Jitlada Moonma | Lampang Rajabhat University (original) (raw)
Papers by Jitlada Moonma
Asian journal of education and training, Feb 12, 2024
This study focused on investigating common writing errors made by a group of Thai students who pa... more This study focused on investigating common writing errors made by a group of Thai students who participated in online collaborative writing using Google Docs, and understanding their satisfaction and attitudes on this writing approach. The participants consisted 32 Thai first-year English major students who were purposively selected from their Writing I course. The researcher collected and analyzed eight argumentative pieces of writing, identifying a total of 484 errors. The most frequently occurring error areas were incomplete sentences (15.75%), spelling mistakes (13.50%), and word choice issues (12.25%), with grammatical errors being the most prevalent (72%). Following grammatical errors were lexical (12%) and mechanical errors (4%). To gauge students' satisfactions and attitudes, a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were employed. The findings revealed that the students were highly satisfied with online collaborative writing with an average satisfaction score of 3.50. Overall, the students exhibited a positive attitude towards online collaborative writing, finding it useful due to its flexibility in terms of allowing them to work from anywhere at any time and for its ability to boost their motivation. The study's findings provide valuable insights for English teaching professionals in Thailand to consider when instructing students in writing.
Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2022
The present study aims to explore critical thinking from EFL Thai students’ perspectives in colla... more The present study aims to explore critical thinking from EFL Thai students’ perspectives in collaborative writing activity. The subjects were 32 second-year English major students composing paragraph writing in the Writing II course. They were divided into three groups based on their English proficiency: advanced, intermediate, and novice, and data was collected using quantitative and qualitative approaches. The critical thinking skills questionnaire was utilized to collect quantitative data, and the results were analyzed using Mean and Standard deviation. For qualitative data, an interview was used to collect critical thinking skills practice of six students randomly selected. The quantitative results revealed that the highest critical thinking skills practice was found in analyzing (Mean=3.47, SD=1.15), followed by evaluating (Mean=3.44, SD=1.27), and creating (Mean=3.34, SD=.03), respectively. For qualitative results, it was found that the students in the high level of English pr...
English Language Teaching
The closure of educational institutions across Thailand, as well as the maintenance of social dis... more The closure of educational institutions across Thailand, as well as the maintenance of social distancing as a preventive and precautionary step against COVID-19, has thrown a wrench in the traditional method of teaching, which has given way to online learning. As a result, most online learning is managed through a learning management system, the most popular of which is Google Classroom. The purpose of this study was to find out how students felt about using levels as a virtual learning tool. One hundred and eleven second-year Thai EFL students from 7 majors who are taking English for Work participated in this study. They were mostly female (79.28%) and between 19 and 23 years old. They had attended online learning on Google Classroom. To obtain participants’ feedback, a Google Form questionnaire and a semi-structured interview were used. Means and Standard deviation were used as descriptive statistics. According to the results of the study, students indicated positive attitudes tow...
Asian Journal of Education and Training
Collaborative writing is acknowledged as one of the most beneficial writing exercises for improvi... more Collaborative writing is acknowledged as one of the most beneficial writing exercises for improving writing skills. This study aimed to look at the errors of online collaborative writing using Google Docs and face-to-face collaborative writing, as well as to find out how satisfied students were with both modes. Purposive sampling was used to pick 32 Thai second-year English major students (19 females, 13 males) from Writing II. A record form of the error kinds derived from Norrish (1983) a questionnaire, and a semi-structured interview were used as instruments. Frequency and percentage were the statistics used. The data revealed that 346 errors were discovered in online mode, while 389 errors were discovered in face-to-face mode, which was at a higher level. The most common types in the online mode were sentence fragments, while the most common kinds in the face-to-face mode were determiners. Grammars were presented to students in both modes, followed by lexis and mechanics. Further...
Asian Journal of Education and Training
This study focused on comparing the effects on 32 students’ argumentative writing qualities when ... more This study focused on comparing the effects on 32 students’ argumentative writing qualities when they worked alone or collaborated in pairs and groups and explored the students’ opinions towards critical thinking across different writing activities. The 32 students were divided into groups of four (n=8), pairs (n=16) and individuals (n=32). Their papers were rated in terms of content, language use, and organization by three raters. The research employed argumentative writing rubrics, semi-structured interview, and observation. From the total of 15 points, the novice learners gained the highest scores when writing in groups (X ̅ = 11.22), followed by pairs (X ̅ = 10.19) and individuals (X ̅ = 8.98). The intermediate learners also gained the highest scores in group work (X ̅ = 11.50), followed by pairs (X ̅ = 10.32), and individual work (X ̅ = 9.04), respectively. Similar to the advanced level, they had the highest scores when working in groups (X ̅ = 11.95), followed by pairs (X ̅ = ...
Asian journal of education and training, Feb 12, 2024
This study focused on investigating common writing errors made by a group of Thai students who pa... more This study focused on investigating common writing errors made by a group of Thai students who participated in online collaborative writing using Google Docs, and understanding their satisfaction and attitudes on this writing approach. The participants consisted 32 Thai first-year English major students who were purposively selected from their Writing I course. The researcher collected and analyzed eight argumentative pieces of writing, identifying a total of 484 errors. The most frequently occurring error areas were incomplete sentences (15.75%), spelling mistakes (13.50%), and word choice issues (12.25%), with grammatical errors being the most prevalent (72%). Following grammatical errors were lexical (12%) and mechanical errors (4%). To gauge students' satisfactions and attitudes, a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were employed. The findings revealed that the students were highly satisfied with online collaborative writing with an average satisfaction score of 3.50. Overall, the students exhibited a positive attitude towards online collaborative writing, finding it useful due to its flexibility in terms of allowing them to work from anywhere at any time and for its ability to boost their motivation. The study's findings provide valuable insights for English teaching professionals in Thailand to consider when instructing students in writing.
Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2022
The present study aims to explore critical thinking from EFL Thai students’ perspectives in colla... more The present study aims to explore critical thinking from EFL Thai students’ perspectives in collaborative writing activity. The subjects were 32 second-year English major students composing paragraph writing in the Writing II course. They were divided into three groups based on their English proficiency: advanced, intermediate, and novice, and data was collected using quantitative and qualitative approaches. The critical thinking skills questionnaire was utilized to collect quantitative data, and the results were analyzed using Mean and Standard deviation. For qualitative data, an interview was used to collect critical thinking skills practice of six students randomly selected. The quantitative results revealed that the highest critical thinking skills practice was found in analyzing (Mean=3.47, SD=1.15), followed by evaluating (Mean=3.44, SD=1.27), and creating (Mean=3.34, SD=.03), respectively. For qualitative results, it was found that the students in the high level of English pr...
English Language Teaching
The closure of educational institutions across Thailand, as well as the maintenance of social dis... more The closure of educational institutions across Thailand, as well as the maintenance of social distancing as a preventive and precautionary step against COVID-19, has thrown a wrench in the traditional method of teaching, which has given way to online learning. As a result, most online learning is managed through a learning management system, the most popular of which is Google Classroom. The purpose of this study was to find out how students felt about using levels as a virtual learning tool. One hundred and eleven second-year Thai EFL students from 7 majors who are taking English for Work participated in this study. They were mostly female (79.28%) and between 19 and 23 years old. They had attended online learning on Google Classroom. To obtain participants’ feedback, a Google Form questionnaire and a semi-structured interview were used. Means and Standard deviation were used as descriptive statistics. According to the results of the study, students indicated positive attitudes tow...
Asian Journal of Education and Training
Collaborative writing is acknowledged as one of the most beneficial writing exercises for improvi... more Collaborative writing is acknowledged as one of the most beneficial writing exercises for improving writing skills. This study aimed to look at the errors of online collaborative writing using Google Docs and face-to-face collaborative writing, as well as to find out how satisfied students were with both modes. Purposive sampling was used to pick 32 Thai second-year English major students (19 females, 13 males) from Writing II. A record form of the error kinds derived from Norrish (1983) a questionnaire, and a semi-structured interview were used as instruments. Frequency and percentage were the statistics used. The data revealed that 346 errors were discovered in online mode, while 389 errors were discovered in face-to-face mode, which was at a higher level. The most common types in the online mode were sentence fragments, while the most common kinds in the face-to-face mode were determiners. Grammars were presented to students in both modes, followed by lexis and mechanics. Further...
Asian Journal of Education and Training
This study focused on comparing the effects on 32 students’ argumentative writing qualities when ... more This study focused on comparing the effects on 32 students’ argumentative writing qualities when they worked alone or collaborated in pairs and groups and explored the students’ opinions towards critical thinking across different writing activities. The 32 students were divided into groups of four (n=8), pairs (n=16) and individuals (n=32). Their papers were rated in terms of content, language use, and organization by three raters. The research employed argumentative writing rubrics, semi-structured interview, and observation. From the total of 15 points, the novice learners gained the highest scores when writing in groups (X ̅ = 11.22), followed by pairs (X ̅ = 10.19) and individuals (X ̅ = 8.98). The intermediate learners also gained the highest scores in group work (X ̅ = 11.50), followed by pairs (X ̅ = 10.32), and individual work (X ̅ = 9.04), respectively. Similar to the advanced level, they had the highest scores when working in groups (X ̅ = 11.95), followed by pairs (X ̅ = ...