Analysing Assistance Discourse Provided to Stakeholders to Utilize E-Learning in the Higher Education
This paper analyses how the E-Learning Unit at the university level (re)constructs instructions that facilitate the utilization of e-learning by stakeholders. More specifically, the paper presents an analysis of an assistance discourse during the University of Ha’il transition to distance learning that was prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers suggest revising educational regulations for in-depth qualitative analysis of stakeholders’ views on policy. In so doing, they conducted various levels of analyses using two sets of data: (1) two surveys (for students and academic staff); (2) and four interviews with the coordinators of the E-Learning Unit at the university. The surveys identify the institutional context during the transition period to distance learning. The interviews are also analysed using Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) practical reasoning approach to clarify the strategies for supporting stakeholders. The main finding of the research is that the style of assistance discourse and the types of support should be stated clearly in university policy to enhance the effectiveness of the E-Learning Unit’s support of stakeholders.
Altameemi, Y., and Bartlett, T. (2017). “Negotiating intervention: Shifting Signifiers in the UK’s Response to the Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria”, 10plus1: Living Linguistics, No. 3, pp. 67–86.
Alzahrani, A.A., & Sheirah, K.A. (2021). Utilizing the Blackboard learning management system and the University of Ha’il from the perspective of faculty members using internet of things (IOT). International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 14, 214-222.
Berg, H.-P. (2010). “Risk management: procedures, methods and experiences”. Reliability: Theory & Applications, 1(17), pp. 79–95.
Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., McGowan, U., East, J., Green, M., et al. (2014). “‘Teach us how to do it properly!’ An Australian academic integrity student survey”. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), pp. 1150–1169.
East, J. (2010). “Judging plagiarism: A problem of morality and convention”, Higher Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 59(1), pp. 69–83.
Fairclough, I., and Fairclough, N. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London and New York: Routledge.
Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (2018). Introduction. In John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (Third, pp. 1–10). New York: Routledge .
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. London: Harvester Press.
Gasmi, A., Noor, S., Tippairote, T., Dadar, M., Menzel, A., and Bjørklund, G. (2020). “Individual risk management strategy and potential therapeutic options for the COVID-19 pandemic”. Clinical Immunology, Elsevier, Vol. 215 No. April, p. 108409.
Gullifer, J., and Tyson, G.A. (2010). “Exploring university students’ perceptions of plagiarism: a focus group study”. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), pp. 463–481.
Reisigl, M., and Wodak, R. (2009). “The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)”, in Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (Eds.), Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis, Second Edi. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE.
Rogers, R. (2008). “Critical Discourse Analysis in Education”, in Hornberger, N.H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 2. US, Boston: Springer pp. 810–825. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0898589808000053
Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., and O’Garro, J.G. (2005). “Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A Review of the Literature on JSTOR”. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), pp. 365–416.
Ruzic-Dimitrijevic, L., & Dakic, J. (2014). The Risk Management in Higher Education Institutions. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 2(1), 137
Ruzic-Dimitrijevic, L., & Dakic, J. (2014). The risk management in higher education institutions. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 2(1), 137-152. Available at: https://www.iiakm.org/ojakm/articles/2014/volume2_1/OJAKM_Volume2_1pp137-152.pdf
van Dijk, T.A. (2003). “Knowledge in parliamentary debates”. Journal of Language and Politics, 2(1), pp. 93–129.
van Dijk, T.A. (2006). “Discourse and manipulation”. Discourse and Society, 17(3), pp. 359–383.
van Dijk, T.A. (2008). Discourse and Power, First Edit. Palgrave Macmillan.
van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach. In Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (Eds.), Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 62–86, selected 62-67, 75–80). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.184.79di
Wodak, R. (2009). “The semiotics of racism: A Critical Discourse-Historical Analysis”, in Renkema, J. (Ed.), Discourse, of Course: An Overview of Research in Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 311–326.
Yakovchuk, N., Badge, J., and Scott, J. (2011). “Staff and student perspectives on the potential of honor codes in the UK. International Journal for Educational Integrity”. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 7(2), pp. 37–52.