Online Publication Date: 5 February 2012
Publisher: Asian Economic and Social Society
Self Regulated Learning strategies as Predictors of Reading
Comprehension among Students of English as a Foreign
Language
AbdulRahman Awad Al Asmari (Assistant Professor, Director,
English Language Center, Taif University, KSA)
Nasrah Mahmoud Ismail (Assistant Professor, English Language
Center, Taif University, KSA)
Citation: AbdulRahman Awad Al Asmari, Nasrah Mahmoud Ismail (7017): “ Self Regulated
Learning strategies as Predictors of Reading Comprehension among Students of English as a
Foreign Language” International Journal of Asian Social Science , Vol.2, No.2,pp.178-201.
International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(2), pp.178-201
Self Regulated Learning strategies as Predictors of Reading
Comprehension among Students of English as a Foreign
Language
Abstract
Author (s)
AbdulRahman Awad Al
Asmari
Assistant Professor, Director,
English Language Center, Taif
University, KSA
Email:
[email protected]
Nasrah Mahmoud
Ismail
Assistant
Professor,
English
Language Center, Taif University,
KSA
E-mail:
[email protected]
This cross-sectional study investigates the self regulated learning
strategies used as predictors of reading comprehension.
Participants of the study were 248 EFL university students: 112
males and 136 females enrolled in the Faculty of Arts, Foreign
Languages Department. The primary aims of the study were: (1) to
examine whether there were positive relationships between the use
of self regulated learning strategies and reading comprehension;
(2) whether there were significant differences between males and
females in use of self regulated learning strategies and reading
comprehension; (3) and finally to gauge predictors of reading
comprehension themselves through self regulated learning
strategies towards learning English language. Students were asked
to answer questions based on a 5-point Likert-scale self regulated
learning Questionnaire and they were asked to read three different
passages and answer the questions that followed each passage.
The results of MANOVA also revealed that there were differences
between males and females in the use of self regulated learning
strategies in favour of females. However, there were differences
between males and females in the reading comprehension test to
the advantage of males. The results of MANOVA analysis
revealed that there were differences between students across their
different academic levels in self regulated learning strategies.
There were also differences between students across different
academic levels, in the reading comprehension test. The results of
multiple regression reported that some of the self-regulated
learning strategies were predictors of reading comprehension.
Keywords- self regulated learning strategies – reading comprehension – EFL students, gender differences –academic
levels
Theoretical foundation
Self regulated learning (SRL)
Knowledge nowadays tends to become
obsolete very quickly due to rapid
technological changes, market changes, and
continuous innovations in how work is
organized to keep pace with our turbulent
society (Onstenk, 1998). Consequently,
schools emphasize that students should be
equipped for self-regulated learning, which has
been defined as a learning process in which
self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions
are systematically oriented towards attainment
of the student’s own goals (Zimmerman &
Schunk, 2008). Self-regulation is a broad
construct that includes a monitoring and an
action component that encompass a complex
array of interacting cognitive and emotional
processes aimed at goal attainment (Eisenberg,
Champion, & Ma, 2004; Mischel & Ayduk,
2004). Self-regulation can refer to the degree
to which individuals become metacognitively,
motivationally, and behaviorally active
participants in their own learning processes
178
Self Regulated Learning strategies.....
(Zimmerman, 1986). Self-regulated learning is
a construct that has developed during the last
30 years in order to meet these demands
(Winne, 2005). Self-regulated learners
manipulate the skills to learn effectively both
in school and later in life. As such, selfregulated learning has been highly praised as
the key competence to initiate and maintain
lifelong learning (see e.g., Kauffman, 2004).
Self-regulation, while related to academic
achievement and cognitive skills, is clearly not
synonymous with cognitive competency alone.
It brings into the arena success in schooling,
and later on, professional development and
complex cognitive and socioemotional
processes that extend beyond language and
mathematical
competency
(Evans
&
Rosenbaum, 2008). According to Schunk
(2001), self-regulated learning is defined as,
‘‘learning that results from students’ selfgenerated thoughts and behaviours that are
systematically oriented toward the attainment
of their learning goals” (p5 17.). To become
self-regulated learners, Boekaerts (1999)
argued that students should learn to regulate
the use of information-processing modes, the
learning process, and the self. By recognising
the importance of regulating the self, the focus
of research into self-regulated learning is
shifting from studying principally cognitive
processes to studying cognition in interaction
with motivation (Rozendaal, Minnaert, &
Boekaerts, 2001). Self-regulated learning
(SRL) is deemed as a multi-dimensional
construct that has traditionally been difficult to
operationalise (Boekaerts, 1996; Boekaerts &
Corno, 2005).
In general, SRL involves activating and
sustaining cognitions, behaviours, and
emotions in a systematic way to attain learning
goals (Pintrich, 2000). Accordingly, selfregulated learners are assumed to manage their
behaviours and anxieties to facilitate learning,
actively avoiding behaviours and cognitions
detrimental to academic success (Byrnes,
Miller, & Reynolds, 1999; Stallworth-Clark,
Cochran, Nolen, Tuggle, & Scott, 2000). Also,
it was found that self-regulated students
understand the strategies and environments
necessary for learning to occur, and feel
capable of performing to their personal
standards (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001;
Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Zimmerman &
Schunk, 2008). When challenged, selfregulated learners manage to understand when
and how to utilize strategies that increase
persistence and performance, and they
purposefully use meta-cognitive strategies that
incorporate self-monitoring and evaluative
components that allow for self-observation and
self-reaction (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994).
Further, self-regulated students are supposed to
monitor the efficacy of their learning strategies
and replace inefficient strategies with different
ones (Kolić-Vehovec, Rončević & Bajšanski,
7008)5 Kolić-Vehovec et al. conclude that
groups with high mastery orientation had more
adaptive motivational profile and more
adequate reading strategy use than groups with
high work-avoidance orientation. In a recent
study, highly self-regulated group had a
tendency to study more material and for a
longer time than less self-regulated individuals
(Abar & Loken, 2010).
From a relevant perspective, deficiencies in
self-regulation skills, beginning in early
childhood was found to contribute to the
income-achievement
gap.
Evans
and
Rosenbaum (2008) contend that success in
school depends upon more than cognitive skill
attainment, including the maturation of selfregulation skills. To become self-regulated
learners, the students must regulate not only
their behaviour but also their underlying
motives; i.e. their performance related
cognition, beliefs, intentions, and emotions.
This implies that students who develop
effective self-regulated learning are mentally
active in their own learning process and exert a
significant degree of control over goal
attainment instead of being a passive recipient
of information (Schunk, 1994), which is
assumed to lead to high performance.
SRL is constantly evolving, with students
improving upon existing behaviors and
strategies based on prior success and emerging
challenges (Winne, 1995). Therefore, Corno
and Mandinach (1983) stress that instruction in
strategy use is an effective means of promoting
self-regulation. In social cognitive theory, selfregulation is viewed as entailing at least four
components: goal setting, self-observation,
179
International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(2), pp.178-201
self-judgment, and self-reaction (Bandura,
1986; Schunk, 1989). Goal setting is essential
to self-regulation. Self-regulated learning
processes involve goal-directed cognitive
activities that students instigate, modify, and
sustain (Zimmerman, 1986). Self-regulated
performance differs from Self-regulated
learning in that Self-regulated learning is based
on both will and skill, while Self-regulated
performance is based just on wills (McCombs
& Marzano, 1990). Key line of research in this
area has identified three major components for
self-regulated
learning:
Cognitive,
metacognitive, and resource management
learning strategies.
Reading comprehension
Reading means different things to different
people. For some it is perceived as recognizing
written words, while for others, especially
students, it can be an opportunity to learn
pronunciation and practice speaking. However,
reading always has a purpose. It is something
that we do every day; it is an integral part of
our daily lives, taken very much for granted
and generally assumed to be something that
everyone can do. The rationale for reading
depends very much on the purpose for reading
(Berardo, 2006). Good reading ability is the
key to success in school and this is one reason
why researchers are trying to find significant
educational and psychological variables that
can explain variations in reading ability and
academic
achievement.
Reading
comprehension, the construction of meaning
from text, is generally considered one of the
most central cognitive skills young students
acquire during their school career (Mason,
2004). Reading comprehension lays the
foundation for the acquisition of knowledge in
different subject matters taught at elementary
and secondary schools and constitutes an
important prerequisite for lifelong learning in
adulthood (Alvermann & Earle, 2003). The
mastery of basic reading skills, such as word
recognition and decoding, is integral to many
higher-order processes involved in reading
comprehension skills (e.g., Artelt, Schiefele, &
Schneider, 2001; Cromley & Azevedo, 2007).
First language (L1) studies have shown that
good readers use strategies that assist them in
building a global model of text content, such as
identifying the most important information in
the text that focuses their attention more on
larger chunks of text, such as paragraphs which
eventually help them regulate the reading
process (Bimmel, 1999).
Research in the field of strategies has proposed
that poor readers are not strategic due to the
assumption that they use fewer and less
complex strategies and use them in a
maladaptive way (Botsas & Padeliadu, 2001).
On the contrary, good readers possess a well
developed repertoire of strategies that along,
with their adaptive way of use, helps them to
successfully comprehend texts (Botsas &
Padeliadu, 2003). According to O`Malley and
Chamot (1995, p.182-183),
instructors
exercise the reading comprehension strategies
to encourage students to use inference in order
to make logical guesses from context,
elaborate prior knowledge, transfer cognates
from the first language and use deduction,
which lead to the application of grammar rules.
Luke (2000) casts reading as a set of practices
dependent on four reader resources which are
code breaking, participating in text, using the
text for one’s own purposes, and analysing or
critiquing the text5 Luke’s view of reading
reflects the dialogic metaphor of readers as
both listeners and responders. The reading
process has been described as dynamic in that
the reader’s variables such as background
knowledge, aptitude, and memory constraints
interact with text variables; e.g. text structure,
length, lexical and linguistic complexity, as
readers attempt to construct a mental
representation or comprehend a text (Leeser,
2007)
The relationship between self-regulated
learning and reading comprehension
strategies
According to Guthrie, Schafer, Wang, and
AZerbach (1995), reading comprehension is
likely to be facilitated by deliberate use of
different strategies and this will add further to
the explanation of children’s frequency and
amount of reading. These metacognitive
strategies seem to be fundamental for the
understanding of texts (Guthrie et al., 1995)
and they are likely to predict achievement
more accurately than cognitive strategies
(Zimmerman, 1994). To understand the
180
Self Regulated Learning strategies.....
meaning of a text the students need to monitor
their comprehension (Pressley & Ghatala,
1990). As such, self-regulated learning is
important for reading ability and achievement
(Folkesson & Swalander, 2007).
The concept of self-regulated learning has been
brought up as a synthesis between research on
how learning functions – focusing on the
learner’s cognitive and motivational processes
(e.g., Boekaerts, 1999; Pintrich, 1999), and
research on how instruction functions—
focusing on the interaction between learner and
instructor in a social environment (e.g.,
Zimmerman, 1989; Schunk, 2001). Despite the
lack of a simple definition of SRL, Artelt,
Baumert, Julius-McElvany, and Peschar (2003)
argue that some measurable characteristics of
students are associated with a tendency to
regulate learning, as well as with greater
performance. These three main aspects of RL
are: (a) academic self-concept, (b) motivation,
and (c) learning strategies. Hence, this is a
biased view of self-regulated learning. So to
speak, it is centred on some positive
characteristics that put students in a better
position to regulate their learning (Artelt et al.,
2003).
Subsequently, insights into the possible effects
of self regulated learning strategies on reading
comprehension are a little absent, especially in
the Saudi Arabian context. In an effort to
contribute to the line of research on how selfregulated learning strategies may affect the
interplay of motivation and cognition, this
study explores the influence of students’
administration of self-regulated learning
strategies on students’ reading comprehension5
Self regulated learning and achievement
The effectiveness of self-regulated learning for
academic achievement is a key area of research
that cannot be ignored (e.g., Zimmerman,
1990; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994; Winne,
1995; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988;
VanZile-Tamsen & Livingston, 1999; Chung,
2000; Paris & Paris, 2001; Dignath, Buettner,
& Langfeld, 2008; Matuga, 2009), as well as
on learning motivation (Pintrich, 1999). Based
on a study by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons
(1986) that bears on the issue of the
relationship between learning strategies and
reading achievement, it was found that high
achievement
students
reported
using
significantly more strategies than the lowachieving students. Zimmerman and Pons
concluded that self- regulated learning scores
were shown to be valid predictors of
achievement, and confirmed that selfregulated learning strategies used have a
meaningful
relationship
with
learning
outcomes in reading and math. Muis & Franco
(2009) reported that the types of learning
strategies that students self-reportedly used in
their educational psychology course predicted
their final grades. Specifically, metacognitive
self-regulation, elaboration, critical thinking,
and rehearsal strategies positively predicted
achievement. The results of Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons (1988) also indicated that
students who have trouble self-regulating, their
academic studying achieve poorly in school.
Reading comprehension and gender
differences
Several studies show that gender is a
significant factor when attempting to explain
reading comprehension. However the results of
these studies have until been somewhat
inconsistent (Hay,
Ashman,
& Van
Kraayenoord, 1998; Yongqi, 2002). Other
studies (e.g., Skaalvik & Rankin, 1990;
Wagemaker, 1996: Pae, 2004; O'Reilly &
McNamara, 2007) have found that girls
achieve higher reading comprehension scores,
whereas some studies have failed to show
gender differences (e.g. Rowe, 1991). Gender
differences revealed that girls read better on
narrative and expository texts, had a more
positive reading attitude, and more positive
verbal self-concept (Swalander & Taube,
2007). On the other hand, other findings
suggest that males and females perform
differently on different items of reading
comprehension Yazdanpanah (2007). For
example, Yazdanpanah reported that females
scored higher on identifying main idea,
guessing meaning from context, and text
coherence questions. Conversely, males
outperformed females in reading for specific
information,
identifying
referential
information, and matching titles with
paragraph. However, gender affected item
performance in only two cases: guessing
181
International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(2), pp.178-201
meaning from context, and text coherence in
favour of the females (Yazdanpanah, 2007).
Self-regulated learning strategies and
gender differences
A student characteristic that has received scant
attention in L2 strategy research is differential
strategy use by males and females. In their
interview of gender differences in language
learning strategy use, Oxford and her
associates found only four studies in which this
question was addressed (Oxford, Nyikos, and
Ehrman, 1988). Three were strategy
identification studies, and all showed
differences in strategy use favouring women.
The other study provided strategy training and
mixed results, favouring men for some skills
tested and women for others (O`Malley &
Chamot, 1995, p.164). Recently, Reeves &
Stich (2010) observed that there are no
differences between males and females in SLR
strategies (i.e. gender was not observed).
There was no significant difference in the SRL
strategy use of male and female.
Statement of the problem
The theoretical foundation of the current study
has established that self regulated learning
strategies may be a potential determinant as
predictors of reading comprehension. Yet little
is known about the relationships between the
variables of the study related to EFL students
at the university level and how far self
regulated learning is a practical predictor of
reading comprehension. Students with high
SRL skills do better than those who lack these
skills (Azevedo, 2005; Pressley & Ghatala,
1990; Pressley & Harris, 2006; White &
Frederiksen, 2005). Unfortunately, previous
studies have also shown that the majority of
students are poor regulators of their learning
(e.g. Paris & Paris, 2001). These findings have
triggered the urge to investigate how SRL
skills can be taught and prompted in learning
environments. While research has shed some
light on the issue, it is unclear as to which
specific SRL processes best position students
to capitalise on.
Several researchers have investigated issues
related to self regulated learning strategies
(e.g., Onstenk, 1998; Zimmerman & Schunk,
1989; Boekaerts, 1999; Pintrich, 2000;
Stallworth-Clark, Cochran, Nolen, Tuggle, &
Scott, 2000; Rozendaal, Minnaert, &
Boekaerts, 2001; Boekaerts, 1996; Boekaerts
& Corno, 2005; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2008),
and
others
have
examined
reading
comprehension in different contexts in which
English is taught as a second language/foreign
language; e.g. Fecteau, (1999); Nassaji (2003);
Taguchi, Gorsuch & Sasamoto (2006).
However, a few studies have examined the
relationship between self regulated learning
and its effect on reading comprehension,
especially in the Arab context. Having been
EFL teachers for many years, the reserahcers
have observed that some students in the
English Dept. are poor readers and have
unidentified goals toward learning, in general,
and toward reading comprehension in
particular. Accordingly, this study investigates
the effects of self regulated learning strategies
on reading comprehension among Saudi EFL
learners at the university level in an attempt to
canvass related issues through answering the
following set of questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Are there any relationships between
self regulated learning strategies and
reading comprehension?
Are there any differences in reading
comprehension and SRL between
males and females?
Can
we
predict
reading
comprehension through self regulated
learning strategies?
Are there any differences among the
students in self regulated learning
strategies and reading comprehension
according to their levels?
Method
Study Sample
The participants of this multi-level study
included 248 (112 males and 136 females)
undergraduates across the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and
8th levels majoring in English at a Saudi
Arabian
University.
Amongst
those
participants, 58 were at second academic level
(23 males & 35 females), 60 were at forth
academic level (29 males & 31 females), 76
were at sixth academic level students (29
males & 47 females), and 54 were at eighth
182
Self Regulated Learning strategies.....
academic level (31 males & 23 females). The
participants ranged in age between 18 and 29
years with a mean of 21.383 (SD = 1.515). It
was thus assumed that the participants of this
study would provide a homogeneous sample in
terms of their cultural environment and
instructional input.
Study Instruments
Self regulated learning Questionnaire
A questionnaire that assessed students` self
regulated learning was administered in this
study to suit the Saudi context based on
Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & Mckeachie (1993)
and other similar studies that urged for the
adaptive use of this questionnaire in different
contexts. The questionnaire designed was
based on a 5-point Likert-scale that ranged
from 1 indicating that the statement is very true
of me through 5 indicating that the statement is
not at all true of me. The Questionnaire
included three dimensions: (1) cognitive
strategies, (2) metacognitive strategies, and (3)
different learning resources. The development
of the questionnaire used in this study was
guided by two points: (1) the need for a
context-sensitive instrument; i.e. one which
would tap self regulated language learning
strategies most relevant to the learning of
English in Saudi Arabia; and (2) the value of
several stages of outside review of the
questionnaire items and instructions.
Factor analyses: Self regulated learning
strategies
Based on the principal-component analysis,
eleven-factor solution was obtained for the
scores in the ‘‘Self regulated learning
strategies’’ data5 The eleven extracted factors
accounted below.
Table-1
Factor analyses: Self regulated
learning strategies
The eleven extracted factors accounted for
58.599% of the total variance. Equamax with
Kaiser Normalization was then used. Table 1
presents a summary of the results of the factor
analysis of the ‘‘self regulated learning
strategies’’ data5 The factor loadings of each
item in this section on the eleven rotated
factors and means, and standard deviations of
the items that loaded are provided in Appendix
A.
The first factor obtained high loadings from
items such as ‘‘If the information that is
presented in any academic course is not
satisfactory, I look up extra information in the
library,’’ so, it seems to represent a dimension
reflecting students` seeking information that
helps the students to understand well their
courses. The second factor obtained high
loadings from items such as ‘‘when I succeed
in doing any task, I reward myself,’’5
Therefore, this factor seems to represent a
dimension reflecting students` self reward for
themselves when doing something good. For
factor three the high loadings obtained from
items such as" I make sure that the place where
I study is convenient". Therefore it seems to
represent a dimension reflecting students`
environmental control. The forth factor got the
high loadings from items such as" I work
together with my friends to achieve a better
understanding for what we are studying",
hence it reflects the importance of peer
learning for the students` achievement. For
factor five the high loadings obtained from
items such as " I summarize reading course in
form of questions and answers and during
revision I try answer questions first", therefore
it seems to represent a dimension reflecting
students` self evaluation. For factor six the
high loadings gained from items such as
"When the lecturer mentions a new concept, I
repeat it many times not to forget it ` so, it
seems obviously to represent a dimension
reflecting students` rehearsal strategy for
remembering new information.
For factor seven the high loadings obtained
from items such as "When I get bored with
studying, I change the place of studying",
therefore this factor seems to represent a
dimension reflecting students` motivational
environmental control. For factor eight the
high loadings gained from items such as
"When I feel that I do not want to study, I
remind myself by the importance of doing
more effort to gain new information that I did
not know before." Thus, this factor seems to
generally represent a dimension reflecting
students’ importance of self talk about
efficiency. The ninth factor loaded highly on
183
International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(2), pp.178-201
items such as" I encourage myself by thinking
about achieving high scores to impress the
others" Thus, this factor obviously reflects a
dimension
representing
the
students’
importance of self talk about performance. The
tenth factor loaded highly on items such as"
Before studying I set specific times breaks". It
is obvious that this factor represents a
dimension that reflects the students` managing
of their time. Finally, the item that loaded
highly on the eleventh factor is "I make
clarified summaries to help me understand the
difficult topics". It is obviously this factor
represents a dimension that reflects students`
elaboration.
Item validity and internal consistency for
Self regulated learning Questionnaire
The corrected item-total correlations ranged
from 0.260 to 0.571 (p < 0.01), suggesting
adequate item validity. Correlation for item
subscales ranged as follows: Subscale 1, from
0.714 to 0.863 (p < 0.01), Subscale 2 from
0.431 to 0.798 (p < 0.01), Subscale 3 from
0.258 to 0.633 (p < 0.01), Subscale 4 from
0.430 to 0.787 (p < 0.01), Subscale 5 from
0.305 to 0.676 (p < 0.01), Subscale 6 from
0.265 to 0.714 (p < 0.01), Subscale 7 from
0.208 to 0.603 (p < 0.01), Subscale 8 from
0.252 to 0.702 (p < 0.01), Subscale 9 from
0.242 to 0.738 (p < 0.01), Subscale 10 from
0.353 to 0.765 (p < 0.01), and Subscale 11
from 0.216 to 0.671 (p < 0.01). All of these
figures suggest adequate item validity.
The internal consistency was high for the total
scale (α =0590)5 The mean Total Score was
151.201 (S.D. = 22.045). The means for
Subscale 1(M= 115224, S5D5 = 45717, α = 0581)
and for Subscale 2 (M= 13.915, S.D. = 2.359,
α =0529), for Subscale 3 (M= 1.5669, S5D5 =
35323, α =0527) and for Subscale 4 (M=
10.8.4, S5D = 75824, α =0524), for Subscale .
(M= 145070, S5D = 35489, α =0523), for
Subscale 6 (M= 145.78, S5D = 3518., α =056.),
for Subscale 2 (M= 145790, S5D = 35.47, α
=0.66), for Subscale 8 (M= 19.141. S.D =
35843, α =0524), for Subscale 9 (M= 1.564.,
S.D = 35013, α =0521), for Subscale 10 (M=
105604, S5D = 75200, α =0564), and for
Subscale 11 (M= 1052.8, S5D = 753.9, α
=0.54).
Table 2: Dimension-total correlations
between dimensions and total score for SRL
questionnaire subscales
There are positive correlations among SRL
dimensions and total score for 11 subscales
ranging from (0.503– 0.665) indicating that
subscales of the SRL Questionnaire display
high internal consistency in measuring
students' SRL strategies. See Table 22 in
Appendix B
Reading comprehension Test
Three reading comprehension passages with 21
multiple choice questions constituted the
instructional materials for the intervention.
They were selected from IGCSE English as
Second Language (Lucantoni, 1996). These
passages included three to four paragraphs in
length and ranged from easy to moderate in
difficulty. The students were instructed to
answer the questions that followed each
passage. The internal consistency reliability
split half for reading comprehension Test is 0.7
for 80-person university sample. Reading total
score validity with GPA is 0.367.
Results
Overview of results
The present study results are overviewed
according to factors influencing SRL strategies
(See Appendix A). Following that, descriptive
data for Saudi students` Self Regulated
Learning
Strategies
and
Reading
Comprehension Test according to their gender
and their academic levels were analysed and
presented (See Table 3 in Appendix B). Means
and standard deviations are displayed for the
composite of the two variables: Self Regulated
Learning strategies and for Reading
Comprehension Test total score. The results
are thematically presented as follows: Level
and gender-based differences, correlations
between SRL strategies and reading
comprehension, and a summary of the model.
184
Self Regulated Learning strategies.....
Level and gender- based differences in SRL
strategies
Data analysis provides descriptive statistics for
Saudi students` self regulated learning
strategies across their academic levels. Means
and standard deviations for the composite of
the four academic levels (2, 4, 6, 8) were
(M=262.5088, SD = 38.8712), (M=267.1833,
SD =33.7988), (M=258.5921, SD =36.8565),
and (M=247.9444, SD=42.8589), for the total
was
(M=259.2551,
SD
=38.3906),
respectively. For reading comprehension test
according to their academic levels, means and
standard deviations for the composite of the
four levels (2, 4, 6, 8) were (M=9.6140, SD =
3.9223),
(M=9.0333,
SD
=3.0251),
(M=10.8289, SD =3.3522), and (M=9.5741,
SD=3.1955), for the total was (M=9.8381, SD
=3.4367) respectively as shown in Appendix
B. In Table 4 specifically, MANOVA test is
used to reveal gender and level differences in
Self Regulated Learning Strategies subscales
and Reading Comprehension Test
Distinguishing the students at different
academic levels, results reveal that there are
differences between students` academic levels
in the use of self regulated learning strategies,
F( 3, 244)= 3.241, p < 0.05). With an estimated
η7= 05 50395 In addition, there are differences
among students in reading comprehension
according to their academic levels F (3, 244) =
352.0, p < 050.)5 With an estimated η7= 05
.045. To determine the differences between the
students` levels in reading comprehension,
Scheffe Test was run indicating there are
differences between level 4 (M= 9.033,
SD=3.025) and level 6 (M=10.829, SD
=3.352) in favour of level 6. To determine the
differences between the student levels in SRL
strategies, Scheffe Test was run indicating
there are differences between level 4 (M=
157.416,
SD=20.427) and level 8
(M=143.833, SD =23.364) in favour of level 4.
To examine gender differences in the aspects
of self regulated learning strategies F ( 3,
244)= 30.303, p < 0.01) and reading
comprehension test, F( 3, 244)= 26.88, p <
0.01) was run using. Results show that there
are differences in self regulated learning
strategies in favour of females in which males
scored M=143.261, SD=20.888 and females
scored M=157.889, SD=20.757. However,
there are differences between males and
females in the favour of males in the reading
comprehension test in which males scored
M=10.828, SD=3.233 and females scored
M=9.029, SD=3.397.
Further computational processes were used to
explore potential relationships between SRL
strategies and reading comprehension. Based
on Pearson correlation, there are relationships
between self regulated learning strategies subdimensions and reading comprehension.
Entered multiple regression analysis was then
performed to predict reading comprehension
from self regulated learning strategies. See
Table 5 in Appendix B.
Model Summary
Data analysis reports that the statistically
significant predictors of the reading
comprehension were SRL strategies subdimensions. The results also show that SRL
strategies explain 12.8 per cent of the variance
in reading comprehension, (F (11,233) =
3.106, p< 0.001) as shown in Error!
Reference source not found. below. This
result is consistent with many results of
Zimmerman and Martinez -Pons (1986) that
SRL scores were shown to be valid predictors
of achievement.
Multiple regression tests were employed as the
main analysis method. Entered multiple
regression analysis was carried out with the
data to see which aspects of SRL were
significant
in
predicting
reading
comprehension. Table 6 below indicates that
the contribution of some of self regulated
learning strategies (rehearsal strategy, Self talk
about efficiency and Elaboration) is significant
on the students` reading comprehension.
Discussion
The present study has revealed several findings
which can contribute to the body of research in
the area of SRL, specifically in relation to
reading comprehension in EFL learning. These
findings can be discussed in three main
perspectives: Gender differences in SRL and
185
International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(2), pp.178-201
reading comprehension, SRL and reading
comprehension across academic levels, and
SRL strategies as predictors of reading
comprehension in EFL learning.
Gender differences between SRL and
reading comprehension
To examine gender differences in the aspects
of self regulated learning strategies F( 3, 244)=
30.303, p < 0.01) and reading comprehension
test, F( 3, 244)= 26.88, p < 0.01) was run
using. Results show that there are differences
in self regulated learning strategies in favour of
females in which males scored M=143.261,
SD=20.888 and females scored M=157.889,
SD=20.757. However, there are differences
between males and females in favour of males
in the reading comprehension test in which
males scored M=10.828, SD=3.233 and
females scored M=9.029, SD=3.397.
The findings of the current study confirm that
there are differences in the use of SRL
strategies between males and females. Females
outscore males in the use of SRL strategies in
all subscales. This finding is consistent with
the results of several previous studies that
detected differences in strategy use to the
advantage of the female learners (Law, Chan &
Sachs,
2008).
However,
reading
comprehension test results reported that there
are differences between males and females in
the favour of males. While this finding is
partially consistent with the finding of
Yazdanpanah, (2007), it suggests that males
outperform females in reading on different
items of reading comprehension, such as
specific information, identifying referential
information, and matching titles with
paragraph. On the other hand, other previous
studies found that girls achieved higher reading
comprehension scores (e.g., Skaalvik &
Rankin, 1990; Wagemaker, 1996; Swalander
& Taube, 2007). One possible explanation for
the superiority of the male students in this
study is that males and females may not have
been equally matched in language ability.
Although they were at the same instruction
level, the male students seem to have been
more proficient readers than their female
counterparts. Language ability is an important
factor that affects comprehension (Martino and
Hoffman, 2002; Norris and Hoffman, 2002;
Ridgway, 1997). It seems that they have
enough linguistic knowledge to comprehend
the reading passages without great difficulty.
This possibility raises the question of the
quality of instruction in the girls’ department5
It is suggested here that female departments
need to reassess their classroom teaching and
practices and to focus on reading activities to
promote a higher level of reading skills. The
implication drawn here is that students in
general, and female students in particular,
should be encouraged to read more informative
texts, as these types of texts are very important
for academic and professional activities.
SRL strategies and reading comprehension
across academic levels
The findings of the current research show that
there are differences between students in the
use of SRL strategies according to their
academic levels, F( 3, 244)= 3.241, p < 0.05).
There are also differences among students in
reading comprehension according to their
academic levels F (3, 244) = 3.493, p < 0.05).
These differences were detected between level
4 (M= 9.033, SD=3.025) and level 6
(M=10.828, SD =3.352) in favour of level 6.
This might be explained in terms of the
students’ experience and the development of
their use of SRL strategies in reading
comprehension as they progress in their
academic levels. Though at different age
levels, this result is contradicts the results of
Law et al. (2008) which reported that grade 5
children displayed more self-regulated
strategies than grade 6 children.
EFL learners` SRL strategies as predictors
of reading comprehension
One of the main findings of this study is that
some of the SRL strategies sub-scales were
statistically significant predictors of the
students` reading comprehension. This finding
comes in line with the results of Zimmerman
and Martinez -Pons (1986) in which SRL
scores were shown to be valid predictors of
achievement. It also aligns with results of
several studies that assumed that academic
186
Self Regulated Learning strategies.....
achievement is mediated by the use of SRL
strategies such as organizing, goal-setting,
planning, self-evaluating, information seeking,
record
keeping,
self-reflecting,
selfmonitoring, and reviewing (e.g. Boekaerts &
Corno, 2005; Winne, 2005; Zimmerman &
Martinez-Pons, 1990). On the other hand, this
may not be consistent with other study findings
in which SRL strategies were generally
deemed as inaccurate predictors of academic
achievements. (Rotgans, & Henk, 2009; Wang,
2011) It is assumed that readers must use selfregulated strategies to fully employ their
ability to interpret or make something of
texts. Therefore, developing such selfregulated skill holds benefits for many
educational tasks, not the least of which is
increased test scores (Mason, et al., 2006;
Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). As such, this
finding of measuring the use of SRL
strategies
may tentatively be adapted to
predict
the
EFL
learners’
reading
comprehension. This expected to assist the
EFL instructors’ endeavour to diagnose their
learners’ deficiencies in reading, and perhaps
attempt to direct their students to use better
SRL strategies. Thus, the importance of selfregulated learning strategies to academic
achievement has been fairly well established
(Kuo, 2010).
Conclusion
Findings of the present study were mainly
consistent with most of the other previous
studies conducted in other contexts. The
findings could be used as evidence of the
importance of SRL strategies in the EFL
learning process. Based on that, further efforts
need to be exerted to identify and help
students, especially those with poor reading
comprehension. This can be done by
appropriate the use of SRL strategies as a way
of analysing their needs and diagnosing their
problematic issues in reading comprehension.
Another relevant key finding is that SRL
strategies can be a demanding need for poor
readers in the light of the significant
relationship between SRL strategies and
reading
comprehension
which
were
synthesized in this study. The results of the
present study clearly indicate that some of the
SRL strategies are significant predictors of
reading comprehension, such as rehearsal
strategy, self talk about efficiency and
elaboration. This study also explored gender
differences in reading comprehension. The
male students performed better than their
female counterparts in their comprehension of
reading passages. These results suggest that
language educators should take into
consideration the differences between the two
genders and promote equal learning
opportunities in order to adjust the apparent
differences between female and male students.
Although the results were based on a large
number of students at Taif university (N= 248),
they need to be treated with caution. A first
limitation pertains to the generalisability of the
findings in this study to Saudi students at a
college level. A second limitation is about
using more than one predictor of reading
comprehension was used in order to give more
insight into gender differences and to
strengthen the results by gathering evidence
from more than one setting. Further directions
for research in this area can include
investigating efficient ways of developing SRL
strategies in correlation with reading
comprehension. As modelling can be an
effective approach to learning, teachers
themselves need to be trained on appropriate
use of SRL strategies in their classroom which
can be a potential direction for further research
as well.
References
Abar, B. Loken, E. (2010) "Self-regulated
learning and self-directed study in a precollege sample" Learning and Individual
Differences, Vol.20,pp.25–29.
Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., & Schneider, W.
(2001) "Predictors of reading literacy"
European Journal of Psychology of Education,
Vol.16, pp. 363–383.
Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Julius-McElvany,
N., & Peschar, J. (2003). Learners for life.
Student approaches to learning. Results from
PISA. Paris: OECD.
Azevedo, R. (2005) "Computer environments
as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning"
187
International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(2), pp.178-201
Educational Psychologist, Vol. 40, pp.193–
197.
Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of
thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Berardo, S.A. (2006). The use of authentic
materials in the teaching of reading. The
Reading Matrix, Vol.6, No.2,pp.60-69.
Bimmel, P. E. (1999). Training en transfer van
leesstrategie¨en: Training in de moedertaal en
transfer naar een vreemde taal—een
effectstudie bij leerlingen uit het voortgezet
onderwijs [Training and transfer of reading
strategies: Training in the mother tongue and
transfer to a foreign language—A training
study with students in secondary education].
’s-Hertogenbosch,
The
Netherlands:
Malmberg.
Boekaerts, M. (1996) "Self-regulated learning
and the junction of cognition and motivation"
European Psychologist, Vol.1,pp.100−1175
Boekaerts, M. (1999) "Self-regulated learning:
Where we are today" International Journal of
Educational research, Vol.31, No.6, pp. 445–
457.
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005) "Selfregulation in the classroom: A perspective on
assessment
and
intervention"
Applied
Psychology: An International Review, Vol.54,
pp.199−7315
Botsas, G., & Padeliadu, S. (2001)
Comprehension metacognitive strategies in
reading. In: M. Vamvoukas, & A. Hatjidaki
(Eds.), Vol. 1. Learning and instruction of
Greek language as mother and second
language (pp. 128–141). Rethymno, University
of Crete (in Greek).
Botsas, G., & Padeliadu, S. (2003) Reading
comprehension metacognitive monitoring and
fix-up strategy use of reading disabled students
and good readers. In E. Mela-Athanasopoulou
(Ed.), 15th International Symposium selected
papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics
(pp. 490–509). Thessaloniki: School of
English—Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
(in Greek).
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Reynolds, M.
(1999) "Learning to make good decisions: A
self-regulation
perspective"
Child
Development, Vol. 70, pp. 1171−11405
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F.
(2001) "Academic self-efficacy and first-year
college student performance and adjustment"
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.93,pp.
..−645
Chung, M. (2000) "The development of selfregulated learning" Asia Pacific Education
Review, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 55–66.
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983) "The
role of cognitive engagement in classroom
learning
and
motivation"
Educational
Psychologist, Vol.18, pp. 88-108.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007)
"Testing and refining the direct and inferential
mediation model of reading comprehension"
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.99,
pp.311–325.
Dignath, C. Buettner, G. & Langfeld, H.
(2008) "How can primary school students learn
self-regulated
learning
strategies
most
effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation
training programmes" Educational Research
Review Vol. 3, pp.101–129.
Eisenberg, N., Champion, C., & Ma, Y.
(2004) "Emotion-related regulation: An
emerging construct" Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
Vol.50, pp.236–259.
Evans, G.W. & Rosenbaum, J. (2008) Selfregulation and the income-achievement gap.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol.23,
pp.504–514.
Fecteau, M. (1999) "First- and secondlanguage reading comprehension of literary
texts" The Modern Language Journal, Vol.83,
pp.475-493.
Folkesson, A.-M. & Swalander, L. (2007)
"Self-regulated learning through writing on
computers:
Consequences
for
reading
comprehension" Computers in Human
Behavior Vol.23, pp.2488–2508.
Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W., Wang, Y. Y., &
Afflerbach, P. (1995) "Relationships of
instruction to amount of reading: an
exploration of social, cognitive, and
instructional connections" Reading Research
Quarterly, Vol.30, pp.8–25.
Hay, I., Ashman, A. F., & Van
Kraayenoord, C. E. (1998) "The influence of
gender, academic achievement and non-school
factors upon pre-adolescent self-concept"
Educational Psychology, Vol.18, pp. 461–470.
Kolić-Vehovec,S. Rončević, B. & Bajšanski,
I. (2008) "Motivational components of selfregulated learning and reading strategy use in
university students: The role of goal
188
Self Regulated Learning strategies.....
orientation patterns" Learning and Individual
Differences, Vol.18, pp.108–113.
Kuo, Y. (2010). Self-Regulated Learning:
From Theory to Practice.
Law, Yin-Kum., Chan, C. K., & Sachs, J.
(2008) "Beliefs about learning, self-regulated
strategies and text comprehension among
Chinese children" British Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol.78, No.1, pp. 5173.
Lucantoni, P. (1996). English as a second
language. Cambridge University Press.
Martino, N. L., & Hoffman, P. R. (2002) "An
investigation of reading and languageabilities
of college freshmen" Journal of Research in
Reading, Vol.25, No.3,pp.310-318.
Mason, L. H., Snyder, K. H., Sukhram, D.
P., & Kedem, Y. (2006) "TWA +PLANS
strategies for expository reading and writing:
Effects for nine fourth-grade students"
Exceptional Children, Vol.73, pp. 69-89.
Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2004). Willpower
in a cognitive-affective processing system. In
R. E. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 99–129).
New York: Guilford Press.
Nassaji, H. (2003) "Higher- level and lowerlevel text processing skills in advanced ESL
reading comprehension" The Modern language
Journal, Vol.87, pp. 261-276.
Norris, J. A., & Hoffman, P. R. (2002)
"Phonemic
Awareness:
A
complex
developmental process" Topics in Language
Disorders, Vol.22, No.1,pp.1-34.
O`Malley, J. M., Chamot, A.U., & Walker,
C. (1987) "Some applications of cognitive
theory to second language acquisition" Studies
in Second language Acquisition Vol.9, pp.
287-306.
O`Reill, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007) "The
impact of science knowledge reading skill and
reading strategy knowledge on more traditional
"high stakes" measures of high school
students` science achievement" American
Educational Research Journal, Vol. 44, No.1,
161-196.
Pae, T. (2004) "Gender effect on reading
comprehension with Korean EFL Learners
System", 32 (3), 265-281.
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001)
"Classroom applications of research on selfregulated learning" Educational Psychologist,
Vol.36, No.2, pp. 89–101.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990)
"Motivational and self-regulated learning
components
of
classroom
academic
performance"
Journal
of
Educational
Psychology, Vol.82, pp.33−405
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. Garcia, T. &
Mckeachie, W.
(1993) "Reliability and
Predictive Validty of the Motivated Strategies
for
Learning
Questionnaire
(MSLQ)"
Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol.53, No.3,pp.801-813.
Pintrich, P. R., Anderman, E. M., &
Klobucar,
C.
(1994)
"Intraindividual
differences in motivation and cognition in
students with and without learning disabilities"
Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol.27, No.6,
360–370.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999) "The role of motivation
in promoting and sustaining self-regulated
learning" International Journal of Educational
Research, Vol.31, No.6,pp.459–470.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000) The role of goal
orientation in self-regulated learning. In M.
Boekaerts P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation (pp5 4.1−.07)5
San Diego, CA: Academic.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000b) "Multiple goals,
multiple pathways. The role of goal orientation
in learning and achievement" Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol.92, No.3,pp.
544–555.
Pintrich, P.; Wolters, C. & Baxter, G.
(2000C). Assessing Metacognition and selfregulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara
(Eds.): Issues in the measurement of
metacognition,
(pp.
43-97).
Lincoln,
University of Nebraska press. Pressley, M., &
Ghatala, E. S. (1990) "Self-regulated learning:
Monitoring learning from text" Educational
Psychologist, Vol.25, No.1, pp. 19–33.
Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (2006).
Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic
research to classroom instruction. In P.
Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of
educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 264–
286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ridgway, T. (1997) "Threshold of the
background
knowledge
effect
in
foreignlanguage reading" Reading in a Foreign
Language, Vol.11, No.1, pp. 151-167.
Rotgans, J. & Henk, S. (2009) "Examination
of the context – specific nature of self
189
International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(2), pp.178-201
regulated learning" Educational Studies,
Vol.35, No.3, pp. 239-253.
Rowe, K. J. (1991) "The influence of reading
activity at home on students’ attitudes towards
reading, classroom attentiveness and reading
achievement: an application of Structural
Equation Modeling" British Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol.61, pp.19–35.
Schunk, D. H. (1989) "Self-efficacy and
achievement
behaviors"
Educational
Psychology Review, Vol.1, pp.173–208.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994).
Self regulation of learning and performance:
Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory
and self-regulated learning. In B. J.
Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.). Selfregulated learning and academic achievement:
Theoretical perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 125–152).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1990)
"Math, verbal, and general academic selfconcept: the internal/external frame of
reference model and gender differences in selfconcept structure" Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol.82, pp.546–554.
Stallworth-Clark, R., Cochran, J., Nolen, M.
T., Tuggle, D. L., & Scott, J. S. (2000) "Test
anxiety and performance on reading
competency tests" Research and Teaching in
Developmental Education, Vol.17, pp.39−425
Swalander, L. & Taube, K. (2007)
"Influences of family based prerequisites,
reading attitude, and self-regulation on reading
ability" Contemporary Educational Psychology
Vol.32, pp. 206–230.
Wagemaker, H. (1996). Are girls better
readers? Gender differences in reading literacy
in 32 countries. Amsterdam: The International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement.
Taguchi,E., Gorsuch, G.J. & Sasamoto, E.
(2006) "Developing second and foreign
language reading fluency and its effect on
comprehension: a missing link" The Reading
Matrix, Vol.6, No.2, pp.1-18.
Wang, T. H. (2011) "Developing Web-based
assessment strategies for facilitating junior
high school students to perform self regulated
learning in an e-learning environment"
Computers & Education, Vol.57, No.2,pp.
1801-1812.
Winne, P. H. (1995) "Inherent details in selfregulated learning" Educational Psychologist,
Vol.30, No.4, pp.173–187.
Winne, P. H. (2005). A perspective on stateof-the-art research on self-regulated learning.
Instructional Science, Vol.33, No.5/6,pp.559–
565.
Yazdanpanah, K. (2007). "The effect of
background knowledge
and reading
comprehension test items on male and female
performance" The Reading Matrix, Vol.7,
No.2, pp. 64-80.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986) "Development of
self-regulated learning: Which are the key sub
processes"
Contemporary
Educational
Psychology,
Vol.16,
pp.
307–313.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989) "A social cognitive
view of self-regulated academic learning"
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.81,
No.3, pp. 329–339.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2008).
Motivation: An essential dimension of self
regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self
regulated learning: Theory, research, and
applications (pp5 1−30)5 New York: Laurence
Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994)
"Impact of self-regulatory influences on
writing
course
attainment"
American
Educational Research Journal, Vol.31, No.4,
pp. 845–862.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M.
(1986) "Development of a structured interview
for assessing student use of self-regulated
learning strategies" American Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 23, No.4, pp. 614-628.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M.
(1988) "Construct validation of a strategy
model if students self-regulated learning"
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.80,
No.3, pp.284–290.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000) Attaining selfregulation. A social cognitive perspective. In
M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–
39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
190
Self Regulated Learning strategies.....
191
Online Publication Date: 5 February 2012
Publisher: Asian Economic and Social Society
Appendix A
Factor analyses: Self regulated learning strategies
Factor 1
No.
Items
60 I look for any information in the library or in the internet to help me to understand
the ambiguous academic topics.
61 If the information that presented in any academic course is not satisfied, so I look
Mean
3.2200
SD
1.1532
Loading
.619
2.9000
1.3746
.790
2.7600
1.4222
.754
63 I ask the teacher about useful references to help me understand the courses.
3.0600
1.2785
.682
23 When I read any subject and finish it, I reward myself by taking a break or doing
3.5150
1.2680
.782
24 When I succeed in doing any task, I reward myself.
3.5600
1.1589
.847
25 I reward myself when I continue in reading a specific subject and understanding it
3.2000
1.2278
.662
3.6100
1.1725
.621
47 I study in a quiet place free of distracters in order to concentrate.
4.2400
.9784
.559
48 I have a favorite place to study.
3.9700
1.1942
.753
49 I make sure that the place of studying is convenient.
3.9600
1.0314
.827
50 I arrange the place where I study to help me to achieve better.
3.6500
1.2020
.671
56 When we are asked to do a task, I collaborate with my friends to cover all the sides
3.7900
1.0203
.679
up extra information in the library.
62 I fix specific times for the library and I try to read more in order to develop my
academic and professional efficiencies.
Factor 2
any enjoyable activity.
well even if I feel bored.
26 I make a deal with myself: if I do the required task in a good way and in a
c
t
o
r
Factor 3
suitable time, I will do some enjoyable things.
Self Regulated Learning strategies.....
of the topic.
57 I work together with friends to achieve better understanding for what we are
studying.
58 I prefer conversation and discussion with my friends related to the reading course.
74 To prepare for the final examinations, I predict exam questions and attempt to
3.9500
.9758
.735
3.3500
3.1500
1.1152
1.4062
.694
.643
4.2400
1.0333
.492
3.7100
1.1100
.759
3.5550
1.1849
.659
1 I repeat the new information many times to memorize it.
3.3550
1.2192
.703
2 When the lecturer mentions a new concept, I repeat it many times to not forget it.
3.3450
1.2545
.724
3 When I read any topic, I repeat it twice in a loud voice.
3.8150
1.1651
.437
4 When I prepare for the examination in the reading course, I try to repeat the
3.9400
1.0304
.485
3.9550
.9367
.550
28 When I get bored with studying, I change the place of studying.
3.9000
1.0075
.720
29 When I feel bored with studying, I stand or walk in the place during the studying.
4.1250
1.0072
.702
30 When I get bored with studying, I try to change my desk that I use for studying.
3.5000
1.2400
.616
Factor 5
answer them.
75 When I am studying, I stop every now and then to predict questions and to try to
think about their answers in my mind.
76 I summarize reading course in form of questions and answers and during revision
I try answer questions first.
77 When I am reading, I form some questions and I try to answer them at the end of
Factor 6
my studying session to make sure that I understood the passage.
information of the course more times.
Factor 7
27 I change the way I sit during my studying when I have no desire to complete what
I am doing.
193
International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(2), pp.178-201
31 When I feel bored, I convince myself to continue to understand the subjects and
3.6800
1.1198
.606
3.7150
1.1621
.754
3.4500
1.2227
.562
34 I try to convince myself that I have good abilities.
4.2400
.9784
.373
35 When I do not understand any academic topics, I do not give up quickly and talk
3.9700
1.1942
.343
37 I encourage myself by thinking about achieving high scores to impress the others.
3.9600
1.0314
.776
38 When I lose the desire to complete the required tasks, I remind myself with the
3.6500
1.2020
.740
3.2850
1.1920
.392
3.6250
1.1667
.362
71 I do the required tasks in time and I do not put them off.
3.7450
1.1386
.484
72 Before studying I set specific times breaks.
3.9350
1.1346
.673
develop my academic efficiencies.
Factor 8
32 When I feel that I do not want to study, I remind myself by the importance of
doing more effort to gain new information that I did not know before.
33 When I have no desire to study, I try to convince myself that is necessary to
complete what I am doing to achieve understanding and perfection.
Factor 9
myself to try again and again.
consequences related to my score in the subject.
39 When I encounter difficulties to complete the required task, I try to convince
myself to complete because of its importance.
40 40. When my attention is distracted and gets busy away from studying, myself
Factor 10
argues me to return to study to achieve success.
73 I organize my time and distribute it according to the nature of the different
3.3850
1.1591
.596
3.7450
1.1346
.760
c
t
o
r
subjects.
5 I make clarified summaries to help to me to understand the difficult topics.
194
Self Regulated Learning strategies.....
6 I try to relate between the information in the reading course and similar
3.9350
1.1591
.361
3.6650
1.0670
.532
information in other courses.
7 When I study any unclear reading topic, I do some modifications and additions to
make it easy to understand.
Appendix B
Table-1 Factor analyses: Self regulated learning strategies
Factor
Description
Eigen value
% of variance
Cumulative %
1
Seeking Information
2.936
6.673
6.673
2
Self reward
2.742
6.233
12.906
3
Environmental control
2.468
5.609
18.515
4
Peer learning
2.396
5.446
23.961
5
Self evaluation
2.391
5.434
29.395
6
Rehearsal strategy
2.336
5.310
34.705
7
Motivational Environmental control
2.268
5.154
39.858
8
Self talk about efficiency
2.243
5.099
44.957
9
Self talk about performance
2.113
4.802
49.759
10
Time management
2.057
4.676
54.435
11
Elaboration
1.832
4.164
58.599
Table 2: Dimension-total correlations between dimensions and total score for SRL questionnaire subscales
Sub factors
Factor1
Factor2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
Factor 6
Factor 7
Factor 8
195
International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(2), pp.178-201
Correlations
Sub factors
Correlations
0.634
Factor
9
0.495
0.587
Factor10
0.660
0.484
0. 610
0.667
0.665
0.579
0.625
Factor11
0.519
Table 3: Descriptive data for Saudi students` Self Regulated Learning Strategies and Reading Comprehension Test according to their gender and their
academic levels
N
Level
Gender
Mean
SD
Total of reading comprehension
22
Male
12.5000
3.7257
35
Female
7.8000
2.8263
57
Total
9.6140
3.9223
Male
11.0345
2.4854
31
Female
7.1613
2.1771
60
Total
9.0333
3.0251
Male
10.7586
3.4086
47
Female
10.8723
3.3532
76
Total
10.8289
3.3522
male
9.5161
2.8504
29
29
31
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
196
Self Regulated Learning strategies.....
23
female
9.6522
3.6756
54
Total
9.5741
3.1955
male
10.8288
3.2330
136
female
9.0294
3.3970
247
Total
9.8381
3.4367
male
141.7727
22.1057
35
female
158.1143
20.4490
57
Total
151.8070
22.3953
male
151.9310
20.0552
31
female
162.5484
19.7211
60
Total
157.4167
20.4270
male
144.7241
17.5171
47
female
155.5957
21.6791
76
Total
151.4474
20.7624
male
134.8387
21.1268
23
female
155.9565
20.9469
54
Total
143.8333
23.3640
male
143.2613
20.8883
136
female
157.8897
20.7570
247
Total
151.3158
22.0162
111
Total of SRL strategies
22
29
29
31
111
Total
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Total
Table-4 MANOVA for gender and level differences in Self Regulated Learning Strategies subscales and Reading Comprehension Test
197
International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(2), pp.178-201
Source
Dependent Variable
Type III Sum of
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Eta Squared
Squares
Intercept
Level
Gender
Level * Gender
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Reading comprehension
23094.269
1
23094.269
2440.367
.000
.911
Total score of SRL
5337444.148
1
5337444.148
12672.447
.000
.981
Reading comprehension
106.457
3
35.486
3.750
.012
.045
Total score of SRL
4095.598
3
1365.199
3.241
.023
.039
Reading comprehension
254.458
1
254.458
26.889
.000
.101
Total score of SRL
12763.072
1
12763.072
30.303
.000
.113
Reading comprehension
291.383
3
97.128
10.263
.000
.114
Total score of SRL
1084.030
3
361.343
.858
.464
.011
Reading comprehension
2261.763
239
9.463
Total score of SRL
100663.208
239
421.185
Reading comprehension
26812.000
247
Total score of SRL
5774667.000
247
Reading comprehension
2905.522
246
Total score of SRL
119239.368
246
Table -5 Pearson correlation between SRL strategies sub- dimensions and reading comprehension
198
Self Regulated Learning strategies.....
R.C
Reading
SRF1
SRF2 SRF3 SRF4
SRF5
SRF6
SRF7
SRF8
SRF9
SRF10
SRF11
1.000
comprehension
SRL F1
-.021
1.000
SRL F2
-.033
.370**
1.000
SRL F3
.156*
.183**
.146* 1.000
SRL F4
.108
.254**
.268** .284
SRL F5
-.053
.377**
.323** .237 .398** 1.000
SRL F6
.222**
.396**
.231** .313 .384** .410**
1.000
SRL F7
.021
.322**
.289** .178 .310** .318**
.299**
1.000
SRL F8
.149*
.246**
.314** .226 .320** .301**
.323**
.426**
1.000
SRL F9
.067
.126*
.206** .291 .208** .258**
.322**
.237**
.452**
1.000
SRL F10
.009
.501**
.386** .282 .328** .466**
.371**
.313**
.324**
.116
1.000
.
SRL F11
.180**
.271**
.217** .255 .314** .327**
.416**
.253**
.306**
.267**
.285**
1.000
.
1.000
Note: SRL refer to Self regulated Learning strategies, R.C refer to Reading comprehension
Table-6 The partial correlation of SRL strategies sub- dimensions and reading comprehension
199
International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(2), pp.178-201
Model
R
R2
Adjusted R2
Std. Error
1
0.358
0.128
0.087
11.552
Table -7 Multiple Regression Analysis (SRL strategies sub-dimensions and reading comprehension)
Standardized
SRL sub-scales
Unstandardized Coefficients
Coefficients
Sig.
t
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
65.78
5.558
Seeking Information
-.247
712
-.087
-1.140
.255
Self reward
.- 181
.220
-.058
-.823
.411
Environmental
.372
.245
.103
15.70
.130
Peer learning
.250
.303
.049
.679
.498
Self evaluation
-.620
.263
-.179
-2.356
.019
Rehearsal Strategy
.910
.291
.241
3.122
.002
Motivational
-.175
.244
-.051
-.716
.475
.472
.241
.151
1.958
.051
11.836
.000
control
Environmental
Control
Self
talk
about
200
Self Regulated Learning strategies.....
Efficiency
Self talk about
-.264
.291
-.066
-.909
.364
Time Management
-.171
.355
-.038
-.482
.630
Elaboration
.660
.364
.128
1.811
.071
Performance
201