MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HANOI UNIVERSITY IMPACTS OF READING ANXIETY AND METACOGNITIVE READING STRATEGIES ON EFL STUDENTS’ READING PERFORMANCE TÁC ĐỘNG CỦA TÂM LÝ SỢ ĐỌC VÀ CHTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anhTác động của tâm lý sợ đọc và chiến lược đọc hiểu siêu nhận thức đến hiệu quả đọc của sinh viên học tiếng anh
INTRODUCTION
The rationale for the research
The researcher noticed that students struggled with excessive reading passages in two reading-specific courses, appearing fatigued, discouraged, and anxious This anxiety, coupled with low reading test scores, suggested ineffective use of reading strategies, which might hinder comprehension To explore this further, the researcher reviewed existing literature and found limited studies on the impact of reading anxiety on performance and the mediating role of reading strategies Only four studies reported negative or no correlation between reading anxiety and performance (Ghaith, 2020; Maridanti, 2021), motivating the current research aims.
Research aims
The study’s overarching aim was to provide an insightful understanding of the effects of reading anxiety (RA) on reading performance (RP) Furthermore, the research explores the potential mediating role of metacognitive reading strategies in the relationship between RA and RP.
Research questions and research design
The study employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, a two-phase project In the initial quantitative phase, the following principal research question and its sub-questions were answered:
How does foreign language reading anxiety affect reading performance?
There were four sub-questions as follows:
1 What is the students’ level of reading anxiety?
2 What metacognitive reading strategies do students use?
3 To what extent does reading anxiety affect reading performance?
4 To what extent does the mediation of metacognitive reading strategies affect the relationship between reading anxiety and reading performance?
Major findings from Phase 1 were further elucidated in the qualitative follow-up phase More specifically, the study sought to clarify two big themes: the direct effects of RA factors on reading performance and the indirect effects of MRS in the relationship between RA and reading performance Through these two themes, sub- themes related to students’ feelings while reading, their actual use of MRS were also explored These findings were the foundations for the construction of interview questions in the second phase
Significance of the study
This study responds to Rui's (2021) call for further exploration of the relationship between reading anxiety (RA) and metacognitive reading strategies (MRS) It integrates Processing Efficiency Theory and Knowledge Monitoring Assessment to explain the interactions between these variables, offering insights into the role of anxiety in reading The findings aim to raise teachers' awareness of the impact of negative psychological states on language learning
The study benefits students by identifying weaknesses such as vocabulary size, limited knowledge of language rules, and psychological barriers, helping them improve their reading skills Educational leaders are encouraged to implement policies focused on educational psychology, including mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), which have been shown to reduce anxiety and enhance attention (Yakobi et al., 2021)
LITERATURE REVIEW
Reading anxiety
Drawing from the reviewed literature, the current researcher proposes a more comprehensive definition of reading anxiety in L2: “Reading anxiety (RA) is a domain-specific type of anxiety related to cognitive processing of information It is a subjective feeling in which worry is the most powerful element and can be replaced by synonyms such as nervousness, tension, suspense, and jittery RA is situation- specific as it occurs in foreign language reading classes when students are coping with reading activities”
Most research reported a moderate level of reading anxiety (e.g., Mardianti et al., 2021; Madarwah et al., 2021) Compared with mid-anxiety findings, results related to low-anxiety and no anxiety in reading were rare The formula for reading anxiety levels was based on means and standard deviation, suggested by Kuru-Gửnen (2007)
2.1.2 Factors contributing to reading anxiety
This research clustered sources of reading anxiety into external and internal variables based on the review by Alderson (2000) to include the latest findings on RA sources The first cluster refers to objective factors affecting the reading process and includes variables related to (1) text, (2) teachers, (3) reading courses and (4) parental and academic expectations and personal traits Conversely, the second covers factors arising from the inside of readers and encompasses (1) readers’ subjective feelings,
(2) reader skills and abilities, and (3) reader expectation and motivation.
Metacognitive Reading Strategies (MRS)
Metacognitive reading strategies are “the knowledge of the readers’ cognition about reading and the self-control mechanisms they exercise when monitoring and regulating text comprehension” (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002, p 249) As pioneers within the domain of metacognition in reading strategies, Mokhtari and Reichard
(2002) proposed three main categories: global reading strategies (GLOB), problem- solving strategies (PROB), and support reading strategies (SUP)
2.2.1 The use of metacognitive reading strategies
Past research has accumulated conflicting evidence relating to readers’ use of metacognitive reading strategies (e.g., Deliany & Cahyono, 2020; Do & Phan, 2021) The two main findings regarding the use of MRS were medium and high levels of usage while a low level was not documented Specifically, PROB was primarily reported to remain preferred over the other two subcategories in the reading process in studies by Do and Phan (2021) and Chutichaiwirath and Sitthitikul (2017) Conversely, in two studies by Al-Mekhlafi (2018) and Rabadi et al (2020), SUP and GLOB were identified as the most frequently used strategies.
Reading performance
The present study proposes the following collective definition: Reading performance is the readers’ effective accomplishment or achievement of reading comprehension activities to reach their reading goals The measurement of reading performance can be the mean score of reading task results, self-perceived performance, and reading course grades/scores In the current research, self-perceived performance (SPP) and course grades/scores are used as measures of reading performance
2 4 The relationships between reading anxiety, metacognitive reading strategies, and reading performance
The published literature showed a significant correlation between reading anxiety and reading performance Reading anxiety has predominantly been shown to negatively affect reading comprehension (e.g., Gaith, 2020; Mardianti et al., 2021) Specifically, Ghaith detected that the two variables were negatively correlated Another aspect of the relationship between RA and reading comprehension is the finding of no significant correlation In a correlational study, Hassaskhah and Joghataeian (2016) examined the association between RA and reading comprehension among 41 Iranian female participants Using a reading comprehension test, the authors assessed students’ reading comprehension and found that RA was not significantly correlated with reading comprehension
The existing literature has also documented the significant correlation between MRS and reading performance Dardjito (2019) found no association between students'
MRS awareness and their reading comprehension test scores In contrast, Kung and Aziz (2020) identified a significant positive relationship between MRS and reading comprehension
In terms of the relationship between reading anxiety and metacognitive reading strategies, the search for related literature has yielded only a limited number of studies Kim (2021) found that the more anxious students felt, the more MRS they utilized Meanwhile, Tsai (2013) also disclosed the negative correlation between RA and SORS subscales (e.g., GLOB, PROB, SUP) Zarei (2014) revealed no significant differences in MRS use across the three groups of reading anxiety levels
METHODOLOGY
An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was chosen for this study The data was collected in two phases
Research participants were 715 semester-1 students who had just finished two English Preparational Courses and were studying specialized majors (e.g., Information Technology, Business, Graphic Designers, and Multimedia Communication) The study applied the convenience sampling method to have available and willing-to-participate students All students were sent the survey hyperlink, with informed consent presented on the first page of the Google Form Those who agreed to participate in the research received the questionnaire items More than 800 responses were returned After eliminating responses violating acquiescence bias, 715 were left The data was analyzed using SPSS (Version 26) for research questions 1 and 2 and SmartPLS 4 for research questions 3 and 4
Based on the quantitative findings, the researcher created interview questions Eleven students were invited for the semi-structured interviews Nine out of 11 students would like to be interviewed via Google Meet for their convenience while the other two interviews were face-to-face conducted in an empty classroom at school The qualitative data was analyzed using 6-phase thematic analysis method The software for this analysis is NVivo 14
CHAPTER 4: QUANTITATIVE RESULTS 4.1 Levels of Reading Anxiety
Linguistic text issues (LTI) were reported to be the highest cause of reading anxiety with a mean value of 3.56, while hands-on practice (HP) was the lowest contributor to reading anxiety (M=2.86) Two factors including reading topics (RT) and exams (E) are the followers of LTI with mean values of 3.54 and 3.51 respectively
Applying the suggested formula by Kuru-Gửnen (2007) to calculate the reading anxiety levels, the study found that 83.8% (599 responses) of the respondents were moderately anxious about reading topics (RT), followed by reader’s skills and abilities (RSA) and linguistic text issues (LTI), with a percentage of 81.1 each Fewer than these constructs, 79% of the questioned reported a medium level of anxiety while doing hands-on practices (HP) and 73.7% of readers with moderate anxiety reported throughout the exams
The most adopted group of metacognitive reading strategies is using clues (UC) with a mean value of 3.83 while the least employed cluster is support strategies (SUP) (M=3.56) Both global reading strategies (GLOB) and centering learning strategies (CLS) have the same mean values of 3.71 Following UC is problem solving strategies (PROB) with a mean score of 3.80
4.3 Direct Effects of Reading Anxiety on Reading Performance
As presented in Table 4.1, RSA positively impacted RP (ꞵ= 0.185, p= 0.000 < 0.05) and negatively impacted SCORE (ꞵ= -0.130, p= 0.016 < 0.05) Therefore, H1 and H2 were supported RT had no impact on both SPP and SCORE, with path coefficient values of 0.083 and -0.013 respectively and p-values above the threshold of 0.05 Thus, H3 and H4 were rejected HP influenced SPP with a path coefficient of 0.106 (p=0.008), while HP had no effect on SCORE (ꞵ= -0.070, p= 0.162 > 0.05) It can be concluded that H5 was supported; conversely, H6 was rejected H7 was supported because E positively impacted SPP with a path coefficient of 0.266 and a p-value below the threshold of 0.05 In contrast, H8 was rejected because the E construct had no impact on SCORE, with a p-value exceeding the threshold of 0.05 H9 was
12 supported as LTI influenced SPP (ꞵ= 0.120, p= 0.012 < 0.05) and H10 was rejected (ꞵ= -0.014, p= 0.735 > 0.05)
Results of Path Coefficients and f 2 Values
No Hypotheses Path coefficient p -value f 2 values Conclusion
4.4 Indirect Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategy Usage on the Relationship between Reading Anxiety and Reading Performance
Table 4.2 demonstrates that three hypotheses were supported More precisely, reading anxiety caused by linguistic text issues (LTI), positively impacted self-perceived performance (SPP) through the use of support strategies (SUP), with a coefficient of 0.048 (p= 0.004 < 0.05) The p-value of the LTI-SUP-SPP relationship was less than 0.05, meaning that the relationship is significant; therefore, H5.1 was supported
Hypo Relationship Path coefficient p-values Conclusion
H5.3 LTI -> CLS -> SPP -0.007 0.606 Rejected H5.4 LTI -> CLS -> SCORE 0.031 0.026 Supported
CHAPTER 5: QUALITATIVE DATA Theme 1: Readers’ feelings while reading English texts
In-depth interviews revealed that respondents experienced a range of mixed feelings while reading in English In other words, their responses reflect the emotional valences of the experience, categorized into three main types of feelings: negative, positive, and neutral feelings
Theme 2: Sources of reading feelings
Five sources of feelings while reading were identified The most prominent source is related to reading topics Following reading topics are linguistic text issues (LTI), with 37 units of analysis coded, showing a marginal disparity between the two categories in frequency Exam-related factors also trigger readers to experience negative feelings, with 17 coded units of analysis The fourth source of reading feelings is text length, which negatively preoccupied respondents’ minds, with 15 units coded Six interviewees shared their experiences of getting distracted while reading in English, with two sub-themes emerging: internal and external distractors
Theme 3: The use of metacognitive reading strategies
The most frequently utilized group of strategies by all interviewees is SUP, with 39 units of analysis coded The second most frequently used group of strategies that all respondents applied is PROB including guessing unknown words, using references such as dictionaries, stopping from time to time to think about what he/she is reading, visualizing information, thinking about prior knowledge, and re-reading Prevalent reading strategies, skimming and scanning, were reported to be used by 10 out of 11 interviewees, with 23 units of analysis coded The next reading strategy group students employed during the reading process is the CLS, which includes regaining focus, increasing attention, and adjustment of reading speed Three interviewees utilized context clues and typographical features such as boldfaced and italics to better understand the texts while they did not depend on charts and tables to increase their comprehension
Theme 4: Impact of negative feelings and psychological symptoms on reading performance
Negative feelings, including panic, confusion, confidence loss, nervousness, anxiety, and worry influence students’ reading performance that is measured by scores and self-perceived performance (SPP) Overall, these feelings mainly affected students’ self-perceived performance
Theme 5: Impact of positive feelings on reading performance
Three positive feelings, including confidence, calmness, and excitement, influence respondents’ reading performance Almost all the words shared by participants reveal that these positive feelings affect learners’ self-perceived performance
Theme 6: Impacts of reading anxiety sources on reading performance
Theme 6 clarifies what has been found in Phase 1 of this research, where the quantitative findings pointed out that reading anxiety sources, namely readers’ skills and abilities (RSA), reading topics (RT), hands-on practice (HP), exams (E), and linguistic text issues (LTI), have affected reading performance However, the qualitative findings support the impacts of LTI, RT, and E on reading performance while the information about RSA and HP is insufficient to explain for these two constructs’ impacts
Theme 7: Impact of reading strategy use
The qualitative findings reveal that not only SUP and CLS as found from Phase 1 but also other strategies, including PROB, GLOB, UC, and skimming and scanning could mediate the impact of reading anxiety on reading performance As such, the qualitative data helps to elaborate and expand the quantitative findings
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION 6.1 Research Question 1: Reading anxiety
The researcher proposes a new rating scale for the reading anxiety instrument from these qualitative findings The study based on Quirk et al.’s (1985) categorization of intensifiers and guidelines for designing a Likert rating scale provided in the Assessment Toolkit by the University of Arizona (University of Arizona, n.d.) to propose a new five-point Likert rating scale measuring reading anxiety
The second main finding revealed that reading anxiety manifests through various emotional states Based on this finding, the researcher proposed a collective definition of reading anxiety In this context, reading anxiety (RA) refers to a domain-specific type of anxiety related to cognitive processing of information RA includes a variety of emotional states such as worry, nervousness, overwhelm, confusion, pressure, shock and surprise, scaredness, fear, panic, uncertainty, boredom, among others
RA is situation specific as it occurs in foreign language reading classes when students are coping with reading activities
More importantly, these various emotions were manifested under five factors contributing to reading anxiety (RSA, RT, HP, E, and LTI), plus two unexpected factors: distraction and text length
6.2 Research Question 2: Metacognitive reading strategies
Qualitative Interviews
Based on the quantitative findings, the researcher created interview questions Eleven students were invited for the semi-structured interviews Nine out of 11 students would like to be interviewed via Google Meet for their convenience while the other two interviews were face-to-face conducted in an empty classroom at school The qualitative data was analyzed using 6-phase thematic analysis method The software for this analysis is NVivo 14
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
Levels of Reading Anxiety
Linguistic text issues (LTI) were reported to be the highest cause of reading anxiety with a mean value of 3.56, while hands-on practice (HP) was the lowest contributor to reading anxiety (M=2.86) Two factors including reading topics (RT) and exams (E) are the followers of LTI with mean values of 3.54 and 3.51 respectively
Applying the suggested formula by Kuru-Gửnen (2007) to calculate the reading anxiety levels, the study found that 83.8% (599 responses) of the respondents were moderately anxious about reading topics (RT), followed by reader’s skills and abilities (RSA) and linguistic text issues (LTI), with a percentage of 81.1 each Fewer than these constructs, 79% of the questioned reported a medium level of anxiety while doing hands-on practices (HP) and 73.7% of readers with moderate anxiety reported throughout the exams.
Metacognitive Reading Strategy Usage
The most adopted group of metacognitive reading strategies is using clues (UC) with a mean value of 3.83 while the least employed cluster is support strategies (SUP) (M=3.56) Both global reading strategies (GLOB) and centering learning strategies (CLS) have the same mean values of 3.71 Following UC is problem solving strategies (PROB) with a mean score of 3.80.
Direct Effects of Reading Anxiety on Reading Performance
As presented in Table 4.1, RSA positively impacted RP (ꞵ= 0.185, p= 0.000 < 0.05) and negatively impacted SCORE (ꞵ= -0.130, p= 0.016 < 0.05) Therefore, H1 and H2 were supported RT had no impact on both SPP and SCORE, with path coefficient values of 0.083 and -0.013 respectively and p-values above the threshold of 0.05 Thus, H3 and H4 were rejected HP influenced SPP with a path coefficient of 0.106 (p=0.008), while HP had no effect on SCORE (ꞵ= -0.070, p= 0.162 > 0.05) It can be concluded that H5 was supported; conversely, H6 was rejected H7 was supported because E positively impacted SPP with a path coefficient of 0.266 and a p-value below the threshold of 0.05 In contrast, H8 was rejected because the E construct had no impact on SCORE, with a p-value exceeding the threshold of 0.05 H9 was
12 supported as LTI influenced SPP (ꞵ= 0.120, p= 0.012 < 0.05) and H10 was rejected (ꞵ= -0.014, p= 0.735 > 0.05)
Results of Path Coefficients and f 2 Values
No Hypotheses Path coefficient p -value f 2 values Conclusion
Indirect Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategy Usage on the
Table 4.2 demonstrates that three hypotheses were supported More precisely, reading anxiety caused by linguistic text issues (LTI), positively impacted self-perceived performance (SPP) through the use of support strategies (SUP), with a coefficient of 0.048 (p= 0.004 < 0.05) The p-value of the LTI-SUP-SPP relationship was less than 0.05, meaning that the relationship is significant; therefore, H5.1 was supported
Hypo Relationship Path coefficient p-values Conclusion
H5.3 LTI -> CLS -> SPP -0.007 0.606 Rejected H5.4 LTI -> CLS -> SCORE 0.031 0.026 Supported
