COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
2022, VOL. 35, NOS. 1–2, 217–245
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.2012200
Mobile-assisted or paper-based? The influence
of the reading medium on the reading
comprehension of English as a foreign language
Jie Yua
, Xing Zhoua, Xiaoming Yanga
and Jie Hua,b,c
Department of Linguistics, School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou City,
Zhejiang Province, China; bCenter for College Foreign Language Teaching, Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, China; cInstitute of Asian Civilizations, Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, China
a
ABSTRACT
The issues of whether mobile-assisted English as a foreign
language (EFL) reading is effective have become increasingly
important for EFL teachers and policy-makers. However,
empirical studies investigating EFL students’ reading comprehension performance on mobile phones and students’
perceptions of these reading formats are lacking. The present
research employed questionnaire surveys and semistructured
interviews to investigate whether differences exist between
mobile-assisted and paper-based EFL reading in terms of
participants’ reading comprehension accuracy, reading speed,
and reading strategy used (i.e. general, problem-solving or
support strategies) and explore EFL learners’ perceptions of
mobile-assisted EFL reading. A sample of 81 first-year college
students participated in a quasiexperiment, 6 participants
participated in a semistructured interview, and a sample of
an additional 10 students participated in a pilot study. The
analyses, including qualitative descriptions, mixed-design
analysis of variance (ANOVA), paired-sample t-tests, and
independent-sample t-tests, indicated that participants
achieved superior reading comprehension accuracy when
reading from printed paper compared to reading from
mobile phones. Superior reading speed from paper was
observed only when participants were instructed to read
and complete the comprehension test the first time, while
no difference in speed between the two reading media was
observed the second time. Additionally, participants’ use of
reading strategies during mobile-assisted EFL reading was
not as effective as that during paper reading. Regarding
participants’ preferences, most participants (79%) preferred
reading from paper over mobile phones because hard copies
provided a better reading experience and promoted active
reading engagement. However, participants held positive
attitudes toward mobile-assisted EFL learning and wanted
to continue to read from mobile phones to assist their
KEYWORDS
Mobile-assisted EFL
reading; reading
comprehension accuracy;
reading speed; reading
strategies; students’
perceptions
CONTACT Xiaoming Yang
yangxiaoming@zju.edu.cn; Jie Hu
huj@zju.edu.cn
Department of
Linguistics, School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province 310058, China
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
218
J. YU ET AL.
foreign language learning due to their convenient built-in
functions and portability. The implications for the use of
mobile devices to assist language pedagogical practice are
discussed.
1. Introduction
Given the prominence of information technology, mobile-assisted language learning has become an indispensable part of English as a foreign
language (EFL) learning and has been recognized as an efficient tool
in this setting (Burston, 2015; Chen et al., 2020; Kondo et al., 2012;
Şad et al., 2020; Tragant, Pinyana, Mackay, & Andria, 2021). Compared
to computer-assisted EFL learning, which has been widely implemented
for decades and has been proven successful by multiple studies, the field
of mobile-assisted EFL learning is relatively nascent and requires further
investigation (Gutiérrez-Colón et al., 2020; Hwang & Fu, 2019; Liu &
Huang, 2016; Şad et al., 2020). Although mobile phones are often seen
as an extension of computers (Burford & Park, 2014), the nature of
mobile-assisted reading differs substantially from reading on desktop
computers (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008; Liu & Huang, 2016). For
instance, personal and portable mobile phones support greater spontaneous, connective, and interactive reading across different contexts in
comparison to computers (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008). Moreover,
mobile phones may have shaped new reading behavior and styles featured by more browsing and selective reading (Liu & Huang, 2016).
Therefore, findings from computer-assisted reading cannot be extended
to mobile-assisted reading directly and further studies are required to
understand the nature of mobile-assisted language reading to scaffold
effective mobile learning. In particular, Lin et al. (2020) noted that
further empirical research is necessary on the potential advantages and
disadvantages of applying mobile-assisted language learning to EFL reading. During the EFL reading process, readers understand a text through
active knowledge construction, which includes selecting useful information, constructing the information into coherent representation, and
integrating it into existing knowledge (Mayer, 1996); the mobile phones
that readers use might significantly influence these reading practices
(Lin et al., 2020). Given that reading medium is recognized as a crucial
variable that influences the reading comprehension process (Clinton,
2019; Delgado et al., 2018; Haddock et al., 2019; Kong et al., 2018;
Latini et al., 2020; Singer & Alexander, 2017a, 2017b), this study conducted experimental research to investigate the impact of reading media
on college EFL readers and further provide insight into language
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
219
pedagogical practice. The frameworks employed in this study consider
reading comprehension an active meaning-construction process in which
the reader, the text and the activity play central roles (Alexander &
Jetton, 2002). The frameworks identify three levels of reading comprehension, i.e. literal comprehension (understanding the texts and recalling
the information), inferential comprehension (inferring the intended
meaning of the texts) and evaluative comprehension (making explicit
links between the written word and the larger world) (Alonzo et al.,
2009; Kintsch, 2005). Specifically, the purposes of understanding the
effects of the reading medium on EFL reading were informed by the
previous literature, which reported differences in reading comprehension
accuracy (e.g. Clinton, 2019; Hsu et al., 2013; Singer & Alexander,
2017a), reading speed (e.g. Kerr & Symons, 2006; Latini et al., 2019),
strategy use (e.g. Isaacson, 2017), and perceptions (e.g. Baron et al.,
2017) across media. The following literature review section elaborates
upon these dimensions.
1.1. EFL learners’ reading comprehension across reading media
The topic of language learners’ reading performance across media has
attracted considerable interest. A growing body of empirical research
involving both adults (e.g. Haddock et al., 2019; Latini et al., 2019,
2020; Singer & Alexander, 2017a) and children (e.g. Halamish & Elbaz,
2020; Støle et al., 2020) and a series of reviews (e.g. Clinton, 2019;
Delgado et al., 2018; Kong et al., 2018; Singer & Alexander, 2017b) have
been conducted to address this issue. Generally, the results indicate that
reading media influence the reading comprehension process. For the
subdomain of mobile-assisted EFL reading, we conducted the following
review with a close inspection of the existing literature.
First, the reading medium affects EFL learners’ reading comprehension
accuracy. However, prior work yields inconsistent results on this aspect.
On the one hand, several studies have shown that language learners can
achieve superior reading achievement using mobile devices compared
with paper-based reading because mobile-assisted language learning
systems provide EFL learners with suitable and personalized reading
materials according to their preferences and proficiency levels (Hsu
et al., 2013), encourage learners’ self-regulated learning (Kondo et al.,
2012), promote their autonomy of interaction (Gheytasi et al., 2015;
Hazaea & Alzubi, 2018), and promote their motivation to read (Hazaea
& Alzubi, 2018). For instance, Gheytasi and colleagues (2015) explored
the effects of smartphones on high school EFL learners’ reading comprehension and found that students who engaged with mobile-assisted
EFL learning outperformed their counterparts. On the other hand, a
220
J. YU ET AL.
recent study showed that college EFL learners who read from mobile
screens achieved lower reading comprehension scores than those who
read from paper; this finding is attributable to low reading proficiency,
psychological discomfort, and lower metacognitive adaptability (Zou &
Ou, 2020). Therefore, the effects of mobile reading on EFL students’
reading efficacy remain unclear, and more empirical evidence is needed
in the field of mobile-assisted language learning. In addition, previous
research described language learners’ reading performance on different
media without considering their different levels of comprehension, representing an important limitation outlined by Singer and Alexander
(2017b) based on a comprehensive review of empirical research concerning paper-based and digital reading. This study aimed to extend
the existing literature by taking into account the three levels of comprehension (i.e. literal comprehension, inferential comprehension, and
evaluative comprehension; Alonzo et al., 2009; Kintsch, 2005) to achieve
a better understanding of the nature of mobile-assisted EFL reading.
Second, the reading medium greatly affects EFL learners’ reading
speed. Reading speed can reflect readers’ reading proficiency and reading
comprehension process (Bell, 2001; De Leeuw & De Leeuw, 1965; Fry,
1963); that is, higher proficiency readers generally achieve faster reading
speed and more fluent reading comprehension. Reading comprehension
is an active meaning-construction process in which the reader builds a
cognitive map of the text; good readers move more fluently through
the text. Since the publication of the work by De Leeuw and De Leeuw
(1965) and Fry (1963), reading speed has attracted considerable interest,
and several factors that influence readers’ reading speed have been
identified, such as reading purpose (e.g. faster reading speed occurs
with an entertainment purpose than with a study purpose; Narvaez
et al., 1999), text type (e.g. faster speed occurs for narrative texts than
for expository texts; Narvaez et al., 1999), reading strategies (e.g. global
strategies contribute to faster reading speeds; Huang et al., 2009), and
reading media (e.g. Latini et al., 2019; Singer et al., 2018, 2019).
Regarding the reading medium’s influence on reading comprehension
speed, several studies have concluded that the reading speed from a
screen is slower than that of reading from paper (e.g. Kerr & Symons,
2006; Latini et al., 2019; Singer et al., 2018, 2019), especially in
time-constrained reading (Delgado et al., 2018). According to these
studies, the reasons for the slower reading speed on a screen can be
summarized as follows: (1) students cannot track electronic text as they
can track text on paper; (2) students cannot access the text in its entirety
(e.g. Kerr & Symons, 2006; Zou & Ou, 2020); and (3) students show
less behavioral engagement and textual integration when reading from
a screen (Latini et al., 2019). Some studies, however, have found that
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
221
learners’ reading speed is faster when reading on screens than when
reading from paper (e.g. Singer et al., 2019). It has been argued that
due to students’ typically quick interaction with digital devices, they are
inclined to process texts on screens more shallowly while engaging in
more browsing and scanning (Annisette & Lafreniere, 2017; Latini et al.,
2020; Liu & Huang, 2016; Singer et al., 2019), which contributes to a
faster reading speed (Singer et al., 2019). While substantial research has
been conducted to detect the differences in reading speed between paper
and screens and has yielded insightful results, relatively few studies have
compared reading speed on paper versus mobile phones in the EFL
learning setting (cf., Gutiérrez-Colón et al., 2020). The present study
therefore aimed to fill this gap by focusing on this aspect.
Third, as a major factor that affects learners’ reading comprehension,
reading strategy has been the focus of a wide variety of studies in the
field of EFL learning, such as studies on the taxonomy of EFL reading
strategies (e.g. Block, 1986), the differences in strategy use among learners at different language proficiency levels (Huang et al., 2009; Sheorey
& Mokhtari, 2001), and the relationship between strategy use and types
of text comprehension (e.g. Shang, 2018). According to the existing
literature, basic EFL language reading strategies are generally categorized
as either top-down or bottom-up strategies (Block, 1986) and can be
further classified into global strategies (i.e. strategies used to monitor
the reading process, such as previewing the text, predicting the text
content, and forming reading purposes), problem-solving strategies (i.e.
strategies used to understand particular textual units, such as visualizing
the encountered information, adjusting the reading speed, and rereading
the text), and support strategies (i.e. strategies used to assist readers’
comprehension, such as taking notes, highlighting, and using dictionaries) (Huang et al., 2009; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002).
Readers adopt diversified reading strategies to facilitate their comprehension, and clear instructions regarding reading strategy use enhance
language learners’ reading performance (e.g. Anderson, 1991; Block,
1986; Chen et al., 2021; Chang & Lin, 2019; Huang et al., 2009). Given
the obvious importance of reading strategies and the various reading
media present in readers’ language learning settings, few studies have
addressed reading strategy use across different reading media. For
instance, Huang et al. (2009) investigated college EFL learners’ online
reading strategy use through a computer-based reading program and
found that support strategies contributed most to online comprehension
achievement and that global strategies were especially important for low
proficiency participants. Isaacson (2017) went a step further by comparing EFL learners’ use of support strategies between computer online
reading and paper reading and observed that high-intermediate college
222
J. YU ET AL.
readers struggled to use support strategies when reading from screens
but interacted more easily with the text via support strategies when
reading from paper. Nonetheless, previous research has generally studied
the effects of the reading medium on reading comprehension performance and reading strategy use separately and has mainly been conducted in the computer-assisted language learning setting. The present
study, therefore, aimed to extend previous studies by comparing EFL
learners’ reading strategy use when reading from paper to reading from
mobile phones, while simultaneously investigating the intersection of
reading strategy use across media and reading comprehension performance. By examining the interplay of these variables, this study attempted
to offer insight into the nature of reading across media and provide
implications for mobile-assisted EFL reading instruction.
1.2. Students’ perceptions of mobile-assisted EFL reading
Students’ perceptions of the reading medium are directly associated
with reading proficiency and the effective use of reading strategies,
which in turn impact reading comprehension (e.g. Huang, 2013;
Huang et al., 2009). Specifically, as noted by Botero and colleagues
(Botero et al., 2018), studying language learners’ perceptions of mobile
learning is crucial for the successful implementation of mobile-assisted
language learning because students’ preferred medium reflects their
engagement with different media. Therefore, understanding students’
perceptions of the reading medium is a prerequisite for selecting
appropriate reading materials to facilitate learning. Nonetheless,
although the importance of language learners’ perceptions of the
reading medium has been widely recognized, research focusing on
college EFL learners’ perceptions of mobile-assisted EFL reading is
comparatively scarce. Additionally, the existing empirical research on
this issue has yielded inconsistent results. For instance, Baron and
colleagues (2017) were surprised to find that a very high percentage
of college students (91%) showed a strong preference for hardcopy
books over all digital media (i.e. computer, tablet, eReader, and
mobile phone) across all countries they surveyed (i.e. the United
States, Japan, Germany, Slovakia, and India). In contrast, recent studies have shown that EFL learners were satisfied with mobile-assisted
learning because they could autonomously decide what, how, and
where to read, which further motivated them to read and learn (e.g.
Hazaea & Alzubi, 2018). Therefore, more empirical studies on college
EFL learners’ perceptions of mobile-assisted language reading and its
interaction with reading performance and reading strategy use in the
EFL learning setting are warranted.
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
223
1.3. Research questions
Guided by the issues mentioned above, the present study has two main
goals. First, it aims to detect the differences in college EFL learners’
reading performance when they read from mobile phones and printed
paper. Second, this study aims to investigate college EFL learners’ perceptions of mobile-assisted EFL reading. Specifically, this study attempts
to answer the following research questions:
1. Are there differences in reading comprehension when college EFL
learners read from mobile phones versus printed paper?
a. Are there differences in the reading comprehension accuracy
when college EFL learners read from mobile phones versus
printed paper?
b. Are there differences in the reading comprehension speed
when college EFL learners read from mobile phones versus
printed paper?
c. Are there differences in reading strategy use when college EFL
learners read from mobile phones versus printed paper?
2. What are college EFL learners’ perceptions of mobile-assisted EFL
reading?
2. Methods
The study employed both qualitative and quantitative methods in a
mixed approach to triangulate the data and simultaneously provide a
deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the research topic
(e.g. Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Moeller, 2016). The quantitative aspect
focused on the collection of information regarding students’ performance across reading media and perceptions of mobile-assisted EFL
reading. The independent variable in the study was the reading
medium (mobile phone versus printed paper), and the dependent
variables were participants’ reading performance (reading comprehension accuracy and reading speed), reading strategy use, and perceptions. Regarding the qualitative aspect, semistructured interviews were
conducted to explore the reasons for students’ use of different reading
strategies and the reasons for their perceptions of mobile-assisted EFL
reading. The results of reading tests, questionnaires, and semistructured interviews were analyzed to determine how the reading medium
affected EFL learners’ reading performance, reading strategy use, and
perceptions.
224
J. YU ET AL.
2.1. Participants
The participants in this study were all from an urban comprehensive
multidisciplinary university in eastern China who were required to take
the compulsory College English Band III course to improve their English
language skills. They were required to read assigned English language
e-books weekly from the beginning of the semester through an online
EFL reading system called Iyangcong (http://www.iyangcong.com).1
According to the policy of the college where the study was conducted,
the first-year college students were classified into intermediate or
advanced levels based on their English language scores on the college
entrance examinations (a national student selection and placement examination administered once a year in China). The participants in the
present study were classified as intermediate-level EFL learners. A sample
of 10 first-year college students (females = 4, males = 6) with a mean
age of 18.17 years participated in the pilot study (but not the quasiexperiment) for payment. Another sample of 84 students (females = 37,
males = 47) with a mean age of 18.23 years from two different classes
taught by the same teacher (who was not the researcher) participated
in the quasiexperiment for a gift. They were from different disciplines
(arts = 18, engineering = 25, natural sciences = 22, social sciences =
16). An independent-sample t-test of the scores of a recent college
English language proficiency quiz2 taken by the participants indicated
that the students from these two classes had the same level of English
language proficiency, t(83) = −1.975, p = .052. Six students (females =
4, males = 2) who participated in the experiment were also enlisted to
participate in semistructured interviews for payment. They were selected
based on their willingness to participate and their preferences for the
reading medium as indicated in the questionnaire (i.e. 3 students who
preferred paper-based EFL reading and 3 students who preferred
mobile-assisted EFL reading).
2.2. Instruments
The research instruments used in this study included reading comprehension tests, questionnaire surveys, and a semistructured interview guide.
All of the questionnaire surveys and semistructured interviews were
administered in the Chinese language. The comprehension tests (see
Appendices I & II) used to assess the participants’ reading performance
(reading comprehension accuracy and speed) across two reading media
(mobile phone and printed paper) were developed by two experts and
reviewed by another expert in EFL language teaching and learning with
the guidance of the college English language course syllabus and levels
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
225
of comprehension theory (Alonzo et al., 2009; Kintsch, 2005). They were
developed based on one of the assigned reading materials for the students:
Chapter 2, The Power of Tragedy (658 words; see Figure 1 for its appearance on a phone screen), and Chapter 10, The Greatest Power (655 words),
from Harry Potter Power: Free Your Inner Power (Sykley, 2011). The two
texts had similar readability levels (approximately 5.5 grade level) as
indicated by the Fry Readability formula (Fry, 1968). For the excerpt, The
Power of Tragedy, Questions 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9 were literal comprehension
questions; Questions 4, 7 and 10 were inferential comprehension questions;
and Questions 2 and 8 were evaluative comprehension questions. For the
other excerpt, The Greatest Power, Questions 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were literal
comprehension questions; Questions 3, 4 and 10 were inferential comprehension questions; and Questions 2 and 9 were evaluative comprehension questions. The texts presented on the mobile phones were presented
according to the default setting (i.e. Times New Roman font, size 12,
single line spacing within the paragraph, and double spacing between
paragraphs). The printed texts were presented in the same way as the
texts on the mobile screens and were made into booklets.
Strategy questionnaires were used to identify the participants’ use of
reading strategies with two different reading media (see Appendices III
Figure 1. Image of the appearance on Iyangcong on a phone screen with an example of
an excerpt from The Power of Tragedy.
226
J. YU ET AL.
& IV). In light of the commonly acknowledged taxonomy of EFL reading
strategies (i.e. global strategies, problem-solving strategies, and support
strategies) (Huang et al., 2009; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002), the strategy
questionnaires used in this study were adopted from an existing
fine-grained strategy survey, the Survey of Reading Strategies (Mokhtari
& Sheorey, 2002). This survey has been proven to be reliable and valid
and is widely used to assess language learners’ reading strategies. The
questionnaire included 27 five-point Likert scale items. Items 1, 3, 4, 6,
8, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25 concerned global strategies (e.g. I take
an overall view of the text to see what it is about before reading it);
items 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 24, and 26 concerned problem-solving strategies (e.g. When I read, I guess the meaning of unknown words or
phrases); and items 2, 5, 10, 13, 17, 21, and 27 concerned support
strategies (e.g. I refer to a dictionary to help me understand what I
read). The validity of the questionnaire was calculated with Pearson
product-moment correlations using the Statistical Package for the Social
Science (SPSS) version 22.0 by correlating each questionnaire item score
with the total score. The statistical results showed that the Pearson’s r
values ranged from .24 to .69, indicating that all items were valid (Gliner
et al., 2017); therefore, all items were included in the data analyses.
The perception questionnaire was developed by referring to the unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology (see Appendix V), which is
a widely used and validated framework for designing measurement
instruments regarding information technology acceptance (Davis, 1989;
Hsu et al., 2013; Lawson-Body et al., 2020). The questionnaire included
12 five-point Likert scale items and two open-ended questions, with
items 1, 2, 3, and 4 concerning perceived usefulness (e.g. I expect that
reading from mobile phones will improve my English reading proficiency); items 5, 6, and 7 concerning perceived ease of use (e.g. I find
it easy to navigate among chapters when reading from mobile phones);
items 8, 9, and 10 concerning satisfaction (e.g. I am satisfied with the
quality of the texts on the mobile-assisted language reading system);
and items 11 and 12 concerning acceptance (e.g. I intend to continue
to read from a mobile phone). Two open-ended questions were used to
collect the participants’ comments regarding mobile phone reading
(Question 13), their preferences for reading media and the reasons for
their preferences (Question 14). The validity of this questionnaire was
also calculated with Pearson product-moment correlations, and the statistical results showed that the Pearson’s r values ranged from .46 to
.83, indicating that all items were valid (Gliner et al., 2017) and were
included in the analyses. The Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from .72
to .91, indicating good internal consistency and acceptability of the
questionnaires (Gliner et al., 2017). All questionnaires were first
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
227
translated into the Chinese language by the authors, and three Chinese
translation experts amended the translated version in the Chinese language. An additional two education experts, who are native English
speakers, testified to the Chinese language version’s accuracy.
Based on the theoretical orientation toward mobile-assisted EFL reading in this study, a follow-up semistructured interview guide (see
Appendix VI) was developed by the researchers after the analysis of the
participants’ responses to the questionnaires and the results of the preand posttests. Using a general, ten-question outline, semistructured interviews with six participants were conducted to gain insight into the
participants’ different reading processes across the two media and their
perceptions of mobile-assisted EFL reading.
2.3. Data collection
This study was conducted in the middle of the semester when participants had used the Iyangcong English language learning system for EFL
reading for more than two months. To counterbalance the order of the
delivery of the reading medium, one class with 41 participants first
completed the mobile-assisted EFL reading comprehension test, followed
by Strategy Questionnaire 1, the paper-based EFL reading comprehension
test, Strategy Questionnaire 2, and, finally, the perception questionnaire.
Another class with 43 participants completed the paper-based reading
comprehension test first, followed by Strategy Questionnaire 2, the
mobile-assisted EFL reading comprehension test, Strategy Questionnaire
1, and, finally, the perception questionnaire. All the instruments were
administered in paper-and-pen format. There was no time limit for the
tests and questionnaires, but before the participants completed them,
they were asked to record the amount of time used to read the texts
and answer the questions with the embedded stopwatch application on
their mobile phones and to write the time on the first page of the
booklet. Three days before the experiment, students were asked to ensure
that the Iyangcong English language learning system was working well
on their phones. They all used smartphones with screen sizes ranging
from 4.0 inches to 6.76 inches. The semistructured interviews were
conducted with six students recruited from the quasiexperiment participants, including three who preferred mobile-assisted EFL reading and
3 who preferred paper-based EFL reading. The interviews lasted approximately forty minutes; the participants were interviewed individually in
an informal way in a quiet room. All interviews were recorded with an
audio recorder and then transcribed for further analysis.
Before the quasiexperiment, a pilot study was conducted to ensure
the accuracy and readability of the instruments. The pilot study included
228
J. YU ET AL.
10 first-year students who were taking a parallel course to the two
classes that would participate in the quasiexperiment. The procedures
of the pilot study, which was conducted in a normal classroom, were
identical to those of the quasiexperiment. After the participants completed all of the tasks, they were asked to provide comments regarding
the tests and questionnaires.
2.4. Data analysis
In this study, quantitative descriptive statistical analysis and qualitative
analysis of students’ responses to the reading comprehension tests and
questionnaires were performed. Eighty-four copies of printed paper
booklets were administered, and all 84 were collected. One copy was
excluded from analyses because more than half of the questions were
not completed, and two copies were excluded because the same response
was provided across almost all items, resulting in 3.5% of the data
missing. A two-way mixed-design ANOVA, paired-sample t-tests, and
independent-sample t-tests were used to assess the differences in the
students’ reading performance across the two reading media. A
one-sample t-test was used to assess participants perceptions of
mobile-assisted EFL reading. The reading comprehension accuracy data
were obtained by scoring the reading comprehension tests, with each
correct answer scoring one point. The reading time data were obtained
from students’ self-reported times. For the three questionnaires, participants’ responses to the closed-ended items were coded with a
5-point Likert scale, in which ‘1’ indicated ‘Strongly Disagree’ and ‘5’
indicated ‘Strongly Agree’. The responses to the open-ended questions
were coded based on Baron et al. (2017) study (participants’ responses
were categorized into aesthetic, cognitive, physical and other dimensions; Section 3.2). SPSS version 22.0 was used to perform aggregation
and computation of all the statistical data. The interviews were transcribed with Xunfeitingjian (https://www.iflyrec.com) and checked manually by the researchers for further open coding and analyses. Following
Glaser’s (1992) grounded-theory procedures, two authors first read the
transcripts to obtain a general sense of the interview data; then, they
read one of the six transcripts sentence-by-sentence independently to
assign labels to the propositions. Next, the two coders discussed the
labels to find patterns and classified them into core categories according to their theme (e.g. ‘mobile phones enable reading anytime or
anywhere’ was classified into ‘portability’). After reaching an agreement,
they coded the remaining five transcripts based on the coding scheme
of the first transcript. Disagreements were settled by discussion.
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
229
3. Results
To answer the first of the three research questions in the present study,
namely, that concerning the impact of reading media on EFL learners’
reading accuracy, speed, and strategy used, statistical analyses, including
two-way mixed-design ANOVAs, repeated-measures ANOVAs,
paired-sample t-tests, and independent-sample t-tests, were employed
to analyze the data collected from reading comprehension tests and the
questionnaire concerning the reading strategy used. The results of the
differences in the reading comprehension accuracy, reading speed, and
reading strategy use across the two reading media are presented in
Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3, respectively. To answer the fourth
research question, namely, that regarding EFL learners’ perceptions of
mobile-assisted EFL reading, qualitative and descriptive methods were
used to analyze participants’ responses to the perception questionnaire
and the interview data, the results of which are presented in Section 3.2.
3.1. Students’ reading comprehension across the two reading media
3.1.1. Students’ reading comprehension accuracy across the two reading media
To determine whether the order in which the text was presented could
confound the comprehension accuracy results, we conducted a two-way
mixed-design ANOVA with the treatment order (reading from mobile
phone or printed paper first) as a between-subjects factor and the reading
medium (mobile phones or printed paper) as a within-subjects factor.
The analysis yielded main effects of reading medium, F(1, 80) = 4.04, p
= .048, p2 = .049, but revealed no main effects of treatment order, F(1,
80) = .83, p = .365, p2 = .011, and no reliable interaction between the
reading medium and treatment order, F(1, 80) = 2.36, p = .128, p2 = .029,
suggesting that the treatment order had no significant effects on reading
comprehension accuracy (see Figure 2; for the means and standard deviations of each experimental group, see Table 1). Thus, we conducted a
paired-samples t-test on the full sample to determine the effects of the
reading medium on participants’ reading comprehension accuracy.
The analysis indicated that scores were significantly lower for participants who read from mobile phones (M = 8.35, SD = 1.68) than for those
who read from paper (M = 8.78, SD = 1.17), t(80) = −2.05, p = .044, d
= .298. Furthermore, the results pertaining to the three levels of comprehension showed that the accuracy rates of the literal comprehension
questions, inferential questions, and evaluative questions were 84% versus
87%, 79% versus 82%, and 88% versus 91% for mobile-assisted versus
paper-based reading comprehension, respectively. To summarize, the
230
J. YU ET AL.
Figure 2. The average scores of reading comprehension tests for each order-medium condition (± standard error bars represent 95% confidence intervals).
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of the students’ reading comprehension scores in
each experimental group.
Score of reading from mobile phone(s)
Treatment order
First mobile
phone(s)
First printed
paper
Score of reading from printed paper
M
SD
M
SD
8.08
1.46
8.83
1.28
8.63
1.88
8.73
1.09
participants’ reading comprehension accuracy with mobile screens was
significantly inferior to that with paper.
3.1.2. Students’ reading comprehension speed across the two reading
media
To determine whether the order in which the text was presented (reading
from mobile phones or printed paper first) would confound the reading
speed results, we conducted a two-way mixed-design ANOVA. The analysis
yielded no main effects of treatment order, F(1, 80) = 1.39, p = .243, p2
= .017, but revealed main effects of reading medium, F(1, 80) = 17.47,
p < .001, p2 = .181, and a reliable interaction between reading medium
and treatment order, F(1, 80) = 25.46, p < .001, p2 = .244 (see Figure
3; for the means and standard deviations of each of the experimental
groups, see Table 2). Therefore, to determine the effects of the reading
medium on participants’ reading speed, we conducted two
independent-sample t-tests for the two reading orders.
The analysis showed that reading time was significantly greater for
mobile phones (M = 987.66, SD = 231.52) than for printed paper
(M = 856.60, SD = 189.41) when participants were instructed to read and
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
231
Figure 3. The average time spent on reading comprehension tests for each order-medium
condition (± standard error bars represent 95% confidence intervals).
Table 2. Means and standard deviations of the students’ reading comprehension speed in
each experimental group.
Time of reading from mobile phone
Treatment order
First mobile
phone(s)
First printed
paper
Time of reading from printed paper
M
SD
M
SD
987.66
231.52
804.85
229.99
839.43
157.87
856.60
189.41
complete the comprehension test for the first time, t(79) = 2.79, p =
.007, d = .620, but revealed no significant difference between mobile
phones (M = 839.43, SD = 157.87) and printed paper (M = 804.85,
SD = 229.99) when participants were instructed to read and complete
the comprehension test for the second time, t(79) = .79, p = .434, d
= .175. In summary, participants’ average reading speed from mobile
screens was significantly slower than that from paper when they were
instructed to read and complete the comprehension test for the first
time, but no difference was observed between the two media when
they completed the reading comprehension test for the second time.
3.1.3. Students’ use of reading strategies across the two reading media
To detect the effects of the reading medium on participants’ use of reading
strategies, an analysis of the participants’ responses to the two strategy
questionnaires was performed. Overall, in both media, problem solving
was the most commonly adopted type of strategy, followed by the global
strategy and then the support strategy. A 2 (medium type: mobile phone
versus paper) × 3 (strategy type: global, problem-solving and support
strategies) repeated-measures ANOVA indicated significant main effects
of medium type, F(1, 80) = 41.76, p < .001, p2 = .343, and main effects
232
J. YU ET AL.
Figure 4. Mean rating scores of the three reading strategies in the two types of reading
media (± standard error bars represent 95% confidence intervals).
of reading strategy type, F(2, 160) = 49.04, p < .001, p2 = .380, but
revealed no interaction between these two factors, F(2, 160) = .56, p =
.570, p2 = .007 (see Figure 4). Pairwise comparisons with the Bonferroni
correction showed that the reading from printed paper scores (M = 3.76,
SD = .45) were significantly higher than the reading from mobile phones
scores (M = 3.41, SD = .47) for the global strategy, F(1, 80) = 38.87, p <
.001, p2 = .327; the reading from printed paper scores (M = 3.97, SD =
.39) were also significantly higher than the reading from mobile phones
scores (M = 3.68, SD = .50) for the problem-solving strategy, F(1, 80) =
29.03, p < .001, p2 = .266; the reading from printed paper scores (M = 3.48,
SD = .54) were also significantly higher than the reading from mobile
phones scores (M = 3.22, SD = .59) for the support strategy, F(1, 80) =
11.91, p = .001, p2 = .130. In summary, the participants used all three
types of reading strategies more tactically when reading from printed
paper than when reading from mobile phones (Table 3)
The interview data offered detailed information about the strategy
questionnaire results. For instance, all six interview participants commented that they were used to scanning texts entirely before reading
(Question 2 in the Semistructured Interview; see Appendix VI)
because it could give them an overall picture of the reading materials.
However, it was inconvenient to go back and forth between pages
on mobile phone screens compared to printed paper, and further,
mobile phone screens made it difficult to find coherence in the texts
(Question 9 in the semistructured interview). In terms of
problem-solving strategy, three respondents reported that although
there were bold and italicized words in the texts, they seemed less
recognizable when presented on mobile phone screens than on paper
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
233
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the items in the perception questionnaire.
Item
Perceived usefulness
1.I expect that reading from mobile phones will
improve my English reading proficiency
2.I am more likely to study for a longer time with
mobile-assisted English reading applications than
with printed English texts.
3.Reading from mobile phones is convenient.
4.Mobile phones are efficient tools for language
learning.
Perceived ease of use
5.I find it easy to navigate among chapters when
reading from mobile phones.
6.The built-in functions of the mobile-assisted language
reading application (Iyangcong) are easy to use.
7.I find information faster from texts on mobile phones
than in printed texts.
Satisfaction
8.I am satisfied with the quality of the texts on the
mobile-assisted language reading system
(Iyangcong).
9.I am able to retain what I read when reading from
mobile phones.
10.I am satisfied with reading English texts from
mobile phones.
Acceptance
11.I will recommend the mobile-assisted EFL reading
system to my friends.
12.I intend to continue to read from mobile phones.
Note. **p < .01, and *p < .05 (two-tailed).
M
SD
t
3.42
.86
4.37**
2.70
1.02
−2.62*
3.58
3.62
1.01
.93
5.17**
5.98**
3.40
1.17
3.04**
3.21
1.00
1.90
3.17
1.06
1.47
3.49
.92
4.82**
2.95
.88
-.51
3.52
.95
4.91**
3.19
1.06
1.57
3.73
.84
7.83**
(Question 3 in the Semistructured Interview). Regarding support
strategy, four out of the six interview participants reported that they
had to take notes to facilitate their reading and that it was more
convenient to take notes on printed paper (Question 8 in the
Semistructured Interview section).
3.2. Students’ perceptions of mobile-assisted EFL reading
To explore students’ perceptions of mobile-assisted EFL reading, we
conducted a one-sample t-test by comparing the score for each item in
the perception questionnaire, with the midpoint being three (for the
descriptive statistics for the items in the perception questionnaire, see
Table 3). Regarding the usefulness of the mobile-assisted EFL reading
system, although participants wanted to spend more time with printed
texts than with mobile-assisted reading applications (Item 2, M = 2.70;
SD = 1.02), they believed that the mobile-assisted EFL reading system
was convenient to use (Item 3, M = 3.58; SD = 1.01) and efficient for
language learning (Item 4, M = 3.62; SD = .93). Regarding ease of use,
they found it easy to navigate among chapters (Item 5, M = 3.40;
SD = 1.17) but did not think that the built-in functions of the
234
J. YU ET AL.
mobile-assisted language reading application were easy to use (Item 6,
M = 3.21; SD = 1.00). Encouragingly, participants had a high level of
satisfaction with mobile-assisted EFL reading (Item 10, M = 3.52; SD =
.95) and showed great willingness to continue to read from mobile
phones (Item 12, M = 3.73; SD = .84). The advantages and disadvantages
of mobile-assisted EFL reading and the reasons for the preference for
mobile-assisted EFL reading reported by participants are summarized
in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
Comments from the interview participants could provide more insight
into the above results (Question 10 in the Semistructured Interview;
see Appendix VI). One participant who preferred mobile-assisted EFL
reading remarked in the interview:
Table 4. Advantages and disadvantages of mobile-assisted EFL reading reported by participants in the perception questionnaire.
Item
Advantages
Category
Aesthetic/Emotional
Cognitive
Physical
Other
Disadvantages
Aesthetic/Emotional
Cognitive
Physical
Other
Comment
More pleasant
More motivation to read
Abundant reading resources
Convenient built-in functions
Portability
Environmentally friendly
Low price
Lack of real reading feeling
Difficulty in finding coherence in
the text
Lack of concentration
Poor retention
Battery-charging problem
Eye strain
Inconvenient operation
Small screen
Inability to take notes
Not being used to it
N
2
10
12
63
55
3
7
15
9
35
17
5
38
16
7
27
2
Table 5. Reasons reported by participants for their preferences for the reading medium in
the perception questionnaire.
Medium
Mobile Phone
Category
Aesthetic/Emotional
Cognitive
Comment
More pleasant
Better focus
More motivation to read
Physical
Convenient built-in functions
Portability
Other
Being used to it
Low cost
Printed paper
Aesthetic/Emotional
More real
More pleasant
Cognitive
Better focus
Better retention
More conductive to reflection
More motivation to read
Physical
Better for eyes
More convenient to take notes
Other
Being used to it
Note. Data were collected from Question 14 in the Perception Questionnaire (see Appendix V).
N
2
3
5
12
14
2
2
14
8
23
5
6
4
8
25
4
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
235
I love to read from mobile phones because I can make full use of fragmented
spare time to learn English language. I can read when I am waiting in line for
lunch or during breaks between classes. Importantly, there is Chinese-English
reading mode, which can facilitate my understanding and help me learn English
language effectively.
One participant who preferred paper-based EFL reading commented
in the interview:
I like reading printed paper books, which gives me a more real, immersed, and
enjoyable reading experience. I like writing down what I am thinking when I
am reading, and I like underlining the sentences that I think are important or
useful. These are helpful for maintaining my focused attention.
4. Discussion
The primary goals of this study were to investigate the impact of reading
media on EFL learners’ reading comprehension performance and reading
strategy use and explore students’ perceptions of mobile-assisted EFL
reading. Overall, the results suggested that students achieved better
reading comprehension accuracy and more efficient strategy use when
reading from paper than when reading from mobile phones. In terms
of reading speed, participants achieved superior reading speed when
reading from paper than from mobile phones when they were instructed
to read and complete the comprehension test for the first time. Although
most respondents (79%) preferred to read from hardcopies for a better
reading experience, they were satisfied with the mobile-assisted EFL
reading system and displayed a willingness to read from mobile phones
to facilitate their foreign language learning.
4.1. Effects of the reading medium on students’ EFL reading
comprehension
4.1.1. Effects of the reading medium on students’ EFL reading comprehension
accuracy
The present study extended previous research (e.g. Delgado et al., 2018;
Kong et al., 2018; Singer & Alexander, 2017a) by investigating language
learners’ reading performance across two reading media in the EFL
reading setting based on three levels of reading comprehension (i.e.
literal, inferential, and evaluative). The results showed that the participants achieved better EFL reading comprehension accuracy at all three
comprehension levels during paper reading than during mobile phone
reading. First, concerning literal comprehension, participants understood
the texts and recalled the information more easily when reading from
paper. According to Rupley and Blair (1983), the ability to access the
text in its entirety supports readers’ mental construction of the spatial
236
J. YU ET AL.
representation of the text by providing fixed spatial cues, which further
facilitates readers’ recall and therefore their comprehension. However,
the small screen of a mobile phone (the screen sizes ranged from 4.0
inches to 6.76 inches in the present study) restricts readers’ access to
the text in its entirety to a great extent (Kerr & Symons, 2006; Zou &
Ou, 2020), and therefore makes it difficult for readers to locate useful
information.
Moreover, the effects of the presentation format on text legibility may
account for variances in reading accuracy. Legibility reflects the adequacy
of a text for its intended readership from the surface-level (e.g. typography,
colors, and contrast) to deep-level characteristics of the text (e.g. semantic
or structural parameters that shape the comprehensibility of a text)
(Macedo-Rouet, Rouet, Epstein, & Fayard, 2003). Considering that reading
comprehension is an active meaning-construction process (Alexander &
Jetton, 2002), legibility may exert a great influence on reading comprehension. On the one hand, although both the printed texts and the
electronic texts used in this study had a justified text alignment (i.e. type
and size of font; space between lines and paragraphs), the limited size of
the phone screen decreased the legibility of the text and therefore restricted
the participants’ understanding. This aspect was mentioned by interviewees, who commented that they easily became confused during the mobile
reading process because every page seemed identical. In addition, more
lines were needed to display a whole sentence on a mobile phone screen,
and therefore more cognitive effort might be required for the mental
construction of the text meaning. On the other hand, compared with the
electronic reading medium, the material substrate of printed paper provides tactile and physical cues of the text (Mangen et al., 2013), which
may increase the legibility of the text. Because inferential and evaluative
comprehension are largely based on literal comprehension, inferential and
evaluation comprehension on mobile phones are consequently restricted.
Thus, improving the legibility of the text on mobile phone screens by
enhancing typography, colors, and contrast might be the key to promoting
a better reading experience and engagement.
Importantly, the inferior use of reading strategies might also lead to
lower reading comprehension accuracy during mobile-assisted EFL reading. Previous studies have documented that effective reading strategy
use contributes to EFL learners’ superior reading performance (Anderson,
1991; Block, 1986; Chang & Lin, 2019; Huang et al., 2009). According
to the results of this study, although the participants had been instructed
to read from the mobile-assisted language system for more than two
months, they still could not apply the reading strategies (i.e. global,
support, and problem-solving strategies) effectively during mobile phone
reading. Therefore, it is highly recommended that students should be
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
237
familiarized with the built-in functions of mobile reading systems and
that mobile reading strategy training should be incorporated into language courses to promote students’ reading comprehension performance
using these reading media.
4.1.2. Effects of the reading medium on students’ EFL reading
comprehension speed
This study contributed important knowledge to the field by revealing a
reliable interaction between the reading medium and reading order and
showing that when the participants were instructed to read for the first
time, they achieved superior reading speed when reading from paper
than when reading from mobile phones, while when they read for the
second time, no difference occurred in reading speed between the two
reading media. These findings are particularly important. Although many
previous studies (e.g. Halamish & Elbaz, 2020; Hu & Yu, 2021; Singer
& Alexander, 2017a; Singer et al., 2019) have counterbalanced the reading
order across media, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no studies
considered the influence of the reading order when reporting and
explaining their results. One possible reason for the observed effects of
reading order is that participants became familiar with the whole process
and the reading materials (the two texts with similar readability levels
used in the study were from the same fiction), and they thus achieved
a faster speed when they were instructed to read and complete the
comprehension test the second time (the reading speed was faster for
the second time both from printed paper and mobile phones; although
no statistical differences occurred, the reading speed for printed paper
was slightly faster than that for mobile phones; see Figure 3). The
influence of reading order merits further exploration.
Notably, the results of the perception questionnaire showed that the
students believed that they could access information more quickly from
mobile phones since they often engage in quick mobile reading in daily
life. This finding seems inconsistent with the results of the comprehension tests. However, simply accessing information does not equate to
comprehension and retention. For example, evidence from one study
indicates that when answering reading comprehension questions, proficient readers quickly scanned a text and deeply processed (e.g. spent
more time rereading) only the information relevant to the questions
(Lai et al., 2013). When reading from mobile phones, however, students
are more likely to process superficially (Annisette & Lafreniere, 2017;
Singer et al., 2019), which makes them less aware of the adjustment of
their reading speed according to what they are reading. Therefore,
instructing students to be more engaged and perform deeper processing
in mobile-assisted EFL reading is particularly important to alleviate or
238
J. YU ET AL.
eliminate the possible negative effects of mobile reading on students’
reading comprehension performance.
4.1.3. Effects of the reading medium on students’ reading strategy use
It is commonly acknowledged that effective reading strategy use can
enhance EFL learners’ reading performance (Anderson, 1991; Block,
1986; Chang & Lin, 2019; Huang et al., 2009). However, this study
revealed that participants’ use of all three types of reading strategies
with mobile phones was not as effective as that with paper. With respect
to global strategies, the limited access to the overview of the organization and structure of the text on mobile phone screens might greatly
decrease students’ use of global reading strategies. Four of the six interviewees commented that they could not make an effective global estimation of the information from the mobile phone screen, whereas they
had a clear overview of the structure and organization of the printed
text. Therefore, on mobile phones, students were inclined to read word
by word and sentence by sentence, and retrieving clues and cues was
difficult. With regard to problem-solving strategies, as mentioned previously, the participants had difficulty identifying cues and locating
useful information in the texts presented on mobile phones due to their
unclear mental constructions of the texts; therefore, they could not
effectively use the problem-solving strategy on mobile phone screens.
Regarding support strategies, although the mobile-assisted EFL reading
system was equipped with built-in functions, participants were not familiar with or accustomed to using it. For example, four out of six respondents from the interviews commented that they relied heavily on taking
notes when reading to facilitate their reading comprehension, but the
electronic note-taking function was not very convenient, and they generally did not use it. Because note-taking is crucial for improving readers’
attention and information encoding and consequently benefits their
reading comprehension (Chang & Ku, 2015), it is of great importance
for developers to improve note-taking functions and for instructors to
familiarize students with built-in functions before engaging them in
mobile phone reading.
4.2. Students’ perceptions of mobile-assisted EFL reading
Overall, this study showed that the participants generally had positive
perceptions of mobile-assisted EFL reading. They greatly appreciated the
portability and convenient built-in functions of the mobile reading system,
and they stated that they would continue to read from mobile phones to
assist their EFL learning. In the current stage, however, most participants
(79%) preferred to read from hardcopies for a better reading experience
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
239
in terms of the convenience of taking notes, the real feeling of reading,
and better reflection, focus, and retention. In particular, the convenience
of taking notes and better focus were the two most common responses
reported by respondents as reasons for their preference for reading from
paper. Because note-taking is an efficient way to improve readers’ attention
and facilitate their reading comprehension (Chang & Ku, 2015), it is not
surprising that students predominantly like to take notes while reading.
Therefore, as mentioned, improving the note-taking function and familiarizing students with the built-in functions are crucial for successful
implementation of mobile-assisted EFL reading. With respect to focus,
students reported that they easily became distracted due to the communication attributes of mobile phones, which might influence their reading
comprehension by reducing their available working memory resources
(Liu & Huang, 2016). As Liu and Huang (2016) noted, distraction is not
a new problem, but the adventure of mobile learning has pushed this
issue to a new level and drawn more attention to it. Furthermore, a less
focused state while reading can lead to a comparatively shallow reading
style. According to Craik and Lockhart’s levels of processing theory, deeper
levels of mental processing contribute to longer retention, while shallow
levels of mental processing lead to shorter retention (Craik & Lockhart,
1972). Poor retention of the text, as the present study revealed, was an
important variable accounting for students’ dislike of mobile-assisted EFL
reading. However, this finding was based on participants’ subjective reports
of their text retention. Therefore, future research is required to quantitatively and comprehensively measure the effects of mobile phones on EFL
learners’ retention of the text. Overall, it can be concluded that, on the
one hand, given the dominant preference for reading from paper in the
EFL setting, it is premature to abandon hardcopies. On the other hand,
a large proportion of the participants considered the mobile-assisted language learning system useful for their foreign language learning and
wanted to continue to read from mobile phones to improve their language
proficiency. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the problems
mentioned previously should be addressed, such as developing more
user-friendly built-in functions, improving the legibility of the text on
mobile phone screens, and instructing students to use reading strategies
effectively.
5. Conclusion
The present study contributes to the growing knowledge of college EFL
learners’ reading comprehension performance and the intersection of
reading comprehension performance with the use of mobile-assisted and
paper-based reading media and students’ perceptions of these reading
240
J. YU ET AL.
media. Through an understanding of how these factors are intertwined,
a better understanding of EFL learners’ reading processes with different
media can be achieved. Overall, this study’s results suggest that students
had superior reading comprehension performance when reading from
paper than when reading from mobile phones. Encouragingly, although
most participants preferred to read from hardcopies for a better reading
experience, they perceived mobile-assisted EFL reading positively and
showed a willingness to continue to read from mobile phones to facilitate their foreign language learning. Because mobile-assisted reading is
increasingly common in students’ EFL learning settings, this study sheds
light on students’ actual reading experiences with mobile phones and
printed paper. Therefore, more insightful decisions can be made regarding how to instruct students to read using different reading media based
on the reading tasks and EFL students’ reading experience.
6. Limitations and directions for future research
The main limitation of this study is that only intermediate-level EFL learner
samples in the higher education setting were included. Therefore, the
findings cannot be directly generalized to other samples, such as low- or
advanced-level college EFL learners. As previous studies documented that
readers at different language proficiency levels use reading strategies differently in both quality and quantity (e.g. Block, 1986; Huang et al., 2009;
Lai et al., 2013; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001), future research could include
college EFL learners at different language proficiency levels and explore
how and why they perform differently during mobile-assisted language
reading. Moreover, according to the authors’ observations, there is an
increasing incidence of mobile-assisted language learning in the primary
and secondary education setting in the post-coronavirus (COVID-19)
pandemic world. Therefore, empirical research on this topic in addition
to higher education settings is warranted. This research can provide more
useful information for the field of mobile-assisted language learning.
Another limitation of this study is that it did not provide a picture
of how college EFL performance and perceptions of mobile-assisted
language reading change over time. The present study suggests that
although the participants preferred the printed-paper format, they showed
great willingness to continue to read from mobile phones. It would
therefore be interesting for future research to conduct a longitudinal
study to investigate changes in perceptions and reading skills by collecting data before and after EFL learners have become familiar with
and proficient at mobile reading. This would allow us to obtain deeper
insight into the effects of mobile reading on students’ language learning
and development.
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
241
Notes
1.
2.
Iyangcong is a paid online reading platform developed by Foreign Language Teaching
and Research Press with an aim of fostering EFL learners’ interest in EFL reading and improving their reading ability. It covers a wide range of reading materials, including literature, technology and engineering, history and philosophy,
etc. There are Chinese, English and Chinese-English reading modes, and there
is a built-in dictionary. In addition, readers can take notes and make comments
while reading and then share these notes and comments on Iyangcong forums.
The College English Language Quiz is a summative assessment for EFL learners at
the university where the study was conducted. It is administered periodically
(every 2 months) to evaluate EFL students’ learning outcomes.
Funding
This research is supported by the National Social Science Fund of China, China (Grant
number: 21BYY024).
Notes on Contributors
Miss. Xiaoming Yang is a PhD student, studying at the Department of Linguistics, the
School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China. Her
research interests lie in second language acquisition, reading comprehension studies
and computer-assisted English language learning.
Professor Jie Hu, PhD, is a professor working at the Department of Linguistics, the
School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China. She has
been focusing on English language education for more than 10 years after her PhD
graduation from the University of Warwick, UK. Her research interests include ICT-based
English language education, second language acquisition, educational data mining and
learning analysis.
ORCID
Jie Yu
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7432-7151
Xiaoming Yang
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6710-3720
Jie Hu
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2219-2587
References
Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2002). Learning from text: A multidimensional and
developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosentha, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 285–310). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Alonzo, J., Basaraba, D., Tindal, G., & Carriveau, R. S. (2009). They read, but how
well do they understand? An empirical look at the nuances of measuring reading
comprehension. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(1), 34–44. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1534508408330082
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460–472. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05384.x
242
J. YU ET AL.
Annisette, L. E., & Lafreniere, K. D. (2017). Social media, texting, and personality: A
test of the shallowing hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 154–158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.043
Baron, N. S., Calixte, R. M., & Havewala, M. (2017). The persistence of print among
university students: An exploratory study. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 590–604.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.008
Bell, T. (2001). Extensive reading: Speed and comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 1(1).
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.3793&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL
Quarterly, 20(3), 463–494. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586295
Botero, G. G., Questier, F., Cincinnato, S., He, T., & Zhu, C. (2018). Acceptance and usage
of mobile assisted language learning by higher education students. Journal of Computing
in Higher Education, 30(3), 426–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9177-1
Burford, S., & Park, S. (2014). The impact of mobile tablet devices on human information behaviour. Journal of Documentation, 70(4), 622–639. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JD-09-2012-0123
Burston, J. (2015). Twenty years of MALL project implementation: A meta-analysis of
learning outcomes. ReCALL, 27(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000159
Chang, W. C., & Ku, Y. M. (2015). The effects of note-taking skills instruction on
elementary students’ reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(4), 278–291.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.886175
Chang, M. M., & Lin, M. C. (2019). Experimental study on strategy-oriented web-based
English instruction for EFL students. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
56(8), 1238–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117739410
Chen, Z., Chen, W., Jia, J., & An, H. (2020). The effects of using mobile devices on
language learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development,
68(4), 1769–1789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09801-5
Chen, J., Zhang, Y., & Hu, J. (2021). Synergistic effects of instruction and affect factors
on high- and low-ability disparities in elementary students’ reading literacy. Reading
and Writing, 34(1), 199–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10070-0
Chen, J., Zhang, Y., Wei, Y., & Hu, J. (2021). Discrimination of the contextual features
of top performers in scientific literacy using a machine learning approach. Research
in Science Education, 51, 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9835-y
Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens. Journal of Research in
Reading, 42(2), 288–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance
of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.
org/10.2307/249008
De Leeuw, E., & De Leeuw, M. (1965). Read better, read faster. Penguin.
Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your
printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
edurev.2018.09.003
Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11(7), 513–578.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40013635.pdf
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
243
Fry, E. B. (1963). Teaching faster reading: A manual. Cambridge University Press.
Gheytasi, M., Azizifar, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015). The effect of smartphone on the
reading comprehension proficiency of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 199, 225–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.510
Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2017). Research methods in applied settings:
An integrated approach to design and analysis. Routledge.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Sociology Press.
Gutiérrez-Colón, M., Frumuselu, A. D., & Curell, H. (2020). Mobile-assisted language
learning to enhance L2 reading comprehension: A selection of implementation studies between 2012–2017. Interactive Learning Environments, Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813179
Haddock, G., Foad, C., Saul, V., Brown, W., & Thompson, R. (2019). The medium can
influence the message: Print-based versus digital reading influences how people
process different types of written information. British Journal of Psychology (London,
England: 1953), 111, 443–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12415
Halamish, V., & Elbaz, E. (2020). Children’s reading comprehension and metacomprehension on screen versus on paper. Computers & Education, 145, 103737. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103737
Hazaea, A. N., & Alzubi, A. A. (2018). Impact of mobile assisted language learning
on learner autonomy in EFL reading context. Journal of Language and Education,
4(2), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2018-4-2-48-58
Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2013). A personalized recommendation-based
mobile learning approach to improving the reading performance of EFL students.
Computers & Education, 63, 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.004
Hu, J., & Yu, R. (2021). The effects of ICT-based social media on adolescents’ digital reading performance: A longitudinal study of PISA 2009, PISA 2012, PISA 2015 and PISA
2018. Computers & Education, 175, 104342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104342
Huang, H. C. (2013). E-reading and e-discussion: EFL learners’ perceptions of an
e-book reading program. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 258–281.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.656313
Huang, H. C., Chern, C. L., & Lin, C. C. (2009). EFL learners’ use of online reading
strategies and comprehension of texts: An exploratory study. Computers & Education,
52(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.003
Hwang, G. J., & Fu, Q. K. (2019). Trends in the research design and application of
mobile language learning: A review of 2007–2016 publications in selected SSCI
journals. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(4), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10494820.2018.1486861
Isaacson, S. A. (2017). The impact of interface on ESL reading comprehension and
strategy use: A comparison of e-books and paper texts. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 850–861.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.357
Kerr, M. A., & Symons, S. E. (2006). Computerized presentation of text: Effects on
children’s reading of informational material. Reading and Writing, 19(1), 1–19. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11145-003-8128-y
Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension theory as a guide for the design of thoughtful
questions. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 51–64. https://doi.
org/10.1097/00011363-200501000-00006
Kondo, M., Ishikawa, Y., Smith, C., Sakamoto, K., Shimomura, H., & Wada, N. (2012).
Mobile assisted language learning in university EFL courses in Japan: Developing
attitudes and skills for self-regulated learning. ReCALL, 24(2), 169–187. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0958344012000055
244
J. YU ET AL.
Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L. (2018). Comparison of reading performance on screen
and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 123, 138–149. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language
learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL,
20(3), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000335
Lai, S. F., Li, C. H., & Amster, R. (2013). Strategically smart or proficiency-driven? An
investigation of reading strategy use of EFL college students in relation to language
proficiency. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 6(1), 85–92. https://
doi.org/10.19030/cier.v6i1.7606
Latini, N., Bråtena, I., Anmarkruda, Ø., & Salmerónb, L. (2019). Investigating effects
of reading medium and reading purpose on behavioral engagement and textual
integration in a multiple text context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59,
101797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101797
Latini, N., Bråten, I., & Salmerón, L. (2020). Does reading medium affect processing
and integration of textual and pictorial information? A multimedia eye-tracking
study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 101870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2020.101870
Lawson-Body, A., Willoughby, L., Lawson-Body, L., & Tamandja, E. M. (2020). Students’
acceptance of E-books: An application of UTAUT. Journal of Computer Information
Systems, 60(3), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2018.1463577
Lin, C.-C., Lin, V., Liu, G.-Z., Kou, X., Kulikova, A., & Lin, W. (2020). Mobile-assisted
reading development: A review from the activity theory perspective. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 33(8), 833–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1594919
Liu, Z., & Huang, X. (2016). Reading on the move: A study of reading behavior of
undergraduate smartphone users in China. Library & Information Science Research,
38(3), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2016.08.007
Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J. F., Epstein, I., & Fayard, P. (2003). Effects of online reading on popular science comprehension. Science Communication, 25(2), 99–128. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1075547003259209
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper
versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of
Educational Research, 58, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The
SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction.
Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01463939
Moeller, A. J. (2016). The confluence of language assessment and mixed methods. In
A. J. Moeller, J. W. Cresswell, & N. Saville (Eds.), Second language assessment and
mixed methods research (pp. 3–16). Cambridge University Press.
Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading
strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2–10. https://www.researchgate.
net/profile/Kouider_Mokhtari/publication/285641803_Measuring_ESL_students%27_
awareness_of_reading_strategies/links/5666234608ae418a786f3da5/Measuring-ES
L-students-awareness-of-reading-strategies.pdf
Narvaez, D., Van Den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose
on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91(3), 488–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.488
Rupley, W. H., & Blair, T. R. (1983). Reading diagnosis and remediation: Classroom and
clinic (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
245
Şad, S. N., Özer, N., Yakar, Ü., & Öztürk, F. (2020). Mobile or hostile? Using smartphones in learning English as a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1770292
Shang, H. F. (2018). EFL medical students’ metacognitive strategy use for hypertext
reading comprehension. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(2), 259–278.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9156-y
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431–449.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2
Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017a). Reading across mediums: Effects of reading
digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 85(1), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1143794
Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017b). Reading on paper and digitally: What the
past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of Educational Research, 87, 1007–
1041. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317722961
Singer, L. M., Alexander, P. A., & Berkowitz, L. E. (2019). Effects of processing time on
comprehension and calibration in print and digital mediums. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 87(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1411877
Singer, L. M., Alexander, P. A., & Silverman, A. B. (2018). Profiling reading in print
and digital mediums. Learning and Instruction, 57, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2018.04.001
Støle, H., Mangen, A., & Schwippert, K. (2020). Assessing children’s reading comprehension on paper and screen: A mode-effect study. Computers & Education, 151,
103861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103861
Sykley, J. A. (2011). Harry potter power: Free your inner power. Interactive Publications
Pty Ltd.
Tragant, E., Pinyana, À., Mackay, J., & Andria, M. (2021). Extending language learning
beyond the EFL classroom through WhatsApp. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1854310
Zou, X. L., & Ou, L. (2020). EFL reading test on mobile versus on paper: A study
from metacognitive strategy use to test-media impacts. Educational Assessment,
Evaluation and Accountability, 32, 373–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09320-0