Article Sidebar

Submitted
October 25, 2023
Published
November 30, 2023
Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 188 Download : 52

Main Article Content

Abstract

Numerous scholarly inquiries have been dedicated to exploring the advantageous consequences of implementing computer-mediated communication (CMC) for the purpose of orchestrating online group discussions. However, there is a paucity of empirical evidence elucidating how educators adapt to the use of CMC in the context of online group deliberations. The present research delves into the experiences of an English teacher in an Indonesian secondary school who employed CMC as a pedagogical tool. Grounded within the qualitative research paradigm, this study conducted unstructured in-depth interviews and subsequently subjected the interview transcripts to thematic analysis. The resultant findings shed light on several pivotal aspects of the teacher's role in CMC-enhanced online group discussions, which encompass the activation of students' creative faculties, the fostering of students' self-regulation of learning, the cultivation of a conducive learning environment, the advocacy for technological integration, and the effective management of assessment procedures in the online group discussion setting. Conclusively, this research posits that the incorporation of computer-mediated communication in online group discussions bears substantial educational advantages, as it affords students with alternative avenues to harness their skills and technology, thereby facilitating interpersonal exchanges among students and between students and educators.

Keywords

computer-mediated communication Indonesian EFL online group discussion social interaction

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Nadhifa Dwi Oktaviani, Nizamuddin Sadiq

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
Oktaviani, N. D. ., & Sadiq, N. (2023). An Indonesian Secondary English Teacher’ Strategies to Accommodate Computer Mediated Communication for Group Discussions: An Interview Study. Journal of English and Education (JEE), 9(2). https://doi.org/10.20885/jee.v9i2.31139
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Afify, M. K. (2019). The Influence of Group Size in the Asynchronous Online Discussions on the Development of Critical Thinking Skills, and on Improving Students’ Performance in Online Discussion Forum. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(5), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i05.9612
  2. Burns, M. (2011). Distance Education for Teacher Training: Modes, Models, and Methods (2nd Edition). Washington DC: Education Development Center
  3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
  4. Brine, J., & Johnson, E. M. (2001). Cultural considerations in the use of web conferencing for academic writing. The TESOLANZ Journal, 9, 71-83
  5. Carey, D. M. (1993). Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research. Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, January 2015, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1300/J025v09n02
  6. Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153–170.
  7. Chen, K. C., Yen, C. D., Hung, S. Y., & Huang, H. A. (2008). An exploratory study on the selection of communication media: the relationship between flow and communication outcomes. Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 822–832.
  8. Crandall, J. (1999). Cooperative language learning and affective factors. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language teaching (pp. 226-245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  9. Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420–443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  10. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 6, 191–233. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  11. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.
  12. December, J. (1996), Units of Analysis for Internet Communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00173.x
  13. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry SECOND EDITION. London: SAGE Publications.
  14. Donath, J. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace, 29–59. New York: Routledge.
  15. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  16. Dworkin, S.L. (2012). Sample Size Policy for Qualitative Studies Using In-Depth Interviews. Arch Sex Behav, 41(6), 1319–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0016-6
  17. Ebersole, S. (2000). Uses and gratifications of the web among students. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1), 1–17.
  18. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  19. Flick, U. (2014). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Los Angeles: SAGE.
  20. Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Steinfield, C. (1990). A social influence model of technology use. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology, 71–94. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  21. Fulk, J., Steinfield, C., Schmitz, J., & Power, J. G. (1987). A social information processing model of media use in organizations. Communication Research, 14(5), 529–552.
  22. Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking, Journal of Technology Education, 7. Retrieved Oct. 1, 2004, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html
  23. Grasha, A. F. (2010). A Matter of Style: The Teacher as Expert, Formal Authority Personal Model, Facilitator, and Delegator, 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1994.9926845
  24. Haridakis, P., & Hanson, G., (2009). Social interaction and co-viewing with YouTube: blending mass communication reception and social connection. Journal of Broadcasting Electronic Media, 53(2), 317–335.
  25. Hunt, D., Atkin, D., & Krishnan, A., (2012). The Influence of computer-mediated communication apprehension on motives for facebook use. Journal of Broadcasting Electronic Media, 56(2), 187–202.
  26. Jacobs, P. (2013). The challenges of online courses for the instructor. Research in Higher Education Journal, 1(2), 1-16.
  27. Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2002). Online and in the know: uses and gratifications of the web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting Electronic Media, 46(1), 54–71.
  28. Korzenny, F. (1978). A theory of electronic propinquity: Mediated communication in organizations. Communication Research, 5, 3–24.
  29. Koschmann, T., Kelson, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1996). Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm, 83–124. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  30. Lantolf, J. (1999). Second culture acquisition: Cognitive considerations. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning, 28-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321–341.
  32. Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discussion and experience in teachers’ thinking about cases. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11, 63–79.
  33. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (Rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press
  34. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
  35. Maor, D. (2003). The Teacher ’ s Role in Developing Interaction and Reflection in an Online Learning Community. Educational Media International, October 2014, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952398032000092170
  36. Marjanovic, O. (1999). Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2729.1999.152085.x
  37. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative Researching. London: SAGE Publications.
  38. McQuail, D. (2005). Mcquail’s Mass Communication Theory. London: SAGE Publications.
  39. Nowak, K., Watt, J. H., & Walther, J. B. (2009). Computer mediated teamwork and the efficiency framework: Exploring the influence of synchrony and cues on media satisfaction and outcome success. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1108–1119.
  40. Papacharissi, Z., Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting Electronic Media, 44(2), 175–196.
  41. Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161–198.
  42. Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
  43. Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001
  44. Salmon, G. (2011). E-Moderating: The Key to Online Teaching and Learning (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203816684
  45. Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170234
  46. Sjoberg, U. (1999). The rise of the electronic individual: a study of how young Swedish teenagers use and perceive the Internet. Journal of Telematics Informatics, 16(3), 113–133.
  47. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
  48. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & Mcguire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187.
  49. Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data: A guide to the principles of qualitative research (4th ed.). London: Sage.
  50. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.
  51. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.
  52. Stephens, K. K. (2007). The successive use of information and communication technologies at work. Communication Theory, 17, 486–507.
  53. Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: A review and case study. Computers and Education, 34(2), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00008-7
  54. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90.
  55. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.
  56. Walther, J. B., Parks, M. R., Van Der Heide, B., Ramirez Jr, A., Burgoon, J. K., & Peña, J. (2015). Interpersonal and Hyperpersonal Dimensions of Computer-Mediated Communication. In S. Shyam Sundar (Ed.), The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology, 529–563. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  57. Williams, L., & Lahman, M. (2011). Online discussion, student engagement, and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 7(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2011.564919
  58. Wolfradt, U., & Doll, J. (2001). Motives of adolescents to use the Internet as a function of personality traits, personal and social factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1), 13–27. [http://dx.doi.org/10.2190%2FANPM-LN97-AUT2-D2EJ](http://dx.doi.org/10.2190%2FANPM-LN97-AUT2-D2EJ)
  59. Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: The Guilford Press.
  60. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. [DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2)
  61. Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2010). A cross-cultural study of teacher perspectives on teacher roles and adoption of online collaborative learning in higher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, October 2013, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619761003631849