The effects of self regulated reading strategies instruction on EFL students reading comprehension and reading motivation a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of arts in

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.. non-The r

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

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

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

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

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 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

non-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

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

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

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

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

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 4.22: 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

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

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

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

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

study conducted by Nguyen (2005) reported that although the reading teachers acknowledged the importance of reading strategy instruction, their classroom practices did not reflect their beliefs because of some contextual limitations like time constraint, teachers’ lack of experience, students’ low level of motivation, and inflexibility of reading materials and curriculums (pp 43 - 44 )

This was similar to the situation of teaching reading comprehension at HCMC University of Science where the present study took place First, the English teachers here still utilized the GTM in teaching reading comprehension to non-English major students who were required to complete the mid-term and final test papers that were both designed

in the form of multiple-choice questions This unpleasant reality was evidenced by the researcher’ class observations and personal communication with a group of six English teachers, who were officially invited to hold a discussion on how reading comprehension actually happened in the classrooms (personal communication, October 2014) Additionally, this conclusion was also drawn from the data collected via the preliminary questionnaire (see Appendix 1) administered to 159 students one semester before the intervention, which the results were presented in details in chapter three of this thesis (see table 3.2) Second, when analyzing the results of 94 students’ mid-term test papers provided by other teachers, the researcher noticed that most of the students did well on grammar multiple-choice questions, but many of them obtained low scores on questions related to vocabulary and reading comprehension This proved that the students did not reflect a high level of reading comprehension with the traditional teaching method being used at the university Finally, through the class observations and personal communication with some groups of students, the researcher noted that most of the students expressed a low level of motivation for reading, which has played a significant role in the learning process of non-English major students at HCMC University of Science (personal communication, October, 2014) Reading motivation is especially important in this case because of the fact that in their learning, the students have to access many scientific and technical materials written in English, which are what they need to assist them with further studies or future work

One of the ways suggested by previous researchers to increase students’ reading comprehension as well as motivation to read is that English teachers need to teach them

self-regulated reading strategies and involve them in more reading practices that provide them with more opportunities to plan, monitor and evaluate their own reading, i e develop engaged, self-regulated readers (Ammar, 2009) However, research in the field of reading instruction has pointed out that current EFL reading classrooms and practices fail to help students acquire those strategies to prepare them for self-regulated, lifelong reading outside schools (Katim & Haris, 1997; Corno & Randi, 1999; Eshel & Kohavi, 2003) and may contribute to decline students’ motivation for reading (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000) Hence, the present study implemented Self-regulated Reading Strategy Development (SRRSD) developed by Ammar (2009) but with some adaptation for the current situation with the hypotheses that it would foster students’ reading comprehension and motivation, which in turn helps to create engaged, self-regulated readers

1.3 Purposes of the Study

In an attempt to help non-English major students at HCMC University of Science

to be more involved in their reading process and become engaged self-regulated readers, the current study aims to:

1 examine whether the instruction of self-regulated reading strategies helps students improve their reading comprehension after the training

2 explore the extent to which the instruction of self-regulated reading strategies helps to enhance students’ reading motivation after the treatment

3 investigate students’ reflections on their use of self-regulated reading strategies during the intervention

3.1 Do EFL students reflect an enhancement in their use of self-regulated reading strategies during the intervention?

3.2 What self-regulated reading strategies were used by most of the EFL students during the intervention?

1.5 Significance of the Study

For the national perspective, the significance of the study lies in the following considerations First of all, the study sheds new light on the benefits of incorporating self-regulated learning into reading comprehension instruction, which has not received much attention in Vietnam although it has been proved effective worldwide in other EFL contexts Second, the study was conducted at HCMC University of Science in the hope that its findings would make significant contributions to positive changes in teaching and learning reading comprehension in this university as well as in other Vietnamese EFL contexts Third, the results of the study reveal the effectiveness of the instruction of self-regulated reading strategies on enhancing EFL students’ reading motivation – one of the essential factors contributing to the success of the readers Fourth, the study gives the idea

of building engaged, self-regulated readers outside the classroom, which is very necessary for all learners in the current situation and suggests an appropriate reading program for reading teachers, which supports them to create a powerful reading environment that provides students with enough space and freedom to read what they are really interested in Finally, the study provides a questionnaire to assess students’ reading motivation – a construct that has not gained due attention in reading comprehension instruction in Vietnam yet Additionally, the study also offers a self-evaluation form that can be used as

an instructional tool to support students to monitor and self-record their reading process and as a measurement instrument to assess the students’ level of self-regulated reading For the broader perspective outside Vietnam, the results of the study might be shared with EFL reading teachers and contribute a small part to perfect what research so far has been done

in the field of self-regulated learning and reading comprehension

1.6 Definitions of Terms

Self-regulation / self-regulated learning (SRL)

There exist many definitions of SRL in the literature but the following definition by Pintrich (2000) is one of the best well-known definitions and is adopted in several research studies

Self-regulation (or self-regulated learning) is “an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment” (Pintrich, 2000, p 453)

Self-regulated reading / self-regulation of reading

Self-regulated reading is characterized as the process of setting goals for reading, selecting and applying the reading strategies, monitoring comprehension and strategy use, and self-evaluating the reading progress (Horner & Shwery, 2002, p 102)

Engaged, self-regulated readers

Engaged, self-regulated readers are those who are able to “set realistic goals, select effective reading strategies, monitor their understanding of the text, and evaluate progress toward their goals” (Horner & Shwery, 2002, p 102)

It can be said that “readers’ level of self-regulation depends not only on their reading and self-regulation skills, but also on their beliefs about their efficacy to read, the value they place on the reading task, and their motivation to read and learn” (Horner & Shwery, 2002)

Reading comprehension

RAND Reading Study Group defines reading comprehension as “the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language” (RAND Reading Study Group, 2001, as cited in Snow, 2002, p 13)

It can be seen from the above definition that reading comprehension results from the interaction among three elements: the reader (the subject of the process of comprehending), the text (the object of the process of comprehending), and the reading

activity in which comprehending takes place (Snow, 2002, p 13) Each aspect of the three elements mentioned above makes its own contribution to the process of reading comprehension

Motivation and reading motivation

The definition of motivation is commonly conceived as “a multifaceted set of goals and beliefs that guide behavior” (Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999, p 199)

Accordingly, reading motivation is defined as “the individual’ goals and beliefs that guide his or her behavior with regard to reading” (Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999, p 199)

1.7 Overview of Thesis Chapters

The current thesis is comprised of five chapters as follows:

Chapter 1 is the introduction to the present study Specifically, this chapter begins with the background of the study and the statement of the problem, which leads to the conduction of the study Then, the purposes of the study are presented together with the three research questions Also, the significance of the study and the definitions of related terms are provided The chapter ends with the overview of thesis chapters

Chapter 2 provides the theoretical background to the study followed by the review

of some previous related studies and the discussion for implication to reveal the research gap that leads to the conduction of the present study

Chapter 3 mentions the research methodology employed for the study This chapter starts with the description of the research design, the research site and the participants Then, it is continued with the procedures of the study and the measurement instruments The section of data collection and data analysis to provide answers to each of the three research questions is also presented in this chapter

Chapter 4 presents the results of the study regarding each of the research questions and the discussion of the findings drawn in the previous sections of the chapter

Chapter 5 provides the summary of the main findings of the study as well as its limitations Accordingly, the chapter offers some suggestions for further research and implications for further practices

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents the theoretical background to the study followed by the review of previous related studies as well as the discussion for the research gap The theory section provides some aspects of self-regulated learning and reading comprehension that support this study as well as the importance of self-regulated learning in reading comprehension instruction The second section provides summaries of previous intervention studies and their limitations to lead to the discussion to reveal the gap for the conduction of the present study

2.1 Theoretical Background to the Study

2.1.1 Self-regulated Learning

2.1.1.1 Cognitive Theories of Self-regulated Learning

The emphasis on self-regulated learning (SRL) in education is first addressed by behavioral theory that stressed the importance of learner behaviors (Schunk, 2009) Thus, helping students to improve their self-regulation mainly focuses on teaching them to regulate their behaviors to persist in goal attainment, and from this perspective, SRL involves three processes, namely self-monitoring, self-instruction and self-reinforcement (Schunk, 2012) These three processes have been widely taught to students in order to help them self-regulate their learning behaviors However, the limitation of behavioral theory is that it does not emphasize learners’ internal factors (e.g., cognition, motivation), which are perceived very important in the SRL process (Schunk, 2009, 2012) This leads to the emergence of cognitive theories of self-regulated learning, which consider thoroughly the mentioned factors According to Schunk (2009), there are three cognitive theories of self-regulated learning applied extensively in education: social cognitive theory, information processing theory and social constructivist theory

Social Cognitive Theory

An early social cognitive perspective of self-regulation involves three processes quite similar to the three from the behavioral theory perspective: self-observation (self-

monitoring), self-judgment and self-reaction (Zimmerman, 1989b) Students initiate learning activities by setting goals for their learning and then observing, judging and reacting to their perceived progress (Schunk, 2012, p 407) Self-observation refers to

“students’ responses that involve systematically monitoring their own performance” (Zimmerman, 1989b) Self-judgment refers to “students’ responses that involve systematically comparing their performance with a standard or goal” (ibid, p 333) Two common forms of self-judgment are self-evaluation and causal attribution (Zimmerman,

2002, p 68) Self-reaction relates “making evaluative responses to judgments of one’s performance” (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997) It may take the form of “feelings of self-satisfaction and positive affect regarding one’s performance” or “adaptive or defensive responses” (Zimmerman, 2002)

Moreover, social cognitive theorists perceive self-regulation as a cyclic process (Schunk, 2012) in that it highlights the reciprocal interactions between personal factors (e.g., cognitions, emotions), behaviors and environmental conditions (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997) Accordingly, self-regulation can be defined as “a process whereby students activate and sustain cognitions, behaviors, and affects, which are systematically oriented toward attainment of their goals” (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, as cited in Boekaerts, 1997, p 162) Based on this perspective, Zimmerman (2000) expanded the classical social cognitive view of SRL with a three-phase self-regulation model, which reflects the cyclical nature of self-regulation process (Zimmerman, 2000, as cited in Schunk, 2012, p 123) Various self-regulatory processes are operated during the three phases of self-regulation In the forethought phase, learners set goals and hold a sense of self-efficacy for attaining them During the performance phase, they implement learning strategies and monitor their progress by comparing their performances with their goals In the self-reflection phase, they engage in self-evaluation and make attributions for their performances (Schunk, 2012)

In addition, the dynamic nature of self-regulation is reflected through the interaction between social influences and the self (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997) Learning process begins with learners acquiring new skills through observing social models and then engaging in performing skills with appropriate guidance and feedback When learners become more competent, the process continues with their independent performance of the

acquired skills and ends with implementing self-regulatory processes to refine skills and select new goals (Schunk, 2012, p 415) The above sequence is useful in planning instruction to develop learners’ skills and self-regulatory competence (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005, as cited in Schunk, 2012)

Finally, social cognitive theorists indicate that self-regulation requires learner choices (Zimmerman, 2000, as cited in Schunk, 2012) The following present four types of learner choices and their corresponding self-regulatory processes The first choice involves learner decision on whether to participate in the task, which related to some processes like learners’ goals, values, and self-efficacy (Schunk, 2012) Second, learners can also make choice of which strategies to be used to obtain their goals and which relaxation techniques

to overcome difficulties or anxiety (ibid, p 406) The third type of learner choice concerns desired learning outcomes, which is reflected through learners’ self-monitoring and self-judgment of their performance according to their goals (ibid, p 406) For the last type, learners should be allowed to choose or set their own social and physical environments that assist them to perform the task well In order for this to happen, they should learn how to structure their own learning environment and ask for social help whenever they need (ibid,

p 406) This may draw a conclusion that in order to encourage self-regulation, it is important to consider individual’s choice in designing a learning task

Information Processing Theory

Information processing theory of self-regulated learning emphasizes the importance

of cognitive functions (Schunk, 2009) Accordingly, Winne and Hadwin developed a model of SRL including four phases: defining the task, setting goals and planning, enacting tactics, and adapting metacognition (Winne, 2001, as cited in Schunk, 2012) Defining the task involves learners processing information about the conditions that characterize the task to clearly define it (Winne, 2001, in Schunk, 2012) Sources of information include task conditions (e.g., teacher’s directions) and cognitive conditions that they retrieve from long-term memory (e.g., perceived competence, attributions) The second phase refers to setting goals and planning for strategy use to attain that goal During the third phase, learners apply the selected strategies, and in the last phase, they adapt their plans and strategies regarding self-evaluation of their success (Schunk, 2012)

Since this theory primarily focuses on learner cognition, self-regulation is quite similar to metacognition (Gitomer & Glaser, 1987, as cited in Schunk, 2012) Metacognition consists of two interrelated components – metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies Metacognitive knowledge involves self-knowledge (e.g., personal capabilities, interests, and attitudes), knowledge about factors that might affect performance, and knowledge about learning strategies (Lai, 2011, p 2) Metacognitive or self-regulating strategies compose of three types of strategies – planning, monitoring and regulating (Pintrich, 1999, p.461) Dulger (2011) reported that metacognitive strategies serve as “the instruments for metacognition and function as a means of facilitating learning” (p 86)

Schunk (2012) insisted that self-regulation requires “a sound knowledge base” (p 416), thus encouraging SRL in the classroom requires learners to be exposed to all kinds of knowledge, among which most information processing models of self-regulation emphasize on the knowledge of learning strategies Learning strategies refer to “cognitive plans oriented toward successful task performance” (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986, as cited in Schunk, 2012) The implementation of a learning strategy involves (1) analyzing the learning goal, important task aspects, personal characteristics perceived important, and useful SRL methods, (2) planning a strategy, (3) implementing the methods, (4) monitoring their goal progress, and (5) modifying the strategy when the methods are not producing goal progress (Schunk, 2012) He also added that metacognitive knowledge plays an important role in guiding the operation of these methods (ibid, p 417) In other words, learners should be aware of which SRL methods to implement, why they are important, when to employ, and how to perform them

Schunk (2012) defined SRL methods as “specific procedures or techniques included in strategies to attain goals” (p 418) Weinstein and Mayer (1986) presented five types of learning strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, organization, comprehension monitoring and affective techniques) and their corresponding learning methods that could

be used to regulate the learning process (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986, as cited in Schunk, 2012) Rehearsal refers to repeating information verbatim, underlining (highlighting), and summarizing as its popular procedures Snowman (1986) argued that when there is too much information to memorize, these rehearsal methods might lose their effectiveness

(Snowman, 1986, in Schunk, 2012) Elaboration concerns such procedures as imagery, mnemonics, questioning, and note taking These procedures are used to make learning more meaningful by adding a mental picture, relating new information to existing information, making questions, and so on Organization includes techniques like mnemonics, grouping, outlining, and mapping It is indicated that the two later organization methods help to improve comprehension (Snowman, 1986, in Schunk, 2012)

Comprehension monitoring involves learners determining whether they are properly applying conceptual and procedural knowledge, evaluating whether they understand the material, judging whether the employed strategies are effective or need replacing, and knowing why strategy use will improve learning (Schunk, 2012, p 424) Comprehension monitoring involves such processes as self-questioning, rereading, checking consistencies, and paraphrasing Comprehension monitoring is perceived as the most important component in strategy instruction (Baker & Brown, 1984, as cited in Schunk, 2012) The last group of learning strategies relates techniques that learners may use to “create a favorable psychological climate for learning” (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986) – affective learning techniques (Schunk, 2012) They are helpful in maintaining attention

on important task aspects, setting goals, developing positive beliefs (self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and attitudes), establishing a suitable learning environment, managing time effectively, and minimizing distractions and anxiety (Schunk, 2012)

Because of the effectiveness of strategy instruction, there have existed several instructional programs or interventions developed to improve student learning It was indicated that “the best self-regulated strategy instruction programs are those that are integrated with academic content and implemented in classrooms that support students’ self-regulated learning” (Winne & Hadwin, 2008, as cited in Schunk, 2012, p 425) However, “strategy instruction is likely to be most effective when the constructivist nature

of the acquisition and use of strategies is stressed” (Paris & Paris, 2001, as cited in Schunk,

2012, p 426)

Social Constructivist Theory

According to Schunk (2012), one theory perceived popular among various sources for constructivist accounts of self-regulation is known as Vygotsky’s (1978) constructivist

theory of human development Vygotsky believed that both people and their cultural environments make their contributions to the formation of the interacting social system Within that social system, learners develop higher-level cognitive functions (e.g., self-regulation, problem solving) by using the tools (e.g., language, symbols) that they learn through their communications and actions with people in their environments According to his view, self-regulation involves the coordination of such cognitive processes as memory, planning, synthesis, and evaluation, which is operated under the guide of the individual’s social environment and culture (Schunk, 2012, p.428)

Vygotsky believed that students learn to self-regulate through control of their own actions The process of self-regulation is affected by two primary mechanisms: language and the zone of proximal development (ZPD) Students first direct their actions by using others’ language, but they gradually internalize this self-directing language and use it to self-regulate They then, through interactions with others in the ZPD, transit behaviors regulated by others to behaviors regulated by themselves, or self-regulated learning (Schunk, 2012) To put it another way, the process of SRL involves the gradual internalization of language and concepts, in which students primarily respond to the directions from others and then internalize these directions to self-regulate their behaviors

in different situations (ibid, p.253)

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

2.1.1.2 Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning

Motivation is intimately linked with self-regulation They work hand in hand to explain student learning and success in the classroom (Zumbrum, Tadlock, & Roberts, 2011) Learners motivated to attain a goal engage in using self-regulatory processes and strategies, which help to enhance learning and bring them a sense of achieving greater competence, and that perception of greater competence in turn sustains motivation and self-regulation (Schunk, 2012) The interdependent relationship between motivation and self-regulation is recognized in many theoretical models of self-regulation, among which Pintrich’s model is perceived as one that is heavily motivation dependent (Schunk, 2012) This model is built mainly based on social cognitive theory, and it highlights the importance of motivation to self-regulation (Schunk, 2005) In this model, the process of self-regulation comprises four phases: (1) forethought, planning, activation, (2) monitoring, (3) control, and (4) reaction and reflection, and each phase involves students’ self-regulation of four areas: cognition, motivation, behavior, and context (Schunk, 2005) Motivation is considered as a key factor affecting self-regulation through interactions with cognition, behavior and context (Schunk, 2005) In the model, Pintrich mainly concentrates

on three motivational processes: self-efficacy, task value, and goal orientations (Pintrich,

1999, p 462)

Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ judgments of their capabilities to organize and implement actions necessary to attain designated performance of skill for specific tasks (Bandura, 1986, as cited in Zimmerman, 1989b) In achievement context, it involves

“students’ confidence in their cognitive skills to learn or perform the academic course work” (Pintrich, 1999) Research has found the reflexive positive relations between self-efficacy and SRL (Zumbrum, Tadlock, & Roberts, 2011, p 8) It is specified in Zumbrum, Tadlock and Roberts (2011) that “higher self-efficacy beliefs increase the use of self-regulation strategies” (Pajares, 2008) and “the use of self-regulation strategies can lead to increases in self-efficacy beliefs and academic achievement” (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990)

Task value refers to an individual’ appreciation for a task’ relevance, which consists of three components – the importance of the task, the personal interest in the task, and the unity value of the task for future goals (Pintrich, 1999) The importance of the task

involves how important an individual assumes for the task Interest relates to an individual’s perceived attitudes or liking of the task Unity value refers to the usefulness of the task appreciated by an individual Like self-efficacy, students’ task value beliefs have positive relationship to their use of cognitive strategies (Pintrich, 1999) Also, students with greater interest in a topic and higher appreciation of the importance and usefulness of the task showed greater use of self-regulatory strategies (Pintrich, 1999)

Goal orientations may refer to “students’ reasons for engaging in academic tasks” (Anderman, Austin, & Johnson, 2002, as cited in Schunk, 2012) The literature revealed various classifications of goal orientations One classification refers to mastery goal orientation and performance goal orientation Mastery goal orientation concerns “learning and mastering the task using self-set standards and self-improvement” (Pintrich, 1999, p 466) It focuses on “students’ acquisition of knowledge, skill, and competence relative to their prior performance” (Schunk, 2005) Performance goal orientation involves “a striving

to demonstrate competence by outperforming peers” (Pintrich, 2000a, as cited in Schunk, 2005) Another classification refers to intrinsic goal orientation ad extrinsic goal orientation Intrinsic goal orientation refers to “students’ real interest in the learning process and aspiration to increase their knowledge of the subject matter” (Dweck & Leggett, 1988, as cited in Taylor, 2012) Extrinsic goal orientation involves students’ interest in the learning due to such causes as grades, recognition, and competition (Pintrich, 2000a, as cited in Taylor, 2012)

2.1.1.3 Characteristics of Self-Regulated Learners

According to Zimmerman (1989b), what characterizes self-regulated learners mentioned in Zimmerman’s (1986) papers is their active participation in their own learning process in terms of metacognition, motivation, and behavior (p 329) Montalvo and Torres (2004) and Sardareh, Saad and Boroomand (2012) summarized the following as some characteristics of self-regulated learners that are synthesized by many researchers (Winne, 1995; Weinstein, Husman & Deirking, 2000; Corno, 2001; Zimmerman, 2001, 2002)

1 They are be aware of the importance of and know how to apply such cognitive strategies as rehearsal, elaboration, and organization to help them to attend to,

transform, organize, elaborate, and recover information (Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 2001)

2 They show high level of metacognition in that they know how to plan, control, and direct their mental processes to achieve their personal goals (Corno, 2001)

3 They show high level of motivation beliefs and adaptive emotions towards the learning tasks and their capability to control and modify them to suit the requirements of the pre-set task and specific learning situation (Weinstein, Husman,

& Deirking, 2000; Zimmerman, 2002)

4 They plan and control their own time and efforts for learning rather than reply on the others, and also they know how to create and structure favorable environments

to better complete the tasks at hand (Winne, 1995; Corno, 2001; Zimmerman, 2001)

5 They show greater efforts to participate in controlling and regulating academic tasks, classroom climate, and structure whenever the learning context allows them (Weinstein, Husman, & Deirking, 2000; Corno, 2001; Zimmerman, 2002)

6 They are able to use volitional strategies to avoid external and internal distractors to maintain their concentration, effort and motivation in performing tasks (Weinstein, Husman, & Deirking, 2000; Zimmerman, 2001, 2002)

7 They self-evaluate their performance against their personal goals rather than other learners’ performance and make strategy attributions instead of ability attributions, which leads to greater personal satisfaction with their learning progress and further efforts to improve their performance (Zimmerman, 2002)

In summary, self-regulated learners may be defined as those who “take responsibility for their own learning, consider learning as a proactive process, are self-motivated and use strategies enabling them achieve the desired academic results” (Montalvo & Torres, 2004; Sardareh, Saad, & Boroomand, 2012)

2.1.1.4 The Teaching of Self-Regulated Learning

It is also said in Sardareh, Saad and Boroomand’s (2012) paper that students’ regulation is not “an enduring measure of mental intelligence” or “personal characteristics” (Pintrich, 1995) but is learned through “experience” and “self-reflection” (Zimmerman, 1998) In addition, Paris and Paris (2001) confirmed that students’ understanding of SRL can be enhanced “indirectly through experience, directly through instruction, and elicitedly

self-through practice” (Paris & Paris, 2001, p 98) Also, Zumbrum, Tadlock and Roberts (2011), from a great deal of literature, concluded that SRL could be encouraged in the classroom by direct instruction and modeling, guided and independent practice, social support and feedback, and reflective practice (p 14) Consequently, Montalvo and Torres (2004) presented several instructional interventions and models designed to teach students self-regulatory processes and strategies that were first mentioned in Schunk and

Zimmerman’s (1998) book, namely Regulated Learning: From Teaching to reflective Practice These classroom interventions may follow one or combine following

Self-didactic methods to teach students self-regulation

First of all, students can understand and learn SRL through induction method That

is, students induce SRL from authentic or repeated experiences in school (Paris & Paris, 2001) Second, teachers may provide students with explicit instruction of SRL strategies That is, teachers supply students with detailed explanation of what the acquired strategy is, what skills are involved in it, how to use it, when and why to use it instead of one another (Paris & Paris, 2001) Third, students can learn how to use self-regulatory processes and strategies through observation of the models (Boekaerts, 1997) That is, students assimilate the acquired strategies as observing the teacher or other better students (peer models) performing them (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998, as cited in Montalvo & Torres, 2004) Graham, Harris and Troia (1998) indicated that modeling is considered as one of the most recommended methods for teaching self-regulation (Graham, Harris, & Troia, 1998, in Montalvo & Torres, 2004) Fourth, Paris and Paris (2001) believed that “SRL can be acquired through engagement in practices that require self-regulation, that is, in situations

in which self-regulation is welded to the nature of the task” (pp 98, 99) Students may first

be involved in guided practices and later independent practices in accordance with feedback on strategy effectiveness from the others (Montalvo & Torres, 2004) These forms of practices facilitate the process of transfer the responsibility of self-regulation from the teacher to the students (Montalvo & Torres, 2004)

As cited in Paris and Paris (2001), it is affirmed that students with difficulty in using strategies and maintaining task focus and engagement might need more explicit instruction and support to promote SRL (Graham, 1997) However, Brand-Gruwel (1995) indicated that direct instruction of SRL does not guarantee either cognitive self-regulation

or learning improvement in the long-term (Brand-Gruwel, 1995, as cited in Boekaerts, 1997) Moreover, it is demonstrated that students seem not to apply the acquired strategies

to further learning outside the classroom; much knowledge explicitly taught thus remains implicit knowledge (Boekaerts, 1997) This happens because students do not make their repertoire of learning strategies instrumental to that knowledge (ibid, p 171) In this respect, Paris and Paris (2001) and Zumbrum, Tadlock and Roberts (2011) suggested combining direct instruction, modeling and practice sessions in classrooms (p 99; p 15)

Furthermore, self-monitoring is perceived as very important in any instructional program aiming at promoting self-regulation Montalvo and Torres argue that if students want to learn a strategy, they have to supervise its application and effectiveness, and how

to change or modify it when it does not prove effective (Montalvo & Torres, 2004) Regarding this, they suggested that classroom instruction and activities should be organized in such a way that they encourage students to use more cognitive and metacognitive strategies and provide them with opportunities for self-monitoring (Montalvo & Torres, 2004, p 19)

According to Paris and Paris (2001), if early training of SRL focuses on “didactic methods”, recent approaches emphasize “reflective and scaffolded instruction” (p 91) Therefore, it is very important for students to be provided with social support from the teacher or peers while they are learning self-regulatory strategies Social support often takes the form of progress feedback (Zumbrum, Tadlock, & Roberts, 2011, p 16) According to Montalvo and Torres (2004), this support should be eliminated gradually when students becomes more competent In fact, as cited in Montalvo and Torres (2004), Graham et al (1998) affirmed that “taking away this support, or scaffolding, must be done step by step, moving from more directive, intensive mediation in the initial stage to more self-regulated forms” (p 18) Also, the instructional programs of self-regulation may follow self-reflective practice (metacognitive discussion) This kind of practice involves students’ independent practice of the acquired strategies, reflection on their own learning, evaluation of their performance and strategy effectiveness, necessary modification of their perspective on strategy use, and adjustment of some social and physical aspects to create more favorable learning environments (Montalvo & Torres, 2004)

To sum up, designing more instructional programs that support to overcome the limitations of the above separate didactic methods as well as help to inspire self-regulation

in classrooms is still in concern Boekaerts (1997) suggested that developing such instructional interventions, teachers should take into consideration the following recommendations

1 Teachers should be aware of different types of prior knowledge that students draw

on to give meaning to tasks and assignments, and then encourage students to activate their prior knowledge and make it instrumental to the new domain (p 167)

2 Teachers should be aware that declarative knowledge needs to be proceduralized, thus they should create practice sessions that allow students to replace conscious and deliberate processing by more habitual automatic processing (p 170)

3 Teachers should create powerful learning environments in which students can learn

to self-scaffold their learning process (p 174)

4 Teachers should design tasks that allow students to ameliorate planning, initiating and completing intended actions (p 182)

2.1.2 Reading Comprehension in EFL Contexts

2.1.2.1 Factors Contributing to Reading Comprehension in EFL Contexts

There are two groups of factors may influence reading comprehension: internal and external factors, in which the former involves such variables related to the reader as prior knowledge (schemata), cognitive abilities and strategies, and affective characteristics whereas the later involves variables related to the text, context, and writer (Sadeghi, 2007,

p 199) The significant contributions of reader variables to reading comprehension were acknowledged in a great deal of empirical research long time ago whilst the others that make minor contributions have been valued recently One variable that the readers contribute to enhance reading comprehension is their previous knowledge or schemata There are three types of schemata: (1) content schemata referring to one’s knowledge of the world and the culture, (2) formal or textual schemata referring to one’s knowledge of text structure and discourse, and (3) language or linguistic schemata referring to one’s knowledge of lexicon, syntax and semantics (Singhal, 1998, as cited in Sadeghi, 2007)

Another reader variable that influences reading comprehension is the reader’s cognitive abilities and strategies That is, the readers should not only possess knowledge of cognitive strategies and metacognition but also are able to activate and use that knowledge

to promote their reading comprehension (Sadeghi, 2007) As cited in the same work, the readers’ cognitive ability can be exemplified by their ability to connect all relevant information from all sources to construct the meaning of the text (Trabasso, 1981) or to solve the problems of the current reading situation (Rumelhart, 1984) One reader variable usually neglected in providing an explanation for reading comprehension is referred as the reader’s affective characteristics They may involve either the reader’s purposes, beliefs, perspectives, motivation, or emotion prior to reading or his/her affective responses brought about by the text while reading (Sadeghi, 2007)

Each aspect of the reader variables interacts with one another, with textual and contextual factors, and the writer as well, which results in the ultimate comprehension (Sadeghi, 2007) Contextual factors concern environmental, situational and social elements that may affect the process and product of comprehension, and these factors often take the forms of environmental distractors (ibid, p 208) Thus, the teacher should teach students strategies to eliminate or at least to minimize these distractors or support them to create favorable reading environments by including learner choices in given reading tasks In addition to the above variables, another variable derives from ESL/EFL contexts of reading comprehension instruction is the relationship between L1 and SL/FL (ibid, p 210) That is the similarities and differences between L1 and SL/FL and the literacy level of the reader

in L1 as well may influence his/her comprehension ability of SL/FL

2.1.2.2 Reading Comprehension and Levels of Comprehension

RAND Reading Study Group defines reading comprehension as “the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language” (RAND Reading Study Group, 2001, as cited in Snow, 2002, p 13) More clearly, Grabe (2014) specified,

“reading comprehension involves abilities to recognize words rapidly and efficiently, develop and use a very large recognition vocabulary, process sentences in order to build comprehension, engage a range of strategic

processes and underlying cognitive skills (e.g., setting goals, changing goals flexibly, monitoring comprehension), interpret meaning in relation to background knowledge, interpret and evaluate texts in line with reader goals and purposes, and process texts fluently over an extended period of time” (p 8)

These mentioned reading processes and knowledge allow the reader to generate text comprehension to the level required (Grabe, 2014) There are three main levels of comprehension – literal comprehension, referential comprehension, and critical comprehension (Mohamad, 1999) Literal comprehension involves understanding of the surface meanings, the information or ideas explicitly stated in the text for example (Mohamad, 1999) At this first level, the readers only focus on reading “the lines” and achieve comprehension through word decoding and lower-level reading processes, i e bottom-up processing (Aguilera, 2014) At the second level, the readers read “between the lines” (Mohamad, 1999) for deeper meanings (Aguilera, 2014) For example, the readers need to see the relationships among ideas to explore the implied meanings of these ideas (Mohamad, 1999) or make inferences based on the information stated in the texts (Aguilera, 2014) Finally, the readers may go “beyond the lines” (Mohamad, 1999) and obtain the third level – critical comprehension through the critical analysis of the text (Aguilera, 2014) That is, they are able to evaluate the ideas and information presented in the text (Mohamad, 1999) Aguilera (2014) suggests that the two later levels of comprehension require the readers to move above word-level and make use of background knowledge to assist comprehension through top-down processing and make use of other higher-level reading processes (e.g., strategic processing, comprehension monitoring, and reading goals)

2.1.2.3 Development of Reading Comprehension Instruction in EFL Contexts

Factors contributing to reading comprehension and levels of comprehension discussed so far provide some insights into the development of reading comprehension instruction in ESL/EFL contexts Sadeghi (2007) argued that L2 readers may bring their L1 content (background) and textual knowledge to L2 reading situations, thus it is necessary for them to be taught L2 language or linguistic knowledge from the beginning (p 201) This can explain the fact that early reading comprehension instruction focuses on training students bottom-up processing (e.g., word recognition and decoding) together with

teaching them vocabulary and linguistic knowledge for literal text comprehension (Alyousef, 2005; Coyne, Kami'Enui, & Carnine, 2007; Kader, 2008; Aguilera, 2014) According to Carrell and Eisterhold (1983), reading comprehension theory has been influenced by Goodman’s (1970) view of reading as “a guessing game” in which the readers need to reconstruct the messages encoded by the writers (p 554) This view suggests the use of top-down processing, i e using previous knowledge and going down from more general knowledge and meaning to the specific ones of the texts (Kader, 2008)

He additionally informed that more recent research on reading comprehension also suggests the combination of bottom-up and top-down processing in which the readers may first adopt the top-down approach to guess the probable meaning of the text and then move

on to the bottom-up approach to see if what they guess really reflects what the writer says (p 106)

Furthermore, a great deal of research indicates that readers bring information, knowledge, emotion, experience, and culture, i e schemata to their reading process (Kader, 2008) As a result, a growing body of research has been done to prove the role of schemata in ESL/EFL reading comprehension (Alyousef, 2005) In this respect, reading is viewed as an “interactive process” in which the reader interacts with the writer which leads

to text comprehension by using different kinds of knowledge: linguistic knowledge and schematic knowledge and through different reading processes: bottom-up processing and top-down processing (Alyousef, 2005, p 144) However, Aguilera (2014) argues that

“word-level skills and use of prior knowledge are regarded as automatic and unconscious lower-level processes” while “comprehension strategies are conscious processes that can

be controlled and monitored to affect comprehension development” (p 30) Kader (2008) contributes that for most SL/FL readers who are already literate in their L1, reading comprehension primarily involves the matter of developing appropriate, efficient comprehension strategies (p 108) Therefore, strategy instruction can be seen as an effective approach to help students read more efficiently According to Guthrie (1996), most researchers in early time focus on studying a single cognitive strategy rather than conducting a study of multiple strategies (Guthrie, 1996, cited in Alyousef, 2005)

Nevertheless, the emergence of the concept of metacognition has revealed the idea

of strategic readers Many studies suggest that “good readers are strategic, orchestrating

multiple strategies before, during and after reading to make sense of what they read” (Coyne, Kami'Enui, & Carnine, 2007) According to this view, strategic readers should be able to choose from a repertoire of strategies ones that they think are effective to achieve comprehension (Aguilera, 2014) Strategic reading instruction involves modeling, scaffolding, extensive practice and independent use of the strategies, and strategy discussion and comprehension monitoring are regular features of everyday reading instruction (Grable, 2014) In reference to reading comprehension, meta-comprehension can be considered as one representative of metacognition (Ammar, 2009) that provides readers with tools, i e metacognitive strategies to help them solve comprehension problems (Aguilera, 2014) Metacognition is an extension of schema theory and text analysis in that the concept focuses on not only declarative knowledge but also procedural knowledge used to process information (Aguilera, 2014) Early research on metacognition focuses on two areas: explicit instruction of strategies for remembering and the readers’ strategy use to monitor, evaluate and repair their comprehension while later research concerns the concept of conditional knowledge (Aguilera, 2014)

It is argued in Kader (2008) that cognitive factors alone cannot be assumed to account for the eventual success of SL/FL readers (Fitzgerald, 1994) but the readers’ love for reading (Kader, 2008) He adds that the autonomy the readers gain through the process

of learning reading strategies has been shown to be “a powerful motivator” (p 107) However, Alyousef (2005) informs that there exist few studies addressing the issues related to reading motivation and engagement According to Guthrie (1996), “engaged reading is based on motivational and cognitive characteristics of the reader…who is intrinsically motivated, builds knowledge, uses cognitive strategies, and interacts socially

to learn from text” (Guthrie, 1996, p 404, as cited in Alyousef, 2005) Research reveals that the teacher may motivate reading by selecting interesting appropriate materials for readers at the early stage of reading and then gradually provides them with choices of texts

to help them perform higher on reading tasks (Alyousel, 2005)

Another renewed interest in teaching reading comprehension to SL/FL readers is the inclusion of extensive reading into the ESL/EFL reading comprehension programs (Alyousef, 2005; Kader, 2008) That is, in addition to the focus on specific strategy instruction for intensive reading, the teachers should support or even consider the teaching

of extensive reading (Kader, 2008) Extensive reading, as Kader (2008) cited from Krashen (1993), helps readers gain in reading ability, linguistic competence, vocabulary, spelling and writing Alyousef (2005) also expresses his consensus by citing from Hedge (2003) that through extensive reading, learners not only “build their language competence, progress in their reading ability” but also “become more independent in their studies, acquire cultural knowledge, and develop confidence and motivation to carry on learning” (p 204-205) Hedge (2003) adds that “only through more extensive reading that learners can gain substantial practice in operating the strategies more independently on a range of materials” (Hedge, 2003, p 202, as cited in Alyousef, 2005)

2.1.2.4 Trends of Research in Reading Comprehension Strategy Instruction

Research in strategy instruction follows two paths with two different purposes: (1) identifying strategies used by skilled and non-skilled readers and (2) searching for effective methods to teach strategies identified in the first path (Aguilera, 2014) However, most research in the early period focuses on teaching students isolated strategies, i e teaching one strategy at a time (ibid, p 44) These studies look to improve students’ comprehension

by teaching them first declarative and procedural knowledge and later conditional knowledge of the strategy (ibid, p 45) That is teaching students what the strategy is, how

to use the strategy, and when and why to apply the strategy Another concern is looking for classroom interventions effective to help students use and control the above kinds of strategic knowledge and perform the strategy independently Research encourages the application of “scaffolding learning” to strategy instruction in which the teacher may first provide explicit instruction of the strategy, then gradually releases the responsibility to the students by using think-aloud or modeling, and gives students the opportunities to use the strategy by themselves in groups This support continues until the students are able to perform the strategy independently (ibid, p 46)

Nevertheless, reading comprehension is never a straightforward process that involves only one strategy at a time This fact results in another trend of research to design more complex interventions to test groups of strategies (Aguilera, 2014) Furthermore, research encourages to carry out these interventions in classrooms where there also exist social aspects (ibid, p 46) As a result, there appear several interventions in this kind like collaborative strategic reading, peer-assisted learning strategies, transactional strategy

instruction, concept-oriented reading instruction, reciprocal teaching and cognitive academic language learning approach (Aguilera, 2014) These share such instructional characteristics as “modeling, scaffolding, guided practice, and independent practice of the strategies all within the socially constructed nature of classroom discourse” (Raphael et al.,

2008, p 453, cited in Aguilera, 2014)

Despite the significant contributions of the mentioned interventions to reading comprehension in various settings, there still exist two following limitations First, the strategies taught in those interventions are imposed upon students, which prevents students from being responsible for their knowledge and strategy use (Aguilera, 2014) That means the students are not aware of “the functionality of the strategies” (ibid, p 50) Second, these interventions may prevent comprehension because some of them involve teaching students a small number of strategies while it is argued that good readers need a repertoire

of strategies that enable them to choose the most effective strategies for the reading task at hand (ibid, p 50) These limitations lead to a rather new trend of research in strategy instruction that embeds reading strategies into SRL to include broader types of strategies According to Paris and Paris (2001), this change is necessary because of the growing realization that the effective use of literacy strategies depends not only on students’ awareness of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge of the strategies, but also

on “motivational attributions” and “feelings of efficacy” (p 92) It is obvious that SRL involves cognitive strategies, metacognition and motivation (Ammar, 2009) In reference

to reading comprehension instruction, the construct of SRL is particularly narrowed down and referred to as self-regulated reading that includes cognitive reading strategies, meta-comprehension, and reading motivation (Ammar, 2009)

2.1.3 Self-Regulated Learning in Reading Instruction

2.1.3.1 Benefits of Incorporating SRL into Reading Instruction

Literature reveals many significant benefits for teachers to incorporate SRL into reading instruction Firstly, SRL subsumes factors (cognition, metacognition and motivation) that make substantial contributions to enhanced comprehension in one coherent construct – self-regulated reading (Ammar, 2009) Secondly, SRL helps to develop self-regulated reading behaviors that in turn result in “enhanced comprehension,

increased reading engagement and better implementation of higher level literacy skills” (Ammar, 2009) Moreover, SRL then continues to “sustain and deepen engaged reading and consequent comprehension” (Davis & Gray, 2007) Thirdly, supporting such SRL in reading classrooms also contributes to create “more independent, competent and motivated students and teachers” (Davis & Gray, 2007) Fourthly, reading programs based on SRL allow teachers to develop more reading practices that not only support self-regulated reading but also help them to deal with a hard-to-solve problem in today’s education – learner differences (Butler, 2012) Finally, using SRL as a framework for strategy instruction (Souvignier & Mokhlesgerima, 2006) can help to remove the two limitations presented in the previous section and foster reading comprehension To put it another way, SRL-based reading programs provide students with a wide range of many types of strategies, opportunities and space to select which strategies most suitable for the current reading task and condition

2.1.3.2 Challenges and Considerations when Incorporating SRL into Reading

Instruction

Although SRL makes considerable contributions to reading instruction, its inclusion also produces some challenges summarized in Zumbrum, Tadlock and Roberts’s (2011) paper That is challenging to develop lessons to prepare students to engage in SRL practices and provide real support and opportunities for the implementation of self-regulatory strategies (Paris & Winograd, 2003) One challenge may involve the time required to teach students procedural knowledge of specific strategies while including numerous strategies in a reading program (Boekaerts & Cascallar, 2006) Another obstacle

is how the teacher can understand the uncontrollable factors (e.g., social identity, Cleary & Chen, 2009) that may affect the development of a student’s ability of self-regulation to provide accurate explanation of his or her development (Zumbrum, Tadlock, & Roberts, 2011) Last but not least, it is difficult for reading teachers to design practices that support self-regulated reading and diverse learners at the same time (Butler, 2012)

In order to handle challenges of incorporating SRL in reading instruction, the teacher should take into consideration of the following issues First of all, the teacher should understand and encourage students to exercise considerable influence of goal orientations, especially mastery goals over reading comprehension and motivation (Davis

& Gray, 2007) Adopting these goal orientations enables students to spend more time engaged in learning, become intrinsically motivated to learn, self-regulate, and invest more

in their own learning (ibid, p 32) Second, they also add that students with autonomy and control over their reading are able to become self-regulated and exercise focusing on mastery goals, and that self-regulated readers monitor and adjust their behaviors to support their own learning needs (ibid, p.33) As cited in Davis and Gray (2007) and Housand and Reis (2008), in order for this to happen, reading teachers need to foster reading environments that are characterized by the following features:

(1) support students’ use of a wide variety of strategies (Zimmerman & Pons, 1990)

Martinez-(2) offer individual choice and decision-making (Turner, 1995; Perry, 1998; Perry & VandeKamp, 2000)

(3) provide authentic reading opportunities, e.g., reading for information and interest (Turner, 1995)

(4) include high-challenge reading tasks (Turner, 1995; Perry, 1998; Perry & VandeKamp, 2000)

(5) allow students’ participation in assessment Perry, 1998; Perry & VandeKamp, 2000)

(6) engage students in help-seeking (Perry, 1998)

Considering individual choice in reading is a way to tap into students’ interest; thus develop their reading engagement Learner choice may involve the choice of reading texts, self-regulated reading strategies or reading conditions Offering choices and supporting students’ decision-making toward reading goals may enhance motivation for reading, which in turn helps to improve test scores (Turner, 1995, as cited in Davis & Gray, 2007) High-challenge reading tasks are “ones that complex, extend over time, involve peer collaboration, and include student choice” (Miller & Meece, 1997, 1998, in Davis and Gray, 2007) A complex task does not mean that it is too difficult but includes “multiple goals, large chunks of content, various resources, and varied problem-solving situations” (Davis & Gray, 2007), allows “various outcomes or products”, and requires the integration

of prior knowledge and new learning (Perry, et al., 2004, as cited in David & Gray, 2007)