2.3. Relationship between reading self-efficacy and metacognitive reading
2.3.2. Empirical evidence for the relationship between reading self-efficacy
The steady growth of interest in the relationship between reading self- efficacy and metacognitive reading strategies was reflected in many studies (e.g., Ahmadian & Pasand, 2017; Jiang, 2021; Le, 2021; Li & Wang, 2010; Naseri &
Zaferanieh, 2012; Shehzad et al., 2020). Their findings were relatively consistent that there were significant relationships between the two variables. However, there exist differences between those studies and the present one. For example, the studies by Alsuhaibani (2019) and Okyar (2021) (see Table 2.3) did not examine
30
how each dimension of reading self-efficacy was related to each type of metacognitive reading strategies.
In Vietnam context, the mix-methods research of Le (2021) (see Table 2.3) on EFL senior high school learners seems to be the first to examine the relationship between reading self-efficacy and reading strategies. Results showed that reading self-efficacy was significantly related to learners’ use of reading strategies. It is, however, worth mentioning that Le’s study focused on reading strategies in general, not specific to metacognitive reading strategies including advance organizers strategies, selective attention strategies, monitoring strategies, and evaluating strategies that the present study aimed to investigate. In spite of the differences, Le’s findings helped to suggest the existing association between reading self-efficacy and reading strategies.
In addition to investigating the relationship between reading self-efficacy and metacognitive reading strategies, Shehzad et al. (2020) (see Table 2.3) examined the role of self-efficacy as a mediator in the association between four self-efficacy sources and metacognitive reading strategies among Saudi EFL tertiary students. Shehzad et al. (2020) disclosed the significant associations between the four self-efficacy sources and reading self-efficacy beliefs, and between reading self-efficacy beliefs and metacognitive reading strategies. That indicated the mediating role that reading self-efficacy plays in the association between four self-efficacy sources and metacognitive reading strategies. In fact, Shehzad et al. extended their framework horizontally to include one more variable, namely, four sources of reading self-efficacy whereas the present study delved vertically into the relationships between each dimension of reading self-efficacy and each type of metacognitive reading strategies.
Being closest to the present study might be the study of Jiang (2021) (see Table 2.3) that was conducted on Chinese EFL junior high school learners.
Dimensions of reading self-efficacy and types of metacognitive reading strategies were similar between Jiang’s study and the present study. Jiang’s findings showed that reading self-efficacy can predict the use of metacognitive reading strategies
31
among learners. Despite demonstrating the relationship between the two constructs, Jiang’s study did not examine the relationships between each dimension of reading self-efficacy with each type of metacognitive reading strategies. Importantly, Jiang’s study did not base on Bandura’s social cognitive theory to investigate and explain the relationship between reading self-efficacy and metacognitive reading strategies.
In sum, existing studies have indicated possible associations between self- efficacy and reading strategies in general. Little was known about relationships between each dimension of reading self-efficacy and each type of metacognitive reading strategies in particular, especially in light of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory. It is also worth mentioning that together with Jiang’s (2021) suggestion on the investigation of these relationships on tertiary students to extend its generalizability, this topic in the Vietnamese context has also been rare, which encouraged the researcher to conduct the present study. Importantly, while existing studies have mainly focused on the impact of employing reading strategies on reading self-efficacy, this study extends the stream of research on reading strategies by examining the role of reading self-efficacy in predicting the use of metacognitive reading strategies.
32
Table 2.3. Review of previous studies
Study Research issue Methodology Participant Result Alsuhaibani
(2019)
The relationship between the use of reading strategies and reading self- efficacy
Quantitative design Instruments:
Reading strategy
questionnaire adapted from Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002)
Reading self-efficacy questionnaire: 7 items selected from Rahimi and Atiyah (2009), Sun (Sun, 2010), Ghonsooly and Majid (2011); and 8 newly-
developed items
Retrospective semi- structured interview
191 female Saudi EFL university freshmen
Learners’ use of reading strategies and sense of reading self-efficacy were at moderate levels.
A positive association existed between reading strategy and reading self-efficacy.
The factors affecting learners’ reading self-efficacy included teachers'
teaching methodology, encouragement, and feedback, learners’ exam grades and their ability of reading
comprehension.
Okyar (2021)
Reading strategy use and its
relation to reading self-efficacy and gender
Quantitative design Instruments:
Questionnaire on reading strategy use adopted from Iyitoglu’s (2011) Turkish
211 male Turkish EFL university students of different
academic majors
Learners' use of reading strategies was at a moderate level.
33
Study Research issue Methodology Participant Result version translated from
Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002)
Reading self-efficacy adapted from Yanar and Bumen (2012)
Female learners used reading strategies more frequently than their male
counterparts.
Learners’ use of reading strategies was positively related to reading self- efficacy.
Le (2021) The relationship between reading self-efficacy and reading strategies
Mix-methods design Instruments:
A questionnaire including reading self-efficacy edited from Tobing (2013) and reading strategies modified from Barón (2013) and Shang (2010)
Semi-structured interview
300 Vietnamese EFL students in grades 10, 11, and 12
Learners’ level of reading self-efficacy was moderate.
The main sources of reading self- efficacy were performance accomplishment and vicarious experience.
Reading self-efficacy had a considerable relationship with reading strategy use.
Shehzad et al (2020)
The association between four self- efficacy sources and metacognitive reading strategies using reading self-
Quantitative design Instruments:
Questionnaire on sources of reading self-efficacy adapted from Usher and Pajares (2009)
188 Saudi EFL learners from five public
universities
Four self-efficacy sources were significantly related to reading self- efficacy.
34
Study Research issue Methodology Participant Result efficacy beliefs as
a mediator
Questionnaire on reading self-efficacy modified from Tobing (2013)
Questionnaire on metacognitive reading strategies adopted from Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002)
Reading self-efficacy was significantly associated with metacognitive reading strategies.
Reading self-efficacy mediated the association between four self-efficacy sources and metacognitive reading strategies.
Jiang (2021) The relationship between reading self-efficacy and the use of
metacognitive reading strategies
Quantitative design Instruments:
Reading self-efficacy questionnaire adapted from Piercey (2013)
Metacognitive reading strategies questionnaire constructed based on O’Malley and Chamot (1990)
100 Chinese EFL learners in grades 7 and 8
Learners felt rather confident in their English reading capabilities.
Learners used metacognitive reading strategies quite frequently.
Reading self-efficacy was an influential factor that affected the learners’ use of metacognitive reading strategies.
35