Abstract
This study aimed to scrutinize the effects of the reflection-based questioning approach (RBQA) on Myanmar students’ achievement in English reading comprehension. The RBQA approach covers Oo et al.’s (2021) reflective teaching model for reading comprehension (based on planning, acting, reflecting, and evaluating) in which the teacher uses a questioning strategy (initiate-response-evaluate model). Employing cluster randomized trials, quasi-experimental research was conducted to investigate RBQA’s effectiveness in teaching reading comprehension skills to Grade-9 students. The experimental group (N = 228) received the RBQA intervention; the control group (N = 230) did not receive the intervention but was provided with traditional instruction. During RBQA intervention, teachers used the anonymous student questionnaire and observation scheme as effective reflection tools. After a five-week intervention, both groups completed post-tests to assess their achievement. The study findings revealed that teaching with RBQA had a significant positive effect on students’ reading comprehension. Therefore, this study is of immense significance to English language teachers and their students.
Keywords: Reflection-based questioning, Reading comprehension, Pre- and post-tests, Student questionnaire, Observation scheme
Reflection-based questioning, Reading comprehension, Pre- and post-tests, Student questionnaire, Observation scheme.
1. Introduction
In English language teaching (ELT), reading is emphasized as the most important skill among listening, speaking, writing, and reading (Rodli and Prastyo, 2017). Reading is also the most fundamental skill for nearly all academic subjects, students’ educational success, and their later careers (Okkinga et al., 2018). Therefore, in teaching reading comprehension skills, teachers should use the most effective teaching strategies to stimulate students’ critical thinking (Yuliawati et al., 2016). Among those strategies, the questioning strategy can affect students’ active learning participation (Nuryani et al., 2018), so most teachers currently use the questioning strategy to elicit students’ responses, check their understanding, and control their behavior (Yuliawati et al., 2016). Furthermore, Joseph (2018) has emphasized that nearly all teachers use 35%–50% of their instructional time questioning students. Within one year, students in one classroom can receive more than 60,000 questions (approximately 12,000 questions yearly have been reported for promoting students’ rational thoughts) (Nappi, 2017). Especially in the 21st century, questioning strategy is essential for stimulating students’ critical thinking skills (Nuryani et al., 2018).
Teachers’ instructional strategy, in this case questioning, aims to stimulate students’ curiosity and maintain their interest by encouraging them to emphasize the content of the lesson, help teachers elucidate their confusion, elicit fundamental structures and vocabularies, check what students understand, and support their learning participation (Yuliawati et al., 2016). However, the questioning strategy does have some weaknesses that must be addressed for optimum effectiveness. Nappi’s study (2017) showed that for teachers to apply the questioning strategy, they need to plan effective questions for developing students’ critical thinking skills. Furthermore, another study (Yuliawati et al., 2016) suggested that the questioning strategy cannot be effective and that students will be unmotivated if teachers’ questioning skill is poor. Additionally, Barjesteh and Moghadam (2014) suggested improving the questioning strategy by allowing students opportunities to question the teacher. Therefore, to understand what strengths or weaknesses occur during instruction, teachers need to reflect on instructional planning, actual classroom implementation, questions’ effects, and the overall educational context.
To ameliorate questioning strategy’s weaknesses, Oo et al. (2021) suggested that the reflective teaching model for reading comprehension (RTMRC) be used to qualify method-centered teaching. In the ELT context, these researchers explained the reflective teaching that is a cyclical process of planning, acting, reflecting, and evaluating instruction as it involves the reader, strategy, text, and task. Furthermore, reflective teaching is defined as teachers’ process of attaching meaning to what they do in the classroom (Babaei and Abednia, 2016). It is essential for teachers to evaluate their own teaching critically and use this to improve their effectiveness (Gordon, 2017). Additionally, Valdez et al. (2018) explained that a teacher’s reflective instruction can help improve method-centered teaching effectiveness. The role of reflective teachers is to think, study their instructional process, and focus on the problems or weaknesses in their teaching practices (Wu and Wu, 2016).
In Myanmar, most classroom lessons are teacher-centered. That is, a few decades ago, teachers’ effective questioning and stimulation of critical thinking skills almost disappeared; instead, most students learned through memorization without understanding lessons’ meanings (Soe et al., 2017). Furthermore, many teachers underemphasize lesson preparation and reflection on their instructional processes (Hayden and Martin, 2013). Myanmar’s National Education Strategic Plan (NESP) 2016–2021 encourages teachers to use innovative instructional strategies to match students’ needs and innovative assessment to evaluate their academic achievement (Ministry of Education, 2015). One review report “Strengthening Pre-service Teachers’ Education in Myanmar (STEP)” clearly suggested constructing “a strong and equitable education system in Myanmar that is built around reflective, competent, and qualified teachers” (p. 37). It also recommended that teachers have opportunities to use reflective teaching practices with learner-centered teaching strategies (UNESCO, 2020). These factors inherently call for research based on teachers’ reflective practices within the instructional context. Therefore, we conducted a study based on the reflection-based questioning approach (RBQA) to teach students (English) reading comprehension skills in Myanmar.
2. Literature review
2.1. Conceptualization of instruction in reading comprehension skills
As a process of meaning-construction based on the reading context, reading is significant in English language learners’ success (Kim et al., 2016). Every day in different ways, we read the news, messages, notes, books, and various other writings. In fact, English language students attain greater achievements if they generally have high reading ability (Puteri et al., 2017). However, students arrive in school from a wide range of backgrounds in family, experiences, and skill in reading comprehension so that teachers struggle to accommodate each student’s needs (Lim et al., 2018). Therefore, comprehension of reading passages is a major skill that provides students with immense information and benefits (Mannong, 2018). Students’ reading comprehension is a process of interrelationship between the readers and the reading text. Considering these presumptions, students with poor reading ability are much less benefited from reading (Lim et al., 2018).
Improving students’ reading comprehension involves a complex interaction between the teachers’ instructional strategy, learning environment, readers’ backgrounds, individual readers, specific tasks, and the text itself (Yang, 2016). In other words, it requires an interactive instructional context involving five factors: strategy, reader, task, text, and context (Suwanto, 2014). For teaching reading text, teachers normally use at least one of the three teaching approaches, such as bottom-up, top-down, and alternate use of bottom-up and top-down (Yang, 2016). Additionally, teachers employ various instructional strategies to help students effectively comprehend reading texts. There were also some studies investigating teachers’ instructional strategies on students’ reading comprehension; for example, Egiyantinah et al.’s (2018) study investigating the effect of the reciprocal teaching strategy and learning styles on students’ reading comprehension achievement; Anyiendah et al.’s (2019) study exploring the effect of the interactive approach on learners’ achievement in reading comprehension in Vihiga, Kenya; Ahmada’s (2019) study examining the effect of the jigsaw learning model in teaching reading comprehension on narrative text; Salari and Hosseini’s (2019) study scrutinizing the effect of the team-based learning strategy on the Iranian intermediate EFL students’ reading comprehension achievement from the Golrizan Language Institute in Mashhad, Iran; and Barua’s (2021) study inquiring into the effect of the paraphrasing strategy on the tertiary level students’ reading comprehension achievement from the Gauhati University, India.
Apart from varied instructional strategies for reading comprehension, teachers should know how to assess students’ reading comprehension, for one, by asking appropriate, carefully planned questions that help students’ progress from one cognitive level to another (Barrett et al., 2017).
2.2. Reading comprehension questions
In the instructional process, teachers’ questions are considered as a tool to encourage students to focus on the learning process, pose a challenge for all learners’ responses, provide an opportunity for students’ cognitive process with sufficient wait time, and develop rational thoughts to grasp all opportunities (Yasid et al., 2021). Barjesteh and Moghadam (2014) have also explained that teachers ask questions for two reasons: (1) to stimulate students’ active participation, and (2) to control the progress of teacher–student interaction so as to adjust instructional pace according to students’ understanding. Moreover, Yuliawati et al. (2016) suggested that the questioning strategy helps students develop their interest in the lesson content by promoting students’ rational thoughts, allowing teachers to eliminate their confusing thoughts, highlighting important ideas and concepts, evaluating their understanding, and encouraging their participation in the lesson. Therefore, questions and questioning skills are essential for language teachers to motivate students not only to provide appropriate responses but to ask questions themselves (Bulent et al., 2016).
To go beyond providing students only factual knowledge, teachers should create higher order questions to help students think more deeply (Yasid et al., 2021). Muayanah (2014) noted that teachers’ questions sometimes cause students’ wonder, ambiguity, and confusion; however, well-planned questions stimulate students’ curiosity and active participation in effective discussion.
Maram and Farrah (2019) suggested Barrett’s taxonomy of reading comprehension questions for language teachers to help teachers’ formulate effective questions (Table 1). This taxonomy encompasses five comprehension levels: literal, reorganizational, inferential, evaluative, and appreciative. Specifically, (1) for literal comprehension questions, students directly identify stated information; (2) for reorganizational questions, they order and/or organize presented information in different and meaningful manner; (3) for inferential questions, they respond to information inductively or deductively; (4) for evaluative questions, they make decisions based on stated information; and (5) for appreciative questions, they respond to stated information based on their emotions (Surtantini, 2019).
Table 1.
Barrett’s taxonomy of reading comprehension levels.
| 1 |
Literal questions (Recognition or recall of)
|
Students’ skills Locate or identify any kind of explicitly stated fact or detail (for example, names of characters or, places, likeness and differences, reasons for actions) |
Examples
|
| 2 |
Reorganizational questions
|
To organize, sort into categories, paraphrase, or consolidate explicitly stated information or ideas in a reading text |
|
| 3 |
Inferential questions
|
To use conjecture, personal intuition, experience, background knowledge, or clues in a reading text as a basis of forming hypotheses and inferring details or ideas (for example, the significance of a theme, the motivation or nature of a character) that are not explicitly stated in the reading text/material |
|
| 4 |
Evaluative questions (Judgment of)
|
To make evaluative judgment (for example, on qualities of accuracy, acceptability, desirability, worth or probability) by comparing information or ideas presented in a reading text using external criteria provided (by other sources/authorities) or internal criteria (students’ own values, experiences, or background knowledge of subject) |
|
| 5 |
Appreciative questions
|
To show emotional and aesthetic/literary sensitivity to the reading text and show a reaction to the worth of its psychological and artistic elements (including literary techniques, forms, and styles) |
|
Source: Adapted from Reeves (2012).
2.3. Questioning strategy
Initiated by Socrates more than 2000 years ago, the instructional questioning strategy used here is based on the initiate-response-evaluate (IRE) model, in which the teacher first asks (Initiates) questions related to the text, students then answer (Response), and the teacher finally assesses (Evaluates) responses and/or provides feedback to improve their reading comprehension (Corley and Rauscher, 2013). Questioning strategy encourages teachers to plant seeds of critical thinking in students’ minds (Acim, 2018), so teachers’ questions are crucial in any active instructional process, stimulating students’ reflections and challenging their deep understanding (Yuliawati et al., 2016). However, the teacher should consider questions’ complexity and provide adequate wait time for students to think and then respond (Barrett et al., 2017).
Guihua (2006) suggested the following guidelines to improve teachers’ questioning skills, so that teachers should (1) gain clarity about the question (i.e., issues that the teacher wants the students to know); (2) state the question before calling on an individual student, so that all students can think about it and/or participate in answering; (3) leave adequate time for students to think about and formulate an answer; (4) ask only one question (i.e., asking several questions at a time can confuse students); and (5) ask questions in an easy-to-difficult sequence, so students can actively participate in their learning. In sum, to encourage students’ critical thinking, questions should be clear, precise, relevant, accurate, and sufficiently deep (Elder and Paul, 2007).
2.4. Importance of reflection in teaching
Originated by John Dewey (1933), the concept of instructional “reflection” has been employed in education for more than 80 years (Mathieson, 2016). It indicates cyclical behaviors of perceptions and communication analyses with the goal of making teachers’ actions progressive (Kayapinar, 2016). In teaching, “reflection” means the critical thoughts teachers have before, during, and after the instructional process (Edwards, 2017). However, many educators misapprehend reflection as simply thinking about the instructional process, but Mezirow (2006) explained that teachers’ reflective practice is much deeper than simply thinking about teaching experiences. Instead, reflective practices first involve systematic unit and/or lesson planning, next, mindful monitoring of instructional events as they occur, and then evaluating the entire instructional context.
To clarify reflective practice in general, Paterson and Chapman (2013) explained that reflective individuals do not merely think about their past actions but consciously rethink their experiences, actions, and emotions and combine them with their background schema of knowledge to enhance their reading comprehension skills. Furthermore, reflections allow the teacher to become aware of the pros and cons of their instructional process and gain a better understanding of how the teaching method, technique, and materials are proceeding (Töman, 2017). More specifically, for a reflective teacher, the reflection is about their systematic evaluation of teaching practices, with the help of other colleagues’ observation or other reflective tools (Ratminingsih et al., 2017).
Moreover, for teachers to advance their instructional practice, reflective teaching is essential (Mathieson, 2016). Training courses alone cannot prepare teachers to face every classroom challenge. However, at any career stage, teachers can practice reflective teaching, in order to evaluate planning decisions’ appropriateness according to actual instructional events; then, if necessary, they can improve their instruction’s effectiveness (Krulatz, 2016). In other words, reflective teaching is a retrospective method for teachers to explore instructional effectiveness and weakness and to modify the context to create more effective instruction (Afshar and Farahani, 2015; Valdez et al., 2018). Therefore, Oo et al. (2021) suggested the reflective teaching model (involving four stages—planning, acting, reflecting, and evaluating) to qualify the instructional context for reading comprehension (involving reader, strategy, text, and task). Therefore, this model was adopted as this study’s conceptual framework.
2.5. Conceptual framework
In this study, we applied the Reflection-Based Questioning Strategy (RBQA) in which the questioning strategy was utilized within the framework of the Reflective Teaching Model for Reading Comprehension, RTMRC (Oo and Habók, 2020, p. 133; Oo et al., 2021, p. 4), based on teachers’ planning, acting, reflecting, and evaluating the instructional context of reader, strategy, text, and task (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Reflective Teaching Model for Reading Comprehension (RTMRC). Source: Adapted from Oo et al. (2021, p. 4).
In the planning stage, the teacher plans how to teach with the questioning strategy based on the IRE model (strategy): the students (reader), reading passages (text), and activities (task) students complete. In the acting stage, the teacher instructs students, following the planned questioning strategy procedures above. After a lesson or unit employing this strategy, during the reflecting stage, the teacher recalls the instructional context, effect, and outcome, using two reflective tools—the anonymous student questionnaire and the observation scheme suggested by Brookfield (2017). Finally, in the evaluating stage, the teacher assesses the instructional context with reflective results and reflective exercises from the text (Oo and Habók, 2020). If weaknesses appear, the teacher can ameliorate them for better results next time. Employing the RBQA as explained above, students are likely to comprehend reading texts well.
2.6. Study aim and research questions
Given the framework detailed above, this study aimed to discover aspects of RBQA that affect students’ (English) reading comprehension achievement in Myanmar. The following questions were addressed in this research.
RQ1: What are the reliability and validity of instruments measuring students’ reading comprehension?
RQ2: Is the RBQA instruction effective for students’ reading comprehension?
RQ3: What is the effect of teachers’ reflection practices on students’ reading comprehension achievement?
3. Method
There are different types of studies related to the reflection process of teaching–learning situation (e.g., Aliakbari and Adibpour’s [2018] noninterventionist research; Akyıldız and Semerci’s [2016] interventionist research; Wong et al.’s (2009) action research; and Wu and Wu’s (2016) observational research). This study applied a quasi-experimental research method (interventionist research design) to investigate RBQA’s effectiveness on students’ reading comprehension achievement. The study duration was 5 weeks (25 sessions each of 45 min). We selected this (quasi-experimental design) interventionist study because interventionist studies are often representative of natural instructional contexts and they may not differ significantly from what students might perform during their normal classes (Loewen and Philp, 2012). For this study, participants and sampling procedures, instruments, and procedures are described in the following sections.
3.1. Participants
Following Sedgwick’s (2014) cluster sampling technique, we first estimated the population as 9th graders (N = 1000) of upper secondary schools in Sagaing Township, Myanmar. Second, we chose 10 basic-education upper secondary schools. Using random sampling as the third step, we selected 5 of these 10 schools. Finally, every Grade-9 student (N = 458) from these five schools (clusters/groups) participated in the research. From the five schools, English language teachers (N = 5) participated by teaching the English text, and their subject deans or colleagues (N = 10, i.e., two per each school) joined the study as observers. First, the research was substantially reviewed by the IRB at the Doctoral School of Education, University of Szeged. It was approved that the research was consistent with standardizations recommended by the IRB. Second, the parents and teachers of the participating students were also requested to provide the written consent. Participating schools managed these written consents.
3.2. Instruments
3.2.1. Pre- and post-tests
In this study, pre- and post-tests were the main instruments including the same content but different structures. Based on the school textbook for 9th graders prescribed by the Myanmar Ministry of Education, the test questions numbered 23: 8 items for literal comprehension, 2 for reorganizational comprehension, 5 for inferential comprehension, 5 for evaluative comprehension, and 3 for appreciative comprehension. These test items’ construction aligned with Barrett’s taxonomy of reading comprehension (Surtantini, 2019).
3.2.2. Student questionnaire
During the RBQA intervention, teachers reflected the instructional context by using the student questionnaire (students’ feedback) adapted from Richards and Lockhart (2007). Students had to fill the questionnaire based on their learning preferences. Teachers do not fill out the questionnaire; however they reflect on the instructional events based on students’ responses provided in the questionnaire. The questionnaire contains 17 items: 5 for reflection on readers, 5 on strategy, 4 on text, and 3 on task. Previously, we had translated this questionnaire into Burmese and confirmed the translation with four Burmese language experts. It was also validated in a pilot research conducted at a Myanmar upper secondary school with 83 participants a few months ago (Grade 9 students).
The questionnaire had 20 items in pilot testing, but only 17 of them could be used in the main study’s questionnaire (because three items with low factor loadings were suppressed after the pilot study).
3.2.3. Observation scheme
While reflecting on the instructional context, the teacher also used the observation scheme (adapted from Richards and Lockhart, 2007) with the help of 10 observers (two per school) who randomly scrutinized the teachers’ instructional context for approximately 5 times (45 min each). The 10 observers from 5 schools observed the instructional situations of experimental groups for 5 times (total observation = 50 observations).
3.3. Procedures
The study included the following four steps. First, a theoretical RTMRC was self-developed, and we face-validated it with four experts (two language specialists and two methodology professionals). The two language specialists were the professors of the English Departments from Sagaing University of Education and Yangon University of Education, Myanmar. The other two methodology professionals were also from the Departments of Methodology and Curriculum Development of Sagaing University of Education and Yangon University of Education, Myanmar. In the second step, we prepared the instruments and validated them with six content experts from Myanmar (three senior English language teachers from upper secondary schools and three English language teachers from the Department of Methodology and Curriculum Development, Sagaing University of Education). Third, we pilot-tested the instruments to confirm their construct validities and then prepared the main research.
The fourth step was conducting the main research by applying the RBQA—that is, employing the questioning strategy within the RTMRC framework. The experimental research with the RBQA teaching uses the same flow of normal teaching–learning situation (following the RBQA teaching for the experimental group but traditional teaching for the control group) (Loewen and Philp, 2012). And we did not deviate their class sessions, teaching hours, and assessment systems. For the RBQA teaching, we provided teachers detailed lesson plans (how to teach experimental students with RBQA). The detailed lesson plans were also easy for them to follow (their actual teaching can slightly deviate with the supported lesson plans based on their teaching experiences, however, we asked them to record such kinds of minor deviations, and combine them with the reflected results for planning next sessions). Therefore, participating teachers from the five selected schools totally agreed to participate in this study. Teachers administered pre-tests to the experimental and control groups before to the RBQA intervention to assess their baseline status. Next, teachers of the experimental group employed RBQA intervention and then reflected on their instructional context, aided by the student questionnaire and the observation scheme. The student questionnaire was used by participating teachers in all sessions of experimental teaching with RBQA. For the case of the observation scheme, observers randomly came to that classroom at least once a week (involving 5 sessions) during experimental teaching (5 total sessions/observations for 25 sessions of experimental teaching with RBQA in this study). Teachers and students were unaware about which sessions would be monitored by the observers. After the RBQA intervention, the two groups completed post-tests to determine RBQA’s effectiveness on students’ reading comprehension achievement.
3.4. Data analysis
For measuring the instruments’ internal consistency reliability, we used Cronbach’s Alpha (r); its recommended value is > .6; however, >.7 is better (Gliner et al., 2017). Then, to validate the instruments’ construct validities, we used convergent and discriminant validity measures. The average variance extracted (AVE) (>.5) and the composite reliability, CR (>.7) were also measured for convergent validity; the instruments’ component/factor correlations and the square root of AVE were compared to determine whether the square root of AVE was higher than the factor correlations) for discriminant validities (Habók and Magyar, 2018). We also used Rasch analysis (based on the item response theory) and employed the Quest program to estimate student parameters and item difficulty levels. To investigate RBQA’s effectiveness on students’ reading comprehension, we applied t-tests for both independent and paired sample tests (Gliner et al., 2017). According to Goulet-Pelletier and Cousineau (2020), the RBQA’s effect on reading comprehension was quantified by Cohen’s d effect size (d = .3, small; d = .5, medium; d = .8 and above, large).
To measure effects of teachers’ reflections on the instructional context, moreover, we employed structural equation modeling (SEM). In the analysis of SEM, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was used as the absolute fit index, comparative fit index (CFI) was used to analyze the model’s fit goodness, and root mean square error of estimation (RMSEA) was utilized for the parsimonious fit index (Kline, 2011). The SRMR is acceptable at <.05 (Zhang, 2013), levels of CFI range from 0 to 1 (>.90 is acceptable, and >.95 is good) (Byrne, 2010), and RMSEA values at <.08 (<.05 is acceptable) are good (Habók and Magyar, 2018).
4. Findings
RQ 1 : What are the reliability and validity of instruments measuring students’ reading comprehension?
For addressing RQ1, we investigated the instruments’ internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha, r) and construct validities (convergent and discriminant validities). Internal consistencies of the overall instruments (pre- and post-tests, r = .76; student questionnaire, r = .72; observation scheme, r = .60) were good and acceptable for use in this study (with the exception of a few component internal consistencies).
For convergent validity measures, almost all of these three instruments’ AVE values were greater than recommended (>.50), and all CR values ranged from .67 to .96, consistent with recommended values; >.70). Accordingly, all instruments’ convergent validities were confirmed (Table 2).
Table 2.
Instruments’ convergent validity.
| Instruments | Factors | No. of Items | Cronbach’s Alpha (>.60)∗ | Average Variance Extracted (>.50)∗ | Composite Reliability (>.70)∗ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre- & post-tests | Literal | 8 | .70 | .51 | .83 |
| Reorganizational | 2 | .45 | .51 | .85 | |
| Inferential | 5 | .42 | .47 | .81 | |
| Evaluative | 5 | .63 | .46 | .80 | |
| Appreciative | 3 | .61 | .80 | .92 | |
| Total (Overall reliability) | 23 | .76 | .53 | .88 | |
| Student questionnaire | Reader | 5 | .70 | .81 | .90 |
| Strategy | 5 | .65 | .61 | .88 | |
| Text | 4 | .54 | .77 | .93 | |
| Task | 3 | .47 | .43 | .67 | |
| Total (Overall reliability) | 17 | .72 | .63 | .96 | |
| Observation scheme | Instructional Process | 14 | .60 | .54 | .93 |
Note: ∗Indicates the acceptable values.
To inquire about the instruments’ discriminant validities, the interconstruct correlations of the factors/components were compared with the square root of AVE measures. As all values of the square root of the AVE (.678–.894) were greater than all interconstruct values (.020–.228), this study could confirm instruments’ discriminant validities (Table 3).
Table 3.
Measures of instruments’ discriminant validities.
| Instruments | Component Correlation Matrix | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre- and post-tests | Components | Literal | Reorganizational | Inferential | Evaluative | Appreciative |
| Literal | .714∗ | |||||
| Reorganizational | .043 | .714∗ | ||||
| Inferential | .191 | .160 | .685∗ | |||
| Evaluative | .142 | .228 | .064 | .678∗ | ||
| Appreciative | .147 | .175 | .092 | .020 | .894∗ | |
| Student questionnaire | Components | Reader | Strategy | Text | Task | |
| Reader | .900∗ | |||||
| Strategy | .060 | .781∗ | ||||
| Text | .030 | .119 | .877∗ | |||
| Task | .081 | .088 | .033 | .655∗ | ||
| Observation scheme | Components | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 1 | .800∗ | |||||
| 2 | .082 | .707∗ | ||||
| 3 | .083 | .136 | .801∗ | |||
| 4 | .004 | .080 | .090 | .591∗ | ||
Note: ∗Shows the value of square root of AVE.
Based on internal consistency reliability and construct validities, it was determined that the instruments proved valid to reflect the instructional context and measure students’ performance in reading comprehension.
RQ2: Is the RBQA instruction effective for students’ reading comprehension?
RQ3: What is the effect of teachers’ reflection practices on students’ reading comprehension achievement
Addressing this question, we compared the achievement of the experimental and control groups. Before investigating RBQA’s effectiveness, we estimated students’ ability parameters and items’ difficulty levels by Rasch analysis and the Quest program. Figure 2 shows the distribution between students’ achievement and difficulty levels of the items.
Figure 2.
Item–person map of students’ ability and item difficulty levels.
The left side of Figure 2 displays students’ achievement and the right side indicates items’ difficulty levels. The left’s higher part shows students’ higher achievement and its lower part their lower achievement; the right’s higher part shows more difficult items and its lower part, easier items. Therefore, the graph shows that appreciative (items 17, 18) and reorganizational questions (23) were the most difficult, but evaluative questions (items 15, 20) were the easiest. Even so, most items were at mid-difficulty levels, showing students’ high achievement in literal comprehension (items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) and inferential comprehension questions (items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 14, 22). However, the test’s overall distribution was normal. As for homogeneity, the overall measure of Levene statistic sig-value, p, was .073 (Levene statistic sig-value, p > .05 recommended by Gliner et al., 2017). Therefore, the entire test was found normal and homogeneous.
Next, we investigated both groups’ initial levels (before RBQA intervention) as shown by pre-test data (maximum score = 45), which were analyzed with the independent samples t-test. No significant difference (p > .5) appeared between the two groups, indicating nearly the same baseline pre-intervention (M = 13.47, experimental; M = 13.59, control). Table 4 displays these results.
Table 4.
Results of experimental and control groups’ pre-tests of reading comprehension skills.
| Groups | N | M | SD | MD | Effect size (Cohen’s d) | df | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | 228 | 13.47 | 2.106 | −.113 | 0.056 (very low) | 456 | .572 (n.s) |
| Control | 230 | 13.59 | 2.177 |
Note: n.s. = Insignificant.
After administering the pre-test to both groups, the RBQA intervention was provided to the experimental group but not to the control group. Then, to investigate the RBQA’s effectiveness, we compared the achievement of two groups using data analysis (from post-test scores, maximum score 45 points) and the independent sample t-test. There was a significant difference between experimental and control groups (p < .001), and the RBQA experimental group’s mean score (M = 31.86) was significantly greater than the control group’s mean score (M 27.04) (Table 5). Therefore, the study results revealed that teaching with RBQA outperformed traditional instruction for reading comprehension.
Table 5.
Post-test scores of experimental and control groups.
| Groups | N | M | SD | MD | Effect size (Cohen’s d) | df | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | 228 | 31.86 | 3.071 | 4.82 | 1.25 (high) | 456 | .000∗∗∗ |
| Control | 230 | 27.04 | 4.458 |
Note: ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Further to investigate RBQA’s effectiveness in teaching reading comprehension, we compared the experimental group’s pre- and post-tests using data analysis and the paired samples t-test. Results revealed a significant difference (p < .001) between the experimental students’ pre-test (13.47) and post-test (31.86) mean scores. The effect size (Cohen’s d = 6.98) of teaching with RBQA between these two tests was extremely large (Table 6). Accordingly, we concluded that the RBQA was effective for students’ reading comprehension.
Table 6.
Experimental Group’s pre-test and post-test reading comprehension scores.
| Experimental group | N | M | SD | MD | Effect size (Cohen’s d) | df | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-test | 228 | 13.47 | 2.106 | −18.39 | 6.98 (very large) | 227 | .000∗∗∗ |
| Post-test | 228 | 31.86 | 3.071 |
Note: ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
For reflections on instructional context, the teachers used two instruments, the student questionnaire (reflecting students’ eye expressions/opinions) and the observation scheme (reflecting observers’ eyes expressions/opinions). Post-test scores were used as the students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Therefore, to address this question, we investigated relationships between the student questionnaire and students’ achievement, and between the observation scheme and students’ achievement. Using IBM-SPSS Amos 23 software, we employed SEM to investigate the effect of teachers’ reflections on students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
First, in the association model between teachers’ reflections (based on the student questionnaire and the observation scheme) and students’ reading comprehension achievement, no significant difference (p > .05) was found. The ratio of Chi-square by degrees of freedom was <3 (χ2/df < 3) (Kline, 2015). Model-fit measures (SRMR = .03, CFI = .97 and RMSEA = .08) were also nearly consistent with recommended values (Table 7). Therefore, the model could be determined as suitable for estimating its related measures.
Table 7.
Model-fit measures for teachers’ reflections and students’ reading comprehension.
| Event | χ2 | df | p–value (>.05) | Absolute index, SRMR (<.05)∗ | Comparative index, CFI (≥.9)∗ | Parsimonious index, RMSEA (<.08)∗ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teachers’ reflection on instructional context | 279.54 | 87 | .07 | .03 | .97 | .08 |
Note: ∗Describes the recommended values: χ2 (chi-square) describes the level of collinearity; SRMR indicates the error amount resulting from evaluation of the specified model; CFI shows the model’s capacity compared with the stage without the model; RMSEA shows the amount of errors residue after the model had been fit.
The association model (Figure 3) revealed that reflections by both the student questionnaire (β = .35, p < .05) and the observation scheme (β = .24, p < .05) had significant, moderately positive impact on students’ achievement (β > .4, good; β < .4, moderate), as suggested by In’nami and Koizumi (2013). The correlation (r-value) between the student questionnaire and the observation scheme was −.13, not significant (p > .05); thus, there was no correlation between the observation scheme and student questionnaire. However, the findings can be construed to show that teachers’ reflective actions on their lesson were significant and had a positive impact on students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
Figure 3.
Association Model between Teachers’ Reflection and Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension.
In addressing this research question, teachers’ results were shown to support reflection’s effects on the instructional context. After the RBQA intervention, teachers found both instructional strengths and weaknesses as follows.
4.1. Instructional strengths from reflections
Teachers reflected on their instructional contexts with two tools, such as the student questionnaire and observation scheme. Results were considered to be the most frequent responses. Teachers found the following instructional strengths in teaching reading comprehension with RBQA:
-
•
Teachers could create a sensitive classroom environment by interacting with students through stimulus questions.
-
•
Teachers could monitor students’ learning by asking different types of questions.
-
•
The classroom environment was livelier when teachers assigned students peer-group interactions.
-
•
Teachers created better teacher–student relationships.
-
•
By asking questions in English, teachers improved students’ English communication.
-
•
By providing feedback, teachers supported students’ understanding.
-
•
Teachers could manage classroom organization well by asking questions.
-
•
Teachers gave clear instructions and asked clear questions.
-
•
Most students could apply their existing skills and knowledge to answer the teachers’ questions.
-
•
Almost all students appreciated their teachers using the blackboard/whiteboard often while teaching reading comprehension.
-
•
Most students learned better during group work.
-
•
Most students appreciated teachers’ questioning strategy.
-
•
Almost all students mentioned that they could hear their teacher’s voice well.
-
•
Most students responded that for answering teachers’ questions, the text was easy to understand.
-
•
Students mostly enjoyed learning by doing tasks (e.g., taking notes, underlining, highlighting) related to reading texts.
-
•
Students mostly enjoyed teachers’ reading comprehension exercises on reflections.
4.2. Instructional weaknesses from reflections (improved in later sessions)
The following are some instructional weaknesses in reading comprehension RBQA instruction:
-
•
Students felt shy when they were asked to do individual tasks (read aloud individually or asked questions individually).
-
•
Students greatly depended on their classmates or teachers (e.g., they wanted the teacher to explain every question).
-
•
Students mostly did not like teachers’ asking more than one question at a time (and wanted to ask teachers some questions).
-
•
When some students asked teachers questions, the teachers did not listen carefully.
-
•
Teachers did not provide adequate wait time for some questions (relatively poorer performing students needed more time to answer).
-
•
When using the questioning strategy, a few teachers failed to provide a variety of activities (e.g., think-pair-share, jigsaw, group discussion).
-
•
A few teachers did not use enough effective teaching aids (e.g., charts, pictures, other technical tools).
-
•
A few teachers needed better classroom management skills when students were assigned group work.
-
•
Based on students’ eye expressions and observers’ suggestions, teachers saw their instructional weak points in the earlier reflections; this qualified them to become better instructors during the later sessions of RBQA teaching. Overall, we saw some improvement in their later instruction (Appendix, Tables 8 and 9).
5. Conclusion
Three research questions were addressed in this study. The first research question was about the investigation of reliability and validity of the instruments (pre- and post-tests, student questionnaire, and observation scheme). We could address this research question by confirming their overall construct (convergent and discriminant) validities. However, a few components of instruments revealed low internal consistency reliabilities. But in fact, these three instruments had also been pilot-tested just a few months previously. Thus, these three instruments were appropriate for use in teachers’ reflection on their instruction through RBQA instruction and for measuring Myanmar students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
The second research question concerned RBQA’s effect on Myanmar students’ achievement in reading comprehension. In measuring students’ achievement, we checked the test’s homogeneity and normality measures through Rasch analysis and SPSS Levene statistics. After confirming these measures, we compared students’ pre- and post-test scores (paired samples t-test) and the experimental and control groups’ post-test scores (independent samples t-test). We also measured the RBQA intervention’s effect size scores. Based on these measures, we concluded that teaching with RBQA significantly impacted students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
The third question concerned the effects of teachers’ reflection (based on students’ and observers’ comments) on students’ performance in reading comprehension tests (post-test scores). To measure the association between teachers’ reflection and students’ achievement, we used IBM-SPSS Amos 23 to perform Rasch analysis, confirming that teachers’ reflections had a significantly positive impact on students’ comprehension of reading passages.
The RBQA combines approaches of Oo et al.’s (2021) RTMRC (based on four steps of plan, act, reflect, and evaluate) and the questioning strategy (based on the initiate-response-evaluate model). Study results show that this combination approach, RBQA, can immensely benefit both teachers and students during reading comprehension instruction.
During RBQA instruction, students’ (student questionnaire) and observers’ (observation scheme) comments were employed by teachers to reflect on their instructional process. Two example items from the questionnaire were: “I can actively participate in learning reading comprehension because I hear the English teacher’s voice well” and “I like the English teacher’s classroom management.” However, a few student responses revealed some weaknesses, for example, insufficient teaching aids and poor classroom management. After receiving such feedback from the reflection tools, teachers did improve later instructional sessions. From the observation scheme, teachers also noted some weaknesses: “lack of different activities” and “unclear questioning,” so in later sessions, they enhanced their questioning strategy.
While teachers reflected on instructional events through reflective tools, students reflected on their learning effectiveness with the help of teachers’ questions related to the reading text. Because students’ higher-level understanding emerges from reflections on learning effectiveness (Mosley Wetzel et al., 2017), RBQA was extremely beneficial and helpful for students’ understanding of the reading text. Apart from this type of reflection, students also had opportunities to express their opinions on teachers’ instructional strategies, learning activities, the reading text, and their own feelings during lessons and learning. In Myanmar culture, students normally refrain from saying “No” when teachers ask, “Do you understand me?”; “Do you like/understand the reading text?”; “Do you feel ashamed to read out loud by yourself?”; or “Do you like this teaching strategy?” However, in fact, in responding anonymously to the student questionnaire, they clearly expressed likes and dislikes of teachers’ instructional context.
Some studies of questioning strategy that did not employ teacher’s reflection recommended certain points to consider. For instance, Nuryani et al. (2018) reported that teachers did not notice students’ eagerness to ask the teacher questions, a failure that could surely cause students to lose interest. Additionally, the teacher should plan various levels of questions; without doing so, questions tend to be at only low or basic levels (Nappi, 2017). Teachers should ask questions but also provide students thinking time, and they should certainly not answer their own questions (Yuliawati et al., 2016). When students respond to questions, teachers should listen attentively, reply positively (e.g., thumbs-up, nodding in agreement, positive comments), and if appropriate, provide feedback (Nuryani et al., 2018). In this study of RBQA teaching, such events and/or weaknesses also occurred in earlier sessions. However, with the help of Oo et al.’s (2021) RTMRC, teachers could diagnose those weaknesses, correct them, and plan better instruction for later sessions.
Like most studies, this one had some limitations that should be corrected in future research: (1) The SEM analysis needed more participants; (2) teacher observations should occur very often (more than five times); and (3) teachers should use more information and communication technology tools in their teaching with RBQA.
In a nutshell, however, this study confirmed that teaching with RBQA profoundly and positively impacted 9th graders’ English reading comprehension achievement from Sagaing Township, Myanmar. It proved that Oo et al.’s reflective teaching model could well employ the questioning strategy in teaching students reading comprehension skills. Therefore, for future research based on this study, we believe that any teaching strategy can be examined and improved by applying the reflective teaching model, a cyclical process of planning, acting, reflecting, and evaluating). In the reflecting stage, teachers can use various reflective tools, for instance, keeping a diary, tape recording, portfolios, and so on. Such RBQA allows both teacher and students to reflect on the teaching–learning process.
Because of its generalizability to many academic subjects, this approach is invaluable for both teachers and students both in their ELT reading comprehension process and in other academic areas. Because Myanmar’s government is encouraging ELT to promote the national educational education system (Soe, 2015), this paper will be useful for training teachers. Therefore, this classroom-based experimental RBQA research can be a helpful resource, especially for ELT teachers and their students in Myanmar.
Declarations
Author contribution statement
Tun Zaw Oo: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Anita Habók: Conceived and designed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Funding statement
This work was supported by the University of Szeged Open Access Fund (Grant number: 5619) and by the Research Programme for Public Education Development of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences [KOZOKT2021-16].
Data availability statement
The data that has been used is confidential.
Declaration of interest’s statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
No additional information is available for this paper.
Appendix.
Table 8.
Reflective Results of Student Questionnaire (N = 1,140, five times of reflection)
| Reflective events | Levels | 1st Reflection (%) | 2nd Reflection (%) | 3rd Reflection (%) | 4th Reflection (%) | 5th Reflection (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I like the English teacher to explain everything related to the reading tasks. | Strongly Disagree | 2.2 | ||||
| Disagree | .9 | .9 | .9 | .9 | ||
| Agree | 51.3 | 46.9 | 51.8 | 49.1 | 54.4 | |
| Strongly agree | 47.8 | 52.2 | 47.4 | 50.9 | 42.5 | |
| I feel happy when my English teacher asks me to read the English text out loud alone. | Strongly disagree | 1.8 | 2.6 | .9 | ||
| Disagree | 7.0 | 7.5 | 4.8 | 4.8 | ||
| Agree | 44.7 | 40.4 | 52.6 | 59.6 | 46.9 | |
| Strongly agree | 46.5 | 49.6 | 41.7 | 35.5 | 53.1 | |
| I like the English teacher to use the blackboard/chalkboard while teaching reading comprehension. | Strongly disagree | 2.6 | .9 | |||
| Disagree | .9 | .9 | 5.7 | 2.2 | 4.4 | |
| Agree | 51.3 | 46.9 | 56.6 | 50.9 | 56.6 | |
| Strongly agree | 47.8 | 52.2 | 35.1 | 46.1 | 39.0 | |
| When I don’t understand something while reading the English text, I like to guess the meaning by connecting with other related words. | Strongly disagree | 7.9 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 1.8 | |
| Disagree | 18.9 | 9.2 | 3.9 | 1.3 | 3.9 | |
| Agree | 48.7 | 44.3 | 51.3 | 61.0 | 50.4 | |
| Strongly agree | 24.6 | 43.9 | 43.4 | 37.7 | 43.9 | |
| I do better at reading in English when I work with others. | Strongly disagree | .4 | .4 | |||
| Disagree | .9 | .9 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 2.6 | |
| Agree | 51.3 | 46.9 | 56.1 | 56.6 | 53.1 | |
| Strongly agree | 47.8 | 52.2 | 42.1 | 42.1 | 43.9 | |
| I like the reading techniques the English teacher uses because they help me remember the vocabulary. | Strongly disagree | .4 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 2.6 | .4 |
| Disagree | .4 | 13.6 | 10.1 | 16.7 | 11.4 | |
| Agree | 34.6 | 47.8 | 55.3 | 58.3 | 53.9 | |
| Strongly agree | 64.5 | 36.0 | 31.6 | 22.4 | 34.2 | |
| I like the English teacher using the relevant questions while teaching the reading text. | Strongly disagree | .4 | .9 | |||
| Disagree | .9 | .9 | 4.8 | 1.8 | 3.5 | |
| Agree | 51.3 | 46.9 | 58.8 | 57.9 | 52.2 | |
| Strongly agree | 47.8 | 52.2 | 36.0 | 40.4 | 43.4 | |
| I like the strategy the English teacher uses in teaching the reading passages. | Strongly disagree | 2.2 | 2.6 | .9 | .4 | |
| Disagree | 11.4 | 10.1 | 2.6 | 7.0 | 1.8 | |
| Agree | 48.2 | 59.6 | 58.8 | 60.1 | 61.0 | |
| Strongly agree | 38.2 | 27.6 | 37.7 | 32.5 | 37.3 | |
| I like the English teacher’s classroom management. | Strongly disagree | 2.6 | .4 | .4 | ||
| Disagree | 8.3 | 1.8 | 3.5 | .9 | .9 | |
| Agree | 52.6 | 54.8 | 53.9 | 50.9 | 59.6 | |
| Strongly agree | 36.4 | 43.0 | 42.1 | 48.2 | 39.5 | |
| I can actively participate in learning reading comprehension because I hear the English teacher’s voice well. | Strongly disagree | 1.3 | .9 | 1.3 | .4 | 1.3 |
| Disagree | 5.3 | 4.8 | 9.2 | 6.1 | 4.4 | |
| Agree | 47.4 | 51.8 | 57.5 | 57.5 | 57.0 | |
| Strongly agree | 46.1 | 42.5 | 32.0 | 36.0 | 37.3 | |
| I like the reading text because it is very interesting when the teacher provides us with the reflective questions. | Strongly disagree | .4 | .4 | |||
| Disagree | .9 | .9 | .9 | 1.3 | 1.3 | |
| Agree | 59.6 | 50.9 | 56.1 | 56.6 | 52.6 | |
| Strongly agree | 39.5 | 48.2 | 43.0 | 41.7 | 45.6 | |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
| I like the reading text because it is easy to take out the questions from the reading passages to discuss. | Strongly disagree | 5.7 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 1.3 | |
| Disagree | 12.3 | 14.5 | 10.5 | 7.0 | 7.5 | |
| Agree | 47.4 | 53.1 | 52.6 | 57.0 | 61.8 | |
| Strongly agree | 34.6 | 29.4 | 35.1 | 34.6 | 30.7 | |
| I like the reading text because it is easy to catch the main ideas to summarize it. | Strongly disagree | .9 | .4 | .4 | 2.2 | 1.3 |
| Disagree | 7.0 | 4.8 | 3.9 | 5.7 | 4.8 | |
| Agree | 53.5 | 48.2 | 53.5 | 46.1 | 54.8 | |
| Strongly agree | 38.6 | 46.5 | 42.1 | 46.1 | 39.0 | |
| The reading text looks difficult to understand; however, I like it because it is easy to answer reading comprehension questions after the teacher’s explanation. | Strongly disagree | 1.3 | 2.6 | 6.6 | ||
| Disagree | 13.6 | 4.8 | 15.8 | 7.0 | 2.6 | |
| Agree | 53.9 | 50.9 | 49.1 | 56.1 | 63.6 | |
| Strongly agree | 31.1 | 41.7 | 28.5 | 36.8 | 33.8 | |
| I like learning by doing tasks (e.g., taking notes, underlining, highlighting) related to reading texts. | Strongly disagree | 14.0 | 3.1 | 6.1 | 1.3 | .4 |
| Disagree | 26.3 | 11.0 | 18.0 | 14.5 | 11.8 | |
| Agree | 39.0 | 53.5 | 55.3 | 49.1 | 52.6 | |
| Strongly agree | 20.6 | 32.5 | 20.6 | 35.1 | 35.1 | |
| I like to participate in the collaborative activities of learning reading comprehension. | Strongly disagree | .4 | .4 | |||
| Disagree | 2.6 | 4.8 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 3.5 | |
| Agree | 51.8 | 47.8 | 49.1 | 46.5 | 51.3 | |
| Strongly agree | 45.6 | 46.9 | 48.2 | 51.8 | 44.7 | |
| I like the teacher giving us various types of reading comprehension exercises. | Strongly disagree | 3.1 | 5.3 | .4 | ||
| Disagree | 18.0 | 11.8 | 18.0 | 11.8 | 7.5 | |
| Agree | 52.2 | 55.3 | 53.1 | 52.2 | 53.5 | |
| Strongly agree | 29.8 | 29.8 | 23.7 | 35.5 | 39.0 |
Table 9.
Reflective Results by Observation Scheme (N = 50, five times of reflection)
| Reflective events | Levels | 1st Reflection (%) | 2nd Reflection (%) | 3rd Reflection (%) | 4th Reflection (%) | 5th Reflection (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The appropriateness of the selection of materials | Very poor | 10.0 | ||||
| Poor | 10.0 | 30.0 | 20.0 | 30.0 | ||
| Good | 90.0 | 60.0 | 80.0 | 80.0 | 70.0 | |
| Excellent | 20.0 | |||||
| The appropriateness of planning the activities | Very poor | 20.0 | ||||
| Poor | 60.0 | 90.0 | 40.0 | |||
| Good | 20.0 | 10.0 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 80.0 | |
| Excellent | 60.0 | 20.0 | ||||
| The appropriateness of the organization of the class | Very poor | |||||
| Poor | ||||||
| Good | 70.0 | 50.0 | 30.0 | 60.0 | 20.0 | |
| Excellent | 30.0 | 50.0 | 70.0 | 40.0 | 80.0 | |
| Clear instructions and models of English language use | Very poor | |||||
| Poor | 30.0 | 20.0 | ||||
| Good | 70.0 | 70.0 | 80.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | |
| Excellent | 10.0 | 20.0 | 30.0 | 30.0 | ||
| Effective teacher/pupil interaction | Very poor | |||||
| Poor | ||||||
| Good | 80.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 100.0 | 70.0 | |
| Excellent | 20.0 | 30.0 | 30.0 | 30.0 | ||
| Effective organization and management of the whole class | Very poor | 10.0 | ||||
| Poor | 40.0 | 30.0 | 10.0 | |||
| Good | 50.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 40.0 | 70.0 | |
| Excellent | 20.0 | 60.0 | 30.0 | |||
| A variety of activities | Very poor | 20.0 | ||||
| Poor | 80.0 | |||||
| Good | 80.0 | 70.0 | 100.0 | 90.0 | ||
| Excellent | 20.0 | 30.0 | 10.0 | |||
| Effective materials | Very poor | 30.0 | ||||
| Poor | 70.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 10.0 | ||
| Good | 80.0 | 80.0 | 50.0 | 100.0 | ||
| Excellent | 40.0 | |||||
| Support for understanding | Very poor | |||||
| Poor | 30.0 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 30.0 | 20.0 | |
| Good | 50.0 | 70.0 | 60.0 | 70.0 | 60.0 | |
| Excellent | 20.0 | 10.0 | 20.0 | |||
| Opportunities for learners to apply their existing skills and knowledge | Very poor | |||||
| Poor | 10.0 | |||||
| Good | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 60.0 | |
| Excellent | 30.0 | 30.0 | 20.0 | 30.0 | 40.0 | |
| Opportunities for developing English language use | Very poor | |||||
| Poor | 10.0 | |||||
| Good | 80.0 | 70.0 | 50.0 | 60.0 | 70.0 | |
| Excellent | 20.0 | 30.0 | 50.0 | 30.0 | 30.0 | |
| Opportunities for peer-group interaction | Very poor | |||||
| Poor | 40.0 | 30.0 | 10.0 | |||
| Good | 40.0 | 40.0 | 30.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | |
| Excellent | 20.0 | 30.0 | 60.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | |
| Effective monitoring of learning | Very poor | |||||
| Poor | 10.0 | 20.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | ||
| Good | 90.0 | 70.0 | 80.0 | 90.0 | 80.0 | |
| Excellent | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | ||
| A sensitive environment for individual learners and their communicative needs | Very poor | |||||
| Poor | 20.0 | |||||
| Good | 40.0 | 30.0 | 40.0 | 80.0 | 50.0 | |
| Excellent | 40.0 | 70.0 | 60.0 | 20.0 | 50.0 |
Appendix A. Supplementary data
The following is the supplementary data related to this article:
References
- Acim R. The socratic method of instruction: an experience with a reading comprehension course. J. Educ. Res. Pract. 2018;8(1):41–53. [Google Scholar]
- Afshar H.S., Farahani M. Reflective thinking and reflective teaching among iranian efl teachers: do gender and teaching experience make a difference? Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015;192:615–620. [Google Scholar]
- Ahmada A. The effectiveness of jigsaw learning model in teaching reading comprehension on narrative text. Jurnal Darussalam: Jurnal Pendidikan, Komunikasi Dan Pemikiran Hukum Islam. 2019;10(2):258–268. [Google Scholar]
- Akyıldız S.T., Semerci Ç. The cognitive coaching-supported reflective teaching approach in English language teaching: academic and permanence success. Educ. Res. Rev. 2016;11(20):1956–1963. [Google Scholar]
- Aliakbari M., Adibpour M. Reflective EFL education in Iran: existing situation and teachers’ perceived fundamental challenges. Egitim Arastirmalari—Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 2018;(77):129–144. [Google Scholar]
- Anyiendah M.S., Odundo P.A., Kibui A. Aspects of the interactive approach that affect learners’ achievement in reading comprehension in Vihiga county, Kenya: a focus on background knowledge. Am. J. Soc. Sci. Hum. 2019;4(2):269–287. [Google Scholar]
- Babaei M., Abednia A. Reflective teaching and self-efficacy beliefs: exploring relationships in the context of teaching EFL in Iran. Austr. J. Teach. Educ. 2016;41(9):1–27. [Google Scholar]
- Barjesteh H., Moghadam B.A. Teacher questions and questioning strategies revised: a case study in EFL classroom in Iran. Indian J. Fund. Appl. Life Sci. 2014;4(2):651–659. [Google Scholar]
- Barrett M., Magas C.P., Gruppen L.D., Dedhia P.H., Sandhu G. It’s worth the wait: optimizing questioning methods for effective intraoperative teaching. ANZ J. Surg. 2017;87(7–8):541–546. doi: 10.1111/ans.14046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Barua N.M. Paraphrasing as a strategy to develop reading comprehension at the tertiary level of education. ELT Worldwide: J. English Language Teach. 2021;8(2):167–175. [Google Scholar]
- Brookfield S.D. Jossey-Bass; San Francisco: 2017. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. [Google Scholar]
- Bulent D., Erdal B., Ceyda A., Betul T., Nurgul C., Cevahir D. An analysis of teachers questioning strategies. Educ. Res. Rev. 2016;11(22):2065–2078. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne B.M. second ed. Routledge; New York: 2010. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. [Google Scholar]
- Corley M.A., Rauscher W.C. Deeper learning through questioning. Teach. Excell. Adult Liter. 2013;(12):1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Dewey J. D.C. Heath and Company; New York: 1933. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards S. Reflecting differently. New dimensions: reflection-before-action and reflection-beyond-action. Int. Pract. Dev. J. 2017;7(1):1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Egiyantinah S.H., Alek A., Fahriany F., Wekke I.S. The intervention of using reciprocal teaching technique and learning styles on students’ reading comprehension. Al-Ta Lim J. 2018;25(3):216–223. [Google Scholar]
- Elder L., Paul R. Critical thinking: the art of Socratic questioning. J. Dev. Educ. 2007;31(2):32–33. [Google Scholar]
- Gliner J.A., Morgan G.A., Leech N.L. third ed. Routledge; 2017. Research Methods in Applied Settings: an Integrated Approach to Design and Analysis. [Google Scholar]
- Gordon E.J. ‘The good, the bad and the ugly’: a model for reflective teaching practices in coaching pedagogy. Strategies. 2017;30(1):21–27. [Google Scholar]
- Goulet-Pelletier J.-C., Cousineau D. A review of effect sizes and their confidence intervals, part-1: the Cohen’s d family. The Quant. Methods Psychol. 2020;16(4):422–423. [Google Scholar]
- Guihua C. To question or not to question? That is the question. Can. Soc. Sci. 2006;2(3):100–103. [Google Scholar]
- Habók A., Magyar A. Validation of a self-regulated foreign language learning strategy questionnaire through multidimensional modelling. Front. Psychol. 2018;9(1388):1–11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hayden M., Martin R. Recovery of the education system in Myanmar. J. Int. Comp. Educ. 2013;2(2):47–57. [Google Scholar]
- In’nami Y., Koizumi R. In: Application of Structural Equation Modeling in Educational Research and Practice. Khine M.S., editor. Sense Publishers; Boston: 2013. Structural equation modeling in educational research: a primer; pp. 23–51. [Google Scholar]
- Joseph S. Questions teachers ask : an exploratory study of teachers ‘ approach to questioning in the primary and secondary classroom. J. Educ. Soc. Pol. 2018;5(1):77–87. [Google Scholar]
- Kayapinar U. A study on reflection in in-service teacher development: introducing reflective practitioner development model. Educ. Sci.: Theor. Pract. 2016;16(5):1671–1691. [Google Scholar]
- Kim D., Park H., Kim D. Reading strategy use by English as a second language learners in online reading tasks tasks. Comput. Educ. 2016;57(3):2156–2166. [Google Scholar]
- Kline R.B. third ed. Guilford Press; 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. [Google Scholar]
- Kline R.B. fourth ed. Guilford Press; 2015. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. [Google Scholar]
- Krulatz A. Reflective practice in English teacher education: why active learning is not enough. J. Int. Soc. Teach. Educ. 2016;20(2):8–21. [Google Scholar]
- Loewen S., Philp J. In: Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition. Mackey A., Gass S., editors. Wiley-Blackwell; 2012. Instructed second language acquisition; pp. 53–73. [Google Scholar]
- Lim C.K., Eng L.S., Mohamed A.R., Mohamed Ismail S.A.M. Relooking at the ESL reading comprehension assessment for Malaysian primary schools. Engl. Lang. Teach. 2018;11(7):146–157. [Google Scholar]
- Mannong A.B.M. The implementation of reciprocal teaching method (RTM) in developing reading comprehension of the second grade students of SMAN 2 Bantaeng. Interaction: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa. 2018;5(2):1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Maram A., Farrah M. Eighth rrade textbook reading comprehension questions and Barrett’s taxonomy: teachers’ perspectives at Hebron district. Hebron University Research Journal (Humanities) 2019;14(1):229–260. http://www.hebron.edu/journal Retrieved from. [Google Scholar]
- Mathieson L. Synergies in critical reflective practice and science : science as reflection and reflection as science. J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 2016;13(2):1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Mezirow J. Transformative learning as discourse. J. Transformative Educ. 2006;1(1):58–63. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Education . Ministry of Education; 2015. National education strategic plan 2016-2021: executive summary. The Repulic of the Union of Myanmar. [Google Scholar]
- Mosley Wetzel M., Maloch B., Hoffman J.V. Retrospective video analysis: a reflective tool for teachers and teacher educators. Read. Teach. 2017;70(5):533–542. [Google Scholar]
- Muayanah M. Reading comprehension questions developed by English teachers of senior high schools in Surabaya. Jsh: J. Soc. Humaniora. 2014;7(1):20–44. [Google Scholar]
- Nappi J.S. The delta kappa gamma bulletin - the importance of questioning in developing critical thinking. Delta Kappa Gamma Bull.: Int. J. Profess. Educ. 2017;84(1):30–41. [Google Scholar]
- Nuryani T.S., Tarjana S.S., Hersulastuti Students ‘ perception towards teacher ‘ questions and questioning technique in English classroom. 2nd English Language and Literature International Conference (ELLiC), Proceeding. 2018;2:108–114. [Google Scholar]
- Okkinga M., van Steensel R., van Gelderen A.J.S., Sleegers P.J.C. Effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension of low-achieving adolescents. The importance of specific teacher skills. J. Res. Read. 2018;41(1):20–41. [Google Scholar]
- Oo T.Z., Habók A. The development of a reflective teaching model for reading comprehension in English language teaching. Int. Electron. J. Environ. Educ. 2020;13(1):127–138. [Google Scholar]
- Oo T.Z., Magyar A., Habók A. Effectiveness of the reflection-based reciprocal teaching approach for reading comprehension achievement in upper secondary school in Myanmar. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2021;22(4):675–698. [Google Scholar]
- Paterson C., Chapman J. Enhancing skills of critical reflection to evidence learning in professional practice. Phys. Ther. Sport. 2013;14(3):133–138. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2013.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Puteri R.M.A.R., Faridah Y., Zuraida D. Facilitating reading comprehension among ESL learners using graphic organizers. Malaysian J. ELT Res. 2017;13(1):30–42. [Google Scholar]
- Ratminingsih N.M., Padmadewi N.N., Artini L.P. Incorporating self and peer assessment in reflective teaching practices. Int. J. InStruct. 2017;10(4):165–184. [Google Scholar]
- Reeves C. UMALUSI Publishing; Persequor Technopark, Pretoria: 2012. Developing a Framework for Assessing and Comparing the Cognitive challenge of home Language Examination. [Google Scholar]
- Richards J.C., Lockhart C. Cambridge University Press; New York: 2007. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. [Google Scholar]
- Rodli M., Prastyo H. Applying reciprocal teaching method in teaching reading. Studies in Linguistics and Literature. 2017;1(2):112–122. [Google Scholar]
- Salari F., Hosseini S.M.H. Competitive team-based learning vs. reciprocal teaching of reading: a study in reading classes. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 2019;10(3):489. [Google Scholar]
- Sedgwick P. 2014. Cluster sampling. British Medical Journal, BMJ, January (Online) [Google Scholar]
- Soe M.Z., Swe A.M., Aye N.K.M., Mon N.H. Regional Research Paper; 2017. Reform of the Education System : Case Study of Myanmar; pp. 1–33. (January) [Google Scholar]
- Soe T. International Conference on Burma/Myanmar Studies; 2015. A study of contemporary trends and challenges of English language teaching in Myanmar; p. 10. (July) [Google Scholar]
- Surtantini R. Reading comprehension question levels in grade-10 English students’ book in light of the issues of curriculum policy in Indonesia. PAROLE: J. Linguis. Educ. 2019;9(1):44. [Google Scholar]
- Suwanto The effectiveness of the paraphrasing strategy on reading comprehension in Yogyakarta city. J. Liter. Lang. Linguistics—An Open Access Int. J. 2014;4:1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Töman U. Investıgatıon of reflectıve teachıng practıce effect on traınıng development skılls of the pre-servıce teachers. J. Educ. Train. Stud. 2017;5(6):232–239. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization . UNESCO Yangon Project Office; Myanmar: 2020. Strengthening Pre-serviced Teacher Education in Myanmar (STEM): Phase II Final Narrative Report. [Google Scholar]
- Valdez P.N., Navera J.A., Esteron J.J. What is reflective teaching? Lessons learned from ELT teachers from the Philippines. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 2018;27(2):91–98. [Google Scholar]
- Wong A.C.K., Mcalpine B., Moore T., Brotherton D., Charter I.R., Emgård E., Buszowski F. Learning through shared christian praxis : reflective practice in the classroom. Teach. Theol. Relig. 2009;12(4):305–321. [Google Scholar]
- Wu J., Wu Y. An empirical study of business English reflective teaching in colleges. Theor. Pract. Lang. Stud. 2016;6(10):1988–1995. [Google Scholar]
- Yang X. Study on factors affecting learning strategies in reading comprehension. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 2016;7(3):586–590. [Google Scholar]
- Yasid M., Munir A., Retnaningdiyah P. Teachers questioning strategies in achieving students speaking competence in English classroom. ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning, and Research Journal) 2021;7(1):103. [Google Scholar]
- Yuliawati Y., Mahmud M., Muliati M. Teacher’s questioning and students’ critical thinking in EFL classroom interaction. ELT Worldwide: J. English Lang. Teach. 2016;3(2):231–247. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang L.J. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher; 2013. Development and Validation of the Test Takers ‘Metacognitive Awareness Reading Questionnaire (TMARQ) pp. 37–51. (March) [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The data that has been used is confidential.