(listwise)

120

Participants’ scores on Social strategies, as depicted in Table 4.9, range from 11 to 26 with a mean of 18.47. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (.083/.221=.375) and the ratio of kurtosis by its standard error (-.844/.438= -1.92) are within the ranges of ±1.96, it is established that the distribution is normal. The frequency of scores for the instrument is presented in Figure 4.7.

4.3.1.7 Comparing the SILL’s categories

To compare the results of the different parts of SILL questionnaire the mean of the categories are represented in Table 4.10 and Figure 4.8.

Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics of the SILL Categories’ Means

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Memory Strategies

120

16.00

38.00

25.9583

.42032

4.60434

Cognitive strategies

120

30.00

53.00

40.9250

.52449

5.74553

Compensation Strategies

120

10.00

22.00

16.7167

.23851

2.61278

Meta-cognitive Strategies

120

19.00

45.00

31.7000

.60768

6.65677

Affective Strategies

120

10.00

24.00

16.9750

.28042

3.07186

Social Strategies

120

11.00

26.00

18.4750

.34462

3.77511

Valid N (listwise)

120

4.3.2 Descriptive Statistics of the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS)

Another instrument of the present study was the SORS questionnaire to determine the extent of participants’ use of reading strategies. The descriptive statistics related to the overall strategy use is presented in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics of the SORS Questionnaire Administration

N

Min

Max

Mean

Std. Deviation

Variance

Skewness

Kurtosis

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Std. Error

SORS

120

2.03

4.34

3.25

.052

.570

.326

-.269

.221

-.760

.438

Valid N (listwise)

120

Participants’ scores on reading strategies, as depicted in Table 4.11, range from 2.03 to 4.34 with a mean of 3.327. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (-.269/.221=-1.21) and the ratio of kurtosis over its standard error (-.760/.438=.00017) are within the ranges of ±1.96, it is concluded that the distribution is normal. The frequency of scores for the instrument is presented in Figure 4.2.

4.3.3 Descriptive Statistics of the PET Reading Comprehension Test

The PET reading comprehension test was the last instrument which was used to collect the required data for the dependent variable of the study. The descriptive statistics related to the obtained scores of the test appears below in Table 4.12.

Table 4.12 Descriptive Statistics of the PET Reading Comprehension Test Administration

N

Min

Max

Mean

Std. Deviation

Variance

Skewness

Kurtosis

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Std. Error

Reading Comprehension

120

10

28

19.81

.446

4.888

23.899

-.040

.221

-.784

.433

Valid N (listwise)

120

The minimum and maximum scores of the participants were sequentially 10, and 28. The negative value of kurtosis (-.784) refers to a flat distribution. Moreover, statistical skewness (-.040) by std. error of skewness (.221) is -.180 that falls in the range of ±1.96 which means that the distribution is normal (Figure 4.3).

4.4 Testing the Hypotheses

Following the descriptive statistics of this study, the three research hypotheses were investigated through correlational analysis of the data. In this section, first, each null hypothesis is tested; then, the results are provided and interpreted.

4.4.1 Testing First Hypothesis

The first null hypothesis presented in this study is:

H01. There is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ reading strategies and reading comprehension.

H01 is rejected at 0.01 level of significance and it is established that a statistically significant relationship exists between EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and their reading comprehension.

To test the current null hypothesis, a correlational analysis was done. As it is indicated in Table 4.13, the Pearson Product Correlation between the participants’ reading strategies and their reading comprehension is found to be (r =0.934) at significant level of (.000) which reveals a statistically significant, according to Cohen (1988) high, and positive correlation. It suggests that, using reading strategies leads to better comprehension of the text.

Table 4.13 Correlation between Reading Strategies and Reading Comprehension

Survey of Reading Strategies

Primary English Test

Survey of Reading Strategies

Pearson Correlation

1

.934**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

120

120

Primary English Test

Pearson Correlation

.934**

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

120

120

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4.4.2 Testing the Second Hypothesis

The second null hypothesis is stated as:

H02. There is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies and reading comprehension.

In order to test the second null hypothesis, the researcher carried out the Pearson Product Correlation between the participants’ use of language learning strategies and their reading comprehension. Table 4.14 illustrates the degree of togetherness for these two variables. The value of correlation (r = 0.610) at significance level of (.000) shows a statistically significant and positive relationship between use of language learning strategies and reading comprehension of EFL learners. In another words, increasing of each one corresponds to increasing of another.

Thus, H02 is rejected at 0.01 level of significance and it is concluded that a statistically significant relationship exists between EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies and their reading comprehension.

4.14 Correlation between Language Learning Strategies and Reading Comprehension

Primary English Test

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

Primary English Test

Pearson Correlation

1

.610**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

Pearson Correlation

.610**

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

a. Listwise N=120

4.4.3 Testing the Third Hypothesis

The third null hypothesis is stated as:

H03. There is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ reading strategies and use of language learning strategies.

To test the third null hypothesis, a correlational analysis was conducted. As Table 4.15 shows, Pearson Product Correlation between the participants’ use of reading strategies and their use of language learning strategies is estimated as (r = 0.595) at significant level of (.000).

Therefore, H03 is rejected at 0.01 level of significance and it is concluded that a statistically significant relationship exists between EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies and their use of reading strategies.

Table 4.15 Correlation between Language Learning Strategies and Reading Strategies

Survey of Reading Strategies

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

Survey of Reading Strategies

Pearson Correlation

1

.595**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

120

120

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

Pearson Correlation

.595**

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

120

120

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Introduction

The present study was an attempt to investigate the relationship among EFL learners’ use of learning strategies, reading strategies and reading comprehension. Restating the research null hypotheses and a brief overview of the procedure, this chapter provides a summary of the findings, discusses the conclusion, and provides pedagogical implications. Moreover, suggestions for further research are also presented.

5.2 Procedure and Summary of Findings

In order to figure out any probable relationship amongst the three variables of this study, the following three hypotheses were posed to be tested:

H01. There is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ reading strategies and reading comprehension.

H02. There is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies and reading comprehension.

H03. There is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ reading strategies and use of language learning strategies.

Considering the above mentioned hypotheses several procedures were carried out to collect the required data. As the first phase the PET was piloted by 30 learners with almost the same characteristics to target participants. When the reliability of the test was gained through Cronbach alpha; the piloted PET and the questionnaires on language learning strategies (SILL) and reading strategies (SORS) were given to 150 other learners to collect the data for the study as the main participants. Discarding incomplete answer sheets, 120 acceptable cases were used in statistical analysis. With respect to the outcomes of the statistical analysis, the following results were attained:

The first null hypothesis (H01) was rejected, and it was concluded that a statistically significant relationship existed between EFL learners’ reading strategies and reading comprehension.

The second null hypothesis (H02) was rejected, and it was revealed that there was a statistically significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of