閱讀策略教學對大學生閱讀理解之研究:以大一學生為例

全文

(1)國立屏東商業技術學院應用英語系(所) 碩士論文閱讀策略教學對大學生閱讀理解之研究: 以大一學生為例 Enhancing Comprehension Through Reading Strategy Instruction: A Study of College Freshmen. 指導教授：黃淑眉研究生：吳靜宜. 中華民國九十九年七月.

(2) Enhancing Comprehension Through Reading Strategy Instruction: A Study of College Freshmen. Advisor：： Dr. Shwu-Mei Hwang By：： Ching-Yi Wu. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Program of Applied English In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts National Pingtung Institute of Commerce. Pingtung, Taiwan, R.O.C. July, 2010.

(3) 摘要流暢的閱讀能力可幫助語言學習者理解基本訊息和整體概念。閱讀能力亦是高等教育中最具關鍵性的能力指標，乃因於偏重閱讀考題的教育體制中，此項能力為決定學習成效優劣的重要因素。因此，對大學生而言，具備解決閱讀困難的學習策略以及養成獨立的閱讀習慣顯得重要。有鑑於此，本研究旨在探討閱讀策略教學對大一學生閱讀成效的影響。本研究共有五十九位大一學生：實驗組三十位；控制組二十九位。研究工具為一份閱讀策略問卷、兩份全民英檢初級全真試題，並於教學後進行個別訪談。研究結果顯示大一學生在實驗教學前使用閱讀策略的頻率為中等程度。經過一學期的英文閱讀策略訓練後，實驗組在整體的閱讀策略使用頻率和後測成績上有顯著進步；三種閱讀考題中，尤以克漏字差異最為顯著。但兩組在閱讀策略使用頻率和後測成績上並無顯著差異。此外，閱讀高成就者在後設認知閱讀策略和認知閱讀策略的使用上明顯高於低成就組；而後者在閱讀策略訓練後，逐漸產生對英文閱讀的自信和興趣。最後，作者根據研究結果提出教學及研究建議，供英語教學老師或研究人員參考。. 關鍵字：閱讀策略，閱讀策略教學，大一學生，克漏字. i.

(4) Abstract Learners of English require fluent reading skills to comprehend basic information and general ideas. Reading is especially a crucial skill in the higher education for it plays an important role in determining whether learners can perform well in a reading-oriented exam. As a result, developing sufficient reading strategies to deal with difficulties as well as building learner autonomy to become independent readers would be of great importance for college students. This study aimed to explore the effect of reading strategy instruction on college freshmen. Fifty-nine college freshmen were recruited in this study; thirty were in the experimental group and twenty-nine were in the control group. The reading strategy instruction lasted for one semester. Instruments included a reading strategy questionnaire and two GEPT Elementary Level reading tests. Interviews were also conducted to obtain qualitative information. Results showed first, college freshmen reported medium frequency of reading strategy use before the intervention. Second, there were improvements in overall reading strategy use and reading performance in the experimental group, but no significant differences were found between the two groups. Third, a significant difference was found in Cloze among the three parts of the reading test. Fourth, in the experimental group, high-achievers differed from low-achievers in metacognitive and cognitive reading strategy use, while low-achievers increased their confidence and. ii.

(5) interests in reading after the instruction. Finally, pedagogical implications for English instructors and suggestions for futher studies are provided.. Keywords: reading strategies, reading strategy instruction, college freshmen, cloze. iii.

(6) Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere appreciation to those who have helped and accompanied me through the process. Without their support, guidance, and encouragement, this study would not have been possible. Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Shwu-Mei Hwang, for her patient guidence, valuable suggestions and precious instruction. She provided me with critical analyses which helped me clarify any ambiguous parts in my thesis. Furthermore, her great enthusiasm and persistence for research inspired me how a study should be conducted. Dr. Hwang served not only as my academic advisor, but also a friend who always encouraged me when I encountered difficulties. Special thanks also goes to my committee members, Mei-Chen Chen and Li-Hung Chang. Their professional suggestions and valuable comments made this thesis more complete and organized. I am also thankful for Brian Chen, who was the instructor of my reading strategy instruction. Without his assistance, this thesis would not have been possible. Last but not least, I would like to thank my beloved family and friends. With their selfless love and spiritual support, I have the courage to face all the difficulties during the process.. iv.

(7) Table of Contents Abstract (Chinese)....................................................................................................... i. Abstract........................................................................................................................ ii. Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... iv. Table of Contents......................................................................................................... v. Tables.......................................................................................................................... viii Figures.......................................................................................................................... x. CHAPTER ONE.......................................................................................................... 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1. Background and Motivation................................................................................ 1. Problem Statement............................................................................................... 3. Purpose of the Study............................................................................................ 6. Research Questions.............................................................................................. 7. Significance of the Study..................................................................................... 8. Definition of Terms.............................................................................................. 9. CHAPTER TWO........................................................................................................ 12 Literature Review.................................................................................................... 12 Language Learning and Learning Strategy Use.................................................. 12 Classification of Learning Strategies............................................................ 13. v.

(8) Learning Strategy Use in Relation to Language Proficiency........................ 14 Reading Comprehension and Reading Strategy Use.......................................... 18 Classification of Reading Strategies............................................................. 20 Reading Strategy Use in Relation to Reading Proficiency........................... 21 The Effects of Reading Strategy-Based Instruction............................................ 28 Summary............................................................................................................. 34 CHAPTER THREE..................................................................................................... 36. Methodology........................................................................................................... 36 Research Design.................................................................................................. 36 Participants.......................................................................................................... 37 Instruments.......................................................................................................... 40 Reading Strategy Questionnaire.................................................................... 40. Reading Tests................................................................................................ 41 Reading Strategy Handout............................................................................ 42 Group Discussion Sheet................................................................................ 42 Procedures........................................................................................................... 43 Pretest............................................................................................................ 43 Treatment...................................................................................................... 44 Posttest.......................................................................................................... 46. vi.

(9) Data Analysis...................................................................................................... 46 CHAPTER FOUR....................................................................................................... 49 Results and Discussion........................................................................................... 49 Results................................................................................................................. 49 Discussion........................................................................................................... 68 CHAPTER FIVE........................................................................................................ 75 Conclusions............................................................................................................. 75 Summary of Major Findings............................................................................... 75 Pedagogical Implications.................................................................................... 76 Suggestions for Further Studies.......................................................................... 79 References................................................................................................................... 81 Appendix A: Reading Strategy Questionnaire (English Version).............................. 90 Appendix B: Reading Strategy Questionnaire (Chinese Version) ............................. 92 Appendix C: Pretest.................................................................................................... 94 Appendix D: Posttest.................................................................................................. 99 Appendix E: Reading Strategy Handout..................................................................... 104 Appendix F: Sample Group Discussion Sheet............................................................ 106 Appendix G: Interview Questions.............................................................................. 108. vii.

(10) Tables Table 1. Demographic Data of the Participants........................................................ 39. Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of the Participants in the Pretest............................... 40. Table 3. Explicit Reading Strategies in the Experimental Group............................. 45. Table 4. The Allocation of Time on Teaching Procedures Between Two Groups.... 47. Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations of Reading Strategies of All Participants ..................................................................................................................... 50. Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations Among Five Types of Reading Strategies..................................................................................................... 52. Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations Among Strategy Use Between Groups After the Instruction.................................................................................... 53. Table 8. Significant Differences in Reading Strategy Items of the Experimental Group After the Instruction......................................................................... 54. Table 9. Differences in Reading Strategy Types of the Experimental Group After the Instruction............................................................................................. 55. Table 10. Means and Standard Deviations of the Pretest and Posttest Between Groups....................................................................................................... 56. Table 11. Means and Standard Deviations of Three Parts in the Posttest Between the Two Groups......................................................................................... 57. viii.

(11) Table 12. Means and Standard Deviations of the Posttest of the Experimental Group........................................................................................................ 58. Table 13. Means and Standard Deviations of the Three Parts in the Experimental Group........................................................................................................ 58. Table 14. Significant Difference on Reading Strategy Use Among High-achievers Between the Two Groups.......................................................................... 60. Table 15. Significant Differences on Reading Strategy Use Among Low-achievers Between the Two Groups................................................. 61. Table 16. Significant Differences on Reading Strategy Use Between High- and Low-achievers in the Experimental Group............................................... 62. ix.

(12) Figures Figure 1. The Flowchart of the Research Design..................................................... 38. x.

(13) CHAPTER ONE Introduction Background and Motivation. English has played an important role in globalization for many decades. Numbers of countries with strongly political and economical power also take English as their first or official language to communicate with one another. Crystal (2003) stated that there is no other language than English, which is learned by people as the second language more than people as their mother tongue. English is not a foreign language only, instead; it is a necessary skill. Without doubt, learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL) is even more decisive for the purpose of communication and the need of social or economic success (Sheorey, 1999). In many Asia countries such as Singapore, Japan, Korean and Taiwan, it has become a required subject for learners from primary schools to the first year of colleges and universities. Commonwealth Magazine (2007) edited an issue particularly for English learning, which reported that English ability is the access to the window of the world, and it is crucial to decide the depth and width of knowledge which learners absorb. In the process of obtaining new knowledge, reading would be the most essential skill which dominates over other language skills. English learners require fluent reading skills to comprehend basic information and general ideas. Therefore, it is easy 1.

(14) to predict the written form, or so-called “reading”, is greatly emphasized in EFL classrooms. Grabe (1991) pointed out reading was a significant skill of language learners in higher academic contexts because learners spent most of their time on it while pursuing academic purpose. Besides, many studies also stated that reading ability is the most critical skill in higher education levels (Carrell, Devine & Eskey, 1998; He, 2008; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2001; Sheorey, 1999). However, even learners put most energy on reading, they may still fail to improve their comprehension (Shang, 2008). This kind of situation would cause negative effects on learners’ performance and confidence, which may decrease learners’ desire to learn. Thus, how to integrate reading skills to facilitate reading comprehension has captured many researchers’ attention. In order to find out how learners acquire English more efficiently, many studies have aimed to discover what made good language learners and the differences in the strategy use between more successful and less successful learners (Anderson, 1991; Block, 1986, 1992; Casanave, 1988; Green & Oxford, 1995; He, 2008; Knight, Padron, & Waxman, 1985; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2001; Oxford, Cho, Leung, & Kim, 2004; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Rubin, 1975). The above studies have concluded that successful readers integrated strategies to complete the task whereas less successful readers seemed to be unaware of applying strategies to improve their language. 2.

(15) performance. Furthermore, it has been found that language proficiency was closely related to readers’ reading ability (Block, 1992; Carrell, 1989; Grabe, 1991; He, 2008; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2001; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Poole, 2005; Sheorey, 1999). In other words, better reading ability in the second language equals to better language proficiency. Studies also revealed that strategies could be classified and taught explicitly to language learners (Block, 1986; Grabe, 1991; Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford, 1990). A large number of studies advised that by instructing students how to apply appropriate reading strategies, their reading comprehension could be improved (Allen, 2003; Carrell, Pharis, & Liberto, 1989; Ko, 2007; Shang, 2008; Shen, 2003; Singhal, 2001; Song, 1998; Yang, 2006). Thus, the importance of facilitating and instructing learners to select appropriate reading strategies would be the first priority for language teachers (Carrell et al., 1998; Dörnyei, 1995; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo and Küpper, 1985; Oxford, 1990). Problem Statement Among the four skills of learning English, reading ability is the most important skill in EFL environments (Carrell et al., 1998; Grabe, 1991; He, 2008; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2001; Sheorey, 1999). In Taiwan, most people learn English in order to pursue higher education: they take numerous examinations and read a lot of textbooks written in English. That is, the proficiency of reading plays a crucial role in. 3.

(16) determining whether EFL learners are high academic achievers in the examination-driven education system or not (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2001; Sheorey, 1999). Furthermore, in order to absorb new knowledge and information, good English reading ability is the most important skill for college students to receive the latest information (Hsu, 2007). The competence in English which college students equip also makes a great difference in the near future as they pursue a better career (Hsu, 2007; Sheorey, 1999). Thus, learning English well is a fundamental competence for college learners. However, according to the report from Education Testing Service (ETS) in 2007, Taiwanese participants in TOFEL achieved the average score of 72. It was 17th out of 30 Asian countries. In other words, the English proficiency of Taiwanese still needed to be enhanced. Therefore, how to improve college learners’ English ability remains vital and urgent for both researchers and instructors. Moreover, the lack of self-control learning experience for college learners is a considerable concern for English teachers. Many researchers (Chamot, 2005; Chen, 2005; Cohen, 1998; He, 2008; Hsu, 2007; Oxford, 1990; Shang, 2008; Song, 1998) proposed that encouraging mastery and autonomy in reading helped students to accomplish demanding tasks. In other words, it is very important to instruct students to take active roles to monitor and regulate their reading comprehension. However, most of the difficulties which college English teachers encounter in EFL. 4.

(17) environments are usually varying levels of English proficiency in a large class size, and the teachers lack control of choosing textbooks or designing curriculum on their own (Sheorey, 1999). In addition, instructional practices in many EFL classrooms are often teacher-centered (Ko, 2007; Shang, 2008; Sheorey, 1999). Teachers rather than learners are the focus of the classroom. More specifically, after the explanation of the vocabulary and translation in simple English of a reading segment, or discussion of grammar structures, there is little time for communicative language activities. Therefore, how to design reciprocal ways to enhance students’ learning attitude and create learner autonomy spontaneously would be the most crucial issue. In the review of literature, most studies of reading strategy focused on descriptive data from self-reported survey or questionnaires to detect strategies used by the learners while reading (Carrell, 1989; He, 2008; Hsu, 2007; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2001; Oxford et al., 2004; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Poole, 2005; Sheorey, 1999; Wharton, 2000). However, results analyzed from the data were only beneficial in perceiving the overall or typical frequency of strategy use by a group of learners (Oxford et al., 2004). While it is convenient for teachers to diagnose students’ awareness of variety of strategies, literature has also highly emphasized the importance of strategy instruction in class to enhance intentional reading strategy use (Allen, 2003; Carrell, 1989; Carrell et al., 1989; Casanave, 1988; Chen, 2005; Grabe,. 5.

(18) 1991; He, 2008; Hsu, 2007; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2001; O’Malley et al., 1985; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1975; Salataci & Akyel, 2002, Shang, 2008; Song, 1998; Yang, 2006). That is, reading strategy instruction needs to be conducted in regular reading classes to help learners not only in raising awareness but also in improving comprehension (Anderson, 1991; Carrell, 1989; Carrell et al., 1989; Chen, 2005; Green & Oxford, 1995; Shang; 2008; Yang, 2006), and teachers are supposed to deliver the strategy instruction rather than researchers (Chamot, 1998; Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Oxford, 1993) since teachers have direct interaction with their students so that they are aware of their learning weaknesses and strengths. Even though it is greatly emphasized that reading strategy instruction could increase positive outcomes for both learners and teachers, few of the studies aimed to explore reading strategy instruction in EFL classrooms for college freshmen (Shang, 2008). Therefore, a study of this kind to examine the achievements and awareness of reading strategy use among EFL college freshmen after explicit instruction of reading strategies would provide valuable insights in improving reading skills. Purpose of the Study As mentioned above, the English reading ability of college learners in Taiwan is poor and they lack independent learning habits and confidence in their academic achievement. Besides, activities in many EFL reading classrooms are often. 6.

(19) teacher-centered and concentrate on direct knowledge transmission (Ko, 2007; Shang, 2008). In order to strengthen EFL learners’ reading comprehension, it is necessary to provide strategy instruction to enlighten students’ awareness of employing strategies (Carrell, 1989; Carrell et al., 1989; O’Malley et al., 1985; Oxford, 1990). Thus, the purpose of the study was to explore the effects of reading strategy instruction on EFL college freshmen’s awareness of reading strategy use and their improvement on reading achievement. Specifically, it also detected learners of different proficiency levels to better help those who were in need. In higher education, college students are supposed to develop learning autonomy and specific strategies to deal with difficulties, and thus absorb useful information and knowledge effectively (He, 2008; Hsu, 2007; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2001; Sheorey, 1999). As a whole, it would be worth examining the influence on reading strategy instruction among college students to build up life-long techniques to understand English-written materials. Research Questions In order to explore the effects of reading strategy instruction on EFL college freshmen’s awareness of reading strategy use and their improvement on reading achievement, four research questions were addressed as follows: 1. What is the overall reading strategy use among college freshmen?. 7.

(20) 2. To what extent does reading strategy instruction influence college freshmen’s use of reading strategies? 3. To what extent does reading strategy instruction influence college freshmen’s reading performance? 4. To what extent do high-achievers and low-achievers use reading strategies differently after the instruction? Significance of the Study For English learners, reading is the most important part of the four skills for academic purpose, particular in EFL environments (Carrell et al., 1998; Grabe, 1991; He, 2008; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2001; Sheorey, 1999). In other words, without solid reading skills, students in higher learning situations, such as universities or colleges, may be hampered in terms of acquiring academic materials in English. It would be a big challenge for those who cannot comprehend English-written passages to be successful during their learning processes. As mentioned previously, many researchers discovered that being aware of reading strategy use was closely related to readers’ reading ability (Anderson, 1991; Block, 1986; Carrell, 1989; Green & Oxford, 1995; He, 2008; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2001; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). Thus, the awareness of reading strategy use plays an important role for both readers and language teachers, particularly in constructing. 8.

(21) learner autonomy and building independent learning habits. Little (2007) stated: “Learner autonomy is the product of an interactive process in which the teacher gradually enlarges the scope of her learners’ autonomy by gradually allowing them more control of the process and content of their learning (p. 26).” That is, the awareness students perceive through their learning experiences could progressively reinforce the control of self-learning. Therefore, strategy-based instruction (SBI) in EFL classrooms would be of great importance to provide learners with opportunities to practice appropriate skills in a learning task in order to facilitate reading comprehension. Meanwhile, they would gradually become responsible for their own learning. In the process of building learning autonomy, students could gain confidence by applying strategies to solve problems they encounter in a reading text. Similarly, once they obtain interest and confidence, their language learning attitude and determination as well as their academic achievements would be greatly reinforced (Chamot, 2005; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Shang, 2008). Definition of Terms The following terms are defined for the present study. 1. Reading comprehension: Reading comprehension of the current study can be viewed as an active process of integrating readers’ prior knowledge with new information to construct meaning from the text. In addition, the “interaction” not. 9.

(22) only focuses on the reader and the text, but also refers to the integrations of many component skills (Grabe, 1991). 2. Learning strategy: According to Oxford (1990), learning strategies are defined as deliberate or conscious “steps taken by students to enhance their own learning” (p.1). In more details, they are “specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective and more transferable to new situations” (p.8). 3. Reading strategies: Reading strategies are the mental operations required when readers approach a text effectively and make sense of what they read. Strategies can be used consciously or unconsciously based on how readers apply to a specific problem. By applying reading strategies, readers can get the maximum benefit from reading with the minimum effort. 4. High-achievers: Buchman (2005) and Madsen (1983) addressed that before separating upper group and lower group, the number of participants should be considered. For large groups (i.e. 100 or larger), the upper 27% and the lower 27% are chosen to maximize the difference. For smaller groups, the upper and lower one-third would be defined. The present study included participants under 100; therefore, high-achievers were those who reached the top 33% scores in the pretest.. 10.

(23) 5. Low-achievers: Likewise, low-achievers in the present study referred to the subjects whose scores were at the bottom of 33% in the pretest.. 11.

(24) CHAPTER TWO Literature Review This chapter provided an overview of literature related to learning strategy, reading strategy and reading strategy instruction. Three main parts were included in this chapter. The first part provided general concepts of language learning strategies as well as their relation to students’ language proficiency levels. The second section focused on reading strategies along with the relationship between students’ reading proficiency and reading strategy use. In the third part, the effects of reading strategy instruction and related studies were discussed. Language Learning and Learning Strategy Use Learning strategies are the processes of learners’ deliberate thinking to facilitate a learning task, which are often conscious and goal-driven (Chamot, 2005), and they are considered to be efficient and effective for learners to achieve better language performance (Chamot, 2005; Cohen, 1998; Oxford & Crookall, 1989; Rubin, 1975; Wharton, 2000). What is more, the use of learning strategies is the key to enhance learner autonomy as well as their independence and self-direction, which represent learners in charge of conscious control of learning (Cohen, 1998; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Wharton, 2000). In other words, learner autonomy enables learners to take responsibilities of their own learning and continue. 12.

(25) self-learning outside the formal classroom (Cohen, 1998; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). Generally speaking, the reason why learning strategies are crucial in second language acquisition and teaching is that successful language learners often use certain kinds of strategies to ease learning difficulties (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Rubin, 1975; Takeuchi, 2003; Wharton, 2000), and studies also suggested that less successful learners could be taught to employ these strategies (Grabe, 1991; Green & Oxford, 1995; O’Malley et al., 1985; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1975; Wharton, 2000). Therefore, researchers or instructors intended to obtain insights into learners’ learning strategies taken part in their learning processes to help students overcome learning difficulties. As a result, the field of language learning strategies has captured many researchers’ attention and has been widely discussed since the mid-1970s. Classification of Learning Strategies Many researchers (O’Malley et al., 1985; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1981) defined learning strategies into various categories according to different purposes of the strategy. Rubin (1981) classified learning strategies into two main categories: direct strategies and indirect strategies. The former were strategies directly contributing to language learning, including clarification (verification), guessing (inductive inferencing), deductive reasoning, practice, memorization, and monitoring. The later were strategies indirectly involving in language learning, including creating. 13.

(26) opportunities for practice and production tricks. Later on, O’Malley et al. (1985) proposed three main types of learning strategies, including metacognitive, cognitive and socioaffective strategies. Metacognitive strategies were higher executive functions which included planning, thinking, monitoring or evaluating learning processes. Cognitive strategies referred to mental activities which learners manipulated to obtain, store, or retrieve information effectively. Socioaffective strategies dealt with interaction and social-mediating activity with others. Later, Oxford (1990) provided a more comprehensive strategy taxonomy with six categories. In her taxonomy, learning strategies were divided into direct and indirect strategies. Direct strategies included memory strategies, cognitive strategies and compensation strategies, which referred to the strategies employed directly in different situations of the target language. On the other hand, indirect strategies included metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and social strategies, which referred to the strategies used in general management during learners’ learning processes. Learning Strategy Use in Relation to Language Proficiency Brown (2007) stated that every learner has individual learning differences, and such differences would lead to different choice and frequency of strategy use. Research has discovered that individual learners tended to be influenced on the choice of strategies by several factors, such as motivation (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989) , gender. 14.

(27) (Green & Oxford, 1995; Poole, 2005; Sheorey & Mokhtarib, 2001; Wharton, 2000), language proficiency (Chen, 2002; Green & Oxford, 1995; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Wharton, 2000), text types (Oxford et al., 2004), and language background (Carrell, 1989; Sheorey, 1999). Among these factors, language proficiency was considered the most crucial element and has been discussed widely (Chiang & Liao, 2002; Green & Oxford, 1995; O’ Malley & Chamot, 1990; Rubin, 1975; Takeuchi, 2003; Vann & Abraham, 1990; Wharton, 2000). Researchers considered that strategies used by a homogeneous group, like learners with higher academic performance, could be analyzed and thus be introduced to elementary language learners to become better achievers (Cohen, 1998; Rubin, 1975). As a result, the correlation between language performance and learning strategy use has been discussed and interpreted. Studies of this kind have addressed that learners’ language proficiency was positively correlated with their learning strategy use (Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Chiang & Liao, 2002; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Sheorey, 1999; Takeuchi, 2003; Warton, 2000). In other words, learners of different proficiency levels varied in the frequency of learning strategy they employed. The aforementioned studies reported that more successful learners performed more strategies and meanwhile, they used the strategies more stably, appropriately, and systematically (Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Chen, 2002; Ehrman & Oxford, 1990;. 15.

(28) Green & Oxford, 1995; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Rubin, 1975; Sheorey, 1999). For instance, Chamot and Kupper (1989) found that effective learners “used learning strategies more often, more appropriately, with greater variety, and in ways that helped them complete the task successfully” (p. 17). According to Hsiao and Oxford (2002), effective learners chose and combined relevant strategies to the language task not only intentionally but also systematically. Moreover, Green and Oxford (1995) reported that high-proficiency language learners referred to a variety use of learning strategies. For example, they were willingly to take opportunities to practice, use clues to get consistent guessing, manage their motivation in language learning, and develop L2 as a structure system consciously. In addition, Sheorey (1999) revealed that “more frequent use of strategies by students with high English proficiency than those with low proficiency in English” (p. 182). In essence, the above studies identified effective learners were those who had high motivation in learning activities, monitored their own learning processes actively, and used various strategies in appropriate situations to solve difficulties. However, studies also revealed discordant results. Not all relationships between strategy use and learners’ proficiency levels are positive (Oxford et al., 2004; Vann & Abraham, 1990). Unsuccessful learners are not necessarily inactive strategy employers, but their strategies were used differently from successful ones. Vann and. 16.

(29) Abraham (1990) revealed that less successful learners employed similar strategies as successful learners; however, they failed to apply them appropriately to the tasks. Moreover, Hsiao and Oxford (2002) pointed out less successful learners grabbed various strategies in random ways, and they were not able to connect the relevance of a particular strategy to the task. In addition, Cohen (1998) stated that the number of overall strategy use along with the frequency of each strategy use could not predict how well learners performed on a certain task. Besides, Chen (as cited in Oxford et al., 2004) found that higher-achievers reported less frequent strategy use than lower-achievers on a strategy questionnaire. Oxford et al. (2004) explained two possible reasons for this. One was that higher-proficiency learners might not be aware of applying a strategy since it has been employed through practice for a long time. That is, the strategy generally became an unconscious process or an automatic habit and therefore might not be discovered on a questionnaire (Cohen, 1998). The other possibility was that certain strategies were not decisive for higher-achievers. For example, memory strategies were crucial for lower-proficiency learners but not for higher-proficiency ones since they were helpful for vocabulary learning. Proficient learners might not consider them useful and employed them less frequently. As a result, Ehrman and Oxford (1990) concluded that even the majority of studies proposed more proficient learners made more use of strategies, the relation between. 17.

(30) strategy use and language proficiency was complicated. Reading Comprehension and Reading Strategy Use The importance of reading strategies is becoming increasingly recognized because it is effective in facilitating students’ reading comprehension of high literacy level in academic achievement (Carrell et al., 1989; Poole, 2005). Grabe (1991) as well as Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) addressed that reading strategies helped learners to solve problems and perform better on their overall learning in academic settings. In a word, reading strategies are processes used to solve certain problems so as to overcome comprehension failures (Anderson, 1991; Carrell, 1989; Carrell et al., 1989; Green & Oxford, 1995; Singhal, 2001; Yang, 2006). By making good use of reading strategies, readers are able to comprehend a passage, to use textual clues to anticipate new information, and to be aware of the inconsistencies in the texts and therefore use strategies to understand these inconsistencies (Block, 1986; Yang, 2006). In essence, employing appropriate reading strategies enables learners to increase their control and awareness while reading; meanwhile, they might gradually become thoughtful and constructively responsive readers (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002). Reading strategies were described and defined by a lot of researchers (Anderson, 1991; Chen, 2007; Knight et al., 1985; Pritchard, 1990; Yang, 2006). Knight et al. (1985) defined reading strategies as “processes for enhancing reading comprehension. 18.

(31) and overcoming comprehension failures” (p. 790). Pritchard (1990) defined reading strategies as “a deliberate action that readers take voluntarily to develop an understanding of what they read” (p. 275). Similarly, Anderson (1991) asserted that reading strategies were deliberate, mental actions which learners utilized in acquiring, storing, and retrieving information in contexts and therefore could be accessed for a cognitive report. More recently, Yang (2006) addressed that reading strategies were dynamic and ongoing processes of searching for interrelationships in a text to construct meaning rather than collecting information only. In addition, Chen (2007) stated that reading strategies were conscious actions which readers utilized in order to solve particular problems when they attempted to better comprehend a reading text. Due to the fact that reading is a “meaning-searching and meaning-constructing process that requires effort on the readers’ parts if they want to understand written texts” (He, 2008, p. 66), readers integrate the presented information in texts and the personal schemata of their real life experience to decode meaning (Brown, 2001; Carrell, 1983, 1984; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Chen & Graves, 1995; Floyd & Carrell, 1987). In a word, reading strategies are skills and procedures which contribute to improve readers’ comprehension of written passages in relation to the real world.. 19.

(32) Classification of Reading Strategies A variety of reading strategies were classified and categorized by different researchers (Block, 1986; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002). For instance, Block (1986) organized reading strategies used by readers into two levels: general strategies and local strategies. The former focused on high-level reading comprehension such as (1) anticipating content, (2) recognizing text structure, (3) integrating information, (4) questioning information in the text, and (5) interpreting the text. The latter dealt with basic linguistic knowledge such as (1) paraphrasing, (2) rereading, (3) questioning meaning of a clause or sentence, (4) questioning meaning of a word, and (5) solving vocabulary problem. In addition, Mokhtari and Sheorey’s (2002) Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) measured adolescent and adult readers’ perceived use of reading strategies and the use of frequency while reading academic texts. It has been widely adopted in several studies (Poole, 2005; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). The three main types of SORS included: global reading strategies (GLOB), problem solving strategies (PROB), and support strategies (SUP). GLOB strategies were the intentional and carefully arranged device which learners employed to monitor or mange their reading, such as having a purpose in mind while reading. PROB strategies were the localized procedures which learners applied directly to the problems in the text, suchlike guessing the meaning of unknown words. SUP. 20.

(33) strategies were resources and materials aimed at enhancing the readers in comprehending the text, such as taking notes and using a dictionary. Reading Strategy Use in Relation to Reading Proficiency Reading strategies are of crucial importance to facilitate learners’ overall learning in academic contexts since they help learners to overcome difficulties and achieve better performance (Grabe, 1991; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). Block (1986) proposed that “there is some connection between strategy use and the ability to learn” (p. 485), which indicated that high-proficiency readers were capable of making progress to improve their reading skills and succeed in academic achievement. Later, Block (1992) also discovered that readers of varying reading proficiency demonstrated differences in reading strategy use and more proficient readers had more control during their reading processes. Overall, researchers in this field have been interested in the relationship between reading strategy use and reading proficiency for the purpose of improving learners’ reading comprehension. A number of research on reading strategies detected the relationship between readers’ reading strategy use and their reading proficiency levels (Anderson, 1991; Block, 1986; Carrell, 1989; Hsu, 2007; Knight et al., 1985; Ku, 1995; Saricoban, 2002; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Singhal, 2001; Song, 1998). Generally speaking, studies revealed that the use of reading strategies between higher- and lower-level readers mainly differed in the. 21.

(34) following three parts: (1) frequency of strategy use (Anderson, 1991; Carrell, 1989; Chiu, 2007; Hsu, 2007; Kuo, 1994; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Song, 1998), (2) variation of strategy use (Chiu, 2007; Hsu, 2007; Phakiti, 2003), (3) stability and appropriateness of strategy use (Anderson, 1991; Carrell, 1989; Hsu, 2007; Phakiti, 2003; Song, 1998). In other words, good readers not only employed more reading strategies to solve problems but also applied a variety of reading strategies to different text types. Furthermore, they used reading strategies more flexibly, and adjusted strategies they employed to different purposes while reading. Above all, good readers read conceptually with general predictions of the text, skipped inconsistencies and regulated their own reading processes. Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) presented three differences which distinguished skilled and unskilled readers in details. First, skilled readers differed from unskilled readers in their comprehension of literal words as well as general knowledge of the world to understand texts and make valid inferences. In addition, unskilled ones were less likely to detect inconsistencies and solve difficulties in the texts. Most importantly, unskilled readers lack metacognitive knowledge about reading, and they are unwilling or fail to control their own reading activities. Likewise, Casanave (1988) concluded that effective readers were able to manipulate strategies for different purposes and monitored their reading texts automatically. Besides, Grabe (1991). 22.

(35) found that what distinguished skilled reading was the ability to regulate metacognitive skills, which has been considered as an essential element among reading research (Carrell et al., 1989; Yang, 2006). Moreover, Phakiti (2003) found that test-takers with three different proficiency levels showed positive relationship between their use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies and reading test performance. Results further indicated that successful test-takers reported higher frequency of metacognitive strategy use than the moderately-successful ones; while the moderately-successful test-takers showed higher use than unsuccessful ones. In addition to readers’ reading proficiency levels, the relationships between self-rated proficiency and the frequency of readers’ strategy use were also explored by researchers. Studies focused on university learners in reading discovered that students’ self-rated proficiency was positively correlated to their reading strategy use. Oxford and Nyikos (1989) reported that students with higher self-perceived proficiency in reading employed significantly high frequency on “formal rule-related practice”, “functional practice”, “general study” and “conversational input elicitation” strategies. Moreover, Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) found higher self-rated reading proficiency readers reported similar degrees of higher use of cognitive and metacognitive strategy than those of lower readers. In addition, Wharton (2000) reported that university students who rated themselves as good and fair proficiency learners employed. 23.

(36) strategies more often than those who rated themselves as poor proficiency ones. In Taiwan, studies (Chiu, 2007; Hsu, 2007; Hung, 2005; Liu, 1998) focused on college students’ reading strategy uses were discussed. For instance, Chiu (2007) investigated the use of reading strategies by high and low proficiency students in the department of Applied English. Results showed that high proficiency readers reported higher frequency of reading strategies than their low counterparts. However, both groups of students employed cognitive strategies the most and memory strategies the least. Finally, significant differences in the use of memory, cognitive, and socio-affective strategies were found between these two groups. Furthermore, Hsu (2007) detected reading strategies used by four-year technological college students. Results indicated that the most frequently used strategy was matacognitive strategy. The second frequently used strategy was social/affective strategy, while cognitive strategy was used the least. In addition, effective readers tended to use a variety of strategies and used them more frequently than ineffective ones. Finally, it revealed that readers’ proficiency levels in the target language played a crucial role in their reading performance. Hung (2005) investigated the variables which influence the use of reading strategies among college freshmen. Results showed that the most frequently used strategies were problem-solving strategies followed by support strategies, and global reading strategies were employed the least. Besides, learners’. 24.

(37) reading proficiency and motivation were positively correlated to their reading strategy use. In addition, Liu (1998) examined ten good freshman readers’ use of comprehension monitoring strategies. Results showed that the main comprehension monitoring strategies they preferred to use included using background knowledge, integrating information, using clue-words and using analysis. What is more, the diverse strategies the readers employed to solve unknown words based on their level of difficulty implied that these readers were capable of differentiating the importance of unknown words. Based on the aforementioned studies, reading strategies were used differently mainly because of readers’ proficiency in the target language. Generally speaking, the skilled readers employed more metacognitive strategies; that is, they had strong strategic awareness and monitored their comprehension processes purposely (Carrell, 1989; Casanave, 1988; Hsu, 2007; Kuo, 1994; Phakiti, 2003; Yang, 2006). Moreover, they employed certain reading strategies to facilitate comprehension, such as using compensation strategies to guess unknown words or phrases, and applying cognitive strategies to infer meanings beyond words (Chen, 2005; Chiu, 2007; Hsu, 2007; Liu, 1998; Shang, 2008). Finally, they were aware of modifying and adjusting these strategies they utilized to a variety of text types in order to lessen difficulties (Anderson, 1991; Carrell, 1989; Hsu, 2007; Phakiti, 2003; Song, 1998). In addition,. 25.

(38) readers’ self-perceived reading proficiency level was also positive correlated to their strategy use. In other words, higher self-rated readers showed more or less the same way on the frequency of reading strategies (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). Block (1986) concluded that reading ability is greatly influenced by the proficiency in the target language. Green and Oxford (1995) also revealed that the use of particular strategies among readers might lead to different proficiency; while different proficiency readers might use certain strategies. Therefore, good readers integrated and developed strategies to solve problems while poor readers might not be aware of or be capable of utilizing them. Thus, their reading proficiency differed and in turn, affected their overall learning. However, knowing what strategies to use did not necessarily lead to successful readers. It is more important that readers should be aware of how and when to use a strategy correctly. In other words, the appropriateness of strategy use surpassed other factors (Anderson, 1991; Carrell, 1989; Cohen, 1998; Song, 1998). Anderson (1991) revealed that both high and low university-level readers seemed to use the same kinds of strategies while reading and answering the comprehension questions. The finding implied that higher-achievers employed strategies more effectively and properly. On the other hand, although lower-achievers were aware of the suitable strategies, they failed to apply them successfully. That is, using particular strategies do not contribute. 26.

(39) to successful performance, but it is the effective control of the strategies which determined (Cohen, 1998). Similarly, Sarig (as cited in Yang, 2006) advocated that most readers employed a variety combination of strategies, which reflected that reading was highly individual in nature. As a result, not only proficiency levels but also individual variations in reading strategy use should also be taken into consideration when teachers provide learners with reading strategy training (Anderson, 1991; Block, 1986; Carrell et al., 1989). With regard to the frequency of reading strategy use, Oxford et al. (2004) found that under reading tasks with easy and difficult levels, readers with different levels reported diversely. No difference existed in strategy use between less and more proficient readers in an easy task. On the contrary, more proficient readers did not employ as many strategies as their less proficient counterparts in the difficult task. It was explained by the researchers that the challenges of the “difficult” task did not pose any difficulty for the successful readers. Consequently, using strategies to solve problems was unnecessary. To summarize, studies exploring reading strategy use among college students with high and low proficiency levels could be analyzed into four important findings. First, successful readers generally employed high frequency of reading strategies (Anderson, 1991; Carrell, 1989; Chiu, 2007; Hsu, 2007; Kuo, 1994; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Song, 1998), which indicated good readers applied more strategies.. 27.

(40) Second, high English proficiency readers reported a wider variety of strategy use than low English proficiency readers (Chiu, 2007; Hsu, 2007; Phakiti, 2003). That is, learners’ proficiency levels played a positive role in their varied types of reading strategy use. Third, successful readers applied reading strategies effectively and properly (Anderson, 1991; Carrell, 1989; Hsu, 2007; Phakiti, 2003; Song, 1998). Fourth, high-achievers had a greater control during reading process than their lower counterparts. In other words, they employed higher metacognitive reading strategies or global strategies instead of local strategies (Carrell, 1989; Carrell et al., 1989; Casanave, 1988; Grabe, 1991; Hsu, 2007; Kuo, 1994; Liu, 1998; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002; Phakiti, 2003; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Yang, 2006). The Effects of Reading Strategy-Based Instruction Since research strongly indicated the use of strategy benefited language learning (Chamot, 2005; Cohen, 1998; Oxford, 1990), most studies recommended strategy-based instruction to be implemented in the classroom teaching (Chamot, 2005; Dörnyei, 1995; O’ Malley & Chamot, 1990; O’ Malley et. al., 1985; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1975). According to Cohen (1998), strategy-based instruction referred to “explicit classroom instruction directed at learners regarding their language learning and language use strategies, and provided alongside instruction in the foreign language itself” (p. 17), which was the most effective intervention in facilitating. 28.

(41) learning. Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) pointed out that strategy instruction in reading also provided opportunities to help students, especially struggling ones, to become “constructively responsive” readers, and “thoughtfully literate” individuals who are motivated in control of their own learning (p. 251). Regardless of which language proficiency levels, learners could be taught how to apply strategies appropriately and effectively, which helped them develop language learning experience and thus improved their language performance (Cohen, 1998; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). In the field of reading strategy, quite a lot of studies showed that reading strategies improve reading comprehension (Carrell et al., 1989; Chen, 2005; Ko, 2007; Salataci & Akyel, 2002; Song, 1998; Wang, 2002; Yang, 2006). Indeed, reading strategy-based instruction was strongly recommended to be integrated into regular reading pedagogy (Allen, 2003; Carrell et al., 1989; Casanave, 1988; Grabe, 1991; Ko, 2007; Shang, 2008; Shen, 2003; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Singhal, 2001; Yang, 2006). What is more, a number of reading research has shown that explicit and direct instruction could enhance learners to take active control of their own comprehension processes and thus lead to effective language learning (Allen, 2003; Chamot, 2005; Chen, 2005; Cohen, 1998; Ko, 2007; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002; O’ Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Salataci & Akyel, 2002; Shang, 2008; Shen, 2003; Song;. 29.

(42) 1998; Yang; 2006). One of the most crucial roles of strategy-based instruction was to build up learner autonomy (Cohen, 1998; Little, 2007; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Shang, 2008), which enhanced learners’ motivation and control of their learning processes and thus promoted academic achievement. Cohen (1998) proposed that strategy training encouraged students to be less dependent on the teacher, to be more autonomous in their learning, so as to self-evaluate their language development. Another goal was that students can spontaneously select appropriate strategies to ease new learning tasks. In the domain of reading strategy instruction, Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) stated that such awareness of reading strategy use has two main points: one was to transfer the responsibilities of monitoring learning from teachers to learners; the other one was to reinforce positive self-perceptions, self-efficacy and motivation among language learners. In essence, strategy-based instruction is considered powerful to enhance readers’ efficiency of reading comprehension and enable them to become independent readers. Prior studies (Chamot & O’ Mally, 1994; Cohen, 1998; Dörnyei, 1995; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002; Oxford, 1990) outlined that specific sequences during the processes of strategy-based instruction should include: (1) directly introduce what the strategy is and its importance, explain why it should be learned, (2) provide examples. 30.

(43) and guide students how to use the strategy, where to use it, and when to use it, (3) reinforce and help students indentify the strategy and decide when it could be used, (4) give students chances to employ the strategy independently, (5) students apply the strategy to cope with new tasks and construct meaning from the texts, and (6) help students evaluate the success of their strategy use and become responsible for their own learning. Every step of the procedures aims to help learners become more aware of their strategy use, to provide them opportunities to practice, and to transfer the strategies into new tasks. Meanwhile, students take part in the tasks and engage in self-monitoring to evaluate their performance. In addition, Dörnyei (1995) suggested that concentration on specific strategies to practice more often helped learners employ them automatically. In a word, “awareness training,” which was the main focus of strategy-based instruction (SBI), was not only doable but also teachable. These instruction frameworks can be combined and adapted into different situations to add a variety of strategy training programs in order to generate the effectiveness of strategy-based instruction (SBI). Since explicit reading strategy instruction enables language learners to become effective, motivated, and independent readers, the effects of reading strategy training (Chen, 2005; Hung, Tsou, & Wu, 2005; Ko, 2007; Shang, 2008; Song, 1998) were explored as well. Song (1998) probed how strategy training enhanced the reading. 31.

(44) ability of 68 college freshmen in South Korea. The 14-week strategy training consisted of four concrete reading strategies: summarizing (self-review), questioning, predicting and clarifying. All participants were given the same reading comprehension test before and after the treatment. Results revealed that strategy training was effective to improve EFL reading. In addition, readers in low and intermediate reading proficiency groups gained scores significantly than those in high reading proficiency group. Moreover, students’ ability of getting main ideas and making inference were found to be enhanced significantly. Hung, Tsou, and Wu (2005) designed a training program for six weeks of reading strategies in a freshmen English course. Data were collected from reading comprehension tests, questionnaires, and classroom observation. Results indicated that the intervention promoted learners’ motivation and confidence in reading. Moreover, learners employed strategies more effectively in different genres of articles. Furthermore, learners’ applications of reading strategies under regular practice and exams were found to be different. The researchers advocated that teachers should consider learners’ needs and integrate reading strategy instruction for different purposes and situations so that students could use proper strategies to read effectively. Besides, Chen (2005) designed an explicit reading strategy instruction for 89 third-grade senior high school students. Reading comprehension tests and. 32.

(45) questionnaires were conducted to examine the effects of reading strategy instruction, learners’ perceptions of strategy use, as well as their attitudes toward reading and the treatment. Five strategies were demonstrated in the 3-month training, including: skimming for the main idea, identifying topics and main ideas, making predictions, making inferences and guessing the meanings of unfamiliar words. The findings showed that strategy instruction was not only helpful to build up students’ knowledge of using the instructed strategies, but also facilitated learners’ reading comprehension, interest and confidence. Also, participants in lower proficiency level benefited more than those in intermediate and higher proficiency level. Finally, students had a positive response toward the strategy instruction. What is more, Ko (2007) implemented reading strategy instruction to disclose its effects on 97 college students for one semester. The strategies selected in the treatment included: using prior knowledge, guessing word meaning from context, skimming for main ideas, scanning for information, summarizing, and self-questioning and prediction. Results evidenced that students’ awareness of top-down strategy use was raised and the instruction had significant influence on higher-proficiency students. Ko suggested that the instruction could be integrated with the student-centered approach and cooperative learning approach, such as small group discussion, to enhance learners’ interest, confidence, and sense of achievement.. 33.

(46) Recently, Shang (2008) carried out a one-semester strategy training to investigate 53 English-major freshmen’s use of reading strategy and their perceived self-efficacy. The same simulated TOEFL test of five reading passages was given. A reading strategy questionnaire and a self-efficacy questionnaire were filled out to assess students’ frequency of strategy use and perception of confidence in reading English. Results revealed that students’ comprehension was enhanced and reading strategy use was positively correlated to learners’ perception of self-efficacy even though students’ use of reading strategies did not generate significant change after the intervention. The author suggested that it was essential for teachers to model reading strategies so that students could employ proper strategies in reading to increase self-efficacy. After all, as learners’ self-efficacy reinforced, learner autonomy and the will of independent learning would be enhanced. Summary Strategies are considered beneficial not only to overall language learning but also to a specific language sub-skill, such as reading. In many studies, a positive relationship was found between students’ reading proficiency levels as well as their reading strategy use. Literature suggested that higher-achievers employed more strategies than their counterparts did, and such differences could be analyzed to enhance learners’ academic performance. Similarly, successful readers appeared to. 34.

(47) apply more strategies than less successful readers and tended to use them more efficiently during reading processes. Besides, successful readers self-monitored their comprehension more often than less successful ones. However, in some studies, the results were inconsistent. That is, the frequency and the amount of strategies employed were not the predictors which students could achieve in a task. Strategy-based instruction (SBI) was found to have positive effects on learners’ language performance. The goal of strategy-based instruction is to teach learners how, when, and why these strategies are able to facilitate learning. By teaching readers to consciously select strategies to overcome comprehension difficulties, they become aware of what their learning weaknesses and strengths are. Eventually, they explore ways to use appropriate strategies effectively, self-monitor their reading procedures, and self-evaluate their performance.. 35.

(48) CHAPTER THREE Methodology The current research was an experimental study to examine learners’ awareness of reading strategy use and the effects of reading strategy instruction. This chapter described the design of the study, participants, instruments, procedures, and data analysis. Research Design The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of reading strategy instruction among college freshmen. In order not to sacrifice students’ rights to learn how to read effectively, the current study did not exclude reading strategy instruction in the control group. However, what differed between the experimental and the control group was that the former one received systematic strategy instruction and group discussion while the latter received conventional instruction without systematic training and group discussion. In this study, the independent variable was the degree of explicitness of the reading strategy instruction, and the dependent variables were reading performance as well as reading strategy use. Before the experiment, two classes of non-English major freshmen were randomly chosen. Each group completed a GEPT Elementary Level reading section to make sure their language proficiency was equivalent as well as a questionnaire to understand their awareness of reading strategy use. Later on, the participants in the 36.

(49) experimental group were instructed with systematic reading strategy instruction. In contrast, the participants in the control group received reading instruction in a conventional way. After the intervention, all of the participants had another reading test and filled out the same questionnaire. In addition, interviews were conducted to explore further information about participants’ attitude toward the instruction and the use of their reading strategy. Finally, all the collected data were analyzed and computed. Figure 1 illustrated the research design of the present study. Participants The study recruited 73 participants in the first year of a general university in southern Taiwan. However, due to some missing data either from tests or questionnaires in both groups, 14 students were excluded. Therefore, 59 students’ tests results and questionnaires were analyzed in this study. In the experimental group, the subjects came from two departments: 20 majored in the Department of Food and Catering Management, and 10 majored in Health Care Management. On the other hand, the control group consisted of four departments: 8 were from Asset Management and Urban Planning, 8 majored in Resource and Environment, 5 came from Construction and Facility Management, and 8 majored in Computer Science and Information Engineering. Table 1 showed the demographic data of each group.. 37.

(50) Control group. Experimental group. Pretest: 1. a GEPT Elementary Level reading section 2. a reading strategy questionnaire. Receive reading instruction in a. Receive explicit reading. conventional way without. strategy instruction and group discussion. systematic strategy training and group discussion. Posttest: 1. a GEPT Elementary Level reading section 2. a reading strategy questionnaire 3. interviews. Data Analyses: 1. Descriptive Statistics 2. Independent-Samples and Paired-Samples t-tests. Figure 1.. The Flowchart of the Research Design. 38.

(51) Table 1 Demographic Data of the Participants Experimental (N = 30). Department Food and Catering Management. 20. Health Care Management. 10. Control (N = 29). Asset Management and Urban Planning. 8. Resource and Environment. 8. Construction and Facility Management. 5. Computer Science and Information Engineering. 8. Before the intervention of reading strategy instruction, the participants in both groups completed a GEPT Elementary Level reading section. Results showed that the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group were 16.6 and 14.6 respectively, t(57) = 1.18, p = .24 > .05. It revealed that there was no significant difference between these two groups. In addition, high-achievers and low-achievers were also identified based on the test scores. There were 11 high-achievers and 10 low-achievers in the experimental group, while there were 8 high-achievers and 11 low-achievers in the control group. Descriptive statistics of the participants in the pretest were depicted in Table 2.. 39.

(52) Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of the Participants in the Pretest Group. N. Mean. SD. t. df. Sig.. Experimental. 30. 16.60. 6.77. 1.18. 57. .24. Control. 29. 14.62. 6.09. Instrument The instruments used in the present study included: (1) a reading strategy questionnaire, (2) two GEPT formal Elementary Level reading tests, (3) a reading strategy handout, and (4) group discussion sheets. Related information was explained as follows: Reading Strategy Questionnaire The purpose of this questionnaire was to measure learners’ use of reading strategies while reading academic texts. Based on Mokhtari and Sheorey’s Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) in 2002 and Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) in 1990, the questionnaire was developed. The first part of the questionnaire included demographic data about department and student number. The second part contained 28 items about reading strategies, including cognitive strategies (8 items), memory strategies (4 items), compensation strategies (4 items), metacognitive strategies (8 items) and social strategies (4 items). All of these items were with a five-point Likert scale ranging from never = 1, seldom = 2, sometimes = 40.

(53) 3, usually = 4 to always = 5. The English version was presented in Appendix A and the Chinese version was shown in Appendix B. Validity and reliability are important aspects to ensure whether the results of this study are contributive and trustworthy. At first, the researcher followed suggestions from one professor to construct content validity. In order to examine the reliability, a pilot study was carried out by 23 freshmen in the same university before the intervention. The value examined by Cronbach’s Alpha of Reliability analysis was .93. It indicated a highly reasonable degree of consistency in measuring awareness and perception of reading strategy use among college freshmen. Reading Tests General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) is a criterion-referenced and standardized test with established reliability and validity made by The Language Training and Test Center (LTTC) in Taiwan. In this study, two units of GEPT Elementary Level formal reading section served as the pretest and posttest. There existed three parts in the GEPT reading test. The first part included 15 questions of Vocabulary and Structure, which tested the participants’ choices of appropriate vocabulary as well as phrases and grammar structure within a sentence. The second part consisted of 10 questions of Cloze, which measured the participants’ correct choices within one to two paragraphs. The third part included 10 questions of Reading. 41.

(54) Passages, which reflected the participants’ understanding of reading texts. There were 35 questions in total in the reading section and each answer was counted as one point. Since GEPT is a criterion-referenced test and a standardized test edited by professional experts, its validity and reliability were ensured. The pretest adopted in this study was provided in Appendix C and the posttest was presented in Appendix D respectively. Reading Strategy Handout The purpose of this handout was to provide students some guidelines to read effectively in both groups at the beginning of the semester. It was consulted and adopted from some college textbooks and reference materials. The first part introduced three steps of reading (pre-reading, reading, and post-reading) and provided appropriate reading strategies for readers to employ in each step. The second part included some ways to become a good reader; in other words, they were practical strategies for readers to use while reading with clear explanations. The third part provided 12 situations for students to brainstorm which strategies they could apply under a certain occasion (see Appendix E). Group Discussion Sheet Group discussion sheet was made for the participants in the experimental group to check their comprehension of reading articles in each unit from their textbook, and. 42.

(55) so as to collect their opinions about the reading strategies they employed while answering these questions. Possible reading strategies for students to use while reading were listed in the first part. The second part were multiple-choice questions to ask students which strategy they used to get the answer and which did not. The third part was open-ended questions to gather students’ opinions of useful and not-so-useful strategies while they were trying to figure out the answers. A sample group discussion sheet was provided in Appendix F. Procedures The reading strategy instruction was embedded in the regular Freshmen English course for one semester. All of the participants received two 50-minute classes every week from September 12, 2008 to January 9, 2009. There were total 12 weeks of the reading strategy instruction. In this study, the entire procedures included three phases: pretest, treatment, and posttest. Pretest The researcher and the instructor informed the participants of the study on September 12, 2008. In the second week, all the participants were asked to complete a GEPT Elementary Level reading pretest and filled out the reading strategy questionnaire. The allocation of time on finishing the test was 40 minutes, and it took 10 minutes to fill out the questionnaire.. 43.

(56) Treatment As previously mentioned, the current study did not mainly exclude reading strategy instruction in the control group. Instead, the experimental group was trained more systematically with group discussions than the control group. In order to avoid bias or prejudice of this study, both groups were taught by the same instructor, not by the researcher. In the third week of the instruction, all of the participants in both groups received a reading strategy handout and were introduced how to read effectively in the pre-reading, reading, and post-reading stages with clear explanations. From the fourth week, only the participants in the experimental group were instructed explicitly with 20 reading strategies, such as “setting goals and objectives in reading class”, “using titles to predict contexts”, “considering text types”, “skimming for main ideas”, “scanning for specific details”, and “paying attention to bold face and italics to get key information” (see Table 3). The purpose of these strategies was explained and the procedures of how, where and when to use these strategies were modeled explicitly by the instructor. Later, the instructor provided examples for students to practice. It took one week to introduce two strategies. In order to integrate the instructed strategies for the participants in the experimental group, the instructor provided group discussions for students to explore how and why they applied a particular strategy in the context. Besides, students were also encouraged to write. 44.