Bridging the gap: Comparing the relative effects of sustained silent reading (SSR), assisted repeated reading (ARR), and traditional reading (TR) on EFL learners' reading comprehension and silent reading rate, vocabulary knowledge, motivation for reading, and attitudes toward reading

This quasi-experimental study, which employed a pretest-posttest design and a mixed-methods approach, aimed (1) to investigate the effects of 10-week Sustained Silent Reading (SSR), Assisted Repeated Reading (ARR), and Traditional Reading (TR) instructions on reading performance of Turkish EFL university students in terms of their L2 reading comprehension and silent reading rate, vocabulary knowledge (i.e., receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge), and individual factors involving L2 reading motivation (i.e., intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for reading) and attitudes toward reading in L2 by also taking into consideration the possible effect of different proficiency levels (i.e., low and high-proficiency participants) both within and across groups. The second aim was (2) to investigate the relationship among L2 reading comprehension, silent reading rate, vocabulary knowledge (i.e., receptive and productive), and reading motivation (i.e., intrinsic and extrinsic). The third and the final aim was (3) to discover the predictors of L2 reading comprehension. For the purposes of the study, a sample of forty-one Turkish EFL students enrolled in the English Preparatory Program, Department of Foreign Languages Education, Faculty of Education at a mixed-medium state university in Turkey participated in this study. The quantitative data came from (a) a general reading comprehension and silent reading rate test, (b) vocabulary tests, and (c) a motivation for reading questionnaire—all of which were administered as both pre and posttests. On the other hand, the qualitative data came from (d) participant reflections and (e) semi-structured focus-group interviews. The findings of the study revealed that since none of the three treatments focused in this study (i.e., SSR, ARR, and TR) did not by themselves improve all the components of L2 reading comprehension, "hybrid" reading programs in university-level EFL contexts should be prepared according to the needs of different proficiency-level students. More specifically, findings showed that for lower-proficiency learners, the ARR and TR instructions focusing more on traditional reading and assisted repeated reading instruction provided better results. High-proficiency participants, on the other hand, benefitted more from the SSR instruction where meaningful reading opportunities were provided than the traditional reading classes could provide.