Content uploaded by Jamaal R. Young
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jamaal R. Young on Dec 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 189
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus
Technology-based Instruction on Reading
Comprehension of EFL Students
Sami Alsuwat
University of North Texas, United States
e-mail: SamiAlsuwat@my.unt.edu
Jamaal Rashad Young
University of North Texas, United States
e-mail: Jamaal.young@unt.ed
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.
Key-words: reading comprehension, EFL, strategy instruction, technology-based
instruction
EFL JOURNAL
Vol. 1 No. 3, 2016
www.efljournal.org
e-ISSN: 2502-6054, p-ISSN: 2527-5089
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 190
1. INTRODUCTION
Comprehensive summaries of the effects of instructional strategies and resources on
language learning are essential for research and praxis. Language conveys meaning and
contributes to the sharing of ideas and information, thus when written language is
successfully understood, reading can be a powerful skill and an inspiring tool.
Appropriately, reading is an important skill in acquiring a language for learners of
English as a foreign language (EFL). Reading helps EFL learners to build their
vocabulary and improve their L2 skills (Taguchi, Melhem, & Kawaguchi, 2016).
Research in EFL reading has focused on several factors that affect reading
comprehension. King (2008) believes that four factors are included in reading
comprehension. They are the reader, the text, the strategy, and the goal. Reading
strategies are actions of how readers conceive a task, how they make sense of what they
read, what they do when they do not understand, and what cues they attend to (Cohen,
2014). For the purpose of this study we focus on the EFL reader, technology and
traditional strategies, and the effects of these variables on reading achievement. The use
of technology has become essential around the world. The influence of technology can
also be seen in modern reading instruction. Technology-based learning may provide an
active learning environment for many students. Both traditional and technology-based
approaches are used in ways that complement each other and promote student
achievement (Cheung & Slavin, 2013). Yet, the influence of technology and traditional
instructional strategies on the reading achievement of EFL learners has yet to be
systematically reviewed and synthesized.
2. TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGY BASED READING
INSTRUCTION
The affordances and constraints of traditional reading instruction and technology-based
reading instruction are numerous. Yet, many teachers are drawn to the allure of new
technological resources or steeped in their familiarity with traditional reading
instructional strategies. In the following discussion we examine the benefits and
constraints of traditional reading instruction and technology-based instruction to support
the reading comprehension needs of EFL students.
2.1 Traditional Reading Instruction
Academic reading can present a challenge for students in their first language (L1), and
can be substantially more difficult in their second language (L2). Reading strategies are
an essential part of language learning and reading comprehension for EFL students.
Reading strategies assist learners in the development of long-term metacognitive
reading systems. A strategy is “a multiplicity of actions, careful integrating available
means in order to achieve desired ends” (Marcella, 2010, p.13). Garber (1991) defines
reading strategy as “a deliberate action that readers take voluntarily to develop an
understanding of what they read" (p. 379). A strategy is neither art nor a science, but
rather both. As an art, it is the ability to think strategically, and this is a skill, which can
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 191
be developed by studying, observing, and experiencing. As a science, thinking
strategically requires the pursuit of knowledge, collection of information, and analysis
of different hypotheses to solve a problem (Marcella, 2010). Given the complex nature
of reading strategies, it is important to consider the quality rather than the quantity of
strategies to improve the reading comprehension of EFL students.
Alsamadani (2009) indicates that the kind of reading strategy that one employs is
essential, whereas the quantity of reading strategies practiced while reading does not
ensure greater reading comprehension. The quality of strategies can improve reading
comprehension and increase awareness of readers’ performance as they read. Therefore,
researchers must recognize the significant role of metacognitive awareness in reading
comprehension. Researchers who investigate reading strategies of L1 and L2 readers
have suggested that comprehension activities of proficient readers take place at the
metacognitive level (Pressley, 2002; Wen, 2003). There are two type of metacognition:
(1) metacognitive knowledge and (2) metacognitive regulation (Thillmann, Gößling,
Marschner, Wirth, & Leutner, 2013). Researchers also posit that there is a relationship
between metacognitive awareness-raising and reading comprehension improvement.
This indicates that metacognitive strategy is efficient and is statistically significant in
increasing reading comprehension (Dabarera, Renandya, & Zhang, 2014).
According to Alsamadani (2011) using different comprehension strategies improves the
reading comprehension of EFL learners. Associated skills such as writing also support
the reading comprehension of EFL learners. For example, Balenghizadeh and Babapour
(2001) found that reading comprehension can be significantly enhanced through
writing. The authors suggest that written works or summary writing strategies not only
develops student reading comprehension, but also enables them to recall the content
longer.
2.2 Technology-based Instruction
Technology is a useful educational tool to support the reading comprehension of EFL
students. However compared to traditional reading instructional strategies, technology-
based reading strategies are still in their infancy. Brantmeier (2003) examined how
instructors perceive the integration of technology-based materials in the second
language (L2) reading process. The participants were ten Ph.D. students who were
enrolled in a seminar on second language acquisition (SLA) and Computer Assisted
Language Learning (CALL) for a semester. The findings suggest that the use of
technology improved the use of class time in more collaborative ways and that students’
reading comprehension was statistically significantly improved. The researcher
hypothesized that technology enhanced student motivation, which influence its
effectiveness. Motivation is one of the key affordances of technology-based reading
instruction. As Lee (2000) states, students feel more independent with computers, and
motivation rises. More explicit affordances of technology also abound.
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 192
Technology can facilitate reading comprehension when utilized in an informed and
responsible manner. Huang (2014) investigated the impact of computer-based reading
instruction versus paper-based instruction in the college EFL teaching context. The
results of the study show that the online reading group had higher reading
comprehension than the paper-based group. According to Mathews one explanation for
this finding is that “reading and interaction with a book on a computer screen has the
potential to be a powerful motivation force for even the most reluctant readers” (p. 380).
Finally, Chen et al. (2013) examined the effects of an e-book extensive reading program
on EFL students' English reading attitude. The findings suggest that the experimental
group has statistically significantly better reading attitudes and reading comprehension
compared to the control group. Given the consistent positive support for technology-
based reading instruction for EFL students, many teachers and researchers may begin to
forgo traditional instructional methods in favor of the digital tools. However, previous
meta-analytic studies have yet to examine the differential effects of technology-based
instruction compared to traditional instruction for EFL student reading comprehension.
A meta-analysis conducted by Davis (2010) investigated the uses of multiple
comprehension strategy instruction (MCSI) over 30 years. The findings revealed that
the use of MCSI promotes literacy achievement among students in grades 4-8, and
provide directions for future research in reading comprehension pedagogy. However,
the study did not examine the technology-based instruction as a moderator variable.
Because both technology-based and traditional strategies instruction have a consistent
positive effect on reading comprehension of EFL learners, the objective of this meta-
analysis study is to investigate the cumulative and differential effects of on EFL student
reading comprehension.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Literature Search
A literature search was conducted the following databased: Academic Search Complete,
ERIC, Education Source, and Google scholar. The initial keyword search produced 95
studies. Out of these, 17 studies (with 20 effect sizes) were retained for use in this meta-
analysis. Others were rejected as they did not match the criteria as described below:
The following criteria for inclusion were set:
The studies were published between 2007 and 2017.
The study was quasi-experiment or a true experiment.
Included both experimental (traditional strategy or technology-based method)
and control groups.
The study included EFL learners as the population of interest.
Studies were peer-reviewed articles (Grey literature were excluded).
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 193
Seventeen studies satisfied the above-mentioned criteria were included in the
meta-analysis. A flowchart of the inclusion and exclusion process is presented
in figure 1.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of inclusion and exclusion of studies.
Records identified through database
searching
(n = 92)
Additional records identified
through other sources
(n = 3)
Records after duplicates removed
(n = 83)
Records screened
(n = 83)
Records excluded
(n = 27)
Full-text articles assessed
for eligibility
(n = 56)
Full-text articles excluded
(n = 39)
Studies included in
meta-analysis
(n = 17)
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 194
3.2 Study Characteristics
A descriptive analysis of characteristics of the studies in the meta-analysis was
tabulated and presented in the data here. Most of the studies about 29.41% in this meta-
analysis were published in the year 2012, while 23.53% were published in 2011 as
shown in table 1. The data presented in table 2 suggest that the majority of studies,
47.05% had treatment duration of between 5 to 9 weeks. Most of the included studies
were conducted in Iran. The Persian language was the L1 in 35.29% of the studies, and
Taiwanese language wad slightly less represented at 23.53% as seen in Table 3. The
sample sizes for each study are summarizes in table 4, 41.18% of studies had between
61 and 100 subjects, which was the most representative range of participants. The
number of studies that used traditional strategy-based instruction with L2 studies,
represented 70.59% percent, while 29.41% used technology-based instruction, complete
study details are presented in table 5.
Table 1
Distribution of year of publication across studies
Year
Number
Percentage
2007
1
6.88
2010
2
11.76
2011
4
23.53
2012
5
29.41
2013
1
6.88
2014
3
17.66
2016
1
6.88
Total
17
100
Table 2
Distribution of duration of treatment across studies
Weeks
Number
Percentage
1-4
4
23.52
5-9
8
47.05
10-16
5
29.41
Total
17
100
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 195
Table 3
Distribution of first language across studies
L1
Number
Percentage
Arabic
2
11.76
Persian
6
35.29
Taiwanese
4
23.53
Chinese
2
11.76
Indonesian
1
6.88
Singaporean
1
6.88
Malaysian
1
6.88
Total
17
100
Table 4
Distribution of sample size across studies
Sample Size
Number
Percentage
30-50
3
17.66
51-60
4
23.53
61-100
7
41.18
1001-340
3
17.66
Total
17
100
Table 5
Distribution of method of instruction across studies
Method
Number
Percentage
Traditional
12
70.59
Technology
5
29.41
Total
17
100
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 196
Table 6 presents the effect sizes and characteristics of the included studies. The data in
table 6 where analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3.0. Given the substantial
variation in study characteristics we predicted that significant heterogeneity existed and
thus planed implement a random effects model to calculate the overall effect size. The
random effects model also supports the subsequent moderator analysis necessary to
analyze the difference between traditional and technology-based reading strategies. To
assess this assumption we observed the Q statistic. If the Q statistic is statistically
significant then the assumption of significant heterogeneity is supported and random
effects model is most appropriate.
Table 6
Effect Sizes and Characteristics of studies
Study reference
Language
N
Instruction
Moderator
Age
ES
Alsamadani (2011)
Arabic
/English
85
3-2-1
Traditional
18-23
1.889
Khatib & Fat’hi (2011)
Persian/
English
60
Phonological
Component
Traditional
18-25
1.0631
Safadi & Rababah
(2012)
Arabic/
English
107
Scaffolding
Traditional
grade
11
1.6554
Soleimani & Nabizadeh
(2012) A
Persian/
English
30
Learner
Constructed
CM
Traditional
17-18
3.3587
Soleimani & Nabizadeh
(2012) B
Persian/
English
30
The map CM
Traditional
17-18
5.198
Soleimani & Nabizadeh
(2012) C
Persian/
English
30
Summarize
Traditional
17-18
3.7692
Modirkhamene (2012)
Persian/
English
70
Multiple
Intelligences-
based
Traditional
16-23
4.281
Baleghizadeh &
Babapour (2011)
Persian/
English
50
Summary
writing
Traditional
18
2.1161
Dabarera et al. (2014)
Singapore
an/
English
67
Meta-
cognitive
Traditional
12-15
1.0398
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 197
Mistar et al. (2016)
Indonesia
n/ English
71
Predicting,
text mapping
and
summarizing
Traditional
Grade
10
1.3374
Jalilifa et al. (2007)
Persian/
English
60
Meta-
discourse
Traditional
College
1.5921
Choo et al. (2011)
Malaysia
n/ English
68
Reciprocal
Traditional
sixth
form
3.0308
Jiang (2012)
Chinese/
English
340
Graphic
organizers
Traditional
19
0.1363
Chen et al. (2013)
Taiwanes
e/ English
89
E-books
Technology
18-19
1.0309
Sadeghi & Ahmadi
(2012) A
Persian/
English
30
Computer-
based
Technology
17-20
2.0029
Sadeghi & Ahmadi
(2012) B
Persian/
English
30
Computer-
based
Extended
Technology
17-20
2.9433
Liu et al. (2010)
Taiwanes
e/ English
192
Computer -
assisted
Concept
mapping
Technology
college
0.7327
Huang, (2014)
Taiwanes
e/ English
57
Online
reading
Technology
college
1.2974
Chen et al. (2010)
Taiwanes
e/ English
56
Tag-based
learning
TACO
Technology
high
school
0.9512
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Effect sizes are related to the magnitude of the effect caused by the treatment.
According to Cohen (1992) the effect size is a significant measure in evaluating
research. The importance of effect size multiplied with the advent of meta-analysis in
late 70's (Glass, 1976), thus in the following discussion the overall and differential
intervention effects are presented. In this section the results of the meta-analysis are
shown beginning in table 7 below, the overall or mean effect size was 1.176. The
confidence interval was 0.818 and 1.534, given that the confidence interval does not
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 198
include zero, we concluded that this is a statistically significant mean effect size. As
shown in table 7 a statistically significant Q, was observed indicating the presence of
significant heterogeneity. The large I2 statistic further substantiates the presence of
heterogeneity. Based on the heterogeneity present in the studies the random effects
model was implemented. To assess the possibility of publication bias in this meta-
analysis we calculated the Fail-Safe N and trim and fill. As presented in table 7 the Fail-
Safe N was large and the trim and fill resulted in zero imputed effect sizes. This
indicates that the collected studies are sufficiently represented of the available literature.
Table 7
Overall results of Meta-analysis
Heterogeneity
Publication Bias
k
N
ES
CI
Q
I2
Fail-Safe N
Trim and Fill
Overall
Results
20
1561
1.176*
[.818, 1.534]
203.816*
90.678
1399
0
* indicates a statistically significant result.
Table 8 presents the results of the moderator analysis. This study focused on examining
the difference between technology-based and traditional instruction to support EFL
student reading comprehension, thus strategy was the moderator of interest. From the 12
studies using traditional instruction 14 effect sizes were extracted with a group mean
effect size of 0.703. The 95% confidence interval 0.581 and 0.824, and did not include
zero. The technology-based instruction category included 5 studies, from which 6 effect
sizes were extracted. The mean group effect size for technology-based strategies was
0.707, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.511 to 0.902 that does not include zero.
Although both strategies had statistically significant effect sizes, they were
approximately the same in magnitude. This along with the non-statistically significant
QB indicates that traditional and technology-based reading strategies are essentially
equally effective mechanisms to support EFL reading comprehension.
Table 8
Teaching strategy moderator analysis
Moderator
k
QB
ES
95% CI
Methods
.001
Traditional
14
.703*
[.581, .824]
Technology
6
.707*
[.511, .902]
* indicates a statistically significant result.
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 199
5. CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis study indicates that there is a positive statistically significant effect
of using traditional instruction or technology-based based instruction on reading
comprehension of EFL learners. This study supports the educational value of traditional
strategy instruction in EFL reading class (ES = 0.703). Prior studies also indicate that
EFL students who are taught reading through traditional strategies have significantly
higher scores of reading comprehension (Ahmadi, 2012; Khatib & Fat’hi, 2011). The
results of this study are important because they support traditional strategies, but we
would be remiss if we need not remind researchers and teachers that overall
effectiveness depends on the strategy quality.
Our study also indicates that technology-based strategies have the ability to improve
reading comprehension (ES = 0.707). This finding is important because it supports prior
research with explicit digital tools. For example, teachers should consider including the
ebook into EFL instruction, given it is a powerful reading comprehension tool (Chen et
al., 2013). Other studies provide support for general computers and multimedia use to
enhance teaching in traditional and online computerized L2 text comprehension
(Sadeghi & Ahmadi, 2012). Thus, our study supports prior research that suggests the
use of technology-based instruction to improve poor readers’ reading ability and
narrowed the proficiency gap between good and poor EFL readers (Liu et al., 2010).
To conclude, the most important result of this study was that technology-based and
traditional strategies are equally effective resources to support the reading
comprehension of EFL students. This is of educative import because oftentimes
resources are scarce, and schools must choose whether or not to purchase digital
resources to support student learning. Based on the results of our study schools can
forgo purchasing digital tools to support EFL reading comprehension if resources are
scarce. However, it is important to note that the quality of instruction matters, thus
alternatively if schools lack adequately trained teachers; then technology-based
resources are an equally effective strategy if the financial resources are available.
In conclusion, as the importance of English proficiency grows, the results of this study
have substantial implications for supporting the learning needs of an increasingly
linguistically diverse international populous. The overall results of this meta-analysis
study contradict the oft-claimed assumption that technology is more effective in
teaching than traditional instructional strategies. It revealed that while studies have
concluded that differences exist between traditional teaching strategies and technology-
based instruction to improved reading comprehension of EFL students, when
differences are compared in effect size units there is essentially no difference between
using traditional reading instruction or technology-based instruction to support EFL
students reading comprehension.
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 200
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: Routledge.
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 Sesearch.
TESOL Quarterly, 25: 375–406.
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 201
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.
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Traditional versus Technology-based Instruction
EFL JOURNAL
, Volume 1 (3), 2016 202
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.