ASSESSING PROSODIC SKILLS, FLUENCY AND READING COMPREHENSION

OF GRADE 3 PUPILS: IMPLICATION FOR REMEDIATION PROGRAM

_________________________

A graduate Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the College of Education
University of Southeastern Philippines
Bo. Obrero, Davao City

_________________________

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Education Major in Language Teaching

_________________________

MARIA LUCILLE O. MEJIAS

December 2018
 CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

In this era of globalization, reading has taken a new perspective. The

popularity of modern communication gadgets and the availability of Internet

connections everywhere have influenced the students’ reading attitude in one way or

another (Delfin, 2017). Beginning readers at the early stages of reading acquisition

usually decipher texts in a slow manner, ignoring punctuation marks and expressing

themselves with little prosody variation (Samuels, 2006).

In the International context, the National Center for Educational Statistics

(2011) has reported that a large number of students struggle to read not only

proficiently and fluently, but also to comprehend what they are reading. However,

there is insufficient research conducted to determine the most effective fluency

instructional practices to help students consistently make gains in reading

comprehension, as well as in fluency (Lipson et al., 2011)

Moreover in Philippines, in elementary schools in the Division of Manila, the

Phil- IRI (Philippine- Informal Reading Inventory test scores reveal that only one-

sixth to one-third of pupils can read independently at the desired grade level. By the

end of the elementary cycle (Grade 6), over one-third of elementary graduates were
identified as “frustrated” readers; another one-third were “instructional” readers. Both

levels are below the desired reading level at the end of the elementary cycle. If

Metro Manila shows a higher literacy level than the rest of the country but low levels

of reading competence, one can only expect even lower reading scores in other

regions of the country with less endowments and educational facilities than the

National Capital Region (Luz, 2007)

Locally, prosodic skills, fluency and comprehension are indeed big problems

and causes another problem in other areas. Current research says that reading

comprehension and fluency is even more acute in rural areas. In Surigao Del Sur

(North-eastern Mindanao), the problem is worrisome. Not only the students are

experiencing difficulties but also the teachers as well. Some teachers are not able to

teach competently in language and in reading fluency and comprehension. Studies

show that rural teachers need special interventions; workshops, seminars, and

training to be more effective and competent enough as teachers (Abarillo, 2011).

Furthermore, students frequently make improvements in two of fluency’s

dimensions, rate and accuracy, but these improvements have not consistently

correlated to improvements in reading comprehension, which is the objective of

reading. (Overstreet, 2014). Interventions that contribute to gains in fluency and in

comprehension, which can be implemented by classroom teachers with similar

amounts of ease and time investment, must be found and validated. One such

approach is an instructional focus in the dimension of reading fluency described as

reading with expression, or prosody. However, little research has been done in both

public and private elementary schools on how an instructional focus on prosody

affects students’ fluency or reading comprehension.

The purpose of this study is to assess the prosodic skills, reading fluency and

reading comprehension of students and to compare the performance of oral reading

prosody of students before (pre-test) and after (post-test) and provide and

intervention program with emphasis on prosody. This assessment has important

implications for further research and classroom implementation strategies.

Lastly, the following stakeholders will benefit from this study: first, students

will determine their proficiency in fluency, specifically in prosody and the level of their

comprehension. Second, teachers would find means and ways of strategic

intervention for the improvement of fluency and comprehension. Third, the

administration—to improve the academic system by providing an excellent summary

of ways to the teachers in which oral reading fluency and comprehension can be

taught and nurtured in classrooms, toughen the reading comprehension questions of

the students through modifying test items. Fourth, the curriculum designers—for

them to generate and modify methods assessing a student’s level of achievement at

any given moment. And hopefully, the results of this study would serve as a valuable

source of information for researchers who would wish to undertake similar

investigation.
Review of Related Literature

Reading

Reading is essentially a process of making meaning—of comprehending text;

however, many sub-processes contribute to this meaning-making process.

Beginning readers must first learn to break the code, coming to understand the

connection between 29 letters and their corresponding sounds and then build on this

knowledge to decode words accurately, which eventually allows them to read with

automaticity. As readers develop these skills, they become fluent, reading with

appropriate speed, accuracy, and prosody. To read with automaticity, students must

be able to decode with ease; to read with prosody, students must have developed

automaticity (Penner-Wilger, 2008). Good decoding must be present for automaticity

to be present, and automaticity must be present for good prosody to be possible. In

many developing readers, fluency leads to comprehension, allowing readers to

understand the text they read, or to make meaning (Cooter, 2012).

Oral Reading Fluency

What is oral reading fluency? The answer to this question has been and continues to

be a matter of contention within the field of education (Schrauben, 2010). This battle

is not simply a war of words or an issue of semantics, but one that has crucial

implications for literacy education since the manner in which fluency is defined has

profound effects on how it is taught and assessed. Those who adopt a bottom-up

approach see fluency as a step in a sequential progression of reading skills that lead
to comprehension (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974), while those who adhere to a more

developmental approach, see fluency and its link to reading comprehension as a

complex interplay of skills and processes that involves numerous feedback loops

(Topping, 2012). Clearly, each of the aforementioned definitions would lead to widely

divergent instructional and assessment practices. The definition of fluency chosen

for use in this study necessitated a close examination of the multiple dimensions of

fluency, which include rate, accuracy, automaticity, and prosody.

Prosody

There are many skills that children need to develop to become successful

readers (Judge, 2013). Prosody, the ability to read with appropriate expression,

intonation and phrasing in order to maintain text comprehension (Kuhn,

Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger, 2010) is often overlooked, however. Yet a number of

authors (Breen, 2014; Valle, Binder, Walsh, Nemier, & Bangs, 2013) stress the

importance of prosody in language acquisition and development, and later in reading

acquisition.

Prosody seems to serve semantic and pragmatic functions in the organization

of verbal messages by transforming auditory inputs into structured patterns that

organize and maintain information in working memory (Herold, Nygaard, & Namy,

2012). Tone and pitch, for example, two basic components of prosody, as well as

the rhythmic structure and pauses of speech, underlie the grammatical, semantic
and pragmatic functions of intonation in the organization of speech (Kehoe, 2013;

Paulmann, Titone, & Pell, 2012).

Some authors (Dowhower, 1991; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003) emphasize that

prosodic features support not only the understanding of oral language but also

reading comprehension. In fact, intonation, reading stress and phrasing, have been

associated both with reading fluency (Ardoin, Morena, Binder, & Foster, 2013;

Schrauben, 2010) and reading comprehension (Arcand et al., 2014; Binder et al.,

2013). Prosody in reading is currently conceptualized as a multifactorial concept.

Rasinski (1990, 2004) states that there are four main components of prosody in

reading: (a) expressiveness, that refers to a kind of reading that sounds like natural

language, with appropriate tone and volume; (b) phrasing, that denotes the reader

awareness of phrase boundaries, the way he/she marks the end of sentences and

clauses, etc.; (c) smoothness, that as to do with how the reader slides over the text;

(d) and pace, that refers to the consistency and rhythm of reading along the text. For

evaluation purposes, some of these components are sometimes combined in a

single component (for instance phrasing/expressiveness) (Lopes, 2009). To read

fluently and to understand what is being read, the child has to make up for the lack

of prosodic information in the text, focusing on morphological, syntactic and

semantic signals as well as in punctuation (e.g., commas, signal pauses in speech)

(Kim, Park, & Wagner, 2014). Otherwise reading will be slow, tentative, and

inexpressive (Foorman, 2010).

Prosody and reading comprehension

In spite of mounting empirical evidence that reading prosody increases with

reading comprehension (Benjamin & Schwanenflugel, 2010; NICHD, 2000; Pinto &

Navas, 2011) the research findings in this area are still equivocal. Some researchers

report no significant relation between prosodic features and reading comprehension

(Stahl 2004), while others report strong evidence for this relation (Dowhower, 1991;

Klauda & Guthrie, 2008).

Schwanenflugel and cols. (2004) tested the relationship between reading

prosody and reading comprehension, asking children to read a syntactically easy

text. Results showed a significant relation between decoding and reading

comprehension. Miller and Schwanenflugel (2006) then studied some specific

features of prosodic reading (pitch and intra- and inter-sentence pauses) and found

that pitch variations independently contribute to reading comprehension. However

no significant relation between reading pauses and reading comprehension was

found. Still later, the authors conducted a longitudinal study to investigate the

relation between prosodic features and reading comprehension (Miller &

Schwanenflugel, 2008) and found that: (a) the decrease of inappropriate pauses

between 1st and 2nd grade predicted reading comprehension in 3rd grade; (b)

children who read faster made fewer pauses, and pauses were smaller in relation to

commas as well as at the end of sentences; (c) reading became more fluent and

smooth with practice; (d) less fluent readers made longer and more inappropriate
pauses, breaking the flow of the sentence, and making reading hesitant and choppy.

The authors also found children who read with an intonation similar to the intonation

of adults by the end of 1st grade, were better readers by the end of 3rd grade.

Assessing reading fluency through prosodic reading

The best way to assess reading fluency through prosodic reading is to listen

to a student read a passage and to then judge the quality of the reading using a

rubric that scores a student on the elements of expression and volume, phrasing,

smoothness, and pace. Students who score poorly may be considered at risk in this

dimension of reading fluency (Rasinski, 2003).

“Students who do not develop reading fluency, regardless of how bright they

are, are likely to remain poor readers throughout their lives,” (National Reading

Panel, 2000). Furthermore, according to U.S. department of Education, “Oral

reading fluency is the ability to read text with speed, accuracy, and proper

expression”. Educators measure oral reading fluency in two ways. Oral reading rate

is the number of words read correctly per minute. This measure is quick and easy to

administer, and correlates strongly with children’s comprehension test scores.

However, it ignores expressiveness. Prosodic oral reading is the best way to

measure ones fluency. Fluency rubrics score reading more subjectively and against

specified criteria. One such rubric rates expression and volume, smoothness,
phrasing and pace on separate 4-point scales. For example, the scale for pace

ranges from 1 for “slow and laborious” up to 4 for “consistently conversational”.

Others (e.g., Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; National Reading Panel, 2000) suggested

that more than automaticity of individual word decoding is necessary for

comprehension to be enhanced. Instead, they suggested that fluency, defined as not

only accuracy and automaticity of individual word reading, but also prosodic

rendering of the text, is needed for children to adequately comprehend.

Zutell and Rasinski recommended using Multidimensional Fluency Scale,

suggesting four dimensions in reading fluency namely expression and volume,

smoothness and phrasing.

Expression and Volume

Expression determines the impact of message. Emotions in reading suggest

that you care about the ideas presented in the text. It is thinking about the mood, or

feeling that you get from a selection. Reading with expression and enthusiasm

mostly retains audience attention and gives a visual impact of coordinating to

content. Volume or loudness is a perception energy used in voice production. It

means, being audible to audience. Moreover, variety will help retain attention

(Rasinski, 2003).

Smoothness
 Smoothness is reading with some breaks or pauses, right rhythm to specific

words and/or structures. To read smoothly means smoothly blending sounds

together, need to read without choppiness between the sounds. It is a sub skill in

reading that is vital in developing phonologic processing, the foundation for proficient

reading.

Phrasing

Phrasing is adhering to punctuation, stress and intonation. Reading with

phrasing in fluent reading allows student to use meaning and structure sources of

information to support the use of visual information.it is an integrated and flexible

manner to support the comprehension of text. Phrased is not simply a product of

reading, but a major contributor to reading proficiency (U.S. Department of

education.)

Pace

Pace or rapidness in reading is not a magic, nor is it a big expensive mystery.

Speed reading simply teaches a handful of easy techniques that help a person focus

his/her attention better. The eye is drawn to motion. One should be a good reader

before attempting to speed read. Pacing is a critical component of an effective

reading system (Doyle, 2002)

Reading Comprehension
 Reading comprehensionis an active process. Readers must be mentally

active in order to relate new information to their own background knowledge and

beliefs (Reynolds, 2002). Reading comprehension is not only understanding the

meaning of words and grammatical rules, but one must also look over the

individual’s background and how he or she uses his or her experiences in the

reading process (Bell and Clark, 1998). The comprehension process could start in

the reader’s mind or on the printed text. It is also well established that those who

comprehend well tend to have good vocabularies (Anderson & Pearson, 1990).

As viewed by Arieta (2001), reading comprehension is a holistic process of

constructing meaning from the written text through the interaction of a) the

knowledge the reader brings to the text, b) the readers interpretation of the language

used by the author in constructing the text and c) the situation where the text is read.

With this, the reader’s thinking skills will improve.

Barett (1968) divides reading comprehension into five (5) major skill level

which moves from easy to the difficult in terms of the demands they place on the

readers. The categories he suggests are: Literal Comprehension, Reorganization,

Inferential Comprehension, Evaluation and Appreciation.

Literal Comprehension

On Barrett’s Taxonomy, there is a hierarchy of levels of reading

comprehension. One on which is the literal comprehension which focuses on ideas

and information which are explicitly stated in the selection. A simple task in literal
comprehension may be the recognition or recall of a single fact or incident which

includes details, main ideas, cause and effect relationships, character traits and the

likes.

Reorganization

Reorganization requires the student to analyse, or organize ideas or

information explicitly stated in the selection. In other words, Reorganization is based

on a literal understanding of the text; students must use information from various

parts of the text and combines them for additional understanding. It requires the

student to recall from memory information explicitly stated in the text. This also

shows that they have not only understood the words, they also understand the

organization and the relationships between ideas.

Inferential Comprehension

Inferential comprehension is demonstrated by the student when the student

uses the ideas and information explicitly stated in the selection along with his or her

personal experience and knowledge as a basis for conjectures and hypotheses.

Inferential comprehension demands thinking and imagination that go beyond the

printed page. The crucial factor distinguishing inference questions from recognition

and recall questions is that their answers are not explicitly stated but must be

inferred.

Evaluation
 In this level, responses by the student should indicate that he or she made an

evaluative judgment by comparing ideas presented in the election with external

criteria provided by the teacher’s experiences, knowledge, or values. In essence,

evaluation deals with judgment and focuses on qualities of accuracy, acceptability,

desirability, worth or probability of occurrence.

Appreciation

Appreciation calls for the student to be emotionally and aesthetically sensitive

to the work and to have a reaction to the worth of its psychological and artistic

elements. Appreciation includes both the knowledge of the emotional response to

literary techniques, forms, styles and structures. It deals with the psychological and

aesthetic impact of the selection on the reader. Appreciation requires the student to

express emotional and aesthetic responses to the text according to personal

standards and to professional standards of literary forms, styles, genres, theories,

personal experiences, etc. this includes the emotional response to the text,

identification with characters or incidents, reactions to the author’s use of language.

The following are studies made related to this current study. The goal of these

related studies is to find out the relationship or reading fluency and comprehension.

Becoming a Fluent Reader: Reading Skill and Prosodic Features in the Oral
Reading of Young Readers
 Nearly all would agree that the development of reading prosody is a

phenomenon that occurs once decoding skills are fluent. Both Perfetti's

(1985) verbal efficiency theory and, in particular, LaBerge and Samuels's

(1974)automaticity theory would suggest that once words are processed fluently and

automatically, resources become available for children to engage in the additional

processing required for prosodic oral reading. However, the link between prosody

and other aspects of the reading process is unclear.

One possibility is that reading prosody is an epiphenomenon unrelated to

other important aspects of reading such as reading comprehension. For

example, Karlin (1985) rated pitch, stress, and pauses in college students and found

no relationship between prosody and comprehension skill. Another possibility, which

we term the reading prosody as partial mediator model, is that prosody may actually

assist reading comprehension. In this model, children who show rapid, accurate

decoding skills should have resources available to enable prosodic reading. Thus,

prosody may serve to mediate between decoding skills and comprehension to

enhance comprehension

Poor Fluency Can Have an Effect on Reading Comprehension

According to Hudson et al. (2005), each aspect of fluency has a clear connection to

reading comprehension. For example, inaccurate word reading can lead to

misinterpretations of the story, poor automaticity can strain the reader’s ability to

construct ongoing interpretation of the story, and poor prosody can lead to confusion
through inappropriate groupings of words or the inappropriate use of expression

(Hudson et al.).

Fluency Instruction Can Have an Effect on Reading Comprehension

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) found a close

relationship between fluency and reading comprehension (Armbruster et al., 2001).

A representative sample of the nation’s fourth-grade students who scored low on

fluency measures also scored low on comprehension measures (Armbruster et al.).

This suggests that fluency is often neglected in many classrooms across the country

and may be affecting many students’ reading comprehension. All three fluency areas

-- accuracy, rate, and prosody -- need to be developed for effective comprehensive

reading instruction for students (Hudson et al., 2005). Although some readers may

recognize words automatically in isolation or on a list, they might not read the same

words fluently when they appear in context. It is important to provide students with

instruction and practice in fluency as they read (Pikulski& Chard, 2005).

Reading Comprehension Remediation

The definition of reading comprehension remains a widely debated topic

(Leslie & Caldwell, 2000; cited in Middleton, 2011). It includes decoding meaning

from complex processes e.i. word reading and word knowledge. Orencia (2006)

questions why the Philippines continue to be poor despite of its high literacy rate and

found out that Filipinos are not a reading populace. Many studies conducted and

many surveys commissioned support the fact that many students have difficulty
comprehending what they read. All schools need to have some sort of remedial

reading program to help struggling students. Through the program it will make the

students create reading as a habit. Orencia (2006) noted; Children only learn only

half of what they are supposed to learn in school．The small percentage of

readership in the [Philippines] and the dismal performance of pupils in tests on

reading demonstrate the failure of many local schools to effectively foster the aims of

reading education. People’s survival and satisfaction in today’s age of information

explosion depend largely on their ability to read and write proficiently and critically.

(p. 3, 4) Reading is a fundamental skill and the early the students will receive the

interventions the better the impact on their studies and they will be able to cope.

Reading alone is of little value if the students cannot draw out the meaning of what

they are reading. If the schools will address the issue it will be a win-win solution.

Through remediation, the students will be able to read and comprehend and the

schools will be able to serve its purpose ─ to teach.

Overview of Prosody Assessment

Given the importance of prosody’s contribution to the construct of fluency, one might

expect it to receive a great deal of attention in schools, both in instruction and in

assessment. However, as previously stated, most assessments of fluency used

widely in public schools today assess only basic fluency’s elements (rate and

accuracy), with little attention being paid to the instruction or assessment of

expressive fluency’s element of prosody. Moreover, prosody is directly affected in a

negative manner when students and teachers focus excessively on speed, as oral

reading fluency rate should be aimed at conversational rates (Paige, 2012).

Students who race through their reading to have a faster oral reading rate do so at

the expense of prosody. Reading too fast results in a loss of the expressive quality

of reading. This loss of prosody has negative consequences on the goal of

reading—comprehension (Roll et al., 2012).

Kuhn et al. (2010) suggest that good prosody improves comprehension, as

fluent readers embed the correct prosody into their oral reading, which illustrates

that they are making sense of the text. Prosody aids students in constructing

comprehension as well as indicating that they have achieved comprehension.

Prosody is often emphasized when reading poetry, dramatic text, and narrative text;

however, prosodic reading of any genre is linked to improved comprehension

(Rasinski, 2010). According to Paige (2012):

Students with greater prosody comprehend at a higher level. . . . One reason

for the connection between prosody and comprehension may involve working
memory. It has been hypothesized that prosody provides the reader with a
greater ability to hold an auditory sequence such as a phrase or a sentence in
working memory. This may provide the reader with an advantage in
processing textual details beyond that where words are simply encoded one
after another with no expression. (p. 61)

Since the goal of reading is comprehension, and good prosody is linked to

good comprehension, schools should begin to assess prosody in order to guide

instruction in this important aspect of fluency. However, many schools continue to

assess only rate and accuracy. Why is prosody neglected in the assessment of
fluency? Assessing prosody takes more time and expertise to assess than rate and

accuracy require and is considered by some as difficult to quantify (Fuchs, Fuchs,

Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001). In a seminal study on this topic, Dowhower (1991) indicates

that prosodic reading has several indicators, including the presence or lack of pausal

intrusions, the length of phrases between pauses, the ratio of inappropriate phrases

to appropriate ones, the duration of the final words of syntactic phrases, the stress or

accent, and the way pitch changes at final punctuation marks. In the classroom,

prosody is usually measured with rating scales such as the NAEP Oral Reading

Fluency Scale (Pinnell et al., 1995) or the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Zutell &

Rasinski, 1991). Kuhn et al. (2010) urge that more complex scales are needed to

accurately assess the complex phenomenon of prosody (p. 236 ).

Remedial reading program

Remedial reading program is a supplemental reading program that consists of

rereading unfamiliar text until a satisfactory level of fluency is reached. Remedial

reading is a strategy that implements assisted reading, reading while listening, and

paired reading. The approach implements the factors and instructional strategies

mentioned above. Literature has shown that remedial reading is an evidenced-based

strategy designed to increase reading fluency and comprehension (Therrien, 2004).

It has also indicated in order to achieve comprehension, students should read the

provided material three to four times, but reading the passage more than four times

does not increase comprehension (Therrien, 2004). The remedial reading strategy is
likely successful because it incorporates feedback from the instructor to the student

reader. According to Crowe (2005), studies show feedback given during oral reading

improves children’s word accuracy, reading comprehension and fluency. Intervention

programs involving comprehension-building skills, like remedial reading, strengthen

vocabulary (McCardle et al., 2001). This method of practice increases language

skills and builds general knowledge setting a foundation for basic life skills.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical context used to explain the relationships between the

variables in this study is the APP model that Overstreet (2014) developed. (See

Figure 1.) This theory was drawn from Topping’s (2012) deep processing fluency

(DPF) model, a theory with roots in the information processing model of reading

published in a seminal study by LaBerge and Samuels (1974). A bottom-up theory,

the DPF model, as shown in Appendix A, hypothesizes that while learning to read,

children progress sequentially along a multilevel framework of processes and sub-

processes, first developing phonemic awareness and then letter knowledge.

Topping’s (2012) theory enhances LaBerge and Samuels’s (1974) theory of

automaticity by positing that reading is made up of the reciprocating and recursive

interactions of lower-order and higher-order mental processes where deeper fluency

levels in which students have developed prosody (in addition to automaticity) enable

comprehension, and, hence, are effective to model prosodic skill development to

increases in reading comprehension. Therefore, the APP model provides a

meaningful framework for considering the relationship between the variables in this

study: a prosodic instructional focus in fluency lessons to growth in oral reading

fluency as observed in rate, accuracy, and reading prosody, as well as growth in

comprehension because instruction in prosody should lead to the expressive level of

fluency, as students learn to read with prosody and comprehension. Therefore using

these theories as a framework for analysing an instructional focus on prosody and

oral reading fluency and reading comprehension is appropriate .

Figure 1. Automaticity plus prosody (APP) fluency theoretical model

Conceptual Framework

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Prosodic Oral Reading Level of Reading

Fluency Comprehension

A. Expression and Volume A. Literal

B. Phrasing B. Reorganization

C. Smoothness C. Inference

D. Pace D. Evaluation

E. Appreciation

Remediation Program

Read Right Program (2004)

FIG. 1 Schematic Diagram of the Study

Figure 1 shows the paradigm of the study. The independent variable is the

oral reading fluency of which the indicators are expression and volume, phrasing,

smoothness and pace (Rasinski, 1991). On the other hand, the dependent variable

of the study is the Level of Reading Comprehension by Thomas Barrett’s Taxonomy,

which includes literal, reorganization, inference, evaluation and appreciation. Lastly,

there will be a remediation program implemented.

Statement of the Problem

This study sought to assess the prosodic skills under reading fluency and

reading comprehension of Grade 3 students of Los Amigos Elementary School, S.Y

2017- 2018.

Specifically, the study sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the description of prosodic skills, reading fluency of Grade 3

students of Los Amigos Elementary School, S.Y 2017-2018: in

a. Expression and Volume

b. Phrasing

c. Smoothness

d. Pace

2. What is the Level of Reading Comprehension of Grade 3 students of Los

Amigos Elementary School, S.Y 2017-2018:in terms of:

a. Literal

b. Reorganization

c. Inference

d. Evaluation
 e. Appreciation

3. Is there any difference between in Prosodic Skills- Reading Fluency and

the Level of Reading Comprehension students who receive intervention

program.

Null Hypothesis

H○: There is no significant diffrence between oral reading prosody and the

level of comprehension of the Grade 3 students of Los Amigos Elementary Schoo

who receive intervention program.

 CHAPTER 2

METHOD

Research Design

The study uses the quantitative, quasi-experimental, pretest/posttest design.

The study used two equivalent groups, as students were randomly assigned to the

control or experimental group. Prior to the study, the third-grade teacher ranked the

students (n=20) in regard to their reading proficiency based on the results of her

informal assessment using raw scores from the

The researchers decided to make the study a quantitative research.

Quantitative research is a formal, objective, systematic process in which numerical

data are used to obtain information about the world.

Participants

The participants of the study are the Grade 3 students of Los Amigos

Elementary School S.Y, 2017-2018, a number of 230 students are officially enrolled

in L.I.S (Learners Information System). The technique used in selecting participants

is purposive sampling.

Research Instruments

The research instruments used in the study were valid and reliable. The

reading passage was obtained in the PHIL- IRI, Oral Reading passage. The
questionnaire compromises the five level of reading comprehension according to

Thomas Barrett.

Tape recorder was used to record the respondents’ voices upon reading the

validated reading passage.

Below are rubrics and tables used to measure the oral reading prosody. the

level of reading comprehension skills of the students. The formula in getting the

mean percentage in determining the interval of the level of reading comprehension

skills of the students was also included. These are based on Timothy Rasinski and

Thomas Barrett Taxonomy.

TABLE 1. RUBRICS FOR ORAL READING PROSODY

MULTI- DIMENSIONAL FLUENCY SCALE

Adapted from Rasinski (1991)

Score Expression and Phrasing Smoothness Pace

Volume
1 Read words as if Reads in monotone Makes frequent Reads slowly
simply to get them with little sense of extended and laboriously.
out. Little sense of phrase boundaries; pauses,
trying to make text frequently needs hesitations, false
sound like natural word by word. starts, sound-
language. Tends to outs, repetitions,
read in a quiet voice. and/or multiple
attempts.

2 Begins to use voice Frequently reads in Experiences Reads

to make text sound two- and –three several “rough moderately
like natural language word phrases, giving spots” in text slowly.
in some areas but the impression of where extended
 not in others. Focus choppy reading; pauses or
remains largely on improper stress and hesitations re
pronouncing the intonation; fails to more frequent
words. Still reads in a mark ends of and discipline.
quiet voice. sentences and
clauses.

3 Makes text sound Reads with a Occasionally Reads with an

like natural language mixture of run-ons, breaks smooth uneven of fast
most of the time. mid-sentence rhythm because and slow pace.
Occasionally slips pauses for breath, of difficulties
into expressionless and same with specific
reading. Voice choppiness; words and/or
volume is generally reasonable stress structures.
appropriate and information.
throughout the text.

4= Very good. It means the student reads with good expression and enthusiasm

throughout the text. He or she generally reads with good phrasing, mostly in clause

and sentence units, with adequate attention to expression. He or she reads smoothly

with some breaks, but resolves word and structure difficulties quickly, usually

through self- correction. He or she can consistently read at conversational pace;

appropriate rate through reading.

3 = Good. It means the student make text sound like natural language throughout

the better part of the passage. Occasionally slips into expressionless reading. The

voice volume appropriate throughout the text, he or she reads with a mixture of run-

ons, mid-sentence pauses for breath, and some choppiness, reasonable stress and

intonation. Occasionally breaks smooth rhythm because of difficulties with specific

words and or structures. Reads with an uneven mixture of fast and slow pace.
2 = Moderate. It means the student begins to use voice to make text sound like

natural language in some areas of the text but not in others. Focus remains largely

on pronouncing the word. Still reads in a quiet voice. Frequently reads in two- and

three word phrases, giving the impression of choppy reading; improper stress and

intonation fail to mark ends of sentences and clauses. Experiences several “rough

spots” in text where extended pauses or hesitations are more frequent and

disruptive. Reads moderately slowly.

1 = Low. It means the student reads words as simply to get them out. Little sense of

trying to make text sound like natural language. Tends to read in a quiet voice.

Reads in a monotone with little sense of boundaries; frequently reads word-byword.

Makes frequent extended pauses, hesitations, false starts, sound-outs, repetitions,

and/or multiple attempts. Read slowly and laboriously.

Formula for obtaining the percentage:

P= C X 100%
T
C= correct scores of the respondents
T=total number of respondent
P= C/Tx 100%
The descriptions of the corresponding intervals are described as follows: very

high, high, average, low, very low. Together with the score intervals and its

description were different definitions of each five levels of reading comprehension

namely: literal, reorganization, inferential, evaluation, and appreciation.

Table 2. Ordered Interval Scale of the Literal Level of Reading Comprehension

by Barrett (1968)

Score Interval Description Interpretation

4.5- 5 Very High Very proficient in reading ideas

and recognizing ideas or details in

the text.

3.51-4.5 High Proficient in reading ideas and

recognizing ideas or details in the

text.

2.51- 3.5 Average Fairly proficient in reading ideas

and recognizing ideas or details in

the text.

1.51-2.5 Low Quite proficient in reading ideas

and recognizing ideas or details in

the text.

1-1.5 Very Low Not proficient in reading ideas and

recognizing ideas or details in the

text.

Table 3. Ordered Interval Scale of the Reorganization Level of Reading

Comprehension by Barrett (1968)

 Score Interval Description Interpretation

4.5- 5 Very High Very proficient in analyzing,

synthesizing and organizing the

information given.

3.51-4.5 High Proficient in analyzing,

synthesizing and organizing the

information given.

2.51- 3.5 Average Fairly proficient in analyzing,

synthesizing and organizing the

information given.

1.51-2.5 Low Quite proficient in analyzing,

synthesizing

and organizing the information

given.

1-1.5 Very Low Not proficient in analyzing,

synthesizing and organizing the

information given.

Table 4. Ordered Interval Scale of the Inferential Level of Reading

Comprehension by Barrett (1968)

Score Interval Description Interpretation

 4.5- 5 Very High Very proficient in using the ideas

and information explicitly stated in

the selection along with personal

experience and knowledge as a

basis for conjectures and

hypotheses.

3.51-4.5 High Proficient in using the ideas and

information explicitly stated in the

selection along with personal

experience and knowledge as a

basis for conjectures and

hypotheses.

2.51- 3.5 Average Fairly proficient in using the ideas

and information explicitly stated in

the selection along with personal

experience and knowledge as a

basis for conjectures and

hypotheses.

1.51-2.5 Low Quite proficient in using the ideas

and information explicitly stated in

the selection along with personal

experience and knowledge as a

 basis for conjectures and

hypotheses.

1-1.5 Very Low Not proficient in using the ideas

and information explicitly stated in

the selection along with personal

experience and knowledge as a

basis for conjectures and

hypotheses.

Table 5. Ordered Interval Scale of the Evaluation Level of Reading

Comprehension by Barrett (1968)

Score Interval Description Interpretation

4.5- 5 Very High Very proficient in understanding

the idea of the text and making

judgment about the received

information.

3.51-4.5 High Proficient in understanding the

idea of the text and making

judgment about the received

information.

2.51- 3.5 Average Fairly proficient in understanding

 the idea of the text and making

judgment about the received

information.

1.51-2.5 Low Quite proficient in understanding

the idea of the text and making

judgment about the received

information.

1-1.5 Very Low Not proficient in understanding the

idea of the text and making

judgment about the received

information.

Table 6. Ordered Interval Scale of the Appreciation Level of Reading

Comprehension by Barrett (1968)

Score Interval Description Interpretation

4.5- 5 Very High Very proficient in connecting

emotional or personal response to

the text.

3.51-4.5 High Proficient in connecting emotional

or personal response to the text.

2.51- 3.5 Average Fairly proficient in connecting

 emotional or personal response to

the text.

1.51-2.5 Low Quite proficient in connecting

emotional or personal response to

the text.

1-1.5 Very Low Not proficient in connecting

emotional or personal response to

the text.

Statistical Treatment

Arithmetic Mean- also called the average or average value is the quantity

obtained by summing two or more observations and then dividing by the number of

observations. In this study, it is used to compute the mean or level obtained by each

student in oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension in terms of Literal

Comprehension: Reorganization, Inferential Comprehension, evaluation,

Appreciation.

The formula is:

×= ∑ 𝑥1
𝑥−1
―――
𝑁

x1= the score of students in oral reading fluency and reading comprehension
n = the total number of students

Data Gathering Procedure

The following were the procedures followed by the researchers in conducting

the study:

1. Asking of permission. The researchers would ask permission to the teacher of

the respondents to use the time of their class wherein the actual study shall

be conducted.

2. Validating questionnaires. The reading passage shall be checked by

Language instructors and professors to assure its reliability.The passage

chosen by the researchers shall be appropriate for the respondents’ level.

3. Conducting the study. After validating all the research instruments needed in

the study, the researchers will conduct the study. Afterwards, the researcher

will choose a valid individual to check the test. This is done to avoid biased in

checking.

4. Gathering and analyzing data. The researcher will collect the necessary data.

Afterwards, the researcher will ask help to a statiscian to analyze the

collected data.

Data Analysis

The following statistical tools were used to analyse the collected data.
 1. Mean was used to determine the description of reading fluency in the fourth

year students of College of Education.

2. Mean was used to determine the reading comprehension level of the

respondents.

3. Pearson’s Product Moment of Correlation was used to test level of significant

relationship between reading fluency and the reading comprehension level of

the respondents.

References

Excerpted and adapted from the Report of the National Reading Panel.
Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the
Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading
Instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
(April 2000)