ارتقاء از روش های خودتنظیمی برای مهارت خواندن دانش آموزان کلاس پنجم: اثرات تجزیه و تحلیل بر روی خواندن، خواندن عملکرد استراتژی و انگیزش برای خواندن

In this study, reciprocal teaching (RT) was combined with specific self-regulation procedures to promote the reading comprehension of fifth grade students. Twenty four classes with N = 534 students were assigned to RT plus strategy implementation procedures (RT + SIP), RT plus outcome regulation procedures (RT + ORP), RT plus strategy implementation and outcome regulation procedures (RT + SRL), or RT without explicit instruction in self-regulation. At maintenance students assigned to the three self-regulation conditions outperformed RT students according to a standardized measure of reading comprehension. RT + SIP and RT + SRL students outperformed RT as well as RT + ORP students using a measure of reading strategy performance. However, reading comprehension was only mediated by strategy performance under the RT + SRL condition. Among students assigned to the RT + ORP condition, an improvement in reading motivation between pretest and posttest and between posttest and maintenance was observed.

1. Introduction Over the recent decades, educational researchers have analyzed the cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational skills required for competent reading and examined various ways of fostering these skills in school-aged children (National Reading Panel, 2000). Moreover, a growing body of research is examining how reading comprehension can be facilitated by the use of self-regulated reading strategies (Afflerbach, Pearson, & Paris, 2008). While there has been a large amount of laboratory research on the relationship between self-regulation and performance, relatively little is known about the relations between specific self-regulation procedures and learning outcomes and how to foster self-regulated learning in the context of whole-class instruction. The main goal of the present study was to examine how specific self-regulatory activities would be correlated with specific aspects of competent reading. 1.1. Theoretical and empirical background The theoretical basis for the present research is the definition of reading comprehension as a process, combining the extraction and construction of meaning through an interaction between text and reader, with an overall involvement with written language (Snow, 2002). A recent model which accounts for the complexity of reading comprehension is Cromley and Azevedo's (2007) direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model which is based on Kintsch's (1988) construction–integration model (Kintsch & Kintsch, 2005). The DIME model hypothesizes relationships between background knowledge, vocabulary, word reading, reading strategies, and inference that together act as a basis for reading comprehension. According to the DIME model, the use of reading strategies is related to the ability to draw inferences which, in turn, fosters a deeper comprehension of the text. Educational researchers have developed approaches to foster reading comprehension through instruction in reading strategies (Alexander, Graham, & Harris, 1998). Nowadays, there is reliable empirical evidence that instructing older elementary students in the application of cognitive reading strategies (e.g., generating questions or summarizing) results in a higher level of reading comprehension (Slavin et al., 2009 and Spörer et al., 2009). One of the most promising multi-strategy approaches used to promote reading comprehension in elementary classrooms is reciprocal teaching (RT, Palincsar & Brown, 1984). In RT, students are instructed in the use of four strategies: clarifying, summarizing, questioning, and predicting. According to this method, students read in small groups and collaboratively construct comprehension with the help of their peers. Students take over responsibility by leading group work and giving feedback on the group members' strategy application. In a meta-analytic review, Rosenshine and Meister (1994) found average effect sizes of d = .32 for a standardized reading comprehension test, favoring RT over comparison conditions. 1.2. Integrating self-regulation procedures into explicit strategy instruction The empirical research suggests combining explicit instruction in strategy use with instruction in planning, monitoring, and evaluating the learning process (Dignath, Buettner, & Langfeldt, 2008) and, thus, supplementing strategy instruction with self-regulated learning activities. Zimmerman (2002) provides an analysis of self-regulation in his description of self-regulated learning as a cyclical process based on three phases. In the forethought phase students set learning goals and engage in strategic planning. In the performance phase students use cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational strategies to accomplish the learning task. According to this model, learning strategies fulfill the function of a learning tool used to foster progress in an academic skill. In the self-reflection phase, evaluative processes occur after learning. In this way, self-regulated learners are able to reflect on their strategy implementation and learning outcome as well as their feelings of self-satisfaction. Promoting such self-regulated activities in conjunction with the application of cognitive strategies results in better learning outcomes than strategy instruction alone (De Corte et al., 2011, Graham et al., 2005 and Schünemann et al., 2013). Moreover, learners who engage in a self-regulated learning process have demonstrated substantial gains in self-efficacy for learning (Schunk & Pajares, 2010) and learning motivation (Wigfield et al., 2008). Thus, in current training programs (Graham et al., 2005, Horner and Shwery, 2002 and Souvignier and Mokhlesgerami, 2006), students are instructed in planning and evaluating the whole learning process as described in Zimmerman's (2002) model. However, it could be argued that, in this cyclical model, at least two sets of self-regulatory procedures can be distinguished: self-regulation of learning outcome and strategy implementation regulation (see also Boekaerts & Corno, 2005). In the domain of reading, a desired learning outcome might be to understand a text. Here, self-regulated students ideally set reading comprehension goals before reading, monitor their comprehension progress while reading, and evaluate whether they have reached their learning outcome goals after reading. In this way, students self-regulate with regard to their desired learning outcome. Furthermore, students receive feedback on their comprehension progress when reflecting performance outcomes ( Wigfield, Klauda, & Cambria, 2011). Providing feedback to students influences students' self-regulated efforts and motivation to continue to improve. The self-regulation of learning outcomes would help not only to improve reading comprehension but also to foster the motivational engagement in reading in terms of enjoying academic tasks ( Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). Therefore, outcome regulation procedures should be strongly correlated with students' individual perception of skill development and, hence, foster domain-specific learning motivation ( Wigfield et al., 2008). Moreover, it is assumed that self-regulated learners use learning strategies in order to reduce a perceived discrepancy between their current state of knowledge and a desired learning outcome (Zimmerman, 2002). Thus, students need to plan which reading strategies might be useful in a specific learning situation. After choosing an appropriate strategy they then need to monitor the application of the strategy and evaluate its effectiveness. Within such a set of self-regulatory procedures, students self-regulate the implementation of a specific reading strategy. Regarding its effects, planning, monitoring, and evaluating the strategy implementation should help students to acquire strategic skills and thereby improve the quality of reading strategy performance (see also Brunstein & Glaser, 2011). Recently, Schünemann et al. (2013) analyzed how students' reading competence could be promoted by these two sets of self-regulatory procedures. In the aforementioned study, intact classes were assigned to a no-treatment comparison condition, RT without explicit instruction in self-regulation or RT plus explicit instruction in strategy implementation and outcome regulation procedures. At the end of the training, students assigned to the two intervention conditions outperformed control students in measures of reading comprehension. Furthermore, relative to conventional RT students, students assigned to the enriched RT condition were better able to maintain their reading performance over time. In an attempt to explain their findings, Schünemann et al. (2013) focused on the possibility that the effect of the condition incorporating strategy implementation and outcome regulation procedures into RT depended on the individual strategy use of the students. An additional explanation, not raised in the study, might be that students' reading comprehension was promoted by enhanced reading motivation. Moreover, the nature of the study design only allowed for an analysis of the joint effects of the two sets of self-regulatory procedures. Hence, the question as to whether strategy implementation and outcome regulation procedures were correlated with specific aspects of engaged reading remained unanswered. 1.3. Present research In the present work, the incremental effects of two sets of self-regulatory procedures in the teaching and use of reading comprehension strategies were examined. For this purpose, conventional RT was enriched with self-regulatory procedures designed to foster (a) strategy implementation, (b) outcome regulation, and (c) strategy implementation and outcome regulation. More specifically, in the strategy implementation condition (RT + SIP), students were instructed to set reading strategy goals, monitor their strategy use, and reflect on their strategic behavior. Hence, self-regulation was focused on using specific reading strategies. In the outcome regulation condition (RT + ORP), students learned to set reading comprehension goals and to evaluate how much their reading comprehension had improved. Therefore, self-regulation was focused on progress in reading comprehension. In the self-regulated learning condition (RT + SRL), students were instructed to set both reading strategy and comprehension goals, monitor their strategy use, and reflect on their strategic behavior and reading comprehension. Here, self-regulation was particularly focused on using specific reading strategies to improve reading comprehension. One of the study's key objectives was to compare the effectiveness of the three enriched RT conditions with a conventional RT condition. Differences between conditions were tested using measures of reading comprehension, strategy performance, and reading motivation in a pretest–posttest-maintenance design. Building on recent research in self-regulated reading (Schünemann et al., 2013), it was anticipated that students assigned to the enriched treatment conditions would achieve better results than the RT students in our measures of competent reading particularly at maintenance. This expectation is in line with Zimmerman's view (2002) that self-regulated learners can rely on conditional and procedural knowledge to execute their newly acquired skills, although external support has already been faded out. Moreover, that ability to self-regulate one's own learning process may foster the motivational engagement of learners ( Wigfield et al., 2008). Immediately after training, in contrast, students may benefit from both interventions with or without additional instructions in self-regulated learning due to the extensive external support given over the course of the training. The following hypotheses were investigated: The first aim of the study was to demonstrate differences between the conditions with regard to reading comprehension and to ensure the efficaciousness of the enriched interventions in contrast to traditional RT. We hypothesized that students assigned to RT + SIP, RT + ORP, and RT + SRL would outperform RT students at maintenance in a reading comprehension measure (Hypothesis 1). The study's second aim was to examine the idea that specific self-regulatory activities could be correlated with specific aspects of competent reading. Only students assigned to RT + SIP and RT + SRL learned how to self-regulate the implementation of reading strategies. Accordingly, we hypothesized that students assigned to these conditions would improve the quality of their reading strategy use and thereby outperform RT as well as RT + ORP students according to measures of reading strategy performance at maintenance (Hypothesis 2a). In contrast, only students assigned to RT + ORP and RT + SRL learned to assess how they improved their reading comprehension from lesson to lesson. Hence, these students continuously received feedback on their progress in reading comprehension and that feedback should increase students' engagement processes in reading. Therefore, we proposed that RT + ORP and RT + SRL students would increase their reading motivation over time and, thus, would reach higher scores on a reading motivation measure at maintenance compared to RT and RT + SIP students (Hypothesis 2b). Our third aim was to analyze whether cognitive engagement (in terms of successfully applying reading strategies) and emotional engagement (in terms of enhanced reading motivation) would be correlated with reading comprehension. Therefore, the successful mastery of reading strategies was assigned a mediational role in explaining the hypothesized treatment effects on students' reading comprehension achievements at maintenance. Accordingly, we hypothesized that RT + SIP and RT + SRL students would be more successful in mastering reciprocal reading strategies and, thereby, improve their reading comprehension to a greater extent than RT students (Hypothesis 3a). Finally, we explored whether the hypothesized incremental effects that outcome regulation procedures had on students' reading comprehension were mediated through a higher self-reported reading motivation at maintenance. In that sense, RT + ORP and RT + SRL students would reach higher reading motivation scores and, thereby, improve their reading comprehension to a greater extent than RT students (Hypothesis 3b).

3. Results 3.1. Overview of statistical procedures The data in this study was analyzed using the Mplus (Version 6) software package (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2011). Acknowledging the structure of this study's design using whole-class instruction the data were analyzed using the “type is complex” analysis code to account for the non-independence of observations. Maximum likelihood robust estimation (MLR) was used for analyses that were robust to non-normality and non-independence of observations. The data was not submitted to a multilevel analysis, because the cluster size at Level 2 (24 classes) was considered to be too small to yield accurate tests of inference (Hox, 2010). Because missing data were missing at random (Little, 1988), we used the full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimator provided by Mplus (Type is Missing command) to estimate parameters specified in our statistical models. To simplify the interpretation of the study's results, all continuous predictors, the corresponding pretest score of the dependent variable and the reading fluency score, were grandmean-centered. Although significant differences between conditions were found for language spoken at home, that variable was not significantly related to posttest and maintenance scores of reading comprehension, reading strategy performance, and reading motivation. Therefore, language was omitted from the regression analyses. Data was analyzed in three steps: (1) Before critical differences between the three types of self-regulation treatments were analyzed, it was checked whether, relative to the basic RT condition, these treatments had indeed produced superior effects on reading comprehension. Adopting a regression approach, the study thus examined whether students in the three enriched conditions (RT + SIP, RT + ORP, and RT + SRL) would differ from RT students in measures of reading comprehension at posttest and maintenance. For this analyses, a dummy coding system (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003) was used to investigate main and interaction effects of treatment conditions on reading comprehension (contrast 1: presence [1] or absence [0] of SIP; contrast 2: presence [1] or absence [0] of ORP; contrast 3: interaction of SIP and ORP). (2) After examining the efficaciousness of the three enriched treatments, data analysis focused on the predicted differences between treatments. In our theory-driven hypotheses, effects of specific self-regulation procedures on specific indicators of competent reading were formulated (e.g., SIP on reading strategy performance). It is recommended to use contrasts reproducing such focused hypotheses (Cohen et al., 2003). With regard to reading motivation, therefore, a contrast code was used (denoted below as outcome regulation effect) that compared students who learned outcome regulation procedures (e.g., RT + SRL and RT + ORP students) with students who did not (RT and RT + SIP students). As hypothesized for this variable, the following two contrasts were analyzed: (a) 1/2 = RT + SRL; 1/2 = RT + ORP; −1/2 = RT; −1/2 = RT + SIP, (b) 1/2 = RT + SRL; −1/2 = RT + ORP; 0 = RT; 0 = RT + SIP. Regarding reading strategy performance, a contrast code was used (denoted below as strategy implementation effect) that compared students who learned how to self-regulate the implementation of reading strategies (e.g., RT + SRL and RT + SIP students) with students who did not (RT and RT + ORP students). More detailed we specified the following two contrasts: (a) 1/2 = RT + SRL; 1/2 = RT + SIP; −1/2 = RT; −1/2 = RT + ORP, (b) 1/2 = RT + SRL; −1/2 = RT + SIP; 0 = RT; 0 = RT + ORP. (3) To test the mediational hypotheses, the indirect, direct, and total effects differences of treatment conditions (RT + SRL vs. RT and RT + SIP vs. RT) on students' reading comprehension (criterion) through reading strategy performance (mediator) were examined (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). To explore to what extent outcome regulation effects on reading comprehension were mediated by reading motivation, we examined the indirect, direct, and total effects differences of treatment conditions (RT + SRL vs. RT and RT + ORP vs. RT) on students' reading comprehension (criterion) through reading motivation (mediator). To determine the strength of the study's treatment effects, Hedges' (1981)g was computed. For each dependent variable, the respective mean was adjusted for pretest differences and differences in fluency. Addressing the clustered nature of the present data, Hedges' (2007) Formula 15 was adopted and each effect size was corrected for the associated ICC. 3.2. Preliminary analyses Initial analyses started with testing for potential differences between the four conditions in pretest measures using analyses of variance (ANOVA). For pretest measures of reading comprehension and reading strategy performance, differences failed to be significant (p > .05). However, for reading motivation, students in the RT + SIP condition reported significantly (p < .05) higher test scores than students in the RT and RT + SRL condition (see Table 2 for descriptive statistics). Further, reading fluency at pretest was significantly (p < .05) correlated with all three dependent variables and was used as covariate in the statistical analyses of effects on reading comprehension, reading strategy performance, and reading motivation. Preliminary analyses also revealed that differences between girls and boys and between students speaking German at home and students primarily speaking another language at home did not qualify any of the results reported below. Table 3 presents information about the zero-order correlations among control and dependent variables. It turned out that all dependent variables were significantly and positively correlated. Table 2. Means and standard deviations for dependent variables by measurement occasion and treatment condition. Pretest Posttest Maintenance M SD M SD M SD Reading comprehension RT 49.31 8.22 50.43 8.08 50.53 8.87 RT + SIP 50.81 9.19 52.18 7.95 54.30 8.79 RT + ORP 48.57 12.32 52.41 9.43 52.56 10.25 RT + SRL 48.54 8.87 50.65 8.40 51.65 7.43 Reading strategy performance RT 2.13 1.00 3.10 .75 2.78 .92 RT + SIP 2.05 1.00 2.98 .68 2.98 .87 RT + ORP 1.96 1.13 2.74 .78 2.84 .89 RT + SRL 2.28 1.01 3.10 .75 3.13 .77 Reading motivation RT 1.79 .69 1.74 .69 1.67 .77 RT + SIP 2.14 .64 2.21 .60 2.12 .67 RT + ORP 1.92 .72 2.05 .70 2.06 .70 RT + SRL 1.73 .70 1.67 .77 1.57 .84 Note. RT = reciprocal teaching, RT + SIP = reciprocal teaching plus strategy implementation procedures, RT + ORP = reciprocal teaching plus outcome regulation procedures, RT + SRL = reciprocal teaching plus strategy implementation and outcome regulation procedures. Table options Table 3. Correlations among pretest, posttest, and maintenance measures. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (1) Reading fluency (pretest) – (2) Reading comprehension (pretest) .51*** – (3) Reading strategy performance (pretest) .45*** .44*** – (4) Reading motivation (pretest) .27*** .23*** .21*** – (5) Reading comprehension (posttest) .50*** .61*** .43*** .20** – (6) Reading strategy performance (posttest) .29*** .29*** .43*** .11* .35*** – (7) Reading motivation (posttest) .27*** .24*** .19*** .85*** .25*** .12** – (8) Reading comprehension (maintenance) .44*** .71*** .45*** .22*** .61*** .34*** .24*** – (9) Reading strategy performance (maintenance) .31*** .38*** .41*** .16** .40*** .37*** .18*** .43*** – (10) Reading motivation (maintenance) .25*** .25*** .16** .77*** .26*** .10* .80*** .26*** .20*** Note. Reading fluency was only assessed at pretest. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Table options 3.3. Treatment effects Table 4 and Table 5 provide an overview of the results of the inferential analyses of treatment differences in posttest and maintenance measures of reading comprehension, reading strategy performance, and reading motivation. The following key findings emerged: Table 4. Unstandardized estimates and standard errors for main and interaction effects of treatment conditions on reading comprehension. Posttest Maintenance B SE B SE Pretest .41*** .04 .59*** .04 Fluency .31*** .05 .14** .05 Type of treatment Presence vs. absence of SIP 1.45 .79 3.03*** .83 Presence vs. absence of ORP 2.96*** .80 2.78*** .60 Interaction of SIP × ORP −3.71** .80 −4.14*** 1.04 Regression intercept 50.14*** .53 50.39*** .47 Note. SIP = strategy implementation procedures, ORP = outcome regulation procedures. Presence = 1, absence = 0. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Table options Table 5. Unstandardized estimates and standard errors for contrast-coded treatment effects on reading strategy performance and reading motivation. Posttest Maintenance B SE B SE Reading strategy performance Pretest .27*** .03 .26*** .05 Fluency .01** .09 .02** .01 Strategy implementation effect RT + SRL and RT + SIP vs. RT and RT + ORP (contrast 1) .08 .09 .23* .10 RT + SRL vs. RT + SIP (contrast 2) .06 .12 .12 .13 Regression intercept 2.96*** .07 2.75*** .08 Reading motivation Pretest .85*** .03 .83*** .03 Fluency .01* .04 .01** .01 Outcome regulation effect RT + SRL and RT + ORP vs. RT and RT + SIP (contrast 1) −.04 .03 .04 .06 RT + SRL vs. RT + ORP (contrast 2) −.03 .01 −.35*** .08 Regression intercept 1.96*** .04 1.91*** .05 Note. RT = reciprocal teaching, RT + SIP = reciprocal teaching plus strategy implementation procedures, RT + ORP = reciprocal teaching plus outcome regulation procedures, RT + SRL = reciprocal teaching plus strategy implementation and outcome regulation procedures. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Table options First, while controlling for pretest scores and fluency, the ORP main effect as well as the interaction term turned out to have a statistically significant influence on students' reading comprehension at posttest. At maintenance, main and interaction effects of treatment conditions significantly predicted students reading comprehension (see Table 4). Overall at maintenance, students in all three enriched self-regulation conditions reached higher reading comprehension scores than RT students. However, it turned out that relative to RT + SIP and RT + ORP, students in the RT + SRL condition did not reach higher but lesser reading comprehension scores. For posttest and maintenance, together the variables explained 44% and 53%, respectively, of the variance in students' reading comprehension scores. Secondly, significant treatment effects on the reading strategy measure were observed while controlling for pretest score and reading fluency. At maintenance (but not at posttest), students assigned to the RT + SIP and RT + SRL condition outperformed students in the RT and RT + ORP condition regarding the quality of reading strategy performance (see contrast 1 of the strategy implementation effect in Table 5). Furthermore, RT + SRL students did not differ from RT + SIP students with respect to reading strategy performance (see contrast 2 of the strategy implementation effect in Table 5). For posttest and maintenance, together the variables explained 20% and 22%, respectively, of the variance in students' strategy performance scores. Thirdly, both at posttest and maintenance, students in the RT + SRL and RT + ORP condition did not achieve higher reading motivation scores compared to students in the RT and RT + SIP condition (see contrast 1 of the outcome regulation effect in Table 5). However, at maintenance, students assigned to the RT + ORP condition differed from RT + SRL students with respect to reading motivation. Here, RT + ORP led to higher reading motivation among students than RT + SRL. For posttest and maintenance, together the respective variables explained 73% and 62%, respectively, of the variance in students' reading motivation scores. The associated effect sizes are shown in Table 6. The magnitude of the effects, which reflected the superiority of the enriched self-regulation conditions relative to the RT condition, was small to medium, depending on the kind of variable and the measurement point. It is worth noting that the RT condition also enhanced students' reading competence. For reading comprehension, within-group effect sizes of RT indicated a competence growth from pretest to posttest (ES = .14) and from pretest to maintenance (.14). Moreover, students achieved higher reading strategy performance scores at posttest (1.10) and maintenance (.68), but showed no improvement in reading motivation (−.07 at posttest and −.17 at maintenance). Table 6. Overview of effect size estimates (Hedges' g). Contrast Reading comprehension Reading strategy performance Reading motivation Posttest Maintenance Posttest Maintenance Posttest Maintenance RT + SIP vs. RT .15 .43 −.05 .27 .48 .38 RT + ORP vs. RT .16 .37 −.44 .13 .47 .62 RT + SRL vs. RT .10 .27 −.06 .41 −.04 −.10 Note. RT = reciprocal teaching, RT + SIP = reciprocal teaching plus strategy implementation procedures, RT + ORP = reciprocal teaching plus outcome regulation procedures, RT + SRL = reciprocal teaching plus strategy implementation and outcome regulation procedures. Table options 3.4. Mediational analyses Comparing RT + SRL and RT at maintenance, the total effect associated with treatment was significant, B = .87, SE = .44, p = .048. The same was true for the indirect effect that treatment had on reading comprehension through reading strategy performance, B = .35, SE = .13, p = .006. With reading strategy performance covaried out, the direct treatment effect on reading comprehension did not remain significant, B = .52, SE = .38, p = .166. Therefore, it was concluded that the treatment effect on reading comprehension is statistically mediated through reading strategy performance at maintenance. Comparing RT + SIP and RT at maintenance, the total effect associated with treatment was also significant, B = 1.54, SE = .41, p = .001. However, the indirect effect that treatment had on reading comprehension through reading strategy performance was not significant, B = .08, SE = .12, p = .487. Moreover, with reading strategy performance covaried out, the direct treatment effect on reading comprehension remained significant, B = 1.46, SE = .46, p = .001. Given the effects that the RT + ORP instructional program had on reading motivation and comprehension, we tested whether the reading comprehension of RT + ORP students was mediated by reading motivation. Comparing RT + ORP and RT, the total effect associated with treatment was significant both at posttest, B = 1.54, SE = .43, p = .001, and at maintenance, B = 1.54, SE = .41, p = .001. However, the indirect effect that treatment had on reading comprehension through reading motivation was not significant. Since the RT + SRL program had no positive effect on students' reading motivation at maintenance compared to RT, it could not be tested if the reading comprehension of RT + SRL students was mediated through a higher self-reported reading motivation.