i

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN READING FLUENCY AND READING

COMPREHENSION OF GRADE 3 PUPILS

An Undergraduate Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the
Elementary Teaching Department
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Mindanao State University
Marawi City

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Elementary Education
Major in General Education

ASLIA O. ABOLKHAIR
NOR-AYNIE P. PANGAIBAT

May 2017

i
 ii

ii
 iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, the researchers wish to acknowledge the Almighty ALLAH (S.W.T)
for all the blessings and for giving them the strength, wisdom, guidance, peace of mind and good
health during the research study. Their sincerest thanks also go to the following:

Rohanie M. Sultan, PhD, RGC their thesis adviser, who provided considerable moral
support, knowledge and understanding throughout the completion of their thesis;

Prof. Roseniya G. Tamano and Dr. Wardah D. Guimba, their panel members, for their
positive influence and encouragement.

Dr. Wardah D. Guimba, their thesis coordinator, for providing them essential information
about thesis writing;

Prof. Jerryk C. Alico, their thesis editor, for the patience in editing grammar and syntax.

Prof. Sonny M. Magno, their statistician, for doing the statistical analysis and
interpretation of the gathered data of the thesis;

Their teachers, parents, and relatives for providing them moral and spiritual support.

The Principal of Sultan Conding Elementary School, Dr. Abubacar B. Dimacuna, for
allowing them to conduct their pilot testing.

The Principal of Amai Pakpak Central Elementary School, Pinamili D. Abedin, MaEd,
for allowing them to conduct their study.

The Grade Three Pupils in Amai Pakpak Central Elementary School and Sultan Conding
Elementary School for their participation in the study.

Ashley & Aynie

iii
 iv

DEDICATION

This simple achievement is heartily dedicated to the following

My Ommie ko (Mrs.Rachma T. Odin) and my Abbie ko
(Mr. Abolkhair M. Hassan);
My siblings, Kuya Abra, Kuya Mohammad, Ate Janina , Mahid, Ameroddin, Yasser,
Nasser, and Nihaya.
My beautiful friends, comajors, GEMS mates, cousins, my practicumer friends, and of course to
my thesis partner, no other than Ms.Nor-Aynie P. Pangaibat; and
The Almighty ALLAH S.W.T. the creator of all, the beneficent and the most merciful.

-Ashley-

This work is wholeheartedly and deeply dedicated to the following individuals:

My loving, caring and supportive parents H. Manan P. Pangaibat and

H. Rahima P. Pangaibat, who always inspire me to do my best;
My siblings, Kuya Alian, Lilang, Soraida, Omera, Faida, Asmia, Rayhana, Bairiham and
Moh’d Neezam who help, support and encourage me to continue my studies; and

Most of all, the ALMIGHTY ALLAH (S.W.T.), the Creator of this wonderful world, who gives
me more knowledge, guide me all the time with unconditional love, and shower more blessings
upon me.

-Aynie-

iv
 v

ABSTRACT

Abolkhair, Aslia O. and Pangaibat, Nor-aynie P., “Relationship between Reading Fluency and
Reading Comprehension of Grade 3 Pupils” An Undergraduate Thesis , Elementary Teaching
Department, College of Education, Mindanao State University, Marawi City, May 2017.
Thesis Adviser: Rohanie M. Sultan, PhD, RGC

This study aims to determine the relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension
of Grade Three pupils in Amai Pakpak Central Elementary School. Specifically, this study
described the profile of the respondents in terms of age and sex, their oral reading fluency, and
reading comprehension skill, and the relationship between reading fluency and reading
comprehension. This study used two instruments: The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literary
Skills, Sixth Edition (DIBELS) and the Reading Comprehension Test for third grade. The reading
comprehension questionnaire was composed of sixteen item multiple choices. All items of the
questionnaire were adopted by the researchers from the book of Robles (2014) entitled The
Phoenix K to 12 World of Reading 3. The data were gathered, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted
using appropriate statistical tools. Findings revealed that many (48.1%) of the respondents were
10 years of age and the majority (59.6%) of the respondents were female. Most (69.2%) of the
respondents’ oral reading fluency are described as low risk and most (53.8%) of the respondents
as to reading comprehension are advanced. It was found that there was no significant relationship
between reading fluency and reading comprehension which reading fluency does not always
predict reading comprehension performance among pupils.

Keywords: Reading, Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension, Decoding

v
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page i
Approval Sheet ii
Acknowledgement iii
Dedication iv
Abstract v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix

Chapter Page
1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE
Introduction 1
Theoretical Framework 3
Conceptual Framework 7
Statement of the Problem 8
Null Hypothesis 8
Significance of the Study 9
Scope and Limitations of the Study 10
Definition of Terms 10

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Related Literature 13
Related Studies 19

3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Research Design 24
Locale of the Study 24
Respondents of the Study 25
Instrumentation 25
Data Gathering Procedures 27
Statistical Tools Used 28

4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSES, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 30

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings 39
Conclusion 40
Recommendations 40

REFERENCES 43

vi
 vii

APPENDICES
A: Letter to the Principal 47
B: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) 49
(Reading Fluency)
C: Test Questionnaire (Reading Comprehension) 51
D: Consultation Log 56
E: Pre-Defense Form 59
F: Proof of Reliability Test 60
G: Statistical Analysis 61
H: Certification from the Statistician 62
I: Final Oral Examination Report 63
J: Proof of Editing 64
K: Curriculum Vitae 65

vii
 viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Pages

2.1 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) 14

3.1 Respondents of the study 25

3.2 Item Analysis of the Reading Comprehension Test 27

4.1 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Age 31

4.2 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Sex 32

4.3 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Oral 33

Reading Fluency

4.4 Raw Score, Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents 33

in terms of Scores in the Reading Comprehension Test

4.5 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents in terms of 35

Comprehension Assessment Level

4.6 Respondents with Low Risk in Reading Fluency and their Reading
Comprehension Level

4.7 Correlation Analysis between Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension 35

viii
 ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

1.1 Schematic Diagram of the Conceptual Framework of the Study 8

ix
 1

Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE

Introduction

Reading is very important to the students. Indeed, when the students can read, it is easy for

them to learn. Learning, however, may be different as to fast and slow. Once a student attained the

highest point of learning, he/she then becomes fluent. Fluency comes into two forms such as

reading and comprehension. Thus, fluency in reading and comprehension are complementary. The

former illustrates how good a student is in reading while the latter indicates how good a student is

in understanding what he/she reads. Both are processes involved in learning but the most logical

explanation of their relationship is that fluency comes when one exceptionally recognizes and

comprehends.

Successful reading requires the learner to incorporate a number of reading skills in

appropriate ways. The reading sub-skills deemed critical for the development of proficient reading

include phonemic awareness, sight word recognition, fluency in reading instructional-level text

and strategy use to aid comprehension (Chafouleas, Martens, Dobson, Weinstein, & Gardner,

2004) as cited by Talada (2007).

Fluency is often considered the bridge between word recognition and comprehension

(Pikulski & Chard, 2005; Walczyk & Griffith-Ross, 2007). Kuhn (2004) believes one important

reason for the need of fluency instruction is that fluent readers no longer have to decode the

majority of the words they encounter, but instead recognize words accurately and automatically.

This can allow for readers to shift their focus to comprehension.

According to McConnaughhay (2008), the ultimate goal of reading is comprehension and

understanding. When students reach middle school a reduced amount of time is spent on
 2

comprehension strategies and skills, and students are expected to understand what they are reading.

As a result, many students struggle with reading comprehension.

Research has been done to identify ways to solve this problem. Different interventions have

been developed and there are numerous articles and books written on which strategies and

techniques can best teach children to understand what they are reading. Comprehension is the basis

for reading, and in order for students to obtain and use effective comprehension skills and

strategies, they must possess a variety of skills, including decoding and fluency (Pardo, 2004).

The relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension is of considerable

interest because it has significant implications for assessment (Wood, 2006). Due to the fact that

high-stakes testing is timed, it is very important that students are reading the testing material

quickly and accurately, and are able to comprehend what they are reading. A recent study by

Wood found a strong relationship between oral reading fluency and performance on the Colorado

Student Assessment Program (CSAP) for third, fourth, and fifth graders. The CSAP is designed to

measure reading comprehension and to assess state standards in reading comprehension at each

grade level. It was found that oral reading fluency predicted CSAP reading performance equally

well for third, fourth, and fifth grade, indicating that the relationship between fluency and

comprehension is consistent across the intermediate grades (Wood, 2006). Results of this study

support the idea that short “curriculum-based measures of reading fluency can provide important

indicators of the abilities required to perform well on standards-based reading achievement tests”

(Wood, 2006). This demonstrated relationship between fluency, comprehension and reading

performance suggests that fluency instruction and interventions can have an effect on reading

comprehension and increase reading assessment score.

 3

The purpose of the present study is to investigate the potential relationship between reading

fluency and reading comprehension. It attempted to determine whether reading fluency plays a

predictive role in the students’ ability to comprehend the texts they read. Knowing this would be

a significant contribution to the way we understand the native of reading comprehension. This

would lead better decision making in terms of teaching reading effectively.

Theoretical Framework

To concretize the foundation and basis of the study, the researchers used theories in

developmental reading. The three models of reading development by Chall, Ehri, and Wolf are

phase theories that outline an ordered, step-by-step, natural sequence of operations that all

beginning readers use.

Chall's Six Stages of Reading Development

According to Chall's (1996) theoretical model, learners progress through six stages of

reading development. The first stage of early reading or emergent literacy stage (birth through age

six) is developed before formal instruction. It includes concepts about print, phoneme awareness,

and book-handling knowledge. Next is the initial stage of conventional literacy or the beginning

of formal reading instruction (grades 1 through 2). The learners recognize basic sound-symbol

correspondence in order to aid their decoding ability. The third stage is most important to this

study because it is confirmation and fluency or "ungluing from print" (grades 2 through 3).

Learners develop automaticity with print and read with prosody with appropriate phrasing, stress,

and intonation in their reading. At this stage it is easier to construct meaning from text because the

learner is not struggling with word identification.

 4

The next stage called "reading for learning the new" (grades 4 through 8) involves reading

a great deal of expository text. In the multiple viewpoints stage (grades 9 through 12), "the learner"

is expected to critically evaluate various viewpoints on a given topic. The last stage is "construction

and reconstruction" (throughout college and beyond) in which the reader develops her or his own

perspective on a topic. Although Chall's theory is one of the most well-known and most widely

quoted, it has been criticized for being too global and wide of a range to be used effectively for

fluency work (Pikulski, 2006).

This theory is deemed useful in this study because it lays the foundational concepts about

reading at an early stage of development, particularly childhood, which is the focus of this paper.

The theory characterizes what kind of reader a child is, thus guiding the researchers as to how the

participants should be described in relation to their reading fluency and comprehension.

Ehri's Stages of Reading Development

Ehri believes sight-word reading development consists of four distinct phases:

prealphabetic, partial alphabetic, full alphabetic, and consolidated alphabetic (Ehri, 1991). The

prealphabetic phase (3-6 years, pre K-K) corresponds with Chall's early reading stage. It is

considered prealphatic because letter-sound relationship is not involved in the recognitionof sight

words. Beginning readers often remember sight words based on visual aspects of a word. In partial

alphabetic (5-8 years/K-1), although the learner can read some sight words because he or she has

some letter-sound correspondence, it is incomplete because the learner does not know the complete

spelling system. The full alphabetic phase (6-8 years/late K-2) parallels Chall's initial stage of

conventional literacy. In Ehri's fully alphabetic stage students become increasingly familiar with

the sounds that letter represents. In the final phase of consolidated alphabetic (7 years-
 5

adulthood/grade 2 & beyond), the learner has automatic and accurate word recognition. This final

phase corresponds with the confirmation and fluency stage of Chall's model.

Ehri's stages are very important because they show that there is a cohesive sequence to

word-recognition development and a reader may struggle because they have not received

instruction that reflects that sequence. Ehri's theory of stages of reading development focuses much

more on the decoding aspects, recognizes and acknowledges the important role of language and

construction of meaning, and seems more directly related to fluency and its development (Pikulski,

2006).

Wolf's Developmental Theory

Wolf believes fluency is a developmental process that involves all components of reading

acquisition (Wolf, 2001). She believes explicit fluency instruction needs to be part of reading

instruction from the beginning. It should be taught in preschool before the students becomes a

reader, not waiting until it become a problem when a student cannot read text.

Wolf (2001) states she can predict as early as kindergarten which students will have trouble

becoming a fluent reader. These struggling students do not integrate visual and verbal processes

as rapidly as other children. Wolf believes the first and most important skill is to develop phoneme

awareness (the child's ability to hear and manipulate phonemes).

Secondly, these students need to decode as automatically as possible. To do this they need

to practice reading and to get as much exposure to letter or letter pattern as possible. Finally

students can grow in reading fluency through word knowledge and vocabulary development.

Wolfs definition of fluency is much more complex and detailed than any other definition of

fluency. Although it includes decoding, reading rate, and prosody of many other definitions (NRP,

2000; Rasinski, 2003), it stresses the stages in the developmental process: In its beginnings,
 6

reading fluency is the product of the initial development of accuracy and the subsequent

development of automaticity in underlying sublexical processes, lexical processes, and their

integration in single word reading and connected text. These include perceptual, phonological,

orthographic, and morphological processes at the letter-, letter-pattern, and word-level, as well as

semantic and syntactic processes at the word-level and connected text-level. After is if fully

developed, reading fluency refers to a level of accuracy and rate where decoding is relatively

effortless; where oral reading is smooth and accurate with correct prosody; and where attentions

can be allocated to comprehension. (Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001, p. 219)

Compensatory-Encoding Theory (c-et)

There may be a case in which a student has non-fluent reading skills but does not have

lower comprehension. This may an example of compensatory-encoding theory (C-ET). C-ET

identifies actions that can overcome weak reading skills. To overcome confusion in reading,

students can use "compensations" such as slowing their reading rate, pausing, reading aloud, or

rereading the text. "According to C-ET, readers with poor word reading, small verbal working

memory capacities, or poor listening comprehension can comprehend well, as long as they are

motivated to understand and free to compensate" (Walczyk & Griffith-Ross, 2007, p. 563).

This theory implies in this study which the findings of a major test of compensatory-

encoding theory indicated that there is more than one way to comprehend well lays in the result of

the study that reading fluency is not always an indicator of reading comprehension but this not

necessarily discredit the importance of reading fluency as a reading skill.

 7

Prosody in Fluent Reading

While automaticity and accuracy of decoding words are very important, many researchers

now believe prosody is the key to fluency. Prosody is a general linguistic term to describe rhythmic

and tonal features of speech (Dowhower, 1991). It includes intonation (pitch), stress (emphasis),

tempo (rate) and duration (timing). Schreiber (1991) states oral reading fluency can be

characterized as smooth, expressive production with appropriate phrasing or chunking groups of

words into meaningful phrases in accordance to the syntactic structure of the text.

This theory asserts in this study because it implies the importance of prosody in reading

fluency which prosody refers to appropriate use of intonation features such as pauses, pitch, and

stress also included in addition to accuracy and rate as the primary components of oral reading

fluency. However, this theory is deemed useful in this study which words omitted, substituted, and

hesitations of more than three seconds were scored as errors by the researchers.

Conceptual Framework

Hence, this study focuses on finding the relationship between reading fluency and reading

comprehension. Upon analyzing the theoretical foundations discussed previously, there is a

potential gap in research that this study aims to address. In this research, the proponents suppose

that the reading comprehension skills of readers may be predicted or influenced by another reading

skill, which is oral reading fluency. There are three variables that comprise this study. The first set

is composed of the respondents’ profile in terms of age and sex. The second one is the oral reading

fluency of the participants and the last one is their reading comprehension level.
 8

The schematic diagram below presents the variables of the study and how they are utilized.

The profile serves as variables that describe the participants. Their oral reading fluency and reading

comprehension level are correlated to know whether they are associated to each other.

Oral Reading Fluency

Respondents’ Profile
Age
Sex Level of Reading Comprehension

Figure 1.1 A Schematic Diagram of the Conceptual Framework of the Study

Statement of the Problem

The main goal of this study was to ascertain if there exists a significant relationship

between the oral reading fluency and reading comprehension level of pupils.

To achieve such a goal, the following specific questions were addressed:

1. What are the profile distributions of the respondents in terms of:

1.1.Age; and

1.2.Sex

2. What is the respondents’ oral reading fluency?

3. What is the level of reading comprehension of the respondents?

4. Is there a significant relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension?

 9

Null Hypothesis

The following hypothesis was tested at 0.05 level of significance:

Ho: There is no significant relationship between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension.

Significance of the Study

The findings of this study are believed to be beneficial to the following:

Students. The ultimate beneficiary of this study, may be aware and would understand the

importance of practicing reading in becoming a successful learner and individual in the future.

School Administrators. This research study may help the school administration to identify

what kind of students they have in order to help their teachers in what they should do to enhance

students’ reading ability.

Teachers. This research study may help teachers identify students’ capability in reading.

This study may help them create a learning environment that both students and teachers have

interactively communicate and cooperate in a way that would motivate students to read more and

would inspire teachers to improve as well.

Parents. Through this study, parents may be informed about their children’s’ reading

ability. Either they can help enhance their children’s reading skill if they are not yet skilled enough

or they can empower their children to level up if they are already advanced readers.

Future Researcher. This research study may help future researchers in their research

endeavors by serving as a reference material or related literature that will guide them as they

explore this topic further.

 10

Scope and Limitations

This study focused on the relationship between oral reading fluency and reading

comprehension. The study is designed to determine if students’ fluency rates are related to their

reading comprehension. The researchers used Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

(DIBELS) 6th edition by Good and Kaminski (2002) to assess students’ oral reading fluency and

the reading comprehension questionnaire were composed of sixteen- item multiple choices. 1-7

items of the questionnaire were adopted by the researchers from the book of Robles (2014)

entitled” The Phoenix K to 12 World of Reading 3’’ while the rest of the questionnaires were

researcher- constructed items.

Only fifty-two (52) Grade Three pupils of Amai Pakpak Central Elementary School

(APCES) were selected as respondents of the study through random sampling technique. They

were chosen by one standard that is having a grade of 85 and above in the latest grading period of

their English subject. Another limitation is a time limited in assessing students’ oral reading

fluency and reading comprehension test.

Definition of Terms

In order to understand fully the key terms used in this study, the following conceptual and

operational definitions are provided:

At-risk Readers – It pertains to conditions that place children at risk with reading

difficulties (Swanson, 2011). In this study, it refers to the respondents who got an oral reading

fluency score of 66 or less correct words read in one minute.

Decoding - It is the ability to produce the correct pronunciation of a real or a phonetically

regular pseudo-word by breaking the phonic code (grapheme to phoneme correspondence) (Birsh,
 11

2005). In this study, decoding is a measure by having each participant orally read the DIBELS

Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) passages and obtaining a score which represents the number of

words read correct per minute.

DIBELS- Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills is a set of one 1minute

curriculum based measurement probes which objectively measure the five “Big Ideas in Beginning

Reading” (Good & Kaminski, 2007). In this study, it refers to the assessment which was used by

researchers to evaluate respondent’s oral reading fluency rates.

Low-risk reader - a third grader whose beginning of the year DORF is greater than or

equal to 77 WCPM, or a third grader whose middle of the year DORF is greater than or equal to

92 WCPM (University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning, 1999). In this study, it refers

to the respondents’ who got an oral reading fluency score of 92 or higher correct words read in

one minute.

Oral Reading Fluency Rates (ORF Rates) - the number of words read from a connected

text in 1 minute (University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning, 2008). In this study, it

refers to the respondents’ oral reading fluency rates.

Reading Comprehension - It can be defined as the level of understanding of a passage or

text (Bouchard & Trabasso, 2003). It is a “process in which readers construct meaning by

interacting with text through the combination of prior knowledge and previous experience,

information in the text, and the stance the reader takes in relationship to the text” (Pardo, 2004).

In this study, it refers to the level of grade three pupil’s capability to comprehend text after reading

the passage.
 12

Reading Fluency- A multidimensional skill that must be explicitly taught and modeled. A

fluent reader is described as one who automatically decodes and recognizes words while using

appropriate intonation and expression. The automatic decoding allows the reader to concentrate

on the meaning of the text and understanding what the text is about (Faver, 2008; Rasinski, 2004).

In this study, it refers to the level of grade three pupils’ capability to read fluently which is

measured by the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, Sixth Edition (DIBELS).

Some-risk reader - A third grader whose beginning of the year DORF is greater than or

equal to 53 WCPM and less than 77 WCPM, or a third grader whose middle of the year DORF is

greater than or equal to 67 WCPM and less than 92 WCPM (University of Oregon Center on

Teaching and Learning, 1999). In this study, it refers to the respondents who got an oral reading

fluency score between 67 and 91 correct words read in one minute.

 13

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

In this chapter, related literature and studies are discussed and reviewed to reinforce further

understanding of the major concepts and variables in the study. The researchers then critically

analyze the possible gaps in the literature and attempt to fill those gaps through this study.

Related Literature

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)

DIBELS is an assessment tool used to monitor early literacy skill growth. DIBELS is a

battery of seven subtests (Word Use Fluency, Initial Sound Fluency, Letter Naming Fluency,

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, Oral Reading Fluency, and Retell

Fluency) designed to function as indicators of key early reading skills. The DIBELS measures are

designed to assess five areas of early literacy development: (1) Phonological Awareness; (2)

Alphabetic Principle; (3) Vocabulary; (4) Comprehension; and (5) Fluency with Connected Text.

It is widely adopted in the United States as a result of its inclusion in the Department of Education,

NCLB Reading First grants. It remains unclear, however, how closely related all of the DIBELS

subtests are to reading comprehension. The subtest with the strongest empirically supported

relationship to reading comprehension is the Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) subtest; (Buck &

Torgesen, 2003; Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2001; Roehrig, Petscher, Nettles, Hudson, &

Torgesen, 2008; Schilling, Carlisle, Scott, & Zeng, 2007; Shapiro, Solari, & Petscher, 2008;

Vander Meer, Lentz, & Stoller, 2005; Wood, 2006).

DIBELS-ORF developers assert that the ORF “is a standardized set of passages and

administration procedures designed to (a) identify children who may need additional instructional

support, and (b) monitor progress toward instructional goals” (Good & Kaminski, 2002, p. 30).
 14

Development of the DIBELS battery was based on the Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)

concept (Deno, 1985). The basic intent behind CBM is frequent monitoring of skills using a set of

quick (usually one minute), simple, and inexpensive standardized probes that are based on the

current curriculum, and sensitive to literacy skill growth (Deno, 2002; Wiley & Deno, 2005). The

DIBELS-ORF is a type of CBM measure, and as such is intended to be a quick and efficient

measure of reading fluency in terms of accurate decoding of connected text (Good & Kaminski,

2002).

Using calibrated reading passages for each grade level, scores on the DIBELS-ORF are

simply the number of words read correctly per minute (WCPM). Benchmark goals for the

DIBELS-ORF have been set for each grade level that are to be achieved by the spring of that year

in order for a student’s level of fluency to be considered on target. The low-risk benchmark goals

are 40 WCPM for first grade, 90 WCPM for second grade, and 110 WCPM for third grade.

Students who achieve benchmark level WCPM or higher are considered low-risk for reading

failure. Students are considered at-risk and in need of extra instructional support if WCPM scores

fall below 20, 70, and 80 at each grade, respectively (Good & Kaminski, 2002).

Even though comprehension rather than fluency is the ultimate goal of reading instruction,

research maintains that fluency is closely associated to comprehension (Deno, 1985; Deno, Mirkin,

Chiang, & Lowry, 1980; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Deno, 1982; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Maxwell, 1988; Fuchs,

Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; McGlinchey & Hixson, 2004; Stage &

Jacobsen, 2001), and is a reflection of how automated the lower level reading processes are that

are necessary for comprehension (Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2001; Schilling, Carlisle, Scott,

& Zeng, 2007 ). Thus it is important to define what fluency is and identify why it is important for

reading comprehension.
 15

Characteristics of DIBELS

According to Good and Kaminski (2002), the developers of DIBELS, the sequence of

DIBELS subtests administered from kindergarten to sixth grade is purported to capture a

predictable progression of pre-reading skills through fluent oral reading, as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) 6th Edition Subtests

DIBELS Subtest Grade(s) Description Raw Score

Initial Sound Fluency K Identify or produce Number of correct

beginning sounds of
words, represented by
pictures
Letter Naming Fluency K–1 Name upper- and lower-
case letters presented in
mixed up order.
Phoneme Segmentation K–1 Segment a word spoken
Fluency by the tester.
sounds identified
and produced
Number of letters
correctly named
Number of sounds
correctly segmented

Nonsense Word Fluency K–2 Say the sounds in two
and three letter printed
non-words.
Oral Reading Fluency 1–6 Read three passages; the
raw score being the
middle score.
a
Retell Fluency 1–6 Retell what was read on
Oral Reading Fluency
passages.
Number of sounds
correctly produced
Number of words
correctly read
Number of words
used in correct

a
Word Use Fluency K–6 Use a word in a phrase or Number of words
Sentence. correctly used

Note. K = kindergarten; 1 = first grade; 2 = second grade; 6 = sixth grade

An Optional, experimental subtests

Which DIBELS subtests are administered to children at a particular grade level is based on

the literature as well as the data gathered by the developers of the test according to which measures

they hypothesized to be most predictive of later reading. For very young children, DIBELS
 16

includes measures of phonemic awareness (an understanding that spoken words are composed of

individual sounds along with the ability to manipulate these sounds) and letter sound knowledge

skills that are related to accurate reading decoding (using letter sound knowledge to pronounce

words) (Blachman, 2000; Levin, Shatil-Carmon, & Asif-Rave, 2006; Naslund & Schneider, 1996;

Speece & Ritchey, 2005). The coordination of these reading skills contributes to the development

of accurate context-free word recognition (i.e., reading words in lists) and oral reading fluency of

connected text (Torgesen, Rashotte, & Alexander, 2001). Converging evidence exists that later

reading outcomes are causally linked to many of these early reading proficiencies (Report of the

National Reading Panel; NRP, 2000) and these “core components or foundational skills,

differentiate successful from less successful readers” (Kaminski, Cummings, Powell-Smith, &

Good, 2008, p. 1182). DIBELS scores are intended to be indicators of students’ later reading

success.

Subtest scores are purported to enable the determination of which students are at risk for

reading failure based on cut-off scores established by previous research estimating the probability

of the student meeting later benchmarks (Good & Kaminski, 2002). At earlier grades, required

DIBELS subtests assess phonological awareness, letter naming, the alphabetic principle (sound-

symbol associations), and oral reading fluency, whereas in second and third grade, oral reading

fluency is the main focus of the DIBELS assessment.

Reading

Reading is the process of deriving meaning from written or printed text (Alvermann &

Montero, 2003). It is a complex process which includes many components. According to

Armbruster (2001), phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension are
 17

the five major areas of reading. Alvermann and Montero believe instruction in phonemic

awareness, phonics, and fluency impact children’s early reading development. It is necessary for

a child to learn and understand each area in order for a child to achieve reading success. Phonemic

awareness is necessary for the development of phonics; phonics is necessary for word recognition;

word recognition is necessary for fluency; and fluency is necessary for reading comprehension

(Eldredge, 2005). Pardo (2004) emphasized the relationship shared between all components of

reading when noting that, before establishing good comprehension skills, students must acquire

decoding skills, fluency skills, background knowledge, vocabulary, motivation, and engagement.

Fluency is seen as the link between decoding and comprehension. Problems with fluency

may stem from poor decoding skills. A recent study conducted by Rasinski and Padak (1998)

reviewed a large number of remedial readers and found almost all the children were well below

grade level in comprehension, decoding, and fluency. Fluency was the biggest area of concern due

to the lengthy manner in which the students decoded the words and read the passages. Since

decoding and word recognition skills were so poor, it made it difficult for the students to

comprehend any of the passages (Rasinski & Padak, 1998). Students may view reading as

pronouncing words correctly and may not focus on comprehension. When students read words

automatically they have good accuracy, and speed is not interrupted by frequent attempts to decode

words. This automatic reading can free a student’s attention to focus on comprehension skills and

strategies, and can promote a better understanding of the text.

Reading Fluency

Reading fluency is the ability to read text accurately and quickly (Hudson, Lane, & Pullen,

2005). It is a set of skills that allows readers to rapidly decode text while maintaining high

comprehension (Hudson., 2005). Fluency also involves reading a text with proper expression.
 18

There are three major components of fluency: accuracy, which refers to the person’s ability to read

words correctly; rate, the speed a person reads; and prosody, which is commonly referred to as

reading with feeling and involves the stress, intonation, and pauses when reading (Hudson , 2005.;

Rasinski, 2006). According to Rasinski, “readers must be able to decode words correctly and

effortlessly and then put them together into meaningful phrases with appropriate expression to

make sense of what they read” (p. 704).

Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension can be defined as the level of understanding of a passage or text

(Bouchard & Trabasso, 2003). It is a “process in which readers construct meaning by interacting

with text through the combination of prior knowledge and previous experience, information in the

text, and the stance the reader takes in relationship to the text” (Pardo, 2004, p. 272). The ultimate

goal of reading is to understand what has been read (Nation & Angell, 2006). Comprehension is

the reason for reading. It involves a complex process that includes many skills and strategies

(Kolić-Vehovec & Bajšanski, 2006; Nation & Angell; Pardo, 2006). To be a good reader it is

critical to not only be able to identify the words, but to understand them as well. If readers can

read the words, but do not understand what they are reading, they are not really reading. This

process requires a numbers of skills, from recognizing individual words to “forming a coherent

and cohesive mental model of a text” (Nation & Angell, 2006 p. 86). Effective reading

comprehension is the culmination of mastering vocabulary, phonics, fluency, and reading

comprehension skills (Dougherty-Stahl, 2004).

 19

Related Studies

The study conducted by McConnaughhay (2008) investigated the relationship between

reading fluency and reading comprehension. A correlational study design was used. Participants

in the study were 50 third-grade students who were enrolled in one suburban public elementary

school located in Anne Arundel Country on Fort George G. Meade. From the 50 students involved

in the study, 31 were females and 19 were males. Data regarding students’ performance on the

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, Sixth Edition (DIBELS) and the Anne Arundel

County Public Schools Reading Assessment 2, comprehension section was collected and analyzed

using the Pearson correlation. The analysis showed a significant relationship between third-grade

students’ reading fluency rates and reading comprehension performance. The study also examined

the DIBELS instructional categories (at risk, some risk, low risk) in relation to the comprehension

assessment levels (basic, proficient, advanced) using a simple analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results from the ANOVA revealed that the instructional categories were highly related to the mean

comprehension score and level of performance. Recommendations for future research include

using a different comprehension measure, selecting participants from a different grade level, and

conducting an experimental study using a fluency intervention.

In the study conducted by Embrey (2011), this study took place in ABC Elementary. ABC

Elementary was located in District X in a Mid-Atlantic state. Classroom teachers were responsible

for administering the DIBELS ORF assessments.

With the demands of the No Child Left Behind legislation to utilize research-based

instructional practices and teach all children to read by the end of third grade, teachers find

themselves going beyond teachers’ editions and curriculum guides to the research on best reading

practices. The purpose of this quantitative non-experimental cross-sectional correlational study

 20

was to examine the strength and direction of the relationship between motivation to read, oral

reading fluency, and demographics for third-grade elementary students (N=112). An analysis of

covariance (ANCOVA) was used to quantitatively analyze archival data to assess the relationship

between motivation to read, oral reading fluency, and demographics. Motivation to read, which

was reported as MRP scores, includes the dimensions of self-concept as a reader and value of

reading, and was measured using the Motivation to Read Profile (MRP) Reading Survey. Oral

reading fluency, which was reported as Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) rates, was measured using

the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Results showed a significant

relationship between motivation to read, oral reading fluency, and demographics for all three

dimensions of motivation. Findings from the study may contribute to social change by influencing

educators’ uses of oral reading fluency data and interventions that employ improving motivation

to read in an attempt to improve reading achievement for third-grade elementary students.

Suggestions for further research include examining the relationship between motivation to read

and oral reading fluency.

The study conducted by Munger (2010) examined the predictive and concurrent validity of

the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) with measures of third grade

reading comprehension, including an individually administered diagnostic test, a group

administered test, and the New York State English Language Arts Test. First grade DIBELS Oral

Reading Fluency (ORF) most strongly predicted reading comprehension, and no other DIBELS

subtests explained additional variance beyond ORF. Similar findings were obtained using first

grade DIBELS to predict a reading comprehension composite constructed from the three measures

of comprehension. This study conducted in urban elementary school located in Central New York.

Third grade DIBELS ORF was also strongly correlated with comprehension. Although first grade
 21

DIBELS Word Use Fluency (WUF) was significantly correlated with the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Test - Third Edition and comprehension, what WUF measures remains unclear. First

grade DIBELS cut scores were also found to be reasonably accurate for classifying "low risk" and

"at risk" students but were less accurate for classifying "some risk" students.

Furthermore, Millett (2011), analyzed existing data, collected under a previous U.S.

Department of Education Reading First grant, to investigate the strength of the relationship

between scores on the first- through third-grade Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

- Oral Reading Fluency (DIBELS-ORF) test and scores on a reading comprehension test (Terra

Nova-Reading) administered at the conclusion of second- and third-grade. Participants were sixty-

five English Language Learners (ELLs) learning to read in a school district adjacent to the U.S.-

Mexico border. DIBELS-ORF and Terra Nova-Reading scores were provided by the school

district, which administers the assessments in accordance with state and federal mandates to

monitor early literacy skill development. Bivariate correlation results indicate moderate-to-strong

positive correlations between DIBELS-ORF scores and Terra Nova-Reading performance that

strengthened between grades one and three.

Results suggest that the concurrent relationship between oral reading fluency scores and

performance on standardized and high-stakes measures of reading comprehension may be different

among ELLs as compared to non-ELLs during first- and second-grade. However, by third-grade

the correlations approximate those reported in previous non-ELL studies. This study also

examined whether the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), a receptive vocabulary measure,

could explain any additional variance on second- and third-grade Terra Nova-Reading

performance beyond that explained by the DIBELS-ORF. The PPVT was individually

administered by researchers collecting data under a Reading First research grant prior to the current
 22

study. Receptive vocabulary was found to be a strong predictor of reading comprehension among

ELLs, and largely overshadowed the predictive ability of the DIBELS-ORF during first-grade.

Results suggest that receptive vocabulary scores, used in conjunction with the DIBELS-ORF, may

be useful for identifying beginning ELL readers who are at risk for third-grade reading failure as

early as first-grade.

Focusing on Latino English Language Learners, Gunne (2010) explored the concurrent

validity of a curriculum based measure, DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency, with two norm referenced

instruments, the Test of Phonological Awareness in Spanish and the Comprehensive Test of

Phonological Processing in English, which measure a highly predictive variable for word

decoding; phonological awareness. Results provided evidence of a relationship between oral

reading fluency and phonological awareness in English and Spanish, the predictive validity of

phonological awareness as measured by the CTOPP for DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency, and the

existence of cross-linguistic transfer between phonological awareness in Spanish and phonological

awareness in English.

Implications for intervention were that training in phonological awareness will likely

enhance the development of the early literacy skills of Latino English Language Learners. The

validity of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency as an appropriate curriculum based measure for

assessment of the early word decoding skills of Latino English Language Learners was supported

as evidenced by the sequential regression procedure employed for data analysis.

Lastly, Young Echols (2010), the purpose of this is to determine the utility of the DIBELS

in predicting future reading achievement, as measured by the Washington Assessment of Student

Learning and the Measures of Academic Progress. This is a non-experimental research study using

ex post facto data. The research design was both correlational, and prediction (Gall, Gall, & Borg,
 23

2007). The target population was primary students in grades 1-3. The study was based on

longitudinal data collected in years 2006, 2007, and 2008. Data were derived from one urban

school district in Washington State.

The results of the research study demonstrated DIBELS measures of Oral Reading Fluency

and Retell Fluency were moderate to strong predictors of reading achievement on the third grade

reading WASL and MAP. This research study also indicated that the DIBELS assessment system

was an unreliable measure for assessing reading achievement of certain student groups. In

particular, this study determined the DIBELS mispredicted reading achievement on the WASL for

students identified as English Language Learners.

 24

Chapter 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research design, locale of this study, respondents of the study,

instruments used, data gathering procedure and statistical tools utilized in this study.

Research Design

The study used the correlational research design in order to gain insight into the

relationship between two variables: reading fluency and reading comprehension. However, the

significance of relationship between these variables represents the testing of hypothesis which is

also part of the correlation design.

Locale of the Study

This study was conducted at Amai-Pakpak Central Elementary School (APCES) located

along Bangon Road, Barrio Green, Marawi City in front of Mindanao State University – University

Training Center (MSU-UTC) and beside Marawi City National High School. This school was

popularly known as the Camp Keithley Elementary School in honor of an American general named

General Keithley. For many decades, it has been one of the foremost public elementary schools in

the area. It serves children from the Marawi City area and even beyond. As of the current school

year, it is now implementing kindergarten to Grade Six of the K-12 curriculum and is under the

supervision of the school Superintendent Mona Macatanong and School Principal Pinamili Diron

–Abedin.
 25

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study were grade three pupils of Amai Pakpak Central Elementary

School (APCES). Among them, only fifty-two (52) were selected as sample through random

sampling technique. They were chosen by one standard that is having a grade of 85 and above in

the latest grading period of their English subject. The researchers believe that by that time, they

were already acquainted with and have mastered how to read accurately the words in an orderly

manner. Table 3.1 below shows the distribution of respondents according to section.

Table 3.1
Respondents of the Study
Section Frequency (f) Percent (%)
A 20 38.46
B 9 17.31
C 10 19.23
D 5 9.62
E 4 7.69
F 4 7.69
Total 52 100.0

Instrumentation

The researchers used two instruments: the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literary

Skills Sixth Edition (DIBELS) and Reading Comprehension Test for third grade.

First, DIBELS Sixth Edition assessment was produced by the University of Oregon and

also edited by Good III & Kaminsky (2007) in their paper entitled “Third Grade Scoring Booklet

DIBELS Benchmark Assessment’’ where the oral reading fluency subtest was given individually

to the respondents. Only two different stories were chosen by researchers and would be timed for

one minute for each story. Based on getting the DIBELS fluency rates, the median score of the

two passages were recorded as the oral reading fluency rate. The rate was divided into three

categories: at risk, some risk, and low risk. An oral reading fluency score of 66 or less were
 26

considered “at risk’’, A score between 67 and 91 correct words read per minute was defined as “

some risk’’ and an oral reading fluency score of 92 or higher is “ low risk’’. The present study

also did the same procedure.

Second, the Reading Comprehension Test for third grade is a timed assessment. It was

designed to measure student performance in reading comprehension. The assessment was divided

into two sections: word study and vocabulary. The reading comprehension questionnaire was

composed of sixteen- item multiple choices. 1-7 items of the questionnaire were adopted by the

researchers from the book of Robles (2014) entitled” The Phoenix K to 12 World of Reading 3’’.

The rest of the questionnaires were researcher- constructed items. Before the questionnaire was

administered to the target respondents, it was first pilot tested using other respondents (not the

target respondents) to determine its reliability and validity. The reliability for the instrument is

.723 or 72.3 %. The validity of the reading comprehension questionnaire was established through

pilot testing and item analysis. Thus, the test as an instrument can be used for sample. Table 3.2

shows the results of the item analysis.

 27

Table 3.2
Item Analysis of the Reading Comprehension

Item No. Upper 27% Lower 27% Difficulty Discrimination Action

Index Index
1. 5 3 0.8 0.4 Revise
2. 4 2 0.6 0.4 Retain
3. 0 0 0 0 Revise
4. 4 1 0.5 0.6 Retain
5. 4 3 0.7 0.2 Retain
6. 3 1 0.4 0.4 Retain
7. 4 3 0.7 0.2 Retain
8. 1 2 0.3 -0.2 Retain
9. 3 2 0.5 0.2 Retain
10. 5 2 0.7 0.6 Retain
11. 5 3 0.8 0.4 Revise
12. 4 2 0.6 0.4 Retain
13. 4 3 0.7 0.2 Retain
14. 5 2 0.7 0.6 Retain
15. 5 3 0.8 0.4 Revise
16. 4 1 0.5 0.6 Retain
17. 4 2 0.6 0.4 Retain
18. 2 2 0.4 0 Retain

The results reveal that majority of the items are retained while only some need revision,

which the researchers had addressed before the final conduct of the study.

Data Gathering Procedure

The data collection was done after some preliminary steps. First, the researchers personally

submitted a sample of the questionnaire together with a request letter (noted by the researchers’

adviser) to the School Principal of Amai Pakpak Central Elementary School (APCES) and to all

the advisers of grade three. After the permission was granted, the total populations of the students

were noted. The researchers provided details to the respondents about the main objectives of the
 28

study as well as the items and directions in completing the research instruments. Then, the

researchers informed the respondents that they would read two different stories aloud individually

and would be timed for one minute for each story in the first assessment.

During the reading aloud, the researchers pointed the first word of the first passage, asked

the students to begin, and started the stopwatch when the student read the first word. Words

omitted, substituted, and hesitations of more than three seconds were scored as errors. When the

time was up, a bracket was placed after the last word read by the students. The number of correct

words per minute was the oral reading fluency total for that passage. The procedure was repeated

for the next passage. The respondents’ median scores in the two passages were recorded as their

oral reading fluency rate. Lastly, the respondents were given 30 minutes to independently complete

the reading comprehension test. After which, the retrieval of the questionnaires ensued.

Statistical Tools Used

The researchers used the following statistical tools to analyze and interpret the data

gathered:

1. Frequency and Percentage. It was used to describe the profile distribution of the

respondents.

2. Pearson Correlation Coefficient. This is a statistical formula used to measure the strength

and significance of relationship between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension.

3. Simple Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) – This was used to determine whether there are

significant differences among the DIBELS instructional categories for reading fluency and

the mean scores in the reading comprehension test.

 29

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents analyses and interprets the data gathered in the study. The presentation

of data is illustrated with tables and is explained in the same order as they are presented in the

statement of the problem.

I. Respondents’ Profile

Frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents’ profile in terms of age and sex

are presented in the succeeding tables.

Table 4.1
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Age

Age Frequency ( f ) Percent (%)

8 2 3.8

9 14 26.9

10 25 48.1

11 10 19.2

12 1 1.9

Total 52 100.0

Table 4.1 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents according to

their age. Data show that that two (3.8%) respondents belong to the youngest group (8 years old),

14 (26.9 %) were 9 years old, and twenty-five (48.1%) were 10 years old, Moreover, 10 (19.2%)

respondents belong to the 11-years old group and only one (1.9%) was 12 years old, the oldest

age among them. The findings show that the respondents varied in their age. This means that the
 30

greater frequency of respondents is from 9 to 11 years old. According to Seabra, Dias, Mecca and

Macedo (2015), anent this finding, fluency and comprehension become more similar over time up

to the age of approximately 10 or 12 years.

Table 4.2
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Sex

Sex Frequency ( f ) Percent (%)

Male 21 40.4

Female 31 59.6

Total 52 100.0

Table 4.2 above, which is represented in the inquiry by fifty-two (52) respondents, and out

of this number, twenty-one (40.4%) were males and thirty-one (59.6%) were females. Clearly,

majority of the students are female. This finding hardly differs from the data gathered in other

studies. These only support or affirm results of those studies like that of Level of Reading

Comprehension among Grade IV, V and VI Pupils at Sikap Elementary School which female

respondents outnumbered the male respondents.

On the other hand, Linn (2009) also showed that the girls’ advantage on verbal abilities

varied according to age and the type of ability. In reading comprehension, girls below the age 6

performed better than boys, but among older children the sex difference was negligible. In

vocabulary, girls aged 6–10 years performed better than boys.

 31

II. Respondents’ Oral Reading Fluency

Table 4.3
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents’ in terms of Oral Reading Fluency
level

Oral Reading Fluency Level Frequency ( f ) Percent (%)

At risk 1 1.9

Some risk 15 28.8

Low risk 36 69.2

Total 52 100.0

Table 4.3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents in terms of

their oral reading fluency level. The data indicate that only one (1.9%) was at risk, fifteen 15 (28.8

%) had some risk and thirty-six 36 (69.2%) were identified with low risk. The findings show that

the respondents varied in their oral reading fluency rates. The rate was divided into three

categories: at risk, some risk, and low risk. An oral reading fluency score of 66 or less were

considered “at risk’’ and in need of extra instructional support (Good & Kaminski, 2002). A score

between 67 and 91 correct words read per minute was defined as “ some risk’’ and an oral reading

fluency score of 92 or higher is “ low risk’’. This means that the majority of the respondents were

fortunately identified having low risk in oral reading fluency. However, it cannot be denied that

there are still some who have the potential to be at risk and one who needs help.

According to Kuhn (2010), reading fluency combines accuracy, automaticity, and prosody.

In fact, studies have investigated one or more of these aspects of fluency in different units of

reading, such as words or texts, with some contradictory results. In addition, Kame’enui and
 32

Simmons (2001) indicate that DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) is an especially valuable tool

for helping educators determine students’ level of risk for reading failure.

Moreover, National Reading Panel (2000) suggested that fluency is one of the critical

factors needed to comprehend texts and promote understanding. In the past, reading fluency has

been thought of as oral reading rate and accuracy. Research on fluency suggests that the concept

is more than just reading through a passage quickly. The National Reading Panel stated that fluent

readers not only read with speed accuracy, but also proper expression.

III. Respondents’ Level of Reading Comprehension

Table 4.4
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Raw Score in the
Reading Comprehension Test

Raw Score Frequency ( f ) Percent (%)

8 4 7.7
9 1 1.9
10 1 1.9
11 10 19.2
12 8 15.4
13 10 19.2
14 12 23.1
15 3 5.8
16 3 5.8
Total 52 100.0

Table 4.4 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents’ scores in

terms of their reading comprehension performance. Perfect score in the reading comprehension

test is 16 and only three respondents reached such score. Generally, 69.3% passed the test, meaning

these respondents incurred 75% on higher in the test, which is 12 and above. However, 30.7% of

the respondents performed poorly in the test, which only implies that their reading comprehension

is underdeveloped.
 33

The findings of this study are supported by Francis and Snow (2008), as they put that the

ability of children to understand what they read is an interaction of numerous elements that

converge to produce reading comprehension, and a disruption of any of a number of these cognitive

and social processes can inhibit its development. For example, cognitive factors such as

phonological awareness skills, word recognition accuracy and efficiency, vocabulary knowledge,

memory, oral language skills, and retrieval efficiency can all contribute to the success or failure of

text comprehension.

Table 4.5
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Comprehension Assessment Levels of the
Respondents

Comprehension Assessment Levels Frequency ( f ) Percent (%)

Basic 5 9.6

Proficient 19 36.5

Advanced 28 53.8

Total 52 100.0

Table 4.5 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents’ level of

reading comprehension. The data indicates that five 5 (9.6%) were basic, nineteen 19 (36.5 %)

were proficient and twenty-eight 28 (53.8%) were advanced. The findings show that the

respondents varied in their comprehension assessment levels. Reading Comprehension

performance, the scores were calculated into percentages as follows: 59% and below is a’’ basic’’

score, 60%-79% is a ‘’proficient’’ score and 80% and above is an ‘’advanced’’. This means that

the greater frequency that found was under the comprehension assessment levels were “advanced”.

Furthermore, Busick (2013), typical readers showed a moderate effect on reading comprehension,
 34

moderate to large effect on word decoding and sight word reading, and a moderate to small effect

on passage comprehension and pseudo word reading. The intervention seemed to work on all types

of students involved in the study.

 35

III. Respondents’ Oral Reading Fluency and Level of Reading Comprehension

Table 4.6
Low Risk Respondents in Reading Fluency and their Reading Comprehension Level

Respondents Reading Fluency Reading Comprehension Level

Low Risk (Rate) Raw Score (%) Comprehension Assessment Levels
1 130.0 81.25 Advanced
2 117.5 87.50 Advanced
3 110.0 93.75 Advanced
4 99.5 75.00 Proficient
5 95.5 50.00 Basic
7 113.5 75.0 Proficient
8 94.0 87.50 Advanced
10 87.0 81.25 Advanced
11 137.5 68.75 Proficient
12 143.0 87.50 Advanced
13 100.0 100.00 Advanced
14 108.0 81.25 Advanced
15 116.0 75.00 Proficient
16 107.0 93.75 Advanced
19 129.0 81.25 Advanced
20 105.0 87.50 Advanced
21 128.5 68.75 Proficient
22 96.0 81.25 Advanced
24 125.0 81.25 Advanced
26 116.0 81.25 Advanced
27 93.0 87.50 Advanced
28 103.5 100.00 Advanced
29 114.0 87.50 Advanced
30 114.5 100.00 Advanced
31 94.0 93.75 Advanced
32 129.0 50.00 Basic
33 96.5 68.75 Proficient
36 109.5 87.50 Advanced
39 95.5 81.25 Advanced
44 101.0 68.75 Proficient
45 96.0 87.50 Advanced
46 99.5 87.50 Advanced
49 97.0 50.00 Basic
50 123.5 81.25 Advanced
51 109.5 68.75 Proficient
52 105.0 62.50 Proficient
Scaling: 59% and below- ‘’Basic’’ Scaling: 66 or less- ‘’ At risk’’
60%-79%- ‘’Proficient “ 67 and 91 correct words- ‘’ Some risk’’
80% and above- ‘’Advanced’’ 92 or higher- ‘’ Low risk’’
 36

Table 4.6 shows reading fluency rate and reading comprehension level of the respondents.

As shown, thirty six were low risk in reading fluency but only twenty four were advanced in

reading comprehension among fifty two 52 respondents. It also shows that twelve respondents (4,

5,7,11, 15, 21, 32, 33, 44, 49, 51, and 52) performed well in reading fluency but performed poorly

in reading comprehension. It seems to suggest that being fluent does not always entail being skilled

in reading comprehension.

In addition, comprehension is not guaranteed with fluency, but it is difficult without

fluency. If a reader has to frequently stop to figure out unknown words, most likely the reader will

not remember or understand much of what is read (Pikulski & Chard, 2005).

Table 4.7
Correlation Analysis between Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension

Relationship Correlation p-value Remarks

coefficient
(Pearson’s r)
Reading Reading 𝑟 =0.165 0.241 Not significant
Fluency Comprehension

Table 4.7 shows that Pearson r value is 0.165, which indicates weak positive correlation

between the variables. The p-value 0.241 further describes that the said relationship is not

significant (p ˃ 0.05).

This implies that there is no sufficient evidence to indicate that there is a significant

relationship between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension of the respondents. Meaning

some pupils may perform well in reading fluency but may not perform well in reading

comprehension. On the other hand, some pupils may performed poorly in reading fluency but

perform well in reading comprehension. Thus, reading fluency is not always an indicator of
 37

reading comprehension, but this does not necessarily discredit the importance of reading fluency

as a reading skill.

The findings of this study are supported by Walczyk and Griffith-Ross (2007) as they put

that there may be a case in which a student has non-fluent reading skills but does not have lower

comprehension. This may be an example of compensatory-encoding theory (C-ET). C-ET

identifies actions that can overcome weak reading skills. To overcome confusion in reading,

students can use "compensations" such as slowing their reading rate, pausing, reading aloud, or

rereading the text.

 38

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusion, and recommendations drawn

from the findings of the study.

Summary of Findings

This study investigated the relationship between reading fluency and reading

comprehension among third grade pupils of Amai Pakpak Central Elementary School (APCES).

Specifically, the study answered the following questions: (1) What are the profile distributions of

the respondents in terms of age and sex? (2) What is the respondents’ oral reading fluency? (3)

What is the respondent’s level of reading comprehension? (4) Is there a significant relationship

between reading fluency and reading comprehension?

This study adopted the correlation research design in order to gain insight into the

relationship between two variables: reading fluency and reading comprehension. The data were

gathered, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted using appropriate statistical analysis.

Based on the data gathered, the following major findings were sought:

1. Many (48.1%) of the respondents were 10 years of age.

2. Majority (59.6%) of the respondents were female.

3. Most (69.2%) of the respondents oral are low risk in oral reading fluency.

4. Most (53.8%) of the respondents are advanced in reading comprehension.

5. The mean score and standard deviation showed that some respondents performed well

in reading fluency but did not perform well in reading comprehension.

 39

6. With a p-value of 0.241, there is no significant relationship between reading fluency

and reading comprehension.

Conclusion

After analyzing and interpreting the study, the researchers found that many of the

respondents were 10 years of age and female.

It was also found that most of the respondents’ oral reading fluency rates are low risk while

most of the respondents’ levels of reading comprehension are advanced. This means that thirty six

were low risk in reading fluency but only twenty four were advanced in reading comprehension

among fifty two respondents. It also shows that twelve respondents (4, 5,7,11, 15, 21, 32, 33, 44,

49, 51, and 52) performed well in reading fluency but performed poorly in reading comprehension.

It seems that being fluent does not always entail being skilled in reading comprehension. The mean

score and standard deviation showed that some respondents performed well in reading fluency but

did not perform well in reading comprehension. Furthermore, it was found that a significant

relationship between the reading fluency and reading comprehension does not exist. It means that

some pupils may perform well in reading fluency but may not perform well in reading

comprehension and vice versa.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the researchers offer the following recommendations:

1. School Administrator.

1.1 They should inform every elementary English teacher that they can use DIBELS to

assess reading fluency of their pupils.

 40

1.2 They should encourage their teachers to focus their efforts on poor readers as these will

pose more problems later in school achievement. Consequently, they may require

teachers to resort to programs for reading enhancement.

1.3 The school should initiate reading seminars and workshops, which will promote

effective methods of teaching reading for teachers to undergo.

2. Teachers.

2.1 Elementary teachers should regularly assess the reading fluency and comprehension of

their pupils in order that they can design activities to address their pupils’ reading

problems.

2.2 They need to retrain themselves in conducting reading remediation for slow readers so

that they may employ more effective strategies in teaching reading especially to poor

readers.

3. Parents.

3.1 Parents should have time with their children to practice reading in order to make their

children fluent in reading.

3.2 Parents must extend full moral and financial support to their children especially in their

school work.

3.3 Parents must be aware of their children’s needs in order to help their children improve

their reading capability.

3.4 Parents should cooperate with the school in programs intended for the enhancement of

their children’s skills, particularly in reading.

 41

4. Future Researchers.

4.1 Future researchers may use this study as one of their related studies in their

investigations especially on regarding fluency and comprehension.

4.2 They may also conduct studies regarding reading fluency and reading comprehension

but in a different location, race and culture, and with more respondents.

4.3 Suggestions for future research include using a different comprehension measure,

selecting participants from different grade levels, and conducting an experimental

study using a fluency intervention

 42

REFERENCES

Alvermann, D. E. & Montero, M. K. (2003). Literacy and Reading. In Encyclopedia of

Education (Vol. 4, pp. 1513-1518). New York: Macmillan.
https://coe.uga.edu/assets/downloads/misc/profile/dalverma_vita.pdf

Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put Reading First: The research
buildingblocks for teaching children to read: Kindergarten through grade 3.
Washington, DC: CIERA. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED458536

Birsh, J. R. (2005). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (2nd ed., pp. 561-581)
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
https://www.amazon.com/Multisensory-Teaching-Basic-
LanguageSkills/dp/1557666768.

Blachman, B. A. (2000). Phonological Awareness. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P.D.

Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, III. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
https://books.google.com.ph/books?isbn=1135608946

Bouchard, E., & Trabasso, T. (2003).Comprehension. In Encyclopedia of Education (Vol.

6, pp. 1977-1985.) New York: Macmillan. http://www.eajournals.org/.../The-
Influence-of-Reading-Comprehension-on-Reading-Fluency.

Buck, J., & Torgesen, J. (2003). The relationship between performance on a measure of
oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment
Test (FCRR Tech. Rep. No. 1). Tallahassee: Florida Center for Reading Research.
Available: www.fcrr.org/Technical Reports/TechnicalReport1.pdf

Busick T. J. (2013) Effects Of Reading Intervention Strategies For Elementary Students

At-Risk Of Reading
Disabilitieshttps://www.nmu.edu/education/sites/DrupalEducation/files/.../Busick
_Traci_MP.pdf

Chafouleas, S. M., Martens, B. K., Dobson, R. L., Weinstein, K. S., & Gardner, K. B.
(2004). Fluent reading as the improvement of stimulus control: Additive effects of
performance-based interventions to repeated reading on students’ reading and error
rates. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, 2, 67-81
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00224669070410010201

Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt-
Brace. https://www.theliteracybug.com/stages-of-literacy/

Deno, S. (2002). Problem solving as “best practice.” In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.),
Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 37-55). Bethesda, MD: The National
 43

Association of School Psychologists.

https://books.google.com.ph/books?isbn=1412953316

Deno, S. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional

Children, 52, 219–232.
http://www.cehd.umn.edu/EdPsych/RIPS/CBM%20overview/CBMOverviewslide
s.pdf

Deno, S., Mirkin, P., Chiang, B.,& Lowry, L. (1980). Relationships among simple
measures of reading and performance on standardized achievement tests (Res. Rep.
No. 20). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning
Disabilities.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01341230 pdf

Dougherty-Stahl, K. A. (2004). Proof, practice, and promise: Comprehension strategy

instruction in the primary grades. Reading Teacher, 57, 598-609.
http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_16_Special_Issue_August_2012/15.
pdf

Dowhower, S. L. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluency's unattended bedfellow. Theory in

Practice, 30, 158-164. https://books.google.com.ph/books?isbn=1593854382

Ehri, L. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In M. L. Kamil, M. L. Kamil, P.

B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol.
Ill, pp. 383-417). New York: Longman
https://books.google.com.ph/books?isbn=0471264482

Eldredge, J. L. (2005). Foundations of fluency: An exploration. Reading Psychology, 26,

161- 181. http://www.oalib.com/references/7947577

Embrey, S. (2011). Skill versus will: An investigation of a relationship between motivation

to read, oral reading fluency, and demographics for third-grade
elementarystudentshttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.847.
4679&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Faver, S. (2008). Repeated reading of poetry can enhance reading fluency. The Reading
Teacher, 62(4), 350-352. https://quest-
esu.wikispaces.com/file/view/Repeated+reading+with+poetry.pdf

Francis,B & Snow, C. (2008). The relative effects of group size on reading progress of
older students retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2975110

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Deno, S. (1982). Reliability and validity of curriculum-based
informal reading inventories. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 6–26.
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-12261-002
 44

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M., & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator
of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 5, 239–259. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ640702

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading
comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20–28.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3472650

Gall, M, Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.).
White Plains, NY: Longman. https://www.amazon.com/Educational-Research-
Introduction-M-Gall/dp/0205488498

Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency passages for first
through third grades (Technical Report No. 10). Eugene, OR: University of
Oregon. https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/techreports/DORF_Readability.pdf

Good, R., Simmons, D., & Kame’enui, E. (2001). The importance and decision-making
utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for
third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
https://dibels.org/papers/PM_PM_030707.pdf

Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2007). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational
Achievement. Retrieved October 23, 2009 from http://dibels.uoregon.edu

Gunne, A. J.( December 2010 ). Convergent validity of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills with the Test of Phonological Awareness in Spanish and the
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing in English
http://gradworks.umi.com/34/33/3433397.html

Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and
instruction: What, why, and how? Reading Teacher, 58, 702-714.
https://www.fcrr.org/publications/publicationspdffiles/hudson_lane_pullen_readin
gfluency_2005.pdf

Kaminski, R., Cummings, K. D., Powell-Smith, K. A., & Good, R. H. (2008). Best
practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills for formative
assessment and evaluation. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in
school psychology. V. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists. https://dibels.org/papers/PM_BDA_032708.pdf

Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Bajšanski, I. (2006). Metacognitive strategies and reading

comprehension in elementary-school students. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 21, 439
 45

451.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225830592_Metacognitive_strategi
es_and_reading_comprehension_in_elementary-school_students

Kuhn, C. (2010). Formal representation of the high osmolarity glycerol pathway in yeast.
Genome Inform 22: 69-83retrieved from
https://www.yeastgenome.org/reference/S000133448

Kuhn, M. (2004). Helping students become accurate, expressive readers: Fluency

instruction for small groups. Reading Teacher, 58, 338-344.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1598/RT.58.4.3/abstract

Kuhn, M., & Stahl, S. (2003). Fluency: a review of developmental and remedial Practices.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3-21.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279932233_Fluency_A_review_of_dev
elopmental_and_remedial_practices

Levin, I., Shatil-Carmon, S., & Asif-Rave, O. (2006). Learning of letter names and sounds
and their contribution to word recognition. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 93(2), 139-165 http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2006-02353-003

Linn, R. (2009)-SEX DIFFERENCES IN READING ACHIEVEMENT

https:\\www.kirj.ee/public/trames_pdf/2009/issue_1/trames-2009-1-3-13.pdf

McConnaughhay, C. (2008). The Relationship Between Reading Fluency and Reading

Comprehension for Third-Grade Students
https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ca
d=rja&u

McGlinchey, M., & Hixson, M. (2004). Using curriculum-based measurement to predict

performance on state assessments in reading. School Psychology Review, 33(2),
193-203 https://books.google.com.ph/books?isbn=1493928031

Millett, J. (2011). The Ability of Oral Fluency to Predict Reading ComprehensionAmong

ELL Children Learning to
Read.https://repository.asu.edu/attachments/57034/content/Millett_asu_0010E_10
994.pdf

Munger, K. A., (2010). A longitudinal follow-up study of the dynamic indicators of basic
early literacy skills (DIBELS) as a predictor of third grade reading comprehension
http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/874383413.html?FMT=ABS

Naslund, J. C., & Schneider, W. (1996). Kindergarten letter knowledge, phonological

skills, and memory processes: Relative effects on early literacy. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 62(1), 30-59.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096596900211
 46

Nation, K., & Angell, P. (2006). Learning to read and learning to comprehend. London
Review of Education, 4, 77-87. http://www.ingentaconnect.com>art00007

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment

Of the scientific research literature on reading and Its implications for leading
instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
http://www.dys-add.com/resources/SpecialEd/TeachingChildrenToRead.pdf

Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. Reading
Teacher, 58, 272-280.
https://ftp.learner.org/workshops/teachreading35/pdf/teachers_know_comprehensi
on.pdf

Pikulski, J. (2006), Fluency: A developmental and language perspective, In A. Farstrup &

J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 70-93).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading
comprehension. Reading Teacher, 58, 510-519.
http://www.readingrockets.org/articles/researchbytopic/4904

Rasinski, T. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word
recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic.
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=phmsu&v=2.1&id=GALE%7
CA198471461&it=r&asid=1770f665fb80c4cd5087edf73b8e319d

Rasinki (2004). The Relationship Between a Silent Reading Fluency Instructional

Protocol on Students’ Reading Comprehension and Achievement in an Urban
School Setting https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557890

Rasinski, T. V. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy,

automaticity, and prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59, 704-706.

Rasinski, T. V., & Padak, N.D. (1998). How elementary students referred for
compensatory reading instruction perform an school-based measures of word
recognition, fluency, and comprehension. Reading Psychology, 19, 185-216.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0270271980190202

Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read.(2000)

https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/Pages/smallbook.aspx

Robles, A. (2014). The Phoenix K to 12 World of Reading 3

https://www.wine.com/product/vina-robles-estate-cabernet-sauvignon-
2014/169773
 47

Roehrig, A., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S., Hudson, R., & Torgeson, J. (2008). Accuracy of
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency measure for predicting third grade reading
comprehension outcomes. Journal of Psychology, 46, 343-366.
http://www.academia.edu/4192345/Accuracy_of_the_DIBELS_Oral_Reading_Fl
uency_Measure_for_Predicting_Third_Grade_Reading_Comprehension_Outcom
es

Schilling, S., Carlisle, J., Scott, S. E., & Zeng, J. (2007). Are fluency measures accurate
predictors of reading achievement? The Elementary School Journal, 107, 429−448.
http://www..journals.uchicago.edu\doi\abs\10.1086\518622

Schreiber, P. A. (1991). Understanding prosody's role in reading acquisition. Theory into

Practice, 30(3), 158-164. https://books.google.com.ph/books?isbn=0807773735

Seabra, A, Dias, N., Mecca, T., & Macedo, E.(2015)- Contribution of Word Reading
Speed to Reading Comprehension in Brazilian Children: Does Speed Matter to the
Comprehension Model https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5397470/

Shapiro, E., Solari, E., & Petscher, Y. (2008). Use of a measure of reading comprehension
to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment. Learning Individual
Differences, 18, 316-328. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\pmc\articles\PMC4557892

Speece, D. L., & Ritchey, K. D. (2005). A longitudinal study of the development of oral
reading fluency in young children at risk for reading failure. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 38(5), 387-399.
http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/38/5/387?patientinformlinks=yes&legid=spldx;38
/5/387

Stage, S., & Jacobsen, M. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated

performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology
Review, 30, 407–419.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228550622_Predicting_student_succe_o
n_a_state-mandated_performance based_assessment_using_oral_reading_fluency

Swanson, E. (2011). A synthesis of read-aloud interventions on early reading outcomes

among preschool through third graders at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 44(3), 258-275. doi:10.1177/0022219410378444 retrieved
from http\\www.nmu.edu>Busick_Traci_MP pdf

Talada, J. (2007). The relationship beteween oral reading fluency and comprehension
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.839.3278&rep=rep1&t
ype=pdf

Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction
in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.),
 48

Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 333-355). Parkton, MD: York Press.
https://books.google.com.ph/books?isbn=1609181530

University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning. (1999). Benchmark goals and
indicators of risk. Retrieved from http://dibels.uoregon.edu/benchmarkgoals.pdf

University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning. (2008). General information about
DIBELS measures. Retrieved from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/dibelsinfo.pdf

Vander Meer, C., Lentz, F., & Stoller, S. (2005). The relationship between oral reading
fluency and Ohio proficiency testing in reading (Technical Report). Eugene, OR:
University of Oregon. https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/techreports/ohio.pdf

Walczyk, J. J., & Griffith-Ross, D. A. (2007). How important is reading skill fluency for
comprehension? Reading Teacher, 60, 560-569.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242744834_How_Important_Is_Readin
g_Skill_Fluency_for_Comprehension

Wiley, H., & Deno, S. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for
English learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education,
26, 1-13. http://rse.sagepub.com/content/26/4/207.abstract

Wolf, M. (2001). The double-deficit hypothesis, fluency, and a new intervention for
children with dyslexia. Dyslexia Contact. British Dyslexia Association.
https://ase.tufts.edu/crlr/team/wolf.htm

Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 5,211-238. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ640701

Wood, D. (2006). Modeling the relationship between oral reading fluency and performance
on a statewide reading test. Educational Assessment, 11, 85-104.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326977ea1102_1

Young Echols, J. (2010). The utility of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills (DIBELS) in predicting reading achievement
http://gradworks.umi.com/34/35/3435620.html
 49

APPENDICES
 50

Appendix A

LETTER TO THE PRINCIPAL

Republic of the Philippines

Mindanao State University
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Marawi City

February 08, 2017

Dr. Abubacar B. Dimacuna

School Principal
Sultan Conding Elementary School

Dear Sir/Ma’am;

Greetings of Peace!

We, Aslia O. Abolkhair and Nor-aynie P. Pangaibat, students from the College of Education,
Mindanao State University-Main Campus, are conducting a study entitled: “RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN READING FLUENCY AND READING COMPREHENSION OF GRADE 3
PUPILS” In partial fulfillment of the course Educ. 199 (Thesis Writing).

In accordance with this, we would like to ask permission from your good office to allow us conduct
a pilot test in your school by allowing the grade 3 pupils to undergo an oral reading fluency and
answer the reading comprehension questionnaire.

Thank you and God Bless!

Very truly yours,

ASLIA O. ABOLKHAIR

NOR-AYNIE P. PANGAIBAT
Researchers

Noted:

ROHANIE M. SULTAN, PhD, RGC

Thesis Adviser
 51

LETTER TO THE PRINCIPAL

Republic of the Philippines

Mindanao State University
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Marawi City

March 05, 2017

Mrs. Pinamili D. Abedin, MaEd

School Principal
Amai Pakpak Central Elementary School
School

Dear Ma’am;

Greetings of Peace!

We, Aslia O. Abolkhair and Nor-aynie P. Pangaibat, students from the College of Education,
Mindanao State University-Main Campus, are conducting a study entitled: “RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN READING FLUENCY AND READING COMPREHENSION OF GRADE 3
PUPILS” In partial fulfillment of the course Educ. 199 (Thesis Writing).

In accordance with this, we would like to ask permission from your good office to allow us conduct
an assessment in your school by allowing the grade 3 pupils to undergo an oral reading fluency
and answer the reading comprehension questionnaire.

Thank you and God Bless!

Very truly yours,

ASLIA O. ABOLKHAIR

NOR-AYNIE P. PANGAIBAT
Researchers

Noted by:

ROHANIE M. SULTAN, PhD, RGC

Thesis Adviser
 52

Appendix B

Name: __________________________________ Age: _______ Sex: _______

Section: ______

READING FLUENCY
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)

My Friend

I have a new friend at school. She can’t walk so she uses a wheelchair to get around. She

comes to school in a special van that can transport four people who use wheelchairs. The van

brings my friend and another boy to school. My friend is in third grade with me, and the boy is a

fourth grader. I like to watch my friend get in and out of the van. The driver pushes a button and

part of the van floor lowers to the driveway to form a ramp. My friend just wheels up the ramp and

goes inside. After she is inside, the driver pushes the button and the ramp puts itself away. When

it is time to get out of the van, they do the same thing again. Sometimes I help open the door so

she can roll right inside. My friend and I do everything together. Our teacher lets us sit together in

the front row, and we always go to lunch together. My friend moves so fast down the hall that she

always gets the best seats in the cafeteria. Sometimes we trade sandwiches. At recess, we always

play on the same team. My friend sure has strong arms. She hardly ever misses a shot when we

play basketball, and she can throw the farthest of anyone in third grade.

Total Words: ______ -errors: _______ = words correct: ________

Oral Reading Fluency Total: ______

 53

Name: __________________________________ Age: _______ Sex: _______

Section: ______

Planting a Garden

We eat lots of fresh vegetables at our house. Mom is an excellent cook, and she has lots of

recipes for making them taste delicious. Sometimes they are expensive to buy at the store so Dad

suggested we grow our own. Dad asked all the members of my family what our favorite vegetables

were. I said carrots, broccoli, and beans. My mother likes tomatoes the best. Dad said he wanted

to grow green onions, spinach, potatoes, and corn. We went to the hardware store and bought seeds

and little broccoli and tomato plants. We all helped prepare the garden in our backyard. We turned

over the dirt with shovels. Then we used a hoe to make little ditches for planting the vegetable

seeds. We dug deeper holes for the broccoli and tomatoes. We watered

everything and sprinkled some fertilizer around. I checked the garden every day to see if any

vegetables were coming up. After about a week I saw tiny green leaves where the carrots were

planted. Then each day more seeds sprouted. In two months we could eat the spinach, onions, and

broccoli. It was almost the end of summer before we could harvest the other vegetables. Everything

we grew in our garden was delicious. It was worth the wait, especially for the fresh green beans

that my mother cooked with bacon and onion. My dad said the corn was the best he ever tasted.

Total Words: ______ -errors: _______ = words correct: ________

Oral Reading Fluency Total: ______

 54

Appendix C

READING COMPREHENSION TEST

Name: ____________________________________ Age: _________ Gender: ______

Directions: A. Read each item and circle the correct answer of the following:

1. Mohammad was awakened by the call “bang” from the masjid.

a. touched c. frightened
b. woke up from sleep d. disturbed
2. He sincerely prayed for good health.
a. wholeheartedly c. sadly
b. honesty d. truthfully
3. Mohammad asked Allah to take care of his wife and the baby in her womb.
a. a woman’s uterus c. a woman’s limbs
b. a woman’s kidney d. a woman’s leg
4. These Lanzones are actually poisonous. No one has ever eaten them.
a. healthful c. addictive
b. deadly d. rare
5. He was shocked because he saw a bright light.
a. puzzled c. amazed
b. surprised d. confused
6. Mohammad and his wife knelt down and fervently prayed to God.
a. sadly c. excitedly
b. happily d. zealously
7. That dish is really delicious.
a. good c. clean
b. tasty d. delightful
8. Where the couple went in early morning of Friday?
a. At Masjid c. At School
b. At Market d. At Gymnasium

9. Why the couple Khadija and Mohammad went to the Masjid?

a. to meet the cousin of Khadija c. to hear wasyat
b. to clean the Masjid d. to visit the Imam
 55

10. What is the prayer of Khadija?

a. She hope that her husband will never change and will continue to love and care for her.

b. She prayed that they will win for a sweepstakes.

c. She prayed to have a house.

d. She prayed for her husband to buy a Lanzones.

11. What did Mohammad ask from Khadija?

a. to eat the Mango c. to eat the Durian

b. to eat the Lanzones d. to eat the Orange

12. Why Mohammad avoided Khadija to eat the Lanzones?

a. Lanzones is expensive c. Lanzones is not delicious

b. Lanzones is poisonous d. None of the above

13. What other fruits did Mohammad offers to Khadija?

a. Mango c. Pineapple

b. Orange d. Papaya

14. Mohammad saw _________ in front of him when he decided to go and get some of
Lanzones?

a. Beautiful Lady in white c. A child smiling

b. Old Lady holding the Lanzones d. A man in white

15. They were blessed with a very healthy and________________.

a. handsome baby boy c. lovely baby girl

b. pretty baby girl d. cute baby boy

16. The “Lanzones Story” tells us of ______________.

a. how the Lanzones came to be
b. the beginning of how the Lanzones fruit came to be known as a nonpoisonous
sweet tasty fruit
c. how babies came to be
 56

Read the story to find out how the Lanzones fruit came to be.
THE LANZONES STORY
(An adaptation from (“Alamat ng Lanzones”
Translated from Tagalog to English by E. Robles)
Mohammad was awakened by the call
“bang” from the Masjid. He remembered it
was a Friday and he and his wife were going
to Masjid to pray.

“Wake up now, Khadija, my dear. We’ll be

late. “Khadijah slowly opened her eyes and
smiled.

The couple quickly got dressed up to be on

time for the prayer at their barrio’s mosque.
Many of their neighbors were also on their way
to the mosque. As soon as they got inside the
mosque, they knelt down together and prayed fervently. “My God,” prayed Khadija, “guide us in
our life. I hope that Mohammad, my husband, will never change and will continue to love and care
for me.”

Mohammad sincerely
prayed, “God, please, take care
of my wife and our baby in her
womb.” When the prayer was
over, they slowly walked home
but suddenly, Khadija stopped.
She was looking up at a tree that
was thick with bunches of small
round fruits as she called
Mohammad’s attention,
“Mohammad, look! That tree up
 57

there is thick with bunches of small round fruits. Please, pick some for me. They look so delicious.
I like them so much!” Mohammad couldn’t say a word because he knew that his wife was asking
for the poisonous fruits called Lanzones.

Mohammad weakly uttered, “My dear wife, those are Lanzones, which are actually
poisonous! Those will be bad for you and our baby.” Edna began to cry because her desire to eat
Lanzones was so intense.

“Please, please, Mohammad. Get me some Lanzones. I’m sure they are sweet and
delicious.”

Mohammad just held Khadija’s shoulders and gathered her in his arms and softly said,
Khadija, my dear, you know that those fruits are poisonous. Just ask for anything else but not
Lanzones. We have green mangoes in our backyard. I will get some for you.”

When they were already home, Mohammad picked some green and yellow mangoes but
Khadija refused to even look at them. She was very disappointed that Mohammad didn’t get what
she wanted. From then on, she locked up herself in their bedroom and refused to eat day by day.

This went on until Khadija became very sick and bedridden. Mohammad was so worried
and could only say, “My dearest wife, what’s wrong with you?” Khadija just shook her head as
tears rolled down her cheeks.

This went on and Khadija became so slim and pale. She was so weak and wouldn’t eat.
This moved Mohammad so much and so he decided to go and get some of the Lanzones to give to
his wife even if they could cause death to her and their baby. He prayed as tears rolled down his
cheeks, God, help me and my wife. I
love her so much and life would be
meaningless if I lose her.”

When he opened his eyes, he

was shocked because he suddenly
saw a bright light in front of him and
out of the light appeared a very
beautiful lady in white. The
 58

beautiful lady smiled and said, “Mohammad, don’t be afraid.” Then, she got one piece of Lanzones
from Mohammad and pressed it. “Here, you eat this Lanzones and bring some to your wife.”

Mohammad’s fear was gone and he started eating the Lanzones. “These are so delicious
and sweet!” When he looked at the lady in white, she was not there anymore. She was gone.
Mohammad joyfully uttered, “My God, my God, thank you so much.” Then, he quickly started
picking as many Lanzones as he could from the three and hurriedly went home to his wife who
was waiting for him.

At last, the day for their baby’s delivery came. Mohammad and Khadija were so joyful and
thankful because they were finally blessed with a very healthy and pretty baby girl.
 59
Appendix D

CONSULTATION LOG
60
61
62
 63

Appendix E
PRE-DEFENSE FORM
 64

Appendix F

PROOF OF RELIABILITY
 65

Appendix G

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
 66

Appendix H

CERTIFICATION FROM THE STATISTICIAN

 67

Appendix I

FINAL ORAL EXAMINATION REPORT

 68

Appendix J

Republic of the Philippines

MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
College of Education
Marawi City
 69

Appendix K

CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Name : ASLIA ODIN ABOLKHAIR

Nickname : Ashley
Date of Birth : October 06, 1996
Place of Birth : Ampao, Bacolod Kalawi Lanao del Sur
Home Address : Ampao, Bacolod Kalawi Lanao del Sur
Age : 21
Civil Status : Single
Citizenship : Filipino-Muslim
Religion : Islam
Tribe : M’ranao
Father’s Name : Mr. Abolkhair Madid Hassan
Mother’s name : Mrs. Rachma Tanog Odin

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Elementary: Bacolod Central Elementary School

Ampao, Bacolod Kalawi Lanao del Sur
2003-2009

Secondary: Mindanao State University-University Training Center

BO. Green, Marawi city
2009-2013

Tertiary: Mindanao State University-Main Campus (Marawi City)

College of Education
Bachelor of Elementary Education
Major in General Education
2013-2017
 70

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Name : NOR-AYNIE PANDAAG PANGAIBAT

Nickname : Aynie
Date of Birth : February 14, 1996

Place of Birth : Maribo, Lumba-Bayabao Lanao del Sur

Home Address : Maribo, Lumba-Bayabao Lanao del Sur
Age : 21
Civil Status : Single
Citizenship : Filipino-Muslim
Religion : Islam
Tribe : M’ranao
Father’s Name : H. Manan B. Pangaibat
Mother’s name : H. Rahima P. Pangaibat

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Elementary: Marawi Foundation Academy Inc.

Marawi City
2003-2009

Secondary: Mindanao State University- University Training Center

BO. Green, Marawi City
2009-2013

Tertiary: Mindanao State University-Main Campus (Marawi City)

College of Education
Bachelor of Elementary Education
Major in General Education
2013-2017