Information Technology & Multimedia in English Language Teaching

Navigation: ITMELT Conference Home Page > Abstracts > Papers > .

CALL for reading skills in English: An interactive web program for college-level ESL students

USA

Reading strategies and comprehension

Research in second language reading has, for the most part, concentrated on investigating the general reading strategies of readers and whether strategy training can enhance overall reading comprehension (Anderson, 1991; Barnett, 1988b; Block, 1986; Brown, Armbruster & Baker, 1983; Carrell, Pharis, & Liberto, 1989; Garner, 1987; Kern, 1989; Palincsar and Brown, 1984; Pressley et al, 1989; Waxman & Padron, 1987). There is general agreement that strategy training in general reading strategies does improve comprehension of second language readers. However, insufficient empirical research has been done to investigate the effects of both general, and task-specific, or curriculum-specific, reading strategy instruction on the reading comprehension of adult second language learners, and even fewer studies have examined these effects through computer-assisted reading strategy instruction (Adler-Kassner & Reynolds, 1996; Arroyo, 1992; Chun & Plass, 1996; Lomicka, 1997; Lyman-Hager & Davis, 1996; Pederson, 1986; Wepner, Feeley, & Wilde, 1989). The following study was therefore undertaken to investigate this area. More specifically, the main questions that were explored in this study were:

1. What is the relationship between reading comprehension and strategy use prior to and after computer-assisted strategy instruction?
2. How do ESL readers perceive their strategy use prior to and after computer-assisted strategy instruction?
3. What effects do computer-assisted strategy training in general and task (curriculum) specific strategies have on the reading comprehension of ESL learners?

 

 Subject and instructional context

---

Twenty-two students enrolled in English 108, a freshmen composition course for ESL students at the University of Arizona in the Spring semester of 1999, participated in this study. These students were L2 students completing their second English course in order to satisfy the English composition requirements at the University of Arizona. The subjects came from 12 language backgrounds: Japanese (5); Arabic (3); Bahasa Indonesian (2); Malay (2); Cantonese (2); Urdu (2); Greek (1); Hebrew (1); Lamba (1); Tamil (1); Turkish (1); and Uzbek (1). They were enrolled in various academic programs at the University. All of them had formal instruction in English, and their years of English study ranged from three to eight. Length of residence in the United States ranged from seven months to four years. However most of the students had not been in the U.S. for more than two years. Most of these students therefore, had little experience in the United States and little exposure to the academic environment at an American university at the outset of the present study.

English 108 is described as a course which prepares students for writing across the University curriculum. More specifically, this course focuses on writing about fiction and non-fiction texts from various disciplines. In this course, students learned about the reading process, and were introduced to the skills of critical reading, and text analysis through a web-based instruction program. English 108 helped students read more closely in order to enable them to see how texts are constructed and how texts can be situated in broader symbolic, historic, and socio-cultural contexts.

Students were engaged in a variety of classroom activities designed to enhance their comprehension of both academic and literary texts. For example, they practised using various reading strategies such as paraphrasing, summarizing, identifying main ideas and text structure, identifying word meanings, and so on. They read a variety of materials from different genres, and of different organizational formats and styles, and responded to these texts in various ways through journal responses, or questions related to the texts. All of the readings, related assignments and practice exercises were on-line.

 

 

---

Data Collection

The data were collected from several sources. Students first completed a Student Profile Questionnaire prior to the study so that demographic information could be collected. Pre-tests of the Nelson Denny Standardized Reading Test and the Reading Comprehension Tasks, consisting of three readings with comprehension and vocabulary questions, were also administered to obtain quantitative information in terms of reading proficiency scores and frequency of strategy use, as well as qualitative information in terms of the students’ use of reading strategies. Students then completed the pre-test Reading Strategy Questionnaire so that information on their perceived strategy use prior to computer-assisted instruction via the web could be obtained. Students then began work on the reading program which initiated the reading strategy training phase of the study. They spent twelve class periods of seventy-five minutes each in a computer lab working on specific strategy lessons and activities. Upon completion of the web-based reading strategy instruction phase, the Nelson-Denny Reading Test and Reading Comprehension Tasks were re-administered so that information on post-test scores and strategy use could be obtained. The Reading Strategy Inventory was re-administered to determine if there was any change in perceived strategy use on the part of the students. Finally, an Interview Questionnaire was administered to obtain information from the students about the advantages and disadvantages of the program, and to determine how it might have affected their reading and strategy use.

 

Student Profile Questionnaire

The Student Profile Questionnaire was administered prior to conducting the study to provide information on students' education, language backgrounds, and reading interests in order to better understand the results of the study in context.

 

Reading Strategy Inventory

The Reading Strategy Inventory, a 34-item Likert scale questionnaire adapted from Oxford (1990) and Waxman and Padron (1987) was used to indicate the extent to which the subjects perceived themselves as using the described strategy on a reading task using a scale of 1-4 to indicate the student reported using the strategy...

4 most of the time or frequently

3 occasionally

2 rarely

1 not at all.

The reading strategies on the questionnaire were divided into sub-strategies for the purposes of later analyses. Oxford’s (1990) classification of strategies is quite comprehensive in that she describes specific learning strategies as being cognitive, compensation, memory, metacognitive, affective or social strategies. The descriptions of each strategy or student behaviour can be applied to the four language skill areas, namely reading, writing, speaking, and listening, and therefore in this study, terminology similar to Oxford’s (1990) is used in the area of reading strategies.

Items on the questionnaire included: 1) ten statements related to cognitive strategies which are used by readers to manipulate or transform the language to facilitate understanding; 2) three statements pertaining to compensation strategies which include using context clues and using reference materials, etc.; 3) four statements related to memory strategies such as making associations which readers employ to facilitate text understanding; 4) ten statements pertaining to metacognitive strategies which refer to behaviours undertaken by the reader to plan and evaluate their reading; 5) four statements pertaining to affective strategies which refer to strategies used to lower task anxiety; and lastly 6) three statements related to social strategies which refer to obtaining correction and feedback from other individuals.

In terms of the reliability and validity of employing such an instrument, this questionnaire had been used in a previous study to indicate the extent to which subjects perceived themselves as using the described strategy when reading (Singhal, 1997). Similar questionnaires/inventories have also been used in previous research studies carried out in the area of reading and comprehension strategies (Hahn, 1984; Oxford, 1990; Paris and Myers, 1981; Waxman and Padron, 1987). Furthermore, some studies have shown that learners’ perceptions of the strategies they use have predictive validity for their reading comprehension (Barnett, 1988 a; Waxman and Padron, 1987).

 

Nelson-Denny Reading Test

In order to obtain pre-test and post-test measures of students’ reading proficiency and comprehension, the Nelson-Denny Reading Test, a standardized reading test, was administered. The test measures vocabulary development and comprehension of college level students. The comprehension passages are drawn from widely-used college texts, and the test has been carefully designed to avoid racial and gender bias.

 

Reading Comprehension Tasks

Students also took an additional reading test consisting of three reading passages written by the researcher. In terms of reliability, this test had been used in a previous study to obtain information on the kinds of strategies learners were using, as well as to obtain reading proficiency measures based on their scores, that is accuracy of students’ responses to questions (Singhal, 1997). In this study, this test was used to gather specific data about the reading strategies used on each reading comprehension task. The chosen texts were of appropriate difficulty level and varied in genre. Using a variety of passages in terms of topic and genre allowed for a number of reading skills to be tested, for which learners would have to use a variety of strategies. Text 1 is the kind of text that one would find in an academic journal related to language learning, applied linguistics or sociology, for example. Text 2 is a short story and therefore falls under the category of English Literature. Text 3, an argumentative essay, which would normally appear in a newspaper or magazine, describes the author's view on the Internet and its usefulness in society.

Each of the three reading passages included questions testing various skills, and comprehension questions which were interspersed between sections of each passage. The questions were designed to elicit from students the types of strategies they were using while they were reading. Such questions were also intended to obtain more detailed information about the learners’ thought processes while they completed the task and provided responses to the questions on a computer. In essence, the procedure was similar to the traditional think-aloud procedure except that students typed their responses to the questions and these were sent via email to the researcher for further analysis.

As stated above, the questions were designed to elicit from students the types of strategies they were using on each of these three reading comprehension tasks while they were reading. This was accomplished through analysis and coding of their responses (see Appendix for Strategy Coding Scheme). The students’ responses on the Reading Comprehension Tasks were therefore analysed qualitatively to obtain information about the strategies they employed both before and after strategy instruction. It is important to recognize that this particular methodology, protocol analysis (specifically analysis of think-aloud data), was used, as it is the main methodology through which reading comprehension is investigated. An initial framework for analysing the think-aloud data, (the responses to the questions on these tasks) was developed by the researcher. In the process of constructing this framework, information from previous studies examining reading strategies was compiled. It must be pointed out, however, that analysis of student protocols resulted in the identification of additional strategies. Because a number of reading strategies could be classified in general terms as being either cognitive or metacognitive, etc., this framework allowed the students' responses to be coded in more specific terms, "Strategy Type" + "Strategy Behaviour". For example, on the Reading Tasks, students were asked to define a particular word.

In addition, the students were asked how they determined the meaning of the word. One student stated that the word sounds like a word in his first language, so this was classified as a Memory Strategy (Strategy Type) + (Strategy Behaviour), more specifically, a First Language Association strategy (the student associated the word in the L2 with a word in the L1). This allowed for a more accurate description of the strategy being used by the student. Previously such two-part coding has not specifically been used to classify reading strategies. More often reading strategies are simply grouped together into broader categories such as cognitive, metacognitive strategies, etc.. However, this does not begin to cover the range of strategies used in second language reading. It was therefore believed that this coding scheme could assist in more accurately identifying the strategies being used by the students, on both the pre-test and post-test. Such an analysis also enabled the researcher to compare readers in order to determine how they differed and resembled one another in terms of strategy use on each task.

In addition to obtaining information on the types of strategies students were using prior to and after instruction, which entailed qualitative analysis, it was also necessary to obtain reading proficiency scores. The questions tested a range of skills including paraphrasing, summarizing, use of context, recognition of text structure, recognition of main idea, recognition of theme, rhetorical strategies and literary devices, and tone, as well as basic comprehension questions testing overall understanding of the text. Students were also tested on vocabulary and asked to provide the meanings of specific words. Pre-test and post-test responses to the questions on the three tasks/readings were scored as correct or incorrect. However, specific questions, such as those pertaining to vocabulary, or summaries and retellings required a scoring scale to more accurately reflect the differences and quality of responses between readers, so questions such as this were given anywhere from 1-4 points depending on the accuracy and quality of their response. This was taken into consideration when marking. An overall score out of 195 points was obtained for each student on the three reading passages. This score was therefore a measurement of their reading proficiency and comprehension.

Web-Based Reading Strategy Instruction Program

The Web-Based Reading Strategy Instruction Program was designed specifically for this study. The site can be found at: http://www.coh.arizona.edu/English/Inst/engl108s1/

project/introduction.html. The following describes the program in some depth to provide a better understanding of the type of computer-assisted instruction involved in the study.

The introductory section of the program familiarizes students with the program layout and operation. The program is comprised of four sections entitled What is Reading?, What are Reading Strategies?, Mental Processing, and Reading College Texts. These provide students with a general idea of what the reading process entails and the types of general reading strategies that can be used to read effectively. These sections also include information on specific mental processing or monitoring strategies that can be used to enhance text comprehension and processing, such as activating prior knowledge, inducing images, avoiding regressions, and eliminating sub-vocalizing. Information about strategies that can be used to facilitate the reading of college texts such as surveying, questioning, reading, recording, reviewing, reciting, highlighting, and making notes is also included in this section.

The next sections of the program consist of a series of reading strategy lessons. The strategy lessons focus on general reading strategies such as skimming, scanning, paraphrasing, using context clues, identifying word meaning, identifying main and supporting ideas, and so forth. In addition to providing definitions and explanations of each strategy, each strategy lesson presents examples. The interactive part of the program allows students to practice using various strategies.

In English 108, students are required to write three essays: the Literary Analysis essay, a Text-in-Context research paper, and a Reader Response essay. Reading strategy lessons in the program are also task or curriculum specific in that students are provided with exercises to enable them to comprehend both the content of such texts, literary and academic, as well as recognize the rhetorical organization and discourse used. There is also additional information on-line including a section on Abstracts, Library Resources, and an On-line Dictionary. Numerous hyperlinks are provided in each section allowing students to obtain more information about a particular topic. Furthermore, students could use search engines to access additional information. All of the exercises and assignments were completed on-line.

The computer was integral to the pedagogy of the course in that it was a tool by which materials were presented, explained and also practised. The use of the computer enabled the instructor to provide the students with many more texts in terms of both number and genres than those presented to students in a more traditional composition class setting. The students also had access to explanations of strategies, concepts, and had numerous opportunities to practise various reading strategies through the exercises completed online. The hypertextual environment allowed the students to explore the online contents and readings in a non-linear manner and in their own ways at their own pace. Because the program was web-based, in addition to the links the instructor/researcher provided as part of the strategy training program, students had access to the entire web and could therefore use the computer to build their own content knowledge, further clarify a concept, and expand their cultural underpinnings. The computer was also essential to the design and implementation of the study as it facilitated the collection of data. Students completed the Student Profile, reading activities and exercises, pre- and post Reading Strategy Inventory, and Reading Comprehension Tasks online.

 

 

Interview Questionnaire

The Interview Questionnaire, which was also completed on-line at the end of the study, consisted of 15 open-ended questions. This questionnaire allowed students to express themselves freely about their experiences in the class and their experiences with the web-based reading program, make suggestions about the program, identify any perceived benefits or advantages of this experience and the program, and describe any difficulties they encountered during the instruction. Students were also asked to comment on whether this program affected their reading and writing. Lastly, students were asked if their reading behaviours or strategy use had changed in any way as a result of this program, and whether they were applying what they had learned in this course to their other courses.

 

Overview of research questions & methodology

The following table summarises the instruments applied to each of the research questions and the resulting type of data.

 

Research Questions	Measurement Instruments	Data Analysis
1. What is the relationship between reading comprehension (reader proficiency level) and strategy use prior to, and after computer-assisted reading strategy instruction?	Pre-test and Post-test Scores on Standardized Reading Test and Reading Comprehension Tasks Results (scores) on Reading Strategy Inventory (Before and after strategy training) Patterns of reading strategy use based on responses to the Reading Comprehension Tasks completed on-line (Before and after strategy training)	Overall Reading Comprehension (Scores on tests) Strategy use on each reading task
2. How do ESL readers perceive their strategy use prior to and after computer-assisted reading strategy instruction?	Results (scores) on Reading Strategy Inventory (Before and after instruction)	Reading Strategy Inventory results
3. What effects does computer-assisted strategy training in general and task (curriculum) specific strategies have on the reading comprehension of ESL Learners?	Post-test scores on Standardized Reading Test and Reading Comp. Tasks Results (scores) on Reading Strategy Inventory Interview Questionnaire	Overall Reading Comprehension (Scores on tests) Reading Strategy Inventory results

Table 1: Overview of research questions and methodology

 

---

Results and analyses

Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the data were performed to investigate the major research questions raised in this study.

 

Reading comprehension and strategy use

The first research question asks What is the relationship between reading comprehension and strategy use prior to and after computer-assisted reading strategy instruction? This question was investigated quantitatively based on results of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Reading Comprehension Tasks, and Reading Strategy Inventory. It was also investigated qualitatively based on the data obtained, specifically patterns of strategy use on the Reading Comprehension Tasks.

Overall, results show that the relationship between reading comprehension and strategy use prior to instruction differs from the relationship between reading comprehension and strategy use after instruction. Reading comprehension, as defined here, refers to overall reading proficiency on these tasks. Reading comprehension was therefore determined by pre- and post-test scores on the Nelson-Denny Standardized Reading Test, and the three Reading Comprehension Tasks. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of the Nelson-Denny Reading Standardized Test, scored out of 118 points, prior to and after instruction.

 

	N	Mean	SD	SE
Pre-test	22	67.5455	17.0956	3.6448
Post-test	22	76.6364	16.4969	3.5171
T value	DF
-4.811	21

a = .05

Table 2: T test results for the dependent variable - scores on Nelson-Denny Reading Test

 

The subjects in this study achieved a gain from pre- to post-test scores on the Nelson-Denny Standardized Reading Test. The difference between means (67.5455 to 76.6634) was in the expected direction and T tests indicate that the gain was statistically significant at the a = .05 level. The results as indicated in Table 2 show that there is a significant difference in reading comprehension scores obtained on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test before and after reading strategy instruction.

Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of the Reading Comprehension Tasks prior to and after reading instruction. These tasks, as previously mentioned, consisted of three texts differing in topic and genre, and related questions. The tasks were scored out of 195 points.

 

	N	Mean	SD	SE
Pre-test	22	152.6818	24.2926	5.1792
Post-test	22	167.4545	19.0706	4.0659
T value	DF
-8.767	21

a = .05

Table 3: T test results for the dependent variable - scores on reading comprehension tasks

 

As shown in Table 3, the subjects in this study achieved a gain from pre- to post-test scores on the Reading Comprehension Tasks. The difference between means (152.6818 to 167.4545) was in the expected direction and T tests indicate that the gain was statistically significant at the a = .05 level. The results show that there is a significant difference in reading comprehension scores obtained on the Reading Comprehension Tasks before and after reading strategy instruction.

Question 1 was also investigated quantitatively based on results of the Reading Strategy Inventory. This questionnaire was used to indicate the extent to which the subjects perceived themselves as using the described strategy on a reading task. As previously stated, items on the questionnaire included statements related to cognitive, compensation, memory, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. The questionnaire consisted of 34 items on which a student could obtain a total score of 136. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the Reading Strategy Inventory prior to and after instruction.

 

	N	Mean	SD	SE
Pre-test	22	101.3182	10.6788	2.2767
Post-test	22	106.4545	13.3906	2.8549
T value	DF
-2.091	21

 

a = .05

Table 4: T test results for the dependent variable - scores on Reading Strategy Inventory

 

As shown in Table 4, as a group, the subjects achieved a gain from pre- to post-test scores on the Reading Strategy Inventory. The difference between means (101.3182 to 106.4545) was in the expected direction and T tests indicate that the gain was statistically significant at the a = .05 level. The results show that there is a significant difference in scores obtained on the Reading Strategy Inventory before and after reading strategy instruction.

The results of the Reading Strategy Inventory were also analysed in terms of patterns of strategy use. An average score out of 4 was obtained for each student before and after strategy instruction in each of the areas of reading strategies. Table 5 reports the means and standard deviations in each of these areas.

 

Variable	Pre-test Mean	SD	Post-test Mean	SD
*Cognitive	2.9136	.4074	3.0636	.3685
Compensation	3.3632	.4238	3.3336	.5351
*Memory	2.7614	.1512	3.1668	.1160
Metacognitive	3.0000	.3767	3.0955	.4766
*Affective	2.9205	.5198	3.2727	.5112
Social	3.1209	.6641	3.1664	.1365

 

a = .05 *Indicates gain was statistically significant

Table 5: Means and standard deviations of the dependent variable: reading strategy scores on Reading Strategy Inventory

 

As shown in Table 5, as a group, the subjects achieved a gain from pre- to post-test scores on each category of the Reading Strategy Inventory. The means scores on the pre-test increased in five out of six areas - the Cognitive, Memory, Metacognitive, Affective, and Social strategy categories. Results of T tests as indicated in Table 6 below show that the gain was statistically significant for the Cognitive, Memory, and Affective strategy categories at the a = .05 level. Therefore, in each of these categories, students’ perceived their strategy use as being different prior to strategy instruction than after strategy instruction. Overall, students perceived themselves as using Cognitive, Memory, and Affective Strategies to a greater extent after instruction, than prior to instruction.

 

Reading comprehension tasks: Patterns of strategy use prior to and after computer-assisted instruction

To determine the relationship between reading comprehension and strategy use prior to and after computer-assisted reading strategy instruction, this question had to be investigated qualitatively based on the data obtained, specifically patterns of strategy use on the Reading Comprehension Tasks. The following is a summary of trends reflected in the actual qualitative data. In general the students’ responses tended to be more complete, accurate, descriptive and lengthier than before strategy instruction. Qualitative analysis of the students' responses on the Reading Comprehension Tasks in terms of patterns of strategy use revealed that students used cognitive, compensation, memory, metacognitive, and textual strategies more frequently after strategy instruction.

Table 6 illustrates the frequencies of strategy use on each of the three Reading Comprehension Tasks both prior to and after strategy instruction. In other words, it provides a description of the kinds of strategies used by students on the Reading Comprehension Task and the extent to which they were used both before and after computer-assisted instruction.

The overall results of performance on the Reading Comprehension Tasks indicate that students were making use of the range of reading strategies as outlined in Table 6 (following). These included Cognitive (e.g. paraphrasing, summarizing, and anticipating), Compensation (guessing/hypothesizing), Memory (word associating and cognates), Metacognitive (e.g. recognizing text organization, genre, textual features, and main ideas), and Textual Strategies (responding/ connecting to text). After strategy instruction, students continued to use these strategies but used them more frequently. It is also interesting to note that as reading comprehension improved as evidenced by the pre- and post-measures of the Nelson Denny Standardized Reading Test as shown in Table 2 and the Reading Comprehension Tasks as shown in Table 3, the frequency of strategy use increased as well. It appears that there is in fact a relationship between reading comprehension, as operationalised by reading proficiency on these tasks, and strategy use. As reading comprehension improves and reading proficiency increases, the number of strategies being used by students increases.

 

Readers’ perception of strategy use prior to and after computer-assisted instruction

The second research question asks How do ESL readers perceive their strategy use prior to and after computer-assisted reading strategy instruction? This question was investigated quantitatively based on results of the Reading Strategy Inventory. As shown in Table 4 (overleaf), as a group, the subjects achieved a gain from pre- to post-test scores on the Reading Strategy Inventory. The difference between means (101.3182 to 106.4545) was in the expected direction and T tests indicate that the gain was statistically significant. The results show that there is a significant difference in the way in which readers perceive their strategy use prior to and after reading strategy instruction.

The results of the Reading Strategy Inventory were also analysed in terms of strategy use. An average score of 4 was obtained for each student before and after strategy instruction in each of the areas of reading strategies. Table 5 reports the means and standard deviations in each of these areas. As shown in Table 5, as a group, the subjects achieved a gain from pre- to post-test scores on each category of the Reading Strategy Inventory. The mean scores on the pre-test increased in five out of six areas - the Cognitive (2.9136 to 3.0636), Memory (2.7614 to 3.1668), Metacognitive (3.0000 to 3.0955), Affective (2.9205 to 3.2727), and Social (3.1209 to 3.1664) strategy categories. The gain was statistically significant for the Cognitive, Memory, and Affective strategy categories.

 

Strategy	Text 1		Text 2		Text 3
	Before	After	Before	After	Before	After
COGNITIVE Paraphrasing	51	57	17	19	18	21
Summarizing	16	19	15	19	17	21
Anticipating/Predicting	18	22	19	22	22	22
Word Division	24	27	2	3	21	26
Using Titles/ Illustrations to Infer/ Predict	18	22	19	22	22	22
COMPENSATION Guessing/Hypothesizing	16	25	32	43	34	52
MEMORY Word Associating and Cognates	2	3	19	24	18	22
METACOGNITIVE Recognizing Text Organization	12	21	15	18	17	22
Recognizing Genre	16	21	17	20	17	21
Recognizing Specific Textual Features /Rhetorical Strategies	51	56	60	76	32	38
Recognizing Main Ideas/Theme	17	21	14	19	18	21
Recognizing Connectors	18	20	22	22	20	20
TEXTUAL Responding/Connecting to Text	19	21	17	19	22	22

 

Table 6: Frequency of strategy use on three readings of Reading Comprehension Task before and after strategy instruction

 

Effects of computer-assisted strategy instruction

The third research question asks What effects does computer-assisted strategy training in general and task (curriculum) specific strategies have on the reading comprehension of ESL learners? This question was investigated quantitatively based on results of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Reading Comprehension Tasks, and Reading Strategy Inventory. It was also investigated qualitatively based on the data obtained from the post-activity questionnaire which was administered to the students in the final week of the semester. Overall, results show that computer-assisted strategy training in general and task (curriculum) specific strategies have a positive effect on the reading comprehension of ESL learners. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of the Nelson-Denny Reading Standardized Test, scored out of 118 points, prior to and after instruction.

The subjects in this study achieved a gain from pre- to post-test scores on the Nelson-Denny Standardized Reading Test. The difference between means (67.5455 to 76.6634) was in the expected direction and T tests indicate that the gain was statistically significant.

Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of the Reading Comprehension Tasks prior to and after reading instruction. These tasks, as previously mentioned, consisted of three texts differing in topic and genre, and related questions. The tasks were scored out of 195 points. As shown in Table 3, the subjects in this study achieved a gain from pre- to post-test scores on the Reading Comprehension Tasks. The difference between means (152.6818 to 167.4545) was in the expected direction and T tests indicate that the gain was statistically significant. The results show that there is a significant difference in reading comprehension scores obtained on the Reading Comprehension Tasks before and after computer-assisted reading strategy instruction. While the overall results of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Reading Comprehension Tasks, and Reading Strategy Inventory clearly show an improvement in students’ reading proficiency and comprehension given strategy instruction via the computer, there was no direct evidence from the study of the role played by computer-assisted instruction. The latter section of this paper deals with this issue in more detail.

As stated, this question was also investigated qualitatively based on the data obtained from the (post-activity) Interview questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 13 open-ended questions. The first few questions were designed to gather information about students' reactions towards the class and the use of the computer in this class. Other questions were designed to obtain information about the advantages and disadvantages of this type of program. The last few questions were specifically designed to obtain information on the effectiveness of this web-based strategy-training program in terms of strategy use and reading comprehension. The following comments reveal interesting themes.

In terms of their likes and dislikes, some students stated that the computer enabled them to complete assignments more quickly. Others also commented on the ease of accessibility to the program which enabled them to further practice or review particular aspects. Students also commented on the amount of information the program contained and the fact that they could obtain even further information through the various links that were provided, and search engines. On the other hand, a few students made comments pertaining to difficulties they had such as having to scroll up and down the computer screen while reading. Others stated that at times their eyes were strained due to some of the lengthy assignments and activities. For the most part, however, the students' responses indicate that they had very positive experiences working on a computer.

The students' positive responses towards the activities they engaged in were further reflected in their responses to more specific questions which asked them what they learned from this program, and whether the experience was useful. The students felt they benefited from the program in a number of different ways. Many students stated that the program led to an improvement in reading skills and strategies. For example, one student said:

With this program I became more familiar with responding and comprehending passages. It was practice and I guess it helped my reading strategies because I pay more attention now when I read.

Another student stated, "This program forced me to read more and think more. I like reading much more now". Others stated that the program exposed them to a number of different texts, thereby allowing them to become more familiar with various topics. Some students also stated that the program was useful because it provided them with information on writing. One student wrote:

There was an explanation for each different kind of reading and writing which I have difficulties to figure out in the past. Along with those explanations, there were more sample essays, so I can actually read it and know the differences between these essays.

It was also interesting to note comments related to the beneficial aspects of using the computer. For example, one student stated:

I have learned that the computer is a great tool for teachers and students to use. Students are often nervous about reading in front of the class and about writing responses. By using the computer, ideas seem to flow better.

Some students noted that they were able to improve their overall computer skills by working on the program, which was also seen as a benefit for their other courses.

The students were also asked about specific difficulties they faced in the process of completing the web assignments. Many students reported they encountered few or no difficulties. For a few, however, technology access posed one of the major problems. For those students who did not possess a computer at home, homework assignments forced them to work at the university labs, which may have been crowded at certain periods during the semester, thus causing students to spend more time on completion of these assignments.

Several times over the semester while this study was being carried out, there were problems with the College of Humanities (COH) server. One student, for example, stated:

Computers sometimes crash or freeze. It was very depressing when I was working in the computer lab and found there was no "submit" button. Something was wrong with the computer that day.

Overall, while the majority of students felt that using computers to do activities and assignments in this course did not cause any difficulties for them, a few of them did report frustrations about doing assignments on the computer.

Students were asked to respond to two questions asking them to comment on whether the program affected their reading, or use of reading strategies. The students' responses show that for the most part, they thought the program and the experience itself made them more effective readers. A few students stated that they are now reading more as a result of this program. Others stated that they were exposed to a number of readings differing in form and content, which provided them with practice in reading different types of texts. While a few students felt they were unable to provide a definite opinion about whether their reading behaviours, or strategy use has changed as a result of this program, many students believed that this program did affect their strategy use. A few students made comments about using strategies more frequently, while others stated that the program made them more aware of strategies that can be used to facilitate text comprehension. Others stated that they focus more when they read now, while others mentioned an improvement in analytical and critical reading skills. One student stated:

To answer the questions on the web based reading assignments, you really had to read so I did read, even though I’m not a fan of reading. After I completed the first reading assignments, I started focusing on my reading, and now I do read and focus on what I read.

Another stated:

Everything has a purpose and I have to read to discover that. Because of this, I also realized that I need to read objectively. I came to realize to pay attention to the author’s intention instead of keep reading the text with no real attention on the purpose or why it was written.

In terms of the students' general evaluations and opinions of the course, all students stated that they would recommend this class to their peers. One student stated:

I would recommend this class to those who don't possess the reading strategies and have difficulties to read critical readings and literature.

Other students stated that this course and the web assignments enabled them to improve their reading and writing skills.

The final question on the Interview Questionnaire asked the students to provide suggestions for improving the web program. From their responses, it seems that some students would have preferred to have fewer assignments. Some students felt eyestrain, while reading on a computer screen for long periods of time. A few students also indicated their desire for more examples and practice exercises. Finally, many students felt that if they could receive immediate on-line feedback to their responses, it would be more helpful to them. Others felt that if they had access to other students' assignments, once completed, this would further enhance their understanding of various assignments.

 

 

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings from this study indicate significant improvement in students' reading comprehension as a result of the web-based reading strategy instruction program. Such results render strong support for the beneficial effects of computer-assisted reading strategy instruction. The results of this study are supported by both theoretical and empirical findings from previous research. The observed differences in students' reading comprehension as operationalised by reading proficiency and performance on the Nelson-Denny Standardized Test and Reading Comprehension Tasks confirm the findings of previous studies in both L1 and L2 reading, which have demonstrated that reading strategy instruction improves reading comprehension and performance (Anderson, 1991; Barnett, 1988b; Block, 1986; Brown, Armbruster & Baker, 1986; Carrell, Pharis, & Liberto, 1989; Garner, 1987; Kern, 1989; Palincsar and Brown, 1984, Pressley et al, 1989; Waxman & Padron, 1987).

While most studies in L2 reading instruction have focused on the teaching of general reading strategies, this study sought to provide instruction in both general and task-specific strategies. The items on the test and tasks included readings which differed in genre and topic. The web program itself consisted of instruction in both general and task-specific strategies in order to improve the students' reading comprehension of both academic and literary works they are exposed to in first-year composition courses. From the results of the tests and reading tasks, it is evident that computer-assisted reading instruction in both general and task-specific strategies improved students' overall comprehension and reading proficiency of both academic and literary texts.

Furthermore, analysis of the students' responses on the Reading Comprehension Tasks revealed that strategy instruction positively affected their use of strategies. Overall, students tended to report using a wider range of strategies after instruction. In addition, students used strategies more frequently following strategy instruction. These findings are consistent with previous studies examining the relationship between reading proficiency and strategy use (Anderson, 1991; Block, 1986; Knight, Padron, & Waxman, 1987; Paris & Meyers, 1981). It was also interesting to note that the overall quality of student responses to the questions on the Reading Comprehension Tasks improved, indicating greater understanding of the texts themselves, and textual features.

One of the goals of the web-based strategy instruction program was to make students more aware of reading strategies and how and when they can be used. Interestingly, significant differences were found in perceived usage of strategies in three out of six areas: cognitive, memory and affective strategies. The fact that there was improvement in these specific areas is of relevance. Cognitive strategies, as stated, are used to transform or manipulate the language in some way in order to enhance comprehension. In addition to the strategies noted above, this includes higher order skills, or what have been referred to as problem solving skills, such as analysis, synthesis, and transformation (Oxford, 1990; Wenden & Rubin, 1987). Memory strategies are techniques which help the learner to remember and retrieve information. These may include creating mental images through grouping and associating, semantic mapping, employing word associations, and associating new materials with known material. Affective strategies are self-encouraging behaviours used by readers to lower anxiety and encourage learning (Oxford, 1990). Various studies have shown that negative affective states affect language performance and learning (Ellis, 1989; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991; Skehan, 1989).

Oxford (1990) has made a general distinction between direct and indirect strategies. Cognitive, Memory, and Compensation strategies are direct strategies in that they directly involve the target language in the sense that they require mental processing of the language. Metacognitive, Affective, and Social strategies are indirect strategies in that they provide support for language learning through focusing, planning, evaluating, monitoring, seeking opportunities to learn and understand, and controlling anxiety. In this case, students believed they were using cognitive, memory, and affective strategies to a greater extent after instruction than before instruction. Such results are consistent with scores on the Reading Comprehension Tasks in which there was an increase in frequency of strategy use in all areas. Previous research has shown that increased awareness about ourselves, the tasks we face, and the strategies we employ can lead to improved comprehension (Baker & Brown, 1984; Baumann, Jones, & Seifer-Kessel, 1993; Carrell, 1989; Garner, 1987). The computer program itself appears to have accomplished these outcomes by making students more aware of their own strategy use, by increasing their familiarity with reading strategies and how they are used, and by providing practice in strategy use.

Students’ responses show that in general, they believed the reading instruction program improved their reading skills and use of strategies because of the range of activities, types of activities, and explanations and support offered online. Overall they enjoyed participating in the online activities and found them to be interesting and useful. They commented on their exposure to a variety of readings and topics made possible because of the computer, and that they were reading more than usual, again because of the computer medium. Recent studies in using computer-assisted instruction in the realm of reading have also reported beneficial effects of such instruction. In these studies, however, students' reactions to such tasks and experiences were not considered, but rather researchers reported improvements in pre- and post-test measures of comprehension and reading proficiency (Adler-Kassner & Reynolds, 1996; Arroyo, 1992; Chun & Plass, 1996; Lomicka, 1997; Lyman-Hager & Davis, 1996; Pederson, 1986; Wepner, Feeley, & Wilde, 1989). Some studies in the area of computer-assisted instruction and reading have also found an increase in student motivation and confidence (Adler-Kassner & Reynolds, 1996; Arroyo, 1992).

 

Limitations of the Study

Although the findings of the present study have revealed the benefits of computer-assisted strategy instruction, several factors need to be taken into account when interpreting the results and generalizing the findings. First of all, the subjects of this study were twenty-two ESL students enrolled in a freshman composition course. They were placed in English 108 either because of their scores on a written placement exam, or due to advancement from English 107. Thus the findings are limited to subjects with a profile similar to those participating in this project. A larger number of subjects may have allowed the researcher to apply and generalize the findings of this study to other language learning contexts. Second, the types of data collected in this study were mainly think-aloud responses and student self-reports. While protocol analysis is the main methodology through which reading comprehension data is investigated, it is not without its shortcomings. The most basic concern expressed in the literature is that we may not be able to observe the workings of our own minds with accuracy. In other words, we may be unaware of the operations of memory, attentions, comprehension processes, and the like - perhaps because many of these processes are so automatic. Therefore, the discrepancy between knowledge versus use should be recognized when using think-aloud report data and protocol analysis. Lastly, while the overall results of the study clearly show an improvement in students’ reading proficiency and comprehension given strategy instruction via the computer, there was no direct evidence from the study of the role played by computer-assisted instruction.

For future research, an experimental or quasi-experimental design could be used to compare the reading comprehension and strategy use of students who receive computer-assisted strategy instruction and those who do not. The same tasks could be assigned to each group but the experimental group would be exposed to instruction via the web, while the control group would receive the traditional mode of instruction. Such a design can also be further refined by examining the differences in overall reading comprehension, and comprehension monitoring processes and strategy use of low and high proficient readers in each group.

Overall, the results of this study reinforce the necessity of including a reading strategy instruction component in college-level ESL composition courses. Furthermore, the findings of this study provide pedagogical implications for reading strategy instruction and the application of computer technology in second language reading instruction, particularly in designing effective tasks that could facilitate L2 students' reading skills. In this study, the computer played a central role in the course and in the teaching of strategies in that it was a tool by which supplementary materials were explained and strategy use was practised. The medium itself enabled the instructor to provide the students with many more texts than is possible in a traditional classroom setting. Students indicated that the computer tasks and design of the course also led to an increase in the amount they were reading, and the range of topics they were reading about. The hypertextual environment led to flexibility in terms of students being able to progress at their own pace, and also provided access to a wealth of information beneficial in building content knowledge and clarifying concepts. The computer was also essential to the design and implementation of the study as it facilitated the collection of data. The reading activities and practice exercises, pre- and post Reading Strategy Inventory, and Reading Comprehension Tasks were completed online. Given the findings of the study, as well as some of the limitations, this is an area that needs to be further investigated.

 

References

 

Adler-Kassner, L. & Reynolds, T. (1996). Computers, reading and basic writers. Online strategies for helping students with academic texts. Teaching English in the two-Year College, 23(3), 170-178.

Anderson, N. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.

Arroyo, C. (1992). What is the effect of extensive use of computers on the reading achievement scores of seventh grade students? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 353544).

Baker, L. & Brown. A. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In D. Pearson (Ed.) Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Longman. pp353-394.

Barnett, M. (1988a). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 72, 150-162.

Barnett, M. (1988b). Teaching reading strategies: How methodology affects language course articulation. Foreign Language Annals, 21(2), 109-119.

Baumann, J.F., Jones, L.A. & Seifert-Kessell, N. (1993). Using think alouds to enhance children’s comprehension monitoring abilities. The Reading Teacher, 47(3), 184-193.

Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463-494.

Brown, A., Armbruster, B. & Baker, L. (1983). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In J. Orsany (Ed.) Reading Comprehension: From research to practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp49-75.

Carrell, P.L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-134.

Carrell, P.L., Pharis, B. & Liberto, J. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 647-678.

Chun, D.M. & Plass, J.L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 80(2), 183-198.

Ellis, R. (1989). Classroom learning styles and their effect on 2^nd language acquisition: A study of 2 learners. System, 17, 249-262.

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hahn, A.L. (1984). Assessing and extending comprehension: Monitoring strategies in the classroom. Reading Horizons, 24, 231-237.

Kern, R. (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. Modern Language Journal, 73, 135-146.

Knight, S., Padron, Y., & Waxman, H.C. (1985). The cognitive reading strategies of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 789-792.

Lomicka, L. (1997). To gloss or not to gloss: An investigation of reading comprehension on-line. Language Learning and Technology, 1(2), 41-50.

Lyman-Hager, M., Davis, J. (1996). The case for the computer-mediated reading: Une Vie de Boy. French Review, 69(5), 775-790.

MacIntyre, P. & Gardner, R. (1991). Methods and results in the study of foreign language anxiety: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41, 25-57.

Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.

Palincsar, A. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.

Paris, S.G. & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 13, 5-22.

Pederson, K. (1986). An experiment in computer-assisted second-language reading. Modern Language Journal, 70, 36-41.

Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R. & Evans, E.D. (1989). The challenges of classroom strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 89, 301-342.

Singhal, M. (1997). The effects of text familiarity on the reading comprehension strategies of three Arabic-speaking readers: A case study. Working Papers of the Interdisciplinary Program in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, 5, 73-83.

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.

Waxman, H.C. & Padron, Y. (1987). The effect of ESL students’ perceptions of their cognitive strategies on reading achievement. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Dallas.

Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wepner, S., Feeley, J.T. & Wilde, S. (1989). Using computers in college reading courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 13(1), 6-8, 24.

 

APPENDIX : Strategy Coding Scheme

STSB Reading Strategies (Strategy Type+Strategy Behaviour)

STRATEGY TYPE	STRATEGY BEHAVIOUR	DESCRIPTION
Cognitive	Paraphrasing/ Summarizing	The reader rephrases content using different words but retains the same sense.
Cognitive	Anticipating/ Predicting	The reader predicts what content will occur in succeeding portions of the text.
Cognitive	Previewing Text	The reader previews the text to see how it is organized and related to what they know.
Cognitive	Employing Context Clues	The reader uses clues in the text in order to make predictions or increase understanding. The reader uses lexical or syntactic context to determine word meaning.
Cognitive	Repeating Words	The reader repeats unknown words.
Cognitive	Analyzing	The reader analyzes word structure, grammatical structures, expressions, text format, or author's argument and strategies to determine the meanings of these words/sentences/expressions and text overall.
Cognitive	Word Division	The reader divides the words into parts to make it comprehensible.
Cognitive	Using Illustrations	The reader uses illustrations/graphs, etc. in order to facilitate understanding of the text.
Cognitive	Using Titles	The reader uses titles/headings to facilitate understanding of the text.
Cognitive	Rereading	The reader rereads parts of a text several times in order to facilitate comprehension.
Cognitive	Using Prior Knowledge	The reader uses prior knowledge such as context, textual, and linguistic schema to make sense of text.
Compensation	Guessing/ Hypothesizing	The reader guesses the general meaning of a word by using context clues.
Memory	Associating	The reader creates an association between new material and what is already known.

 

 

Memory	Word Grouping	The reader places the new words in a group with other similar known words to determine meaning.
Memory	Word Associating	The reader associates a word with a known word in order to determine meaning.
Memory	First Language Associating-Cognates	The reader remembers a new word by identifying it with a word in their first language.
Metacognitive	Monitoring	The reader self-monitors own understanding/ pacing/pronunciation of words.
Metacognitive	Correcting Errors	The reader tries to correct their language/reading errors.
Metacognitive	Word Recognition	The reader is able to recognize unknown words by repeating them.
Metacognitive	Recognizing Text Organization	The reader recognizes the rhetorical pattern of the text.
Metacognitive	Recognizing Genre	The reader recognizes the type of text/genre.
Metacognitive	Recognizing Connectors	The reader recognizes connectors as they are used by the writer to continue ideas/themes.
Metacognitive	Recognizing Textual Features	The reader recognizes specific textual features such as literary devices and/or rhetorical strategies.
Metacognitive	Distinguishing	The reader recognizes what is important and not important and can skip those words or information
Affective	Self-Encouragement	The reader makes encouraging statements to his/herself and pays attention to factors that may interfere with performance or comprehension.
Social	Clarifying	The reader asks for clarification when something is not understood.
Social	Verifying	The reader asks for verification that something has been understood or said correctly.
Social	Seeking Feedback	The reader asks others for feedback about his or reading, responses, etc.

 

 

Textual	Reacting to Text	The reader can react to a text and express opinions about the text and textual characteristics or features.
Textual	Interpreting Text	The reader draws a conclusion about the text in terms of theme or interpretation of text.
Textual	Emotional Reaction	The reader reacts emotionally to the text and can make personal connections.