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

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
----------------

THE EFFECTS OF SELF-REGULATED READING STRATEGY
INSTRUCTION ON EFL STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION
AND READING MOTIVATION

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School of HCMC Open University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (TESOL)

Submitted by DANG THI THU SUONG

Supervisor
Assoc. Prof. Dr. PHAM VU PHI HO

Ho Chi Minh City - 2016


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I hereby certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled, “The Effects
of Self-regulated Reading Strategy Instruction on EFL Students’ Reading Comprehension
and Reading Motivation” as the statement of requirements for theses in Masters’ Programs,
issued by the Higher Degree Committee.

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis does not contain
material published elsewhere, or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I
have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main
text of the thesis.

This thesis has not been submitted for any degree in any other tertiary institution.

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2016

DANG THI THU SUONG

i


RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS
I hereby state that I, Dang Thi Thu Suong, being the candidate for the degree of
Master of TESOL, accept the requirements of the university relating to the retention and
use of Master’s Thesis deposited in the library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the
library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with the
normal conditions established by the library for the care, loan or reproduction of thesis.

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2016

DANG THI THU SUONG

ii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to several
individuals who make a valuable contribution to the completion of this dissertation.
Without their great assistance and support, this thesis would not have come into existence.

First of all, I owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor – Dr. Pham Vu Phi Ho for
his precious time and enthusiastic and specific guidance on conducting and writing this
dissertation. Due to his patience and constant encouragement, I have maintained and
nourished my motivation during the long process to make this thesis possible.
I would like to offer my sincere thanks to all of my lecturers who provided me with
invaluable lessons and extensive knowledge that laid the foundation for this work. Special
thanks are also sent to the academic staff of the Graduate School, HCMC Open University
for their unconditional support and timely reminders.
I am deeply indebted to my colleagues and students from HCMC University of
Science, who willingly helped me with the data collection. Additionally, my thankfulness
goes to Dr. Nguyen Thai An – the Head of the Department of English Language, who gave
me a chance to do my experiment with the students of the university. Also, I never forget
each of the students who participated in the study. Without their enthusiasm and efforts,
this thesis would have never been completed.
I am also grateful to Mr. Vu Huu Thanh – the lecturer of the Department of
Finance-Banking, HCMC Open University, who provided TESOL 7 members with
practical lessons about quantitative analysis and readily helped us whenever we had
questions related to this issue. I felt more confident when collecting and analyzing data
with statistic knowledge and skills that I learned from him.
Last but not least, my appreciation goes to my family. Especially, I would like to
express my heartfelt gratitude to my parents and family members for their tacit
encouragement during the process of studying and writing this thesis. I also want to send
many thanks to my aunt for her financial support during my studying process.

iii


ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of self-regulated reading
strategy instruction on EFL students’ reading comprehension and motivation for reading.

Additionally, the study also investigated the students’ reflections on their use of selfregulated reading strategies to draw the conclusion of whether the adapted SRRP program
supported to create engaged self-regulated readers.
The present study conducted a quasi-experiment following a pretest-post-test nonequivalent group design. Accordingly, two of the 45 classes were assigned to the
researcher to serve as the experimental group (N = 43) and the control group (N = 49).
Three measurement instruments were employed consisting of the reading comprehension
pre- and post-tests, the questionnaires about students’ motivation for reading and the
students’ self-evaluation on the reading process. The quantitative data obtained from these
three sources over the period of 12-week intervention wereanalyzed using the independentand paired-samples t-tests. The researcher also analyzed the students’ responses to the
open questions in their self-evaluation reports to gather qualitative data to answer the last
research question.
The results of the study revealed that the instruction of self-regulated reading
strategies resulted in more significant improvements in students’ reading comprehension
than the traditional approach, only the experimental treatment substantially benefited EFL
students to enhance their motivation for reading English as a foreign language, and the
students reflected a remarkable increase in their use of the acquired strategies. This
improvement started immediately after the four-week training of fragmentary selfregulated reading strategies and remained continuous after the six-week practicing in the
whole process of self-regulated reading. In addition, through the students’ self-evaluation
reports, there were 15 types of self-regulated reading strategies commonly used by most of
the students in the experimental group during the intervention. In summary, the findings of
the present study showed that it was possible to enhance EFL students’ reading
comprehension as well as their motivation for reading and to maintain a rather high level
of strategy use by the implementation of the training program enriched with self-regulated
reading strategies. Accordingly, it was reasonable to conclude that the adapted SRRP
program supported to create engaged self-regulated readers in EFL contexts.

iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP .......................................................................................... i

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS ...........................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ...................................................................................... ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1

Background to the Study ............................................................................................ 1

1.2

Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................... 3

1.3

Purposes of the Study................................................................................................. 5

1.4

Research Questions .................................................................................................... 5

1.5

Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 6

1.6

Definitions of Terms .................................................................................................. 7

1.7

Overview of Thesis Chapters ..................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 9
2.1

Theoretical Background to the Study ......................................................................... 9

2.1.1

Self-regulated Learning ..................................................................................... 9

2.1.1.1

Cognitive Theories of Self-regulated Learning........................................... 9

Social Cognitive Theory ......................................................................................... 9
Information Processing Theory ............................................................................ 11
Social Constructivist Theory ................................................................................ 13
2.1.1.2

Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning ................................................. 15

2.1.1.3

Characteristics of Self-Regulated Learners .............................................. 16

2.1.1.4

The Teaching of Self-Regulated Learning................................................ 17

2.1.2

Reading Comprehension in EFL Contexts ....................................................... 20

2.1.2.1

Factors Contributing to Reading Comprehension in EFL Contexts........... 20

2.1.2.2

Reading Comprehension and Levels of Comprehension........................... 21

2.1.2.3

Development of Reading Comprehension Instruction in EFL Contexts .... 22

2.1.2.4

Trends of Research in Reading Comprehension Strategy Instruction........ 25

v


2.1.3

Self-Regulated Learning in Reading Instruction .............................................. 26

2.1.3.1

Benefits of Incorporating SRL into Reading Instruction ........................... 26

2.1.3.2 Challenges and Considerations when Incorporating SRL into Reading
Instruction................................................................................................................ 27
2.2

Review of Related Literature ................................................................................... 29

2.2.1

Intervention Studies on Strategy Instruction towards Self-regulated Reading... 29

2.2.2

A Discussion for Implications for the Present Study ........................................ 32

2.2.3

The Framework of the Present Study ............................................................... 34

2.3

Chapter Summary .................................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 36

3.1

Research Context ..................................................................................................... 36

3.2

Research Design ...................................................................................................... 38

3.3

Participants .............................................................................................................. 41

3.4

Defining Research Problems for the Current Study .................................................. 43

3.5

Procedure of the Study ............................................................................................. 46

3.5.1

3.5.1.1

Reading Materials for both the Experimental and Control Group ............. 47

3.5.1.2

Description of the Training Program for the Experimental Group ............ 48

3.5.1.3

Description of the Training Program for the Control Group ..................... 50

3.5.2

3.6

The Training Procedure ................................................................................... 51

3.5.2.1

The Training Procedures for the Experimental Group .............................. 51

3.5.2.2

The Training Procedures for the Control Group ....................................... 54

Measurement Instruments ........................................................................................ 57

3.6.1

Reading Comprehension Pre- and Post-Tests................................................... 57

3.6.1.1

The Construct of the Reading Comprehension Pre- and Post-Tests .......... 57

3.6.1.2

Validity of the Pre- and Post-Tests........................................................... 59

3.6.1.3

Reliability of the Pre- and Post-Tests ....................................................... 60

3.6.2

Questionnaire about Students’ Motivation for Reading .................................... 60

3.6.2.1

The Construct of the Questionnaire .......................................................... 60

3.6.2.2

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for the Pilot Questionnaire ................ 63

3.6.3

3.7

Preparation for the Training............................................................................. 47

Students’ Self-evaluation on the Reading Process............................................ 64

3.6.3.1

Description of the Self-evaluation Form .................................................. 64

3.6.3.2

Reliability of the Students’ Self-evaluation Scales ................................... 64

Procedures of Data Collection .................................................................................. 65

vi


3.8

Data Analysis........................................................................................................... 67

3.8.1
Research Question 1: Does the instruction of self-regulated reading strategies
help EFL students improve their reading comprehension? ............................................. 67
3.8.2
Research Question 2: To what extent does the instruction of self-regulated
reading strategy help to enhance EFL students’ reading motivation? ............................. 67
3.8.3
Research Question 3: What are EFL students’ reflections on their use of selfregulated reading strategies during the intervention? ..................................................... 68
3.8.3.1 Do EFL students reflect an enhancement in their use of self-regulated
reading strategies during the intervention ? .............................................................. 68
3.8.3.2 What self-regulated reading strategies were used by most of the EFL
students over the intervening process? ..................................................................... 68
3.9

Chapter Summary .................................................................................................... 69

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 70
4.1 Research Question 1: Does the self-regulated reading strategy instruction helps
EFL students improve their reading comprehension? ........................................................ 70
4.1.1

Comparing the two groups’ reading comprehension before the treatment ........ 70

4.1.2
Comparing each group’s reading comprehension before and after the
treatment ....................................................................................................................... 71
4.1.3

Comparing the two groups’ reading comprehension after the treatment ........... 73

4.2 Research Question 2: To what extent does the self-regulated reading strategy
instruction help to enhance EFL Students’ reading motivation? ........................................ 75
4.2.4

Comparing the two groups’ reading motivation before the treatment ............... 75

4.2.4

Comparing each group’s reading motivation before and after the treatment ..... 76

4.2.3

Comparing the two groups’ reading motivation after the treatment .................. 79

4.2.4
Results of the Paired-samples T-tests on Each Reading-motivation-related

Scale of the EG ............................................................................................................. 80
4.3 Research Question 3: What are EFL students’ reflections on their use of selfregulated reading strategies during the intervention? ......................................................... 87
4.3.1
Research Question 3.1: Do EFL students reflect an enhancement in their use
of self-regulated reading during the intervention? .......................................................... 88
4.3.2
Research Question 3.2: What self-regulated reading strategies were used by
most of the students during the intervention? ................................................................. 90
4.4

Summary of the Findings ......................................................................................... 92

4.5

Discussion of the Findings ....................................................................................... 94

4.5.1

A Discussion on the Students’ Reading Comprehension .................................. 95

4.5.2

A Discussion on the Students’ Motivation for Reading .................................... 96

vii


4.5.3
A Discussion on the Students’ Reflections on their Use of Self-regulated
Reading Strategies ......................................................................................................... 97

4.6

Chapter Summary .................................................................................................... 98

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................... 99
6.1

Major Conclusions ................................................................................................... 99

6.2

Limitations of the Study ......................................................................................... 100

6.3

Suggestions for Further Research ........................................................................... 102

6.4

Implications for Further Practice ............................................................................ 103

REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 104
Appendix 1 – Preliminary Questionnaire ............................................................................ 112
Appendix 2 – Scales and Adapted Items of the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire ....... 114
Appendix 3 – Questionnaire about Students’ Motivation for Reading ................................. 116
Appendix 4 – Students’ Self-evaluation on the Reading Process ......................................... 119
Appendix 5 – Pre-test on Reading Comprehension ............................................................. 121
Appendix 6 – Post-test on Reading Comprehension ............................................................ 128
Appendix 7 – Self-regulated Reading Tasks for the In-class Reading Practices ................... 135

Appendix 8 – Reading Assignments for the Experimental Group........................................ 139
Appendix 9 – A Typical Reading Assignment for the Control Group.................................. 140
Appendix 10 – Results of the Pilot Tests on Reading Comprehension................................. 142
Appendix 11 – Reliability of the Pilot Tests on Reading Comprehension ............................ 143
Appendix 12 – Results of EFA Analysis for the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire ...... 144
Appendix 13 – Reliability of the final Motivation for Reading Questionnaire ..................... 146
Appendix 14 – Reliability of the Self-evaluation Scales...................................................... 147
Appendix 15 – Results of the Pre- and Post-tests on Reading Comprehension .................... 148
Appendix 16 – The Mean Scores Obtained on the Pre- and Post-questionnaires and their
Related Scales .................................................................................................................... 149
Appendix 17 – The Mean Scores Obtained on the Self-evaluation Scales ........................... 154

viii


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 3.1: Summary of participants’ information .................................................................. 42
Table 3.2: Students’ method of learning reading comprehension in previous semesters ........ 44
Table 3.3: Procedure of the study ......................................................................................... 46
Table 3.4: Topics of the reading practices used for in-class reading lessons .......................... 47
Table 3.5: Description of the training program for the experimental group ........................... 49
Table 3.6: Description of the training program for the control group ..................................... 51
Table 3.7: Main training phases and procedures for the experimental group ......................... 51
Table 3.8: Main training stages and procedures for the control group ................................... 55
Table 3.9: Summary of item types and the tasks required...................................................... 58
Table 3.10: Summary of test items in each question type of the pre- and post-tests ............... 59
Table 3.11: Summary of the questionnaire about students’ motivation for reading ................ 62
Table 4.1: Group statistics on the pretests ............................................................................. 70
Table 4.2: Results of the independent-samples t-test on the pretests ...................................... 71
Table 4.3: Paired samples statistics on the pre- and post-tests of the EG ............................... 72

Table 4.4: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the pre- and post-tests of the EG............... 72
Table 4.5: Paired samples statistics on the pre-post-tests of the CG....................................... 73
Table 4.6: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the pre-post-tests of the CG ...................... 73
Table 4.7: Group statistics on the posttests ........................................................................... 74
Table 4.8: Results of the independent-samples t-test on the posttests .................................... 74
Table 4.9: Group statistics on the pre-overall reading motivation .......................................... 75
Table 4.10: Results of the independent-samples t-test on the pre-overall reading motivation. 76
Table 4.11: Paired samples statistics on the pre-post-reading motivation of the EG .............. 77
Table 4.12: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the pre-post-reading motivation of the EG77
Table 4.13: Paired samples statistics on the pre-post-questionnaires of the CG ..................... 78
Table 4.14: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the pre-post-questionnaires of the CG..... 78
Table 4.15: Group statistics on the post-reading motivation of the two groups ...................... 79
Table 4.16: Results of the independent-samples t-test on the post-reading motivation of the
two groups............................................................................................................................ 79
Table 4.17: Paired samples statistics on the reading curiosity of the EG................................ 80
Table 4.18: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading curiosity of the EG ............... 81
Table 4.19: Paired samples statistics on the reading importance of the EG ............................ 81
Table 4.20 : Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading importance of the EG .......... 81
Table 4.21: Paired samples statistics on the instrumentalism of the EG ................................. 82

ix


Table 4.22: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the instrumentalism scale of the EG ....... 82
Table 4.23: Paired samples statistics on the reading involvement of the EG .......................... 83
Table 4.24: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading involvement of the EG ......... 83
Table 4.25: Paired samples statistics on the reading grade of the EG .................................... 84
Table 4.26: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading grade of the EG .................... 84
Table 4.27: Paired samples statistics on the reading recognition of the EG ........................... 84
Table 4.28: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading recognition of the EG ........... 84

Table 4.29: Paired samples statistics on the reading competition of the EG ........................... 85
Table 4.30: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading competition of the EG .......... 85
Table 4.31: Paired samples statistics on the reading self-efficacy of the EG .......................... 86
Table 4.32: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading self-efficacy of the EG ......... 86
Table 4.33: Paired samples statistics on the reading challenge of the EG .............................. 86
Table 4.34: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the reading challenge of the EG .............. 87
Table 4.35: Paired samples statistics on the SRR scale of week 1&6 .................................... 88
Table 4.36: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the SRR scale of week 1&6 .................... 88
Table 4.37: Paired samples statistics on the SRR scale of week 6&11................................... 89
Table 4.38: Results of the paired-samples t-test on the SRR scale of week 6&11 .................. 89
Table 4.39: Summary of total score and percentage obtained on each SRR strategy .............. 90
Figure 2.1: Summary of cognitive theories of self-regulated learning.................................... 14
Figure 2.2: The framework of the present study .................................................................... 34
Figure 3.1: The design of the present study ........................................................................... 41

x


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CG

Control Group

EFA

Exploratory Factor Analysis

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

ESL

English as a Second Language

EG

Experimental Group

GTM

Grammar – Translation Method

HCMC

Ho Chi Minh City

L1

the First Language

SL/FL

the Second/Foreign Language

MA

Master of Arts

SRL

Self-regulated Learning

SRR

Self-regulated Reading

SRRP

Self-regulated Reading-based Program

SRRSD

Self-regulated Reading Strategy Development

TESOL

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

xi


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides briefly the background of the study followed by the
description of the problems at the research context that leads to the conduction of the
study. Accordingly, the purposes of the study are also presented together with the research
questions. The chapter further offers the significance of the study, the definitions of terms
related to the topic of the study, and ends with the overview of the whole thesis.

1.1 Background to the Study
Since its emergence in educational psychology, self-regulated learning (SRL) has
attracted great attention of academic researchers and practicing educators due to a
consensus that it is a worthy objective that students of all ages in all disciplines should
achieve (Paris & Paris, 2001). Accordingly, they add that the question of how to translate
the contributions of research on SRL into classroom practices has also received a
paramount concern. In addition to cognitive engagement and self-assessment, strategic
reading and writing instruction is included as one of the main areas of SRL’s direct
application in classrooms (ibid, p. 90). In this area of instruction, Paris and Paris (2001)
state that research on the field has changed in two critical ways in which the former
happens by “increasing in grain size” whereas the later happens by “focusing on the
practical applications of strategy instruction in classrooms” (p. 92). For the first change,
instead of examining specific strategies, research on reading and writing strategies
becomes embedded in SRL to include a wide range of strategies. For the second one, the
increasing number of instructional interventions has appeared to promote both students’
literacy skills and self-regulation. For example, “reciprocal teaching” (Palinscar & Brown,
1984), “strategy discussion” (Paris, Cross, & Lipton, 1984), “transactional instruction”
(Pressley, Almasi, Schuder, Bergman, & Kurita, 1994), “cognitive and metacognitive
strategy instruction” (Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, & Stevens, 1991), or “selfinstructional tactics” (Haris & Graham, 1992) are emerged as some of those effective
classroom interventions (Paris & Paris, 2001). In short, it can be seen that the literature so

1


far has heavily stressed the importance and necessity of incorporating SRL into literacy
instruction (Haris & Graham, 1996).
In the context of teaching English as a foreign language, reading is considered as
one of the most language learning goals for many foreign language learners (Grabe, 1991)
because it is a viable means for students to develop their second language ability, which in
turn can facilitate or hinder their academic success (Kazemi, Hosseini, & Kohandani,

2013). Moreover, reading comprehension has been highlighted as a vital literacy outcome
for students as well as a main goal of reading instruction (Coyne, Kami'Enui, & Carnine,
2007; Kazemi, Hosseini, & Kohandani, 2013). Also, Kader (2008) agrees that the primary
objective of EFL reading teachers is to gradually eliminate reading difficulties and to
increase comprehension (p. 109). In reading comprehension instruction, there has existed a
broad agreement that “strategy-oriented instruction is a powerful approach to foster
reading comprehension” (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991, as cited in Souvignier &
Mokhlesgerima, 2006, p. 57). In fact, Ammar (2009) indicates that research during the past
decades on reading comprehension has mainly emphasized on: (1) cognitive strategy
instruction, (2) metacognitive strategy instruction, (3) affective strategy instruction to
enhance students’ attitudes and motivation toward reading, and (4) self-regulated reading
strategy instruction. In the last trend, self-regulated reading emerges as a synthesis of
cognitive reading strategies, meta-comprehension, and motivation that may maximize its
effects on reading comprehension (Ammar, 2009). Based on empirical research, Ammar
(2009) concludes that “development of self-regulated reading behaviors has resulted in
enhanced comprehension, increased reading engagement, and better implementation of
higher level literacy skills” (p. 12). Moreover, recent research has revealed that when
teaching reading in EFL contexts, teachers should not forget the long-term goal. That is to
develop independent readers outside the EFL classroom (Kader, 2008), independent
critical readers in the current Internet age (Levine, Ferenz, & Reves, 2000), engaged
readers (Guthrie, 2001), and more recently, self-regulated readers (Horner & Shwery,
2002; Lake & Holster, 2014). In this respect, Davis and Gray (2007) cited from Paris and
Paris (2001) asserting that “helping students become self-regulated not only promotes
more independent, competent, and motivated students and teachers, but is also likely to
raise test scores” (p. 31). Particularly, they specify that “self-regulated learning sustains

2


and deepens engaged reading and consequent comprehension” (Davis & Gray, 2007, p.

31).
Due to the benefits of self-regulated learning (SRL) for supporting reading
comprehension and reading motivation, some researchers have attempted to introduce and
embed it in reading instruction and classroom practices. Nevertheless, since SRL is a rather
new and complicated construct, it has not received due attention in reading instruction
program yet (Davis & Gray, 2007). Consequently, there is still a need for reading
comprehension instructional interventions that encourage and support SRL in the
classroom to be developed and evaluated. Recently, many researchers have supported for
developing such instructional interventions like Paris & Paris (2001), Davis & Gray
(2007), Housand & Ries (2008), Zumbrum, Tadlock, & Roberts (2011), and Butler (2012).

1.2

Statement of the Problem
It is obvious that reading comprehension instruction in Vietnam has a rich history

dominated by the traditional method, i. e. Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) in which
teachers and textbooks are centered, students are a little passive in the reading process, and
both teachers and students have to follow the structured curriculum strictly (Le, 2010). A
typical reading activity inevitably involves answering comprehension questions following
the texts, and very little classroom time is spent on teaching students reading strategies to
complete the reading tasks (Nguyen & Trinh, 2011). Furthermore, the current fact that the
assessment of students’ reading comprehension heavily relies on multiple-choice method
and emphasizes on proficiency rather than performance, and that teaching and learning
process is strongly oriented by exams leads students to think that studying is to complete
the tests successfully to pass the exams (Le, 2010). Correspondingly, instead of reading
happening for some real purposes like reading for pleasure, information, knowledge, or
learning the language itself, students usually arrive at learning skills or tips to pass the
reading tests (ibid, 2010). More seriously, this assessment method and exam-oriented style
not only have negative effects on students’ motivation for reading but also shape their bad

reading style and habit (ibid, 2010). Confronting such a difficult situation, many reading
teachers, despite the benefits of new approaches to reading comprehension instruction, feel
reluctant to integrate them into their teaching because they do not ensure that those new
approaches will meet students’ expectation, i.e. passing the reading tests. For instance, a

3


study conducted by Nguyen (2005) reported that although the reading teachers
acknowledged the importance of reading strategy instruction, their classroom practices did
not reflect their beliefs because of some contextual limitations like time constraint,
teachers’ lack of experience, students’ low level of motivation, and inflexibility of reading
materials and curriculums (pp. 43 - 44 ).
This was similar to the situation of teaching reading comprehension at HCMC
University of Science where the present study took place. First, the English teachers here
still utilized the GTM in teaching reading comprehension to non-English major students
who were required to complete the mid-term and final test papers that were both designed
in the form of multiple-choice questions. This unpleasant reality was evidenced by the
researcher’ class observations and personal communication with a group of six English
teachers, who were officially invited to hold a discussion on how reading comprehension
actually happened in the classrooms (personal communication, October 2014).
Additionally, this conclusion was also drawn from the data collected via the preliminary
questionnaire (see Appendix 1) administered to 159 students one semester before the
intervention, which the results were presented in details in chapter three of this thesis (see
table 3.2). Second, when analyzing the results of 94 students’ mid-term test papers
provided by other teachers, the researcher noticed that most of the students did well on
grammar multiple-choice questions, but many of them obtained low scores on questions
related to vocabulary and reading comprehension. This proved that the students did not
reflect a high level of reading comprehension with the traditional teaching method being
used at the university. Finally, through the class observations and personal communication

with some groups of students, the researcher noted that most of the students expressed a
low level of motivation for reading, which has played a significant role in the learning
process of non-English major students at HCMC University of Science (personal
communication, October, 2014). Reading motivation is especially important in this case
because of the fact that in their learning, the students have to access many scientific and
technical materials written in English, which are what they need to assist them with further
studies or future work.
One of the ways suggested by previous researchers to increase students’ reading
comprehension as well as motivation to read is that English teachers need to teach them

4


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

1.3 Purposes of the Study
In an attempt to help non-English major students at HCMC University of Science
to be more involved in their reading process and become engaged self-regulated readers,
the current study aims to:
1. examine whether the instruction of self-regulated reading strategies helps

students improve their reading comprehension after the training
2. explore the extent to which the instruction of self-regulated reading strategies
helps to enhance students’ reading motivation after the treatment
3. investigate students’ reflections on their use of self-regulated reading strategies
during the intervention

1.4 Research Questions
In order to achieve the above three purposes of the study, the answers to the
following research questions should to be sought.
1. Does the instruction of self-regulated reading strategies help EFL students
improve their reading comprehension?
2. To what extent does the instruction of self-regulated reading strategies help to
enhance EFL students’ reading motivation?
3. What are EFL students’ reflections on their use of self-regulated reading
strategies during the intervention?

5


3.1 Do EFL students reflect an enhancement in their use of self-regulated
reading strategies during the intervention?
3.2 What self-regulated reading strategies were used by most of the EFL
students during the intervention?

1.5 Significance of the Study
For the national perspective, the significance of the study lies in the following
considerations. First of all, the study sheds new light on the benefits of incorporating selfregulated learning into reading comprehension instruction, which has not received much
attention in Vietnam although it has been proved effective worldwide in other EFL
contexts. Second, the study was conducted at HCMC University of Science in the hope that
its findings would make significant contributions to positive changes in teaching and

learning reading comprehension in this university as well as in other Vietnamese EFL
contexts. Third, the results of the study reveal the effectiveness of the instruction of selfregulated reading strategies on enhancing EFL students’ reading motivation – one of the
essential factors contributing to the success of the readers. Fourth, the study gives the idea
of building engaged, self-regulated readers outside the classroom, which is very necessary
for all learners in the current situation and suggests an appropriate reading program for
reading teachers, which supports them to create a powerful reading environment that
provides students with enough space and freedom to read what they are really interested in.
Finally, the study provides a questionnaire to assess students’ reading motivation – a
construct that has not gained due attention in reading comprehension instruction in
Vietnam yet. Additionally, the study also offers a self-evaluation form that can be used as
an instructional tool to support students to monitor and self-record their reading process
and as a measurement instrument to assess the students’ level of self-regulated reading. For
the broader perspective outside Vietnam, the results of the study might be shared with EFL
reading teachers and contribute a small part to perfect what research so far has been done
in the field of self-regulated learning and reading comprehension.

6


1.6 Definitions of Terms
Self-regulation / self-regulated learning (SRL)
There exist many definitions of SRL in the literature but the following definition by
Pintrich (2000) is one of the best well-known definitions and is adopted in several research
studies.
Self-regulation (or self-regulated learning) is “an active, constructive process
whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and
control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals
and the contextual features in the environment” (Pintrich, 2000, p. 453).
Self-regulated reading / self-regulation of reading
Self-regulated reading is characterized as the process of setting goals for reading,

selecting and applying the reading strategies, monitoring comprehension and strategy use,
and self-evaluating the reading progress (Horner & Shwery, 2002, p. 102).
Engaged, self-regulated readers
Engaged, self-regulated readers are those who are able to “set realistic goals, select
effective reading strategies, monitor their understanding of the text, and evaluate progress
toward their goals” (Horner & Shwery, 2002, p. 102).
It can be said that “readers’ level of self-regulation depends not only on their
reading and self-regulation skills, but also on their beliefs about their efficacy to read, the
value they place on the reading task, and their motivation to read and learn” (Horner &
Shwery, 2002).
Reading comprehension
RAND Reading Study Group defines reading comprehension as “the process of
simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement
with written language” (RAND Reading Study Group, 2001, as cited in Snow, 2002, p.
13).
It can be seen from the above definition that reading comprehension results from
the interaction among three elements: the reader (the subject of the process of
comprehending), the text (the object of the process of comprehending), and the reading

7


activity in which comprehending takes place (Snow, 2002, p. 13). Each aspect of the three
elements mentioned above makes its own contribution to the process of reading
comprehension.
Motivation and reading motivation
The definition of motivation is commonly conceived as “a multifaceted set of goals
and beliefs that guide behavior” (Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999, p. 199).
Accordingly, reading motivation is defined as “the individual’ goals and beliefs that
guide his or her behavior with regard to reading” (Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999, p. 199).

1.7 Overview of Thesis Chapters
The current thesis is comprised of five chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 is the introduction to the present study. Specifically, this chapter begins
with the background of the study and the statement of the problem, which leads to the
conduction of the study. Then, the purposes of the study are presented together with the
three research questions. Also, the significance of the study and the definitions of related
terms are provided. The chapter ends with the overview of thesis chapters.
Chapter 2 provides the theoretical background to the study followed by the review
of some previous related studies and the discussion for implication to reveal the research
gap that leads to the conduction of the present study.
Chapter 3 mentions the research methodology employed for the study. This chapter
starts with the description of the research design, the research site and the participants.
Then, it is continued with the procedures of the study and the measurement instruments.
The section of data collection and data analysis to provide answers to each of the three
research questions is also presented in this chapter.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study regarding each of the research questions
and the discussion of the findings drawn in the previous sections of the chapter.
Chapter 5 provides the summary of the main findings of the study as well as its
limitations. Accordingly, the chapter offers some suggestions for further research and
implications for further practices.

8


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents the theoretical background to the study followed by the
review of previous related studies as well as the discussion for the research gap. The theory
section provides some aspects of self-regulated learning and reading comprehension that

support this study as well as the importance of self-regulated learning in reading
comprehension instruction. The second section provides summaries of previous
intervention studies and their limitations to lead to the discussion to reveal the gap for the
conduction of the present study.

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

9


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

“students’ responses that involve systematically monitoring their own performance”
(Zimmerman, 1989b). Self-judgment refers to “students’ responses that involve
systematically comparing their performance with a standard or goal” (ibid, p. 333). Two
common forms of self-judgment are self-evaluation and causal attribution (Zimmerman,
2002, p. 68). Self-reaction relates “making evaluative responses to judgments of one’s
performance” (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997). It may take the form of “feelings of selfsatisfaction and positive affect regarding one’s performance” or “adaptive or defensive
responses” (Zimmerman, 2002).
Moreover, social cognitive theorists perceive self-regulation as a cyclic process
(Schunk, 2012) in that it highlights the reciprocal interactions between personal factors
(e.g., cognitions, emotions), behaviors and environmental conditions (Schunk &
Zimmerman, 1997). Accordingly, self-regulation can be defined as “a process whereby
students activate and sustain cognitions, behaviors, and affects, which are systematically
oriented toward attainment of their goals” (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, as cited in
Boekaerts, 1997, p. 162). Based on this perspective, Zimmerman (2000) expanded the
classical social cognitive view of SRL with a three-phase self-regulation model, which
reflects the cyclical nature of self-regulation process (Zimmerman, 2000, as cited in
Schunk, 2012, p. 123). Various self-regulatory processes are operated during the three
phases of self-regulation. In the forethought phase, learners set goals and hold a sense of
self-efficacy for attaining them. During the performance phase, they implement learning
strategies and monitor their progress by comparing their performances with their goals. In
the self-reflection phase, they engage in self-evaluation and make attributions for their
performances (Schunk, 2012).
In addition, the dynamic nature of self-regulation is reflected through the
interaction between social influences and the self (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997). Learning
process begins with learners acquiring new skills through observing social models and then
engaging in performing skills with appropriate guidance and feedback. When learners
become more competent, the process continues with their independent performance of the

10

acquired skills and ends with implementing self-regulatory processes to refine skills and
select new goals (Schunk, 2012, p. 415). The above sequence is useful in planning
instruction to develop learners’ skills and self-regulatory competence (Zimmerman &
Kitsantas, 2005, as cited in Schunk, 2012).
Finally, social cognitive theorists indicate that self-regulation requires learner
choices (Zimmerman, 2000, as cited in Schunk, 2012). The following present four types of
learner choices and their corresponding self-regulatory processes. The first choice involves
learner decision on whether to participate in the task, which related to some processes like
learners’ goals, values, and self-efficacy (Schunk, 2012). Second, learners can also make
choice of which strategies to be used to obtain their goals and which relaxation techniques
to overcome difficulties or anxiety (ibid, p. 406). The third type of learner choice concerns
desired learning outcomes, which is reflected through learners’ self-monitoring and selfjudgment of their performance according to their goals (ibid, p. 406). For the last type,
learners should be allowed to choose or set their own social and physical environments that
assist them to perform the task well. In order for this to happen, they should learn how to
structure their own learning environment and ask for social help whenever they need (ibid,
p. 406). This may draw a conclusion that in order to encourage self-regulation, it is
important to consider individual’s choice in designing a learning task.
Information Processing Theory
Information processing theory of self-regulated learning emphasizes the importance
of cognitive functions (Schunk, 2009). Accordingly, Winne and Hadwin developed a
model of SRL including four phases: defining the task, setting goals and planning, enacting
tactics, and adapting metacognition (Winne, 2001, as cited in Schunk, 2012). Defining the
task involves learners processing information about the conditions that characterize the
task to clearly define it (Winne, 2001, in Schunk, 2012). Sources of information include
task conditions (e.g., teacher’s directions) and cognitive conditions that they retrieve from
long-term memory (e.g., perceived competence, attributions). The second phase refers to
setting goals and planning for strategy use to attain that goal. During the third phase,
learners apply the selected strategies, and in the last phase, they adapt their plans and
strategies regarding self-evaluation of their success (Schunk, 2012).

11


Since this theory primarily focuses on learner cognition, self-regulation is quite
similar to metacognition (Gitomer & Glaser, 1987, as cited in Schunk, 2012).
Metacognition consists of two interrelated components – metacognitive knowledge and
metacognitive strategies. Metacognitive knowledge involves self-knowledge (e.g., personal
capabilities, interests, and attitudes), knowledge about factors that might affect
performance, and knowledge about learning strategies (Lai, 2011, p. 2). Metacognitive or
self-regulating strategies compose of three types of strategies – planning, monitoring and
regulating (Pintrich, 1999, p.461). Dulger (2011) reported that metacognitive strategies
serve as “the instruments for metacognition and function as a means of facilitating
learning” (p. 86).
Schunk (2012) insisted that self-regulation requires “a sound knowledge base” (p.
416), thus encouraging SRL in the classroom requires learners to be exposed to all kinds of
knowledge, among which most information processing models of self-regulation
emphasize on the knowledge of learning strategies. Learning strategies refer to “cognitive
plans oriented toward successful task performance” (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986, as cited in
Schunk, 2012). The implementation of a learning strategy involves (1) analyzing the
learning goal, important task aspects, personal characteristics perceived important, and
useful SRL methods, (2) planning a strategy, (3) implementing the methods, (4)
monitoring their goal progress, and (5) modifying the strategy when the methods are not
producing goal progress (Schunk, 2012). He also added that metacognitive knowledge
plays an important role in guiding the operation of these methods (ibid, p. 417). In other
words, learners should be aware of which SRL methods to implement, why they are
important, when to employ, and how to perform them.
Schunk (2012) defined SRL methods as “specific procedures or techniques
included in strategies to attain goals” (p. 418). Weinstein and Mayer (1986) presented five
types of learning strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, organization, comprehension

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

12


(Snowman, 1986, in Schunk, 2012). Elaboration concerns such procedures as imagery,
mnemonics, questioning, and note taking. These procedures are used to make learning
more meaningful by adding a mental picture, relating new information to existing
information, making questions, and so on. Organization includes techniques like
mnemonics, grouping, outlining, and mapping. It is indicated that the two later
organization methods help to improve comprehension (Snowman, 1986, in Schunk, 2012).
Comprehension monitoring involves learners determining whether they are
properly applying conceptual and procedural knowledge, evaluating whether they
understand the material, judging whether the employed strategies are effective or need
replacing, and knowing why strategy use will improve learning (Schunk, 2012, p. 424).
Comprehension monitoring involves such processes as self-questioning, rereading,
checking consistencies, and paraphrasing. Comprehension monitoring is perceived as the
most important component in strategy instruction (Baker & Brown, 1984, as cited in
Schunk, 2012). The last group of learning strategies relates techniques that learners may
use to “create a favorable psychological climate for learning” (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986)
– affective learning techniques (Schunk, 2012). They are helpful in maintaining attention
on important task aspects, setting goals, developing positive beliefs (self-efficacy, outcome
expectations, and attitudes), establishing a suitable learning environment, managing time
effectively, and minimizing distractions and anxiety (Schunk, 2012).
Because of the effectiveness of strategy instruction, there have existed several
instructional programs or interventions developed to improve student learning. It was

indicated that “the best self-regulated strategy instruction programs are those that are
integrated with academic content and implemented in classrooms that support students’
self-regulated learning” (Winne & Hadwin, 2008, as cited in Schunk, 2012, p. 425).
However, “strategy instruction is likely to be most effective when the constructivist nature
of the acquisition and use of strategies is stressed” (Paris & Paris, 2001, as cited in Schunk,
2012, p. 426).
Social Constructivist Theory
According to Schunk (2012), one theory perceived popular among various sources
for constructivist accounts of self-regulation is known as Vygotsky’s (1978) constructivist

13