Task-oriented reading can be defined as an adaptive problem-solving process in which readers use parts of texts based on their relevance for a specific learning task. In past research, a lot of attention has been given to the importance of text representation, however, the reading task itself can pose a challenge for reading to learn. Thus, text representation (Kintsch, 1986) and task representation need to be connected (Britt et al., 2017; Cerdán et al., 2008; Rouet, 2011). In higher education, students are challenged to integrate more and more complex information, often in a short period of time, requiring the ability to efficiently search and select text parts that are relevant for the given learning task. The MD-TRACE model (Multiple Documents Task-Based Relevance Assessment and Content Extraction) (Rouet, 2011), specifies the process of task-oriented reading, in which readers need an understanding of the task demands (Cerdán et al., 2019; Tawfik et al., 2020) (Cerdán, 2019; Tawfik, 2022) to create a task representation, and to study multiple texts to create a text representation. While doing so, readers monitor their understanding of the text by using their background knowledge. Simultaneously, readers need to update their task representation to evaluate whether the information discussed in the text is relevant for completing the learning task. This process is cyclical and goes on until the reader decides that sufficient information has been gathered. Likewise, a preliminary task product is created and updated in a cyclical manner, until the reader decides that the task product meets the learning task objectives.

In a more recent task-oriented reading model, Rouet et al. (2017) proposed Reading as Problem Solving (RESOLV). In this model, attention is given to the context and the task representation that readers construct before engaging with texts. In RESOLV, contextual factors are more explicitly defined that moderate the task representation of readers. For example, the verbal instructions given by the teacher, the given time in which the task should be performed, and the reading self-concept of the student might influence how a student approaches the learning task and which resources the reader has at his disposal. This means that each student in a class may set different goals and therefore utilizes different task approaches for the same learning task. For example, students who lack background knowledge, may choose to read the whole text first before looking at questions that accompany the text, while for students with more background knowledge, it may be more efficient to read the questions first and then search for relevant information in the text. In sum, task-oriented reading models such as MD-TRACE and RESOLV propose that reading is a purposeful activity in which readers need to make decisions concerning their reading approach to attain the learning goals they themselves set, within the context of a given learning task.

Research showed that the task approach of readers is influenced for a large part by the specific formulation of learning tasks at hand (Cerdán et al., 2011; Hautala et al., 2022; Salmerón et al., 2017; Salmerón et al., 2015). Depending on the goal of the learning task, readers adapt their task approach to reach that goal. For instance, the amount of initial reading (before looking at questions), the number of searches for relevant text parts and monitoring comprehension are self-regulatory activities that contribute to the quality of task-oriented reading (Vidal-Abarca et al., 2010; Anmarkrud et al., 2013; Cerdán et al., 2009; Mañá et al., 2017; Salmerón et al., 2015). While task-oriented reading is approached as an individual process in the research base, there is ample reason to emphasize the role that collaboration can play in facilitating task-oriented reading processes. In discussions between students in small groups, active learning is promoted (e.g., De Backer et al., 2015; Prince, 2004; Wong and Chapman, 2023) and enables students to confront perspectives with each other and discuss reasons for selecting relevant information from their texts. One of the most promising approaches for collaboration in class is known as reciprocal teaching.

Reciprocal teaching (Palincsar et al., 1987; Palincsar and Brown, 1984) is a widely used method of instructing and guiding students in reading comprehension, that yielded positive results (Kelly et al., 1994; Rosenshine and Meister, 1994; Spörer et al., 2009). In this method, students take on the role of the ‘teacher’ and engage in using reading strategies (e.g., predicting, questioning, clarifying and summarizing) while reading a text in a small group, guided by an adult tutor. The reciprocal aspect comes into play as students take turns leading the discussion. By actively participating, students’ own learning process is fostered and students benefit from the insights and perspectives from other group members. When combined with the framework of task-oriented reading, discussions about texts are supplemented by the explicit requirement of finding agreement among members about their task-representation. In our study the focus is on discussions around finding a common task-representation and relevant text information instead of the more traditional use of reciprocal teaching which focusses more on strategies for text comprehension.

Earlier research into the effects of reciprocal teaching in classroom contexts has shown that it is extremely difficult for teachers to keep track of the work of different collaborating groups in class (Hacker and Tenent, 2002; Okkinga et al., 2021). While positive effects of reciprocal teaching in previous research are achieved in situations in which each group is guided by an adult tutor, this is hardly feasible in educational practice. Therefore, it is important that other forms of scaffold are being used as guidance for students in their collaboration process in regular classroom contexts.

In scripted collaboration, instructions are given in a (usually digital) learning environment to structure the group discussion (Fischer et al., 2013; Kollar et al., 2006). Important elements of such scripts are that group members are assigned different roles (as in reciprocal teaching) for which the script provides specific instructions and that students follow specific sequences (phasing) of actions (so-called “scenes,” see Fischer et al., 2013) to arrive at a satisfactory outcome.

Previous research has demonstrated that the appointment of a leader or chairman and a writer or summarizer has positive effects on learning outcomes and cooperation (Schellens et al., 2007; Strijbos and Weinberger, 2010). In addition, studies into guiding students by phasing of the group discussion show positive effects on the acquisition of domain specific knowledge and on the quality of cooperation (Radkowitsch et al., 2020; Schoonenboom, 2008; Vogel et al., 2017) and on students’ task representation (Kielstra et al., 2022). For example, Papadopoulos et al. (2013) found that students who collaborated with a mandatory script acquired more domain specific knowledge and also cooperated more with each other than students who had to complete the task with a less mandatory script. In the first case, students had to first explicitly formulate their own answers for a task before consulting with each other about a joint answer, while in the second case this was left up to themselves.

Thus, to alleviate the burden on teachers from managing content-related discussions among multiple groups simultaneously, scripted collaboration offers a viable alternative. Therefore, in addition to finding general effects of our learning environment for task-oriented reading, we also try to find out in this study to what extent phasing (including role assignment) leads to better task-oriented reading of students than just role assignment.

This study aimed to design¹ and test a technology-enhanced learning environment (TELE), aiding teacher education students in authentic classroom contexts in the process of task-oriented reading in two stages: homework and group discussion.

An experiment was carried out in which effects of “phasing” (PH) of the discussion part of the intervention on students’ task-oriented reading (answering open questions about multiple texts) were compared to a “role assignment only” (RAO) condition that did not receive support for the phases to complete in the group discussion (Kollar et al., 2006). The learning environment for the RAO condition was identical to that for the PH condition in all other respects.

The research questions were:

In total 105 third-year teacher students (61% females, M_age = 23.29 years) from the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences participated in the study. They were enrolled as teacher students for secondary education for the disciplines economy, biology, physics, English as a foreign language or social sciences. Eighty-eight students completed both pre- and posttest.

A pre-post experimental design was utilized. Students, within classes, were randomly assigned to the PH condition or RAO condition. Within each class, groups of ideally four students were formed to participate in the group discussions, either belonging to the PH or the RAO condition. The formation of the groups after randomization of individual students was done by the teacher.

Prior to the lessons, participating teachers, in collaboration with the researchers, formulated assignments for students to solve, according to the six types in Table 2. The lesson series lasted 6 weeks, with one 90-min lesson per week (see Figure 3). Thus, the total intervention duration was 9 h. Prior to the first lesson, the students of each course were given an explanation about the research and were given a Chromebook on which the TELE (“Reading App”) could be downloaded, and a paper copy of the texts needed for the course. This copy was used in their homework for underlining relevant passages and making notes. In addition, students were given an explanation of the importance of task-oriented reading, the roles during the group discussions, the four reading strategies and practical information about the learning environment and the tablet. The students in each class were randomly assigned to either condition. Students were unaware of the differences between the two conditions (PH or ROA); they were only told there were two versions (A and B). All students were asked to sign a license agreement for the use of the Chromebook during the course and they were asked to sign for informed consent for data collection.

In the subsequent session, the pretest was administered. This was followed by six lessons with the group assignments and the learning environment, which were interspersed with regular lessons from the teacher (which were not part of the intervention).

The first author or a student-assistant were present during all lessons to safeguard that the lessons proceeded as planned and give technical support when necessary. The observations of all lessons have shown that students in discussion groups did not interfere with other students while working on their group assignments. Therefore, the risk of a “spill over” effect between conditions is negligible.

In the last session, the posttest was administered. Students were allowed to complete both pretest and posttest within an hour. Finally, the focus groups were held and teachers were interviewed about their experiences. For an overview of research activities across time, see Figure 3.

Written informed consent was collected from all participants. Focus interviews were recorded with participant permission.

Analyses were done with repeated-measures ANOVA, with condition (PH and RAO) as factor. Dependent variables were the percentage of correct answers and task-approach activities in the pre- and post-test during task execution (see Table 3).

In Table 4, results of all analyses are presented, together with descriptive statistics for each variable and condition. To examine whether utilizing the learning environment enhanced students’ task-oriented reading skills (research question 1), a repeated-measures ANOVA was performed with the percentage score² of the task-oriented reading task as dependent variable. Overall, students performed significantly better on the posttest compared to the pretest (η² = 0.13). Second, by adding Condition as factor to the repeated-measures ANOVA (research question 2), we examined whether the Phasing condition (PH) helped students improve their task-oriented reading to a greater extent than the Role Assignment Only condition (ROA). The interaction effect was not significant (η² = 0.004), suggesting that the PH condition did not benefit more than the ROA condition (see Figure 4).

For the variables concerning task approach (research question 3), all effects over time were significant but the interaction effects for condition were not statistically significant. Students on average spent significantly more time to relevant text parts in the posttest than in the pretest (η² = 0.33). In the pretest, students spent on average 35% of their total time to relevant text parts, while this was 54% at posttest. The same pattern holds for the ratio of relevant/irrelevant text parts in pre- and posttest (η² = 0.44), see Figure 5. In addition, students spent on average significantly less time on question reading in the posttest compared to the pretest (η² = 0.43) (see Figure 6) and the number of times questions were consulted was significantly lower at posttest than pretest (η² = 0.14). Lastly, students spent significantly less time on answering questions in the posttest compared to the pretest (η² = 0.43). This is remarkable, because it means that the students formulated better answers in less time on average in the posttest compared to the pretest.

To answer research question 4, the interview data from both teachers and students were inspected, after which five relevant themes emerged: engagement (in group discussions), role assignment, different types of group assignment, prior knowledge activation, and teacher feedback.

A limitation of this study concerns the pre-test and post-test, as the two tests consisted of different texts and questions. This introduces the possibility that the observed effects cannot be solely attributed to growth in task-oriented reading skill but may also be the result of a different test difficulty. Although the two tests were comparable in other important respects (content domain, question taxonomy, open-ended question format, administration procedure, and total text length), and we have no indications that there is a difference in difficulty. Future research could employ a counterbalanced design where the pre-test and post-test are randomly assigned to students, with half of the students receiving Test A as the pre-test and Test B as the post-test, and vice versa. Despite this limitation, the findings strongly suggest growth in task-oriented reading skills, with the observed differences in task approach during the tests further supporting this interpretation.

Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that the results of this study may not generalize to other institutions, disciplines, or cultural contexts. Reading practices and educational approaches can differ considerably across settings, which may affect the outcomes of task-oriented reading interventions. Replication in diverse contexts is needed to confirm the robustness of our findings.

Based on this research, it is important for teachers to recognize the task-oriented nature of reading-to- learn, focusing not only on the text contents but also on how they relate to the learning task at hand. This requires carefully crafted task instructions that, on the one hand, align with the educational learning objectives and, on the other, invite discussion among the students. Our experiences with the teachers formulating group assignments for our discussion groups showed that they found it quite difficult to come up with group assignments that met these requirements. This poses a risk for the effectiveness of the learning environment in educational practice. It is therefore recommended that teachers receive training. This training should focus on how to formulate learning assignments that provoke dialogues and discussion, how to guide students in their discussions and how to provide dialogic feedback, adjusted to their student population. Since a technology-enhanced learning environment might not be feasible in every educational setting, the learning environment can be accommodated to a paper-and-pencil one. Explanations about the different roles (leader, thinker, writer) can be given orally and on paper, as well as the group assignments. The most difficult part to transfer to a paper-and-pencil setting is the phasing. As our results currently suggest, this part of the learning environment might not have moved the needle in enhancing task-oriented reading. It remains to be seen, however, whether this result can be replicated in other educational contexts, for example in primary or secondary education.

In conclusion, the combination of the didactic principles of reciprocal teaching, task-oriented reading and (scripted) collaboration has shown to be promising to enhance task-oriented reading. Both teachers and students showed a high level of appreciation for the learning environment. The learning environment might become an excellent tool that stimulates students to take an active role in their learning process and to acquire task approaches that guide them to use complex study texts effectively and efficiently.