T1 112012112 Full text

(1)

PEDAGOGICAL ASPECTS OF USING SCHOOLOGY IN

PRONUNCIATION CLASSES

THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Sarjana Pendidikan

Virna Margetan 112012112

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAM

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

(2)

(3)

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the text.

All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Language Education Program, Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga.

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PERNYATAAN TIDAK PLAGIAT ... i

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN AKSES ... iii

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION ... iv

APPROVAL PAGE ... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vi

LIST OF TABLE ... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ... viii

INTRODUCTION ... 1

LITERATURE REVIEW ... 2

Technology and Language Learning ... 2

Pedagogical Aspects of Technology Use in Language Learning ... 3

THE STUDY ... 6

Context of the Study ... 6

Participants ... 6

(8)

vii

Data Collection Procedure ... 7

Data Analysis Procedure ... 8

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 8

Interactive Learning ... 9

Personalized Learning ...12

Holistic Learning ...15

Discussion ...19

CONCLUSION ...21

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...23

REFERENCES ...24

(9)

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Number of event occurences ... 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. T-S interaction related to Pronunciation materials in Class C ... 10

Figure 2. T-S interaction related to Pronunciation materials in Class B ... 11

Figure 3. IPA Chart link shared in Schoology ... 11

Figure 4. A downloadable weekly material ... 13

Figure 5. Downloadable audio files in unit 1 ... 13

Figure 6. A replay-able and pause-able quiz... 15

Figure 7. Final reflection instruction ... 17

(10)

INTRODUCTION

Pronunciation is an important element in language learning. Harmer (2001) pointed out that pronunciation teaching is immensely beneficial for second language (L2) learners to improve their intelligibility and their understanding of the spoken form of the language being learned. However, Harmer further added, pronunciation teaching is not equally treated with other elements of language, such as grammar and vocabulary; pronunciation is only taught in passing (2001). In short, within the scope of this paper, we need to agree that there must be deliberate efforts to teach pronunciation to help L2 learners achieve their communication goals.

Meanwhile, in this modern era technology, especially internet, has penetrated to many fields including education. Prensky (2001) came up with a term “digital natives” to describe

nowadays’ people who are born in thedigital age and thus “are all „native speakers‟ of the digital

language of computers, video games and the Internet” (p.1). With the advance of technology,

Web 2.0 could be a platform to facilitate language learning. One example of Web 2.0 which is now widely used by many educational practitioners is Learning Management System (LMS), i.e., Schoology, Edmodo, Blackboard, etc.

Given that fact, there have been plentiful studies surveying how language teachers make use of technology, i.e. LMS in their lessons. Some studies revealed that teachers use LMS as a classroom management tool, as a quiz and test platform, as a digital material storage, document and resource sharing tools, and as a platform to discuss and give feedback (Çankaya, Durak, & Yünkül, 2013; Light & Polin, 2010; Morgan, 2003). In order to achieve an effective usage of educational technology, there should be an appropriate pedagogy underlying its practical implementation (Wenglinsky, 2005). Plato in Phaedrus (360 BC) raised direct critiques towards

(11)

technology that it could degrade learning quality because of its lack of interactivity and discourse

adaptation ability. Roth (2009) interpreted Plato’s words as a set of pedagogical aspects in which

technology has to promote interactive, personalized and holistic language learning.

Even though there have been numerous studies on how technology is used in language learning, its pedagogical aspects, especially in pronunciation teaching, has not yet been well-explored. Therefore, this study aims to find out the pedagogical aspects of LMS of students’ pronunciation learning process by deeply taking a look at how LMS is used, in this case using Schoology, to teach and learn pronunciation. In other words, this study sought to answer the

following research question: “What are the pedagogical aspects of the use of Schoology in

pronunciation classes?” It is expected that this study could reveal the pedagogical potential of

integrating Schoology as a language learning medium in order to achieve an interactive, personalized and holistic learning.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A. TECHNOLOGY AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

As technology is advancing, it provides opportunities for language teaching practitioners to explore new teaching and learning models. Technology has been widely utilized in language classrooms, i.e. to present materials (Cahyani & Cahyono, 2012) and to drill students’ language skills, such as vocabulary (Cepi, Harsyah & Sumakul, 2015; Warschauer & Kern, 2000). The new form of technology, web-based technology, could also become a platform to facilitate language learning development through communication (Walker & White, 2013; Sumakul 2013). Doing teaching and learning online is also made possible because of the emergence of Learning Management System (LMS) (Ellis, 2009).

(12)

Some scholars have attempted to find out the benefits of integrating technology in language classrooms. Some believed that technology promotes an independent, collaborative and engaging learning process (Stanley, 2013; Walker & White, 2013). Correspondingly, Roth (2009) and Sumakul (2013) also discovered technology’s potentials to make interactive, individualized and holistic learning possible. Technology could also become an ideal tool to access authentic materials and a non-threatening discussion platform (Blake, 2008). Shyamlee and Phil (2012) pointed out that technology offers potentials of making teaching and learning more interesting and productive. In short, technology is generally believed to bring about more innovative teaching and learning models in language classrooms which traditional classes do not offer.

B. PEDAGOGICAL ASPECTS OF TECHNOLOGY USE IN LANGUAGE

LEARNING

The above mentioned potential benefits of technology in language classrooms would not be achieved if there is no pedagogy underlying its implementation. Pritchard (2007) defined

pedagogical activity as “skills and approaches used by teachers to achieve the aims of the lessons that they teach, or the methods which they employ” (p.21). Utilizing technology without certain

theoretical models on how to use it in classrooms would only result in a poor substitute of traditional didactic teaching method and would be damaging education. (Wenglinsky, 2005).

There are numbers of scholars proposing a set of theoretical models for utilizing technology in language learning. Some insisted that language learning is best learned through interaction, thus technology utilization in language classroom must be based on interactionist view (Ariza & Hancock, 2003; Blake, 2008; Leloup, Ponterio & Cortland, 2003). The basic

(13)

premise of this theory is that comprehensible input-output and negotiation of meaning during interaction could enhance language learning development (Leloup, et al., 2003).

In other hands, some argued that constructivist philosophy results most effective technology usage in language classroom (Hubackova & Klimova, 2013; Pritchard, 2007; Wenglinsky, 2005). This view relies on a belief in which learners construct knowledge from abstractions to concrete cases by themselves by being engaged in meaning-making activities (Wenglinsky, 2005). Pritchard (2007) outlined core principles of constructivism in which

“learning is a process of interaction, learning is a social process, learning is a situated process,

learning is a meta-cognitive process” (p. 2-3).

Apart from the above mentioned pedagogy, Roth’s (2009) interpretation of Plato’s critique towards the use of technology in education might be the most thought-provoking pedagogy. Plato (360 BC), in Phaedrus, considered writing, a recent technology in his time, to fail fostering good education because of its inability to respond to readers’ questions and comments, making students passive. Besides, Plato also made clear that writing could not adjust its discourse accordingly considering who its readers were; it did not consider the personal being of the readers:

… you might think they spoke as if they had intelligence, but if you question them, wishing to know about their sayings they always say only one and the same thing. And every word, when once it is written is bandied about, alike among those who understand and those who have no interest in it, and it knows not to whom to speak or not to speak;…. (p. 567-568)

Interestingly, Roth attempted to convert Plato’s critiques towards writing from more than 2000

years ago into a set of pedagogical aspects of using technology in language classrooms as follows:

(14)

5 1. Learning must be interactive

This could be achieved by applying dialectic discussion in which truths or ideas are discovered through logical arguments. In other words, interactive learning involves a two-way communication in which responses are given to certain actions. According to Brown (2001), the purpose of acquiring a language is to be able to communicate, and thus genuine interactions are needed in language learning. In terms of interactive technology, there should be immediate responses from the computer system whenever commands are inputted, and therefore there is an interaction between human and computer (Pritchard, 2007).

2. Learning must be personalized

Personalized learning denotes the notion to contextualize the learning process, relating it

with students’ personal lives. Personalized learning also implies the idea that learning process should consider the personal being of learners where they could adjust their own learning pace and styles flexibly (Changyu, 2011). By giving the students autonomy of their personal learning, Turkmen (2012) pointed out that it could assist students to construct knowledge by themselves.

3. Learning must be holistic

Holistic learning is generally understood to mean that learning process should not be done partially considering only the cognitive aspect of a human being. Holistic learning suggests the idea that students should be treated as a whole human who has not only a brain for cognitive work, but also emotions, body senses and impulses, intuition and imagination (Laird, 1985 cited

(15)

in Dunn, 2002). When holistic learning is employed, Roth (2009) believed that true knowledge will be achieved.

Even though the theory was inaugurated centuries ago, Roth (2009) believed that it is still applicable today. Moreover, it takes into account more aspects compared to interactionist view (Brown, 2001) which only considers interaction in language learning. It also seems to be simpler than the practical implementation of constructivism (Pritchard, 2007). Even so, the pedagogy proposed by Roth is still relevant with the ideas of constructivism which is deemed to be the appropriate pedagogy of technology integration in language learning. Therefore, Roth’s pedagogy will be the backbone of this study.

THE STUDY

A. CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

This study was conducted in pronunciation classes semester 1 academic year 2015/2016 in English Language Education (ELE) Program, Satya Wacana Christian University. The course was done within 14 weeks. The classes were basically regular traditional face-to-face classes with Schoology as a complementary learning platform. Teachers used Schoology to upload materials, share useful links, upload pronunciation-related videos, conduct online quizzes, share ideas, etc. The activities occurred in Schoology were observed to see whether the online learning process fitted the theory explained previously.

B. PARTICIPANTS

The participants were the first year students of ELE Program in SWCU who were taking Pronunciation Practice classes. There were 4 classes used for the study. All of them were

(16)

confirmed to use Schoology in addition to the traditional face-to-face meetings. Bahasa Indonesia was known as the native language of all students. Opting for the participants, this study employed criterion-based sampling. According to Blackledge (2001, as cited in Zacharias, 2012), criterion sampling technique could be done by setting up some criteria and finding the participants who meet those expected criteria. Participants in the context of the study were selected because all teachers of pronunciation classes have actively used Schoology to equip the learning process. This condition met the requirements of the topic of the study which is the utilization of technology in language learning.

C. INSTRUMENT OF DATA COLLECTION

The data collection method of this study was an adaptation from Sumakul’s (2013) study in which observation was used to answer the proposed research question. In order to record the activities done by both teachers and students in Schoology, an event-sampling protocol was used (see Appendix). This kind of protocol allowed a researcher to obtain data of total frequency of the events observed which matched with the topic (Dornyei, 2007). Unlike Sumakul’s study which employed direct observation, this study used delayed-observation method in which the researcher only observed the learning process documentation.

D. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE

In this study, the researcher was not a part of the learning environment, and thus was only invited to the Schoology groups by the teachers without interfering the activities or interactions done in the platform. The data collection was done after the semester ended. Hence, the researcher only observed the activities and interaction documentation in Schoology group

(17)

without witnessing directly the activities herself. After that, the researcher wrote down every occurrence in the observation protocol mentioned above.

E. DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

After completing the data collection steps, the researcher then separated the data fitting them to the pedagogy proposed by Roth (2009). The results were discussed in order to come up with pedagogical implications and suggestions for the sake of better technology implementation.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In this section, the results of data analysis are presented and discussed as an effort to answer the proposed research question. During the observation, the researcher took a look at all activities and materials in Schoology groups of four Pronunciation Practice classes and separated, fitting them into three pedagogical principles of using technology in education by Plato (360 BC, as cited in Roth, 2009) which are interactive, personalized and holistic learning.

In this study, it was found that Schoology usage in Pronunciation Practice classes fulfiled the three aspects of pedagogical principles of technology use in language learning proposed by Plato (360 BC, cited in Roth, 2009). There were activities which Schoology made possible and thus could make the pronunciation learning become interactive, personalized and holistic. Table 1 summarizes the number of occurrences found during observation in the four classes. The deeper discussions on those findings will be elaborated below.

Pedagogical aspects Number of occurences

(18)

Personalized 30

Holistic 31

Table 1. Number of Event Occurrences

A. INTERACTIVE LEARNING

Roth (2009), by referring to Plato (360 BC), insisted that by having real exchange of information in which ideas and knowledge are discovered through discussion, a lively and effective learning could be achieved. In the increasingly technological world these days, interaction in language learning is made possible when students do not meet each other in the classroom (Davies, 2011). Davies further asserted that technology is able to enrich the way knowledge is constructed through multifaceted approach. One of the newly improved ways of promoting interactive learning is by utilizing interactive technology which is defined as a computer ability to interpret a user’s action in order to produce immediate response (Pritchard, 2007; Tversky, et.al, 2002)

In this study, several proofs of interactive learning were found. There were two kinds of interactivity discovered in the four Pronunciation Practice classes. The first one was Teacher-Student and Teacher-Student-Teacher-Student interaction mediated by Schoology while the other was the utilization of interactive technology in Pronunciation learning facilitated by Schoology.

Figure 1 below is the documentation of Teacher-Student interaction as well as Student-Student interaction. This is one of the examples of interaction found in Pronunciation Practice Class C

(19)

Figure 1. T-S interaction related to Pronunciation materials in Class C

As seen in the picture above, the teacher attached a link of a video about a certain English dialect, Appalachian English. The teacher attempted to invite the students to watch then discuss the video and compare it with American English, the dialect they had learned in the class. This Schoology feature allowed the students to have an interaction with their teacher and fellow students about the subject matter outside the classroom. Two students left opinions on the comment box. The first student noticed the different way of saying “people” spoken in the video. She also expressed her personal opinion toward this certain distinction that it was funny for her. The second student also found a similar finding by expressing her agreement towards the

first student’s idea. A similar case also occurred in Pronunciation Practice Class B. The teacher in Class B attached a link of a Scouse English accent video (Figure 2). The interactivity benefit of Schoology for pronunciation learning was also demonstrated in this class proven by a comment left by one student. Likewise, the student also noticed how English is pronounced

(20)

differently among American and British (Liverpool) people. This evidence shows that Schoology has the potential to promote interactive language learning with technology by providing a post-and-comment feature.

Figure 2. T-S interaction related to Pronunciation materials in Class B

The second type of interactive learning endorsed by Schoology is its ability to share interactive reading links. Figure 3 below is the illustration of how Schoology could promote the integration of interactive website in pronunciation learning

(21)

Figure 3. IPA Chart link shared in Schoology

The teachers of Pronunciation classes created weekly material posts containing instructions and links which redirected the students to other sources of learning. Schoology provided a facility to share links and therefore allowed the teachers to connect the students to various digital resources where interactive learning could be enhanced. In this case, the teachers equipped the students with links which directed them to International Phonetics Alphabets (IPA) chart-with-sound websites. The website contained a summary of phonetic symbols according to their place of articulation and manner of articulation. When a certain symbol was clicked, the website was able to produce sounds which means an immediate response was given by the computer to the user. In short, Schoology offers more potential to promote interactive pronunciation learning through its link-sharing feature

B. PERSONALIZED LEARNING

Besides being able to promote interactive learning, technology is also required to make the learning process personalized. Learning process should consider each student as individuals who have varied needs, learning styles and capabilities. Roth (2009), by referring to Plato (360 BC), claimed that aiming learning process generally to all students will not result in active and deep learning.

As the data indicated, Schoology was able to fulfil what Plato meant by personalized learning. The personalized learning took form of downloadable weekly pronunciation materials as shown in Figure 4. In The four Pronunciation Practice classes, the teachers had put electronic files that would be discussed in regular classroom meetings. There were fifteen units covered in 7 weeks (14 meetings). Not only were Portable Document Format (PDF) uploaded, audio files of

(22)

each unit were also included in the weekly material folders (Figure 5). Therefore, students could freely download the files whenever they wanted.

Figure 4. A downloadable weekly material

(23)

Downloadable materials gave students sovereignty and freedom over themselves as individual learners. By being able to download the files, the students could re-read the materials they had discussed in class if they thought they needed extra practice. Even though conventional handbooks would also promote personalized learning in this case, Schoology offered more opportunity. It also allowed teachers to enclose audio files of each unit. The downloadable audio files made the students not too dependent on classroom meetings or to the teachers to be able to listen to the audio since they could own the audio files themselves. By listening to the audio files at home, the students could remember the correct pronunciation of words, phrases or sentences they had learned in the class. This occurrence is an empirical evident of what Grant and Basye (2014) believed in which technology is the tool that could create an easier and a more efficient personalized learning.

The condition in which the students could review the lessons at home could allow the students as individuals to learn in their own learning pace, i.e. to replay the audio files according their own needs until they completely understand how a certain word, phrase or sentence is pronounced. Personalized learning which is learner-centered is pivotal because the nature of each learner is different; they start at different levels. Grant and Basye (2014) endorsed this notion by asserting that students who are administratively at the same grade might learn at different rates. Grant and Basye further argued that supporting learners as individuals rather than a whole class would help them to be academically and emotionally more successful. In addition, this circumstance also gave the students freedom to learn at their own convenient time. This is supported by C.-M. Chen, Li, and Chen (2007) who argued that personalization of language learning means to create a learner-centered environment in which the students could train their skills based on their individual abilities and leisure time.

(24)

Schoology also allowed teachers to create online quizzes. The teachers created quizzes which were re-play-able and pause-able (Figure 6). Unlike conventional listening quizzes, in which students do not have any privilege to control the audio, Schoology enabled them to replay the audio until they clearly heard what was spoken by the speaker and be able to answer the questions. In addition, by providing a pause-able audio feature, Schoology also gave the students freedom to stop the audio if they needed time to think after a certain word or sentence is spoken. This indicated that replay-able audio in online quizzes seemed to be able to consider the

students’ different current listening skills. Furthermore, Schoology was also able to

accommodate the students’ different styles of working on a listening quiz, i.e. whether or not

they needed some time to think after listening a certain part of the audio. This is in line with the statement of Changyu (2011) that learning goals could be better achieved if learners could

liberally adjust their own learning styles to the system. Furthermore, the students’ capability to control over the quizzes’ audios makes the learning process “student-owned” (Carmean & Haefner, 2002. p. 33) which they believed to outdo traditional classroom setting.

(25)

C. HOLISTIC LEARNING

Learning takes not only one aspect of human beings. Gilakjani, Ismail, and Ahmadi

(2011) claimed that “learning is not only a visual-cognitive activity but also a physical one particularly as it requires the interplay among multiple sensory modalities and representations” (p.1325). This concept is what is known as holistic learning, which was asserted by Plato (360 BC, as cited in Roth, 2009) to be implemented in the learning process. Beside fostering the activation of more than one sense, holistic learning also denotes the idea that learners’ emotional aspect must also be considered (Laird, 1985 cited in Dunn, 2002).

It was found that Schoology was able to make pronunciation learning process holistic in two ways. First, it facilitated the students to access multimodal learning materials. Second, Schoology enabled the teachers to conduct a thorough assessment toward their students through holistic reflection assignment.

The first evidence of Schoology’s potential to facilitate holistic learning is seen from its ability to provide sounds to which the students could listen while they are reading. For instance, the interactive links shared for the students to read (See Figure 3). Initially, it has been discussed that these certain IPA links allowed students to listen to the pronunciation of English sound systems by clicking the symbols. Through Schoology’s ability to connect students to interactive

sources, the students’ textual mode was activated when reading the explanation on the website.

Simultaneously, the students’ aural mode was also activated when they listened to the sounds of

the symbols they clicked. Likewise, Schoology’s feature to create quizzes and upload online materials with sounds also activated more than one of the students’ body senses. Textual mode was activated when they read the questions or the reading passages while aural mode was

(26)

activated when they listened to the audio provided in each questions of the quizzes and in each unit of the reading materials.

Figure 7. Final reflection instruction

(27)

Another type of holistic learning was found in Schoology in a form of reflective narration assignment. Figure 7 is the instruction given by the teachers on how the students should do their reflection project. As shown in the picture, the reflection journal should contain their personal experience during Pronunciation Practice class. In addition, the students also needed to demonstrate their comprehension about pronunciation theories they had learned throughout the term. Unlike usual written reflective journals, in this case the teachers demanded the students to narrate their reflection through audio recording and upload it on Schoology. By recording their voice, the teachers would also be able to assess students’ pronunciation concerning the nature of the course (Figure 8). This is where Schoology took an advantageous role to make holistic assessment possible in a pronunciation course. If only the reflection had been in a written form,

the students’ pronunciation would not have been considered. Otherwise, if the teachers had had

to assess every students’ pronunciation in class, it would have been impractical since there were

approximately 30 students in each class. In other words, Schoology made possible a simultaneous pronunciation (cognitive) and reflection (emotional) assessment.

It is evident that the final reflection assignment model done in Pronunciation Practice classes reflected the concept of holistic learning. The students were assessed cognitively by having to demonstrate their pronunciation while narrating their knowledge of pronunciation theories they had learned throughout the course. Their emotional aspects as individuals were also embraced by telling their experience while learning pronunciation. This occurrence is an empirical evidence of what Kohonen (2007) upheld from holistic learning in which it engages the learners as whole persons, both intellectually and emotionally. He further asserted that technology makes such holistic reflection possible compared to conventional traditional learning where the students are mere passive recipients of information. Therefore, they would less likely

(28)

to examine their own emotional and cognitive process during the learning and could not make a strategic future decisions and actions (Tang, 2002).

DISCUSSION

The findings of the study suggest that Schoology has the potential to make interactive, personalized, and holistic pronunciation learning possible by providing some useful features. Interactivity was fostered by the presence of a post-comment and link sharing feature which were utilized by the teachers to open a discussion and attach interactive website links. Personalized learning occurred with the assistance of file uploading feature and re-play-able and pause-able quizzes. File uploading and link sharing feature also promoted holistic learning.

Chapelle (2001) proposed six agreed criteria of Computer Assissted Language Learning (CALL) appropriateness, which are language learning potential, learner fit, meaning focus, authenticity, positive impact, and practicality. The interactive learning facilitated by Schoology in the observed pronunciation classes shares the same principle of what Chapelle means by language learning potential in CALL tasks. Language learning potential is the opportunity provided by technology for the learners to focus on forms (Chapelle, 2001). The feature to attach videos of a certain English variety provided an opportunity for the students to carefully listen and pay attention to every single word pronounced by the speaker in the video. In other words, Schoology in the context of this study has been a potential form-focus tool. By focusing on the individual word spoken in the video, the students would be able to recognize the distinctions of English pronunciation from dialect to dialect and enrich their language insights. In addition, the holistic assessment which Schoology made possible also imply the value of focusing on form. It

(29)

students’ final pronunciation progress at the end of the semester while the students were narrating their learning reflection throughout the course. Such assessment grading criterion required the students to be more aware of their pronunciation beside the content of their reflective narration.

The file uploading as well as re-play-able and pause-able quizzes feature also correspond to the learner fit criteria. Chapelle (2001) explained that the engagement opportunity with the

target language should consider the learner’s individual characteristics. As elaborated above, Schoology allowed the students to review the materials at home by downloading the soft-copy files along with their audio recordings at their own convenient time and learning pace. The quizzes administered by Schoology also considered the students’ diversed characteristics in

terms of current listening skills by being able to be replayed or stopped. In addition, the students’

learning styles of listening to spoken English was also taken into account. If the students are accustomed to taking some times to ensure their answers on a quiz, the pause-able feature accommodates them their learning styles of working on pronunciation quizzes.

All in all, those above mentioned features of Schoology embrace the criterion of practicality in which there should be sufficient resources to utilize the features of technology in the learning process (Chapelle, 2001). Every Schoology feature which made interactive, personalized and holistic learning possible did not take too many other supporting tools or complicated procedures. The links shared, files as well as audios uploaded, and discussions

posted could easily accessed using the students’ portable mobile phones anywhere and anytime.

Moreover, there were no particular initial training to use such features, and therefore Schoology has become a practical technology to support pronunciation learning.

(30)

CONCLUSION

This study primarily aimed to investigate the pedagogical aspects of Schoology usage in language classrooms, particularly in pronunciation classes. Considering the data obtained from the four pronunciation classes, the research question was answered in that Schoology was able to make interactive, personalized and holistic learning possible in language classrooms.

Interactive learning with technology was promoted by the discussion feature. Through this feature, teachers could post anything, and the students could reply and practically have discussions with their teachers and fellow classmates. Link-sharing feature also assisted the teachers to bring interactive learning to the classrooms since it had possibilities to connect the students with additional interactive sources. Personalized learning aspect was found in form of weekly materials and audio files which could be downloaded by the students at their convenience. This file and audio uploading feature tailored the students personal learning style, need, and pace. In addition, the students’ personal learning profiles were also taken into account when they did online quizzes which could be paused and replayed. Finally, holistic learning aspect was found through link-sharing feature which directed the students to other learning sources which activate their textual and aural mode. Audio uploading feature also made holistic learning possible when the teachers made use of this feature to instruct the students to record

(31)

their reflection of their learning process. This way, the students’ cognitive aspect (pronunciation clarity and accuracy) was assessed along with their emotional aspect (their learning reflection). The results of the study suggest pronunciation teachers to consider the implementation of Schoology in their classrooms noting its potential to bring about interactive, personalized, and holistic learning.

However, this study is still on the surface of this matter. It only took a look at one particular Learning Management System (LMS), which was Schoology. It also only considered the potentials of Schoology to promote better learning for the students which they less likely to encounter in traditional classroom settings. Deeper observation and investigation on how these potentials are practically done in the classroom, to what extent and how significant they impact the learning process would provide better and more profound view on this issue. Furthermore, due to the nature of Pronunciation Practice course which did not require the students to be involved in ample discussions, there were only 3 interactive occurences discovered. Investigating how much the interaction occurred on LMS in courses which allow more opportunities to have online discussions would reveal a more evident potential of technology to make interactive learning possible. In other words, further study involving other kinds of LMS, courses, qualitative and quantitative data would give us better understanding towards the use of educational technology in language classrooms.

(32)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With profound gratitude, I would like to thank Jesus Christ for making everything I did possible. I love You more than words. My very special thanks go to my mother and only sister who have had constant beliefs and given endless support throughout my study, and my father in heaven for the magical comfort everytime I reminisced him. I am also deeply indebted to Encek and Tuape

for the financial support for my study. Without their generous help, I would never be able to hold a degree.

Ma’am Frances as my thesis examiner. I would like to thank her earnestness in reading my draft and her endeavor in helping me to write better. Her generosity in lending me her books and her friendliness meant a lot for me.

I should like to thank my best buddy, Ryandika, for becoming my partner in everything. Thank you for those meaningful and encouraging talks.I thank Upik, my best-est friend ever, for her willingness to listen to every of my worries. I am also thankful to have such an entertaining and supportive unbiological family, Keluarga Doraemon: Amel, Bang Rendi, Jojo and Mario. I thank them for making my four-year-study a more pleasurable one. My sincere gratitude also goes to Bintang, Grace, Dora Chingu, and my other friends for their supports.

Finally, I am very grateful for being a part of FLL family, a part of Twelvers. They will

definitely be the “home” I long for.

For everybody who I have not mentioned in this page, I deeply appreciate every single thing done or given to me.

(33)

24 References

Ariza, N.E., & Hancock, S. (2003). Second Language Acquisition theories as a framework for creating distance learning courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2).

Blake, R.J. (2008). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning.

Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Brown, D.H. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Cahyani, H., & Cahyono, B.Y. (2012). Teachers’ attitudes and technology use in Indonesian EFL classrooms. TEFLIN Journal, 23(2), 130-148.

Çankaya, S., Durak, G., & Yünkül, E. (2013). Using educational social networking sites in higher education: Edmodo through the lenses of undergraduate students. European Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 3-23.

Cepi, A., Harsyah, G.G., & Sumakul, D.T.Y.G. (2015). Utilizing Microsoft PowerPoint in promoting multimodal vocabulary learning. In D.T.Y.G. Sumakul & N. Isharyanti (Eds.).

Proceedings of The 9th International Seminar: Capacity Building for English Education in a Digital Age, Salatiga, Indonesia (pp. 41-50). Salatiga: Satya Wacana University Press.

Changyu, Li. (2011). College English teaching under web-based context and autonomous learning. Cross-Cultural Communication, 7(3), 103-108.

Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, C.-M., Li, Y.-L., & Chen, M.-C. (2007, 18-20July 2007). Personalised context-aware ubiquitous learning system for supporting effective english vocabularylearning. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on AdvancedLearning Technologies (ICALT 2007), Niigata, Japan.

Davies, J. R. (2011). Second‐language acquisition and the information age: How socialsoftware has created a new mode of learning.TESL Canada Journal, 28(2), 1‐15.

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dunn, L. (2002). Learning and teaching briefing papers series. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, pp. 1-3.

EDC Center for Children and Technology. (2010, June). Integrating Web 2.0 tools into the classroom: Changing the culture of learning. New York: Daniel Light & Deborah Keisch Polin.

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. (2002). Mind Over Matr: Transforming Course Management System into Effective Learning Environments. Colorado: Colleen Carmean and Jeremy Haefner.

(34)

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. (2003). Faculty use of Course Management Systems

(Issue Brief No. 2). Colorado: Glenda Morgan.

Ellis, K.R. (2009). Field Guide to Learning Management Systems. American Society for Training & Development.

Gilakjani, P.A., Ismail, H.N., &Ahmadi, S.M. (2011). The effect of multimodal learning models on language teaching and learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 1(10), 1321-1327.

Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Hubackova, S., & Klimova, B.F. (2013). Pedagogical aspects of E-Learning: Language on-line course and issues of learning styles. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Science, 93, 1095-1098.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2014). Personalized learning: A guide for engaging students with technology. Washington DC: Peggy Grant and Dale Basye.

Kohonen V. (2007). Learning to learn through reflection – an experiential learning perspective, in Council of Europe.Preparing Teachers to Use the European Language Portfolio – arguments, materials and resources. New York: Council of Europe Publishing.

Leloup, J.W., Ponterio, R., & Cortland, S. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and technology: A review of the research. ERIC Digest, EDO-FL(3), 11.

Plato, Euthyphro; Apology; CrUo; Phaedo; Phaedrus. (1914). Trans. H.N. Fowler. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 360 BC).

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On The Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Pritchard, A. (2007). Effective teaching with internet technologies: Pedagogy and practice.

London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Roth, A. D. (2009). Following Plato’s advice: Pedagogy and technology for the Facebook generation. Journal of Philosophy and History of Education, 59, 125-128.

Shyamlee, S.D., & Phil, M. (2012). Use of technology in English language teaching and learning: An analysis. Paper presented at the International Conference on Language, Medias and Culture. IPEDR vol.33. IACSIT Press, Singapore.

Stanley, G. (2013). Language learning with technology: Ideas for integrating technology in the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sumakul, D. T. Y. G. (2013). Facebook Group in an EFL Grammar Classroom. 4th CELC International Symposium. Singapore: CELC, NUS.

Tang, C. (2002) Reflective diaries as a means of facilitating and assessing reflection. Paper presented at the2002 Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society ofAustralasia (HERDSA), Perth, Australia.

(35)

Turkmen, G. (2012). Using Social Networking in EFL Classroom in Higher Education.

Conference proceedings of “eLearning and Software for Education” (eLSE), 1, 350-354. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., &Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: can it facilitate? International

Journal of Human Computer studies,57(4), 247-262.

Walker, A., & White, G. (2013). Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Connecting theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2001). Theory and practices of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp.1-19). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools. NY: Teachers College Press.

Zacharias, N.T. (2012). Qualitative research methods for second language education: A course book. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

(36)

27 APPENDIX Observation Protocol (Event-sampling Protocol)

Observation Protocol Name of course: Pronunciation Practice

Instructor : Total No of Std :

No. Pedagogical aspects of Schoology Number of occurrences

Event’s details

1. Interactive Activities

2. Personalized Activities

(1)

(2)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My gratitude is expressed to Pak Toar for being my thesis supervisor. I would like to thank him for every help and guidance he has poured on me; for his invaluable ideas, comments, feedbacks, and materials (and laughter!) he provided all these times. My sincere appreciation also goes to Ma’am Frances as my thesis examiner. I would like to thank her earnestness in reading my draft and her endeavor in helping me to write better. Her generosity in lending me her books and her friendliness meant a lot for me.

Finally, I am very grateful for being a part of FLL family, a part of Twelvers. They will definitely be the “home” I long for.

For everybody who I have not mentioned in this page, I deeply appreciate every single thing done or given to me.

(3)

24 References

Blake, R.J. (2008). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Brown, D.H. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Cahyani, H., & Cahyono, B.Y. (2012). Teachers’ attitudes and technology use in Indonesian EFL classrooms. TEFLIN Journal, 23(2), 130-148.

Cepi, A., Harsyah, G.G., & Sumakul, D.T.Y.G. (2015). Utilizing Microsoft PowerPoint in promoting multimodal vocabulary learning. In D.T.Y.G. Sumakul & N. Isharyanti (Eds.). Proceedings of The 9th International Seminar: Capacity Building for English Education in a Digital Age, Salatiga, Indonesia (pp. 41-50). Salatiga: Satya Wacana University Press.

Changyu, Li. (2011). College English teaching under web-based context and autonomous learning. Cross-Cultural Communication, 7(3), 103-108.

Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, J. R. (2011). Second‐language acquisition and the information age: How socialsoftware has created a new mode of learning.TESL Canada Journal, 28(2), 1‐15.

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dunn, L. (2002). Learning and teaching briefing papers series. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, pp. 1-3.

EDC Center for Children and Technology. (2010, June). Integrating Web 2.0 tools into the classroom: Changing the culture of learning. New York: Daniel Light & Deborah Keisch Polin.

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. (2002). Mind Over Matr: Transforming Course Management System into Effective Learning Environments. Colorado: Colleen Carmean and Jeremy Haefner.

(4)

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. (2003). Faculty use of Course Management Systems (Issue Brief No. 2). Colorado: Glenda Morgan.