A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BOTTOM-UP AND TOP-DOWN APPROACHES IN

MAXIMIZING READING COMPREHENSION

Ann Valanta
English Language Teaching Program, Graduate Program of Islamic University of Malang, Indonesia
E-mail: annvalanta1974@gmail.com

Abstract
This study is aimed to find out which approach between two, bottom-up or top-down, can
maximize young learners’ reading comprehension. To achieve this purpose, a quasi-
experimental research was conducted to the sixth grade students of Santo Yosef Elementary
School Kediri in which the 6-A class was taught reading comprehension using top-down
approach while 6-B class was taught using bottom-up approach. A reading comprehension
test was conducted to gain students’ scores which later was analyzed by using SPSS Data
Statistic Version 2.0. The t-value of 2,402 which is higher than critical t-value of 2,048 at the
level of significance of .05 indicates a significant difference between bottom-up and top-down
approaches. It means that using top-down approach in teaching reading comprehension can
give a better result than using bottom-up approach in maximizing students’ reading
comprehension.

Keywords: bottom-up approach, top-down approach, reading comprehension

I. INTRODUCTION

Reading comprehension is defined as “understanding, using, and reflecting on

written texts, in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential,
and to participate in society” (Therrien, 2004). According to Therrien, in order to achieve
literacy, there are five important skills one must learn: phonemic awareness, phonics,
vocabulary instruction, text comprehension strategies, and reading fluency. A review of
the literature has shown that comprehension is not simply a basic skill but rather a goal
and a functional means in education and individual development, both within and outside
school, today and later in life, in further education, at work and in leisure activities.
Reading comprehension is not only a foundation for basic learning, but also a prerequisite
for successful participation in most areas of youth and adult life (Linnakyla et.al, 2004).
There are three levels of comprehension: the literal level, the interpretive level, and
the applied level. The literal level focuses on reading the passages, hearing the words or
viewing the images. It involves identifying the important and essential information. With
guidance, students can distinguish between the important and less important ideas. It is
save to state, at this stage, that the literal level of reading comprehension, which is
generally defined as the reader’s ability to “gain meaning directly from the print”
(Walker, Munro, & Rickards, 1998), essentially captures surface code features and text
base meanings explicitly stated in the text as well as the connecting devices that bind

1
these text constituents locally. It simply represents the author’s propositional message,
falling short of generating new information that would extend and refine the text base on
its way to becoming integrated with a situational representation of what the text is truly
about. That is, it fails to find out what authors mean, even though it is able to reflect what
they say. In this case, literal reading has been perceived as failing to provide a deep
understanding of text content (King, 2007) and has been associated with the performance
of unskilled readers, who are thought to be unable to go beyond the information contained
in a text. (Walker et.al, 1998).
The interpretive level focuses on reading between the lines, looking at what is
implied by the material being studied. It requires students to combine pieces of
information in order to make inferences about the author’s intent and message. Guiding
students to recognize these perceived relationships promotes understanding and
decreases the risk of being overwhelmed by the complexities of the text being read or
studied. Perfetti (1989) maintained that inferences constitute the vital distinction between
text meanings, as determined by the text base representation and text interpretation, as
determined by the situation model. In elaborative inferencing, the inference is derived
from readers’ knowledge structures that are relevant to textual content, requiring them to
reason beyond the text in order to generate new information.
In later process, understanding at literal and interpretive levels are combined,
reorganized, and restructured at the applied level to express opinions, draw a new insights
and develop fresh ideas. Students overloaded with low-level cognitive operations are
unable to tackle adequately a complex process like inferential comprehension. The
process of transferring between local coherence and global coherence suffers seriously
because the reader’s main concern is with the step-by-step efficiency of the lower level
processes of generating meaning out of sense, reference, and syntax. The focus on lower-
level linguistic processes leaves fewer or no available resources to engage in higher-level
comprehension processes. If readers cannot construct a proper text base, it is likely for
them to generate relevant elaborative inferences, which would prevent a deeper
comprehension of the text. More specifically, without a proper text base, the propositions
that are being processed may not trigger the relevant process and thereby leaving the
reader at loose ends. Therefore, interactions between the text and the reader’s domain
knowledge may not materialize, rendering the formation of a coherent mental mode of
the situation (Cem Alptekin, 2015). During classroom activities, it is teacher’s role for
guiding students through the applied level by showing them how to synthesize

2
information, to read between the lines, and to develop a deeper understanding of the
concepts, principles, and implications presented in the text.
Research indicates at least one out of five students has significant difficulty in
reading acquisition (Therrien, 2004). Although reading fluency and comprehension are
important skills to acquire, as they are essential skills for success both in school and later
in life, many children do not acquire the necessary skills for achieving proficiency.
According to recent study, 40% of fourth graders do not have skills and knowledge to
adequately perform the necessary grade level work (Bursuck et.al, 2004).
Experts propose bottom-up and top-down approaches which are still relevant up to
now to overcome those problems of reading comprehension. Bottom-up theories state
that learning to read progresses from children learning parts of language (words) to
understanding the whole text (meaning). Just like when we are playing a jigsaw puzzle,
bottom-up models in reading comprehension makes the process of uniting pieces of a
reading text into one whole complete comprehension over the reading text.
Two bottom-up theories of reading comprehension are still popular today: One
Second of Reading by Gough (1972) and A Theory of Automatic Information Processing
by LaBerge and Samuels (1974). Gough states that reading is a sequential or series of
mental process. Readers, according to Gough, begin by translating the parts of written
language (letters) into speech sounds, then together they form certain words, and words
unite to reach global understanding of the author’s written massage.
LaBerge and Samuels describe a concept of automatic information processing or
automaticity. This idea states that human mind functions much like a computer and that
visual input (letters and words) is sequentially entered into the mind of the reader. Almost
without exception, humans have ability to perform more than one task at a time called a
“multitasking” ability.
Teachers who believe that bottom-up theories fully explain how children become
readers often teach sub-skills first. They begin instructions by introducing words and how
to pronounce them, proceed to giving the meaning of those words. Then, students are
directed to connect word meanings to comprehend the whole text. Although bottom-up
theories of reading comprehension show the process of decoding parts of a reading text,
there is an ultimate goal of reading the text that is reading comprehension.
The followers of this theory believes that reading is visual and meaning will come
up in the end through analytical process applied to linguistic signals in the written text.
Meaning is then constructed by joining visual small linguistic parts bit by bit into a total

3
whole meaning. Readers are viewed as individuals who rely on the text to infer meaning
since meaning is believed to lie in the text. Readers are linguistic code breakers of the
written text in order for them to uncover meaning hidden in the text. (Sulistyo, 2011)
The opposite of bottom-up approach, top-down approach states that comprehension
starts from the top that is the reader to the down that is the text. The top-down approach
emphasizes readers bringing meaning to the text based on their valuable experience and
background and interpreting the text based on their prior knowledge (whole language).
Top-down reading models teach students to read by introducing them to literature as a
whole. Instead of teaching students to read by sounding out each word in a sentence,
teachers read whole passages of a text. Students begin to use context clues to translate
unfamiliar words. They help students concentrate on the whole meaning of a passage.
The theory also works with those just learning to read, as readers rely on their previous
knowledge to translate text or unfamiliar words.
According to Goodman (1967) and Smith (1971), top-down model of reading
focuses on what the readers bring to the process. The readers sample the text for
information and contrast it with their world knowledge, helping to make sense of what is
written. The focus here is on the readers as they interact with the text. This model starts
with the hypotheses and predictions then attempts to verify them by working down to the
printed stimuli. This view of reading was called the psycholinguistic guessing game.
Amy Pearson in her article, “The Top-Down Reading Model Theory” (2016) states
that the top-down approach encourages students to focus more on understanding the main
ideas of a passage than understanding every word. Even if students do not understand
each word, they are likely to grasp the meaning of a text as a whole. She continues that
this model encourages students to rely on their own knowledge and use context clues to
understand new concepts or words.
The report by Hirotake Nagao, “Using Top-Down Skills to Increase Reading
Comprehension”, published on the Education Resources Information Center website
states readers use their knowledge of the content matter instead of their knowledge of the
vocabulary used in a particular piece of text. Students could also use context clues to
determine the meaning of words that have more than one use. For instance, the word
“read” is pronounced differently depending on the context in which it is used. Students
using the top-down reading theory could rely on context clues to help them determine
the correct meaning of particular text.

4
 From the statements above, it can be concluded that there has been a contradictory
idea between two approaches above, bottom-up and top-down approaches. Each
approach claims to be the most suitable one for students’ reading comprehension. This
study is purposed to examine which one of both approaches, bottom-up or top-down, can
maximize the reading comprehension of young learners especially those who are still
studying at elementary school.

II. METHOD

A. Participants
This research was conducted on the sixth grade students of SD Katolik Santo
Yosef Kediri. There are 60 students of sixth grade who are divided into 6A class
and 6B class. 30 students were taken as the samples of this research.
B. Data Collection
Data were collected from the final scores of reading comprehension which
the participants gained on the last meeting of the research. The scores were then
counted by using SPSS Data Statistic Version 2.0 to achieve the significance of the
score differences between both classes.
C. Instrument
To collect the scores, a reading comprehension test was conducted on both
groups. The test consists of a reading text and 5 comprehension questions in
multiple choice. The participants were given 30 minutes to finish the test.
D. Courses and Materials
1. Courses:
Four courses were conducted on both groups. Each group was taught using
different approaches, top-down and bottom-up approach.
a. The first group 6A was taught using top-down approach in reading
comprehension process. In this case, they were taught by three steps of
reading comprehension:
 Pre-reading:
A title of text was given to the participants. Then, participants
were asked to make a prediction about the text by writing some
words related to the title given.

5
  While-reading:
Participants were given several questions about the content of the
reading text and they were asked to answer them orally. These
questioning and answering process were aimed to guide
participants to quickly comprehend the content of the text.
 Post-reading:
After reading the whole passage, participants were asked to
answer some questions about the text. In this case, they were
expected to give answers using their own relevant language.
b. The second group 6B was taught using bottom-up approach in reading
comprehension process. In this case, they were taught beginning from
decoding difficult words which influence the comprehension of the
whole text. From words, the process was continued by decoding
confusing sentences which ended in comprehending the whole reading
text.
2. Materials:
Participants were supplied one reading passage and five multiple-
choice questions for each of the course. By doing this, the reading
comprehension of all participants could easily be measured.

III. FINDINGS
After three sessions of teaching reading comprehension process in both groups
based on each approach, participants joined one session of a reading comprehension test
comprising a 500-word-passage and 5 multiple-choice comprehension items.
The test results were then collected and checked to achieve scores from each
participant. Since there are 5 items in the reading comprehension, it means that each item
is worth of 20 points. The participants answering all items correctly got 100 points, those
answering 4 correct items got 80 points, those answering 3 correct items got 60 points,
those answering 2 correct items got 40 points, and those answering 1 correct item got 20
points during the test activity.
The scores of the first group show 4 participants got 100 points, 6 participants got
80 points, 3 participants got 60 points, and 2 participants got 40 points. Meanwhile, the

6
scores of the second group show 5 participants got 80 points, 5 participants got 60 points,
4 participants got 40 points, and 1 participant get 20 points.
The scores of both groups were then arranged in a table to derive the mean of each
group. Here are the scores and the means of both groups:
SCORES OF READING COMPREHENSION TEST

No. Scores of 6A Scores of 6B X12 X22

(X1) (X2)
1 80 80 6400 6400
2 80 60 6400 3600
3 100 60 10000 3600
4 80 40 6400 1600
5 60 80 3600 6400
6 80 60 6400 3600
7 100 80 10000 6400
8 80 60 6400 3600
9 60 40 3600 1600
10 40 20 1600 400
11 100 80 10000 6400
12 80 40 6400 1600
13 60 60 3600 3600
14 40 40 1600 1600
15 100 80 10000 6400
X1 = 1140 X2 = 880 X22 = 92400 X1 = 56800
2

M = 76.00 M = 58.67

From the above table, we can find out that the mean of the first group participants
taught using top-down approach (M = 76.00) was higher than the mean of the second
group participants taught using bottom-up approach (M = 58.67). To determine whether
the mean differences were statistically significant, an independent t-test was conducted.
In this case, the independent t-test was practically processed using a computer-based-
program of SPSS Data Statistic Version 20.

7
 Here are the results of the computer based SPSS Data Statistic Version 2.0
computation:
T-Test

Group Statistics

Teaching_Approach N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Reading_Comprehen Top-down 15 76,00 20,284 5,237

sion Bottom-up 15 58,67 19,223 4,963

Independent Samples Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means

Test for
Equality of
Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95%

(2- Difference Difference Confidence
tailed) Interval of the
Difference

Lower Upper

Equal
variances ,045 ,833 2,402 28 ,023 17,333 7,216 2,553 32,114
assumed
Reading_Comprehension Equal
variances
2,402 27,920 ,023 17,333 7,216 2,551 32,116
not
assumed

IV. DISCUSSION
From the computation above, we find the t-value is 2,402. The t-value of 2,402 is
higher than critical t-value of 2,048 at the level of significance of .05. This result has
shown us that the use of top-down approach can give better result than using bottom-up
approach in maximizing reading comprehension especially towards the elementary
school students.
This result is in line with most experts’ opinion about the effectiveness of both
bottom-up approach and top-down approach. Pearson in her article “The Top-Down
Theory of Literacy Learning” (2015) states that:
“Teachers who use top-down methods of instruction to teach students to learn to
read, speak or write a language believe that language as a whole must be understood
before individual words and parts of speech will be comprehended. Similar to how

8
 young children learn to speak, students are immersed in whole language. Over time,
learners are able to extract meaning from words and context clues.”

In top-down reading comprehension process, teachers place more importance on

reading for meaning than reading each word correctly. Instead of requiring new readers
to attempt to decode a text word by word, texts are analyzed as a whole. Students do not
need to understand the meaning or pronunciation of every word for comprehension to
take place. Just as parents read books to babies with no expectation that the baby fully
comprehends them. Books, speeches, or other works are explored as a whole to
encourage reading for meaning.
Thompson in her article “Reasons Why Reading Is Important for Children” states
that children become motivated to read when seeing adults read for enjoyment and when
they are surrounded by reading material. Reading helps a child understand language and
opens his eyes to the world around him. This statement implicitly immerses an idea of
the effectiveness of top-down approach in teaching children to comprehend a reading
text.
The literature review of reading process suggests that top-down approach gains its
momentum among educators and students. Treiman argues for top-down’s efficacy as a
natural adjunct to any form of comprehension. Personal knowledge and background
information help learners to translate unknown words or meaning of a text as a whole.
Context clues can also help students effectively process literature and spoken language.
Oral language skills help students as they learn to comprehend new vocabularies.
Students also use their background knowledge to make predictions about what they
expect to happen next in a book or other pieces of text.
Using top-down approach in reading comprehension process makes teachers try to
use instructional time to work on meaningful activities that give students interactive
opportunities to practice and improve literacy skills through reading and writing
exercises. Speaking and listening will automatically encouraged and the teacher will not
stop oral readers to correct mistakes. Mistakes are seen as a good thing as teachers believe
it proves that a student is willing to take a risk and begin to try to learn new words.
The result of this mini research supports the existence of top-down approach used
in teaching reading comprehension to elementary school students. Furthermore, this
finding also proves the more effective use of top-down approach in reading
comprehension classroom activities than what bottom-up approach can probably reach.

9
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
A. Conclusion
This study reveals significant difference on the result of bottom-up and top-
down approach in maximizing students’ reading comprehension. The result shows
that top-down approach is more beneficial and effective in increasing students’
comprehension over a reading text. This finding once again supports various
experts’ recommendation on the practical use of top-down approach during reading
comprehension classroom activities. Both approaches also present different
cognitive processes during classroom activities in which bottom-up approach
concerns with part-by-part processes of reading comprehension and top-down
approach broadens students’ view by gaining whole comprehension on certain text.
This is similar to what most expert state about both approaches.
While bottom-up models treat the reading process as a decoding activity with
an emphasis placed on the structure of the text, top-down models take the opposite
position and consider the reader and his/her interests, world knowledge, and
reading skills as the driving force behind reading comprehension (Goodman,
1968). The text has little or no meaning in and of itself. Instead, it gives direction
to readers concerning how they should retrieve and construct meaning from their
own previously acquired knowledge (Rumelhart, 1980). Goodman (1968) depicts
the reading process as a “psycholinguistic guessing game” where the reader reduces
his or her dependence upon the text itself by employing strategies such as
predicting and sampling.

B. Recommendation
1. For teachers
Teachers of English Language should realize that the process of
acquiring meanings out of a reading text starts from the whole parts not from
little-by-little parts such as words, phrases, or sentences as proposed by top-
down approach. Concerning this matter, it is better for them to apply the top-
down approach in their scheduled English Language classroom activities. By
applying it, students are expected to achieve more global comprehension over
a reading passage which in turn can increase their interest in reading various
kinds of passage, news, or stories.

10
 2. For students
Students should start to change their view towards reading text
comprehension. They should not rely themselves on the capacity of
transferring meaning word by word, phrase by phrase, or sentence by
sentence which is proven to be ineffective in building comprehension on the
whole passage. All they can do is just read as many kinds of reading materials
as possible to increase their background knowledge which in turn can support
their future comprehension ability towards any kinds of reading materials.
3. For parents
Parents should decrease their expectation of finding their children have
instant ability in transferring meaning of certain reading passages word by
word, phrases by phrases, or sentence by sentence. They should also realize
that it is not the purpose of reading comprehension activities in which
children are aimed to achieve a complete comprehension over reading
passages which eventually enrich their background knowledge towards
various kinds of reading materials. By doing this, it is believed that their
children will accomplish a lot of reading skills in their future lives.

VI. REFERENCES
1. Alptekin, C., & Erc etin, G. (2010). The role of L1 and L2 Working Memory in Literal
and Inferential Comprehension in L2 Reading. Journal of research in Reading, 33,
206 – 219. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01412.
2. Brown, G. D. A., & Hulme, C. (1992). Cognitive psychology and second language
processing: The role of short-term memory. In R.J. Harris (Ed), Cognitive processing
in bilinguals (pp. 105-121). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
3. Carrell, P.L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quaterly,
21, 461-481. doi:10.2307/3586498.
4. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory
and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
5. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and Reading Compreohension. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
6. Goodman, K.S. (1988). The reading process. Interactive Approaches to Second
Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11
7. Gough, P.B. (1972). “One Second of Reading.” In J.F. Kavanagh, & I.G. Mattingly
(Eds.), Language by Ear and Eye (pp.332-358). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
8. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a Second Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
9. Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching Second Language Reading. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
10. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
11. LaBerge & Samuels, S.J. (1974) A Theory of Automatic Information Processing.
12. Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New
York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
13. Perfetti, C.A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2007). The acquisition of the reading
comprehension skill. In M.J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading
(pp. 227-247). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

12