Pre-test differences between the experimental and control groups
A one-way ANOVA test was performed on the pre-test scores between the groups of learners. The experimental group improved more than the control group based on the means and compared to the results. The post-test mean between groups was high for the experimental group (12.814) compared to the control group’s mean between groups of 2.936 (F = 4.516, df = 7/12, p < .001). This finding indicates that English language reading comprehension improved significantly more under the treatment condition than under conventional teaching methods. In fact, the control group’s test scores were higher before (mean = 5.9) than after (mean = 4.5) the course, implying the ineffectiveness of conventional teaching methods for English reading comprehension (Table 4).
[Table 4 near here]
T-tests were performed to compare pre-test and post-test scores for both groups. Table 5 presents the results. The results were statistically significant (p < .05) for both groups, which might relate to the fact that the participants were given time to prepare for the test both times they took it, the number of participants in each group was 25, and the scores of the experimental group improved after the treatment. Only three participants in the control group had higher scores after than before the course, and the others’ scores were lower, whereas 19 of the participants in the experimental group had higher scores.
[Table 5 near here]

Instructor assessments

Three instructors were observed during class presentations and the observation results were used to identify similarities and differences in the teaching methods used in the technology-based and conventional classrooms. A checklist of ten items was used to indicate whether a method was observed or not observed during class presentations and the results were analyzed. The means and standard deviations of the observed methods for the three instructors ranged from 1.00- and 0.000–.577, respectively.
The first observation was: “Does the teacher have a well-designed lesson plan?” Two instructors had well-designed lesson plans and one did not. Thus, 66.7% of the instructors had well-designed lesson plans. The mean was 1.33 and the standard deviation was .577, indicating that the instructors mostly planned their lessons before class (Table 6).
[Table 6 near here]

Interview data analysis

The instructors’ responses to the interview questions focused on the objectives of the study. The thr ee open-ended interview questions encouraged the instructors to freely share their opinions. The responses to Question 1 revealed similarities in the teaching methods for delivering the lessons in class. The two instructors who used the task–based method (experimental group) both were unsure about the most effective teaching method and, at the time of the interviews, they did not fully understand, experience, and or know how to integrate the method in their lesson plans. All of the instructors used personal communication methods, although that did not improve English reading skills. Two of the instructors used the grammar translation approach to teaching and the third one used the direct method, suggesting variations and differences in the teaching methods among the three instructors.
The responses to the question about motivation suggested that the instructors used different methods to motivate their students to be efficient and engaged in learning to read English. One of the instructors used pictures and videos to attract learners to the subject matter. The same instructor used text scanning and direct questions to verify that the students understood the lessons. The other two instructors used similar methods to motivate their students, which were question-and-answer student participation and encouraging students to always speak English during class to improve their comfort levels with the language. Therefore, there were important differences in the ways the instructors motivated their students to be active participants in class.
The responses to the question on the teaching activities used in the classroom are illustrated in Table 2. The instructors used SMART board and two of them used whiteboard. One of the instructors used a textbook, but the others used television programs, group work, and illustrations. Thus, teaching activities had similarities and differences.