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.

References (17)

  1. Akbarov, A., Gönen, K., & Aydoğan, H. (2018). Students' attitudes toward blended learning in EFL context. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 11(1), pp. 61- 68. DOI: 10.24193/adn.11.1.5.
  2. Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H. M, & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56(2016), pp. 93-102. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.033
  3. Altiner, C. (2015). Perceptions of ndergraduate students about synchronous video conference-based English courses. Procedia -Social and Behavioral 199(2015), pp. 627 -633.
  4. Anugrahana, A. (2020). Hambatan, solusi dan harapan: pembelajaran daring selama masa pandemi covid-19 oleh guru sekolah dasar. Scholaria: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 10(3), pp.282-289.
  5. Atmojo, A. E. P, & Nugroho, A. (2020). EFL Classes Must Go Online! Teaching Activities and Challenges during COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia. REGISTER JOURNAL, 13(1), pp. 49-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v13i1.49-76
  6. Cunningham U., Fägersten, K. B., & Holmsten, E. (2010). "Can you hear me, Hanoi?" Compensatory mechanisms employed in synchronous net-based English language learning. International Journal of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1), pp. 161-177.
  7. Karaaslan, H., & Kılıç, N. (2019). Students' attitudes towards blended language courses: A case study. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(1), pp. 174-199. Doi:10.17263/jlls.547699
  8. Khodaparast, F., & Ghafournia, N. (2015). The effect of
  9. Asynchronous/Synchronous Approaches on English. English Language Teaching, 8(4), pp. 117-127. doi: 10.5539/elt.v8n4p117
  10. Kosar, G. (2016). A study of EFL instructors' perceptions of Blended Learning. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232(2016), pp. 736-744.
  11. Kozar, O. (2012). Use of synchronous online tools in private English language teaching in Russia. Distance Education, 33(3), pp. 415-420, DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2012.723164
  12. Layali, K., & Al-Shlowiy, A. (2020). Students perceptions of e-learning for ESL/EFL in Saudi universities at time of coronavirus: A literature review. Indonesian EFL Journal, 6(2), pp.97-108. Doi: 10.25134/ieflj.v6i2.3378
  13. Indonesia's Ministry of Education and Culture. (2020, March). Surat Edaran Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia tentang Pelaksanaan Kebijakan Pendidikan dalam Masa Darurat Penyebaran Corona Virus Disease (No. 4 2020).
  14. Nartiningrum, N., & Nugroho, A. (2020). Online Learning amidst Global Pandemic: EFL Students' Challenges, Suggestions, and Needed Materials. ENGLISH FRANCA: Academic Journal of English Language and Education, 4(2), pp. 115-140 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.29240/ef.v4i2.1494
  15. Olga Kozar (2012) Use of synchronous online tools in private English language teaching in Russia, Distance Education, 33:3, 415-420. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2012.723164
  16. Pinto-Llorente, A. M., Sanchez-Gomez, M. C., García-Penalvo, F. J., & Casillas-Martín, S. (2016). Students' perceptions and attitudes towards asynchronous technological tools in blended-learning training to improve grammatical competence in English as a second language. Computers in Human Behavior, (2016), pp. 1-12. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.071
  17. Tang, M. C., & Chaw, Y. L. (2013). Readiness for blended learning: understanding attitude of university students. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 6(2), pp. 79-100 doi: 10.7903/ijcse.1086