Insights into Korean EFL Students’ Reading Motivation...

18
57 English Teaching, Vol. 70, No. 1, Spring 2015 DOI: 10.15858/engtea.70.1.201503.57 Insights into Korean EFL Students’ Reading Motivation, Proficiency, and Strategy Use Jeongyeon Park (University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, USA) Park, Jeongyeon. (2015). Insights into Korean EFL students’ reading motivation, proficiency, and strategy use. English Teaching, 70(1), 57-74. The aim of this study is to explore the relationships between EFL learners’ reading motivation, proficiency, and strategy use. Fifty-seven students at a Korean university participated in the study. Two self-report questionnaires and a reading comprehension test were used to measure the learners’ motivation to for reading in English, reading proficiency, and reading strategy use. No significant correlation was found between reading motivation and reading strategy use or between reading motivation and reading proficiency. However, students’ performance on the test was positively related to their reported reading strategy use, showing a moderate correlation. In addition, the study found that although proficient students and less proficient students used almost the same kinds of strategies to support their reading comprehension, more proficient students used strategies more frequently than less proficient students. Key Words: second or foreign language reading, reading comprehension, reading strategies 1. INTRODUCTION As with other areas in second language acquisition (SLA), second language (L2) reading research has mostly relied on first language (L1) research for its theoretical background and models. Researchers, however, have gradually paid increasing attention specifically to L2 reading, as the process of L2 reading is particularly complex and multifaceted. For example, as opposed to L1 readers, L2 readers are already literate in their L1, and these L1 literacy skills can influence their L2 reading process by either assisting or hindering it (Hudson, 2007). In addition, their purposes in learning L2 reading skills are likely to be more diverse, as they derive from individual learners’ various goals and motivations. Many

Transcript of Insights into Korean EFL Students’ Reading Motivation...

57

English Teaching, Vol. 70, No. 1, Spring 2015

DOI: 10.15858/engtea.70.1.201503.57

Insights into Korean EFL Students’ Reading Motivation, Proficiency, and Strategy Use

Jeongyeon Park

(University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, USA)

Park, Jeongyeon. (2015). Insights into Korean EFL students’ reading

motivation, proficiency, and strategy use. English Teaching, 70(1), 57-74.

The aim of this study is to explore the relationships between EFL learners’ reading

motivation, proficiency, and strategy use. Fifty-seven students at a Korean

university participated in the study. Two self-report questionnaires and a reading

comprehension test were used to measure the learners’ motivation to for reading in

English, reading proficiency, and reading strategy use. No significant correlation

was found between reading motivation and reading strategy use or between reading

motivation and reading proficiency. However, students’ performance on the test was

positively related to their reported reading strategy use, showing a moderate

correlation. In addition, the study found that although proficient students and less

proficient students used almost the same kinds of strategies to support their reading

comprehension, more proficient students used strategies more frequently than less

proficient students.

Key Words: second or foreign language reading, reading comprehension, reading

strategies

1. INTRODUCTION

As with other areas in second language acquisition (SLA), second language (L2) reading

research has mostly relied on first language (L1) research for its theoretical background

and models. Researchers, however, have gradually paid increasing attention specifically to

L2 reading, as the process of L2 reading is particularly complex and multifaceted. For

example, as opposed to L1 readers, L2 readers are already literate in their L1, and these L1

literacy skills can influence their L2 reading process by either assisting or hindering it

(Hudson, 2007). In addition, their purposes in learning L2 reading skills are likely to be

more diverse, as they derive from individual learners’ various goals and motivations. Many

58 Jeongyeon Park

researchers also have looked into the complex processes of L2 reading with regard to

developing useful instructional methods to assist learners, such as reading strategy training

(e.g., skimming, scanning).

In light of this, the primary purpose of the present study was set to explore how these

aforementioned factors, such as individual learners’ reading motivations, goals, and

strategy use, are associated with L2 reading, with the aim of providing some insight into

their relationship. More specifically, the study investigated to what extent

multidimensional reading motivation and efficient strategy use affect the reading

performance of EFL Korean students. In the following sections, the paper first reviews

studies on L2 or EFL reading, specifically those that focus on the relationships between L2

reading motivation, reading comprehension proficiency, and reading strategy use. Next,

the design of the present study, including its participants, materials, and procedures, is

described. The paper then presents a discussion of the findings, and it concludes with a

discussion of the study’s pedagogical implications.

2. BACKGROUND OF RESEARCH

2.1. Reading Motivation

Second language motivation has been given considerable attention since Gardner and

Lambert (1959) initiated discussion of its essential role in L2 acquisition; a good body of

work has followed, probing the role of motivation as one of the most influential individual

difference variables. However, most motivation studies have sought to establish a

relationship with language learning in general or have been more concerned with speaking,

drawing on Gardner’s socio-educational model, rather than reading. In response to this

state of affairs, Wigfield (1997) asserted the importance of a “domain-specific approach”

(p. 60), arguing that in order to explore the multidimensionality of reading motivation, it

should be distinguished from general motivation. Therefore, Wigfield and Guthrie (1997)

attempted to conceptualize the construct of motivation for reading, drawing on motivation

theories in educational psychology. They defined three categories of reading motivation,1

which led to the development of the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ). With

the MRQ, a series of studies (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Guthrie, Wigfield, Barbosa,

1 Eleven dimensions comprise the three categories of reading: (a) competence and efficacy beliefs: reading efficacy, reading challenge, and reading work avoidance; (b) achievement value and goals: reading curiosity, reading involvement, importance of reading, competition in reading, reading recognition, and reading for grades; and (c) social aspects of reading: social reasons for reading and reading compliance.

Insights into Korean EFL Students’ Reading Motivation, Proficiency, and Strategy Use 59

Perencevich, Taboada, Davis, & Tonks, 2004; Guthrie, Wigfield, & VonSecker, 2000;

Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997) has attempted to probe multiple aspects of L1 reading

motivation. However, to this author’s knowledge, only Mori (2002), with native Japanese-

speaking participants, has attempted to see what constitutes EFL students’ English reading

motivation. Although Mori did not find motivational aspects clustered into the constructs

that were proposed by Wigfield and Guthrie, the study did support the dynamic construct

of motivation. Therefore, building on these previous studies, and with the goal of

expanding the research on reading motivation, the present study explores native Korean-

speaking EFL students’ motivation for reading in English by looking specifically into their

intrinsic motivation and their extrinsic motivation.

2.2. Reading Motivation and Strategy Use

Along with the burgeoning of interest in motivation, some researchers have extended

attention to the relationship between motivation and cognition. A series of studies has

aimed specifically at finding links between motivation and cognitive strategy use in

language learning. For L1 reading, some studies have explored the relationship between

reading motivation and reading strategy use and found positive correlations between them

(e.g., Guthrie et al., 20002, 2004; Lau & Chan, 2003). For example, Lau and Chan (2003)

divided 7th graders in China into “poor readers” and “good readers” and examined how

their reading strategy use was related to their reading motivation. Their findings revealed

that poor readers applied fewer reading strategies to comprehend a Chinese text and used

only simple strategies, such as “deleting unimportant sentences,” on a test. In addition, the

students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations showed a positive correlation with their

reading comprehension. Notably, intrinsic motivation was the most salient difference

between the two groups.

MacIntyre and Noels (1996) explored how specific motivational factors are correlated

with L2 learners’ language learning strategies. The authors found four categories of factors

(integrativeness, attitudes toward the language situation, language anxiety, and motivation)

that correlated with three types of strategies (cognitive, metacognitive, and social

strategies). In addition, students who were more highly motivated used strategies more

often, showing more knowledge about strategies. The results of this study are in line with

Oxford and Nyikos’s (1989) large-scale study, which found that degree of motivation most

2 Guthrie et al. (2000) investigated whether classroom intervention can affect 3rd and 5th graders’

intrinsic reading motivation under two different instructional methods: traditional instruction and Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI), “an instructional program for elementary school children that merges reading strategy instruction, science instruction, and a set of motivational practices designed to enhance children’s intrinsic reading motivation” (Guthrie et al., 2004, p. 288).

60 Jeongyeon Park

affects students’ choice of language learning strategies. The students who expressed a high

degree of motivation for learning languages used more strategies than those who expressed

a lower degree of motivation.

While one study, conducted by Vandergrift (2005), found that the reported use of L2

listening strategies had moderate or strong correlations with either extrinsic or intrinsic

motivation, there is a paucity of L2 reading research on motivation. Links between reading

motivation and strategy use have remained largely under-researched. Therefore, another

aim of the current study is to fill a gap in the L2 reading literature by investigating the

relationship between motivation and strategy use.

2.3. Reading Strategy Use and Proficiency

While little attention has been paid to the role of motivation in the use of L2 reading

strategies, many studies have examined the relationship between reading proficiency and

strategy use. Reading research in general has divided reading strategies into two

categories: cognitive and metacognitive. According to Grabe (2009):

Cognitive strategies have commonly been described as strategies that a reader is trained

to use, such as guessing from context, noting discourse organization, recognizing a

transition phrase, skipping a word, identifying a known word part, forming a question

about an author, or identifying a main idea. Metacognitive strategies have been

described as strategies that require an explicit awareness of reading itself and that most

strongly support the goals of reading. (p. 223)

Applying metacognitive strategies thus requires readers’ ability to monitor their

comprehension during reading and to adjust the specific cognitive strategies they are using.

Metacognitive ability seems to play an important role in individual learners’ on-going

decision-making, which, in turn, may lead to better understanding of the text by remedying

comprehension failures. Although Grabe (2009) describes their differences, he also argues

that it is not easy to make a clear-cut dichotomous distinction between cognitive and

metacognitive strategies. This is in part due to the fact that different studies have defined

them in various ways (Hudson, 2007) or made less of a distinction between them

(Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009). L2 reading research in general, however, seems to support the

claim that both cognitive and metacognitive strategies help readers better comprehend

reading texts.

A good number of studies have demonstrated how strategic reading takes place in L1

and L2 reading across different reading proficiency levels. Research on L1 reading has

shown that less proficient readers tend not to be very adept at handling reading strategies

Insights into Korean EFL Students’ Reading Motivation, Proficiency, and Strategy Use 61

(e.g., Baker & Brown, 1984; Block, 1992), and L2 research has found similar results,

indicating that L2 students’ reading strategy use is correlated with their reading

performance (see Koda, 2005 for more information).

Block (1992) found that proficient nonnative speakers used almost as many

comprehension monitoring processes as proficient native speakers, and Sheorey and

Mokhtari’s (2001) study found that both English native speakers and EFL students who

rated themselves as having high reading ability used more metacognitive and cognitive

strategies. The EFL students also showed a tendency to use more supportive strategies,

such as consulting a dictionary, taking notes, and underlining texts. This finding is in line

with some previous studies on L2 reading (Carrell, 1989; Young & Oxford, 1997) that

showed that more proficient readers are likely to use global strategies, whereas less

proficient students use more local strategies.

More recently, Phakiti’s (2003) large-scale study investigated Thai EFL students’

cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on a reading achievement test by looking into the

participants’ reported use of both kinds of reading strategies and their scores on the test. He

found that both cognitive and metacognitive strategies were positively related to the

students’ performance on the test (r = .391 and .469, respectively). Phakiti also interviewed

four successful and four unsuccessful students; the qualitative data suggested that the use

of the different kinds of strategies differed between the two groups of interviewees. The

students who were more successful on the test reported the use of more metacognitive

strategies.

Similarly, in support of the efficacy of strategy instruction, Ikeda and Takeuchi (2006)

investigated whether any differences in the process of learning reading strategies existed

between two proficiency levels of Japanese EFL learners. In addition to strategy

instruction, students were required to make their own portfolio about their strategy learning

and to record what kinds of strategies they had used. An analysis of their portfolio

descriptions revealed that the more proficient group tended to use more strategies than

their counterparts in the lower proficiency group. Another intriguing finding was that the

higher proficiency group not only understood the purpose of each strategy use but also had

a better sense of which strategy could be efficiently used in which condition. As previous

research has found a general trend that the more fluent readers use various kinds of reading

strategies in more efficient ways than the less fluent readers, the present study aims to

provide some insight on this relationship.

62 Jeongyeon Park

3. RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1. The Study

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate whether any relationship exists

between English reading motivation, proficiency, and strategy use. As discussed above,

while little is known about the relationship between reading motivation and proficiency,

some research has shown positive relationships between motivation and strategy use (e.g.,

Lau & Chan, 2003). Several earlier studies (e.g., Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2006; Sheorey &

Mokhtari, 2001) have also shown specifically that the ability to use reading strategies is

one of the salient features differentiating readers in terms of proficiency. In other words,

the more proficient readers in these studies were able to utilize more reading strategies

effectively and appropriately, which may have led to their better comprehension of reading

texts.

3.2. Research Questions

Taking the findings of previous research into consideration, this study explored the

possibility of positive synergistic effects between the three factors of reading motivation,

proficiency, and strategy, asking three research questions:

1. What is the relationship between reading motivation and reading proficiency?

2. What is the relationship between reading motivation and reading strategy use?

3. What is the relationship between reading strategy use and reading proficiency?

3.3. Subjects

Fifty-seven Korean undergraduate students enrolled in an English course at a Korean

university voluntarily participated in the study. The primary goal of the course was to help

students improve their reading fluency as well as general reading skills. The participants

were 32 male and 25 female students, ranging in age from 19 to 27 years old, with a mean

age of 22.3 years. Their academic majors were diverse, but mainly in the social sciences.

Most of the students had started learning English formally in the 3rd grade, and thus,

although the length of time varied somewhat due to age differences, they had all studied it

for several years. Therefore, their overall English proficiency was expected to be at least at

or around the intermediate level; however, in order to measure the participants’ reading

proficiency at the time of data collection, a reading comprehension test was administered.

Insights into Korean EFL Students’ Reading Motivation, Proficiency, and Strategy Use 63

3.4. Materials

A background information form was first developed to obtain the participants’

biographical data, including their age, gender, and English language learning and reading

experiences. A reading comprehension test was then prepared to assess the participants’

reading comprehension ability. The academic texts and comprehension questions were

adapted from Preparation for the TOEFL: Test of English as a Foreign Language

(Sullivan & Zhong, 1994). The test consisted of five academic reading texts, each

approximately 200 to 350 words in length, and each was followed by five multiple-choice

comprehension questions. The 25 questions were designed to measure participants’ ability

to understand main ideas, make inferences, guess meanings of difficult words, and identify

authors’ voices in the text. In order to minimize the effects of confounding variables, the

topics of the reading texts were selected with caution. As topic familiarity, or background

knowledge, not only affects students’ reading comprehension (Chen & Donin, 1997;

Carrell & Wise, 1998; Lee, 2007; McNeil, 2011) but also influences male and female

students differently (Bugel & Buunk, 1996; Brantmeier, 2003), general subjects and

gender-neutral topics were selected. Third, two questionnaires were utilized to explore

English reading motivation and English reading strategy use.

The English Reading Motivation Questionnaire was adapted from Noels, Pelletier,

Clément, and Vallerand’s (2000) LLOS-IEA (Language Learning Orientations Scale—

Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Amotivation Subscales). Noels et al.’s

original questionnaire was developed based on one of the most influential motivation

theories in educational psychology: Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory.

Deci and Ryan (1985) claimed that intrinsic and extrinsic motives best explain the

motivational orientations of individuals’ self-determined performance. Drawing on their

theory, the present study expected to find that those who are either intrinsically or

extrinsically motivated use more reading strategies to achieve their reading comprehension

goals. In addition to intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, amotivation, which refers to the

state of being “neither intrinsically nor extrinsically motivated” (Vallerand et al., 1992, p.

1007), was also included. For the purpose of this study, the LLOS-IEA was modified to

make it applicable to the domain of reading. For instance, an item for intrinsic motivation,

“For the satisfied feeling I get in finding out new things” was changed to “For the satisfied

feeling I get in learning new information by reading in English.” The English Reading

Motivation Questionnaire consisted of a total of 21 items to be rated on a seven-point

Likert scale that ranged from 1 = “completely disagree” to 7 = “completely agree” (See

Appendix A). The reliability of the questionnaire was attested with a Cronbach’s alpha

of .85.

The English Reading Strategy Questionnaire was adapted from Mokhtari and Reichard’s

64 Jeongyeon Park

(2002) Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS). The SORS, composed of 30 questions, was

originally intended to measure ESL students’ perceived use of reading strategies for

academic reading texts. To increase the feasibility of implementing the survey in the

current study, some revisions were necessary. For example, some of the questionnaire

items that included technical terms related to reading strategies were deleted or modified

by rewording. Also, the questionnaire included items on various types of strategy, from

global (e.g., “I used my background knowledge to help me understand what I read”) to

more local, specific types (e.g., “I underlined or circled information to help me remember

it”). As a result, a total of 18 statements on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “I

never or almost never did this” to 5 = “I always or almost always did this,” were included

in the second questionnaire (See Appendix B). Relatively good internal consistency was

achieved (Cronbach’s alpha = .87).

3.5. Procedure

A packet including a background information form, a reading test, and the two

questionnaires (the English Reading Motivation and English Reading Strategy

Questionnaires) was distributed to the individual participants. The first page of the packet

explained the purpose and the procedure of the study in Korean to ensure that all

participants could clearly understand the instructions. All of the materials except the

questions in the reading test were also provided in Korean to avoid any possible confusion.

The participants were given approximately 60 minutes to finish the entire reading packet

under the supervision of the researcher. They were directed to complete the packet as it

was ordered: the background survey, the English Reading Motivation Questionnaire, the

reading comprehension test, and the English Reading Strategy Questionnaire.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the statistical analysis are shown in Table 1 below. The mean of the

English Reading Motivation Questionnaire is 92.74, with a minimum of 60 and a

maximum of 129. Considering the possible score range on the questionnaire (from 21 to

147), the students seem to have fairly high English reading motivation in general. The

mean for the English Reading Strategy Questionnaire is 52.82, ranging from 21 to 80. As

for the reading test, the students scored 16.04 out of 25 on average, with a minimum of 9

and a maximum of 21. This indicates that students’ reading proficiency levels were diverse

at the time of data collection.

Insights into Korean EFL Students’ Reading Motivation, Proficiency, and Strategy Use 65

4.1. Relationship Between Motivation and Proficiency

The students’ reading motivation questionnaires were analyzed before any possible

correlations were examined. Both extrinsic (e.g., items 1, 2, 7, 8, 9) and intrinsic

motivation (e.g., items 3, 4, 5, 10, 11) seemed to play crucial roles in driving the students

to learn to read in English, with similar high scores across all survey items (M = 4.81 and

4.68, respectively).

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics: Reading Motivation, Reading Strategy, and Reading Test

Reading Motivation Reading Strategy Reading Test

Mean 92.74 52.82 16.04 Median 90.00 54.00 16.00 Mode 77.00 54.00a 18.00 Std. deviation 17.12 11.95 3.33 Skewness 0.17 -0.26 -0.32 Kurtosis -0.86 0.32 -0.93 Range 69.00 59.00 12.00 Minimum 60.00 21.00 9.00 Maximum 129.00 80.00 21.00

Note. N = 57; a Multiple modes exist.

This may indicate that the students view learning to read in English as an enjoyable

experience (i.e., intrinsic motivation), but they are also under pressure from outside factors

(i.e., extrinsic motivation). Moreover, and surprisingly, their overall extrinsic motivation is

slightly higher than their overall intrinsic motivation. In particular, two survey questions

(item 1 and13) related to extrinsic motivation for learning to read in English showed the

highest mean scores (5.83 and 5.12, respectively). Considering the circumstances under

which Korean students study English, a desire to achieve high English proficiency driven

by external factors appears reasonable. Indeed, English ability plays a critical role in both

college and job-hunting in Korea these days; therefore, achieving a high score on

standardized English tests (e.g., TOEFL, TOEIC) is very important. Students undoubtedly

feel pressured to learn to read in English in order to survive in the job market as well as in

academia. In this sense, it is unsurprising that their external motives have been deeply

internalized, outperforming intrinsic motives, and becoming strong enough to drive them

to study English harder. The results of the motivation survey indicate that individual

Korean students’ reading motivations are diverse. These findings thus seem to support the

claim that individual students have varying degrees of motivation for learning to read in

English.

The analysis then looked for possible relationships between Korean EFL learners’

reading motivation and reading proficiency measured through the comprehension test.

66 Jeongyeon Park

TABLE 2

Correlations Between Reading Test Scores and Three Types of Reading Motivation

RT AM EM IM

Reading Test (RT) Amotivation (AM) -.109 Extrinsic Motivation (EM) -.134 -.086 Intrinsic Motivation (IM) -.044 -.334 * .619*

Note. N = 57. *p < .05.

Correlations between the English Reading Motivation Questionnaire results and the

reading test scores were computed with a Pearson product-moment correlation. As can be

seen in Table 2 below, the participants’ reading test scores are negatively correlated with

their reading motivation; the three subtypes of motivation did not reveal any significant or

noticeable relationship. It should be noted that the degrees of the correlations are close to

zero, which implies almost no correlation. This result implies that students who scored

higher on the reading test do not have higher motivation to read in English, and vice versa.

The study expected to find some degree of positive correlation. That is, students who have

higher reading motivation were assumed to have more experience in reading in English,

which would in turn lead to higher scores on the test. However, at least for the participants

in the present study, their reading motivation did not correlate with their reading

comprehension ability.

4.2. Relationship Between Reading Motivation and Strategy

Grounding its predictions on the results of some previous studies on the relationship

between motivation and language learning strategies (e.g., Oxford & Nyikos, 1989;

MacIntyre & Noels, 1996) and between L1 reading motivation and reading strategies (e.g.,

Guthrie et al., 2000; Lau & Chan, 2003), the present study expected to find that English

reading motivation would have a positive correlation with the frequency of reading

strategy uses reported by the participants. That is, either extrinsically or intrinsically

motivated students would be more willing to apply various strategies to help themselves

better comprehend English reading texts.

With this expectation, correlations between reading motivation and reading strategy use

were computed with a Pearson product-moment correlation, specifically, to determine

whether the total frequency of reading strategy use reported was associated with the three

types of reading motivation (intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation). However, no correlation

was observed between reading motivation and reading strategy use. One explanation for

this result might be that the comprehension questions on the test, although carefully

selected, were not designed to elicit students’ diverse reading strategy use. Another

Insights into Korean EFL Students’ Reading Motivation, Proficiency, and Strategy Use 67

possible reason might be that students who are motivated to read in English do not

necessarily know or apply various reading strategies, which indeed would mean that no

correlation exists between motivation and strategy use.

4.3. Relationship Between Reading Strategy and Proficiency

In order to examine possible correlations between reading strategy use and reading

proficiency, the students’ responses on the English Reading Strategy Questionnaire and

their reading comprehension test scores were computed with a Pearson product-moment

correlation. In accordance with some previous studies (Carrell, 1989; Sheorey & Mokhtari,

2001; Young & Oxford, 1997), the present study showed a moderately positive correlation

between the two, r = .51, p < .05. The scatterplot in Figure 1 displays the reading test

scores’ association with the frequency of reading strategy use reported by the students; as

scores on the reading test increase, so does the number of reading strategy uses reported.

FIGURE 1

Correlations Between Reading Test and Reading Strategy Use

A reasonable interpretation of this finding could be that knowing various useful reading

strategies is important in improving reading proficiency. In particular, considering that

reading strategies are one of many factors that may affect students’ reading comprehension

ability, the observed effect of reading strategy use in the present study, albeit moderate,

should not be underestimated. McNeil’s (2012) recently proposed L2 reading model

underscores the critical role of L2 strategic knowledge and background knowledge, and

argues that Bernhardt’s (2005) earlier L2 reading model, which only considers L2

language knowledge and L1 reading ability, is insufficient.

Further analysis of the survey responses revealed that both proficient and less proficient

students (based on their reading test scores) used numerous strategies to help themselves

68 Jeongyeon Park

perform better on the reading comprehension test. It is noteworthy that, as in Sheorey and

Mokhtari’s (2001) study, the students were aware of many strategies on the survey, and

were also able to apply them to enhance and promote their comprehension of the English

reading texts. However, this should be interpreted with caution because the information

collected by the survey was self-reported, as the survey was designed to elicit students’

perceived use of reading strategies. There may be discrepancies between their perceived

and actual use of reading strategies.

In contrast to previous research (e.g., Young & Oxford, 1997), the present study found

no specific differences in terms of kinds of reading strategies (i.e., global or local

strategies) used by proficient and less proficient students. This result seems to be in line

with Grabe’s (2009) summary of findings from a review of L1 and L2 reading studies:

“Good readers and poor readers use the same types of strategies” but “[g]ood readers use

strategies more effectively than do poor readers” (p. 227). As Anderson (1991) notes,

knowing strategies may be insufficient; readers must know how to “orchestrate” (p. 468)

those strategies successfully. The quality, rather than the quantity, is of more consequence

in leading to better reading comprehension (see also Dörnyei, 2005). Therefore, further

examination of individual students’ reading strategy use in terms of quality and usefulness

would be worthwhile in order to gain more insight into this matter and better understand its

pedagogical implications.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The present study aimed to provide insights into the reading motivation, reading

proficiency, and reading strategy use of EFL Korean students by exploring potential

correlations between these three factors. This study was motivated by the assumption that

more motivated students would utilize more reading strategies, which in turn would

positively affect their reading comprehension scores on the test. The study demonstrated

that both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation come strongly into play in the

students’ English reading motivation. However, neither reading proficiency nor reading

strategy was significantly related to reading motivation. Only very weak and unclear

correlations were observed, which may suggest that more research on the impact of

motivation on students’ strategy use and performance is needed. It is, however, noteworthy

that reading proficiency as measured by the reading comprehension test showed a positive

correlation with the frequency of reading strategy use reported by the students.

Even though this study resulted in some interesting findings, it has some limitations that

require careful consideration. Foremost, the generalizability of this study may be limited

due to the small number of participants, which may have contributed to ambiguity or a lack

Insights into Korean EFL Students’ Reading Motivation, Proficiency, and Strategy Use 69

of robustness in the study’s findings. A larger number of students would have made the

results more reliable and generalizable. In addition, the self-report questionnaires were

neither sufficient to reveal the students’ underlying decisions to use certain strategies, nor

informative as to how they efficiently handle strategies in an appropriate manner. Follow-

up interviews with the participants or think-aloud protocols would have allowed the study

to offer more in-depth descriptions of the students’ opinions or thoughts on their English

reading motivation and their use of reading strategies. Last but not least, care must be taken

in interpreting the results because students’ test-taking skills could have overridden their

actual reading skills (Koda, 2005). In other words, even though multiple-choice tests are

very commonly used to evaluate reading comprehension ability, students might have

simply used test-taking skills to eliminate distractors without fully understanding the

reading passages.

6. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

The present study did not find any correlation between reading motivation and reading

strategy use, but does suggest that the ability to efficiently utilize strategies may help

learners engage in reading more actively. Most important, the study’s results highlight the

fact that students can apply a wide array of reading strategies when they are aware of the

many strategies available for them to use. This suggests one pedagogical implication,in

that in addition to raising awareness about the usefulness of learning reading strategies,

reading teachers should realize that the L2 reading process is complex and that strategies

are worth the effort to teach because they can help learners achieve their reading goals

more easily.

In contrast to some previous research that showed that less proficient readers tend to

utilize fewer strategies or retain a small number of strategies, perhaps because they do not

fully understand the conditions for applying appropriate strategies, the present study found

that proficient and less proficient students reported that they used almost the same types of

reading strategies. However, concrete examples of strategy use and demonstrations of how

to select appropriate strategies and effectively apply them to different types of texts may

still be what less proficient readers need from their teachers (Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2006). In

addition, as Ikeda and Takeuchi (2006) noted, it is important to help readers identify

strategies that work or do not work for them through constant practice, so that the

application of both cognitive and metacognitive strategies becomes part of their regular

repertoire, especially when they encounter densely written texts requiring more efficient

handling of various strategies. Similarly, Grabe and Stoller (2002) suggest that offering a

list of useful strategies for handling difficult texts can be a good way to aid students in

70 Jeongyeon Park

overcoming comprehension difficulties. They further emphasize the importance of teacher

modeling by employing read-aloud protocols to raise awareness of reading strategies. This

is in line with Hudson’s (2007) claim that when students are given much practice, feedback,

and modeling, and are reminded of the benefits of strategy use, strategy instruction is more

efficient. As Grabe (2009) proposes, the development of a strategic reader “who

automatically and routinely applies combinations of effective and appropriate strategies

depending on reader goals, reading tasks, and strategic processing abilities” (p. 220) seems

to be the ultimate goal of reading strategy instruction.

REFERENCES

Anderson, N. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and

testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.

Baker, L., & Brown, X. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P.

Mosenthal, & P. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 2 (pp. 353-

394). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and

their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research

Quarterly, 34, 452-477.

Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers.

TESOL Quarterly, 26, 319-343.

Brantmeier, C. (2003). Does gender make a difference? Passage content and

comprehension in second language reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15.

Retrieved on October 15, 2014, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nflrc.

hawaii.edu/rfl/April2003/brantmeier/brantmeier.html.

Bugel, K., & Buunk, B. P. (1996). Sex differences in a foreign language text

comprehension: The role of interests and prior knowledge. The Modern Language

Journal, 80, 15-31.

Carrell, P. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. The Modern

Language Journal, 73, 121-134.

Carrell, P. L., & Wise, T. E. (1998). The relationship between prior knowledge and topic

interests in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20,

285-309.

Chen, Q., & Donin, J. (1997). Discourse processing of first and second language biology

texts: Effects of language proficiency and domain-specific knowledge. The Modern

Language Journal, 81, 209-227.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

Insights into Korean EFL Students’ Reading Motivation, Proficiency, and Strategy Use 71

behaviour. New York: Plenum.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in

second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language

acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.

Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. London: Longman.

Guthrie, J. G., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L.

Kamil, P. B. Mobenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading

research, Vol. 3 (pp. 403-420). New York: Longman.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., &

Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through

concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403-

423.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on

motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,

331-341.

Hedgcock, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching readers of English: Students, texts, and

contexts. New York: Routledge.

Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ikeda, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2006). Clarifying the differences in learning EFL reading

strategies: An analysis of portfolios. System, 34(3), 384-398.

Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Lau, K., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good

and poor readers in Hong Kong. Research in Reading, 26, 177-190.

Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL

students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning,

57(1), 87-118.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Noels, K. (1996). Using social-psychological variables to predict the

use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 373-386.

McNeil, L. (2011). Investigating the contributions of background knowledge and reading

comprehension strategies to L2 reading comprehension: An exploratory study.

Reading and Writing, 24, 883-902.

McNeil, L. (2012). Extending the compensatory model of second language reading. System,

40, 64-76.

Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of

72 Jeongyeon Park

reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 249-259.

Mori, S. (2002). Reading motivation to read in a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign

Language, 14. Retrieved on October 15, 2014, from the World Wide Web:

http://nflrc. hawaii.edu/RFL/October2002/mori/mori.html.

Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. (2000). Why are you learning a

second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory.

Language Learning, 50, 57–85.

Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning

strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.

Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy

use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26–56.

Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of

reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431-449.

Sullivan, P. N., & Zhong G. Y. (1994). Preparation for the TOEFL: Test of English as a

Foreign Language (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F.

(1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and

amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003-

1017.

Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive

awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26, 70-89.

Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading motivation: A domain-specific approach to motivation.

Educational Psychologist, 32, 59-68.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the

amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420-

432.

Young, D. J., & Oxford, R. (1997). A gender-related analysis of strategies used to process

written input in the native language and a foreign language. Applied Language

Learning, 8, 43-73.

Insights into Korean EFL Students’ Reading Motivation, Proficiency, and Strategy Use 73

APPENDIX A

The English Reading Motivation Questionnaire

Completely Completely

Disagree Agree

1. In order to get a good grade in an English reading class. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

2. Because I would feel guilty if I didn’t understand English texts. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

3. Because I think it is good for my personal development. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

4. For the enjoyment I experience when I understand a difficult reading text.

1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

5. For fun when I read in English. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

6. I cannot come to see why I am studying reading in English. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

7. Because my parents/ teachers tell me to do so. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

8. Because I choose to be the kind of person who can understand various kinds of reading materials written in English.

1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

9. Because I would feel ashamed if I couldn’t read in English fluently.

1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

10. For the satisfaction I feel when I accomplish my reading goals. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

11. For the pleasure when I enjoy reading in English. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

12. For the pleasure I experience when improving my reading in English.

1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

13. In order to get a good job later on. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

14. For the satisfied feeling I get in learning new information by reading.

1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

15. To show myself that I am a good student because I can read well in English.

1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

16. Because I choose to be the kind of person who can read in English fluently.

1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

17. Honestly, I don’t know; I truly have the impression of wasting my time in learning to read in English.

1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

18. Because I enjoy the feeling of acquiring knowledge in English through reading.

1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

19. For the good feeling when I become deeply engaged in reading in English.

1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

20. I don't think that improving my English reading ability will help me in any way.

1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

21. For the satisfaction of being a more knowledgeable person. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7

74 Jeongyeon Park

APPENDIX B

The English Reading Strategy Questionnaire

Never Always

1. I took notes while reading to help me understand what I read. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

2. I used my background knowledge to help me understand what I read. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

3. I previewed the text to see what it is about before reading it. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

4. I read slowly and carefully to make sure I understood the text. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

5. I underlined or circled information to help me remember it. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

6. I adjusted my reading speed according to the difficulty of the texts. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

7. When reading, I decided what to read closely and what to ignore. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

8. When the texts became difficult, I paid closer attention to them. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

9. I stopped from time to time and thought about what I was reading. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

10. When I did not understand the text, I tried to rephrase it. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

11. I tried to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

12. I paid attention to bold face and italics to identify key information. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

13. I critically analyzed and evaluated the information presented in the text. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

14. I went back and forth in the text to find relationships among ideas in it. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

15. When the texts became difficult, I re-read it to increase my understanding.

1-----2-----3-----4-----5

16. When I read, I guessed the meaning of unknown words or phrases. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

17. When reading, I translated from English into Korean. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

18. When reading, I thought about information in both English and Korean. 1-----2-----3-----4-----5

Applicable levels: Tertiary

Jeongyeon Park

Department of Second Language Studies

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

2500 Campus Rd, Honolulu, HI

United States of America

Phone: 1-(808) 956-2789

Cell: 1-(808) 397-3505

Email: [email protected]

Received in December 1, 2014

Reviewed in January 15, 2015

Revised version received in February 15, 2015