A multilevel regression analysis of computer-mediated communication in synchronous and asynchronous contexts and digital reading achievement in Japanese students

References

• AbuSeileek, A. F., & Qatawneh, K. (2013). Effects of synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) oral conversations on English language learners’ discourse functions. Computers & Education, 62, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, L., & Cross, T. L. (2014). Are students with high ability in math more motivated in math and science than other students? Roeper Review, 36(4), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.945221
   Google Scholar
• Angeli, C., & Schwartz, N. H. (2016). Differences in electronic exchanges in synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication: The effect of culture as a mediating variable. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1109–1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.961484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Artelt, C., & Schneider, W. (2015). Cross-country generalizability of the role of metacognitive knowledge in students’ strategy use and reading competence. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 117(1), Article 010304. https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId = 17695 https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandl, K. (2012). Effects of required and optional exchange tasks in online language learning environments. Recall, 24(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000309
   Google Scholar
• Branon, R., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education. TechTrends, 45(1), 36–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763377
   Google Scholar
• Brozo, W. G., Shiel, G., & Topping, K. (2007). Engagement in reading: Lessons learned from three PISA countries. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(4), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.51.4.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C. M., Chen, L. C., & Horng, W. J. (2021a). A collaborative reading annotation system with formative assessment and feedback mechanisms to promote digital reading performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(5), 848–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636091
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, J. P., Zhang, Y., & Hu, J. (2021b). Synergistic effects of instruction and affect factors on high- and low-ability disparities in elementary students’ reading literacy. Reading and Writing, 34(1), 199–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10070-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, J., Zhang, Y., Wei, Y., & Hu, J. (2021c). Discrimination of the contextual features of top performers in scientific literacy using a machine learning approach. Research in Science Education, 51(suppl. 1), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9835-y
   Google Scholar
• Chen, X., & Hu, J. (2020). ICT-related behavioral factors mediate the relationship between adolescents’ ICT interest and their ICT self-efficacy: Evidence from 30 countries. Computers & Education, 159, Article 104004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christopher, M. M., Thomas, J. A., & Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (2004). Raising the bar: Encouraging high level thinking in online discussion forums. Roeper Review, 26(3), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554262
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H. P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 101–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the national reading panel's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French, J. J., French, A., & Li, W. X. (2015). The relationship among cultural dimensions, education expenditure, and PISA performance. International Journal of Educational Development, 42, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.02.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00407
   Google Scholar
• Gerick, J. (2018). School level characteristics and students’ CIL in Europe - A latent class analysis approach. Computers & Education, 120, 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802412669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimberg, B. I., & Hand, B. (2009). Cognitive pathways: Analysis of students’ written texts for science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701704805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., Coddington, C. S., Klauda, S. L., Wigfield, A., & Barbosa, P. (2009). Impacts of comprehensive reading instruction on diverse outcomes of low- and high-achieving readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(3), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408331039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardy, M. A. (1993). Regression with dummy variables. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirotani, M., & Lyddon, P. A. (2013). The development of L2 Japanese self-introductions in an asynchronous fomputer-mediated language exchange. Foreign Language Annals, 46(3), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hou, H.-T., & Wu, S.-Y. (2011). Analyzing the social knowledge construction behavioral patterns of an online synchronous collaborative discussion instructional activity using an instant messaging tool: A case study. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1459–1468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hrastinski, S. (2008). The potential of synchronous communication to enhance participation in online discussions: A case study of two e-learning courses. Information & Management, 45(7), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, J. (2014). An analysis of the design process of a language learning management system. Control and Intelligent Systems, 42(1), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.2316/Journal.201.2014.1.201-2534
   Google Scholar
• Hu, J., Dong, X., & Peng, Y. (2021a). Discovery of the key contextual factors relevant to the reading performance of elementary school students from 61 countries/regions: Insight from a machine learning-based approach. Reading and Writing. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10176-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, J., Peng, Y., Chen, X., & Yu, H. (2021b). Differentiating the learning styles of college students in different disciplines in a college English blended learning setting. Plos One, Article e0251545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, B. Y., Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Investigating the effects of gamification-enhanced flipped learning on undergraduate students’ behavioral and cognitive engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1106–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1495653
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, H.-C., Chern, C.-I., & Lin, C.-C. (2009). EFL learners’ use of online reading strategies and comprehension of texts: An exploratory study. Computers & Education, 52(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, G. J., Sung, H. Y., & Chang, H. (2017). Effects of concept-mapping-based interactive e-books on active and reflective-style students’ learning performances in junior high school law courses. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(7), 877–888. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1224253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, W.-Y., & Wu, S.-Y. (2014). A case study of collaboration with multi-robots and its effect on children's interaction. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 429–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.680968
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ibanez, M. B., Portillo, A. U., Cabada, R. Z., & Btarron, M. L. (2020). Impact of augmented reality technology on academic achievement and motivation of students from public and private Mexican schools: A case study in a middle-school geometry course. Computers & Education, 145, Article 103734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103734
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaacs, E., Walendowski, A., & Ranganthan, D. (2002). Hubbub: A sound-enhanced mobile instant messenger that supports awareness and opportunistic interactions. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Ishii, K. (2006). Implications of mobility: The uses of personal communication media in everyday life. Journal of Communication, 56(2), 346–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00023.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishii, K., Rife, T. S., & Kagawa, N. (2017). Technology-driven gratifications sought through text-messaging among college students in the US and Japan. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 396–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649509526885
   Google Scholar
• Kato, F., Spring, R., & Mori, C. (2016). Mutually beneficial foreign language learning: Creating meaningful interactions through video-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Foreign Language Annals, 49(2), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kato, S., Kato, Y., & Ozawa, Y. (2020). Reply speed as nonverbal cue in text messaging with a read receipt display function: Effects of messaging dependency on times until negative emotions occur while waiting for a reply. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 16(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJTHI.2020010103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y.-H., & Wu, J.-Y. (2013). The indirect effects of online social entertainment and information seeking activities on reading literacy. Computers & Education, 67, 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang, J.-C., Hwang, G.-J., Chen, M.-R. A., & Darmawansah, D. (2021). Roles and research foci of artificial intelligence in language education: An integrated bibliographic analysis and systematic review approach. Interactive Learning Environments. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1958348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litt, E., Zhao, S. Y., Kraut, R., & Burke, M. (2020). What are meaningful social interactions in today's media landscape? A cross-cultural survey. Social Media + Society, 6(3), 17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120942888
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2020). A comparison of flipped learning with gamification, traditional learning, and online independent study: The effects on students’ mathematics achievement and cognitive engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(4), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1541910
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matteucci, M., & Mignani, S. (2014). Exploring regional differences in the reading competencies of Italian students. Evaluation Review, 38(3), 251–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X14540289
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemann, D., Martens, K., & Teltemann, J. (2017). PISA and its consequences: Shaping education policies through international comparisons. European Journal of Education, 52(2), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12220
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. (2009). PISA data analysis manual: SAS (2nd ed.). OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2017). PISA technical report. OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2019b). PISA 2018 results (volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ogbonna, C. G., Ibezim, N. E., & Obi, C. A. (2019). Synchronous versus asynchronous e-learning in teaching word processing: An experimental approach. South African Journal of Education, 39(2), Article 1383. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39n2a1383
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online at: https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). High-achieving and average students’ reading growth: Contrasting school and summer trajectories. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(2), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.850398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear modeling: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Razagifard, P. (2013). The impact of text-based CMC on improving L2 oral fluency. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retelsdorf, J., & Moller, J. (2008). Developments of reading literacy and reading motivation: Achievement gaps in secondary school? Zeitschrift Fur Entwicklungspsychologie Und Padagogische Psychologie, 40(4), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637.40.4.179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riordan, M. A., & Kreuz, R. J. (2010). Emotion encoding and interpretation in computer-mediated communication: Reasons for use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1667–1673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy, D. (2014). Website analysis as a tool for task-based language learning and higher order thinking in an EFL context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(5), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.751549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schallert, D. L., Chiang, Y. H. V., Park, Y., Jordan, M. E., Lee, H., Cheng, A. C. J., Chu, H. N. R., Lee, S., Kim, T., & Song, K. (2009). Being polite while fulfilling different discourse functions in online classroom discussions. Computers & Education, 53(3), 713–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadler, M., Herborn, K., Mustafic, M., & Greiff, S. (2020). The assessment of collaborative problem solving in PISA 2015: An investigation of the validity of the PISA 2015 CPS tasks. Computers & Education, 157, Article 103964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103964
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoel, G. L., van Drie, J. P., & van Boxtel, C. A. M. (2017). The effects of explicit teaching of strategies, second-order concepts, and epistemological underpinnings on students’ ability to reason causally in history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2013). Sex differences in mathematics and reading achievement are inversely related: Within- and across-nation assessment of 10 years of PISA data. PloS One, 8(3), Article e57988. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taipale, S. (2016). Synchronicity matters: Defining the characteristics of digital generations. Information, Communication & Society, 19(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1093528
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorpe, G. (2006). Multilevel analysis of PISA 2000 reading results for the United Kingdom using pupil scale variables. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(1), 33–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450500264473
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torgo, L. (2017). Data mining with R: Learning with case studies (2nd ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vaknin-Nusbaum, V., Nevo, E., Brande, S., & Gambrell, L. (2018). Developmental aspects of reading motivation and reading achievement among second grade low achievers and typical readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(3), 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, S. (2016). To tweet or not to tweet: Factors affecting the intensity of twitter usage in Japan and the online and offline sociocultural norms. International Journal of Communication, 10, 2637–2660. Retrieved from https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao, Y., & Hu, J. (2019). The moderation examination of ICT Use on the association between Chinese mainland students’ socioeconomic status and reading achievement. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(15), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i15.10494
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao, Y., Liu, Y., & Hu, J. (2019). Regression analysis of ICT impact factors on early adolescents’ reading proficiency in five high-performing countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1646. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, X. M., Zhou, X., & Hu, J. (2021). Students’ preferences for seating arrangements and their engagement in cooperative learning activities in college English blended learning classrooms in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1901667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yau, J. L. C. (2005). Two mandarin readers in Taiwan: Characteristics of children with higher and lower reading proficiency levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 28(2), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2005.00257.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• You, S., & Julie, N. (2012). Multilevel analysis of student pathways to higher education. Educational Psychology, 32(7), 860–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2012.746640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, J., He, J., & Lafontaine, D. (2020). Cross-cultural comparability and validity of metacognitive knowledge in reading in PISA 2009: A comparison of two scoring methods. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2020.1828820
   Google Scholar