Submitted:
13 March 2024
Posted:
14 March 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
1.2. Problem Statement and Research Questions
1.3. Literature Review
2. Materials and Methods:
2.1. Design, Participants, and Procedures
- A.
- Study Participants
- B. Participants’ Age:
- C. Participants’ Intelligence Quotient:
- D. Measure of the study variables
2.2. Data Collection
3. Results and Discussion
| language skills and areas | Tests | Pre-test | Post- test |
|---|---|---|---|
| New lexical items | Pre Test | -5.22* | |
| Post Test | |||
| reading comprehension | Pre Test | -3.30* | |
| Post Test | |||
| rhetoric | Pre Test | -0.12 | |
| Post Test | |||
| Total score | Pre Test | -7.66* | |
| Post Test |
4. Implications and Limitations, and Future Steps
5. Conclusion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Akter, M. , T., & Khan, M. L. H. (2021). EFL Student Challenges, Preferences, and Reactions towards Moodle-Based Online Learning under the New Normal in Indonesia. In ISTED 2021: Proceedings of the 1st International Seminar on Teacher Training and Education, ISTED 2021, Purwokerto, Indonesia (p.; p. 394.
- 2021.
- Chang, Y. , Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K.,... & Xie, X. (2023). A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology.
- Yasmin, M.; Naseem, F.; Masso, I.C. Teacher-directed learning to self-directed learning transition barriers in Pakistan. Stud. Educ. Evaluation 2019, 61, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 2023.
- 2024.
- Hsu, T.-C.; Chang, C.; Jen, T.-H. Artificial Intelligence image recognition using self-regulation learning strategies: effects on vocabulary acquisition, learning anxiety, and learning behaviours of English language learners. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2023, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Z. The effects of gender, educational level, and personality on online learning outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2021, 18, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Purwanto, A. (2020). University students online learning system during Covid-19 pandemic: Advantages, constraints and solutions. Sys Rev Pharm, 11(7), 570-576.
- Shoraevna, Z.Z.; Eleupanovna, Z.A.; Tashkenbaevna, S.N.; Zulkarnayeva, Z.; Anatolevna, L.L.; Nurlanbekovna, U.A. Teachers’ Views on the Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Education Environments. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) 2021, 16, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masood, K. , & Qaddomi, H. (2022). Digital and Face to Face Assessment Implementation in Higher Education Institutions: Lessons for Teacher Educators.
- Bashir, F.; Warraich, N.F. Systematic literature review of Semantic Web for distance learning. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 31, 527–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azorín, C.; Harris, A.; Jones, M. Taking a distributed perspective on leading professional learning networks. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 2019, 40, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handayani, E.T.; Aminatun, D. STUDENTS' POINT OF VIEW ON THE USE OF WHATSAPP GROUP TO ELEVATE WRITING ABILITY. J. Engl. Lang. Teach. Learn. 2020, 1, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 2022.
- Li, Y.; Garza, V.; Keicher, A.; Popov, V. Predicting High School Teacher Use of Technology: Pedagogical Beliefs, Technological Beliefs and Attitudes, and Teacher Training. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2018, 24, 501–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero-Hall, E.; Cherrez, N.J. Teaching in times of disruption: Faculty digital literacy in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2022, 60, 152–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, C.; Rani, T.; Yueqiang, Z.; Ajaz, T.; Haseki, M.I. Impact of tourism industry, globalization, and technology innovation on ecological footprints in G-10 countries. 35, 6688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewandowski, P.; Park, A.; Hardy, W.; Du, Y.; Wu, S. Technology, Skills, and Globalization: Explaining International Differences in Routine and Nonroutine Work Using Survey Data. World Bank Econ. Rev. 2022, 36, 687–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cha, H.; Park, T.; Seo, J. What Should Be Considered when Developing ICT-Integrated Classroom Models for a Developing Country? Sustainability 2020, 12, 2967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 2023.
- Tang, D.; Li, M.; Crowther, D.T. What matters? A case study of elementary english language learners in STEM education. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2021, 41, 819–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Espinoza, A. Q. , & Peña, P. (2024). The influence of the gender variable on chilean EFL primary students’ lexical availability. MLS Educational Research (MLSER), 8(1).
- Kumayas, T.; Lengkoan, F. The Challenges of Teaching Grammar at the University Level: Learning From the Experience of English Lecturer. J. Engl. Cult. Lang. Lit. Educ. 2023, 11, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ong, S.G.T.; Quek, G.C.L. Enhancing teacher–student interactions and student online engagement in an online learning environment. Learn. Environ. Res. 2023, 26, 681–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sutisna, F.; Handra, T.; Jap, Y.P. The Influence of Social Media Marketing on Purchase Impulses with Brand Attentiveness as A Mediating Variable on UMKM X. Aptisi Trans. Technopreneurship (ATT) 2022, 5, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuten, T. L. (2023). Social media marketing. Sage Publications Limited.
- Chow, E.J.; Uyeki, T.M.; Chu, H.Y. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on community respiratory virus activity. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2022, 21, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ray, J.L.; Srinath, R.; Mechanick, J.I. The Negative Impact of Routine, Dietary Pattern, and Physical Activity on Obesity and Dysglycemia During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 2022, 17, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busetta, G.; Campolo, M.G.; Panarello, D. Economic expectations and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic: a one-year longitudinal evaluation on Italian university students. Qual. Quant. 2022, 57, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattelino, E.; Testa, S.; Calandri, E.; Fedi, A.; Gattino, S.; Graziano, F.; Rollero, C.; Begotti, T. Self-efficacy, subjective well-being and positive coping in adolescents with regard to Covid-19 lockdown. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 42, 17304–17315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oktaviani, L.; Mandasari, B. Powtoon: A Digital Medium to Optimize Students’ Cultural Presentation in ELT Classroom. TEKNOSASTIK 2020, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durairaj, M. , Jayakumar, S., Karpagavalli, V. S., Maheswari, B. U., & Boopathi, S. (2023). Utilization of Digital Tools in the Indian Higher Education System During Health Crises. In Multidisciplinary Approaches to Organizational Governance During Health Crises (pp. 1-21). IGI Global.
- Sari, T.; Nayır, F. Challenges in Distance Education During the (Covid-19) Pandemic Period. Qual. Res. Educ. 2020, 9, 328–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasim, N.N.M.; Khalid, F. Choosing the Right Learning Management System (LMS) for the Higher Education Institution Context: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) 2016, 11, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gok, D.; Bozoglan, H.; Bozoglan, B. Effects of online flipped classroom on foreign language classroom anxiety and reading anxiety. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2021, 36, 840–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graf, S. ; Kinshuk Dynamic Student Modelling of Learning Styles for Advanced Adaptivity in Learning Management Systems. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Soc. Chang. 2013, 4, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turnbull, D.; Chugh, R.; Luck, J. Issues in learning management systems implementation: A comparison of research perspectives between Australia and China. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 3789–3810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mubarak, S. A. (2022). Case Study of Hybrid Learning at Kindergarten in UAE-Abu Dhabi (Doctoral dissertation, The British University in Dubai).
- Devi, K. S. , & Aparna, M. (2020). Moodle–An effective learning management system for 21st century learners. Alochana Chakra Journal, 9(6), 4474-4485.
- Kıncal, R.Y.; Ozan, C.; İleritürk, D. Increasing Students’ English Language Learning Levels via Lesson Study. Engl. Lang. Teach. 2019, 12, p88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maulana, N. R. , & Lintangsari, A. P. (2021). The use of Moodle in English language learning during the pandemic: The students’ voice. The Journal of English Literacy Education: The Teaching and Learning of English as a Foreign Language, 8(1), 27-41.
- Natalia, K. , & Julia, O. (2018). New use of MOODLE tools for distance English language learning (experience of Krasnoyarsk State Agrarian University). International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference: SGEM, 18(5.4), 225-232.
- Zabolotniaia, M.; Cheng, Z.; Dorozhkin, E.; Lyzhin, A. Use of the LMS Moodle for an Effective Implementation of an Innovative Policy in Higher Educational Institutions. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) 2020, 15, 172–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annisa, N. (2023). Penerapan Model Blended Learning Pada Materi Masalah Ekonomi Dalam Sistem Ekonomi Untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai, 7(2), 18950-18960.
- Setlik, J. , & da Silva, H. C. (2023). Texts and reading practices in physics education: Analysis of the voices of subjects in initial teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 127, 104112.
- Logroño, O. C. , & Costelo-Abrea, A. M. (2023). ESL Teachers’ and Students’ Experience of Online Learning via Microsoft Teams. East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(7), 2983-2998.
- King, A. From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side. Coll. Teach. 1993, 41, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roohollah, T.; Hamid, R.T.; Mahdi, S. Index of difficulty which is an effective factor on especial skill formation in basketball free throw: index of learning difficulty hypothesis. Phys. Educ. Stud. 2018, 22, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Bataineh, K.B.; Banikalef, A.A.A.; Albashtawi, A.H. The Effect of Blended Learning on EFL Students’ Grammar Performance and Attitudes: An Investigation of Moodle. Arab. World Engl. J. 2019, 10, 324–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghounane, N. Moodle or Social Networks: What Alternative Refuge is Appropriate to Algerian EFL Students to Learn during Covid-19 Pandemic. Arab. World Engl. J. 2020, 11, 21–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Psycharis, S.; Chalatzoglidis, G.; Kalogiannakis, M. Moodle as a Learning Environment in Promoting Conceptual Understanding for Secondary School Students. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2013, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulbinskienė, D.; Masoodi, M.; Šliogerienė, J. Moodle as Virtual Learning Environment in Developing Language Skills, Fostering Metacognitive Awareness and Promoting Learner Autonomy. Pedagogika 2017, 127, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahzad, S.K.; Hussain, J.; Sadaf, N.; Sarwat, S.; Ghani, U.; Saleem, R. Impact of Virtual Teaching on ESL Learners' Attitudes under Covid-19 Circumstances at Post Graduate Level in Pakistan. Engl. Lang. Teach. 2020, 13, p1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-Gutiérrez, J.; Mora, C.E.; Añorbe-Díaz, B.; González-Marrero, A. Virtual Technologies Trends in Education. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 13, 469–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tai, T.-Y.; Chen, H.H.-J. The impact of Google Assistant on adolescent EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 31, 1485–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Lloret, M. Collaborative tasks for online language teaching. Foreign Lang. Ann. 2020, 53, 260–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waheed, M. , Kaur, K., Ain, N., & Hussain, N. (2016). Perceived learning outcomes from Moodle: An empirical study of intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors. Information Development, 32(4), 1001-1013.
- Karaaslan, H.; Kilic, N.; Guven-Yalcin, G.; Gullu, A. Students’ Reflections on Vocabulary Learning through Synchronous and Asynchronous Games and Activities. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 2018, 19, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rojabi, A. , Setiawan, S., Munir, A., & Purwati, O. (2022). The camera-on or camera-off, is it a dilemma? Sparking engagement, motivation, and autonomy through microsoft teams videoconferencing. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 17(11), 174-189.
- Zainuddin, Z.; Habiburrahim, H.; Muluk, S.; Keumala, C.M. How do students become self-directed learners in the EFL flipped-class pedagogy? A study in higher education. Indones. J. Appl. Linguistics 2019, 8, 678–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magableh, I.S.I.; Abdullah, A. On the Effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction in the Enhancement of Jordanian Students’ Overall Achievement. Int. J. Instr. 2020, 13, 533–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fazza, H.; Mahgoub, M. Student engagement in online and blended learning in a higher education institution in the Middle East: Challenges and solutions. 1. [CrossRef]
- 2023.
- Ghazal, S.; Al-Samarraie, H.; Aldowah, H. “I am Still Learning”: Modeling LMS Critical Success Factors for Promoting Students’ Experience and Satisfaction in a Blended Learning Environment. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 77179–77201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Indriani, K. S. , & Widiastuti, N. M. A. (2021). STUDENTS’ATTITUDE TOWARDS ENGLISH ONLINE LEARNING THROUGH MOODLE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics, 8(2), 190-205.
| Development | Pre | Post | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | ||
| The ability to speak | 4.69 | 1.56 | 7.00 | 1.06 | |
| The ability to listen | 3.66 | 0.61 | 9.52 | 0.48 | |
| New lexical items | 8.66 | 4.57 | 15.56 | 3.29 | |
| Structure formation | 11.55 | 3.31 | 16.52 | 3.61 | |
| Reading comprehension | 14.11 | 5.00 | 17.48 | 6.57 | |
| rhetoric | 4.15 | 1.95 | 4.90 | 2.56 | |
| Total | 46.82 | 16.95 | 70.98 | 17.57 | |
| Development | Wilks’ LambdaValue | F | DF | Error | Sig. |
| The ability to speak | 0.40 | 16.83 | 2.00 | 25.00 | 0.0001* |
| The ability to listen | 0.02 | 554.45 | 2.00 | 25.00 | 0.0001* |
| New lexical items | 0.23 | 39.29 | 2.00 | 25.00 | 0.0001* |
| Structure formation | 0.45 | 15.81 | 2.00 | 25.00 | 0.0001* |
| Reading comprehension | 0.31 | 25.38 | 2.00 | 25.00 | 0.0001* |
| rhetoric | 0.26 | 32.79 | 2.00 | 25.00 | 0.0001* |
| Total | 1.67 | 85.08 | 2.00 | 25.00 | 0.0001* |
| English language skills development | Measures | Pre-test | Post- Measure |
| The ability to speak | Pre | -1.24* | |
| Post | |||
| The ability to listen | Pre | -4.90* | |
| Post | |||
| New lexical items | Pre | -5.01* | |
| Post | |||
| Structure formation | Pre | -4.01* | |
| Post | |||
| Reading comprehension | Pre | -3.31* | |
| Post | |||
| rhetoric | Pre | -0.69 | |
| Post | |||
| Total score | Pre | -22.83* | |
| Post |
| English language skills development | Pre | Post | ||
| M | S D | M | S D | |
| The ability to speak | 4.01 | 1.50 | 3.55 | 2.04 |
| The ability to listen | 3.05 | 1.45 | 2.45 | 1.75 |
| New lexical items | 10.10 | 3.75 | 15.35 | 4.47 |
| Structure formation | 13.90 | 4.29 | 15.24 | 4.00 |
| Reading comprehension | 16.05 | 3.32 | 19.45 | 5.05 |
| Rhetoric | 3.88 | 1.04 | 4.00 | 2.10 |
| Total | 50.99 | 15.35 | 60.04 | 19.41 |
| English language skills development | Wilks’ Lambda | F | DF | Error | Sig. |
| The ability to speak | 0.93 | 0.41 | 2.00 | 24.00 | 0.62 |
| The ability to listen | 0.91 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 24.00 | 0.34 |
| New lexical items | 0.37 | 17.46 | 2.00 | 24.00 | 0.0001* |
| Structure formation | 0.87 | 1.25 | 2.00 | 24.00 | 0.26 |
| Reading comprehension | 0.68 | 4.85 | 2.00 | 24.00 | 0.01* |
| Rhetoric | 0.72 | 3.81 | 2.00 | 24.00 | 0.02* |
| Total score | 4.48 | 28.78 | 2.00 | 24.00 | 0.0001* |
| Variables | Pre | Post | t | sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | S D | |||
| Attitudes towards English language class | 4.12 | 0.63 | 4.21 | 0.69 | 0.65 | 0.51 |
| Learners’ Attitudes towards English | 3.21 | 0.68 | .3.82 | 0.56 | 1.62 | 0.11 |
| overall score for attitudes regarding English language instruction and proficiency | 3.97 | 0.52 | 4.11 | 0.52 | 1.30 | 0.20 |
| Total attitude score Moodle | 3.76 | 0.29 | 4.04 | 0.34 | 1.35 | 0.18 |
| Variables | Experimental (17 ) |
Control (16 ) |
t | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | D | |||
| Learners’ Attitudes (the English classes) | 4.10 | 0.65 | 4.05 | 0.55 | 0.73 | 0.41 |
| Learners ‘Attitudes (skills) | 4.01 | 0.51 | 3.70 | 0.41 | 2.18 | 0.02* |
| Total score | 4.05 | 0.58 | 3.75 | 0.48 | 1.62 | 0.21 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
