hypotheses. In order to investigate the first null hypothesis of the study in finding whether there is any significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension across different proficiency levels, a Pearson correlation was performed. It is worth mentioning that normality assumptions for all distributions were checked and confirmes as a prerequisite of running a correlational study.

The results are presented in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10 Correlation between reading strategies and expository text comprehension

SILL

Expository reading

SILL

Pearson Correlation

1

.411*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.021

N

120

120

Expository text comprehension

Pearson Correlation

.411*

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.021

N

120

120

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The results showed that there is a moderate and significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension across different proficiency levels (r = .41, p .05). Therefore, the first null hypothesis of the study was rejected.

In order to investigate the second null hypothesis of the study in finding whether there is any significant relationship between beginner EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension, a Pearson correlation was performed. The results are presented in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11 Correlation between beginner learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension

Correlations

SILL – Beginner

Expository reading (Beginner)

SILL – Beginner

Pearson Correlation

1

.422*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.007

N

44

44

Expository reading (Beginner)

Pearson Correlation

.422*

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.007

N

44

44

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The results showed that there is a moderate and significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension (r = .42, p .05). Therefore, the second null hypothesis of the study was rejected.

In order to investigate the third null hypothesis of the study in finding whether there is any significant relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension, a Pearson correlation was performed. The results are presented in Table 4.12.

Table 4.12 Correlation between intermediate learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension

Correlations

SILL – intermediate

Expository reading (intermediate)

SILL – intermediate

Pearson Correlation

1

.771*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

51

51

Expository reading (intermediate)

Pearson Correlation

.771*

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

51

51

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The results indicated that there is a high and significant relationship between the between intermediate EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension (r = .77, p .05). Therefore, the third null hypothesis of the study was rejected.

In order to investigate the fourth null hypothesis of the study in finding whether there is any significant relationship between advanced EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension, a Pearson correlation was performed. The results are provided in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13 Correlation between advanced learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension

Correlations

SILL – advanced

Expository reading (advanced)

SILL – advanced

Pearson Correlation

1

.823*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

25

25

Expository reading (advanced)

Pearson Correlation

.823*

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

25

25

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The results indicated that there is a high and significant relationship between the between advanced EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension (r = .82, p .05). Therefore, the fourth null hypothesis of the study was rejected.

To verify the fifth hypothesis of the study in finding whether there any significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension across different proficiency levels, another Pearson correlation was run. The results are shown in Table 4.14.

Table 4.14 Correlation between reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension

SILL

Argumentative Text

SILL

Pearson Correlation

1

.380*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.028

N

120

120

Argumentative Text

Pearson Correlation

.380*

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.028

N

120

120

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The results showed that there is a moderate and significant relationship between the between EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension across different proficiency levels (r = .38, p .05). Therefore, the fifth null hypothesis of the study was not accepted.

In order to investigate the sixth null hypothesis of the study in finding whether there is any significant relationship between beginner EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension, a Pearson correlation was performed. The results are provided in Table 4.15.

Table 4.15 Correlation between beginner learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension

Correlations

SILL – Beginner

Argumentative reading (Beginner)

SILL – Beginner

Pearson Correlation

1

.367*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.039

N

44

44

Argumentative reading (Beginner)

Pearson Correlation

.367*

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.039

N

44

44

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The results indicated that there is a moderate and significant relationship between the between beginner EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension (r = .36, p .05). Therefore, the sixth null hypothesis of the study was rejected.

In order to investigate the seventh null hypothesis of the study in finding whether there is any significant relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension, a Pearson correlation was performed. The results are provided in Table 4.16.

Table 4.16 Correlation between intermediate learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension

Correlations

SILL – Beginner

Argumentative reading (intermediate)

SILL – intermediate

Pearson Correlation

1

.541*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.009

N

51

51

Argumentative reading (intermediate)

Pearson Correlation

.541*

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.009

N

51

51

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The results indicated that there is a moderate and significant relationship between the between intermediate EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension (r = .54, p .05). Therefore, the seventh null hypothesis of the study was not accepted.

In order to investigate the eighth null hypothesis of the study in finding whether there is any significant relationship

between advanced EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension, a Pearson correlation was performed. The results are provided in Table 4.17.

Table 4.17. Correlation between advanced learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension

Correlations

SILL – Beginner

Argumentative reading (intermediate)

SILL – advanced

Pearson Correlation

1

.611*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

25

25

Argumentative reading (advanced)

Pearson Correlation

.611*

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

25

25

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The results indicated that there is a moderate and significant relationship between the between advanced EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension (r = .61, p .05). Therefore, the eighth null hypothesis of the study was rejected.

In order to test the ninth research hypothesis of the study in finding whether EFL learners’ use of reading strategies is a significant predictor of their comprehension of expository text across different proficiency levels, multiple regression analysis was performed. Table 4.18 provides the extent to which variability in the dependent variable (expository text comprehension across three proficiency levels) is accounted for by the predictor variable, use of reading strategies.

Table 4.18 Model Summary

Model Summary

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

.445a

.198

.083

.44814

a. Predictor: (Constant), Use of Reading Strategies

As shown in Table 4.18, the coefficient of multiple correlations is presented in the “R” column. R is the measure of the prediction of the dependent variable. A value of 0.44 indicates a good level of prediction. The “R Square” or R2 value is the proportion of variance in expository text comprehension across different proficiency levels that can be explained by the independent variable (use of reading strategies). It indicates that EFL learners’ use of reading strategies explain 20% of the variability of the expository text comprehension across different level of proficiency levels.

In order to determine whether the provided model is a good fit for the data, a one-way ANOVA was performed. The results are shown in Table 4.19.

Table 4.19 ANOVA of regression model

Model

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

2.948

1

2.948

5.476

.021b

Residual

63.536

118

.538

Total

66.484

119

a. Dependent Variable: Expository Text

b. Predictors: (Constant), Use of Reading Strategies

The F value in the Table 4.19 shows the fitness of overall regression model for the data. The results (F(1,118) = 5.47, p .05) indicated that the model as a whole is significant and that EFL