Research Article

Teaching reading in digital era: Exploring Indonesian in-service teachers’ perceptions and challenges

Rosita Rahma 1 2 * , Andayani 1 , Atikah Anindyarini 1
More Detail
1 Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, INDONESIA2 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, INDONESIA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), October 2024, ep530, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15159
Published Online: 15 September 2024, Published: 01 October 2024
OPEN ACCESS   771 Views   536 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This illustrative case study investigation was conducted to learn how Indonesian in-service teachers perceived teaching reading in a digital era and the challenges they encountered. The data were submitted by a total of 30 teachers who participated in the subject post for Indonesian junior high schools. Data collection strategies include participatory classroom observation, interviews, and guided written reflection. The data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. The study’s findings highlight issues concerning teachers’ perceptions and teachers’ challenges while teaching reading in a digital setting. As many as 63% of teachers believe that the proportion of time teachers spend to practice reading skills from online sources is 40%–50% of total teaching hours at school. Furthermore, 40% of them believe that the criteria for teacher success in reading is when pupils improve their reading comprehension skills. The analysis also revealed that teachers encountered a number of challenges: (1) lack of knowledge about models and media for learning to read in a digital context, (2) lack of students’ ability to read multi-text sources, and (3) lack of motivation and awareness among students in reading. The findings of this study impact the understanding and training requirements of junior high school teachers concerning reading instruction methods in a digital context. Future studies should focus on innovation and the development of learning models to improve the quality of reading comprehension in a digital environment.
Keywords: digital era, Indonesian in-service teachers, teaching reading, teachers’ challenges, teachers’ perceptions

CITATION (APA)

Rahma, R., Andayani, & Anindyarini, A. (2024). Teaching reading in digital era: Exploring Indonesian in-service teachers’ perceptions and challenges. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep530. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15159

REFERENCES

  1. Abrams, S. S., & Merchant, G. (2013). The digital challenge. In K. Hall, T. Cremin, B. Comber, & L. C. Moll (Eds.), International handbook of research on children’s literacy, learning, and culture (pp. 319–332). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118323342.ch23
  2. Adanan, H., Adanan, M., & Herawan, T. (2020). M-WebQuest development: Reading comprehension of senior high school students in Indonesia. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(3), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i03.10628
  3. Azmuddin, R. A. A., Nor, N. F. M., & Hamat, A. (2020). Facilitating online reading comprehension in enhanced learning environment using digital annotation tools. IAFOR Journal of Education, 8(2), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.8.2.01
  4. Beers, K., & Probst, R. E. (2013). Notice and note: Strategies for close reading. Heinemann.
  5. Caccia, M., Giorgetti, M., Toraldo, A., Molteni, M., Sarti, D., Vernice, M., & Lorusso, M. L. (2019). ORCA.IT: A new web-based tool for assessing online reading, search and comprehension abilities in students reveals effects of gender, school type and reading ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02433
  6. Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, J. G., O’Byrne, W. I., & Leu, D. J. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: New opportunities and challenges for students with learning difficulties. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8864-3_4
  7. Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (2017). Prologue: Reading comprehension is not a single ability. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(2), Article 73. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16-0033
  8. Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 352–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11421979
  9. Coiro, J., & Castek, J. (2011). Assessment frameworks for teaching and learning English language arts in a digital age. Routledge.
  10. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE.
  12. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (5th ed.). SAGE.
  13. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934
  14. Davis, N., & Tearle, P. (1999). The research and development of an international core curriculum for information and communications technology in teacher training. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 887–892). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED432260.pdf
  15. Dwyer, B. (2013). Developing online reading comprehension: Changes, challenges and consequences. In K. Hall, T. Cremin, B. Comber, & L. C. Moll (Eds.), International handbook of research in children’s literacy, learning and culture. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118323342.ch25
  16. Eagleton, M. B., & Dobler, E. (2015). Reading the web: Strategies for internet inquiry (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  17. Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Harvard Education Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/e565212006-012
  18. Foroudi, P., Gupta, S., Sivarajah, U., & Broderick, A. (2018). Investigating the effects of smart technology on customer dynamics and customer experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.014
  19. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843
  20. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027
  21. Hayati, H. A., & Puspitaloka, N. (2022). An analysis of students’ reading comprehension difficulties during COVID-19 pandemic with online classes in junior high school. Journal of English Teaching, 8(2), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v8i2.3823
  22. Hebbecker, K., Förster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2019). Reciprocal effects between reading achievement and intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(5), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1598413
  23. Immonen, M., & Sintonen, S. (2015). Evolution of technology perceptions over time. Information Technology and People, 28(3), 589–606. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2013-0219
  24. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2015). Models of teaching. Pearson.
  25. Kanniainen, L., Kiili, C., Tolvanen, A., Aro, M., & Leppänen, P. H. (2019). Literacy skills and online research and comprehension: Struggling readers face difficulties online. Reading and Writing, 32(9), 2201–2222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09944-9
  26. Kanniainen, L., Kiili, C., Tolvanen, A., Aro, M., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Leppänen, P. H. T. (2021). Assessing reading and online research comprehension: Do difficulties in attention and executive function matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 87(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.101985
  27. Kiili, C., Leu, D. J., Utriainen, J., Coiro, J., Kanniainen, L., Tolvanen, A., Lohvansuu, K., & Leppänen, P. H. T. (2018). Reading to learn from online information: Modeling the factor structure. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(3), 304–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X18784640
  28. Kilbane, C. R., & Milman, N. B. (2014). Teaching models: Designing instruction for 21st century learners. Pearson.
  29. Kingsley, T., & Tancock, S. (2014). Internet inquiry: Fundamental competencies for online comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 67(5), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1223
  30. Kist, W. (2005). New literacies in action: Teaching and learning in multiple media. Teachers College Press.
  31. Kolb, S. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(1), 83–86. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC135409
  32. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
  33. Leu, D. J., & Zawilinski, L. (2007). The new literacies of online reading comprehension. New England Reading Association Journal, 43(1), 1–7.
  34. Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J., Sedransk, N., Coiro, J., & Kennedy, C. (2013). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and preparing students for the 21st century with common core state standards. In S. B. Neuman, & L. B. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the age of common core standards (pp. 219–236). Intl Literacy Assn. https://doi.org/10.1598/0496.16
  35. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. W. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell, & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). International Reading Association. https://doi.org/10.1598/0872075028.54
  36. Leu, D. J., Kulikowich, J. M., Sedransk, N., Coiro, J., Liu, C., Cui, W., Forzani, E., Kennedy, C., & Maykel, C. (2014a). The ORCA project: Designing technology-based assessments for online research, comprehension, and communication. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
  37. Leu, D. J., McVerry, J. G., O’Byrne, W. I., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., & Hartman, D. K. (2009). The new literacies of online reading comprehension and the irony of no child left behind: Students who require our assistance the most, actually receive it the least. In L. M. Morrow, R. Rueda, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy and diversity (pp. 173–194). Guilford.
  38. Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B., & Liu, Y. (2007). What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? In A. B. L. Rush, & J. Eakle (Eds.), Secondary school literacy: What research reveals for classroom practices (pp. 37–68). National Council of Teachers of English.
  39. Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Forzani, E., & Timbrell, N. (2014b). New Literacies for new times: Research and theoretical perspectives best practices in teaching the new literacies of online research and comprehension. Best Practices in Literacy Instruction, 5, 343–364.
  40. McElvany, N., Kortenbruck, M., & Becker, M. (2008). Lesekompetenz und Lesemotivation: Entwicklung und Mediation des Zusammenhangs durch Leseverhalten [Reading competence and reading motivation: development and mediation of the relationship through reading behavior]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 22, 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.22.34.207
  41. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
  42. Mills, K. A. (2010). A review of the “digital turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364401
  43. Miyamoto, A., Pfost, M., & Artelt, C. (2018). Reciprocal relations between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence: A comparison between native and immigrant students in Germany. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(1), 176–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12113
  44. Nurkamto, J., Drajati, N. A., Ngadiso, N., & Karlina, Y. (2021). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching reading at Islamic secondary schools in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i3.31753
  45. OECD. (2011). PISA 2009 results: Students on line. Digital technologies and performance (volume VI). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264112995-en
  46. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results: Combined executive summaries volume I, II, and III. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm
  47. Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. Basic Books.
  48. Prensky, M. (2005). In digital games for education, complexity matters. Educational Technology, 45(4), 22–28.
  49. Puslitjakbud. (2019). Indeks aktivitas literasi membaca 34 provinsi [Reading literacy activity index of 34 provinces]. Pusat Penelitian Kebijakan Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Kemdikbud.
  50. Rianto, A. (2021). Indonesian EFL university students’ metacognitive online reading strategies before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i1.18110
  51. Rianto, A. (2022). Exploring correlation between metacognitive online reading strategy use and online reading comprehension of EFL students. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1096448
  52. Roblyer, M. D., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M. A. (2004). Integrating educational technology into teaching (4th ed.). Prentice Hall.
  53. Sanger, M. N. (2017). Teacher beliefs and the moral work of teaching in teacher education. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 1, pp. 239–353). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526402042.n19
  54. Santos, D., & Miguel, L. (2019). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs, teachers’ behaviors, and teachers’ professional development: A literature review. International Journal of Education and Practice, 7(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2019.71.10.18
  55. Simoes, D., & Faustiono, P. (2019). The role of ICT in enhancing the autonomy of higher education students: Teachers’ insight. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(1), Article 75. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3734
  56. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. ASCD.
  57. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  58. Watkins, M. W., & Coffey, D. Y. (2004). Reading motivation: Multidimensional and indeterminate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.110
  59. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press.
  60. Yasinta, I. N., Hamsa, A., & Usman. (2022). The ninth graders’ PISA-based reading literacy competence. Curricula: Journal of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.22216/curricula.v7i1.919
  61. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and application: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.