Expressing Opinions: Interacting among self-efficacy, motivation, a collectivist culture and technology
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examines students’ investigates: 1) students’ attitudes toward the requirement to express their opinions in a reading classroom; and 2) the manner in which they interact with one another via Moodle. This study was conducted with 18 Thammasat university students who were taking EG 222 during semester 2/2012. The research methodology included Discussion Board posting demonstration, think-aloud protocols, interviews and questionnaires. It was found that students’ attitudes towards the activity were complex. Students realized that it was beneficial to them, especially when they considered that they needed the skills to express themselves, to listen to other peoples’ opinions and to modify their own opinion in the workplace. However, the students who lacked self-efficacy tended to remain silent because they needed more time to create their responses. Thus, not many students derived full benefits from classroom discussion. With Moodle, in contrast, the students did not have to respond spontaneously. They were also influenced by a collectivist culture and had a strong desire for approval from their friends and teacher. These two factors motivated them to employ strategies that helped them create effective responses on Discussion Board.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Berger, J. (1972). Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books.
Bhatia, T. K., & Ritchie, W. C. (2004). Social and Psychological Factors in Language Mixing. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism (pp.336-352). Blackwell Publishing.
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2003). Asynchronous discussion groups in teacher training classes: Perceptions of native and non-native students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 7, 24-46.
Bowman, M. (1994). Using video in research. Spotlights, 45: 1-3.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some language universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bullock, B. E., & Toribio, A. J. (2009). Themes in the study of code-switching. In Barbara E. Bullock & Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching, 1-17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carson, J., & Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.
Chen, T. (2003). Reticence in class and on-line: Two ESL students’ experiences with communicative language teaching. System, 31, 259-281.
Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students’ reticence revisited. System, 28, 435-446.
Chuarayapratib, N. (2005). The role of reading for pleasure on English websites on language acquisition: A study at a Thai University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Memphis.
Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 284-302.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning sciences. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672.
Escobar-Rodriguez, T., & Monge-Lozana, P. (2012). The acceptance of Moodle technology by business administration students. Computer & Education, 58, 1085-1093.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. Chicago: Aldine.
Hiltz, S. R. (1990). Evaluating the Virtual Classroom. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 133-169). NY: Praeger.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (Rev. 2nd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Jackson, J. (2002). Reticence in second language case discussions: Anxiety and aspirations. System, 30, 65-84.
Jonassen, D., Davison, M., CoM., Campbell J., & Bannan Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and Computer-Mediated Communication in Distance Education. The American Journal of Distance Education. 9(2), 7-26.
Kang, M., & Lim, K. (2013). Structural analyses on the effects of self-regulated learning and learning motivation on learner-instructor interactions and academic performance in college learning environments with e-learning contents. Journal of the Korea Contents Society, 13(11), 1014-1023.
Kim, M. (1994). Cross‐cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conversational constraints. Human Communication Research, 21, 128-151.
Komin, S. (1990). Psychology of the Thai People - Values and Behavioral Patterns.Bangkok: Research Center, National Institute of Development Administration.
Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Martins, I. (1998). A satellite view of language: Some lessons from science classrooms. Language Awareness, 7(2&3), 69-89.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
______. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liaw, Sh. (2008). Investigating students' perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computer & Education, 51, 864-873.
Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Liu, N. F., & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse?. System, 25, 371-384.
McCafferty, S. (1998). Nonverbal expression and L2 private speech. Applied Linguistics, 19, 73-96.
Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayo, J. A. (2001). Using analogies to teach conceptual applications of developmental theories. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 14(3), 187-213.
Pena-Perez, J. (2000). Participation, interaction and meaning construction in a university-level course using a computer bulletin board as a supplement to regular class discussions: A case study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of characteristics on e-learning use. Computer & Education, 47, 222-244.
Pornpubul, N. (2002). The role of writing in EFL students' learning from texts: A case study in a Thai university. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Eds.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 76-98). Chicago: Open Court.
Tani, M. (2005). Quiet, but only in class: Reviewing the in-class participation of Asian students. Retrieved November 18, 2014, from http:// conference.herdsa.org.au/2005/pdfnon_refereed/30pdf.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language, A. Kozulin, (Ed. and Trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Warden, C. A., Chen, J.F., & Caskey, D. (2005). Cultural values and communication online: Chinese and Southeast Asian students in a Taiwan international MBA class. Business Communication Quarterly, 68, 222-232.
Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 51-85). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, C. (2002). Learning on-line: A review of recent literature in a rapidly expanding field. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26, 263-272.
Wong, E. D. (1993a). Self-generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating explanations of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 367-380.
______. (1993b). Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1259-1272.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.
______. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-40). San Diego, California: Academic Press.
______. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1-38). NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
______. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183.
______. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135-147.
