Hi everyone,
I need your advice or comment on revising the term paper. Thanks for your kind help.
Review of “EFL Academic Reading and Modern Technology: How Can We Turn Our Students into Independent Critical Readers?”
This is a mixed research which starts with the experiment and descriptive research comes after. This research attempts to prove that a computer-assisted language learning benefits students’ critical reading by reading authentic material extensively and do research independently. This research divided the 58 participants into two experiments and two control groups. They were college students with advanced language proficiency in Bar-Ilan University. Data was collected by means of questionnaire, students’ reports and teacher’s log.
There are some strengths I find in this research. First, the authors had made an important issue in this research-- the significance of the transition from reading to authentic reading for EFL learners. It is assumed that online learning environment provides chances for learners to think independently through reading authentic materials. Second, many relevant variables had been considered. The variable, the subjects’ language proficiency, had been controlled carefully to avoid affecting the results. Subjects were randomly divided based on the availability of the computer classroom and they were at the advanced levels. Other variables, such as the same amount of instruction and exercise, were exactly the same in both control and experiment groups.
On the other hand, I find there are many issues unanswered or the authors need to provide more details. The conclusion can not be completely supported in lack of evidence.
First, the most serious problem in this research is that the authors provided neither samples nor evidence of how data was represented. The data was collected through questionnaire, teacher’s logs, and students’ progress reports. On page 8, however, the following statement I cited from the paragraph on page 8. to state without any evidence to backup.
“The progress reports and teachers’ log in the experimental classes as well as the teacher’s” log in the conventional classes showed that the relation between the students’ self-perception of reading aptitude and progress in the course was different at the two levels of proficiency, regardless of the course format. At the Advanced One level of proficiency, the progress reports and the teacher’s log indicated noticeable improvement: as the course progresses, the students’ behavior showed increasing independence. At the Advanced Two level of proficiency, on the other hand, students were able to complete most of the assignment independently very early in the course.”
It’s doubtful not to include the statistical data of how the progress reports have changed. Besides, the two measures, the progress report and teacher’s log, are not reliable to represent the subjects’ self-conception of reading aptitude while it can only stand for the progress in the course.
Besides, the authors said in the section of qualitative data on page 7, “ in the conventional classes, the teacher’s log revealed the following observations….The teacher’s log showed gradual increase in the amount of reading…” Since no evidence was indicated to support the above statement, I doubted the effectiveness of the teacher’s log.
Second, the internal validity is highly questionable if the teacher, a participant of the study, knows the purpose of the experiment. Although all the subjects were taught by the same teachers, the result may be questionable if the teacher have a bias toward the control group—the conventional class. In other words, the attitude of a teacher—what s/he believes or not believe in CALL (Computerized-assisted Language Learning)—judge the result of the experiment.
Third, time is another variable ignored by the researchers. We have no clue of the period of time the experiment has lasted but what the authors said on page 9 showed that the subjects are interested in it—“..The element of novelty undoubtedly played a significant role …” While students are bored with the conventional classroom, many of them tend to be attracted by this new online learning. The result will be quite different if the experiment time lasts for two or three years. Therefore, this time factor may violate the internal validity and the authors did not mention about it, either.
Fourth, the authors need to specify the website they use in their experiment and how the texts are grouped into six topics. It’s hard to imagine how the website can be used.
Fifth, there is a gap between independent reading and critical reading. The authors define critical literacy as “the ability to clarify purpose, make use of relevant background knowledge, focus on major content, critically evaluate content, draw and test inferences and monitor comprehension” and “reflective thinking and metacognition.” However, the task done by the subjects is only partially based on it. They are asked to search on Internet, which I think is an act of reading individually not independently. The three guided questions—“Which of the following sites provide conventional news and which deals with alternative news?” “What are the characteristic features of the classifications?” “Who stands behind these sources and what’s their agenda?”— cannot help them evaluate the content critically and think reflectively but only learn to infer it. Moreover, instead of being independent readers, students still rely on the guide of the teachers’ questions.
Sixth, the major difference between the two experimental groups and between the control groups is vague. In the description of the participants, the authors only mentioned that two groups are in Advanced One level and the other two were in Advanced two level. What confused me here is—what is the real difference between Advanced Level One and Two? It’s not until I read the finding do I find the difference in the following sentence—“ ..at the lower level of proficiency (Advanced One) students…At the higher level of proficiency (Advanced Two)..” However, it was not clearly addresses in the beginning of the study.
Finally, the table 3 is problematic in two ways—it mixed up both experimental and control groups and the P value is too high to be significant. Without control group, we can not see how the variables—emphasis on close reading skills and development of critical reading skills—have influenced on the subjects.
To sum up, more evidence needs to be provided to support the experiment, such as the form of the questionnaire and the teacher’ log, and the statistical data of students’ progress reports. Besides, subjects’ self-evaluation questionnaire to see their own achievement on critical reading skills is not reliable.
|