Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:31:39.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of online annotations in reading instruction and its impact on students’ reading progress and processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Hui-Chin Yeh ,
Hsiu-Ting Hung  and
Yu-Hsin Chiang
Hui-Chin Yeh
Affiliation:
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan (email: [email protected])
Hsiu-Ting Hung
Affiliation:
National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan (email: [email protected])
Yu-Hsin Chiang
Affiliation:
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies suggest that the incorporation of online annotations in reading instruction can improve students’ reading comprehension. However, little research has addressed how students use online annotations in their reading processes and how such use may lead to their improvement. This study thus adopted Reciprocal Teaching (RT) as an instructional framework to support students’ reading comprehension progress and processes, facilitated by the use of online annotations. A total of 54 English language learners at a university were recruited to read with online annotations based on the RT procedure, namely predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing. The data collected included the students’ scores on pre- and post-tests and their participation records in a collaborative learning environment. The results reveal that the students enhanced their reading comprehension after the intervention. Their reading processes were also analyzed, and the major differences between the groups making more and less progress were identified. Those who made more progress not only frequently reviewed their previously generated predictions, clarifications, questions, and summaries but also actively provided feedback to their peers in a reciprocal manner. Pedagogical implications and recommendations are discussed.

Keywords

reading comprehensiononline annotationsreciprocal teachingreading processes
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 22 - 38
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AbuSeileek, A. F. (2011) Hypermedia annotation presentation: The effect of location and type on the EFL learners’ achievement in reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education, 57(1): 1281–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamberger, M., Rugh, J. and Mabry, L. (2011) Real world evaluation: Working under budget, time, data, and political constraints, (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Brantmeier, C. (2002) Second language reading strategy research at the secondary and university levels: Variations, disparities, and generalizability. The Reading Matrix, 2(3): 1–14.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L., Day, J. D. and Jones, R. S. (1983) The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54(4): 968–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y. C., Hwang, R. H. and Wang, C. Y. (2012) Development and evaluation of a Web 2.0 annotation system as a learning tool in an e-learning environment. Computers & Education, 58(4): 1094–1105.Google Scholar
Doolittle, P. E., Hicks, D., Triplett, C. F., Nichols, W. D. and Young, C. A. (2006) Reciprocal teaching for reading comprehension in higher education: A strategy for fostering the deeper understanding of texts. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2): 106–118.Google Scholar
Dreyer, C. and Nel, C. (2003) Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31(3): 349–365.Google Scholar
Duke, N. K. and Pearson, P. D. (2002) Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In: Farstrup, A. E. and Samuels, S. J. (eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 205–242.Google Scholar
Fielding, L. G., Anderson, R. C. and Pearson, P. D. (1990) How discussion questions influence children’s story understanding. (Tech. Rep. No. 490). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
Fung, I. Y., Wilkinson, I. A. and Moore, D. W. (2003) L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL students’ comprehension of English expository text. Learning and Instruction, 13(1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Gao, F. (2013) A case study of using a social annotation tool to support collaboratively learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 17: 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, I., Xu, Z. and Hardaker, G. (2007) Online annotation research and practices. Computers & Education, 49(4): 1308–1320.Google Scholar
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B. and Hughes, J. E. (2009) Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4): 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, W. Y., Wang, C. Y. and Sharples, M. (2007) A study of multimedia annotation of web-based materials. Computers & Education, 48(4): 680–699.Google Scholar
Johnson, T. E., Archibald, T. N. and Tenenbaum, G. (2010) Individual and team annotation effects on students’ reading comprehension, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6): 1496–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawase, R., Herder, E. and Nejdl, W. (2009) A comparison of paper-based and online annotations in the workplace. In: Cress, U., Dimitrova, V. and Specht, M. (eds.), Learning in the Synergy of Multiple Disciplines. pp. 240–253. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lan, Y. J., Sung, Y. T. and Chang, K. E. (2007) A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3): 130–151.Google Scholar
Liu, P. L., Chen, C. J. and Chang, Y. J. (2010) Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 54(2): 436–445.Google Scholar
Nation, K. and Norbury, C. F. (2005) Why reading comprehension fails: Insights from developmental disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1): 21–32.Google Scholar
Nokelainen, P., Miettinen, M., Kurhila, J., Floréen, P. and Tirri, H. (2005) A shared document-based annotation tool to support learner-centred collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5): 757–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, B. P., Kawase, R., Dietze, S., de Campos, G. H. B. and Nejdl, W. (2012) Annotation tool for enhancing e-learning courses. In: Popescu, E., Li, Q., Klamma, R., Leung, H. and Specht M. (eds.), Advances in Web-Based Learning – ICWL 2012 / 11th International Conference, Sinaia, Romania, September 2–4, 2012. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 51–60.Google Scholar
Palincsar, A. S. and Brown, A. L. (1984) Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1(2): 117–175.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. and Oswald, F. L. (2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4): 878–912.Google Scholar
Robert, C. A. (2009) Annotation for knowledge sharing in a collaborative environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1): 111–119.Google Scholar
Salinger, T. (2003) Helping older, struggling readers. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 47(2): 79–85.Google Scholar
Shen, M. and Huang, Y. (2007) Collaborative action research for reading strategy instruction: A case in Taiwan. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 4(1): 108–121.Google Scholar
Singhal, M. (2001) Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 readers. The Reading Matrix, 1(1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Spires, H. A. and Donley, J. (1998) Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2): 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C. and Kieschke, U. L. F. (2009) Improving students’ reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3): 272–286.Google Scholar
Tseng, S. S., Yeh, H. C. and Yang, S. H. (2015) Promoting different reading comprehension levels through online annotations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1): 41–57.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. F. (2010) Developing a reciprocal teaching/learning system for college remedial reading instruction. Computers & Education, 55(3): 1193–1201.Google Scholar
Yeh, H. C. and Yang, Y. F. (2011) Metacognitive process in online text construction. Educational Technology and Society, 14(3): 82–101.Google Scholar