In this chapter, a brief summary of the findings of the study will be presented first.
Then, the pedagogical implications will be proposed. Finally, the limitations of the study and suggestions for further research will be discussed.
Summary of the Study
This study investigated the relationships between SHSS’ achievement goals, reading strategy use and reading competency, as well as their changes due to the related factors such as the college entrance exam and the reading instruction in class after the semester. The findings are summarized as below.
From the perspective of reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha values of 10 variables were moderate to high. The six Pearson correlation coefficients between pre- and post-reading scores, as well as pre- and post-questionnaire scores were also significantly high.
Besides, among the 24 Pearson correlations between four reading strategies and three achievement goals for both pre- and post-scores, only three correlation coefficients were not significant. Obviously, the three low correlation coefficients are related to the pre-Performance score.
From the perspective of achievement goals, SHSS had moderate to strong Mastery and Performance goals with neutral orientation no matter which proficiency level they were, and no significant differences existed among the three levels of groups when they faced the upcoming college entrance examination. Nevertheless, H-achievers had
stronger achievement goals than those of M- and L-achievers after the semester. Besides, the influence of the college entrance examination and the reading instruction on SHSS’
achievement goals after the semester was not significant no matter which groups they
were. In details, Mastery goals of all three levels of SHSS had positive gains, and H-achievers had larger enhancement than M- and L-H-achievers (p = .11< p = .81). In contrast, Performance goals of M- and L-achievers had negative gains, whereas H-achievers had positive gain. The results were consistent with the previous studies that the mastery goal was more effective in the long run while the performance goal might disappear once the reward was not worthy of effort (Meece & Miller, 1999; Wilson &
Kim, 2016), and higher achievers’ learning motivations were usually higher and more persistent than the lower achievers’ (Pan, 2008).
From the perspective of reading strategy use, SHSS frequently adopted Overall strategies in the reading process, and they significantly adopted more Global strategy items than Problem-solving and Support strategy items no matter which proficiency level they were. Besides, H-achievers adopted more Overall strategy items than M- and L-achievers either in pre- or post-questionnaires. Regarding the influence of the college entrance examination and the reading instruction in class on SHSS’ reading strategy use after the semester, there were no significant differences no matter which levels of groups. However, the 42 SHSS’ Global strategy use had significantly positive gain, and H-achievers usually had larger enhancement of reading strategy use than M- and L-achievers. One exception was that L-achievers had larger enhancement of Support strategy use than H- and M-achievers (p = .33 < p = .46). However, when the view of
“compensation” in the interactive model and the frequencies of vocabulary consulting were taken into consideration based on the qualitative study, H-achievers’ favorite was Global strategy type, whereas L-achievers’ favorite was Support strategy type.
From the perspective of the think-aloud task, the six participants’ favorite strategies were B20 under Global category, B4 under Problem-solving category and B21 under Support category. The outcome was corresponding to the 42 SHSS’
strategy-questionnaire scores except for B21 strategy. In view of reading strategy items, it is also demonstrated that H-achievers used more strategy items than those of L-achievers in the qualitative study. Besides, the analyses of the six participants’ achievement goals were corresponding to the results of quantitative research. Furthermore, the analyses of the think-aloud transcripts indicated the importance of lexical and grammatical knowledge as well as explained that higher-achievers adopted strategies more effectively and flexibly than lower-achievers in the reading task even though they might employ similar strategies (Hudson, 2007; Vann & Abraham, 1990).
Pedagogical Implications
As the quantitative study revealed there were no significant differences in achievement goals and reading strategy use after the college entrance exam and the English reading instruction in class, the necessity for adjustment of classroom reading instructions was implied. Besides, the analysis of the think-aloud transcripts indicated the importance of vocabulary knowledge and the close interrelationship between vocabulary and grammar, so instructional techniques for vocabulary expansion within grammatical context should be emphasized. In response to the first problem, Ames (1992) and Epstein (1989) claimed both-goal-focused teaching practices with the TARGET framework could be the guideline to stimulate students’ achievement goals.
Nunan (1999) suggested the incorporation of strategy training into classroom lessons to prompt students’ motivation. Therefore, language teachers can investigate students’
learning preference, adopt different learning forms (group or whole-class works) based on different task goals, give students explicit strategy introductions underlying the tasks, encourage students’ peer-evaluation or self-evaluation, give students corrective
feedback with reasonable recognition, and provide students elastic time for their problem-solving or brainstorming. For example, teachers can discuss text structures as
part of pre- or post-reading activities, distinguish main ideas from supporting
information, and encourage students to share their own opinions or findings about the subject. When the class lessons become more student-centered and challenging, it is more likely for students to enhance their achievement goals and develop their own learning strategies.
In response to the second problem, when English teachers analyze the word parts, they can employ the dictionary-consulting strategy for students to find additional examples. For instance, they can encourage students to find more words with the same prefixes or suffixes. When teachers define new words, the introduction of their
collocations and patterns should be taken into account as well. Besides, some
vocabulary activities can be incorporated into class lessons. For example, teachers can place new words in the context, and let students guess their meanings. Moreover, an explicit grammar instruction to enhance students’ ability to analyze a complicated sentence structure is also suggested.
Limitations and Reflections
The quantitative study for 42 SHSS had three groups (13, 16 & 13) divided based on their different levels of proficiency, and the significant differences between Mid- and Low-achievers were not drawn. If the sample size could be increased to at least 30 persons in each group, the results would be more apparently significant. Besides, all the 42 participants in the same class were not representative enough in statistics. If the participants could be selected from different senior high schools in southern Taiwan, it would be more persuasive.
In the qualitative study, as most students preferred to look up words by cellphones instead of the paper dictionary, the researcher agreed them to use their own cellphones as the tool of dictionary-consulting. However, two boys among them used the Google
translation APP to take a picture and acquire the translated text, which would affect the results of their strategy use and their reading comprehension score. Although their behavior was rectified then and there, it would be better for the researcher to set up clear regulations in advance.
Suggestions for Future Research
The current study combined quantitative with qualitative research. It is suggested that a larger sample size from different senior high schools could make sure the results more objective, persuasive, andgeneralized in the quantitative study. In addition to the exploration of motivations and strategy use by reading competency, other independent variables such as time span of English learning, the experience of GEPT, gender and age could be taken into account as well. Especially, some studies showed significant differences in reading strategy use between females and males (Chang, Liu, & Lee, 2007; Yu, 2006), but some studies indicated there were no significant differences in strategy use between males and females (Cheng, 2009; Peng, 2001).Therefore, it would be an interesting issue for future research. In the qualitative study, in addition to the think-aloud task, reading comprehension quiz, and simple inquiry, a more considerate interview could be conducted with open-ended questions such as how the participants perceive their strategy use, or the reason why they prefer some specific strategies.
Besides, to obtain more useful information and profound understanding, different motivation and strategy questionnaires with elaborate instructions of reading strategy could be investigated in the future study. However, researchers should be very careful when inviting students who are facing a critical exam to participate in the study because the influence of the exam could be multidirectional.
REFERENCES
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivational process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267.
Ahmadi, M. R., Ismail, H. N., & Abdullah, M. K. K. (2013). The importance of metacognitive reading strategy awareness in reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 235-244. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n10p235
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworh.
Bachman, L. F. (2005). Statistical analyses for language assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Barnett, M. A. (1988). Teaching reading strategies: How methodology affects language course articulation. Foreign Language Annals, 21(2), 109-119.
Benabo, R., & Tirole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Review of Economic Studies, 70(3), 489-520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00253 Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2007). Discourse and context in language teaching.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, C. Y., Liu, S. C., & LEE, Y. N. (2007). A study of language learning strategies used by college EFL learners in Taiwan. MingDao Journal of General Education, 2(1), 236-260.
Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research: An introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education Journal, 12(2), 68-82.
Cheng, M.-F. (2009). Effects of English Proficiency and Gender Differences on Reading
Strategy Use (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Pingtung University, Pingtung.
Dai, D. Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2004), Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition:
Integrative Perspectives on Intellectual Functioning and Development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation.
In Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Vol. 4, pp. 43-69). London, England:
Thames Valley.
Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 290–299.
Ellio, A. J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 x 2 achievement goal model.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 632-648. doi: 10.1037/a0023952 Epstein, J. L. (1989). Family structures and student motivation. In R. E. Ames & C.
Ames (Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education: Goals and Cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 259-295). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Eskey, D. E. (2005). Reading in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Second Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 563-579). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ghafournia1, N. (2014). Language learning strategy use and reading achievement.
English Language Teaching, 7(4), 64-73. doi:10.5539/elt.v7n4p64
Grabe, W. (2004). Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 44-69.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. London, England: Longman.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375-406
Guthrie, J.T. & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 199–205.
He, T.-H. (2008). Reading for different goals: The interplay of EFL college students’
multiple goals, reading strategy use and reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(2), 224-242. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00355.x Hu, C. C. (2007). A study on the differences between Chinese and English reading
strategies,and their relation to the reading comprehension abilities for senior high school students.Unpublished master’s thesis, Tamkang University, Taiwan.
Huang, H.-C. (2013). Online reading strategies at work: What teachers think and what students do. European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(3), 340–358.
Huang, R.-D. (2014). The investigation of college students’ learning motivation and Reading Strategies in an EFL Learning Context. Unpublished master’s
thesis,National Pingtung University, Pingtung.
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Janzen, J. (2003). Developing strategic readers in elementary school. Reading Psychology, 24, 25–55.
Jime´nez, R.T., Garc´ıa, G.E. & Pearson, P.D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities andobstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90–112.
Jou, Y.-J. (2015). Investigation of technological university students’ use of
metacognitive reading strategies in first and second languages. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 180-188. doi:10.5539/elt.v8n1p180
Kletzien, S. B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders’ reading
expository text of different levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 67-86.
Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 285–299.
Komiyama, R. (2013). Factors underlying second language reading motivation of adult EAP students. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 149-169.
Liang, J.-S. (1999). Why are Taiwanese students reluctant to speak openly in the English classroom? English Language and Literature, 5, 41-52
Madsen, H. S. (1983). Techniques in testing. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Mokhtari, K. and Reichard, C. (2000) Development of the Metacognitive-awareness-of-reading-strategies-inventory (MARSI). [Unpublished manuscript]. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA.
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction.
Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 357-371.
McDonell, T. B. (2003). The effects of text presentation: Linear and hypertext On English language learners. IT Forum paper, School of Education, New York University.
Meece, J.L. & Miller, S.D. (1999). Changes in elementary school children’s achievement goals for reading and writing: Results of a longitudinal and an intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 207–229.
Meniado, J. C. (2016). Metacognitive reading strategies, motivation, and reading comprehension performance of Saudi EFL students. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 117-129. doi: 10.5539/elt.v9n3p117
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M.L., Urdan, T., Anderman, L.H. et al.
(1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113–131.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2000). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 249-259.
Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students' awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25, 2-10.
Mucherah, W., & Yoder, A. (2008). Motivation for reading and middle school students’
performance on standardized testing in reading. Reading Psychology, 29(3), 214-235.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle Publishers.
O’Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H. J. (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 42, 1-47.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
New York, NY: Newbury House.
Oxford, R.L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 271–278.
Pan, Y.-C. (2008). The Relationship between College Entrance Exam and English Learning Motivation of Senior High School Students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
Pani, S. (2004). Reading strategy instruction through mental modeling. ELT Journal, 58, 355-362.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1996). The development of strategic readers.
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Peng, I. N. (2001). EFL motivation and strategy use among Taiwanese senior high school learners. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan: Taipei.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching, New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A close look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing Journal, 20(1), 26-56.
Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies.
Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 273-295
Qian, D. D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282–308.
Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52, 513–536.
Salataki, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14, 1-17.
Saville-Troike, M. (2012). Introducing second language acquisition. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1/2), 113-125.
Stanovich, K. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual
differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
Vann, R. J., & Abraham, R. G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners.
TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 177-198.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and the social psychology of perceived competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 73-84). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420-432.
Wilson, A., & Kim, W. (2016). The effects of concept mapping and academic self-efficacy on mastery goals and reading comprehension achievement. International Education Studies, 9(3), 12-23.
Yang, Y. F. (2006). Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies?
Reading Psychology, 27, 313-343.
Yu, H.-C. (2006). Motivation and learning strategy use among junior high school students with different levels of academic achievement . Unpublished master’s thesis, National Pingtung University, Pingtung.
Appendix A 同 意 書
親愛的老師，您好:
很冒昧打擾您，我是國立屏東大學英語學系碩士班的研究生，目前正在進 行有關英文閱讀的研究。研究目的在於探討不同英文能力的學生，在閱讀課業上的 英文時，是否有不同程度的成就動機? 是否採取不同的閱讀策略? 其次，學生的成就 動機與閱讀策略是否因大學聯考或閱讀教學而改變? 需要老師配合的地方包括:
• 成就動機與閱讀策略的問卷調查: 對象為全班同學，在開學第一週及大學聯考
後，需要各進行一次問卷調查。
• 英文閱讀成績資料: 對象為全班同學，須收集在開學第一週舉行的英文模擬考
閱讀成績及同學大學聯考的閱讀成績。
• 班級教學觀察: 我需要約8至10堂的課堂教學觀察，以了解老師的教學及課堂的
互動情形。
• 放聲思考研究: 我需要在三組不同英文能力的學生中隨機選出各兩名自願者，
在學生家長同意下，進行一對一的研究。在研究時，會提供學生1篇英文短文，
並利用手機錄下學生在閱讀或遭遇問題時，以放聲思考法所呈現的各種閱讀策 略。放聲閱讀過程，將全程錄音，以利往後資料分析。
本研究所收集之書面資料及錄音內容將會嚴格保密，僅供本論文研究之用，絕 不會公開展示或播放。研究結果都將以匿名方式呈現，以顧及老師及學生之隱私權。
如果參與的學生能因此更加了解自己的學習成就動機及閱讀策略，則是我所樂見的 結果。
最後，您若同意參與本項研究計畫，請在下方簽名。 為了表達我個人最高
最後，您若同意參與本項研究計畫，請在下方簽名。 為了表達我個人最高