This chapter presents the findings of this study. First, the reliability of Cronbach’s alpha values and Pearson correlation coefficients is demonstrated. Next, the differences in achievement goals and reading strategy use among three levels of English achievers are explored. Third, the influence of the related factors on three levels of achievers’
achievement goals is detected. Fourth, the effects of the related factors on three levels of achievers’ reading strategy use are displayed. Fifth, a summary of the quantitative study is presented. Sixth, the individual students’ reading strategy use and achievement goals in their think-aloud task are probed. Seventh, a summary of the qualitative study is presented. Finally, the integrative discussion is examined.
Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha
Table 5 demonstrates that the values of Cronbach’s α on eight items of Mastery type and eight items of Performance type have high reliability in both pre- and post-questionnaires and that Cronbach’s α value of nine items of Global type, seven items of Problem-solving type, and five items of Support type also have moderate to high reliability in both pre- and post-questionnaires.
Table 5
Reliability Measurements of Motivations and Reading Strategies
Subcategory Cronbach α Value Items
Pre-Mastery goal .880 A1-A8
Pre-Performance goal .823 A9-A16
Post-Mastery goal .857 A1-A8
Post-Performance goal .841 A9-A16
Pre-Global .766 B1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14, 18, 19, 20
Pre-Problem-Solving .613 B4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17
Pre-Support .670 B8, 10, 12, 16, 21
Post-Global .895 B1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14, 18, 19, 20
Post-Problem-Solving .793 B4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17
Reliability Coefficients
The figures in Table 6 show that Pearson correlation coefficients have high
correlations between the pre- and post-reading scores (r = .79, p < .01) as well as all the other pre- and post-questionnaire scores (p < .01). In a word, their correlations are significant and positive.
Table 6
Pearson Correlations between Pre- and Post-Scores
N=42 Post- Pre- Pearson
M SD M SD r p
Reading score 29.74 11.92 27.71 9.63 .79 <.001**
Mastery 3.62 .78 3.46 .77 .54 <.001**
Performance 3.60 .69 3.62 .70 .44 .004**
Global 3.88 .66 3.71 .55 .63 <.001**
Problem-solving 3.43 .74 3.29 .59 .51 .001**
Support 3.22 .71 3.10 .66 .62 <.001**
**p < .01, two-tailed, *p < .05, two-tailed
The statistic figures in Table 7 show the Pearson correlation coefficients of three types of achievement goals with four types of reading strategy categories in both pre- and post-scores. Among the 24 correlation coefficients, 21 correlations are significantly and positively high except that pre-Performance goal with pre- Problem-solving
category (r = .20), pre-Support category (r = .06), and pre-Overall category (r = .24), have lower Pearson correlation coefficients (p > .05).
Table 7
Pearson Correlations between Motivations and Reading Strategies
Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Mastery goals Performance goals Achievement goals
Pre-Global .65** .31* .62**
**p < .01, two-tailed, *p < .05, two-tailed
Achievement Goals and Reading Strategies between Three Levels of Achievers To answer the first research question if there are any significant differences in achievement goals and reading strategy use among High-, Mid-, and Low-achievers, the 42 participants were divided into three levels of reading proficiency according to their simulative examination in the beginning week of the semester. The learners who obtained the top one third scores were classified to be High (H)-achievers, the learners at the bottom one third scores to be Low (L)-achievers, and the rest to be Mid (M)-achievers (see Table 8).
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics for Three Levels of English Reading Achievers
Low-achievers Mid-achievers High-achievers Total
Numbers 13 16 13 42
Range of scores 14-22 23-29 30-58 72
Average scores 18.39 26.31 38.77 27.71
The means and standard deviations for the 42 students’ Mastery, Performance and
Achievement goal types based on their pre- and post-questionnaires are presented in Table 9. The figures show that High-achievers had higher scores than Mid-achievers, and M groups had higher scores than Low-achievers. The L-achievers seemed more performance-motivated than mastery-motivated either in the pre- or post-questionnaires, whereas the M- and H-achievers seemed more performance-motivated in the
pre-questionnaires but more mastery-motivated in the post-pre-questionnaires. However, the results of paired sample t-tests in Table 10 reveal there were no significant mean
differences between their Mastery and Performance goals whatever the groups were ( L-, M- or H-achievers), whether in pre- or post-questionnaires ( L group: t(12) < +2.179 or
> -2.179, p > .05, M group: t(15) < +2.131 or > -2.131, p > .05, H group: t(12) < +2.179 or > -2.179, p > .05). On the other hand, the means of all Mastery and Performance goals are over 3.46 on a five-point scale for total 42 students, which indicates the students were with upper-intermediate achievement goals.
Table 9
Means and Standard Deviations for Achievement Goal Types Motivation
types
Low-achievers n=13
Mid-achievers n=16
High-achievers n=13
Total N=42
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Pre-Mastery 3.07 .51 3.56 .63 3.73 1.01 3.46 .77 Pre-Performance 3.36 .54 3.73 .69 3.76 .81 3.62 .70 Pre-Achievement 3.21 .35 3.64 .46 3.75 .77 3.54 .58 Post-Mastery 3.11 .67 3.58 .67 4.17 .67 3.62 .78 Post-Performance 3.28 .67 3.51 .57 4.04 .66 3.60 .69 Post-Achievement 3.19 .37 3.54 .47 4.11 .54 3.61 .58
Table 10
Paired t-Tests for Mean Difference between Motivation Types Paired motivation types Low-achievers
n=13, df=12
Mid-achievers n=16, df=15
High-achievers n=13, df=12
t p t p t p
Pre-Mastery & Performance -1.33 .21 -.68 .51 -.11 .92 Post-Mastery & Performance -.56 .59 .34 .737 .63 .542
*p < .05, two-tailed
The means and standard deviations for the students’ Global, Problem-solving, Support and Overall categories in their pre- and post-questionnaires are presented in Table 11. The figures show that H group had higher scores than M group, and M group had higher scores than L group. However, one exception was that M group’s post-Support strategy items had lower score than that of L group. All three levels of students tended to use the most Global strategy items, then Problem-solving strategies and the least Support strategies in reading process. In Table 12, the results of paired t-tests also indicate that students significantly used more Global strategies than Problem-solving and Support strategies whatever the groups were (L-, M- or H-achievers), whether in pre- or post-questionnaires (L group: t(12) > 2.179, p < .05, M group: t(15) > 2.947, p
< .01, H group: t(12) > 2.179, p < .05). Moreover, the figures of t-tests show
H-achievers used significantly more Problem-solving strategies than Support strategies in post-questionnaire and M-achievers used significantly more Problem-solving strategies than Support strategies in both pre- and post-questionnaires. However, the differences between Problem-solving and Support strategies in L-achievers were not significant in both pre- and post-questionnaire scores. Besides, the means of 42 students’ pre- and post-Overall strategies are over 3.43 on a five-point scale, which indicates the students frequently employed the strategies in their reading process.
Table 11
Means and Standard Deviations for Reading Strategy Types Reading strategy
Paired t-Tests for Mean Difference between Strategy Types Paired strategy types Low-achievers
n=13, df=12
**p < .01, two-tailed, *p < .05, two-tailed
An ANOVA procedure was used to determine whether there are any significant differences which existed among H-, M- and L-achievers. Because the obtained F-max values are all smaller than the critical value, and p values larger than the .05 level of significance, the homogeneity of variance assumption is not violated (see Table 13).
Table 13
Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Variables Levene statistic df1 df2 p
Pre-Mastery 1.290 2 39 .287
Pre-Performance 1.002 2 39 .376
Pre-Achievement 1.153 2 39 .326
Pre-Global .546 2 39 .583
Pre-Problem-solving .323 2 39 .726
Pre-Support .119 2 39 .888
Pre-Overall .399 2 39 .674
Post-Mastery .212 2 39 .810
Post-Performance .487 2 39 .618
Post-Achievement 1.471 2 39 .242
Post-Global 1.037 2 39 .364
Post-Problem-solving .185 2 39 .832
Post-Support .721 2 39 .492
Post-Overall .839 2 39 .440
In Table 14, pre-Achievement goal, post-Achievement goal, post-Mastery goal, Performance goal and all of the four reading strategy types for their pre- and post-scores have the values of F(2,39) > 3.25 and p values < .05, which reveals there were significant differences among the three proficiency groups. However, pre-Mastery goal and pre-Performance goal have the F values < 3.25 and p values > .05, which indicates there were no significant differences among the three levels of groups. With the Scheffé test of Post Hoc tests, the significant differences were located by pairs for H-, M- and L-achievers. The results show H group had significantly stronger post-Mastery goal and post-Achievement goal than M and L groups, and had significantly stronger pre-Achievement goal and post-Performance goal than L group. Besides, H group also significantly used more pre-Support, pre-Overall, post-Global, post-Problem-solving and post-Overall strategies than M and L groups, and significantly used more pre-Global, pre-Problem-solving and post-Support strategies than L group. However, there were no significant differences between M and L groups either in motivations or in reading strategies.
Table 14
ANOVA Summary Table by Three Levels of Reading Achievers
Variables SS df MS F p Scheffe
Pre- Between Groups 3.126 2 1.563 2.841 .070 H=M=L Mastery Within Groups 21.452 39 .550
Total 24.578 41
Pre- Between Groups 1.343 2 .671 1.414 .255 H=M=L Performance Within Groups 18.516 39 .475
Total 19.859 41
Pre- Between Groups 2.125 2 1.062 3.534 .039 H > L Achievement Within Groups 11.724 39 .301
Total 13.849 41
Differences in SHSS’ Achievement Goals after a Semester
To reply the second question about “Are there any significant differences in SHSS’
achievement goals after a semester”, the correlations between achievement goals and reading scores by the 42 participants were analyzed first. The figures in Table 15 show the Pearson correlation of pre-reading score with pre-Mastery goal is moderate (p < .05), whereas pre-reading score with pre-Performance goal has low correlation (r = .17, p
> .05). In contrast, the correlations of the post-reading score with post-Mastery goal and Performance goal are high and positive (p < .01). Besides, the pre- and
post-standard deviations of two motivation types in Table 16 appear stable and similar variability. The means of Mastery goal and reading score have positive gains, whereas the mean gain of Performance goal is negative. As the correlation between pre-reading score and pre-Performance goal is low, it may lead to the unreliable outcome. Therefore, more detailed correlation coefficients were computed according to the three levels of reading-achievers.
Table 15
Correlations between Achievement Goal Types and Reading Scores
Pearson Pre- Post- Pre- Post-
Mastery goals Performance goals
Pre-Reading score .39* .17
Post-Reading score .60** .49**
**p < .01, two-tailed, *p < .05, two-tailed
Table 16
Gains of Achievement Goal Types and Reading Scores Motivation types
and reading scores
Masteries Performances Reading exams
M SD M SD M SD
Pre- 3.46 .77 3.62 .70 27.71 9.63
Post- 3.62 .78 3.60 .69 29.74 11.92
Gains 0.16 .74 -.02 .73 2.03 7.38
In Table 17, the correlations between reading and Mastery goal for both pre- and post-scores are negative, and the figures in Table 18 show the positive gains of Mastery goal and reading score. It may indicate that L-achievers had relatively high Mastery goal to match with their lower reading score when facing the impending exam, and they had relatively medium Mastery goal to match with their slightly increased reading score once the exam finished. The correlation between pre-reading score and pre-Performance goal is negative, but positive between post-scores in Table 17, as well as the figure in Table 18 shows the negative gain of Performance goal. It may indicate that Low-achievers had strong Performance goal when the exam was approaching, whereas they were demotivated once the exam finished even though their relatively low reading score had increased slightly. In addition to the exam, the English reading instruction in class was another factor to affect the participants’ achievement goal. The positive gains of Mastery goal and reading score can reveal the positive effect of the reading instruction, but the larger standard deviations of post-Mastery and post-reading score make the effect obscure. On the contrary, the negative gain of Performance goal reveals the negative influence on Low-achievers once they completed the exam. The low reliability between pre-reading and pre-Performance scores can be another reason to cause the negative gain, and the larger standard deviation of post-Performance score may show the negative influence to be obscure.
Table 17
Correlations between L-achievers’ Motivation Types and Reading Scores
Pearson Pre- Post- Pre- Post-
Mastery goals Performance goals
Pre-Reading score -.21 -.30
Post-Reading score -.04 .37
**p < .01, two-tailed, *p < .05, two-tailed
Table 18
Gains of L-achievers’ Motivation Types and Reading Scores Motivation types
and reading scores
Masteries Performances Reading exams
M SD M SD M SD
Pre- 3.07 .51 3.36 .54 18.38 3.12
Post- 3.11 .67 3.28 .67 19.38 4.23
Gains .04 .55 -.08 .57 1.00 5.87
In Table 19, the correlations between reading and Mastery goal for both pre- and post-scores are positive, and the figures in Table 20 show the positive gain of Mastery goal and reading score. It may indicate that M-achievers had corresponding Mastery goals to their reading scores, and their Mastery goal increased to match with their increased reading scores. Besides, the correlation between M-achievers’ pre-reading score and pre-Performance goal is negative, but positive between post-scores in Table 19, as well as the Performance goal has negative gain in Table 20. It may indicate that M-achievers had strong Performance goal when the exam was approaching, whereas they were demotivated once the exam finished even though their reading scores had increased slightly. The positive gain of Mastery goal and reading score can reveal the effect of the English reading instruction. On the contrary, the negative gain of
Performance goal reveals the negative influence on M-achievers once they completed the exam and the smaller standard deviation of post-Performance score may show the influence to be more apparent.
Table 19
Correlations between M-achievers’ Motivation Types and Reading Scores
Pearson Pre- Post- Pre- Post-
Mastery goals Performance goals
Pre-Reading score .51* -.13
Post-Reading score .29 .11
**p < .01, two-tailed, *p < .05, two-tailed
Table 20
Gains of M-achievers’ Motivation Types and Reading Scores Motivation types
and reading scores
Masteries Performances Reading exams
M SD M SD M SD
Pre- 3.56 .63 3.73 .69 26.31 2.06
Post- 3.58 .67 3.51 .57 28.00 7.91
Gains .02 .70 -.22 .76 1.69 8.25
In Table 21, the correlations between reading and Mastery goal for both pre- and post-scores are positive, and the correlations between reading and Performance scores are positive as well. Besides, the figures in Table 22 show the positive gains of Mastery goal, Performance goal and reading score. It may indicate that H-achievers had
corresponding Mastery and Performance goals to their high reading score when the exam was approaching, and they were motivated to match with their increased reading score even though the exam finished. The positive gains of Mastery goal, Performance goal and reading score also reveal the effect of the English reading instruction on the students, and the smaller standard deviations of post-Mastery and post-Performance scores may show the effect to be more apparent.
Table 21
Correlations between H-achievers’ Motivation Types and Reading Scores
Pearson Pre- Post- Pre- Post-
Mastery goals Performance goals
Pre-Reading score .28 .08
Post-Reading score .58* .35
**p < .01, two-tailed, *p < .05, two-tailed
Table 22
Gains of H-achievers’ Motivation Types and Reading Scores Motivation types
and reading scores
Masteries Performances Reading exams
M SD M SD M SD
Pre- 3.73 1.01 3.76 0.81 38.77 8.53
Post- 4.17 .67 4.04 .66 42.23 10.00
Gains .44 .92 .28 .80 3.46 7.93
In Table 23, the figures of t-tests show the positive values of Mastery goals and reading scores in all three levels of achievers. Although H-achievers had larger enhancement than the other two groups, all of them were not significant. Besides, the negative values of Performance goals in M and L groups and the positive value of Performance goal in H group were not significant as well. Dörnyei and Otto (1998) asserted that motivations were changeable during the learning process due to some special event or timing called process model. However, higher achievers’ learning motivations were often stronger and more constant than those of the lower achievers (He, 2008; Pan, 2008). Furthermore, Wilson and Kim (2016) thought performance goals might have negative effects in the long run once the reward disappeared. These
concepts could explain why M and L groups’ Performance goals decreased once they completed the college entrance examination while their Mastery goals kept growing, and H group’s Mastery and Performance goals were on the increase and kept higher than M and L groups. Besides, the figures also indicate the influence of the English reading instruction and the college entrance exam on the participants’ achievement goals and reading scores was not significant.
Table 23
Paired t-Tests on Motivation Types and Reading Score by Achievement Level Pre-Post
Motivation types
Lowa (df=12) Mida (df=15) Higha (df=12) Total (df=41)
t p t p t p t p
Mastery .25 .81 .09 .93 1.74 .11 1.35 .18
Performance -.48 .64 -1.15 .27 1.26 .23 -.18 .86 Reading score .61 .55 .82 .43 1.57 .14 1.78 .08
*p < .05, two-tailed
aLow: Low-achievers, Mid: Mid-achievers, High: High-achievers
Differences in SHSS’ Reading Strategy Use after a Semester
To reply the third question about “Are there any significant differences in SHSS’
reading strategy use after a semester”, the correlations between the 42 participants’
reading strategies and reading scores were analyzed first. The figures in Table 24 show the pre- and post-reading scores have high Pearson correlation coefficients with both pre- and post-Global, Problem-solving, Support, and Overall strategy types. Because all of the p values are smaller than .01 except for the correlation between post-reading and post-Support scores (p < .05), their significant and positive correlations are
demonstrated. In Table 25, the figures show the means of four reading strategy categories and reading score are on the increase, but the standard deviations of four post-strategy categories and post-reading score have larger variability than their pre-standard deviations. It may indicate that the positive effect of the English reading instruction in class on participants’ reading strategy use and reading scores was obscure and unstable. Therefore, more detailed correlation coefficients were computed
according to the three levels of reading-achievers.
Table 24
Correlations between Reading Strategy Types and Reading Scores
Pearson Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Global Problem-solving Support Overall Pre-Reading score .41** .46** .47** .50**
Post-Reading score .53** .53** .38* .56**
**p < .01, two-tailed, *p < .05, two-tailed
Table 25
Gains of Reading Strategy Types and Reading Scores Strategy
types
Global Prob.-solving Support Overall Reading exams
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Pre- 3.71 .55 3.29 .59 3.10 .66 3.43 .51 27.71 9.63 Post- 3.88 .66 3.43 .74 3.22 .71 3.57 .62 29.74 11.92 Gains .17 .53 .14 .67 .11 .60 .15 .50 2.03 7.38
In Table 26, the correlations between reading and Global strategy type for both
pre- and post-scores are negative, whereas Global type and reading score have positive gains in Table 27. It may indicate that L-achievers used more Global strategies to match with their relatively low reading scores at the beginning and increased Global strategies to match with their slightly increased reading score. The correlations of pre-reading score with pre-Problem-solving, pre-Support, and pre-Overall types are negative, but positive between their post-scores. Besides, their Problem-solving, Support and Overall types have positive gains in Table 27. It may indicate that L-achievers used more Problem-solving, Support, and Overall strategy categories to match with their relatively low reading scores at the beginning, and increased the strategy use to match with their slightly increased reading scores even though the exam finished. In addition to the exam, the English reading instruction was another factor to affect the participants’ reading strategy use and reading score. The positive gains of Global, Problem-solving, Support, Overall types, and reading score in Table 27 reveal the positive effect of the English reading instruction, but the larger standard deviations of post-Global and post-Problem-solving strategy categories may show the effect to be obscure.
Table 26
Correlations between L-achievers’ Strategy Types and Reading Scores
Pearson Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Global Problem-solving Support Overall Pre-Reading score -.12 -.08 -.01 -.09
Post-Reading score -.08 .41 .13 .19
**p < .01, two-tailed, *p < .05, two-tailed Table 27
Gains of L-achievers’ Strategy Types and Reading Scores Strategy
types
Global Prob.-solving Support Overall Reading exams
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Pre- 3.42 .44 2.96 .56 2.88 .60 3.14 .41 18.38 3.12 Post- 3.65 .56 3.09 .65 3.05 .55 3.32 .45 19.38 4.23 Gains .23 .45 .13 .74 .17 .60 .18 .39 1.00 5.87
In Table 28, the correlations between reading and four reading strategy types for both pre- and post-scores are all positive, and their Problem-solving, Support, Overall types as well as reading score have positive gains except for the zero gain of Global type in Table 29. It may indicate that M-achievers used corresponding strategies to match with their intermediate reading score at the beginning, and increased their strategies to match with their increased reading score even though the exam finished, but their Global strategy was an exception. In addition to the exam, the positive gains of the other three strategy types and the reading score in Table 29 reveal the helpful effect of the English reading instruction, whereas the larger standard deviations of
In Table 28, the correlations between reading and four reading strategy types for both pre- and post-scores are all positive, and their Problem-solving, Support, Overall types as well as reading score have positive gains except for the zero gain of Global type in Table 29. It may indicate that M-achievers used corresponding strategies to match with their intermediate reading score at the beginning, and increased their strategies to match with their increased reading score even though the exam finished, but their Global strategy was an exception. In addition to the exam, the positive gains of the other three strategy types and the reading score in Table 29 reveal the helpful effect of the English reading instruction, whereas the larger standard deviations of