Enhancing Active Grammar Learning in a Synchronous Online EFL Undergraduate Classroom: Development and Assessment of the LPCR Online Instructional Model
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In synchronous online EFL classrooms, students often exhibit passive participation and boredom when learning grammar. This research study presents the development of an online active grammar learning instructional model, named LPCR, which incorporates Byrne’s Presentation-Practice- Production (PPP) approach and Fink’s holistic view of active learning. LPCR was employed as an eclectic approach for teaching grammar and utilized four online applications in a synchronous online classroom. The study involved 40 second-year nursing students enrolled in an EFL undergraduate course at a public university in Thailand from January to April 2022. The effectiveness of LPCR was assessed through a grammar test, a questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews. The students’ grammar scores were analyzed using the Paired Samples t-Test and Cohen’s d, which revealed the positive effect of LPCR with a medium effect size. Also, students’ attitudes toward LPCR were assessed through a seven-point Likert-scale questionnaire and semi-structured interviews, employing the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as the theoretical framework. The results indicated that, on average, students considered LPCR useful and easy to use, and they had positive attitudes toward using LPCR and behavioral intention to use it. Additionally, the results of a path analysis with the students’ questionnaire responses showed both significant and non-significant direct and indirect effects of the four TAM variables: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude toward use, and behavioral intention to use. Pedagogical and research implications are drawn from the findings, and recommendations for implementing LPCR in future instances of English grammar instruction in synchronous online classrooms are offered.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Abdous, M. (2019). Well begun is half done: Using online orientation to foster online students’ academic self-efficacy. Online Learning Journal, 23(3), 161–187.
Al-Malki, M. A. (2020). Quizlet: An online application to enhance EFL foundation students’ vocabulary acquisition at Rustaq College of Education, Oman. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), Special Issue on CALL, (6), 332–343.
Anderson, J. (2016). Why practice makes perfect sense: The past, present and potential future of the PPP paradigm in language teacher education. ELTED, 19, 14–22.
Asifayanti, A., Weda, S., & Abduh, A. (2021). Exploring teachers’ perception on gamification in online grammar teaching. PINISI Journal of Art, Humanity and Social Studies, 1(4), 1–11.
Astria, N. (2016). The use of PPP (Presentation, Practice, Production) technique in teaching English to the eleventh grade students of MA Miftahul Ulum Grade Bgraket Balong Ponorogo in academic year 2015/2016 [Undergraduate (S1) thesis, STAIN Ponorogo]. Electronic Theses IAIN Ponorogo. http://etheses.iainponorogo.ac.id/id/eprint/1337
Azar, B. (2007). Grammar-based teaching: A practitioner’s perspective. TESL-EJ, 11(2), 1–12. http://tesl-ej.org/ej42/a1.html
Bacon, D. R. (2016). Reporting actual and perceived student learning in education research. Journal of Marketing Education, 38(1), 3–6.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Oladrostan, E. (2011). Teaching grammar for active use: A framework for comparison of three instructional techniques. TEFLIN Journal, 22(1), 72–92.
Basar, Z. M., Mansor, A. N., Jamaludin, K. A., & Alias, B. S. (2021). The effectiveness and challenges of online learning for secondary school students – A case study. Asian Journalof University Education, 17(3), 119–129.
Becker, L. A. (2000, March 21). Effect size. University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS). https://lbecker.uccs.edu/effect-size
Best, J. (2015, October 9). The SAMR model explained (with 15 practical examples). 3P Learning. https://www.3plearning.com/blog/connectingsamrmodel/
Bikowski, D. (2018). Technology for teaching grammar. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 10, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0441
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
Byrne, D. (1986). Teaching oral English (New edition). Longman.
Caine, N. A. (2020). Integrating active learning into EFL course design: A case study. Nagasaki University Repository, 53(4), 23–39.
Castillo-Cuesta, L. (2020). Using digital games for enhancing EFL grammar and vocabulary in higher education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(20), 116–129.
Chalipa, S. (2013). The effect of inductive vs. deductive instructional approach in grammar learning of ESL learners. International Researchers, 2(2), 176–187.
Chang, S. (2020, October 9). Thailand’s COVID-19 education crisis. The Geopolitics. https://thegeopolitics.com/thailands-covid-19-education-crisis/
Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers and Education, 63, 160–175.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. The Wingspread Journal, 9, 1–10.
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
Coman, C., Țîru, L. G., Meseșan-Schmitz, L., Stanciu, C., & Bularca, M. C. (2020). Online teaching and learning in higher education during the Coronavirus pandemic: Students’ perspective. Sustainability, 12(24), Article 10367. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410367
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of Information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
Diasamidze, I. (2019). Inferring a message through capitalization. US-China Foreign Language, 17(12), 534–537.
Dolgunsöz, E., & Yildirim, G. (2021). The role of mobile devices on online EFL skill courses during Covid-19 emergency remote education. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture, 6(2), 118–131.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107.
Fakeye, D. (2010). Students’ personal variables as correlates of academic achievement in English as a second language in Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences, 22, 205–211.
Fetters, M. D., & Freshwater, D. (2015). Publishing a methodological mixed methods research article. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(3), 203–213.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. Jossey-Bass.
Girik Allo, M. D. (2020). Is the online learning good in the midst of Covid-19 pandemic? The case of EFL learners. Jurnal Sinestesia, 10(1), 1–10.
Hashim, H., Rafiq, K. R. M., & Yunus, M. M. (2019). Improving ESL learners’ grammar with gamified-learning. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), Special Issue on CALL, (5), 41–50.
Hellström, R. (2015). Task based language teaching versus presentation practice production: A comparison of two language teaching methods [Undergraduate thesis, Linköping University]. Linköping University DiVA. http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A905382&dswid=-466
Hussein, Z. (2017). Leading to intention: The role of attitude in relation to Technology Acceptance Model in e-learning. Procedia Computer Science, 105, 159–164.
Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar teaching and learning in L2: Necessary, but boring? Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 467–494.
Khamaruddin, P. F. M., Sauki, A., Kadri, N. H. O., Kadri, A. A. A., & Kadri, A. (2017). Technology Acceptance Model analysis on students’ behavioral intention of using Moodle for FYP. 2017 7 th World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF), 2017, 724–727. https://doi.org/10.1109/WEEF.2017.8467082
Lambert, W. E. (1987). The effects of bilingual and bicultural experiences on children’s attitudes and social perspectives. In P. Homel, M. Palij & D. Aaronson (Eds.), Childhood bilingualism: Aspects of linguistic, cognitive, and social development (pp. 197-221). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 256–270). National Geographic Learning.
Lasmiatun, I., & Munir, S. (2018). Potential future of PPP paradigm on EFL grammar teaching: An annotated survey. Proceeding 3rd International Conference on Education, 3(1), 151–158.
Lee, J., Song, H. D., & Hong, A. (2019). Exploring factors, and indicators for measuring students’ sustainable engagement in e-learning. Sustainability, 11, Article 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040985
Li, S. (2020). Research on the feasibility of implementing PPP in the Chinese secondary school EFL context. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 43, 247–249.
Lleras, C. (2005). Path analysis. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 3, 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00483-7
Lobo, A. G., & Jiménez, R. L. (2017). Evaluating basic grammar projects, using the SAMR model. Letras, 61, 123–151.
Lubis, T. (2015). Students’ language attitude toward English. Jurnal Bisnis Administrasi, 4(1), 17–21.
Maftoon, P., & Sarem, S. N. (2012). A critical look at the presentation, practice, production (PPP) approach: Challenges and promises for ELT. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 3(4), 31–36.
Mart, Ç. T. (2013). Teaching grammar in context: Why and how? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(1), 124–129.
Memari, M. (2020). Synchronous and asynchronous electronic learning and EFL learners’ learning of grammar. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 12(2), 89–114.
Mitchell, A., Petter, S., & Harris, A. L. (2017). Learning by doing: Twenty successful active learning exercises for information systems courses. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 21–26.
Mokeddem, A., Plaisent, M., & Prosper, B. (2019). Learning with the games: A competitive environment based on knowledge. Journal of e-Learning and Higher Education, 2019(2019), Article 133016. https://doi.org/10.5171/2019.133016
Nešić, I. D., & Hamidović, K, Ć. (2015). Teaching English grammar: Efficiency of inductive and deductive approaches students’ perceptions. Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Pristini, 45(3), 189–205.
Nguyen, B. (2022). Technology and the private sector: Language teachers’ perspectives toward technology and the role of CALL training in professional development. The JALT CALL Journal, 18(3), 382–411. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v18n3.654
Obeidat, M. M., & Alomari, M. A. (2020). The effect of inductive and deductive teaching on EFL undergraduates’ achievement in grammar at the Hashemite University in Jordan. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(2), 280–288.
Ortiz, S., & Green, M. (2019). Trends and patterns of mobile learning: A study of mobile learning management system access. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 161–176.
Patcharanaruamol, W., Issac, A., Asgari-Jirhandeh, N., Tuangratananon, T., Rajatanavin, N., Tangcharoensathien, V., Pangkariya, N., Chandrasiri, O., Waleewong, O., Rueangsom, P., Congprasert, R., Suphanchaimat, R., Julchoo, S., Chotchoungchatchai, S., Tuangrattananon, T., Noree, T., Panichkriangkrai, W., Kunpuek, W., Tangcharoensathien, V., & Asgari-Jirhandeh, N. (2020). COVID-19 health system response monitor: Thailand.
World Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia.
Phuwarat, C., & Boonchukusol, N. (2020). The role of grammar teaching in ESL writing. Sripatum Chonburi Journal, 16(4), 1–9.
Pimentel, J. L. (2019). Some biases in Likert scaling usage and its correction. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 45(1), 183–191.
Puentedura, R. R. (2013). SAMR: A contextualized introduction. http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2013/10/25/SAMRAContextualizedIntroduction.pdf
Pyper, B. (2021, March 4). Here’s the entire list of tech tools educators can use for their students. Kids Activities. https://kidsactivitiesblog.com/164969/entire-list-of-tech-tools-educators/
Radha, R., Mahalakshmi, K., Kumar, D. V. S., & Saravanakumar, D. A. (2020). E-learning during lockdown of Covid-19 pandemic: A global perspective. International Journal of Control and Automation, 13(4), 1088–1099.
Rao, P. S. (2018). Eclectic approach in English language teaching: A comprehensive study. South Asian Academic Research Journals, 8(10), 40–50.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W. M. (1981). Teaching foreign-language skills (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Røkenes, F. M., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2016). Prepared to teach ESL with ICT? A study of digital competence in Norwegian teacher education. Computers & Education, 97, 1–20.
Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 18(2), Article 154199. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/154199/
Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal of Educational Research, 2, 49–60.
Saiphet, P. (2018). The effects of active learning on Thai university students’ motivation to learn English. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Educational Studies, 13(4), 37–50.
Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 597–599. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/coe_tbf/4/
Seemanath, P., & Watanapokakul, S. (2024). Active learning in English at work: Assessing effectiveness and EFL undergraduate student attitudes. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 17(1), 538–571.
Sobaih, A. E. E., Hasanein, A. M., & Abu Elnasr, A. E. (2020). Responses to COVID-19 in higher education: Social media usage for sustaining formal academic communication in developing countries. Sustainability, 12(16), Article 6520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166520
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376–401.
Taylor, P., Argasvipart, K., Kanokpermpoon, M., Rattanawisadrat, N., Dyamond, B. J., & Hrylytskyy, A. (2023).
Stakeholders’ perceptions related to technology acceptance of reading progress in Microsoft Teams: A case study of a trilingual program at a secondary school in Thailand. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 16(2), 718–736.
Terada, Y. (2020, May 4). A powerful model for understanding good tech integration. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/powerful-model-understanding-good-tech-integration
Teo, T. (2010). A path analysis of pre-service teachers’ attitudes to computer use: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model in educational context. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 65–79.
Teo, T. (2012). Examining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: An integration of the technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(1), 3–18.
Teo, T. (2016). Modelling Facebook usage among university students in Thailand: The role of emotional attachment in an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4), 745–757.
Teo, T. (2019). Students and teachers’ intention to use technology: Assessing their measurement equivalence and structural invariance. Journal of Education Computing Research, 57(1), 201–225.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Pearson Education.
Turner, R. C., & Carlson, L. (2003). Indexes of item-objective congruence for multidimensional items. International Journal of Testing, 3(2), 163–171.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge University Press.
Wadkar, S. K., Singh, K., Chakravarty, R., & Argade, S. D. (2016). Assessing the reliability of attitude scale by Cronbach’s Alpha. Journal of Global Communication, 9(2), 113–117.
Wang, Y., Yu, L., & Yu, Z. (2022). An extended CCtalk technology acceptance model in EFL education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6621–6640.
Watanapokakul, S. (2011). Supplementary materials for active learning: Development and implementation. e-Journal for Researching Teachers, 4(1), 1–22.
Watanapokakul, S. (2018). A development of a game-based supplementary e-learning program for English for Veterinary Profession I. PASAA, 55(1), 178–218.
Watanapokakul, S. (2022). Blended online learning: Perceptions and experiences of EFL university students and teachers. rEFLections, 29(1), 60–87.
Widodo, H. P. (2006). Approaches and procedures for teaching grammar. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 122–141.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. Edward Arnold.
Yusuk, S. (2021). An implementation of active learning in Thai university students’ English language classroom. Journal of Liberal Arts, Maejo University, 9(1), 112–135.