The Reading Strategist: Quest for Academic Comprehension

The Reading Strategist: Quest for Academic Comprehension is a gamified online platform designed to address persistent challenges in online academic reading among ESL undergraduates. Grounded in research on reading strategy awareness, the innovation targets three domains: Global, Problem-Solving, and Support, through interactive, story-driven missions. Unlike conventional comprehension tools, The Reading Strategist focuses on developing metacognitive skills, enabling learners to identify, practise, and reflect on their strategy use in real time. The platform’s uniqueness lies in its integration of narrative-based gameplay with explicit reading strategy training. A built-in analytics dashboard tracks strategy usage patterns, that provides personalised recommendations and enables instructors to monitor progress. This approach is hoped to transform passive reading into an active, self-regulated learning experience. The relevance to language education is clear: online academic reading is important for higher education success. However, many ESL learners lack the skills or confidence to engage effectively. By gamifying strategy instruction, this innovation addresses motivational barriers, fosters learner autonomy, and supports long term retention of strategies. Key benefits include increased reading engagement, comprehension, and awareness of strategy application. The platform has the potential for commercialisation through institutional adoption, adaptable to various text genres, and commercially viable through integration with learning management systems and publisher partnerships.

Gamification, Metacognitive Skills

1. Abdullahi, A., & Rouyan, N. B. M. (2018). The use of web 2.0 technologies to determine receptive skills among Malay learners of the Arabic language. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 8(9), 651-659. doi: 10.18488/journal.1.2018.89.651.659 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Aljohani, N. R. (2017). A comprehensive review of the major studies and theoretical models of e-learning. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 8(1), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol8no1.23 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Azmuddin, Ruhil Amal, Nor Fariza Mohd Nor, and Afendi Hamat. (2017). “Metacognitive online reading and navigational strategies by science and technology university students.” GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies 17(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baron, N.S., (2021) How We Read Now: Strategic Choices for Print, Screen, and Audio. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Belaman, J. A. X., Hashim, F. B., Zakaria, S. F., & Abd Aziz, A. Online Reading and Reasons for Reading Struggles: A Case Study. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2021). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00262-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chen, K. T.-C. (2023). The correlation of EFL graduate students’ strategies and attitude toward reading English e-journal articles. International Journal of Instruction,16(2),1059–1076. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16256a [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2023). Gamifying learning: What we know and what’s next. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11227-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Firth, J., Torous, J., Stubbs, B., et al. (2019) The ‘online brain’: how the Internet may be changing our cognition. World Psychiatry 18(2): 119–129. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Habók, A., Magyar, A., & Molnár, G. (2024). The impact of gamified learning environments on student motivation and engagement: A large-scale study. Computers & Education, 196, 104720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104720 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? — A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3025–3034). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Jincheng, Z., & Rahmat, N. H. (2022). Investigating the Use of Metacognitive Reading Strategies Using Think Aloud Protocol. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(10), 772 – 784. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Lai, H. K. (2021). The effectiveness of teaching reading skills using communicative approach in Malaysian secondary homeschooling ESL classrooms. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Lam, J., & Hew, K. F. (2022). Using gamification to engage learners in online learning environments: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(1), 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10012-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Lamo, P., Dhuli, R., & Larsari,V. N. (2021). Effects Of Metacognitive Strategies On The English Reading Skill Of Esl Learners: An Evidence-Based Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Laurillard, D. (2013). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Mangen, Anne, Bente R. Walgermo, and Kolbjørn Brønnick. (2013). “Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension.” International Journal of Educational Research 58: 61‒68. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Mokhtari, K., Dimitrov, D. M., & Reichard, C. A. (2018). Revisiting the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory (MARSI). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(6), 998–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417711641 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Sani, S., & Ismail, H. H. (2021). Assessing the Use of Learning Strategies among Young Malaysian English as Second Language Learners. Creative Education, 12, 2124-2145. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2021.129163 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Terranova, T., (2012). Attention, economy and the brain. Culture Machine 13. https://culturemachine.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/465-973-1-PB.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests