✏️🍎 Discussion, A comparison between two studies
Overview
The articles I chose were from the list of articles from Task 1. They keywords used were digital textbooks, EFL learning, metacognition and their adjacent words.
Article 1, Impact of an EFL Digital Application on Learning, Satisfaction, and Persistence in Elementary School Children (Hori et al., 2025) was referenced by, both ChatGPT and Summon. Article 2, Digital textbooks are useful but not everyone wants them: The role of technostress (Verkijika. S, 2019) was provided by UBC's summon database.
After selecting Article 1 as a "affirmative condition" article, I went down my reference list of articles, looking for a study that might offer contrasting or contradictory outcomes. Both articles confirmed digital textbooks as the key artifact in their studies and considered the impacts as well as sought to understand the efficacy of digital textbooks on student learning outcomes, taking into account participant psychological states such as flow and techno fatigue.
Analysis
Article 1 was conducted in Osaka, Japan with elementary EFL students aged 6-8 years old (Hori et al., 2025, p. 1853). Their study sought to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of MALL (Mobile Assisted Language Learning) apps versus digital textbooks or 'e-books' published as an EPUB. The sample group was divided into two groups who were attending international school and who were not. The allocated groups were then further divided into control and intervention groups. Participants in Article 1 were required to "learn" standard curricular material, except engaging via different modes of learning (p. 1854). The literature review considers the impact that digital artifacts might have on learning outcomes by activating psychological factors such as the flow state (p. 1853).
The results of the post-test reveal little difference between MALL apps and digital textbooks however qualitative surveying reveals that MALL apps offered a greater sense of autonomy and engagement with the process of learning itself. Thus motivating participants to seek learning outside of classroom structures (p. 1856).
Conversely, Article 2 was conducted in South Africa with a sampling of 218 students between the ages of 17 to 20 (Verkijika, 2019, p. 6). Article 1's primary research revolved around the impact of technostress on the efficacy of digital textbooks. Questionnaires were used for pre-test and post-test, designed to gauge pre adoption attitudes and post interference continuance (p. 6, para 8). Group allocation was split between participants who had used digital textbooks and those who hadn't. Questionnaires included data gathering points such as "It is easier and better for me to use digital textbooks as compared to physical/printed textbooks" and "Using a digital textbook improves my academic performance" (p. 14). Likert scales were used to assess intrinsic motivation levels in both pre and post adoption of interference. No timeline is indicated in this study and does not extrapolate on what qualifiers were identified as 'technostress'. The methodology offers little insight into the qualitative details surrounding the case study, but offers an intensive breakdown of their statistical analysis.
Article 2 concludes that some people still prefer physical/print textbooks (Verkijika, 2019, p. 13, para. 4) and claiming that "The present study proposed technostress as one such boundary condition that could help provide a nuanced understanding of the influence of perceived usefulness of the adoption and continuance use of digital textbooks." (Verkijika, 2019, p. 13, ). Thus contradicting Article 1 (Hori et al., 2025, p. 1852) which states that mobile devices provide better learning outcomes.
Reflection
Article 2 does not extrapolate on the qualitative conditions surrounding their sampling. Terms such as technostress are not specified and offer little insight as to what might be mitigative to such factors. On page five, Verkijika states that continued use of a specific technology results in technostress; defined broadly as 'some sort of illness that originates from an individual's inability to handle or deal with the use of information technology systems in a healthy manner' and that the study categorizes technostress as the participants inability to cope with the stressors of daily use of various technologies (2019). The digital artifacts that were in consideration were also not specified, as no clear and concrete intervening factor, other than "e-books" can be identified.
From this task, the biggest takeaway I have managed to discern is that in the EFL space there is a heavy reliance on questionnaires to attain raw data and that in the absence of a concrete data gathering plan, statistical calculations get more widespread and convoluted.
Article 1 in this situation offered transparency with their methodology, their data extraction as well as their data mining methods. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to understand the research question and the research question was articulated with clarity (Hori et al., 2025, p. 1852) This exercise was an extremely useful skill building exercise in being able to identify key points that validate a research paper. In considering overgeneralization of the language used (technostress), bias (paper is better), ambiguity of sampling allocation (no control groups) contrasted with the clarity of article 1, I could deeply understand what is required of a research paper to be effective and insightful.
References
Verkijika, S. F. (2019). Digital textbooks are useful but not everyone wants them: The role of technostress. Computers and Education, 140(Journal Article), 103591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.017
Hori, R., Fujii, M., Toguchi, T., Wong, S., & Endo, M. (2025). Impact of an EFL Digital Application on Learning, Satisfaction, and Persistence in Elementary School Children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 53(5), 1851–1862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01653-5