Synchronous And Asynchronous Learning In Grammar Classes: Tertiary Level EFL Students' Attitude (original) (raw)

Abstract

Implementing online learning becomes inevitable due to the Government's policyin responding to the Covid-19 pandemic. Educational institutions all over the country in primary, secondary, and tertiary levels urge teachers to teach from home. While online learning is mandatory during this pandemic, its implementation in the fields is more varied and heterogenous among practitioners. In addition to it, from the perspective of students, online learning for more than half of a semester is new and results in challenges for them. Besides, to learn grammar is still deemed difficult by most EFL learners. Not only do students have to adapt to innovative ways of learning grammar, but they are also required to learn a terrifying ordeal of taking the subject. Hence, this study is intended to examine students' attitude towards synchronous and asynchronous learning of grammar. To collect the data of their attitude, a survey design was administered to 7 classes by adapting Tang & Chaw's (2013) questionnaire. The results show that the students' attitude towards asynchronous and synchronous learning can be seen from six aspects comprising learning flexibility, technology use, learning readiness, study management, online interaction, and online practices. To conclude, synchronous and asynchronous learning can be implemented with respect to students' inclination and the nature of courses being learnt.

Figures (11)

Table 2. Means and standard deviations of the questionnaire for all participants Table 1. Percentage and score of each construct

Table 2. Means and standard deviations of the questionnaire for all participants Table 1. Percentage and score of each construct

The students’ ratings on LF is related willingness to access and study the materials whenever and wherever they want to as online grammar learning is more flexible for them. Fig 1. Percentage of students’ responses to Learning Flexibility

The students’ ratings on LF is related willingness to access and study the materials whenever and wherever they want to as online grammar learning is more flexible for them. Fig 1. Percentage of students’ responses to Learning Flexibility

technology is easy to use in learning”, and “I think technology should be used ir learning”. Figure 2 sums up the ratings from the students.

technology is easy to use in learning”, and “I think technology should be used ir learning”. Figure 2 sums up the ratings from the students.

Regarding LR, Tables | and 2 has indicated that this construct received ratings of 2,844 out of 4 (71,08%). The construct concerns the students’ readiness to register, join, and attend online grammar classes or courses. Compared to the previous two constructs, LR has relatively lower ratings. The percentage of the three items combined is illustrated below. Fig 3. Percentage of students’ responses to Online Learning Readiness

Regarding LR, Tables | and 2 has indicated that this construct received ratings of 2,844 out of 4 (71,08%). The construct concerns the students’ readiness to register, join, and attend online grammar classes or courses. Compared to the previous two constructs, LR has relatively lower ratings. The percentage of the three items combined is illustrated below. Fig 3. Percentage of students’ responses to Online Learning Readiness

General aspects of attitude toward online learning in grammar classes have been conveyed. What is more is to go over the specific aspects of synchronous and asynchronous learning. Initially, the aspect of study management is examined. It consists of six items related to the learners’ activity including doing the assignment, organize the time, motivation, and responsibility in online learning. The following is how students responded to the SM aspect.

General aspects of attitude toward online learning in grammar classes have been conveyed. What is more is to go over the specific aspects of synchronous and asynchronous learning. Initially, the aspect of study management is examined. It consists of six items related to the learners’ activity including doing the assignment, organize the time, motivation, and responsibility in online learning. The following is how students responded to the SM aspect.

For online interaction, synchronous and asynchronous learning of grammar also yielded different ratings from the students. SI and AI received the overall rating of 65,92% and 66,36% consecutively. AI obtained better responses from the students albeit the possibly unapparent difference. Online interaction is concerned with seven items about the interaction between lecturers and learners, learners and learners, and the communication among them. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the results of the responses.

For online interaction, synchronous and asynchronous learning of grammar also yielded different ratings from the students. SI and AI received the overall rating of 65,92% and 66,36% consecutively. AI obtained better responses from the students albeit the possibly unapparent difference. Online interaction is concerned with seven items about the interaction between lecturers and learners, learners and learners, and the communication among them. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the results of the responses.

The figure above shows most of the students (43,17%) agreed, but more than one third of them (37,30%) disagreed. Besides, 13,33% strongly agreed, yet 6,19% strongly disagreed. The number, especially one showing disapproval, cannot be taken for granted as this can be an indication of interaction that can rarely be facilitated in online synchronous grammar meetings.

The figure above shows most of the students (43,17%) agreed, but more than one third of them (37,30%) disagreed. Besides, 13,33% strongly agreed, yet 6,19% strongly disagreed. The number, especially one showing disapproval, cannot be taken for granted as this can be an indication of interaction that can rarely be facilitated in online synchronous grammar meetings.

Fig 8. Percentage of students’ responses to Synchronous Learning Practice

Fig 8. Percentage of students’ responses to Synchronous Learning Practice

Fig 9. Percentage of students’ responses to Asynchronous Learning Practice

Fig 9. Percentage of students’ responses to Asynchronous Learning Practice

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.