Integrating STEAM activities into teaching reading: Examination of comprehension and cognitive load

Abstract

This paper reports the findings of an experimental study that probed into the impact of integrating STEAM activities into teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) reading on reading comprehension and its associated cognitive load. The sample included 60 high school students who were split into experimental and control groups, with 30 students in each. Before the study, their reading comprehension was assessed by the reading module of the A2 Key test. The associated cognitive load of A2 Key was assessed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASATLX) before the study as well. For the experimental group,STEAM-based pre-reading activitieswere incorporated into teaching reading while the control group was taught based on the conventional method utilizing the activities of their textbook. The experiment lasted for five months. The reading section of A2 Key and the NASA TLX were used to explore the effect of the intervention on the participants’ reading comprehension and its associated cognitive load after the study. The data were analyzed by t-test and Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA). According to the findings, STEAM-based warm-up activities significantly impactedthe development of reading comprehension in favor of the experimental group. It was also found that the cognitive load of the experimental group significantly reduced regardingmental demand, physical demand, and frustration in comparison to the control group. The practical implications of the study for education policymakers,curriculum designers, and teachers are understood in terms of integrating STEAM into the EFL curriculum to make students interested in STEAM topics and create a friendly class atmosphere that would lead to developing their reading skills and knowledge acquisition.

Keywords

• cognitive load
• EFL
• reading comprehension
• STEAM

Integrating STEAM activities into teaching reading: Examination of comprehension and cognitive load

Abstract

Bu araştırma, STEAM etkinliklerinin Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce (YDİ) okuma öğretimine entegre edilmesinin okuduğunu anlama ve bununla ilişkili bilişsel yük üzerindeki etkisini araştıran deneysel bir çalışmanın bulgularını rapor etmektedir. Örneklem, her birinde 30 öğrenci olmak üzere deney ve kontrol gruplarına ayrılan 60 lise öğrencisinden oluşmaktadır. Çalışma öncesinde, öğrencilerin okuduğunu anlama becerileri A2 Key testinin okuma modülü ile değerlendirilmiştir. A2 Key'in ilişkili bilişsel yükü de çalışma öncesinde Ulusal Havacılık ve Uzay Dairesi Görev Yükü Endeksi (NASATLX) ile değerlendirilmiştir. Deney grubu için STEAM temelli okuma öncesi etkinlikler okuma öğretimine dahil edilirken, kontrol grubuna ders kitabındaki etkinlikler kullanılarak geleneksel yöntemle öğretim yapılmıştır. Deney beş ay sürmüştür. A2 Key'in okuma bölümü ve NASA TLX, çalışma sonrasında müdahalenin katılımcıların okuduğunu anlama ve bununla ilişkili bilişsel yük üzerindeki etkisini araştırmak için kullanılmıştır. Veriler t-testi ve Çok Değişkenli Kovaryans Analizi (MANCOVA) ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgulara göre, STEAM tabanlı ısınma etkinlikleri okuduğunu anlama gelişimini deney grubu lehine önemli ölçüde etkilemiştir. Ayrıca, deney grubunun bilişsel yükünün kontrol grubuna kıyasla zihinsel talep, fiziksel talep ve hayal kırıklığı açısından önemli ölçüde azaldığı bulunmuştur. Çalışmanın eğitim politikacıları, müfredat tasarımcıları ve öğretmenler için pratik sonuçları, öğrencilerin STEAM konularına ilgi duymalarını sağlamak ve okuma becerilerini ve bilgi edinimlerini geliştirmeye yol açacak samimi bir sınıf atmosferi yaratmak için STEAM'i EFL müfredatına entegre etme açısından anlaşılmaktadır.

Keywords

• bilişsel yük
• EFL
• okuduğunu anlama
• STEAM

References

1. Al Akremi, J. E. (2016). The effect of pre-reading activities on male ESL upper-intermediate students’ comprehension in a post basic education school in Oman. International Journal of English Language Education, 4(2), 148-65. doi:10.5296/ijele.v4i2.10168
2. Aguilera, D., & Ortiz-Revilla, J. (2021). STEM vs. STEAM education and student creativity: A systematic literature review. Education Science, 11, 331. doi:10.3390/educsci11070331
3. Ajideh, P. (2006). Schema–theory based considerations on pre-reading activities in ESP textbooks. TheAsian EFL Journal, 16, 1-19.
4. Alavi Moghaddam, B., Kheirabadi, R., Rahimi, M., & Davari, H. (2018). Vision 1, English for Schools (English for K-10)-Student Book. Ministry of Education of IR of Iran, Organization for Educational Research and Planning
5. Alemi, M., & Abedi, S. (2010). The effects of pre-reading activities on ESP reading comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(5), 569-577. doi:10.4304/jltr.1.5.569-577
6. Aligholi, H. (2022). The dire situation of ‘basic sciences’ in the country. The World of Economy, 5434, 3859385.
7. Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2009). Assessing the relationship of working memory to L2 reading: Does the nature of comprehension process and reading span task make a difference? System, 37(4), 627-639. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.09.007.
8. Amirinejad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2023). Integrating Digital Storytelling into STEAM teaching: Examining young language learners’ development of self-regulation and English literacy. International Journal of Technology in Education, 6(4), 720-735. doi: 10.46328/ijte.551

9. Bell, S. (2009). Experimental design. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/experimental-design
10. Britannica (2023). Schemata. Retrieved February 2023 from https://www.britannica.com/video/193418/overview-STEM-education
11. Cambridge English Qualifications, A2 Key (2020). Retrieved January 2023 from https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/504506-a2-key-for-schools-handbook-2020.pdf
12. Chow, B. W.Y., Mo, J., & Dong, Y. (2021). Roles of reading anxiety and working memory in reading comprehension in English as a second language. Learning and Individual Differences, 92, 102092. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102092.
13. Cooper, B. R., Moore, J. E., Powers, C. J., Cleveland, M., & Greenberg, M. T. (2014). Patterns of early reading and social skills associated with academic success in elementary school. Early Education and Development, 25, 1248-1264. doi:10.1080/10409289.2014.932236.
14. Creese, A. (2005). Is this content-based language teaching? Linguistics & Education, 16, 188-204.
15. Daneman, M., & Hannon, B. (2007). What do working memory span tasks like reading span really measure? In N. Osaka, R. H. Logie, and M. D’Esposito (eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of working memory (pp. 21–42). Oxford University Press.
16. Dong, A., Jong, M.S.Y., & King, R.B. (2020). How does prior knowledge influence learning engagement?The mediating roles of cognitive load and help-seeking. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 591203. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591203
17. Douglas, M. O. (2017). Assessing the effectiveness of content-based language ınstruction (CBLI) in Japanese at the college advanced level. Japanese Language and Literature, 51(2), 199-243.
18. Duo-Terron, P., Hinojo-Lucena, F.-J., Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., & López-Núñez, J.-A. (2022). STEAM in Primary Education: Impact on linguistic and mathematical competences in a disadvantaged context. Frontiers in Education, 7, 792656. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.792656
19. Echeverri, L., & McNulty, M. (2010). Reading strategies to develop higher thinking skills for reading comprehension. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 12(1), 107-123. Retrieved May 2023 from http://goo.gl/eUFctI
20. Edelson, D. C. (2010). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design oftechnology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 38(3), 355-85.
21. Endres, T., Lovell, O., Morkunas, D., Rieß, W., & Renkl, A. (2023). Can prior knowledge increase task complexity? Cases in which higher prior knowledge leads to higher intrinsic cognitive load. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 305-317. doi:10.1111/bjep.12563
22. Engelbret, C. J. (2015). The confluence of STEM education and language learning: Curriculum integration to benefit language learners. School of education student capstone [Theses and Dissertations, 250]. Retrieved January 2023 from https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_all/250.
23. Espinosa, B. M., E. (1996) Schemata theory and L2 reading instruction. Lenguaje y Textos, 239-250. RetrievedApril 2023 from file:///C:/Users/TechZone-PC/Downloads/Schema_Theory_and_L2_reading_instruction.pdf
24. Evans, M. D. R., Kelley, J., Sikora, J., & Treiman, D. J. (2015). Scholarly culture and occupational success in 31 societies. Comparative Sociology, 14(2), 176-218.
25. Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory. Emotion 7, 336-353. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336
26. Fang, Z., & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 262–273.
27. Glenn, O. M. (2005). The development of English literacy and global studies concepts using sheltered instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 3166569). Retrieved January 2023 from https://research.library.fordham.edu/dissertations/AAI3166569/
28. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and researching reading. Routledge.
29. Hart, S. G. (2006). Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(9), 904-908. doi:10.1177/154193120605000909
30. Hasanah, U. (2020). The impacts of STEM instruction on strengthening high school students’ reasoning skills. Science Education International, 31(3), 273-282. doi:10.33828/sei.v31.i3.6
31. Hatami-Nasab, Z. (2023). The impact of technology-enhanced STEAM activities on the development of EFLlearners’ oracy skills and willingness to communicate. [master’s thesis]. SRTTU, Tehran.
32. Hatami-Nasab, Z., & Rahimi, M. (2023). The impact of multimedia-enhanced STEAM activities on foreign language learners’ development of oracy skills and Willingness to Communicate. Bulletin of Education and Research, 45(2), 67-92. Retrieved January 2024 from http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/ier/PDF- FILES/4_45_2_23.pdf
33. Innes, P. I. (2020). The effects of technology on student interest in STEAM education. Honors Theses 259. University of Dayton. Retrieved February 2023 from https://ecommons.udayton.edu/uhp_theses/259
34. Karbalaee, Y. (2022). Why isn’t the condition of sciences in Iran good?Warnings that were not taken seriously in the past. ISNA.Accessed 4.1.2024. Retrieved January 2024 from isna.ir/xdLWwb
35. Kang, N.-H. (2019). A review of the effect of integrated STEM or STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) education in South Korea. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5(1), 1-22.doi:10.1186/s41029-019-0034-y
36. Kasper, L. F. (1997). The impact of content-based Instructional programs on the academic progress of ESL students. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 309-320.
37. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11. doi:10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
38. LaCosse, J., Canning, E. A., Bowman, N. A., Murphy, Mary. C., & Logel, C. (2020). A social-belongingintervention improves STEM outcomes for students who speak English as a second language.Science Advances,6(4), doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abb6543
39. Lee, O., & Stephens, A. (2020). English learners in STEM subjects: Contemporary views on STEM subjects and language with English learners. Educational Researcher, 49(6), 426–432. doi: 10.3102/0013189X20923708
40. Li, J., Luo, H., Zhao, L., Zhu, M., Ma, L., & Liao, X. (2022). Promoting STEAM education in primary school through cooperative teaching: A design-based research study. Sustainability, 14, 10333. doi: 10.3390/su141610333
41. Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(11), 1-16. doi:10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6
42. Madaoui, R. (2013). Effects of pre-reading activities on EFL reading comprehension by Moroccan college students. Higher Education of Social Science, 4(3), 9-19. doi:10.3968/j.hess.1927024020130403.1132.
43. Marashi, H., & Sanatipour, S. (2015). Comparing competitive and cooperative content-based ınstruction in reading and writing classes. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 4(2), 1-20.
44. Mihalca, L., Salden, R. J., Corbalan, G., Paas, F., & Miclea, M. (2011). Effectiveness of cognitive-load based adaptive instruction in genetics education. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 82-88. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.027
45. Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), pp. 2-10.
46. Mokhtari, K., Dimitrov, D., & Reichard, C. (2018). Revising the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory (MARSI) and testing for factorial invariance.Education Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 22. Retrieved June 2020 from http://hdl.handle.net/10950/1177.
47. Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35-60). Purdue University Press.
48. Myhill, D., & Brackley, M. (2004). Making connections: Teachers’use of children’s prior knowledge in whole class discourse. British Journal of Educational Studies, 52, 263-275. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2004.00267.x
49. Namaziandost, E., Nasiri, M., &Shmadi, S. (2019). The comparative effect of content-basedlanguage teaching and task-based language teaching on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners’ reading skill. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(10), 1278-1286. doi:10.17507/tpls.0910.03
50. Neri, N., Guill, K., & Retelsdorf, J. (2021). Language in science performance: do good readers perform better?. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36, 45-61. doi:10.1007/s10212-019-00453-5
51. Paas, F. G., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 79(1), 419-430. doi:10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.419
52. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Routledge.doi: 10.4324/9781003117452
53. Pawan, F. (2008). Content-area teachers and scaffolded instruction for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1450-1462.
54. Pearson, P.D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010) Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459-463.
55. Pellicer-Sánchez, A., Conklin, K., & Vilkaitė-Lozdienė, L. (2021). The effect of pre-reading instruction on vocabulary learning: An investigation of L1 and L2 readers’ eye movements. Language Learning, 71(1), 162-203. doi:10.1111/lang.12430
56. Peng,P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., & Lee Swanson, H. (2018). A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 48-76. doi:10.1037/bul0000124
57. Perignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking31, Skills & Creativity, 31, 31-43.
58. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
59. Riley, S. (2016). STEAM Education. Retrieved May 2023 from https://artsintegration.com/what-is-steam-education-in-k-12-hools/.
60. Rahimi, M., Beyzavi, G., & Saffari, F. (2022). Effects of a personalized reading software program on the development of language learners’ reading comprehension. Iranian Distance Education Journal, 3(1), 9-22. Retrieved May 2023 from https://idej.journals.pnu.ac.ir/article_8765.html?lang=en
61. Ritchie, S.J., Bates, T.C., & Plomin, R. (2015). Does learning to read improve intelligence? A longitudinal multivariate analysis in identical twins from age 7 to 16. Child Development, 86(1), 23-36.
62. Sayyadi, M., Rahimi, M., Ebrahimpour, R., & Amiri, S. H. (2022). Applying multimedia learning principles in task design: Examination of comprehension development in L2 listening instruction. English Teaching & Learning. doi:10.1007/s42321-022-00132-7
63. Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469-508. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9053-4
64. Schoettler, S. D. (2015). STEM education in the foreign language classroom with special attention to theL2German classroom [master’s thesis]. Portland State University.
65. Sun, W., & Zhong, B. (2023). Integrating reading and writing with STEAM/STEM: A systematic review on STREAM education. Journal of Engineering Education, 1-20. doi: 10.1002/jee.20569
66. Sweller, J. (2016). Working Memory, Long-term Memory, and instructional design. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 360-367. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.12.002
67. Sweller, J. (2022). The role of evolutionary psychology in our understanding of human cognition: Consequences for Cognitive Load Theory and instructional procedures. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 2229-2241. doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09647-0
68. Sweller, J. Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011) Cognitive load theory. Springer.
69. Taylor, B. (2016). Evaluating the benefit of the maker movement in K-12 STEM education. Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts, and Science (EIJEAS), 2, 1-22. Retrieved May 2023 from file:///C:/Users/TechZone-PC/Downloads/72-353-2-PB.pdf
70. Thomas, K., & Huffman, D. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for transforming from STEM to STEAM education. IGI Global.
71. Tsai, Y-L., & Shang, H-F. (2010). The impact of Content-based Language Instructionon EFL students’ reading performance. Asian Social Sciene, 6(3), 77-85.
72. Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. A. L. (1989). Content area reading. Foresman.
73. Wang, Y. (2013). A literature review on content ESL instruction. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), 642-647. doi:10.4304/jltr.4.3.642-647
74. Wesche, M. B. (2010).Content-Based Second Language Instruction. In Kapla R. B. (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (2nd ed.) (pp. 275–293). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195384253.013.0019
75. Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 26-35. Retrieved February 2023 from https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1590.
76. Wu, C. H., Liu, C. H., & Huang, Y. M. (2022). The exploration of continuous learning intention in STEAM education through attitude, motivation, and cognitive load. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(35), 1-22. doi:10.1186/s40594-022-00346-y
77. Yang, D., & Baldwin, S.J. (2020). Using technology to support student learning in an integrated STEM learning environment. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 4(1), 1-11.
78. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689-725. doi:10.1080/09500690305018