Students’ Perceptions on the Use of Google
Description: Students Perceptions on the Use of Google Classroom in LSP Learning and its Effects on Developing Linguistic Competences Jelena Basta, mail: jelena.bastaekonomski.rs Slavica Pejić, mail: slavica.pejicekonomski.rs Faculty of economics,
Related Topics
Download Presentation
"Students’ Perceptions on the Use of Google" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
slide1. Students’ Perceptions on the Use of Google Classroom in LSP Learning and its Effects on Developing Linguistic Competences Jelena Basta, mail: jelena.basta@ekonomski.rs
Slavica Pejić, mail: slavica.pejic@ekonomski.rs
Faculty of economics, university of Niš<br>
slide2. Introduction A new, modern, globalized world – digitalized technologies.
The use of information and communication technologies – in all spheres of life, including the educational system, and teaching/learning processes.
The pandemic of COVID-19 and the lockdown of all educational institutions – traditional teaching/learning methods put aside – online learning was brought to the foreground – all educational levels, all types of classrooms, including LSP.
Higher education students more frequently refer to new technologies – an opportunity for web designers to develop new teaching/learning platforms.
Students perceive new technologies as positive and desirable (Al Bataineh et al., 2019), but changes in students’ lives seem frightening.
Not so much time for new technologies – students more involved in thinking about time limitations than in actual educational opportunities (Staford, 2011).<br>
slide3. Introduction Teaching/learning platforms – spare time, teach social skills, encourage autonomous and independent learning, keep pace with new technologies, improve learning outcomes and results (Taylor et al., 2011; Kuh & Hu, 2001) – students – active participants.
Online learning – educational experiences in a synchronous and asynchronous environment with the use of various devices (Singh and Thurman, 2019) – applications, platforms, quizzes – no time limits to access the materials.
The aim of the paper – the perceptions of the LSP students of the Faculty of Economics, University of Niš about the use of Google Classroom (GC).
Three questions:
Do LSP students believe that GC is easy to use?
Do LSP students believe that GC is useful for LSP learning?
Do LSP students believe that the use of GC positively affects the development of linguistic competences – writing, reading, listening and speaking?<br>
slide4. Theoretical framework GC – released on 12 August 2014 – a free platform – students and teachers connect both inside and outside the real classroom – more than 30 million assignments were submitted in the first six months.
GC – a newly-accepted, innovative platform for teaching/learning – aimed at improving the process of digital learning – it integrates technology into a traditional learning setting – it complements traditional classes.
GC – part of the package Google Apps for Education(Northey et al., 2015) – easy to use (Janzen, 2014) – a simple organization – time saving – easy to access – paperless (Hulse, 2019) – teachers are flexible about setting class times – GC eliminates travel costs.
GC automatically creates a folder on the Google drive for each assignment – both students and teachers can follow the progress and share comments.
Teachers can directly invite students to GC or they can share a code – GC organization takes only a few minutes –paper-, money- and time-saving – no additional storage required – everything is at one place.<br>
slide5. Theoretical framework Teachers can make announcements in the real time and interact with students – the stream of the platform – used for additional announcements, students’ questions, and further interaction – no advertisements.
Conflicting opinions about GC – some believe that the contribution of GC is immense (Northey et al. 2015) , while some prefer traditional teaching methods (Pienta, 2016; Henrie, Halverson, & Graham, 2015).
Blended learning – a solution.
Although digital teaching materials encourage students to actively participate, various tools available to students which facilitate doing the assignments – they reduce the positive effects of learning.
Various challenges when using GC – students’ privacy, differences between learning/teaching aims and outcomes of students and institutions.<br>
slide6. Theoretical framework Challenges for LSP teachers – can LSP teachers cover all four linguistic competences when they use GC and can students successfully develop these competences?
The focus of LSP – functional literacy – vocabulary and grammar within the professional context and development of writing and speaking skills – materials should be adapted to such a context – ready-made materials for LSP rarely available.
So far – several studies on the perceptions of students about the use of GC – easy to access and easy to use (Al-Maroof and Al-Emran, 2018).
Non-linear relationship between motivation and habit (Kumar and Bervell, 2019).<br>
slide7. Methodology The research examines the opinions of students about the ease of use and usefulness of GC, and its effects on the development of four linguistic competences.
The data were obtained from two sources – (a) a five-point Likert scale – (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neutral, (4) agree, (5) strongly agree and (b) one open-ended question.
To identify the verbal interpretation of the range of the mean score, Sözen and Güven’s interval (Table 1) of 5-point scale (Sözen and Güven, 2019) was used.
Table 1: The verbal interpretation of mean values obtained by the questionnaire.<br>
slide8. Methodology Interviewees and the research context: the schoolyear 2019-20 – the lockdown – 100 LSP students – aged between 20 and 22.
Types of in-class teaching materials and GC materials.
GC materials – PPT presentations and YouTube videos.
Homework assignments in GC – covering all four linguistic competences.
Data collection – two segments of the questionnaire:
Data about the ease of use and usefulness of GC;
Data about the effects of GC on LSP students’ linguistic competences.<br>
slide9. Results and discussion Do LSP students believe GC is easy to use? (Table 2)
Table 2: Attitudes of LSP students about the ease of use of GC<br>
slide10. Results and discussion Absolutely positive attitudes about the ease of use of GC.
One click to enter the classroom.
Teaching/learning materials visually distinguishable – a special symbol used for them, divided into different sections, no waste of time.
Assignments easy to get – the students get a notification for each new assignment.
GC is easy to use and students understand the way GC functions – transparent and simple.
Lowest score – assignments are easy to submit – no access to the Internet all the times; students do not understand the preconditions necessary for submitting the assignments.<br>
slide11. Results and discussion Do LSP students believe that GC is useful for LSP learning?
Table 3. Students’ attitudes about the usefulness of GC<br>
slide12. Results and discussion A very useful teaching/learning tool – activities are useful – although GC cannot substitute the real classroom.
Is it an excellent means of social interaction?- not so much – the teacher get no notifications about the posted questions on the stream.
GC tries to interconnect the social and academic discourse – but other social networks used.
Regular assignment submission – students dedicated to doing the assignments – work till late at night.
Dedication to assignments – crucial – the students do not get distracted by unproductive activities (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020).
The teacher grades the assignments – the students can see their scores and personal comments – an excellent source of feedback.
No problems understanding the subject description – GC should be also used for other academic subjects.<br>
slide13. Results and discussion Drawbacks of GC – revealed by answers to the open-ended question.
No internet access all the time.
Some students were frustrated because of other various distractions online – unable to make use of all the benefits of GC.
Yet, most students – capable of resisting the challenges outside GC.<br>
slide14. Results and discussion Do LSP students believe that the use of GC positively affects the development of linguistic competences – writing?
Table 4. Students' attitudes about the effects of GC on the writing competence<br>
slide15. Results and discussion Very little research on the effects of GC on the development of LSP linguistic competences.
GC can be accessed from various devices – the active engagement of the students at any place and time.
Paperless – makes the process of writing, as well as grading simpler.
Various computer tools available to the students which make writing easier.
Doing the writing assignment – not only putting forward ideas, but also creating a comprehensible text (Tangermpoon, 2008) – the good knowledge of lexical items and discourse management.
Various programmes for writing – enhance the writing competence – spelling checkers, synonyms, grammar mistakes – yet, no discourse management solutions.
A more careful selection of the register – more time to pay attention to all linguistic segments – the internet also helps check the register.
Greater motivation – the students become active participants in the educational process (Bozdogan, 2012) – they learn from their own mistakes.
A positive effect on the writing competence.<br>
slide16. Results and discussion Do LSP students believe that the use of GC positively affects the development of linguistic competences – reading?
Table 4. Students' attitudes about the effects of GC on the reading competence<br>
slide17. Results and discussion GC – very useful for the development of the reading competence – depends exclusively on self-commitment and motivation – the teacher ‘s task – to boost the students’ confidence (Ali et al., 2021).
The students – more motivated to do the reading assignments – more time to carefully read the text, look for the unknown vocabulary, and analyse the sentence structure.
GC facilitates the interaction between the students and the text – adjusted to various learning styles (Bensalem, 2018) – a friendly environment – an individualised approach to the text in line with the students’ competences and needs (Hassan Taj, 2017).
No time pressure – easier to focus on the text.
No early classes – the students pick the time when to study.
GC positively affects the reading competence – increases motivation.
Digital technologies provide a sense of security – this leads to the increase in self-confidence, self-control and responsibility for one’s own learning.<br>
slide18. Results and discussion Do LSP students believe that the use of GC positively affects the development of linguistic competences – listening?
Table 4. Students' attitudes about the effects of GC on the listening competence<br>
slide19. Results and discussion Listening – an ability to correctly interpret and understand messages in the communication process.
Students with prominent comprehension competences more actively participate in classes (Emerick, 2018).
Many researchers claim it is impossible to develop this competence in GC.
YouTube videos – a form of a listening activity – explanations of vocabulary and grammar.
In order to understand these units, the students were obliged to listen more attentively.
The successful understanding of the YouTube videos – a precondition for further participation in GC.
The students were encouraged to independently do the assignments – LSP learning autonomy (Lee and Wallace, 2018) – self-control in learning encourages and directs learning activities to such an extent that students become active participants in their own learning process (Silva et al., 2018).
A better understanding of GC listening materials – more time to devote oneself to the task – the students can also take notes while listening and implement other learning strategies that suit their learning styles.
Not so focused early in the morning to listen to the real classes.<br>
slide20. Results and discussion Do LSP students believe that the use of GC positively affects the development of linguistic competences – speaking?
Table 4. Students' attitudes about the effects of GC on the listening competence<br>
slide21. Results and discussion Speaking – an interactive process – the production, reception and processing of the information.
Factors – bad reading habits, unequal participation in communication, the wrong application of grammar rules (Sayury, 2016) – inevitable interaction among interlocutors – online – Zoom, Google Meet, MS Teams – for synchronous interaction.
A challenge – how to improve the speaking competence – recording videos.
Less stage fright – feel more relaxed – more willingly do the assignments – less anxious and worried (Darmawati, 2021) – no audience to distract them – no feeling of fear of being laughed at – they speak more fluently.
Assignments can be done at any time and place – the economic topics seem less frightening when covered in a friendly environment.
A pre-speaking preparation process – reading about the topic they will talk about, making notes and reminders, carefully selecting lexical and grammatical items as well as the register.
Post-recording process – reviewing the mistakes, self-reflecting the whole learning process, critical thinking.<br>
slide22. Conclusion Digital technology and the use of mobile applications facilitate the teaching/learning process.
GC represents an innovative and effective LSP learning platform easy to access and use, contributes to the development of all four LSP linguistic competences.
GC – the only teaching tool during the lockdown – the implication – the results are reliable, no other factors influencing the results.
Limitations to the research – questions about technological /digital literacy – no analysis in accordance to the sex of the respondents - males more interested in IT than females – potential expected results.
GC should be implemented in LSP classes.<br>
slide23. References Al Bataineh, K. B., Banikalef, A., Abdullah, A. E., & Albashtawi, A. H. (2019). The Effect of Blended Learning on EFL Students’ Grammar Performance and Attitudes: An Investigation of Moodle. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume, 10.
Ali, M. M., Asad, Z., & Moghal, S. (2020). Utilizing Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) for Teaching English to Non-Formal Learners in Pakistan. Journal of Arts & Social Sciences (JASS), 7 (2), 70-81.
Al-Maroof, R. A. S. & Al-Emran, M. (2018). Students Acceptance of Google Classroom: An Exploratory Study using the PLS-SEM Approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13 (6).
Bensalem, E. (2018). Foreign language anxiety of EFL students: Examining the effect of selfefficacy, self-perceived proficiency and sociobiographical variables. Arab World English Journal, 9 (2), 38-55.
Bozdogan, D. (2012). English language teaching students’ perceptions of computer-assisted language learning. Journal of Education and Future, 2, 63-74.
Darmawati, D., Amin, B., & Akib, E. (2022). The Strategies in Reducing the Students’ Anxiety in Speaking English at SMA Pergis Yapki Maros. EDUTEC : Journal of Education And Technology, 5 (3), 722-742.
Emerick, M. R. (2018). Explicit teaching and authenticity in L2 listening instruction: University language teachers’ beliefs. System, 80, 1-13.
Hassan Taj, Ali, F., Sipra, M., and Ahmad,W. (2017). Effect of technology enhanced language learning on vocabulary acquisition of EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6 (3).
Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R. & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53.
Hulse, R. (2019). The use and implementation of Google Classroom in a Japanese university. The Center of theStudy of English Language Teaching Journal, 7, 71-105.
Janzen, M. (2014). Hot team: Google Classroom. [Online]. Available at: http://tlt.psu.edu/2014/12/04/hot-team-google-classroom/
Kuh, G. D. & Hu, S. (2001). The relationships between computer and information technology use, selected learning and personal development outcomes, and other college Experiences. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 217-232.
Kumar, J. A, & Bervell, B. (2019). Google Classroom for mobile learning in higher education: Modelling the initial perceptions of students. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 1793–1817.<br>
slide24. References Lee, G., & Wallace, A. (2018). Flipped learning in the English as a foreign language classroom: outcomes and perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 52 (1), 62–84.
Mercer, S. & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging Language Learners in Contemporary Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Northey, G., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M. & Govind, R. (2015). Increasing student engagement using asynchronous learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 37 (3), 171-180.
Pienta, N. J. (2016). A “flipped classroom” reality check. Journal of Chemical Education, 91 (1), 1–2.
Sayuri, S. (2016). Problems in speaking faced by EFL students of Mulawarman university. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 1(1), 47–61.
Silva, J. C. S., Zambom, E., Rodrigues, R. L., Ramos, J. L. C., & Da Fonseca De Souza, F. (2018). Effects of learning analytics on students’ self-regulated learning in flipped classroom. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education.
Singh, V. & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33 (4), 289-306.
Sözen, E. & Guven, U. (2019). The Effect of Online Assessments on Students’ Attitudes Towards Undergraduate-Level Geography Courses. International Education Studies. 12 (10), 1-8.
Stafford, G. (2011). The unexpected transformations of Chinese international students in Australia, Available at : https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/66098/8/02whole.pdf
Tangermpoon, T. (2008). The use of computer in improving writing skills. Available at: Wordpress.com:http://neeyhapuzee.wordpress.com/2011/01/30the-use-of-computer-ininproving-writing-skills/
Taylor, S. A., Hunter, G. L., Melton, H. & Goodwin, S. A. (2011). Student Engagement and Marketing Classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 73-92.<br>
slide25. THANK YOU!<br>
Slavica Pejić, mail: slavica.pejic@ekonomski.rs
Faculty of economics, university of Niš<br>
slide2. Introduction A new, modern, globalized world – digitalized technologies.
The use of information and communication technologies – in all spheres of life, including the educational system, and teaching/learning processes.
The pandemic of COVID-19 and the lockdown of all educational institutions – traditional teaching/learning methods put aside – online learning was brought to the foreground – all educational levels, all types of classrooms, including LSP.
Higher education students more frequently refer to new technologies – an opportunity for web designers to develop new teaching/learning platforms.
Students perceive new technologies as positive and desirable (Al Bataineh et al., 2019), but changes in students’ lives seem frightening.
Not so much time for new technologies – students more involved in thinking about time limitations than in actual educational opportunities (Staford, 2011).<br>
slide3. Introduction Teaching/learning platforms – spare time, teach social skills, encourage autonomous and independent learning, keep pace with new technologies, improve learning outcomes and results (Taylor et al., 2011; Kuh & Hu, 2001) – students – active participants.
Online learning – educational experiences in a synchronous and asynchronous environment with the use of various devices (Singh and Thurman, 2019) – applications, platforms, quizzes – no time limits to access the materials.
The aim of the paper – the perceptions of the LSP students of the Faculty of Economics, University of Niš about the use of Google Classroom (GC).
Three questions:
Do LSP students believe that GC is easy to use?
Do LSP students believe that GC is useful for LSP learning?
Do LSP students believe that the use of GC positively affects the development of linguistic competences – writing, reading, listening and speaking?<br>
slide4. Theoretical framework GC – released on 12 August 2014 – a free platform – students and teachers connect both inside and outside the real classroom – more than 30 million assignments were submitted in the first six months.
GC – a newly-accepted, innovative platform for teaching/learning – aimed at improving the process of digital learning – it integrates technology into a traditional learning setting – it complements traditional classes.
GC – part of the package Google Apps for Education(Northey et al., 2015) – easy to use (Janzen, 2014) – a simple organization – time saving – easy to access – paperless (Hulse, 2019) – teachers are flexible about setting class times – GC eliminates travel costs.
GC automatically creates a folder on the Google drive for each assignment – both students and teachers can follow the progress and share comments.
Teachers can directly invite students to GC or they can share a code – GC organization takes only a few minutes –paper-, money- and time-saving – no additional storage required – everything is at one place.<br>
slide5. Theoretical framework Teachers can make announcements in the real time and interact with students – the stream of the platform – used for additional announcements, students’ questions, and further interaction – no advertisements.
Conflicting opinions about GC – some believe that the contribution of GC is immense (Northey et al. 2015) , while some prefer traditional teaching methods (Pienta, 2016; Henrie, Halverson, & Graham, 2015).
Blended learning – a solution.
Although digital teaching materials encourage students to actively participate, various tools available to students which facilitate doing the assignments – they reduce the positive effects of learning.
Various challenges when using GC – students’ privacy, differences between learning/teaching aims and outcomes of students and institutions.<br>
slide6. Theoretical framework Challenges for LSP teachers – can LSP teachers cover all four linguistic competences when they use GC and can students successfully develop these competences?
The focus of LSP – functional literacy – vocabulary and grammar within the professional context and development of writing and speaking skills – materials should be adapted to such a context – ready-made materials for LSP rarely available.
So far – several studies on the perceptions of students about the use of GC – easy to access and easy to use (Al-Maroof and Al-Emran, 2018).
Non-linear relationship between motivation and habit (Kumar and Bervell, 2019).<br>
slide7. Methodology The research examines the opinions of students about the ease of use and usefulness of GC, and its effects on the development of four linguistic competences.
The data were obtained from two sources – (a) a five-point Likert scale – (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neutral, (4) agree, (5) strongly agree and (b) one open-ended question.
To identify the verbal interpretation of the range of the mean score, Sözen and Güven’s interval (Table 1) of 5-point scale (Sözen and Güven, 2019) was used.
Table 1: The verbal interpretation of mean values obtained by the questionnaire.<br>
slide8. Methodology Interviewees and the research context: the schoolyear 2019-20 – the lockdown – 100 LSP students – aged between 20 and 22.
Types of in-class teaching materials and GC materials.
GC materials – PPT presentations and YouTube videos.
Homework assignments in GC – covering all four linguistic competences.
Data collection – two segments of the questionnaire:
Data about the ease of use and usefulness of GC;
Data about the effects of GC on LSP students’ linguistic competences.<br>
slide9. Results and discussion Do LSP students believe GC is easy to use? (Table 2)
Table 2: Attitudes of LSP students about the ease of use of GC<br>
slide10. Results and discussion Absolutely positive attitudes about the ease of use of GC.
One click to enter the classroom.
Teaching/learning materials visually distinguishable – a special symbol used for them, divided into different sections, no waste of time.
Assignments easy to get – the students get a notification for each new assignment.
GC is easy to use and students understand the way GC functions – transparent and simple.
Lowest score – assignments are easy to submit – no access to the Internet all the times; students do not understand the preconditions necessary for submitting the assignments.<br>
slide11. Results and discussion Do LSP students believe that GC is useful for LSP learning?
Table 3. Students’ attitudes about the usefulness of GC<br>
slide12. Results and discussion A very useful teaching/learning tool – activities are useful – although GC cannot substitute the real classroom.
Is it an excellent means of social interaction?- not so much – the teacher get no notifications about the posted questions on the stream.
GC tries to interconnect the social and academic discourse – but other social networks used.
Regular assignment submission – students dedicated to doing the assignments – work till late at night.
Dedication to assignments – crucial – the students do not get distracted by unproductive activities (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020).
The teacher grades the assignments – the students can see their scores and personal comments – an excellent source of feedback.
No problems understanding the subject description – GC should be also used for other academic subjects.<br>
slide13. Results and discussion Drawbacks of GC – revealed by answers to the open-ended question.
No internet access all the time.
Some students were frustrated because of other various distractions online – unable to make use of all the benefits of GC.
Yet, most students – capable of resisting the challenges outside GC.<br>
slide14. Results and discussion Do LSP students believe that the use of GC positively affects the development of linguistic competences – writing?
Table 4. Students' attitudes about the effects of GC on the writing competence<br>
slide15. Results and discussion Very little research on the effects of GC on the development of LSP linguistic competences.
GC can be accessed from various devices – the active engagement of the students at any place and time.
Paperless – makes the process of writing, as well as grading simpler.
Various computer tools available to the students which make writing easier.
Doing the writing assignment – not only putting forward ideas, but also creating a comprehensible text (Tangermpoon, 2008) – the good knowledge of lexical items and discourse management.
Various programmes for writing – enhance the writing competence – spelling checkers, synonyms, grammar mistakes – yet, no discourse management solutions.
A more careful selection of the register – more time to pay attention to all linguistic segments – the internet also helps check the register.
Greater motivation – the students become active participants in the educational process (Bozdogan, 2012) – they learn from their own mistakes.
A positive effect on the writing competence.<br>
slide16. Results and discussion Do LSP students believe that the use of GC positively affects the development of linguistic competences – reading?
Table 4. Students' attitudes about the effects of GC on the reading competence<br>
slide17. Results and discussion GC – very useful for the development of the reading competence – depends exclusively on self-commitment and motivation – the teacher ‘s task – to boost the students’ confidence (Ali et al., 2021).
The students – more motivated to do the reading assignments – more time to carefully read the text, look for the unknown vocabulary, and analyse the sentence structure.
GC facilitates the interaction between the students and the text – adjusted to various learning styles (Bensalem, 2018) – a friendly environment – an individualised approach to the text in line with the students’ competences and needs (Hassan Taj, 2017).
No time pressure – easier to focus on the text.
No early classes – the students pick the time when to study.
GC positively affects the reading competence – increases motivation.
Digital technologies provide a sense of security – this leads to the increase in self-confidence, self-control and responsibility for one’s own learning.<br>
slide18. Results and discussion Do LSP students believe that the use of GC positively affects the development of linguistic competences – listening?
Table 4. Students' attitudes about the effects of GC on the listening competence<br>
slide19. Results and discussion Listening – an ability to correctly interpret and understand messages in the communication process.
Students with prominent comprehension competences more actively participate in classes (Emerick, 2018).
Many researchers claim it is impossible to develop this competence in GC.
YouTube videos – a form of a listening activity – explanations of vocabulary and grammar.
In order to understand these units, the students were obliged to listen more attentively.
The successful understanding of the YouTube videos – a precondition for further participation in GC.
The students were encouraged to independently do the assignments – LSP learning autonomy (Lee and Wallace, 2018) – self-control in learning encourages and directs learning activities to such an extent that students become active participants in their own learning process (Silva et al., 2018).
A better understanding of GC listening materials – more time to devote oneself to the task – the students can also take notes while listening and implement other learning strategies that suit their learning styles.
Not so focused early in the morning to listen to the real classes.<br>
slide20. Results and discussion Do LSP students believe that the use of GC positively affects the development of linguistic competences – speaking?
Table 4. Students' attitudes about the effects of GC on the listening competence<br>
slide21. Results and discussion Speaking – an interactive process – the production, reception and processing of the information.
Factors – bad reading habits, unequal participation in communication, the wrong application of grammar rules (Sayury, 2016) – inevitable interaction among interlocutors – online – Zoom, Google Meet, MS Teams – for synchronous interaction.
A challenge – how to improve the speaking competence – recording videos.
Less stage fright – feel more relaxed – more willingly do the assignments – less anxious and worried (Darmawati, 2021) – no audience to distract them – no feeling of fear of being laughed at – they speak more fluently.
Assignments can be done at any time and place – the economic topics seem less frightening when covered in a friendly environment.
A pre-speaking preparation process – reading about the topic they will talk about, making notes and reminders, carefully selecting lexical and grammatical items as well as the register.
Post-recording process – reviewing the mistakes, self-reflecting the whole learning process, critical thinking.<br>
slide22. Conclusion Digital technology and the use of mobile applications facilitate the teaching/learning process.
GC represents an innovative and effective LSP learning platform easy to access and use, contributes to the development of all four LSP linguistic competences.
GC – the only teaching tool during the lockdown – the implication – the results are reliable, no other factors influencing the results.
Limitations to the research – questions about technological /digital literacy – no analysis in accordance to the sex of the respondents - males more interested in IT than females – potential expected results.
GC should be implemented in LSP classes.<br>
slide23. References Al Bataineh, K. B., Banikalef, A., Abdullah, A. E., & Albashtawi, A. H. (2019). The Effect of Blended Learning on EFL Students’ Grammar Performance and Attitudes: An Investigation of Moodle. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume, 10.
Ali, M. M., Asad, Z., & Moghal, S. (2020). Utilizing Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) for Teaching English to Non-Formal Learners in Pakistan. Journal of Arts & Social Sciences (JASS), 7 (2), 70-81.
Al-Maroof, R. A. S. & Al-Emran, M. (2018). Students Acceptance of Google Classroom: An Exploratory Study using the PLS-SEM Approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13 (6).
Bensalem, E. (2018). Foreign language anxiety of EFL students: Examining the effect of selfefficacy, self-perceived proficiency and sociobiographical variables. Arab World English Journal, 9 (2), 38-55.
Bozdogan, D. (2012). English language teaching students’ perceptions of computer-assisted language learning. Journal of Education and Future, 2, 63-74.
Darmawati, D., Amin, B., & Akib, E. (2022). The Strategies in Reducing the Students’ Anxiety in Speaking English at SMA Pergis Yapki Maros. EDUTEC : Journal of Education And Technology, 5 (3), 722-742.
Emerick, M. R. (2018). Explicit teaching and authenticity in L2 listening instruction: University language teachers’ beliefs. System, 80, 1-13.
Hassan Taj, Ali, F., Sipra, M., and Ahmad,W. (2017). Effect of technology enhanced language learning on vocabulary acquisition of EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6 (3).
Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R. & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53.
Hulse, R. (2019). The use and implementation of Google Classroom in a Japanese university. The Center of theStudy of English Language Teaching Journal, 7, 71-105.
Janzen, M. (2014). Hot team: Google Classroom. [Online]. Available at: http://tlt.psu.edu/2014/12/04/hot-team-google-classroom/
Kuh, G. D. & Hu, S. (2001). The relationships between computer and information technology use, selected learning and personal development outcomes, and other college Experiences. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 217-232.
Kumar, J. A, & Bervell, B. (2019). Google Classroom for mobile learning in higher education: Modelling the initial perceptions of students. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 1793–1817.<br>
slide24. References Lee, G., & Wallace, A. (2018). Flipped learning in the English as a foreign language classroom: outcomes and perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 52 (1), 62–84.
Mercer, S. & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging Language Learners in Contemporary Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Northey, G., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M. & Govind, R. (2015). Increasing student engagement using asynchronous learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 37 (3), 171-180.
Pienta, N. J. (2016). A “flipped classroom” reality check. Journal of Chemical Education, 91 (1), 1–2.
Sayuri, S. (2016). Problems in speaking faced by EFL students of Mulawarman university. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 1(1), 47–61.
Silva, J. C. S., Zambom, E., Rodrigues, R. L., Ramos, J. L. C., & Da Fonseca De Souza, F. (2018). Effects of learning analytics on students’ self-regulated learning in flipped classroom. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education.
Singh, V. & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33 (4), 289-306.
Sözen, E. & Guven, U. (2019). The Effect of Online Assessments on Students’ Attitudes Towards Undergraduate-Level Geography Courses. International Education Studies. 12 (10), 1-8.
Stafford, G. (2011). The unexpected transformations of Chinese international students in Australia, Available at : https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/66098/8/02whole.pdf
Tangermpoon, T. (2008). The use of computer in improving writing skills. Available at: Wordpress.com:http://neeyhapuzee.wordpress.com/2011/01/30the-use-of-computer-ininproving-writing-skills/
Taylor, S. A., Hunter, G. L., Melton, H. & Goodwin, S. A. (2011). Student Engagement and Marketing Classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 73-92.<br>
slide25. THANK YOU!<br>