Exploration of Online Discussion Forum on Reading EST Texts for ESL Learners
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2022.19.2.4Keywords:
Online discussion forum, Online reading, English for Science & TechnologyAbstract
Purpose: This study explored ESL learners’ utilization of Online Discussion Forums (ODFs) in Interactive Reading for Academic Disciplines (iREAD) to assist reading of online scientific texts within an English for Specific Purposes course at a public university.
Method: This qualitative research employed two data collection methods during lessons of a 14-week semester. The first was analysis of ODF threads in iREAD from 30 ESL learners of various engineering programs at a public university in the East coast of Malaysia. Twelve from 30 ESL students were purposively selected to participate in focus group interviews. Interactive Analysis Model was used to analyse the threads, whilst the interviews transcripts were analysed thematically. NVivo Pro 12 software was used to manage the data and the generated themes were later analysed using inter-rater reliability analysis. The Kappa values of the themes indicated near perfect scores, to verify the reliability of the identified themes.
Findings: The findings revealed the positive capability of ODF as a tool in facilitating learners’ reading comprehension of English for Science and Technical (EST) online materials. Analysis of the data on ODF threads confirm that students have the capabilities to engage in higher level of discussions and debate to aid their understanding. The themes that emerged from the interviews reflect positive impacts to facilitate reading of EST online materials, where learners were able to work collaboratively and increase knowledge and understand better. In addition, significance of EST materials was important in providing exposure to students’ background knowledge of their content courses. The notion of social constructivism and connectivism were reflected as learners constructed knowledge, negotiated, and synthesized ideas using the language across networked learning communities.
Significance: An implication from this study suggests that exposure to EST online materials through communication and collaboration via ODF has strengthened students’ knowledge of the subject content. Additionally, learners’ comprehension of reading online EST materials has been enhanced through ODF because of the tool’s interactive heuristic approach to learning. This becomes significant for program developers and lecturers to combine both elements of ODF and material selection in lessons considering its positive impacts toward learning.
References
Abdul Hamid, S. (2012). Cognitive and metacognitive strategies in reading scientific texts among ESL science undergraduates (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Malaya, Malaysia.
Adams, D., Tan, M., Sumintono, B., & Oh, S. (2020). Blended learning engagement in higher education institutions: A differential item functioning analysis of students’ backgrounds. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 133-158. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2020.17.1.6
Afify, M. K. (2019). The influence of group size in the asynchronous online discussions on the development of critical thinking skills, and on improving students’ performance in online discussion forum. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(05), 132-152. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet. v14i05.9351
Basturkmen, H. (2012). Languages for specific purposes curriculum creation and implementation in Australasia and Europe. The Modern Language Journal 96(1), 59-70. https://doi/ abs/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01297.x
Beckmann, J., & Weber, P. (2016). Cognitive presence in virtual collaborative learning: Assessing and improving critical thinking in online discussion forums. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 13(1), 52-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/
ITSE-12-2015-0034 Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., Neville,
A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum, 41(5), 545-7. https://doi.org/10.1188/14. ONF.545-547
Chou, P.-N., & Hsiao, H.-C. (2010). The effect of varied visual scaffolds on engineering students’ online reading. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 6, 193-201. https://doi.org/10.28945/1299
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, A. M. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Dunaway, M. K. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes. Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675-685. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321111186686
Goh, L. H. (2019). Understanding online learner knowledge building from discussion forum analytics. CALL-EJ, 20(3), 62-76. http://callej.org/journal/20-3/Goh2019.pdf
Goldie, J. G. S. (2016). Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age? Medical Teacher, 38(10), 1064-1069. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173661
Gunawardena, C. N., Flor, N. V., Gomez, D., & Sanchez, D. (2016). Analyzing social construction of knowledge online by employing interaction analysis, learning analytics, and social network analysis. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(3), 35. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/368628704.pdf
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431. https://doi.org/10.2190/7MQVX9UJ-C7Q3-NRAG
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. State University of New York Press.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Fostering higher knowledge construction levels in online discussion forums: An exploratory case study. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 5(4), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.4018/ jwltt.2010100103
Ho, H. N. J., Tsai, M.-J., Wang, C.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Prior knowledge and online inquiry-based science reading: Evidence from eye tracking. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 12, 525-554. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10763-013-9489-6
Hwang, A., & Arbaught, J. B. (2009). Seeking feedback in blended learning: Competitive versus cooperative student attitudes and their links to learning outcome. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 280-293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652729.2009.00311.x
Jamali, M., & Krish, P. (2021). Fostering 21st century skills using an online discussion forum in an English for Specific Course. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 219240. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2021.18.19
Kalpana, R. (2017). Teaching comprehension of technoscientific texts in EST classrooms: An overview of challenges. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 7(1), 10591066. https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-7315.2017.00042.9
Kim, H. H. (2013). Needs analysis for English for specific purpose course development for engineering students in Korea. International Journal of Multimedia & Ubiquitous Engineering, 8(6), 279-288. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijmue.2013.8.6.28
Klisc, C. (2015). Enhancing student learning outcomes in asynchronous online discussion (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Murdoch University, Australia.
Kropf, D. C. (2013). Connectivism: 21st Century’s New Learning Theory. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 16(2), 13-24. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1017519
Langan, J. (2010). Reading and study skills. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Li, C. (2004). The quality of social interaction among students in an asynchronous interactive environment: A case study of online discussion in distance educator training. China Distance Education, 13. https://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/ CJFDTOTAL-DDJY200413002.htm
Mahapatra, S. K. (2020). Impact of digital technology training on English for Science and Technology teachers in India. RELC Journal, 51(1), 117-133 https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220907401
Malmir, A., & Bagheri, M. (2019). Instructors and learners’ attitudes about English for Science and Technology: Learning and target needs of mechanical engineering students. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 17-34. http://journalscmu.sinaweb.net/article_90055.html
Mansouri, A. N. H. (2010). Teaching English to students of Science and Technology. Sino-US English Teaching, 7(2), 17-29. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ali-Mansouri5/ publication/266734643_Teaching_English_to_Students_of_ Science_and_Technology/links/
Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (2016). National policy on Science, Technology, and Innovation. Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation: 1-52.
Nor Fariza, M. N., Afendi, H., & Mohamed Amin, E. (2012). Patterns of discourse in online interaction: Seeking evidence of the collaborative learning process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(3), 237-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2 012.655748 Nor Fariza, M. N., Afendi, H., Hazita, A., Noorizah, M. N., &
Vengadasamy, R. (2014). Application of collaborative learning theory as a learning feature in iREAD UKM: A conceptual Framework. Proceedings of the ICT for Language Learning, 1-4.
Patton, M.Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Sciences Research, 34, 1189–1208. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC1089059/
Romero, C., López, M.-I., Luna, J.-M., & Ventura, S. (2013). Predicting students’ final performance from participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 68, 458-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.009
Roohani, A., Jafarpour, A., & Zarei, S. (2013). Effects of visualisation and advance organisers in reading multimedia-based texts. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 21(2), 47-62. https://doi: 10.17576/3L-2015-2102-04
Ruhil Amal, A., Nor Fariza, M. N., & Afendi, H. (2020). Facilitating online reading comprehension in enhanced learning environment using digital annotation tools. IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education, 8(2), 7-27. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.8.2.01
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Sun, Y., & Gao, F. (2017). Comparing the use of a social annotation tool and a threaded discussion forum to support online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 32, 72-79. https://doi:org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.10.001
Utecht, J., & Keller, D. (2019). Becoming relevant again: Applying Connectivism learning theory to today’s Classrooms. Critical Questions in Education, 10(2), 107-119. https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1219672.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Yong, S. U. N. (2019). Application of the mixed teaching innovation in the English for Science and Technology teaching. Higher Education of Social Science, 16(1), 40-42. https://doi.org/10.3968/11045
Zarzour, H., & Sellami, M. (2017). A linked data-based collaborative annotation system for increasing learning achievements. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 381-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9497-7.
Zhao, R., Chen, Q., An, X., Gong, X., & Ma, N. (2019). A comparative analysis of forum and barrage interactive patterns in online language learning. In 2019 Eighth International Conference on Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT) (pp. 25-30). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EITT.2019.00014
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Research impact
Harvested 2026-09-09Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.
