The Effect of Online Learning on Interaction and Satisfaction of EFL Students During COVID-19 Pandemic
Subject Areas : Applied Linguistics
Shima Ghobadi
1
,
Bahram Dehghanpour
2
*
1 - Ph.D. Department of English, Shahreza Branch, Islamic Azad University
2 - استادیار دانشگاه لنجان اصفهان
Keywords: COVID-19 outbreak, EFL students, Interaction, Online learning, Satisfaction. ,
Abstract :
The goal of this study was to see how technology affected EFL students' interaction and satisfaction during the COVID-19 outbreak when they were learning in online classes. Following the identification of the study's homogeneous participants, the participants were exposed to two types of treatment, namely, online through the platform of Sky Room and face-to-face, traditional education. The treatment lasted for 10 sessions, 60 min each. In order to investigate the participants’ satisfaction, the satisfaction scale developed by Wu et al. (2010) was administered among the participants at the end of the treatment. In addition, to investigate the effect of online education on EFL learners’ interaction, the interaction scale established by (Karaman, 2015) was run among the participants after the treatment. The results of the Chi-square test revealed a significant difference between the interaction and satisfaction levels of the participants in online and traditional classes with the interaction and satisfaction levels being higher in online classes. The results have pedagogical implications for policymakers as well as practitioners.
Ali, A., & Ahmad, I. (2011). Key factors for determining students' satisfaction in distance learning courses: A study of Allama Iqbal Open University. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2(2), 118–134. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6047
Asarbakhsh & Sandars, J. (2013). E-learning: The essential usability perspective. The Clinical Teacher, 10(1), 47–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743- 498X.2012.00627.x.
Aslan, S., K. (2022). The effect of flipped classroom approach on learning achievement, online self-regulation and interaction in synchronous distance education. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 5(3), 535-552.
Agyeman, Y., & Larbi-Siaw, O. 2018). Exploring the factors that enhance student–content interaction in a technology-mediated learning environment. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1456780. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1456780
Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking university. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191
Bonaccorsi, G., Pierri, F., Cinelli, M., Flori, A., Galeazzi, A., Porcelli, F., … Pammolli, F. 2020). Economic and social consequences of human mobility restrictions under COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 15530–15535.
Chen, L., Li, B. B., Huang, W., Li, P. P., & Wang, W. (2020). New development of Chinese educational informationization on the twentieth anniversary-Interpretation of the top Chinese ten news of 2015 in educational informationization. China Educational Technology, 2, 80–87.
Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, online participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a blended learning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 257-266. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12243
Ding, L. & Zhang, P. (2018). Do secondary school students make use of effective study strategies when they study on their own? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(5), 952-957. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3584
Domalewska, D. (2015). Classroom Discourse Analysis in EFL Elementary Lessons. International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics,1(1), 6-9.
Gopal et al. R., Singh, V., & Aggarwal, A. 2021). Impact of online classes on the satisfaction and performance of students during the pandemic period of COVID 19 (pp. 1–25). Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10523-1
Engzell, F. & Verhagen, M. W. (2021). Using the flipped classroom to enhance EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1–2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1111910
Harris, K, Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.
Hitotuzi, N. 2005). Teacher talking time in the EFL classroom. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 4 (6), 97-106
Holmes, J., & Benders, D. S. (2012). Comparison between Distance Methods Versus Traditional Classroom in Teaching Intelligence Analysis. Available at SSRN 2090375
Huang, Tlili, A., Chang, T.-W., Zhang, X., Nascimbeni, F., & Burgos, D. (2020). Disrupted classes, undisrupted learning during COVID-19 outbreak in China: Application of open educational practices and resources. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00125-8.
Jong, M. S. Y., Chen, G., Tam, V., & Chai, C. S. (2019). Adoption of flipped learning in social humanities education: the FIBER experience in secondary schools. Interactive Learning Environments, 27, 1–17.https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1561473
Kapasia, N., Paul, P., Roy, A., Saha, J., Zaveri, A., Mallick, R., et al. (2020). Impact of lockdown on learning status of undergraduate and postgraduate students during COVID- 19 pandemic in West Bengal, India. Children and Youth Services Review, 116, Article 105194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Karaman E., G. (2015). Development of an online course ınteraction level determination scale and design of automated estimation system (Unpublished Doctor thesis). Atatürk University, Erzurum.
Keengwe, J. & Kidd, L. (2010). The challenges of e-Learning initiatives in supporting students with self-regulated learning and executive function difficulties. Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI), Limassol, Cyprus.
Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
Khodabandeh, F. (2018). The impact of storytelling techniques through virtual instruction on English students’ speaking ability. Teaching English with Technology, 18(1), 24-36
Kumari, D. S. (2001). Connecting graduate students to virtual guests through asynchronous discussions: Analysis of an experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 53–63.
Lee, Y. H., Hsieh, Y. C., Ma, C. Y., (2011). A model of organizational employees’ eLearning systems acceptance. Knowledge. Based Syst. 24 (3), 355–366.
Lee, D., Watson, S. L., & Watson, W. R. (2019). Systematic literature review on self-regulated learning in massive open online courses. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3749
Lundin, M., Rensfeldt, A. B., Hillman, T., Lantz-Andersson, A., & Peterson, L. (2018). Higher education dominance and siloed knowledge: a systematic review of flipped classroom research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0101-6
McIsaac, M. S., Blocher, J. M., Mahesh, V., & Vrasidas, C. (1999). Student and teacher perceptions of interaction in online computer-mediated communication. Educational Media International, 36(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952398990360206
Moore, M. G. (1993). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education,
3, 1–7. doi:10.1080/08923648909526659
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Naseri, E. & Khodabandeh, F., 2019). Comparing the impact of audio-visual input enhancement on collocation learning in conventional and mobile learning contexts. Applied Research on English Language, 8(3), 388-422.
Rustandi, A., & Mubarok, A.H. (2017). An analysis of IRF (initiation-response-feedback) on classroom interaction in EFL speaking class. Edulite: Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture, 2(1), 239-250.
Sigala, M. 2002). The evolution of internet pedagogy: Benefits for learning English. Journal of educational system, 1(2), 29–45.
Simpson, M., & Anderson, B. (2012). History and heritage in open, flexible and distance education. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 16(2), 1-10. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/147885/
Sisson, A. D., & Kwon, J. 2020). Effectiveness of E-learning as seen by meeting planners. Journal of learning English, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10963758.2020.1791138
Tavitiyaman, R. & Fung, K. (2021). Flipping an engineering thermodynamics course to improve student self-efficacy. In Paper presented at 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio. https://peer.asee.org/28368
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
Wang, C. H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302- 312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835779
WHO (2020). COVID-19: IFRC, UNICEF and chen Issue Guidance to Protect Children And Support Safe School Operations. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/newsroom/detail/10-2020-covid-19-ifrc-unicef-and-who-issue- guidance-to-protect-children-and-support-safe-school-operations
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2013). Student evaluation of university image attractiveness and its impact on student attachment to international branch campuses. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(5), 607–623.
Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers and Education, 55(1), 155 -164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012