Towards the Construction and Validation of a Learners’ Online Reading Engagement (LORE) Scale: A Case of Iranian EFL Teachers and Learners
محورهای موضوعی : Teaching
Fatemeh Miri
1
,
Saeed Ahmadi
2
,
Hamideh Taheri
3
1 - Department of English Language, Islamic Azad University Bushehr Branch, Bushehr, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Islamic Azad University Bushehr Branch, Bushehr, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, Islamic Azad University Bushehr Branch, Bushehr, Iran
کلید واژه: Reading engagement, online reading, EFL learners, engagement dimensions, online reading engagement ,
چکیده مقاله :
With the advent of advanced technology, a substantial proportion of reading takes place online. Reading engagement is an important factor which makes considerable contributions to reading comprehension. However, there is no valid and reliable measure for assessing learners' online reading engagement. Accordingly, this study constructed and validated a scale to gauge LORE. Initially, 20 EFL learners and 20 teachers were interviewed and based on the results of thematic analysis and extant components in the literature, an initial draft of the LORE was prepared. This draft became subject to expert opinion in a panel of three PhD holders in TEFL. Afterwards, the scale was distributed to 335 learners. The results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Cronbach's Alpha yielded satisfactory psychometric properties for the 21-item scale consisting of six factors including affective, behavioral, cognitive, linguistic, agentic, and social dimensions. The analysis of aggregate means revealed that learners were highly engaged in behavioral and affective aspects, moderately engaged in the cognitive and agentic facets, but they had low levels of engagement in linguistic and social dimensions. Based on the results, the scale can be safely used to measure EFL learners' online reading engagement. Moreover, it is recommended that EFL teachers take measures to foster learners' linguistic and social engagement.
With the advent of advanced technology, a substantial proportion of reading takes place online. Reading engagement is an important factor which makes considerable contributions to reading comprehension. However, there is no valid and reliable measure for assessing learners' online reading engagement. Accordingly, this study constructed and validated a scale to gauge LORE. Initially, 20 EFL learners and 20 teachers were interviewed and based on the results of thematic analysis and extant components in the literature, an initial draft of the LORE was prepared. This draft became subject to expert opinion in a panel of three PhD holders in TEFL. Afterwards, the scale was distributed to 335 learners. The results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Cronbach's Alpha yielded satisfactory psychometric properties for the 21-item scale consisting of six factors including affective, behavioral, cognitive, linguistic, agentic, and social dimensions. The analysis of aggregate means revealed that learners were highly engaged in behavioral and affective aspects, moderately engaged in the cognitive and agentic facets, but they had low levels of engagement in linguistic and social dimensions. Based on the results, the scale can be safely used to measure EFL learners' online reading engagement. Moreover, it is recommended that EFL teachers take measures to foster learners' linguistic and social engagement.
Afflerbach, P., & Harrison, C. (2017). What is engagement, how is it different from motivation, and how can I promote it? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(2), 217–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.679
Ahmadi, S., & Nasr, M. (2022). Predicting EFL Learners’ Cognitive Engagement Based on Achievement Goals. Journal of Language and Translation, 12(3), 49-64. https://doi: 10.30495/ttlt.2022.692133
Almasi, J. F., & McKeown, M. G. (1996). The nature of engaged reading in classroom discussions of literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(1), 107–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969609547913
Anggraini, M.P., Cahyono, B.Y., Anugerahwati, M. et al. (2022). The interaction effects of reading proficiency and personality types on EFL university students’ online reading strategy use. Educ Inf Technol 27, 8821–8839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10979-9
Arndt, H. L. (2023). Construction and validation of a questionnaire to study engagement in informal second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1-25.
Ballenghein, U., Kaakinen, J. K., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2020). Cognitive engagement during reading on digital tablet: Evidence from concurrent recordings of postural and eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(11), 1820-1829.
Barber, A. T., Gallagher, M., Smith, P., Buehl, M. M., & Beck, J. S. (2016). Examining student cognitive and affective engagement and reading instructional activities: Spanish-speaking English learners’ reading profiles. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55(3), 209-236.
Block, C. C. (2004). Teaching comprehension: The comprehension process approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 319-343.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77. https://biotap.utk.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Using-thematic-analysis-in-psychology-1.pdf.pdf
Burke, R. (2020). Widening Participation and Linguistic Engagement in Australian Higher Education: Exploring Academics' Perceptions and Practices. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 32(2), 201-213.
Cartwright, K. B., & Duke, N. K. (2019). The DRIVE model of reading: Making the complexity of reading accessible. The Reading Teacher, 73(1), 7-15.
Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, G., O’Byrne, I., & Leu, D. J. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: new opportunities and challenges for students with learning difficulties. In C. Wyatt-Smith, J. Elkins, & S. Gunn (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 91–110). New York, NY: Springer.
Cervetti, G. (2019). Five decades of comprehension research: Informing the future. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(1), 123-131.
Chang, M. (2005). Instructional strategy application in Web-based language teaching and learning. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company
Cockroft, C., & Atkinson, C. (2017). Literacy Interventions Promoting Adolescent Reading Engagement and Motivation: A Systematic Literature Review. Educational Psychology Research and Practice, 3(1), 29-49.
Cook, C. R., Thayer, A. J., Fiat, A., & Sullivan, M. (2020). Interventions to enhance affective engagement. In A. L. Reschly, A. J. Pohl, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Student engagement: Effective academic, behavioral, cognitive, and affective interventions at school (pp. 203–237). Burnsville, MN: Springer.
Daher, W., Sabbah, K., & Abuzant, M. (2021). Affective engagement of higher education students in an online course. Emerge. Sci. J, 5(4), 545-558.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.
Evanovich, L. L., & Scott, T. M. (2022). Examining the effect of explicit reading instruction on the engagement of elementary students with challenging behaviors. Exceptionality, 30(2), 63-77.
Faghfouri, F., & Mohammadi, E. (2022). Computer-Mediated Immediate and Delayed L1 and L2 Glosses and Vocabulary Learning and Reading Comprehension of an ESP Text. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 445-465.
Fecteau, M. L. (1999). First‐and second‐language reading comprehension of literary texts. The Modern Language Journal, 83(4), 475-493.
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). Boston, MA: Springer.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Gao, L. (2023). Contemporary American literature in online learning: Fostering reading motivation and student engagement. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 4725-4740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11329-5
Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Engaging adolescents in reading. Corwin Press.
Guthrie, J. T., & Cox, K. E. (2001). Classroom conditions for motivation and engagement in reading. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 283–302. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016627907001
Guthrie, J. T., & Klauda, S. L. (2015). Engagement and motivational processes in reading. In Handbook of individual differences in reading (pp. 41-53). Routledge.
Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W. D., & Huang, C. W. (2001). Benefits of opportunity to read and balanced instruction on the NAEP. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 145–162. https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/00220 67010 95999 12
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and achievement in reading. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 601–634). Boston, MA: Springer.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231–256. https://doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 799xs sr0303_3
Hahnel, C., Ramalingam, D., Kroehne, U., & Goldhammer, F. (2022). Patterns of reading behavior in digital hypertext environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12709
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147665
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Huo, N., & Cho, Y. C. (2020). Investigating Effects of Metacognitive Strategies on Reading Engagement: Managing Globalized Education. The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business, 11(5), 17-26.
Ivey, G., & Johnston, P. H. (2013). Engagement with young adult literature: Outcomes and processes. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.46
Ivey, G., & Johnston, P. H. (2015). Engaged reading as a collaborative transformative practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(3), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15619731
Izati, R. A., Lestari, L. A., & Setiawan, S. (2021). Digital Reading Engagement of Junior High School Students during the Online Learning. Journal of English Language Teaching, 8(2), 181-188.
Jian, Y. C. (2022). Reading in print versus digital media uses different cognitive strategies: Evidence from eye movements during science-text reading. Reading and Writing, 1-20.
Jose, K. (2021). Google and me together can read anything. Online reading strategies to develop hypertext comprehension in ESL readers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(2), 896-914.
Karimova, K., & Csapó, B. (2021). The relationship between cognitive and affective dimensions of reading self-concept with reading achievement in English and Russian. Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(3), 324-353.
King, K. (2020). Interventions to enhance behavioral engagement. In A. L. Reschly, A. J. Pohl, & S. L. Christenson (Eds), Student engagement: Effective academic, behavioral, cognitive, and affective interventions at school (pp.133–156). Burnsville, MN: Springer.
Kirby, J. R., Ball, A., Geier, B. K., Parrila, R., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2011). The development of reading interest and its relation to reading ability. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01439.x
Lee, Y. H., & Wu, J. Y. (2012). The effect of individual differences in the inner and outer states of ICT on engagement in online reading activities and PISA 2009 reading literacy: Exploring the relationship between the old and new reading literacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 336-342.
Leonard, S., Stroud, M. J., & Shaw, R. J. (2021). Highlighting and taking notes are equally ineffective when Reading paper or eText. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 3811–3823. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10448-9
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1568–1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B., Liu, Y., et al. (2007). What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? In L. Rush, J. Eakle, & A. Berger (Eds.), Secondary school literacy: What research reveals for classroom practices (pp. 37–68) Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Li, P., & Clariana, R. B. (2019). Reading comprehension in L1 and L2: An integrative approach. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 50, 94-105.
Lin, J., Li, Q., Sun, H., Huang, Z., & Zheng, G. (2021). Chinese secondary school students’ reading engagement profiles: Associations with reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 34(9), 2257-2287.
Lin, L., King, R. B., Fu, L., & Leung, S. O. (2023). Information and communication technology engagement and digital reading: How meta‐cognitive strategies impact their relationship. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13355
Luyten, H., Peschar, J., & Coe, R. (2008). Effects of schooling on reading performance, reading engagement, and reading activities of 15-year-olds in England. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 319–342. https://doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00028 31207 313345
Mangen, A., & van der Weel, A. (2016). The evolution of reading in the age of digitization: An integrative framework for reading research. Literacy, 50(3), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12086
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523. https:// doi.org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 0663. 80.4. 514
Miller, B. W. (2015). Using reading times and eye-movements to measure cognitive engagement. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 31-42.
Mitchell, D.C., (1982). The process of reading: A cognitive analysis of fluent reading and learning to read. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 267–296. https://doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0021 890
Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 427-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820941288
Naumann, J. (2015). A model of online reading engagement: Linking engagement, navigation, and performance in digital reading. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 263-277.
Naumann, J., & Goldhammer, F. (2017). Time-on-task effects in digital reading are non-linear and moderated by persons' skills and tasks' demands. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 1– 16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.002
Neugebauer, S. R., Han, I., Fujimoto, K. A., & Ellis, E. (2022). Using National Data to Explore Online and Offline Reading Comprehension Processes. Reading Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.459
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, students’ engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261–290.
O’Brien, D. G., & Dillon, D. R. (2014). The role of motivation in engaged reading of adolescents. In K. A. Hinchman & H. S. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in adolescent literacy instruction (pp. 36–61). New York: Guilford Press.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Patra, I., Hashim Alghazali, T. A., Sokolova, E. G., Prasad, K. D. V., Pallathadka, H., Hussein, R. A., ... & Ghaneiarani, S. (2022). Scrutinizing the effects of e-learning on enhancing EFL learners’ reading comprehension and reading motivation. Education Research International, https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4481453
Pintrich, P. R., & Degroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi. org/ 10.1037/ 0022- 0663. 82.1. 33
Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 149–183). Erlbaum.
Prior, A., Goldina, A., Shany, M., Geva, E., & Katzir, T. (2014). Lexical inference in L2: Predictive roles of vocabulary knowledge and reading skill beyond reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 27(8), 1467-1484.
Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52(3), 513-536.
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 579–595.
Reeve, J., & Tseng, M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of student engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267.
Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. L. (2006). Research leading to a predictive model of dropout and completion among students with mild disabilities and the role of student engagement. Remedial and Special Education, 27(5), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270050301
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 700–712.
Rimi, R. N. (2019). Online Reading Habits of University Students in Bangladesh & Its Effects in ESL Classroom. International Journal of Education, 4(30), 251-264.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an integrative model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed., Attention and performance (pp. 573-603.). New York: Academy Press.
Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In M. Barzillai, J. Thomson, S. Schroeder, & P. Broek (Eds.), Learning to read in a digital world (pp. 91– 120). John Benjamins.
Schaffner, E., Schiefele, U., & Ulferts, H. (2013). Reading amount as a mediator of the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 48,369–385.
Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Möller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 427-463.
Singh, M., & Ballantyne, C. (2012). Multiliteracies, Asian linguistic engagement and the Australian Curriculum. Practically Primary, 17(3), 4-8.
Singhal, M. (1999). The effects of reading strategy instruction on the reading comprehension, reading process and strategy use of adult SL readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tucson: University of Arizona.
Steenberg, M., Christiansen, C., Dalsgård, A. L., Stagis, A. M., Ahlgren, L. M., Nielsen, T. L., & Ladegaard, N. (2021). Facilitating Reading Engagement in Shared Reading. Poetics Today, 42(2), 229-251.
Taboada, A., Townsend, D., & Boynton, M. J. (2013). Mediating effects of reading engagement on the reading comprehension of early adolescent English language learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29(4), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.741959
Tegmark, M., Alatalo, T., Vinterek, M., & Winberg, M. (2022). What motivates students to read at school? Student views on reading practices in middle and lower-secondary school. Journal of Research in Reading, 45(1), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12386
Unrau, N. J., & Quirk, M. (2014). Reading motivation and reading engagement: Clarifying commingled conceptions. Reading Psychology, 35(3), 260–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.684426
Vaughn, M., Jang, B. G., Sotirovska, V., & Cooper-Novack, G. (2020). Student agency in literacy: A systematic review of the literature. Reading Psychology, 41(7), 712-734.
Warschauer, M. (1999). Millennialism and media: language, literacy, and technology in the 21st century. In Keynote address delivered at the world congress of applied linguistics (AILA), Tokyo. http://vstevens.tripod.com/papyrus/16sep99a.htm.
Wu, J. Y. (2014). Gender differences in online reading engagement, metacognitive strategies, navigation skills and reading literacy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(3), 252-271.
Zhang, D. (2012). Vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling study. The modern language journal, 96(4), 558-575.
Zhang, X., de Pablos, P. O., & Zhou, Z. (2013). Effect of knowledge sharing visibility on incentive-based relationship in electronic knowledge management systems: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 307–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.029.
Zumbach, J., & Mohraz, M. (2008). Cognitive load in hypermedia reading comprehension: Influence of text type and linearity. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 875-887.
