The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Current Issue

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21, No. 0, pp.837-855
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Received 16 Aug 2021 Revised 18 Sep 2021 Accepted 26 Sep 2021

The Influence of Using Online Discussion on Developing EFL Students’ Grammar Knowledge
Najla Hais AbdulGhafoor ; Ala’a Ismael Challob
General Directorate of Education in Anbar, Ramadi, Iraq
(corresponding author) Professor, Dept. of English, College of Education for Humanities, University Of Anbar, Ramadi, Iraq (

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


The current study aims at investigating the influence of online discussion on developing EFL university students’ grammar knowledge. It also aims at identifying the factors that determine the effectiveness of online discussion on developing EFL university students' grammar knowledge. To address these aims, 66 second year EFL university students in English Department at Anbar University were chosen. They were divided equally into the experimental group, and the control group. A mixed-mode quasi-experimental research design was utilized where pre-study and post-study English grammar test, post-study perception questionnaire, focus group interview, and observation was used. The finding indicated a significant difference between the mean scores of the experimental group and those of the control group in the post-study test. Moreover, findings revealed a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the pre-study and that of the post-study test of the experimental group. These significant differences were in favour of the experimental group. Besides, findings revealed that the power of effectiveness of these factors as perceived by the participants were in the following sequence; pedagogical, psychological, cognitive, and social factors respectively. The study concluded that using online discussion facilitates students’ learning of English grammar.

Keywords: online discussion, English grammar, grammar knowledge, EFL students

1. AbdElfatah, M. 2016. Using Facebook to Develop Grammar Discussion and Writing Skills in English as a Foreign Language for University Students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia.
2. Ahmed, M. A. 2016. Using Facebook to develop grammar discussion and writing skills in English as a foreign language for university students. Sino-US English Teaching 13(12), 932-952.
3. Abdullah, M. Y., S. Hussin and K. Ismail. 2019. Investigating the effects of the flipped classroom model on Omani EFL learners’ motivation level in English speaking performance. Education and Information Technologies 24(5), 2975-2995.
4. Abdullah, M. Y., S. Hussin, Z. M. Hammad and K. Ismail. 2020. Exploring the effects of flipped classroom model implementation on EFL learners’ self-confidence in English speaking performance. In M. Al-Emran, K. Shaalan and A. E. Hassanien, eds., Recent Advances in Intelligent Systems and Smart Applications, 223-241. Springer, Cham.
5. Abu Laban, M. M. 2017. The Effectiveness of Using Mobile Learning in Developing Eleventh Graders' English Grammar Learning and Motivation for English. Master’s thesis, The Islamic University of Gaza. Palestine.
6. Abu Naba’h, A., J. Hussain, A. AI-Omari and S. Shadeifat. 2009. The effect of computer assisted language learning in teaching English grammar on the achievement of secondary students in Jordan. The International Arab Journal of Information Technology 6(4), 431-439 .
7. Al-Harbi, S. and Y. Alshumaimeri. 2016. The flipped classroom impact in grammar class on EFL Saudi secondary school students’ performances and attitudes. English Language Teaching 9(10), 60-80.
8. Alian, J., F. Khodabandeh and H. Soleimani. 2018. The effect of CALL-based tasks on EFL learners’ grammar learning. Teaching English with Technology 18(3), 54-68.
9. Al-Jarf, R. S. 2005. The effects of online grammar instruction on low proficiency EFL college students’ achievement. Asian EFL Journal 7(4), 166-190.
10. Almoswai, F. R. and B. N. M. Rashid. 2017. The effectiveness of using YouTube video on EFL Iraqi college students’ performance in grammar at Missan University. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences 3(1), 424-435.
11. Althaus, S. L. 1997. Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with online discussions. Communication Education 46, 158-174.
12. Azar, B. 2007. Grammar-based teaching: A practitioner’s perspective. TESL-EJ 11(2), 1–12. Retrieved from
13. Baleghizadeh, S. and E. Oladrostam. 2010. The effect of mobile assisted language learning (MALL) on grammatical accuracy of EFL students. Mextesol Journal 34(2), 1-10.
14. Brown, D. and H. Lee. 2015. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (4th ed.). USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
15. Challob, A.I. 2021. The effect of flipped learning on EFL students’ writing performance, autonomy, and motivation. Education and Information Technologies 26(4), 3743–3769 .
16. Challob, A. I., N. A. Bakar and H. Latif. 2016. The influence of blended learning on EFL students’ writing apprehension and writing performance: A qualitative case study. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 1(2), 253-265.
17. Collentine, J. 2000. Insights into the construction of grammatical knowledge provided by user-behavior tracking technologies. Language Learning and Technology 3(2), 44-57.
18. Corich, S., H. L. Kinshuk and M. Lynn. 2004. Assessing discussion forum participation: In search of quality. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. TEIR Center, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh.
19. Creswell, J. W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
20. Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage publications, Inc.
21. Creswell, J. W. and V. L. Clark. 2018. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage publications, Inc.
22. Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln. 2018. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage publications, Inc.
23. Gay, L. R., G. E. Mills and P. Airasian. 2009. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications (9th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
24. Grant, 1. M. (1998). Does integrating technology into the curriculum increase student learning? ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. ED: 431006.
25. Gunawardena, C. N., A. C. Nolla, P. L. Wilson, J. R. Lopez‐Islas, N. Ramirez‐Angel and R. M. Megchun‐Alpizar. 2001. A cross-cultural study of group process and development in online conferences. Distance Education 22(1), 85-121.
26. Johnson, H. 2007. Dialogue and the construction of knowledge in e-learning: Exploring students’ perceptions of their learning while using blackboard's asynchronous discussion board. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning 10(1).Retrieved from:
27. Khalil, M. 2018. EFL students’ perceptions towards using Google docs and Google classroom as online collaborative tools in learning grammar. Applied Linguistics Research Journal 2(2), 33-48.
28. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2001. Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia, ed., Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 3rd ed., 251- 266. Boston, MA: Thomson / Heinle.
29. Mahmoudi, M. 2020. The effect of online learning on grammatical accuracy among EFL upper-intermediate learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 11(6), 1011-1016, November 2020. DOI:
30. Manurung, G. N., K. Manurung, S. R. Mertosono and A. Kamaruddin. 2020. Perceptions of EFL learners in the implementation of blended learning post-natural disaster at a university in Indonesia. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 10(8), 959-968.
31. McLaughlin, C. 2002. Computer supported teamwork: An integrative approach to evaluating cooperative learning in an online environment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 18(2), 227-254.
32. Mellow, D. A. and S. T. Gobara. 2013. Analysis of interactions in a virtual learning environment based in Vygotsky’s theory. Open Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 4(10), 54-60.
33. Middleton, F. 2019. Types of Reliability and How to Measure them. Retrieved from:
34. Nagata, N. 1996. Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO Journal 14(1), 53-75.
35. Nunan, D. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. New York Mc Graw Hill.
36. Resta, P., C. Awalt and M. Menchaca. 2002. Self and peer assessment in an online collaborative learning environment. InE-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, 682-689. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
37. Saeedi, Z. 2016. The application of technology in teaching grammar to EFL learners: The role of animated sitcoms. Teaching English with Technology 16(2), 18-39.
38. Stake, R. E. 2010. Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work. New York: Guilford Press.
39. Suthiwartnarueput, T. and P. Wasanasomsithi. 2012. Effects of using Facebook as a medium for discussions of English grammar and writing of low-intermediate EFL students. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 9(2), 194-214.
40. Teng, Y. and X. Wang. 2021. The effect of two educational technology tools on student engagement in Chinese EFL courses. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 18(1), 1-15.
41. Vygotsky, L. 1978. Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children 23(3), 34-41.
42. Yin, R. K. 2011. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: Guilford Press.
43. Yusof, N. A. and N. Saadon. 2012. The effects of Web-based language learning on University students’ grammar proficiency. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 67, 402-408.