reading comprehension.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

4.1 Introduction

This study investigated the relationship among EFL learners’ use of learning strategies, reading strategies, and reading comprehension. To this end, the following hypotheses were developed:

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.

In order to test the hypotheses and find out the precise results, the researcher conducted a series of calculations and statistical routines that are elaborated comprehensively in this chapter. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were utilized in the process, details of which are presented below.

4.2 Descriptive Statistics of the Pilot Study

As explained in chapter three, the PET reading comprehension test was piloted to 30 female students who had almost the same characteristics as the target sample. They were all selected from among upper-intermediate Safir language academy and were aged between 25 to 42 years old the mean age of whom was 29 years old.

Following the piloting of the mentioned instrument, mean and standard deviation of the raw scores and their reliability was calculated. The Cronbach alpha was the formula which employed by the researcher to determine the reliability index of the instruments.

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of the PET Reading Comprehension Test Piloting

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Reading Comprehension

30

10.00

27.00

19.259

4.266

Valid N (listwise)

30

Table 4.2 Reliability Statistics of the PET Reading Comprehension Test Piloting

Cronbach’s Alpha

N of Items

.846

30

The results of reliability analyses of all instruments were good enough regarding guidelines of Vogt (2007) who states that, “an alpha of 0.70 or higher is often considered satisfactory for most purposes” (P. 115), and also with respect to Farhady et al. (1994) who mention “it is generally accepted tradition that validity and reliability coefficient below .50 are considered low, .50 to .75 are considered moderate, and .75 to .90 or above are considered high” (P. 159).

4.3 Descriptive Statistics of the Main Administration

As fully explained in chapter three, after the procedure of piloting the PET, 150 other students as the main sample took part in the piloted PET reading comprehension test and both questionnaires on learning strategies and reading strategies. During the administration of the main study, a number of participants were excluded from data analysis due to subject mortality or their incomplete answers. Eventually, 120 students consisted of with the age range of 25-42 were appointed as the main subjects of the research.

4.3.1 Descriptive Statistics of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) Questionnaire

The first instrument used in this study was Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) to determine the extent of participants’ use of language learning strategies. The descriptive statistics related to overall strategy use is presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of the SILL 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

SILL

120

2.32

3.68

3.0150

.02449

.26824

.072

.059

.221

-.197

.438

Valid N (listwise)

120

Participants’ scores on language learning strategies, as depicted in Table 4.3, range from 2.32 to 3.68 with a mean of 3.01. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (.059/.221= .266) and the ratio of kurtosis over its standard error (-.197/.438= .449) 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 4.1.

In this questionnaire exists six different sub categories as mentioned earlier in chapter three the descriptive analysis for each and every one of them is reported below.

4.3.1.1 Memory Strategies

The first category existing in SILL is the Memory strategies descriptive analysis of this category is shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics of the Memory Strategies

N

Min

Max

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Variance

Skewness

Kurtosis

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Std. Error

Memory Strategies

120

16.00

38.00

25.95

.420

4.604

21.200

.256

.221

.270

.438

Valid N (listwise)

120

Participants’ scores on Memory strategies, as depicted in Table 4.4, range from 16 to 38 with a mean of 25.95. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (.256/.221= 1.158) and the ratio of kurtosis by its standard error (.270/.438= .616) are within the ranges of ±1.96, it is determined that the distribution is normal. The frequency of scores for the instrument is presented in Figure 4.2.

4.3.1.2 Cognitive Strategies

The second category existing in SILL is the Cognitive strategies descriptive analysis of this category is shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics of the Cognitive Strategies

N

Min

Max

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Variance

Skewness

Kurtosis

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Std. Error

Cognitive strategies

120

30.00

53.00

40.92

.524

5.745

33.011

.152

.221

-1.018

.438

Valid N (listwise)

120

Participants’ scores on Cognitive strategies, as depicted in Table 4.5, range from 30 to 53 with a mean of 40.92. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (.152/.221= .687) and the ratio of kurtosis by its standard error (-1.018/.438= .0023) are within the ranges of ±1.96, it is determined that the distribution is normal. The frequency of scores for the instrument is presented in Figure 4.3.

4.3.1.3 Compensation Strategies

The third category existing in SILL is the Compensation strategies descriptive analysis of this category is shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics of the Compensation Strategies

N

Min

Max

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Variance

Skewness

Kurtosis

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Std. Error

Compensation strategies

120

10.00

22.00

16.71

.238

2.612

6.827

-.095

.221

-.405

.438

Valid N (listwise)

120

Participants’ scores on Compensation strategies, as depicted in Table 4.6, range from 10 to 22 with a mean of 16.71. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (-.095/.221= -.429) and the ratio of kurtosis by its standard error (-.405/.438= -.924) are within the ranges of ±1.96, it is determined that the distribution is normal. The frequency of scores for the instrument is presented in Figure 4.4.

4.3.1.4 Meta-cognitive Strategies

The descriptive statistics of the next category being Meta-cognitive strategies is shown in table 4.7.

Table 4.7 the Descriptive Statistics of the Meta-cognitive Strategies

N

Min

Max

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Variance

Skewness

Kurtosis

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Std. Error

Meta Cognitive

120

19.00

45.00

31.70

.6076

6.656

44.313

-.146

.221

-.944

.438

Valid N (listwise)

120

Participants’ scores on Meta-cognitive strategies, as described in Table 4.7, range from 19 to 45 with a mean of 31.70. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (-.146/.221= -.660) and the ratio of kurtosis by its standard error (-.944/.438= -1.155) are within the ranges of ±1.96, it is determined that the distribution is normal. The frequency of scores for the instrument is presented in Figure 4.5.

4.3.1.5 Affective Strategies

The descriptive statistics of the next category being Affective strategies is shown in table 4.8.

Table 4.8 the Descriptive Statistics of the Affective Strategies

N

Min

Max

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Variance

Skewness

Kurtosis

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Std. Error

Affective strategies

120

10.00

24.00

16.97

.2804

3.07186

9.436

.118

.221

-.398

.438

Valid N (listwise)

120

Participants’ scores on Affective strategies, as depicted in Table 4.8, range from 10 to 24 with a mean of 16.97. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (.118/.221=.533) and the ratio of kurtosis by its standard error (-.398/.438= -.908) 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 4.6.

4.3.1.6 Social Strategies

The descriptive statistics of the next category being Social strategies is shown in table 4.9.

Table 4.9 the Descriptive Statistics of the Social Strategies

N

Min

Max

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Variance

Skewness

Kurtosis

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Statistic

Std. Error

Social Strategies

120

11.00

26.00

18.47

.344

3.775

14.251

.083

.221

-.844

.438

Valid N