Abstract
Blended learning is increasingly used to support academic reading in EFL higher education. In our research work we consider how a blended model, combining online tasks with classroom instruction, influences comprehension, metacognitive awareness and motivation. Sixty EFL undergraduates participated in an eight-week mixed-method study. Results show significantly higher gains in reading scores, strategy use and engagement in the experimental group, while interviews highlight stronger self-regulation and collaborative learning, alongside some technical and workload challenges
References
1. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice. Cambridge University Press.
2. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge University Press.
3. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
4. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. Jossey-Bass.
5. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
6. Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 3.
7. Albiladi, W. S., & Alshareef, N. O. (2019). Blended learning in English teaching and learning: A review of the current literature. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(2), 232–238.
8. Gilakjani, A. P., & Sabouri, N. B. (2016). A study of factors affecting EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill and the strategies for improvement. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(5), 180–187.
9. Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2–10.
10. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259.
11. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287.
12. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
14. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
15. Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (2016). Becoming little scientists: Technologically-enhanced project-based language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 54–78.
16. Hafner, C. A., & Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 68–86.
17. Chen, C.-M., & Li, Y.-L. (2010). Personalized context-aware ubiquitous learning system for supporting effective English reading. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 50–62.
18. Lai, C., & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A review of studies. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 498–521.
19. Bekele, D. T., & Belihu, G. G. (2024). Challenges and benefits of blended learning in university EFL reading comprehension: A mixed-method study. JELITA: Journal of English Language Teaching and Literature, 5(2), 374–393.
20. Yang, L. (2023). The impacts of blended learning on English education in higher education: A systematic review. World Journal of English Language, 13(2), 83–97.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.