Upper 7 Lower 8
7.12 Method
7.1.5 Study Summary
A primary finding of this study was that reading instruction focused on oral reading could improve reading comprehension of mainly senior high school students with lower reading proficiency, and that oral reading practice which developed their decoding skills was a principal contributor to the improvement. A secondary finding was that there was no difference in the effectiveness of oral reading practices in the improvement of reading
comprehension for senior high school students. These findings should be confirmed in comparative studies.
7.2 Study 2
Study 1 showed that oral reading practice principally helped to improve reading comprehension of Japanese senior high school students who received reading instruction focused on oral reading. The oral reading practice exercised its decoding fimction and developed mainly decoding skills of lower reading proficiency students with underdeveloped decoding ski11s. Consequently, this finding supported the oral reading hypothesis mainly concerning its decoding function: oral reading practice improves reading comprehension and overal1 reading proficiency of Japanese senior high school students by helping them to establish the connection between letters and sounds.
However, the finding was not straightforwardly obtained but deduced by considering the effect of the participants' reading proficiency and the circumstances in which the experiment was conducted because the experimental design of the study was pre- and post-test wnhin-group. No matter how valid the deduction may have been, the design was technically weak to prove the effectiveness of oral reading practice. It was required that the finding should be confirmed in comparative experiments, with a view to validating the oral reading hypothesis.
Thtis, we conducted a comparative experiment with pre- and post-test between-groups design so that the effectiveness of oral reading practice might be confTirmed in the improvement of reading comprehension for Japanese senior high schooi students. The experiment is reported and discussed in this study.
7.2.1 Purposes
The primary purpose of this study was to confirm, in a comparative experiment, the effectiveness of oral reading practice in the improvement of reading comprehension for Japanese senior high school students. The secondary purpose was to investigate into the effects of oral reading practice on the improvement of variables rel,evant to reading comprehension, i.e., reading fluency and the efficiency ofphonological coding.
Research questions for the investigations were addressed as: (1) would oral reading practice improve reading comprehension of Japanese senior high school students?; (2) would oral reading practice improve their reading fluency?; and (3) would oral reading practice improve their effTiciency ofphonological coding?
7.2.2 Method
This experiment was conducted for six weeks in the school year 2005. The design of the experiment was pre- and post-test between-groups quasi-experimental.
722.1 Participants
The participants were two classes of first-year senior high school students (n = 74) in Okayama. Our judgment of their English proficiency was in the range of elementary to pre-intermediate levels after their studying English as a foreign language for over three years.
The two classes of students were randomly assigned to an experimental group (n = 38) and a control group (n = 36). The experimental and control groups were matched in reading comprehension as measured by the reading section of BACE (ELPA), which was used for the pre-test [means were 49.184 and 48.361 for the experimental and control groups respectively;
F (1, 72) - .084, ns].
7222 Instruments
Reading comprehension, reading fiuency and the efficiency of phonological coding of the participants were measured with the following instruments. Reading comprehension was measured with the same measure as in Study 1, i.e., the reading section (100 points for 12 items in 20 minutes) ofBACE. The second edition ofBACE 2004 and the first edition of BACE 2005 were used in the pre- and post-tests respectively.
Reading fiuency was measured, in the pre- and post-tests, as reading rate and Reading Efficiency Index. The reading rate was calculated as the number of words that each participant could read silently in one minute, i.e., wpm. Reading Efficiency Index, defined as reading rate at which each participant could approximately understand a passage, was calculated by multiplying each participant's reading rate by his or her rate of correct answers
in the comprehension questions about the passage. Since the numbers of comprehension questions were four, the formula for the index was: (wpm) x (correct answers + 1)!(4 + 1).
The reason for adding l both to the numerator and denominator in the formula lay in our assumption that even participants with all the questions incorrect would have a little comprehension of the passages.
The participants read two passages separately, which were about 120- and 160-word long and at Flesch-Kincaid Grade Levels 4 to 5, when given the directions: (a) read the passage trying to understand it, and measure your silent reading time individually with stopwatches; and (b) answer comprehension questions about the passage without rereading it after logging your silent reading time. Based on the recorded silent reading time and comprehension scores, the rates and indices were calculated and the means of the two-time measurements were the participants' reading rates and Reading Efficiencies Indices respectively. Passages in the pre- and post-tests were different but similar in the length and reading ease (Appendix J).
The efficiency of phonological coding was measured as the naming speed of
pseudowords of English, which were non-words of English in compliance with English orthographical and phonological rules. The participants read aloud 40 one-syllable pseudowords of English (Gathercole, et al., 2001) (Appendix K), individually measuring theirnaming time with stopwatches. With the recorded naming time, the efficiency of
phonological coding was calculated as the number of syllables named in two seconds, whichwas about the maximum duration when phonological information is stored in the
phonological loop of working memory without subvocal rehearsal. Although the same pseudowords were used in the pre- and post-tests, the layout of the words were randomly altered in the two tests.7.2.2.3 Treatment
The experimental and control groups received 50-minute English instructions three times a week in the English I course that was taught by the sarne instructor. The two groups shared the regular teaching that constituted about two-thirds of the instructions. ln the rest of the instructions, i.e., for 15 to 20 minutes, the experimental group performed oral reading and the control group performed listening tasks and tasks on vocabulary and grammar, which were tasks frequently used in the instruction ofEnglish I. Moreover, the groups were given assignments, which were oral reading practice for the experimental group and tasks on vocabulary and gramrnar for the control group, that required the groups to spend 15 to 20 minutes respectively. In short, the experimental and control groups were given English instruction focused on oral reading and regular English instruction respectively.
The regular teaching consisted oft (a) listening to the model reading of a passage on CD;
fo) questions and answers about the content in Japanese; (c) explanation of grammar and vocabulary; and (d) translation of diff7icult sentences. The coursebook was New Stream
English I (Zoshindo, 2005). This was supposedly one of the procedures that were most commonly adopted in the instruction of English I. Tests were not administered except for the mid-term examination so that they would not destroy the internal validity ofthis study.
In the rest of the instruction, for 15 to 20 minutes, the experimental group practiced oral reading with the passage used in the regular teaching. The aim of oral reading practice was similar to that of Study 1, which was to improve the students' reading fluency and comprehension by helping them: (a) to develop decoding skills; (b) to raise awareness of phrasal and grammatical chunks; and (c) to utilize working memory resources, spared by improved word recognition, for comprehension.
However, since oral reading practice in Study 1 was effective only in functions (a) and (c), not in function (b), oral reading techniques and procedures were altered in this study as follows: (a) chorus reading after the instructor or the CD; (b) parallel reading with the CD; (c) Read and Look-up; and (d) buzz reading.
The students continued to practice each oral reading technique until the instructor judged that they would not have trouble in performing the next technique, usually once or twice in chorus reading and severai times in parallel reading, which consumed less than half of the time that other oral reading techniques did. Chorus and parallel readings were used not only to develop the students' decoding skills but also to let them perform Read and Look-•up without much difficulty, which was a problem for students who practiced the technique in Study 1. The students were required to be always aware of grarrmiatical and phrasal chunks, which were marked with slashes, so that they could perform Read and Look-up smoothly.
'Iliis was because Read and Look-up was assigned a key role in helping the students to expand vocabulary and to develop grarrrmar, i.e., in exercising the above function (b) of oral reading practice. After Read and Look-up was performed two or three times, buzz reading served the function of consolidating oral reading practice. Moreover, the students were
given an assignment to practice oral reading, 10 to 15 times, so that they could perform Read and Look-up smoothly with the passage.
On the other hand, the control group performed listening tasks and tasks on vocabulary and grammar for the same duration as the oral reading practice for the experimental group.
The aim of the tasks was approximately the same as that of the oral reading practice for the experimental group: to improve the students' reading fiuency and comprehension. Reasons for adopting the tasks were: (a) the information processing mechanisms are quite similar between listening and reading; and (b) vocabulary and grammar are vital components of reading comprehension.
In the listening tasks, which were listed in the teachers' book ofNew Stream English l, the
'
students were asked questions about the passage that they studied to consolidate their comprehension. In the tasks on vocabulary and grammar, which were in the supplementary book •for the coursebook, the students practiced using vocabulary and grammar, in the fi11-in-the-blanlc and multiple-choice formats, that appeared in the regular teaching.
Moreover, the students were given an assignment to review and preview tasks on vocabulary and grammar in the supplementary book.
7.2.3 Results
'
Table 7.5 and Figure 7.4 show the means ofreading comprehension, as measured by the reading sections ofBACE, in the pre- and post-tests for the experimental and control group.
Table 7.5: Means ofReading Comprehension for Experimental and Control Groups
Group Test n
Mean SD
Experimental
Contrel
pre-•test post-test pre-test
38 38 36
49.184 50.579 48.361
12.802 9.500 11.608
Figure 7.4: Means of Readmg Comprehension fQr Experimenta1 and Control Groups
52
51 50 49 48 47 os 45
"
43
o.
..
..
. .
..
...
..
...
.`
...
.. ..
.'..
e
--r-- Experimental group
--- e--' Control group
psetest posttest
The experimental group had a slight gain in the means of reading comprehension (pre = 49.184, post = 50.579) but the control group had a decrease in the means (pre = 48.361, post = 44.806). Since the experimental and control groups were matched in reading comprehension in the pretest [F (1, 72) = .084, ns], the means of reading comprehension in the posttest were '
compared between the two groups in order to examine the effects of the treatments on reading
'
comprehension. The result showed a significant mean difference in reading comprehension in the posttest between the two groups [F (1, 72) = 6.274, p < .05]. It seems that the English
instruction focused on oral reading was more effective than the regular English instmction in the improvement of the participants' reading comprehension.
Table 7.6 and Figure 7.5 show the means of reading rates (wpm) in the pre- and posttests for the experimental and control groups. The measurement for reading fluency, which was calculated as the means of twottme measurements of the participants' reading rates, vvas reliable in terms of Spearrrian-Brown reliability coefficient (rs were .882 and .862
in the pre- and post-tests respectively).
The experimental group had a greater gain in the mean reading rates (pre = 71 .959, post
= 123.009) than the control group (pre = 71.247, post == 94.385). The effects of the treatments on the reading rates were examined in the post-tests between the experimental and control groups, which were matched in the reading rates in the pre-test [F (1, 72) = .020, ns].
The result showed a significant m,ean difference in the reading rates in the post-test between the two groups [F (1, 72) = 21.509, p < .Ol]. It seems that the English instruction '
Table 7.6: Means ofReading Rates for Experimental and Control Groups
Group Test n
Mean SD
Experimental
Control
pre-test post-test Pre-test post-test
38 38 36 36
71.959 123.009 71.247 94.385
17.240 25.866 21.635 30.884 Spearman-Brown rs were .882 and .862 in the pre- and post-tests respectively.
Figure 7.5: Means ofReading Rates for Experimental and Contol Groups 140
130
110 100
+ Experimental group
.e •'
, ...••' ---e--- Control group
90.
. ' . di . ' •r 70
60
50
pre-test postny-test
focused on oral reading was more effective than the regular English instruction in the improvement ofthe participants' reading rates.
Table 7.7 and Figure 7.6 show the means of Reading Efficiency Indices in the pre- and post-tests for the experimental and control groups. Although the measurements were not fu11y reliable in terms of Spearrrian-Brown reliability coefficient (rs were .713 and .658 in the pre- and post-tests respectively), the reliabilities were not so low as to ruin the examination of the effects ofthe treatments on reading fiuency.
Table 7.7: Means of Reading Efficiency Indices for Experimental and Control Groups
Group Test n
Mean SD
Experimental
Control
pre-test post-test pre-test post-test
38 38 36 36
49.898 90.687 49.828 71.179
17.833 21.012 22.306 20.499
Spearrnan-Brovvn rs were .713 and .658 in the pre- and post-tests respectively.
Figure 7.6: Means of Reading Efficiency Indices for Experimental and Control Groups
1OO
80 70 60 50 40
''''.
.. '
''''''.
. )'
't'''.
..
.
D + Experimental group
--- e-- Control group
pre-test post-test
The experimental group had a larger gain in the means of Reading Efficiency Indices (pre =49.898, post = 90.687) than the control group (pre :49.828, post= 71.179). We compared the effects of the treatments on Reading Efficiency Indices in the post-test between the experimental and control groups, which were matched in the indices in the pre-test [F (1, 72) = .OO02, ns]. The result was that there was a significant mean difference in Reading EffTiciency Indices in the post-test between the two groups [F (1, 72) =: 16.318, p < .Ol]. It seems that the English instruction focused on oral reading was more effective than the regular English instruction in the improvement ofthe participants' Reading Efficiency Indices.
Table 7.8: Means ofEfficiency ofPhonological Coding for Experimental and Control Groups
Group Test n Mean,
SD
Experimental
Control
pre-test post-test pre-test post-test
38 38 36 36
1.502 2.250 1.549 1.816
.250 .464 .439 .513
Figure 7.7: Means of Efficiency of Phonological Coding for Experimental and Control Groups
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
e"
---l
-Fl--l-- t-
---....O
+ Experimental group
--- o--- Control group
pre-test post-test
Table 7.8 and Figure 7.7 show the means of the efficiencies ofphonological coding in the pre- and post-tests for the experimental and control groups. A single measurement was adopted here because naming pseudowords of English would not be affected by factors such as frequency, familiarity and meaning ofwords.
There was a larger increase in the mean efficiencies of phonological coding for the experimental group lpre == 1.502, post == 2.250) than for the control group (pre = 1.549, post ==
1.816). We compared the mean effTiciencies ofphonological coding in the post-test between the experimental and control groups, which were matched in the efficiencies in the pre-test [F (1, 72) = .334, ns], so that we could examine the effects of the treatments on the efficiencies.
The result showed a significant mean difference in the efficiencies ofphonological coding in the post-test between the two groups [F (1, 72) = 14.596,p< .Ol]. It seems that the English instruction focused on oral reading could improve the participants' efficiencies of phonological coding more than the regular English instruction.
72.4 Discussion
The first research question was: would oral reading practice improve reading
comprehension of Japanese senior high school students? The result was that English instruction focused on oral reading improved their reading comprehension significantly more than regular English instruction. Thus, oral reading practice was effective in the improvement of their reading comprehension. This finding confirmed the positive effect of oral reading practice on reading comprehension of Japanese senior high school students, which had been just implied from the positive effects on English language ability and reading fluency. It also provided a rigid validation for the oral reading hypothesis: oral readingpractice improves reading comprehension and overall reading proficiency of Japanese senior high school students.
One noticeable point conceming the result is that although the experimental group achieved a slight improvement in reading comprehension, the nonimprovement in reading comprehension of the control group contributed greatly to the difference in the improvement
between the two groups. This suggests that the common regular teaching for the
experimental and control groups, which constituted about two-thirds of the instructions, was not effective. Then, since the procedure of the regular teaching was among the most commonly implemented ones in the instruction ofEnglish I, it seems vital that activities in the procedure should be replaced by more effective ones. With such activities, the experimental group would have achieved a greater improvement in reading comprehension.
The second research question was: would oral reading practice improve reading fluency ofJapanese senior high school students? The result was that English instruction focused on oral reading improved their reading fluency, as measured by their reading rates and Reading Efficiency Indices, significantly more than regular English instruction. Therefore, oral reading practice was effective in the improvement oftheir reading fluency. This finding was consistent with studies reporting that oral reading practice improved reading fluency as measured by silent reading speed for second-year senior high school students (Watanabe,
1990) and by Reading Efficiency Index for first-year senior high school students (Suzuki, 1998). It confTirmed the positive effect oforal reading practice on reading fluency as well as on reading comprehension for Japanese senior high school students.
Also, the finding helps to explain how the participants improved their reading
comprehension through oral reading practice. Reading fluency helps to develop reading comprehension for the following reason. When one reads fluently using his or her decoding skills efficiently, he or she can spare the working memory resources for higher level processing, including comprehension. Moreover, reading fiuency may allow one to have
'
time to reread the text.
Furthermore, the finding reinforces the oral reading hypothesis conceming the improvement of overall reading proficiency, which requires the improvement of reading fluency as well as that of reading comprehension. Since it was shown that both readi.ng fluency and comprehension could be improved through oral reading practice, the corollary of this is that overall reading proficiency should also be improved through oral reading practice.
'
Indeed, Reading Efficiency Index can be regarded as a handy measure ofreading proficiency because it is expressed as one's reading fiuency that is adjusted by his or her reading
'
comprehension.
The third research question was: would oral reading practice improve the efficiency of phonological coding of Japanese senior high school students? The result was that English instruction focused on oral reading improved their efficiencies of phonological coding significantly more than regular English instruction. Thus, oral reading practice was effective in the improvement oftheir'efficiencies ofphonological coding.'
This finding was consistent with Ll studies acknowledging that oral reading practice had positive effects on the development of learners' decoding skills (Blum, et al., 1995;
Carver & Hoffman, 1981; Dixon-Krauss, 1995; Dowhower, 1987; Herman, 1985; Homan, et al., 1993; Labbo & Teale, 1990; Rasinski, et al., 1994; Tingstrom, et al., 1995; Weinstein &
Cooke, 1992; Young, et al., 1996). It also confirmeda finding, concerning Japanese learners, showing that oral reading practice improved the efficiency of phonological coding as measured by oral reading speed for senior high school students (Miyasako, 2002; Watanabe,
1990).
7.2.5 Study Sumrnary
A primary finding of this study, with pre- and post-test between-groups quasi-experimental design, was that oral reading practice was effective in improving reading
comprehension, reading fluency and the efficiencies of phonological coding of Japanese senior high school students. This finding could provide a rigid validation for the oral reading hypothesis: oral reading practice improves reading comprehension and overall reading proficiency ofJapanese senior high school students.