Email this article 
INVESTIGATING EFL STUDENTS’ ONLINE ENGAGEMENT IN ZOOM MAIN ROOM AND BREAKOUT ROOMS
Abstract
Zoom as one of the video conference applications facilitates synchronous online learning through its main room and breakout rooms features. This research aimed to compare students’ online engagement in Zoom main room and Breakout rooms. It also explored the extent to which group discussions could facilitate students' online engagement through Zoom Breakout rooms. Ninety-one EFL students participated in this mixed-method study. Quantitative data were collected using 24-item questionnaires addressed to two different groups of students: breakout room and main room students. Qualitative data were collected by interviewing six respondents from the breakout room group to explore their opinions regarding the breakout room’s effectiveness in promoting online engagement. The independent sample t-test towards the quantitative data revealed a significant difference between online engagement that occurred in the Breakout room compared to the Zoom main room (t=-4.922, df=89, p<0.05). Further, it was found that Zoom breakout rooms were able to facilitate online engagement in the five engagement aspects, namely social, collaborative, behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. These findings imply that Zoom Breakout rooms can be optimized to boost online engagement.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Adams, W. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. In K.E. Newcomer, H.P. Hatry, & J.S.Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (4th ed., pp. 492–505). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19
Agustina, E., & Suharya, T. (2021). Zoom breakout rooms for students’ collaborative skill enhancement in history learning during the COVID-19 outbreak. International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, 5(1), 41–46.
Álvarez, D. O. (2020). Maximizing engagement between online and on-campus students via Zoom. The Wabash Center Journal on Teaching, 1(1), 113–113.
Chandler, K. (2016). Using breakout rooms in synchronous online tutorials. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 4(3), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v4i3.216
Chen, N., Ko, H., Kinshuk, K., & Lin, T. (2005). A model for synchronous learning using the Internet. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500062599
Coates, H. (2006). Student engagement in campus-based and online education. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203969465
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research method in education (8th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Das, K. R., & Imon, A. H. M. R. (2016). A brief review of tests for normality. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.12
Etikan, L., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Fadde, P. J., & Vu, P. (2014). Blended online learning: Benefits, challenges, and misconceptions. In P.R. Lowenthal, C.S. York, & J.C. Richardson (Eds.), Online learning: Common misconceptions, benefits and challenges (pp. 33–47). Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the Concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
García, A. M. R. R., & Puga, J. L. (2018). Deciding on null hypotheses using p-values or Bayesian alternatives: A simulation study. Psicothema, 30(1), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2017.308
Guzacheva, N. (2020). Zoom technology as an effective tool for distance learning in teaching English to medical students. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 6(5), 457–460. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/54
Hasan, A., & Pardjono, P. (2019). The correlation of higher order thinking skills and work readiness of vocational high school students. Jurnal Pendidikan Teknologi Dan Kejuruan, 25(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.21831/jptk.v25i1.19118
It-analysis. (2001). Synchronous vs asynchronous learning. Retrieved from http://www.it-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=2236.
Knight, E. M. (2013). Aligning the curriculum of the human resources management undergraduate courses at an English-speaking university in the Caribbean with the university’s 2012–2017 strategic plan. Global Business and Economics Research Journal, 2(8), 61–68.
Korturska, T. (2019). How to use the breakout rooms in virtual training software? Vedamo. Retrieved from https://www.vedamo.com/knowledge/benefits-breakout-rooms-in-virtual- training-software/
Krause, K. (2005). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning communities. Paper presented as keynote address: Engaged, inert, or otherwise occupied?: Deconstructing the 21st century undergraduate student. James Cook University Symposium ‘Sharing Scholarship in Learning and Teaching: Engaging Students’ James Cook University. https://doi.org/10.1.1.659.6304
Kumar, R. (2021). Do students prefer synchronous or asynchronous classes? The Spokesman. Retrieved from https://thespokesman.net/3616/opinion/do-students-prefer-synchronous-or- asynchronous-classes/
Laili, R. N., & Nashir, M. (2021). The use of zoom meeting for distance learning in teaching English to nursing students during covid-19 pandemic. UHAMKA International Conference on ELT and CALL (UICELL), 4, 235–244.
Lee, A. R. (2021). Breaking through digital barriers: Exploring EFL students’ views of zoom breakout room experiences. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 21, 510–524. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202106.510
Loeb, S., Dynarski, S., McFarland, D., Morris, P., Reardon, S., & Reber, S. (2017). Descriptive analysis in education: A guide for researchers. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 1–40. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED573325
Mclaughlin, M., & Brame, D. (2021). The best video conferencing software for 2021. PCMag. Retrieved from https://sea.pcmag.com/videoconferencing/4839/the-best-video- conferencing-software-for-2020
Ngoma, S. (2020). Introduction to zoom for teaching. SUNY Geneso, 1–8. Retrieved from https://zoom.us/
Nurieva, G. R., & Garaeva, L. M. (2020). Zoom-based distance learning of English as a foreign language. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 11, 439–448. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2020.16344
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452
Parra-Frutos, I. (2013). Testing homogeneity of variances with unequal sample sizes. Computational Statistics, 28(3), 1269–1297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-012-0353-x
Pasaribu, T. A., & Wulandari, M. (2021). EFL teacher candidates’ engagement in mobile-assisted flipped classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.961774
Pratiwi, A. D., Afandi, A., & Wahyuni, E. S. (2019). Potensi aplikasi Zoom cloud meetings dalam. Prosiding Seminar Nasional FKIP 2019, 1747–1754.
Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175
Ring, G., & Mathieux, G. (2002). The key components of quality learning. Paper presented at the ASTD Techknowledge 2002 Conference, Las Vegas.
Rossett, A. (2002). Waking in the night and thinking about e-learning. In A. Rosset (Ed.), The ASTD e-learning handbook (pp. 3–18). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Venton, B. J., & Pompano, R. R. (2021). Strategies for enhancing remote student engagement through active learning. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 413(6), 1507–1512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03159-0
Vural, O. F. (2013). The impact of a question-embedded video-based learning tool on e-learning, educational sciences: Theory and practice, 2013. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(2), 1315–1323.
Wintemute, D. (2021). Synchronous vs. asynchronous classes: What’s the difference? The Best School. Retrieved from https://thebestschools.org/magazine/synchronous-vs-asynchronous- education/
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/ijiet.v8i1.6152
DOI (PDF): https://doi.org/10.24071/ijiet.v8i1.6152.g3816
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Indexed and abstracted in:
IJIET Journal Sinta 2 Certificate (S2 = Level 2)
We would like to inform you that IJIET (International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching) has been nationally accredited Sinta 2 by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia based on the decree No. SK 0547/E5/DT.05.00/2024. Validity for 5 years: Vol 5 No 2, 2021 until Vol 10 No 1, 2026.
This work is licensed under CC BY-SA.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
IJIET DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/ijiet
p-ISSN: 2548-8422 (since 5 January 2017); e-ISSN: 2548-8430 (since 5 January 2017)
IJIET (International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching) is published by the Institute for Research and Community Services of Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.