Impact of E-Learning Activities on English as a Second Language Proficiency among Engineering Cohorts of Malaysian Higher Education: A 7-Month Longitudinal Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Terms and Concepts
1.2. Background
2. Materials and Methods
- Practice and challenges of e-learning in higher education;
- Implications of e-learning for improving English proficiency.
2.1. Participants
2.2. Tools and Processes
- Blog content (group activity): create blog pages on any of the chosen topics of ‘mental health’, ‘Internet of Things (IoT)’, ‘social responsibility’, ‘youth empowerment’, and ‘youth entrepreneurship’;
- Video content (group activity): create videos on any of the chosen topics of ‘effects of cross-cultural communication’, ‘student engagement in university life’, ‘social interactivity of students’, ‘languages and cultures’, and ‘benefits of a green campus’;
- Online exercise (individual activity): attempt questions on common errors, sentence and fragments, facts and opinions, reading comprehension, and other grammatical elements discussed in classroom sessions;
- Digital storyboarding (group activity): create and develop a storyline in any chosen genre and characters with the detailed instructions provided by the teacher;
- Others (both individual and group activities): organize mock interview sessions, peer review, and discuss the outcomes.
2.3. Ethical Considerations
2.3.1. Ethical Approval
2.3.2. Informed Consent
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Writing Competency
- Quotation marks: Cohorts used fewer quotation marks in their digital content, particularly in developing blog topics and online exercises, which demanded thematic elaboration. Instead, they used more paraphrased sentence structures to support their views and argumentation.
- Colons and semicolons: Cohorts showed lesser use of colons and semicolons in sentence structures, indicating their attempt to use less complex sentence structures so that meaning is delivered precisely. However, this somewhat pinpoints their hesitation about trying to understand and practice the complexities of lexical and semantic structures as advanced-level ESL users.
- Lexical density: The study showed the use of more words per sentence in learners’ content. In other words, cohorts wrote longer sentence structures across their digital content of blogs, online exercises, and storyboarding. However, that does not necessarily indicate their use of complex sentence structures.
- Syllabic structure: Cohorts used shorter words relatively more than words with more syllables. This showed simple use of vocabulary and less or no use of complex synonyms. While it makes the write-up comprehensive and easy to read, it fails to show the advanced comprehension level of learners, which is expected of them.
3.2. Reading Comprehension
- pre, during, and post-reading activities of predicting, answering, and synthesizing the content of a reading text;
- reading objectives of building prior knowledge, developing a positive attitude toward reading, achieving reading comprehension, and integrating reading skills with other basic language skills;
- reading materials such as pictures, audio, video, web pages, comprehension questions (short answers, multiple choice questions), and reading text;
- e-learning web tools such as files, URLs, pages, chats, forums, and assignments as online and offline activity.
3.3. Vocabulary Enrichment and Appropriateness
3.4. Blog Creation
3.5. Digital Storyboarding
3.6. Online Exercise Content
3.7. Sharing Session Outcome
- Assessment content:
- ∘
- Which assessment content did you enjoy preparing the most: Blogs, video-making, digital storyboarding, mock interview sessions, peer reviews, or online exercise?
- ∘
- Prepare your response on the reason(s) why you liked it the most.
- ∘
- Prepare your response on how you executed it.
- Learning approach
- ∘
- While preparing the content, which mode of study did you prefer: self-study, group-study, self-assessment, or peer review?
- ∘
- Prepare your response on the benefits of your chosen mode of study.
- ∘
- Prepare your response on the outcomes of your chosen mode of study.
- Overall experience
- ∘
- What did you learn from each of these assessment types?
- ∘
- Prepare your response on any challenge/issue you faced during the preparation and execution of these assessments and activities.
- ∘
- Prepare your response on how you managed to overcome those challenges/issues.
- ∘
- Prepare your response on your learnings from the individual and group activities.
- ∘
- Prepare your response on how these learnings will help you in future.
- Learning interactivity: Cohorts found e-learning-based learning environments more interactive than their traditional mode of learning. Students could interact with their teachers and peers more frequently through synchronous and asynchronous modes, which further helped them discuss and work together on a variety of topics, including their individual and group assignments and activities and discussions with their educators on the understanding of the instructions selected for the current study.
- Innovative technology implementation: Students found digital and social media applications more convenient and easier than traditional learning approaches for their learning process. Learners felt that they could now access information online or utilize social media platforms more explicitly than ever for education in general and for enhancing their linguistic knowledge of English in particular. For example, cohorts informed of using various online applications, such as free online grammar checker, paraphrasing, and proofreading tools like Grammarly, Ginger, Typely, and ProWriting Aid and other in-built language and spell check features on blog sites, for grammatical and structural correctness of the content they created and developed in their blogs and digital storyboarding. Further, innovative technologies motivated learners to self-assess and peer-review the assigned activities, which became a regular practice and learning strategy in other courses. Constant exchange of feedback and suggestions with peers and teachers helped students remarkably improve their learning process.
- Learner engagement: Cohorts shared that their learning engagement improved considerably using e-learning applications. They became more focused as they could now utilize their familiar technologies and/or emerging digital tools and applications in their learning process. Furthermore, as these sharing sessions demanded elaborate answers to a specific checklist provided by their teachers, students could easily note their progress and prepare their feedback simultaneously while learning during the semesters. In other words, e-learning applications helped cohorts develop a profound interest in their learning, improving their understanding and argumentative analysis of topics while contributing remarkably to the overall quality of education [11].
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- González-Pérez, L.I.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Components of Education 4.0 in 21st Century Skills Frameworks: Systematic Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasheed, R.A.; Kamsin, A.; Abdullah, N.A. Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Comput. Educ. 2020, 144, 103701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adarsh, K.; Rajalakshmi, K.; Surbhi, B.; Keshav, K.; Jyothi, A.N.; Anand, N.; Mehedi, M. Blended Learning Tools and Practices: A Comprehensive Analysis. IEEE Access. 2021, 9, 85151–85197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prasetya, D.D.; Wibawa, A.P.; Hirashima, T.; Hayashi, Y. Designing Rich Interactive Content for Blended Learning: A Case Study from Indonesia. Electron. J. e-Learn. 2020, 18, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarker, M.N.I.; Wu, M.; Cao, Q.; Alam, G.M.; Li, D. Leveraging digital technology for better learning and education: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2019, 9, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elfaki, N.K.; Abdulraheem, I.; Abdulrahim, R. Impact of e-learning vs traditional learning on student’s performance and attitude. Int. J. Med. Res. Health Sci. 2019, 8, 76–82. [Google Scholar]
- Munro, V.; Morello, A.; Oster, C.; Redmond, C.; Vnuk, A.; Lennon, S.; Lawn, S. E-learning for self-management support: Introducing blended learning for graduate students—A cohort study. BMC Med. Educ. 2018, 18, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsankov, N.; Damyanov, I. Education Majors’ Preferences on the Functionalities of E-Learning Platforms in the Context of Blended Learning. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2017, 12, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tayebinik, M.; Puteh, M. Blended Learning or E-learning? arXiv 2013, arXiv:1306.4085. [Google Scholar]
- Nai, R. The design of smart classroom for modern college English teaching under Internet of Things. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0264176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivani, V.; Hariharasudan, A.; Nawaz, N.; Ratajczak, S. Impact of Education 4.0 among engineering students for learning English language. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0261717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, J.; Park, S.M.; Joo, M.; Park, J.; Lee, Y.L.; Jang, J.H.; Cardoso, W. Preliminary investigations for the development of a virtual reality-based English-language communication program: Using the Delphi method. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0264850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buragohain, D. A Study on Digital Natives’ Reading Trends and Preferences in Malaysia. Int. J. Educ. Learn. Dev. 2019, 7, 8–19. [Google Scholar]
- De Meo, P.; Messina, F.; Rosaci, D.; Sarné, G.M.L. Combining trust and skills evaluation to form e-Learning classes in online social networks. Inf. Sci. 2017, 405, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustafa, F.; Assiry, S.N.; Bustari, A.; Nuryasmin, R.A. The role of vocabulary e-learning: Comparing the effect of reading skill training with and without vocabulary homework. Teach. Engl. Technol. 2019, 19, 21–43. [Google Scholar]
- Solak, E.; Cakir, R. Language learning strategies of language e-learners in Turkey. E-Learn. Digit. Media 2015, 12, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustapha, R.; Mei, L.W.S. The dynamics of English language use among Malaysian bloggers: Perception of TESL students at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Malays. J. Stud. Adv. 2009, 12, 39–66. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, J.; Zhang, G. ELT teachers’ role within e-learning and communicative teaching from students’ perceptions. Creat. Educ. 2012, 3, 158–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Riasati, K.; Allahyar, M.J.; Tan, N. Technology in language education: Benefits and barriers. J. Educ. Pract. 2012, 3, 25–31. [Google Scholar]
- Goh, E.; Sigala, M. Integrating Information\Communication Technologies (ICT) into classroom instruction: Teaching tips for hospitality educators from a diffusion of innovation approach. J. Teach. Travel Tour. 2020, 20, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robson, J. Engagement in structured social space: An investigation of teachers’ online peer-to-peer interaction. Learn Media Technol. 2016, 41, 119–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yunus, M.M.; Lubis, M.A.; Lin, C.P.; Wekke, I.S. Language learning via ICT: Students’ experience. In Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS/IASME International Conference on Educational Technologies (EDUTE’09), Canary Islands, Spain, 1–3 July 2009; pp. 136–142. [Google Scholar]
- Lim, S.G. English in Malaysia: Identity and the market place. Asiat. IIUM J. Engl. Lang. Lit. 2015, 9, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Q.; Wang, M. Team-based mobile learning supported by an intelligent system: Case study of STEM students. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 28, 543–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhutoria, A. Personalized education and Artificial Intelligence in the United States, China, and India: A systematic review using a Human-In-The-Loop model. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2022, 3, 100068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marienko, M.; Nosenko, Y.; Shyshkina, M. Personalization of learning using adaptive technologies and augmented reality. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2011.05802. [Google Scholar]
- Camerini, A.-L.; Marciano, L.; Carrara, A.; Schulz, P.J. Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among children and adolescents: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Telemat. Inform. 2020, 49, 101362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulferts, H.; Wolf, K.M.; Anders, Y. Impact of Process Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care on Academic Outcomes: Longitudinal Meta-Analysis. Child Dev. 2019, 90, 1474–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Corvo, E.; de Caro, W. COVID-19 and newspapers: A content & text mining analysis. Eur. J. Public Health 2020, 30, ckaa165-064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pallua, J.; Schirmer, M. Identification of Five Quality Needs for Rheumatology (Text Analysis and Literature Review). Front. Med. 2021, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassani, H.; Beneki, C.; Unger, S.; Mazinani, M.T.; Yeganegi, M.R. Text Mining in Big Data Analytics. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2020, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tao, D.; Yang, P.; Feng, H. Utilization of text mining as a big data analysis tool for food science and nutrition. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 875–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goi, C.; Ng, P.Y. E-learning in Malaysia: Success factors in implementing e-learning program. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 2008, 20, 237–246. [Google Scholar]
- Alassiri, A.A.; Muda, M.B.; Ghazali, R.B.; Ahamefula, U.C. Usage of social networking sites and technological impact on the interaction-enabling features. Int. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 2014, 4, 46–61. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Maqtri, M.A.T. How effective is e-learning in teaching English?: A case study. J. Educ. Hum. Dev. 2014, 3, 647–669. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, P.-L.; Chen, C.-J.; Chang, Y.-J. Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 436–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, O.S. The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 901–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.-C.O.; Wu, W.-C.V. Using mixed-modality learning strategies via e-learning for second language vocabulary acquisition. J. Educ. Techno. Soc. 2015, 18, 309–322. [Google Scholar]
- Buragohain, D. Classroom assessments for improving writing proficiency of English language learners: Innovation, interaction, and impact. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 2018, 9, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ana, P.K.; Nitiasih, K.T.A. Teaching reading through e-learning website. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Foreign Language Learning and Teaching, Bangkok, Thailand, 15–16 March 2013; pp. 554–563. Available online: http://www.litu.tu.ac.th/journal/FLLTCP/Proceeding/554.pdf (accessed on 13 December 2022).
- Crossley, S.; Heintz, A.; Choi, J.S.; Batchelor, J.; Karimi, M.; Malatinszky, A. A large-scaled corpus for assessing text readability. Behav. Res. Methods 2022, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojha, P.K.; Ismail, A.; Srinivasan, K.K. Perusal of readability with focus on web content understandability. J. King Saud Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 2021, 33, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barry, D.S.; Marzouk, F.; Chulak-Oglu, K.; Bennett, D.; Tierney, P.; O’Keeffe, G.W. Anatomy education for the YouTube generation. Anat Sci. Educ. 2016, 9, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, H.-Y.C. Students and the Teacher’s Perceptions on Incorporating the Blog Task and Peer Feedback into EFL Writing Classes through Blogs. ” Engl. Lang. Teach. 2016, 9, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reinhardt, J. Social media in second and foreign language teaching and learning: Blogs, wikis, and social networking. Lang. Teach. 2019, 52, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hung, S.-T.A.; Huang, H.-T.D. Blogs as a learning and assessment instrument for English-speaking performance. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2016, 24, 1881–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buragohain, D. Effects of Digital Storytelling on Writing Competencies of ELLs: A Qualitative Study on First and Second-year Engineering Undergraduate Students. In Developing Creativity and Innovations in Education; Pathak, M., Kalita, G., Handique, Eds.; S. K. Book Agency: New Delhi, India, 2020; pp. 36–48. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, L. Multilinguality, multimodality, and multicompetence: Code-and modeswitching by minority ethnic children in complementary schools. Mod. Lang. J. 2011, 95, 370–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasemsap, K. Digital storytelling and digital literacy: Advanced issues and prospects. In Deconstructing the Education-Industrial Complex in the Digital Age; IGI Global: Hershey, PE, USA, 2017; pp. 151–171. [Google Scholar]
- Vitoria, L.; Mislinawati, M.; Nurmasyitah, N. Students’ perceptions on the implementation of e-learning: Helpful or unhelpful? J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 1088, 12058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Semester 1 (14 Weeks) | Semester 2 (14 Weeks) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ETC | Student Year | Engineering Program (n=) | EGC | Student Year | Engineering Program (n=) |
Class 1 | Sem 3 | Electrical 1 (17) | Class 1 | Sem 2 | Mechanical 1 (13) |
Environmental (17) | Food Technology (12) | ||||
Class 2 | Sem 2 | Computer Network 1 (11) | Class 2 | Sem 2 | Industrial Biotechnology (11) |
Sem 4 | Biosystem 1 (12) | Metallurgical (9) | |||
Class 3 | Sem 3 | Manufacturing (14) | Class 3 | Sem 2 | Civil 1 (16) |
Material (15) | Mechatronic (15) | ||||
Class 4 | Sem 2 | Computer Network 2 (11) | Class 4 | Sem 2 | Mechanical 2 (14) |
Sem 3 | Electrical 2 (10) | Civil 2 (10) | |||
Sem 4 | Biosystem 2 (13) | ||||
Total size | 120 | Total size | 100 |
General | Punctuation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | Sampled | Overall | ||
Words | 2705 | 101 | Periods | 139 |
Different words | 928 | 70 | Commas | 118 |
Sentences | 114 | 5 | Quotation marks | 12 |
Characters (all) | 16,443 | 610 | Apostrophes | 20 |
Characters (a-z only) | 13,395 | 498 | Colons | 2 |
Syllables | 4571 | 168 | Semicolons | 2 |
Syllables per word | 1.7 | 1.7 | Question marks | 1 |
Characters per word | 5.0 | 4.9 | Exclamation marks | 0 |
Standard deviation of word length | 2.7 | Dashes | 11 | |
Words per sentence | 23.7 | 20.2 | Parentheses | 4 |
Brackets | 0 | |||
Braces | 0 |
Text Analysis Summary | Text Statistics | ||
---|---|---|---|
Word count | 508 | Character count | 2777 |
Average word length | 6 | Word count | 508 |
Average sentence length | 19.5 | Sentence count | 26 |
Syllables per word | 1.8 | Syllable count | 938 |
Words per paragraph | 20.3 | Unique word count | 249 |
Sentences per paragraph | 1 | Paragraph count | 25 |
Text Density Issues | |||
Characters per word | 6 | ||
Words per sentence | 19.5 | ||
Sentences per paragraph | 1.0 | ||
Syllables per word | 1.8 | ||
Words per paragraph | 20.3 |
Text Excerpts | Grammatical Issues |
---|---|
Discuss about the | Collocation error discuss the |
Help | Possible agreement error helps |
Complain for | Collocation error complain about |
Gave | The verb after “to” should be in the base form: “give” give |
Are | Possible agreement error is |
Overall | Overall Grading | Sampled | Sampled Grading | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Hard words | 489 | 13 | ||
Long words | 687 | 22 | ||
Lexical density | 34.31% | 69.09% | ||
Lexical density (Without stop words) | 53.90% | 55.61% | ||
Gunning Fog Index | 16.72 | College senior (11 years) | 13.96 | College freshman (8 years) |
Coleman–Liau grade | 12.07 | High school senior (7 years) | 11.65 | High school junior (6 years) |
Flesch–Kincaid grade level | 13.60 | College freshman (8 years) | 12.46 | High school senior (7 years) |
Flesch reading ease | 39.79 | Very difficult: College graduate | 44.45 | Very difficult: College graduate |
ARI (Automated Readability Index) | 19.06 | Postgraduate (14 years) | 12.59 | High school senior (7 years) |
SMOG grade | 14.96 | College sophomore (9 years) | 12.54 | High school senior (7 years) |
LIX (Lasbarhets index) | 49.13 | Medium, normal newspaper text | 43.14 | Medium, normal newspaper text |
Readability Grade Levels | Readability Scores | ||
---|---|---|---|
Flesch–Kincaid grade level | 13.8 | Readable rating | D |
Gunning Fog Index | 16.7 | Flesch reading ease | 30.8 |
Coleman–Liau Index | 14.8 | CEFR level | B2 |
SMOG Index | 16 | IELTS level | 5–6 |
Automated Readability Index | 14.1 | Spache score | 5.5 |
FORCAST grade level | 12.2 | New Dale–Chall score | 7.8 |
Powers–Sumner–Kearl Grade | 7 | Lix readability | 53 |
Rix readability | 12 | Lensear write | 58.9 |
Raygor readability | 13 | ||
Fry readability | 0 |
Possible Lazy Words | |||
---|---|---|---|
That, every, give, great, very, work, big, type, important | |||
Possible Adverbs | Possible Profanity | ||
Very, frequently, sometimes, also | Gods, screw, burnout, addiction | ||
Hard Words | |||
Consequences | More than 4 syllables | Appropriateness | More than 4 syllables |
Revolutionized | More than 4 syllables | Globalization | More than 4 syllables |
Communication | More than 4 syllables | Evaluation | More than 4 syllables |
Multicultural | More than 4 syllables | Organization | More than 4 syllables |
Environmental | More than 4 syllables | Opportunity | More than 4 syllables |
Word | Count | Length | Syllables | Pct_Total | Tf_Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Media | 14 | 5 | 3 | 0.52 | 1 |
Responsibility | 14 | 14 | 6 | 0.52 | 1 |
Travelling | 7 | 10 | 3 | 0.26 | 0.75 |
Environment | 6 | 11 | 4 | 0.22 | 0.71 |
Awareness | 4 | 9 | 3 | 0.15 | 0.64 |
Psychotherapy | 3 | 13 | 5 | 0.11 | 0.61 |
Communication | 2 | 13 | 5 | 0.07 | 0.57 |
Influenced | 1 | 10 | 3 | 0.04 | 0.54 |
Initiatives | 1 | 11 | 4 | 0.04 | 0.54 |
Backyard | 1 | 8 | 3 | 0.04 | 0.54 |
Tradition | 1 | 9 | 3 | 0.04 | 0.54 |
Word | Count | Length | Syllables | Pct_Total | Tf_Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Social | 31 | 6 | 2 | 1.15 | 0.65 |
Responsibility | 14 | 14 | 6 | 0.52 | 0.57 |
Working | 11 | 7 | 2 | 0.41 | 0.55 |
Mental | 10 | 6 | 2 | 0.37 | 0.55 |
Culture | 8 | 7 | 2 | 0.3 | 0.54 |
Community | 6 | 9 | 4 | 0.22 | 0.53 |
Impact | 5 | 6 | 2 | 0.18 | 0.52 |
Friends | 3 | 7 | 1 | 0.11 | 0.51 |
Indigenous | 2 | 10 | 4 | 0.07 | 0.51 |
Motivate | 1 | 8 | 3 | 0.04 | 0.50 |
Storyboarding Excerpts | Specificity |
---|---|
Jerry grabbed Aliyah arm and walk away from Derek. Suddenly “Krakk” a sound of glass break. | Use of native (Malay) language (“Krakk”) |
Suddenly the door in the room opened slowly. Krrrrrkkkk kedegangg. The door was closed | Use of native (Malay) language (Krrrrrkkkk kedegangg) |
In the next morning, they woke up at a late morning. Aliyah parent bought them some nasi lemak and roti canai for brunch. | Names of local (Malaysian) cuisine (nasi lemak and roti canai) |
“You’re lying I hate all of you especially you Aliyah!!” ‘Pangg’ Suzy slapped Aliyah. Aliyah feel sad and shocked. | Use of native (Malay) language (‘Pangg’) |
According to Pak Cik Badrul, his children initially disagreed with his decision to become a Grab driver because he would need to travel back and forth to Kelantan every two weeks. | Use of native (Malay) honorific address form (Pak Cik) |
Term 1 | Term 2 | Correlation (r) | Significance (p) |
---|---|---|---|
Bought | Old | 0.98 | 1.43 |
Began | Face | 0.97 | 2.58 |
Immediately | took | 0.97 | 3.96 |
Asked | suddenly | 0.95 | 3.16 |
Dawn | going | 0.95 | 3.58 |
Grab | reminded | 0.94 | 6.37 |
Entering | house | 0.93 | 8.84 |
Accident | living | 0.93 | 9.50 |
Decided | gangs | 0.90 | 0.00 |
Hit | including | 0.22 | 0.54 |
Accident | media | 0.21 | 0.57 |
Come | face | 0.18 | 0.62 |
Just | realized | 0.17 | 0.65 |
Eyes | fact | 0.16 | 0.67 |
Grammatical Elements | Count | Grammatical Elements | Count |
---|---|---|---|
Adjectives | 65 | Nouns | 189 |
Adverbs | 9 | Proper nouns | 7 |
Conjunctions | 39 | Pronouns | 18 |
Determiners | 55 | Qualifiers | 0 |
Interjections | 1 | Verbs | 63 |
Prepositions | 65 | Unrecognized | 5 |
Non-words | 0 |
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. |
© 2023 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/).
Share and Cite
Buragohain, D.; Punpeng, G.; Jaratjarungkiat, S.; Chaudhary, S. Impact of E-Learning Activities on English as a Second Language Proficiency among Engineering Cohorts of Malaysian Higher Education: A 7-Month Longitudinal Study. Informatics 2023, 10, 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics10010031
Buragohain D, Punpeng G, Jaratjarungkiat S, Chaudhary S. Impact of E-Learning Activities on English as a Second Language Proficiency among Engineering Cohorts of Malaysian Higher Education: A 7-Month Longitudinal Study. Informatics. 2023; 10(1):31. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics10010031
Chicago/Turabian StyleBuragohain, Dipima, Grisana Punpeng, Sureenate Jaratjarungkiat, and Sushank Chaudhary. 2023. "Impact of E-Learning Activities on English as a Second Language Proficiency among Engineering Cohorts of Malaysian Higher Education: A 7-Month Longitudinal Study" Informatics 10, no. 1: 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics10010031
APA StyleBuragohain, D., Punpeng, G., Jaratjarungkiat, S., & Chaudhary, S. (2023). Impact of E-Learning Activities on English as a Second Language Proficiency among Engineering Cohorts of Malaysian Higher Education: A 7-Month Longitudinal Study. Informatics, 10(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics10010031