CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the findings of the study, analysis and interpretation of

the collected data concerning the significant difference of the reading strategies and

students reading comprehension of Zamboanga del Sur National High School – High

School Stand Alone Grade 11 students. The presentation and sequencing of results

are organized based on the order of the specific problems in chapter one. Moreover,

the presentation is exemplified with the aid or tables in order to understand better the

implications of the responses.

Table 1.1

Perception of Students towards Reading Strategies In Terms of Story Grammar

Ran
Statement Indicators Mean SD Description
k
1. The teachers discuss with us the
important points of the story like 3.27 0.74 Always 1
theme.
2. I am focused on parts of the story
like 3.00 0.76 Usually 3
characters, setting, etc.
3. I am allowed to describe parts of the 3.10 0.66 Usually 2
story like scenes of events
4. I am motivated to predict the end of 2.70 0.88 Usually 5
the story.
5. I am allowed to think of personal 3.03 0.76 Usually 4
experience they had undergone
Overall Average 3.02 Usually

Numerical Scale Response Category

4 – (3.25-4.00) Always

3 – (2.50-3.24) Usually

2 – (1.75-2.49) Seldom

1 – (1.00-1.74) Never
 30

Table 1.1 shows the status of students towards reading strategies in terms of

story grammar. As revealed in the table, item 1 “the teachers discuss with us the

important points of the story like theme” ranked first among the four statement

indicators under the level of reading strategies in terms of story grammar with the

mean of 3.27 and SD of 0.74 which was interpreted as “always”. Item 3, “I am

allowed to describe parts of the story like scenes of events” ranked second with the

mean of 3.10 and SD 0.66 which was interpreted as “usually”. Nevertheless, item 4 “I

am motivated to predict the end of the story” was on the last rank with the mean of

3.03 and SD of 0.96 which was interpreted as “usually”. By and large, the status of

students’ towards reading strategies in terms of story grammar was deduced to be a

“usually” assessment as confirmed in the overall weighted mean of 3.03.

This findings corroborates to the study of Dimino, Gersten, Carnine and Blake

(1990) who had done their study, that students who had story grammar instruction

performed significantly better on basal, story grammar, and theme questions.

However, only few of them knows how to apply and use it everytime they read a text.

This table indicates the perception of students towards reading strategies in

terms of story grammar that it is helpful and really effective in analyzing a text;

however only few of the students know how to use the strategies and find it useful.

Knowing the function of this strategy is important and give them ease in evaluating it.

Therefore, students should give time to their selves or have someone who can help

and teach them about this strategy which is story grammar.

 31

Table 1.2

Perception of Student towards Reading Strategies in Terms of Think Aloud

Descriptio
Statement Indicators Mean SD Rank
n
2.70 0.65 Usually 5
1. I am allowed to say what I think
2. I am encouraged to think aloud as I
read the text 3.07 0.69 Usually 2

3. I am told to focus my attention in

reading the text 2.83 0.70 Usually 3

4. I am motivated to predict the end of

the story 3.17 0.65 Usually 1

6. I encouraged to answer questions

about what might happen next 2.80 0.89 Usually 4
based on the context of the story as
revealed by the author
2.91 Usually
Overall Average

Numerical Scale Response Category

4 – (3.25-4.00) Always

3 – (2.50-3.24) Usually

2 – (1.75-2.49) Seldom

1 – (1.00-1.74) Never

Table 1.2 shows the status of students towards reading strategies in terms of

think aloud. As revealed in the table, item 4 “I am motivated to predict the end of the

story” ranked first among the ten statement indicators under the level of students

towards reading strategies of think aloud with the mean of 3.17 and a SD of 0.65

which was interpreted as “usually”. Item 2, “I am encouraged to think aloud as I read

the text” ranked second with the mean of 3.07 and a SD of 0.70 which was

interpreted as “usually”. Nevertheless, item 1, “I am allowed to say what I think” was

 32

on the last rank with the mean of 2.70 and a SD of 0.65 which was interpreted as

“usually”. By and large, the students’ towards reading strategies in terms of think

aloud was deduced to be a “usually” assessment as confirmed in the overall

weighted mean of 2.91.

This finding of the study corroborates to an article entitled Teaching

Tolerance Magazine (1990) which said that turning over responsibility to the student

and observing her think aloud as she reads, you can identify what reading

comprehension skills she has mastered and which she may need to develop. Think

Aloud also fosters meta-cognition skills necessary for students to become successful

independent readers. This table implies that the teaching efficacy of this research is

to improve student’s reading skill by using Think Aloud Strategy. Related to the

purpose of the study, the research design used in this study was pre experimental. It

can be concluded that teaching reading by using Think Aloud Strategy can improve

the student’s reading skill.

This table signifies the perception of students towards reading strategies in

terms of think aloud that only few of them use this strategy. Thus, knowing this

strategy will help them in improving their reading skills and is an important strategy in

helping learners to succeed. Therefore, teachers should strengthen the strategy to be

able to encourage students to be more attentive and engaged in class.

Table 1.3

Summary of the Perception toward Reading Strategies

Teaching Strategies Average Description

3.02 Usually
Story Grammar
2.91 Usually
Think Aloud
2.97 Usually
Overall Weighted Mean
 33

Table 1.3 vividly stresses the summary of the perception toward reading

strategies. In story grammar the respondents got the weighted average of 3.02 and in

think aloud 2.91, which were all interpreted as “usually”. Consequently, the overall

weighted mean of the perception toward reading strategies in terms of story grammar

and think aloud was categorized as “usually” as confirmed in the grand weighted

mean of 2.9

This finding commensurates to the study of Mandler and Johnson (1977)

found that children of all ages used their knowledge of how stories are structured to

help them remember important details. Knowing that students often learn well when

they can watch a good model, teachers are trying to help poor reading

comprehenders by verbalizing their own thoughts as they read aloud-modelling the

kinds of strategies a skilled reader uses during reading and pointing out specifically

what they are doing to cope with a particular comprehension problem. (Davey, 1983).

This table implies that the teaching efficacy of the student’s perception toward

Academic Reading. The objective of the research is to know the reading strategies of

graduate level in academic reading.

This table denotes the summary of the perception toward reading strategies

such as story grammar and think aloud were applied by the respondents; however

only few of the respondents know how to use the following strategies presented.

Therefore, teachers should pay attention and give enough time to students in order to

improve their reading skills.

 34

Table 2.1

Level of Student’s Reading Comprehension in terms of Vocabulary Knowledge

Descriptive Percentage
Scores Frequency
Equivalent
Proficient 0 0
11 – 15
Approaching 44
11
6 – 10 Proficiency

Developing 14 56
0–5
25 100
Total
Descriptive
Average
Equivalent

Approachin
Overall Performance 8.33 g
Average
Proficient

Table 2.1 illustrates the level of student’s reading comprehension in terms of

vocabulary knowledge. As confirmed in the result, there is no respondents got scores

in vocabulary knowledge raging from 11-15 which was assessed as an “proficient”

level of performance. It was the followed by 44% of the respondents who received

scores raging from 6-10 whose performance was classified as “approaching

proficiency”. Apparently, 56% of the respondents who got scores raging from 0-5

which were classified as “developing”. By and large, the overall the level of student’s

reading comprehension in terms of vocabulary knowledge was “approaching

proficient” performance as confirmed in the overall mean of 8.33.

 35

This finding corresponds to the study of Chall and Jacobs (2003). Students’

word knowledge is linked strongly to academic success because students who have

large vocabularies can understand new ideas and concepts more quickly than

students with limited vocabularies. Vocabulary knowledge and oral language skills

that help student understand the meaning of words. This table implies that the

teaching efficacy of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension; students

need to understand the meaning of critical words they will be reading to promote

comprehension. Vocabulary knowledge, along with background knowledge, provides

students a better chance of understanding the text they read.

This table indicates the level of student’s reading comprehension in terms of

vocabulary knowledge were approaching proficient. This shows that few of the

students can comprehend the text given and there some who did not use the

strategies. Thus, they need to improve their reading strategies in order to

comprehend well.

Table 2.2

Level of Student’s Reading Comprehension in terms of Text Comprehension

Descriptive Percentage
Scores Frequency
Equivalent
Proficient 4 16
11 – 15
Approaching 84
21
6 – 10 Proficiency

Developing 0 0
0–5
25 100
Total
Descriptive
Average
Equivalent

Overall Performance 5.4 Developing

Average
 36

Table 2.2 illustrate the level of student’s reading comprehension in terms of

reading comprehension. As confirmed in the result, 16% of the respondents garnered

scores in text comprehension ranging from 11-15 which was assessed as an

“proficient” level of performance. It was then followed by 84% of the respondents who

received scores ranging from 6–10 whose performance was classified as

“approaching proficiency”. Apparently, no respondent got scores ranging from 0–5

which were classified as “developing”. By and large, the overall level of student’s

reading comprehension in terms of reading comprehension was deduced to be a

“developing” performance as confirmed in the overall mean of 5.4.

This finding corresponds to the study of Pressley and Snow et al (2002). Non-

fluent reading demands mental capacity that would be needed for comprehension

process. It demands exact word identification and decoding ability. In addition, good

comprehenders need an extensive vocabulary, for comprehension does not occur if

the reader does not understand the individual words. However, good readers’

comprehension processes include comprehension above the word level.

This table indicates the level of student’s reading comprehension in terms of

vocabulary knowledge was developing. Students must know and apply the strategies

to effectively enhance their text comprehension.

Table 2.3

Summary of Level of Students’ Comprehension

Comprehension Skill Average Description

8.33 Approaching
Vocabulary Knowledge
Proficient
5.4 Developing
Text Comprehension
6.87 Approaching
Overall Weighted Mean
Proficient
 37

Table 2.3 vividly stresses the summary of level of students’ comprehension.

In vocabulary knowledge the respondents got the weighted average of 4.50 and in

think reading comprehension 4.27, which were all interpreted as “proficient”.

Consequently, the overall weighted mean of the level of students’ comprehension. In

vocabulary knowledge was categorized as “proficient” as confirmed in the grand

weighted mean of 4.39.

This finding corroborates to the study of Scharer, Pinnell, Lyons & Fountas

(2005) that the comprehension is a complex process for students’: the reader has to

construct meaning by interacting with text using his or her previous knowledge and

experience and the information that can be found in the text. The more background

information related to the text the reader possesses, the easier it is for him or her to

understand the text. The reader brings his or her capabilities such as attention,

memory, analytic ability, language knowledge, motivation, background knowledge,

and life experience.

This table signifies the summary of level of students’ comprehension was

approaching proficient. The respondents need someone to assist them like teachers

or parents, for them to be guided in reading.

Table 3

Test of Significant Relationship between Reading Strategy and Student’s

Reading Comprehension

Parameter Findings
N 25

Pearson r -0.109

P-value 0.565

Decision Accepted Ho
 38

Interpretation Insignificant Correlation

Table 3 explains the test of significant relationship between reading strategy

and student’s reading comprehension. The null hypothesis which states that there is

no significant relationship between the reading strategies and reading

comprehension of the students was tested at 0.05 level of significance using a

sample correlation coefficient r. As shown in the table, r= -0.109 and p-value = 0.565.

Since p-value is more thansthe level of significance a = 0.05, the null hypothesis is

accepted and therefore, there is no significant difference between the reading

strategy and student’s reading comprehension.

This study corresponds to an article entitled “Reading Comprehension”

(2017), the strategies for improving reading comprehension must be taught directly

by simply providing opportunities or requiring for children to read will not teach many

students the comprehension strategies they need to be proficient readers. These

need to be taught directly as students learn to read simple sentences and this direct

instruction needs to continue in different forms throughout a student's elementary

and secondary school experience.

This table indicates the test of significant relationship between reading

strategy and student’s reading comprehension that there is no significant relationship

regarding with the two variable which were reading strategies and reading

comprehension. This shows that the reading strategies given to the students does

not reflect of their reading comprehension.