Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 – 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
1
Assessment strategies and English-reading skills in
web-based learning environments
Estrategias de evaluación y destrezas de lectura en inglés en
ambientes de aprendizaje virtual
Recibido: 2024/12/20- Aceptado: 2025/01/20 – Publicado: 2025/01/31
Emily Juliet Cueva Criollo
emilyjulietc@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0289-1025
Marcia Iliana Criollo Vargas
marciacv4@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5326-2456
Miriam Eucevia Troya Sánchez
mrmtry@yahoo.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7798-8684
Resumen
La aplicación de estrategias de evaluación efectivas para evaluar las habilidades de
lectura en entornos basados en la web presenta desafíos únicos. El estudio tiene como objetivo
examinar las estrategias de evaluación empleadas por los docentes y su impacto en las
habilidades de lectura en inglés entre estudiantes universitarios en entornos virtuales. Se utilizó
un enfoque metodológico de comparación, incorporando datos tanto cualitativos como
cuantitativos de 287 estudiantes universitarios y 10 docentes. La recolección de datos implicó
una encuesta escala Likert aplicada a docentes y una prueba de rendimiento a estudiantes. Los
resultados indicaron que la evaluación formativa fue la estrategia más utilizada, con preferencia
por preguntas de opción múltiple y de verdadero-falso. Además, se empleó con frecuencia el
proceso de lectura de arriba hacia abajo, centrándose en la comprensión superficial. Tanto las
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
2
evaluaciones de forma sincrónicas como en ambientes asincrónicas fueron recibidas
positivamente, con una ligera preferencia por los ambientes asincrónicos. En general, las
estrategias de evaluación implementadas por los docentes tuvieron un impacto positivo en el
nivel de habilidades de lectura de los estudiantes en el idioma inglés, que fueron calificadas
como “excelentes” en entornos de aprendizaje basados en la web.
Palabras clave
Estrategias de evaluación, habilidades de lectura, entornos de aprendizaje web,
dominio del idioma inglés.
Abstract
Applying effective assessment strategies to evaluate reading skills in web-based
environments presents unique challenges. The study aims to examine the assessment strategies
employed by teachers and their impact on English language reading skills among university
students in virtual settings. A comparison methodology approach was used, incorporating both
qualitative and quantitative data from 287 university students and 10 teachers. Data collection
involved a Likert-scale survey applied to teachers and an achievement test for students. The
results indicated that formative assessment was the most commonly used strategy, with a
preference for multiple-choice and true-false questions. Additionally, the top-down reading
process was frequently employed, focusing on surface-level comprehension. Both synchronous
and asynchronous assessments were positively received, with a slight preference for
asynchronous setting. Overall, the assessment strategies implemented by teachers had a
positive impact on students’ Level of proficiency in English language reading skills, which
were rated at an “excellent” level in web-based learning environments.
Keywords
Assessment strategies, reading skills, web-based learning environments, English
language proficiency.
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
3
Introduction
Reading skills are indispensable for communication when learning English, as they assist
with vocabulary acquisition, pronunciation, information and input for acquiring the target
language. However, as mentioned by Huh and Hirumi (2011) “there is a dearth of studies and
information on how to address reading problems at a distance” (p.279). This challenge needs to
be researched in order to determine if the assessment strategies affect the development of reading
skills.
The rapid expansion of technology in educational environments has revolutionized
traditional classroom settings, enhancing learning by making education more accessible and cost-
effective (Haleem et al., 2022). This transformation became particularly pronounced after the
Pandemic COVID-19, which accelerated the shift to web-based learning, providing
unprecedented access to educational opportunities. However, alongside these advantages,
significant challenges have emerged, particularly concerning the assessment of English language
reading skills in this modality. Kaya (2015) highlights that reading skills are vital for
comprehension, a critical component for effectively understanding written material, whether for
pleasure or informational purposes. Furthermore, reading aloud plays a dynamic role in
developing pronunciation and communicational skills (Suryana et al., 2020); while Pigada &
Schmitt (2006) state that reading supports vocabulary acquisition, making learners more
proficient in their target language.
Despite the recognized importance of reading skills in the English teaching learning
process, assessing these skills remains a complex challenge due to its multifaceted nature, which
includes many subskills such as comprehension, understanding the main idea, recognizing details,
text-type recognition, sequence arrangement, prediction type of questions in assessing. This issue
represents an evident gap in the English language learning, that is why this research results
important in the field of education. Incorporating web-based learning into the assessment process
complicates these challenges further. For instance, Hassan and Ahmed (2023) note that academic
dishonesty poses a significant barrier to accurately assessing reading skills in online learning
environments.
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
4
Considering the complexities of assessing reading skills, there is a need to analyze the
relationship between the teacher’s reading assessments strategies and students’ reading skills in
web-based learning environments. Understanding these strategies is necessary to overcome the
challenges in the development of defective reading understanding. This research aims to find out
how different assessment strategies used by teachers impact student’s reading skills within web-
based environments. While platforms provide flexibility, they often lack teachers’ immediate
feedback to assess students’ reading skills.
This study was conducted in a higher education institution where teachers manage large
groups of students in teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Synchronous sessions
effectively mimic face-to-face interaction, providing opportunities for dynamic assessment and
engagement. However, asynchronous settings offer flexibility for students to engage with content
at their own pace, presenting an alternative for diverse learning needs. The findings highlight the
importance of further research with larger, more diverse populations to refine assessment
strategies for reading skills in web-based environments (Saefurrohman & Susiloningtyas, 2022).
Additionally, as Huh and Hirumi (2011) emphasize, addressing reading challenges in remote
learning contexts remains a valuable area for exploration and innovation.
Literature Review
Assessment Definition
Black and William (1998) define assessment as activities conducted by both teachers and
students to gather information that serves as feedback, leading to improvements in teaching and
learning. As Cheng and Fox (2017) explain assessment is a multidimensional process that
includes: (1) self-assessment is when students evaluate their own progress, peer-assessment when
students assess each other’s work, formal assessment such as International standardized tests such
as the TOEFL test; and informal assessment which are the daily assessments in the classroom.
Assessment Strategies in Web-based Learning
Dahalan & Hussain (2010) define assessment in web-based learning as evaluating student
achievement in online instruction. Teachers and students use results for reflection and
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
5
improvement. Common web-based assessment strategies include: Online quizzes and tests:
Provide immediate feedback, allowing students to identify areas for improvement. E-portfolios:
Track student progress and showcase learning over time. Project-based tasks: Assess a
combination of theoretical and practical skills, with methods such as case-based and performance-
based assessments (Van den Bergh et al., 2006a).
Types of Questions in Reading Assessment
Several types of questions assess English reading skills:
● Cloze tests: Students fill in blanks in a text to assess comprehension (Brown, 2004).
● Multiple-choice questions (MCQs): Test reading sub skills such as skimming,
scanning, and inferring (Ajideh & Mozaffarzadeh, 2012b)
● Retelling: Students recount a text in their own words to assess comprehension and recall
(Gunning, 2014).
● Matching: Students match headings or sentences to evaluate understanding of main
ideas.
● True-False: Assesses comprehension by identifying specific information in a text.
● Fill-in-the-gaps: Tests vocabulary and sentence structure by completing texts.
● Sequencing: Requires students to order events or ideas logically, enhancing critical
thinking (Baxodirovna, 2020).
Formative and Summative Assessment
Cheng & Fox (2017) define formative assessment as an ongoing process that supports
learning throughout the instructional period, aligned with assessment for learning. Summative
assessment evaluates overall learning at the end of a unit or course, aligned with assessment of
learning.
Synchronous and Asynchronous Environements
According to Gava (2011), web-based learning environments include two types of
communication: Synchronous: Real-time interactions via tools like Zoom or Google Meet.
Asynchronous: Delayed communication through emails, discussion forums, and educational
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
6
platforms like Moodle, Canvas and others. These platforms offer a variety of tools to support
learning, including quizzes, assignments, and instant messaging.
Reading Skills Overview
Reading is a fundamental skill that enables the identification, understanding, and
comprehension of written texts, making it essential for language acquisition and communication.
Scholars such as Arbandari et al. (2022) and Mastrothanasis et al., (2023) highlight its importance
in language learning, especially within English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts, where
reading proficiency is a key for academic success.
Reading Assessment Strategies
Effective assessment of reading skills plays an important role for determining learner’s
proficiency and areas of improvement. (Adcock, 1993) suggests a comprehensive framework for
assessing reading strategies, focusing on key areas, such as identifying the main idea, recalling
facts, understanding sequence, and distinguishing between fact and opinion. These assessments
help teachers evaluate students’ abilities to comprehend texts and apply critical thinking skills.
Sub-skills of Reading
Reading comprehension is an integral process involving many subskills. These are
scanning, skimming, inferring meaning, and predicting content. Scanning refers to quickly
locating specific information in a text, while skimming refers to getting the gist or general idea
of a passage. Inferring meaning helps readers deduce unknown words or phrases using context;
and predicting means anticipating the content based on prior knowledge and textual clues.
(Macleod, 2018; Greenall & Swan, 1986). These sub skills are important for efficient and
effective reading in both academic and everyday contexts.
Reading Processes
Ardhani (2011) identifies two primary processes involved in reading comprehension: the
top-down and bottom-up approaches. The top-down process emphasizes the reader's background
knowledge, allowing them to draw on prior experiences and contextual understanding to interpret
and make sense of the text as a whole. This approach highlights the importance of schema theory,
where readers integrate existing knowledge with new information to construct meaning.
Conversely, the bottom-up process is more linear, starting with the recognition of fundamental
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
7
linguistic elements such as word meanings, phrases, and grammatical structures. These
components are gradually pieced together to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the text.
Together, these processes demonstrate the interplay between cognitive frameworks and linguistic
proficiency in the development of effective reading comprehension.
Feedback
Feedback is the process of “giving information in a way that encourages the recipient to
accept it, reflect on it, learn from it, use it, and hopefully make changes for the better” (Obilor,
2019, p. 40). In web-based learning environments, teachers can provide immediate feedback
during synchronous classes, offering real-time guidance and support. Additionally, they can
deliver delayed feedback using various tools such as email, audio and video recording,
screencasts, or recycled comments. These strategies encourage students reflect to reflect on their
learning, fostering critical thinking and promoting independence as learners (Mamoon et al.,
2016).
Material and Methods
The design of this study is comparative with a mixed focus responding to a quantitative
and qualitative approach, as it involves gathering numerical and categorial data. This method is
effective for obtaining quantitative information from a large sample or an entire population
because the results can be generalized to the broader population. Surveys with standardized
questions, were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics (Rana et al., 2020).
The method was hypothetic-deductive method, which is called scientific method. The
main purpose focused on the statement of research questions that guided the research process,
and by deducing the findings that the study might derive after finishing it. According to Tariq
(2015), the hypothetic deductive method allows the researcher to prove a theory derived from a
research problem or a gap.
The population of this study are students who belong to the Language Institute at a public
Institution of Higher Education in Loja, Ecuador. The population includes four groups, totaling
412 participants. The instruments were administered to a sample of 278 students, representing the
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
8
majority of the population, which enhances the reliability of the study. The participants share
similar characteristics regarding the A2.1. level of English Knowledge, and modality of study
who learn English through web-based learning by developing in synchronous and asynchronous
sessions. Moreover, 10 professors participated in the study, who are the ones teaching the
students’ group of participants.
The instruments and techniques that were used to collect data are described as follows:
The survey technique with the instruments of a questionnaire was used to collect information
from teachers. Surveys are useful to research about opinions, beliefs, perceptions, attitudes and
issues of individuals (Creswell, 2012). It used the Liker’s scale with a five-parameters scale which
goes from strongly agree to strongly disagree. This instrument gathered information about the
strategies that teacher uses in assessment reading skills as well as about the students’ perceptions
about these strategies.
The testing technique was used by administering an achievement test which served to
collect data about the knowledge of the students average in reading. The test was administered to
assess students' proficiency in English reading skills through five targeted questions. The first
question (6 items) evaluated skimming skills, or the ability to grasp the main idea. The second
question (5 items) assessed scanning skills, focusing on understanding specific details. The third
question (6 items) measured vocabulary comprehension within context. The fourth question (6
items) tested sequencing skills, and the fifth question (4 items) evaluated predictive abilities based
on the text. Tests in education can facilitate a comparative analysis of data in correlational studies
(Hamed Taherdoost, 2021).
Additionally, the test and the questionnaire underwent two validation processes: construct
validation, achieved through theoretical analysis, and external validation conducted by three
experts in the field. These steps enhanced the reliability of the instruments.
Considering the study's design, the data were represented in tables and graphs using the
JAMOVI program to calculate percentages and measures of central tendency in the test. The
results from the teachers' survey were analyzed through thematic analysis and descriptive
statistical processes and the test was measured with a scale of excellent to insufficient.
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
9
Results:
Objective One:
To identify the assessment strategies that teachers use for assessing reading skills in web-
based learning environments among university students.
Assessment strategies applied by the teachers
Table 1
Types of assessment
Assessment strategies
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Total
Use of portfolios in
assessing reading skills
20.0 %
10.0 %
10.0 %
10.0 %
100
Use of projects in
assessing reading skills
50.0 %
10.0 %
0%
0%
100
Formative Assessment
80.0 %
0%
0%
0%
100
Summative assessment
60.0 %
20.0 %
0%
0%
100
Tmely Feedback
Feedback
40.0 %
20.0 %
10.0 %
0%
100
The present table deals with the assessment strategies that are most commonly used within
educational settings, specifically with the purpose of assessing reading skills. Five assessment
strategies were presented and rated using a five-point Likert Scale, ranging from strongly agree
to strongly disagree.
Table 1 shows that the use of portfolios in assessing reading skills received mixed
responses. For instance, 20% of respondents strongly agree on the usage of portfolios for reading
assessment, while 50% agree but with slightly less intensity. On the other hand, 10% of
respondents are indifferent, 10% disagree and the remaining 10% strongly disagree. This
distribution of responses suggests that portfolios are perceived as useful by the majority of
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
10
participants, yet a significant minority are either indifferent or doubtful about the potential value
that portfolios could have in the field of reading assessment.
Alongside this, the use of project-based assessment in reading skills has a more significant
level of support, with 50% of the teachers strongly agreeing about that, and 40% agreeing,
showing that these activities also are used as formative assessment in improving reading skills.
The remaining 10% of teachers showed a neutral stance, and not a single participant issued a
negative response against the use of projects. These results indicate that projects are widely
deemed as a beneficial and effective assessment strategy.
Moreover, formative assessment is the assessment strategy that received the highest
support by teachers, with 80% strongly agreeing on their usage and 20% agreeing. No respondents
were neutral or had a negative response to this assessment strategy. This indicates an
overwhelming and almost complete strong approval of formative assessment, being deemed as
essential for effective assessment of reading skills.
As for summative assessment, 60% of participants strongly agree with its usage, with 20%
agreeing. Nevertheless, the remaining 20% of teachers choose to stay neutral, suggesting certain
level of skepticism on this form of assessment regarding reading skills. These findings illustrate
that while the majority of teachers expressed positive perceptions about the use of summative
assessment, there is some level of hesitation by some of them. However, not one participant
disagreed or strongly disagreed, positively reflecting on using this assessment strategy.
Timely feedback has mixed results, with 40% strongly agree, 30% agree which indicates
an overall positive trend in the support of using this assessment strategy. However, 20% remain
neutral and 10% disagree, suggesting that while timely feedback is accepted by most of teacher
as useful, some participants are either unconcerned or hesitant about its efficiency and usefulness.
All in all, the data described in Table 1 highlights that the most widely accepted
assessment strategy for reading skills is formative assessment, followed by summative
assessment, regular feedback, and projects, all of which are also heavily supported, although with
varying degrees of interest. However, portfolio assessment showed the most diverse responses,
suggesting mixed opinions on their usefulness and effectiveness.
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
11
Table 2
Types of Questions in Reading Assessment
Types of Questions
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Total
Multiple Choice and
true or False questions
50.0 %
30.0 %
20.0 %
0%
0%
100%
Completing sentences
and fill in gaps
40%
40%
10%
10%
0%
100%
Sequencing passages
40%
40%
20%
0 %
0%
100%
Matching sentences
20.0 %
70.0 %
10.0 %
0%
0%
100%
Table 2 is concerned with the most common types of questions implemented while
assessing reading skills. Four categories were proposed some of them being multiple-choice
questions, sequencing passages, and so on. A Likert Scale was used to measure the level of
agreement that participants had regarding each type of question used in reading assessment.
To start, regarding to multiple choice and true/false questions are particularly used by
teachers, with 50% of respondents strongly agree and 30% agree in testing the ability to identify
key details and main ideas in reading skills; while 20% are neutral, showing less acceptance for
these types of questions. Importantly, no respondents disagree or strongly disagree, a fact that
positively reflects on the general acceptance that Multiple choice and True and False questions
are effective in the field of assessing reading skills.
Likewise, completing sentences and fill-in-the-gap questions receive dense support, with
40% of respondents each strongly agree and agree. This means that teachers positively view these
types of questions and they are very likely to use or have used in assessing reading skills.
However, 10% of the teachers remain neutral and 10% disagree, indicating that while these
questions are generally accepted there is a level of reluctance and uncertainty about their value in
reading assessment.
Furthermore, sequencing passages questions has positive responses, as well. The 80% of
teachers’ responses are equally distributed by strongly agree and agree, with the remaining 20%
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
12
selecting a neutral stance. There are no negative responses for this type of question, which
illustrates that sequencing passage questions are generally favored with slight hesitation or
indifference issued by English teachers.
As the last type of question, which is “Matching sentences”, with 20% of participants
strongly agreeing, and with a significant 70% agreeing. Notably, only 10% of respondents remain
neutral, with no negative responses. This reflects a positive use of this type of questions, but with
slightly less interest, since most of teachers agree, instead of strongly agreeing.
Overall, multiple-choice and true/false questions are the most preferred formats among
teachers for assessing reading skills. These are followed by matching questions and sequencing
passage formats, which are also accepted but tend to elicit slightly more neutral or mixed
perceptions regarding their application in assessing reading skills.
Table 3
Types of reading
Types of Reading
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagr
ee
Total
Intensive Reading
30.0 %
0%
0%
0%
100%
Extensive Reading
63.6 %
9.1 %
0%
0%
100%
Table 3 represents teachers' perceptions of the two most common types of reading,
intensive reading and extensive reading. Furthermore, a five-point Likert scale was used to
measure educators’ agreement with the usage of shorter or longer texts in assessing reading skills
during class.
Starting with intensive reading, there is an overwhelming 70% of teachers who strongly
agree with its use, while the remaining 30% agree. There are no neutral or negative responses for
this type of reading, which indicates that intensive reading is considered by teachers as highly
applied for assessing reading skills.
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
13
On the other hand, extensive reading received mixed responses, with answers spread
throughout the scale. For instance, only 10% of teachers strongly agree with using extensive
reading, and 30% agree. Moreover, 20% remain neutral, 30% disagree, and 10% strongly disagree
on its use. This illustrates that while some teachers believe that extensive reading could be
beneficial, although not as enthusiastically as with intensive reading strategies, another significant
percentage are hesitant and skeptical about using it with students in synchronous environments,
better preferring to expose them to shorter texts through intensive reading.
On the whole, intensive reading is valued more actively by teachers, with all of them either
strongly agreeing or agreeing. However, extensive reading rises mixed responses, still being
appreciated but by a smaller amount, and with somewhat less enthusiasm. This means that
teachers prefer to use shorter and more precise texts for assessing reading skills, rather than using
longer texts like books to assess reading skills.
Table 4
Reading processes
Reading Processes
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagr
ee
Total
Top-down reading process
50%
40%
10%
0 %
0%
100%
Bottom-up reading process
30%
70.0 
%
0%
0%
0%
100%
Table 4 presents respondents’ levels of agreement with the usage of either top-down or
bottom-up reading processes. For the measurement, a Likert scale was used with responses
ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
As for the top-down reading process 50% of teachers strongly agree, and 40% agree,
indicating strong support for its use in reading tasks that emphasize contextual understanding and
inferencing. Meanwhile, the bottom-up process, which focuses on detailed comprehension and
textual analysis, received 30% strongly agree and 70% agree, suggesting a broader favorability
for assessing students’ reading skills among the teachers.
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
14
All things considered, the absence data in disagreement for either process underscores the
perceived importance of both strategies in assessing reading skills with a slightly inclination
toward bottom-up methods.
Table 5
Synchronous assessment and Feedback
Learning Environment
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disag
ree
Total
Synchronous (live)
assessment
30%
50%
10%
10%
0%
100%
Synchronous Feedback
40%
50%
10%
0 %
0%
100%
Asynchronous assessment
50 %
40 %
10 %
0 %
0%
100%
Asynchronous Feedback
60%
30%
10%
0 %
0%
100%
Table 5 presents the agreement expressed by participants regarding being assessed
through synchronous (live) assessments and receiving synchronous feedback, as well as their
agreement regarding being assessed and receiving feedback in asynchronous environments.
Responses are measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree.”
Regarding synchronous assessment, 30% of respondents strongly agree, while 50% agree,
this indicates a wide acceptance of this type of assessment, with the majority of responses being
positive. Moreover, 10% of participants choose to remain neutral, and the other 10% disagree.
This means that while synchronous assessment is highly supported by the majority of teachers,
there exists a minimal number of teachers who are indifferent about its value in assessing reading
skills.
In terms of synchronous feedback, the support is even more significant, with 50% strongly
agreeing on its usage, and 40% agreeing. This illustrates an almost complete support of using this
kind of feedback, with only 10% of participants choosing to remain neutral. The lack of negative
responses positively reflects on the acceptance of synchronous feedback, with very minimal
hesitancy on the part of some teachers.
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
15
The data indicates that participants generally favor asynchronous assessment and feedback
over synchronous (live) methods. For asynchronous assessment, 50% of teachers strongly agree
with its effectiveness, compared to 30% for synchronous assessment. Similarly, asynchronous
feedback has the highest level of strong agreement at 60%, whereas synchronous feedback stands
at 40%. Although "agree" responses are high for both environments, asynchronous assessment
have a slightly higher percentage in agreement 50% for both assessment and feedback, than their
asynchronous counterparts 40% for assessment and 30% for feedback. Neutral and disagreement
responses remain low across both types, with only 10% disagreeing with synchronous assessment.
This suggests a clear preference for asynchronous reading assessment in reading skills,
particularly in providing feedback.
To sum up, with no negative responses on either asynchronous assessment or feedback,
this assessment environment remains highly supported by teachers. Additionally, the lack of
negative responses, highlights teachers’ confidence in the usefulness and effectiveness of
asynchronous environments in assessing reading skills, with slightly more acceptance and support
for asynchronous feedback
Objective Two:
To determine the students' level of proficiency in English language reading skills.
Students’ proficiency level in Reading Skills
Table 6
Descriptive Results about the test scores
Descriptive
Reading Test Average
N
278
Lost
0
Mean
15.7
Median
17.0
Standard Deviation
4.22
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
16
Descriptive
Reading Test Average
Mínimium
3
Máximium
22
In a reading achievement test taken by 278 students, the average score was 15.7 out of a
possible 22, suggesting a generally positive performance level from the group. The median score
was slightly higher at 17.0, indicating that more than half of the students scored above the mean,
which suggests a positive skew and a tendency for students to perform relatively well.
The standard deviation of 4.22 points reveals moderate variability, implying that most
students' scores fell within a range of approximately 4.22 points above or below the mean. This
variability indicates differences in reading proficiency, with some students scoring significantly
higher or lower than the average.
The range of scores, from a minimum of 3 to a maximum of 22, underscores a broad
spectrum of abilities, highlighting that while some students demonstrated high reading skills,
others struggled in reading skills. This spread in scores suggests potential areas for targeted
intervention to support lower-performing students and help bridge performance gaps, while also
recognizing the achievements of higher-scoring students. Overall, the data reflects a group with
generally strong reading skills but also points to a need for differentiated support to address the
varied performance levels among students.
Table 7
Reading Test Average
Reading Test Average
Frequencies
% Percentage
Excellent (22-16.6)
142
51 %
Good (16.5-11.1)
92
33 %
Regular (11-5.6)
34
12 %
Insufficient (5.5-0)
10
4 %
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
17
Total
278
100%
An achievement test was administered to determine students' proficiency in English
reading skills. The test consisted of five questions, each with a distinct purpose. The first question,
which included six items, aimed to assess students' skimming strategy, or their ability to
understand the main idea of a text. The second question, with five items, measured the scanning
strategy, which reflects the ability to identify specific details. The third question, containing six
items, was designed to evaluate students’ understanding of vocabulary in context. The fourth
question, also with six items, assessed students’ ability to sequence ideas from the text, Finally,
the fifth question, which included four items, evaluated the ability to make predictions based on
the text.
The table 7 shows that 51% of students got a score between 16.6 and 22 out of 22 points,
which is equivalent to an “excellent” grade on the reading test. The results evidence that over half
of the students demonstrated a high level of reading proficiency, meeting the expected standards.
Additionally, 33% of students scored within the range of 11.1 and 16.5 which represent a “good”
score whose achievement shows a solid understanding in reading texts. Meanwhile 12% reached
scores between 5.6 and 11 corresponding to a “Regular” rating. Finally, 4% of participants scored
between 0 and 5.5 which is classified as “insufficient” rating. This small group likely faces
significant challenges in reading skills.
In a general analysis of the results the scores reached by students are outstanding in the
test about reading proficiency. Only a minimal group of students show low scores which
evidences the importance of providing tailored support to bridge the gap in reading achievement
and ensure all students reach the expected level of proficiency.
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
18
Discussion
In the first place, the first sub-question goes as follows: What are the assessment strategies
that teachers use for assessing reading skills through web-based learning environments at the
Language Institute of Universidad Nacional de Loja? This question can be answered by
addressing the findings gathered using the survey directed to teachers regarding their reading
assessment practices. First, as portrayed in Table 1, formative assessment is the most commonly
used assessment strategy, followed by summative assessment, then projects, followed by regular
feedback, and portfolios, as the least used strategy. These findings can be compared to the claims
made by Cheng & Fox (2017), who assert that formative assessment is an ongoing process that
takes place constantly throughout the instructional periods, so it is only natural that formative
assessment is the most common assessment strategy used by educators for assessing students’
reading skills. Moreover, to continue analyzing teachers’ assessment practices, mentioning the
most common questions used in reading assessment is imperative. In this field, Multiple Choice
and True or False questions take the stand of most common questions, followed by both
Completing sentences and Fill in gaps questions and Sequencing passages, with the same amount
of popularity, Matching sentences being the least favored. These results align with the claims
made by authors who recognize that multiple-choice questions are widely used because their
effectively measure factual knowledge and understanding of specific details, as well as their ease
in scoring tests. True-False questions are valuable for testing students' understanding of key
concepts. Sentence completion tasks help to assess the recall of specific terms, concepts, or facts,
as well as comprehension and critical thinking. Sequencing questions are useful for understanding
the logical order of events and analyzing the relationships and connections between them,
particularly in reading assessments (Ajideh & Mozaffarzadeh, 2012; Baxodirovna, 2020; Brown,
2004).
Continuing with the type of reading favored between intensive and extensive reading, the
results indicated a higher level of support for intensive reading. This is reflected back on the types
of questions most commonly used, since they focus on more specific details, instead of assessing
reading through extensive reading. Because, as Brown (2004) mentions, extensive reading taps
into learners’ general knowledge and understanding of the text, rather than small details.
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
19
Consequently, the preferred reading process by teachers is the bottom-up reading process
to assess reading skills, this aligns the findings of the most commonly used intensive type of
reading because as acknowledged by top-down processing is favored for most extensive tasks due
to this process requires from the readers prior knowledge, comprehension and language skills to
understand the context and meaning of the text (Ardhani, 2011). Brown, (2004) also explains that
the bottom-up reading process enables learners to first grasp letters, morphemes, syllables, words,
phrases, grammatical structures, and discourse markers, and then use a processing mechanism to
create reasonable, coherent, and meaningful understanding of the text. And, considering that
intensive reading is favorite, then it is only fair that the bottom-up reading process is favored, as
well.
Lastly, regarding synchronous and asynchronous assessment and feedback, both are
positively received by teachers in evaluating reading skills. However, asynchronous assessment
is slightly more favored, while synchronous feedback is considered more beneficial. These
findings align with the claims of Gava (2011), who states that web-based learning environments
are becoming indispensable in second language (L2) learning. They provide a wide range of tools
to foster collaborative learning and interaction, supporting learners in becoming more effective
communicators and users of English as a foreign language (EFL).
Regarding to the subquestion: What are the students’ perceptions about the assessment
strategies used by teachers in assessing English reading skills in web-based learning
environments?
The second sub-question that inquiries about students’ level of proficiency in English
language reading skills can be answered by addressing the findings gathered using the
achievement test. As illustrated in Table 7, over half of the total students demonstrate excellent
proficiency in English reading skills, being able to accurately and proficiently skim and scan a
text, understand vocabulary in context, sequence ideas, and make predictions.
Likewise, with no less merit, more than a third of participants show good reading skills.
Only very few participants have either regular or insufficient reading proficiency. These findings
show that the majority of students at the Language Institute of Universidad Nacional de Loja
possess satisfactory English reading skills. These results align with Tomlinson and Whittaker's
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
20
(2011) acknowledgment that web-based environments offer more opportunities for self-study and
autonomy, provided that teachers implement an appropriate mix of synchronous and
asynchronous sessions, and learners have access to adequate technological tools and internet
connectivity to support effective reading assessment practices. Therefore, the students at the
Language Institute, who are learning English as a foreign language (EFL) through web-based
environments, have demonstrated that their reading skills remain strong despite the challenges
associated with virtual learning. These results align with the findings (Dahalan & Hussain, 2010)
who state that web-based environments offer learners greater flexible to read at their own pace
while providing opportunities for self-reflection and self-correction. These findings suggest that
the learning setting itself does not hinder students’ ability to improve their reading proficiency.
Conclusions
Formative assessments were the most commonly used strategy, followed by summative
assessments, reading projects, feedback and portfolios being the least used. The findings suggest
that these strategies are the most used by the teachers to effective assess reading skills in web-
based learning environments.
A preference for multiple choice and true/false types of questions in reading assessment
was observed. These types of questions emphasize surface-level comprehension and recall of the
information, aligning partially with the top-down reading process, which relies in prior
knowledge and contextual understanding. While, teachers focus on a preference for intensive
reading which reflects a bottom-up reading process, prioritizing detailed comprehension over
broader understanding.
Both synchronous and asynchronous assessments were well-received by teachers and
students. However, students showed a slight preference for asynchronous settings when it came
to reading assessments. These results propose that the type of learning environment, particularly
in web-based learning, does not inherently hinder the development of reading skills.
Regarding the proficiency of students' reading skills, the majority demonstrated
satisfactory performance in web-based learning environments. These findings advocate that the
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
21
reading strategies employed by teachers positively impact students' reading skills in web-based
learning environments.
Contribución De Los Autores
EJCC: Title, Literature review, Material and methods, Results, and discussion.
METS: Introduction, Conclusions, and Revision of the work.
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
22
Referencias
Adcock, D. (1993). Comprehensve Assessment of Reading Strategies (I. Curriculum
Associates (ed.), Oregon, USA.
Ajideh, P., & Mozaffarzadeh, S. (2012). C-test vs. multiple-choice cloze test as tests of
reading comprehension in Iranian EFL context: Learners’ perspective. English
Language Teaching, 5(11), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n11p143
Ajideh, P., & Mozaffarzadeh, S. (2012b). C-test vs. Multiple-choice Cloze Test as Tests of
Reading Comprehension in Iranian EFL Context: Learners’ Perspective. English
Language Teaching, 5(11). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n11p143
Arbandari, R., Azhar, F., & Erni, E. (2022). The Effect of Pqrst (Preview, Question, Read,
Summary, and Test) Strategy on Reading Comprehension At First-Grade Students of
Sman 1 Sabak Auh Siak. JOURNAL PAJAR (Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran), 6(2), 466.
https://doi.org/10.33578/pjr.v6i2.8714
Ardhani, R. R. V. K. (2011). The Effectiveness of Bottom-Up And Topdown Approaches In
The Reading Comprehension Skill For Junior High School Students. Journal of English
and Education (JEE), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.20885/jee.v5i2.5618
Baxodirovna, B. U. (2020). Reading sequences and principles in teaching English.
Academicia: An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 10(6), 704.
https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-7137.2020.00636.9
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices.
LOGMAN.
Cheng, L., & Fox, J. (2017). Assessment in the Language Classroom (Palgrave (1
st
ed.);
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
23
Issue 112). Mackmillan. London, U.K.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research. In Educational Research: Planning,
Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (Fourth edi).
Pearson.
Dahalan, H. M., & Hussain, R. M. R. (2010). Development of Web-based Assessment in
Teaching and Learning Management System (e-ATLMS). Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 9, 244–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.144
El Hassan, F. A. M., & Ahmed, R. B. A. (2023). EFL Teachers’ Challenges on the Usage of
Online Assessment Methods. International Journal of English Language Teaching,
11(5), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.37745/ijelt.13/vol11n5111
Gava, I. (2011). The Collaborative Construction of Knowledge through Online Forums and
Blogging in an EFL Undergraduate Class (Issue November). National University of
Córdoba, Argentina.
Greenall, S., & Swan, M. (1986). Effective Reading: reading skills for advanced students.
Teacher’s Book. Cambridge University Press. www.cambridge.org
Gunning, T. G. (2014). Creating Literacy Instruction for All Students. Pearson.Eighth
Edition, United Sates of América
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital
technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers,
3(February), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
Hamed Taherdoost. (2021). Data Collection Methods and Tools for Research; A Step-by-Step
Guide to Choose Data Collection Technique for Academic and Business Research
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
24
Projects Authors. International Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM),
2021(1), 10–38. https://hal.science/hal-03741847
Huh, J., & Hirumi, A. (2011). Reading Assessment Strategies for Online Learners. Handbook
of Research on Instructional Systems and Technology, 560–570.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-865-9.ch039
Kaya, E. (2015). The Role of Reading Skills on Reading Comprehension Ability of Turkish
EFL Students. ÜNİVERSİTEPARK Bülten, 4(1–2), 37–51.
https://doi.org/10.12973/unibulletin.412.4
Mamoon, Kabir, & Ismat. (2016). The Value and Effectiveness of Feedback in Improving
Students’ Learning and Professionalizing Teaching in Higher Education. Journal of
Education and Practice, 7(16), 38–41. www.iiste.org
Mastrothanasis, K., Kladaki, M., & Andreou, A. (2023). A systematic review and meta-
analysis of the Readers’ Theatre impact on the development of reading skills.
International Journal of Educational Research Open, 4(February), 100243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100243
Obilor, E. I. (2019). Feedback and Students’ Learning. International Journal of Innovative
Research in Education, 7(2), 40–47. www.seahipaj.org
Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case
study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 1–28. http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl
Rana, J., Lorena, P., Gutierrez, L., & Oldroyd, J. (2020). Global Encyclopedia of Public
Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Global Encyclopedia of Public
Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, June 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-31816-5
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
25
Saefurrohman, S., & Susiloningtyas, R. (2022). Assessment Strategies in Reading Class
through Blended Learning. Proceedings Series on Physical & Formal Sciences, 3, 120–
122. https://doi.org/10.30595/pspfs.v3i.275
Suryana, I., Hidantikarnillah, V., & Ikmi Nur Oktavianti. (2020). Enhancing Students’
English Speaking Skills through Web-Based Teaching. Eduvelop, 3(2), 90–104.
https://doi.org/10.31605/eduvelop.v3i2.601
Tariq, M. U. (2015). HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD : A COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD : A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS.
April.
Van den Bergh, V., Mortelmans, D., Spooren, P., Van Petegem, P., Gijbels, D., &
Vanthournout, G. (2006b). New Assessment Modes within project-based education-
The stakeholders. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(4), 345–368.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2006.10.005
Revista INNDEV. ISSN 2773-7640. Diciembre 2024-Marzo 2025. Vol. 3, Núm 3, P. 1 - 26.
https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.140
26
Copyright (2024) © Emily Cueva, Marcia Criollo, Miriam Troya.
Este texto está protegido bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons 4.0.
Usted tiene libertad de Compartir—copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato — y
Adaptar el documento — remezclar, transformar y crear a partir del material—para cualquier propósito,
incluso para fines comerciales, siempre que cumpla las condiciones de Atribución. Usted debe dar
crédito a la obra original de manera adecuada, proporcionar un enlace a la licencia, e indicar si se han
realizado cambios. Puede hacerlo en cualquier forma razonable, pero no de forma tal que sugiera que
tiene el apoyo del licenciante o lo recibe por el uso que hace de la obra.
Resumen de licencia – Texto completo de la licencia