10.57647/jntell.2026.0501.01

Digital Learning and Reading Comprehension: LMS-Based Comparison of Collaborative and Scaffolding Strategies

PDF
  • Fatemeh Shafiee1,
  • Hadi Salehi*,
  • Omid Tabatabaei,
  1. Department of English Language, Na.C., Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran:

Received: 2025-09-18

Revised: 2025-10-08

Accepted: 2025-12-28

Published in Issue 2026-03-31

Copyright (c) 2026 Fatemeh Shafiee, Hadi Salehi, Omid Tabatabaei, Melor Md Yunus (Author)

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite

Shafiee, F., Salehi, H., & Tabatabaei, O. (2026). Digital Learning and Reading Comprehension: LMS-Based Comparison of Collaborative and Scaffolding Strategies. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 5(1). https://doi.org/10.57647/jntell.2026.0501.01
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 86

Abstract

This paper attempts to inspect the possible influence of collaborative learning and scaffolding strategies via LMS on reading comprehension of undergraduate and postgraduate EFL students. For this purpose, a total of 180 upper-intermediate EFL university students (90 undergraduates and 90 postgraduates) were recruited via convenience sampling. Participants were divided into three intact groups - collaborative, scaffolding, and control - with 30 students in each group. The first group received reading instruction via collaborative learning through the LMS, while the second experimental group was taught using scaffolding strategies on the same platform. The control group received traditional instructor-led instruction. TOEFL reading comprehension test, consisting of 40 items, was used as a pretest and posttest. One-way ANCOVA showed that both collaborative learning and scaffolding strategies via LMS bring good effects to both undergraduate, F(2, 86) = 24.30, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.36,  and postgraduate, F(2, 86) = 22.33, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.34) EFL students’ reading comprehension. Furthermore, the results proved that collaborative learning is more effective (p = 0.013) than scaffolding strategies to enhance undergraduate EFL students’ reading; nonetheless, for the postgraduates, collaborative learning and scaffolding strategies via LMS have almost the same impact (p = 0.095) on postgraduate EFL students’ reading skill. Findings can be helpful for higher education EFL students, teachers and educators.

Keywords

  • Digital Learning,
  • Reading Comprehension,
  • Scaffolding Strategies,
  • Collaborative Strategies
PDF

References

  1. Abbasian, G., Khajavi, Y., & Miri, M. (2015). The effect of off-task scaffold feedback on young English learners' speaking skill. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(5), 1080-1088. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0605.20
  2. Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating e-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004
  3. Almarzouqi, A., Aburayya, A., & Salloum, S. A. (2022). Prediction of user's intention to use LMSs. Computers in Human Behavior, 128, 107083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107083
  4. Amalia, S., Ramdhani, M. I., Syafryadin, Apriani, E., & Boulahnane, S. (2024). The effect of LMS on reading comprehension across 3 types of readers. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 17(1), 73-99. https://doi.org/10.60107/learnjournal.v17i1.2676
  5. Baron, N. S. (2023). Digital media and the shallowing hypothesis: What do we really know about how screen reading affects comprehension? Educational Psychologist, 58(2), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2194844
  6. Bradley, V. M. (2021). LMS (LMS) use with online instruction. International Journal of Technology in Education, 4(1), 68-92. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.36
  7. Clinton-Lisell, V. (2022). Reading on paper and digitally: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 92(4), 552-578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221090447
  8. Dias, S. B., Diniz, J. A., & Hadjileontiadis, L. J. (2023). Towards an intelligent LMS: A review of AI-driven approaches. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11162-w
  9. Doo, M. Y., Bonk, C. J., & Heo, H. (2020). A meta-analysis of scaffolding effects in online learning in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(3), 60-80. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4638
  10. Farajee, M., & Arabmofrad, A. (2015). The effects of collaborative strategic vocabulary learning on students' self-efficacy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), 1235-1242. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0606.10
  11. Ghasedi, F., Ghaderi, F., & Afraz, S. (2018). The effect of symmetrical and asymmetrical scaffolding on speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 5(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.21608/jallr.2018.123456
  12. Hussain, F., Shamim, A., Waris, I., & Zaman, U. (2022). LMS adoption in higher education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 180, 104445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104445
  13. Khaliliaqdam, S. (2014). ZPD, scaffolding and basic speech development in EFL context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(1), 891-897.
  14. Khan, R., & Abdou, B. O. (2021). LMSs in higher education: A review of recent trends. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(5), 810-834. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120988550
  15. Khosravi, M. (2017). The effect of symmetrical and asymmetrical scaffolding on advanced students' reading comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(4), 712-719. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0804.08
  16. Kusumawati, A. J. (2018). Scaffolding learning in reading and writing skills for mechanical engineering students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 32(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001
  17. Laferrière, T., Messas, M., & Allaire, S. (2003, April). Analyzing argumentation procedures of electronic conference transcripts of student teachers: A conceptual tool [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, United States.
  18. Lazareva, A. (2016, September). Role of the online tutor in establishing social presence in asynchronous text-based collaborative learning environments. In International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (pp. 128-142). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  19. Lee, L., & Gundersen, E. (2011). Select readings (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
  20. Liseno, L., & Kelly, C. N. (2020). Cultivating creativity: A conversation on online tools for critical thinking. University of South Florida Digital Commons. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=cctc
  21. Maheady, L., Harper, G. F., Mallette, B., & Karnes, M. (2004). Preparing preservice general education teachers to implement Class Wide Peer Tutoring. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 408-418.
  22. McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing omputer supported cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Kogan Page.
  23. Neo, M. (2003). Developing a collaborative learning environment using a web‐based design. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 462-473.
  24. Rahimi Domakani, M., & Felfelian, S. (2012, [Month]). L2 learner interlanguage pragmatic development within ZPD activated proximal context [Paper presentation]. First Conference on Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language Learning and Teaching, Mashhad, Iran.
  25. Rezaee, A. A., Marefat, H., & Saeedakhtar, A. (2014). Symmetrical and asymmetrical scaffolding of L2 collocations in the context of concordance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(6), 532-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.889712
  26. Sabzevari, M., Fatehi Rad, N., & Tajadini, M. (2022). Implementation of reciprocal-scaffolding treatment in virtual learning Context: Iranian EFL learners’ listening and speaking skills. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning, 1(2), 87-97. https://doi.org/10.30495/jntell.2022.698800
  27. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
  28. UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education - A tool on whose terms? https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385723
  29. Vlachopoulos, D., & Jan, S. K. (2023). How LMSs shape instructional design and teaching practice in higher education. TechTrends, 67(1), 112-125.
  30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00775-0
  31. Wang, X., Li, X., & Lu, T. (2024). Using machine learning to evaluate blended learning outcomes via LMS. Computers & Education, 210, 104660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104660
  32. Widrow, B., Kim, Y., & Park, D. (2015). The Hebbian-LMS learning algorithm. ieee ComputatioNal iNtelligeNCe magaziNe, 10(4), 37-53. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCI.2015.2471216
  33. Yang, X., Li, X., & Lu, T. (2024). Adaptive learning technologies for personalized reading instruction. Computers & Education, 210, 104660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104660