University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The effect of reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence of community college students enrolled in basic skills reading courses

(USC Thesis Other)

The effect of reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence of community college students enrolled in basic skills reading courses

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE EFFECT OF READING SELF-EFFICACY, EXPECTANCY-VALUE, AND
METACOGNITIVE SELF-REGULATION ON THE ACHIEVEMENT AND
PERSISTENCE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS ENROLLED IN BASIC
SKILLS READING COURSES

by

Ayesha Kecell Lindsey Randall

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSEIR SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Ayesha Kecell Lindsey Randall

ii
Dedication

First, I give honor to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who is the head of my life.
I am grateful to God for blessing me with a warm, loving, and supportive family that has
been the strong foundation on which I could build.
This dissertation is lovingly dedicated to my mother, Barbara Louise Kelley
Lindsey, the eleventh child of twelve born to Minister Robert Herbert and Sarah Pricilla
Kelley, whose strength, sacrifice, and transparency inspired me, and with God’s help,
made it possible for me to realize this accomplishment.
As a single black mother and physical education teacher for over 40 years, my
mother taught by example. She dedicated her life to motivating, helping, and uplifting
many people to discover their inner strength, recognize their abilities, and realize their
potential. I feel blessed to have had the opportunity to formally study the science of what
my mother always did naturally and instinctively.
While my mother inspired me to strive to do the best in all areas of my life, she
also required me to be self-honest, motivated me to be fearless, taught me to be grateful,
challenged me to be excellent, and demand that I expect the best from myself. She taught
my sister, Adora Rae, and me to build our character by being honest with ourselves and
always reminded us to guard ourselves against the little foxes and the undetectable sins of
the heart, and not to allow them to spoil our vines.
Along the road to every significant accomplishment in my life, my mother’s
words of wisdom, brutal honesty, and loving encouragement gave me strength, helped to

iii
reinforce my beliefs in my own abilities, and sustained me throughout my life, and
specifically throughout this academic journey. For that, I am eternally grateful.

iv
Acknowledgements

As the first in the Kelley and Lindsey families to receive a doctorate degree, I
must thank the Lord for those who paved the way…
I thank God for blessing me with an adorable sister, Adora Rae Lindsey
Roberson, whose love and support has inspired me throughout elementary school, junior,
high school, college, and my years as an elementary school teacher. I could always count
on my sister for her love, support, and help.
Five years ago, I began this chapter in my life as a single woman, Ayesha Kecell
Lindsey. I am now completing it as a married woman and mother. I thank God for
answering my mother’s prayers and blessing me with a good husband, Louis Jon Randall,
and a beautiful little girl, Alicia Leilani Randall.
I want to acknowledge the strong women of the Kelley family who made
significant spiritual, personal, and academic accomplishments and lived life with
strength, grace, and dignity. Most significant in my life, were my aunts Ruth Kelley
Hardy, the Kelley Family Matriarch, and Evangelist Faith Kelly Holmes.
I thank God for my father, Ray Lindsey, Jr., the child of Ray and Olive Lindsey
Sr., whose support was very meaningful to me throughout this journey.
My sincere appreciation goes out to my dissertation advisor, Dr. Myron Dembo,
for his discerning sense of how to change from tough love to nurturing support. His
continual e-mails and phone calls helped me to stay focused and it was his caring
persistence, consistency, and support that gave me that final push when I needed it the
most. I thank him for the endless reviews of my dissertation, and for the simple words,

v
“Ayesha, you can do this…” that refueled my determination, lifted my spirits, restored
my confidence, and ignited my focus. I will always be grateful for him.
In the words of Yolanda Adams, I will always remember, I will never forget. I
will never forget the struggle, the quiet times, or the shed tears in my secret closet. From
Inglewood to Berkeley, from Beverly Hills to Harvard, from South Central to Pasadena,
God has brought me a mighty long way. I will never forget His mercy, grace, and
miraculous blessings. God is the original motivator who has encouraged us that we can
do all things through Christ that strengthens us.

vi
Table of Contents

Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1: Introduction
Purpose of the Study
The Importance of the Study
Definitions
Research Question
1
2
6
9
11

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Developmental Reading
Theoretical Framework of Social Cognitive Theory
Self-efficacy
Expectancy-value Theory
Metacognitive Self-regulation
13
13
16
18
29
36

Chapter 3: Methods
Conceptual Model
Subjects and Settings
Instrumentation
62
62
63
64

Chapter 4: Results 68
Chapter 5: Discussion
Summary
Implications for Future Research
72
83
85

References 89

Appendix A 97

vii
List of Tables

Table 1: Behavioral and Affective Reactions Resulting from
Different Levels of Efficacy

19
Table 2: Influences, Elements, Phases, and Cognitive Processes of
Self-regulation

39
Table 3: Descriptions and Processes of Four Cognitive Strategies 42
Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product
Correlations for Measured Variables
69

Table 5: Simultaneous Regression Analysis Summary 71

viii
List of Figures

Figure 1: Social Cognitive Expectancy-value Model 29
Figure 2: Metacognitive Self-regulation Stages and Activities During
Reading

43
Figure 3: Conceptual Model of Multiple Regression Analysis

62

ix
Abstract
The low retention rate of low aptitude, at-risk students has been a longstanding issue.
Studies have revealed that students who possess high reading self-efficacy, place high
value on and expect positive results from their academic goals, and employ
metacognitive self-regulation are more likely to achieve and persist. The objective of this
study was to investigate the effect of reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and
metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence of community college
students enrolled in basic skills reading courses. Community college students (N=77)
completed a survey that assessed their reading efficacy, expectancy-value orientations,
and their use of metacognitive self-regulatory strategies. Contrary to the researcher’s
expectations and previous research, results indicate that these motivational variables have
no significant relationship with their achievement or persistence. Possible reasons for
this outcome, implications for self-efficacy, and future research are discussed.

1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
It is estimated that of all students who enroll at a community college
approximately 40% leave without obtaining a credential (U.S. Department of Education
National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). Although African Americans only
account for approximately 12% of the population enrolled in community colleges, they
are less likely than Whites to receive an Associate’s degree (U.S. Department of
Education National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). In 2000, only 11% of the
Associate degree recipients were African American as contrasted with 73% of Whites.
Since the 1990s, the achievement gap between reading achievement among
African Americans and Whites has been increasing. The disproportionate trend has
shown to begin early and continue through to postsecondary achievement. Only 12% of
African American 4
th
graders reach proficient or advanced reading levels and only 7% of
8
th
graders reach the proficient level. Concisely, by the end of high school, 17-year-old
African American students have reading skills that are virtually the same as those of 8
th

grade White students (The Education Trust, 2003). Of the 67% of students who earn a
high school diploma, only 43% are prepared for college-level work (Boswell, 2004).
The National Literacy Act of 1991 defines literacy as an individual’s ability to use
print and written information to function in society. In 1993, the National Institute for
Literacy conducted a national survey and published the State of Literacy in America. The
survey revealed that approximately 4 million adults are at the lowest levels of literacy,
level 1. At this level, adults are usually not able to do simple tasks such as locating two

2
pieces of information in a sports article or calculating the total cost of a purchase from an
order form. Individuals with low literacy levels are more likely to live in poverty, be
unemployed, and have difficulties with the law. In 2000, the poverty rate was the lowest
since 1959 (U.S. National Center for Educational Studies, 2003b). According to the
National Institute for Literacy (2003), 43% of adults at low levels of literacy were living
in poverty. These adults worked an average of 19 weeks per year; compared to 44 weeks
per year for those at the highest level of literacy, level 5 (National Institute of Literacy,
2003). Accordingly, of all prisoners in California, 65% are functionally illiterate, unable
to read, write and communicate in English (California Literacy, 2005).
As indicated by the United States National Center for Educational Statistics, 41%
of community college freshmen will need some type of remediation (2003). Of the
community college students enrolled in remedial education, 60% are minorities, and the
attrition rate ranges between 60 to 80% (Boswell, 2004). In 2000, remedial reading
classes were offered in 96% of the public community colleges and 49% of four-year
institutions (United States National Center for Education Statistics, 2003b). The national
dropout rate of community college students from the first to the second year is 50%.
African Americans have the lowest completion rate of degree attainment, and it takes six
years for 26% of African Americans, who persist, to earn a degree from the time they
started (Boswell, 2004).
The Purpose of the Study
Less than encouraging, the national outlook on literacy mirrors that of many
community colleges. Although there is no formal reading program at the community

3
college that will be used in this study, the institution established learning communities
supported by the Title V program, a grant for Hispanic serving institutions, to improve
students’ basic skills and retention. A learning community is a group of students
collaboratively studying a theme in two or more linked or clustered classes, united by a
common area of interest or career goal. A learning community is intentionally designed
to encourage more intellectual, emotional, and social connections between students.
Researchers have found that the more time that students spend in collaborating with
peers, and making a connection between home and school environments, the more likely
they are to improve their academic achievement and subsequently persist in school
(Tinto, 1998). The concept of a learning community is a way of creating supportive
systems between students and faculty, in an attempt to increase academic success.
In fall 2002, the ethnic makeup of the Title V Learning Communities were 46%
Hispanic, 36% Black, 9% Asian, 3% Caucasian, and 6% Other. Of those students, 58%
reported English as their native language, and 33% indicated Spanish as their native
language. Males made up 59% of the population, while females made up 41%. On the
whole, Latino males have been dominating the culinary arts, electronics, cabinet making,
and automotive departments in the learning communities programs. Yet, this group has
the highest number of students who have not taken the reading and English assessments.
Currently, the district-approved, college-wide assessment being utilized is the
Accuplacer diagnostic assessment. This test is unsuccessful in testing below the 6
th
grade
level, and therefore is incapable of appropriately placing students who test below this
level. In addition, because students are able to receive credit just for typing in their name

4
and guessing answers, the test appears to inaccurately identify students who are not
literate. The reading assessment results from various disciplines reflect the urgency for a
concentrated effort to confront students’ literacy deficits.
The assessment results of reading for Automotive Technologies indicate that 9%
were placed at English 46/Developmental Communications (DC) 35 (reading level 3-5)
and 12% were placed at English 47/Learning Skills (LS) 36 (reading level 6-8). The
results indicate that the reading segment of the test was not required for approximately
10% of the students. In addition, 34% took the Accuplacer, but did not take the reading
portion, and 35% were not assessed at all. The assessment results of reading for
Construction Technologies indicate that 2% were placed at English 46/DC 35 and 5%
were placed at English 47/LS 36. The data implies that the reading segment of the test
was not required for approximately 17% of the students. In addition, 75% took the
assessment, but did not take the reading segment of the test. The assessment results of
reading for the Culinary Arts Department indicate that 7% were placed at English 46/DC
35 and 11% were placed at English 47/LS 36. The findings explain that the reading
segment of the test was not required for approximately 12% of the students. In addition,
43% took the assessment, but did not take the reading segment of the test. For
Electronics Technologies, 7% were placed at English 46/DC 35 and 4% were placed at
English 47/LS 36. The data suggest that the reading segment of the test was not required
for approximately 11% of the students. In addition, 78% were not assessed in reading at
all.

5
In all of the vocational areas, 71% of the Learning Communities students were not
assessed in reading, 12% were not required to take the assessment, 10% placed at English
47, and 7% placed at English 46. Given that, of the students participating in the Title V
Learning Communities, 9% had a grade point average (GPA) of 3.0 to 4.0, 44% had 2.0
to 2.9 GPA, and 47% had 1.0 to1.9 GPA, there is speculation about students who read at
a 3
rd
to 4
th
grade level passing classes that utilize textbooks written at the 9
th
to 12
th
grade
level. For example, in the learning community that combined automotive technologies
and basic skills reading courses, students of all different levels were encouraged to
register into one homogenous intermediate reading class. But according to the data, 71%
of the vocational students had not been assessed in reading, and therefore the skill levels
of students were unknown. Some may have been preliterate—in their own language and
or English—low-literate, and or non-native English speaking students. Further,
according to the Flesch-Kincaid grade level readability scale, the common textbook,
which was also used by the reading instructor, is written at the 12
th
grade level and the
reading ease is 33.6 (With 0 being difficult reading, and 100 being easy).
The importance of this study will rest in the ability of its results to help to enhance
students’ achievement and persistence in community college developmental reading
courses. Many teachers with domain-specific Master’s degrees in college-level courses,
may be less knowledgeable about reading and motivation, but are increasingly sensing
deficiencies in their students’ comprehension, critical thinking, and metacognition.
Students’ poor performance on homework, in-class textbook assignments and
departmental exams have led departments to integrate basic skills instruction into their

6
programs. For that reason, it is important to supply instructors, not only those teaching
reading, with information and strategies that could help them to increase student
achievement, enhance self-efficacy as well as improve the student-teacher dialogue and
interactions in the classroom. In addition, by using these strategies, it could increase
students’ expectations for success and help them to put more value on tasks when they
believe the strategies will help them in other classes and in life in general.
The absence of prerequisite basic skills reading courses for vocational classes has
created challenges for these students’ literacy outlook. For various reasons, students will
not generally take a basic skills reading class if it is not a requirement. Therefore, not
only would the institutionalization of reading prerequisites be essential to students’
success, but also the exploration of how motivation, specifically reading self-efficacy,
expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation are addressed in the current reading
program. There is a large body of literature that links these variables to reading
achievement and persistence. Understanding these variables may lead to implications for
the development of reading courses at the college used in this study.
The Importance of the Study
Reading comprehension is essential to lifelong learning and is considered to be
the most crucial academic skill learned in school that has an impact on knowledge in all
areas (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky & Seidenberg, 2001). Many adult learners
who are enrolled in community college developmental reading courses typically have low
reading self-efficacy, diminished value for reading, and low expectations for success.
Further, many of these students have not successfully transitioned from teacher-managed

7
to self-regulated environments (Dembo & Eaton, 2000), and tend to have deficiencies in
metacognitive self-regulation. Studies have shown that students’ motivation for learning
and sense of competence (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002), expectancy for success and value
for reading declines with age (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky & Seidenberg, 2001).
Given that reading is an activity that requires effort, choice, and persistence,
recognizing the state and source of students’ motivation is essential to understanding their
course towards achievement. According to Pintrich and Schunk (2002), motivation is
defined as the process through which goal-directed activity is initiated and sustained.
Because the process of reading is an internal process, of the numerous motivational
theories, those that focus on self-perceptions and cognition have demonstrated to be
especially influential to achievement and persistence (Schunk, 2003; VanderStoep &
Pintrich, 2003). The three variables that will be explored in this paper—reading self-
efficacy, expectancy-value orientations, and metacognitive self-regulation—have been
linked to reading comprehension. Two of which have also been identified as key
constructs in Quirk and Schwanenfluegel’s (2004) examination of motivation and five
popular reading programs. The common variables include reading efficacy and task
value.
Reading self-efficacy refers to one’s beliefs about one’s capabilities to learn or
perform reading tasks at designated levels (Bandura, 1986). Outcome expectation, the
first of two parts found in expectancy-value theory, which posits that students do not
participate in activities that they believe will lead to less than positive outcomes. The
value portion of this theory refers to students’ beliefs about the importance of learning.

8
Value beliefs affect behavior because students tend to show limited interest in activities
that they do not value (Wigfield, 1994). The last variable to be examined in this paper,
metacognitive self-regulation, is important to reading because it facilitates students’
monitoring of their comprehension and selection of appropriate self-regulatory
strategies—rehearsal, elaboration, organization, and critical thinking—to use in the face
of difficulties. Metacognitive self-regulation in the form of self-questioning, rereading,
cognitive planning and adjusting, helps students to conquer difficulties and resolve
comprehension problems. With a heightened level of confidence that students may
experience when they attribute their reading difficulties to strategy or effort deficiencies,
and not aptitude or intelligence, their expectancy for success and reading self-efficacy are
likely to increase.
With the intention of helping students to become autonomous and self-reliant,
which enhances intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy (Pajares, 1997), instructors should
be equipped with the tools that will help their students cope with comprehension
difficulties that may have arisen from previous extenuating educational circumstances.
Likewise, community college students who are expected to be more responsible for their
own learning than those in a secondary or elementary school, should be able to identify
and assess their reading comprehension problems, have the knowledge to access
strategies to solve them, and know when and how to use these methods. Being equipped
with this knowledge could lead to more than just personal satisfaction and self-
confidence, but also independence, self-reliance, and empowerment; feelings particularly

9
needed for at-risk students who may have been historically disenfranchised by a
substandard education.
It is anticipated that the results of this paper may have motivational implications
for the development of the reading program of the college used in this study. For this
research, the degree to which reading self-efficacy, expectation-value orientations, and
metacognitive self-regulation predict achievement and persistence in basic skills reading
courses in a community college was investigated.
Definitions
At-risk students. At-risk students are characterized by seven traits that adversely
affect persistence. According to the United States Department of Education, if students
delay postsecondary enrollment, enroll in school part-time, drop out of high school or
attain a General Education Development (GED) certificate, are financially independent,
have dependents other than spouse, fall under a single-parent status, and are employed
full-time while enrolled in school, they are considered at-risk. (1997a).
Attainment value. Attainment value is the belief of the importance of a task to an
individual. In expectancy-value theory, attainment value is one of the four task value
beliefs.
Basic skills reading. Basic skills reading and remedial reading may be used
interchangeably and defined as reading courses for students who are deficient in the
necessary strategies to perform college-level work at the level required by the institution.

(United States National Center for Education Statistics, 2003) The term, basic skills is
also referred to as remedial, compensatory, and developmental. Although these terms are

10
theoretically different (Boylan, 2001), for the purpose of this paper, regardless of the
terms, basic skills reading and remedial reading may be used interchangeably.
Cost belief. Cost belief is the perceived negative facets of engaging in a task such
as amount of effort or emotional stress. In expectancy-value theory, cost belief is one of
the four task value beliefs and rarely discussed.
Expectancy component. Expectancy component is the beliefs about one’s
competence to do a task. In expectancy-value theory, expectancy component is one of
the four task value beliefs.
Expectancy-value theory. Expectancy-value theory is the premise that motivation
increases as expectations to succeed at a particular goal increases and as the value of a
given task rises.
Metacognitive self-regulation. Metacognitive self-regulation is a higher order
thought process of planning, monitoring, and adjusting one’s thinking and reasoning
throughout the utilization of cognitive strategies. As it relates to comprehension, this
process occurs by the reader, internally, and during reading. As a result of the
convergence of the definitions of metacognition, self-regulation, and metacognitive self-
regulation, some researchers have used the terms interchangeably. For consistency, in
this paper, the term metacognitive self-regulation will be an all-inclusive expression.
Outcome expectation. Outcome expectation indicates beliefs about the
consequences of actions or behaviors.
Persistence. Persistence is the attainment of an academic goal that has been
initiated, which is, for the current study, an academic term of a basic skills reading

11
course. The expression persistence has varied meanings such as institutional persistence,
semester persistence, and educational goal persistence. This word has also been used
interchangeably with the term retention.
Self-efficacy. Efficacy refers to students’ beliefs about their capabilities to learn
or perform domain-specific behaviors at designated levels (Bandura, 1997). Hence,
reading efficacy denotes students’ beliefs about their reading abilities at selected stages.
Self-regulation. Self-regulation is a fusion of various cognitive, metacognitive,
motivational, and social factors which affect how students manage and control their own
learning.
Task value. Task value is the subjective belief about reasons for doing an activity
and why students want to do the activity. Task value is a component of expectancy-value
theory.
Utility value. Utility value is the belief about the usefulness of a task to a student.
In expectancy-value theory, utility value is one of the four task value beliefs.
Research Question
The aim of this study is to examine predictor variables of achievement and
persistence of students enrolled in basic skills reading courses at a community college.
Specifically, this paper will investigate the degree to which reading self-efficacy,
expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation predict achievement and persistence
in basic skills reading courses in a community college. This study aims to answer the
following question: To what extent do the motivational variables of reading self-

12
efficacy, expectation-value orientations, and metacognitive self-regulation predict
achievement and persistence in community college basic skills reading courses?

13
CHAPTER 2
Review of Literature
This synthesis of literature is presented in four parts: First a segment on
developmental reading is introduced. Secondly, social cognitive theory is presented.
Thirdly, literature extending from general self-efficacy to specific reading efficacy will
be introduced. The fourth section will include studies regarding expectation-value
theory. Finally, self-regulation, specifically metacognitive self-regulation, will be
discussed.
Articles used in this literature review were obtained by conducting a search of
online databases (FirstSearch, JSTOR, PROQuest and PsychInfo) using the following
descriptors: achievement, community college, dropouts, efficacy, expectancy,
expectancy-task, learning strategies, metacognitive, metacognition, motivation, outcome
expectation, persistence, reading, reading efficacy, retention, secondary, self-efficacy,
self-regulation, and task value.
Developmental Reading
Reading is a process that does not develop automatically, but in involves the
nurturing of complex cognitive functions. Reading involves perception, which is
recognizing words, lexical access, and phonological decoding; mentally dividing sound
patterns into units of meaning, parsing; and making use of parsed sounds, utilization
(Schunk, 2004). Decoding is the basis of reading and calls for rehearsal and feedback.
When students learn to decode, their reading efficacy tends to improve (Rayner,
Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, Seidenberg, 2001). With the aim of students becoming

14
successful readers, they should achieve decoding automaticity or they are likely to have
comprehension problems (National Reading Panel, 2000; Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti,
Pesetsky, Seidenberg, 2001). Comprehension refers to the attachment of meaning to
printed information, which involves parsing and utilization (Schunk, 2004). All
information enters the working memory or short-term memory, where it is kept through
rehearsal and interaction with long-term memory. When decoding becomes automated,
space is freed up in the long-term memory, which increases the processing capacity
needed for comprehension.
Each of these subprocesses requires different types of knowledge. For enhanced
metacognitive self-regulation, students should be cognizant of the three types of
knowledge: Declarative, procedural, and conditional. Declarative knowledge answers
the “what” question. It is factual knowledge such as beliefs, opinions, theories, etc. As
declarative knowledge relates to reading, it means knowing what strategy will aid in
comprehension. Procedural knowledge is understanding the process of performing
designated cognitive strategies, knowing how to do something or how a strategy works.
Typically characteristic of procedural knowledge are techniques and steps to follow.
Conditional knowledge, the most important of the three, is the understanding of when
and why to perform a strategy or procedure. Conditional knowledge aids in the selection
and employment of appropriate declarative and procedural knowledge that fit a task or
goal (Schunk, 2004).
According to Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, and Seidenberg (2001), the
components of reading comprehension include accessing word meaning in context,

15
parsing sentence, drawing inferences, and monitoring understanding. As a result of the
interdependence among these elements of reading comprehension, various problems are
likely to arise but are difficult to decipher (Rayner, Fooman, Perfetti, Pesetcky, &
Seidenberg, 2001). Reading problems can come from poor comprehension monitoring,
failure to repair comprehension breakdowns, lack of strategic knowledge and application
(Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks, & Perencevich, 2004). However, as students read, they
should know what to do when comprehension is not attained. Knowing when and how to
perform these learning strategies requires conditional knowledge in the form of
metacognitive self-regulation. Studies have demonstrated that cognitive modeling and
strategic instruction improves students’ knowledge of metacognitive self-regulation.
Strategies such as think-alouds, fading, and verbalization have all shown to be powerful
techniques that help students to decide when and where to use cognitive strategies such as
elaboration, summarization, and critical thinking. In contrast, Kolligian and Sternberg
(1987) suggest that cognitive psychologists have focused on metacognitive aspects of
reading and dedicated less interest to other factors important to reading such as
knowledge of text structures, vocabulary knowledge, use of background knowledge, role
of fluency in comprehension, and importance of task persistence.
For the most part, reading is traditionally taught in the first five years of
elementary school and not seen again until, perhaps, its appearance in developmental or
remedial courses at the community college level. Since there is typically no direct
reading instruction in high school, there is a strong need for developmental reading
courses in postsecondary education to address the reading deficiencies in adults. Studies

16
have proven that students who attend developmental reading courses tend to have higher
grade point averages than those who do not (Napoli & Hiltner, 1993). In addition to
reading instruction, study skills courses have been found to improve students’
comprehension as well. Yanok (1993) found that students who are enrolled in study
skills courses and reading improvement classes also demonstrate a significant gain in
reading scores. When students arrive to the community college, specifically to attend
developmental courses, they may come with low metacognitive self-regulatory skills as a
result of inadequate prior instruction or modeling; and low self-efficacy and expectations
for success as a result of previous negative educational experiences. Furthermore, past
academic failures is a likely cause for many students to avoid spending much time and
effort on a task such as reading, of which practice is essential for successful
comprehension (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky & Seidenberg, 2001). Therefore, it
is important to explore motivational issues to ascertain the influences on students’
reading achievement and persistence which may lead to ways to improve or structure
community college reading courses. More specifically, looking at reading from a social
cognitive perspective serves to elucidate how the environment also affects learning and
cognition.
Theoretical Framework of Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory is based upon Bandura’s (1986) theory of triadic
reciprocality, which posits that individuals are proactive and that their functioning is a
product of personal (e.g. cognitive, affective, and biological), behavioral, and
environmental factors. Expanding on the information-processing perspective—which

17
suggests that cognition is the preeminent factor of human development—and behavioral
theories that attribute human development to stimulus-response behaviors, social
cognitive theory maintains that social and cognitive factors influence individuals’
cognitive development and learning. Vicarious learning—or modeling—and self-
efficacy—students’ beliefs about their capabilities to learn or perform domain-specific
behaviors at designated levels—are key constructs of this theory. Influenced by this
philosophy emerges self-regulation, which is a process of executing behaviors,
cognitions, and affects, oriented toward the attainment of learning goals (Schunk, 2004),
that requires self-observation (also referred to as self-monitoring), self-judgment, and
self-reaction (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1989).
Self-observation refers to examining one’s behavior against standards. Self-
observation helps in noticing one’s patterns of behaviors, feelings, and thoughts. In order
to be effective, self-observations should be conducted regularly and near the time that the
observed task was performed.
Self-judgment involves a comparison between present performance level with
one’s goal. Schunk (2004) cites types of standards (i.e. absolute—fixed, or normative—
based on the performance of others), goal properties (which should be specific,
proximate, and appropriately challenging), goal importance, and attributions as important
factors to consider in the make up of self-judgment. A principal element of this
subprocess, as mentioned earlier, is the attainment of self-evaluative standards through
the observation of models. Research has established that modeling provides students

18
with affective, behavioral, and cognitive standards and gives them a tangible reference in
which to evaluate their progress and performance (Bandura, 1986).
Self-reactions toward goal attainment are demonstrated through evaluative and
tangible reinforcements. Beliefs about progression toward goal attainment motivate
behavior and enhance self-efficacy (Schunk, 2004).
Self-efficacy
A key construct of social cognitive theory is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the
beliefs and the confidence that one has in performing a domain-specific task at a
designated level, such as reading comprehension (Bandura, 1997). The study of self-
efficacy is important because it appears to powerfully influence various behaviors such as
attributions, choice of tasks, effort, emotions, cognition, goals, persistence, and
achievement (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1995).
As some researchers discussed self-efficacy in general terms, others defined and
measured it more specifically and with respect to particular tasks within a given domain
(Pajares, 1996). Theory and research suggest that it is critical to measure motivation for
activities in the area under examination with the purpose of understanding how self-
perceptions influence performance in a particular area. Accordingly, researchers began
delving into the question as to whether motivation theories are differentiated across
various content areas resulting in domain-specific efficacy, such as math self-efficacy,
writing self-efficacy, and reading self-efficacy. Researchers recognized that students
may have a high level of self-efficacy for long division—a feeling they can master any
long division problem encountered in a course—but a low level of self-efficacy for

19
summarizing a reading selection. Wigfield (1997) proposed that aspects of reading
motivation were unique to reading, such as sharing books with others and being
captivated by a story being read. And as a result of those unique characteristics, there is
specific knowledge that is required, and therefore, related to students’ self-efficacy.
Specific to this paper, studies have demonstrated that students who have high
reading self-efficacy are more likely to excel academically and persist at accomplishing a
task or performing a behavior (Schunk, 2003; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997).
Outcome Expectancy
A construct within the efficacy theory is that of outcome expectations, the beliefs
about the end product of actions. The preferred objective is for students to develop
domain-specific high self-efficacy that will help to reduce their inhibitions, increase their
outcome expectations, and give them the confidence to utilize coping skills to deal with
unforeseen challenges. Bandura (1982) suggests that the interaction between efficacy
and outcome expectation produces an affect that influences students’ learning. In order
to illuminate this relationship Bandura (1982) presents the following model (Table 1).
Table 1: Behavioral and Affective Reactions Resulting from Different Levels of Efficacy

Low Outcome
Expectation
High Outcome
Expectation
High
Self-Efficacy
• Social
activism
• Protest
• Grievance
• Milieu change
• Assured,
opportune
action
• High cognitive
engagement
Low
Self-efficacy
• Resignation
• Apathy
• Withdrawal
• Self-
devaluation
• Depression

20
This illustration clarifies the probable behavioral and emotional responses for
students who differ in their degree of self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Students
high in both self-efficacy and outcome expectation are self-assured, view their learning as
an opportunity to succeed, and are very much engaged in the task. In the reading domain,
these students engage more in reading tasks that further develop their vocabulary
strategies and fluency. The next cell shows that students high in self-efficacy, but low in
outcome expectations may be cognitively engaged, but participate in or initiate socially
dissenting measures such as protests and grievances resulting from their misgivings about
forthcoming grades or evaluations. These students have the propensity to drop out as a
result of their perception of the disconnection between their learning and their grades or
evaluation.
Students who are low in self-efficacy and outcome expectations may show
resignation, apathy, and withdrawal toward a designated task such as thinking aloud
during a reading exercise. This cell represents students who, for example, have had
negative prior experiences and developed a low perception of their ability and who have
given up. These students rarely volunteer to read aloud and show minimal effort in their
work. They have little confidence in their ability to accomplish the task and they have
low expectations of the outcome, even if they could perform. Lastly, students who are
low in efficacy and high in outcome expectations believe that they cannot accomplish the
task, but believe that if they could perform it, they would be compensated accordingly.
These students are often plagued with self-deprecating and depressive thinking (e.g. “If I

21
could only draw inferences from this reading passages, I would get a good grade on this
section.”).
Shell, Murphy, and Bruning (1989) explored the connection between self-efficacy
and outcome expectancy beliefs in reading and writing of mature students. For outcome
expectancy, perceptions about conditional relations between successful task performance
and received end-product, students were asked to rate the importance of reading and
writing strategies for achieving various life goals (ranging from being a creative person to
getting good grades in school). The results concluded that self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy beliefs jointly account for significant variance in reading achievement, with
self-efficacy being the stronger predictor. Canonical correlation analysis was used to
investigate the relationship between the two sets of variables of writing beliefs and
achievement with reading beliefs and achievement, with the strongest relation being the
latter.
The impact of students’ self-efficacy on a particular task can have a tremendous
effect on the outcomes that they expect. There are various types of behavioral and
affective reactions that emanate from different levels of self-efficacy and outcome
expectancies. Obviously, the most desired goal is for students to have high self-efficacy
and high expectations. A less than proficient reading student who has high reading
efficacy and high outcome expectations will generally exert more effort towards a
reading goal, which will typically lead to persistence and higher academic achievement.
In general, students’ self-efficacy influences their outcome expectations (Bandura, 1986),
and for that reason it is important to understand the factors that influence self-efficacy.

22
Why is Reading Self-efficacy Important?
Studies have demonstrated that interest in reading declines with age (Wigfield &
Guthrie, 1997), which has a negative effect on students’ repeated engagement of reading,
of which Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Psetsky and Seidenberg (2001) deem essential for
successful comprehension. Thus, community college students who have experienced
limited academic success will be more likely to have low self-efficacy that leads to task
avoidance (Baker & Wigfield, 1999), which in turn has a less than positive effect on their
performance outcomes. Yet, when students believe they are successful in reading, they
tend to be more likely to engage in reading (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), which has a more
positive impact on their performance.
The goal of educators is to produce students with high self-efficacy who attempt
more difficult activities, improve on different activities, and persist in light of challenges.
As a result, high self-efficacy contributes to high performance. Chemers, Hu and Garcia
(2001) conducted a longitudinal study of first-year college students that examined the
effects of self-efficacy on their academic performance, stress, health, and commitment to
stay in school. Throughout the semester, students received questionnaires to complete
that solicited information about their self-efficacy and optimism. The researchers found
that academic self-efficacy and optimism were strongly related to students’ performance
and persistence. The outcome of the study also revealed that students who enter college
with confidence and expectations to perform well, do so. The researchers also
acknowledged that the high self-efficacy of these college students could be attributed to
their high academic ability.

23
Factors Influencing Reading Self-efficacy
In the reading domain, reading self-efficacy refers to students’ expectations about
their reading success and their judgments of their reading ability. Self-efficacy for
reading refers to students’ evaluation of their ability to accomplish an activity (e.g.
reading a textbook chapter, novel, or paragraph). Earlier studies have found that
students’ self-perceptions of their reading capabilities are strongly associated to their
reading grades and achievement (Nicholls, 1979; Paris & Oka, 1986). Research has
provided evidence that students with high ability feel more efficacious about learning
than do students with low ability.
There are numerous factors that influence self-efficacy. Bandura (1997)
identified four main sources: Mastery experiences (performance accomplishments;
achievement—present and prior), social persuasion (feedback), vicarious experiences
(observations of models), and physiological and emotional manifestations.
Mastery experiences. According to Bandura (1997), students’ successful previous
achievement is one of the greatest predictors of self-efficacy. Students who have
successfully accomplished similar tasks attempt more difficult activities, improve on
different achievement activities, and persist in light of challenges completing the
activities. While successes usually increase efficacy while failures decrease it, an
infrequent failure (or success) following numerous successes (or failures) may not have
much impact on self-efficacy. In addition to students’ current performance, their prior
achievement is also influential on their perception of how well they can achieve in
various designated areas.

24
Social persuasion. Another influence on self-efficacy is performance feedback,
termed verbal persuasion by Bandura. In company with prior achievement, social
persuasion is also a considerable impact on students’ reading efficacy (Wigfield, Guthrie,
Tonks & Perencevich, 2004). Karl, O’Leary-Kelly, and Martocchio (1993) showed that
students’ self-efficacy has significantly greater increases when they receive feedback.
One hundred twenty-two students were trained in speed-reading and were given feedback
or no feedback during an assignment. Students self-reported their reading ability, speed
reading self-efficacy, reading speed, reading comprehension, provision of feedback, and
sign of feedback. The results of the study concluded that the provision of feedback was
beneficial to the performance of all students; but as students’ self-efficacy increased, the
advantages of feedback to the students’ performance also increased.
Young and Ley (2002) investigated the effect of teachers’ strategies and styles on
students’ self-efficacy. The researchers found that experienced developmental educators
gave more assistance and feedback to their students, used strategies to help them to self-
regulate, offered more verbal affirmations and directive instructions, and created a more
externally supportive environment than teachers who were not trained in this field. As a
result of these practices, students’ self-efficacy was positively influenced.
Positive feedback appears to increase students’ self-efficacy. However, without
subsequent good performance, the effect of positive feedback could be short-lived.
Along these same lines, constructive feedback indicating problems to be corrected has
been proven to build students’ self-efficacy if it is followed by curative
recommendations.

25
Vicarious experiences. The ability to relate to a similar person also influences
students’ self-efficacy. Many students experience an increase in their self-efficacy
vicariously, without overt performance, but by observing peer models who hold their
similar characteristics (e.g. age, ethnicity) and are successful at attempting designated
tasks. According to Schunk (2003), modeling refers to emulating one’s thoughts, beliefs,
actions, strategies, and behaviors after those demonstrated by models. Students are more
likely to have higher self-efficacy and motivation to succeed at task because they believe
that if that person, who is like them, can do well, they also can. By the same token,
students’ self-perception may also be adversely affected by the failures of models
because they may associate the models’ incompetence to their own.
Models are divided into two types—coping and mastery. Coping models, who
initially exhibit the common fears and deficiencies of students but gradually improve, are
generally more effective than mastery models in raising students’ self-efficacy. Quite the
reverse, mastery models demonstrate unflawed performance and high assurance from the
beginning. For students who are more likely to err and experience low levels of
confidence, coping models are more likely to affect their perceived similarity and self-
efficacy.
Hsu (2000) found that peer modeling positively influenced Taiwanese college
students’ self-efficacy and reading performance in English. One hundred forty-four
students were divided into three groups; the male peer model group, female peer model
group, and non-peer model group. The male peer model-led group and the female
model-led group had higher self-efficacy than the non-peer model group. Likewise,

26
students in both of these groups also scored significantly higher in reading performance
than those who were in the non-peer model group. In support of the perceived similarity
notion, the female students in the female peer model group had significantly higher self-
efficacy than the males in that group.
Physiological and emotional manifestations. Another affect on self-efficacy is
physiological symptoms such as sweating, trembling, and increased heart rate when
attempting to master a given task. Students’ experience of negative physical or emotional
symptoms that are believed to have originated from stress, may attribute to a decrease in
self-efficacy. Similarly, when students’ feel less stressful from academic demands, they
may have an increase in self-efficacy (Schunk, 2004).
Strategy Use Influencing Reading Efficacy
In addition to the four sources mentioned earlier, strategy use also has an effect on
students’ self-efficacy. Strategy use improves self-efficacy as it gives students explicit
procedures that they can use to achieve an academic goal. Schunk and Rice (1993) found
that strategy training improved reading comprehension. The theory is based on the idea
that if students feel competent in understanding the steps to reach a desired goal, then the
acquisition of it may appear to be less daunting. Researchers have substantiated these
findings by examining instructional and strategy-based programs and exploring their
treatment of self-efficacy in reading.
Shunk and Rice (1993) examined students’ reading efficacy and found that
students who received training to enhance their efficacy for reading and use of strategies,
were more likely to excel in reading. Students who used a fading technique—which

27
begins with students verbalizing the strategy as they apply it, and after repeated use, it
fades to an internal voice—were found to have more of an increase in reading efficacy
than the group that had no training.
In another study highlighting the positive effects of strategy instruction, Nicaise
and Gettinger (1995) explored the effectiveness of a comprehensive strategy-based
approach to improve reading comprehension among college students. Students from the
same midwestern university participated in an intervention study that assessed reading
comprehension; proficiency in applying four strategies (prediction, clarification,
summarization, goal-setting); self-reported use of reading strategies during a structured
interview; self-efficacy; and overall satisfaction with the training program. Results show
that all students improved on their targeted reading strategies, made significant gains in
reading comprehension, and reported high satisfaction with the training program and had
higher reading self-efficacy.
In a more recent study, Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks, and Perencevich (2004)
examined two reading instructional programs, Concept Oriented Reading Instruction and
Multiple Strategy Instruction to explore the nature of reading motivation by focusing on
the constructs of reading self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, autonomy, and collaboration.
The study was conducted on the premise that students who are intrinsically motivated
read more frequently than do other students. This higher reading frequency is likely to
positively affect students’ reading self-efficacy, comprehension and achievement. The
researchers found that students’ reading self-efficacy increased during the course of the
Concept Oriented Reading Instruction program, but not in the Strategy Instruction

28
classrooms. Perhaps reasons for increased performance by students in the Concept
Oriented Reading Instruction classroom were based on instructors encouraging students
to participate in outside activities (which sparked their intrinsic motivation), allowing
students to choose their own questions and conceptual theme (which supported
autonomy), and supporting students’ expansion of their goals and collaboration with their
peers.
Strategy use is an influential factor of students’ reading efficacy. Clear goals,
established standards, and explicit instruction are program components that enhance
students’ motivation and are found among many successful practices. When students are
able to grasp the steps needed to accomplish a reading goal, their confidence level rises,
which leads to heightened self-efficacy and increased effort. Also, students with high
self-efficacy tend to persist regardless of trouble (Bandura, 1997; Schunk & Zimmerman,
1997), which influences their academic achievement (Schunk, 1989).
There are several influences on self-efficacy including mastery experiences, social
persuasion, vicarious experiences, physiological and emotional manifestations, and
strategy use. Each one of these stimuli has the potential to positively or negatively affect
students’ reading efficacy. Reading efficacy is a belief about one’s perceived
comprehension capabilities, and generally speaking, students with high reading efficacy
usually perform well in other academic areas than those with low self-efficacy. Similar
to the self-efficacy construct is the expectancy-value belief, which also considers one’s
self-perceptions.

29
Expectancy-value Theory
The expectancy-value theory of motivation advanced by Eccles (1983) posits that
motivation is strongly influenced by students’ aspiration of success or failure at a task as
well as the worth students ascribe to that task. According to Eccles and Wigfield (1992),
higher expectancies for success positively influence achievement behavior, choice and
persistence (Eccles, 1983; Wigfield, 1994). Figure 1 is a segment of the social cognitive
expectancy-value model of achievement motivation (Pintrich & Shunk, 2002) originally
developed by Eccles and Wigfield (1992). The illustration shows that the internal,
cognitive motivational beliefs, which are found on the left side of the dashed line, relate
to external, overt and observable achievement behavior.
Figure 1: Social Cognitive Expectancy-value Model
Motivational Beliefs Achievement Behavior

Together, task-specific self-concept and perceptions of task difficulty are beliefs
that produce an expectancy judgment. Task-specific self-concept represents students’
assessment of their proficiencies in different domains and their assessment of their

Goals
Task-specific self-
concept
-----------------------
Perceptions of task
difficulty

Expectancy

Task value

Choice
Persistence
Quantity of effort
Cognitive engagement
Actual performance

30
capabilities to do a task. Perceptions of task difficulty correspond to students’ judgments
of the complexity of the task (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). If students have high task-
specific concepts and low perceptions of task difficulty, then their expectancy for success
will be high. Conversely, students who have a lower self-concept and believe that tasks
are complicated will have a lower expectancy for success and for future tasks within that
domain. The expectancy element of this theory is supported by studies which contend
that students who believe that they are capable and competent readers are more likely to
achieve and persist than those who do not hold such beliefs (Schunk, 1985).
While expectancy is a better predictor of achievement and cognitive engagement,
value is a better predictor of persistence. For the task value element of this theory, there
is research that suggests that students who perceive reading as beneficial will participate
in more strategic and effortful reading (Paris & Oka, 1986). There are four components
that make up task value: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost belief.
Attainment value is the importance of doing well on the activity. Intrinsic value is
defined as how much the student likes or is interested in an activity. Utility value—the
usefulness of an activity for students as it relates to their future goals. Cost belief, which
is rarely discussed, is the perceived negative facets of engaging in an activity such as
amount of effort or emotional stress.
Strategy Use and Task Value
Townsend and Hicks (1997) examined the relationship between academic task
values for mathematics and language and perceptions of personal social satisfaction for
students in classrooms using a cooperative, interactive learning structure or in regular

31
classrooms. The results indicated that task values for mathematics and language activities
were higher and their perceived costs were lower in classrooms using a cooperative goal
structure than for those in a regular classroom. The cooperative group structure
encouraged more collaboration among the students and provided a similar model to
which students could relate. Students developed stronger social ties through their
cooperative work toward a common goal. While the group acted as a unit, individuals
also had specific roles that held them accountable for their own learning. Further,
students appeared to engender an increase in task value for the subjects as a result of the
freedom of constructing their own ideas, meanings, and solutions.
From cooperative learning to self-regulated strategy use, task value also proved to
be a more predictive variable than expectancy of success in VanZile-Tamsen’s (2001)
study. The purpose of the study was to examine the importance of expectancy and value
in predicting sustained self-regulated strategy use of college students. The researchers
hypothesized that test anxiety, expectancy, and value would be significant predictors of
self-regulated strategy use and that task value would have the strongest relationship with
self-regulated strategy use. In accordance with her predictions, task value proved to be a
more predictive variable than expectancy of success in self-regulated strategy use study.
These findings suggest that students need to be interested in and have an appreciation of
the subject matter in order to participate in self-regulated strategy use. In turn, the use of
self-regulated strategy use is likely to impact cognitive engagement and, subsequently,
learning. The author suggests that relying solely on strategy instruction programs to
promote self-regulated strategy use is not enough if students do not find the relevance or

32
the value of the course content. Therefore, the author argues, educators should utilize
strategies that help to enhance students’ value and expectancy for success of particular
learning tasks.
Task Value and Self-regulation
In a study conducted by Sundre and Kitsantas (2004), the role of expectancy-
value theory of achievement motivation as an influence on self-regulation was explored.
This study investigated whether examinee self-regulation and test-taking motivation
predict consequential and non-consequential test performance. Students were divided
into two groups—one where the tests would be graded and the other, not graded. Three
measures were used to assess students’ self-regulatory usage. The strategies that they
were asked about included goal setting and planning, self-monitoring, and self-
evaluation. The results of the study concluded that students’ affect about test-taking in
general, were quite negative. In addition to their overall cynicism, the students who were
in the non-consequential test group were particularly unmotivated about taking the test,
and their self-regulation was low; as a result, the combination of these factors impeded
their performance.
As predicted, the outcome of the study concurred with the researchers’ hypothesis
that students would be less motivated to self-regulate for which there was no instant
outcome. In contrast, the group that had taken the tests for grades had more motivation to
excel because value was attached. Because worth was associated with the tests, they
were more valuable and as a result, students’ motivation and self-regulation increased,
and subsequently a higher performance resulted. Although some of these students may

33
have already been intrinsically motivated to self-regulate, the value of the task made it
more appealing.
Also focusing on self-regulation and task value, in a study conducted by Minnaert
(1999), college freshmen were first assessed on their self-reported cognitions and
feelings. Later, their self-regulatory study strategies and activities were also assessed. The
findings concluded that task value and the tendency for academic success were positively
related to self-regulation for both male and female students.
Task Value and Achievement
Literature suggests that students who value a task tend to exert more energy
towards completing the task, which in turn, improves their self-efficacy and ultimate
achievement.
In a study examining the role of self-efficacy and task value in predicting Korean
college students’ course performance and future enrollment intentions, Bong (2001)
assessed the constructs by way of a longitudinal study. The analysis demonstrated that
students’ midterm scores and future enrollment at the college were better predicted by the
task value variable.
McClendon (1996) examined the cognition, motivation, and use of learning
strategies by undergraduate students, preservice teachers from a teacher preparation
program, to determine which Motivation for Strategies Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)
scales were better for projecting course grade. Results indicate that students were
primarily motivated by task value, which was also found to be the best predictor of
students’ grade.

34
In Metallidou’s (2003) study, the relationship between the motivational variables
test anxiety, task value, and self-efficacy and language performance, and the contribution
of these factors to metacognition in reading comprehension were investigated. Students
were given an examination consisting of four different types of language exercises and
were asked to approximate their test anxiety, value of the lesson, and their self-efficacy in
completing the task. Results from this study indicate that only test anxiety and task value
beliefs were significant predictors of language performance.
Task Value and Age
As students get older, their need for autonomy increases. Given that previous
research on classroom autonomy focused on younger students, Garcia and Pintrich (1996)
wanted to extend the literature by examining whether the positive influences of autonomy
on motivation and performance would be duplicated in a college sample. The authors
maintained that because of the amount of exhaustive research of the relationship between
intrinsic motivation and autonomy, they wanted to also investigate whether a connection
existed with the motivational variables of task value, self-efficacy, and test anxiety.
Results indicate that college classroom autonomy was more closely related to the
motivational constructs of intrinsic goal orientation, task value, and self-efficacy than to
high course grades.
To explore students’ task value in math, reading, music, and sports, Wigfield,
Eccles, Yoon, Harold et al. (1997) examined students’ competence beliefs over a three-
year period in a longitudinal study. The authors found moderate to strong stability in
students’ beliefs, especially older students’ competence beliefs. Further, students’

35
competence beliefs and ratings of the usefulness and importance of each activity were
found to decrease over time.
In a longitudinal study of perceptions of self-competence and task values, Jacobs,
Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, and Wigfield (2002) extended previous research on changes in
students’ self-beliefs by documenting the development of domain-specific tasks across
first through twelfth grade. The most salient finding across all domains was that as
students got older, their self-perceptions of competence and subjective task values
declined (while the degree and rate varied). The researchers concluded that the changes
in competence beliefs were possible explanations for the age-related decline in task
values.
Overall, most students will not choose to do a task or continue to engage in a task
when they expect to fail. They may be interested in and value a task, but if they
continuously fail, and expect that failure to carry on in the future, then eventually they
may withdraw from engaging in the task. If students value a task and expect to do well,
then they may be more likely to engage in the task. However, if they do not value the
task and or expect to do well, then the probability of them choosing to engage in the task
diminishes. Unfortunately, according to research, as students get older, their value for
domain-specific academic tasks tend to decline. Further, students considered at-risk may
also have an added setback as they may have experienced repeated failures, which
negatively impacted their value for academic activities and expectation to succeed, and
consequently their avoidance of the task.

36
According to VanderStoep and Pintrich’s (2003) will and skill philosophy,
learning is dependent upon students’ choice as well as their cognitive foundation.
Consistent with this premise, the will aspect of reading comprehension, which includes
the aforementioned self-efficacy and expectancy-value constructs, are based on personal
volitional beliefs— conscious decisions, and intentions—that influence learning. Next
comes the skill component, which includes the knowledge base, strategies, and
metacognitive awareness.
Metacognitive Self-regulation
Theoretical Framework of Self-regulation
Characteristic of metacognitive self-regulation, also based on three components,
is Zimmerman’s (1998) three-phase self-regulation process that includes forethought,
performance (or volitional control), and self-reflection. The forethought phase, which
occurs first, precedes the performance phase and is distinguished by cognitive processes
such as goal setting and strategic planning. Next, the performance or volitional control
subprocess includes attention focusing and self-monitoring. Lastly, the self-reflection
stage is distinguished by self-evaluation and attributions (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998).
This stage is of critical importance because it has the propensity to effect students’ self-
efficacy, persistence, and achievement (Schunk, 1991). Moreover, self-reflection
provides an opportunity for students to self-evaluate their progress and adjust their
behaviors and performances accordingly. Over time, these three phases were reworded to
planning (forethought), monitoring (performance), and evaluating (self-reflection) which
signify the most principle behavior of each stage.

37
As this framework developed, theorists began to modify the phases to highlight
components that were salient to their theoretical leanings. In a widely accepted
amendment to the original model, goal setting, which was previously a component of the
first phase, has been preferred as a separate juncture; therefore, changing the model into a
four-phase process. As a result of the fundamental nature and chief designation of goal
setting in the self-regulatory process, the new model has been frequently referred to in the
literature (i.e., goal setting, planning, monitoring, and evaluating). Pintrich (2004) also
discussed the modification of the model with regard to dividing the second phase,
performance, into two segments, monitoring and control, respectively. This amendment
presents a new phase two, monitoring, which involves a process that represents
metacognitive awareness of different aspects of the self and task or context; and phase
three, control, which refers to efforts to control and regulate different aspects of the self
or task and content (i.e., goal setting, monitoring, controlling, evaluating). Pintrich and
his colleagues (2000) recognized the fine line between the two areas, and subsequently
embraced the three-phase model, while maintaining the viewpoint that the distinction still
exists.
An additional key feature of self-regulation is that it requires conscious decision-
making. In general, academic tasks at the college level require more autonomous
learning than those found in secondary and primary education. One explanation for self-
regulation deficiencies, as Dembo and Eaton (2000) point out, is the environmental
change that occurs between the levels of educational advancement. For instance,
students—shifting from a dependent setting such as a high school, to a more independent

38
atmosphere such as a community college—are expected to become less reliant upon an
instructor and more self-regulating and self-controlled in their acquisition of their
academic goals. Thus, as students develop, they are expected to manage their learning by
choosing the appropriate conditions that will optimize their academic goal attainment.
Schunk (2004) presents six choices that are available to learners as they pursue
their academic objectives: Choice to participate, choice of method, choice of time limits,
choice of outcome behavior, choice of setting, and choice of partner, model, or instructor.
As a guide for college students who endeavor to become more self-regulated, Dembo
(2004) offers a self-management approach that provides self-regulatory strategies
covering learning and memory, motivation, goal setting, emotion and effort, time
management, physical and social environments, textbook and lecture learning, exam
preparation, and test-taking. There are many areas over which students have control;
however, many make the decision not to execute the needed behaviors that may
ultimately optimize their goal attainment. Regardless of the various factors that impede
college students’ self-regulatory learning (e.g. developmental, psychological), the
ultimate responsibility of selecting strategies to reach objectives rests upon the student.
In essence, self-regulation is not just something that happens, it requires choice and puts
the onus of responsibility on the learner.
The multidimensional nature of the self-regulation theory applies to and spans
across various domains of learning such as reading, writing, arithmetic, time management
and philosophy. Table 2 provides a simple illustration of the essential features of self-
regulation that have been discussed thus far.

39
Table 2: Influences, Elements, Phases, and Cognitive Processes of Self-regulation
Influences Elements Phases
Cognitive
Processes
Personal
Behavioral
Environmental
Self-observations
Self-judgments
Self-reactions
Forethought
Performance
Self-reflection

Goal Setting
Planning
Monitoring
Evaluating

Self-regulation is the process of executing behaviors, cognitions, and affects
toward the attainment of a goal. Social cognitive theory suggests that students’ self-
regulatory learning is influenced by personal, behavioral, and environmental factors.
Each subprocess can be individually regulated by self-observations, self-judgments, and
self-reactions throughout three phases of forethought, performance, and self-reflection,
which include goal setting, planning, monitoring, and evaluating.
Optimally, self-regulated learners are, as Schunk and Zimmerman (1998)
describe, individuals who regard learning as something they do for themselves rather than
something that is done for them. Effective self-regulation requires goals and motivation
(Schunk, 2004), and for effective self-regulative learning, students must regulate
everything from beliefs, intentions, and affects, to cognition (Schunk, 2004). Students
who are proficient in self-regulation are typically intrinsically motivated, routinized in
their use of learning methods, timely and efficient, aware of their performance, and
environmentally and socially sensitive and resourceful (Schunk, 2004; Zimmerman,
1990). Research has also demonstrated that these types of learners tend to have high
levels of self-efficacy, persist better, and attain higher academic achievement than those

40
who are not self-regulated (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Schunk, 1994; Pintrich & DeGroot,
1990).
What is Metacognitive Self-Regulation?
One of the first appearances in the literature of the concept of self-regulating
one’s cognition first appeared in the 1970s with John Flavell’s theory of metamemory,
which has its roots in information processing theory, refers to knowing how one’s
memory works and how to assess it. Flavell proposed that metamemory, which later
evolved into metacognition, explained the regulation and monitoring of input and the
development of memory retrieval strategies. In 1976, Flavell and Wellman conducted a
study to examine children’s strategy application toward memory recall. The outcome of
the study concluded that failures in retrieval indicated metamemory deficiencies. This
significant finding suggested that individuals had control over their cognitive functions.
Shifting from the foundational information-processing perspective, contemporary
theorists, such as Barry Zimmerman and Paul Pintrich, began exploring metacognition
through the lens of self-regulation. This approach aims at taking a more inclusive view
on learning, not limiting it to only cognition, but including motivational, affective,
behavioral, and contextual factors as well (Pintrich, 2004); hence metacognitive self-
regulation.
Often, during reading, particularly among developmental students, problems arise
such as poor comprehension monitoring, comprehension breakdown failure, inefficient
strategic knowledge, and deficiencies in strategy application. In order to acknowledge
problems, assess the thought processes that were used, and decide whether strategies

41
employed were appropriate, one must utilize metacognitive self-regulation. The prefix
“meta” is defined as transcending, or going above and beyond. The term “cognition”
refers to the thought processes of an individual. Metacognition indicates a higher level of
cognition, a process of thinking about one’s thinking. Combined, the expression
metacognitive self-regulation denotes the process of self-controlling one’s process of
thinking. As it relates to reading, metacognitive self-regulation is a comprehension
problem solver that helps students to plan, monitor, and regulate their thinking
throughout the utilization of cognitive strategies that occur and interrelate during reading
(Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991).
According to Pintrich’s social-cognitive lens of motivation, cognitive learning
strategies include students’ use of basic to complex approaches for processing
information and texts. Those strategies comprise of rehearsal, elaboration, organization,
and critical thinking (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991).
The first strategy, rehearsal, refers to reciting or naming items from a list. This
example of declarative knowledge activates information in the working memory. With
the goal of memorization, some students would employ a rehearsal strategy. When the
goal becomes more complex, higher level processing functions are required. With
elaboration strategies, such as paraphrasing, summarizing, creating analogies, and
generative note-taking, students are integrating new information with prior knowledge.
Organizational strategies include clustering, outlining, and selecting main ideas.

42
Table 3: Descriptions and Processes of Four Cognitive Strategies

Cognitive Strategy

Description

Process

Rehearsal • Reciting or naming
items from a list
Activate information in working
memory
Elaboration • Paraphrasing
• Summarizing
• Creating analogies
• Generative note-taking
Integrate and connect new
information with prior
knowledge
Organization • Clustering
• Outlining
• Selecting main ideas
Construct connections among
the information to be learned
Critical Thinking • Questioning ideas or text
• Seeking supporting
evidence
• Developing ideas
• Thinking about
alternatives
Apply previous knowledge to
new situations in order to solve
problems, reach decisions, or
make critical evaluations

Students utilizing this strategy in reading are expected to create new schemas that
logically connect the information to be learned. Critical thinking strategies consist of
questioning ideas or text, seeking supporting evidence, developing ideas, and thinking
about alternatives. When students think critically, they are applying previous knowledge
to new situations in order to solve problems, reach decisions, or make critical evaluations
(Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991).
Although these strategies have been found to improve comprehension, simply
utilizing these strategies, however, are not always a guarantee of reading understanding.
Rehearsal, elaboration, organization, and critical thinking are strategies that tend to be
performed in the presence of an external task and for the attainment of an external goal.
But metacognitive self-regulation is enacted internally and is a way to control the thought

43
processes that are involved in selecting, monitoring, and adjusting these cognitive
strategies.
Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie (1991) describe metacognitive self-
regulation as the awareness, knowledge, and control of cognition. This process is
especially essential for developmental reading students because it helps them to
successfully cope with and adjust to new reading circumstances and problematic
situations. Distinguishable features that elucidate differences between self-regulation per
se and metacognitive self-regulation are that the latter is generally an internal process that
occurs cognitively, as opposed to a mixture of internal and external processes, and it is
also performed by the learner, rather than performed by someone else. Metacognitive
self-regulation involves setting goals, evaluating progress, and adjusting strategies to
remedy comprehension problems that occur.
Figure 2: Metacognitive Self-regulation Stages and Activities During Reading

Phases of
Self-regulation

Stages of Metacognitive Self-
regulation During Reading

Metacognitive
Self-regulatory Activities

Forethought

Performance

Self-reflection

Before reading: Planning,
goal setting, and task analysis

During reading: Monitoring
and evaluating comprehension
and progress toward goal

After reading: Regulating and
adjusting strategies depending
on the goal or task

• Planning goals and
analyzing assignment

• Tracking attention
while reading, self-
testing, self-
questioning

• Checking outcomes,
fine-tuning strategies,
adjusting reading speed

44
Before reading, a student proficient in metacognitive self-regulation will set a
goal, such as understanding a narrative text. During reading, the student may track their
comprehension with self-questioning or self-testing. After reading, the student must
evaluate his or her performance. When cognitive strategies—such as rehearsal,
elaboration, or critical thinking—have failed in the acquisition of a goal, metacognitive
self-regulation provides the learner with the conditional knowledge that leads to how and
when a new strategy should occur.
The following example is an illustration of the usefulness of metacognition for a
college student enrolled in a basic skills reading course. The student’s goal is to
understand a narrative text. He rehearses the main vocabulary words, summarizes the
text, and still fails the practice exam. The student goes back to an effective strategy,
outlining, because he knows that it is a good way to get a better understanding of the text.
But the student still does not pass the practice test. In order to control the thinking that
directs his behaviors, the student discontinues his performance of ineffective cognitive
strategies. And because the student is at home studying, he is not able to ask his teacher
for help, therefore he must rely on his own cognition. As a result, he reevaluates the goal
and revises his cognitive plans, regulation, and evaluation of strategies and selects the
best time to perform them. This cognitive process continues until the goal is met.
What Influences Metacognitive Self-regulation?
Metacognitive self-regulation relies upon learner, task, and strategy variables
(Schunk, 2004). Students are expected to regard the type of task and length of the

45
material to be learned, the prospective strategies to be used, and their proficiencies at
using the various strategies as they engage in metacognitive behaviors.
Learner variables refer to the characteristics (e.g. age, distractions, perceived
weaknesses, etc.) of students and how they affect their metacognition. In general, older
students are more cognitively developed and aware of their learning strengths and
limitations. In a comprehensive synthesis of literature relating to metacognition and
comprehension monitoring among adult readers, Baker (1989) found that students’
perception and monitoring of their comprehension are varied. The synthesis reports that
adult learners are less proficient at assessing how well they comprehend a text and
whether or not they are ready to take a test on the material. The results of the study also
suggest that expert and proficient readers appear to have greater awareness and control of
their own cognitive reading activities.
Not only the age of students influence metacognition, but also students’ interests.
Tobias (1995) hypothesized that students’ metacognition would be enhanced as they
interacted with content that stimulated situational interest or that was related to their topic
interests. Two groups of students, nursing and non-nursing freshmen, were given a
metacognitive evaluation procedure to estimate their word knowledge, which included a
multiple-choice vocabulary test. Students were given the opportunity to enhance their
vocabulary knowledge by reading a passage dealing with heart disease in which all of the
previously encountered words were explicitly or implicitly defined. The researcher found
that with differences in prior knowledge controlled, the nursing students, for whom the
content was associated to topic interests, were more accurate in their metacognitive

46
judgments than the freshmen. Therefore, students perform better when they interact with
topics in which they are interested.
While learner use influences metacognitive awareness, task knowledge about the
nature of the task is also influential. Task variables refer to the understanding of the
relative difficulty of varied forms of learning that is required to perform a task. For
example, a student may be aware that it will take more time for him to read and
comprehend a novel than would be to read and comprehend than a fashion magazine.
According to Hadwin, Winne, Stockley, Nesbit, and Woszczyna (2001), task
orientation can influence metacognitive self-regulation. Students completed a
questionnaire that examined the frequency with which students applied a variety of study
strategies, selected various study-related resources, and adopted goals in three different
contexts that included reading comprehension, essay completion, and midterm
examination studying. The results concluded that students’ reports of self-regulating
study behaviors are context specific. The researchers suggest that investigations of
strategic learning should consider the study strategies that students use and why they
choose one particular strategy over the other. They maintain that goal setting and task
planning rely upon the nature of the task and, therefore, purposefully applied strategies,
resources and goals must be performed. In a study by Scholnick and Friedman (1993),
there was also the suggestion that metacognition was contingent upon the connection
between specific self-beliefs, task details, and response goals; thus, context specific.
On the contrary, many researchers hold the position that metacognitive self-
regulation consists of general characteristics that can be transferred to various domains.

47
Schraw, Dunkle, Bendixen, and Roedel (1995) investigated whether metacognitive
monitoring was better characterized as domain-specific or -general. They addressed two
competing hypotheses. The domain-specific hypothesis makes the assumption that
performance and monitoring proficiency are contingent upon domain-specific knowledge
and regulatory strategies. In contrast, central to the domain-general position is that a
general metacognitive process governs monitoring, regardless of the domain.
Of the three factors that influence metacognition, knowledge of strategy variables
require the most intense form of knowledge. Strategy variables refer to knowledge
about cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and the conditional knowledge needed to
know when and where they are appropriate to use. Strategic readers are usually more
proficient than those who are not and use various strategies and skills as they construct
meaning (Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). In the following studies, students were given
explicit strategy instruction and were able to select, monitor, and evaluate the cognitive
strategies that led to their intended goal.
Why is Metacognitive Self-Regulation Important for Developmental Readers?
Proficient readers monitor their comprehension and adjust their metacognitive
strategies to make sure that the text makes sense (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky,
2001). Studies have shown that the strategies that regulate the planning, monitoring, and
evaluation of cognition, positively influence reading comprehension (Mason, 2004;
Koch, 1999). Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, and Baker (2001) posit that comprehension
breakdowns most likely occur in the domain of strategic processing and metacognition.
Metacognitive self-regulation is attainable for less proficient readers to improve their

48
comprehension, not merely reserved for expert readers. When students learn that their
reading deficiency is due to a strategy deficiency, and not to a lack of intelligence, they
feel more efficacious in performing the task (Chularut & DeBacker, 2004). Further,
those who have high expectations of their task performance employ more reading
strategies and persist longer at tasks than students who have lower expectations
(Zimmerman & Marinez-Pons, 1992). Subsequently, with increased self-efficacy, high
expectations for success, increased effort, and longer persistence, students’ reading
achievement increases (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). By and large, metacognitive self-
regulation leads to independent students who have control over their comprehension.
Review of Metacognitive Literature
Metacognition was primarily related to intelligence and high aptitude. However,
many studies have demonstrated that regardless of aptitude and with highly structured
strategy instruction, metacognitive self-regulatory strategies are available tools for all
students and are likely to improve their achievement (Veenman & Beishuizen, 2004).
The challenge, however, is to encourage strategy use among low aptitude students, who
are less likely to use strategies (Wong, 1986).
Swanson (1990) studied the use of metacognitive self-regulation from high- as
well low-aptitude students to test his hypothesis that high levels of metacognitive
knowledge using think aloud strategies during problem solving could recompense for low
aptitude. Students were placed in groups that were high or low levels of aptitude based
on their score on standardized cognitive ability and achievement tests. They were then
given a questionnaire of problem-based questions in which they had to verbalize their

49
thought process while solving. Students’ responses were analyzed by their grouping of
subroutines as heuristic processes or strategies. Heuristic processes consist of a
metacognitive trial-and-error search for an understanding of a problem and solution, and
strategies are a systematic plan of action. In this study, heuristic processes, which do not
always assure solutions, consist of a representation or definition of the problem, a
construction of a plan for attaining information, and a method of assessing information
for a problem solution (Swanson, 1990). Accordingly, the strategy processes were
divided into six components including general problem solving, feedback, pattern
extraction, hypothetico-deductive, and systematic problem solving. The results
concluded that despite the aptitude level of the students, high-metacognitive performing
students achieved higher than low-metacognitive performing students.
Metacognitive Self-regulation and Strategy Instruction
While aptitude is not necessarily a precursor for metacognitive self-regulation,
research has demonstrated that low-achieving students tend to benefit more from high
structure and explicit metacognitive instruction and practice (Mason, 2004). Instruction
that teaches when and how to use reading strategies and encourages students to attribute
their achievement to effort and strategy use will lead to increased achievement (Quirk &
Schwanenflugel, 2004). Further, the use of strategies positively influences self-efficacy
and achievement (Schunk, 1989). Students who have high efficacy for a task use more
strategies and persist longer (Zimmerman & Marinez-Pons, 1992). Less proficient readers
tend to attribute their comprehension difficulties to themselves rather than to strategy
deficiencies. But when they learn that there are strategies they can use to reach their

50
goal, their self-regulation as well as self-efficacy is likely to increase. The metacognitive
components within many of the following instructional programs have been widely used
to improve reading comprehension.
An early example of how strategy instruction was used to enhance performance is
Cross and Paris’ 1988 study. In the analysis, students were given an experimental
curriculum, Informed Strategies for Learning (ISL), which was designed to increase their
use of reading strategies. Instruction was designed to arouse greater awareness of
declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. In addition, it taught students how to
strategically evaluate, plan, and monitor their comprehension. The structure of the
curriculum encouraged a gradual transfer of responsibility from the instructor to the
student by endorsing modeling of the strategies, guided practice, and independent
application of the strategies. Students in the experimental classes made significant gains
in metacognition compared to students in the control classes. Also in this group, students
learned about declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge about reading and their
strategic reading tasks demonstrated strategies of evaluation, planning, and regulation.
Overall, the ISL curriculum helped students to shift the responsibility for recruiting and
applying strategies from the instructor to themselves.
Berardi-Coletta, Buyer, Dominowski and Rellinger (1995) examined the effects
of a popular strategy, verbalization—expressing one’s thoughts in words—on students’
problem solving abilities. The researchers conducted four studies to demonstrate that the
advantageous effects of verbalizationon on generating solutions to word problems were
not singly attributed to the strategy itself, but to its metacognitive processing component.

51
In the first three experiments, the researchers distinguished between three types of
problem solving verbalizations: process-oriented, problem-oriented, and think-aloud;
which consisted of metacognitive principles of planning, monitoring, and evaluating;
strategy use and procedures; and the mere articulation of thought processses,
respectively. The students who used process-oriented problem solving utilized
metacognitive strategies and performed significantly better than the non-process control
groups. In the last experiment, the students who used the process-oriented method
consistently created more advanced examples and developed more complex strategies not
necessarily due to the audible nature of their verbalization, but because of the
metaconitive nature of their strategy, which may or may not have been verbalized.
Another area where students demonstrate their metacognition is in reciprocal
teaching developed by Annemarie Palincsar. Palincsar and Brown (1985) conducted
numerous studies determining the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching on elementary
school students, but Hart and Speece (1998) wanted to examine its effects on at-risk
community college students.
Reciprocal instruction takes place in the form of a dialogue between instructors
and students regarding segments of reading material. The instructor and students
alternate turns assuming the role of instructor in leading this dialogue. The discourse is
organized by the use of four strategies—summarization, question generation,
clarification, and prediction—and the planning, regulation, and evaluation of these
strategies during the discussion.

52
In the reciprocal teaching group, instruction was delivered in two phases. The
first phase included the teaching of the four strategies. Next, each strategy was modeled,
using a think-aloud procedure, by the instructor. Lastly, students were given the
opportunity to practice. In the second phase, utilizing a passage from a textbook, the
instructor models initially led the discussion, until the process was gradually handed over
to the students.
Students were divided into small heterogeneous-ability, cooperative learning
groups that used a variety of strategies to improve their comprehension. Each member of
the group was responsible for learning what was taught in addition to helping his or her
fellow group members learn. Students worked through the assignment until all group
members successfully understood and completed the task.
In the cooperative group, students received a handout of group skills that
specified the roles and responsibilities of individual members. Next the class performed
various time management, report writing, test-taking skills, and recall tasks that involved
the text of interest. Throughout the sessions, instructors gave a short lesson on a specific
topic and each group was assigned tasks pertaining to the topic. Students performed in
various roles, worked cooperatively, brainstormed problems, answered questions, and
reported results to the class.
The results of the study concluded that students in the reciprocal teaching group
performed better in strategy acquisition and reading comprehension measures. Secondly,
the researchers found that reciprocal teaching students scored significantly different from
students in the cooperative group. Lastly, more specifically targeted to the less proficient

53
readers, results from the study indicate that poorer readers in the reciprocal teaching
group differentially benefited from the instruction, performed significantly better in
reading comprehension and strategy acquisition measures (Hart & Speece, 1998).
Reading comprehension strategy instruction is as effective in fostering strategy
acquisition and increasing comprehension of at-risk community college students as it is
with younger learners. The researchers viewed their results as strong implications for the
design of college-level remedial courses.
Metacognitive Self-regulation and Self-efficacy
Chularut and DeBacker’s study (2004) centered on the influence of concept
mapping on English as a Second Language college students’ achievement, self-
regulation, and self-efficacy. Concept mapping is a self-regulatory strategy that helps
students to connect their prior knowledge with new information. In constructing a
concept map, students must utilize metacognitive self-regulatory strategies to plan,
monitor, and evaluate their construction of the map. Students were divided into two
groups, with one being the concept-mapping group and the other being the individual
study plus discussion group. Both groups participated in five 60-minute study sessions.
The concept-mapping group was provided with information about concept mapping with
included characteristics and examples of well-developed and poorly developed concept
maps. Researchers found that both groups had higher post-test scores, but the concept-
mapping group had significantly higher achievement scores compared to the individual
study plus discussion group.

54
The results of the study demonstrated that engaging in concept mapping,
enhanced students’ self-regulation and self-efficacy (Chularut & DeBacker, 2004)
because the strategies presented were based on self-regulatory components of self-
observation, self-judgment, and self-reaction. When the students in the concept-mapping
group employed these strategies, their academic achievement improved. The researchers
conjectured that the act of extracting main ideas, creating relationships among the ideas,
and making links to their prior knowledge could explain the students’ better skill in
recalling information from the passages (Chularut & DeBacker, 2004).
Although there was a positive increase in self-efficacy as a result of metacognitve
self-regulatory strategies in the previous studies, there was no significant impact of self-
efficacy in Mason’s (2004) examination of two metacognitive self-regulatory approaches
for comprehension enhancement, Think before reading, think While reading, think After
reading (TWA) and Reciprocal Questioning (RQ; Manzo, 1969). However, the findings
did result in a significant improvement in the reading comprehension and strategy use
that involved a more self-regulatory approach.
Students were placed into either of two groups, TWA, an expository reading
comprehension strategy based on metacognitive self-regulatory principles, or RQ, a
format for conducting reading lessons in which silent reading is followed by student
questions (with the reciprocation of questioning feature aimed at enhancing students’
metacognitive self-regulation). Students in both treatments received instruction that
integrated six stages for strategy acquisition for their respective group, which included

55
pre-skill development, discussion of the strategy, modeling of the strategy, memorization
of the strategy, guided practice, and independent practice.
The TWA group of students received self-regulated strategy development
instruction (SRSD; Harris & Graham, 1996), initially created for teaching writing, but
which the authors adapted for reading instruction. SRSD, an instructional model that
combines explicit instruction in self-regulation procedures—comprised of self-
instruction, goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-reinforcement—with strategy
instruction, was paired with TWA. The TWA strategy is comprised of the three phases
mentioned before, of which students were taught to follow three specific strategies within
each stage. In addition, students were taught specific strategies for developing the main
idea, facilitating a main idea paraphrase, and creating a summary. Reciprocal
questioning entails five steps: The instructor and students silently read a passage, the
instructor closes the book and answers student-created questions, then the students close
their books and answer instructor-generated questions. The RQ procedure has been a
widely accepted method for cognitive modeling; however, in this study, the instructor
modeled the use of RQ, but did not implement explicit modeling of self-instruction.
The results of this study suggested that by explicitly teaching students the use of
self-regulated strategy instruction and modeling metacognition, of which the RQ group
did not receive, the performance of the TWA group was better. With the widely
recognized topic of self-regulation, many contemporary researchers are challenging the
utility and effectiveness of some of the old standing strategies. RQ was developed in the
late 1960s, at the beginning of the metacognitive boom, therefore, new strategies such as

56
TWA have included components that embrace the modernized philosophies of learning
that were not available before.
Koch (1999) conducted a study on the development, application, and evaluation
of the Koch-Eckstein technique, metacognitive method for improving students’ reading
comprehension of physics texts. Two groups of students completed reading
comprehension exercises, with only the experimental group receiving metacognitive
tasks. Included in the tasks were the self-reported grading, a percentage summarization
list, and a hierarchical self-ranking of abilities and disabilities (e.g. “I was most able to
identify true statements, less able at unreported statements, and least able at false
statements”). The results of the study showed that the students’ reading comprehension
strategies improved after the metacognitive treatment.
Dreher and Brown (1993) suggested that reading to locate specific information,
text search, is a large need in school, but that it is often not accomplished effectively.
They indicated that planning is a major element of self-regulation and that it likely aids
the strategic reading involved in text search. The researchers based their text search
philosophy on a cognitive model of text search on Guthrie and Mosenthal’s (1987) five
metacognitve components: Formulating a goal, selecting appropriate categories of a
document, extracting relevant information, integrating extracted information with prior
knowledge, and recycling through the components until the task is completed (Dreher &
Brown, 1993). Unlike previous studies on this topic, the researchers’ aim was to examine
the goal setting component. The results were consistent with the researchers’ hypothesis
that a planning prompt would raise students’ levels of awareness, which would lead to

57
their increased search performance. Locating text, also known as previewing, is essential
to comprehension for locating answers to questions and finding evidence to support
conclusions; and is often an effective precursor for optimal understanding. For this
study, the integration of a planning prompt helped to facilitate metacognition, which
subsequently lead to enhanced performance.
Thiede, Anderson, and Therriault (2003) found that metacognitive monitoring
affected the regulation of study—the act of restudying less-learned than better-learned
material—which affected their overall learning. The researchers first conducted an
experimental manipulation to come up with three types of monitoring accuracy levels:
Delay-keyword group, immediate-keyword group, and no-keyword group. These
students were given a reading selection and asked to create a list of five keywords that
summarized the essence of the text. The researchers’ findings corroborated with their
hypothesis that monitoring accuracy would be superior for the delay-keyword group.
Given that the comprehension test occurs after a delay, the researchers propose that
writing keywords after a delay would produce a set of heterogeneous, and likely more
accurate, prompts for assessing comprehension that may emphasize differences between
understood and misunderstood texts. Further, the researchers maintain that these prompts
are likely highly representative of test performance because both keyword generation and
tests take place after a delay and come from information retrieval from long-term
memory. Overall, the results of the study demonstrated that as a result of the more
representative nature of the metacognitive monitoring of the delay-keyword group, more

58
effective study regulation than the other two groups resulted, which subsequently led to
greater test performance.
Butler (1998) conducted a study that examined the efficacy of an instructional
model, Strategic Content Learning (SCL), which was designed to promote self-
regulation. A diverse group of learning disabled postsecondary students ranging from
ages 19 and 48 years orally responded to a strategy interview and completed several
attribution, metacognitive, and self-efficacy questionnaires. In addition, students were
asked to think aloud while they completed a reading task, without support from an
instructor or tutor. At the beginning of the semester, students selected reading or writing
tasks with which they wanted help.
During each meeting, the tutors and students worked collaboratively on
coursework. The outcome of the study revealed that SCL attributed to students’
increased metacognitive knowledge about self-regulated processes, perceptions of task-
specific efficacy, attributional patterns, task performance, and strategic approaches to
tasks. There are salient features of this program, which most likely contributed to its
effectiveness. First, instructors supported students to analyze an assignment, define
criteria for successful performance, and set appropriate goals. After goal setting, students
were supported in their identification of strategies that would direct them toward their
objectives. Then, with the instructor’s assistance, students learned how to
metacognitively monitor outcomes associated with their strategy use, generate cognitive
feedback about the success of their efforts, and consider alternative strategic approaches.

59
Although there are numerous metacognitive intervention strategies and
instructional programs that have garnered noteworthy research interests, essentially the
elements, not the programs per se, are of most importance: Goal setting, self-monitoring,
and self-reinforcement. Regardless of the domain, experts across various domains have
been found to all have high metacognitive self-regulatory strategies (Pressley &
Afflerbach, 1995). Schraw (1998) posits that metacognition is domain-general,
multidimensional, and teachable. Regardless of the competing theories, the findings of
the studies presented in this paper, although conducted with diverse sample
characteristics, were used for the implications they may have for the group and learning
scenario targeted in this study.
Summary
The process of metacognitive self-regulation enhances students’ reading
comprehension by guiding them through their thinking and aiding them in selecting
appropriate courses of action when a problem arises. Metacognition is intended to be a
deliberate, ongoing process that helps students to maximize their learning and
understanding. If nurtured and developed to its full capacity, metacognitive self-
regulation will act as a lifelong learning tool that sustains students’ learning autonomy
and self-reliance. And since aptitude is not necessarily a predictor of metacognitive self-
regulatory use, nor is it controlled solely by intelligence (Veenman & Beishuizen, 2004),
improvement or development in this area is available to all learners through strategy
instruction. What makes these strategies effective is their inclusion of metacognitive and
self-regulatory elements that includes self-obervations, self-judgments, and self-reactions.

60
As students feel increasingly competent at internalizing effective reading comprehension
strategies, their self-efficacy, self-regulation, persistence and reading achievement are
expected to benefit.
In compliance with social cognitive theory, community college educators who
teach at-risk developmental students should consider that students who have not been
exposed to effective, worthwhile metacognitive modeling have may not be as well
developed as those who have. Therefore, more strategy instruction, including
metacognitive modeling, would benefit at-risk students enrolled in basic skills reading.
By and large, the unifying thread here is the cyclical nature of motivation in
which the three variables discussed here—reading efficacy, expectation-value
orientations, and metacognitive self-regulation—continually impact the other.
Expectancy value constructs influence reading efficacy, which affects metacognitive self-
regulation, which can lead to high achievement, impacting the value of a task and
bringing about increased effort and performance, which produces persistence and higher
self-efficacy. The sequence can be reversed and still hold true. Yet, whichever the
succession, the low achievement and persistence of at-risk students still exists.
Researchers have found that students who hold high reading efficacy, place value
on and expect positive results from their academic goals, and utilize metacognitive self-
regulation are more likely to achieve and persist. The purpose of this research is to
examine the degree to which these variables predict achievement and persistence in basic
skills reading courses in a community college. The literature exploring the effects of
metacognitive self-regulation on persistence is limited. However, since high achievers

61
usually persist, much of the research looking at the motivational variables effect on
achievement can be transferred to persistence as well.

62
CHAPTER 3
Methods
The purpose of this study is to examine the degree to which reading efficacy,
expectation-value orientations, and metacognitive self-regulation predict achievement
and persistence in basic skills reading courses in a community college. The outcome of
the study aims to answer the following question: To what extent do the motivational
variables of reading efficacy, expectation-value orientations, and metacognitive self-
regulation predict achievement and persistence in community college basic skills reading
courses?
Conceptual Model
The conceptual model, a saturated path diagram, illustrates the multiple regression
analysis that was used to examine relations between reading efficacy, expectancy-value,
and metacognitive self-regulation with persistence and grade.
Figure 3: Conceptual Model of Multiple Regression Analysis

Prior
Achievement

Reading Efficacy
Metacognitive
Self-regulation
Expectancy-Value
Achievement
Persistence

63
Descriptive statistics will be presented to express the basic features of this study,
which include the mean and standard deviation of students’ expectancy-value orientation,
reading self-efficacy, and metacognitive self-regulation scores from the survey.
Inferential statistics will include correlational analyses to indicate the relationship
between the dependent and independent variables.
Subjects and Setting
Subjects for this study were selected from students attending a two-year public
California community college during the spring semester of 2005. Of the total population
of approximately 13,000 students, approximately 9,000 are enrolled part-time. Over 90%
of the college’s students, enrolled in the spring 2005 semester were minorities. The
largest ethnic group is Latino, representing over 65% of the students. African American
students are the second largest group with nearly 45% representation. The college offers
associate degrees or certificates of completion in nearly seventy distinct vocational
disciplines. It also offers a full academic curriculum and associate degrees in liberal arts
general education.
All of the students were required to enroll in an entry level basic skills reading
course based on their score on a district-wide assessment, Accuplacer. The Accuplacer,
an Internet delivered placement testing program approved by the California State
Chancellor’s Office, recommended basic skills reading courses students to students who
received a score of 80 (of a maximum of 120) or less. The Los Angeles Community
Colleges District defines basic skills as a non-degree applicable course intended to
provide precollegiate instruction. Sections from each of the following basic skills

64
reading courses were used in this study: Developmental Communications 35, Learning
Skills 1A, Learning Skills 1B (covering reading levels 3-5), English 46, Learning Skills
1C (covering reading levels 6-7), and Learning Skills 36 and Learning Skills 67 (covering
reading levels 8-9). This study included sections from traditional, computer-assisted
instruction, online, and hybrid reading courses. Based on enrollments in these basic skills
courses for spring 2005, the sample size for this study ranged from 70 to 120 subjects.
Instrumentation
The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith,
Garcia & McKeachie, 1991) is a self-assessment that was used to measure students’
reading efficacy, expectancy-value orientations, and their use of metacognitive self-
regulation. The MSLQ required approximately 15-20 minutes to administer and yielded
individual scale scores. An instructor went through the instrument with the students by
reading each item and allowing time for students to mark their answer.
Reliability and validity for the MLSQ instrument was established utilizing 380
college students from the midwest. Of the students, 356 attended a public, four-year
university, and 24 attended a community college. Fourteen academic subjects and five
disciplines from thirty-seven classrooms were sampled.
The MSLQ in its entirety is comprised of fifteen scales that are divided into three
sections. Subjects were directed to rate their reading efficacy, expectation-value
orientations, and metacognitive self-regulation on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from one
(not at all true of me) to seven (very true about me).

65
The first subdivision of the learning strategies section is comprised of 31 items
that evaluates students’ use of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies covering
five scales: (1) rehearsal, (2) elaboration, (3) organization, (4) critical thinking, and (5)
metacognition. The motivation segment, which includes 31 items that assesses students’
goals, value beliefs, expectancy of success, and anxiety of a course, contains six scales:
(1) intrinsic motivation, (2) extrinsic motivation, (3) task value, (4) control beliefs, (5)
self-efficacy and (6) test anxiety. The second subdivision of the learning strategies
section is a 19-item segment that measures students’ management of various resources
which include four scales: (1) time and study environment, (2) effort regulation, (3) peer
learning, and (4) help-seeking.
For this study, three scales were extracted from the MLSQ for use in measuring
the role of metacognition, task value, and self-efficacy on students’ achievement and
semester-term persistence. The instrument is provided in the Appendix.
Reading efficacy. Reading efficacy refers to students’ expectations about their
reading success and their judgments of their reading ability. Because students are
instructed to respond to the items given the class in which they are taking the survey, the
items are already domain specific. Therefore, the broad term of self-efficacy used in the
MLSQ reflects the academic subject in which students are taking the survey, hence
reading efficacy. The reading efficacy scale is comprised of eight items. Sample items
include, “I’m confident I can understand the most complex material presented by the
instuctor in this course,” “I expect to do well in this class,” and “Considering the
difficulty of this course, the teacher, and my skills, I think I will do well in this class.”

66
The internal consistency reliability of scores for the efficacy scale was found to be .93
and there was a .41 correlation with students’ final grade (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, &
McKeachie, 1991).
Expectancy-value Orientation. Task value measures the extent to which students
recognize their reading tasks as interesting, important, and useful. The task value scale is
comprised of six items. Sample items include, “I am very interested in the content area
of this course,” “I like the subject matter of this course,” and “Understanding the subject
matter of this course is useful for me to learn.” The reliability, assessed with Cronbach’s
Alpha, was .90 and the correlation with students’ final grade was .22 (Pintrich, Smith,
Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991).
Metacognitive Self-regulation. Metacognitive self-regulation indicates students’
awareness, knowledge, and control of their thinking. The metacognitive self-regulation
scale is comprised of twelve items. Sample items include, “When I become confused
about something I’m reading for this class, I go back and try to figure it out,” “I ask
myself questions to make sure I understand the material I have been studying in this
class,” and “When I study for this class, I set goals for myself in order to direct my
activities in each study period.” Indicating a moderate degree of internal consistency, the
reliability was found to be .79 and the correlation with the final grade was a .30 (Pintrich,
Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991).
Achievement. Aptitude was determined by placement into basic skills reading
courses through the college’s placement process, via Accuplacer. Placement exam scores
as well as a common informal reading pre-test served as a measurement of preceding

67
ability. For purposes of this study, achievement is defined by the accomplishment of all
coursework and an increase in reading by one level as determined by a common informal
reading post-test.
Persistence. Persistence is defined as the completion of an academic term.
Biographical Data. Subjects were asked to provide information regarding their
gender, class level, ethnic background and prior schooling.
Procedures
For this study, purposive sampling was utilized. Specifically, all students of basic
skills reading courses were invited to participate in the study. Of approximately 100
students, seventy-seven students agreed to participate. Seven weeks were devoted to
instruction, with 1 day used for administering the MLSQ. Participants were presented
with an explanation of the study’s objectives and provided with a consent form to sign.
Subjects were informed that their participation in this survey was completely voluntary
and had no effect on their final grade. The researcher guided the group through the
survey while the non-participants worked on a supplemental assignment.

68
CHAPTER 4
Results
This chapter presents the statistical results that answer the research question: To
what extent do the motivational variables of reading self-efficacy, expectation-value
orientations, and metacognitive self-regulation predict achievement and persistence in
community college basic skills reading courses? Specifically, the first part of this chapter
presents descriptive data for the variables of interest, including group statistics, means,
standard deviations, and intercorrelations. Results from the simultaneous regression
analyses are also presented.
Group Statistics
In this study, more students passed the basic skills reading courses than students
who failed. Of the 77 students in the study, 55 passed and 22 failed. In addition, all of
the students—regardless of grade—persisted or completed the course. Students who
passed the course reported a higher sense of reading self-efficacy (M = 6.3, SD = .740)
than expectancy value orientation (M = 6.20, SD = 1.13) and metacognitive self-
regulation (M = 4.98, SD = 1.13). Of the students who failed, expectancy-value
orientation was the highest overall score reported (M = 6.46, SD = .94), with reading self-
efficacy (M = 5.77, SD = 1.08) and metacognitive self-regulation (M = 5.11, SD = .93)
following. A summary of the means, standard deviations, and correlations of these
variables are listed in Table 1.

69
Correlations
The correlational analyses revealed findings that were contrary to the researcher’s
expectations. With respect to grade, students’ reading self-efficacy had no significant
relationship to students’ grades (r = .14, n.s.). These results demonstrate that whether
students had high or low reading efficacy, it did not make an impact on students grade.
Furthermore, a negative correlation emerged between students’ grades and their
expectation-value orientation (r = .11, n.s.). Essentially, this finding indicates that
students’ grades were not determined by their expectation for success or their value of the
basic reading class in which they were enrolled. In addition, a negative correlation
emerged between students’ grades and their metacognitive self-regulation (r = -.05, n.s.).
This finding demonstrates that students’ grades were unrelated to their thought processes
of planning, monitoring, and adjusting their thinking and reasoning.
Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured
Variables
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Grade .71 .46 1.00 .140 -.109 -.053
2. Reading Self-efficacy 5.96 .85 1.00 .575 .400
3. Expectancy-value Orientation 6.28 1.08 1.00 .415
4. Metacognitive Self-regulation 5.018 1.08 1.00
Note. Grade = Participant’s Grade (Credit or No Credit)

70
In summary, the correlational analyses revealed findings that were antithetical to
the proposed hypothesis and to what the researcher expected. It was expected that
students’ achievement and persistence would be related to their reading self-efficacy,
expectancy-value orientation, and metacognitive self-regulation. Furthermore, it was
anticipated that the study would determine what variable had the strongest impact on
these outcomes. However, the results of the analyses indicated that there was a weak
relationship between these motivational variables and achievement and persistence, and
therefore, no significant relationship resulted. Possible reasons for this outcome are
discussed in Chapter 5.
Simultaneous Regression Analysis
To determine the impact that reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value orientation,
and metacognitive self-regulation have on students’ achievement and persistence, a
stepwise regression analysis was attempted, but none of the variables were significant
enough to enter the equation. Therefore, a simultaneous regression analysis was
conducted.
Results from the simultaneous regression analysis indicated that 7.7% of the
variances in students’ grades could be attributed to the motivational variables of interest
(F
change
= 2.03, df = 3, 73, p > .05). To determine which of the variables had the
strongest impact on the variance, reading self-efficacy resulted as the most influential ( $
= .320, p <.05). However, the effect of self-efficacy was not statistically significant, F
(3,73) = 2.037, n.s. The results of the simultaneous regression analysis are presented in
Table 5.

71
Table 5: Simultaneous Regression Analysis Summary
Variables B $ t
Reading Self-efficacy .171 .320 2.272
Expectancy-value Orientation -.111 -.263 -1.855
Metacognitve Self-regulation -.031 -.072 -.572
Note: Predictors: (Constant) Reading Self-efficacy Score, Expectancy-value Orientation
Score, Metacognitive Self-regulation Score

Since all of the students in this study completed the course, a second regression
analysis controlling for persistence was unnecessary.
Contradictory with previous studies and the researcher’s expectations, the results
of these analyses suggest that there is a low correlation between expectancy-value
orientation, reading self-efficacy, and metacognitive self-regulation and students’
achievement and persistence in the basic reading courses. Overall, these motivational
variables revealed no significant impact on students’ achievement.

72
CHAPTER 5
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of reading self-efficacy,
expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence
of community college students enrolled in basic skills reading courses. Community
college students completed a survey that assessed their reading efficacy, expectancy-
value orientations, and their use of metacognitive self-regulatory strategies. The results
of this study concluded that students’ reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value orientation,
and metacognitive self-regulation are not significantly related to their achievement and
persistence.
According to the literature review, these variables have shown to be strong
predictors of students’ achievement and persistence. The result of Chemers, Hu and
Garcia’s 2001 longitudinal study of first-year college students concluded that there was a
direct relationship between self-efficacy and not only achievement, but persistence as
well. Previous studies also suggest that student’s expectancy for success or failure and
their value for a particular task have been positively related to achievement and
persistence (Bong, 2001; Metallidou, 2003). More specifically, studies reveal that
expectancy is a better predictor of persistence while task value is more closely related to
achievement. In an earlier study, Paris and Oka (1986) found that students who perceive
reading to be beneficial are found and are more cognitively engaged in their reading. In
addition to reading efficacy and expectancy-value orientations, the literature also points

73
to a strong link between metacognitive self-regulation and students’ achievement and
persistence (Mason, 2004; Koch, 1999).
However, inconsistent with the findings of this study, there is a considerable
amount of research that concludes that reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value
orientation, and metacognitive self-regulation are major predictors of students’
achievement and persistence. However, the results of this study contradicted this body of
research and it was found that reading efficacy, expectancy-value orientation, and
metacognitive self-regulation did not have a significant correlation to achievement and
persistence. There are four major factors that may help to explain the inconsistencies of
the results of this study with motivational literature: a.) limited variability in students’
grades, b.) untraditional method of instruction, grading, and composition of the reading
courses, c.) extrinsic rewards attached to the reading courses, and d.) students’
overestimation of their self-efficacy. Together, these factors may have contributed to the
weak to no correlation that these variables had to students’ achievement and persistence.
Limited Variability in Students’ Grades
There must be variability in the data in order to achieve statistical significance.
However, in this study, students were graded on a “Credit/No Credit” scale, which
limited the chance of variability, and in turn impeded the opportunity of statistical
significance. At the community college used in this study, the reading courses are taught
in the English and Learning Skills departments. Students taking basic reading in the
English department are given letter grades. Those taking basic reading courses taught in
Learning Skills are given grades of Credit or No Credit. A grade of Credit is commonly

74
considered equivalent to a letter grade range from A to C. Likewise, a grade of No Credit
is comparable to the letter grade range from D to F. With only two grading options,
Credit or No Credit, there is not much variability in students’ grades. This may partially
explain why the motivation variables were not predictive of students’ achievement and
persistence in the results study.
In addition to a dichotomous grading scale, the limited variability in students’
self-assessment of their reading efficacy, expectancy-value orientations, and
metacognitive self-regulation may have also affected the results of this study.
Community college students who are enrolled in a pre-collegiate basic skills reading
course are likely to have reading problems that interfere with their ability to accurately
assess their reading efficacy and cognitive strategies. Reading problems often originate
from deficient comprehension monitoring, faulty comprehension repair, and the absence
of strategic knowledge and application (Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks, & Perencevich, 2004).
Therefore, expecting students who are enrolled in basic and remedial reading courses to
give a precise self-appraisal—particularly, on a 7-point scale—of their thinking may be
unreasonable for this population of adult learners (Baker, 1989). Although there have
been countless numbers of studies that have used Likert scales with college populations,
it was not anticipated that students would have problems reading or comprehending the
text or merely understanding how to evaluate themselves. There is a variety of reasons
that students may not fill out a survey correctly, from unrealistic overconfidence or self-
deprecation to not understanding the questions. Therefore, determining the readability of
the MLSQ and perhaps creating comparable reading-level appropriate surveys may have

75
better served this population. In addition, using additional measures to accurately
determine students’ cognitive processes and motivational beliefs may also have been
beneficial for this study.
Untraditional Method of Instruction, Grading, and Composition of the Reading Courses
Unlike traditional college-level courses, Learning Skills classes have been
chunked into smaller, 1-unit modules. For example, Learning Skills 1 – Reading, has
been chunked into three separate modularized courses, Learning Skills 1A (beginning
reading), 1B (intermediate reading), and 1C (advanced reading). Instead of covering a
vast amount of reading instruction over a longer amount of time, these classes focus on
more discrete concepts and give students a better opportunity to attain mastery.
In addition to the modularization of the reading courses, Learning Skills reading
classes are taught in shorter, 7-week intensive sessions versus the regular 16-week
traditional semester. Because of the unique composition of these reading courses, some
students may be more attracted to them and have a higher sense of efficacy about their
academic success and completion of the term. Furthermore, students taking these classes
may be more likely to persist in a modularized, short-term, 1-unit course than those
enrolled in a regular, full-term, 16-week course that is graded on a regular A through F
scale—which could possibly affect their grade point average. By perceiving a
modularized course and shorter term more attainable, students may be more efficacious,
have higher expectations, and put forth more cognitive effort as a result.
Another distinguishable characteristic of the reading classes used in this study is
that Learning Skills reading classes used in this study have a CAI or online reading lab

76
component. Students have the opportunity to complete their labs at their own pace and
with the assistance of an instructor and or tutor. Instructors who work in the computer
lab are always available to help students and there is the opportunity for as much contact
with the instructors as students need. When students get behind, they usually become
overwhelmed and give up. The instructors are aware of this and make it difficult for
students to fail their lab assignments. When instructors find their students falling behind
in their weekly contact hours, they call the students and urge them to make up their work
and or hours. The instructors also contacts students by way of electronic- and post office
mail. The composition of the lab component—flexible and self-paced—and the student-
to-instructor contact that are attached to the basic reading courses may partially account
for students’ high passing scores and persistence.
In addition to all of these attributes, students have the opportunity to retake each
Learning Skills class up to three times to enhance their skills; and many of them are
encouraged to do so. For this study, it was not known how many students previously
completed one or more of these reading courses. This too could have an effect on the
lack of statistical significance between students’ reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value,
and metacognitive self-regulation with their achievement and persistence.
Additional course elements that may have given some of the students in this study
an advantage are that the classes are graded on a two-pronged, Credit/No Credit scale, the
course term is only 7 weeks versus 16 weeks, and there is a CAI reading lab component
attached to each reading course. In addition to the classroom lecture component, students
work on the computer at their own pace and have an instructor in the lab to help them at

77
all times. The instructors contact the students and encourage them to stay current with
their assigned lab hours and CAI coursework. On top of all of this, students may repeat
the class up to three times whether they pass the course with a grade of Credit or fail the
course with a grade of No Credit.
With these types of untraditional course features and methods of instruction,
students may be more likely to be successful and persist in these reading classes.
Although there is no official data that concludes that students taking Learning Skills
reading classes are more successful or competent than those taking traditional English
reading classes, there is a marked difference between the two types of classes and these
factors may play a role in the high level of passing scores and retention of the students
surveyed in this study.
Extrinsic Rewards Attached to Reading Courses

Other factors that may have attributed to students’ achievement and persistence
are the benefits—whether extrinsic or intrinsic—that are attached to the reading courses.
Most students do not want to take basic, non-degree applicable reading courses and do
not value them, but if the courses are a prerequisite to a program or benefits that are of
value to them, they may be more likely to be successful and persist in the courses.
Many of the students at this community college who take basic reading courses do
so to fulfill requirements for programs such as the welfare-to-work job-training programs
Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) and California’s Work Opportunities and
Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs), Disabled Students’ Programs and Services
(DSP&S), and the Licensed Vocational Nursing (LVN) and Registered Nursing (RN)

78
programs. There are also students who take basic skills classes to satisfy specific terms
of their criminal or correctional probation sentence or to pass an assessment such as the
Abilities to Benefit Test (ABT) in order to qualify for financial aid. Those interested in
preparing for the General Education Development (GED) test, but who are not ready,
also enroll in basic reading courses, which are included in the pre-GED strand. For
students taking at least 12 units, Extended Opportunity Program and Services (EOP&S)
offers a variety of academic and financial services for students as well.
Financial and academic services from GAIN/CalWORKS as a possible benefit to
achieving and persisting in basic reading classes.
GAIN/CalWORKs is a job-training program that provides welfare-to-work
services to students who receive public financial assistance from the County of Los
Angeles. With these funds, students are able to pay for their childcare, books, supplies,
as well as secure work-study employment. To qualify for this program, students must be
currently enrolled in or referred to a community college or receiving public assistance.
Upon acceptance, students are required to participate in 32 hours (for a single adult) or 35
hours combined (for two adults) of work and education activity per week. Most of the
GAIN/CalWORKs counselors enroll students in the Learning Skills courses for adult
basic education (ABE) or GED preparation. In order for students to receive their
benefits, they must satisfy the hour-per-week requirement.
Financial and academic services from DSP&S as a possible benefit to achieving
and persisting in basic reading classes.

79
DSP&S is designed to assist students with disabilities in their academic and
vocational classes and to foster autonomy and self-sufficiency. DSP&S counselors work
with students to identify their educational deficiencies and offer support services such as
registration assistance. The DSP&S program director and counselors often enroll
students in Learning Skills reading classes as part of their individualized educational
plan. It is not known how many students enrolled in basic reading courses fall within
learning disabled category.
Entrance into the nursing program as a possible benefit to achieving and
persisting in basic reading classes.
The only vocational department that makes reading a requirement is the nursing
department. Students must receive a passing score on the Accuplacer Assessment test for
acceptance into the LVN (passing score: 88) or RN (passing score: 95) programs. If
students do not meet the minimum reading score, they are required to take remedial
reading courses through Learning Skills.
Federal and state financial assistance as a possible benefit to achieving and
persisting in basic reading classes.
In addition to these programs and services, the Abilities to Benefit (ATB) Test is
a test given to students who wish to apply for financial aid, but lack a high school
diploma or GED. To be eligible for financial aid, students must receive a passing score
in three areas: reading comprehension, sentence skills, and arithmetic. If students do not
reach the minimum scores, they are referred to the Learning Skills department.

80
Individuals who want to prepare to take the GED usually enroll in GED preparation or
pre-GED classes.
GED readiness as a possible benefit to achieving and persisting in basic reading
classes.
According to many of the Learning Skills instructors, in the past, students often
signed up for semester-long (14 weeks) GED preparation classes regardless of their
reading, writing, and math aptitude. As a result, all students interested in taking the GED
must first take the college placement exam. Those who score below the 9
th
grade level
are advised to take pre-GED classes, including basic reading, through the Learning Skills
department.
Financial and academic services from EOP & S as a possible benefit to students’
achievement and persistence in basic reading classes.
Courses through the Learning Skills department are non-degree applicable, but
are counted for academic credit and towards graduation. Some students take these
classes to satisfy a 6-unit (half-time) unit requirement for financial aid eligibility or 12-
unit requirement for EOP&S support services. Students who qualify for EOP&S are able
to receive priority registration, a $250 book grant, one-on-one tutoring, and waived
enrollment fees. Also, through the Cooperative Agencies Resources for Education
(CARE) program, students are eligible for additional support services such as childcare
referrals, automotive gas cards, meal tickets, auto-repair reimbursement, parking permits,
and parenting workshops.

81
Summary.
Several programs at this college have made basic skills, specifically basic reading,
a priority and thus a component of their prerequisites to access their services or for
entrance into their academic programs. As a result, many students enrolled in basic
reading classes may be taking them because they are linked with extrinsic benefits. If
students’ rationale for taking reading classes is linked to a reward, then this may enhance
their persistence as they could be more likely to complete a course that is connected with
something to which they highly value (Sundre and Kitsantas, 2004). In this case,
students who are required to attain a particular assessment score for entrance into a
program may be more likely to pass and complete a reading course than students who
have no benefit for taking the same class. Although these students may not value the
basic reading courses, they value the extrinsic rewards and benefits that are attached to
them. This approach—linking basic skills classes with incentives—is useful for
promoting literacy among at-risk students, but for various reasons, such as the possibility
of a decrease in enrollment, the vast majority of the vocational departments have chosen
to either integrate basic skills instruction into their existing courses or not include them as
prerequisites to their programs at all.
On the other hand, because there are no prerequisites for many of the vocational
areas, the limited amount of students who voluntarily take a non-credit, non-degree
applicable basic skills reading course are likely to be internally motivated to improve
their reading. Since students are not required to take the reading assessment and basic
skills reading courses are non-degree applicable, most students do not choose to enroll in

82
them. However, of those students who do, it appears that there is a heightened level of
seriousness and intrinsic motivation that they have about improving their skills from the
bottom up. In addition, students who are able to take basic skills courses tend to have
more time available to attend school, usually working only part-time versus full-time, and
not involved in any other vocational or academic program which immediately leads to a
certificate or degree. If they were doing either, there would be less time for them to take
basic skills classes and complete the work required. Because many of the vocational
areas participate in block scheduling, it is often difficult for students needing basic skills
classes to do so if they are offered outside of their immediate department or cohort.
Students’ Possible Overestimation of their Self-efficacy

Another potential issue that may have affected the results of this study was
whether students overestimated their self-efficacy. Since the MSLQ was only given at
the beginning of the class, students may have overestimated their self-efficacy because
they had not yet started the class. However, over the course of the reading class, their
efficacy may have changed.
Many of the pre-nursing students who took the class were required to do so
because they had not reached the passing score on the reading test. As a result, they were
required to take a basic reading class with the intention of becoming academically ready
to retake the placement to try again for eligibility into the program. Many students felt
that a basic reading class was not needed because they had already passed the English
requirement and passed the English portion of the Accuplacer assessment, which they
believed corresponded with a high-aptitude in reading. Reading instructors and staff

83
mentioned that many of the pre-nursing students were distressed about taking a remedial
reading course because many of them had already fulfilled the English requirement,
English 28 - Intermediate Reading and Composition, the course before college-level
English. In fact, some pre-nursing students had already passed English 101 - College
Reading and Composition, and English 103 - Composition and Critical Thinking, both
college-level English classes, that are transferable to University of California and
California State University 4-year colleges. In addition to the English requirement, many
students also fulfilled the biology, chemistry, and math requirements and were puzzled as
to why they needed to take a basic reading class. Some of the reading instructors
questioned how students completed these prerequisite courses with low reading
assessment scores and why students were not required to complete the basic reading
courses before moving on to the content-specific courses. With students fulfilling course
requirements such as biology, chemistry, and English, many of them may have,
reasonably so, overestimated their reading aptitude and abilities.
Summary
While the motivational variables reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and
metacognitive self-regulation were not statistically significant predictors of students’
success and retention, the results of the study brought some new facts to light that were
not initially considered. The absence of variability in students’ grades, unique method of
instruction, attachments of benefits with the reading courses, or students’ overestimation
of their self-efficacy, may have contributed to the weak to no correlation that these
motivational variables had to students’ achievement and persistence.

84
Although not significant, self-efficacy in this research paper is one of the three
variables that has a stronger impact than metacognitive self-regulation and expectancy-
value orientation on achievement and persistence. This outcome goes hand in hand with
the vast amount of literature that cites self-efficacy as a leading predictor of achievement
and persistence. In exploring the reasons why these variables were not better predictors
of achievement and persistence, characteristics of the reading classes were noticed that
appeared to positively impact the achievement and persistence of students enrolled in
these basic reading courses.
Some of the course attributes include the CAI labs that utilize educational
software programs such as PLATO, Rosetta Stone, Read On!, and Azar; pretests and
initial assignments that implement a mastery experience—students take pre- and post-
tests and are given assignments that are easy to achieve success; one-on-one meeting with
instructors who give verbal encouragement and the use reading workbooks, textbooks,
and supplemental material that have answers in the back, thus providing immediate
feedback; access to vicarious experiences through the modeling and assistance of peer
tutoring or individualized instruction; and the approach to decrease physiological and
emotional issues by designing the classes as self-paced, repeatable up to three times and
graded on a scale of Credit and No Credit. Together, these course characteristics may
have made it easier for students to pass and complete the class.
There is a large body of literature that links self-efficacy with academic
achievement and also supports the will factor in VanderStoep and Pintrich’s (2003) skill
and will theory which posits that students’ learning is dependent not only upon their

85
cognitive foundation but their personal choice or volitional beliefs as well. With
metacognitive self-regulation representing the skill factor and self-efficacy representing
the will aspect, students’ skill and will are very strong and predictive of their success and
persistence. Studies have demonstrated that when students feel good about their
capabilities and positive about their potential for success, regardless of their aptitude,
they tend to choose to exert more effort. This in turn will have positive effects on their
success and retention.
Although reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-
regulation showed no significant effect on students’ success and persistence, the results
of the study did help to uncover positive attributes of the reading courses used in this
study that could be attributed to students’ success and retention. Subsequently, this
information could help to contribute to the advancement of this college’s reading
program. On the other hand, it is unknown whether these course characteristics are in
fact helping students or making the classes easy to pass and complete. Further research
should be conducted to compare the entry and exit skills and assessment scores of all of
the basic skills reading courses.
Implications for Future Research
There is a vast amount of literature that links students’ persistence with goal
setting and acquisition. An area worthy of future research would be the exploration of
students’ goals for taking basic reading courses. This information could affect the degree
to which certain motivational factors effect achievement and persistence. If basic reading
courses were linked to extrinsic rewards, then a study investigating variables that predict

86
students’ achievement and persistence would need to consider these factors. However,
although these incentives may hinder an accurate prediction of students’ achievement and
persistence, it does demonstrate that linking basic reading courses with extrinsic rewards
may play a role in motivating students and positively affecting their academic success
and persistence. Instead of using grade and persistence as the dependent variable,
another constant, such as a level-appropriate standardized formal assessment score could
be used.
Once students’ goals for taking basic reading classes are determined, instructors
of basic reading courses may need to consider redesigning their curriculum to address the
factors that contribute to students’ motivation. At the end of the reading courses used in
this study, it was not known what strategies utilized or pedagogy practiced of the various
instructors that could attribute to a change in students’ personal reading beliefs, task-
value orientation, and or cognitive strategies. There is an increasing importance for
instructors of basic reading courses at the community college level to understand
motivational principles to integrate into their teaching. It would be good to know what
types of strategies the various instructors used in the courses that may have contributed to
their self-efficacy or persistence. When students feel more efficacious about their
reading, they are more likely to succeed in the classroom. In the long run, students with
high literacy levels will be less likely to live in poverty, be unemployed, and have
problems with the law. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) posits that human
functioning is influenced by personal factors, behavior, and environmental factors.

87
In addition to dealing with the levels of pre-collegiate reading literacy from
decoding to fluency to basic comprehension, the community college is faced with
addressing the needs of students who may be low-literate in their native tongue, second
language learners, or have non-identified learning disabilities. A one-size-fits-all
approach has not been an effective strategy to address the varied assessment needs of
such a large student body. More time, resources, staff, and research need to go towards
finding more efficient means of properly assessing and placing students in level-
appropriate reading courses. Most of the instructors teaching basic reading courses in
this study voiced the need of a more accurate and valid formal assessment because the
current tool does not help to identify specific skill deficiencies. As a result, instructors
are left with many hours of retesting and differentiating instruction to accommodate the
varied levels and subgroups within their classes.
The results of this study revealed the need of this college or school district to
revisit the institutionalization of formal reading assessment and prerequisite reading
course requirements. All of the motivational research and program redesign concerning
the improvement of basic reading classes will be in vain if students are not required to
take a reading assessment or if there are no prerequisite reading courses for all college
programs. Currently, it appears that the majority of students taking basic reading courses
are involved in an outside, state-funded program that prioritizes basic literacy skills and
provides incentives for students who comply with the conditions. If basic skills readiness
is one of the community college’s goals, then it is important for the institution to

88
reconsider making reading assessments and prerequisites an integral component of all
students’ community college experience.

89
References
Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader.
Educational Psychology Review, 1(1), 3-38.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
37(2), 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman

Berardi-Coletta, B., Buyer, L. S., Dominowski, R. L. & Rellinger, E. R. (1995).
Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 205-223.

Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task value in predicting college students'
course performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 26(4), 553-570

Boylan, H. (2001). Making the case for developmental education. Research in
Developmental Education, 12(2), 1-4. Retrieved July 15, 2005 from
http://www.umkc.edu/cad/nade/nadedocs/hbcase95.htm

Boswell, K., Wilson, C. D. (2004). Keeping America’s promise: A Report on the future
of community colleges. The Center for Community College Policy. Retrieved
March 18, 2005, from
http://www.communitycollegepolicy.org/pdf/KeepingAmericasPromise.pdf

Butler, D. L. (1998). The strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated
learning: A report of three studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4),
682-697.

California Literacy. Literacy Statistics (2005). Retrieved April 18, 2005, from
http://www.caliteracy.org/resourcesreferrals/literacystatistics/index.html

Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., and Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year
college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93(1), 55-64.

90
Chularut, P., and DeBacker, T. K. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on
achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second
language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 248-263.

Dembo, M. & Eaton, M. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
school. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5).

Dreher, M. J. & Brown, R. F. (1993). Planning prompts and indexed terms in textbook
search tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 662-669.

Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J.T. Spence (Ed.),
Achievement and achievement motives (75-146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Vail, & J. W. Hagen,
(Eds), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition, 3-33. Hillsdale,
NJ: L. Erlbaum.

Garcia, T. & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The effects of autonomy on motivation and
performance in the college classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
21(4), 477-486.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., and Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading
comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of
research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320.

Guthrie, J.T. and Mosenthal, P. (1987) Literacy as multidimensional: Locating
information and reading comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 22(3), 279-
297.

Hadwin, A. F., Winne, P. H., Stockley, D. B., Nesbit, J. C., & Woszczyna. (2001).
Context moderates students’ self-reports about how they study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93(3), 477-487.

Hart, E. R., & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college: Effects for
postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90(4), 670-681.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for
composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Hsu, Pi-Ying. (2000). The effects of peer modeling on Taiwanese college students’ self-
efficacy and reading performance in English class. Dissertation Abstracts
International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 60(8-A), 27-98.

91
Jacobs, J. E.; Lanza, S.; Osgood, D.; Eccles, J. S.; Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in
children's self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across
grades one though twelve. Child Development, 73(2), 509-527.

Karl, K. A., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Martocchio, J. J. (1993). The impact of feedback and
self-efficacy on performance in training. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
14(4), 379-394.

Koch, A. (1999). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science
Education, 85(6), Nov 2001, 758-768.

Kolligian, J. Jr., & Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Intelligence, information processing, and
specific learning disabilities: A triarchic synthesis. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 20, 8-17.

Lau, L. K. (2003). Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education, 124(1).

Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal
questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96(2), 283-296.

McClendon, R. C. (1996). Motivation and cognition of preservice teachers: MSLQ.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23(3), 216-220.

Metallidou, Panayiota (2003). Motives, language performance, and metacognitive
experiences in a text-comprehension task. The Journal of the Hellenic
Psychological Society, 10(4), 538-555.

Minnaert, A. (1999). Motivational and emotional components affecting male's and
female's self-regulated learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
14(4), 525-540.

Napoli, A. R., & Hiltner, G. J. (1993). An evaluation of developmental reading
instruction. Journal of Developmental Education, 17 (1), 14-20.

National Institute for Literacy. (2003). The state of literacy in America: Estimates at
the local, state, and national levels. Retrieved September 23, 2003, from
http://www.nifl.gov/reders/!intro.htm

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching
children to read—Reports of the subgroups: Comprehension, part II: Text
comprehension instruction. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.htm

92
Nicaise, M., Gettinger, M. (1995). Fostering reading comprehension in college students.
Reading Psychology, 16(3), 283-337

Nicholls, J. G. (1979). Development of perception of own attainment and causal
attributions for success and failure in reading. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 94-99.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 543-578.

Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, 10, 1-49. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.

Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1985). Reciprocal teaching: Activities to promote
reading with your mind. In T.L. Harris & E.J. Cooper (Eds.), Reading, thinking
and concept development: Strategies for the classroom. New York: The College
Board.

Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. R. (1986). Children’s reading strategies, metacognition, and
motivation. Developmental Review, 6, 25-56.

Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Turner, J.C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In
R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research. (Vol. 2, pp. 609-640). New York: Longman.

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-
regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4),
385-407.

Pintrich, P. R., and DeGroot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1),
33-40.

Pintrich, P. R., and Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the
college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in
motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 371-402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pintrich, P. R. and Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research,
and Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

93
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the
use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MLSQ). Technical
Report No. 91-B-004. The Regents of the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: University of Michigan.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Quirk, M. P. & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2004). Do supplemental remedial reading
programs address motivational issues of struggling readers: An analysis of five
popular programs. (2004). Reading Research and Instruction, 43(3), 1-19.

Rayner, K., Foorman, G. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D. & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001).
How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological
science in the public interest, 2(2), 31-74.

Scholnick, E. K. & Freidman, S. L. (1993). Planning in context: Developmental and
situational considerations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16,
145-167.

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science,
26, 113-125.

Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., Bendixen, L. D., & DeBacker, R. T. (1995). Does a general
monitoring skill exist? Journal of Educational Psychology,87(3), 433-444.

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational
Psychology Review, 1, 173-208.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 26, 233-262.

Schunk, D.H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic
settings. In D.H. Schunk, and B.J.Zimmerman, Self-regulation of learning and
performance: issues and educational applications, pp.75-99. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erblaum.

Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.),
Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp.
281-303). New York: Plenum Press.

94
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal
setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning
Difficulties, 19(2), 159-172.

Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning theories: An Educational Perspective. Upper Saddle
River: Pearson Education, Inc.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on
self-efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading
services. Journal of Special Education, 27, 257-276.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence.
Educational Psychologist, 32, 195-208.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, G. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning: From
teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., and Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81(1), 91-100.

Sundre, D. L. & Kitsantas, A. L. (2004). An exploration of the psychology of the
examinee: Can examinee self-regulation and test-taking motivation predict
consequential and non-consequential test performance? Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 29 (1), 6-26.

Swanson, H.L., (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem
solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 306-314.

The Education Trust. (2003). African American Achievement in America. Retrieved
March 18, 2005, from http://www.edtrust.org

Thiede, K. W., Anderson, C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive
monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1),
66-73.

Tinto, V. (1998) Learning communities: Building gateways to student success. Annual
meeting of the American College Personnel Association, St. Louis, Missouri.

Tobias, S. (1995). Interest and metacognitive word knowledge. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87(3), 399-405.

95
Townsend, M. A. R., Hicks, L. (1997). Classroom goal structures, social satisfaction
and the perceived value of academic tasks. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 67(1), 1-12.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2005). Profile
of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions: 2003-04, With a
special analysis of community college students. Retrieved June 29, 2008, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006184.pdf.

U.S. National Center for Educational Studies (1997a). Confronting the odds: Students
at risk and the pipeline to higher education. Retrieved September 23, 2003, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98094.pdf

U.S. National Center for Educational Studies (2003b). Status and trends in the
education of Blacks Retrieved September 23, 2003, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003034.pdf

VanZile-Tamsen, Carol, (2001). The predictive power of expectancy of success and task
value for college students' self-regulated strategy use. Journal of College Student
Development, 42(3), 233-241.

VanderStoep, S. W. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003) Learning to learn: The skill and will of
college success. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey and Columbus, Ohio: Prentice
Hall.

Veenman, M. V. J. & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). Intellectual and metacognitive skills of
novices while studying texts under conditions of text difficulty and time
constraint. Learning & Instruction, 14(6), 621-640.

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A
developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.

Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.

Wigfield, A, & Eccles, J.S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies
for success and achievement values from childhood through adolescence. In A.
Wigfield & J.S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 91-
120). London: Academic Press.

Wigfield, A.; Eccles, J. S; Yoon, K. S.; Harold, R. D.; et al. (1997). Change in children's
competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years:
A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 451-469.

96
Wigfield, A. & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to
the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89(3), 420-432.

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children’s motivation
for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. The Journal of
Educational Research, 97(6), 299-309.

Wong, B.Y.L. (1986). Metacognition and special education: A review of a view.
Journal of Special Education, 10(1), 9-29.

Yanok, J. (1993). College students with learning disabilities enrolled in developmental
education programs. College Student Journal, 27, 166-173.

Young, D. B., & Ley, K. L. (2002). Self-efficacy of developmental college students.
Journal of College Reading and Learning. 33(1), 21-31.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An
Overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In
M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation
(pp. 13-35). New York: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Marinez-Pons, M. (1992). Student differences in self-regulated
learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.

97
Appendix A

Reading Motivation and Reading Strategies Survey*

Part A. Motivation

Directions: The following questions ask about your motivation for and attitudes about
this reading class. Keep in mind that there are no right or wrong answers. Answer as
accurately as possible. Answer the questions below by circling the number that best
represents you. A score of 7 means that the statement is very true of you, and a score of 1
indicates that the statement is not at all true about you. If the statement is more or less
true of you, find the number between 1 and 7 that best describes you.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all
true of me
Very true
about me

1. I think I will be able to use what I learn in this course in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
other courses.

2. It is important for me to learn the material in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. I am very interested in the content area of this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. I think the material in this class is useful for me to learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I like the subject matter of this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Understanding the subject matter of this course is very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
important to me.

7. I believe I will receive an excellent grade in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. I’m certain I can understand the most difficult material 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
presented in the readings for this course.

9. I’m confident I can understand the basic concepts taught 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
in this course.

10. I’m confident I can understand the most complex material 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
presented by the instructor in this course.

11. I’m confident I can do an excellent job on the assignments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

98
and tests in this course.

12. I expect to do well in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. I’m certain I can master the strategies being taught in this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
class.

14. Considering the difficulty of this course, the teacher, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
my strategies, I think I will do well in this class.

Part B. Learning Strategies

Directions: The following questions ask about your learning strategies for this reading
class. Again, keep in mind that there are no right or wrong answers. Answer as
accurately as possible. Answer the questions below by circling the number that best
represents how you study. A score of 7 means that the statement is very true of you, and
a score of 1 indicates that the statement is not at all true about you. If the statement is
more or less true of you, find the number between 1 and 7 that best describes you.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all
true of me
Very true
about me

15. During class time I often miss important points because 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
I’m thinking of other things.

16. When reading for this course, I make up questions to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
help focus my reading.

17. When I become confused about something I’m reading 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
for this class, I go back and try to figure it out.

18. If course materials are difficult to understand, I change 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the way I read the material.

19. Before I study new course material thoroughly, I often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
skim it to see how it is organized.

20. I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
material I have been studying in class.

21. I try to change the way I study in order to fit the course 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
requirements and instructor’s teaching style.

99

22. I often find that I have been reading for class but don’t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
what it was all about.

23. I try to think through a topic and decide what I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
supposed to learn from it rather than just reading it over
when studying.

24. When studying for this course, I try to determine which 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
concepts I don’t understand well.

25. When I study for this class, I set goals for myself in order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
to direct my activities in each study period.

26. If I get confused taking notes in class, I make sure I sort 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
it out afterward.

Part C. Demographic Information

Directions: Circle the appropriate number.

27. Gender Male
1
Female
2

28. Class level 1
st
Year
1
2
nd
Year
2
3
rd
Year
3
4
th
or more
4

29. Ethnic background African
American
1
Asian
American
2
Caucasian

3
Hispanic
or Latino
4
Other

5

30. Name, city and state
of last school attended

Part D. Permission to Access School Records

_____ YES, I agree to allow the Principal Investigator to access my records to obtain my
grade for the Basic Skills Reading Course and my placement results.

_____ NO, I do not agree to allow the Principal Investigator to access my records to
obtain my grade for the Basic Skills Reading Course and my placement results.

Student’s Name: Student’s Signature:

100

*Questions 1-26 were reproduced from the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ) from Learning to Learn: The Skill and Will of College Success
(VanderStoep & Pintrich, 2003).

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

PDF

The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students

PDF

The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students

PDF

The impact of the mindful method Youth Empowerment Seminar (YES!) on students' self-efficacy, self-regulation, and academic performance for becoming college- and career-ready

PDF

The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment

PDF

What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?

PDF

Developmental education pathway success: a study on the intersection of adjunct faculty and teaching metacognition

PDF

Math achievement and self-efficacy of linguistically and ethnically diverse high school students: their relationships with English reading and native language proficiency

PDF

Examining the relationship between Latinx community college STEM students’ self-efficacy, social capital, academic engagement and their academic success

PDF

The relationship of gratitude and subjective well-being to self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs among college students

PDF

Vocational education graduates: a mixed methods analysis on beliefs and influences of career choice and persistence

PDF

Ready or not? Unprepared for community college mathematics: an exploration into the impact remedial mathematics has on preparation, persistence and educational goal attainment for first-time Cali...

PDF

Metacognition and self-regulation strategies to support high school student athletes

PDF

The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

The effects of math anxiety and low self-efficacy on students’ attitudes and interest in STEM

PDF

A quantitative study on southeast Asian and Latino student's perceptions of teachers' expectations and self-efficacy

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

A formative evaluation of the student support services TRIO program for low income and first generation college bound students self-efficacy at Butte-Glenn Community College District

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

Asset Metadata

Creator Randall, Ayesha Kecell Lindsey (author)

Core Title The effect of reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence of community college students enrolled in basic skills reading courses

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/31/2008

Defense Date 05/06/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag achievement,basic skills,community college,Developmental,expectancy-value,metacognition,metacognitive,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,persistence,Reading,remedial,self-efficacy,self-regulation

Language English

Advisor Dembo, Myron H. (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis J. (committee member), Rueda, Robert S. (committee member)

Creator Email esha_bell@yahoo.com,lindsey@post.harvard.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1493

Unique identifier UC179893

Identifier etd-Randall-2029 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-89803 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1493 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Randall-2029.pdf

Dmrecord 89803

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Randall, Ayesha Kecell Lindsey

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu