Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 304 Download : 185

Main Article Content

Abstract

This ethnographic study examines the relationships between digital literacy and learning interactions in Indonesian EFL classes. The study seeks to elucidate the role of digital tools in mediating educational practices and interactional dynamics between educators and learners. Data were collected over six months at SMA Negeri Ternate, Indonesia, using participant observation, semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and field notes, involving five teachers and ten students. The findings suggest a triadic interactional framework, comprising learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner interactions, all of which are shaped by digital integration. Students utilized multimedia resources such as YouTube and ChatGPT, promoting independence and multimodal understanding. Nonetheless, conventional assumptions of teacher authority persisted, and digital disparities frequently limited peer participation. Three cultural elements emerged: technology-enhanced instruction, enduring teacher authority, and flexible peer solidarity. The study concludes that digital literacy alters classroom dynamics, but it must be grounded in local educational and cultural norms. It necessitates culturally responsive instructional design and fair access to improve engagement and maximize the educational potential of digital literacy.

Keywords

Digital Literacy Learning Interaction Ethnography Indonesian EFL Classrooms

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

In submitting the manuscript to the FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, the authors certify that:

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  • The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  • That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  • The publication has been approved by the author(s) and by responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  • They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  • They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.

License and Copyright Agreement

Authors who publish with FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or edit it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
How to Cite
Mahmud, A. F., Mahmud, M., Weda, S., & Munir, M. (2025). Digital Literacy and Learning Interaction: An Ethnographic Study of Indonesian EFL Classrooms. FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(3), 192-210. https://doi.org/10.24256/foster-jelt.v6i3.255
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Abella, J. L., & Rosa, E. D. D. (2023). Digital Literacy and Digital Competence of Selected Filipino Teachers: Basis for a Post-Pandemic Pedagogy. IJORER International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 4(5), 548. https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v4i5.378
  2. Amin, M. Y. M. (2023). AI and Chat GPT in Language Teaching: Enhancing EFL Classroom Support and Transforming Assessment Techniques. International Journal of Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(4), 1. https://doi.org/10.33422/ijhep.v4i4.554
  3. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2), 1–14.
  4. Baldoví, M. I. P., Alonso, Á. S. M., & Chacón, J. P. (2023). The Smart Classroom: Learning Challenges in the Digital Ecosystem. Education Sciences, 13(7), 662. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070662
  5. Chan, S., & Lo, N. (2024). Enhancing EFL/ESL instruction through gamification: a comprehensive review of empirical evidence [Review of Enhancing EFL/ESL instruction through gamification: a comprehensive review of empirical evidence]. Frontiers in Education, 9. Frontiers Media. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1395155
  6. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. SAGE Publications.
  7. Creswell, W. J & Creswell, D. J. (2023). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 6th ed. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  8. Denzin, K. N, & Lincoln, S. Y. (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 5th ed. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  9. Djibran, A. K. S., Subiyanto, P., Wakhudin, W., & Rahayu, N. S. (2024). Transforming Education in The Digital Age : How Technology Affects Teaching and Learning Methods. Journal of Pedagogy, 1(3), 141. https://doi.org/10.62872/ksq9jc13
  10. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.
  11. Erwani, P., Sofendi, & Mirizon, S. (2022). ONLINE LEARNING AMIDST COVID-19 PANDEMIC DISRUPTION: EFL LECTURERS AND STUDENTS' CLASSROOM INTERACTION. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies), 9(1), 229. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v9i1.4527
  12. Fadilah, R., Ayudhia, H. Y., Pratama, V. M., & Harmawan, V. (2023). Teachers’ Teaching Reflection: English Teachers’ Challenges in Rural Areas of Indonesia. LET Linguistics Literature and English Teaching Journal, 13(1), 85. https://doi.org/10.18592/let.v13i1.8923
  13. Fetterman, M. D. (2010). Ethnography: step-by-step ed. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  14. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: The Potential of the Concept and State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.
  15. Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). The community of inquiry theoretical framework. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 104–120). Routledge.
  16. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105.
  17. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
  18. Hidayat, D. N., Lee, J. Y., Mason, J., & Khaerudin, T. (2022). Digital technology supporting English learning among Indonesian university students. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00198-8
  19. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  20. Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between the frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162–171.
  21. Li, L., & Walsh, S. (2011). Technology uptake in Chinese EFL classes. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 99–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383347
  22. Lin, Z., Ryskulova, B., Cheng, X., Ren, S., & Apaeva, S. (2024). Critical Thinking Development of Foreign Language Teachers Through Digital Literacy Training. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 17(1), 222. https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.1701.13
  23. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659.
  24. Nasaruddin, A. H., Das, St. W. H., & Ladiqi, S. (2023). Digital-Based Islamic Religious Education (IRE) Learning Model at Senior High School. Indonesian Journal of Islamic Education Studies (IJIES), 6(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.33367/ijies.v6i1.3525
  25. Pozo, J. I., Cabellos, B., & Echeverría, M. del P. P. (2024). Has the educational use of digital technologies changed after the pandemic? A longitudinal study. PLoS ONE, 19(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311695
  26. Reddy, P., Chaudhary, K., & Hussein, S. (2023). A digital literacy model to narrow the digital literacy skills gap. Heliyon, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14878
  27. Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu. European Commission.
  28. Sakkir, G., Rukmana, N. S., Muslim, A. B., Andrew, M., & Muhayyang, M. (2023). The Challenges Faced by Students in Learning English (Post-Pandemic Era). Interference Journal of Language Literature and Linguistics, 4(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.26858/interference.v4i1.43966
  29. Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  30. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.
  31. Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A. S. Goodsell, M. R. Maher, V. Tinto, B. L. Smith, & J. MacGregor (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 10–30). National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
  32. Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A. S. Goodsell et al. (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 10–30). National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
  33. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. By Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
  34. Spradley, J. P. (2006). Metode Etnografi. Edisi kedua. Jogjakarta: Tiara Wacana.
  35. Valentina, T. F., Arifani, Y., & Anwar, K. (2022). Can digital literacy practices motivate international students to upgrade their English as a second language (L2)? An ethnographic case study. Academic Journal Perspective Education Language and Literature, 9(2), 99. https://doi.org/10.33603/perspective.v9i2.6085
  36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  37. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press.
  38. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press.
  39. Yaseen, H., Mohammad, A. S., Ashal, N., Abusaimeh, H., Ali, A. A. A., & Sharabati, A. A. (2025). The Impact of Adaptive Learning Technologies, Personalized Feedback, and Interactive AI Tools on Student Engagement: The Moderating Role of Digital Literacy. Sustainability, 17(3), 1133. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031133
  40. Zahra, I. N., Anggrarini, N., Wati, A., Prawiro, I. Y., & Larasaty, G. (2023). EFL Undergraduate Students’ Politeness Strategy in Online Classroom Interaction. International Journal of Science Education and Cultural Studies, 2(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.58291/ijsecs.v2i1.73
  41. Zhang, J. (2023). EFL teachers’ digital literacy: the role of contextual factors in their literacy development. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1153339
  42. Zou, Y. L., Kuek, F., Feng, W., & Cheng, X. (2025). Digital learning in the 21st century: trends, challenges, and innovations in technology integration. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1562391