The impact of online reading tasks and reading strategies on EFL learners’ reading test scores

Integration of technology in foreign language classes has long been a matter of interest for researchers. Yet,studies have often yielded indecisive and conflicting results. Besides, there have been few, if any, studiesexploring the relationship between learners’ use of metacognitive reading strategies and their performance inreading tests. The aim of this study is thus to investigate not only the impact of online reading tasks on tertiarylevel EFL students’ test scores at a Public University in Turkey but also the role of metacognitive readingstrategies they used on their test scores. A total of 51 Turkish-speaking adult learners took part in this study - 25of them were in the experimental group who were assigned online reading tasks during the term, and another 26students were in the control group who continued reading on paper. A pre-test and a post-test, which were paperbased,were given to the two groups consisting of 20 multiple choice and lasting 30 minutes each. To detect thelearners’ metacognitive reading strategies, Turkish version of Mokhtari and Reichard’s (2002) MetacognitiveAwareness of Reading Strategies was conducted. The pre- and post-test scores of experiment and control groupand their responses to the survey were statistically analyzed through SPSS version 20.0. The results indicatedthat there was not a significant difference between test scores of experiment and control group after 6-weektreatment. Besides, a one-way ANOVA revealed that none of the strategies was favored by the learners. As such,the results showed that online reading tasks and reading strategies did not show any effect on learners’ readingcomprehensions. It was implicated in the study that stakeholders should be cautioned about the use of technologyin the language classroom and expectances regarding online reading tasks potential to bring about changes inreading scores.

Çevrimiçi okuma aktivitelerinin ve okuma stratejilerinin İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin okuma sınavı puanları üzerindeki etkisi

Teknolojinin yabancı dil eğitimi alanına dâhil edilmesi araştırmacıların uzun süredir dikkatini çekmektedir. Fakat çoğunlukla karmaşık ve birbiriyle çelişkili sonuçlara ulaşılmıştır. Bununla birlikte öğrencilerin üstbilişsel okuma stratejileri ve okuma sınavlarındaki başarılarını araştıran çok fazla çalışmaya rastlanmamıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı bu nedenle Türkiye’deki bir devlet üniversitesindeki İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin çevrimiçi okuma aktivitelerinin ve üstbilişsel okuma stratejilerinin onların okuma sınavı puanlarına etkisini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışmaya toplam 51 Türkçeyi ana dili olarak konuşan öğrenci katılmıştır. Bunlardan deney grubundaki 25 katılımcıya çevrimiçi okuma parçaları ödev verilmiş ve kontrol grubundaki 26 kişi ise okuma parçalarını kâğıt üzerinde yapmaya devam etmiştir. Her iki gruba da 20 tane çoktan seçmeli sorudan oluşan ve 30 dakika süren ön-test ve son-test verilmiştir. Üstbilişsel okuma stratejilerini belirlemek içinse Mokhtari and Reichard’ın (2002) Üstbilişsel Okuma Stratejileri Farkındalık Envanteri’nin Türkçe versiyonu uygulanmıştır. Deney ve kontrol gruplarının ön-test ve son-test sonuçları ile okuma stratejileri envanterine verdikleri cevaplar SPSS 20.0 programı ile istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar 6 haftalık uygulamanın ardından deney ve kontrol grubunun okuma sınav sonuçlarında istatistiksel olarak hiçbir anlamlı farklılık olmadığını göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte tek yönlü ANOVA sonuçları da öğrenciler tarafından uygulanan hiçbir stratejinin okuma puanlarına etkisi olmadığını göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak çevrimiçi okuma aktivitelerinin ve okuma stratejilerinin öğrencilerin okuma becerileri üzerinde hiçbir etkisi olmadığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda ilgililerin sınıflarda teknoloji kullanımı ve çevrimiçi okuma aktivitelerinin okuma puanlarında değişikliğe sebep olma potansiyeli hakkındaki beklentileri konusunda dikkatli olmaları gerektiği vurgulanmıştır.

PDF

___

Please Anderson, N. J. 2003. Scrolling, clicking, and searching english: online reading strategies in a second/foreign language. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 1-33.
Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70-77.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cantrell, C. S., & Carter, J. (2009). Relationships among learner characteristics and adolescents’ perceptions about reading strategy use. Reading Psychology, 30, 195-224.
Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, G., O’Byrne, I., & Leu, D. J. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: new opportunities and challenges for students with learning difficulties. In C. Wyatt-Smith, J. Elkins, & S. Gunn (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 91–110). New York, NY: Springer
Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 352- 392.
Dupagne, M., Stacks, D. W., Gıroux, V. M. (2006-2007). Effects of video streaming technology on public speaking students’ communication apprehension and competence. J. Educational Technology Systems, 35(4), 479-490.
Hong-Nam, K. (2014). ELL High School Students’ Metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use and reading proficiency. TESL-EJ, 18(1), 1-16.
Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. G. (2011). Reading strategy instruction, metacognitive awareness, and self-perception of striving college developmental readers. Journal of College Learning and Literacy, 37, 3-17.
Hong-Nam, K., Leavell,. G., & Maher, S. (2014). Reading strategy instruction, metacognitive awareness, and self-perception of striving college developmental readers. Reading Psychology, 35(8), 762-790. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2013.807900
Hsieh, P. H., & Dwyer, F. (2009). The instructional effect of online reading strategies and learning styles on student academic achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 36-50.
Ji, S., W., Michaels, S., & Waterman, D. (2014). Print vs. electronic readings in college courses: cost-efficiency and perceived learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 17-24.
Kayaoğlu, M. N., & Akbaş, R. D. (2014). Prospective English teachers’ habits and perceptions of online reading. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 4(3), 19-34.
Lewis, R. B, (2005). Classroom technology for students with learning disabilities. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp.325-334). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc.
Liu, Z. (2006). Print vs. electronic resources: a study of user perceptions, preferences, and use. Information Processing and Management: An International Journal, 42(2), 583- 592.
Malcolm, D. (2009). Reading strategy awareness of Arabic-speaking medical students studying in English. System, 37, 640-651.
Mokhtari, K, & Reichard, C. (2002). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory. Retrieved from http://dayofreading.org/DOR10HO/MARSI_2002.pdf
Mokhtari, K.; Sheorey, R. 2002. Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2-10.
O’Donnnel, L (2013). The correlation between online exercise scores and formative reading achievement. Paper presented at 3rd Annual International Conference on Education & e-Learning, Singapore. Retrieved from http://0eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.metu.edu.tr/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=af13458554a7-4d12- 9901-69e4f2d4d1dd%40sessionmgr114&vid=4&hid=120
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury, NY: House Publisher.
Öztürk, E. (2012). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies ınventory. Elementary Education Online, 11(2), 292-305.
Park, J., Yang, J., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2014). University level second language readers’ online reading and comprehension strategies. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 148- 172.
Ramli, N. F. M., Darus, S., & Baka, N. A. (2011). Metacognitive online reading strategies of adult ESL learners using a learning management system. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(3), 195-204.
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350-353.
Tanyeli, N. (2008). The efficiency of online English language instruction on students’ reading skills. Paper presented at the International Technology, Education and Development (INTED) Conference, Valencia, Spain. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504676.pdf
Yang, Y. (2012). Blended learning for college students with English reading difficulties. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(5), 393-410, doi: 10.1080/09588221.2011.597767
Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 37-59.