Is more comfortable reading possible with collaborative digital games? An experimental study

Abstract

In this study, which is based on the fact that the nature of learning is and should be understood on the basis of social constructivism, interaction and collaboration in language development are explored and digital games are discussed as an instructional technology. For digital games developed with learning in mind, the effects of educational change for learners have not yet been fully explored. The effects of digital games supported with reciprocal activities related to reading comprehension, reading motivation, and reading anxiety for science texts were investigated in this study. Eighty-five participants were randomly assigned to a group that played digital games without reciprocal activities (control group, n=43), and they were compared to a group that played digital games with reciprocal activities (experimental group, n=42), reading ten different texts over a ten-week period. The study used a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design to compare reading comprehension, reading motivation, and reading anxiety outcomes. Considering the effectiveness of reciprocal activities, the participants who were supported by collaborative activities were more motivated and less anxious than those in the group that used the digital games without collaborative activities. These findings indicate that the use of collaborative activities should not be ignored when planning to employ the supporting role of any instructional technologies while teaching reading skills.

Keywords

• social constuctivism
• collaboration
• digital game
• reading

References

1. Agbonifo, O. C., Boyinbode, O. K., & Oluwayemi, F. N. (2021). Design of a Digital Game-based Learning System for Fraction Algebra. International Journal of Modern Education & Computer Science, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2021.05.04
2. Ahmad, T. B. T., Kamaldeen, A. A., & Badrasawi, K. J. (2022). The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching on Third Year Nigerian ESL Students’ Mastery of William Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily”. IIUM Journal of Educational Studies, 10(1), 90-113. https://doi.org/10.31436/ijes.v10i1.433
3. Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 309-332. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312035002309
4. Alfassi, M. (2004). Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy instruction on high school students. The journal of educational research, 97(4), 171-185. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.97.4.171-185
5. Alfassi, M., Weiss, I., & Lifshitz, H. (2009). The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering the reading literacy of students with intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(3), 291-305. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250903016854
6. Alvarez, L., Capitelli, S., Valdés, G., & De Loney, M. (2022). Toward an Integrated Practice: Facilitating Peer Interactions to Support Language Development in Science. The New Educator, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2022.2035473
7. Andewi, W. (2016). An Analysis of Students' Anxiety in the Implementation of Reciprocal Teaching in Reading (Doctoral dissertation, Lampung University).
8. Apryani, D., Sasongko, R. N., Kristiawan, M., & Hidayatulloh, H. (2022). A comparison of reciprocal teaching and scientific approaches for improving pupils' mathematical understanding. Jurnal Elemen, 8(2), 510-524. https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v8i2.5461

9. Aydemir, Z. İ., & Öztürk, E. (2013). Reading Motivation Scale for Texts: A Validity and Reliability Study. Ilkogretim Online, 12(1).
10. Becker, K. (2007). Digital game‐based learning once removed: Teaching teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 478-488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00711.x
11. Burgos, D., Moreno-Ger, P., Sierra, J. L., Fernández-Manjón, B., Specht, M., & Koper, R. (2008). Building adaptive game-based learning resources: The integration of IMS Learning Design and. Simulation & Gaming, 39(3), 414-431. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046878108319595
12. Chang, M. M., & Lan, S. W. (2021). Exploring undergraduate EFL students’ perceptions and experiences of a Moodle-based reciprocal teaching application. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 36(1), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2019.1708298
13. Chen, C. M., Chen, L. C., & Horng, W. J. (2021b). A collaborative reading annotation system with formative assessment and feedback mechanisms to promote digital reading performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(5), 848-865. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636091
14. Chen, P. Y., Hwang, G. J., Yeh, S. Y., Chen, Y. T., Chen, T. W., & Chien, C. H. (2021a). Three decades of game-based learning in science and mathematics education: an integrated bibliometric analysis and systematic review. Journal of Computers in Education, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00210-y
15. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. bs.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
16. Dayo, N., Asad, M. M., & Alvi, U. (2021). Effects of Digital Game-Based Learning and Traditional Teaching Approaches on Students' Mathematics Problem-Solving Attitude. In Innovative Education Technologies for 21st Century Teaching and Learning (pp. 101-112). CRC Press.
17. Ebrahimi, Z., & Sadighi, F. (2022). Comparing the Effect of Online Teacher-Scaffolding vs. Peer-Scaffolding on Iranian EFL Learners’ Grammatical Achievement. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 11(1), 97-120.
18. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2. ed.). Sage.
19. Hekmati, N. (2022). A Qualitative Study on Teaching Visual Texts by Using Reciprocal Teaching Approach in a Virtual General English Course During the Covid-19 Pandemic. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 13(1), 15-22.
20. Hong, H. Y., Ma, L., Lin, P. Y., & Lee, K. Y. H. (2020). Advancing third graders’ reading comprehension through collaborative knowledge building: a comparative study in Taiwan. Computers & Education, 157, 103962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103962
21. Hou, H. T., Wu, C. S., & Wu, C. H. (2022). Evaluation of a mobile-based scaffolding board game developed by scaffolding-based game editor: analysis of learners’ performance, anxiety and behavior patterns. Journal of Computers in Education, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00231-1
22. Huang, C. T., & Yang, S. C. (2015). Effects of online reciprocal teaching on reading strategies, comprehension, self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(3), 381-407. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0735633115571924
23. Huang, J. W. T. (2022). Predicting and Reading Together: the Role of Collaborative Learning in Facilitating Reading Comprehension. English Teaching & Learning, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-022-00111-y
24. Hussein, M. H., Ow, S. H., Elaish, M. M., & Jensen, E. O. (2021). Digital game-based learning in K-12 mathematics education: a systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10721-x
25. Ivcevic, Z., Hoffmann, J. D., & McGarry, J. A. (2022). Scaffolding Positive Creativity in Secondary School Students. Education Sciences, 12(4), 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040239
26. Jacobs Hogan, J. (2022). Reciprocal Teaching as a Reading Comprehension Instructional Strategy to Support the Integration of Science Literacy into the Middle School Classroom (Doctoral dissertation, City University of Seattle).
27. Lantolf, J. P., Xi, J., & Minakova, V. (2021). Sociocultural theory and concept-based language instruction. Language Teaching, 54(3), 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000348
28. Larson-Hall, J. (2016). Fluency awareness as a way to increase speaking ability in a first-year college level English class. SHIKEN, 1.
29. Lawless, N., & Allan, J. (2004). Understanding and reducing stress in collaborative e-learning. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 2(1), 121-127.
30. Leu, D. J., & Maykel, C. (2016). Thinking in new ways and in new times about reading. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55(2), 122-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2016.1135388
31. Li, R. (2022). Effects of mobile-assisted language learning on EFL/ESL reading comprehension. Educational Technology & Society, 25(3), 15-29.
32. Mafarja, N., Zulnaidi, H., & Fadzil, H. M. (2022). Using Reciprocal Teaching Strategy to Improve Physics Students’ Critical Thinking Ability. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11506
33. Marom, A. B. I. (2022). The effectiveness of using online collaborative annotation based on reciprocal teaching instruction on students' reading comprehension at the Second Grade of SMP Khoiru Ummah Malang (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim).
34. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
35. McAllum, R. (2014). Reciprocal Teaching: Critical Reflection on Practice. Kairaranga, 15(1), 26-35.
36. Melanlioğlu, D. (2014). Determining the Psychometric Features of Reading Anxiety Scale. Education and Science, 39(176).
37. Muthik, A., Muchyidin, A., & Persada, A. R. (2022). The Effectiveness Of Students' Learning Motivation On Learning Outcomes Using The Reciprocal Teaching Learning Model. Journal of General Education and Humanities (GEHU), 1(1), 21-30.
38. Nasr, M. A. A. N. (2022). The Effectiveness of a Web 2.0-based Reciprocal-teaching Paradigm in Developing Saudi-university Students’ Reading Comprehension. Jordan Journal of Educational Sciences, 18(2), 385-400.
39. Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Games and learning. Educause quarterly, 29(3), 5-7.
40. Okkinga, M., van Steensel, R., van Gelderen, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. (2018). Effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension of low‐achieving adolescents. The importance of specific teacher skills. Journal of research in reading, 41(1), 20-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12082
41. Oliveira, I., Tinoca, L., & Pereira, A. (2011). Online group work patterns: How to promote a successful collaboration. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1348-1357.
42. Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Collaborative Research and Development of Reciprocal Teaching. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 37-40.
43. Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1983). Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Monitoring Activities. Technical Report No. 269.
44. Palincsar, A. S., Marcum, M. B., Fitzgerald, M., & Sherwood, C. A. (2019). Braiding teacher practice and class-wide dialogue: An historical inquiry across three sociocultural interventions. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.001
45. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1(2), 117-175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
46. Prensky, M. (2007). Digital game-based learning. McGraw-Hill.
47. Rieber, L. P., & Noah, D. (2008). Games, simulations, and visual metaphors in education: antagonism between enjoyment and learning. Educational Media International, 45(2), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980802107096
48. Ristanto, R. H., Kristiani, E., & Lisanti, E. (2022). Flipped Classroom–Digital Game Based Learning (FC-DGBL): Enhancing Genetics Conceptual Understanding of Students in Bilingual Programme. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(1), 332-352.
49. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of educational research, 64(4), 479-530.
50. Sandopa, A., & Doyan, A. (2022). The effect of reciprocal teaching-learning model on the mastery of physics concepts and creativity of senior high school. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 2165, No. 1, p. 012011). IOP Publishing.
51. Saricam, U., & Yildirim, M. (2021). The Effects of Digital Game-Based STEM Activities on Students' Interests in STEM Fields and Scientific Creativity: Minecraft Case. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 5(2), 166-192.
52. Scanlon, D. M. (2010). Response to intervention as an assessment approach. In Handbook of reading disability research (pp. 151-160). Routledge.
53. Schnake, M. E. (1991). Equity in effort: The "sucker effect" in co-acting groups. Journal of Management, 17, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700104
54. Seaton, M., Parker, P., Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Yeung, A. S. (2014). The reciprocal relations between self-concept, motivation and achievement: Juxtaposing academic self-concept and achievement goal orientations for mathematics success. Educational psychology, 34(1), 49-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.825232
55. Shafiq, M. (2021). Impact of Reciprocal Teaching Strategy on Students Academic Achievement in the Subject of General Science at Elementary Level. International Research Journal of Education and Innovation, 2(3), 139-153.
56. Shin, N., Sutherland, L. M., Norris, C. A., & Soloway, E. (2012). Effects of game technology on elementary student learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 540-560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01197.x
57. Sjöberg, J., & Brooks, E. (2022). Collaborative interactions in problem-solving activities: School children’s orientations while developing digital game designs using smart mobile technology. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100456
58. Sun, C. T., Chou, K. T., & Yu, H. C. (2022). Relationship between digital game experience and problem-solving performance according to a PISA framework. Computers & Education, 186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104534
60. Sung, H.-Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students' learning performance in science courses. Computers & Education, 63(0), 43-51. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.019
61. Syakur, A. (2021). Efficacy of Collaborative Strategic for Reading (CSR) To Improve Students’ Reading Comprehension. EDUTEC: Journal of Education and Technology, 4(4), 627-636.
62. Tong, L. C., Rosli, M. S., & Saleh, N. S. (2022). Enhancing HOTS using Problem-Based Learning and Digital Game in the Context of Malaysian Primary School. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 16(2).
63. Vega, N., Stanfield, J., & Mitra, S. (2020). Investigating the impact of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) to help improve reading comprehension in low performing urban elementary schools. Education and Information Technologies, 25(3), 1571-1584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10023-3
64. Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
65. Wang, L. H., Chen, B., Hwang, G. J., Guan, J. Q., & Wang, Y. Q. (2022). Effects of digital game-based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: a meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00344-0
66. Wu, T. T., & Chen, A. C. (2018). Combining e-books with mind mapping in a reciprocal teaching strategy for a classical Chinese course. Computers & Education, 116, 64-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.012
67. Yon, A. E., Rafli, Z., & Nuruddin, N. (2022). Teaching reading by collaborative strategic reading: an action research. English Review: Journal of English Education, 10(2), 465-474. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v10i2.6247
68. Zembylas, M., Theodorou, M., & Pavlakis, A. (2008). The role of emotions in the experience of online learning: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Media International, 45(2), 107-117.
69. Zendler, A., & Reile, S. (2018). The effect of reciprocal teaching and programmed instruction on learning outcome in computer science education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 132-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.05.008
70. Zhenlong, C. H. U. (2021). Effects of Digital Media Integrated Reciprocal Teaching on Students’ Reading Ability and Motivation. Revista de cercetare și intervenție socială, 73, 299-311.