CHATTING TO LEARN IN SYNCHRONOUS WHATSAPP GROUP …

ISSN: 2637-0875

Journal of Language and Communication, 8(2),144-165 (2021) ©Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

© Penerbit Universiti Putra Malaysia

CHATTING TO LEARN IN SYNCHRONOUS WHATSAPP GROUP DISCUSSION

Shamala Paramasivam

Department of English, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication

Universiti Putra Malaysia

43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Group discussion is a key feature in education. Despite its importance, however, its potential

in higher education is under-researched. With the advent of technology in education and the

vision for 21st century learning, innovative use of mobile-based technologies has become a

necessity in teaching and learning. Having to get on the bandwagon, the present study

examines WhatsApp as a tool for synchronous group discussion in class and how it could

promote communication and learning among undergraduates. The app is used in a blended

delivery design to teach a content course called Discourse Analysis in an undergraduate

program for Applied Linguistics. The research is qualitative in nature and employs

pragmatics as the approach to discourse analysis. The study showed that WhatsApp group

discussion helped student understanding of content knowledge, facilitated group learning, and

promoted learner autonomy and learner cooperation. The students used one another as

resources and made sense of the course content together based on their subject matter

knowledge and life experiences. They pooled their knowledge and experiences and helped

each other figure out the concepts, theories and issues through a negotiation of meaning that

involved active participation in the form of questions and responses that justify, explain and

clarify meanings. In this new age of digital literacy, the study shows how WhatsApp

synchronous group discussion can encourage cumulative learning as a way to learn content

knowledge, stimulate exploratory talk as a relevant communication skill for academia and

work, and promote among learners, a sense for autonomy and cooperation.

Keywords: WhatsApp group discussion; inclusion; group learning; learner autonomy;

cooperation; discourse analysis

ARTICLE INFO

Article history

Received: March 23, 2021

Accepted: July 26, 2021

Published: September 30, 2021

Volume 8 Issue 2

Publication Note: JLC appreciates Associate Professor Dr. Shamala Paramasivam for

accepting our invitation to contribute this Featured Article.

mailto:[email protected]

Journal of Language and Communication, 8(2),144-165 (2021) 145

INTRODUCTION

Groups are common to human life. Humans are described as “small-group beings” who

primarily socialise and come together “to live, work and govern” (Johnson & Johnson, 2014,

p. 44). As social beings, we belong to many groups and in today’s world, online groups are

widespread and we find ourselves being members of at least a few of them.

Research into the field of group dynamics is not new. The area is noted as being 110

years old in North America with Kurt Lewin acknowledged as an important figure in this

field (Johnson & Johnson, 2014). Many definitions of group abound and social scientists

have yet to agree on a single definition of what a group is. In an effort to capture the meaning

of group, Johnson and Johnson (2014, p. 44) reviewed the many definitions of group and

they postulate that generally “a small group is two or more individuals in face-to-face

interaction, all aware of their positive interdependence as they strive to achieve mutual goals,

all aware of their membership in the group, and aware of the others who belong to the

group”. With the advent of online groups in today’s world, this definition is extended beyond

face-to-face interaction to include online interaction as well.

Group work is a key feature in teaching and learning activities in education. The

terms used in the literature to refer to group work in learning are multitude and they are often

used synonymously such as collaborative learning, cooperative learning, group learning,

collective learning, peer learning, learning communities and so forth (Johnson & Johnson,

2014). The role of group work in higher education is pronounced; firstly, as a result of group

work being viewed as an approach to cope with the high and ever-increasing student

enrolment in universities, and secondly, because of the need of universities to prepare

students for the world of employment where teamwork is a key feature of work and business.

Despite its importance, however, group work and its potential for teaching and learning in

higher education is under-researched.

The benefits of group work in learning are highly acknowledged in the literature. One

of the earliest works on group work in education was that of Barnes and Todd (1977) who

studied the potential of group work among children in schools. In their view the benefits of

group work lie in freedom of children to think and learn among themselves as resources

without teacher control. They note that group work affords children the freedom to ask

questions without being judged, freedom to change topics, explore alternatives, and try out

new ideas. Other positive results highlighted in the literature are that group work improves

understanding of content, grades and achievement scores, reasoning and thinking skills,

speaking skills, collaboration skills, feedback skills, brainstorming, builds confidence, self-

esteem, trust and peer support, rapport and friendships, increases motivation, encourages risk

taking, and builds leadership qualities (Burdett, 2003; Davies, 2009; Johnson & Johnson,

2014). However, the literature on group work also shows that group work does not always

deliver its potential benefits. The drawbacks of group work are that it can result in unequal

participation, marginalisation of learners, domination of speakers, struggle amongst learners

to communicate, unproductive learners, learners who avoid work, emergence of free-riders

and so forth (Burdett, 2003; Davies, 2009; Johnson & Johnson, 2014). In short, although

ISSN: 2637-0875


146 Journal of Language and Communication, 8(2),144-165 (2021)

group work is beneficial for learning, there is simultaneously a problem of learner inclusion

and participation in group work.

Learner inclusion and participation is acknowledged as an important aim in the

futures of education (Arvanitis et al., 2021). A key problem of the current education system is

its inability “to equip future generations to deal with the challenge of ensuring the

sustainability of our global world” (Arvanitis et al., 2021, p. 3). Learner inclusion is viewed

key in achieving this aim because essentially learners are different, each with their own

cultures, perspectives and lived experiences. When their differences are recognised and

harnessed, they develop a strong sense of inclusion and participation in events. On the other

hand, when their differences are ignored, they feel less engaged and valued, which could

impact on their development and productivity. The classroom is noted as a primary space to

foster learner inclusion through teaching and learning activities that are designed to take on

diversity as a social and learning resource of cohesion, solidarity and development. The

pedagogy is noted as “a pedagogy of productive diversity, which advocates for education that

is equitable and transformative in nature and allows for multiple representations of culture

with the goal of building an inclusive mainstream sociality” (Arvanitis et al., 2021, p.7).

Within this pedagogy, difference is the core or the mainstream; teaching and learning

activities address differences and inequalities in order to promote the co-construction of “we-

cultures, which is an ethos that values collaboration, compassion and innovation across

borders” (Arvanitis et al., 2021, p.3). The teaching and learning activities within this

pedagogy involve “(heritage) language teaching, intercultural competence assessment,

collaborative praxis, responsive feedback, and scaffolded / differentiated / life-embedding

learning” (Arvanitis et al., 2021, pp.7-8). To this end, the pedagogy includes technology and

online forms that produce e-learning ecologies which harness digital affordances. Educating

learners with 21st century skills are deemed important in the envisioned future of global

sustainability namely “autonomy and individual initiative, familiarity with tools and

technology, ability to function within diverse groups, developing a critical attitude to

information, thinking in a creative and multidisciplinary way, being agile in responding to

crises and unexpected events and becoming a lifelong learner” (Arvanitis et al., 2021, p.9).

To review the literature covered thus far, group is seen as a fundamental feature of

human life, and group work is viewed as a useful tool in education for building cooperation

and collaboration in learners. However, group work suffers a weakness in learner inclusion

and participation, which is acknowledged as an important element in education for achieving

global sustainability. The use of group work in education is thus in need of improvement and

innovation; when it comes to group work, how do we, as teachers, provide inclusion to all

learners?


Research Aim

Based on my almost 30 years of experience of using group discussion in the

classroom, I am well aware of its drawbacks as a tool for learning. I wanted to innovate group

discussion to address the problem of learner inclusion; I wanted to improve the dynamics of

group discussion in class by promoting inclusion in participation to different types of

learners. I wanted an environment that could give opportunity for all students to participate

on an equal footing, where each student has equal opportunity to act on his or her own will

and purpose within a given context. My contention is if we could provide an environment

where all students have an equal and fair chance at talk, learner autonomy could be improved,

and learners would have the opportunity to perform and learn at their best potential.

The aim of my research was therefore to innovate group discussion to improve learner

inclusion and to investigate how it could promote learning. With more focus being put on

technology as an improvement to education, I began to investigate digital group discussion

and took on WhatsApp for the purposes of this study. The specific aims of the study were a)

to find a way to conduct group discussion through WhatsApp in a manner that would give as

far as possible equal opportunity for all students to participate, b) to examine how this online

group discussion could support learner autonomy and c) to investigate how the online group

discussion could encourage learning.

RELATED LITERATURE

This section discusses the literature relevant for the study. WhatsApp, related studies

and the theory that supports the study are deliberated.

WhatsApp

WhatsApp is a smartphone application for instant messaging that allows for

synchronous and asynchronous communication between individuals and groups mainly in the

form of text messages. It also allows sharing of file documents and audiovisuals as

attachment, pictures and website links. The app was invented in 2009 by Jan Koum and Brian

Acton and was made available on the market in 2010 (“WhatsApp,” 2021). A survey in

Malaysia found that 97% of Malaysians use WhatsApp as an instant messaging tool (Ujakpa

et al., 2018). The popularity of this app is as a result of its technological affordances which

include rapid access to information, low-cost accessibility, multimodality, interactivity,

immediacy, and ability to run long conversations and to do so simultaneously with many

people (Tang & Hew, 2017).

Related Studies

Since its inception in 2010, WhatsApp has been used in education for teaching and

learning and has been found to be able to facilitate communication and information sharing

between lecturers and students, and between students and students. A number of studies have

investigated its use in higher education (Ujakpa et al., 2018; Barhoumi, 2015; So, 2016);

specifically with medical students (Justicz et al., 2019; Willemse et al., 2019; Raiman et al.,

2017; Robinson et al., 2015) and in second and foreign language learning (Howard & Das,

ISSN: 2637-0875



2019; Batawi, 2019; Hanisi et al., 2018; Andujar, 2016). In these studies, with the exception

of Howard and Das (2019), WhatsApp was used asynchronously; teaching and learning

activities were posted by lecturers on WhatsApp and required asynchronous responses from

learners. In Howard and Das (2019), the learning activity required synchronous

communication among learners in small groups of five students each to help develop oral

communication skills for business communication among undergraduate learners in India.

Irrespective of whether WhatsApp was used synchronously or asynchronously, all the studies

had similar findings. WhatsApp was found to support group discussion and collaborative

learning, provide equal opportunities for participation among the group members, enhance

learner scaffolding and interdependence, increase learner engagement, interaction and

motivation, and deepen understanding of content matter and improve academic performance.

In the local context of Malaysia, there are also a number of studies that have

investigated the use of WhatsApp and mobile phones in education that show similar insights.

For instance, Veerappan et al. (2014) found that Malaysian undergraduates displayed

willingness and desire for blended learning, especially for mobile learning to be incorporated

with traditional face-to-face teaching and learning. Haque and Wok (2020) found that

students in higher education in Malaysia have a positive attitude and high level of WhatsApp

usage in WhatsApp communication with lecturers. Likewise, Darmi and Albion (2017)

discovered that mobile phones have a role to play to improve oral interaction skills of second

language learners in an institution of higher learning. Imani et al. (2011) who studied the

nature and effectiveness of peer feedback and learner autonomy among university students on

an online discussion forum of a Malaysian university revealed that peer feedback helped the

students convey their thoughts and ideas freely and helped develop language fluency in

English. The positive role of the use of mobile phones and WhatsApp, in particular, are

affirmed by other local studies on high school students in Malaysia. Mohd Yusoff (2018), for

instance, studied the language and literacy practices of Malaysian suburban students in their

school and out-of-school spaces and found that the use of Language Diaries and ongoing

WhatsApp group chats empowered students and facilitated meaningful learning amongst

them. Alakrash et al. (2021) found that high school students of international schools in

Malaysia displayed high levels of attitude towards using social networking sites in learning

English and showed good improvement in achievement scores for listening, speaking and

writing skills. WhatsApp use has also been investigated in workplace communication as in

Mohd Omar et al. (2020), who looked into the processes of decision making in WhatsApp

workplace interaction among a group of academics at an institution of higher education in

Malaysia. They found that decision making on WhatsApp was intertextual in nature, used

mainly for making quick decisions, giving confirmation and approval, and providing

information about issues that had been earlier discussed in face-to-face contexts.

Although the view to the use of mobile instant messaging in teaching and learning is

positive, most of the studies, both locally and internationally, have largely focused on

perceptions and attitudes towards their use and have examined their success in teaching and

learning through achievement scores. Recommendations were made for future research to

analyse text messages of the interaction on mobile instant messaging in order to gain more


understanding of students’ talk in group interaction. For instance, Paulus (2009) who looked

into off-topic conversations among students in formal small group communication in the

online environment (email, discussion forum and chat) notes that it is useful to study how

students perform open-ended discussions when discussing content matter of academic

courses in order to improve understandings of group communication and learning. Gazit and

Aharony (2018) who examined level of participation of university students in Israel in

WhatsApp groups also note that additional studies are needed to analyse WhatsApp messages

in order to gain understanding of the inner dynamics of WhatsApp groups. Urien et al.

(2019) who looked into whether college students’ perception of WhatsApp usefulness

influences cognitive processes important for teamwork specifically decision-making also

explain that in addition to learning outcomes, studies are needed to look into the learning

process when students are involved in activities that are conducted through the mobile device

in order to uncover the learning potential of mobile instant messaging.

To review, although, online groups on WhatsApp instant messenger are found to

result in positive learning outcomes, additional research into WhatsApp interaction is needed

to look into the learning process that learners may experience to better understand the

learning potential of this mobile instant messaging tool. Building on these related studies, the

current research aimed to examine WhatsApp group interaction and how the synchronous

group discussion could address the issue of learner inclusion in small group talk and the

insights it could provide about the learning process of learners.

Theory

The sociocultural theory of learning, introduced by the Russian psychologist,

Vygotsky, is used to support the current research. According to this theory, learning occurs

when individuals are in social interaction with others namely experts and capable peers. The

key principles of the theory are mediation, regulation, scaffolding and the zone of proximal

development. Mediation implicates the use of physical and symbolic tools and artefacts in

social interaction such as language, social media, books, music, pictures and so forth.

Regulation consists of two types: self- and other-regulation. Self-regulation is when a learner

is capable of autonomous functioning and self-management while other-regulation is when

the learner is assisted, guided or supported in social interaction with skilled persons such as

teachers or peers in carrying out tasks and activities. The process of other-regulation in

supportive or collaborative talk is referred to as scaffolding and it often involves instruction

by skilled persons and/or co-construction of knowledge between the learner and the skilled

person the learner is in interaction with. Through scaffolding, the learner is inducted into

shared understanding of the subject studied until the learner eventually internalises or

appropriates the knowledge or skill learnt into his or her own consciousness. So, learning

involves a shift from collaborative activity to autonomous activity. The domain where

learning takes place is called the zone of proximal development. Knowledge or skill that the

learner is not yet capable of performing independently but can achieve with assistance and

support from others resides in this zone (Mitchell et al., 2019).

ISSN: 2637-0875



Although the theory emphasizes collaboration between learners and experts (namely

teachers and peers), the theory nevertheless supports learner autonomy. Autonomy refers to a

learner’s capacity to take control of his or her own learning (Benson, 2011). Benson and

Cooker (2013) explain that from the perspective of the sociocultural theory, autonomy is

understood as the learner’s socioculturally-mediated capacity to act where his or her

autonomy develops not from independent but from interdependent performance in social

interaction. Autonomy develops out of the learner’s dialogue with the world in which he or

she belongs. They explain that autonomous learning involves individuals actively

transforming and creating new environments through collaboration with others. Autonomy is

thus situated within community in dynamic relationships between learners and their social

contexts and an autonomous individual is not viewed as atomistic and unitary but as a social

individual. So, although the sociocultural theory argues that learning is a social process that is

grounded in social interaction, learning is uniquely an individual process that is directed by

the learner’s interdependence and active relationship with his or her social context and

environment. Within the sociocultural theory, learning is governed by both learner

collaboration as well as learner autonomy. The theory is thus found suitable to support the

goals of the current research in investigating the learning potential of WhatsApp group

interaction with regard to learner autonomy and group learning.

METHODOLOGY

The study was qualitative in nature and took on an action research, case study design

as the method for investigation. The study was conducted in Semester 1 2018/2019 on a

content course called “Discourse Analysis” in the undergraduate program for Applied

Linguistics in a public university. In the course, students were exposed to concepts linked to

theories of discourse and various approaches to discourse analysis. They were given spoken

and written discourse to analyse by using appropriate frameworks. The course was conducted

on campus in a semester of 14 weeks to third year undergraduate students. The contact hours

per week were 3 hours: 2-hour + 1-hour lecture classes. The course adopted a blended

delivery design that involved physical face-to-face contact over 14 weeks. Physical lectures

were blended with asynchronous activities (such as online quizzes and reflective journals)

and synchronous activities mainly digital group discussions conducted through WhatsApp.

The main learning resources involved a print textbook and electronic readings in PDF format

as well as readings from links to relevant websites. These learning resources were made

available to learners through the university’s Learning Management System. The use of

WhatsApp in class was an external tool for teaching and learning that was blended into

classroom teaching and learning as an online synchronous activity.

The class size was 43 students. Each WhatsApp group comprised 4-6 students. In

each group, one student took on the role of Admin and included others to form the group.

Students were free to form their groups and select their own group members. There were

eight WhatsApp groups in class. The WhatsApp group discussion was done thrice through

the semester in Week 4 (trial run), Week 8, and Week 12. Discussions in Weeks 8 and 12


were used as data. Nine group chats (five chats in Week 8 and four chats in Week 12) that

displayed the full group interaction among the students were used as data for the study.

Groups that did not submit their group interactions in full had to be excluded. This is because

the temporal and sequential nature of interaction is important when doing a discourse analysis

(van Dijk, 1997).

The WhatsApp group discussion tasks involved analysis-type questions. Students

were given short texts to analyse. When analysing the texts, they had to reflect and draw on

their knowledge of concepts (declarative knowledge) and how the concepts fit together

(structural knowledge) (Egbert, 2017). The two discussion tasks given to the students are

included in the Appendix. The course topic of both tasks was Discourse and Pragmatics.

The innovative design of the classroom group work was in the synchronous use of

WhatsApp as a medium for small group discussion among students in the classroom. The

innovation is credited to Howard and Das (2019) and adapted from them in a simpler way. In

the present study, the class lesson began with a briefing of the discussion task. Subsequently,

students went online and created their WhatsApp group discussion. A point to note is that

during the digital group discussion, members of the same WhatsApp group were not allowed

to be seated next to each other. If they were, they had to change their seating positions;

distance was needed between the members of the same group to ensure that they did not

discuss orally face-to-face. The immediate effect of this was silent group discussions in class.

The digital group discussions took approximately 15 minutes. After all groups had completed

their group discussion, all students came back together as a class for a physical whole-class

discussion with the lecturer about their answers for the task.

Data analysis involved pragmatics as the approach within discourse analysis. The unit

of analysis was a chat post. The frequency of posts was recorded to establish participation

level of each student in each group. Then, “communicative episodes” (Nair-Venugopal, 2000,

p.79) were identified and analysed for speech acts in order to establish the actions performed

by the students in their group interactions. Communicative episodes enable “the reduction of

data into analysable strips of interaction” (Nair-Venugopal, 2000, p.79). One way to identify

these episodes is by topic when there is topic opening, topic shift, or topic close (van Dijk,

1997). The CMC speech act taxonomy by Herring et al. (2005) (see Appendix) which

contains 16 speech acts was used to analyse the acts performed in the chat interactions. In

order to see how the acts were framed and linked to one another, Idea Framing by Tan (2000)

was used. Tan proposes that there are two types of idea framing: additive and reactive

framing. Additive framing occurs when two ideas have an additive link where the second is

in agreement to the first in terms of propositional content. Reactive framing occurs when two

ideas have a reactive link where the second is in contrast to the first in propositional content.

Tan’s method shows how “an idea is generated in group work in relation to the previous idea

uttered by the same speaker or a different speaker, and what other ideas does it generate in

turn” (Tan, 2000, p. 228). Tan’s framework links linguistic form (i.e. speech act) with

ideational meaning and provides a methodology to systematically analyze patterns in group

talk in order to gain insights into interaction and learning. In order to gauge learning,

Northedge’s (2003, p. 22) sociocultural perspective to learning as “continuing enhancement

ISSN: 2637-0875



of understanding through participation in communal meaning making” is used. Learning is

viewed as “a process of becoming increasingly competent as a participant within the relevant

knowledge community” (Northedge, 2003, p.22). Learning is understood as a process of

growing competence, both individually and collectively, through shared ways of talking and

establishing meaning in groups.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In this section, the findings of the study and discussion of the findings are presented.

Frequency of posts

Table 1 shows the frequency of posts by group and student. The posts in each group

discussion ranged from 50-100 posts. Each student posted an average of 17.4 posts per group

discussion. The frequency of posts shows that WhatsApp can help promote inclusion and

participation in group discussion. Although some students spoke more (for instance Student 1

in Group 3 with 47 posts) and others interacted less (such as Student 6 in Group 5 with 5

posts), all students, nevertheless, were included and participated in the group discussions.

Those who interacted less may have been reticent, reserved and withdrawn in their

communication. It shows that in WhatsApp chat interactions, as in face-to-face interactions,

group dynamics may be similar in the sense that there is unequal participation among

speakers. Nonetheless, the online medium provided all learners equal opportunity to

participate in the interactions. The students who interacted less in the chats of the present

study were interviewed and some of them revealed that by contributing they were afraid that

they may disrupt the flow of the discussion and therefore preferred to hold back rather than

join in. They revealed that they were unsure how to penetrate the chats especially when

interaction had advanced. Some students also expressed that making an argument in writing

was not the same as doing it orally and this created confusion in their minds as to how to

participate. They said that they had a lot of things to say but by the time they thought of how

to say what they wanted to say and type them out, the discussion had moved on. Howard and

Das (2019) raised this similar issue of how WhatsApp may advantage fast typists who could

put up a post faster and thereby make a point sooner while slow typists who may have had the

same idea or insight may still be typing out a point. The change in modality of group

discussion from speaking to writing may have resulted in the use of different skill sets and

this may have impacted on the low frequency of posts amongst students.

Wuttke (2012) notes that when discussing in groups not all students are able to

participate in high quality discussions. She explains that some students may not understand

why their talk should involve argumentation and that such talk can help them and others to

learn and develop. She notes that argumentation in group talk can in fact be taught and such

training may be useful for students especially when tasks are complex. The findings show

that such training may be useful as means to address not only reticence but also other factors

that can hinder students’ communication like creating valid points in writing or text messages

and using interaction strategies in text messaging to establish a turn and enter a discussion


especially when talk on a topic had advanced. It is hoped with training and in time with more

practice and exposure, students especially those who interacted less in the group chats would

be able to improve their skills and performance in virtual group discussions. The next section

discusses the qualitative findings of the analysis.

Table 1 Frequency of posts by group and student

Student Group

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 32 36 47 32 26 23 17 24 17 2 23 24 22 24 19 18 17 13 12 3 22 21 17 20 17 16 14 12 11 4 19 19 9 14 16 16 11 9 9 5 17 7 9 11 12 9 7 6 9 5

Total 113 107 104 101 99 87 66 58 49

Speech acts and learning

Thirty types of speech acts were found in the interactions. They are listed in Table 2

and categorized by frame type. Thirteen speech acts were of the additive frame and three

were of the reactive frame. Fourteen speech acts were management in nature; a management

frame was created to classify these acts. The literature on interaction management notes that

acts in talk can be categorized into two types, “substantive and management” (Weiner &

Goodenough, 1977, p. 216). Substantive acts make up the subject matter or topics of talk

while management acts add nothing new to the subject matter of talk. Management acts serve

to segment the subject matter of talk into manageable chunks. They set off one subject matter

from another. These acts occur at the opening or closing of the talk and at boundaries

between substantive topics within talk. McLaughlin (1984, p. 137) states:

management acts serve as means by which parties provide one another with

‘benchmarks’ so that they know where they have been, conversationally, and also

where they are going. Management moves are a significant way in which

conversational partners instruct one another in how to treat what has gone before, and

how to proceed in subsequent talk.

Bygate (1987, p. 36) explains that “interaction management” involves “agenda

management and turn-taking”. Agenda management refers to control over the choice of topic

and the ways in which topics are opened, maintained, developed and closed in interaction

while turn-taking refers to who speaks in interaction and for how long. In sum, interaction is

locally managed by participants through management acts and devices that serve to set off

sections of talk into manageable chunks and enable participants to instruct one another in

where they have been and where they are going in the achievement of the interaction goal.

With this understanding of interaction management, a management frame was established

and fourteen speech acts were classified within it.

ISSN: 2637-0875



Table 2 Speech acts in the group discussions

Additive Idea Frame Reactive Idea Frame Management Frame

Suggesting

Informing

Adding

Explaining

Expanding

Paraphrasing

Defining

Asserting

Clarifying

Inquiring

Requesting for Clarification

Requesting for Confirmation

Agreeing

Disagreeing

Contradicting

Counter-suggesting

Initiating chat

Initiating a topic

Shifting to new topic

Maintaining talk on a topic

Summarising / Concluding

Repairing misunderstanding

Ignoring a contribution (to

move on with task)

Sharing / Referring to docs

Complimenting

Thanking

Apologising

Requesting for a turn

Calling for participation

Closing chat

The students’ group interactions involved mainly the additive frame; the speech acts

performed resulted in addition of information. Although the reactive frame was used, it was

not frequent; students seldom disagreed with each other. When they chatted, they often added

on to one another through a variety of speech acts that built on each other’s previous

contributions until they established a common understanding of the topic. The students used

one another as resources and made sense of the course content together based on their own

knowledge and experiences. They pooled their knowledge and helped one another figure out

the concepts, theories and issues. They made meaning and built knowledge together by

exploring and negotiating ideas. They displayed peer scaffolding and performed exploratory

talk (Mercer, 1995). Mercer (1995) describes this type of talk as being characterised by

proposals, counter-proposals, justifications, explanations, elaborations and agreements.

The learning that occurred can be described to be cumulative in nature. Students co-

constructed knowledge and understanding of the topic by binding and synthesizing their

knowledge together. They added on to each other’s contribution until a common

understanding of the topic was reached. Building common knowledge together through

exploratory talk is the type of learning and communication pattern that occurred in the

synchronous WhatsApp group discussions. Examples are presented below to illustrate these

findings.

Data Example 1

Data Example 1 (See Appendix) is an extract of interaction from Group 5, comprising

six members, Liu, Aish, Mooi, Bac, Siti, and Za. All participants are female. They were on

Discussion Task 2. The students were discussing speech function of the utterance in Line 3

of Discussion Task 2. Liu suggests that the function of the utterance is “to explain and

inform” (Post 1). However, Liu’s suggestion is met with disagreement from Aish (Post 2).


This disagreement is expressed indirectly as a counter-suggestion and thus labelled as a

reactive frame. Subsequently, Aish adds to her own answer noting that the utterance is a FTA

(face threatening act) (Post 3). Her addition is labelled as additive frame. The other members

of the talk, Mooi, Bac and Siti, consequently agree with Aish (see Post 4 by Mooi “Yes line 3

has fta”, Post 5 by Bac “Ya”, Post 6 by Siti “Agree”). Following agreement, their subsequent

acts show that they collectively attempt to strengthen their understanding. Their acts are

additive in nature and involve explaining and paraphrasing (e.g., Post 7 by Mooi “because of

the direct refusal made”, Post 9 by Bac “direct refusal with reasoning”, Post 10 by Mooi “He

tried to reason it by explaining it”, and Post 11 by Siti “It has FTA but he gave reasons after

that”). They built on each other’s contribution. Then, Za joins the conversation and adds to

the idea being discussed. In Post 13, she expands the idea by providing an explanation that

further elaborates the idea. She says, “‘Some valuable things there’ acts as explaining”. Her

utterance is also additive in nature. The learners reach agreement about the answer to the task

question assigned. Liu implicitly agrees with her group members when she attempts a topic

change to line 4 (in Post 12). However, Liu’s attempt to move to line 4 is not received by the

other members. This is probably because they are not yet ready to relinquish the present

topic. Liu also wrongly refers to line 4 as line 3.

Siti expands the discussion on line 3 to include politeness as a new topic. She makes

an inquiry “Is the reasoning considered politeness?” (Post 16). The talk then moves into

politeness as the new topic. Bac agrees with Siti that the utterance is politeness and clarifies

her agreement with reason and reference to page number of the textbook as support. She says

“Reasoning is explaining. It’s positive politeness yea, 13 in book.” (Post 17). Bac’s utterance

is additive in nature to Siti’s. Consequently, Za agrees with Bac (Post 19) with a confirmation

“Positive politeness, yes”. Za’s utterance is also additive in nature.

The talk is characterised by suggestion, counter-suggestion that is justified, clarified

and explained, agreement and confirmation. There is critical and constructive engagement

with each other’s utterances. The students build and add on positively and critically on one

another’s utterances. They draw on their own knowledge and tie in with each other’s points

of view. All members contribute to the discussion and their opinions and ideas are considered

by one another and discussed together. Their talk is characteristic of “exploratory talk”

(Mercer, 1995, p. 104-105). According to Mercer (1995), exploratory talk is characterised by

talk where the views of all participants involved are sought and critically considered;

proposals, disagreements, agreements, requests for clarification, justifications, explanations,

reasons, decisions and actions are involved in the talk.

The extract in Data Example 1 also contains an element of miscommunication that is

repaired by the members. In repairing the miscommunication, members display cooperation.

They maintain their affiliation as group members and sustain alignment to the task at hand.

Cooperation involves alignment and affiliation (Stivers et al., 2011). Alignment is understood

as structural level of cooperation and it is seen through actions that facilitate the progression

of an activity. Affiliation, on the other hand, is affective level of cooperation and it is seen

through pro-social behaviour such as showing empathy, humor and solidarity in interaction.

ISSN: 2637-0875



In repairing the misunderstanding in Data Example 1, the group members display

receptiveness to one another’s contributions and show interactional management skills. They

notice an inconsistency and mistake and work to organise their ideas. Za responds to Liu’s

mistake in referring to line 4 as line 3. She repairs the mistake but hedges and ends her

utterance with a question mark. She says, “I think it’s line 4?” (Post 15). The hedge “I think”

and the use of the question mark function as politeness efforts to soften the repair. Aish

supports Za in repairing the mistake when she asserts the group’s agreed-upon answer for line

3 (in Post 18, she says, “the line 3 is just refusal I think”). She too uses the hedge “I think”

showing efforts for solidarity. Mooi agrees with Aish about the answer for line 3 (in Post 20

she says, “Yea agreed”). Mooi then explicitly repairs the mistake in Post 22. She says “I think

you are referring to line number 4”. In Post 23, Bac subsequently initiates a topic change

explicitly in a bid to put an end to the misunderstanding and to move on to the next topic of

discussion (which is about line 4 in the Discussion Task). She says “Well, can we proceed to

line 4?” and posts a smiley icon that mitigates the topic change (Post 23). This topic change is

explicitly agreed to by Liu (Post 24, “Yes”), Mooi (Post 25, “yea sure”) and Za (Post 26,

“lets”). Bac compliments their approach when she says “I like this step by step” and posts a

heart-shaped icon (Post 27). Her compliment provides some humour and solidarity to the

group dynamics. The repair of the misunderstanding and the movement from one topic to

another (that is from “line 3” to “line 4” as separate topics) constitute interactional

management of the discussion. The boundaries between the topics discussed became clear

and the misunderstanding that took place was repaired amicably. The group-maintained

affiliation among themselves and they sustained their alignment with the task at hand. The

speech acts involved in the management of the misunderstanding are labelled as management

frame and the acts show how the group members cooperated with one another during the

discussion.

Data Example 2

In Data Example 2 (See Appendix), the students were on Discussion Task 1. The

group members were from Group 5, comprising four members, Stab, Park and Jasy (females)

and Tyori (male). They were discussing the speech act of request. Stab’s view is that request

is an act that conveys negative politeness. She says “Requesting is a negative politeness”

(Post 1). Tyori’s inquiring response, “Really?” (Post 2) could be interpreted as a display of

ignorance. It displays affiliation towards Stab and can be seen as an implicit request for

elaboration; it is thus labelled as additive. Stab goes on to explain that request addresses

negative face. She says in Post 3, “If I’m not mistaken, it is a negative face”, which serves to

explain her opinion that request displays negative politeness. Almost immediately, however,

Stab takes on a reactive stance and contradicts herself with “or maybe not” (Post 4) showing

that she is unsure of her answer. Jasy steps in and provides relevant information by citing the

textbook as a source to help solve the problem. She says, “In the textbook it says to question,

hedge is negative” (Post 5) and she goes on to invite responses from other members (Post 6).

This is labelled as a management act as it helps steer the direction of the talk towards

reaching a solution. Park then joins the discussion and suggests that requesting displays

positive politeness and she supports her opinion with a reason (Post 7, “I think requesting is


positive because she’s showing want and needs”). Since Park’s opinion is in opposition to

Stab’s, it is labelled as a reactive frame. Stab subsequently agrees with Park (Post 8, “Yeah it

is”) and goes on to explain her agreement (Post 10, “Because she is asking for help therefore

encroaching”). Stab’s response to Park is additive in nature. She then draws the group

members to the textbook (Post 12, “Look at the negative politeness strategy 4”) as reference

for the group to use to analyse the utterance being studied. The reference to the textbook is

labelled as a management move since it is an attempt to direct everyone’s attention to the

textbook as a means to steer the conversation towards an answer. Jasy subsequently states

that the request act minimises imposition (Post 13). She probably draws from the textbook

and her own understanding in making this statement. Stab posts a picture of the textbook

material that she was drawing everyone’s attention to (Post 14) and makes an inquiry, “isn’t

that the same?” (Post 15), requesting for clarification and inviting responses from her group

members. Consequently, Park hypothesizes and puts forward her understanding of the topic

discussed. She explains her reasons for negative politeness being a suitable answer. She says,

in Posts 16-18, “It’s like to give a choice for the speaker b whether to pick her or not. To save

her own face. It’s not like she directly ask speaker B can you pick me up in the train

station?”. Tyori, who has been quiet since his Post 2, finally joins the interaction again and

concludes that both the speech acts discussed display negative politeness (in Posts 19-20, he

says, “Based on this..I think both is negative..And the 1st is direct. 2nd is indirect”). His posts

close the topic on politeness and initiate a new component to the discussion, i.e. directness of

speech act. He suggests that the first act is direct while the second one is indirect.

Tyori’s new topic initiation is immediately taken up by the members. Stab makes a

reactive move in Post 20 and contradicts Tyori that the first speech act is direct

(“Owhhhhhhhh. But here also it’s indirectly asking”). The elongation of the expression

(Owh) can be seen as an effort to mitigate her disagreement and maintain solidarity with her

group members. She uses the textbook picture as support to back up her answer. Park,

however, agrees with Tyori and explains her view. In Post 21, she says, “I think speaker A is

direct asking because she asked B for help directly”. Her move is additive to Tyori but

reactive to Stab. In response, Stab posts a screenshot of a reference from an internet source

drawing her group members to the information (Post 22). This can be seen as further attempt

to support her view that the speech act discussed is indirect. She goes on to assert that request

is an act that displays negative politeness (Post 23). Jasy agrees; her statement in Post 25

conveys agreement that both the speech acts display negative politeness as they serve to save

each other’s negative face. Tyori, Stab and Park, subsequently, all agree with Jasy (Posts 26-

28). The subtopic about directness of speech act is then dropped by all members, showing

alignment with one another to not pursue the discussion on this subtopic. Subsequently, Park

initiates a move to proceed to the next question in the Discussion Task (Post 29).

The talk in Data Example 2 was exploratory in nature; argumentation comprising

suggestions, counter-suggestions, justifications, explanations and agreements were evidenced

in the interaction. All the members of the group were critically and constructively engaged

with one another’s ideas. The points of view put forward show that they notice gaps in

knowledge among themselves. They made attempts to draw on their existing knowledge

ISSN: 2637-0875



(including using textbook and web readings), organise the information they have, and test and

hypothesise in order to reach a common understanding of the subject matter discussed. In

joint effort, the individuals tried to connect knowledge gaps among themselves with their

own pre-existing knowledge until they created common ground that they were satisfied with.

Their acts also showed their cooperative efforts to maintain group solidarity and to be in

alignment to the task questions given to them.

Summary

Peer scaffolding was evidenced in both the data examples illustrated above. The

discussions were exploratory in nature. Ideas were presented, considered and discussed by the

group through additive acts, reactive acts and management acts. Additive and reactive acts

were used in formulation and reformulation of ideas in the form of suggestions and counter-

suggestions that led to argumentation until a common ground was achieved by the members

of the group. Management acts were used to navigate and steer the interaction towards an

end. All learners within each group had the opportunity to tie in their existing knowledge to

the ideas discussed. When their views were less successful, met with opposition or were

unclear to their group members, they clarified, paraphrased and reformulated their

explanation in different ways in order to convey their meanings more effectively. They

resorted to page reference of the course textbook and used alternative symbolic

representations of material such as screenshots and camera images of textbook and internet

sources that are afforded by WhatsApp as the medium for the discussion. In this way, peer

scaffolding was evidenced in the interactions. They helped themselves and each other

expand, improve, solidify and strengthen their understanding of the content matter. In this

way, the group functioned as a resource for student learning. The sociocultural view to

learning as continuous enhancement of understanding and growing competence, both

individually and collectively, through shared ways of talking and meaning making is

evidenced in the data of the study. With regard to learner autonomy, it manifested in the

group discussions when each individual student took the initiative to contribute to resolve the

tasks assigned, discuss the resultant topics, subtopics and issues that arose, monitor and

evaluate each other’s contribution in relation to the task assigned, and make efforts to

cooperate and get along amicably with their group members during the interactions despite

the stresses and strains that arose during the group talk.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The aim of this study was in improving learner inclusion in group talk through the use

of synchronous WhatsApp group discussion as an activity and in investigating how this

method could support learner autonomy and encourage learning. The findings of the study

show that the method has the capacity to improve learner inclusion in group talk, support

learner autonomy and group learning. With regard to learner autonomy, students participated

critically and constructively in giving their own ideas and in responding to ideas of group

members. Peer scaffolding and exploratory talk were evidenced in the group talk that

encouraged a cumulative nature to content learning. The exploratory nature of the group talk

also promoted practice of communication skills especially the various types of speech acts for


discussion. Synchronous WhatsApp group discussion shows good potential in advancing the

goals for global sustainability in the futures of education.

It is suggested that future research work on the use of synchronous WhatsApp group

discussion improve the aspect of equity especially with task design and group design to

robustly address diversity of learners in class such as learners with different personality types,

proficiency levels, gender, social class, nationality, ethnicity and other learner variables that

can impact on interaction and learning. It is also important to look into the aspect of

assessment of learner performance in online group discussions. The findings imply that the

grading system for group talk should reward skills that display autonomy or initiative,

cooperation, inclusion and community building. The value of synchronous WhatsApp group

discussion as an activity for organisational workplace training is also a possibility that is

worth considering especially for coping with situations that are characterised as volatile,

uncertain, complex and ambiguous such as that evidenced in the sudden change to online

education and training that many organisations adopted in order to ensure continuity of staff

training and development in 2020 and 2021 during the covid-19 lockdown. It is emphasised

in the vision for the futures of education that in the post covid-19 world, future generations

will need to learn and practise new collaborative skills for work and communication such as

resilience, stress tolerance and flexibility (Arvanitis et al., 2021). Therefore, there may be a

strong role for virtual group discussion in the future workplace, and the need for innovative

ways in using WhatsApp Messenger and other mobile instant messaging apps for developing

and training students and the current workforce with the skills needed for the envisioned

future is certain.

REFERENCES

Alakrash, H., Abdul Razak, N., & Krish, P. (2021). Social network sites in learning English:

An investigation on attitudes, digital literacy and usage. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 1, 26-43.

Andujar, A. (2016). Benefits of mobile instant messaging to develop ESL writing. System, 62

(2016), 63-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.07.004

Arvanitis, E., Bauer, M., Covarrugias Vengas, B., Crameri, A., D’Amato, G., Davione, E.,

Farrar, J., Glaveanu, V., Grunenfelder, R., Hassi, A., Lambelet, A., Lezou Koffi, A., Ogay,

T., Pechr, J., Saudelli, M.G., Schaerli-Lim, S., Shaules, J., Spencer-Oatey, H., Stalder, P.,

Touhami, A., Zittoun, T. (2021). Futures of Education: Learning to Become. How should

what we learn, how we learn, and where we learn change in the future? A Sietar Switzerland

contribution to UNESCO’s futures of education initiative.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/351081897

Barhoumi, C. (2015). The effectiveness of WhatsApp mobile learning activities guided by

Activity Theory on students’ knowledge management. Contemporary Educational

Technology, 6(3), 221-238.

Barnes, D. & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. Routledge &

Kegan Paul Ltd.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.07.004

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/351081897

ISSN: 2637-0875



Batawi, G.H. (2019). WhatsApp as a tool for meaning negotiation: The use of web-enabled

phones to consolidate vocabulary learning among university students in Saudi Arabia

[Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Faculty of Art and Humanities, University of Southampton.

Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Longman.

Benson, P. & Cooker, L. (2013). The social and the individual in Applied Linguistics

research. In P. Benson & L. Cooker (Eds.), The applied linguistic individual: Sociocultural

approaches to identity, agency and autonomy (pp.1-16). Equinox.

Burdett, J. (2003). Making groups work: University students’ perceptions. International

Education Journal, 4(3), 177-191.

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

Darmi, R. & Albion, P. (2017). Enhancing oral communication skills using mobile phones

among undergraduate English language learners in Malaysia. In A. Murphy., H. Farley., L.

Dyson. & H. Jones (Eds.), Mobile learning in higher education in the Asia-Pacific region.

Education in the Asia-Pacific region: Issues, concerns and prospects, Vol 40 (pp. 1-13).

Springer.

Davies, W.M. (2009). Group work as a form of assessment: Common problems and

recommended solutions. Higher Education, 58, 563-584.

Egbert, J. (2017). Methods of educational technology: Principles, practice and tools. Press

Books.

Gazit, T. & Aharony, N. (2018). Factors explaining participation in WhatsApp groups: An

exploratory study. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 1-24.

https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2018-0053

Haque, M.S. & Wok, S. (2020). The mediating effect of attitude on the relationships between

WhatsApp usage, knowledge, and behavioral impact. International Journal of Law,

Government and Communication, 5(21), 160-181. https://doi.org/10.35631/IJLGC.5210012

Howard, C.D. & Das, A. (2019). Designing competitive discussions for equity and inclusion.

International Journal of Designs for Learning, 10(1), 1-13.

https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v10i1.24670

Herring, S.C., Das, A., & Penumarthy, S. (2005). CMC act taxanomy.

http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/cmc.acts.html

Imani, A., Habil, H. & Akbarpour Tehrani, I. (2011). Peer feedback and learner autonomy in

a teacher-less asynchronous environment. In Wan Fara Adlina Wan Mansor (Ed.), Research

in online language teaching and learning (pp. 108-128). UTM Publishers.

Johnson, D. & Johnson, F. (2014). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Pearson

Education Limited.

https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2018-0053

https://doi.org/10.35631/IJLGC.5210012

https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v10i1.24670

http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/herring/cmc.acts.html


Justicz, N., Dusseldorp, J.R., Fuller, J.C., Leandre, M., Jean-Gilles, P.M., Kim, J., Hadlock,

T., & Cheney, M. (2019). Using mobile text and media to complement teaching in a facial

reconstruction training module in Haiti. Journal of Surgical Education, 76(3), 762-770.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.09.015

La Hanisi, A., Risdiany, R., Dwi Utami, Y., & Sulisworo, D. (2018). The use of WhatsApp in

collaborative learning to improve English teaching and learning process. International

Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 7(1), 29-35.

http://doi.org/10.5861/ijrset.2018.3004

McLaughlin, M.L. (1984). How talk is organized. Sage Publications.

Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and

learners. Multilingual Matters.

Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2019). Second language learning theories.

Routledge.

Mohd Omar, N.A., Azmi, N.J. & Ahmad Sani, N. (2020). Is WhatsApp the future of

workplace communication?: Investigating the use of WhatsApp in decision-making episodes.

Journal of Nusantara Studies, 5(1), 414-442.

http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol5iss1pp414-442

Mohd Yusoff, N.M. (2018). Understanding the synergies between Malaysian multilingual

students’ languages and literacy practices in and out-of-school: A multi-sited linguistic

ethnography [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. University of Sussex.

Nair-Venugopal, S. (2000). Language choice and communication in Malaysian business.

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Press.

Northedge, A. (2010). Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher

Education, 8(1), 17-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000052302

Paulus, T.M. (2009). Online but off-topic: Negotiating common ground in small learning

groups. Instructional Science, 37, 227-245. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9042-5

Raiman, L., Antbring, R., & Mahmood, A. (2017). WhatsApp messenger as a tool to

supplement medical education for medical students on clinical attachment. BMC Medical

Education, 17(7), 1-9. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0855-x

Robinson, L., Behi, O., Corcoran, A., Cowley, V., Cullinane, J., Martin, I., & Tomkinson, D.

(2015). Evaluation of WhatsApp for promoting social presence in a first year undergraduate

radiography problem-based learning group. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation

Sciences, 46(2015), 280-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2015.06.007

So, S. (2016). Mobile instant messaging support for teaching and learning in higher

education. Internet and Higher Education, 31(2016), 32-42.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.06.001

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.09.015

http://doi.org/10.5861/ijrset.2018.3004

http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol5iss1pp414-442

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000052302

http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9042-5

http://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0855-x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2015.06.007

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.06.001

ISSN: 2637-0875



Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social

interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig. (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in

conversation (pp. 3-24). Cambridge University Press.

Tan, B.T. (2000). Multi-dimensionality of idea framing in group work in academic settings.

Language and Education, 14(4), 223-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500780008666791

Tang, Y. & Hew, K.F. (2017). Is mobile instant messaging (MIM) useful in education?

Examining its technological, pedagogical, and social affordances. Educational Research

Review, 21(2017), 85-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.05.001

Ujakpa, M.M., Heukelman, D., Lazarus, V.K., Neiss, P., & Rukanda, G.D. (2018). Using

WhatsApp to support communication in teaching and learning. In P. Cunningham & M.

Cunningham (Eds.), IST-Africa 2018 Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-6). IIMC International

Information Management Corporation. www.IST-Africa.org/Conference2018

Urien, B., Erro-Garces, A., & Osca, A. (2019). WhatsApp usefulness as a communication

tool in an educational context. Education and Information Technologies, 1-18.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-109-09876-5

van Dijk, T. (1997). The study of discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure

and process (pp. 1-34). Sage Publications.

Veerappan, V., Hui, S.W., Siew, P.W. & Paramasivam, S. (2014). Mobile assisted teaching

and learning in an institute of higher education. International Review of Social Sciences and

Humanities, 8(1), 68-79.

Weiner, S.L. & Goodenough, D.R. (1977). A move toward a psychology of conversation. In

R.O. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 213-225). Ablex

Publishing.

WhatsApp. (2021, June 23). In Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp

Willemse, J.J., Jooste, K., & Bozalek, V. (2018). Experiences of undergraduate nursing

students on an authentic mobile learning enactment at a higher education institution in South

Africa. Nurse Education Today, 74 (2019), 69-75. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.11.021

Wuttke, E. (2012). Silence is silver, talk is gold? Analysis of classroom talk in a learner

centred setting. In E. Hjorne, G. Aalsvoort & G. Abreu. (Eds.), Learning, social interaction

and diversity – Exploring identities in school practices (pp. 103-117). Sense Publishers.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500780008666791

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.05.001

http://www.ist-africa.org/Conference2018

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-109-09876-5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.11.021


APPENDIX Discussion Task 1 In the dialogue between Steph and Mel, discuss:

1. What speech functions are performed by the participants?

2. Are they direct or indirect?

3. How are face and politeness addressed by the participants?

Dialogue:

Mel (A): Hi, Steph, I’m at the Serdang train station. Do you think you could possibly come pick me up?

Steph (B): Hi Mel, I have a lecture in 5 minutes. Sorry.

Discussion Task 2 Watch the YouTube Movie Clip assigned. It is taken from the movie “Flipped”.

Then, analyse the dialogue for speech functions and politeness.

1. What speech functions are performed?

2. Which speech functions are direct?

3. Which speech functions are indirect?

4. How is politeness exercised in the FTAs?

Dialogue:

1 Father of Boy: What are you doing?

2 Girl: Don’t you want some help?

3Father of Boy: Nope. Some valuable things in there

4 Girl: How about this one?

5 Father of Boy: No no no. Why don’t you run along home? Your mother is probably wondering where you are.

6 Girl: Oh no. My mum knows where I am. She said it’s fine.

ISSN: 2637-0875



Data Example 1


Data Example 2

CHATTING TO LEARN IN SYNCHRONOUS WHATSAPP GROUP …

Documents

Transcript of CHATTING TO LEARN IN SYNCHRONOUS WHATSAPP GROUP …