Search This Blog

An Analysis of Students’ Inhibition Level on Synchronous Class Using Video Conferencing

 An Analysis of Students’ Inhibition Level on Synchronous Class Using Video Conferencing


According to the World Health Organization  (2020), COVID-19 is the infectious sickness instigated by the coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which is a respiratory pathogen. It was exposed in the  last  months  of  2019  in  a  wet  market  in  Wuhan.  The  Director  of  WHO  publicized  the outburst as a pandemic due to the swift surge in the number of cases outside of China. Based on Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, a pandemic is a sickness that extends over an entire country or the whole world. Social distancing is a conscious increase in the physical space between people to  control  the  dissemination  of  disease  (Red  Cross,  2020).  This  pandemic  has  enforced  global physical interaction of industries, sports events, and school activity by insistent all institutions to drift to online platforms (Adedoyn & Soykan, 2020).

Online  learning  is  one  of  the  functions  of  the  internet  which  is  intended  to  develop materials for educational tenacities, instructional distribution, and controlling of programs (Fry, 2001). It refers to a teaching and learning setting where: (1) the learner is at a remote distance from the instructor, (2) the learner employs technology to get the materials of learning, (3) there is a practice of technology to create interaction between the learners, instructor and their peers, and  (4)  some  kind  of  funding  is  served  to  learners  (Anderson,  2011).  Hrastinski  (2008) addresses  two  forms  of  online  learning,  those  are  asynchronous  and  synchronous  e-learning. Asynchronous e-learning, commonly assisted by platforms like e-mail and discussion boards. It provides  a  connection  among  learners  and  with  teachers,  even  when  participants  cannot  be online  simultaneously.  Synchronous  e-learning  generally  supported  by  media  such  as videoconference  and  chat,  and  support  a  real-time  interaction  between  the  participants (Hrastinski, 2008). 

A videoconference class is preferred to fulfill the requests of face-to-face learning during this  pandemic.  Since  it  allows  the  connected  users  to  share  a  visual  and  audio  connection  in real-time  (Al-Samarraie,  2019).  By  using  a  videoconference  as  the  platform,  the  students  and lecturer  are  expected  to  experience  more  social  interaction.  It  is  also  an  attempt  to  avoid frustration  by  enabling  students  and  lecturers  to  do  a  question  and  answer  session simultaneously.  Al-Samarrie  (2019)  states  interactive  videoconferencing  (IVC)  is  the  type  of videoconferencing that empowers one-to-many interaction where the host delivers their material to  the  audiences  in  real-time.  However,  this  kind  of  videoconferencing  requires  a  stable environment  of  internet  connection  and  advanced  configuration  to  maintain  the  interaction between the participants. 

During IVC classes in these pandemic times, the writer noticed that the students become less responsive toward the lecturer’s question. The lecturer needs to repeat the question for few more  time  after  waiting  for  the  response  before  finally,  one  or  two  students  give  their  answer. This  situation  differs  from  how  the  face-to-face  or  physical  class  would  occur.  The  lecturer would  not  need  to  wait  too  long  for  a  response  in  a  classroom  setting  where  they  meet  the students in the same room. This situation brings the writer to a question of whether it is caused by inhibition or not, and if it is, then what are the factors that appear in students’ inhibition.

Inhibition  is  sets  of  barricades  to  shield ones’ ego (Brown, 2000)  or  a  temperamental proclivity to reveal caution, anxiety, or restraint in reaction to unfamiliar surroundings, objects, and  circumstances  (Kagan  et  all,  1988).  According  to  Kurtus  (2019),  inhibition  to  speak happened  simultaneously  with  the  distress  of  making  mistakes  that  becomes  a  reason  for students  being  afraid  of  appearing  injudicious  in  front  of  other  people.  Richard  and  Schmdt (2002)  also  consider  inhibition  as  a  negative  factor  that  hinders  students  from  their  natural performance and makes them act in a reluctant, hesitant, or anxious way.

According  to  Mohseni  and  Ameri  (2010),  the  source  of  attitude  problems,  including inhibition, can be categorized into four: (1) cognitive factors that cover skill and understanding about grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation, (2) affective factors that consist of the absence of  motivation,  insecurity,  self-confidence,  self-respect,  and  language  ego,  (3)  the  factors  that come  from  classroom  interaction,  “since  a  good  relationship  of  classroom  members  is  an important  key  to  create  an  ideal  teaching  environment” (Humaera, 2015), (4) fear  of  language evaluation. Inhibition that comes together with affective factors will be more influential for the learning process compared to the inhibition  caused by cognitive factors.  The mental inhibition such as lack of self-confidence, learning motivation, anxiety, and shyness more inhibit students in showing off their personality even though they have comprehension in language skills such as vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar.

Previous studies on students’ inhibition have varied results. Abedini  and  Chalak  (2017) reported  that  the  most  influential  factor  contributing  to  inhibition  in  speaking  was  negative evaluation from teachers followed by students’ anxiety and confidence, and students’ linguistic knowledge.  The  findings  of  Loan  and  Tuyen  (2020)  revealed  that  more  factors  related  to students cause inhibition than those related to teachers. Most of the students point out teachers’ teaching  methods,  ways  of  giving  corrective  feedback,  and  attitudes  towards  students’ knowledge  and  ability  as  the  factor  that  causing  inhibition.  Mohseni  and  Ameri  (2010) identified  the  three  most  influencing  factors  are  offense  or  insult  from  teacher  or  classmates, student's psychological, and factors that come from cultural and racial.




Postingan terkait: