language learning in Iranian intermediate EFL students. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 3-10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.003
  51. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28-43. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1100
  52. Mei, B., Brown, G. T., & Teo, T. (2018). Toward an understanding of preservice English as a Foreign Language teachers' acceptance of computer-assisted language learning 2.0 in the People's Republic of China. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(1), 74-104. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117700144
  53. Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement online: What works and why. John Wiley & Sons.
  54. Mills, J., Yates, K., Harrison, H., Woods, C., Chamberlain-Salaun, J., Trueman, S., & Hitchins, M. (2016). Using a community of inquiry framework to teach a nursing and midwifery research subject: An evaluative study. Nurse Education Today, 43, 34-39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.04.016
  55. Moonsamy, D., & Govender, I. (2018). Use of blackboard learning management system: An empirical study of staff behavior at a South African University. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(7), 3069-3082. DOI:https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/91623
  56. Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29-48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081269
  57. Murphy, L. (2015). Online language teaching: The learner's perspective. In R. Hampel (Ed.), Developing online language teaching (pp. 45-62). Palgrave Macmillan.
  58. Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance education, 33(1), 5-30. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.667957
  59. Nguyen, L. V. (2011). Learners' reflections on and perceptions of computer mediated communication in a language classroom: A Vietnamese perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(8), 1413-1436. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.901
  60. Nickerson, C. (2010). The Englishes of business. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 509-519). Routledge.
  61. Nor, N. F. M., Hamat, A., & Embi, M. A. (2012). Patterns of discourse in online interaction: Seeking evidence of the collaborative learning process.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(3), 237-256. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.655748
  62. Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1-23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251x(94)00047-a
  63. Pascarella, E. T. (2001). Identifying excellence in undergraduate education are we even close? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(3), 18-23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380109601796
  64. Pellas, N. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of second life.Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 157-170. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048
  65. Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R. F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S., & Evans, C. (2014). Moving through MOOCs: Understanding the progression of users in massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 421-432.
  66. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(3), 238-259. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.3.238
  67. Raković, M., Marzouk, Z., Liaqat, A., Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2020). Fine grained analysis of students' online discussion posts.Computers & Education, 157, 103982. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103982
  68. Raza, S. A., Qazi, W., Khan, K. A., & Salam, J. (2021). Social isolation and acceptance of the Learning Management System (LMS) in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: An expansion of the UTAUT model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(2), 183-208. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120960421
  69. Şahin Kızıl, A. (٢٠٢٠). Predicting achievement in distance language learning: A structural equation model. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1-17. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2020.1787819
  70. Sampurna, J., Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Stickler, U. (2018). Exploring learners' and teacher's participation in online non-formal project-based language learning.International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 73-90. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2018070104
  71. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage publications.
  72. Schultz, R. B., & DeMers, M. N. (2020). Transitioning from emergency remote learning to deep online learning experiences in geography education. Journal of Geography, 119(5), 142-146. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2020.1813791
  73. Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
  74. Simonson, M., Zvacek, S. M., & Smaldino, S. (2019). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (7th ed.). IAP Publishing.
  75. Siragusa, L., Dixon, K. C. & Dixon, R. (2007). Designing quality e-learning environments in higher education. In Proceedings of ASCILITE - Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference (pp. 923-935). Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.
  76. Sun, S. Y. (2014). Learner perspectives on fully online language learning. Distance education, 35(1), 18-42. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.891428
  77. Sun, S. Y. H. (2011). Online language teaching: The pedagogical challenges. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 3(3), 428-447. DOI:https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2011.03.030
  78. Tabor, S. W. (2007). Narrowing the distance. Implementing a hybrid learning model for information security management. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 47-57.
  79. Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004).Computer mediated communication. Sage.
  80. Wang, G., Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., & Jiang, F. (2020). Mitigate the effects of home confinement on children during the COVID-19 outbreak. The Lancet, 395(10228), 945-947. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30547-X
  81. Wang, Y., & Chen, N. S. (2009). Criteria for evaluating synchronous learning management systems: arguments from the distance language classroom.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 1-18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220802613773
  82. Watson, W., & Watson, S. L. (2007). An argument for clarity: What are learning management systems, What are they not, and What should they become? (2007). TechTrends, 51(2), 28-34. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-007-0023-y
  83. Wdowik, S. (2014). Using a synchronous online learning environment to promote and enhance transactional engagement beyond the classroom. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 31(4), 264-275. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/cwis-10-2013-0057
  84. Yao, M. Z., & Ling, R. (2020). What Is computer-mediated communication? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 4-8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz027
  85. Yen, Y. C., Hou, H. T., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Applying role-playing strategy to enhance learners' writing and speaking skills in EFL courses using Facebook and Skype as learning tools: A case study in Taiwan.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(5), 383-406. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.839568
  86. Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 127-136.

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML
Жүктеу


Creative Commons License
Бұл мақала лицензия бойынша қолжетімді Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.