字幕表 動画を再生する 英語字幕をプリント Hello, everyone. We are group E. Our group members are: Cindy, Joyce, Francis and Cerina. The study we’re going to present is called “Effects of Mobiled-Assisted Language Learning on EFL/ESL Reading Comprehension” The author is Rui Li and it’s submitted in 2021. And published in 2022, In the Journal: Educational technology and Society. The first Key term we chose is “MALL”, It refers to Mobiled-Assisted Language Learning. Using device Such as ”smartphones, tablets, PDAs to help students learn a language. And ”Reading Comprehension” because this study is focused on how MALL effects on EFL /ESL student’s reading comprehension. Then ,it’s meta-analysis. Although, there are many studies about how using MALL impacts on L2 reading comprehension, the synthesized empirical evidence is still lacking. And compared with the empirical studies, meta-analysis results are more reliable and generalizable, as they are based on results of multiple studies and increased sample sizes. What evidence is summarized? The related primary studies were searched from several electronic online databases such as web of science, Science Direct, Scopus, and ERIC and search engines like Google Scholar and Baidu Scholar. Then, by using a combination of MALL-related and reading-related keywords integrated with Boolean operators. As a result, there were 81 studies identified from the initial literature retrieval. Then there were 21 studies were finalized for meta-analysis with the criteria below. First, publications that were written in English were confined to 2000–2020. This time range was chosen because MALL technologies remained few before 2000. Second, the study should adopt a form of MALL technologies. Such as mobile phones, PDAs, computer tablets or e-readers for EFL/ESL reading comprehension. Those studies that failed to use technologies or used MALL technologies on first or other foreign language reading comprehension were excluded. Third, the publications should contain sufficient statistics for data calculation or transformation of aggregated overall effect sizes. And the qualitative research was excluded, such as learner’s attitudes or perceptions. Then, the researchers designed a coding scheme according to the identification of the publications, the characteristics of the participants, theoretically relevant features of the study and measured variables. They yielded 24 effect sizes as independent studies out of the 21 studies. Why were there only 21 studies but 24 effect sizes? Because multiple effect sizes reported in a single publication involved different participants or different types of measurement were coded separately to ensure the reliability of the analyses. For instance, a quasi-experimental design that compared two experimental groups and one control group. The effect sizes were coded separately, since EFL learners of the experimental groups that involved different participants used a mobile language management system, while those of the control group adopted the traditional approach. Furthermore, they excluded the extreme effect sizes that were more than 3 standard deviations from the mean of all the effect sizes. Finally, they yielded 20 effect sizes as independent studies for the final analysis out of 17 studies.