abbasibe.persianblog.ir Website Value
Website Value Calculator reading proficiency - آموزش انگلیسی به عنوان زبان دوم

آموزش انگلیسی به عنوان زبان دوم

بانک سوالات دبیرستان و پیش دانشگاهی . مکالمه . مقالات . آپدیت روزانه Nod 32

reading proficiency
نویسنده : غلامعلی عباسی - ساعت ۱۱:۱٠ ‎ب.ظ روز ۱۳٩٢/٧/۱۳
 

 

Data Analysis

T-testswere used to compare the pre-test scores of the control andexperimental groups on the GSORT and the IRI to establish if they wereindeed roughly equivalent on the dependent variable as it wasoperationalized in this study, i.e., the two measures of readingproficiency, before the study began. T-tests were used again to comparethe posttest scores of the two groups on the two instruments to see ifthe treatment might have beenassociated with any difference in readingproficiency. A familywise alpha level of .05 was set for all t-tests. With degrees of freedom of 29, the critical value was approximately 2.67. This higher than normal critical value for a .05 alpha level (compared to the normal 2.04) was used to compensate for the fact thatfour t-tests were done.

Results

Table 2 shows the pre-test results on both measures of reading proficiency. The t-tests suggest, in answer to the first research question, thatthere were no significant differences between the control andexperimental groups prior to the inception of the six-month experimentalperiod.

Table 2  t-tests Comparing Control and Experimental Groups on Pre-tests of Reading Proficiency

Proficiency Test

n

Mean

s.d.

t

IRI

 

 

 

 

  Control

30

7.89

4.81

 

0.20 (n.s.)

  Experimental

30

7.61

5.19

 

GSORT

 

 

 

 

  Control

30

2.55

0.73

 

0.86 (n.s.)

  Experimental

30

2.38

0.83

 

n.s. = nonsignificant

 

        Table 3 shows the post-test results on both measures of reading proficiency. The mean post-test IRI score for the control group was 12.28 compared to 32.57 for the experimental group. On the GSORT, mean score for the control group was 3.96 compared to 5.25 for students in the ER group. As mentioned in the Procedure section, GSORT is an indicator of the grade level at which the student is reading.  Since students in our study were in Grade 7, they should have scored at least 7 on the GSORT. However, as Table 2 indicates, the ER students were still reading at 5.25 level, somewhat below their expected level.

 

Table 3  t-tests Comparing Control and Experimental Groups on Post-tests of Reading Proficiency

Proficiency Test

n

Mean

s.d.

t

IRI

 

 

 

 

  Control

30

12.28

5.77

 

 

6.72*

  Experimental

30

32.57

14.80

 

GSORT

 

 

 

 

  Control

30

3.96

0.88

 

5.31*

  Experimental

30

5.25

1.16

 

* Significant at p < .05

Thet-tests suggest, in answer to the second research question, that afterthe six-month experiment, significant differences existed between thecontrol and experimental groups in terms of reading proficiency. As afollow-up statistical procedure to measure the amount of variance inscores on the two reading tests accounted for by the independentvariable (whether students were in the control or experimental group), eta squared tests were run. Results showed that the experimentaltreatment accounted for 61% of the variance in IRI scores and 49% of thevariance in GSORT scores, an average of 55%, a very strong association (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991).

 

Discussion

Theresults of the current study suggest that a well-conducted ER programmay be able to make a significant impact on reading proficiency, evenwhen students are of below average level and where reading materials arescarce. However, it should be noted that despite their impressivegains, students in the experimental group were still reading below gradelevel, as indicated by their GSORT scores1). Perhaps, continued extensive reading would be part of the necessary elements of aprogram for overcoming this deficit. From a research perspective, thetwo groups would, ideally, have continued the control and experimentaltreatments for a longer period to see if the effect remained and if theexperimental group continued their progress. Also, the research designwould have been improved had follow-up been done to investigate whetherthe ER programme was associated with more out-of-class reading bystudents after the programme had ended. Constraints on the firstauthor's time, unfortunately, did not permit this. However, the firstauthor continues to use ER and to inform other teachers about it, bothat her school and elsewhere.

        The relative success of ER with the remedial students in this study mayhave important implications. Early lack of success in reading oftenleads students down a slippery slope to failure in other academic areas, low academic self-image, low motivation to study, high likelihood ofdropping out of school, high delinquency rates, and poor careerprospects after leaving school (Goodlad, 1983). Further, instruction forsuch students may sometimes be of lower quality, focusing on drills andother lower-order thinking tasks, as teachers may have inappropriatelylow expectations for what these students can achieve (Oakes, 1985).

        Many intervention programs have been implemented to meet the needs ofsuch low achieving students. Successful programs focus on early andintensive intervention, and use well-researched pedagogy (e.g., Clay, 1996; Slavin, Madden, Karweit, Dolan, & Wasik 1992). However, unlikethe two early intervention programs referenced in the precedingsentence that are typically used with lower primary school students, theprogram described in this chapter was carried out with secondary schoolstudents. These older students may be more difficult to reach, as theyhave suffered many years of reading failure.

ER, for the many reasons reviewed in the introduction to this chapter, certainly appears to belong in intervention programs for students withreading difficulties. In the present study, we saw a significantlygreater improvement in proficiency for those students who participatedin the ER programme implemented by the first author. This program, wewould like to stress, followed the guidelines for effective ER mentionedearlier in this chapter. How this was done was displayed in Table 1 inthe Procedures section above.

Teacherswill often need support to implement ER, support in the form of teacherdevelopment workshops and follow-up coaching, time for teachers toassist each other on ER implementation, administration backing fordevoting time to silent reading, funds to purchase reading materials forclass and school libraries, and  help from students' homes to encouragethem to make reading a habit. Lack of such support is a key reason why, despite the apparent success of an ER program with one group ofstudents at their school, many other teachers at the school where thepresent study was conducted have remained reluctant to initiate ER withtheir students.

        In conclusion, students who are not currently skilled, enthusiasticreaders face unnecessary and serious obstacles to realizing theirpotential contributions to themselves, their families, and to society ingeneral. In this information age, they will be shut off from the powergained through obtaining and providing information and from the splendorand inspiration of good fiction. Thus, educators need to create andimplement programs to help students who fall behind in reading. Theaccumulated wisdom embodied in the current study and the many which camebefore it strongly suggests that ER can play an important role inhelping students gain in their level of reading skill. Reading skillsand the benefits that flow from them are essential if students are tobecome people who, to paraphrase Friere (1970), use the word to know andchange the world