Supporting Student Engagement with Technology: Findings from a Study of an Online Personal Learning Environment for Extensive Listening
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Learning English consists of four skills that students need to master: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. However, in EFL contexts, listening is found to be the most challenging and problematic skill for those students who encounter different kinds of listening problems. In order to improve Thai EFL students’ listening performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, a two-week research project was conducted both to measure the levels of student engagement and to explore their opinions towards an online Personal Learning Environment (PLE) focused on extensive listening activities. A mixed-methods research design was applied, which included a pre-questionnaire for the purpose of designing the online PLE platform and listening materials, and a post-questionnaire to measure student engagement. Additionally, a semi-structured interview was used to investigate students’ opinions towards the online PLE. The results showed high levels of student engagement in all three dimensions; behavioral, cognitive, and emotional. Students had positive opinions towards the online PLE because they found it enjoyable. Self-regulated and tailor-made learning also served to improve knowledge of vocabulary and pronunciation despite some personal problems with time management and internet connectivity during the project. These findings raise implications for educators, policymakers, and educational technology developers to consider when offering online PLEs for students’ self-regulated learning.
Article Details
References
Acar, A., & Kayaoglu, M. N. (2020). MOODLE as a potential tool for language education under the shadow of COVID-19. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 90, 67-82.
Ahlfeldt, S., Mehta, S., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Measurement and analysis of student engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436052000318541
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Sloan Consortium (NJ1).
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
Almalki, N., & Algethami, G. (2022). An exploration of the potential benefit of extensive listening along with orthography for improving EFL learners’ pronunciation. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7(1), 1-14.
Axelson, R.D. and Flick, A. (2010) Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43, 38-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2011.533096
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2),191-215
Blumenfeld, P., Modell, J., Bartko, W. T., Secada, W. G., Fredricks, J. A., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2005). School engagement of inner-city students during middle childhood. In C. R. Cooper, C. T. G. Coll, W. T. Bartko, H. Davis, & C. Chatman (Eds.), Developmental pathways through middle childhood: Rethinking contexts and diversity as resources (pp. 145–170). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997). The impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, (ED 418 925).
Bowen, B. (2018). The individual and social value of American higher education. Routledge.
Britt, M. (2015). How to better engage online students with online strategies. College Student Journal, 49(3), 399–404.
Burch, G., Heller, N., Burch, J., Freed, R. and Steed, S. (2015). Student engagement: Developing a conceptual framework and survey instrument. Journal of Education for Business, V. 90(4), 224-229.
Chookaew, S., Panjaburee, P., Wanichsan, D., & Laosinchai, P. (2014). A personalized e-learning environment to promote student's conceptual learning on basic computer programming. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116(21), 815–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.303
Cohen, D. and Crabtree, B. (2006). Qualitative research guidelines project. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Commissiong, M.A. (2020). Student engagement, self-regulation, satisfaction, and success in online learning environments. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Walden University.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, and assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Crossman, A. (2020, March 19). Understanding Purposive Sampling: An Overview of the Method and Its Applications. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/purposive-sampling-3026727
Dhanasobhon, S. (2006). English language teaching dilemma in Thailand. Retrieved from http://www.curriculumandinstruction.org/index.php?lay=show&ac=article&Id=539134 523&Ntype=7
Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-13.
Each, N., & Suppasetseree, S. (2021). The effects of mobile-blended cooperative learning on EFL students’ listening comprehension in Cambodian context. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 14(2), 143-170. Retrieved from
https://so04.tcithaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/253265
Elfeky, A. I. M. (2018). The effect of personal learning environments on participants’ higher order thinking skills and satisfaction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 56(4), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1534601.
Faria, A. M., Bergey, R., Baird, A. S., & Lishinski, A. (2019). Using technology to support English language learners in higher education: A study of Voxy's effect on English language proficiency. American Institutes for Research.
Flynn, D. (2014). Baccalaureate attainment of college students at 4-year institutions as a function of student engagement behaviors: Social and academic student engagement behaviors matter. Research in Higher Education, 55(5), 467-493.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Garrote Jurado, R. (2007). The use of a learning management system to promote group interaction and socialization in a trainee project: Unemployed academics on their way to new jobs. In Konferenspapper för HSS 07/spår: Livslångt lärande. HSS07.
Gavenila, E. I., Wulandari, M., & Renandya, W. A. (2021). Using TED Talks for extensive listening. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 61, 147-175.
Ghaffar, M.N.A. (2003). Reka Bentuk Tinjauan Soal Selidik Pendidikan. Skudai: Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Press, Malaysia.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2017). Smartphones and language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 3–17.
Gonulal, T. (2020). Improving listening skills with extensive listening using podcasts and vodcasts. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 7(1), 311-320.
Hu, M., & Li, H. (2017, June). Student engagement in online learning: A review. In 2017 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET) (pp. 39-43). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISET.2017.17
Ivone, F. M., & Renandya, W. A. (2019). Extensive listening and viewing in ELT. TEFLIN Journal, 30(2), 237-256.
Jasper, J. (2021). Measuring student engagement and student satisfaction in online and in-person high school classes. [Master of Education Program Theses, Dordt University Sioux Center, Iowa] https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/med_theses/152
Jennings, J. M., & Angelo, T. (2006). Student engagement: Measuring and enhancing engagement with learning. Proceedings of the Universities Academic Audit Unit, New Zealand.
Jibrinet, M. A., Musa, M. N., & Shittu, T. (2017). Effects of internet on the academic performance of tertiary institutions’ students in Niger State, Nigeria. International Journal of Education, Learning and Training, 2(2), 57-69.
Jitpaisarnwattana, N., Darasawang, P., & Reinders, H. (2022). Understanding affordances and limitations in a language MOOC from an activity theory perspective. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17(1), 1-22.
Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning: Association for learning technology journal. Research in Learning Technology, 23 http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.dordt.edu:8080/10.3402/rlt.v23.26507
Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social presence in text‐based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29(1), 89–106. http://doi:10.1080/01587910802004860
Kinnebrew, J. S., Gauch, B. C., Segedy, J. R., & Biswas, G. (2015). Studying student use of self- regulated learning tools in an open-ended learning environment. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 185–194). Springer.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: the Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090
Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563.
Kumar, S. (2015, July 10). 5 common problems faced by students in eLearning and how to overcome them - eLearning Industry. elearningindustry.com. https://elearningindustry.com/5-common-problems-faced-by-students-in-elearning- overcome
Lamb, S., Walstab, A., Teese, R., Vickers, M., & Rumberger, R. (2004). Staying on at school: Improving student retention in Australia. Queensland Department of Education and the Arts.
Leach, L.S. (2016). Enhancing student engagement in one institution. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(1), 23-47.
Lim, J., & Newby, T. J. (2020). Preservice teachers’ Web 2.0 experiences and perceptions on Web 2.0 as a personal learning environment. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(2), 234-260.
Mandernach, B. J., Donnelli-Sallee, E., & Dailey-Hebert, A. (2011). Assessing course student engagement. Promoting student engagement, 1, 277-281.
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222.
Mayora, C. A. (2017). Extensive listening in a Colombian university: Process, product, and perceptions. How, 24(1), 101-121.
Nuraeni, C., Carolina, I., Supriyatna, A., Widiati, W., & Bahri, S. (2020). Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL): Students’ perception and problems towards mobile learning in English language. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1641, 012027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1641/1/012027
Pascarella, E. T., Seifert, T. A., & Blaich, C. (2010). How effective are the NSSE benchmarks in predicting important educational outcomes? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(1), 16-22.
Radloff, A., & Coates, H. (2010). Doing more for learning: Enhancing engagement and outcomes: Australasian survey of student engagement: Australasian Student Engagement Report.
Ramírez, D. M., & Gillig, S. (2018). Computer technology and twitter for online learning and student engagement. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 10(1-2), 137-153.
Reinders, H. (2014). Personal learning environments for supporting out-of-class language learning. English Teaching Forum, 52(4), 14–19
Renandya, W. A., & Farrell, T. S. (2011). ‘Teacher, the tape is too fast!’ Extensive listening in ELT. ELT Journal, 65(1), 52-59.
Renandya, W. A., & Jacobs, G. M. (2016). Extensive reading and listening in the L2 classroom. In English language teaching today (pp. 97-110). Springer.
Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.3200/joeb.84.2.101-109
Ruengkul, A., & Sukavatee, P. (2015). A survey study of personal learning environment tools for English language learning of Thai EFL undergraduate students. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 91-101.
Sachdev, S. B., & Verma, H. V. (2004). Relative importance of service quality dimensions: A multisectoral study. Journal of Services Research, 4(1), 93-116.
Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2).
Shukor, N. A., Tasir, Z., Van der Meijden, H., & Harun, J. (2014). A predictive model to evaluate students’ cognitive engagement in online learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4844-4853.
Son, C., Hegde, S., Smith, A., Wang, X., and Sasangohar, F. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on college students’ mental health in the United States: interview survey study. J. Med. Internet Res. 22:e21279. https://doi.org/10.2196/21279
Su, C. C. (2006). Moodle for English teachers. Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics, Min Chuan University (pp. 321-330).
Suwannasit, W. (2019). EFL learners’ listening problems, principles of teaching listening and implications for listening instruction. Journal of Education Naresuan University, 21(1), 345- 359.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
Tomberg, V., Laanpere, M., Ley, T., & Normak, P. (2013). Sustaining teacher control in a blog-based personal learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 109-133.
Trowler, P., & Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement evidence summary. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Retrieved from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/trowler/StudentEngagementDeliverables.htm
Tumin, T., Faizuddin, A., Purnomo, H., Aisyah, N., & Mansir, F. (2020). Working students in higher education: Challenges and solutions. Al-hayat: Journal of Islamic Education (AJIE), 4(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.35723/ajie.v4i1.108
Valencia-Vallejo, N., López-Vargas, O., & Sanabria-Rodríguez, L. (2019). Effect of a metacognitive scaffolding on self-efficacy, metacognition, and achievement in elearning environments. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 11(1), 1–19.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). 1. Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3-25.
Van Harmelen, M. (2008). Design trajectories: Four experiments in PLE implementation. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 35-46.
Waring, R. (2008). Starting extensive listening. Extensive Reading in Japan, 1(1), 7-9.
Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 5-21.
Yeh, C. C. (2013). An investigation of a podcast learning project for extensive listening. Language Education in Asia, 4(2), 135–149.
Zeng, Y., & Goh, C. C. M. (2018). A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement and metacognitive awareness. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.2
Zhu, X. H., Chen, A., Ennis, C., Sun, H. C., Hopple, C., Bonello, M., Kim, S. (2009). Situational interest, cognitive engagement, and achievement in physical education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(3), 221–229.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(2), 64-70.
Ziyad, H. (2016). Technology-mediated ELT writing: Acceptance and engagement in an online Moodle course. Contemporary Educational Technology, 7(4), 314-330.