The Influence of Instructional Syntax to Engage EFL Students in Online Learning Environment

Darmawansah Darmawansah, Setyabudi Indartono


This paper aims to analyse the instructional syntax for an online learning environment in English language learning. The data collection used lesson plans in a Spain-based English Academy. The research method used Hemphill’s engagement criteria to find the syntax characteristic in the lesson plans instructions. Also, the study analysed the factors of engagement during the learning session. The study revealed the frequencies of the instructional syntax used by EFL teachers and how these instructions engage the students. The lessons plans were coded to find the most syntax used and the engagement criteria. The result identified ‘ask’ is the most used syntax with 15.3% while inquiries method  (38.9%) was using the most in teaching students online. Moreover, the distribution item of engagement factors as EFL online teachers’ focus group discussion shows how the engagement model can be used for English learners. This study will contribute as an expanding method of English language learning in an online setting widely.


instructional syntax analysis, lesson plan, online learning, students engagement

Full Text:



Abaidoo, V., & Arkorful, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(12), 2014.

Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2006). A study on students’ views on blended learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(3).

Al-Jarf, R. (2012). Online Videos for Specific Purposes. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2.

Alarcon, G. M., Edwards, J. M., & Menke, L. E. (2011). Student burnout and engagement: A test of the conservation of resources theory. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 145(3).

Arbaugh, J. B., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological and Structural Characteristics, Student Learning and Satisfaction with Web-Based Courses. Management Learning, 33(3), 331–347.

Artino, A. R. (2009). Online learning: Are subjective perceptions of instructional context related to academic success? The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3–4), 117–125.

August, D., Bear, D.R., Dole, J.A., Echevarria, J., Fisher, D., F. et al. (2011). Treasures: A reading/language arts program. New York: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.

Beattie, J., Spooner, F., Jordan, L., Algozzine, B., &, & Spooner, M. (2002). Evaluating instruction in distance learning classes. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 124–132.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life, robust vocabulary instruction. In Bringing words to life, robust vocabulary instrcution.

Berge, Z. L. (2002). Active, Interactive , and Reflective E-Learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2).

Biner, P. M., Dean, R. S., & Mellinger, A. E. (1994). Factors underlying distance learner satisfaction with televised college‐level courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 60–71.

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages*. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32.

Carless, D. (2007). Learning‐oriented assessment: conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 57–66.

Charlton, J. P., & Danforth, I. D. W. (2004). Differentiating computer-related addictions and high engagement. Human Perspectives in the Internet Society: Culture, Psychology and Gender, 31.

Chen, P.-S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232.

Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., Ludlow, B. L., & Duff, M. (2002). Planning and Delivery of Online Coursework in Special Education. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 25(2), 171–186.

Collins, J. (2002). Teaching and Learning with Multimedia, Routledge: London.

Corry, M. (2012). Distance Education. In Distance Education: What Works Well.

Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2016). An Instructional Design Framework for Fostering Student Engagement in Online Learning Environments. TechTrends, 60(6), 532–539.

Dincer, A., Yesilyurt, S., &Takkac, M. (2012). The Effects of Autonomy-Supportive Climates on EFL Learner’s Engagement, Achievement and Competence in English Speaking Classrooms. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3890–3894.

Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The online student engagement scale (OSE). Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 19(4).

Driver, M. (2002). Exploring student perceptions of group interaction and class satisfaction in the web-enhanced classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(1), 35–45.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J. K. (2002). Best Practices in Increasing Academic Learning Time. Best Practices in School Psychology, 4.

Ghani, S. A. (2009). Cooperative Learning Versus The Lecture Method of Instruction in An Introductory Statistics Course. Jurnal Sains Dan Matematik, 1(1), 59–71.

Glasgow, R. E., Nelson, C. C., Kearney, K. A., Reid, R., Ritzwoller, D. P., Strecher, V. J., …Wildenhaus, K. (2007). Reach, Engagement, and Retention in an Internet-Based Weight Loss Program in a Multi-Site Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 9(2), e11.

Hameed, S., Badii, A., & Cullen, A. J. (2008). Effective e-learning integration with traditional learning in a blended learning environment. Proceedings of the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, EMCIS 2008, 25–26.

Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.

Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A Measure of College Student Course Engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184–192.

Harris, L. (2011). Secondary teachers’ conceptions of student engagement: Engagement in learning or in schooling? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 376–386.

Hemphill, H. (2000). The language of instruction: Assessing the instructional syntax of technology-based training. Educational Technology, 40(4), 53–56.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.

Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1).

Huang, Y. Y., Liu, C. C., Wang, Y., Tsai, C. C., & Lin, H. M. (2017). Student engagement in long-term collaborative EFL storytelling activities: An analysis of learners with english proficiency differences. Educational Technology and Society, 20(3), 95–109.

Ivankova, N.V. (2014). Implementing Quality Criteria in Designing and Conducting a Sequential QUAN → QUAL Mixed Methods Study of Student Engagement With Learning Applied Research Methods Online. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(1), 25–51.

Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600.

Klein, D., & Ware, M. (2003). E-learning: new opportunities in continuing professional development. Learned Publishing, 16(1), 34–46.

Knapczyk, D. R., & Hew, K. F. (2007). An Analysis and Evaluation of Online Instructional Activities. 30(3), 167–182.

Kucan, L. (2012). What Is Most Important to Know About Vocabulary? The Reading Teacher, 65(6), 360–366.

Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning Inside The National Survey of Student Engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(3), 10–17.

Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student-Centered Learning Environments. In Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments.

Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386–399.

Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2006). Students’ Conceptions of Constructivist Learning: A Comparison between a Traditional and a Problem-based Learning Curriculum. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11(4), 365–379.

Meskill, C. (2005). Triadic scaffolds: Tools for teaching English language learners with computers. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 46–59.

Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48.

Osman, G., & Herring, S. C. (2007). Interaction, facilitation, and deep learning in cross-cultural chat: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(2), 125–141.

Papi, M., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2012). Teacher Motivational Practice, Student Motivation, and Possible L2 Selves: An Examination in the Iranian EFL Context. Language Learning, 62(2), 571–594.

Paterson, J. (2019). Report: Online learning growth continues, but opportunities for improvement remain | Education Dive. Retrieved August23, 2019, from

Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3), 119–140.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1998). Dewey, Vygotsky, and the Social Administration of the Individual: Constructivist Pedagogy as Systems of Ideas in Historical Spaces. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 535–570.

Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New Benchmarks in Higher Education: Student Engagement in Online Learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101–109.

Roffe, I. (2002). E‐learning: engagement, enhancement and execution. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(1), 40–50.

Schmitz, B., &Skinner, E. (1993). Perceived control, effort, and academic performance: Interindividual, intraindividual, and multivariate time-series analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 1010–1028.

Schwier, R. A. (2009). Learning Environments and Interaction for Emerging Technologies: Implications for Learner Control and Practice. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La Revue Canadienne de l’apprentissage et de La Technologie, 22(3).

Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., &Shernoff, E. S. (2014). Student Engagement in High School Classrooms from the Perspective of Flow Theory. In Applications of Flow in Human Development and Education (pp. 475–494).

Shih, H.-F., Chen, S.-H. E., Chen, S.-C., & Wey, S.-C. (2013). The Relationship among Tertiary Level EFL Students’ Personality, Online Learning Motivation and Online Learning Satisfaction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 1152–1160.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.

Spinks Jr., J. D. (2012). Students’ perception of engagement in a third-grade writing classroom.

Sun, P.-C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y.-Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.

Vygotsky, L. (2006). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15–25.

Yakın, M., & Erdil, O. (2012). Relationships Between Self-Efficacy and Work Engagement and the Effects on Job Satisfaction: A Survey on Certified Public Accountants. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 370–378.

Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics) by is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


Abstracting and Indexing


Contact Us: IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics;

Address: Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sultan Aji Muhammad Idris State Islamic University of Samarinda

Jl. H.A.M. Rifadin, Samarinda, Kalimantan Timur, Indonesia. Email: