





































Putri Anggraeni, et al / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 

166 

 

 
ELT FORUM 12 (3) (2023) 

 

Journal of English Language Teaching 

 
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt 

 

 

Web-based elaborative feedback provision and the development of reading skills 

 

Atalay Biresaw Lulie1, Berhanu Bogale Haile1 
 
1College of Social Science Humanities Journalism and Communication, Addis Ababa University, 

Ethiopia

 

Article Info 
________________ 
Article History: 
Received on 3 April 
2023 

Approved on 23 July 
2023 
Published on 30 
November 2023 

________________ 
Keywords: web-based 
feedback; reading 
comprehension; 
Common European 
Framework Reference 
(CEFR) 
____________________ 

 

 

Abstract 
___________________________________________________________________ 
The purpose of this study was to find out whether web-based feedback can improve 

students’ reading comprehension. Fifty first-year students participated in the study: 
25 in the experimental group and 25 in the control group. The study used a quasi-

experimental design. Data was collected via a web-based reading comprehension 
test and a paper-based test. Moodle Cloud server was used to organize the training 

tasks and to administer the post-test for the experimental group. Data were analysed 

using mean, frequency, independent samples t-test, and paired samples t-test. The 
pre-test score indicated that students were at elementary comprehension level with a 

percentage of 34%, and 37% for the treatment and the comparison group, 
respectively. There was also a statistically significant mean difference in the post-test 

scores between the experimental and the control groups (t= 6.174, df= 48, and p= 
0.000) with mean scores of 17.84 and 13.16, respectively. This shows that web-based 

feedback has significantly improved students’ reading comprehension. 

 

  
Correspondence Address: p-ISSN 2252-6706 | e-ISSN 2721-4532 

College of Social Science Humanities Journalism and 
Communication, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia 
Postal code: 1000  

E-mail: atalay.bi12@gmail.com  

http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1333515478&1&&
http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1576658845&1&&


Atalay Biresaw Lulie & Berhanu Bogale Haile | ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

167 

 

INTRODUCTION 

The term "assessment" refers to the variety of instruments used by specialists to assess, gauge, and 

record a learner's academic preparedness, knowledge growth, skill mastery, or learning needs. In 

order to gauge their performance and gather data for use as feedback to familiarise themselves with 

the teaching and learning activities they are engaged in, teachers and students engage in assessment 

(Black & Wiliam, 1998). The type of assessment we utilise can be used as a tool to identify the 

positive and negative aspects of our teaching-learning achievements. In light of this, it was pointed 

out by (Huba & Freed, 2000) that assessment in the learner-centered technique is used to diagnose 

learning challenges and to promote further learning in addition to evaluating learning outcomes. To 

identify communication gaps among pupils, assessment is important. Moreover, it is essential to 

familiarise yourself 

It is feasible to evaluate both macro- and micro-skills in language teaching and learning. 

Reading comprehension will be covered in this study. For members of contemporary communities 

to obtain information and interact with others, reading is viewed as a necessary ability (Grabe, 2009; 

Grabe & Stoller, 2002). Although information is disseminated through a variety of media, including 

electronic and written mass media, according to Teshale and Yemanebirhan, there is no substitute 

for reading to access any information, despite the fact that technological advancement has reached 

its pinnacle in the twenty-first century (Teshale & Yemanebirhan, 2015). Effective reading skills are 

thus unquestionably beneficial and have a broad impact on how assessments can tell researchers, 

teachers, administrators, and policymakers about a learner's communication abilities. Knowing the 

functions as well as the ideologies 

In contrast to the traditional paper and pen test, which discourages independent study on the 

part of the students, the web-based assessment, which might be conducted via computer, can place 

the learners at the centre of the assessment process. When face-to-face contacts are not possible, it is 

becoming more and more common to deliver exams online. Online tests are used to assess pupils' 

proficiency in particular abilities. 

 In order to make and administer the testing process more efficient, technology was 

introduced to language testing in the 1960s, just like it was to language teaching. International 

evaluation promotes youth and adult competitiveness on a global scale. Additionally, it will expand 

the chances for knowledge exchange and the adoption of best practises from nations that 

continuously outperform average or those who make quick progress over a short period of time 

(Ministry of Education, 2015). 

 Exams administered on paper prevent pupils from receiving fast feedback. The feedback 

provided during a paper-based assessment (PBA) may not be timely or informative, and it is more 

frequently supplied during writing skills exams than during reading comprehension tests. PBA uses 

pre-set criteria to tell students if they will receive an A, B, C, D, or F; nevertheless, this type of 

scoring may not be as reliable as one might want in assessing a student's work. Additionally, the 

grading format doesn't properly demonstrate the performance distinctions between an A student and 

a B student. In PBA, it is less likely to be known who performed well and who didn't and who 

received a particular grade. Bachman contends that interpreting scores presents challenges in this 

regard. 

 Students' level of comprehension in the Common European Framework Reference (CEFR) 

is clearly indicated in the web-based test, indicating what they can and cannot achieve in any skill. 

According to Goldhammer et al. (2014), computer-based assessment (CBA) allows for novel item 

designs as well as the incorporation of multimedia elements such as video or audio sequences or 

interactive tools. These possibilities imply that complicated jobs can be more authentically portrayed 

with CBA (Huff & Sireci, 2005; Katz, 2007; Quellmalz & Kozma, 2003). CBA also provides several 

chances and benefits for measuring skill. 

CBA provides learners with feedback that is not available in other types of examinations. 

According to the Council of Europe, the DIALANG online system assists individuals in 

determining their language competency levels and receiving feedback on their strengths and 

deficiencies (Council of Europe, 2001). Quellmalz and Kozma (2003) said that quick feedback 

enhances the retention of taught knowledge; while, delayed input, which is retained for a certain 

period of time, is less beneficial to learning. Learners may not gain the expected self-confidence and 

may be unable to enhance their learning and performance if they are not encouraged to recognise 

their faults and strengths right once.  



Atalay Biresaw Lulie & Berhanu Bogale Haile | ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

168 

 

Communicative English Language Skills I and II are two frequent courses provided to first-

year undergraduate students at Addis Abeba University. Freshman students are required to take the 

two-semester courses at all Ethiopian higher learning institutions. Reading skills are emphasised in 

both Communicative English Language Skills I and II, and students are expected to have the 

required abilities to read, understand, and interpret texts in a variety of contexts.  This is especially 

true because the country need educators, health professionals, politicians, diplomats, military 

officers, policymakers, business leaders, entrepreneurs, and other professions who must frequently 

obtain a wide range of information and abilities by reading a wide range of English-language texts. 

 Higher learning institutions bear the lion's part of the obligation for becoming and so 

attaining this type of employees. According to Cheng and Fox (2017), institutions are becoming 

increasingly concerned with enhancing their students' performance by providing the appropriate 

support. The most important thing that higher education institutions can do to provide students with 

the necessary reading abilities is to assess them effectively. Tests should be prepared in a 

standardized format to make reading evaluations appropriate.  The researchers are convinced that 

the current students' reading skills challenge is caused by inappropriate reading assessments, such as 

administering tests below or above the students' competence or failing to consider the learners' 

capability when tests are prepared by teachers, endangering the validity and reliability of the tests. 

 Bown used 113 samples in an experiment on the role of "Elaborative Feedback to Enhance 

Online Second Language Reading Comprehension" (Bown, 2017). The results of a quasi-experiment 

with low-proficiency readers who received elaborative feedback revealed that those who received 

elaborative feedback outperformed those who did not. Similarly, Murphy investigated the effects of 

feedback, proficiency, and interaction on reading comprehension activities. The findings revealed a 

statistically significant relationship between the type of feedback and the method of the study 

(Murphy, 2017). Adams and Strickland, on the other hand, took 70 students and investigated the use 

of knowledge of response feedback, knowledge of correct answer feedback, and no feedback at all. 

They were unable, however, to demonstrate any substantial difference in effectiveness. 

As a result, the purpose of this study was to a) determine the students' reading comprehension 

levels based on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), and b) determine whether 

providing elaborative feedback in an online reading test improves L2 reading comprehension more 

effectively than students who did not receive elaborative feedback. 

 

METHODS 

This study used a quasi-experimental design. The data was collected via a reading comprehension 

test and analyzed using mean and independent samples test quantitatively. The study's participants 

were first-year students. If students could identify their deficiencies at the outset, their university 

experience would be tremendously motivating and successful. The research is being conducted at the 

university level because technical resources are more readily available there than in primary and 

secondary schools. 

Initially, pupils were divided into two parts and randomly allocated to the experimental and 

control groups. Both groups were required to take the DIALANG reading comprehension test on 

paper. The experimental and comparison groups' pre-test outcomes were 7.16 (34% accurate 

response) and 7.84 (37% right response), respectively. The t-test result for independent samples 

revealed no significant difference between the two groups (t-test =.945, sig. 2-tailed = 0.349). That is 

because the difference between the comparison and experimental groups was insignificant, which 

was more than the cut score of 0.05. The number of students assigned to each section determines the 

sample size of the participants.  For the course Communicative English Language Skills, 

 

Data Gathering Tools 

The instruments that were used in this study include web-based reading skills exercises adapted from 

CELSI; the DIALANG Web-based Reading Skills Diagnostic Test adapted from 

(https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/researchenterprise/dialang/) and a paper-based test. The instruments 

were piloted to get a first-hand impression of the difficulty level of the tasks and items, to estimate 

the time load involved, to see the content and face validity of items, and to determine the expected 

challenges during the administration of the tasks and to set solutions for the challenges. 

 

 

 

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/researchenterprise/dialang/


Atalay Biresaw Lulie & Berhanu Bogale Haile | ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

169 

 

Web-Based Reading Skills Diagnostic Test 

The DIALANG online diagnostic test, which can be found at 

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/researchenterprise/dialang/, was used to create the online reading 

skills diagnostic test. and the TOEFL Reading Skills Test because the items are standardized and are 

thought to better diagnose the students' performance in relation to the objectives. The treatment 

group received a reading comprehension test with online elaborative feedback, while the control 

group received no additional treatment other than the typical method of instruction, which is face-

to-face interaction with the teacher. Learners used skimming reading strategies to practise reading 

tasks and answer questions that required them to grasp the central idea of texts at the paragraph 

level. Meanwhile, students were supposed to compute items, which likely required them to read the 

text in full or inferentially, depending on the task. 

 

Paper-Based Assessment  

Both the experimental and control groups were given a paper-based evaluation, adapted from the 

DIALANG online test, prior to the commencement of the training to determine their reading 

comprehension level. Following the intervention, the comparison group was given the paper-based 

test, whereas the experimental group took the test online with no feedback; nonetheless, the test 

questions taken by the two groups were the same.  

 

Data Analysis Method 

The experimental and comparison groups' pre-test scores were computed to determine the students' 

reading comprehension level at the start of the study and to see if there was any difference in 

performance between the two groups. An independent samples t-test was used to determine whether 

there was a statistically significant difference between the experimental and comparison groups. The 

two groups' post-test scores were also compared using an independent samples t-test to check if there 

was a significant mean difference in their performance.  

 

Validity and Reliability 

Validity is all about ensuring what we are measuring is what we exactly want to measure. In this 

study, the primary focus of the reading comprehension questions was on three types of reading 

skills: reading for the main idea, detail reading, and inference. In the pre-test, 21 standardized items 

from DIALANG were used. For the post-test, the same number of test items were prepared based 

on the Communicative English Skills I course material. The validation process was started by 

formulating a detailed definition of the types of reading skills we wanted to focus on. We made sure 

that there are an equal number of questions under each session and category of reading skills. After 

we prepared the questions based on the content covered in the training material and wrote simple 

and clear instructions, we asked three instructors with PhD in TEFL to independently review the 

items. Comments given by the instructors were used to further improve the items. The pre-test and 

post-test items were taken from DIALANG which is a pool of standardized online reading 

comprehension tests. We did not go into establishing the reliability of the test items. All we did was 

select 21 questions (7 items from each skill area: reading for the main idea, detail reading, and 

inference). 

In experimental design, researchers should always try to minimize the influence of any 

confounding or extraneous variables. This means that the control and experimental groups should 

have as little difference as possible at the start of the study. In order to minimize the effect of 

confounding factors, we tried to make the control and experimental groups as similar as possible. 

The only difference is the treatment. Because the students in the two groups (control and 

experimental) were on the same campus, we thought there could be chances that they share learning 

materials. Students in the experimental group, who were expected to do online reading 

comprehension exercises and were given elaborative feedback on their answers, were provided with 

passwords that they could use only for about two hours during class time. There was no way they 

could share materials with friends, as they were working in a computer lab for a set time during class 

time. The post-test was also administered in a parallel session. 

 

 

 

 



Atalay Biresaw Lulie & Berhanu Bogale Haile | ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

170 

 

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 

Descriptive statistics of the pre-test score 

Both the comparison and the experimental group (N=50) took a reading comprehension test. The 

number of reading comprehension test items was 21, with three sub-skills categories: main idea, 

detail reading, and inference questions. The test aimed to check the participants’ current reading 

skills performance. The findings are presented in the next table. 

 

                 Table 1:  Comparison and Experimental Group Mean score before intervention 
 

Group N Mean Std. Deviation 

Std. Error 

Mean 

Pre-test 

Reading 

Score 

Experimental 25 7.16 3.171 .634 

Control  25 7.84 1.700 .340 

 

To identify the students' reading comprehension levels, the pre-test scores of both the 

experimental and comparison groups were computed. The pre-test mean score of the experimental 

and the comparison group was 7.16 and 7.84 out of 21 items, with a percentage of 34% and 37% of 

correctly answered items for both groups, respectively. As the percentages implied, the students’ 

reading comprehension level was below the standard required for a “Pass” on the CEFR scale. The 

percentages show that the two groups would be categorized under the A2 level. On the CEFR scale 

of performance measurement, A2 means the students are elementary-level language users. 

 

Independent samples t-test of the experimental and the comparison groups 

An independent samples t-test was computed to find out whether the mean score difference was 

significant or not. A summary of the independent samples t-test result is presented in Table 2 below. 

 

                Table 2: Independent samples t-test of the experimental and the comparison group 
 Group         T-test Sig. (2-tailed) 

Pre-test reading 

score 

Experimental  -.945 .349 

Control 

 

As shown in the above table, the experimental and the comparison group had some slight 

differences in the pre-test mean score. However, the mean score by itself does not tell us whether the 

difference was significant or not. In order to know whether that difference was significant or not, an 

independent samples t-test was run. Accordingly, the result of the t-test (t=.945, df=48, and sig. = 

0.349 showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the 

experimental and the comparison groups before the intervention was made. That means equal 

variance was assumed as the difference between the experimental and comparison group was 

insignificant. This implied the comparison and the experimental group had almost equal reading 

comprehension levels, and their level of reading comprehension was low, as it was categorized 

under A2 on the CEFR scale. 

 

Comparison of the post-test scores of comparison and experimental groups 

It was assumed that there could be a change, after the intervention, in the reading comprehension 

score between the treatment and the comparison groups. To ensure this, a post-test was administered 

to both groups, and the summary of the post-test mean score is presented in Table 3. 

 

            Table 3: Comparison of the post-test results of the comparison and experimental groups 
 

Group N Mean 

Std. 

Deviation 

 
Post-test Reading 

Score 

Experimental 25 17.84 3.158 

Control  25 13.16 2.095 

 



Atalay Biresaw Lulie & Berhanu Bogale Haile | ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

171 

 

Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the comparison between the experimental and 

comparison groups. As the mean scores confirm, there was a difference between the post-test scores 

of the control group and the experimental group, which had mean scores of 13.16 and 17.84, 

respectively. However, the statistics do not indicate whether the difference between the experimental 

and the comparison groups is statistically significant or not. 

 

Independent samples test of the experimental and control groups 

To check if the difference between the mean scores of the two groups is statistically significant or not 

an independent sample test was held. The results are presented in Table 4.  

 

                  Table 4: Independent Samples t-test of the experimental and control groups 
 Group  T-test Sig. (2-tailed) 

Post-test reading 
score 

Experimental and control  6.174 0.000 

 

After the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were computed, it was 

necessary to check whether the differences in the mean scores between the two groups were 

noteworthy or not. To confirm whether the statistical mean score difference was significant or not, 

inferential statistics of an independent samples t-test were calculated. The result of the t-test (t= 

6.174, df= 48, and p= 0.001) indicated that the difference between the control and experimental 

groups was statistically significant. To put it another way, the mean score was higher in the 

experimental group compared to the comparison group because the elaborative feedback 

intervention had brought a change to the experimental group's performance. 

 

Discussion  

Students’ level of reading comprehension 

This section aims to show the levels of online reading comprehension of freshman students. The 

research question was attempted to be answered by using a mean score and independent samples t-

test. The mean score informed us what the students’ level of reading comprehension was and the 

independent samples t-test has the objective to compare and contrast the comparison and 

experimental group students’ reading comprehension levels. The level of students categorized based 

on the CEFR scale was also investigated.  

A descriptive statistic of the experimental and control groups was computed with the mean 

score values of 7.16 (34%) and 7.84 (37%) of the total 21 items, respectively. In the Common 

European Framework Reference Scale, there are three general levels of measurement that are again 

divided into two sublevels: Basic Users (A1, A2), Independent Users (B1, B2), and Proficient Users 

(C1, C2). In this perspective, students who scored between 20% and 39% were assigned under level 

A2, indicating that they are elementary users (Council of Europe, 2001, 2020).  

Thus, from the above descriptions of the CEFR level, the mean scores on the pre-test of 

participants of both the experimental and the comparison groups indicated that they were at A2, 

which means they were at an elementary level. At this level, learners are able to do the following 

activities. They can understand phrases and the highest frequency of vocabulary related to areas of 

immediate personal relevance, such as basic personal and family information, shopping, local area, 

and employment. The learners can catch the main point in short, clear, simple messages and 

announcements. They were also able to read and understand very short, simple texts such as 

personal letters. The respondents were able to find specific, predictable information in simple 

everyday material such as advertisements, prospectuses, menus, and timetables (Council of Europe, 

2001). 

An independent samples t-test was used to examine whether the experimental and 

comparison groups had similar reading comprehension skills. Even if the mean score differed 

slightly, the difference was insignificant. The independent samples t-test revealed no significant 

differences between the experimental and comparison groups. The independent samples t-test 

assumed that variables were homogeneous enough to carry out a specific type of treatment. As the 

sig. value was more than 0.05, the significant level value indicated that there were no significant 

differences in reading comprehension between the experimental and comparison groups at the first 

level. As a result, we may say that the two groups had nearly identical reading comprehension. 



Atalay Biresaw Lulie & Berhanu Bogale Haile | ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

172 

 

 

The post-test scores of the experimental and comparison groups 

This section discusses whether there was a statistically significant difference between the 

experimental and comparison groups' post-test scores. The mean scores of the two groups were 

computed to examine if there was a significant difference between the experimental and comparison 

groups. The descriptive statistics of the mean scores revealed that there was a difference in the 

experimental and comparison groups' reading comprehension scores. An independent samples t-test 

was used to determine whether or not the difference was statistically significant. The t-test result 

showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the mean scores of the two groups. 

Because the difference between the comparison and experimental groups was large, equal variance 

was not assumed. 

Bown (2017) investigated "Elaborative Feedback to Enhance Online Second Language 

Reading Comprehension" in this regard. A quasi-experimental study was undertaken on 113 male 

Emirati L2 English students aged 20 to 26. According to the findings, elaborative feedback improves 

online L2 reading comprehension, but it must be customized specifically to the needs of the L2 

readers it is intended to help. Abanomey also looked into whether EFL Saudi students performed 

differently in online reading. An exploratory study was carried out on 348 EFL students from 

Riyadh College of Technology who took part in this study. Students that were required to take the 

inherent-based reading test did better than the other group (Abanomey, 2013). 

To summarise, the experimental and control groups' post-test scores differed, and the 

difference was statistically significant. Furthermore, the students' reading skills have improved as a 

result of this online elaborative feedback. The students' reading skills improve as a result of the 

elaborative comments. Because of the intervention of elaborative feedback supplied to the 

experimental group, the post-test scores of the comparison and experimental groups differ 

significantly.  

 

CONCLUSION 

The reading comprehension of freshmen students is found to be below the predicted level. The 

provision of online elaborative feedback has been proven to be quite beneficial in improving student 

performance. The web-based elaborative feedback has greatly improved the students' performance 

by providing advice on how to approach upcoming issues. Students were also taught why a 

particular alternative may not be the correct response for that item. As a result, we must capitalize 

on the significance that online elaborative feedback plays in improving students' reading ability.  

Whether we like it or not, this is the era when technology is best employed and required to 

exchange global knowledge. It is recommended that students be exposed to online assessments with 

elaborative feedback in order to improve their knowledge and skills. Higher learning institutions 

should give their students diagnostic online assessments to clearly identify students' deficiencies for 

further assistance in order to make the required improvement. Furthermore, educators, politicians, 

and the Ministry of Education should think about how to implement this technology. 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

This endeavour would not have been accomplished without the help of many people in our 

community. We are especially grateful to the digital library personnel who provided us with 

unwavering assistance during the project.  Our heartfelt gratitude also goes to the study's 

participants, who were highly motivated and actively involved during the data gathering stage. We 

are grateful to everyone we have had the pleasure of working with during this programme, 

particularly the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature. 

 

FUNDING STATEMENT 

This research received no specific funding from any agency. 

 

REFERENCES 

Abanomey, A. A. (2013). Do EFL Saudi learners perform differently with online reading? An 

exploratory study. Journal of King Saud University - Languages and Translation, 25(1), 1–11. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksult.2012.12.001 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksult.2012.12.001


Atalay Biresaw Lulie & Berhanu Bogale Haile | ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

173 

 

Adams, R. H., & Strickland, J. (2011). The Effects of Computer-Assisted Feedback Strategies in 

Technology Education: A Comparison of Learning Outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology 

Systems, 40(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.40.2.i 

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press. 

Bachman, L. F. (2015). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count 

counts. The University of California. 

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom 

assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148. 

Bown, A. (2017). Elaborative Feedback to Enhance Online Second Language Reading 

Comprehension. English Language Teaching, 10(12). 

Cheng, L., & Fox, J. (2017). Assessment in the language classroom. Queen’s University. 

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, 

Assessment. Cambridge University Press. 

Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, 

assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at. 

Goldhammer, F., Kröhne, U., Keßel, Y., Senkbeil, M., & Ihme, J. M. (2014). Diagnostik von ICT-

Literacy. Diagnostica, 60(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000113 

Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University 

Press. 

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading. Pearson Education Limited. 

Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses. Allyn & Bacon. 

Huff, K. L., & Sireci, S. G. (2005). Validity Issues in Computer-Based Testing. Educational 

Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(3), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-

3992.2001.tb00066.x 

Katz, I. R. (2007). Testing information literacy in digital environments: ETS’s I Skills Assessment. 

Information Technology and Libraries, 26(3), 3–12. 

Ministry of Education. (2015). Education Sector Development Programme V (ESDP V). The Federal 

Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. 

Murphy, P. (2017). Reading comprehension exercises online: The effects of feedback, proficiency, 

and interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 107–129. 

Quellmalz, E. S., & Kozma, R. (2003). Designing Assessments of Learning with Technology. 

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(3), 389–407. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594032000148208 

Teshale, A., & Yemanebirhan, K. (2015). Assessment of the Reading Practices of Students: The 

Case of First Year Natural Science Students of Bonga College of Teachers Education. 

International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 6(2), 19–32. 

 

https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.40.2.i
https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000113
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2001.tb00066.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2001.tb00066.x
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594032000148208

