Booksnaps or Ms Word? Which One Is Better in Developing Reading Comprehension across Critical-Creative Thinking Levels
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v11i2.2791Keywords:
BookSnaps, critical-creative thinking, MS-Word, reading comprehension performance, summary writingAbstract
The study investigates which of the two summary writing techniques (one using BookSnaps and the other using MS-Word) affects reading comprehension performance better than the other. It also examines whether or not level of critical-creative thinking skills affects the results. This study used a causal-comparative design. Two groups of students were involved in this study and after the treatment they were tested on their reading comprehension performance across critical-creative thinking skill levels. The results showed that the reading comprehension performance of the two groups of students were not different significantly regardless of the summary writing techniques used. The results also showed that students with high level of critical-creative thinking skill outperformed the students with low critical-creative thinking skill in each of the two groups. This implies that teachers might use either BookSnaps or MS- Word to train the students in summary writing. However, when dealing with students with low critical-creative thinking level, the teachers might give more time in the process of summary writing or give assistance to students who need it when applying either BookSnaps of MS-Word.
References
Abdelrahman, O. N. M. B. (2013). The impact of using the word processor to develop EFL learners' writing skill at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibin Saud Islamic University. IUG Journal of Humanities Research, 21(2), 1-26. DOI:10.12816/0013730 http://www.iugaza.edu.ps/ar/periodical/
Bean, J. C., & Melzer, D. (2021). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
Birkenstein, C., & Graff, G. (2018). They say/I say: The moves that matter in academic writing. WW Norton & Company.
Carr, J. (2020). Teacher candidate perceptions on alternative asynchronous online discussion boards. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 3(3), 288-310.
https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.752283
Chew, C. S., Idris, N., Loh, E. F., Wu, W. C. V., Chua, Y. P., & Bimba, A. T. (2019). The effects of a theory‐based summary writing tool on students' summary writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 435-449. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12349
Chew, C. S., Wu, W. C. V., Idris, N., Loh, E. F., & Chua, Y. P. (2020). Enhancing summary writing of ESL learners via a theory-based online tool: System development and evaluation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(2), 398-432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119837765
Chiu, C. (2015). Enhancing reading comprehension and summarization abilities of EFL learners through online summarization practice. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 1, 79–95. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/209025
Davy, E. (2007). Peterson's master TOEFL reading skills. A Nelnet Company.
Ennis, R. H. (1958). An appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical thinking appraisal. The Journal of Educational Research, 52(4), 155–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
Godsey, S. B. (2000). The effects of using Microsoft Word on journal word counts in the high school English classroom. Unpublished MA Thesis: Master of Arts Action Research Project, Johnson Bible College. Retrieved from
Haiken, M., & Furman, L. R. (2022). Personalized reading: Digital strategies and tools to support all learners. International Society for Technology in Education.
Imelda, Cahyono, B. Y., & Astuti, U. P. (2019). Effect of process writing approach combined with video-based mobile learning on Indonesian EFL learners’ writing skill across creativity levels. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 325-340. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12320a
Jeong, K. O. (2017). Preparing EFL student teachers with new technologies in the Korean context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(6), 488–509.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1321554
Kim, K. H. (2017). The Torrance tests of creative thinking-figural or verbal: Which one should we use? Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications, 4(2), 302-321. https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2017-0015
Lawrence, F. P. (2023, April 20). Causal-comparative research. Power-point Slides presented in the Research Methodology Group UOPX Research Community at the University of Phoenix, Glendale, Arizona, USA. https://www.phoenix.edu/content/dam/edu/research/doc/2023/causal-comparative-research.pdf
Lin, M. H., & Chen, H. G. (2017). A study of the effects of digital learning on learning motivation and learning outcome. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3553-3564. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00744a
Lu, Z., Zheng, C., & Li, Z. (2018). Effects of embedded summary writing on EFL learners’ anxiety and oral production in a computer-based testing environment. Journal of Computers in Education Journal, 5(2), 221-241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0105-1
Madnani, N., Burstein, J., Sabatini, J., & O’Reilly, T. (2013). Automated scoring of summary-writing tasks designed to measure reading comprehension. Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Innovative Use of Natural Language Processing for Building Educational Applications (pp. 163-168). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Marzuki, Widiati, U., Rusdin, D., Darwin, & Indrawati, I. (2023). The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective. Cogent Education, 10(2), 2236469. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2236469
Moran, R., & Billen, M. (2014). The reading and writing connection: Merging two reciprocal content areas. Georgia Educational Researcher, 11(1), 188-208. https://doi.org/10.20429/ger.2014.110108
Saddler, B., Asaro-Saddler, K., Moeyaert, M., & Cuccio-Slichko, J. (2019). Teaching summary writing to students with learning disabilities via strategy instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35(6), 572-586.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1600085
Torres, R. (2014). Word processing in support of writing: Effects and implications. Unpublished MA Thesis: California State University.
Van der Steen. S, Samuelson. D, & Thomson. J. (2017). The effect of keyboard-based word processing on students with different working memory capacity during the process of academic writing. Written Communication. 34(3): 280-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088317714232
Wilson, D. G., & Wagner, E. E. (1981). The Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal as a predictor of performance in a critical thinking course. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(4), 1319-1322. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100443
Yaser, A. (2021). The effect of using word processor in teaching writing skill among secondary students in schools in Jordan. Educational Research and Reviews, 16(7), 272-278. doi: https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2019.3757
Yeh, H. C., Yang, S. H., & Chen, G. L. (2020). Exploring students’ integrated reading and summary writing processes through an online system. English Teaching & Learning, 44, 21-43.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-019-00026-1
Yohana, E., & Anugerahwati, M. (2023). Researching summary writing through Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL): A systematic review. MEXTESOL Journal, 47(3), n3. https://www.mextesol.net/journal/index.php?page=journal&id_article=46466
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
