Insights into Korean EFL Students` Reading Motivation, Proficiency

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 Japanesespeaking 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 Koreanspeaking 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
-.134
-.086
Extrinsic Motivation (EM)
*
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. Followup 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. 353394). 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, 403423.
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, 10031017.
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, 420432.
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
1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
reading text.
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 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
various kinds of reading materials written in English.
9. Because I would feel ashamed if I couldn’t read in English
1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
fluently.
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 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
English.
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 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
reading.
15. To show myself that I am a good student because I can read
1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
well in English.
16. Because I choose to be the kind of person who can read in
1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
English fluently.
17. Honestly, I don’t know; I truly have the impression of wasting 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
my time in learning to read in English.
18. Because I enjoy the feeling of acquiring knowledge in English 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
through reading.
1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
19. For the good feeling when I become deeply engaged in
reading in English.
20. I don't think that improving my English reading ability will
1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7
help me in any way.
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
1. I took notes while reading to help me understand what I read.
2. I used my background knowledge to help me understand what I read.
3. I previewed the text to see what it is about before reading it.
4. I read slowly and carefully to make sure I understood the text.
5. I underlined or circled information to help me remember it.
6. I adjusted my reading speed according to the difficulty of the texts.
7. When reading, I decided what to read closely and what to ignore.
8. When the texts became difficult, I paid closer attention to them.
9. I stopped from time to time and thought about what I was reading.
10. When I did not understand the text, I tried to rephrase it.
11. I tried to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read.
12. I paid attention to bold face and italics to identify key information.
13. I critically analyzed and evaluated the information presented in the text.
14. I went back and forth in the text to find relationships among ideas in it.
15. When the texts became difficult, I re-read it to increase my
understanding.
16. When I read, I guessed the meaning of unknown words or phrases.
17. When reading, I translated from English into Korean.
18. When reading, I thought about information in both English and Korean.
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
Never
Always
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5
1-----2-----3-----4-----5