Reading for different goals

1. Reading for different goals:
the interplay of EFL college students’
multiple goals, reading strategy use
and reading comprehension
Tung-hsien He
National Taipei University of Education
This study explored the effects of achievement goals on English as a foreign
language (EFL) college students’ reading strategy use and reading comprehension
from the perspective of multiple goals. Fifty-seven participants verbalised their
thoughts while reading an English expository essay. They also completed
assessments on their reading goal profiles and reading proficiency. The results of
stimulated recall indicated that participants with profiles characterised by strong
mastery and strong performance goals used intra-sentential, inter-paragraph, intra-
paragraph and monitoring/evaluating strategies significantly more frequently than
did their counterparts. In contrast, participants with profiles characterised by strong
mastery but weak performance goals utilised these strategies more often than those
participants with weak mastery but strong performance goals. The strong-mastery–
strong-performance goal profile served as a significant, positive predictor for degrees
of reading comprehension. In line with these findings, suggestions for EFL reading
pedagogy are provided.
Reading strategy and reading comprehension
Reading is a meaning-searching and meaning-constructing process that requires effort on
the readers’ part if they want to understand written texts. In research seeking to under-
stand the processes that contribute to reading comprehension, considerable attention has
been focused on reading strategy use (Block, 1986; Lee, 1986; Pritchard, 1990). In the
first language (L1) reading literature, accumulated evidence shows that skilled reading is
characterised by an ability to use strategies such as monitoring, inferring or activating
schemata (Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu & LaVancher, 1994). Skilled readers cautiously and
constantly monitor their comprehension, and know how to make bridging inferences
across various segments of texts. They also modify or elaborate inferences based on prior
knowledge or on new clues gathered from the text. In addition, skilled readers use logic
or background knowledge to surmount reading difficulties. Use of these strategies leads
to a better understanding of the contents of written texts (McNamara, 2004).
Journal of Research in Reading, ISSN 0141-0423 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00355.x
Volume 31, Issue 2, 2008, pp 224–242
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

2. Studies focusing on second language (L2) readers also identify a close relation
between reading strategy use and reading achievement (Anderson, 1991; Barnett, 1988;
Brantmeier, 2002; Sarig, 1987; Singhal, 2001). For instance, proficient L2 readers differ
from less proficient ones in their strategy use (Block, 1992; Carrell, 1987; Casanave,
1988; Jime´nez, Garcı´a & Pearson, 1996). They constantly apply strategies such as
monitoring, activating instantiated schemata, making intelligent guesses as to the
meanings of unfamiliar words and establishing ties within or across sentences and
paragraphs to comprehend texts. In contrast, less proficient L2 readers use fewer types of
strategies or seldom use them. Other studies show that advanced L2 readers transfer L1
strategies like questioning and rereading to their L2 reading (Hardin, 2001; McLaughlin,
1987; Taillefer & Pugh, 1998). Together, these findings imply that not only will proficient
L2 readers dedicate effort to understanding meanings of isolated vocabulary and single
sentences, but they also strive to make connections and achieve coherence at the
discourse level in order to capture the main ideas encoded in print. In addition, they
associate and relate the incoming information to their schemata and use them as
ideational scaffolding to grasp the gist of written passages. When encountering reading
difficulties, these competent readers compensate for their linguistic deficits by making
intelligent guesses based on contextual or linguistic clues. They closely monitor their
reading comprehension and evaluate the appropriateness of previous inferences after new
information has been processed. They are also aware of their strategic knowledge in L1
reading and are capable of applying it to L2 reading. As these findings indicate, the use of
top-down (global) and bottom-up (local) strategies is a major distinguishing characteristic
of proficient versus less proficient L2 readers (McDonough, 1999; Oxford, 1993).
Reading motivation
In addition to viewing reading as an activity that demands cognitive and meta-cognitive
effort, reading must also be seen as a motivated act. Research has suggested that reading
is a multifaceted activity, and its motivational constituent interacts with strategy use,
exercising a considerable impact on the development of text comprehension. For
instance, Guthrie et al. (2004) contend that motivation for reading is a predominant
predictor of reading amount, reading strategy use and text comprehension. In other
words, motivation regulates the amount of reading readers engage in, guides their use of
processing strategies and eventually affects the end results of their reading achievement.
However, even though researchers agree that motivation is an antecedent of strategy use
and learning achievement, defining this construct such that its influences can be clearly
explicated still remains controversial (Stipek, 2002). In the reading domain, Guthrie and
Wigfield (1999) suggest that reading motivation be construed as goals that readers have
established for themselves to fulfil when engaged in reading tasks. Championing this
proposition, Meece and Miller (1999) advocate exploring effects of motivation within the
framework of goal theory. Recently, Guthrie et al. (2006) accentuated that emphasising
achievement goals for reading is one of several effective practices that enhance reading
motivation of young students.
As Midgley et al. (1998) have long recognised, ‘achievement goal theory has emerged
as a major new direction in motivational research’ (p. 114). L2 researchers have also
acknowledged the significance of achievement goals. For instance, Schmidt, Boraie
and Kassabgy (1996) posit that identifying learners’ goals is more rewarding than
READING FOR DIFFERENT GOALS 225
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

3. distinguishing their instrumental or integrative orientations. Do¨rnyei (2003) also
considers goal theory a central theme in contemporary motivation studies. From these
standpoints, exploring L2 readers’ goals conforms to this development in motivation
theory.
Goals, reading strategy use and reading comprehension
According to goal theory, motivation for learning is conceptualised as goal-directed
behaviours that have been initiated by learners to complete learning tasks (Ames, 1992;
Duda & Nicholls, 1992). Two types of achievement goals have been examined, namely,
mastery goals and performance goals. Learners who adopt mastery goals value learning
as an end in itself. The primary purpose for getting involved in tasks is to refine skills and
accumulate knowledge. In this regard, mastery-focused learners define success on a self-
referential basis, feeling contented with their gradual mastery over skills. In contrast,
learners with performance goals deem learning a means to demonstrate an exceptional
ability over others. They strive to complete tasks in order to outperform others. Success,
therefore, is defined as superior normative competence over peers. It is noteworthy that
mastery and performance goals both represent different forms of approach motivation
(Harackiewicz & Linnenbrink, 2005). In other words, learners who focus either on
learning or on performance will actively approach the learning task, even though they
differ in what they consider to be a desirable learning outcome.
The effects of readers’ goals on reading strategy use and comprehension are explored
in a limited number of studies (Meece & Miller, 1999). Among them are Taraban,
Rynearson and Kerr (2000), who found that college students are motivated to utilise
distinct comprehension strategies to fulfil their different reading goals. The more
strategies they report using, the better reading and academic performances they achieve.
Additionally, Meece and Miller (1999) argue that students with a high mastery goal for
reading display stronger intentions and commitments to text comprehension and
knowledge construction than those with a low mastery goal. Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala
and Cox (1999), who construe reading motivation as a set of goals, posit that goals for
reading not only guide young students’ processing of information, but they also regulate
the amount of reading students do and, therefore, become a reliable predictor for text
comprehension. As these studies indicate, different goals may require different amounts
of reading effort and perseverance; in order to attain these different goals, readers adopt
different strategies or adapt their patterns of strategy use. These flexible adaptations
influence reading performance (Ames & Archer, 1988).
Multiple goals
In the literature, a mastery goal is consistently found to associate with adaptive strategy
use, but the effects of having a performance goal are mixed (Kaplan, Middleton, Urdan &
Midgley, 2002). To account for this inconsistency, the framework of multiple goals is
advocated (see Harackiewicz & Linnenbrink, 2005, for detailed discussion). In essence,
this framework emphasises the combined effects of different goals on learning. That is,
a single strong goal will work with the other goal, either strong or weak, to enhance
optimal motivation, and further affects learners’ cognition, affect and learning outcomes.
226 HE
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

4. For example, a single strong goal may predominate in a learner, but the relatively weaker
goal will also have an effect, with both concurrently exercising their distinctive
influences on learning. On the other hand, two strong goals may simultaneously coexist in
learners and exercise combined effects. From these perspectives, it is the configuration of
two goals rather than a single strong goal that mediates and regulates learners’ effort and
strategy use (Pintrich, 2003).
Empirical evidence has justified the existence and significance of multiple goals in
learning achievement contexts. Pintrich (2000) finds that young learners who focus on
fulfilling both mastery and performance goals follow ‘an equally adaptive trajectory that
parallels those students who are only focused on mastery and learning goals’ (p. 553). A
longitudinal study by Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer and Elliot (2002) also shows that the
pursuit of the two goals in college learning settings proves to be more adaptive than a
focus on a single goal. Similarly, Barron and Harackiewicz (2001) contend that college
students who cultivate two strong goals tend to be more interested in their learning tasks
and perform better than those with one single goal. Moreover, Linnenbrink (2005) reports
that the classroom goal context where both mastery and performance goals are
emphasised is the most beneficial one for learning.
Taken together, these results imply that performance-focused learners will actively
approach learning tasks because their superior ability relative to others can be
acknowledged through their success in accomplishing their designated tasks. However,
in the process of their striving to fulfil performance goals, these readers may also come
to realise that their engagement in tasks can concurrently promote their reading skills.
Because both desirable end states can simultaneously be achieved through task
accomplishment, the goal of outperforming others will not contradict the goal of
promoting mastery (He, 2000). Therefore, learners can simultaneously hold mastery and
performance goals, and to varying degrees (Kaplan et al., 2002).
A rich body of reading literature has revealed that motivation and strategy use are the
two critical factors that significantly impact degrees of comprehension (Guthrie et al.,
2004). In the L2 motivation literature, Schmidt and Watanabe (2001) also accentuate that
‘motivation does indeed affect strategy use and preferences for different types of
classroom activities’ (p. 313). As goal theorists highlight, mastery and performance goals
may coexist in learners and simultaneously exert combined effects on learners’ cognition
and achievement. Championing this proposition, a more appropriate research framework
for goal studies will be multiple goals. In addition, just as an individual goal will
influence learners’ strategy use, it is expected that the configuration of mastery and
performance goals may exercise these effects as well (Harackiewicz & Linnenbrink,
2005). However, relatively little investigation has been conducted on English as a foreign
language (EFL) readers in task-attainment contexts. To explicate which goal profiles will
be the most beneficial for reading strategy use and reading comprehension, this study is
designed to address the following questions:
1. Will adult EFL readers who have strong-mastery–strong-performance (SMSP),
strong-mastery–weak-performance (SMWP) and weak-mastery–strong-performance
(WMSP) goal profiles choose different types of reading strategy significantly more
often? If so, which groups select which strategies?
2. Will adult EFL readers with different goal profiles achieve significantly different
levels of reading comprehension? If so, which groups of readers will attain better
reading comprehension?
READING FOR DIFFERENT GOALS 227
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

5. 3. Can different profiles of mastery and performance goals serve as significant, positive
predictors of the frequency of use of reading strategies and of reading comprehension?
If so, which types of goal profiles can assume these predictive functions?
Method
Participants
College students in Taiwan were identified as participants with appropriate goal profiles
to be assigned to the three experimental groups (SMSP, SMWP and WMSP, all with
similar levels of reading proficiency) through the administration of two measures. First, a
goal scale adapted from Ames and Archer (1988) was administered. This scale included
16 5-point Likert items, 8 of which estimated the magnitude for mastery goals, while the
remaining 8 measured performance goals (see Appendix). Students’ responses to the
scale were analysed first by performing a non-hierarchical cluster analysis. Using this
method allowed the SMSP, SMWP and WMSP clusters to be formed a priori (Valle et al.,
2003). Then students in each cluster were appropriately labelled. Second, a reading
proficiency test was administered, which contained 16 multiple-choice items to assess
comprehension of three English passages taken from the Practice Test of English as a
Foreign Language (PTEFL), Form 994. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to identify
students with similar levels of reading proficiency (Anderson, 1991; Jime´nez et al., 1996).
Results showed that students who scored 15 or 16 on their reading test formed the only
cluster that could establish three groups large enough for running any statistical analysis.
For this reason, 57 students were randomly selected from this cluster to form three
experimental groups, each of which constituted 19 participants with anticipated goal
profiles and equivalent reading proficiency.
To measure the validity of the goal scale, exploratory factor analysis with Principal
Component as the extraction method and Varimax as the rotation method was performed.
Two latent factors that accounted for 77.38% of variance were successfully extracted, and
all items were loaded on them as predicted. Values of h2
(communalities) fell between .85
and .55. Cronbach’s a was also performed to assess its reliability, and the value was .88.
To test the internal consistency and discriminability of the reading proficiency test,
Cronbach’s a was computed and was found to be .89. The values of item discriminability
ranged from .56 to .87. Based on these results, the validity and reliability of the two
instruments was strongly attested.
Reading tasks: think-aloud and stimulated recall
Cohen (2003) argues that ‘language use strategies focus primarily on helping students
utilize the language that they have already learned to whatever degree’ (p. 208).
Following Cohen’s concept, this study defined a reading strategy as the behaviours,
actions and thoughts that EFL readers initiated and demonstrated in the course of their
making sense of an English expository essay. To capture their reading strategies,
participants verbalised their thoughts in English while reading English passages (Ericsson
& Simon, 1980). This think-aloud method was used because, as Bereiter and Bird (1985)
emphasise, ‘thinking aloud offers the promise of breaking into the reading process to
reveal on-line strategies’ (p. 132). Immediately after participants had finished their think-
aloud tasks, the videotapes of think-aloud protocols were played back for each participant
228 HE
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

6. to clarify any confusions. This procedure of stimulated recall (Fontaine, 1989; Gass,
2001) was recorded by another digital camcorder and used as the primary data for
strategy coding.
Reading comprehension tasks: retellings and reading comprehension test
To measure reading comprehension, two activities were performed. First, participants’
oral retellings were recorded and analysed in terms of idea units (Pritchard, 1990). The
total numbers of idea units were used as an index to represent the extent of reading
comprehension. Next, a reading comprehension test that contained five multiple-choice
items and five essay questions was administered. Two raters scored answers to these
essay questions on a 4-point rubric adapted from Chen and Grave’s (1995) study. To
estimate the interrater reliability, the Cohen’s Kappa statistic was computed. The k
coefficient, .89, indicated a substantial degree of agreement on both raters’ classification
(Carletta, 1996). The maximum score for this test was 25, and the numbers of correct
responses were used as the second index to indicate levels of reading comprehension.
Reading strategy coding
Seven steps were adopted to identify reading strategies from the protocols of stimulated
recall (Pritchard, 1990). The strategy of ‘wisely guessing meanings of unknown or
unfamiliar vocabulary according to language-based clues’ will be used as an example to
illustrate how a strategy was identified and categorised. First, protocols of stimulated
recall were transcribed verbatim: ‘I don’t know what shamrock means. Maybe it is a kind
of plant. What makes me think it is a kind of plant? Oh, it is because in the subsequent
sentence, it says ‘‘its three leaves’’. So, I guess it is a kind of plant or something like
that’. Second, the corresponding stimulus sentence was provided: ‘His name is always
associated with the shamrock because he was in the habit of using its three leaves to
explain the Trinity’. Third, key portions of transcriptions were excerpted: ‘Oh, it is
because in the subsequent sentence, it says ‘‘its three leaves’’. So, I guess it is a kind of
plant or something like that’. Next, descriptions of a specific strategy were provided:
‘intelligently guessing meanings of vocabulary according to language-based clues’.
Afterward, the descriptions of excerpted transcriptions were compared with descriptions
of the specific strategy to evaluate whether they matched. In this case, both transcriptions
matched so that the strategy of ‘wisely guessing meanings of unknown or unfamiliar
vocabulary according to language-based clues’ was determined. Subsequently, the
strategy was classified into the category of ‘Comprehension within Individual Sentences’
because it was applied to reach comprehension of an individual word within a sentence.
All the strategy-coding procedures were applied to each participant’s protocols.
This seven-step coding scheme was chosen because of the following three
considerations. First, its feasibility has been verified in previous studies (He, 2002;
Pritchard, 1990). The high interrater reliability reported suggests that the variance of rater
agreement is considerably low. Second, this scheme provides stepwise procedures to code
excerpted transcriptions into strategies. Simply by following the seven-step procedure,
distinctive strategies could be recognised. Third, it offers detailed definitions of
individual strategies, and, by relying on these descriptions, protocols can be coded into
strategies in a more accurate and consistent fashion.
To test the reliability of the strategy coding, participants’ stimulated recall, along with
coding schemes, were sent to an L2 reading expert for coding. The value of Cohen’s k
READING FOR DIFFERENT GOALS 229
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

7. coefficient, .81, indicated a satisfactory degree of consistency between the two coders
(Carletta, 1996).
Results
Twenty-three individual strategies identified from participants’ stimulated recall were
grouped into five strategy categories (see Table 1).
The strategies of Comprehension within Individual Sentences (CIS), Comprehension
within Individual Paragraphs (CIP) and Comprehension across Paragraphs (CAP)
highlighted the cognitive and meta-cognitive effort that participants devoted to
establishing inter-sentential, intra-paragraph and inter-paragraph ties. Using Background
Knowledge (UBK) and Monitoring/Evaluating Comprehension (MEC) strategies
revealed participants’ striving both to seek out non-linguistic information from their
background knowledge and to monitor or evaluate their current levels of comprehension.
To further test the relation between goal profiles, strategy use and reading
achievement, the mean levels and standard deviations of strategy use frequency and
reading comprehension performances were computed. These data are reported in Table 2.
To ascertain which strategy categories were used most often across the three groups,
MANOVA with an a level set at .05 was performed (see Table 3).
As shown in Table 3, there were significant main effects of group for four of the five
strategies (CIS, CIP, CAP, MEC), with only UBK showing no significant differences
among the three groups. These main effects of group were explored using post
hoc, Scheffe´ tests, on paired-group mean differences in frequency of strategy use (see
Table 4).
As shown in Table 4, differences between the SMSP and SMWP groups, SMSP and
WMSP groups and SMWP and WMSP groups were significant for CIS, CIP, CAP and
MEC. The SMSP group obtained the highest means on the frequency of use of these four
categories, the SMWP group was second and the WMSP group was the lowest.
To determine whether it was a single goal or a particular type of goal profile that best
predicted the frequency of use of each strategy category, five stepwise multiple-
regression (MR) analyses were performed. In each analysis, four variables were entered
as predictors. The establishment of the four predictor variables was made by modelling
Newman’s (1998) and He’s (2005) studies. Specifically, the three groups, which
represented corresponding types of goal profiles, were binary coded. Two dummy
variables were established and entered as predictors, Contrast 1 (the SMSP group vs the
WMSP group) and Contrast 2 (the SMWP group vs the WMSP group), with the WMSP
group being treated as the reference group. Additionally, total scores on mastery and
performance items, which represented two distinct goals, were computed and entered as
the other two predictors. Noticeably, because the literature does not clearly specify the
entering sequence of the four predictors into regression models, this study used the
stepwise technique rather than hierarchical methods. As shown in Table 5, when
compared with the WMSP group, membership of the SMSP group served as a significant,
positive predictor of the frequency of use of CIS (t 5 17, po.05), CIP (t 5 15.31,
po.05), CAP (t 5 4.44, po.05) and MEC (t 5 11.29, po.05) strategies.
Membership of the SMWP group was the other significant predictor for the frequency
of use of CIS strategies (t 5 9.52, po0.05). However, the standardised B values of
the two dummy variables for frequency of use of CIS were 1.51 and 0.59, respectively.
230 HE
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

8. Table1.Taxonomyofreadingstrategies.
StrategycategoryDescriptions
I:ComprehensionwithinIndividualSentences(CIS)
1.Translatingverbatim1.Word-to-wordtranslationfromL1toL2
2.Rereadingvocabulary,phrasesand/orsentences2.Repeatingwordsorphrasesorsentencesthathavebeenjustread
3.Paraphrasingvocabulary,phrasesand/orsentences3.Interpretingintendedmeaningsandideasbyusingownwords
4.Intelligentguessatmeaningsofunknownorunfamiliarvocabulary
accordingtolanguage-basedclues
4.Reasoningpossiblemeaningsofunknownorunfamiliarwordsbasedonlinguistic
information;e.g.guessing‘shamrock’asakindofplantbasedontheremainderofthe
sentence,‘itsthreeleaves’
5.Intelligentguessatmeaningsofunknownorunfamiliarvocabulary
accordingtonon-language-basedclues
5.Guessingunknownorunfamiliarwordsrelyingonnon-linguisticcluessuchas
retrievinginformationfrombackgroundknowledge
6.Intelligentguessatintendedmeaningsofsentencesbothaccordingto
language-basedandnon-language-basedclues
6.Reasoningorguessingmeaningsofunknownorunfamiliarwordsrelyingonboth
linguisticinformationandnon-linguisticclues
II:ComprehensionwithinIndividualParagraphs(CIP)
1.Confirmingspeculatedmeaningsacrosssentences1.Confirmingmeaningsofprevioussentencesaccordingtothemeaningsofother
sentenceswithinidenticalparagraphs
2.Revisingspeculatedmeaningsacrosssentences2.Reconstructingmeaningsofprevioussentencesaccordingtothemeaningsofsentences
withinthesameparagraph
3.Summarisingcomprehensionacrosssentences3.Summarisingmeaningsofdifferentsentenceswithinthesameparagraph
4.Summarisingcomprehensionofindividualparagraphs4.Summarisingkeyideasofindividualparagraphs
III:ComprehensionacrossParagraphs(CAP)
1.Confirmingspeculatedmeaningsofsentencesacrossparagraphs1.Confirmingmeaningsofprevioussentencesaccordingtothemeaningsofother
sentencesinotherparagraphs
2.Revisingspeculatedmeaningsofsentencesacrossparagraphs2.Reconstructingmeaningsofprevioussentencesaccordingtothemeaningofother
sentencesinotherparagraphs
3.Confirmingspeculatedsummariesofparagraphs3.Confirmingsummariesofpreviousparagraphsaccordingtounderstandingofother
paragraphs
4.Revisingspeculatedsummariesofparagraphs4.Revisingsummariesofpreviousparagraphsaccordingtounderstandingofother
paragraphs
READING FOR DIFFERENT GOALS 231
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

9. Table1.Continued
StrategycategoryDescriptions
IV:UsingBackgroundKnowledge(UBK)
1.Activatingbackgroundknowledge1.Usingbackgroundknowledgetograspgistofreadingcontents
2.Associatingtextwithpersonalexperiences2.Associatingincominginformationtopersonalexperiences
3.Associatingvisualisedimageswithmemory3.Visualisingimagesintermsofassociatingincominginformationtoconceptsinmemory
4.Speculatingbeyondthetext4.Speculatingbeyondtheinformationpresented
V:Monitoring/EvaluatingComprehension(MEC)
1.Monitoringcomprehension1.Selectivelypayingattentiontospecificaspectsofinformationand/orsituationaldetails
2.Evaluatingcomprehension2.Evaluatingcomprehensionprogressbymakingjudgementalstatements
3.Intentionallyskippingunknownvocabulary3.Skippinganunknownwordwhencomprehensionisjudgedtobeattained
4.Intentionallyskippingremainderofasentence4.Skippingremainderofasentencewhencomprehensionisjudgedtobeattained
5.Intentionallyskippingremainderofaparagraph5.Skippingremainderofaparagraphwhencomprehensionisjudgedtobeattained
232 HE
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

10. This suggested that the SMSP group would be a stronger predictor of the frequency of use
of this type of strategy than the SMWP group. Taken together, these results suggest that
participants with both strong mastery and strong performance goals tended to use CIS,
CIP, CAP and MEC strategies more often than those with SMWP or WMSP goal profiles.
In addition, mean scores on mastery goal items significantly and positively predicted
frequency of use of CAP (t 5 11.02, po.05) and MEC (t 5 8.55, po.05) strategies. (In
contrast, mean scores on performance goal items significantly, but negatively, predicted
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of strategy use frequency and reading comprehension indexes.
Frequency
Groups
SMSP SMWP WMSP
M SD M SD M SD
CIS 14.05 2.55 9.79 1.238 4.37 1.12
CIP 13.05 2.15 10.42 1.58 4.16 1.61
CAP 16.11 2.42 10.21 1.36 5.37 1.89
UBK 3.00 0.88 3.47 1.22 2.95 0.85
MEC 13.00 3.13 10.05 1.31 4.16 0.77
Reading comprehension indexes
Recalled idea units 19.95 0.78 18.58 0.69 17.11 0.57
Reading test 13.89 0.46 12.74 0.56 11.47 0.51
Notes: CIS, Comprehension within Individual Sentences; CIP, Comprehension within Individual Paragraphs;
CAP, Comprehension across Paragraphs; UBK, Using Background Knowledge; MEC, Monitoring/Evaluating
Comprehension.
Table 3. MANOVA on mean use frequency of strategy categories.
df MS F Z2
CIS 2 447.60 145.14*
.84
CIP 2 396.68 123.03*
.82
CAP 2 549.33 145.86*
.84
UBK 2 1.60 1.61 .06
MEC 2 385.12 95.63*
.78
Notes: CIS, Comprehension within Individual Sentences; CIP, Comprehension within Individual Paragraphs;
CAP, Comprehension across Paragraphs; UBK, Using Background Knowledge; MEC, Monitoring/Evaluating
Comprehension.
*
po.05.
Table 4. Post hoc (Scheffe´) on paired-group mean differences in strategy use frequency.
Paired groups
Mean differences (Standard error)
CIS CIP CAP UBK MEC
SMSP/SMWP 4.26*
(0.57) 2.63*
(0.59) 5.90*
(0.63) À 0.47 (0.32) 2.95*
(0.65)
SMSP/WMSP 9.68*
(0.57) 8.89*
(0.59) 10.74*
(0.63) 0.05 (0.32) 8.84*
(0.65)
SMWP/WMSP 5.42*
(0.57) 6.26*
(0.59) 4.84*
(0.63) 0.52 (0.32) 5.89*
(0.65)
Notes: CIS, Comprehension within Individual Sentences; CIP, Comprehension within Individual Paragraphs;
CAP, Comprehension across Paragraphs; UBK, Using Background Knowledge; MEC, Monitoring/Evaluating
Comprehension.
*
po.05.
READING FOR DIFFERENT GOALS 233
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

11. frequency of use of CIP [t 5 À 11.36, po.05], CAP [t 5 À 7.71, po0.05] and MEC
[t 5 4.01, po0.05] strategies.) These results indicate that a single goal could be a
predictor of the frequency of use of these types of strategies. However, the standardised B
values of the two predictors were still lower than those of the SMSP goal profile (SE
B 5 À .68 vs .92 for CIP; SE B 5 .94/ À .45 vs .96 for CAP; SE B 5 1.23/ À .55 vs 1.55
for MEC). Therefore, the SMSP goal profile was a stronger predictor for the use
frequency of CIP, CAP and MEC strategies than a single goal was.
To test whether the three groups differed in their reading comprehension, one-way
ANOVA was performed on numbers of idea units recalled and on reading comprehension
test scores: descriptive statistics for these data can be seen in Table 2, and results of the
analyses in Table 6.
As shown in Table 6, the main effect of group was significant in both these analyses;
idea units, F(2, 54) 5 87.71, po.05; comprehension test, F(2, 54) 5 105.87, po.05.
Pairwise comparisons using the Scheffe´ test indicated that for both measures of
comprehension, the mean differences in the scores of SMSP and SMWP, of SMSP and
WMSP and of SMWP and WMSP were all significant (see Table 7). The SMSP group
recalled the most idea units and obtained the highest scores on the reading test, with the
SMWP group scoring the second most idea units and second highest scores, and the
WMSP the least and the lowest.
Stepwise MR was carried out to determine significant predictors of degrees of reading
comprehension. Each of the two indexes of reading comprehension were used as
dependent variables, and the frequency of use of each strategy category, along with two
dummy variables (Contrast 1 and Contrast 2) and scores on mastery and performance
items, were entered as predictors. As shown in Table 8, in the two final regression
Table 5. Stepwise multiple regressions on strategy use frequency.
Predicting variables
Contrast 1 Contrast 2 Mastery goal Performance goal
B SE B t B SE B t B SE B t B SE B t R2
DR2
CIS 9.68 1.51 17.00*
5.42 .59 9.52*
ns ns .84 .26
CIP 8.05 0.92 15.31*
ns ns À .37 À .68 À 11.36*
.83 .02
CAP 9.70 0.96 4.44*
ns 0.59 0.94 11.02*
À .28 À .45 À 7.71*
.84 .17
UBK ns ns ns ns
MEC 13.12 1.55 11.29*
ns 10.42 1.23 8.55*
À .29 À .55 À 4.01*
.87 .16
Notes: Contrast 1, the SMSP group was coded 1 and the WMSP was coded 0; Contrast 2, the SMWP group was
coded 1 and the WMSP was coded 0; Mastery Goal, Total Scores on Mastery Items; Performance Goal, Total
Scores on Performance Items; SE B, Standardised B; CIS, Comprehension within Individual Sentences; CIP,
Comprehension within Individual Paragraphs; CAP, Comprehension across Paragraphs; UBK, Using
Background Knowledge; MEC, Monitoring/Evaluating Comprehension; R2
, Adjusted R2
; ns, a non-significant
variable removed from final regression models.
*
po.05.
Table 6. One-way ANOVA on means of reading comprehension indexes.
Comprehension indexes df MS F Z2
Recalled idea units 2 38.39 87.71*
.75
Reading test 2 27.86 105.87*
.80
*
po.05.
234 HE
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

12. models, for both reading comprehension measures, the same three significant, positive
predictors were identified. For number of idea units recalled, positive predictors were
Contrast 1 (t 5 6.51, po.05), frequency of use of CAP (t 5 2.04, po.05) and MEC
strategies (t 5 2.11, po.05). For comprehension test scores, positive predictors again
were Contrast 1 (t 5 4.50, po.05), frequency of use of CAP (t 5 2.57, po.05) and MEC
strategies (t 5 2.27, po.05).
Thus, increased use of CAP and MEC strategies led to better recall of idea units and
better reading comprehension scores. It should be noted that, for both reading
comprehension measures, the standardised B values of Contrast 1 were higher than
those of CAP or MEC (SE B 5 .42 vs .30/.22, for recalled idea units, respectively; SE
B 5 .71 vs .31/.32, for the reading test, respectively). In other words, the SMSP goal
profile was a stronger predictor of reading achievement than frequency of strategy use. In
addition, Contrast 2 was found not to be a significant predictor of reading comprehension.
That is, neither the SMWP nor the WMSP goal profile could predict reading
achievement. Based on these findings, a close relation between goal profiles and reading
achievement was suggested: participants with the SMSP goal profile tend to attain better
reading results than those with the SMWP or WMSP goal profiles.
To summarise, a consistent tendency was identified in these results: the SMSP group
was found to use strategies of CIS, CIP, CAP and MEC most often, and this group also
recalled the most idea units and obtained the highest scores on the reading comprehension
test. In contrast, the SMWP group used these types of strategies less often than the SMSP
group but still more often than the WMSP group; likewise, the number of idea units it
recalled and the scores it obtained on the reading test were lower. In addition, the
performance goal was a negative predictor for the frequency of the use of CIP, CAP and
MEC strategies, whereas the mastery goal served as a positive predictor for the use
Table 7. Post hoc (Scheffe´) on paired-group mean differences in reading comprehension indexes.
Paired groups
Mean differences (standard error)
Idea units Scores on reading test
SMSP/SMWP 1.37*
(0.22) 1.15*
(0.17)
SMSP/WMSP 2.84*
(0.22) 2.42*
(0.17)
SMWP/WMSP 1.47*
(0.22) 1.27*
(0.17)
*
po.05.
Table 8. Final models of stepwise multiple regressions on reading comprehension indexes: significant
predictors.
Predicting variables
Contrast 1 CAP MEC
B SE B t B SE B t B SE B t R2
DR2
Recalled idea units 0.14 .42 6.51*
.09 .30 2.04*
.62 .22 2.11*
.77 .02
Reading test 1.67 .71 4.50*
.73 .31 2.57*
.08 .32 2.27*
.82 .02
Notes: Contrast 1, the SMSP group was coded 1 and the WMSP was coded 0; CAP, Comprehension across
Paragraphs; MEC, Monitoring/Evaluating Comprehension; R2
5 Adjusted R2
; SE B, Standardised B.
*
po.05.
READING FOR DIFFERENT GOALS 235
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

13. frequency of CAP and MEC strategies. However, the SMSP goal profile was a stronger
predictor of the use frequency of these types of strategies than the mastery goal or the
performance goal. Furthermore, the SMSP goal profile was also a stronger predictor for
reading comprehension than the frequency of use of CAP and MEC strategies. Together,
the SMSP goal profile was significantly associated with the use frequency of reading
strategies and end results of reading comprehension.
Discussions and implications
As the reading strategy taxonomy suggests, participants, on the one hand, apply bottom-
up strategies, such as CIS, CIP and CAP, both to reach CIS and to establish meanings
across sentences and paragraphs. On the other hand, they also use top-down strategies
such as activating background knowledge to comprehend written print by relying on
schemata. Further, participants’ conscious behaviours of estimating and scrutinising their
current reading achievement are revealed from their use of MEC strategies. These
findings imply that not only have participants established their own repertoires of use
strategies, but they also have cultivated an ability to choose strategies from these
repertoires to comprehend written texts (Cohen, 2003; Jime´nez et al., 1996; Mokhtari &
Sheorey, 2002).
This study also shows that participants with the two strong goals are more likely to
apply CIS, CIP, CAP and MEC strategies to make sense of written texts than their
counterparts with only one strong goal accompanied by a weak goal. As the frequency of
use of these strategies implies, participants with the SMSP goal profile seem willing to
devote effort to attaining sentential, within-paragraph and across-paragraph comprehen-
sion. They also monitor the reading process and evaluate their current levels of reading
comprehension. To establish comprehension within sentences, the SMSP participants
tend to reread and paraphrase vocabulary and phrases in a sentence more often than their
counterparts with only one strong goal accompanied by a weak goal. If difficulties in
understanding unknown or unfamiliar words or phrases arise, the SMSP participants tend
to assess in advance how critical the difficulties are in reaching comprehension, and then
decide to choose particular compensating strategies. If the difficulties will not hinder
comprehension, these participants may intentionally skip them. If the difficulties will
affect comprehension, the SMSP participants will make intelligent guesses based on
linguistic and non-linguistic clues as to the meanings of words or phrases causing
difficulty. Also, these participants tend to summarise their comprehension of an
individual paragraph or to confirm and revise speculated meanings across different
sentences and paragraphs. On the contrary, the WMSP participants seem to be the least
interested in establishing comprehension both at the sentence and paragraph levels so that
CIS, CIP and CAP are utilised least often, compared with the SMSP and the SMWP
participants. Additionally, the WMSP participants rarely monitor or evaluate their
comprehension, and are less willing to deal with reading difficulties caused by unknown
and unfamiliar words or phrases. It is also noteworthy that compared with this WMSP
group, the SMWP group is more prone to work through their reading difficulties, to
establish comprehension and to monitor and evaluate their comprehension, but uses these
strategies less often than does the SMSP group. All these findings strongly suggest that
differences in frequency of strategy use are associated with different goal profiles that
participants adopt. In other words, two contrasting goals have been combined to form the
236 HE
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

14. optimal motivation that in turn impacts the frequency in the use of these reading
strategies. This accords with previous research, lending support to the concepts of
multiple goals (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Harackiewicz et al., 2002; Midgley,
Kaplan & Middleton 2001; Pintrich, 2000).
To illustrate, it is salient that both SMSP and SMWP groups exhibit a dominant
mastery goal. But the SMSP participants are simultaneously mediated by a strong
performance goal to outperform others. To achieve the two goals, the SMSP participants
become more eager to complete the reading task than their counterparts; accordingly,
strategies are used more frequently. In contrast, a weak performance goal may not be
so strong as to mediate the SMWP participants to compete against one another.
Consequently, strategies are used fewer times. Similarly, different magnitudes in the
mastery goal may account for why the SMSP and WMSP groups use reading strategies
differently. As Tremblay and Gardner (1995) report, ‘specific goals and frequent
reference to these goals lead to increased levels of motivational behavior’ (p. 515). This
study furthers this proposition by demonstrating that EFL readers regulate their use of
strategies according to their goal profiles rather than based on a single strong goal.
The positive impact of the SMSP goal profile on EFL readers’ frequency of use of
strategies and reading achievement is further justified by MR results. The performance
goal is found to be a negative predictor for the frequency of use of CIP, CAP and MEC
strategies. However, once the strong performance goal is coupled with a strong mastery
goal, the SMSP goal profile turns out to be a positive predictor for the use frequency of
these types of strategy. Additionally, the SMSP goal profile serves as a stronger predictor
of the degrees of reading comprehension compared with the other two predictors. These
results all point toward the conclusion that EFL readers combine performance goals with
their mastery goals to form the optimal motivation. Because a performance goal is
conceptualised as the approach orientation to outperform others, to achieve this goal,
participants are actively engaged in their reading, striving to complete their designated
tasks. Meanwhile, a mastery goal may mediate these participants to focus on promoting
their reading skills. To fulfil this mastery goal, they actively approach their tasks. Having
strong intentions to fulfil two goals by completing their reading tasks, the SMSP
participants are oriented to establishing ties across paragraphs, to scrutinising their
reading comprehension and to working through difficult texts. With the frequent use of
these strategies to comprehend written texts, the SMSP participants attain better reading
comprehension. As Midgley et al. (2001) emphasise, benefits of a performance goal may
occur in conjunction with a mastery goal. Pintrich (2000) also argues that learners who
simultaneously emphasise performance and focus on learning reveal adaptive strategy
use patterns. From these standpoints, the possible adverse influence of a performance goal
on EFL writing seems to be considerably mediated by a strong mastery goal.
The coexistence of two strong goals in the Taiwanese participants in this study lends
support to previous studies that identify learners with the SMSP goal profile. For instance,
Shih (2005) finds that, on the one hand, Taiwan society highly esteems students who
devote learning effort to bettering themselves, but, on the other, schools and classrooms
emphasise student performance in competitions as the means to getting higher scores,
entering better schools or securing better jobs. Situated in these social and scholastic
contexts, Taiwanese students typically adopt SMSP goals at the same time. In addition, a
study by He (2000) also reveals that Taiwanese college students tend to approach their
reading tasks with two strong goals because they believe promoting reading mastery and
outperforming other peers can be simultaneously satisfied through task accomplishment.
READING FOR DIFFERENT GOALS 237
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

15. In line with these findings, participants in this study exhibit this same type of goal profile
partly because of their experience in a mastery-focused society and performance-oriented
classrooms and partly because of their beliefs in the values of task engagement.
This study also finds that the use frequency of CAP and MEC strategies can positively
predict reading comprehension. This finding is consistent with the results reported in a
previous reading research. The literature indicates that the use of strategies of monitoring
and establishing ties across paragraphs may lead to better second language reading
achievement. For instance, Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) report that skilled readers
typically monitor their meta-cognitive strategy use while reading. One of the less
effective strategies identified by Barnett (1988) is that readers simply read each paragraph
by itself without establishing ties across paragraphs. Jime´nez et al. (1996) argue that
successful readers intentionally monitor and estimate their comprehension so that they
can focus their attention on solving comprehension obstacles such as unknown
vocabulary. As Oxford (2003) emphasises, a useful strategy would be ‘the strategy
relates well to the L2 task at hand’ (p. 274). This study shows that the SMSP participants
have included CAP and MEC strategies in their strategy repertoire, and once their reading
tasks call for these strategies, they can be retrieved easily. Also, because these strategies
are beneficial for improving text comprehension, the SMSP participants, who use them
more often to accomplish their designed reading tasks, therefore reach a higher level of
comprehension than their counterparts.
It is found that neither a mastery goal nor the SMWP goal profile can predict reading
comprehension. Of the five types of strategies, the SMWP goal profile can merely predict
the use frequency of CIP strategies. But the SMSP goal profile serves as a stronger
positive predictor both for the end results of reading and the use frequency of strategies.
Moreover, the SMSP group yields the highest scores on the reading comprehension tests
and recalls the most idea units among the three experimental groups. These findings
concur with previous research. For instance, Harackiewicz et al. (2002) emphasise that
‘jointly pursuing mastery and performance-approach goals may prove to be a more
adaptive motivational strategy than a sole focus on mastery goals in some educational
contexts’ (p. 573). Kaplan et al. (2002) also contend that learners with two strong goals
might be able to adopt and adapt processing strategies. Ng (2006) proposes that
performance goals are adaptive if mastery goals are strong as well. Veroff (1969) has
long claimed that learners would need to develop mastery and performance goals in order
to adapt to varied educational environments. This position is corroborated by Riveiro,
Cabanach and Arias (2001), who recommend the adoption of multiple goals other than a
single mastery goal in order to make learning more flexible for each situation. Together,
it is suggested that the most appropriate goal profile for EFL readers to develop should be
the SMSP goal.
In conclusion, to help EFL readers to develop their SMSP goals, EFL reading teachers
may need to create a learning environment where students can attain the sense of both
self-worth and other-worth when striving to accomplish reading tasks. In addition, EFL
reading teachers may need to implement strategy-use instruction to help students use
CAP and MEC strategies in an appropriate manner and at the proper point. Finally, the
relation between goals, strategy use and reading comprehension may provide EFL
reading teachers with first-hand information to unveil why certain students choose certain
types of strategies. Relying on this information, teachers may arrange and execute
reading practices more effectively. Although this study focuses on EFL readers, and
results are promising for EFL reading pedagogy, generalising the findings to non-EFL
238 HE
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

16. readers remains possible but caution needs to be exercised. First, the selected participants
may be oriented by cultural and educational contexts to adopt one of the three types of
goal profiles towards a reading task. More research effort is needed to identify whether
other readers with or without similar living or learning experience will reflect these goal
profiles. Second, participants are identified to apply five categories of strategies to
complete their reading tasks. Researchers may need to investigate whether other readers
with these goal profiles will reveal similar strategy-use patterns and whether these
strategy-use patterns will remain identical across different reading tasks. Third, this study
measures the approach dimension of the performance goal, estimating participants’
striving for accomplishing rather than avoiding tasks. Whether it is necessary to further
distinguish EFL readers’ performance goals into approach and avoidance dimensions
requires additional effort. Finally, the relation between goals, strategy use and reading
comprehension does not necessarily signal causality, and careful examination of possible
causal relations is called for.
Acknowledgement
This study is supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan (NSC-96-2914-1-152-
001-A1; NSC-95-2411-H-152-005; NSC-94-2411-H-152-005).
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology,
84(3), 261–271.
Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and
motivational process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267.
Anderson, N.J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing.
The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460–472.
Barnett, M.A. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects FL comprehension.
The Modern Language Journal, 72(2), 460–472.
Barron, K.E. & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal
models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 706–722.
Bereiter, C. & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension
strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2(2), 131–156.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3),
463–494.
Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and FL readers. TESOL Quarterly,
26(2), 319–341.
Brantmeier, C. (2002). Second language reading strategy research at the secondary university levels: Variations,
disparities, and generalizability. The Reading Matrix, 2(3), 1–14.
Carletta, J. (1996). Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics,
22(2), 1–6.
Casanave, C.P. (1988). Comprehension monitoring in ESL reading: A neglected essential. TESOL Quarterly,
22(2), 283–302.
Carrell, P. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 461–481.
Chen, H. & Graves, M.F. (1995). Effects of previewing and providing background knowledge on Taiwanese
college students’ comprehension of American short stories. TESOL Quarterly, 29(4), 663–686.
Chi, M.T.H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanation improves
understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.
READING FOR DIFFERENT GOALS 239
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

17. Cohen, A.D. (2003). The learner’s side of foreign language learning: Where do styles, strategies, and tasks
meet? IRAL, 41, 279–291.
Do¨rnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research,
and application. Language Learning, 53(1), 3–32.
Duda, J.L. & Nicholls, J.G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84(3), 290–299.
Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, H.A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251.
Fontaine, S.I. (1989). Using verbal reports to learn about children’s audience awareness in writing. Educational
Research Quarterly, 13(3), 26–35.
Gass, S.M. (2001). Innovations in second language research methods. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21,
221–232.
Guthrie, J.T. & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading,
3(3), 199–205.
Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K.C., Taboada, A., Davis, M.H. et al. (2004). Increasing
reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96(3), 403–423.
Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N.M., Perencevich, K.C., Taboada, A. & Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences
of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4),
232–245.
Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J.L. & Cox, K.E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text
comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 231–256.
Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., Tauer, J.M. & Elliot, A.J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A
longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from
freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 562–575.
Harackiewicz, J.M. & Linnenbrink, E.A. (2005). Multiple achievement goals and multiple pathways for
learning: The agenda and impact of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 75–84.
Hardin, V.B. (2001). Transfer and variation in cognitive reading strategies of Latino fourth-grade students in a
late-exist bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 539–561.
He, T.H. (2000). Comprehending EFL reading comprehension: The interplay of cultural schemata and goal
orientations on on-line strategies and reading comprehension in an EFL (Taiwan) context. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
He, T.H. (2002). Beyond the schema-theoretic perspective: Comprehending adult EFL readers’ comprehension
of an English expository essay that describes a culturally familiar event. The English Teacher: An
International Journal, 5(2), 148–161.
He, T.H. (2005). Effects of mastery and performance goals on the composition strategy use of adult EFL writers.
The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(3), 407–431.
Jime´nez, R.T., Garcı´a, G.E. & Pearson, P.D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students
who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1),
90–112.
Kaplan, A., Middleton, M.J., Urdan, T. & Midgley, C. (2002). Achievement goals and goal structures. In
C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. (pp. 21–53). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Lee, J.F. (1986). Background knowledge & L2 reading. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 350–354.
Linnenbrink, E.A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple goal contexts to
promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 197–213.
McDonough, S. (1999). Learner strategies. Language Teaching, 32, 1–18.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Reading in a second language: Studies with adult and child learners. In S.R. Goldman &
H.T. Trueba (Eds.), Becoming literate in English as a second language. (pp. 57–70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McNamara, D.S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1–30.
Meece, J.L. & Miller, S.D. (1999). Changes in elementary school children’s achievement goals for reading
and writing: Results of a longitudinal and an intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3),
207–229.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A. & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under
what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 77–86.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M.L., Urdan, T., Anderman, L.H. et al. (1998). The
development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 23, 113–131.
240 HE
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

18. Mokhtari, K. & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of
Developmental Education, 25(3), 2–10.
Newman, R.S. (1998). Students’ help seeking during problem solving: Influences of personal and contextual
achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 644–658.
Ng, C.H. (2006). The role of achievement goals in completing a course assignment: Examining the effects of
performance-approach and multiple goals. Open Learning, 21(1), 33–48.
Oxford, R.L. (1993). Research on second language learning strategies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
13, 175–187.
Oxford, R.L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. International Review
of Applied Linguistics, 41, 271–278.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544–555.
Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and
teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research
Quarterly, 25(4), 273–295.
Riveiro, J.M.S., Cabanach, R.G. & Arias, A.V. (2001). Multiple-goal pursuit and its relation to cognitive, self-
regulatory, and motivational strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 561–572.
Sarig, G. (1987). High level reading in the first and the foreign language: Some comparative process data. In
J. Devine, P. Carrell & D. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading English as a second language. (pp. 105–120).
Washington: TESOL.
Schmidt, R., Boraie, D. & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal structure and external
connections. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century. (pp. 9–70).
Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.
Schmidt, R. & Watanabe, Y. (2001). Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign language
learning. In Z. Do¨rnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition. (pp. 313–359).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Sheorey, R. & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among
native and nonnative readers. System, 29(4), 431–449.
Shih, S.S. (2005). Taiwanese sixth graders’ achievement goals and their motivation, strategy use, and grades:
An examination of the multiple goal perspective. The Elementary School Journal, 106(1), 39–58.
Singhal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and FL readers. The
Reading Matrix, 1(1), 1–10.
Stipek, D. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice. (4th edn). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Taillefer, G. & Pugh, T. (1998). Strategies for professional reading in L1 and FL. Journal of Research in
Reading, 21(2), 96–108.
Taraban, R., Rynearson, K. & Kerr, M. (2000). College students’ academic performance and self-reports of
comprehension strategy use. Reading Psychology, 21, 283–308.
Tremblay, P.F. & Gardner, R.C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. The Modern
Language Journal, 79(4), 505–520.
Valle, A., Cabanach, R.G., Nunez, J.C., Gonzalez-Pienda, J., Rodriguez, S. & Pineiro, I. (2003). Multiple goals,
motivation and academic learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(1), 71–87.
Veroff, J. (1969). Social comparison and the development of achievement motivation. In C.P. Smith (Ed.),
Achievement-related motives in children. (pp. 46–101). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Appendix
1. I understand that it will be fine to make some errors when I perform this task
2. I care about whether I can learn something new from performing this task rather
than whether other participants can perform better or get higher grades
3. I keep trying to complete this task as best as I can even though I may make some
errors
4. I care more about improving my reading skills than about raising my grades by
participating in this task
READING FOR DIFFERENT GOALS 241
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007

19. 5. I feel confident in accomplishing this task because I know I have the ability to
complete it
6. I try my best to solve the problems I may encounter while performing this task
7. I enjoy performing this task because it can help me improve my reading skills by
understanding my reading processes
8. I evaluate this task based on the progress I can make rather than on my performance
or the grades I receive
9. I understand that I have to compete against all other participants to earn the highest
grade
10. I understand that only a very few participants can receive the best grades
11. I understand that some participants will be favoured to get higher grades
12. I wish I knew how well other participants have performed
13. I realise that errors should be avoided in order to get the highest grades
14. I care about performing better than other participants
15. I concentrate on getting the best grades
16. I evaluate this task based on whether I can outperform other participants
Received 5 May 2006; revised version received 4 October 2007.
Address for correspondence: Tung-hsien He, 9F-1, No. 22, Nanhua Road, Zhonghe
City, Taipei County 235, Taiwan. E-mail: the@tea.ntue.edu.tw, tunghsienhe@anet.
net.tw
242 HE
r United Kingdom Literacy Association 2007