THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN READING STRATEGY USE AND READING COMPREHENSION AS MEDIATED BY READING RATE: THE CASE OF EYE MOVEMENT TRAINING BY RAPID SERIAL VISUAL PRESENTATION (RSVP)

• Authors: Rahimi Mehrak , Babaei Seyyed Abolfazl
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between reading strategy use and reading comprehension as mediated by reading rate amongst advanced EFL students who received eye movement training by Rapid Visual Presentation (RSVP) technology. Seventy-two EFL learners participated in the study and received instruction for enhancing their reading speed via Reading Trainer Application for twelve consecutive weeks. Their entry-level of reading strategies awareness was assessed by the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory prior to and after the study. Their reading comprehension was assessed by International English System Test before and after the study. Their reading rate was also recorded prior to and after the study. Modelling the relationship between strategy use and reading comprehension as mediated by reading rate was tested prior to the study and the findings showed that the model was not statistically significant. The model was reassessed after the experiment and the results lent credence to the fact that eye training via RSVP for speed reading led to a mediating role for reading rate in the relationship between strategy use and reading comprehension. The results support the fact that reading rate is a contributory factor in understanding reading passages and integrating speed reading training using the-state-of-the-art technologies into reading instruction should be considered in EFL reading courses.

Keywords

EN

RSVP; eye movement; reading; rate; comprehension; cognitive strategy; MALL

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 21
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 94-111

Contributors

author

Rahimi Mehrak

• Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University,

author

Babaei Seyyed Abolfazl

• Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University,

References

• Allen, M., Beatty, R., & Blanco S. The King-Devick test as a reading fluency training program for students in elementary schools. Poster presented at Meeting of the American Optometric Association Optometry, Chicago, IL, June 10, 2012.
• Bacon, S. M., & Finnemann, M. D. (1990). A study of the attitudes, motives, and strategies of university foreign language students and their disposition to authentic oral and written input. The Modern Language Journal, 74(4), 459-473.
• Beccue, B., & Vila, J. (2004) Assessing the impact of Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP): A reading technique. Advanced Distributed Systems, 3061, 42-53.
• Behera, S. K. (2013). E-and M-Learning: A comparative study. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(3), 65-78.
• Benedetto, S., Carbone, A., Pedrotti, M., Le Fevre, K., Bey, L., & Baccino, T. (2015). Rapid serial visual presentation in reading: The case of Spritz. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 352-358.
• Boo, Z., & Conklin, K. (2015). The impact of Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) on reading by nonnative speakers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4, 111-129.
• Bouma, H., & De Voogd, A. H. (1974). On the control of eye saccades in reading. Vision Research, 14(4), 273-284.
• Carver, R. P. (1982). Optimal rate of reading rose. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(1), 56-88.
• Castelhano, M. S., & Muter, P. (2001). Optimizing the reading of electronic text using rapid serial visual presentation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20(4), 237-247.
• Chaka, C. (2008). Portable handheld language learning: From CALL, MALL to PALL. In: R. de Cássia Veiga Marriott, & P. L. Torres (Eds.), Handbook of Research on e-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition (pp. 539-553). Hershey, PA: Information Science.
• Chen, C. H., & Chien, Y. H. (2007). Effects of RSVP display design on visual performance in accomplishing dual tasks with small screens. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 27-35.
• Chung, M., & Nation, P. (2006). The effect of a speed reading course. English Teaching, 64(4), 181-204.
• Cocklin, T., Ward, N., Chen, H., & Juola, J. (1984). Factors influencing readability of rapidly presented text segments. Memory and Cognition, 12, 431-442.
• Constantinescu, A. I. (2007). Using technology to assist in vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension. The Internet TESL Journal, 13(2). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Constantinescu-Vocabulary.html
• Crowder, R. (1982). The Psychology of Reading: An Introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Dodick, D. W., Starling, A. J., Wethe, J., Pang, Y., Messner, L.V., Smith, C. R., Master, C. L., Halker-Singh, R. B., Vargas, B. B., Bogle, J. M., Mandrekar, J., Talaber, A., & Leong, D. F. (2017). The effect of in-school saccadic training on reading fluency and comprehension in first and second grade students. Journal of Child Neurology, 32, 104-111.
• Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31, 349-365.
• Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 78-103.
• Economides, A. A., & Grousopoulou, A. (2009). Students’ thoughts about the importance and costs of their mobile devices' features and services. Telematics Informatics, 26, 57-84.
• Engel, G., & Green, T. (2011). Cell phones in the classroom: Are we dialing up disaster? TechTrends, 55(2), 39-45.
• Forster, K. I. (1970). Visual perception of rapidly presented word sequences of varying complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 215-221.
• Fraser, C. (2007). Reading rate in L1 Mandarin Chinese and L2 English across five reading tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 372-94.
• Genc, H. (2012). An evaluation study of a CALL application: With BELT or without BELT? Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 11(2), 44-54.
• Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25 (3), 375-406.
• Grgurovic, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25(2), 165-198.
• Harmer, J. (1998). How to Teach English. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
• Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Hoopingarner, D. (2009). Best practices in technology and language teaching. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 222-235.
• HeKu IT GmbH. Reading Trainer, Play Store. Accessed from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.heku.readingtrainer
• Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching Second Language Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hunziker, H. (2006). Im Auge des Lesers: foveale und periphere Wahrnehmung – vom Buchstabieren zur Lesefreude [In the eye of the reader: foveal and peripheral perception – from letter recognition to the joy of reading]. Zürich: Transmedia Stäubli Verlag.
• Hutzler, F., & Wimmer, H. (2004). Eye movements of dyslexic children when reading in a regular orthography. Brain and Language, 89(1), 23-242.
• Jarvis, H., & Achilleos, M. (2013). From Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) to Mobile Assisted Language Use (MALU). The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 16(4), 1-18.
• Juola, J., Ward, N., & McNamara, T. (1982). Visual search and reading of rapid serial presentations of letter strings, words, and text. Journal of Experimental Psychology (General), 111, 208-227.
• Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. (1980). A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329-354.
• Korucu, A.T., & Alkan, A. (2011). Differences between m-learning (mobile learning) and e-learning, basic terminology, and usage of m-learning in education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1925-1930.
• Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2013). Re-skilling Language Learners for a Mobile World. Monterey, CA: The International Research Foundation of English language Education (TIRF).
• Lees, S., Dayan, N., Cecotti, H., McCullagh, P., Maguire, L., Lotte, F., & Coyle, D. (2018). A review of rapid serial visual presentation-based brain-computer interfaces. Journal of Neural Engineering, 15(2), 021001.
• Lemarié, J., Eyrolle, H., & Cellier, J. M. (2008). The segmented presentation of visually structured texts: Effects on text comprehension. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 888-902.
• Masson, M. (1983). Conceptual processing of text during skimming and rapid sequential reading. Memory and Cognition, 11, 262-274.
• Masson, M. (1983). Conceptual processing of text during skimming and rapid sequential reading. Memory and Cognition, 11, 262-274.
• Mehdipour, Y., & Zerehkafi, H. (2013). Mobile learning for education: Benefits and challenges. International Journal of Computational Engineering Research, 3(6), 93-101.
• Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25, 2-11.
• Mokhtari, K., Dimitrov, D. M., & Reichard, C. A. (2018). Revising the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) and testing for factorial invariance. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 219-246.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The Four Strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 1–12.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing. New York and London: Routledge.
• Nation, P. (1997). Developing fluency in language use. KIFL Academic Journal, 6, 30-35.
• Öquist, G., & Goldstein, M. (2003). Towards an improved readability on mobile devices: Evaluating adaptive rapid serial visual presentation. Interacting with Computers, 15, 539-558.
• Ozer, O. F., & Kiliç, F. (2018). The effect of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning environment on EFL students’ academic achievement, cognitive load, and acceptance of mobile learning tools. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14, 2915-2928.
• Ozuorcun, N. C., & Tabak, F. (2012). Is m-learning versus e-learning, or are they supporting each other? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 299-305.
• Pachler, N., & Cook, J. (2010). Mobile Learning: Structures, Agency, Practices. London: Springer.
• Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading Ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Potter, M. C. (1984). Rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP): A method for studying language processing. New Methods in Reading Comprehension Research, 118, 91-118.
• Potter, M. C., Kroll, J. F., & Harris, C. S. (1980). Comprehension and memory in rapid sequential reading. In: R. S. Nickerson (Eds.), Attention & Performance VIII (pp. 395-418). New York: Psychology Press.
• Primativo, S., Spinelli, D., Zoccolotti, P., de Luca, M., & Martelli, M. (2016). Perceptual and cognitive factors imposing “speed limits” on reading rate: A study with the Rapid Serial Visual Presentation. PloS One, 11(4), e0153786.
• Proaps, A. B., & Bliss, J. P. (2014). The effects of text presentation format on reading comprehension and video game performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 41-47.
• Rahimi, M., & Babaei, S. A. (2020). The impact of Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) on awareness of reading strategies. International Journal on Emerging Technologies, 11(3), 1041-1048.
• Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506.
• Reichle, E., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445-476.
• Rubin, G., & Turano, K.A. (1992). Reading without saccadic eye movements. Vision Research, 32, 895-902.
• Russell, M., James, M., & Cohlmia, A. (2002). Reading from a Palm Pilot™ using RSVP. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, 46th Annual Meeting, 685-689.
• Schotter, E. R., Tran, R., & Rayner, K. (2014). Don't believe what you read (only once): Comprehension is supported by regressions during reading. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1218-1226.
• Soleimani, E., Ismail, K., & Mustaffa, R. (2014). The acceptance of Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) among post graduate ESL students in UKM. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 457-462.
• Tichá, R., Espin, C. A., & Wayman, M. M. (2009). Reading progress monitoring for secondary-school students: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth of reading-aloud and maze-selection measures. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 132-142.
• Wang, Y. (2004). Context awareness and adaptation in mobile learning. Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, 2004, 154-158.