(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**

این مطلب رو هم توصیه می کنم بخونین:   منبع پایان نامه ارشد با موضوع Environment، tradition

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

دسته‌ها: No category

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید