The effects of self-regulated reading strategies instruction on EFL students' reading comprehension and reading motivation

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

----------------

THE EFFECTS OF SELF-REGULATED READING STRATEGY

INSTRUCTION ON EFL STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION

AND READING MOTIVATION

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School of HCMC Open University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (TESOL)

Submitted by DANG THI THU SUONG

Supervisor

Assoc. Prof. Dr. PHAM VU PHI HO

Ho Chi Minh City - 2016

i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I hereby certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled, “The Effects

of Self-regulated Reading Strategy Instruction on EFL Students’ Reading Comprehension

and Reading Motivation” as the statement of requirements for theses in Masters’ Programs,

issued by the Higher Degree Committee.

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis does not contain

material published elsewhere, or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I

have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main

text of the thesis.

This thesis has not been submitted for any degree in any other tertiary institution.

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2016

DANG THI THU SUONG

ii

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I hereby state that I, Dang Thi Thu Suong, being the candidate for the degree of

Master of TESOL, accept the requirements of the university relating to the retention and

use of Master’s Thesis deposited in the library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the

library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with the

normal conditions established by the library for the care, loan or reproduction of thesis.

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2016

DANG THI THU SUONG

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to several

individuals who make a valuable contribution to the completion of this dissertation.

Without their great assistance and support, this thesis would not have come into existence.

First of all, I owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor – Dr. Pham Vu Phi Ho for

his precious time and enthusiastic and specific guidance on conducting and writing this

dissertation. Due to his patience and constant encouragement, I have maintained and

nourished my motivation during the long process to make this thesis possible.

I would like to offer my sincere thanks to all of my lecturers who provided me with

invaluable lessons and extensive knowledge that laid the foundation for this work. Special

thanks are also sent to the academic staff of the Graduate School, HCMC Open University

for their unconditional support and timely reminders.

I am deeply indebted to my colleagues and students from HCMC University of

Science, who willingly helped me with the data collection. Additionally, my thankfulness

goes to Dr. Nguyen Thai An – the Head of the Department of English Language, who gave

me a chance to do my experiment with the students of the university. Also, I never forget

each of the students who participated in the study. Without their enthusiasm and efforts,

this thesis would have never been completed.

I am also grateful to Mr. Vu Huu Thanh – the lecturer of the Department of

Finance-Banking, HCMC Open University, who provided TESOL 7 members with

practical lessons about quantitative analysis and readily helped us whenever we had

questions related to this issue. I felt more confident when collecting and analyzing data

with statistic knowledge and skills that I learned from him.

Last but not least, my appreciation goes to my family. Especially, I would like to

express my heartfelt gratitude to my parents and family members for their tacit

encouragement during the process of studying and writing this thesis. I also want to send

many thanks to my aunt for her financial support during my studying process.

iv

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of self-regulated reading

strategy instruction on EFL students’ reading comprehension and motivation for reading.

Additionally, the study also investigated the students’ reflections on their use of self￾regulated reading strategies to draw the conclusion of whether the adapted SRRP program

supported to create engaged self-regulated readers.

The present study conducted a quasi-experiment following a pretest-post-test non￾equivalent group design. Accordingly, two of the 45 classes were assigned to the

researcher to serve as the experimental group (N = 43) and the control group (N = 49).

Three measurement instruments were employed consisting of the reading comprehension

pre- and post-tests, the questionnaires about students’ motivation for reading and the

students’ self-evaluation on the reading process. The quantitative data obtained from these

three sources over the period of 12-week intervention wereanalyzed using the independent￾and paired-samples t-tests. The researcher also analyzed the students’ responses to the

open questions in their self-evaluation reports to gather qualitative data to answer the last

research question.

The results of the study revealed that the instruction of self-regulated reading

strategies resulted in more significant improvements in students’ reading comprehension

than the traditional approach, only the experimental treatment substantially benefited EFL

students to enhance their motivation for reading English as a foreign language, and the

students reflected a remarkable increase in their use of the acquired strategies. This

improvement started immediately after the four-week training of fragmentary self￾regulated reading strategies and remained continuous after the six-week practicing in the

whole process of self-regulated reading. In addition, through the students’ self-evaluation

reports, there were 15 types of self-regulated reading strategies commonly used by most of

the students in the experimental group during the intervention. In summary, the findings of

the present study showed that it was possible to enhance EFL students’ reading

comprehension as well as their motivation for reading and to maintain a rather high level

of strategy use by the implementation of the training program enriched with self-regulated

reading strategies. Accordingly, it was reasonable to conclude that the adapted SRRP

program supported to create engaged self-regulated readers in EFL contexts.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP..........................................................................................i

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS ...........................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................................iii

ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................................iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................v

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES......................................................................................ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................xi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background to the Study............................................................................................1

1.2 Statement of the Problem...........................................................................................3

1.3 Purposes of the Study.................................................................................................5

1.4 Research Questions....................................................................................................5

1.5 Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................6

1.6 Definitions of Terms..................................................................................................7

1.7 Overview of Thesis Chapters.....................................................................................8

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................9

2.1 Theoretical Background to the Study .........................................................................9

2.1.1 Self-regulated Learning.....................................................................................9

2.1.1.1 Cognitive Theories of Self-regulated Learning...........................................9

Social Cognitive Theory.........................................................................................9

Information Processing Theory............................................................................11

Social Constructivist Theory ................................................................................13

2.1.1.2 Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning .................................................15

2.1.1.3 Characteristics of Self-Regulated Learners ..............................................16

2.1.1.4 The Teaching of Self-Regulated Learning................................................17

2.1.2 Reading Comprehension in EFL Contexts.......................................................20

2.1.2.1 Factors Contributing to Reading Comprehension in EFL Contexts...........20

2.1.2.2 Reading Comprehension and Levels of Comprehension...........................21

2.1.2.3 Development of Reading Comprehension Instruction in EFL Contexts....22

2.1.2.4 Trends of Research in Reading Comprehension Strategy Instruction........25

vi

2.1.3 Self-Regulated Learning in Reading Instruction ..............................................26

2.1.3.1 Benefits of Incorporating SRL into Reading Instruction...........................26

2.1.3.2 Challenges and Considerations when Incorporating SRL into Reading

Instruction................................................................................................................27

2.2 Review of Related Literature ...................................................................................29

2.2.1 Intervention Studies on Strategy Instruction towards Self-regulated Reading...29

2.2.2 A Discussion for Implications for the Present Study ........................................32

2.2.3 The Framework of the Present Study...............................................................34

2.3 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................34

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................36

3.1 Research Context.....................................................................................................36

3.2 Research Design ......................................................................................................38

3.3 Participants..............................................................................................................41

3.4 Defining Research Problems for the Current Study ..................................................43

3.5 Procedure of the Study.............................................................................................46

3.5.1 Preparation for the Training.............................................................................47

3.5.1.1 Reading Materials for both the Experimental and Control Group .............47

3.5.1.2 Description of the Training Program for the Experimental Group ............48

3.5.1.3 Description of the Training Program for the Control Group .....................50

3.5.2 The Training Procedure...................................................................................51

3.5.2.1 The Training Procedures for the Experimental Group ..............................51

3.5.2.2 The Training Procedures for the Control Group .......................................54

3.6 Measurement Instruments........................................................................................57

3.6.1 Reading Comprehension Pre- and Post-Tests...................................................57

3.6.1.1 The Construct of the Reading Comprehension Pre- and Post-Tests..........57

3.6.1.2 Validity of the Pre- and Post-Tests...........................................................59

3.6.1.3 Reliability of the Pre- and Post-Tests.......................................................60

3.6.2 Questionnaire about Students’ Motivation for Reading....................................60

3.6.2.1 The Construct of the Questionnaire..........................................................60

3.6.2.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for the Pilot Questionnaire................63

3.6.3 Students’ Self-evaluation on the Reading Process............................................64

3.6.3.1 Description of the Self-evaluation Form ..................................................64

3.6.3.2 Reliability of the Students’ Self-evaluation Scales...................................64

3.7 Procedures of Data Collection..................................................................................65

vii

3.8 Data Analysis...........................................................................................................67

3.8.1 Research Question 1: Does the instruction of self-regulated reading strategies

help EFL students improve their reading comprehension? .............................................67

3.8.2 Research Question 2: To what extent does the instruction of self-regulated

reading strategy help to enhance EFL students’ reading motivation? .............................67

3.8.3 Research Question 3: What are EFL students’ reflections on their use of self￾regulated reading strategies during the intervention? .....................................................68

3.8.3.1 Do EFL students reflect an enhancement in their use of self-regulated

reading strategies during the intervention ? ..............................................................68

3.8.3.2 What self-regulated reading strategies were used by most of the EFL

students over the intervening process? .....................................................................68

3.9 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................69

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION..........................................................................................70

4.1 Research Question 1: Does the self-regulated reading strategy instruction helps

EFL students improve their reading comprehension? ........................................................70

4.1.1 Comparing the two groups’ reading comprehension before the treatment ........70

4.1.2 Comparing each group’s reading comprehension before and after the

treatment .......................................................................................................................71

4.1.3 Comparing the two groups’ reading comprehension after the treatment ...........73

4.2 Research Question 2: To what extent does the self-regulated reading strategy

instruction help to enhance EFL Students’ reading motivation? ........................................75

4.2.4 Comparing the two groups’ reading motivation before the treatment ...............75

4.2.4 Comparing each group’s reading motivation before and after the treatment.....76

4.2.3 Comparing the two groups’ reading motivation after the treatment..................79

4.2.4 Results of the Paired-samples T-tests on Each Reading-motivation-related

Scale of the EG .............................................................................................................80

4.3 Research Question 3: What are EFL students’ reflections on their use of self￾regulated reading strategies during the intervention? .........................................................87

4.3.1 Research Question 3.1: Do EFL students reflect an enhancement in their use

of self-regulated reading during the intervention? ..........................................................88

4.3.2 Research Question 3.2: What self-regulated reading strategies were used by

most of the students during the intervention?.................................................................90

4.4 Summary of the Findings.........................................................................................92

4.5 Discussion of the Findings.......................................................................................94

4.5.1 A Discussion on the Students’ Reading Comprehension..................................95

4.5.2 A Discussion on the Students’ Motivation for Reading....................................96

viii

4.5.3 A Discussion on the Students’ Reflections on their Use of Self-regulated

Reading Strategies.........................................................................................................97

4.6 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................98

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.....................................................................99

6.1 Major Conclusions...................................................................................................99

6.2 Limitations of the Study.........................................................................................100

6.3 Suggestions for Further Research...........................................................................102

6.4 Implications for Further Practice............................................................................103

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................104

Appendix 1 – Preliminary Questionnaire ............................................................................112

Appendix 2 – Scales and Adapted Items of the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire .......114

Appendix 3 – Questionnaire about Students’ Motivation for Reading.................................116

Appendix 4 – Students’ Self-evaluation on the Reading Process.........................................119

Appendix 5 – Pre-test on Reading Comprehension .............................................................121

Appendix 6 – Post-test on Reading Comprehension............................................................128

Appendix 7 – Self-regulated Reading Tasks for the In-class Reading Practices...................135

Appendix 8 – Reading Assignments for the Experimental Group........................................139

Appendix 9 – A Typical Reading Assignment for the Control Group..................................140

Appendix 10 – Results of the Pilot Tests on Reading Comprehension.................................142

Appendix 11 – Reliability of the Pilot Tests on Reading Comprehension............................143

Appendix 12 – Results of EFA Analysis for the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire......144

Appendix 13 – Reliability of the final Motivation for Reading Questionnaire .....................146

Appendix 14 – Reliability of the Self-evaluation Scales......................................................147

Appendix 15 – Results of the Pre- and Post-tests on Reading Comprehension ....................148

Appendix 16 – The Mean Scores Obtained on the Pre- and Post-questionnaires and their

Related Scales....................................................................................................................149

Appendix 17 – The Mean Scores Obtained on the Self-evaluation Scales...........................154

ix

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 3.1: Summary of participants’ information..................................................................42

Table 3.2: Students’ method of learning reading comprehension in previous semesters ........44

Table 3.3: Procedure of the study .........................................................................................46

Table 3.4: Topics of the reading practices used for in-class reading lessons..........................47

Table 3.5: Description of the training program for the experimental group ...........................49

Table 3.6: Description of the training program for the control group.....................................51

Table 3.7: Main training phases and procedures for the experimental group .........................51

Table 3.8: Main training stages and procedures for the control group ...................................55

Table 3.9: Summary of item types and the tasks required......................................................58

Table 3.10: Summary of test items in each question type of the pre- and post-tests...............59

Table 3.11: Summary of the questionnaire about students’ motivation for reading................62

Table 4.1: Group statistics on the pretests.............................................................................70

Table 4.2: Results of the independent-samples t-test on the pretests......................................71

Table 4.3: Paired samples statistics on the pre- and post-tests of the EG ...............................72

Table 4.4: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the pre- and post-tests of the EG...............72

Table 4.5: Paired samples statistics on the pre-post-tests of the CG.......................................73

Table 4.6: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the pre-post-tests of the CG......................73

Table 4.7: Group statistics on the posttests ...........................................................................74

Table 4.8: Results of the independent-samples t-test on the posttests....................................74

Table 4.9: Group statistics on the pre-overall reading motivation..........................................75

Table 4.10: Results of the independent-samples t-test on the pre-overall reading motivation.76

Table 4.11: Paired samples statistics on the pre-post-reading motivation of the EG ..............77

Table 4.12: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the pre-post-reading motivation of the EG77

Table 4.13: Paired samples statistics on the pre-post-questionnaires of the CG .....................78

Table 4.14: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the pre-post-questionnaires of the CG.....78

Table 4.15: Group statistics on the post-reading motivation of the two groups......................79

Table 4.16: Results of the independent-samples t-test on the post-reading motivation of the

two groups............................................................................................................................79

Table 4.17: Paired samples statistics on the reading curiosity of the EG................................80

Table 4.18: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading curiosity of the EG...............81

Table 4.19: Paired samples statistics on the reading importance of the EG............................81

Table 4.20 : Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading importance of the EG ..........81

Table 4.21: Paired samples statistics on the instrumentalism of the EG.................................82

x

Table 4.22: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the instrumentalism scale of the EG .......82

Table 4.23: Paired samples statistics on the reading involvement of the EG..........................83

Table 4.24: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading involvement of the EG .........83

Table 4.25: Paired samples statistics on the reading grade of the EG ....................................84

Table 4.26: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading grade of the EG....................84

Table 4.27: Paired samples statistics on the reading recognition of the EG ...........................84

Table 4.28: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading recognition of the EG...........84

Table 4.29: Paired samples statistics on the reading competition of the EG...........................85

Table 4.30: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading competition of the EG..........85

Table 4.31: Paired samples statistics on the reading self-efficacy of the EG..........................86

Table 4.32: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading self-efficacy of the EG .........86

Table 4.33: Paired samples statistics on the reading challenge of the EG ..............................86

Table 4.34: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading challenge of the EG..............87

Table 4.35: Paired samples statistics on the SRR scale of week 1&6 ....................................88

Table 4.36: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the SRR scale of week 1&6....................88

Table 4.37: Paired samples statistics on the SRR scale of week 6&11...................................89

Table 4.38: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the SRR scale of week 6&11..................89

Table 4.39: Summary of total score and percentage obtained on each SRR strategy..............90

Figure 2.1: Summary of cognitive theories of self-regulated learning....................................14

Figure 2.2: The framework of the present study....................................................................34

Figure 3.1: The design of the present study...........................................................................41

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CG Control Group

EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis

EFL English as a Foreign Language

ESL English as a Second Language

EG Experimental Group

GTM Grammar – Translation Method

HCMC Ho Chi Minh City

L1 the First Language

SL/FL the Second/Foreign Language

MA Master of Arts

SRL Self-regulated Learning

SRR Self-regulated Reading

SRRP Self-regulated Reading-based Program

SRRSD Self-regulated Reading Strategy Development

TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides briefly the background of the study followed by the

description of the problems at the research context that leads to the conduction of the

study. Accordingly, the purposes of the study are also presented together with the research

questions. The chapter further offers the significance of the study, the definitions of terms

related to the topic of the study, and ends with the overview of the whole thesis.

1.1 Background to the Study

Since its emergence in educational psychology, self-regulated learning (SRL) has

attracted great attention of academic researchers and practicing educators due to a

consensus that it is a worthy objective that students of all ages in all disciplines should

achieve (Paris & Paris, 2001). Accordingly, they add that the question of how to translate

the contributions of research on SRL into classroom practices has also received a

paramount concern. In addition to cognitive engagement and self-assessment, strategic

reading and writing instruction is included as one of the main areas of SRL’s direct

application in classrooms (ibid, p. 90). In this area of instruction, Paris and Paris (2001)

state that research on the field has changed in two critical ways in which the former

happens by “increasing in grain size” whereas the later happens by “focusing on the

practical applications of strategy instruction in classrooms” (p. 92). For the first change,

instead of examining specific strategies, research on reading and writing strategies

becomes embedded in SRL to include a wide range of strategies. For the second one, the

increasing number of instructional interventions has appeared to promote both students’

literacy skills and self-regulation. For example, “reciprocal teaching” (Palinscar & Brown,

1984), “strategy discussion” (Paris, Cross, & Lipton, 1984), “transactional instruction”

(Pressley, Almasi, Schuder, Bergman, & Kurita, 1994), “cognitive and metacognitive

strategy instruction” (Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, & Stevens, 1991), or “self￾instructional tactics” (Haris & Graham, 1992) are emerged as some of those effective

classroom interventions (Paris & Paris, 2001). In short, it can be seen that the literature so

2

far has heavily stressed the importance and necessity of incorporating SRL into literacy

instruction (Haris & Graham, 1996).

In the context of teaching English as a foreign language, reading is considered as

one of the most language learning goals for many foreign language learners (Grabe, 1991)

because it is a viable means for students to develop their second language ability, which in

turn can facilitate or hinder their academic success (Kazemi, Hosseini, & Kohandani,

2013). Moreover, reading comprehension has been highlighted as a vital literacy outcome

for students as well as a main goal of reading instruction (Coyne, Kami'Enui, & Carnine,

2007; Kazemi, Hosseini, & Kohandani, 2013). Also, Kader (2008) agrees that the primary

objective of EFL reading teachers is to gradually eliminate reading difficulties and to

increase comprehension (p. 109). In reading comprehension instruction, there has existed a

broad agreement that “strategy-oriented instruction is a powerful approach to foster

reading comprehension” (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991, as cited in Souvignier &

Mokhlesgerima, 2006, p. 57). In fact, Ammar (2009) indicates that research during the past

decades on reading comprehension has mainly emphasized on: (1) cognitive strategy

instruction, (2) metacognitive strategy instruction, (3) affective strategy instruction to

enhance students’ attitudes and motivation toward reading, and (4) self-regulated reading

strategy instruction. In the last trend, self-regulated reading emerges as a synthesis of

cognitive reading strategies, meta-comprehension, and motivation that may maximize its

effects on reading comprehension (Ammar, 2009). Based on empirical research, Ammar

(2009) concludes that “development of self-regulated reading behaviors has resulted in

enhanced comprehension, increased reading engagement, and better implementation of

higher level literacy skills” (p. 12). Moreover, recent research has revealed that when

teaching reading in EFL contexts, teachers should not forget the long-term goal. That is to

develop independent readers outside the EFL classroom (Kader, 2008), independent

critical readers in the current Internet age (Levine, Ferenz, & Reves, 2000), engaged

readers (Guthrie, 2001), and more recently, self-regulated readers (Horner & Shwery,

2002; Lake & Holster, 2014). In this respect, Davis and Gray (2007) cited from Paris and

Paris (2001) asserting that “helping students become self-regulated not only promotes

more independent, competent, and motivated students and teachers, but is also likely to

raise test scores” (p. 31). Particularly, they specify that “self-regulated learning sustains

3

and deepens engaged reading and consequent comprehension” (Davis & Gray, 2007, p.

31).

Due to the benefits of self-regulated learning (SRL) for supporting reading

comprehension and reading motivation, some researchers have attempted to introduce and

embed it in reading instruction and classroom practices. Nevertheless, since SRL is a rather

new and complicated construct, it has not received due attention in reading instruction

program yet (Davis & Gray, 2007). Consequently, there is still a need for reading

comprehension instructional interventions that encourage and support SRL in the

classroom to be developed and evaluated. Recently, many researchers have supported for

developing such instructional interventions like Paris & Paris (2001), Davis & Gray

(2007), Housand & Ries (2008), Zumbrum, Tadlock, & Roberts (2011), and Butler (2012).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

It is obvious that reading comprehension instruction in Vietnam has a rich history

dominated by the traditional method, i. e. Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) in which

teachers and textbooks are centered, students are a little passive in the reading process, and

both teachers and students have to follow the structured curriculum strictly (Le, 2010). A

typical reading activity inevitably involves answering comprehension questions following

the texts, and very little classroom time is spent on teaching students reading strategies to

complete the reading tasks (Nguyen & Trinh, 2011). Furthermore, the current fact that the

assessment of students’ reading comprehension heavily relies on multiple-choice method

and emphasizes on proficiency rather than performance, and that teaching and learning

process is strongly oriented by exams leads students to think that studying is to complete

the tests successfully to pass the exams (Le, 2010). Correspondingly, instead of reading

happening for some real purposes like reading for pleasure, information, knowledge, or

learning the language itself, students usually arrive at learning skills or tips to pass the

reading tests (ibid, 2010). More seriously, this assessment method and exam-oriented style

not only have negative effects on students’ motivation for reading but also shape their bad

reading style and habit (ibid, 2010). Confronting such a difficult situation, many reading

teachers, despite the benefits of new approaches to reading comprehension instruction, feel

reluctant to integrate them into their teaching because they do not ensure that those new

approaches will meet students’ expectation, i.e. passing the reading tests. For instance, a