對於非英語為母語的人來說英語閱讀理解，可能是一項具有挑戰性的任務。他們 在面對不熟悉的單詞和句子時常常感到挫折。多年來，各種教學方法的出現，以應對 這些挑戰，強調發展英語作為外語(EFL)學習者閱讀策略意識的重要性。有一些研 究強調同儕討論在提高學習效果方面的效果，包括元認知意識。隨著科技的進步，教 師越來越多地在線上創造討論環境，提供時間和地點的靈活性，線上討論更被認為是 一個有價值的工具，以強調學生的學習成功、元認知意識和閱讀理解能力。本研究旨 在透過線上討論培養在大學學習英語作為外語(EFL)的學生們對閱讀策略的認識， 從而提升他們的英語閱讀理解能力。

    在這項研究中，學生參與了線上討論，與同儕討論英語閱讀文章和閱讀策略。他 們通過同儕討論閱讀文章並回答問題。為了回答研究問題，收集和分析了量性數據和 質性數據。前測與後測評量了線上討論前後的英語閱讀理解能力。閱讀策略調查 (SORS)數據，檢驗了學生對閱讀策略的意識，而教師評分評量了學生在線上討論中 的互動質量。線上聊天室的觀察和訪談的質性數據提供了學生看法的見解。結果顯 示，在閱讀策略和英語閱讀理解能力方面都取得了顯著的進展，與聊天室觀察和互動 質量的評估的量性發現以及質性發現一致。積極參與線上討論的學生展現出對閱讀策 略和英語閱讀理解能力的提升。儘管沒有直接的統計顯著性，學生認為線上討論是促 進更好學習的一個媒介工具。本研究強調了線上討論在促進友好的學習環境方面的有 效性，特別是對於內向的學生有益，且提供更多的閱讀機會。

    English reading comprehension can be challenging, especially for non-native
English speakers. They often encounter frustrations when confronted with unfamiliar words and sentences. Over the years, various teaching approaches have emerged to address these challenges, emphasizing the significance of developing an awareness of reading strategies for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. Several studies have highlighted the effectiveness of peer discussions in improving learning outcomes, including metacognitive awareness. With technological advancements, teachers are increasingly creating online environments for discussions, providing flexibility in time and place. Online discussions are recognized as a valuable tool, enhancing students’ learning outcomes, metacognitive awareness, and reading comprehension ability. This study aims to cultivate the awareness of reading strategies among college students learning English as Foreign Language (EFL) through online discussions, ultimately enhancing their English reading comprehension ability.

    In this study, the students engaged in the online discussions, discussing the English reading articles and reading strategies with peers. They read articles and answered questions through peer discussions. Quantitative data and qualitative data were collected and analyzed to address the research question. Pretest and posttest assessed English reading comprehension ability before and after online discussions. The Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) data examined the students’ awareness of reading strategies, while instructor ratings evaluated students’ interaction quality during the online discussions. Qualitative data from online chat room observations and interviews provide insights into the students’ perceptions. Results revealed significant improvements in both awareness of reading strategies and English reading comprehension ability, aligning with qualitative findings from the chat room observations and the quantitative findings from interaction quality evaluations. Students actively engaging in online discussions demonstrated enhanced awareness of reading strategies and English reading comprehension ability. While there was no direct statistical significance, the students viewed online discussions as a mediated tool promoting better learning. The study underscores the effectiveness of online discussions in facilitating a friendly learning environment, particularly beneficial for introverted students, providing more reading opportunities.

Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................... i
Table of Content........................................................................................................ v
List of Tables and Figures ...................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research Background and Purpose....................................................................... 2
1.2 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2 Literature Review ................................................................................... 5
2.1 Reading Strategies................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Online Discussions.............................................................................................. 11
Chapter 3 Methodolodgy........................................................................................ 18
3.1 Research Settings and Participants ..................................................................... 18
3.2 Materials.............................................................................................................. 21
3.3 The Rubrics of the Online Discussions............................................................... 26
3.4 Procedures........................................................................................................... 30
3.5 Data Collection ................................................................................................... 35
3.6 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 40
Chapter 4 Results .................................................................................................... 43
RO1: To what extent and in what ways do EFL college students develop awareness on reading strategies after online discussions? ......................................................... 44
RQ2: Do EFL college students’ English reading comprehension ability improve after having online discussions on reading strategies? ............................................. 60
RQ3: How does the development of awareness on reading strategies among EFL college students relate to their English reading comprehension ability after engaging in online discussions?................................................................................................ 63
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 79
Chapter 5 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 80
5.1 Discussion ........................................................................................................... 80
5.2 Limitation............................................................................................................ 83
5.3 Suggestion of the Future Study ........................................................................... 84
5.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 85
References ................................................................................................................ 86
Appendix .................................................................................................................. 91
Appendix A ............................................................................................................... 91
Appendix B ............................................................................................................... 93
Appendix C ............................................................................................................... 95
Appendix D ............................................................................................................... 99
Appendix E ............................................................................................................. 104
Appendix F.............................................................................................................. 117

Tables

Table 1 Online Engagement for Higher Education................................................... 15
Table 2 The Number of Gender an College Distribution.......................................... 20
Table 3 The Number of English Proficiency Distribution on General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT) ................................................................................................. 21
Table 4 The Article’s Topics for English Reading Comprehension Pretest and Posttest ...................................................................................................................... 23
Table 5 Framework for Evaluating Interaction Quality Between Students .............. 29
Table 6 Class Schedule ............................................................................................. 31
Table 7 The Number of Interviewees ....................................................................... 39
Table 8 The Mean Scores of Students’ Awareness of Reading Strategies on SORS pretest and posttest .................................................................................................... 45
Table 9 The Results of Evaluating the Quality of Students’ Interaction in Online Discussion ................................................................................................................. 47
Table 10 Observation of Students with “Higher-Quality” Online Discussions........ 49
Table 11 Observation of Students with “Moderate-Quality” Online Discussions.... 55
Table 12 Observation of Students with “Low-Quality” Online Discussions............ 57
Table 13 Paired-Sample T-Test for the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) PretestMean and Posttest Mean for Three Colleges ................................................. 61
Table 14 The Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of the English Reading
Comprehension and the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) pretest and posttest for Three Colleges..................................................................................................... 61
Table 15 The Interviewees Information.................................................................... 64
Table 16 Paired-Sample T-Test for the Mean Scores of the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) Pretest and Posttest for Three Reading Strategies ...................... 68

Figures

Figure 1 Procedures .................................................................................................. 32
Figure 2 Chat room messages of Groups with “High-Quality” Online Discussions Demonstrating GLOB .............................................................................................. 50
Figure 3 Chat room messages of Groups with “High-Quality” Online DiscussionsDemonstrating SUP ............................................................................... 51
Figure 4 Chat room messages of Groups with “Moderate-Quality” Online Discussions Demonstrating GLOB........................................................................... 53
Figure 5 Chat room messages of Groups with “Moderate-Quality” Online Discussions Demonstrating SUP and PROB ............................................................ 54
Figure 6 Chat room messages of Groups with “Low-Quality” Online Discussions Demonstrating GLOB and SUP ................................................................................ 58

Alexander, M. E., Commander, N., Greenberg, D., & Ward, T. (2010). Using the four- questions technique to enhance critical thinking in online discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 409-415.
Alqahtani, S. M. A. (2019). Investigating the relationship between metacognitive strategies and reading proficiency among the university of Jeddah learners. Acta Scientiae et Intellectus, 5(4), 38-52.
Baran, E., & Correia, A. P. (2009). Student‐led facilitation strategies in online discussions. Distance Education, 30(3), 339-361.
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The journal of the learning sciences, 9(4), 403-436.
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching: A course in second language acquisition. Pearson.
Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL quarterly, 23(4), 647-678.
Chou, L. H. (2007) Exploring student talk in a Taiwanese English reading class. Journal of Education Research and Development,3(2), 137-162
Chen, K. T. C. & Chen, S. C. L. (2015). The use of reading strategies among high school students in Taiwan. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 15(2), 156-166
Dengler, M. (2008). Classroom active learning complemented by an online discussion forum to teach sustainability. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(3), 481-494
Dennen, V.P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281–297.
Greene, B., A. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 14- 30.
Hall, A. (2007). Vygotsky goes online: learning design from a social-cultural perspective. Learning and Socio-Cultural Theory: Exploring Modern Vygotskian Perspectives International Workshop, 1(1), p.6.
Harwood, C. & Brett, C. (2019). Obuchenie online: the applicability of Vygotskian pedagogy to online teaching and learning. Technology, Instruction, Cognition & Learning, 11, 141-161.
Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S. & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: a review of the research and empirical exploration, Instructional Science, 38, 571-606.
Iran, I. B. (2014). The effectiveness of metacognitive strategy awareness in reading comprehension: the case of Iranian University EFL students. The Reading Matrix,14(2), 314-336
 Johnston, K., A. (2-18) Toward a theory of social engagement. The Handbook of Communication Engagement. 17-32.
Karami, H., (2008). Reading strategies: What are They? University of Tehran, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502937.pdf.
King, K. (2008). Reading strategies. retrieved from http: // www. Is. sedu/- Kingkath/readstrt.html.
Liu, I. F., Wu, S. Y. & Ko, H. W. (2014). Learning reading strategies with online discussion. J. Educational Computer Research, 50(2), 231-247.
Li, D. Y. (2020). Exploring discussion dynamics by using Kahoot! in the traditional college reading classroom.
Malcolm, D. (2009). Reading strategy awareness of Arabic-Speaking medical students studying in English. System, 37(4), 640-351.
Ma, Y. H., & Lin, W. Y. (2015). A study on the relationship between English reading comprehension and English vocabulary knowledge. Education research international, 2015.
Mokhtari, K. & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Mokhtari, K. & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2–10.
Nandi, D., Chang, S., & Balbo, S. (2009). A conceptual framework for assessing interaction quality in online discussion forums. Same places, different spaces. Proceedings Ascilite Auckland, 7-23.
Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012) Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, 33(1), 5-30.
Ness, M. (2011) Explicit reading comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms: teacher use of reading comprehension strategies. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(1), 98-117.
Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2014). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: A handbook. Routledge.
Pasupathi, M. & Ghosh, A. (2012). Awareness of reading strategy use of Indian ESL students and the relationship with reading comprehension achievement. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 131-140.
Par, L. (2020). The relationship between reading strategies and reading achievement of the EFL Students. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 223-238.
Redmond, P., Abawi, L. A., Brown, A. & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183-204.
Rourke, L. & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions.
Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(1), 1-21.
Sighal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading Strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 Readers. The Reading Matrix, 1(1), 1-23.
Song, M. J. (1998). Teaching reading strategies in an ongoing EFL university reading classroom. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8(1), 41-54
Welk, D. (2006). The trainer's application of Vygotsky’s "Zone of Proximal Development" to asynchronous, online training of faculty facilitators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(4), n4.
Wong, B. Y. L. & Wilson, M. (1984). Investigating awareness of and teaching passage organization in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17(8), 477-482.
Wu, H. J. (2011). Anxiety and reading comprehension performance in English as a foreign language. Asian EFL Journal, 13(2), 273-306.
Yüksel, İ., & Yüksel, İ. (2012). Metacognitive awareness of academic reading strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 894-898.
Zhicheng, Z. (1992). The effects of teaching reading strategies on improving reading comprehension for ESL learners (ED356643). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED356643.pdf