Critical Review

By,
Khatika Ho (GP05663)
Johnny Ling Leh Wui (GP05659)
Grace Wong Lyn Syn (GP05653)
Davidson Anak Anon (GP05643)
Article Reviewed: Bibliographic citation
Maslawati Mohamad, Nurul Adila Hamdan, Shahizan Shaharuddin &
Fariza Khalid. 2015. Hypermedia Reading Strategies of TESL
Undergraduate Students in Malaysia. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology 1: 301-310.
 Overview
 Research objective:
This article seeks to investigate hypermedia reading strategies employed
by ESL students and how they overcame the difficulties faced while
reading the hypermedia materials.

Comment:
• The area of research aptly meets the need of 21st century teaching and learning
environment, as the educational reform is shifting towards an Information
Communication and Technology (ICT) era.
• Contributes to the academia as stakeholders of education could be benefited
from this publication.
 Overview
 Theoretical Background:
The underpinning theory of this research is cognitive constructivist theory,
with the belief that knowledge is constructed via learning processes.
By affirming that the employment of reading strategies to hypermedia
texts helps in constructing an understanding of the texts, the
researcher therefore formulates the theoretical framework of this study.

Comment:
• The well-reasoned theoretical framework geared the study to be a research that
is grounded and supported by theories.
Overview
 Research methodology:
Approach: Qualitative approach
Research Design: Case Study
Data Collection Tools:
1. Think Aloud Protocols (TAP)
2. Semi-structured Interviews
3. Observations
4. Reliability and Validity ensured via Triangulation and Participant Validation
Data Analysis Procedures (Three phases):
1. Data transcription – transcribing from audio form to textual form
2. Data coding – data coded and categorized into themes and subthemes
3. Data analysis – Comparing of data
Participants: (Purposive Sampling) 28 Year 3 undergraduate TESL students
who enrolled in the English course namely Teaching of Reading Skills in an
ESL Context
 Under the Discussion Section of the
Significant Findings journal article:
• The researcher framed the discussion via a
thematic approach.
• Each difficulty is reported, followed by a
Global discussion on the reading strategies used
by participants.
• Organized way of data presentation.
Reading Support • 5 main reading difficulties reported:
strategies
A. Unfamiliar words or terminologies
Problem B. Distraction from advertisement
Solving C. Not able to fully comprehend the
hypermedia documents
D. No internet connection or low
Source: Mokhtari & Sheorey 2002
bandwidth
E. Strained Eyes
Significant Findings
All of the three reading strategies were used but with “varying degrees” (p.308).
Global reading strategies were utilized more than Support and Problem-Solving
reading strategies.
Clarifications were given to support the statement.

Clarification/Reasons:
Global Reading Strategies:

“… the most strategies that have been utilized by the participants”

Reason:
“the participants employed the strategies in the same way as they would reading
printed materials” (p. 309)
Significant Findings
All of the three reading strategies were used but with “varying degrees” (p.308).
Global reading strategies were utilized more than Support and Problem-Solving
reading strategies.
Clarifications were given to support the statement.

Clarification/Reasons:
Support Reading Strategies:

“appeared to be most sought out”

Reason:
“Given the sources of support which were readily available online, and at the click
of the button” (p. 308)
Significant Findings
All of the three reading strategies were used but with “varying degrees” (p.308).
Global reading strategies were utilized more than Support and Problem-Solving
reading strategies.
Clarifications were given to support the statement.

Clarification/Reasons:
Problem-Solving Reading Strategies:

“Process of rereading showed that the participants utilized Problem-Solving

Strategies” (p. 307)
- Least mentioned
 STRENGTH 1: TITLE

According to Peat et al. (2002) effective titles identify the main issue and the
subject of the paper. They are precise, explicit, detailed and thorough which do not
contain abbreviations unless they are well known by target audiences.

Hypermedia Reading Strategies of TESL Undergraduate Students In

Malaysia

• descriptive title
• specific
• clarifies the issue
• not lengthy - adequately describe the contents of the
paper
 STRENGTH 2: INTRODUCTION a thorough literature search
“… in late 1970’s and early 1980’s researchers began in commencing the study
to pay more attention to reading strategies … done on
printed materials reading strategies used by EFL/ESL”
(pp. 301) a firm sense of what was
done in the study
“However, due to advances in technology, Internet
has become one of reading strategies …” (pp. 301)

“Students are now increasingly accessing reading An introduction needs to

materials through internet…” (pp. 301) allow readers to understand
a certain situation and be
“Many researchers have started to focus on reading aware of the essentials and
and learning through online texts…” (pp. 301) rationale for further research
(Weathington et al., 2010).
 STRENGTH 2: INTRODUCTION Niche is established –
“Thus far, there have been studies that investigated L1 revealing research gaps
students’ hypertext and hypermedia learning environments
but to the knowledge of the present researchers, very few
have been on local L2 students. Hence, there is a need to
study L2 students reading within the online environment Concludes how their
particularly in local context (Park & Kim, 2011). Secondly, research is able to bridge
there are very few studies that have been conducted on the gaps
hypermedia reading strategies, the difficulties faced and
strategies L2 students took to overcome their reading
difficulties in the Malaysian context. Due to these reasons,
an exploratory study was embarked to identify the
difficulties L2 students, in particular TESL undergraduates,
faced when reading hypermedia texts and the strategies
they took to better comprehend the TESL related
hypermedia materials.” (pp. 301 - 302)
STRENGTH 3: DEFINITION

Electronic Literacies, Farkas (2004) defines hypertext as a text with hyperlinks

Hypertext and or links. Park and Kim (2011) agreed with this ideas as
Hypermedia they mentioned that the term ‘hyper’ shows that there are
additional ….
Definition of Reading
Strategies In general, a strategy means an action selected on
purpose in order to achieve particular goals (Paris et al.,
1991)
Hypermedia Reading
Strategies

 Well-defined using quotes from noble researchers

 STRENGTH 3: DEFINITION

Electronic Literacies,
Hypertext and
Hypermedia

Definition of Reading
Strategies

Hypermedia Reading
Strategies
• illustrates three reading
categories (reference is stated)
• Ease readers to understand
STRENGTH 4: PAST STUDIES
Anderson, N. J. 1991. Individual differences in strategy use in second
language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal 75:
460-472. International
Akyel, A. & Ercetin, G. (2009). Hypermedia reading strategies employed by
advanced learners of English. System 37(1):136-152.
Maslawati Mohamad. (2012). Hypermedia reading environment for adult
learners: A case study at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Local
Unpublished PhD thesis. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

• Related past studies

• Allow comparison to be made with their findings

Bhakar & Nathani (2015) stated a researcher should cite similar areas of study or studies that lead up
to the current research if a relatively new area is to be explored. This is important to draw what previous
researchers have discovered too.
 STRENGTH 5: METHODOLOGY
A clear methodology would allow readers to evaluate the suitability of the data
collection techniques which will help readers to understand the relationship between
the data and the research hypothesis while evaluate the internal and external validity
of the conclusion made (Weathington et al., 2010).

Research design
“This study employed a qualitative approach particularly a case study. Case study was
selected as the approach because the researchers’ main concern was on exploring the
reading process at length of multiple individuals in a group of people rather than
understanding the outcomes or products of the phenomena (Yin, 2009; Creswell, 2009).
(pp. 304)
 STRENGTH 5: METHODOLOGY
Data collection
Think Aloud Protocols
“In this study, Think Aloud Protocol (TAP) was utilized as the primary data collection technique. It was
chosen as the main data collection technique because of its advantages. TAP enable researchers to get
an in-depth view of the reading strategies employed in a given, ongoing task as the participants read
aloud the reading strategies that they utilized when reading a hypermedia material (Ketabi et al., 2012).”
(pp.305)

Reliability and validity

“Two measures which the researcher had undertaken to ensure reliability and validity are triangulation
and participation validation. Triangulation refers to a combination of a few data collection techniques or
data sources in the same design (Stake, 1995). Triangulation serves to examine the consistency of
different data sources (Patton, 1999). Hence, the findings of each research tool are confirmed by other
research tools.” (pp. 305)
STRENGTH 5: METHODOLOGY

Reasons are justified

Research design Explicitly explained

- gives an insight on the overall view of
Participants the research
- Increases the validity and reliability of
Data Collection the paper

Reliability and Validity Reach design is suitable (qualitative

approach) – relevant to the objective of
their research
• identify the difficulties L2 students &
strategies used
STRENGTH 6: FINDINGS
According to Hess (2004), every study conducted has relation to other previously
published papers because a study will never be novel on itself since its focus is
restricted. Therefore in writing discussion section, findings should be related to
other studies as it may support and strengthen the importance of the study results
while pointing out how the study differs from other similar studies.
“…Participant F would rather close the website and find another website that does not contain any
advertisements. The findings are parallel with Maslawati’s (2012) findings in that three of the
participants in her study stated that the advertisements appeared in the websites distracted them
…” (pp. 307)

“The knowledge they obtained through these websites, particularly ‘SlideShare’ facilitated their
reading process, and ultimately increasing their level of comprehension. The result of this study
supports previous studies (Anderson, 1991; Akyel & Ercetin, 2009) that in order to construct the
meaning from the text, readers refer to their prior knowledge. These findings are in line with Tricia’s
(2002) notes; formal schemata assist readers in understanding and interpreting the hypermedia
documents” (pp. 308)
 STRENGTH 5: FINDINGS
Develop comprehensive concepts
and abstraction from data
Unfamiliar words or
terminologies
Distraction from advertisement
Not able to fully comprehend
the hypermedia documents
No internet connection or low
bandwith
Strained eyes
Discussed in relation to literature review and
past studies
Shen & Huang (2003)
Maslawati Mohamad. 2012. Hypermedia reading environment
for adult learners: A case study at Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia. Unpublished PhD thesis. Universiti Kebangsaan
malaysia
Anderson, N.J. 1991. Individual differences I strategy use in
second language reading and testing. The Modern Language
Journal 75: 460-472.
Park & Bonk (2007)
Maslawati Mohamad. 2012. Hypermedia reading environment
for adult learners: A case study at Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia. Unpublished PhD thesis. Universiti Kebangsaan
malaysia
STRENGTH 6: CONCLUSION
Reflect the result of the study

Impact of the whole research is clearly stated

“… it is hoped that it will help parties involved: course designers, teachers/ facilitators and
students in the following way …” (pp.309)

 According to Fedelis (2017), in carrying out discussion in a research paper, researcher

should include critical evaluation as to reason the relevance or importance of
presenting the concept by relating it to an aspect of human endeavor.

Further research proposal

“As to whether Global Reading Strategies were differences when reading hypermedia materials
cannot be determined here based on the available data but further research on this could shed
light on the extent to which global reading strategies are media dependent.” (pp.309)

 Every study has their limitations and it is good for researchers to acknowledge and
identify as it can be used as a suggestion for further research (Hess, 2004)
 FOCUSES
1. ABSTRACT
2. PAST RELATED STUDIES
3. TECHNICAL MISTAKES
4. MISTAKES IN THE REPORT OF FINDINGS
5. REFERENCING
1. ABSTRACT
It is found that there is no implication of the study written in the abstract.
The abstract is ended by the finding of the study “In addition, making
inferences was also another solution employed by most participants.”
(pg. 301)

 It would be better if the researchers have included the implications of

the study in the abstract as Boon (2016) stated that an abstract is like a
mini paper thus research question, methodology, findings and
conclusion for further work should be included.
Fisher et al. (n.d.) also stated that the impact of the work on the area of
the study should be described in the final sentences of the abstract.
 2. PAST RELATED STUDIES:
a)Summary of past related studies is
incomplete
Methodological
Findings Conclusions
issues

Anderson (2003)
  
Eykel and Ercertin (2009)
  
Maslawati (2012)
  
Suggestion:
 All the past studies should be summarised completely (include the
research objective, methodology, findings and conclusion)
b) Outdated past study
It is found that one of the past studies is outdated.
 Anderson (2003) is used when the paper is written in 2015. The time
gap is too far (12 years). This suggests that the past study might not
reflect the current study.

 It would be better if the researchers refer to a study which is within 5 to

6 years prior to the current study.
 3. TECHNICAL MISTAKES
1. The word “said” should be replaced with “stated” since it is not
appropriate for academic writing. (pg 307 – paragraph 3 line 16)

2. Duplication of sentence which hinders the reader to understand (pg

309 – paragraph 1 line 5-7 and paragraph 2 line 3-5)

“As to whether Global reading Strategies were different when reading

hypermedia materials cannot be determined here based on the available
data but further research on this could shed light on the extent to which
global reading strategies are media dependent.”
3. Grammatical slip: (... they would reading printed materials.)[pg.
309, para.1 line 2)

Correction:
(... they would read/in reading printed materials.)
 4. MISTAKES IN THE REPORT OF
FINDINGS
1. The researcher categorized “Google search engine and links to
other websites” as “other strategies” (pg. 307, para.3) when they
actually could be categorized under Support Reading Strategies.
* Google search engine can be categorised under Support Reading
Strategies (point number 4: use reference materials [dictionaries, etc])

2. There is a lack of comparison or relationship made between the past

studies with the findings and discussion of the study.
 Maslawati (2012) [pg.307]
 Akyel & Ercetin (2009) [pg.308]
 No comparison or relationship made to Anderson (2003)
Suggestion:
 Discussion on the findings should be compared and related to the past
studies discussed in the literature review.
 All the past studies discussed should be related fairly in the findings
and discussion.
 5. REFERENCING
It is found that some citations were not listed in the references.
 The findings corroborate Park & Bonk’s (2007) findings... [pg.308]
 The findings of this research are comparable to Shen & Huang’s (2003)
[pg.307]

According to Derntl (2014), one of the vital parts in research writing is to

embed own work in related literature by citing related work within the
text and list all cited references at the end of the paper.
Therefore, it would be better if the researcher have included Park &
Bonk’s (2007) and Shen & Huang’s (2003) in the reference lists.
 CONCLUSION
 Clear and comprehensive.
 The impact is closely related.
 The implications are clearly stated. (fair distribution of responsibilities
among the 3 parties; course designers, teachers and students)
 The whole paper has a good impact for teachers, students and
educational stakeholders in the 21st century which meets the need of
current learning environment.
References
1. Maslawati Mohamad, Nurul Adila Hamdan, Shahizan Shaharuddin & Fariza
Khalid. 2015. Hypermedia Reading Strategies of TESL Undergraduate
Students in Malaysia. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology
1: 301-310.
2. Mokhtari, K. & Sheorey, R. 2002. Measuring ESL students’ awareness of
reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education 25(3): 2-10.
3. Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L. & Keena, V. 2002. Scientific Writing: Easy
When You Know How. London: BMJ Books.
4. Weathington, B. L., Cunningham, C. J. L. & Pittenger, D. J. 2010.
Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. United
States of America: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
5. Hess. D. R. 2004. How to write an effective discussion. Respiratory Care
49 (10), 1238-1241.