پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 938 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,697 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,623,430 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,986,148 |
بررسی آگاهی فراگیران ایرانی زبان انگلیسی نسبت به مفهوم شهروندی دیجیتال و بهکارگیری آن: پژوهش قومنگارانه در فضای اینترنت | ||
| زبان پژوهی | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 12، شماره 36، آذر 1399، صفحه 385-414 اصل مقاله (641.14 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2020.32074.1887 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| خدیجه کریمی علویجه* 1؛ عاطفه عبدالهی2 | ||
| 1دکتری تخصصی آموزش زبان انگلیسی، استادیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، عضو هیأت علمی دانشگاه الزهرا | ||
| 2کارشناسی ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه الزهرا | ||
| چکیده | ||
| سرعت فزایندة پیشرفتِ فناوری و بهکارگیریِ روزافزونِ خدمات و ابزار اینترنتی در برنامههای آموزشی، شبکههای اجتماعی، خدمات شهری و مانند آنها، آشنایی با روشهای درستِ بهکارگیری فناوری را به نیازی بنیادین تبدیل نمودهاست. در این میان، آگاهی از مفهومِ فرانوینِ شهروندی دیجیتال، برای همة کاربران فضاهای مجازی، به ویژه فراگیران زبانهای خارجی که در مواجهة با بیناکنشِ سایبری با گویشوران سایر زبانها هستند، بسیار ضروری به نظر میرسد. شهروندی دیجیتال، به معنای بنیادهای رفتاری مناسب و مسئولانه در بهکارگیری فناوری است که با مفاهیمی چون دغدغههای اخلاقی، بهرهگیری کارآمد از فناوری و آموزشهای مرتبط با آن سر و کار دارد. از این جهت، شهروندی دیجیتال از بایستههای آموزش فناورانه به شمار میآید، اما هنوز مورد توجه و پژوهشِ بسنده قرار نگرفتهاست. در این راستا، پژوهش حاضر برای بررسی میزانِ آگاهیِ فراگیرانِ زبان انگلیسی ایرانی، از بنیادهای شهروندی دیجیتال و بهکارگیری آن با روش قومنگاری اینترنتی (نتنوگرافی) انجام شدهاست. به این منظور، سه گروه دانشآموزی که در پیامرسان اجتماعی تلگرام به وسیلة فراگیران زبان انگلیسی برای هدفهای آموزشی ایجاد شدهاند، مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند. برای گردآوری داده از دو روش مشاهدة گروههای تلگرامی همراه با عضویت یکی از پژوهشگران در گروهها و مصاحبه با اعضای گروه بهره گرفته شد. به طور کلی، هفتصد صفحة نمایش از دادهها در یکسال گردآوری شد و ده نفر از فراگیران مورد مصاحبه قرار گرفتند. بر پایة رویکرد نظریه زمینه و با کمک روش تحلیل کیفی داده، دادههای بهدستآمده از مشاهدات گروههای تلگرامی و مصاحبهها در چندین مرحله شمارهگذاری و موضوعبندی شدند. سپس، الگوهای بهدستآمده در قالب موضوعهای اصلی و فرعی گوناگون گروهبندی گردیدند. یافتههای بهدستآمده از تحلیل دادهها نمایانگر آن بود که زبانآموزان ایرانی، با وجود بهرهگیری بسیار از شبکههای اجتماعی، از هنجارهای شهروندی دیجیتال آگاهی چندانی ندارند. آنها در بهکارگیری درستِ امکانات مجازی دچار اشتباه و رفتار ناپسند میشوند. یافتههای پژوهش، توجه سرپرستانِ آموزشِ زبان انگلیسی را به بایستگیِ آموزش اصول و هنجارهای شهروندی دیجیتال به فراگیران زبان انگلیسی کشاند تا فضای مجازی هوشیارانه بهکارگرفته شوند و از پیامدهای ناپسند و ناگواریهای محیطهای مجازی، در امان باشند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| شهروندی دیجیتال؛ فضای مجازی؛ آموزش زبان انگلیسی؛ پژوهش قومنگارانه در فضای اینترنت؛ تحلیل محتوای کیفی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Digital Citizenship Perceptions and Practices among Iranian EFL Learners: A Netnographic Inquiry | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Khadijeh Karimi Alavijeh1؛ Atefeh Abdollahi2 | ||
| 1Doctor of English Language Teaching, Assistant Professor of English Language Department, Faculty Member of Al-Zahra University | ||
| 2Master of English Language Teaching, Department of English, Al-Zahra University | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| With the accelerating pace of technological enhancements such as high-speed Web services, smartphones, high-tech apps, and social networking sites, appropriate and effective methods of applying technology is an urgent need. This need is more imperative in EFL/ESL contexts since a large amount of education relies on digital sources. One way to address this need, is through introducing to the field the postmodern concept of digital citizenship which can briefly be defined as the principles of responsible and appropriate behavior in applying technology. Since Iranian EFL learners are involved in using technology more than ever before, this study aimed to investigate how they perceive and practice digital citizenship. This was carried out through a netnogrphic inquiry in the context of a social networking site, called Telegram. The participants comprised 1126 female and male Iranian learners who were members of three Telegram groups. They were within an age range of 15 to 22, and from a variety of ethnicities and proficiency levels. There were two main sources of data, including Telegram group participant observations and interviews. Through the netnographic observations, about 700 screen pages of text chats were collected. Moreover, the transcripts of voice files exchanged in Telegram groups, along with research field notes and memos obtained through observations over a period of one year were added. To address triangulation, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 EFL learners from the investigated groups. Inspired by Ribble’s (2001) digital citizenship model, these interviews helped the researchers scrutinize into aspects of the research which could not be traced through observations alone. Accordingly, Ribbles’ components including digital etiquette, access, law, communication, literacy, commerce, rights and responsibilities, health and wellness, and safety and security, were used as a tentative benchmark for designing interview guiding questions, to probe deeply into the issues which had proved to need more clarifications in the course of observations. While conducting the interviews, we learnt about some points which had been left unnoticed in the observations; they made up the emerging questions which helped us enrich our findings. Since data collection procedure led to obtaining a huge body of data, for manageability reasons, only textual data were used for analysis, and other types of data such as images, videos and emojis were excluded from our analysis. Relying on grounded theory and adopting qualitative content analysis, the obtained data were probed through the initial, axial and focused coding procedures, and emerging patterns were classified into various themes and subthemes. Ultimately, the themes extracted from the observations were decided to be: incongruence with netiquette, misconducts in academic settings, and redundant posts. Similarly, the main themes derived out of the in-depth interviews included proper application of digital technology, effective application of digital technology and demand for digital citizenship education. In all, the analysis of the entire data suggests that Iranian EFL learners are not well aware of the rules, regularities and norms of digital citizenship in spite of their wide use of digital technologies. In fact, the illusion of absolute freedom and the possibility of being anonymous on the Web were among the main reasons for assuming fake personalities, and behaving improperly when on the Web. More instances of their insufficient control of the topic included their lack of recognition of reliable and safe sources from fake and unreliable ones. They were unaware of cyber safety and security issues, and felt helpless in case of being threatened by/exposed to cyberbullying, hacking and cyber fraud. So far as language usage was concerned, they often used colloquial, harsh, sarcastic or disrespectful language which did not suit the digital context of formal, academic groups. Moreover, sending posts which included trivial requests, illegal debates, disappointing issues, and redundant or irrelevant topics__usually in incorrect spelling__ was among their chief misconducts. These findings highlight the need for teaching digital citizenship skills right from the early ages of schooling__ rather than offering limited education of digital literacy at high schools__ to keep learners safe from the threats of digital settings, and enable them to make proper, effective and responsible use of digital technologies. The findings of the present study can be useful for policy makers, ELT professionals, curriculum developers, English teachers, learners and parents. Accordingly the implementation of relevant programs into the mainstream and EFL education, and in the development of related curricula, as well as in computer assisted language leaning (CALL) and teacher education programs is highly recommend. The findings also helps teachers promote their self-awareness and appreciate the need for raising their students' digital awareness in order to become technologically literate and ethically responsible users, resisting negative consequences and hazardous risks of digital environments. Moreover, since the contemporary models of digital citizenship are rooted in foreign cultures with their particular economic, political and social policies and priorities, developing local models of digital citizenship is urgently called for. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Digital Citizenship, Virtual Setting, English Language Teaching, Netnography, Qualitative Content Analysis | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
کوهستانینژاد طاری، آذردخت، زهرا اباذری و زهره میرحسینی (1397). «سواد فناوری معلمان در سند برنامهریزی آموزش و پرورش حوزه تربیت و یادگیری کار و فناوری». فناوری آموزش. شمارة 12. دورة 3. صص 237-248. عمادی، سیدرسول، امیررضا وکیلیفرد و یونس فرخنده (1397). «تأثیر آموزش به شیوه ترکیبی بر خلاقیت، انگیزش و یادگیری فارسیآموزان غیرایرانی». زبانپژوهی. شمارة 10. دورة 28. صص 219-241. هومانفرد، محمدحامد و محمد رحیمی (1398). «مقایسه تأثیر بازخورد برخط معلم و همتایان بر بهبود کیفیت نگارش فراگیران ایرانی زبان انگلیسی». زبانپژوهی. شمارة 11. دورة 33 . صص 327-352. References
Alvermann, D. E., & Hagood, M. C. (2000). Critical media literacy: research, theory and practice in “new times.” Journal of Educational Research, 93, 193-205.
Ashmeade, L. (2016). Study of the impact of certified staff perception of digital citizenship upon teacher professional development (PhD dissertation), Texas A & M University, Texas, USA. Retrieved from https://0-search-proquest com.library.acaweb.org/-docview/1885003574?accountid=9900.
Assumpcao, C. & Sleiman, C. (2011). Digital citizenship: a course on safe, ethical and legal Internet practices in a Brazilian middle and high school. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 309-315). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Baily, G. D., & Ribble, M. S. (2007). Teaching digital citizenship: when will it become a priority for 21st century schools. School Business Affairs, 71(3), 11-14.
Bennett, L., & Fessenden, J. (2006). Citizenship through online communication. Social Education, 70(3), 144-147.
Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2003). Digital literacy for effective citizenship. Social Education, 67(3), 164-167.
Boyle III, C. (2010). The effectiveness of a digital citizenship curriculum in an urban school (PhD Dissertation). Johnson & Wales University, Rhode Island, USA. Retrieved from https://0-search-proquest-com.library.acaweb.org/-docview/375485607?accountid=9900.
Buckingham, D. (2007). Digital media literacies: rethinking media education in the age of the Internet. Research in Comparative and International Education, 2(1), 43-55.
Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Belfer, K., & Qayyum, A. (2008). The digital learner at BCIT and implications for an e-strategy. Presented at the 2008 Research Workshop of the European Distance Education Network (EDEN) ‘‘Researching and promoting access to education and training: The role of distance education and e-learning in technology-enhanced environments”,October 20-22, Paris, France.
Burgess, M. L., Price, D. P., & Caverly, D. C. (2012). Digital literacies in multiuser virtual environments among college-level developmental readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 43(1), 13-30.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. California: SAGE.
Choi, M. (2015). Development of a scale to measure digital citizenship among young adults for democratic citizenship education (PhD dissertation), The Ohio State University, Ohio, USA.
Christensson, p. (2017). Netiquette definition. Retrieved from https://techterms.com/-definition/netiquette
Coleman, S. (2006). Digital voices and analogue citizenship: Bridging the gap between young people and the democratic process. Public policy research, 13(4), 257-261.
Davis, K., Katz, S., Santo, R., & James, C. (2010). Fostering cross-generational dialogues about the ethics of online life. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(2), 124-150.
Dede, C. (2009). Determining, developing, and assessing the capabilities of “future- ready” students. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Emadi, S. R., Vakilifard, A., & Farkhondeh, Y. (2018). Comparing the effect of traditional and blended teaching approaches on creativity, motivation, and learning of non-Iranian learners of Persian language. Journal of Language Research, 10(28), 219-241 [In Persian]
Farmer, L. (2011). Digital citizen. Retrieved from <http://ecitizenship.csla.net>
Flores, A., & James, C. (2013). Morality and ethics behind the screen: young people’s perspectives on digital life. New Media & Society, 15(6), 834-852.
Hicks, D., van Hover, S., Washington, E. Y., & Lee, J. K. (2011). Internet literacies for active citizenship and democratic life. Contemporary Social Studies: An Essential Reader, 467-491.
Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital citizenship in K-12: it takes a village. TechTrends, 55(4), 37-47.
Hoomanfard, M. H. & Rahimi, M. (2018). A Comparative study of the efficacy of teacher and peer online written corrective feedback on second language learners’ writing improvement. Journal of Language Research, 11 (33), 327-352 [In Persian].
Horvath, J. (2019). FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian (Vol. 24). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
ISTE. (2007). Iste nets.s: advancing digital age learning. Retrieved from <http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-s-standards.pdf?sfvrsn=2>.
Jensen, A. P. (2008). Beyond mediatized transmissions of youth culture: a study in digital citizenship. Youth Theatre Journal, 22(1), 94-107.
Johnová, M. (2004). The language of chat. Philologica.net: An Online Journal of Modern Philology. Retrieved from < http://philologica.net/studia/20040113000003.htm>
Jones, C. (2015). Networked learning: an educational paradigm for the age of digital networks. New York & London: Springer.
Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237-1245.
Kohestani Nejad Tari, A., Abazari, Z., & Mirhoseini, Z. (2018). Teachers’ technology literacy in Iran’s national curriculum on education and training in work and technology. Journal of Technology of Education, 12(3), 237-248 [In Persian].
Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. London: SAGE publications.
Lyons, R. (2012). Investigating student gender and grade level differences in digital citizenship behavior (PhD dissertation), Walden University, Minnesota, USA.
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Using qualitative methods for causal explanation. Field Methods, 16(3), 243-264.
Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. L. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122.
Khodabandeh, F. (2017). The effect of MALL-based tasks on EFL learners' grammar learning. Teaching English with Technology, 17(2), 29-41.
Kvavik, R. (2005). Convenience, communications, and control: How students use technology. In D. Oblinger, & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation (chapter 7, pp. 7.1-7.20). USA: Educause. Retrieved from <http://www.educause.edu/ educatingthenetgen/5989.>
Marandi, S. S. (2011). CALL101: Some basics any CALL practitioner needs to know. Roshd FLT, 26(1), 70-77.
Marandi, S. S., Karimi Alavijeh, K., & Nami, F. (2015, August). Layers of CALL hegemonies: An Iranian experience. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds), Critical CALL – Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 386-391). Dublin: Research-publishing.net. doi: 10.14705/-rpnet.2015.000363.
Miriti, M. N. (2019). Nature in the Eye of the Beholder: A Case Study for Cultural Humility as a Strategy to Broaden Participation in STEM. Education Sciences, 9(4), 291.
Moeller, S., Joseph, A., Lau, J., & Carbo, T. (2011). Towards media and information literacy indicators. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Ohler, J. (2012). Digital citizenship means character education for the digital age. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(8), 14-17.
Padrón, Y. N., Barohona, E., & Waxman, H. C. (2018). Digital citizenship. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1-6.
Payne, J. (2016). A case study of teaching digital citizenship in fifth grade (PhD dissertation). The University of Alabama, Alabama, USA. Retrieved from <https://0-search-proquest-com.library.acaweb.org/docview/1877914633?accountid=9900>.
Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Pruitt-Mentle, D. (2000). The C3 framework: cyberethics, cybersafety and cybersecurity implications for the educational setting. Retrieved from <http://www.slideshare.net/-johnmacasio/ikeepsafe-c3-competencymatrix>.
Reimer, T. & Reimer, F. (2012). Collaboration, community, culture, and connection in the high school Spanish classroom: promoting and developing 21st century skills through blogs and electronic pen pals. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 2211-2218). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Ribble, M. (2004). Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology behavior. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), 6-9.
Ribble, M. S. (2006). Implementing digital citizenship in schools: the research, development and validation of a technology leader's guide (PhD dissertation), Kansas State University, Kansas, USA. Retrieved from <http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/-login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/305322283?accountid=14872>.
Ribble, M. (2009). Passport to digital citizenship: journey toward appropriate technology use at school and at home. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(4), 14-17.
Ribble, M. (2011). Digital Citizenship in Schools. International Society for Technology in Education, 32(4), 34-47.
Ribble, M. (2012). Digital citizenship for educational change. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(4), 148-151.
Ribble, M. (2015). Digital citizenship in schools: nine elements all students should know. Washington DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
Ribble, M. S., & Bailey, G. D. (2004). Monitoring technology misuse & abuse. T.H.E Journal,32(1), 22-25.
Ribble, M. S., & Bailey, G. D. (2006). Digital citizenship at all grade levels. Learning and Leading with Technology, 33(6), 26.
Ribble, M. S., Bailey, G. D. (2005). Teaching digital citizenship: when will it become a priority for 21st century schools? School Business Affairs, 71(3), 11-14. Retrieved from <http://digitalcitizenship.net/uploads/TeachingDC10.pdf>
Ribble, M. S., Bailey, G. D., & Ross, T. W. (2004). Digital citizenship: addressing appropriate technology behavior. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), 6-9.
Ribble, M., & Miller, T. N. (2013). Educational leadership in an online world: connecting students to technology responsibly, safely, and ethically. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 135-143.
Robb, M. & Shellenbarger, T, (2013). Promoting digital citizenship and academic integrity in technology classroom. The Teaching Professor, 27 (8), 1, 4.
Scheuermann, L., & Taylor, G. (1997). Netiquette. Internet Research,7(4), 269-273.
Shea, V., & Shea, C. (1994). Netiquette. San Francisco: Albion Books.
Simsek, E., & Simsek, A. (2013). New literacies for digital citizenship. Contemporary Educational Technology, 4(2), 126-137
Snyder, S. (2016). Teachers' perceptions of digital citizenship development in middle school students using social media and global collaborative projects (PhD dissertation). Walden University, Minnesota, USA.
Stewart, S. (2020). Guidelines for working collaboratively in virtual teams. In C. N. Stevenson & J. C. Bauer (Eds.), Enriching Collaboration and Communication in Online Learning Communities (pp. 68-81). Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Winn, M. R. (2012). Promote digital citizenship through school-based social networking. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(4), 10-13. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 990 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 498 |
||
