Integrating the Problem-Based Learning Approach Into a Web-Based English Reading Course

Abstract

This study incorporated the problem-based learning (PBL) approach into a web-based English reading course. The purpose of the study was to examine the impact of PBL on the participants’ English reading comprehension (RC) and to explore the participants’ perceptions of PBL. The present study conducted a comparison of two teaching methods. Two classes of university students were randomly assigned to PBL and non-PBL groups. The PBL group was directed by the problem and surveyed the Internet to identify solutions. The non-PBL group was instructed using the teacher-lecture method. The two groups completed RC pre- and posttests, an instructional questionnaire, and self-reports. The statistic results showed that the PBL group achieved significantly higher mean scores than the non-PBL group in English RC. Additionally, the questionnaire results demonstrated that PBL significantly enhanced the participants’ active learning and synthesized their cognitive processing. Instructional recommendations for PBL web-based English curricula are presented.

Keywords

English reading comprehension online methods pedagogy problem-based learning teaching methods web-based course

Introduction

Reading is an important language skill. There appears to be a consensus among educators teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) that it is important to enhance the learners’ English reading ability. Armed with such ability, the learners may acquire professional knowledge and skills in any situation in which they need to understand written texts. With advances in computing technology, EFL educators have incorporated advanced information technologies to fulfill this teaching goal. However, technology by itself does not have great potential without proper teaching methods to activate the learners’ endeavors. Educators need to apply efficient teaching methods to guarantee the positive effects of web-based courses designed with advanced educational technology.

Researchers and experts have continuously designed web-based tools (Chen, 2011a, 2011b) and web-based courses to promote English learning in EFL or ESL contexts (see the literature on web-based courses in Hung & Young’s, 2015 study, Kao’s 2014 meta-analysis, and Young & Wang’s, 2014 study). To facilitate interaction among the researchers, Special Interest Group on Technology Enhanced Language Learning (TELL) provide a platform for researchers sharing scholarly interests and professional insights into the use of technology in second and foreign language teaching and learning (“TELL”, n.d.). More recently, the Ministry of Education in Taiwan funded the Department of English in National Taiwan Normal University to launch a free English learning website for the students studying in the elementary school and the middle school (“Cool English,” 2015). In addition, some researchers participating in the annual academic conferences of Technology Enhanced Language Learning Conference, Taiwan E-Learning Forum reported several benefits of web-based programs and educational effectiveness. The websites nowadays are easy to navigate, and language educators can use them to design the English curriculum.

Reading is widely highlighted as an important literacy skill. Investigating how to improve EFL learners’ reading comprehension (RC) ability by integrating teaching methods into web-based courses is still an important research theme. Online reading materials have enhanced the current learning environment into a comprehensive, accessible, and diverse environment for EFL learners. The unique traits of online materials that make it a powerful tool to develop reading skills are its enormous volume regarding various subjects, its easy accessibility, and its variety of level of English usage. The Internet brings much flexibility to suit different levels of EFL learners. Some researchers considered the Internet as a suitable tool to develop the reading skill (Huang, 2013; Johnson-Glenberg, 2007; Leu, Zawilinski, Castek, Banerjee, & Housand, 2007; Silva, 2006). The present study used the Internet resources as a reading supportive tool and implemented two web-based English reading courses on the Moodle learning management system (LMS) to compare the effectiveness of two teaching methods.

As regards the teaching method, the present study integrated the problem-based learning (PBL) approach into an English course and examined its effects on EFL learners’ English RC. PBL, an educational approach, was originally conceived to make up for the shortcomings of traditional lecture-based methods in training medical students’ clinic diagnosis skills. Subsequently, PBL has been widely used in different academic areas. The reviewed literature revealed that learners of different academic backgrounds reap benefits from the PBL curriculum (Boud & Feletti, 2003; Hong & Lin, 2006). Several researchers indicated that PBL activated cognitive processing and promoted students’ higher order thinking ability (Sendag & Odabasi, 2009; Torp & Sage, 2002). RC can be assumed as a cognitive process (Kintsch, 1998), and furthermore, higher order thinking ability or critical thinking ability can be regarded as the ultimate output of performance outcomes. In this way, PBL can be used to improve English learners’ RC ability. Sanson-Fisher and Lynagh (2005) highlighted a need for further study of PBL because there still lacked sufficient empirical evidence to support its superiority. As Lin (2015) outlined, PBL had not been widely used and examined in the field of English education. Specifically, empirical studies investigating the effects of PBL on English learning in the Asian EFL context are quite limited.

The current study designed the PBL curriculum to help EFL learners develop reading and other aspects of English learning skills through problem-solving procedures and tasks. The findings may throw new light on how EFL learners benefit from PBL in a web-based course and how they perceive this innovative educational approach.

Literature Review

The Premises of the Web-Based English Reading Course

The present study established a web-based English reading curriculum from the cognitive and constructivist perspectives. The first premise is that the learner undergoes cognitive processes. Gunderson (1995) categorized RC into three levels: “literal or detail, inferential, and critical and evaluative, sometimes called applicative” (p. 27). Kintsch (1998) regarded RC as a paradigm of cognition processes. An effective web-based course can be conceptualized according to whether the leaner can successfully activate a series of cognitive processes.

The present study assumed that, in a web-based program, English learning could be viewed as constructing a mental representation of the semantic meaning of English from the reality. When learners use the website as a tool to learn English, they learn to construct not only English linguistic knowledge but also real-world knowledge of English. As for Internet use in general, English learners need to first practice searching for information to screen out essential concepts from Internet articles. Afterwards, the learners need to analyze whether the information is relevant to the task (i.e., a literal level of comprehension), synthesize the relevant information (i.e., an inferential level), and eventually use it to complete the task (i.e., an applicative level). In this study, the English curriculum was designed and implemented to coach learners in successful cognitive processing of English knowledge.

The second premise is that the effects of learning can be maximized when learners are engaged in active learning (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Mayer, 2005a, 2005b). When advanced technology is applied to English education, the instructor may consider how to foster the learner's ability to utilize knowledge. However, in most educational settings, the usage of multimedia technology focuses on providing access to information rather than aiding human cognition process (Mayer, 2005a). No matter how much technology is introduced, learners are still placed in a passive position. Therefore, the instructor may consider directing learners to actively utilize information in addition to knowing the resources. Mayer (2005b) proposed multimedia learning principles, one of which indicating that learning is only improved when learners are active and motivated. Moreover, constructivists believe that knowledge cannot just be delivered from the instructor to the learners. Learning can be regarded as a process of learner taking action to construct their own knowledge by continuously negotiating the meaning of newly acquired knowledge in different situations. In a web-based course, the learners are expected to be able to read the information on the Internet and interpret the meaning by themselves.

The third premise is that learning activities in a web-based course can be regarded as social interactive learning. “[K]nowledge does not exist independent of the sociocultural context (with all its complexities) of the knower” (Fagan, 1987, p. iii). Social constructivists generally assume that the learner may internalize language through a series of social interactions (Savery & Duffy, 1996). This type of learning engages the learner in various levels of communication, such as communication between the teacher and the learner, with peers, and between the learner and the information on the Internet. The relationship is negotiable by nature. In a classroom setting, the instructor usually divides the students into small groups to evoke social interaction, and peer discussion provides a scaffolding framework supporting each member to make proper interpretations of written text.

To act in coordination with these premises, the present study integrated the PBL approach into a web-based course. This is because some educators conducting PBL classroom observation and research reported that students undertook cognitive processes, active learning, and social communication in the classroom (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; L'Ecuyer, Pole, & Leander, 2015; Simone, 2008; Torp & Sage, 2002).

The Development of Higher Order Reading Skills

Reading experts claims that higher order reading skills play an essential role in successful reading (e.g., Oakhill, Cain, & Bryant, 2003; Paris, 2005; Perfetti, Landi, & Oakhill, 2005; Rapp, van den Broek, McMaster, Kendeou, & Espin, 2007; Snow, 2002; van den Broek et al., 2005). In general, the decoding of vocabulary and sentence structure is regarded as lower level of reading skill. In an English class if reading instruction focuses on the careful reading of texts for detailed syntactic, semantic, and lexical analyses, students may just learn some decoding skills (such as word-by-word translation) and gather huge amount of linguistic knowledge about words and sentences (such as grammatical rules) but still fail to comprehend the general meaning of the text independently (Powell, 2005; Susser & Robb, 1990).

The present study intended to develop university students’ higher level meaning construction skills, “involved in the integration of information across sentences and ideas in a text” (Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004, p. 31). “Successful comprehenders go beyond single-word and sentence comprehension and the textbase” (Hogan, Bridges, Justice, & Cain, 2011, p. 3). Hence, the present study focused on higher level of language skills. Because these skills are not reliant on decoding skills of words and sentence structures, I adopted Pauk’s (2002) model of higher level of RC strategies, such as to have a general understanding of the text, grasp main ideas, identify the details in the text, distinguish the writer’s devices, and interpret the meanings of words in a context.

The PBL Curriculum and Research

The PBL approach has been widely regarded as an effective pedagogy in the various academic fields (Boud & Feletti, 2003; Hong & Lin, 2006; Lin, 2015; Savery, 2006; Torp & Sage, 2002). Savery (2006, p. 12) provided the definition of PBL as follows: “PBL is an instructional (and curricular) learner-centered approach that empowers learners to conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills to develop a viable solution to a defined problem.” In a PBL curriculum, the instructor proposed a problem to guide students to figure out solutions. The problem—the centerpiece of the course—is designed to be embedded in relevant, contextualized situations. The students may investigate materials or phenomena from different resources beyond the textbook. Several educators have indicated that PBL obviously increases the transferability of skills and knowledge from the classroom to work and real-world settings (Bolzan & Heycox, 2003; Stepien, Gallager, & Workman, 1993).

Previous research on PBL has demonstrated fruitful learning outcomes. The research outcomes related to reading comprehension were presented. With regard to the acquisition of knowledge for a professional setting, some studies revealed that PBL helped learners construct content knowledge in different subject areas (see the studies reviewed by Barrows, 1985; Boud & Feletti, 2003; Hong & Lin, 2006). In a PBL curriculum, the teacher encourages the students to search for relevant information. Some researchers reported that PBL facilitated learners’ information searching in a library (Marshall, Fitzgerald, Busby, & Heaton, 1993; Schroeder & Zarinnia, 2001). In addition, other PBL studies showed that PBL motivated students to synthesize diverse sources of knowledge to solve problems (Boud & Feletti, 2003; Torp & Sage, 2002) and promoted students’ higher order thinking ability and metacognition (Torp & Sage, 2002). PBL can also facilitate active engagement in learning (Evensen & Hmelo, 2000; Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Simone, 2008). With the use of online resources, PBL engaged middle school students in the processes of continuously accessing information; the students showed deep understanding of the text (Hoffman, Wu, Krajcil, & Soloway, 2003). In the computer web-based course, Sendag and Odabasi (2009) verified that PBL obviously facilitated undergraduate students’ critical thinking skills.

Investigating learners’ attitudes toward problem-based courses, several researchers reported that most learners were satisfied and had positive attitudes toward PBL (Lovie-Kitchin, 2003; Shin & Kim, 2013; Smits, Verbeek, & de Buisonje, 2002; Tseng, Chang, & Lou, 2012). More recently, L’Ecuyer, Pole, and Leander (2015) conducted a qualitative content analysis of students’ critical reflections to assess the use of PBL in the clinical application of an interprofessional team seminar course. L’Ecuyer et al. (2015) added that PBL facilitated the learners’ confidence, teamwork, leadership, communication, and collaboration skills. The PBL approach can be integrated into English classes.

From the above reviewed literature, it can be found that the benefits of PBL were documented in many disciplines. In addition to medical education, many other academic areas have implemented PBL in their curricula to a greater or lesser extent, such as architecture, business, law, engineering, forestry, police science, social work, education, and many other professional fields (Lin, 2015). However, few empirical studies were conducted in the field of English education in the EFL context. To understand the instructional effectiveness of PBL, the researcher developed a PBL web-based English course and examined whether PBL could effectively foster university students’ English RC ability. From the reviewed literature, PBL pedagogy provides a holistic integration of education. In addition to examining RC ability, the present study further investigated what aspects of English learning outcomes can be facilitated effectively in a PBL curriculum and the learner’s attitudes toward the PBL approach. The results of the study provided language instructors with practical instructional knowledge to enhance English learning in the web-based course.

For the purpose of this study, three research questions are addressed:

Are there any significant differences in RC between the PBL and the non-PBL instructional conditions in terms of the RC test?

What are the participants’ perceptions of how the PBL and the non-PBL instructional conditions improved their English reading and other aspects of English learning?

What are the participants’ attitudes toward the two instructional conditions?

Method

Research Design

This is a mixed type study. Two classes were randomly assigned to either the problem-based learning (PBL) or the non-problem-based learning (non-PBL) condition. The participants in the PBL group were directed by the problem and surveyed the Internet to identify solutions. The non-PBL group was instructed with the teacher lecture method. Two groups of participants completed a pretest and a posttest to measure their RC ability before and after the treatment. The treatment lasted for 10 weeks. After the treatment, two groups of participants filled out a questionnaire and completed written self-reports.

Participants

Two classes of participants were recruited at a university. In total, there were 60 participants (22 women, 38 men, M_age = 19.98 years, age range: 18−24 years), studying in College of Life Sciences, College of Engineering, and College of Maritime Science and Management. They had completed 8 to 10 years of English instruction in school. According to the participants’ scores for English in the General Scholastic Ability Test held by the College Entrance Examination Center in Taiwan, their English proficiency was graded at an intermediate level. Their mother language was Mandarin. The teaching goal of the two English classes was to develop the students’ meaning construction skills and eventually to improve the students’ English text comprehension ability. The two classes were taught by the same instructor and had two 50-min periods of English instruction each week.

The two classes were randomly assigned to the PBL group (30 participants) and the non-PBL group (30 participants). A RC pretest was conducted. The independent-sample t-test results revealed that there was no significant difference between the PBL and non-PBL groups on the RC pretest, indicating that the two groups’ RC ability was of a similar level before the treatment (RC: t = .598, df = 58, p > .05).

Teaching Material, the Internet, and the Moodle LMS

The present study included two types of materials: the printed textbook and Internet resources. The textbook is entitled Read and Think (Beatty, 2004) and includes 12 units, two of which were selected for this study: “The Lord of the Rings” and “The Olympic Games.” The problems designed for the two topics were the following: (a) As a fan of The Lord of the Rings, you plan to visit the place where the film was shot. How would you plan your trip to get connected with the film? (b) As an archeologist, you have a visit in Stadium in Olympia, Greece, to investigate the movement of Olympic Games. What are the similarities and differences between the modern and ancient Olympic Games?

The English course website on the Moodle LMS provided students with online quizzes and PowerPoint slides related to the textbook content produced by the researcher. The Internet and video resources were situated within the Moodle system. This Moodle platform supported the PBL and non-PBL treatment in this study (see Appendix A for the Moodle image screen). For the PBL group, the researcher proposed the problems and used the write-back function on the Moodle system to communicate with the participants. Two groups of the participants uploaded their assignments and responses using the Moodle system.

In addition, the PBL participants used a social networking website (Facebook) to establish a small-group discussion forum. Most of them got used to using Facebook to send messages to their group members. The Internet was provided as a tool to help the participants do online reading. To identify solutions to the problem, the PBL participants browsed the Internet and searched for additional information and materials not included in the textbook each week (see Appendix B for the examples of the websites related to the movie The Lord of the Rings).

PBL and Non-PBL Treatment

PBL treatment

The PBL group served as an experimental group mainly led by the problem and read the assigned textbook and the Internet materials to identify the solutions. The PBL treatment was learner-centered. The instructor acted as a facilitator of learning and did not offer information related to the problem. For each topic, the treatment lasted for 5 weeks. In the first week, the instructor introduced the topic and presented the problems. The participants were divided into small groups. Each group elected a leader. The leader led the group members to review the problem and analyze its factors or concepts. Afterwards, each group set up a schedule and engaged in discussion to analyze the problem and how to search for information on the Internet. If a member had reading difficulty, the leader provided interpretations.

From the second through the fourth week, the general teaching scheme in each class was as follows: The instructor first led the participants in a review of the problem, figuring out key concepts contained within it. Second, each group set up the schedule of looking for information on the Internet. Afterwards, each group browsed the Internet and analyzed whether the information was relevant to the problem. After collecting some relevant information, the participants synthesized it through the summary writing activity. Each participant was asked to summarize the main ideas from the Internet article and to record the main items of the group’s discussion. Each participant uploaded the summary report using the Moodle LMS. In the final class session of each week, the representative of each group used English to briefly report the data they had collected on the Internet. In the fifth week, all groups presented their solutions via PowerPoint slides.

English was a major communicative language. The teacher used English to offer text interpretations and to converse with the participants. The teacher encouraged the participants to use English in their discussions. In the final class session of each week, each group leader used English to compile a short report. The participants were asked to copy down some key concepts in English from other groups’ reports and upload their assignments using the Moodle LMS.

Non-PBL treatment

The non-PBL group served as a control group and did not receive PBL training. The teaching technique was teacher-lecture. The participants followed the teacher’s directions. In the first week, the instructor introduced the topic and related concepts and presented the target vocabulary learned in the article. From the second through the fifth weeks, the instructor first offered detailed interpretations of the content, vocabulary, and paragraph and text structures in the textbook article. Second, an audio recording of the textbook was played. Third, the instructor asked the participants to complete the RC questions related to the article and the vocabulary and grammar exercises in the textbook. Fourth, each participant uploaded their answers using the Moodle LMS. The teacher reviewed each participant’s answers and offered the correct answers.

In the final class session of each week, the instructor led the participants to read the Internet articles which were the same as those used in the PBL group. The instructor’s computer was connected with the participants’ through the broadcast system in the language laboratory. The Internet article was presented through the instructor’s computer while each participant sat in front of a computer and individually read it. The instructor offered brief interpretations of the content and vocabulary. Occasionally, the instructor asked the participants to complete the Cloze test related to the displayed Internet article. The format of question items was multiple-choice, pertaining to choosing proper vocabulary.

Data Collection

Reading comprehension (RC) pre- and posttests

The RC pre- and posttests were used to investigate whether the participants progressed in their ability to understand written text. In addition, the score of the RC pretest also was used to ensure that the two groups of participants were equal in their RC ability before the treatment. Each test included three passages, which were directly adopted from Pauk (2002). For each passage, there were six question items, representing six strategies of RC: identifying main ideas, synthesizing the subject matter of a passage, drawing conclusions from a passage, identifying the devices used by the writer, searching for specific details, and decoding the meaning of vocabulary. A learner’s RC can be measured in a comprehensive way through six different strategies.

Content validity of the RC test was established on the passage readability, the correct percentage of each passage and the expert’s comments. Pauk’s (2002) book, Six-Way Paragraphs: Advanced level, included 100 passages. If the passage was too easy, the participants’ reading performance might reach the top-ceiling effect. The results could not interpret the development of RC. In contrast, if the passage was too difficult, the participants might totally struggle for interpreting the meanings of vocabulary or analyzing the sentence structures. There might be no space for them to utilize higher level of RC strategies discussed in the earlier. The author took the following steps to select the passages.

Step 1: Judge the passage readability with the calculator, called The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. The level output from this tool indicates which U.S. grade level students can understand the text. For example, an index of 8.1 indicates that the text can be understood by an average student in eighth grade (“Free Text Readability Consensus Calculator”, 2017).

From the author’s teaching experience, most participants at the intermediate level in this university could read Level 5 or Level 6 text with ease and likely failed to understand the text beyond Level 9. To screen out the participants’ different RC abilities before the treatment, the author selected the texts indexed with 7 and 8. This tool includes four readability variables of word number, words per sentence, Flesch reading ease, and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (see Table 1 for the readability statistics of the passages).

Table 1.

Readability Statistics of the Passages Used in the Reading Comprehension Pre- and Posttests.

Readability statistics	Pretest			Posttest
Readability statistics	P1	P2	P3	P4	P5	P6
Words	253	231	259	235	234	237
Words per sentence	15.8	17.7	15.2	15.6	19.5	13.9
Flesch reading ease	64.7	64.6	59	61.3	67.0	57.3
Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level	8.1	8.6	8.8	8.5	8.7	8.7

Note. P = passage; P1 = Why do they do it?; P2 = a wise man; P3 = nine young prisoners; P4 = the amazing recovery; P5 = the story of storks; P6 = Dodgson’s dictionary.

Step 2: Select the passage in terms of the averaged correct percentage. In the beginning stage of the study, a class of 25 students joined the pilot study. During 4 months, they completed 20 passages scored with the readability index of 7 and 8. One passage contained eight items, representing different RC skills. The author did not analyze item difficulty; instead, the selection of the testing materials was based on the passage as a whole. The correct percentage of each passage was calculated. A high percentage indicates an easy passage and a low percentage indicates a difficult passage. Considering the discriminating power of a test, the averaged correct percentage of the passage ranged from 30% to 70% was selected as testing materials. In total, there were 11 passages with the acceptable correct percentage. Considering the equal number of passages and the same text readability in the pre- and posttests, the author employed the six passages consistently scored with an index of 8 as the testing materials.

Step 3: An expert in English reading teaching was invited to review the question items of the six passages and the test format. The suggestions were to modify the test format and to add the direction to the first question regarding the main idea (see Appendix C for the sample of the test format and the question items).

The participants received one point for each correct answer. One passage included eight question items. For the three passages, the maximum scores of the pre- and posttests were 24, respectively. For each group, the participants’ total correct responses to the items were summed up and converted into the respective percentage scores on the pre- and posttests. The Cronbach’s alpha values for the pre- and posttests were .78 and .81, respectively.

As shown in Tables 2 and 3, there were positive significant relationships between the three passage subscores and the totaled score of the RC pretest and the RC posttests, respectively. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). The Pearson correlation coefficients show that the strength of association between the variables is medium and high.

Table 2.

Correlations Between the Passage Subscores and the Total Score on the Reading Comprehension Pretest.

Variables	Correlations/Sig	P1	P2	P3
Total	Pearson	.697^**	.608^**	.611^**
	Sig. (two-tailed)	.000	.000	.000

Note. P1 = Why do they do it?; P2 = a wise man; P3 = nine young prisoners.

**p < .01.

Table 3.

Correlations Between the Passage Subscores and the Total Score on the Reading Comprehension Posttest.

Variables	Correlations/Sig	P4	P5	P6
Total	Pearson	.742^**	.599^**	.778^**
	Sig. (two-tailed)	.000	.000	.000

Note. P4 = the amazing recovery; P5 = the story of storks; P6 = Dodgson’s dictionary.

**p < .01.

Instructional Questionnaire

The instructional questionnaire included 16 items (see the items in Appendix D¹). A teaching method may cause a variety of learning outcomes. In addition to understanding the effects of teaching methods on English RC, the questionnaire was also designed to investigate the effects of teaching methods on other aspects of English learning outcomes extended from the two treatments. The questionnaire was designed to survey the participants’ perception of how the two teaching methods improve English learning, consisting of four language skills, vocabulary learning, and manipulation of the text (eight items in total). On the other hand, based on the reviewed literature, the questionnaire further explored the participants’ active learning (three items), cognitive processes (three items), and attitude toward the two teaching methods (two items). The item responses were differentiated on 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for the questionnaire was .91.

Written Self-Reports

To further understand the participants’ perceptions of the two teaching methods and their English learning outcomes, the researcher asked the participants of the two groups to write down their responses to the following two questions: (a) How did the instructional method help you to learn English in the past 10 weeks? (b) What are your attitudes toward the teaching method or the teaching activities you experienced in English class?

Data Analysis

The quantitative data collected from the RC pre- and posttests were statistically analyzed to investigate whether there were significant differences between the two groups in RC before and after the treatment. The two groups’ descriptive statistics (SDs) were calculated. For between-group and within-group comparisons, the ANCOVA analysis, independent-sample t tests, and paired t tests were used to analyze the mean scores. The significance level was set at .05.

Both the questionnaire responses and self-reports were analyzed to explore the participants’ perceptions of the PBL and non-PBL instructional conditions. Regarding the questionnaire, the two groups’ mean scores of each questionnaire item were calculated by adding up the participants’ responses and dividing by the total number of participants in each variable group. Subsequently, independent-sample t tests were conducted to investigate whether there were differences between the two groups for each item. The significance level was set at .05.

Regarding self-reports, the content analysis procedure suggested by Bauer (2000) and Marvasti (2004) was employed to categorize major themes related to English learning outcomes and the participants’ attitudes toward English learning (see Lin, 2014’s study for a detailed description of the content-analysis steps). Through initial analysis of the 60 self-reports, the participants’ responses were parsed into perception units and further identified into different categories. The researcher and two raters examined and discussed the categories. The number of participants for each category was tallied. The statements in each category were translated into English. A native English speaker proofread the translation.

Results

PBL and Non-PBL Groups’ Reading Comprehension in Terms of the Posttest

The first research question examined whether there were significant differences in RC between the PBL and the non-PBL conditions. The mean scores of the RC pre- and posttests for the two groups are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Problem-based learning (PBL, n = 30) and non-problem-based learning (non-PBL, n = 30) groups' reading comprehension pre- and posttest mean scores.

The ANCOVA method was employed to standardize the RC pretest scores for the two instructional conditions (i.e., the RC pretest score served as the covariate). The assumption of homogeneity in the regression of the covariates and the dependent variables (the RC posttest score) was first examined. The results showed that the assumption of homogeneity of the regression slopes for the two groups was not violated, F(1, 56) = 3.621, p = .062 > .05, indicating that the relationship between the RC pretest score and the RC posttest score was not influenced by the instructional treatment. Thus, the ANCOVA analysis was further administered to examine the scores on the posttests.

In Table 4, the ANCOVA results revealed a significant difference between the PBL and non-PBL groups on the posttest score, F(1, 57) = 6.197, p = .016 < .05. That is, the PBL group’s adjusted mean score on the posttest (M = 77.352^a) was significantly higher than the non-PBL group’s (M = 69.871^a). This finding suggests that PBL significantly fostered the participants’ RC ability.

Table 4.

Analysis of Covariance on the Reading Comprehension Posttest Scores.

Source	Type III sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.	Partial eta square
Pretest	1614.166	1	1614.166	11.991	.001	.174
Group	834.253	1	834.253	6.197	.016	.098
Error	7672.986	57	134.614

*p < .05.

Paired t tests were further administered to investigate within-group differences. Specifically, there were statistically significant differences between the PBL group’s RC pre- and posttests (t = −3.131, df = 29, p < .05). These findings suggest that the participants who received PBL training made significant improvements in their RC ability. On the other hand, no significant differences were found between the non-PBL group’s RC pre- and posttests. The non-PBL group’s RC mean scores on the posttest were slightly higher than the mean scores on the pretest but did not differ significantly (t = −0.46, df = 29, p < .05). The findings suggest that the participants instructed with the teacher’s lectures did not make significant progress in their RC after the 10-week treatment.

Participants’ Perceptions of the PBL and Non-PBL Instructional Conditions

The second research question explored the participants’ perception of how the PBL and the non-PBL instructional conditions improve their English reading and other aspects of English learning. The participants’ questionnaire responses and self-reports explained the participants’ perceptions.

Regarding the questionnaire responses, the results of independent-sample t tests showed that there were significant differences between the two groups in Item 3 (t = −2.037, p < .05), Item 5 (t = −2.397, p < .05), Item 9 (t = −2.498, p < .05), Item 11 (t = −2.693, p < .05), and Item 12 (t = −2.143, p < .05). That is, the PBL group’s mean score was significantly higher than their counterpart group in the five items. The finding suggests that the PBL approach foster the participants’ English reading (Item 12). In addition, the findings suggest that PBL could cultivate their active learning (Item 3), help them to synthesize the data (Item 5), help them to distinguish main ideas and details (Item 9), and help them improve their English speaking (Item 11; see the mean scores in Table 5).

Table 5.

Descriptive Statistics for PBL and Non-PBL Groups’ Five Significant Items.

Group		Item 3	Item 5	Item 9	Item 11	Item 12
PBL (n = 30)	Mean	4.13	4.60	4.50	4.06	4.43
PBL (n = 30)	SD	0.89	0.62	0.68	1.014	0.86
Non-PBL (n = 30)	Mean	3.63	4.06	3.90	3.33	3.86
Non-PBL (n = 30)	SD	0.99	1.05	1.124	1.09	1.16

Note. PBL = problem-based learning; Non-PBL = non-problem-based learning.

p < .05.

The top five ranked items of the two groups were presented to further specify the participants’ perceptions. Regarding the PBL group, the mean scores ranged from 3.9 to 4.57. Regarding the non-PBL group, the mean scores ranged from 3.33 to 4.67. Table 6 further presents the PBL and non-PBL participants’ rankings rated according to the responses that received the most agreement. The sequence was ranked from the highest mean scores.

Table 6.

The PBL and Non-PBL Participants’ Top Five Ranked Items.

Group	Rank	Item number/brief item statement	M	SD
PBL	1	5. To synthesize the data	4.6	0.62
	2	13. To learn new English words	4.57	0.68
	3	9. To distinguish main ideas and details	4.5	0.68
	4	2. To foster their English learning motivation	4.43	0.86
	5	12. To improve English reading	4.43	0.86
Non-PBL	1	13. To learn new English words.	4.67	0.66
	2	14. To retrieve English words learned before	4.5	1.03
	3	1. To cultivate their critical thinking	4.4	0.94
	4	2. To foster their English learning motivation	4.3	0.88
	5	4. To analyze data	4.17	1.21

Note. PBL = problem-based learning; Non-PBL = non-problem-based learning.

Among the 16 items of the PBL group, Item 5 was calculated as having the highest average score (M = 4.6, SD = 0.62), indicating that the PBL approach could help the participants to synthesize the data. Items 13 and 9 were ranked as the second highest and the third highest, respectively, indicating the participants highly agreed that PBL helped them learn new words (Item 13, M = 4.57, SD = 0.68) and identify main ideas from details (Item 9, M = 4.5, SD = 0.68). The PBL group also agreed that this approach motivated them to learn English (Item 2, M = 4.43, SD = 0.86) and improved their reading skills (Item 12, M = 4.43, SD = 0.86). It can be noted that the PBL group’s mean scores on Items 3, 9, and 12 are significantly higher than those of the non-PBL group.

Table 6 also summarizes the non-PBL group’s five items rated according to the most agreed responses. Items 13 and 14 were ranked with the highest mean score (M = 4.67, SD = 0.66) and the second highest mean score (M = 4.5, SD = 1.03), respectively, showing that the teacher-lecture technique can help them learn new vocabulary and retrieve the words they had learned before. The results showed that most participants in the non-PBL group focused on vocabulary learning. Item 1 was ranked with the third highest mean score of the non-PBL group, indicating that the participants in the non-PBL group agreed that the teacher-lecture technique offered them the training of critical thinking (M = 4.4, SD = 0.94). Furthermore, the non-PBL group responded that the teacher-lectured method also foster their English learning motivation (M = 4.8, SD = 0.88) and their ability to analyze data (M = 4.17, SD = 1.21). To sum up, both Items 2 and 13 are in the list of the top five ranked items. The participants of the two treatments highly agreed that the teaching technique employed in their group could help them learn new English words and motivate them to learn English.

The analysis of self-reports was further presented to explore the participants’ perceptions of how the PBL and the non-PBL instructional conditions improved their English. Their written self-reports were classified into four categories of English learning outcomes. Table 7 presents the participants’ responses individually. If the responses described by more than one participant were exactly or almost the same, they were described in one statement, and the frequency is presented right after the statement in parentheses.

Table 7.

The Categories and Statements of the PBL and Non-PBL Groups’ Self-Reports.

Categories	PBL participants’ statements	Non-PBL participants’ statements
English speaking	1. Starting to speak English	1. Reading aloud English sentences and some English words (2)
	2. Improving my English speaking
	3. Focusing on learning speaking.
	4. Practicing speaking
	5. A huge amount of practice on speaking
	6. Thinking about how to respond to others
	7. Some dialogue between us
	8. Enhancing English speaking ability
	9. Some improvement in speaking
	10. I practiced a lot, especially speaking
	11. Improving my pronunciation
English listening	1. Training English listening	1. Capable of learning English listening
	2. Practicing English listening (2)	2. Practice English listening
	3. Improving my ability in listening	3. Practice listening dictation
	4. Listen to other students’ reports
	5. Let me learn English listening
English vocabulary	1. Learn new words (2)	1. Getting to know the words seldom used before
	2. Improve the opportunity to use English words	2. Learning some new words (2)
	3. Improve my knowledge of words	3. Being able to revise previously learned vocabulary
	4. Learn some slang rarely used in my life	4. Being helpful to learn new words
		5. Learning many new words
		6. Learning some words not included in the textbook
		7. Improving my vocabulary size
		8. Revise the words I learned before (2)
English reading	1. Practicing how to read English articles on the Internet	1. Reading English articles (2)
	2. Facilitating my reading of extra articles beyond the textbook	2. Reading many Internet English articles
	3. Learning the skill of grasping main ideas through reading a huge amount of English Internet information	3. Learning some reading skills
	4. Improving my ability to read English (3)
	5. Activating my sense of fluency of reading English articles
	6. It is helpful to read new articles on the Internet
	7. Reading many English articles on the Internet
	8. Training my reading ability (2)

Note. The numbers in parentheses show the actual number of participants who described the statement. PBL = problem-based learning; Non-PBL = non-problem-based learning.

The written self-reports were classified into four categories of English learning outcomes, such as English speaking, English listening, English vocabulary, and English reading. As shown in Table 7, the PBL group’s responses were mostly clustered in the categories of English speaking and reading, and the non-PBL groups were in the category of English vocabulary.

Attitudes Toward PBL and Non-PBL Instructional Conditions

The third research question focused on exploring the participants’ attitudes toward the PBL and the non-PBL instructional conditions. The participants’ self-reports pertaining to positive attitudes toward each instructional technique were screened out and presented in Table 8.

Table 8.

The PBL and Non-PBL groups’ Self-Reports on Learner Attitudes.

Categories	PBL	Non-PBL
Learner attitudes	1. I want to strengthen my confidence to learn English.	1. I like the teacher’s interpretation. It is very clear.
	2. I made great efforts to practice speaking to the public and I learned that I needed to study harder.	2. The teacher’s instruction is organized.
	3. I want to browse more English websites to learn English.	3. The teacher helps me to learn English.
	4. I have more interest in learning English and I am eager to improve my English ability.	4. The teacher prepares very well.
	5. My English learning attitude changed from passive to active.
	6. I admired that my classmates could speak very good English.
	7. I think English is very important.

Note. PBL = problem-based learning; Non-PBL = non-problem-based learning.

As shown in Table 8, seven participants described how PBL activated their motivation and confidence in learning English. For example, one PBL participant’s comment was as follows:

After working with my classmates, I have more interest in learning English and I have become eager to improve my English ability. I hope my English can be better and I can find a better [highly paid] job in the future.

Receiving PBL training, the participants reflected on themselves and wrote the responses from their own perspectives. Most of the self-reports revealed that the participants’ intention to remain involved in active learning.

No participant in the non-PBL group offered such reflections based on their own efforts. These statements were related to the teacher’s interpretation and role. This is probably due to the lack of an active engagement process implemented by the non-PBL participants. The non-PBL condition did not require inquiry, information gathering, or reflection; therefore, the participants did not demonstrate such personal eagerness as the PBL participants.

As the third premise stated in this study, learning activities in a web-based course can be considered as social interaction. The learner may internalize language knowledge through a series of social interactions and negotiation among peers (Savery & Duffy, 1996). The result of the present study showed that most participants had positive attitudes toward PBL. This is probably because social communication in small groups offers supportive scaffolding in the PBL group. As a result, most participants had positive attitudes toward PBL. Two examples extracted from the self-report may explain such a supportive educational environment and the positive attitude.

The following two self-reports revealed that the participants confronted some problems, and they received assistance from their peers. In the first written self-report, one participant explained that:

I tried to look for information on the Internet but I could not get certain key points. I totally could not complete reading the articles which were collected by my group members. The group leader explained vocabulary and sentences in Mandarin. I sometimes asked my classmate sitting next to me what these sentences meant. I waited for the final part of the discussion – that is, the Chinese report made by the leader. I enjoyed the atmosphere.

Confronted with the difficulty of reading English text, another participant asked for his classmate’s help. His interview extract included the following:

I worked very hard to look for information on the Internet, but I still could not make sense of the content. My classmate and I read the article together and he used Chinese to tell me the main ideas of the article, and he let me read his report so I am glad that I could write down some key points.

In general, the two participants faced difficulties when reading the Internet information. They relied heavily on Chinese explanations. However, the leader and his friend in the group offered him assistance, and therefore he could make sense of some parts of the content. Social interaction took place in the section of small-group discussion. The peers in the group offered scaffolding to support less proficient participants. The discussion offered the two participants opportunities to learn English.

Discussion and Conclusion

In general, PBL has a significant impact on English learners’ RC. The results of the group comparisons showed the PBL participants outperformed the non-PBL participants in RC after the treatment. The PBL participants in the present study gained the similar outcomes on RC as those in the study by Hoffman et al. (2003). Hoffman et al. (2003) explained that web browsing played an essential role in offering opportunities for the participants to practice reading. The results of within-group comparisons of the pre- and posttests also revealed that the PBL participants made significant improvements in RC through the completion of the problem-solving tasks. In addition, the results of the questionnaire survey verified that PBL improved the participants’ reading better than the teach-lecture technique.

In the present study, the PBL participants used the Internet intensely and read online information frequently; hence, their RC ability could be improved. A number of positive attributes of reading through the Internet presented in the PBL participants’ written self-reports can also offer supportive evidence (see Table 8). The findings suggest that PBL can be an optimum teaching method for fostering L2 learners’ RC ability.

The independent-sample t test result of the questionnaire shows that the participants in the PBL group significantly agreed that they were inspired by this method to learn their subjects actively. This significant result resonates with PBL experts’ proposition that, in PBL, students become active, self-directed learners (Boud & Feletti, 2003; Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Simone, 2008; Torp & Sage, 2002). From the activities administered in the PBL treatment, it can be noted that the PBL participants completed these activities by themselves. For example, all participants browsed the Internet by themselves. Each group also extended its Internet browsing after class and uploaded its Internet data. The group leader led group members to read the data and complete the task. In this way, active learning can be simultaneously cultivated through the PBL pedagogy.

With their active involvement in the activities, they achieved a significant higher score on the RC posttest than their counterparts. These results coordinated with the earlier stated premise that the effects of learning can be maximized when learners are engaged in active learning (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Mayer, 2005a, 2005b). The finding suggests that PBL pedagogy significantly foster the participants’ active learning, and the instructor can use PBL in a web-based course.

In addition, there was widespread agreement among the PBL participants that the PBL curriculum offered them opportunities to practice English speaking. In particular, the questionnaire analysis yielded a significant result, showing the positive effect of PBL on training the participants' English speaking. The PBL participants’ written responses also demonstrated this obvious impact on their speaking. This significant English learning outcome can be attributed to the output performance designed in the PBL treatment.

During the treatment, the output performance included English conversation between teacher and students, small-group discussion, summarizing key concepts from each group’s report, and an English oral presentation of the final solution. Although the participants did not hold a discussion entirely in English, the instructor encouraged them to talk in English by providing them with some English sentences. In the oral presentation section, each student was requested to identify some key concepts from the other group’s presentations. These output tasks involved participants in English speaking activities, and hence the participants particularly noticed that PBL helped them to practice English speaking.

Furthermore, the statistic results of the questionnaire revealed that the PBL participants expressed widespread agreement on the item of synthesizing information. This result is consistent with that concluded in earlier studies (Marshall et al., 1993; Schroeder & Zarinnia, 2001). More than that, differentiating main ideas from the details also received widespread agreement among PBL participants in the questionnaire survey. One PBL participant’s written report also mentioned that he learned “the skill of grasping main ideas through reading a huge amount of English information.”

The above-mentioned two significant gains can be attributed to the sufficient amount of information on the Internet for practicing synthesizing information and grasping main ideas. In this study, the participants not only read for relevant information through the textbook but also conducted a thorough survey reading on the Internet to identify the competitive solutions to the problem. The Internet—the worldwide system of interconnected computer networks—carries a broad range of information resources. It is likely that the participants screened out relevant information from these resources. In such a situation, the participants were exposed to an abundance of English information. Some information on the Internet is messy and ill-structured. The participants had opportunities as well to practice synthesizing relevant information from different resources and to identify important ideas.

Regarding the PBL group, out of 16 items, the mean scores of 15 items exceeded 4. Overall, there was an extremely wide agreement with this approach, with the participants holding a highly positive attitude toward PBL. These findings suggest that the PBL participants comprehensively agreed with the PBL English curriculum. The PBL participants’ positive attitudes explored in this study were consistent with those in previous studies (Lovie-Kitchin, 2003; Shin & Kim, 2013; Smits et al., 2002; Tseng et al., 2012). Furthermore, the written reflections provided evidence of their positive attitudes toward PBL.

Instructional Recommendations

The present study provides empirical evidence of what learning effectiveness PBL may bring to EFL learners and further verifies its educational benefits. Instructional recommendations for effectively integrating PBL into English courses are presented as follows:

First, designing a mini-output activity in each class meeting was a way to focus the participants’ attention to completing the task of problem-solving. At the end of the 5-week cycle, each group in the PBL treatment was asked to do an oral presentation demonstrating their viewpoints and solutions in a systematic way. The mini-output activity held each week further ensured that each group executed the subtasks, such as Internet browsing, and analyzing and synthesizing relevant information. The mini-output activities include writing and reading aloud key words or concepts in the article, writing short summaries, or planning an outline of the solutions.

Second, regarding participants with less proficient English reading ability, the teacher may consider selecting some Internet resources, including video clips and English articles designed for EFL learners with less proficient English reading ability. In this way, participants of all proficiency levels can join the discussion and practice searching for essential concepts using the assigned Internet resources.

Third, considering the difficulties students with low English proficiency confront, it is necessary to divide the students into small groups. The present study assumed that when implementing a web-based course, learning activities could be referred to social constructivist learning. English proficiency should be considered for grouping, with each group balanced in the number of students with high and low English proficiency so that the students with low English proficiency may receive assistance from group members with high proficiency. As Torp and Sage (2002) pointed out, a PBL curriculum can offer peer scaffolding. Effective learning can be activated through interpersonal interaction and cooperative learning.

The participants in this study were non-English majors. The findings cannot be generalized for other populations of university students in an EFL context. The present study set up an experimental treatment to manipulate the PBL pedagogy. The PBL curriculum designed in this study can be a constructivist framework of English instruction.

In this study, the websites offer sufficient resources for the instructor and the participants. In the future, the researcher would like to administer web-based courses and apply this framework to further examine its effects on English grammar or other English skills, such as writing and speaking. Language education fundamentally requires the involvement of a teacher and a learner. It is like a coin with two sides. Only when teaching and learning concord harmoniously can remarkable learning outcomes be achieved. It is hoped that adopting the PBL pedagogy will empower students and teachers alike.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research is partially financed by Ministry of Science and Technology, R.O.C. under Grant MOST 105-2410-H-019-019.

Note

Author Biography

Lu-Fang Lin is currently an associate professor of the Institute of Applied English, National Taiwan Ocean University, Taiwan. She has taught English in junior high school, senior high school, and university for 30 years. Her chief research interests are in English reading and listening comprehension instruction, video comprehension strategies, and English instruction integrated with the problem-based learning approach.

References

Barrows

(1985) How to design a problem-based learning curriculum in the pre-clinical years, New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Bauer

M. W.

(2000) Classical content analysis: A review. In: Bauer

M. W.

Gaskell

(eds) Qualitative researching with text, image and sound, London, England: Sage, pp. 131–151.

Beatty

(2004) Read and think: A reading strategies course, Quarry Bay, Hong Kong: Pearson Education Asia Limited.

Bolzan, N., & Heycox, K. (2003). Use of an issue-based approach in social work education. In D. Boud & G. I. Feletti (Eds.), The challenge of problem-based learning (pp. 194–202). London, England: Kogan Page.

Boud, D., & Feletti, G. I. (Eds.). (2003). The challenge of problem-based learning. London, England: Kogan Page.

Cain

Oakhill

Bryant

(2004) Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology 96: 31–42.

Chen

H.-J.

(2011a) Developing and evaluating a web-based collocation retrieval tool for EFL students and teachers. Computer Assisted Language Learning 24(1): 59–76. doi:10.1080/09588221.2010.526945.

Chen

H.-J.

(2011b) Developing and evaluating SynctoLearn, a fully automatic video and transcript synchronization tool for EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning 24(2): 117–130. doi:10.1080/09588221.2010.526947.

Cool English. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.coolenglish.edu.tw/.

10.

Evensen, D., & Hmelo, C. E. (Eds.). (2000). Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

11.

Fagan

W. T.

(1987) The learning and teaching of reading: An interactive process model, Edmonton, Canada: University of Albert.

12.

Gunderson

(1995) The monday morning guide to comprehension, Ontario, Canada: Pippin Publishing Limited.

13.

Hmelo-Silver

C. E.

(2004) Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review 16(3): 235–266.

14.

Hoffman

J. L.

H.-K.

Krajcil

J. S.

Soloway

(2003) The nature of middle school learners’ science content understandings with the use of on-line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(3): 323–346.

15.

Hogan

Bridges

M. S.

Justice

L. M.

Cain

(2011) Increasing higher level language skills to improve reading comprehension. Focus on Exceptional Children 44(3): 1–20.

16.

Hong, J.-C., & Lin, C.-L. (Eds.). (2006). 問題導向學習課程發展理論與實務[Theory and practice of problem-based learning curriculum development]. Taipei, Taiwan: Lucky Bookstore.

17.

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.

18.

Hung

H.-C.

Young

S. S.-C.

(2015) The effectiveness of adopting e-readers to facilitate EFL students’ process-based academic writing. Educational Technology & Society 18(1): 250–263.

19.

Johnson-Glenberg

M. C.

(2007) Web-based reading comprehension instruction: Three studies of 3D-readers. In: McNamara

D. S.

(ed.) Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies, New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 293–324.

20.

Kao

C.-W.

(2014) The effects of digital game-based learning task in English as a foreign language contexts: A meta-analysis. Educational Journal 42(2): 113–141.

21.

Kintsch

(1998) Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

22.

L’Ecuyer, K. M., Pole, D., & Leander, S. A. (2015). The use of PBL in an interprofessional education course for health care professional students. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 9(1), 9–18. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1497.

23.

Leu

D. J.

Zawilinski

Castek

Banerjee

Housand

(2007) What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? In: Rush

Eakle

Berger

(eds) Secondary school literacy: What research reveals for classroom practices, Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, pp. 37–68.

24.

Lin, L.-F. (2012). The application of the problem-based learning approach to a second language learning context. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2012 (pp. 2465–2470). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

25.

Lin

L.-F.

(2014) Chinese-speaking learners’ cognitive comprehension problems with English video-based materials. Journal of Educational Computing Research 51(1): 23–47.

26.

Lin

L.-F.

(2015) The impact of problem-based learning on Chinese-speaking elementary school students’ English vocabulary learning and use. System 55: 30–42.

27.

Lovie-Kitchin

(2003) Problem-based learning in optometry. In: Boud

Feletti

G. I.

(eds) The challenge of problem-based learning, London, England: Kogan Page, pp. 194–202.

28.

Marshall

J. G.

Fitzgerald

Busby

Heaton

(1993) A study of library use in problem-based and traditional medical curricula. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 81(3): 299–305.

29.

Marvasti

(2004) Qualitative research in sociology, London, England: Sage.

30.

Mayer

R. E.

(2005a) Introduction to multimedia learning. In: Mayer

R. E.

(ed.) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–16.

31.

Mayer

R. E.

(2005b) Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In: Mayer

R. E.

(ed.) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–48.

32.

Oakhill

J. V.

Cain

Bryant

P. E.

(2003) The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes 18: 443–468.

33.

Paris

S. G.

(2005) Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly 40: 184–202.

34.

Pauk

(2002) Six-way paragraphs: Advanced level, 3rd ed. Singapore, Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education.

35.

Perfetti

C. A.

Landi

Oakhill

(2005) The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In: Snowling

M. J.

Hulme

(eds) The science of reading: A handbook, Maiden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 227–247.

36.

Powell, S. J. (2005). Extensive reading and its role in Japanese high schools. The Reading Matrix, 5(2), 28–42. Retrieved from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/powell/article.pdf.

37.

Rapp

D. N.

van den Broek

McMaster

K. L.

Kendeou

Espin

C. A.

(2007) Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading 11(4): 289–312. doi:10.1080/10888430701530417.

38.

Readability Formulas. (2017). Free text readability consensus calculator. Retrieved from http://www.readabilityformulas.com/free-readability-formula-tests.php.

39.

Sanson-Fisher

R. W.

Lynagh

M. C.

(2005) Problem-based learning: A dissemination success story? Medical Journal of Australia 183(5): 258–260.

40.

Savery, J. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definition and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of problem-based Learning, 1(1). doi:10.7771/154105015.1002.

41.

Savery

Duffy

(1996) Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In: Wilson

(ed.) Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, pp. 135–148.

42.

Schroeder

E. E.

Zarinnia

E. A.

(2001) Problem-based learning – Develop information literacy through real problems. Knowledge Quest 30(1): 34–35.

43.

Sendag

Odabasi

H. F.

(2009) Effects of an online problem-based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Computers and Education 53(1): 132–141.

44.

Shin

Kim

(2013) The effect of problem-based learning in nursing education: A meta-analysis. Advances in Health Science Education 18: 1103–1120. Retrieved from doi:10.1007/s10459-012-9436-2.

45.

Silva

J. P.

(2006) Extensive reading through the Internet: Is it worth the while? The Reading Matrix 6(1): 85–96.

46.

Simone

C. D.

(2008) Problem-based learning: A framework for prospective teachers’ pedagogical problem solving. Teacher Development 12(3): 179–191.

47.

Smits

P. B. A.

Verbeek

J. H. A. M.

de Buisonje

C. D.

(2002) Problem-based learning in continuing medical education: A review of controlled evaluation studies. British Medical Journal 321: 153–156.

48.

Snow

(2002) Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

49.

Stepien

W. J.

Gallager

S. A.

Workman

(1993) Problem-based learning for traditional and interdisciplinary classroom. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 16(4): 338–357.

50.

Susser, B., & Robb, T. N. (1990). EFL extensive reading instruction: Research and procedure. JALT Journal, 12(2). Retrieved from http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/∼trobb/sussrobb.html.

51.

TELL. (n.d.). Technology enhanced language learning. Retrieved from http://tellsig.org/app/index.php?id=selui.

52.

Torp

Sage

(2002) Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-16 education, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

53.

Tseng

K.-H.

Chang

C.-C.

Lou

S.-J.

(2012) The process, dialogues, and attitudes of vocational engineering high school students in a web problem-based learning (WPBL) system. Interactive Learning Environments 20(6): 547–562.

54.

van den Broek

Kendeou

Kremer

Lynch

J. S.

Butler

White

M. J.

(2005) Assessment of comprehension abilities in young children. In: Stahl

Paris

(eds) Children's reading comprehension and assessment, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 107–130.

55.

Young

S. S.-C.

Wang

Y.-H.

(2014) The game embedded CALL system to facilitate English vocabulary acquisition and pronunciation. Educational Technology & Society 17(3): 239–251.