The Effects of a Second Language Reading Strategy Instruction on Iranian EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension and Reading Anxiety

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
J. Fathi 1
M. Shirazizadeh 2
1 Assistant Professor of English Language Teaching, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of English Language Teaching, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
The objective of the current paper was set to examine the effect of second language reading strategy instruction on young Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ reading comprehension and reading anxiety. Although a growing body of empirical studies have employed CALLA as a framework for L2 reading strategy instruction, there is a scarcity of empirical studies exploring the effectiveness of this model for reading strategy instruction among young learners in EFL contexts (Manoli, Papadopoulou, & Metallidou, 2016). The importance of conducting strategy-instruction studies involving younger L2 learners has been called for by numerous researchers (e.g., Chamot, 2005; Macaro & Erler, 2008; Manoli, Papadopoulou, & Metallidou, 2016) since the vast majority of studies have recruited older students. Moreover, as discussed above the construct of FL reading anxiety has remained under-researched in L2 empirical studies. For these reasons, the current study was set to explore the impact of L2 reading strategy instruction, set within CALLA model, on young Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension and reading anxiety.

To accomplish this objective, a sample of 48 young Iranian EFL learners were selected and randomly assigned to an experimental group (N = 25) and a control group (N = 23). To guarantee the homogeneity of the experimental and the control groups in terms of general English proficiency level “Oxford Placement Test” (OPT) (Allan, 2004) was given to the students of both groups. The results obtained from OPT indicated that the learner were of lower intermediate level of language proficiency (B1). The two classes were taught by the same teacher who employed the same course book and materials. The experimental intervention (i.e., reading strategy instruction) lasted for a period of 12 weeks.

Employing a quasi-experimental design, the study employed an experimental group that received a second language reading strategy instruction for a period of one semester and a control group that were taught with regular method with no strategy instruction but they were measured in terms of reading comprehension and reading anxiety before and after the strategy instruction. The strategy instruction intervention for the present study was based on Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) (Chamot & O`Malley, 1994) framework developed by Chamot et al. (1999) which constitutes five key stages including preparation, presentation, practice, evalua­tion, and expansion. In this framework, the instruction gradually moves from a highly explicit instruction to a more implicit teaching of using strategies to learning tasks so that the language learners can begin to accept more responsibility in selecting and implementing appropriate learning strategies. This cycle reiterates when new strategies are added to students’ strategic repertoires. In the meantime, the control group students were taught traditionally without receiving any explicit instruction of L2 reading strategies. More specifically, the procedure adopted for the control group was to make the students read a text aloud and translate it. During the sessions, the teacher taught the new vocabularies and provided the students with oral comprehension questions following passage reading.

The reading component of Cambridge Preliminary English Test (CPET) and Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale (FLRAS) were administered to assess the reading comprehension performance and reading anxiety of the participants as pre-test and post-test of the study.

The findings of the study revealed that the learners in the experimental group outperformed those of control group with regard to reading comprehension after receiving the strategy instruction intervention. The results of this research indicated that the students of the experimental group significantly outperformed those of control group with regard to reading comprehension ability, suggesting that the reading strategy instruction was influential in fostering L2 reading comprehension of the young Iranian EFL learners. The results of this research are in agreement with those of previous empirical studies (Aghaie & Zhang, 2012; Akkakoson, 2013; Dabarera, Renandya, & Zhang, 2014; Zhang, 2008, among others) and are at variance with the findings of Shang (2010). More particularly, concerning the young EFL learners as the participants of this study, it was revealed that the findings of the present study corroborated and extended the findings of Manoli, Papadopoulou, and Metallidou (2016) that supported the effectiveness of strategy use and instruction in improving reading comprehension among young, school-aged students.

Moreover, it was revealed that the reading strategy instruction reduced the reading anxiety of the participants. Pedagogical implications on reading strategy instruction were finally discussed. This finding is in line with the findings of a number of previous empirical studies which suggested that the use of comprehension strategies can decrease reading anxiety of the students (Gahungu, 2007; Lien, 2016; Naseri & Zaferanieh, 2012). This is also consistent with the claim that there are interactions between general foreign language anxiety and strategy use (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994; Rahimi & Zhang, 2014). It might be argued that the improvement reading performance by strategy instruction has helped the participants to reduce their reading anxiety.

As far as practical implications of the study are concerned, it is suggested that EFL practitioners need to integrate reading strategy instruction into their regular L2 classrooms in order to improve reading performance of their students. Nevertheless, the teachers themselves should be trained on how to teach strategies effectively. If teachers are now equipped with the knowledge and awareness of reading strategies, they will not be able to implement strategy-based instruction (Zhang & Wu, 2009).

Keywords

Subjects

Abbott, M. L. (2006). ESL reading strategies: Differences in Arabic and Mandarin speaker test performance. Language Learning, 56(4), 633–670.
Aghaie, R., & Zhang, L. J. (2012). Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies on Iranian EFL students' reading performance and strategy transfer. Instructional Science, 40(6), 1063-1081.
Akkakoson, S. (2013). The relationship between strategic reading instruction, student learning of mL2-based reading strategies and L2 reading achievement. Journal of Research in Reading, 36(4), 422-450.
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460-472.
Bernhardt, E. B. (1990). A model of L2 text reconstruction: The recall of literary text by learners of German. In A. Labarca & L.M. Bailey (Eds.), Issues in L2: Theory as practice, practice as theory (pp. 21– 43). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided cooperative learning and individual acquisition. In L. B. Resnil (Ed.). Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, New York.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1996). Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA). In R. B. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 167e174). Manoa, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
Coryell, J. E., & Clark, M. C. (2009). One right way, intercultural participation, and language learning anxiety: A qualitative analysis of adult online heritage and non-heritage language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 483–504.
Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42, 462-473.
Davis, D. S. (2010). A meta-analysis of comprehension strategy instruction for upper elementary and middle school students. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Vanderbilt University, America.
Dobson, A. (1998). MFL Inspected: Reflections on inspection findings 1996/97. London: CILT.
Erler, L., & Finkbeiner, C. (2007). A review of reading strategies: focus on the impact of first language. In A. D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 187-206). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gahungu, O. N. (2007). The relationships among strategy use, self-efficacy, and language ability in foreign language learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
Ghafar Samar, R. & Shirazizadeh, M. (2010). On The Relationship between Perfectionism, Reading Anxiety and Reading Achievement: A Study on the Psychology of Language Learning. Language related research, 2(1), 1-19 (in Persian)
Ghonsooly, B., & Loghmani, Z. (2012). The relationship between EFL learners’ reading anxiety levels and their metacognitive reading strategy use. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 333–351.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Cross-linguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57(1), 1-44.
Liao, HC., & Wang, YH. (2018). Using comprehension strategies for students’ self-efficacy, anxiety, and proficiency in reading English as a foreign language. SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 46(3), 447–458.
Lien, H.-Y. (2016). Effects of EFL individual learner variables on foreign language reading anxiety and metacognitive reading strategy use. Psychological Reports, 119(1), 124- 135.
Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 92, 71–86.
Lu, Z., & Liu, M. (2015). An investigation of Chinese EFL learner’s foreign language reading anxiety, reading strategy use and reading comprehension performance. Studies in Second Language Comprehension Performance, 5(1), 65–85.
Macaro, E., & Erler, L. (2008). Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers of French through strategy instruction. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 90-119.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283–305.
Manoli, P., Papadopoulou, M., & Metallidou, P. (2016). Investigating the immediate and delayed effects of multiple-reading strategy instruction in primary EFL classrooms. System, 56, 54-65.
Mehrpour, S., Sadighi, F., & Bagheri, Z. (2012). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to Iranian EFL pre-university students. Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 4(1), 107-139.
Naseri, M., & Zaferanieh, E. (2012). The relationship between reading self-efficacy beliefs, reading strategy use and reading comprehension level of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal of Education, 2, 64–75.
Pichette, F. (2009). Second language anxiety and distance language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 77–93.
Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61(4), 993-1038.
Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The role of incidental unfocused prompts and recasts in improving EFL learners’ accuracy. Language Learning Journal, 42, 67–87.
Saito, Y., Garza, T. J., & Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 202–218.
Salataci, R. & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a foreign language, 14 (1), 234-255.
Shang, Hui-Fang (2010). Reading strategy use, self-efficacy and EFL reading comprehension. Asian EFL Journal, 12 (2), 18-42.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4),431-449.
Shi, Y. Z., & Liu, Z. Q. (2006). Foreign language reading anxiety and its relationship to English achievement and gender. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Language, 29, 59–65.
Takallou, F. (2011). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on EFL learners’ reading comprehension performance and metacognitive awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 12(1), 272-300.
Tallon, M. (2009). Foreign language anxiety and heritage students of Spanish: A quantitative study. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 112–137.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yan, J. X.,& Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of how anxiety interacts with personal and instructional factors to influence their achievement in English: A qualitative analysis of EFL learners in China. Language Learning, 58, 151–183.
Yang, Y. (2006). Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies? Reading Psychology, 27, 313-343.
Young, D. J. (1994). New directions in language anxiety research. In A. K. Carol (Ed.), Faces in a crowd: The individual learner in multisection courses (pp. 3–46). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Zhang, L. J. (2008). Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction: exploring pathways to learner development in the English as a second language (ESL) classroom. Instructional Science, 36(2), 89-116.
Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students' metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 37-59.
Zhao, A., Guo, Y., & Dynia, J. (2013). Foreign language anxiety: Chinese as a foreign language in the United States. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 764–778.
Language Related Research
Volume 11, Issue 4 - Serial Number 58
September and October 2020
Pages 267-295