Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction on Reading Comprehension of EFL Students

Sami Alsuwat, Jamaal Rashad Young

Abstract


Reading is an essential skill for language acquisition, especially for learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Reading comprehension is essential for academic success, thus teachers and researchers are consistently testing new strategies and resources to assist EFL students. Given the growing technological infrastructure many schools are forgoing traditional strategies for digital reading resources. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis investigates the effects of using strategy instruction versus technology-based instruction on the reading comprehension of EFL learners. A Meta-analysis of 17 studies (20 effect sizes) published between the years 2007 and 2016 was conducted. A three level inclusion and exclusion process was used to select studies based on the a priori criteria. The overall combined effect size for traditional strategies and technology-based strategies was (d=1.176), which is considered a large effect size. The findings of the moderator analysis suggest that the use of traditional reading strategy instruction or technology-based reading instruction is equally effective for supporting the reading comprehension of EFL students. Recommendations for enhanced teaching and learning are provided to support EFL student reading comprehension.

Keywords


reading comprehension, English as a foreign language, strategy instruction, technology-based instruction.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ahmadi, M. (2012). Reciprocal teaching strategies and their impacts on English reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 2053-2060.

Alsamadani, H. (2009). The relationship between Saudi EFL college-level students’ use of reading strategies and their EFL reading comprehension. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/ohiou1224685570/inline

*Alsamadani, H. (2010). The effects of the 3-2-1 reading strategy on EFL reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 4(3): 184-191.

Alsamadani, H. (2011). The effects of the 3-2-1 reading strategy on EFL reading

comprehension. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 184-191.

*Baleghizadeh, S., & Babapour, M. (2011). The effect of summary writing on reading comprehension and recall of EFL students. The NERA Journal, 47(1), 44-48.

Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20: 163-494.

Brantmeier, C. (2003). Technology and second language reading at the university level: Informed instructions’ perceptions. The Reading Matrix, 3(3).

*Chen, J., Chen, M., & Sun, Y. (2010). A novel approach for enhancing student reading comprehension and assisting teacher assessment of literacy. Computer & Education, 55 : 1367-1382.

*Chen, C., Chen, S., Chen, S. E., & Wey, V. (2013). The effects of extensive reading via e-books on tertiary level EFL students’ reading attitude, reading comprehension and vocabulary. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(12): 303-312.

*Choo, T., Eng, T., & Ahmad, N. (2011). Effects of reciprocal teaching strategies on reading comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 140-149.

Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). Effects of educational technology applications on reading outcomes for struggling readers: A best‐evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 277-299.

Cohen, A. D. (2014). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York, NY: Rutledge.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.

*Dabarera, C., Renandya, W., & Zhang, L. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. Elsevier, 42: 462-473.

Davis, D. (2010). A meta-analysis of comprehension strategy instruction for upper elementary and middle school students. (Doctoral dissertation). Retriever from

http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-06162010-100830/unrestricted/Davis_dissertation.pdf

Grabe, W. (1991) Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25: 375–406.

*Huang, H. (2014). Online versus paper-based instruction: Comparing two strategy training modules for improving reading comprehension. RELC Journal, 45(2): 165–180.

*Jalilifa, A., & Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference:

Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners'reading comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Leaming, 38 (1): 35-52.

*Jiang, X. (2012). Effects of discourse structure graphic organizers on EFL reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24(1): 84-105.

*Khatib, M. (2011). The effect of automatization of the phonological component on the reading comprehension of ESP students. International Education Studies, 4(4): 192-198.

King, K. (2008). Reading Strategies. Retrieved from http://www.isu.edu/~kingkath/readstrt.html

Marcella, G. (2010). Teaching strategy: Challenge and response. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.

Lee, K. (2000). English teachers’ barriers to the use of computer-assisted language learning. The Internet TESOL Journal, 6(12): 1-7.

*Liu, P., Chen, C., & Chang, Y. (2010). Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 54 : 436-445.

Matthew, K. (1996). The impact of CD-ROM story books on children's reading comprehension and reading attitude. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5, 379-394.

*Mistar, J., Zuhairi, A., & Yanti, N. (2016). Strategies training in the teaching of reading comprehension for EFL learners in Indonesia. English Language Teaching, 9(2): 49-56.

Modirkhamene, S. (2012). The Effect of multiple intelligences-based reading tasks on EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(5): 113-121.

*Pei, L. (2014). Does metacognitive strategy instruction indeed improve Chinese EFL Learners’ reading comprehension performance and metacognitive awareness?. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(5): 1147-1152.

Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

*Sadeghi, K., & Ahmadi, N. (2012). The effect of gloss type and mode on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 5(12): 100-110.

*Safadi, E. & Rababah, G. (2012). The effect of scaffolding instruction on reading comprehension skills. International Journal of Language Studies, 6(2): 1-38.

*Soleimani, H. & Nabizadeh, S. (2012). The effect of learner constructed, fill in the map concept map technique, and summarizing strategy on Iranian pre-university students' reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 5(9): 78-87.

Taguchi, E., Melhem, L., & Kawaguchi, T. (2016). Assisted reading: A flexible approach to L2 reading fluency building. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 16(1), 106-118.

Thillmann, H., Gößling, J., Marschner, J., Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2013). Metacognitive knowledge about and metacognitive regulation of strategy use in self-regulated scientific discovery learning: New methods of assessment in computer-based learning environments. In International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 575-588). Springer New York.

Wen, Q. (2003). A successful road to English learning. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21462/eflj.v1i3.18

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



EFL JOURNAL; Please send your manuscript by registering and submit it to www.efljournal.org

Creative Commons License
EFLjournal by http://www.efljournal.org is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License