| Following trends in English as a Second Language (ESL) reading instruction since the 1970s and 1980s, skills-based and other types of reading strategy instruction have become increasingly popular in certain English as a Foreign Language (EFL) settings as well. Little evidence exists, however, that current approaches to and certain recommendations for strategies instruction are effective in enhancing comprehension in an EFL---or even ESL---context. Moreover, some doubt has been raised as to the effectiveness and appropriateness of strategy instruction in certain EFL contexts (Akamatsu, 2001; Robbins, 1999; Takeuchi 1994).;An experimental study on reading strategy instruction was conducted with Japanese tertiary-level EFL learners of intermediate proficiency ( N = 68). The design contained two control and two experimental groups that received differing types of instruction in the use of two kinds of reading strategies (Summarizing and Word Attack) over a 15-1/2-week period in order to test the hypotheses that (1) learners receiving strategy training (Experimental Condition) would outscore those receiving no training (Control Condition) on two types of tasks (Written Recall and Multiple-choice), and that (2) among experimental treatment participants, learners receiving explicit/metacognitive instruction (Explicit Group) would outscore those receiving implicit instruction (Implicit Group).;In the preliminary data analysis, subject demographic, pretest, posttest, and gain descriptive data and statistics were described and examined and instrument reliability and validity were assessed. In the main analysis, participants' posttest and gain scores were tested by means of Two-Way and One-Way Analysis of Variance, and Two-Way and One-Way Analysis of Covariance with participants' pretest and combined posttest passage/task-related judgment score covariates. A series of Linear Regression Analysis was also conducted between participants' reported pretreatment strategy use and pretest, posttest, and gain scores.;Due to possible pre-training differences between groups, results of the data analysis were ambiguous, though suggested no differences between groups attributable to experimental treatments in terms of either posttest or gain scores. Design flaws and instrument reliability-related problems were also judged to be present. Tentative interpretations of the results, implications, and additional limitations are further discussed and recommendations for future research and practice in EFL reading strategies instruction presented. |
