Main Article Content

Abstract

This paper attempts to determine the account of the irresistible lexical items used in online media, examine the pedagogical strategies that impacted the cycle of the psychological expressions, and generalize the media's applications attracted to the learners' intentions through the features of irresistible lexical items.  The researchers used qualitative descriptive with several techniques, including collecting data from Urdu speakers (participants) who used the irresistible lexical items in language teaching. And then, after reading newspapers, magazines, gadgets, books, journals, etc., the researchers generalized the ideas and concepts of the learners. The account of the irresistible lexical items' pedagogical relevance in online media could improve the Urdu speakers and affect the pedagogical levels, particularly in speaking. The pedagogical structure shapes the teachers' actions, judgments, and other teaching strategies and considers the learners' needs, backgrounds, and understanding. In addition, Language teaching adopts the linguistic framework of the lexical items and affects the medium of communication. Even similar words may be present in its language, affecting the pedagogical structure of language teaching.

Keywords

Irresistible lexical items Pedagogical structure Pedagogical strategies

Article Details

How to Cite
Dedy Suhery, Mohd Hamid Raza, & M. Yusuf Hasbalnikistan. (2024). Pedagogical Relevance of Irresistible Lexical Items Used in Online Media: A Case Study of Urdu Speakers, India. JADEs Journal of Academia in English Education, 5(1), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.32505/jades.v5i1.8471

References

  1. Benson, P. L. (2006). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. Jossey-Bass.
  2. Bogdan, & Biklen, D. (1992). Schooling without labels: Parents, educators, and inclusive education. Temple University Press.
  3. Brown. (2007). Implementing active learning in an online teacher education course. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(3), 170–182.
  4. Brown. (2007). Student engagement in campus-based and online education: University connections. Routledge.
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Controversies in mixed methods research. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 4, Issue 1).
  6. Guzdial, M. (2015). Learner-centered design of computing education: Research on computing for everyone. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
  7. Jiménez. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408–417.
  8. Kelly, R., & Fetherston, B. (2008). Productive contradictions: Dissonance, resistance and change in an experiment with cooperative learning. Journal of Peace Education, 5(1), 97–111.
  9. Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st century learning? A review and a synthesis. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 3301–3312.
  10. Obar, J. A., & Wildman, S. (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue. In Telecommunications policy (Vol. 39, Issue 9, pp. 745–750). Elsevier.
  11. Raya, M. J., Ramos, J. J. M., & Tassinari, M. G. (2017). Learner and teacher autonomy in higher education: Perspectives from modern language teaching. Peter Lang Edition.
  12. Suhery, D., Idami, Z., & Wati, S. (2024). The Phonological Interference of Acehnese in Pronouncing Indonesian Language. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching.
  13. Valtonen, T., Tedre, M., Mäkitalo, K., & Vartiainen, H. (2019). Media Literacy Education in the Age of Machine Learning. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 11(2), 20–36.
  14. Vee, A. (2017). Coding literacy: How computer programming is changing writing. Mit Press.
  15. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321.
  16. Weller, M., & Robinson, L. (2002). Scaling up an online course to deal with 12 000 students. Education, Communication & Information, 1(3), 307–323