英語教學已經演變了很多年。為了促進學生的積極學習，教師們在課堂上努力地運用及創造各種方法。在過去的幾年裡，教師比較偏向使用傳統教學方法來提高學生的英語語言能力。而在這樣的情況下，當課堂上缺乏互動時，學生往往感到無聊和不願學習,且他們被動地從老師身上接受知識。更嚴重的是，學生的思考與溝通能力逐漸下降。為了解決長期的教學問題，許多教師已經開始在英語課堂中使用討論活動來幫助學生的學習動機和課堂互動，更進一步協助學生培養英語語言技能。如今，高科技產品和網路科技也已普遍融入英語教學中，這些科技教材使英語課室更具有互動性和趣味性。
    有鑑於網路科技的發展及其與語言教學的關係，本研究調查在大學英語閱讀課室裡使用Kahoot！後學生討論的動態以及對學生討論中閱讀理解能力發展的影響。在研究中，學生會參與兩種類型的討論活動，一種是紙本討論活動，另一種是讓學生透過Kahoot！討論和回答閱讀理解問題。為了回答研究問題，收集並分析了質性與量性的資料。在質性資料中，當教師進行教學活動時，記錄課堂中的學生互動情形。此外，還從訪談中了解學生在閱讀教室中兩種不同教學方法下的想法和經驗。而在量化資料中，通過問卷和閱讀理解考試的分數調查學生的觀點，並了解兩種不同教學方法之下閱讀理解能力的效果。從課堂觀察中收集到的質性資料的結果中顯示使用Kahoot!做學生討論普遍為積極以及老師使用Kahoot！有助於在課堂上促進學生的討論。同樣，大多數學生表示他們對使用Kahoot！在學生討論中感到非常有趣，並希望老師能夠使用Kahoot!在課堂上，增加學生互動和課堂參與度。儘管在使用Kahoot！在學生討論中對於學生的閱讀理解能力發展上是沒有顯著，但是許多學生認為Kahoot！可以幫助他們在閱讀文章中釐清關鍵資訊和閱讀理解。

English teaching approaches have evolved for many years. To promote active learning for students, teachers have made more efforts on employing and creating various approaches in the classroom. In the past years, teachers always had used traditional teaching methods in order to improve students in English language skills. In this kind of classroom, students tend to feel bored and reluctant to learn when there is a lack of interaction in the class, and they passively receive the knowledge from teachers. Even worse student’s thinking and communication skill were gradually decreased. In order to solve the long-lasting pedagogical problems, many teachers have begun to use discussion activities in the English classroom to promote student learning motivation and class interaction. Moreover, the teachers have started using student discussion activities in helping students develop English language skills such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Nowadays, hi-tech products and Internet technology are commonly integrated into English teaching. Furthermore, they have begun to been used in the classroom in order to make English classrooms more interactive and interesting.
    In light of the Internet technology development and it's relation to language teaching, this study investigated student discussion dynamics and the effect on students' development of reading comprehension ability in student discussions after using Kahoot! in college English reading classrooms. In this study, the students engaged in two types of discussion activities, one is traditional paper-based instruction, and the other is to involve students discussing and answering reading comprehension questions through the use of Kahoot!. To answer research questions, qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed. For the qualitative data, classroom observations were recorded when the teacher was delivering teaching activities. Moreover, another qualitative data from the interview was collected to show student’s opinions and experiences in two different approaches in the reading classroom. For the quantitative data, the survey and the score of reading comprehension exam were implemented to investigate student’s opinions quantitatively as well as to obtain the effect of reading comprehension ability brought by two different teaching approaches. Results from qualitative data gathered from classroom observation show that students are generally active in using Kahoot! in student discussions, and the teacher’s use of Kahoot! is beneficial to promote student discussions in the class. Similarly, most students express that they are interested in student discussion in using Kahoot!, and they hope that teachers are able to use Kahoot! in the class to increase student interaction and class participation. Although it is no significance for student development of reading comprehension ability in student discussion after using Kahoot!, many students consider that Kahoot! could help them clarify the key information and reading comprehension after reading articles.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement.........................................i
Chinese Abstract.......................................ii
English Abstract......................................iii
Table of Contents.......................................v
List of Tables and Figures............................vii
Chapter 1 Introduction..................................9
1.1 Research Background................................10
1.2 Statement of the Problems..........................13
1.3 Purpose of the Study...............................15
1.4 Significance of the Study..........................15
1.5 Research Questions.................................16
Chapter 2 Literature Review............................18
2.1 Approaches in Teaching Reading.....................18
2.2 The Importance of Discussion Activity..............22
2.3 Game-Based Response System and App in Teaching and Learning...............................................26
Chapter 3 Method.......................................31
3.1 Research Context...................................31
3.2 Participants.......................................32
3.3 Materials..........................................33
3.4 Research Design....................................42
3.5. Research Procedures...............................44
3.6 Data Collection....................................46
3.7 Data Analysis......................................52
Chapter 4 Result.......................................57
4.1 RQ1: In Freshmen English classes, how do students engage in traditional reading activities and in discussion activities when the teacher uses Kahoot!?...58
4.2 RQ2: In Freshmen English classes, to what extent does the student reading comprehension ability change after the reading teacher use Kahoot! for discussion activities?............................................65
4.3 RQ3: In Freshmen English classes, what are the student experiences when they engage in discussion activities these two different teaching approaches are employed?..............................................67
4.4 Conclusion.........................................76
Chapter 5 Conclusion...................................78
5.1 Discussion.........................................78
5.2 Limitation.........................................82
5.3 Suggestion of the Future Study.....................83
5.4 Conclusion.........................................84
References.............................................86
Appendices.............................................97
Appendix A.............................................97
Appendix B.............................................99
Appendix C............................................101
Appendix D............................................113
Appendix E............................................115
Appendix F............................................117

List of Tables and Figures
Table
Table 3.1 The Number of the Participants...............33
Table 3.2 The Information of the Assigned Textbooks....34
Table 3.3 The Article Topics...........................35
Table 3.4 The Number of Interviewees...................49
Table 4.1 The Interviewees Information.................62
Table 4.2 The Reading Comprehension Test Score for the Dept. of Math..........................................66
Table 4.3 The Reading Comprehension Test score for the Dept. of MC............................................67
Table 4.4 The Amount of Academy Information............69
Table 4.5 The Student’s Perceptions of Student Interaction in Reading Activities......................70
Table 4.6 The Student’s Perceptions of Reading Activities Using Kahoot!..........................................72
Table 4.7 The Student’s Experiences of Development of Reading Comprehension Ability after Using Kahoot!......73

Figure
Figure 2.1 The Traditional Model of Reading Instruction20
Figure 2.2 The New Model of Reading Instruction........20
Figure 3.1 Kahoot! in Google Play......................38
Figure 3.2 The Interface of Typing PIN Number and Nickname...............................................38
Figure 3.3 The Student’s and Teacher’s Kahoot! Interface..............................................39
Figure 3.4 The Interface of Making Question............40
Figure 3.5 The Game Model..............................40
Figure 3.6 The Research Design.........................43
Figure 3.7 The Procedure of the Student Discussions in the Reading Activity...................................44
Figure 3.8 The Research Schedule.......................46

Afzal, A. (2020). Collaboration in secondary school classroom. Pakistan Review of Social Sciences, 1(1), 79-92. 
Aghazadeh, S., & Abedi, H. (2014). Student reticence in Iran’s academia: Exploring students’ perceptions of causes and consequences. Procedia-Social Behavioral Sciences, 98, 78-82. 
Allington, R. L. (1977). If they don't read much, how they ever gonna get good? Journal of Reading, 21(1), 57-61. 
Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 548-559. 
Argyle, M. (2017). Social interaction: process and products. Routledge.
Aslan, B., & Seker, H. (2017). Interactive Response Systems (IRS) Socrative Application Sample. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 167-174.
Awedh, M., Mueen, A., Zafar, B., & Manzoor, U. (2015). Using Socrative and Smartphones for the support of collaborative learning. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 3, 17-24.
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The journal of the learning sciences, 9, 403-436. 
Beekes, W. (2006). The "millionaire" method for encouraging participation. Active learning in higher education, 7(1), 25-36. 
Behroozizad, S., Nambiar, R., & Amir, Z. (2014). Sociocultural theory as an approach to aid EFL learners. Reading, 14, 217-226. 
Bicen, H., & Kocakoyun, S. (2018). Perceptions of students for gamification approach: Kahoot as a case study. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13, 72-93. 
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success. Journal of technology teacher education, 10(1), 95-100. 
Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102-110.
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20. 
Camacho-Miñano, M. D. M., & del Campo, C. (2016). Useful interactive teaching tool for learning: Clickers in higher education. Interactive Learning Environments, 24, 706-723.
Cardoso, W. (2011). Learning a foreign language with a learner response system: The students' perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 393-417. 
Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2007). Investigating the effects of group response systems on student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22, 391-409. 
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning Technology, 1(1), 19-43. 
Chotimah, I. C., & Rafi, M. F. (2018). The effectiveness of using kahoot as a media in teaching reading. Jurnal ELink, 5(1), 19-29. 
Chuang, Y. T. (2015). SSCLS: A smartphone-supported collaborative learning system. Telematics and Informatics, 32, 463-474.
Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2004). Classroom participation and discussion effectiveness: Student-generated strategies. Communication Education, 53(1), 103–115. 
Dawes, L. (2013). Talking points: discussion activities in the primary classroom. Routledge.
Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension strategy instruction in core reading programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 102-126. 
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of educational research, 61, 239-264. 
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2009). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. Journal of education, 189, 107-122. 
Durkin, D. (1978). What Classroom Observations Reveal About Reading Comprehension Instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 481-533. 
Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading “POSSE”. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 123-138.
Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education Technology, 15(1), 101-109. 
Gall, M. D., & Gillett, M. (1980). The discussion method in classroom teaching. Theory into practice, 19, 98-103. 
Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1986). Direct instruction in reading comprehension. Educational Leadership, 43, 70-78. 
Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. (2007). Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active learning in higher education, 8, 233-258. 
Graham, K. (2015). TechMatters: Getting into Kahoot!(s): Exploring a game-based learning system to enhance student learning. LOEX Quarterly, 42, 6-7. 
Hansen, J. (1981). The effects of inference training and practice on young children's reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 391-417.
Heaslip, G., Donovan, P., & Cullen, J. G. (2014). Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 11-24.
Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2002). Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics Science Teaching, 21, 167-181. 
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (2014). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Routledge. 
Lee, W., & Ng, S. (2010). Reducing student reticence through teacher interaction strategy. ELT journal, 64, 302-313. 
Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. W. (1981). Reading instruction and its effects. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 343-361. 
Licorish, S. A., George, J. L., Owen, H. E., & Daniel, B. (2017). Go Kahoot!” enriching classroom engagement, motivation and learning experience with games. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 25th international conference on computers in education.
Limniou, M., & Mansfield, R. (2018). Traditional learning approach versus gamification: an example from psychology. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAD'18).
Lin, C.-Y., & Pan, Y. H. (2019). The Impact of Reading Strategy Use on EFL College Students. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 7, 43-51. 
McDonough, K., & Foote, J. A. (2015). The impact of individual and shared clicker use on students' collaborative learning. Computers Education, 86, 236-249. 
Morling, B., McAuliffe, M., Cohen, L., & DiLorenzo, T. M. (2008). Efficacy of personal response systems (“clickers”) in large, introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 45-50. 
Murphy, P. (2007). Reading comprehension exercises online: The effects of feedback, proficiency and interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 107-129.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of educational psychology, 101, 740.
Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 169-184. 
Neufeld, P. (2005). Comprehension instruction in content area classes. The Reading Teacher, 59, 302-312. 
Noel, D., Stover, S., & McNutt, M. (2015). Student perceptions of engagement using mobile-based polling as an audience response system: Implications for leadership studies. Journal of Leadership Education, 14(3), 53-70.
Nyikos, M., & Hashimoto, R. (1997). Constructivist theory applied to collaborative learning in teacher education: In search of ZPD. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 506-517. 
Omar, N. N. (2017). The efffectiveness of kahoot application towards students’ good feedback practice. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 2551-2562. 
Pearson, P. D. (1985). Changing the face of reading comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 38, 724-738. 
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: a review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 151-165. 
Pettit, R. K., McCoy, L., Kinney, M., & Schwartz, F. N. (2015). Student perceptions of gamified audience response system interactions in large group lectures and via lecture capture technology. BMC medical education, 15(1), 92-106. 
Pond III, S. B. (2010). Learner-centered use of student response systems improves performance in large class environments. Journal of Effective Teaching, 10, 4-17. 
Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A., & Kurita, J. A. (1989). Strategies that improve children's memory and comprehension of text. The Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 3-32. 
Reay, N. W., Bao, L., Li, P., Warnakulasooriya, R., & Baugh, G. (2005). Toward the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures. American Journal of Physics, 73, 554-558. 
Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83. 
Ronchetti, M. (2010). The VOLARE methodology: Using technology to help changing the traditional lecture model. Paper presented at the International Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning.
Solanki, P., Khan, O., & Iqbal, M. (2020). Use of Kahoot! to promote interactivity and social learning during multiple-choice questions. BMJ Simulation Technology Enhanced Learning, 6(1), 35-36. 
Staarman, J. K., Krol K., & van der Meijden, H. (2005). Peer interaction in three collaborative learning environments. Journal of classroom interaction, 40(1), 29-39. 
Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 253-258. 
Tan. D., Ganapathy, M., & Kaur, M. (2018). Kahoot! It: Gamification in higher education. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences Humanities, 26(1), 565 - 582. 
Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university‐level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media Technology, 32(1), 21-40. 
Tuan, L. T., & Nhu, N. T. K. (2010). Theoretical review on oral interaction in EFL classrooms. Studies in literature language, 1, 29-48. 
Turan, Z., & Meral, E. (2018). Game-based versus to non-game-based: The impact of student response systems on students' achievements, engagements and test anxieties. Informatics in Education, 17(1), 105-116. 
Verenikina, I. (2003). Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory and the zone of proximal development. Information Systems and Activity Theory, 3, 4-14.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Mind in society the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, A. I., & Lieberoth, A. (2016). The effect of points and audio on concentration, engagement, enjoyment, learning, motivation, and classroom dynamics using Kahoot. Paper presented at the European Conference on Games Based Learning.
Wang, Y. H. (2017). The effectiveness of integrating teaching strategies into IRS activities to facilitate learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(1), 35-50. 
Weaver, R. R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College students' perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 570-601. 
Wibisono, D. (2019). The effects of kahoot! In teaching reading to tenth grade students. Magister Scientiae, 1, 86-105. 
Wichadee, S., & Pattanapichet, F. (2018). Enhancement of performance and motivation through application of digital games in an English language class. Teaching English with Technology, 18(1), 77-92.