Is it possible: Promoting students’ interaction in online learning?

Bernard Richard Nainggolan, Iko Agustina Boangmanalu


Online learning has now globally become common and familiar due to the Covid-19 outbreak. It has forced changes in the ways of learning from face to face mode- traditionally at school, to distant learning, which is either asynchronous or synchronous learning. The use of online platforms is undeniably needed and has revolutionized the previous English teaching and learning that involved fewer technology aids. Yet, one question is now arisen on how it promotes students’ interaction in speaking activities. This research investigated how the students’ interaction was promoted in speaking activities via online platforms in the mode of online learning. The research design was based on a case study in a language center in Indonesia. Data were collected through students’ and teacher’s interviews class and class observations. The findings revealed that the activities during the zoom video-conference, the breakout-room session, could finally promote students’ interaction. The next findings were asynchronous tasks, using video calls, voice notes, etc., before and after asynchronous could be helpful to prepare the interaction during the zoom session and extend the students’ interaction after synchronous learning. The study also recommended to maximize online teaching that can promote the students’ interaction.

Full Text:



Adaba, H. W. (2017). Exploring the Practice of Teacher-Student Classroom Interaction in EFL to Develop the Learners’ Speaking Skills in Tullu Sangota Primary School Grade Eight Students in Focus. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 08(04).

Adams, R. (2018). Enhancing student interaction in the language classroomm: Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series. Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT Series. (Pdf), February, 18.

Arung, F. (2015). Information-Gap Spoken Activities. Research Gate, October, 4–5.

Asrobi, M., Seken, K., & Suarnajaya, W. (2013). The effect of information gap technique and cchievement motivation toward students’ speaking ability (An experimental study of the tenth grade students of MAN Selong). 1.

Ballman, T. L., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1988). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 72(2), 216.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Longman.

Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford University Press.

Cahyono, B. Y., & Widiati, U. (2006). The teaching of EFL reading in the Indonesian context: The state of the art. TEFLIN Journal, 17(1), 36–58.

Cekaite, A. (2014). A Child ’ s Development of Interactional Competence in a Swedish L2 Classroom. Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 45–62.

Collis, B. (1996). Tele-learning in a Digital World: The Future of Distance Learning. International Thompson Computer Press.

Correa, Y. R. (2015). SkypeTM Conference Calls: A Way to Promote Speaking Skills in the Teaching and Learning of English. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 17(1), 143–156.

Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5(4), 331–343.

Defrioka, A. (2017). The use of infromation gap activities in teaching speaking (Classroom action research at SMK). Lingua Didaktika: Jurnal Bahasa Dan Pembelajaran Bahasa, 10(2), 116.

Dörnyei, Z., & Tseng, W. T. (2008). Motivational processing in interactional tasks. Multiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second Language Research in Honor of Susan M. Gass, 1993, 117–134.

Dutton, J., Dutton, M., & Perry, J. (2002). How do online students differ from lecture students? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 6(1).

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction, and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.

Gaudart, H. (1999). Games as teaching tools for teaching English to speakers of other languages. Simulation and Gaming, 30(3), 283–291.

Hamzah, M. H., & Ting, L. Y. (2005). Teaching Speaking Skills Through Group Work Activities : N Xm X, 1987, 53.

Harmer, J. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Longman.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. State University of New York Press.

Hymes, D. (1971). Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge University Press.

Kearsley, G. (1995). The nature and value of interaction in distance Learning. Proceedings of the Invitational Research Conference in Distance Education; Towards Excellence in Distance Education: A Research Agenda. T, 366–374.

Keegan, D. (1988). Problems in Defining the Field of Distance Education. American Journal of Distance Education, 2(2), 4–11.

Kuśnierek. (2015). Developing students’ speaking skills through role-play. World Scientific News, 1, 73–111.

Laursen, B., & Hartup, W. W. (2002). The origins of reciprocity and social exchange in friendships. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 95, 27–40.

Liu, T. Y., & Chu, Y. L. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers and Education, 55(2), 630–643.

McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207–224.

Miltiadou, M., & Savenye, W. C. (2003). Applying Social Cognitive Constructs of Motivation to Enhance Student Success in Online Distance Education. AACE Journal, 11(1), 78–95.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Moore , M . G . ( 1989 ) Editorial : Three types of interaction . American Journal EDDL 5101 Educational Technology for Learning Three Types of Interaction. Educational Technology for Learning, 3(2), 1–7.

Moreno, A. I., & Vermeulen, A. (2015). Using VISP (VIdeos for SPeaking), a Mobile App Based on Audio Description, to Promote English Language Learning among Spanish Students: A Case Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 178(November 2014), 132–138.

Oradee, T. (2012). Developing Speaking Skills Using Three Communicative Activities (Discussion, Problem-Solving, andRole-Playing). International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(6), 533–535.

Perveen, A. (2016). Synchronous and Asynchronous E-Language Learning: A Case Study of Virtual University of Pakistan. Open Praxis, 8(1), 21–39.

Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2013). Peer interaction and second language learning. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning.

Potashnik, M., & Capper, J. (1998). Distance education: growth and diversity. Finance and Development, 35(1), 42–45.

Rashid, A. A., Rashid, M. R. A., Yaman, M. N., & Mohamad, I. (2020). Teaching medicine online during the covid-19 pandemic: A Malaysian perspective. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science, 19(Special issue), 77–81.

Reese, C., & Wells, T. (2007). Teaching academic discussion skills with a card game. Simulation and Gaming, 38(4), 546–555.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Riel, M., & Harasim, L. (1994). Research Perspectives on Network Learning. Machine Mediated Learning, 4(2–3), 91–113.

Rivers, W. (Ed.). (1987). Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Ross, J. A. (1996). The influence of computer communication skills on participation in a computer conferencing course. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(1), 37–52.

Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning. Routledge.

Samadi, F., Maghsoudi, M., & Azizmohammadi, F. (2014). The Impact of CALL Technology on Improving Iranian Female Highschool Students’ Speaking Ability. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(2011), 1666–1671.

Sato, M. (2015). Density and complexity of oral production in interaction: The interactionist approach and an alternative. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(3), 307–329.

Schullo, S., Hilbelink, A., Venable, M., & Barron, A. E. (2007). Selecting a Virtual Classroom System: Elluminate Live vs. Macromedia Breeze (Adobe Acrobat Connect Professional). MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 331–345.

Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, Agency and Collaboration in Advanced Second Language Proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). Continuum.

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331.

Thamarana, S. (2016). An Overview of Communicative Language Teaching. June 2014.

Tsui, A., & Ki, W. W. (1996). An analysis of conference interactions on telenex - A computer network for ESL teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4), 23–44.

Valmori, L. (2016). Anxiety in interaction-driven L2 learning. Michigan State University.

Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1), 22–36.

Walia, D. N. (2012). Traditional Teaching Methods vs. CLT: A Study. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 3, 125–131.

Yilmaz, O. (2015). The effects of “live virtual classroom” on students’ achievement and students’ opinions about “live virtual classroom” at distance education. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 108–115.

Yuliana, Y., Kristiawan, M., & Suhartie, T. (2017). The effect of role play toward students’ speaking skill ( an experiment study (An experiment study at grade XI IPA high school 1 Batang Anai , Padang Pariaman Regency , West Sumatera , Indonesia). The Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(4).


  • There are currently no refbacks.