Keynote Speaker to Participant Interaction in Online Webinar by Using Zoom Application

Ersika Puspita Dani, Angel Agustin, Eliza Deani

Abstract


The objective of this descriptive qualitative study was to find out the keynote speaker to participant in online webinar by using zoom application. A keynote speaker has been conducted as a participant. To examine keynote speaker to participant, observation in zoom application were be used. The observation was be used to find out the keynote speaker’s interaction to participant. Then, the results were be analyzed to identify form of keynote speaker’s interaction. The results were 1) There were 3 forms of interaction used by keynote speaker to participant in online webinar, namely initiation move (I-Move), response move (R-Move), and Feedback Move (F-Move), and 2) The Initiation move (I-Move) was the most dominant interaction form used by keynote speaker to participant in online webinar and the least form was feedback move (F-Move).

Full Text:

PDF

References


Akyel., S. A., and Ozek., Y. (2010). A language needs analysis research at an English medium university in Turkey. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2 ), 969– 975.

Allright, R. L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5 (2), 156-171.

Anderson, T. D., and D. R. Garrison. (1997). New roles for learners at a distance In Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes, ed. C. C. Gibson, 97–112. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students‘ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (11), 1315-1346.

Coulthard, M. (1975). Discourse analysis in English: A short review of the literature. LTA, 8 (2), 73-89

Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the F-move. ELT Journal, 56 (2), 117-127.

Enriquez, M. A. S. (2014). Students ’ Perceptions on the Effectiveness of the Use of Edmodo as a Supplementary Tool for Learning. DLSU Research Congress. Retrived in https:// doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Francis, G., & Hunston, S. (1992). Analysing everyday conversation. Advances in spoken discourse. London: Routledge.

Flanders, N. A. (1960). Teacher influence on pupil attitudes and achievement; Final Report. University of Minnesota; Project 397; United States.

Flanders, N. A. (1966). Interaction analysis and inservice training. ERIC, Retrieved April 25, 2014, from http://files.eric.ed.gov.

Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. Internet and Higher Education. Retrived in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002

Hardman, F., & Williamson, J. (1998). The discourse of Post-16 English teaching. Educational Review, 50 (1), 5-14.

Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in IRF exchange: teacher repetition feedback moves. Language in Society, 32 (1), 79-104.

Korucu, A. T., & Alkan, A. (2011). Differences between m-learning (mobile

learning) and elearning, basic terminology and usage of m-learning in education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. Retrived in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.029

Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond Repair: Conversation Analysis as an Approach to SLA. AILA Review, 19, 83–99

Kumar, V., & Nanda, P. (2018). Social Media in Higher Education. International. Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education. Retrived in https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2019010107

Liu, Y. (2008). Teacher-student talk in Singapore Chinese language classrooms: A case study of initiation/response/follow-up (IRF). Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28 (1), 87-102.

Liu, N., & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse? Elsevier Science, 25 (3), 371-384.

Milman, N. B. (2015). Distance Education. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Second Edition. Retrived in https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08097086- 8.92001-4

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education. 3 (2): 1–6

Moore, M. G. (1990). Recent Contributions To The Theory Of Distance Education. Open Learning 5 (3): 10–15

Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). E-Learning, online learning,and distance learning environments: Are they the same? Internet and Higher Education. Retrived in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What‘s the use of ‗triadic dialogue‘?: An investigation of student-teacher interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21 (3), 376-406.

Njuguna J. N. (2012). Verbal classroom patterns of selected Home Science teachers with their students in Nairobi province. Unpublished M.A dissertation, Kenyatta University.

Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (4), 443-456.

Rasku-Puttonen, H., Lerkkanen, M., Poikkeus, A., & Siekkinen, M. (2012). Dialogical patterns of interaction in pre-school classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research. Retrieved May 3, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ijer.2012.03.004.

Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

Short, M. (1994). Discourse analysis and drama. In R.E. Asher (Ed.), The Encyclopaedia of language and Linguistics (pp. 949-952). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

So, S. (2016). Mobile instant messaging support for teaching and learning in Higher education. Internet and Higher Education. Retrived in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.06.001

Svennevig, J. (2001). Abduction as a methodological approach to the study of spoken interaction. Norskrift, 103, 1-22. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from http://home.bi.no/a0210593/Abd...

Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1995). Investigating teacher assessment in infant classrooms: Methodological problems and emerging issues. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2 (3), 305-320.

Wagner, E. D. (1994). “In Support of a Function Definition of Interaction.” The American Journal of Distance Education. 8 (20), 6–29.

Wegerif, R. (2004). The role of educational software as a support for teaching and learning conversations. Computers and Education, 43, 179 - 191.

Wegerif, R., Littleton, K., & Jones, A. (2003). Stand-alone computers supporting learning in Primary classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39 (8), 851-860.

Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom learning? Communications of the ACM. Retrived in https://doi.org/10.1145/986213.986216




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24114/jcrs.v7i1.43671

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 110 times
PDF - 98 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2023 Ersika Puspita Dani, Angel Agustin, Eliza Deani

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

p-ISSN: 2549-1849

e-ISSN: 2549-3434

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
slot gacor slot