Rakhmat Wahyudin Sagala(1*)

(1) Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara
(*) Corresponding Author


The transition from face-to-face to online education might be delayed not just by the needed computer abilities, but also by shifting self-concept requirements for instructors. The goal of this study was to expand existing knowledge of the phenomena of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in e-learning classrooms that emphasize experiential function. The subjects were undergraduate students of the English Department who enrolled in Indonesia Open University elearning classroom. The objectives of the study are : 1) to identify the types of discourse in experiential function used by tutor online and students ; 2) to analyze the experiential function used by tutor online in elearning classroom ; 3) to investigate the types of discourse in experiential function dominantly used by tutor online and students. Descriptive qualitative research was implemented to reveal the data from discourse of online tutor and students in e-learning classrooms. The finding provides tutor online and students perform experiential function in their discourse in the process of teaching-learning in the classroom. There were 35 clauses found in the discourse including process, participants, and circumstances. Types of experiential function used by online tutor and students of Indonesia Open University were 1) Participant such as Actor, Goal, Senser, Phenomenon, Possessor, Possessed, Sayer, Verbiage and Carrier, 2) Process such as Material, Mental, Relational and Verbal, 3) Circumstance such as Location, Manner, Cause and Matter. More specifically, critical discourse analysis exists and incorporates textually and contextually communication signals. Hence, online tutors and students frequently employ some forms of experiential function in their e-learning conversations. 

Keywords: critical discourse analysis, experiential function, categories of experiential function, e-learning classroom, Indonesia Open University

Full Text:



Al-Khowarizmi, A. K., Fauzi, F., Sari, I. P., & Sembiring, A. P. (2020). The Effect of Indonesian and Hokkien Mobile Learning Application Models. Journal of Computer Science, Information Technology and Telecommunication Engineering, 1(1), 1-7.

Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London: Longman.

Bogdan and Biklen. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Method. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc.

Fairclough, N.&Wodak, R. 2001. Critical Discourse Analysis. In: T. Van Dijk (Hg.): Discourse. Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 2. London: Sage

Gillian, E., & Lew, R. (2018). Incorporating research-based teaching techniques in E-learning to teach English articles.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. English Language Series. London: Longman.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold

Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. Text and Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. 2002. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, (2nded). New York: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Second Edition. London: Edward Arnold.

Harahap, Henny Fauziah. 2012. Transitivity in Barack Obama’s Speeches. Thesis, English Education and Literature Deparment, Faculty of Language and Arts, the State University of Medan.

Henry F. and Tator C. 2002. Discourse Of Domination. Canada: University of Toronto

Ismail, H., Baharun, H., Abdullah, H., & Abd Majid, S. N. (2020). Power and Voices of Authority in the Media Narrative of Malaysian Natives: Combining Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Analysis Approaches. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature®, 26(2).

Krish, P. (2006). The Power of Feedback in an Online Learning Environment.

Moleong, L.J. 2005. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya

Nor, N.F., & Aziz, J.B. (2010). Discourse Analysis of Decision Making Episodes in Meetings: Politeness theory and Critical Discourse Analysis.

Omar, A., Amir, Z., & Mohamad, M. (2018). Facilitating Online Learning: Students’ Online Discussion Strategies for a Project Work at a Technical University in Malaysia.

Pandian, A. (2011). What Works in the Classroom? Promoting Literacy Practices in English.

Rezeki, Tri Indah, and Rakhmat Wahyudin Sagala. "Semantics Analysis of Slang (SAOS) in Social Media of Millennial Generation." KREDO: Jurnal Ilmiah Bahasa dan Sastra 3.1 (2019): 36-46.

Rezeki, T. I., & Sagala, R. W. (2019). Pemerolehan Bahasa Anak Periode Linguistik. Jurnal Artikula, 2(2), 1-7.

Rezeki, T. I. (2020). Textual Function in English Morphology Online Classroom. English Teaching and Linguistics Journal, 1(2), 44-48.

Sagala, R. W., & Rezeki, T. I. (2018). Grammtical Code Switching in the English Department Proposal Seminar. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal)(1), 11-14.

Saragih, A. 2014. Discourse Analysis: A Study On Discourse Based On Systematic Functional Linguistic Theory. Unimed, Medan.

Trochim, W. M. (2006). Qualitative measures. Research measures knowledge base, 361, 2-16.

Watson, J. (2009). Promising Practice in Online Learning. Blending learning: The Convergence of Online and Face-to-Face Education. USA: North American Council for Online Learning

Wodak, R. 2000. Does sociolinguistics need social theory? New perspectives on critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society.

Article Metrics

Abstract view(s): 433 time(s)
PDF: 344 time(s)


  • There are currently no refbacks.