expository and argumentative texts were considered as predicted variables. Moreover, proficiency levels are considered as a moderator variable. As the participants were all female, the gender was the control variable of the study. Table 3.4 depicts the variables of this study.
Table 3.4. The Variables of the Study

Predictor Variable
Predicted Variable
Control Variable
Moderator Variable
Use of reading strategies
Expository text comprehension
Gender
Proficiency levels

Argumentative text comprehension

3.6 Statistical Analysis
Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used in this study to investigate the hypothesized relationships.
In the descriptive part of the analysis, first the researcher collected all data provided by the two instruments of the study. Then she computed and reported the mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean of the scores obtained on the two instruments.
The Flesch Reading Ease formula was used in order to determine the suitable level of texts.
Reliability and item analysis was conducted in the piloting phase to estimate the reliability of the test batteries and detect malfunctioning items.
For inferential statistics Pearson correlation was used in order to investigate any significant relationship between the use of reading strategies and comprehension of expository and argumentative texts. The researcher also used multiple regression analysis when there was a significant correlation between the predictor and the predicted variables. The assumptions for both analyses were checked as well.

Chapter IV
Research and Discussion

4.1. Introduction
The major purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship between EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and their argumentative and expository texts comprehension across different proficiency levels. The data collection procedure was carefully performed and the raw data was submitted to SPSS (version 21.0) program to perform the required statistical analyses in order to address the research questions and hypotheses of this study. This chapter provides the detailed statistical analyses of the data collected. Every step which was taken in analyzing the obtained data is presented in the form of tables, figures, and graphs in this chapter. In addition, in discussion section, the major findings of the study are compared with the results of the previous empirical studies.
4.2. Restatement of the Research Hypotheses
In order to investigate the null hypotheses of the study, they are restated in this section as follow:
H01: There is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension across different proficiency levels.
H02: There is no significant relationship between beginner EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension.
H03: There is no significant relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension.
H04: There is no significant relationship between advanced EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension.
H05: There is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension across different proficiency levels.
H06: There is no significant relationship between beginner EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension.
H07: There is no significant relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension.
H08: There is no significant relationship between advanced EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension.
H09: EFL learners’ use of reading strategies is not a significant predictor of their comprehension of expository text across different proficiency levels.
H010: Beginner EFL learners’ use of reading strategies is not a significant predictor of their comprehension of expository text.
H011: Intermediate EFL learners’ use of reading strategies is not a significant predictor of their comprehension of expository text.
H012: Advanced EFL learners’ use of reading strategies is not a significant predictor of their comprehension of expository text.
H013: EFL learners’ use of reading strategies is not a significant predictor of their comprehension of argumentative text across different proficiency levels.
H014: beginner EFL learners’ use of reading strategies is not a significant predictor of their comprehension of argumentative text.
H015: intermediate EFL learners’ use of reading strategies is not a significant predictor of their comprehension of argumentative text.
H016: Is advanced EFL learners’ use of reading strategies is not a significant predictor of their comprehension of argumentative text.
4.3 Reliability Analysis
In order to estimate the reliability of the test batteries, Cronbach’s alpha analysis was performed, the results demonstrated in Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 indicated that the tests had satisfactory level of reliability.
Table 4.1 Reliability statistics of the reading comprehension test for beginner learners

مطلب مرتبط :   دانلود پایان نامه با موضوعreading، Figure، Distribution

Cronbach’s Alpha
N of Items
reading comprehension test
.71
20

Table 4.2 Reliability statistics of the reading comprehension test for intermediate learners

Cronbach’s Alpha
N of Items
Reading comprehension test
.69
20

Table 4.3 Reliability statistics of the reading comprehension test for advance learners

Cronbach’s Alpha
N of Items
reading comprehension test
.64
20
4.4 Descriptive Statistics of the SILL Questionnaire
The descriptive statistics of the data obtained through the administration of reading strategy use questionnaire across all proficiency levels are presented in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Descriptive statistics of the obtained scores on reading strategy use questionnaire

N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
SILL – Beginner
44
1
3
2.18
.475
SILL – Intermediate
51
2
3
2.86
.329
SILL – Advanced
25
3
5
3.85
.529
Valid N (listwise)
120

Table 4.5 presents the normality checks of the distribution of the participants’ SILL scores across three different proficiency levels.
Table 4.5 Normality checks of SILL scores distributions

Skewness
Std. Error of Skewness
SILL Beginner
.576
.357
SILL Intermediate
152.
333.
SILL Advance
161.
464.

As can be seen from the above Table, all the scores were normally distributed since none of the values of Skewness/Std. Error of Skewness fell above the range of -1.96/1.96.
Figures 4.1 to 4.3 demonstrate the distribution of scores on SILL across the proficiency levels.

Figure 4.1 distribution of Beginners’ SILL Scores

Figure 4.2 distribution of Intermediates’ SILL Scores

Figure 4.3 distribution of Advances’ SILL Scores
4.5 Descriptive Statistics of the Reading Comprehension Tests
The participants of the study in three levels of language proficiency took two tests of expository and argumentative text comprehension. The descriptive statistics of the data obtained through expository text comprehension tests across all proficiency levels are presented
in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics of the Obtained Scores on expository text comprehension tests

مطلب مرتبط :   دانلود پایان نامه با موضوعreading، argumentative، In

N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Beginners
Expository Text 1
44
1
5
2.50
1.171

Expository Text 2
44
1
5
2.73
1.246
Intermediate
Expository Text 1
51

5
2.67
1.125

Expository Text 2
51
1
4
2.49
.809
Advanced
Expository Text 1
25
2
5
3.40
1.000

Expository Text 2
25
2
5
3.44
1.044

Table 4.7 shows the normality checks of the three groups expository test scores.
Table 4.7 Normality checks of Expository test scores distributions

Skewness
Std. Error of Skewness
RC Beginner
.101
.357
RC Intermediate
198.
333.
RC Advance
027.
464.

According to the Table, all scores distributions proved to be normal as the ratio of Skewness/Std. Error of Skewness fell within the -1.96/1.96 range. Figures 4.4 to 4.6 show the distribution of scores.

Figure 4.4 distribution of Beginners’ Expository Test Scores

Figure 4.5 distribution of Intermediates’ Expository Test Scores

Figure 4.6 distribution of Advances’ Expository Test Scores

The descriptive statistics of the data obtained through argumentative text comprehension tests across all proficiency levels are presented in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics of the Obtained Scores on argumentative text comprehension tests

N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Beginner
Argumentative 1
41

4
1.73
.899

Argumentative 2
41
1
3
1.68
.610
Intermediate
Argumentative 1
51

4
1.96
.958

Argumentative 2
51

4
2.10
1.188

Advanced
Argumentative 1
25
1
4
2.72
.980

Argumentative 2
25
2
4
3.20
.707
Valid N (listwise)
120

The details of the normality checks of the argumentative test scores are presented in Table 4.9 below.
Table 4.9 Normality checks of Argumentative test scores distributions

Skewness
Std. Error of Skewness
RC Beginner
.221
.357
RC Intermediate
069.
333.
RC Advance
433.
464.
As can be seen from the Table, all figures were between the range of -1.96 and 1.96 proving the normalcy of the distribution of scores in the argumentative test.
Figures 4.7 to 4.9 demonstrate the distributions.

Figure 4.7 distribution of Beginners’ Argumentative Test Scores

Figure 4.8 distribution of Intermediates’ Argumentative Test Scores

Figure 4.9 distribution of Advances’ Argumentative Test Scores

4.6. Testing the Hypotheses of the

دسته بندی : پایان نامه ها

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید