Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 26 Download : 15

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study examines the effects of digital reading tools on reading comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and engagement among 59 pre-intermediate EFL students at Kabul University, Afghanistan. Using a mixed-methods design, participants were split into a digital reading group (n = 35) using e-books and platforms like Google Classroom, and a traditional reading group (n = 24) using print materials, for over twelve weeks. Pre- and post-tests and a reading engagement questionnaire showed the digital group outperformed the traditional group in comprehension and vocabulary, with greater engagement across cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions. Interviews with 10 students revealed digital tools’ benefits, like instant definitions and multimedia, though technical issues such as slow loading were noted. The traditional group valued print’s stability but found it less engaging. The study suggests digital tools enhance EFL reading and motivation when implemented thoughtfully, offering practical guidance for educators.

Keywords

Digital reading tools EFL Engagement Motivation Reading comprehension Vocabulary acquisition

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Social Sciences - Kabul University

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Noori, A. (2025). Enhancing EFL Reading Instruction with Digital Tools: Effects on Comprehension, Vocabulary, and Engagement. Journal of Social Sciences - Kabul University, 7(4), 289–313. https://doi.org/10.62810/jss.v7i4.264
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Alventosa, J. P. M. (2012). The shallows. what the internet is doing to our brains. In RUSC Universities and Knowledge Society Journal. 9(1). https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v9i1.1134
  2. Anderson-Cook, C. M. (2005). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. In Journal of the American Statistical Association 100(470). https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2005.s22
  3. Berns, A., Gonzalez-Pardo, A., & Camacho, D. (2013). Game-like language learning in 3-D virtual environments. Computers & Education, 60(1), 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.001
  4. Blake, R. J. (2008). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. In Brave New Digital Classroom: Technology and Foreign Language Learning. Georgetown University Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.46-6326
  5. Borg, S., & Sykes, R. (2015). Digital texts and language learning: Enhancing engagement through interactivity. Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 45–62.
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  7. Burtis, P. J. (2012). The double-edged sword of digital reading: Benefits and pitfalls in educational settings. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 723–738.
  8. Cavanaugh, T., Lamkin, M. L., & Hu, H. (2013). E-books for Education: A Case Study of the iPad in K-12 Education. In R. In M. & M. Searson (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.
  9. Chapelle, C. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL : practical approaches to computer-assisted language learning. In Ameprc.Mq.Edu.Au. http://cbueg-mt.iii.com/iii/encore/record/C__Rb1512542__STips for teaching with CALL__Orightresult__X5?lang=cat&suite=def
  10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. In Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (2nd ed.). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071812082.n600
  11. COIRO, J., & DOBLER, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth‐grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2
  12. Creswel, J. W. (2009). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Research Design Qualitative Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. In Research Design. http://www.digitallab.wldu.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/3862/1/%28Creswell%29 Qualitative%2C Quantitative%2C and mixed methods 2nd e.pdf
  13. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. In Organizational Research Methods 12(4). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://login.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=44386156&site=ehost-live
  14. Day, R. R., Bamford, J., Renandya, W. A., Jacobs, G. M., & yu, V. W. S. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. In RELC Journal 29(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829802900211
  15. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications. In Evaluation Practice 14(2). SAGE Publications, Inc.
  16. GARRETT, N. (1991). Technology in the Service of Language Learning: Trends and Issues. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb01085.x
  17. Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Second language writing online: An update. Language Learning and Technology, 22(1), 1–15.
  18. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a Second Language Moving from Theory to Practice. In Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice.
  19. Graham, C. R. (2005). Blended Learning System. Definisi, Current, and Future Directions. The Hand Book of Blended Learning.
  20. Greenfield, P. Marks. (2014). Mind and media : the effects of television, video games, and computers. Developing Child., 3(1), 135. https://doi.org/drake HQ784.M3 G73 1984; uofr rhees
  21. Hockly, N. (2013). Mobile learning. ELT Journal, 67(1), 80–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs064
  22. Horrigan John B. (2016). Digital Readiness Gaps. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/09/20/digital-readiness-gaps/
  23. Huang, H.-W., Wu, C.-W., & Chen, N.-S. (2012). The effectiveness of using procedural scaffoldings in a paper-plus-smartphone collaborative learning context. Computers & Education, 59(2), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.015
  24. Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research. The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research, 1–216. https://doi.org/10.2307/330145
  25. Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking Aloud and Reading Comprehension Research: Inquiry, Instruction, and Social Interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067003271
  26. Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2014). The relationship between cell phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and Satisfaction with Life in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.049
  27. Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2013). Call dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. In Call Dimensions: Options and Issues in Computer-Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203708200
  28. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
  29. Mason, B. J., & Bruning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us. In Retrieved February (Vol. 15).
  30. Moskver, K. V., Swaffar, J., & Arens, K. (2006). “Remapping the Foreign Language Curriculum”: An Approach through Multiple Literacies. Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature, 60(2), 94. https://doi.org/10.2307/4143872
  31. Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language. In Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(02)00014-5
  32. Shih, M., Aebersold, J., & Field, M. L. (1997). From Reader to Reading Teacher: Issues and Strategies for Second Language Classrooms. In TESOL Quarterly 31(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/3587768
  33. Stockwell, G. (2010). Using mobile phones for vocabulary activities: Examining the effect of the platform. Language Learning and Technology, 14(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10125/44216
  34. Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Yang, J. M. (2015). How effective are mobile devices for language learning? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 16, 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.09.001
  35. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2015). SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193
  36. Teng, F. (2019). The effects of digital reading on vocabulary acquisition and retention among EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(7), 687–706.
  37. Thompson, R. (2014). Navigating the Digital World: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 42(3), 245–260. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/navigating-digital-world-challenges-opportunities-arjun-m-iwmjc
  38. Warren, T. (2003). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. In ELT Journal 57(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.1.82
  39. Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer‐Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05514.x
  40. Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X09349791