Keywords
Asynchronous group activity
Flipgrid
Video-based discussion
Online class
Submitted : 2024-03-25
Accepted : 2024-04-09
Published : 2024-04-24
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to explore college students’ perceptions/attitudes during synchronous and asynchronous group activities. The survey comprised a 10-item, 5-point Likert-type questionnaire and open-ended questions. In the study, two groups, a synchronous group and an asynchronous group, participated in four activities during one semester. For the data collection, the researcher surveyed 116 students who are in their 1st year of college and collected their final tests, an oral presentation. The findings are as follows. Firstly, between the two groups, the synchronous group showed higher mean scores for online group participation. Secondly, the synchronous group also indicated higher mean scores for English learning, speaking confidence, and interest in learning English. Lastly, both groups mentioned communication with team members, improvement in English speaking and pronunciation, increased self-confidence, and other elements as advantages of group work. In contrast, disadvantages included technology problems, decreased self-confidence, inconveniences when meeting with team members online, and others. The implications for the study are: firstly, online group activity can reduce isolation and increase interaction; secondly, the online video-based platform, Flipgrid, can help students improve English speaking skills by observing their own or peers’ videos; lastly, instructors can selectively use the synchronous and asynchronous group activities to suit their educational needs.
References
Muilenburg LY, Berge ZL, 2005, Student Barriers to Online Learning: A Factor Analytic Study. Distance Education, 26(1): 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081269
Moore MG, 1989, Three Types of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2): 1–6.
Mejia C, 2020, Using VoiceThread as a Discussion Platform to Enhance Student Engagement in a Hospitality Management Online Course. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 2020(26): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100236
Martin F, Parker MA, Deale DF, 2012, Examining Interactivity in Synchronous Virtual Classrooms. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3): 227–261. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1174
Tu C, McIsaac M, 2002, The Relationship of Social Presence and Interaction in Online Classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3): 131–150.
Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W, 2000, Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in High Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3): 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1096-7516(00)00016-6
Fiester H, Green T, 2016, Student Use of Backchannels. TechTrends, 60(4): 404–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0069-9
Wood M, 2016, Padlet: A Graffiti Wall for Today’s Agricultural Teacher. Agricultural Education, 2(1): 31–52.
Edwards CR, Lane PN, 2021, Facilitating Student Interaction: The Role of Flipgrid in Blended Language Classrooms. Computer Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 22(2): 26–39.
Mango O, 2021, Flipgrid: Students’ Perceptions of its Advantages and Disadvantages in the Language Classroom. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 5(3): 277–287. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.195
Moore RL, 2016, Interacting at a Distance: Creating Engagement in Online Learning Environments, Kyei-Blankson L, Blankson J, Ntuli E, Agyeman C, (Eds), Handbook of Research on Strategies Management of Interaction, Presence, and Participation in Online Courses, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 401–425. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9582-5.ch016
Serembus JF, Murphy J, 2020, Creating an Engaging Learning Environment Through Video Discussions. Nurse Educator, 45(2): 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000701
Lowenthal PR, Moore RL, 2020, Exploring Student Perceptions of Flipgrid in Online Courses. Online Learning Journal, 23(4): 28–41. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2335
Morat BN, Abidin MJZ, 2011, The Use of Video in ESL and Learning: YouTube’s Potential as a Resource. DP, 11(2): 94–104.
Arkorful V, Abaidoo N, 2015, The Role of E-Learning, Advantages and Disadvantages of its Adoption in Higher Education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1): 29–42.
Kuo YC, Walker AE, Schroder KE, et al., 2014, Interaction, Internet Self-Efficacy, and Self-Regulated Learning as Predictors of Student Satisfaction in Online Education Courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 2014(20): 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
Goda Y, Yamada M, 2013, Application of CoI to Design CSCL for EFL Online Synchronous Discussion, Akyol Z, Gattison DR, (Eds), Educational Communities of Inquiry: Theoretical Framework, Research, Research and Practice, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 295–316.
Lowenthal PR, 2010, The Evolution and Influence of Social Presence Theory on Online Learning, Kidd TT, (Ed), Online Education and Adult Learning: New Frontiers for Teaching Practices, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 124–139. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-984-7.ch010
Clark C, Strudler N, Grove K, 2015, Comparing Asynchronous and Synchronous Video Vs. Text Based Discussions in an Online Teacher Education Course. Online Learning, 19(3): 48–69. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i3.510
Pinsk R, Curran M, Poirier R, et al., 2014, Student Perceptions of the Use of Student-Generated Video in Online Discussions as a Mechanism to Establish Social Presence for Nontraditional Students: A case study. Issues in Information Systems, 15(1): 267–276. https://doi.org/10.48009/1_iis_2014_267-276
Manstead AS, Lea M, Goh J, 2011, Facing the Future: Emotion Communication and the Presence of Others in the Age of Video-Mediated Communication, Kappers A, Kramer NC, (Eds), Face-to-Face Communication Over the Internet, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 144–175. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511977589.009
Keiper MC, White A, Carlson CD, et al., 2020, Student Perceptions on the Benefits of Flipgrid in a HyFlex Learning Environment. Journal of Education for Business, 96(6): 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2020.1832431
Dettinger M, 2018, Filpgrid. Software Review, 51(2): 212–215.
Green T, Green J, 2018, Flipgrid: Adding Voice and Video to Online Discussions. TechTrends, 62(1): 128–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0241-x
Petersen JB, Townsend SDC, Onaka N, 2020, Utilizing Filpgrid Application on Student Smartphones in a Small-Scale ESL Study. English Language Teaching, 13(5): 164–176. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1252536
Bohlke D, 2017, Keynote 2, Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.
Yu M, 2021, Interaction Between Learning Method and Course Division on Learning Satisfaction and Learning Presence in the Synchronous Universities Online Class, unpublished master’s thesis, Konkuk University, Seoul.
Naughton CL, 2020, Effects of Synchronous Group Work on Learning Community in Online Mathematics at Community Colleges, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Minnesota State University, Mankato Edina, MN.
Hrastinski S, 2008, The Potential of Synchronous Communication to Enhance Participation in Online Discussions: A Case Study of Two E-Learning Courses. Information & Management, 45(7): 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.07.005
McBrien JL, Jones P, Cheng R, 2009, Virtual Spaces: Employing a Synchronous Online Classroom to Facilitate Student Engagement in Online Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605
Mayer G, Lingle J, Usselman M, 2017, Experiences of Advanced High School Students in Synchronous Online Recitations. Educational Technology & Society, 20(2): 15–26.
Tseng HW, Yeh HT, 2013, Team Members’ Perceptions of Online Teamwork Learning Experiences and Building Trust: A Qualitative Study. Computers & Education, 2013(63): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.013
Miskam NN, Saidalvi A, 2019, The Use of Flipgrid for Teaching Oral Presentation Skills to Engineering Students. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(1): 536–541.