Editor’s Note: Any widely used communication tool has the potential to facilitate learning. This paper shows how email can be used to improve reading skills in English as a Foreign language (EFL).

Improving Reading Skills through E-mail:
The Case of Iranian EFL Students

Saeed Taki and Zahra Ramazani

Iran

Abstract

While many studies have examined the influence of e-mail on students’ writing performance, few have looked into improving students' reading performance via e-mail. This study investigated the effect of using e-mail to improve reading in English as a foreign language. The participants of the study were three groups of high school students participating in EFL reading classes at one of Iran’s pre-universities. One group was taught through the traditional face-to-face method; another group through using e-mail, and the third group through both traditional method and using e-mail. The participants were further divided into low, mid, and high proficiency levels according to the results of the OPT. After administering the treatment, the results of the tests were submitted to the ANOVA. The results indicated that e-mail had statistically significant effects on improving students' reading skill. Further, the Scheffe post hoc test was run to find more about the differences among proficiency groups. The results showed that the e-mail-only group performed almost the same as the other two groups at the high proficiency level; in other words, the high level group did not benefit much from using e-mail.

Keywords: constructivist learning, e-mail, reading skill, English as a foreign language, computer assisted language learning

Introduction

As a consequence of the rapid development of technologies, computers and information technology (IT) have been playing an important role in education, in general, and language education in particular. Online learning environments as well as social media Internet technologies provide many new forms of communication that allow teachers and students to exchange information and ideas comfortably. These new technologies consist of discussion boards, weblogs, wiki, synchronous chat environment, e-mail, and instant messaging, to name
but a few (Connell, 2006; Farmer, 2004; Fichter, 2005; Richardson, 2008).

Among these new technologies, electronic mail has become a necessary tool in business and academic institutions. Personal use is increasing every day, and e-mail has become the predominant means of communication in the information society. Therefore, e-mail has been established as an indicator of collaboration and knowledge exchange (Whittaker & Sinder, 1996). E-mail technology has an important effect on English language learning because it boosts students’ motivation (Mansor, 2007). Using e-mail also has an important role in second language learning, especially in the area of reading comprehension (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). Thus, using e-mail in the classroom is a good technique to familiarize students with both reading comprehension and computer literacy (Bacha, 2000).

Using e-mail for teaching English as a foreign language has been the subject of many studies; for example, Yu and Yu (2002) investigated the impact of incorporating e-mail into a classroom setting to analyze students’ academic achievements and attitudes and observed that there was a statistically significant difference in their academic performances with the use of email. Warschauer (1995) conducted a study in which e-mail provided students with an excellent opportunity for real and natural communication and provided opportunities for independent learning, which is essential for ESL writing and also allows students to communicate easily with hundreds of other students. Studies have found that students who use e-mail ask more questions and use more language functions (Belisle, 1996). But, as Couzenza (2009) observes, using e-mail effectively as a teaching and motivational strategy requires planning and careful use. However, few studies have tried to find the effectiveness of e-mail as related to reading.

In EFL situations normally the reading skill receives the most or all of the attention. In the mainstream education in Iran, the primary goal of teaching English as a foreign language is to prepare students for reading technical texts as they enter the university. However, most students at this level, despite studying English for years, still have problems with certain basic tasks such as finding the main idea of paragraphs, discovering the relationship between paragraphs in a text, providing a summary of a passage, or guessing the meaning of unfamiliar words.

Thus, poor reading skills as pointed out above are among the concerns of high school EFL teachers. Hence, this study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of using e-mail as a method for teaching reading skills. In other words, an attempt was made to probe into whether teaching reading skill via e-mail was more effective than the traditional face-to-face method.

Theoretical Background

Creating constructivist learning environment on the web

Lefoe (1998) observes that there is a widespread increase in the use of web-based instruction. In fact, there is a shift in approaches to pedagogy as well as shifts in instruction within a web-based environment. Behaviorist instructional strategies rely on learning a set of instructional sequences with predetermined outcomes (Lefoe, 1998). However, Jonassen (1994) holds that constructivists emphasize less the sequence of instruction and place more emphasis on the design of the learning environment. In fact, a web-based environment is more challenging.

Constructivism and CALL

Bonk and Cunningham (1998) point out that communication technologies can realize constructivist ideals of learning. Instead of transferring knowledge from one person to another we can use active, collaborative construction by using computer technology. Collaborative construction takes place in less controlled environments and such learning environments encourage thoughtful reflection (O’Malley, 1995).  Collins and Berge (1996) observe that asynchronous communication changes the role of teachers and students; in fact, students become more active and problem-solvers. Furthermore, the collaborative nature of asynchronous technology allows students to share their experiences and exchange their information and attitudes (Chong, 1998). Weasenforth (2002) provides a broader view of constructivist learning by examining social, cognitive, affective, and individual principles of learning.

Characteristics of computer applications and critical reading

Rings (1994) explains that, as the use of computer technology in teaching and learning has expanded and as the importance of critical reading skills is reiterated, many commercial software products are advertised for promoting such skills. Rings (1994) asserts that applying the pedagogical approaches based on constructivism to the capabilities of computer technology reveals three underlying characteristics of computer applications that foster critical reading.

The first characteristic is a high level of interactivity, which means, in such a context, there is necessarily a two-way communication between the user and the computer (Klinger & Connet, 1993). Therefore, the learner is involved in the instructional process. From a constructivist perspective, interactivity consists of more than students’ punching response keys; it consists of generating questions, mapping concepts, or summarizing for which the software provides the prompts. Interactivity also extends beyond one student using one computer to many students using many computers. A high level of interactivity encourages students to become more actively involved in what they are reading (Kubota, 1991).

Goodrum and Knuth (1991) introduced the second characteristic of such software that helps promote critical reading. It encourages the use of those strategies as used by efficient readers. They refer to the electronic journal which not only provides a forum for students to discuss reading, but also helps students become more aware of the strategies they use by providing prompts pertaining to strategy use. The strategy of accessing one’s prior knowledge about a topic of a reading can be fostered through prompts in the software that asks students to write what they already know about the topic of a reading. Such prompts may also ask students to analyze the sources of their prior knowledge. Furthermore, where there are gaps in prior knowledge, various forms of technology, such as interactive video, maybe used to fill some of those gaps.

Rings (1994) explains that the third characteristic of software that promotes critical reading is approximating a “real” context. One aspect of a real context is that the readings are available in print. Computer technology provides higher resolution so that larger chunks of text may be viewed at once. Another aspect of real context is that it involves interactions among persons; in other words, it provides a social environment, since the process of constructing meaning is often negotiated through collaboration with others (Goodrum & Knuth, 1991).

E-mail technology has then an impact on English language learning, because it boosts students’ motivation (Mansor, 2007). Furthermore, as technology becomes center-stage in our lives, there are compelling reasons for incorporating technologies into the classroom. Using e-mail in the classroom is a good step to familiarize students with computer literacy (Bacha, 2000). However, as Couzenza (2009) observes, “using e-mail effectively as a teaching and motivational strategy requires planning and careful use” (p. 77).

The present study sought to answer two main questions: (1) is using e-mail more effective than the traditional way (face-to-face communication) in teaching the reading skill to Iranian EFL high school students? (2) do the students’ English proficiency levels have any effect on their reading improvement through using e-mail?

Method

Participants

The students (N=150) between the age of 17 and 18 in three classes of a  high school in Iran participated in this study. The Oxford Placement test (OPT) was administered to each class and the students were identified as low level, mid-level, and high-level. One class was taught through the traditional face-to-face method, another class through e-mail only, and the third class through both traditional method and e-mail.

Procedure

A reading comprehension test was administered to determine the students’ reading ability. This pretest contained 40 reading comprehension questions, which were based on the students' coursebook. A parallel test was used three months later to check their progress.

As for their teaching, the same lessons of their English book were presented to them in three different way. One class received instruction through the traditional method, i.e. the teacher explained everything to the class and reading assignments in the form of answering questions or writing a summery were done at home by the students and later checked by the teacher in the class.  The same procedure was repeated for each lesson to the end of the term which lasted three months.

For the second group, instructions were sent to the students through e-mail. Every lesson was taught by the use of an audio file. The audio file included the teacher’s instruction during teaching, which was then sent to the students through e-mail. In addition to the recorded voice, the assignments including reading comprehension questions and the answer sheets were attached to the e-mail. In the body text, the students were asked to listen to the recorded voice, read the assigned material and then individually write down two or three paragraphs as summaries and send back the answer sheet through e-mail. All the interactions with the instructor were done electronically. The instructor corrected the answer sheets, scored them and sent them back through e-mail to each student. The same procedure was followed for other lessons.

For the third class both methods of teaching were used. First, they received instruction through    e-mail as described above. Then, further explanation was presented to the students in the class and their assignments were checked and reviewed in the class as well.

Results

The Results of the Pretests

At the beginning, in order to make sure that the selected groups at each language proficiency level were homogeneous in terms of their reading ability, a pretest was run. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the pretest.

Table 1

The Descriptive Statistics for the Pretest
for All Groups

1 = group with email and class explanation    
2 = group with class explanation only
3 = group with email only

As Table 1 shows, there are some small differences among the means of groups at different proficiency levels. To find out whether these differences were significant or not, a one-way ANOVA was run. Table 2 depicts the results of the ANOVA.

According to Table 2, the value of F-observed in none of the three proficiency groups is high enough to show a significant difference among the groups. Therefore, it can be claimed that the three groups at each proficiency level were homogeneous.

Table 2

The Results of the ANOVA for the Pretest
for All Groups

Results of the Post-tests

After administering the treatment, the three groups under comparison were given the posttest to find out about the results of the treatment. What follows are the results of the posttest.

The High-Proficiency Group

The result of the posttest for the high-proficiency group was analyzed for the presence of any difference among the three subgroups. The mean scores were observed to be 86.3, 89.13, and 92.96 for the traditional group, the e-mail-only group, and combined method group, respectively. In order to see whether these differences were statistically significant, a one-way ANOVA was run. Table 3 presents the results of the ANOVA.

Table 3

The Results of the ANOVA for the Posttest
for the High Group

According to the above table, the value of F-observed (F-observed = 3.314) is significant at the significance level of 0.045 (p<0.045), which denotes that the differences among the three subgroups are significant. To find out about the exact place(s) of difference(s) the Scheffe post hoc test was run. Table 4 depicts the results.

Table 4

The Results of the Scheffe Post hoc Test
for the High Group

1 = group with email and class explanation
2 = group with class explanation only
3 = group with email only

By looking at Table 4, one can easily see that the difference between the group with both e-mail and class explanation and the group with only class explanation is significant, but the other differences are statistically not significant. In other words, the group which received the e-mail treatment performed almost the same as the other two groups.

The Intermediate-Proficiency Group

The result of the posttest for the intermediate-proficiency group was analyzed to see if there were any differences among the three subgroups. The mean scores were observed to be 72.6, 82, and 92.68 for the traditional group, the email-only group, and combined  method group, respectively.  In order to find out whether these differences were statistically significant or not, another one-way ANOVA was run. Table 5 presents the results of this ANOVA.

Table 5

The Results of the ANOVA for the Posttest
for the Intermediate Group

It can be understood from the above table that the value of F-observed (F-observed = 25.156) is significant at the significance level of.000 (p<0.0), which confirms that the differences among the three subgroups are significant. In order to find out about the exact place(s) of difference(s), another Scheffe post hoc test was employed. Table 6 depicts the results.

By studying Table 6, it can be seen that the differences between all subgroups are significant. In other words, at the intermediate-proficiency level any change in the treatment has a positive effect on the students; therefore, the groups working with email outperformed the group which received the traditional way of teaching, and the group which benefitted from both kinds of teaching performed better than the group which received email treatment only.

Table 6

The Results of the Scheffe Post hoc Test
for the Intermediate Group

  * The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level (p<0.05).

                                 1 = group with email and class explanation
                                 2 = group with class explanation only
                                 3 = group with email only

The Low-Proficiency Group

The posttest results for the low-proficiency group were studied to understand if there were any differences among the three subgroups. The mean scores were observed to be 67.41, 78.15, and 87.5 for the traditional group, the email-only group, and combined method group, respectively. To find out whether these differences were statistically significant or not, still another one-way ANOVA was calculated.  Table 7 presents the results of this ANOVA.

Table 7

The Results of the ANOVA for the Posttest
for the Low Group

It can be seen in Table 7 that the value of F-observed (F-observed = 19.044) is significant at the significance level of.000 (p<0.0), which means that the differences among the three subgroups are significant. In order to find out about the exact place(s) of difference(s), the  Scheffe post hoc test was employed. Table 8 depicts the result.

Table 8

The Results of the Scheffe Post hoc Test
for the Low Group

1 = group with email and class explanation
2 = group with class explanation only
3 = group with email only

Once again by studying Table 8, it can be seen that the differences between all subgroups are significant. In other words, here again any change in the treatment had a positive effect on the students; therefore, the groups working with e-mail outperformed the group which received the traditional way of teaching, and the group which benefitted from both kinds of teaching performed better than the group which received e-mail treatment only.

Discussion

As was described above, a comparison was made between the means of the three groups at different proficiency levels with three types of treatments: traditional method, teaching via e-mail, and both methods combined. As observed, changes in the treatment have a positive effect on the students’ performance, that is why, the groups working with e-mail outperformed the group which received the traditional way of teaching, and the group which benefitted from both kinds of teaching performed better than the group which received the e-mail treatment only. This can be justified with reference to the students’ attitude towards using email to improve their reading skill. Most of them believe that it is quite useful to exchange information via e-mail (Warschauer, 1996). Moreover, Yu and Yu (2002) observe that through fostering a sense of online communication that “facilitates collaboration and personal discussion, social construction of knowledge among audiences at different locations at different times is realized in the electronic world” (p. 122).  The results of the study are also in line with Shang’s (2005) speculation that “the effect of electronic discussion may directly affect students’ reading enhancement” (p. 208).

As for the second question of this research, it can be maintained that the proficiency level has an effect on students’ learning through e-mail. In fact, e-mail enhances intermediate and low proficiency level students’ reading performance, but it does not have any statistically significant effect on high proficiency level students.

Conclusion

These findings lead us to conclude that e-mail plays a very important role in students’ reading development. E-mail communication provides students with additional opportunities to communicate in English. Furthermore, there are some differences between high, intermediate and low proficiency level students regarding the benefits of using e-mail. While the students at low and intermediate proficiency  levels benefit enough from using email, those at the high proficiency level may not benefit much since students who are at a high proficiency level are automatically more efficient and active all the time; therefore, high-proficiency students who receive e-mail treatment perform almost the same as those who receive class explanation only.

Therefore, it can be claimed, based on the results of the present study, that using e-mail can have a positive effect on students’ second language literacy growth and serve as a catalyst for reading comprehension. Reading skills during e-mail exchanges can improve because the opportunity to communicate with one another via e-mail can provide participants with a sense of accomplishment and an awareness that their knowledge and experiences are worthy of consideration and acceptance. 

References

Bacha, N. N. (2000). Developing learners’ academic writing skills in higher education: A study for educational reform. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 2(2), 140-156.

Belisle, R. (1996). E-mail activities in the ESL writing class. The Internet TESL Journal, 2(12), 96-104. Retrieved December, 1996, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Belisle-Email.html.

Bonk, C., & Cunningham, D. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and  sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. Bonk & K. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chong, S-M. (1998). Models of asynchronous computer conferencing for collaborative learning in large college classes. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators (pp. 157-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Collins, M., & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. Retrieved June 15, 2000, from http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/flcc.html.

Connell, S. L. (2006). Comparing blogs, wikis, and discussion boards as collaborative learning tools. In Wiki, Hyderabad: India: ICFAI (the Institute of Financial Analysts of India) University Press.

Couzenza, T. (2009). Using electronic mail to motivate students. Teaching and Learning Nursing, 4, 76-78.

Farmer, J. (2004). Communication dynamics: Discussion boards, weblogs and the development of communities of inquiry in online learning environments. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the comfort zone (pp. 274-283). Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE conference, December 5-8. Perth. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/farmer.html.

Fichter, D. (2005). The many forms of e-collaboration: Blogs, wikis, portals, groupware, discussion boards, and instant messaging. Online, 29(4), 48-50.

Goodrum, D. A., & Knuth, R. A. (1991). Supporting learning with process tools: Theory and design issues. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 334 984).

Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking Technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(3), 34-37.

Klinger, T. H., & Connet, M. R. (1993). Designing distance learning courses for critical thinking. T.H.E. Journal, 21(2), 87-90.

Kubota, K. (1991). Applying a collaborative learning model to a course development project. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, FL, February 13-17, 1991. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 331 490).

Lefoe, G. (1998). Creating constructivist learning environments on the web: The challenge in higher education.  Centre for Educational Development and Interactive Resources, (pp. 453-464).  University of Wollongong, Australia.

Mansor, N. (2007). Collaborative learning via email discussion: strategies for ESL writing classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XIII, No. 3, March 2007 http://iteslj.org/

O'Malley, C. (1995). Designing computer support for collaborative learning. In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 283-297). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Richardson, W. (2008). Blogs, Wikis, podcasts, and other powerful Web tools for classrooms (2nd ed.). Berlin: Corwin Press

Rings, S. (1994, Feb). The role of computer technology in teaching critical reading. MCLI: Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction. Maricopa County Community College District, Arizona

Shang, H. (2005). Email dialogue journaling: attitudes and impact on L2 reading performance. Educational studies, 31(2), 197-212

Warschauer, M. (1995). E-mail for English teaching. Alexandria, VA :  TESOL Publications.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom, CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26.

Warschauer, M., & Healey, M. (1998) Computers and language learning: an overview, Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.

Weasenforth, D. (2002, Sep). Realizing constructivist objectives through collaborative technologies: Threaded discussions. Language learning technology, (pp. 58-86). The George Washington University.

Whittaker, S.,  Sidner, C. (1996). Email overload: Exploring personal information management of email. Lotus Development Corporation One Rogers St. Cambridge MA: 02142, USA

Yu, F. Y., & Yu, H. J. J. (2002) Incorporating email into the learning process: its impact on student academic achievement and attitudes. Computers and Education, 38, 117–126.

About the Authors

Saeed Taki is an assistant professor in the English Department at Islamic Azad University, Shahreza Branch, IRAN. His main areas of interest include language pedagogy, cultural studies and (critical) discourse analysis.

E-mail: Taki@iaush.ac.ir

Zahra Ramazani is at the Islamic Azad University, Shahreza Branch, IRAN.

E-mail: zahraramazani@gmail.com