How Pre-Reading Tasks Shape L2 Reading Strategies in Digital Environments: Evidence From Eye-Tracking, EEG, and GSR With Advanced L2 Learners
https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2025-7-4-83-99
Abstract
As digital text becomes the dominant medium for education, understanding the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying second language (L2) reading is crucial for minimizing cognitive overload. This research comprises three exploratory studies employing complementary methodology to investigate the complex nature of reading strategies in the digital sphere of education. The paper aims to reveal how instructional design (specifically platform usability, task typology, and metacognitive scaffolding) influences cognitive load, emotional engagement, and strategy selection. The studies used a multimodal approach combining electroencephalography (EEG), galvanic skin response (GSR), eye-tracking, and self-report measures. Study 1 assessed platform usability. Although EEG spectral analysis indicated optimal baseline cognitive load (p > 0.05), eye-tracking and GSR revealed that navigational and visual design flaws were significant sources of extraneous load and user frustration. Study 2 investigated the impact of pre-reading tasks (structural vs. communicative) on Chinese learners of Russian. Eye-tracking metrics showed that communicative tasks promoted active, monitoring-heavy strategies effective for selective processors, whereas structural tasks facilitated thorough, detail-oriented processing that maximized accuracy for non-selective readers. Study 3 compared metacognitive scaffolding against traditional instructions. Results demonstrated that even though scaffolding successfully altered the learning process by inducing a more strategic, planned approach (verified by oculomotor behavior), it came at the cost of significantly increased cognitive load and reduced emotional engagement. These findings provide compelling evidence for a transactional model of digital language learning relevant to professional communication pedagogy. The research concludes that effective outcomes emerge from a dynamic, three-way interaction between the learner’s cognitive profile, pedagogical task design, and the usability of the digital environment. Digital L2 instruction must be cognitively informed, balancing strategic benefits against the mental effort required to deploy them.
About the Authors
O. Nagel
National Research Tomsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga Nagel, Dr. Sc. (Philology), is a Professor in the Department of English Philology and Dean of the Faculty of Foreign Languages
Tomsk
I. Temnikova
National Research Tomsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Irina Temnikova, Cand. Sci., is an Associate Professor in the Department of English Philol ogy at the Faculty of Foreign Languages
Tomsk
V. Nesterenko
National Research Tomsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Valeria Nesterenko is a Junior Researcher at the Center for Cognitive Research and Neuro science
Tomsk
References
1. Sokolova, L.V., & Cherkasova, A.S. (2014). Funktsional’noe vzaimodeistvie korkovykh zon v teta-diapazone u studentov v protsesse chteniya grammaticheskikh konstruktsii na russkom i angliiskom yazykakh [Functional Interaction of Cortical Areas in Theta-Band of Students during Reading Russian and English Grammatical Constructions]. Ekologiya Cheloveka [Human Ecolo gy], 5, 35-40 (in Russian).
2. Aarnoutse, C., & Schellings, G. (2003). Learning reading strategies by triggering reading motivation. Educational Studies, 29(4), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569032000159688
3. Abutalebi, J., & Green, D.W. (2016). Neuroimaging of language control in bilinguals: Neural adaptation and reserve. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(4), 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000225
4. Baker, M. (1994). A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues. Journal of Arti ficial Intelligence in Education, 5(2), 199-254.
5. Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quar terly, 20(3), 463-494. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586295
6. Calvi, L., & De Bra, P. (1997). Improving the usability of hypertext courseware through adaptive linking. In M. Bernstein, K. ØSterbye, & L. Carr (Eds.), HYPERTEXT’97: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Hypertext (pp. 224–225). https://doi.org/10.1145/267437.267470
7. Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Longman.
8. Eiriksdottir, E., & Catrambone, R. (2011). Procedural instructions, principles, and exam ples: How to structure instructions for procedural tasks to enhance performance, learning, and transfer. Human Factors, 53(6), 749–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811419154
9. El-Koumy, A. S. K. (2004). Metacognition and reading comprehension: Current trends in theory and research. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2364871
10. Hyönä, J., Lorch, R.F., & Rinck, M. (2003). Eye Movement Measures to Study Global Text Processing. In R. Radach, J. Hyönä, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The Mind’s Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research (pp. 313-334). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451020-4/50018-9
11. Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to compre hension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329-354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
12. Kliesch, M., Pfenninger, S. E., Wieling, M., Stark, E., & Meyer, M. (2022). Cognitive benefits of learning additional languages in old adulthood? Insights from an intensive longitudinal intervention study. Applied Linguistics, 43(4), 653–676. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amab077
13. Kosareva, E.V., & Khrunenkova, A.V. (2020). Vremya obsuzhdat’: uchebnoe posobie po rechevoi praktike dlya inostrannykh uchashchikhsya. 3 izd. [Time to discuss: a textbook on speech practice for foreign students. Third edition]. Moscow: Russian language. Courses (in Russian).
14. Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504926
15. Maddison, T., & Kumaran, M. (2016). Distributed learning: Pedagogy and technology in online information literacy instruction. Chandos Publishing.
16. Mandl, H., & Friedrich, H. F. (Eds.). (1992). Lernund Denkstrategien. Analyse und In tervention [Learning and thinking strategies. Analysis and intervention]. Hogrefe Verlag für Psy chologie.
17. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements in reading: Models and data. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(5), 1-10.
18. Rayner, K., Schotter, E.R., Masson, M.E., Potter, M.C., & Treiman, R. (2016). So much to read, so little time: How do we read, and can speed reading help? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(1), 4-34.
19. Song, J. (2010). The effects of anxiety on Korean ESL learners’ reading strategy use and reading comprehension [Master’s dissertation, University of Texas at Austin]. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2010-05-1477/SONG-THESIS.pdf
20. Soto, C., Gutierrez de Blume, A.P., Asun, R., Jacovina, M., & Vasquez, C. (2018). A deeper understanding of metacomprehension: Development of a new multidimensional tool. Frontline Learning Research, 6(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i1.328
21. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. In J.P. Mestre, & B.H. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 37-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
22. Winne, P.H. (2005). A perspective on state-of-the-art research on self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33(5), 559–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1280-9
Review
For citations:
Nagel O., Temnikova I., Nesterenko V. How Pre-Reading Tasks Shape L2 Reading Strategies in Digital Environments: Evidence From Eye-Tracking, EEG, and GSR With Advanced L2 Learners. Professional Discourse & Communication. 2025;7(4):83-99. https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2025-7-4-83-99
Email this article 