Teachers experience difficulty demonstrating prediction strategies and leading discussions in traditional classrooms. It is also unclear whether online discussion can contribute to reading comprehension. The purpose of this study is to create an online reading system to investigate whether learners can acquire reading strategies and enhance their reading comprehension through online discussion. Because students who are simultaneously immersed in two learning practices may experience cognitive overload, this combined strategy instruction system was compared to single strategy instruction systems that allow only one learning practice at a time, either prediction or discussion. A total of 110 5th-grade students participated in this study. The results revealed that single strategy instruction was more beneficial to students' reading comprehension, and the reasons combined strategy instruction was less efficient are discussed. Students' prediction types and the quality of discussion between the two instructions were also reported.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartlettF. C.KintschW. (1995). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BrownR.PressleyM.Van MeterP.SchuderT. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 18.
3.
CaoY.PhilpJ. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34(4), 480–493.
4.
CaverlyD. C.OrlandoV. P.MullenJ. A. L. (2000). Textbook study reading. In FlippoR. F.CaverlyD. C. (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 105–147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
CoiroJ.DoblerE. (2007). Reading comprehension on the internet: Exploring the online comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214–257.
6.
CrombieG.PykeS. W.SilverthornN.JonesA.PiccininS. (2003). Students' perceptions of their classroom participation and instructor as a function of gender and context. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 51–76.
7.
Davidson-ShiversG. V.MuilenburgL. Y.TannerJ. (2001). How do students participate in synchronous and asynchronous online discussions?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(4), 351–366.
8.
De SmetM.Van KeerH.ValckeM. (2008). Blending asynchronous discussion groups and peer tutoring in higher education: An exploratory study of online peer tutoring behaviour. Computers & Education, 50(1), 207–223.
9.
DoleJ. A.DuffyG. G.RoehlerL. R.PearsonP. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239–264.
10.
DukeN. K.PearsonP. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction, 3, 205–242.
11.
DukeN. K.PearsonP. D. (2008). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. Journal of Education, 189(1/2), 107–122.
12.
FieldingL. G.PearsonP. D. (1994). Synthesis of research: Reading comprehension: What works. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62–67.
13.
GarsideC. (1996). Look who's talking: A comparison of lecture and group discussion teaching strategies in developing critical thinking skills. Communication Education, 45(3), 212–227.
14.
HansenJ.PearsonP. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 821–829.
15.
HouH. T.WuS. Y. (2011). Analyzing the social knowledge construction behavioral patterns of an online synchronous collaborative discussion instructional activity using an instant messaging tool: A case study. Computers and Education, 57(2), 1459–1469.
16.
HowardJ. R. (2002). Do college students participate more in discussion in traditional delivery courses or in interactive telecourses? A preliminary comparison. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 764–780.
17.
JonesS.Johnson-YaleC.MillermaierS.PerezF. S. (2009). Everyday life, online: U.S. college students' use of the internet. First Monday, 14(10). Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2649
18.
KarpD. A.YoelsW. C. (1976). The college classroom: Some observations on the meanings of student participation. Sociology & Social Research, 60(4), 421–439.
19.
LinB. G.ChiP. H. (2002). Test of reading comprehension. Taipei: Ministry of Education. (in Chinese)
20.
McCormickS.CooperJ. O. (1991). Can Sq3r facilitate secondary learning disabled students' literal comprehension of expository test?Three Experiments. Reading Psychology, 12(3), 239–271.
21.
McNamaraD. S.O'ReillyT. P.BestR. M.OzuruY. (2006). Improving adolescent student' reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 147–171.
22.
McNorganC.AlvarezA.BhullarA.GaydaJ.BoothJ. R. (2011). Prediction of reading skill several years later depends on age and brain region: Implications for developmental models of reading. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(26), 9641–9648.
23.
MullisI. V. S.MartinM. O.KennedyA. M.FoyP. (2007). PIRLS 2006 international report: IEA's Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in primary schools in 40 countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
24.
National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Reading Panel.
25.
NessM. (2011). Explicit reading comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms: Teacher use of reading comprehension strategies. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(1), 98–117.
26.
PalincsarA. M.BrownA. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
27.
PearsonP. D.DoleJ. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 151–165.
28.
PressleyM.El-DinaryP. B.GaskinsI.SchuderT.BergmanJ. L.AlmasiJ. (1992a). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 513–555.
29.
PressleyM.HarrisK. R.MarksM. B. (1992b). But good strategy instructors are constructivists!Educational Psychology Review, 4(1), 3–31.
30.
PressleyM.JohnsonC. J.SymonsS.McGoldrickJ. A.KuritaJ. A. (1989). Strategies that improve memory and comprehension of what is read. Elementary School Journal, 90, 3–32.
31.
ResnickM. (1996). Distributed constructionism. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University.
32.
RosenshineB.StevensR. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In PearsonP. D. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 745–798). New York, NY: Longman.
33.
SalomonG. (Ed.). (1994). Distributed cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
SchellensT.ValckeM. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46(4), 349–370.
35.
SpörerN.BrunsteinJ. C.KieschkeU. (2009). Improving students' reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272–286. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.003
36.
SwanK. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331.
37.
SwellerJ. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
WarschauerM. (1995). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2&3), 7–26.
40.
WijekumarK. K.MeyerB. J. F.LeiP. (2012). Large-scale randomized controlled trial with 4th graders using intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy to improve nonfiction reading comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 987–1013.
41.
WuS. Y.HouH. T.HwangW. Y.LiuE. Z. F. (2013). Analysis of learning behavior in problem solving-based and project-based discussion activities within the Seamless Online Learning Integrated Discussion (SOLID) system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 61–82.
42.
YangY. F.YehH. C.WongW. K. (2010). The influence of social interaction on meaning construction in a virtual community. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 287–306.
