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.