Learning Difficulties in Reading English at Elementary Level

Name: Tahreem Akhtar

Registration No: huss212700016

Session: 2021-2024

PhD Education (Deficiency M.Phil)

Department of Humanities & Social Sciences

Faculty of Natural, Health, Humanities & Social Sciences

Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering

and Information Technology

Rahim Yar Khan

May, 2022

i
 Learning Difficulties in Reading English at Elementary Level

By

Name: Tahreem Akhtar

Registration No: Huss212700016

The thesis submitted by in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the

degree of

Master of Philosophy in Education (Deficiency course)

Supervisor: Dr Jam Muhammad Zafar

Department of Humanities & Social Sciences

Faculty of Natural, Health, Humanities & Social Sciences

Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering

and Information Technology

Rahim Yar Khan

May, 2022

ii
 DECLARATION

Tahreem Akhtar hereby state that my MS thesis titled ”Learning Difficulties

in Reading English at Elementary Level.” is my own work and has not been

submitted previously by me for taking any degree from Khwaja Fareed

University of Engineering and Information Technology, Rahim Yar Khan or

anywhere else in the country/world. At any time if my statement is found to

be incorrect even after my graduation the university has the right to

withdraw my MS degree.

Rahim Yar Khan, on May 13, 2022

_____________

Huss212700016

iii
 PLAGIARISM UNDERTAKING

I solemnly declare that research work presented in the thesis titled “Learning

Difficulties in Reading English at Elementary Level.” is solely my research

work with no significant contribution from any other person. Small

contribution/help wherever taken has been duly acknowledged and that

complete thesis has been written by me.

I understand the zero tolerance policy of the HEC and Khwaja Fareed

University of Engineering and Information Technology, Rahim Yar Khan

towards plagiarism. Therefore, I as an Author of the above titled thesis

declare that no portion of my thesis has been plagiarized and any material

used as reference is properly referred/cited.

I undertake that if I am found guilty of any formal plagiarism in the above

titled thesis even after award of MS degree, the University reserves the

rights to withdraw/revoke my MS degree and that HEC and the University

has the right to publish my name on the HEC/University Website on which

names of students are placed who submitted plagiarized thesis.

Rahim Yar Khan, on May 13, 2022

____________________

Huss212700016

iv
 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

This is to certify that the research work presented in this thesis, entitled “Learning

Difficulties in Reading English at Elementary Level.” was conducted byTahreem Akhtar

under the supervision of Dr. Jam Muhammad Zafar. This thesis is submitted to the

Department of humanities and social sciences, Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering

and Information Technology, Rahim Yar Khan in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Philosophy (deficiency course).

_______________________________ __________________________________

External Examiner Signature and Date

_______________________________ __________________________________

Co-Supervisor Signature and Date

_______________________________ __________________________________

Supervisor Signature and Date

_______________________________ _________________________________

Head of Department Signature and Date

_______________________________ _________________________________

Dean of Faculty Signature and Date

v
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Alhamdulilah! Thanks Allah Almighty whom with His willing giving me the

opportunity to complete my thesis, all praise to Allah.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor Dr Jam

Muhammad Zafar, Assistant Professor of Department of Humanities and Social

Sciences Khuaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information Technology. His

patience, enthusiasm, co-operation and suggestions made me present this research work

to produce I present form. His brilliant skillful supervision enriched this study higher than

my expectation. I could not remain any more without giving heartfelt thanks to Dr

Naeem Ullah Assistant Professor of Department of Humanities and Social Sciences

Khuaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information Technology for his painstaking

technical support and assistance throughout the study period. This research work would

not be possible without his stimulation inspiration and cooperation.

Further, yet importantly, sense of respect goes to my mother and my family for their

strong support economically and emotionally.

_________________

Tahreem Akhtar

vi
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

L1: First Language

L2: second Language

USJP: University of Sindh Jamshoro

IQ: Intelligence Quotient

LDAC: Learning Disabilities Association of Canada

APA: American Psychological Association

IV: Independent Variable

DV: Dependent Variable

EFL: Education For all

NL: Native Language

TL: Target Language

ELT: English language Teaching

vii
 ABSTRACT

The study named “Learning difficulties in Reading English at Elementary Level.” The

purpose of this study is to look into learning challenges in reading English at the

elementary level. Students at Khanpur’s elementary schools are seeking to deal with the

current obstacles in the subject of the English language. The general objective of the

study was to examine and investigate the factors that influence the teaching and reading

of English. The study's specific objectives were to conduct a literature review, explore

factors in English language reading at the elementary level, analyze reading difficulties in

English at the elementary level, identify factors affecting reading English at the

elementary level, and recommend practical solutions and strategies. The study was

descriptive and a mixed-method including qualitative and quantitative approach was

adopted for the study. The study's population consisted of all Ten (10) Elementary school

teachers and all one hundred and fifty (150) Elementary class students from GGHSS 1/p.

Data was collected by using a convenient sampling technique. Questionnaires and

competency checklists were used to collect data, which were interpreted through using

SPSS. The study revealed that most of the students felt difficulty in phonics, phonetics

transcription, and comprehension whereas students were aware of the words, to some

extent the sense and meaning of the word. Students tried to find synonyms and antonyms

of text but they were unfamiliar with phonics charts, homophones, homographs and

rhyme intonation.

Keywords: reading difficulties, phonics, phonetics transcription, comprehensions,

synonyms, antonyms, phonics chart, homophones, homographs, rhyme intonation.

viii
Table of Contents

Chapter One ....................................................................................................................2

Introduction .....................................................................................................................2

1.1 conceptual Framework ...........................................................................................4

1.2 statement of the problem ........................................................................................5

1.3 Research objectives ...............................................................................................5

1.4 Research Questions ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.5 Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………………6

1.6 Significance of the Study........................................................................................6

1.7 Research Methodology ...........................................................................................7

1.7.1 Research design………………………………………………………………….7

1.7.2 Population…………………………………………………………………….....7

1.7.3 Sample and sampling Technique…………………………………….…………..7

1.7.4 Research Tools………………………………………………………………..….7

1.7.5 Pilot study………………………………………………………………………..8

1.7.6 Data collection …………………………………………………………………..8

1.7.7 Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………………8

1.8 Delimitations of the Study ......................................................................................9

1.9 Resources…………………………………………………………………………..9

1.10 Variables of the Study ..........................................................................................9

1.11 Research Ethics ....................................................................................................9

CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................... 11

ix
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 11

This chapter deals with review of the related literature as:

2.0 An Introduction to Learning Disabilities ............................................................... 13

2.0.1 Reading Impairment………………………………………………………….….15

2.1 Reading Instruction’s important elements ............................................................ 16

2.2Phonological Awareness and the Graphophone Cueing System ............................. 19

2.3 Language definition.............................................................................................. 21

2.4The Learning of a Language .................................................................................. 25

2.5 Language Theories………………………………………………………………...28

2.6 What does Reading mean?.................................................................................... 32

2.7 Skills in Reading .................................................................................................. 33

2.8A Reading Problem or a Language Problem when Reading in a Foreign Language34

2.9 Comprehension of Text ........................................................................................ 36

2.10 Acquisition of a second Language ..................................................................... 38

2.11 Analysis of Errors .............................................................................................. 40

2.12 Language skills in English .................................................................................. 41

2.13 Speaking ……………………………….……………………………………......44

2.14 Reading English…………………………………………………………………46

2.15 General Methods of Teaching in Reading English ……………………………..46

2.16 Writing ………………………………………………………………………….48

2.17 General Teaching Methods……………………………………………………...51

2.18 As an International Language …………………………………………………..59

2.19 English in Pakistan………………………………………………………………62

x
 2.20 Researches on the subject of English…………………………………………….65

CHAPTER THREE ....................................................................................................... 69

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE ................................................. 69

3.1 Research Population ............................................................................................. 70

3.2 Sampling and sample size..................................................................................... 70

3.3 Research Tool ...................................................................................................... 70

3.3.1 Pilot Study......................................................................................................... 71

3.4 Data Collection .................................................................................................... 71

3.5 Analysis of Data ................................................................................................... 71

3.6 Variables of the Study……………………………………………………………..71

3.7 Delimitations of the Study…………………………………………………. ……72

3.8 Ethical consideration ........................................................................................... 72

CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................... 73

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA ......................................... 73

4.1 Part 1: Quantitative Data Analysis ........................................................................ 73

4.2 Part 2 (Interpretation of Proficiency Check List) .................................................. 96

CHAPTER 5................................................................................................................ 119

CONCLUSION SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1summary ............................................................................................................. 119

5.2Findings .............................................................................................................. 119

5.3 Part 2 (student’s Proficiency Check List) ............................................................ 129

5.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….138

5.5 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 144

xi
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 146

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................. 153

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................. 154

APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................. 158

APPENDIX D…………………………………………………………………………..161

xii
 CHAPTER 01

INTRODUCTION

Education was once viewed as a tool for human growth in particular. However, it is

viewed as a tool for the country's overall growth in all areas of life, including

governmental concerns, financial aspects, and social and human resources. At the time of

its independence, Pakistan was beset by a slew of problems. The issue of language was

also brought up. The issue of language arose in the context of education and various

development exchanges (Azapagic, Perdan et al. 2004).

The English language was a roadblock in Pakistan's attempt to modernize its

educational system. It was also decided in the national education strategy of 1947 to

include English as an ulcerate and gradually eliminate it from our educational curriculum.

However, the English language occupies a critical position in the educational curriculum

of Pakistan's Islamic Jamhuria, as it is used by strategic negotiators agreements and other

legal processes.

The number of people, who read on a regular basis, as well as the quantity and

quality of text books, can all be used to assess a country's progress and development.

Reading is the most important practice in any language group of students, according to

Rivers (1981:147). It serves as both a source of knowledge and a pleasurable practice.

Shabi wrote in 2009 that active learning from books is preferable to passive learning such

as playing video games or watching television.

Because of the latest technologies among young learners, the topic of reading books

has recently received a lot of attention from various quarters. The decline in people's

reading habits is the primary cause of this issue. The loss in reading habits can be seen in

2
young students in particular. Academicians, intellectuals, and authors debate the topic of

reading habits.

Literacy has traditionally been defined as the ability to read and write (Sánchez-

Suzuki Colegrove and Zúñiga 2018). As a result, it is becoming increasingly important

for language teachers, predominantly at the elementary level, to increase awareness about

the importance of developing reading skills in their students that allow them to not only

decode and understand information from the text, but also to use models appropriately.

People's reading habits mould their thought patterns, develop their intellects, and change

their interests and lives. Reading helps people come up with new ideas (Gerhardsson

2006). Reading is passed down through the generations, as is the experience obtained as a

result of reading. Personal and social growth relies heavily on reading abilities.

Students that have good reading habits do well in all situations, according to

Ameyaw and Anto 2018). All researchers should read since it improves their writing

skills and gives them new insights into their thinking and writing styles. Reading habits

provide access to up-to-date and necessary information. Educational success entails

students' learning and performance in the classroom. In the hands of kids, effective

reading resembles a powerful weapon. Students come from all parts of the country, and

their reading habits and academic achievements vary.

Reading is a conscious action that aids students in comprehending their course

materials and, more importantly, in passing examinations. Academic success and reading

comprehension are both linked. The teacher-student interaction is crucial to the teaching

and learning assessment. He claims that educators are qualified to understand students'

learning styles, and that they can choose their educational philosophy, as well as their

3
teaching tactics and processes. Different social backgrounds and cultural situations,

according to (Stein, Remillard et al. 2007) are factors that contribute to reading English

language deficiencies.

Different variables, such as class size, teacher quality, student participation, and

school assets, all influence English language reading, according to (KEMBOI JULIUS

2012). There are a variety of reasons for this, including a lack of reading motivation,

insufficient parental advancement, and low school productivity.

1.1 Conceptual Framework

Quantitative method Qualitative method

Quantitaive data collection Qualitative data collection

students observation sheet focused Group
Teachers's Questionnaire discussion

The results of
quantitative data
analysis were
compared in
order to identify
pupils' reading
issues in English.

Mixed method data

The results of the analysis

were compared to describe
what challenges
elementary school kids
have reading English.
Qualitative
data
analysis
outcomes

(Source: Self created)

4
1.2 Statement of the problem

Pakistan is not a state where people can communicate in both English and Urdu.

Urdu is Pakistan's national and widespread spoken language. The world's interest in

English stems from the fact that benefactor offices regard English as the true language

and a key to development in poor countries. These days, English language proficiency is

required, particularly for pupils in school. It is the language that will help them pass their

interviews and obtain better jobs in the future. For a variety of reasons, students must be

capable to converse in the target language. For this reason, it is critical that the teaching-

learning process in public high schools runs smoothly and efficiently. The problem was

stated as follows: "Learning difficulties in Reading English at Elementary Level.

1.3 Research Objectives

Objectives of the study were:

 To study the related literature review

 To investigate the elements that influence reading in the English at the elementary

level.

 To examine the problems in reading English at the elementary level

 To determine the elements that influence elementary school students' ability to

read English.

 To make suggestions and practical solutions

1.4 Research Questions

Research questions of the study were:

 What do past studies explore about reading and reading difficulties?

 What are the reading difficulties of English language at elementary level?

5
  What are the factors that include in reading of English?

 Which factors affect the reading of English at elementary school level?

 Which strategies can be used in reading of English at elementary school

level?

1.5 Hypothesis

Hypothesis of the study were:

H1: Students face difficulties in reading English.

H2: Students find English difficult due to their first language

background.

H3: Many factors affect students reading skills.

H0: Current practices of teaching English are not admirable.

1.6 Significance of the Study

This research is helpful for:

 The researcher, to comprehend theories related with reading of English at

elementary school level.

 The researcher, to find out the ways of teaching and reading English at

elementary level.

 The researcher to dissect the current practices of reading of English at

elementary level.

 The elementary school teachers of English, to improve their reading

practices for effective teaching.

 The students and their parents to play effective part to achieve the reading

targets.

6
  The school heads to make necessary actions for productive teaching

learning process, easy and victorious towards reading of English at

secondary level.

 The concerned stakeholders, to settle on suitable choices.

1.7 Research Methodology

1.7.1 Research design

The study’s nature was descriptive and took in the form of a survey. A mixed

method approach was adopted in this research, which included both quantitative and

qualitative approaches.

1.7.2 Population

Population of the study was:

o All Ten (10) EST and SESE teachers

o All one hundred and fifty (150) students of class 6th, 7th and 8 th

1.7.3 Sample and sampling Technique

For the study, a convenient sampling technique and a simple random sample were

used. The following were included in the proposed study's sample:

o All Ten (10) EST and SESE teachers

o All one hundred and fifty (150) students of class 6th, 7th and 8 th

1.7.4 Research Tools

The study was quantitative as well as qualitative in nature. Elementary school

instructors received questionnaires for the quantitative part. A proficiency checklist from

elementary school pupils was employed for the qualitative portion of the study. The

following research tools were used to get the necessary data:

7
 o Questionnaires for elementary school teachers of elementary classes.

o To observe the process of reading English, used a proficiency check list s.

Research Tool

(source: self created)

1.7.5 Pilot Study

In pilot research, the testing instruments' validity and reliability were assessed.

The research tools were developed and updated in response to feedback from

respondents. The research instruments were finalized and distributed throughout the

school once the necessary revisions were made.

1.7.6 Data Collection

The investigator went to the schools and used a questionnaire and a check list to

collect data. A questionnaire was used to collect responses from teachers, and

performance tests were given to 150 children to determine the difficulties elementary

school students have when reading English.

1.7.7. Data Analysis

The acquired data was analyzed and interpreted using suitable statistical formulas

such as frequency, percentage, and mean score using the Statistical Package for Social

Sciences (SPSS) 23rd version software.

8
 1.7 Limitations / Delimitation

Due to a limitation of time and resources, the proposed research was limited to the

following topics:

o Reading challenges in the English language

o Elementary students of GGHSS 1/p Jetha Bhutta Khanpur.

1.8 Resources

The following resources were used to complete the proposed study:

 A library to conduct a literature review.

 The availability of a laptop with internet access.

 Travel, food, and lodging facilities for researchers.

 Printing papers for research instruments

 Stationary to be used on a daily basis.

1.9 Variables of the study

This research study was based on following variables;

 IV: Reading of English

 DV: Reading difficulties

 Gender: Female

 Area: GGHSS 1/p Jetha BhuttaKhanpur/rural

 Sector: Public school

1.10 Research Ethics

The researcher followed research ethics by:

 Obtaining previous consent for participants in a document signed by the research

supervisor.

9
 Sorting the participants' desire to participate in the study prior to data collection.

 All information was kept confidential, and the identities of participants were

disguised in records and reports.

 Peer reviews to ensure that the results are accurate.

 Those that aided in the study process, engaged in data analysis, or contributed

were thanked.

 There will be no illegal data copying or alteration.

10
 CHAPTER 02

LITERATURE REVIEW

Pakistan's official languages are English and Urdu, while the position of English

as the country's official language is still up for debate (Rahman, 2002). Beginning in first

grade, English is taught as a mandatory topic (i.e. a mandatory course) for fourteen years.

In terms of English language training, however, the situation in Pakistan is not considered

appropriate or satisfactory.

Hassan (2009) and Warsi (2004) emphasize issues and variables that contribute to

When evaluating the conditions under which English is taught, Pakistan's overall state of

English language teaching and learning is inadequate. They identify the following

elements and challenges:

a) Flaws in the core curriculum

b) While designing English courses, there are no clear curricular objectives.

c) Teachers who are unskilled and ineffective,

d) The application of ineffective instructional approaches and techniques

e) Textbooks that is not acceptable

f) Insufficient material resources and an undesirable teaching learning environment

g) Flawed and incorrect assessment system

h) Overcrowding in the classrooms

h) There are no convincing reasons to study or teach English

i) Scarcity of valid reading materials and library resources.

11
 Unlike second language, recital research that informs second language reading

teaching in general (Grabe & Stoller, 2002), there is essentially no second language

reading research in Pakistan. Despite the fact that

a) All Pakistani post-secondary institutions teach in English,

b) All text materials that students must read are in English, and

c) The ability to teach and read English texts has an impact on all

Pakistani post-secondary learning; unfortunately, L2 reading instruction

and research have received little or no attention; unfortunately, L2

reading instruction and research have received little or no attention

(Muhammad, 2011).

Memon et al (2007) are the just two publicly accessible studies that are to some

extent related to reading teaching in Pakistan. Both studies touch on the circumstances

and difficulties surrounding L2 reading teaching in Pakistan. However, they fall short of

portraying a pragmatic picture of second language reading education in Pakistan. The

report by Memon et al. (2007) on a new approach to teaching reading (initiated by one of

the researchers) as well as traditional reading classes at the University of Sindh,

Jamshoro, Pakistan, raises some concerns and issues about USJP students in particular, as

well as Pakistani students in general, who have poor English literacy skills.

The study identifies several flaws in Pakistani reading instruction, but it ignores

several of important topics, areas and questions. The researchers shed insight on what

happens in standard reading training classrooms in terms of teacher and student

responsibilities, but they don't go into detail about what teachers do while teaching

reading. Despite the information that the status of reading education at the USJP is likely

12
to be the same, Due to a lack of empirical data, it cannot be taken as a true depiction of

reading instruction in all community sector universities in Pakistan.

Many inadequate readers enroll in Pakistani institutions, colleges, and careers,

according to Sultana (2007), and have difficulty in a few positions that demand reading.

Her research focuses on some of the elements that influence the growth of second

language reading skills in Pakistan, such as the lack of knowledge of the importance of

teaching and reading instruction methods among English reading teachers. She has,

however, only looked into these issues at the high school and college levels, and she

depends on a little amount of data (38 teachers only in two urban cities). Her findings

also does not reflect the instructional strategies used in the classroom by English reading

teachers.

In this regard, I've assessed the limited research on English language teaching in

Pakistan, specifically L2 reading instruction, and briefly highlighted a few difficulties

that Muhammad's study examined in greater depth (2011). There was no documentation

of what university English professors do when they teach text materials/English until

recently.

2.0 AN INTRODUCTION TO LEARNING DISABILITIES

A learning impairment is defined by a person's educational underachievement in

reading, writing, and mathematics while having average to above average IQ, suitable

education, consistent attendance, and favorable contextual variables. A nationwide

definition of learning disabilities is provided by (LDAC) Official general explanation of

Learning Disabilities:

13
 "Learning difficulties are a set of situations that make it difficult to acquire,

organize, retain, comprehend, and apply verbal and nonverbal information." These

disorders have an impact on learning, even in persons who have above-average thinking

and reasoning abilities. As a result, learning difficulties differ from intellectual disability

in general. Learning disorders are caused by problems with one or more of the processes

of perceiving, thinking, remembering, or learning. Language processing, phonological

processing, visual spatial processing, processing speed, memory and attention, and

executive functions are only a few of them.

Learning difficulties can range in severity and can make it difficult to learn and

make use of one or more of the subsequent skills:

 Reading (decoding, phonetic knowledge, word identification, and comprehension,

for example);

 Oral (e.g., hearing, speaking, and comprehension);

 Written language (for example, spelling and written expressiveness); and

 Science and mathematics (e.g. computation, problem solving).

Managerial skills, social awareness, social engagement, and perception taking may

all be hampered by learning disabilities. Learning impairments can last a lifetime. The

manner in which they are expressed may transform over the path of a person's life,

depending on the communication among environmental demands and the individual's

strengths as well as needs. Unexpected academic underachievement or performance

sustained merely extraordinarily high levels of attempt and support are signs of learning

difficulties. Learning disorders are caused by hereditary and neurobiological factors, as

well as damage, that alter brain functioning and impact one or more learning processes.

14
 Hearing and vision problems, socioeconomic reasons, civilizing or linguistic

disparities, be deficient in of motivation, or inefficient education are not the primary

causes of these diseases, These variables, however, may worsen the challenges that

people with learning disabilities confront.

Attention, behavioral, and emotional issues, sensory impairments, and other medical

disorders can all coexist with learning difficulties. If people with learning disabilities are

to achieve, they must be diagnosed early and receive specific evaluations and

interventions in the home, school, community, and job.

The interventions must be modified to every individual's subtype of learning

disability and must occupy, at least, the following:

 Targeted ability teaching

 Accommodation

 Methods for compensation

 Ability to advocate for oneself

2.0.1 Reading Impairment

A person with a reading disability has reading challenges that are unrelated to their

age, cognitive ability, amount and quality of schooling obtained, or intervention. A

widespread developmental delay or sensory impairment is not the cause of reading

difficulties (Lundberg &Hoien, 2001; Mather & Goldstein, 2001).

The following symptoms may indicate a reading disability:

 Difficulties reading single words

 Early difficulties decoding or uttering out words

 Inability to read spectacle words

15
  An inability to understand sentences.

 Issues with communicative or amenable language

 Challenges amid understanding.

Spelling and writing problems can be a sign of processing difficulties. A reading

disability is frequently observed in conjunction with a written expression and math’s

disability (APA, DSM-IV-TR, 2000). Reading challenges are persistent for students with

a reading handicap. Even if a person's reading skill improves to the point where it is

acceptable, it is frequently defined by a slower reading rate.

2.1Reading Instruction's important Elements

It is crucial for teachers to be aware of the key components of reading education.

Students with reading disabilities will need intense one-on-one tutoring. The following

are important aspects of reading instruction:

 Reading comprehension strategies

 Methods for constructing meaning through the use of linguistic signals and

conventions (such as language comprehension, phonemic awareness, phonology,

terminology expansion, sentence structure understanding, text structure and

organizational patterns awareness, and text pragmatics)

 Glibness in reading

Saskatchewan education students are taught through an integrated method in

English language arts curriculum to assist them comprehend the relationship between the

essentials and how they relay to the final purpose of reading. These elements are built on

the foundation of expressive and receptive oral language. If pupils are to become

proficient readers and writers, these important aspects must be openly and intensively

16
taught (Lyon, et al., 2001). Learners who are at danger of failing to learn to read require

direct instruction in a methodical fashion.

The most significant aspect of a student's performance is teachers, not programs.

Reading is meant to help you understand what you're reading. Knowing what good

readers can do and what struggling readers can't isn't enough. We must also comprehend

our attitudes toward teaching and learning, as well as our involvement in both. We can

make educated choices regarding the type of education that will best fulfill our children's

needs (Beers 2003).

According to extensive study, each of the components is critical in helping

youngsters to become effective readers. An effective reading program cannot be built

solely on the basis of a single aspect. Through a balanced approach, all elements must be

taught systematically and explicitly. Students will only be able to turn out to be expert

readers who are able to learn from written if all of the aspects are taught in a balanced

manner. Holding fast to one approach limits not more than what an instructor can do,

moreover who can succeed.

Trusting on its own strategy may create a difference in a student's possibility of

success diminishes the teacher's importance. In fact, the distinction is made by the

teacher's ability to assess students' abilities, efficiently respond to students' requirements,

and productively analyze and monitor students' progress. This means that we won't be

able to solve the reading difficulty by purchasing a specific program (Beers 2003). The

literacy program revolves around comprehension skills (Pressley, 2000).

The ability to comprehend written material is referred to as reading comprehension.

To understand, proficient readers use a deliberate problem-solving approach. There are

17
three parts to this process: previously, presently, and after. The majority of readers who

have been clearly taught reading understanding abilities and techniques are more liable to

be taught, expand, and use them on their own (Collins Block, and Pressley, 2001). The

capacity to:

 Summarize

 Predict are all critical reading comprehension abilities and methods.

 Come up with queries

 Make it clear

 Apply personal experience and expertise to the text's substance (turn on prior

knowledge);

 Make intellectual representations of the text

 Keep track your comprehension of the material; and

 Identify and unite key thoughts to create significance (Collins Block and Pressley,

2001; Moats, 1998).

Instructors must discuss these comprehension tactics in detail and explain at what

time and how they supposed to be applied to pupils. Instructors must also demonstrate the

skills in accomplishment (for instance, through the use of Think out loud) and employ

them with their peers.

Teachers must facilitate performance while gradually releasing responsibilities so

that pupils can develop their own strategies. They must also demonstrate to pupils how to

use the skills to grasp oral, written, and other media text. Language conventions and cues

Reading is built on the foundation of language.

18
 These systems exchange information and provide clues to the anticipated meaning.

The norms define the intended format or method in which these cues should be delivered,

such as:

 Correct word spelling;

 Sentence punctuation; and

 Text formatting, such as paragraphs.

The sections that follow outline these crucial characteristics.

2.2 Phonological Awareness and the Graphophone Cueing System

Students study how language functions and how oral language is made up of a

variety of components. Sentences comprise on words, words are made up of syllables and

sounds. Emerging readers typically gain a greater understanding of the phonological

components and, eventually, the graphophone system. While playing with words,

children begin by making up new words and discovering and developing linguistic

patterns.

Using the graphophonic cueing approach requires the recognizing and naming of

letters. Students commence to discover and understand this connection by detecting

alphabets in ecological print, singing, and identifying their names. Pupils who do not gain

this understanding will require phonics training that is plain and direct (Torgesen, et al

1997). It is the first step in comprehending the relationship between phonemes and

letters.

Instruction in phonics is a means to an end, not a goal in and of itself. Phonics isn't

supposed to be the most significant part of a reading program; it's supposed to be one of

the most crucial. The value of phonics must be understood by students. A firm

19
understanding of phonemic awareness and alphabet letters should serve as the foundation

for phonics teaching.

As an alternative of de-contextualized activities with no meaning, the education

should be linked to literature. The majority of pupils eventually form sound-letter

associations that aid in decoding and spelling words. Students' attention is drawn to

letter-sound patterns in effective phonics education. Teachers can help most children gain

a comprehension of the graphophonic cueing system by integrating phonics education

into the overall language arts program and employing teachable moments.

Vocabulary Development and the Semantic Cueing System Beginning readers gain

word awareness. Students must develop an innate vocabulary of terms that they can

recognize and understand. Students learn to recognize the majority of words they see,

hear, and write via repeated reading encounters.

Students have to understand the context of concepts and the words that express

those ideas if they are to become good and fluent readers. Children must learn the

semantic cueing system and norms in addition to graphophone cueing systems and

customs. Students must comprehend both the words that will assist them to understand

what they are reading and the methods that will allow them to discern the meaning during

the reading process. It is impossible to leave vocabulary development, expansion, and

instruction to chance.

For some of our children, building and expanding their vocabulary is a difficult task

that necessitates several exposures to words and their meanings. As they encounter new

terms in their reading and environment, children must be trained to employ a variety of

word-learning tactics.

20
 As children are given multiple exposures to terms in a variety of settings, effective

vocabulary instruction happens.

 New vocabulary are taught within the framework of a unit

 Teachers assist pupils in activating past information while learning new vocabulary

 Innovative words and recognized terms and concepts are linked

 Pupils are trained to improve their word knowledge by using context clues and

reference tools such as dictionaries

 Students are encouraged to cooperate with the vocabulary in order to fully

understand them.

Students must be taught oral and written vocabulary to improve their reading skills

(Moats, 1998). When a term isn't in one's spoken lexicon, it's difficult to recognize it

when it appears in text. For learning to transition from oral to written forms, oral

vocabulary is essential. Reading vocabulary is required for text comprehension. In order

to develop their reading skills, students must be taught both oral and written vocabulary.

(Moats 1998).

When a word isn't in one's spoken lexicon, it will go missed in print. Oral

vocabulary is essential for learning as you move from oral to written forms. It's vital to

read vocabulary.

2.3 Language definition

A language is a social communication instrument. Making meaningful noises is how

humans communicate with one another. "Just as a society depends on air, water, and the

land surrounding it for its existence," Venkateswaran (1995) writes, "society depends on

21
languages for its own life." It's the language that we all use to communicate and express

ourselves”.

The use of sounds, gestures, signs, and marks to express thoughts and feelings is

known as verbal communication. We have been given the ability to express ourselves

through language by God. Linguists and philologists have been attempting to define

language for millennia. Various linguists have defined the language in a variety of ways.

As per (Owens 1996) language is a type of code, it is based on a mostly arbitrary

relationship between symbols and concepts. Language is a sophisticated and diverse code

that allows us to convey our feelings, desires, and experiences to others. A signaling

system is a human language. It employs vocal sounds as its source material (Barber,

1999). Language, or the ability to communicate through voice sounds, is a universal

human trait (Poole, 1999). A flow of sounds gives rise to phonemes, vocabulary, phrases

and sentences, poetry, and books in human language (Jackendoff, 2002). Language is

commonly conceived of as a mechanism of thought transmission, a technique of

communication that permits ideas to be conveyed from one person to the next (Finegan,

2004).

Verbal communication is a system of intentionally produced symbols that is used to

communicate thoughts, feelings, and wants. It is totally human and non-instinctive

(Sapper, 1994). Language is a means of expressing ideas by combining speech sounds

into words, words into sentences, and phrases into combinations that respond to ideas and

thoughts (Sweet, 1992). The complexities of human language are numerous. It is made up

of a organization of pointless pieces that are combined into momentous structures using

convention (Chiaka, 2008).

22
 Language, as defined by these definitions, is a code or system for expressing

information through symbols.. It is governed by rules, with the primary purpose of

transmitting messages, thoughts, and ideas, as well as expressing feelings. People use

language to communicate and understand each other while they are near together.

Language is probably that language is the defining feature that distinguishes humans

from animals.

2.3.1 Language Characteristics

The following feature of language has been described by Mueen (1992):

2.3.1.1 Language is Sound

Language is a compilation of phonetics that has meaning. The listener understands

the sound produced by the speakers. “Individual language appears to be the merely

communication organization that blends nonsensical materials into momentous

structure,” writes Chaika (2008). The meanings of fewer parts are sounds for the majority

of speakers.” These noises are created by the movement of articulators.

2.3.1.2 Language is linear in two ways

Separate symbols can be used to represent the sounds of language. These symbols

are arranged in a logical order. Sounds were created by placing these symbols in a

parallel order. “Words in any phrase appear in a definite order,” Finegan (2004)

observed. The constituents of a phrase must, therefore, have structured fundamentals.”

2.3.1.3 Language is structured.

Wardghaugh (1972) writes, "Any language has two systems, a system of sound and

a system of meanings, rather than one". For example, we can make stable and 'tables' by

prefixing the word 'table' with a single sound, but there is no single sound that can be

23
prefixed to stable to make an acceptable sound. A language is made up of a collection of

components and a mechanism for putting them together in patterned statements that may

be used to execute certain tasks in specific situations (Finegan.2004).

2.3.1.4 Language is made up of many systems.

Language is an orderly set of system. Language, as Chaika (2008) put it, "is made

up of meaningless parts that join according to rules to form meaningful structures," and

each unit plays an important role in this system. Sounds that have no significance on their

combine to form meaningful words. Conversations, books, speeches, essays, and other

linked sentences are all made up of these words, and sentences are made up of

sentences." Language is the system that these systems are based on.

i. Phonology or the science of sound.

ii. Semantics, which is the study of meaning.

iii. Syntax is the study of word order.

2.3.1.5 Language is essential

The sounds that makeup language are those that are related to human life. Behind

these noises are hidden meanings. These big noises allow humans to communicate with

one another. According to Chomsky, "For an unlimited class of possible sentences,

language has built a set of rules that assigns sounds and meanings in a precise manner"

(2006).

2.3.1.6 Language is a purely subjective concept

Arbitrariness is a key feature of language, and it refers to the lack of a straight link

between the sounds and the item they represent. We've seen that languages use a limited

amount of sounds, and that these sounds usually have no meaning. The English word

24
"tree," for example, correlates to "Darakht" in Urdu, "wana" in Pashto, and "bota" in

Punjabi, The sounds and meanings of these languages, however, are quite different. We

can't foresee what a sound indicates because the relationship between sounds and

meaning is absolutely unpredictable (Venkateswaran, 1995). "You won't be able to figure

out what a word means just by hearing it," Wardghaugh says.

2.3.1.7 Language is Contrast Coordination

It is a structure of distinctions, in which speakers do not and cannot duplicate one

another, but instead utilize language in a range of manners.

2.3.1.8 A language is a creative tool.

We communicate throughout our lives and never say the same thing twice. The

capability to produce an unbounded number of sentences is due to a thorough

understanding of rules. This form of creativity occurs because words can refer to a

variety of things. Speakers of a language do not become expert at every doable word

arrangement, but they do learn the regulations that direct them (Owens 1996).

2.4 The Learning of a Language

Learning a language is "very much a socially influenced process," according to the

author (Chaika, 2008). "Language is the cement of society," according to Richards

(1998), "enabling community to reside, job, and play together, to transmit the truth but

also to tell a deception, falsehoods." Children's language skills grow throughout time.

Children develop their communication skills in a variety of ways. Fromkin argues, "kids

do not get up one magnificent dawn with a fully developed syntax in their minds" (2003).

Language acquisition process is quick, but not instantaneous, as compared to the

difficulty of adult syntax that they ultimately achieve.” It does not mean that the process

25
will take a day, but it will be quite quick. The ability to learn a language is a universal

human capability. “Language improvement occurs in all kids with proper mind function,

in spite of ethnicity, civilization, or overall intellect,” writes Akmajian (2004). Language

acquisition is an innate talent, and “a human child is born in the midst of an innate

inclination to catch language; he has got to be uncovered to language for the gaining

process to commence.” (Richard 1998) Language acquisition is a likely procedure that

requires no superfluous effort or aptitude.

In the normal line of procedures, children, brilliant and poor, pampered or ignored,

bare to Tlingit or English, learn a language. As a result, “despite significant disparities in

a variety of societal and intellectual conditions, all children have created the impression

that language acquisition is an 'innate' ability in humans.” (Yule et al., 1996) A typical

child learns language skills, in the same manner, the same manner, he learns other

physical skills like lying, sitting, and running. Rather than having to work hard to learn a

language, children learn it naturally,” writes Winkler (2008). ” The procedure takes three

to four years and is not instantaneous. Children go through a variety of stages as they

learn their mother tongue during these years.

2.4.1 Pre-Language stage

Cooing and babbling are terms used to describe the very early stages of language

development. The infant begins to produce sounds during the pre-language phases. The

earliest recognized sounds are ‘cooing' and ‘babbling' between the ages of three and six

months. Pre-language phases last until a child is nine months old. “At this moment,

parents can recognize their language in their baby's pre-word chatter." (2008, Winkler).

26
2.4.2 Holophrastic Stage or One Word

One word, or holophrastic, is the next language level. Between the ages of twelve

Between the ages of eighteen months, a youngster learns to create a range of single-unit

utterances. Simple words like "baba," "dada," and "up" are used to communicate daily

items during this time. "Observation of one-word utterances implies that children are

expressing single words to convey whole propositions rather than reciting simple terms."

according to Finnegan (2004).

2.4.3 The Stage of Two Words

Around the age of eighteen to twenty months, the two-word stage begins. By this

point, the infant has learned a range of terms, "Mommy eats" and "baby sit" are two

examples. During this time, the infant not only produces but also receives feedback, and

by the age of two, he or she has a vocabulary of over 50 words. Something fresh and

interesting happens around the age of two, according to (Yule et al., 1996) and children's

"utterances demonstrate a penchant for coupling a noun like an element with a predicate

like, and youngsters like to verbalize in the proposition."(Finnegan.2004)

2.4.4 Language that is telegraphic

By the age of two to three, a kid has produced a large number of utterances that

could be classed as multiple word utterances. The telegraphic speech stage is the name

for this step. "A child's utterances may be two, three, four, five, or longer when he or she

begins to put together more than two words," (Fromkin, 2003). By this age, a youngster

has mastered certain sentence-building abilities and can complete out forms correctly. A

child's vocabulary has increased to hundreds of words by the age of two and a half, and

27
his pronunciation has gotten closer to adult language. A baby can truly communicate and

learn new words at this age.

2.5 Language Theories

2.5.1 Methodology of Behaviorists

Language is a component of human behavior, and behaviorists use this to construct

ideas about early language acquisition. According to behaviorists, effective language

behavior is the formation of accurate reactions to inputs. They believe that if a reaction is

repeated frequently enough, It will become habitual or conditioned, and "children learn to

construct proper (grammatical) words because they are favorably reinforced when they

say something correct and negatively reinforced when they say something erroneously,"

according to the study" (2003, Fromkin).

As Winkler (2008) pointed out, youngsters make verbal answers that are reinforced.

Skinner believed that youngsters would hear the language, mimic it, and then be

encouraged to do so (reinforced) by their parents or other caregivers in either a positive

or negative way.” All behaviors, according to Skinner and his followers, are taught.

The events that followed modify or change behavior, as well as the consequences of that

behavior. Any event that raises the likelihood of a subsequent behavior occurring is

referred to as a reinforce of that behavior. The punisher is defined as any event that

reduces the likelihood. Learning or operant conditioning refers to the process of altering

one's behavior as an outcome of this change.

Skinner felt that a child imitates his or her parents' language. As Fromkin (2003)

noted, “Children are often chastised for using "poor grammar" and praised for using

"excellent grammar." Successful attempts were rewarded, and these attempts were

28
reinforced, but unsuccessful attempts were forgotten. Skinner's views drew a number of

detractors, including Noam Chomsky (1989), who wrote a scathing critique of verbal

conduct.

Kenneth Maccorquodale (1986), on the other hand, prepared a response to

Chomsky's reviews, in which he persuasively maintained Skinner's position. As a result,

the battle continued. Today, a small number of linguists and psychiatrists feel Skinner's

model of verbal performance sufficiently accounts for language acquisition, linguistic

development, the idea of meaning and the abstract character of language. The most

fundamental criticism of the behaviorist approach to language learning is that language is

based on a set of rules that cannot be learned just through imitation. Children's learning

mistakes demonstrate that they are actively implementing rules rather than mimicking

them.

Children are rarely able to copy adults, particularly when the adult utterances have a

more complicated structure than the youngster has mastered. “Of course, there is some

imitation involved; On the other hand, children's phrases demonstrate that they are not

mimicking adult speech." (Fromkin.2002) Children learn a language by imitation,

according to behaviorists. Although the students form connections between their first and

second languages, imitation does not aid the second language learner in a real-world

situation. They must think up sentences that they have never heard or seen before. A

limited amount of sentences are imitated by language learners, which is insufficient to

carry on a conversation. Language learners learn to construct accurate phrases that they

have never heard or seen before, according to behaviorists.

29
2.5.2 The Nativist Strategy

For language acquisition, behaviorists stress linguistic behavior and environment. In

response to behaviorists, nativists seek out generative theories of child language, asking

more probing questions and seeking better answers to the enigma of language possession.

The term "nativist" refers to the view that language development is largely determined by

genetics. "Everyone is born with a need to communicate," We all learn a language

without being taught it, and when we speak, we do not consciously translate our thoughts

into words." (1994, Pinker)

Fromkin (2002) continues, "Language is taught in the same way that children learn

to sit, stand, crawl, or walk." They haven't been instructed to do these things, but all

normal youngsters start doing them about the same age."

Children, according to Chomsky (1965), have a fitted talent to use words totally

apart from their environment. He believes that kids are naturally pre-involuntary to learn

languages. This ability of a kid to learn a language was dubbed an intrinsic or inborn

language acquisition mechanism by psycholinguists. Language Acquisition Device

(LAD) was Chomsky's term for it. 1996) (Owens) Language, according to Jalongo

(1992), is a "species unique" behavior with physiologically established mechanisms.

According to nativists, children learn finite rules and make an infinite speech. He

appears to build his own set of rules, which he adjusts to the adult system over time. This

means that rather than having external forces shape his language, he is creating it on his

own when he interacts with others. Chomsky's contributions to language theory were

mostly theoretical, and he published extensively on grammar and grammatical rules. The

30
Nativist philosophy is centered on introducing youngsters to language, but it ignores the

reasons why they might want to communicate. They are oblivious to the language's

function.

2.5.3 Functional Methodology

Language learning, according to behaviorists, is analogous to learning other things,

whereas language, according to Nativists, is "innate" or "inborn." Meaningful learning

was emphasized by the cognitivist. They suggested that toddlers absorb fundamental

structure in meaningful circumstances rather than just superficial word order. This

method is also known as cognitive assumption. Language attainment is one component of

a child's overall mental development, according to Jean Piaget, who placed it in the

context of cognitive development.

As a result, Cognitive development is required for semantic learning, and semantic

complexity influences the learning development sequence more than structural

complexity. When a language is used in a day-to-day scenario, it is learned more quickly.

This is referred to as functional language use (Hussain 2005). By focusing on the

cognitive prerequisites of linguistic behavior, Bloom, Piaget, Dam Slobin, and others add

a new dimension to kid’s language study. According to Piaget, a kid's total growth is

determined by their interaction with the environment, cognitive abilities, and language

experience.

Some children with aberrant mental development have learned to talk eloquently,

according to critics of this technique, meaning that syntax appears to be unaffected by

intellectual development. It is a natural and spontaneous process to learn a language.

Language is taught to children through time, but learning a second language is not the

31
same as learning a first. In the minds of learners, there is already one language. This first

language can aid in learning the second language in some cases, When the two languages

are equivalent, it's even better, but most of the time the first language makes learning the

second language more difficult. Learning English as a second language is tough for

Pakistani students because English is the country's second language and differs from the

primary language, Urdu, and other regional languages.

These three theories of language acquisition are linked in some way. Many

professors employ a variety of teaching approaches, some of which are tied to these

beliefs and others which are not. English teachers should be aware of the many theories

and approaches to language learning and utilize them as a basis for their classes.

2.6 What does Reading mean?

Reading has always played an important role in the teaching of English, but people's

perceptions of what it means to read have shifted dramatically. According to Mackay et

al (1979), a skilled reader should look for hints in the material that is delivered, even if it

is not necessarily processed in a linear manner.

Word recognition, derivational and inflectional morphemes, and mastery of

exposition techniques such as definition, explanation, comparison, and figurative

meaning are all important clues to the message.

These reading perspectives reflect the early bottom-up reading model, in which

reading was primarily viewed as a decoding procedure. The text's proposed importance is

rebuilt by building up a meaning for it from the smallest textual units (letters and words)

to the largest textual units (words and paragraphs) at the "top." Even at this time, some

people recognized the need of background knowledge.

32
 Words carry meaning, yet meaning is not contained in the words themselves.

According to Daines (1982) meaning exists in the reader's mind as a product of prior

experience. Schemata Theory has been developed to explain the importance of

background information in reading comprehension. The text, according to Schemata

Theory, has no inherent significance. A text gives readers instructions on how to extract

or construct meaning from their previously learned knowledge.

2.7 Skills in Reading

Because reading is a guessing game, pupils should be taught to apply what they

already know to decipher unknown elements, whether they are ideas or simple words.

The following are the reading skills taught to the students:

1. Skimming

2. Scanning

3. Referents of Pronouns

4. Recognizing parts of Speech

5. Identifying prefixes and suffixes

6. Identifying Key Concept

7. Making Inferences from Contexts

8. Reading Graphs, tables, and diagrams

9. Information Transfer

10. List, procedure, reason-and-result, similarity and dissimilarity, explanation and

Exemplification, and organization are all examples of text organization.

33
2.8 A Reading Problem or a Language Problem when Reading in a Foreign

Language

The association between language skill and reading comprehension is undeniable.

According to Allen (1978), a component of the reading process is analogous to the

concept of "expectancy," in which children may infer what should come next in

connected phrases. Sequence signals (conjunctive adverbs, pronouns, and other syntactic

elements) play a crucial role in giving such "expectancy" information. Many pupils

struggle to read in a foreign language, are unable to fully comprehend what they read,

and must read at a slower pace (Alderson 1984).

Several studies have been conducted on students' performance in reading in a

unfamiliar language, here in this case English, in order to determine if the difficulties are

due to a lack of reading skills or a lack of linguistic abilities. According to Jolly (1978),

the capacity to read in a unknown language is dependent on the capability to read in the

original language. To put it another way, pupils must transfer their native language

reading skills or methods to be able to read adequately in the foreign language. Students

do not need to master new reading skills in the foreign language in this situation.

As a result, if students are unable to read efficiently and successfully in a foreign

language, it is due to either a lack of native language reading skills or a failure to transfer

such skills. Foreign language reading problems, according to Coady (1979), are a reading

problem. He also mentioned that because pupils' native language reading habits are poor,

they are unable to transfer their native language reading aptitude to reading in a foreign

language.

34
 Furthermore, according to Clarke (1975), if the reading process is essentially the

same in all languages, then competent native language readers will also be good second

language readers. They will use comparable tactics when reading in the foreign language

as they do when reading in their own tongue. Cummins (1976) also assumed that pupils

who are excellent readers in their home verbal communication are more possible to be

bad readers in their second language.

Ulijin and Kmepen (1978) discovered that poor foreign language reading

comprehension is attributable to a lack of conceptual information, such as word meanings

and subject understanding, rather than a lack of grammar knowledge. Several more

research emphasizes the value of word familiarity. From these several perspectives on

meager reading performance in an unfamiliar language, we may conclude that it can be

classified as a reading and a language problem, with more evidence indicating that it is

the language difficulty for squat levels of language proficiency, rather than the reading

difficulty. Despite of the fact that numerous researches have been conducted, the answer

as to whether it is a reading or a language problem remains ambiguous and speculative.

There is a need for more research in this area (Alderson 1984). According to the

viewpoint presented above, we should carefully analyze both elements, i.e. Reading and

language difficulties that affect foreign language reading if low reading performance in a

foreign language is due to a reading problem, the focus of instruction should be on

teaching reading skills or techniques to assist pupils read more effectively in the foreign

language. If low reading performance in a foreign language is a language issue, however,

the focus of instruction should be on strengthening language knowledge.

35
 As a result, teaching language competence would be more important than teaching

reading strategies or skills. A short research study was conducted to conclude whether the

reading problems faced by Indonesian students are due to a lack of reading skills or poor

linguistic competence. I'm going to turn to this study.

2.9 Comprehension of Text

Understanding text entails extracting information from it. Reading comprehension

necessitates pupils' understanding of a passage by answer text-linked questions. Due to

their small reading regularity, children might find this chore difficult. According to Iftanti

(2012), despite having studied English in school, the majority of EFL students did not

have a good reading habit. It could be due to a teacher's or parent's lack of drive at home.

A reading habit is a pattern of reading practice that is followed on a consistent basis.

Reading comprehension necessitates familiarity with the material in order for kids to be

motivated to read it.

People are usually interested in reading when they believe it will be beneficial to

them. This is why the classroom topic should be one that the pupils believe they require.

Reading comprehension, as it relates to classroom activities, entails a variety of

questions. Finding core ideas, knowing language associated to synonyms and antonyms,

and answering detail questions are only a few of them.

There are six skills that are regarded essential in reading comprehension Lee (2017) says:

2.9.1 Decoding

Phonic comprehension, a near-beginning linguistic capacity that is part of a larger

skill termed phonological awareness, is linked to decoding. Children's phonemic

36
awareness is their capacity to detect distinct sounds in words (phonemes). It furthermore

allows children’s to research with sounds at the stage of vocabulary and syllables.

2.9.2 Fluency

Students must be able to recognize words quickly in order to read fluently. As

pupils read and comprehend text, their fluency improves. It is more than ever essential

while pupils come athwart rough terms that can't be sound out, because of also the.

2.9.3 Vocabulary

To comprehend what is written, people must be able to understand the bulk of the

vocabulary used in the text. Reading comprehension requires a large vocabulary.

Students can learn vocabulary through instruction, but the majority of the time they learn

through ordinary experiences and reading.

2.9.4Construction and Cohesion of Sentences

It may appear that knowing how to construct sentences is a writing ability. Cohesion

is the process of connecting concepts within and between sentences. Reading

comprehension, on the other hand, necessitates these abilities. Understanding how

concepts interact at the sentence level might help students better comprehend parts and

complete texts. Another advantage is coherence, or the ability to connect ideas in a larger

piece of writing.

2.9.5 Background knowledge and reasoning

The vast majority of readers create connections between what they read and their

prior knowledge. As a result, children must have some background or prior understanding

of the world before reading. They must also be able to "read between the lines" and

deduce meaning from non-written data.

37
2.9.6 Attention and working memory

Both of these abilities belong to the executive function category of skills. They

aren't the same, but they are connected. When children read, their ability to pay attention

permits them to absorb information from the text. They may store that information in

working memory and use it to decipher and understand what they read. Executive

functions include things like working memory and attentiveness. It's also linked to being

able to self-regulate when reading. Kids must be able to admit when they don't

comprehend something. They must then take a break, go back, and review to ensure that

there are no misconceptions.

2.10 Acquisition of a Second Language

Second language learning, also known as second language acquisition, is the

process of learning a language other than one's mother tongue. "Any language acquired

after one's first language; it may easily be a third or fourth-second language," Finnegan

(2004) defines "second language" as "any language acquired after one's first language."

"Anyone who has tried to acquire a second language in school or while visiting a foreign

country knows how different it is from studying one's own tongue," adds Fromkin

(2002). There are a variety of approaches to learning a second language.

Stephan Krashen's second language theory is well-known and largely accepted. This

theory is built around five key ideas. The first is Krashen's "acquisition-learning"

hypothesis, which "proposed a distinction between acquisition the unconsciously

acquired native language of children and learning, which he defines as conscious

knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able

to speak about them." The monitor hypothesis implies a link between acquisition and

38
learning. According to Krashen, the importance of conscious learning in second language

acquisition is minimal. According to the natural order theory, linguistic structures are

learned in a "natural order."

According to Krashen, some grammatical structures are learned early, whereas

others are learned later. The erudition of a second language is the subject of input

hypothesis. He explains that the natural order is preserved in second language learning

because of the learner's progress. A variety of affective traits such as motivation, self-

confidence, and fear, according to the effective filter hypothesis, help second language

acquisition.

These characteristics have both good and negative effects on second language

acquisition. Many factors have influenced the rate of second language learning. Social

and cognitive abilities, as well as a desire to learn, are all aspects that influence this rate.

The Bialystok (2000) model of second language learning, which focuses on strategies and

processes, is well-known. Her theory described how language information progresses

from the explicit to the implicit.

2.10.1Bilingualism

The acquisition of multiple languages is known as bilingualism. The acquisition of

two languages in a single person's home environment is known as bilingualism. As

Carroll (2004) pointed out, the meaning and concept of bilingualism varies depending on

the situation. "Some people become bilingual because they live in multilingual

communities, while others become bilingual because the language they speak at home

differs from the language they use at school or at work."

39
 Bialystok (2001) claimed that "in some civilizations, bilingualism is just expected,"

and that children who are born into a bilingual society learn two languages. Some

linguists feel that young children may readily learn two languages, hence improving their

learning abilities. "Younger children are frequently considered as superior language

learners than older children or adults," Carroll (2004) writes. "Young children who are

exposed to a variety of languages before puberty appear to learn all of them equally

well," says one researcher.

According to Fromkin (2002) multilingual people exist all across the world, and

they use their languages for a variety of social purposes. "They may have varied levels of

ability in each of their languages and use them for fairly diverse social circumstances,"

according to Chaika (2008).

2.11Analysis of Errors

Second language learners frequently make systematic grammatical errors, which are

typically based on their first language. "They make such mistakes because they don't

know how and under what circumstances all of the grammar rules apply," explains a

second language learner. (Chaika et al, 2008) 26 Errors occur when two languages collide

in a language learning context, according to Kroll (2002): the students' native language

(NL) and the target language (TL).

"Children learning their first language (L1), adult native speakers, and second

language learners all create errors with different names depending on the group that

commits the errors," according to Maicusi (2000). "Children's errors have been labeled

"transitional forms, "native speakers' errors have been labeled "slips of the tongue," and

second language (L2) errors have been labeled "unwanted forms." Humans make

40
mistakes all the time, and it's practically impossible to avoid them when learning a new

skill, especially a foreign language. "Learner's active strategies" include

overgeneralization, ignorance of rule limitations, insufficient rule applications, and

hypothesizing incorrect conceptions.

Richards et al., 1998, and Brown (2000) identified three types of errors. The first is

'very broad errors,' which comprise, among other things, errors of addition, omission, and

substitution. The language levels that can be breached is the second category. Phonology,

orthography, lexicon grammar, discourse (semantics), and so on is examples of these

levels. The domain and extent of an error fall under the third category. The goal of

recognizing these problems isn't only to find them; it's also to figure out what's causing

them. It aids the second language teacher in determining the level of linguistic

proficiency of the student. It has been suggested that error analysis aids the teacher in

determining a student's proficiency level in his second language.

2.12 Language Skills in English

Courses in language teaching are typically described in terms of language skill, such

as listening, reading, writing, and communication. Listen, talk, read, and write are the

four types of language, according to Hoskission (1987). The four specific goals of

teaching English at the school level, according to Shahid (2005), are:

1. Ability to comprehend verbal English

2. Ability to communicate in English

3. Ability to understand written English

4. Ability to put in writing in English

41
 Speaking and listening are supposed to be related to language communicated

through the aural media, but reading and writing are thought to be related to language

expressed through the visual medium, according to one classification. Speaking and

writing are active or producing abilities, whereas listening and reading are passive or

receptive abilities. Widdoson (2004) reached to the following conclusions:

1. Listening is auditory, passive, or receptive.

2. Speaking can be aural, passive, or constructive.

3. Reading can be visual, active, or receptive.

4. Writing is a visible, energetic, and productive activity.

"We can conclude that the child has learned the language when these language

capacities are achieved," Dash (2007) properly reasoned.

2.12.1 Listening

Listening is the mainly underestimated ability for acquiring English in Pakistan. It's

just as important to teach listening skills as it is to teach other language skills. Despite

being one of the most essential and essential talents in language learning, listening

comprehension is likely the least highlighted skill in language schools. It is impossible to

communicate verbally without first listening. A child's initial language mode is listening,

and it provides a foundation for the other language art. Numerous people are poor

listeners, and activities like viewing movies and plays, or listening to broadcasting on

radio, television, songs, or discussions, provide a lot of entertainment as well as

communication and involvement. Even in class, children learn considerably from

teachers' instruction; it is supposed that college student get forty to fifty percent of their

knowledge during listening.

42
2.12.1.1Process of listening

The listening procedure is broken down into three parts, Wolvin claims that (1998).

i. Receiving: The listener receives the stimuli offered by the speaker in this stage.

ii. Attending: The listener concentrates on the selected stimuli in this step.

iii. Responsibilities are assigned to others: The listener interprets the speaker's message in

this step.

2.12.2 Listening in the classroom

The following are the goals of classroom listening, according to Mueen (1992).

i. Creating a sense of expectancy Teachers instill in their students a sense of

anticipation for what is about to be said. The students have a rough sense of what's going

to happen next. As a result, people will be able to concentrate on any new information

that may be contained in the message they wish to hear.

ii. Recognizing the communication's main point Students usually concentrate on the

primary ideas while ignoring the sidebars. They must navigate through spoken language's

repetition, incorrect starts, pauses, and other features.

iii. In-depth information In class, students do not pay attention to everything that is

spoken. They just pay attention to the information that they require or desire, and they

ignore the rest.

iv. Figuring out what the speaker's attitude/opinion is based on the tone of voice

(intonation) or the style of language used by the teacher, students can infer how the

teacher feels about what she or he is telling them.

43
v. Making educated guesses about the meanings of unfamiliar terms When students

encounter new words, they do not consult a dictionary. Rather, they attempt to deduce the

meaning based on the context in which the new words are employed.

vi. Identifying "signals" Long periods of words are delivered without any assistance to

the listener, which is unusual. In most cases, the former will add an example, a caveat, a

rephrasing, (in other words....) or the 30 introduction of a new topic to his discourse. The

listener may become ‘lost' in a longer stretch of words if such ‘structuring aids' are not

used.

vii. Listening in order to perform communicative activities Students must pay close

attention in order to 'Reply' to the speaker. They need to figure out how to decipher the

message and respond in accordance with the listener's expectations. In the linguistic

exchange, there must be a sense of cohesion and cohesiveness (grammar consistency).

2.13 Speaking

We speak when we wish to convey our thoughts, opinions, and desires, as well as

form social bonds and friendships. In Pakistan, speaking English is regarded as a status

symbol. It is also beneficial to pupils because it allows them to engage in academic

debates with their classmates. However, teaching spoken English receives less attention

than teaching grammar and analyzing English literature. In the classroom, spoken

language is not taught, and students are unable to communicate effectively.

Students must eventually have an understanding of how the language they are

learning is used in conversation. Of course, focusing on teaching speaking and listening

initially, before moving on to the higher degree of communicative capacity of talking

may be more practical in some cases (Widdoson, 2004).

44
2.13.1 Stages of Speaking English

Osborn outlined the phases of spoken English as follows: (1994).

I. Presenting Period

By this moment, the pupils be introduced to the theme. The pupil's responsibility is

receptive at this level, whereas the teacher's function is active. Depending on the teacher's

preference, students can view a movie or listen to an audio cassette. The teacher's

language must be understandable, meaningful, and memorable.

ii. The second stage is the practice stage.

Students are encouraged to speak up and take charge of their work by the teacher.

The teacher's role at this moment is passive; he observes the quality of the pupils'

responses from the background.

III. The production stage

At this moment, the children are given the option to develop their language on their

own. Students have the freedom to express themselves. The teacher evaluates the

students' ability to communicate. The goal of a teacher should be to assist students in

developing fluency and accuracy.

(Source: internet)

45
2.14 Reading English

Reading is a means of acquiring knowledge, and everyone desires to be excellent in

order to learn more rapidly. Reading is the world's most natural activity.” Smith (2004)

stated. When attempting to make sense of situations, the term "reading" is correctly

applied to a wide range of actions."

2.14.1 Stage of the reading process

The phases of reading, according to Harmer (2006), are as follows.

i. The first stage: Recognizing visual symbols.

Despite their apparent simplicity, Small and big letter changes might be

perplexing, especially when their shapes are dramatically different. Furthermore, in

English, there is no one-to-one correlation between sound and written symbols,

resulting in orthographic problems. After they have been practiced orally at the

beginning of reading sessions, students might be requested to read words, phrases,

and short discussions.

ii. The stage of comprehension

This stage helps students understand things that they haven't been exposed to

orally. Reading is done for the purpose of gaining knowledge; this necessitates the

acquisition of new vocabulary as well as an understanding of grammatical structure.

The teacher must educate students on how to extract meaning from written words.

2.15 General Methods of Teaching of Reading English

Shahid (2005) mentioned various approaches for teaching reading. Some of them are as

follows:

i. The alphabetical approach

46
The 'A, B, C method,' or the spellbind method,' is another name for it.

The following actions are in use to teach spellbinding method.

1. Lecture the alphabetical order of the letters' names.

2. Making a word out of two or more letters.

3. Making phrases out of words.

4. Passages to read

"Those who employ this strategy should remember that small letters should be taught

first, followed by capital letters," Dash (2007) advised.

ii. The Syllabic method

The instruction of syllables is the first step in this strategy. The following are the steps in

this method:

1. Syllables are directly used

2. Words and sentences are made up of syllables.

iii. Words method

The complete word is supplied for reading in this manner, and words are presented

with audio-visual aids from the start. The teacher can use a picture of a shoe with the

word "shoe" written underneath it. The "see and speak" or "see and say" method is

another name for this technique. It is based on the following assumptions:

1. It is main practical component that is easily recognized by the eyes.

2. A ‘word' is the smallest language with a meaning. Words are the fundamental units of

thought

iv. Phrase method

47
 The youngster reads groups of words in a phrase using this strategy. It's a cross

between the word approach and the sentence method. The following assumption

underpins this method:

1. Phrases fascinate me more than words.

2. Phrases are used to express information.

3. The reader is familiar with the collection of terms.

4. Phrases are more appropriate reading unit.

V. The Sentences Method

The alphabetic technique is in opposition to this method. The lowest unit of speech

is the phrase. This strategy is based on the following premise:

1. A sentence, not a word, is the essential unit of thought.

2. A sentence is a type of speech unit.

3. A complete meaning is conveyed by a sentence.

4. The sound of a sentence is distinct.

Vi. The Story Telling Method

This is a more advanced variation of the sentence method. Kids are taught a story in

four or five sentences using this strategy with illustrations to accompany the story. This

approach is predicated on the following assumptions:

1. Children have an innate interest in stories (Lewis, 2010).

2.16 Writing

Writing is a medium that provides substance to spoken words, abstract ideas, and

feelings, and aids in their transmission in many aspects of life. The fact that our country's

only system of evaluation is a three-hour exam in which the student is expected to pour

48
out everything he has learned over the course of one or two years, not just in the subject

of English language, but in all of the other subjects he has taken for his degree, diploma,

or certificate, demonstrates this. Passing the written exam necessitates not only a

thorough understanding of the subject, but also the ability to communicate it clearly and

within the allotted time.

2.16.1 Components of a good piece of writing

The following are essential components of a work of text writing:

1. Contented: the concepts that one want to convey.

2. Grammar mechanics: correct language usage, tenses, punctuation, and so on.

3. Logical organization: the writer's method of guiding readers through his writing and

effective information organization.

4. Inference: what the writer infers from the material provided, or the writer's own

evaluation and contribution. Based on the information they have obtained, students may

reach a conclusion (Langan 2002).

2.16.2 Writing a paragraph

The ultimate purpose of writing is to write paragraphs. A basic talent that might be

considered a precondition for successful writing is the capacity to write a clear, coherent,

and cohesive paragraph. Several sentences make create a paragraph. The subject of all of

these sentences is the same. According to McDonald (1996), a paragraph should be

formatted as follows:

1. An inquiry or a statement might be used as the topic sentence.

2. You can use examples, facts, details, statistics, an explanation, a definition, a

comparison, a contrast, and a reason or causes to support the main sentence.

49
 3. Concluding sentences this could be a remark or a question that focuses on the

main point of the paragraph (2002, Langan).

2.16.3 Writing an essay

An essay is a group of paragraphs that are all about the same thing. An essay is a

collection of paragraphs on a particular topic. There are three crucial aspects to consider

when writing an essay:

1. Possessing thoughts

2. Organizing the theme in a logical manner

3. Effectively expressing them

Harmer et al., 1998 According to Harmer (1998), an essay is divided into three sections:

1. Introduction

The subject or theme, which is usually a statement of the problem, appears in the

introduction.

2. Development

Presentation, analysis, and discussion are all included. Depending on the amount of

primary concepts, this could be one paragraph or several paragraphs.

3. Conclusion

According to Mueen (2002), the conclusion should include the following:

i. A summary of the important concepts from the developmental part

ii. The author's personal views or opinions High school students should be

taught how to write the following types of essays.

1. Storytelling

2. Explanatory

50
 3. Explanatory text

4. Constructive

5. Observant

6. Creativity

2.17 English Teaching Methods

2.17.1 Method of Grammar-Translation

The traditional or classical way of grammar translation is well known. For ages, this

strategy has been used. The classical approach was used to teach Latin. It focuses on

grammatical principles, vocabulary memory, text translation, and a written exercise. The

grammar-translation technique was the name given to the classical method in the

nineteenth century. The British brought this method to the subcontinent.

This method is based on the idea that a foreign language can be picked up rapidly

through translation and grammar, and it's "a very popular form of teaching, particularly at

the beginning stages." according to (Dash 2007). This technique has been abandoned by

modern linguists since it does not prepare students for communication. The teacher plays

an active role in the classroom, while the pupils play a passive part. Large classes and

unqualified teachers are used to defend this strategy by Pakistani educators (Mueen

1992).

2.17.1 (a) Grammar-Translation Method Objectives

The following are the goals of the grammar-translation process, according to Hawkey

(2010):

1. To instill a basic understanding of a language's grammar.

2. Instruction in language translation and accurate writing

51
3. To give students a broad literary vocabulary.

4. To treat language acquisition as a form of intellectual discipline

2.17.1 (b) Grammar-Translation Method Process

According to Pachler (2003), the grammar-translation technique entails the

following steps:

i. Begin with a common phrase: The translation of simple words is the first

step in the grammar-translation technique. Teachers should progress from

simple to complicated vocabulary, but not to the point of embarrassing the

students with difficult words and sentences. A few months should be spent at

the start working on vocabulary and pronunciation.

ii. A straightforward structure: The teacher should then introduce extremely

simple statements such as this is, that is, and so on in the second level. To

avoid misunderstanding, these constructs should be translated into the native

tongue. The translations of these structures are really useful in

comprehending them. Students should be taught to use these simple

constructs to form simple sentences.

iii. Instructing Grammar as well as Structures: The teaching of grammar is

combined with the teaching of structures in this method. The structure

should be broken down into components once the students have mastered it.

The teacher should use examples to explain the ideas of nouns, pronouns,

adjectives, prepositions, articles, and verbs. Comparing the tenses to the

original language should be used to teach them.

52
 iv. Reading and writing are prioritized: This strategy is thought to be unsuitable

for teaching a living language. As a result, reading and writing should be

prioritized for mastery of spoken language. Reading would aid in the

development of speaking efficiency. Reading should always be followed by

writing since writing is just as vital as reading when it comes to learning a

foreign language.

v. Interpretation and Re-interpretation: One of the most distinguishing features

of this method is that it starts with simple word translation. Students may be

given more difficult and complex sentences to comprehend as they progress.

Both the translation of English into the native language and the translation of

the native language into English are important, should be done at the same

time. This method is frequently found to be an effective means of attaining

language competence. This aids in the expression of ideas in a foreign

language as well as the creation of compositions. The pattern of English

language structures should be followed in both translation and re-translation.

2.17.1 (c) The Grammar-Translation Method's Advantages

According to Dash (2007), the Grammar-translation approach has the following

advantages

i) It is cost-effective since it saves teachers a lot of time.

ii) People who have been trained in the grammar-translation approach have a

strong command of the written language. Their faultless penmanship, good

handwriting, good spelling, and strong grammar are well-known.

53
 iii) It does not anticipate a highly qualified teacher. This strategy can be used by a

typical teacher.

iv) It aids in the development of the kids' vocabulary.

v) It aids in the clear and accurate comprehension of new and challenging terms.

vi) It adheres to the rule of "advance from known to unknown."

vii) It provides right grammatical rules knowledge.

viii) It is a convenient way for the teacher because no audio visual aids are

required.

ix) It helps pupils improve their translating skills.

x) This strategy can be applied in a variety of scenarios, including huge groups.

xi) It makes advantage of the child's mother tongue expertise.

2.17.1(d) Limitations of Grammar-Translation Method

According to Venkateswaran (1995), the grammar-translation method has the

following limitations:

1) This strategy has no effect on students' language communicative abilities.

2) Learners may find this method difficult because they must memories a list of improper

grammatical rules and vocabulary before constructing literary translations.

3) The emphasis on constructing a framework within which rules can be followed may

lead to the artificial language being used by teachers and pupils.

4) It emphasizes written labor while discouraging verbal fluency and spontaneity.

5) This method encourages people to express themselves in their language. As a result, it

is unsuitable for a multilingual group.

54
2.17.2 The Direct Method

In response to the grammar-translation technique, this method was established. "A

method of teaching a foreign language, particularly a modern language, by conversation,

discussion, and reading in the target language without the use of the pupil's native

language, translation, or formal grammar study," (Fries 1993). This method sought to

make learning a second language more similar to studying a first language. Sauveir

(1826-1907) and others promoted the natural method, claiming that a foreign language

could be taught without the assistance of translation or the learner's native tongue.

Richard (Richard, 1991)

2.17.2 (a) Direct method objectives

The following are the direct method's objectives, according to Hawkey (2010):

1. To reproduce the first language (L1) learning situation, in which comprehension

is gained primarily by listening and speaking.

2. Without the use of a mediating first language (L1) acquisition, promote direct

identification of target language (TL) words and sentences with objects, concepts, and

actions.

3. To allow pupils to practice their aural-oral skills before beginning to read and

write.

4. Relying on experience and inference rather than an explanation to make

the language easier to learn.

2.17.2 (b) Direct Methods principle

I. Oral Instruction The direct technique focuses on oral instruction. Oral

communication skills, according to Richard (1991), were developed in a

55
 carefully graded sequence centered on answer and question exchanges

among professor and student in little, concentrated classes. As soon as the

teacher delivers a few sentences, students pay attention to him. Individually

and collectively, the kids repeat such sentences. The kids obtain a

comprehensible production of those sentences through regular drill.

(Hussain2005). The teacher has a lot of questions for you. What is in my

hand, for example, when the teacher is teaching (Shahid 2005).

II. No use of the mother tongue the direct technique prohibits the use of the

mother tongue. By prohibiting the learner from thinking in English, the

mother tongue hampers the child's fluency and communication. This method

forbids the use of the mother tongue, and students are urged to repeat what

the teacher says until they have mastered a specific grammatical pattern

(Venkateswaran, 1995). Children learn fundamental concepts in three to four

years, and there is little time in the classroom to teach a foreign language. As

a result, new native language terms are introduced to facilitate meaningful

language learning, although native language usage should be limited.

III. Making the Transition from Nouns to Simple Sentences Start with words

that you use every day while using the direct strategy. When youngsters

have a thorough comprehension of a significant number of words, they are

ready to go on to the next level the basic structure of "this is" can be

introduced. The teaching unit in this system is ‘sentences,' not ‘words.' The

proponent of this strategy emphasized the use of basic language at first.

56
 IV. A methodical approach the direct method focuses on presenting new

language in a methodical manner. It progresses in a natural manner from

unknown to known, and from simple to complicate. In learning the mother

tongue, the kid follows a pattern. The teacher progresses to difficult

statements and questions after providing sufficient practice in simple

sentences. The vocabulary of the students is limited in these questions and

responses (Littlewood, 1998).

V. Teaching grammar via inductive approaches Teachers in modern educational

institutions begin by teaching pupils the rules of grammar. As a result, pupils

follow these norms without understanding their nature, and as a result, they

fail to learn.

The deductive approach is when rules are taught first and examples are provided

subsequently. The inductive technique is used in the direct method. This approach differs

from the deductive approach in that it begins with instances and then draws rules from

them. Consider the following scenario: The youngster is fleeing. The lads are fleeing. The

girl has taken a position. The girls have taken a stance. By deducing the basic rule for

producing plurals, the teacher explains these cases. The plurals are formed by adding the

letter‘s’ to the singular. Other grammatical rules are taught using this technique.

2.17.2 (c) limitations of Direct Method

The direct technique, according to Verghese (2005), has the following

disadvantages:

1) 1) It is an ineffective method. It emphasizes the oral component of language

learning while downplaying the relevance of reading and writing. It is a time-

57
 consuming strategy for teachers because they must devote a significant amount of

time to lesson planning.

2) The direct method omits grammatical instruction entirely.

3) Creating live situations takes a lot of effort in this manner.

4) Creating live situations takes a lot of time with this strategy.

5) Because a lot of audio-visual aids are required, it is an expensive strategy.

6) The approaches are not widely used in Pakistan due to a scarcity of qualified

English teachers and a lack of infrastructure. Because of these flaws, the

technique has botched to construct the anticipated outcome within Pakistan.

2.17.3 The Audio Lingual Method

The value of learning the target language was addressed through direct and indirect

ways. It was assumed that simply exposing the learner to the target language would be

insufficient, and that learning certain patterns and terminology in order to communicate

in the target language would be desirable. A new approach to language training known as

aural-oral or audio-lingual emerged as a result of the greater emphasis on

communication. The audio-lingual technique arose in the late 1950s as a result of the

United States' increasing emphasis on foreign language study. The Audio-Lingual-

Method was created by combining structure linguistic theory, contrastive analysis, aural-

oral techniques, and behaviorist psychology. Richard is a multi-talented individual

(2002).

2.17.3 (a) Merits of Audio Linguistic Method

1. It focuses on syntactical development rather than vocabulary and morphology, as

previous systems did.

58
2. This strategy leads to the development of a simple technique for practicing certain

language aspects in various grades and intensities without the requirement of translation.

2.17.3 (b) Audio-lingual method's limitations

1. The audio-lingual system limited language to a set of behaviors, which limited its

application. Language learning is not a habit, but it does require creativity, the production

of new phrases, and patterns.

2. The audio-lingual method restricts the use of human capability by limiting

language to the practice of certain sentence patterns. The human being has the ability to

create new sentences.

3. This strategy discourages learner-centered instruction.

The audio-lingual technique has the following limitations, according to Venkateswaran

(1995).

1. It transformed the division of linguistic skills into a teaching tool.

2. It introduced auditory and oral practice strategies (Stern 1992).

2.18 As an International Language

As an international language, is undeniably a global language, having been used for

international communication all over the world, as Dash (2007) noted: "it is a common

medium of communication between individuals of various nations" One in every four

people on the planet is estimated to be a native English speaker."

"English has become a worldwide language because it is spoken by such a big

number of people all over the world," Mclyntyre claims (2009). The global spread of

English, according to Rakesh (2001), is due to two Diasporas: the first, in which a native

speaker transplanted English, and the second, in which English was adopted as an official

59
language alongside other national languages. English is spoken by a vast number of

native speakers around the world.

"A language achieves truly global relevance when it assumes a distinct role that is

recognized in every country," writes Crystel (2003). Because a huge number of non-

native speakers utilize English as a foreign and second language, it has gained worldwide

prominence. The popularity of English stems primarily from the fact that it is the most

widely spoken language on the planet" writes (Brumfit 1995).

English has an advantage over the major imperial languages due to the combination

of political power and technological dominance gained through these two successive

movements. “We live in a global village.” Trade, increased communication, and political,

medical, and cultural needs are bringing people from all over the world closer together.

"The development of commerce around the world, notably the emergence of the United

States as a world economic power, has been a major ingredient in the growth of English,"

adds Harmer (2001).

English is the only language that allows people from all over the world to

communicate easily. "It is currently one of the world's most commonly spoken languages,

with over 400 million native speakers and nearly as many people who use it as a second

language," according to Barber (1999). The English language is widely spoken around

the world, and it's difficult to travel without encountering it on a daily basis, particularly

in large cities.

According to Kachuru (2006), "English is the most widely taught, read, and spoken

language the world has ever known." Pop music, as well as movies and TV shows, are

broadcast on radio and satellite television, and they dominate international culture. "In

60
popular culture, English is the most frequently spoken language. English-language pop

music has taken over the world's airwaves." Harmer and colleagues (2001) The names of

businesses and advertisements on storefront sign boards are typically in English. English

is spoken in airports, large hotels, civil aviation, and maritime waterways.

In the disciplines of science, health, technology, and academic publishing, it is the

most extensively used language. It controls computer hardware, software, networking,

email, and the vast creative chaos of cyberspace. Every day, the world becomes smaller.

We'll require English as soon as we cross our country's border. Our people only speak

English, and Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh are among the top English-

speaking countries in the world. For our present and future, we require modern

languages. This is the age of science and technology, and the language of science and

technology is English. This language is necessary for our country's survival.

In the Commonwealth, the United States, Africa, China, Japan, Indonesia, and most

European countries, English is the most widely spoken language. According to the latest

recent statistics, English is spoken directly by more than half of the world's population.

"Borders of race, color, and creed are hindering the current rate of English usage." (1994,

Broughton) The storehouse of world knowledge is English. The majority of intellectuals

and scientists from throughout the world share their study findings in English.

Because a large number of books and reputable periodicals are produced in English,

the storehouse of knowledge in this language is constantly growing. In terms of

vocabulary, it is the world's richest language; English has been used to translate nearly all

of the world's classics. We've demonstrated that English is a critical language for modern

growth, and that progress is impossible without it.

61
The following are some of the reasons why learning English is vital.

i. English is a language of higher education;

ii. English is a tool of understanding foreign education.

iii. Scientific and technical progress is fueled by English.

iv. It serves as a conduit for international trade, commerce, and communication.

Richards (Richards, 1991)

2.19 English in Pakistan

On December 31, 1600, Queen Elizabeth I granted the East India Company a

charter to trade with India, bringing the English language to the Indian subcontinent. The

English language was introduced to the Indian subcontinent in three stages. The initial

phase was missionary (1640-1765), followed by local demand (1765-1835) and

government policy, culminating in T.B Maculey's Minute of 1835. Pakistani English, like

other non-native varieties of English, has four sub-varieties, according to Rehman (1990).

The first category is Anglicized. Those who have been exposed to British Standard

English in the Received Pronunciation accent utilize this variant. These individuals come

from well-educated families. The acrolect kind is the second. It is used by Pakistanis who

were educated in posh English-medium schools. This type of English is spoken by many

good journalists, administrators, professionals, and upper-middle-class people.

Majority of individuals, on the other hand, write and talk in the deselect dialect of

English. These individuals are from the middle and upper classes, and they received their

education in Urdu-medium schools. Clerks, subordinate officials, typists, and others with

limited education utilize the basilect variety. English has been the official language of the

country since its inception.

62
 During the inaugural educational conference, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah

emphasized the importance of English. He never undervalued the importance of English,

while designating Urdu to be the national language. The vast majority of English

criticism is founded on irrational and unfavorable assumptions. Both Urdu and English

are not mutually exclusive languages.

The primary challenge that has been a cause of worry for successive governments,

according to the educational policy 1998-2010, is the question of the medium of

instruction and the presence of different languages in the school curriculum. There is no

clear national policy on the use of different languages in the classroom. The use of

English has merely added to the perplexity. English is the world's language in all fields,

particularly the arts, hard sciences, humanities, and social sciences. English is used in

international trade, commerce, and diplomacy. However, many Pakistanis still consider it

as a British legacy.

Despite this, English remains the official language of Pakistan, with English

accounting for 80% of all correspondence. "English is widely used as a lingua franca

throughout the region, despite the fact that it is not an official language in Bangladesh,

Sri Lanka, Nepal, or Bhutan."

The use of English in Pakistan is well-developed, according to Fennel (2001). It is a

requirement for employment in the governmental and private sectors. The significance of

English as a science and technology language cannot be overstated. English has been

used almost completely in the modern information technology revolution. As a result, the

use of English in Pakistan must be aggressively encouraged by the educated and backed

63
by policymakers in order to keep on top of the ever-expanding frontier of human

knowledge.

English is the international language of communication, higher education, and more

possibilities in the workplace. As a result, it should be made available to the whole

people in Pakistan so that there is no discrimination in terms of personal, professional, or

economic advancement between the rich and the poor. Learning English as a second

language is a largely unconscious process. The ability of learners to acquire language

from their surroundings is restricted. It is not the learner's capacity to acquire the

language that has to be improved; rather, it is the capacity of the entire academic situation

(Government of Pakistan, 2006). English is used in Pakistan for the following purposes:

Regulatory Pakistan's constitution is written in English. Parliament, courts, civil and

military bureaucracies all use English.

I. In Pakistan, instrumental English has been the language of higher

education. Even at universities, the option to utilize Urdu in the

humanities, arts, and social sciences is now available.

II. For personal contact, the inter-personal English language is utilized.

These communications could include:

1. Communication within the group

2. Communication with people outside of your group

3. Creative function

4. Communication involving specialized information

In Pakistan, this function of English is constrained. This country, on the other hand,

has a number of internationally renowned writers. English coexists with Urdu,

64
encouraging the same pattern of interaction between the two languages as existed prior to

independence.

The characteristics of the interaction pattern are as follows.

1) English is utilized for writing more than speaking.

2) In bilingual speech, code-mixing and code-switching effect ‘bidirectional'

interaction by allowing English or Urdu to be employed simultaneously or

alternately.

3) In Pakistan, translation from L1 is the standard. It pulls its material from

local languages because it has no contact with native English speakers.

2.20 Researches on the subject of English

According to Bibi's (2002) research, using a text book to teach English grammar

versus using group work activities has a favorable impact on students' academic progress

in elementary and high school. Students' reading comprehension, writing ability, listening

comprehension, speaking ability, grammatical principles application, and effective use of

English have all improved dramatically as a result of studying English grammar.

As a result, teachers can encourage students to use group work activities in their

English language classes to teach English language and, in particular, grammar (Kausar

2009) looked at the effects of direct instruction on intermediate class achievement and

attitudes about English grammar and discovered that direct instruction is more effective

than traditional education in both immediate and delayed recall. She noticed that students

of all ages and skills responded well to direct instruction. The general result she reached

from her research was that students who were taught English grammar through direct

instruction performed better than students who were taught in a more traditional manner.

65
 According to Zahra's (1995) study on the causes of failure in the Secondary School

Certificate test among students in the Lahore area, the standard of teaching English in

urban schools is higher than in rural schools.

Students believe English is a tough subject, which is why they are uninterested in

learning it. Because students perceive English is a difficult subject, they are uninterested

in learning it. Teaching using the direct method in crowded classes, It is challenging,

according to Shirani's (1995) study on the Utility of Direct Method for Language

Teaching Development. Small classes, more authentic teaching materials, increased

teacher training, and proper audio-visual aids are all required for teaching a foreign

language. Due to insufficient secondary school education, college students' ability to

grasp English is quite low.

The English language education methodology, according to Mueen (1992), is de-

motivating since it is outdated. It provides no 'motivation' for the student to develop an

interest in language acquisition. Students are dissatisfied because professors are

uninterested in making the teaching/learning process more relevant and practical.

In the classroom, there is a tight mood. Teachers' negative attitudes are mostly due

to the system, which has to be restructured to make it more practical and boost English

language education. The use of English is clearly expanding in the most official sectors

of education, government, and employment, according to Farid's (2004) study on Socio-

cultural Implications of the English Language in Pakistan. It's also making an appearance

in more casual situations. The most common patterns employed in English are

addressing, requesting, apologizing, and thanking, and they are all done correctly.

66
 The English Teaching Methodology: An overview found that while the direct

method and even the Although the grammar–translation technique can be used to teach

English to anyone in an English-speaking country, teaching English to a student who only

attends his English class for forty minutes and has no exposure to English outside of the

classroom is incredibly challenging. In a situation like this, I advocate focusing on

grammar, specifically generative grammar rather than formal grammar.

A research of code-mixing linguistic patterns found that Pakistan's linguistic

environment gives adequate possibility for the interaction of English with Urdu and other

local languages, according to Rasul's (2006) study on Language Hybridization in

Pakistan as a Socio-cultural Phenomenon. This enables code mixing and switching..

Hussain (2005) discovered that direct teaching is more effective as a teaching-

learning methodology for English than traditional teaching in an experimental study on

teaching English at the secondary level using direct and translation methods. Direct

teaching students outperformed pupils who received standard instruction. Pakistani

students, according to Kazi (1984), make the bulk of English language errors because

they mentally translate from Urdu to English.

This is a natural tendency, but teaching English in Urdu is rather prevalent in our

country. People are encouraged to think in Urdu while attempting to speak in English as a

result of this. To save time, the teacher should utilise Urdu only when a pupil cannot

understand the meaning of words.

Azhar (2004) came to the following conclusions based on his research on the large

English language teaching classrooms at the high school level in District Abbottabad,

Pakistan, were managed.

67
I. Maintaining discipline in big English language teaching (ELT) classes is a significant

challenge.

II. In big English language teaching (ELT) classes, it's tough to give weak students

particular attention.

III. Teaching and evaluating students in big English language teaching (ELT) classes can

be difficult.

68
 CHAPTER 03

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE

English is not only a subject that must be learned as a compulsory subject as stipu

lated in the curriculum, but it also acted as a bridge for them to pass their Entry test and g

et admittance to varios educational institutions for further study. The ability to communic

ate in English is becoming a requirement, particularly for students at the college level. It i

s the language that may assist them in passing their interviews and obtaining good jobs in

the future. For a variety of reasons, students must be able to communicate in the target la

nguage. In order to do this, public elementary schools must ensure that the reading proces

s runs smoothly. The statement of problem was; "Learning Difficulties in Reading

English at the Elementary School Level in Rahim Yar Khan District." The research was

conducted in the form of a survey and was descriptive nature. The proposed study would

use a mixed-method approach that includes both quantitative and qualitative data.

This chapter discusses the study's research approach and procedure as follows:

• Population

• Sampling and sample size,

• Tools of data collection

• Pilot research

• Collection of Data

• Analyzing data

• Limitations of the study

• The Study's Variables

69
 • Time framework

• Ethics considerations

• Resources

3.1 Research Population

Population of the study was:

 All Ten (10) ESTs of Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School 1/p Jetha

Bhuttakhanpur District Rahim Yar Khan.

 All one hundred and fifty (150) elementary school students of Govt. Girls

Higher Secondary School 1/p Jetha Bhuttakhanpur District Rahim Yar

Khan.

3.2 Sampling and sample size

The study used a convenient sample technique and a simple random sample. The

following people made up the study's sample:

o Ten (10) EST and SESE teachers

o One hundred and fifty (150) students of class 6th, 7th and 8th

3.3 Research Tool

Quantitative and Qualitative research methods were used in the study.

Questionnaires for the quantitative section were delivered to GGHSS 1/P elementary

school teachers. The study's qualitative part included a proficiency checklist from the

pupils. The following research tools were used to gather the needed information:

o Questionnaires for elementary school teachers of elementary classes.

o Proficiency check list to monitor the practice of reading English.

70
 (Source: self created)

3.3.1Pilot study

The validity and reliability of the testing instruments was checked in a pilot study.

In view of the input from respondents, the research tools were refined and updated. After

making required adjustments, the research tools were finalized and administered in the

school.

3.4 Data collection

The researcher went to the school and used a questionnaire and a checklist to

collect data. A questionnaire was used to collect comments from teachers, and a

performance test was used to identify the difficulties primary school students have when

reading English.

3.5 Analysis of Data

The acquired data was analyzed and interpreted using relevant statistical formulas

such as frequency, percentage, and mean score with the help of the Statistical Package for

Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23 software.

3.6Variables of the study

The study was based on these variables;

 English reading was Independent variable of the study

71
  Reading difficulties was Dependent variables of the study

 Gender was Female only

 GGHSS 1/p Jetha Bhuttakhanpur/rural was the area

 Sector: Public school

3.7Delimitations of the Research

Due to a limitation of time and resources, the proposed research was limited to the

following topics:

o Reading challenges in the English language

o Elementary students of GGHSS 1/p Jetha Bhuttakhanpur

3.8 Ethical consideration

The researcher adhered to study ethics by:

 Obtaining prior approval for participants in writing from the research supervisor.

 Before the data is collected, the participants' willingness to participate in the study

was sorted.

 Keep all information private and obscure the identities of participants in records

and reports.

 Peer reviews to ensure that the results are accurate.

 Thanking those who helped with the research, participated in the data analysis, or

contributed.

 There will be no illegal data copying or alteration.

72
 CHAPTER 04

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

The interpretation and analysis of data are the topics of this chapter. The study

was descriptive in nature and employed both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.

A questionnaire and a checklist were used to collect data. Quantitative data analysis is

part one, and qualitative data analysis is part two.

4.1 Quantitative Data Analysis (Part 1)

The quantitative data analysis was based on data received from teachers via

questionnaires..

Factor.1: Phonemic Awareness

Table.4.1 English letters are recognized by students.

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Recognition Frequency 02 01 05 02 10 1.059 3.70

of letters Percentage 20 10 50 20 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.1. According to the findings, 50 % of respondents agreed that the students can

recognize English letters, 20 % strongly agreed, and 20 % disagreed. 10% of teachers

were undecided. The most of the participants stated that English letters are recognized by

students. A mean score of 3.70 and a standard deviation of 1.059 backed up the claim.

73
Table.4.2 Students are familiar with English phonemes.

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

English Frequency 02 05 03 10 .737 3.10

Phonemes Percentage 20 50 30 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.2. According to the findings, 50 % of respondents were undecided, 30 % agreed

that the Students are familiar with English phonemes, and 20 % disagreed. The majority

of participants were undecided the Students are familiar with English phonemes. A mean

score of 3.10 and a standard deviation of.737 backed up the claim.

Table.4.3 Consonant sounds are a challenge for students.

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Consonant Frequency 01 02 01 05 01 10 1.25 3.10

Sounds Percentage 10 20 10 50 10 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.3. According to the findings, 50 % of respondents agreed that the consonant

sounds are a challenge for students, 10% strongly agreed, while 20 % strongly disagreed.

10 % of respondents strongly disagreed with the statement, while 10 % were indecisive.

74
 Consonant sounds are a challenge for students, according to the majority of participants.

A mean score of 3.10 and a standard deviation of 1.25 backed up the claim.

Table 4.4 Students struggle with vowel sounds.

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Vowel Frequency 01 02 01 04 02 10 1.34 3.40

Sounds Percentage 10 20 10 40 20 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.4. According to the results, 40 % of respondents agreed that kids have difficulty

with vowel sounds, 20 % strongly agreed, and 20 % disagreed. 10 % of respondents

strongly disagreed with the statement, while 10 % were indecisive. The majority of the

participants believed that vowel sounds are a challenge for the children. A mean score of

3.40 and a standard deviation of 1.34 backed up the claim.

Table 4.5 Short vowels provide a challenge for students

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Short Frequency 02 05 03 10 1.10 3.90

Vowels Percentage 20 50 30 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.5. According to the findings, 50 % of respondents agreed that the short vowels

75
provide a challenge for students, 30 % strongly agreed, and 20 % disagreed. The majority

of participants agreed that the short vowels provide a challenge for students. A mean

score of 3.90 and a standard deviation of 1.10 backed up the claim.

Table 4.6 Students are able to distinguish one word from another.

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Distinguish Frequency 02 05 03 10 .737 4.10

Words Percentage 20 50 30 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.6. According to the findings, 50 % of respondents agreed that students can

identify one word from another, 30 % strongly agreed, and 20 % were hesitant about the

assertion. The majority of interviewees agreed that students can distinguish between

different words. A mean score of 4.10 and a standard deviation of.737 backed up the

claim.

Table 4.7 Rhyme words are familiar to students.

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Rhyme Frequency 01 01 05 03 10 .942 4.00

Words Percentage 10 10 50 30 100

76
 Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.7. According to the findings, 50 % of respondents agreed that the rhyme words

are familiar to students, 30 % strongly agreed, 10% strongly disagreed, and 10 % were

undecided about the statement. The majority of participants stated that students are

familiar with the rhyme words. A mean score of 4.00 and a standard deviation of.942

backed up the claim.

Table 4.8 Students are aware of rhyme intonation.

Topic Responses

Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Rhyme Frequency 04 03 03 10 1.35 3.50

Intonation Percentage 40 30 30 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.8. According to the findings, 40 % of respondents disagreed that the Students are

aware of rhyme intonation, 30 % agreed and 30 % strongly agreed the statement. The

majority of participants agreed that the students are aware of rhyme intonation. The

statement was supported by a mean score of 3.50 and a standard deviation of 1.35.

Factor.2 Phonics

77
Table 4.9 Students struggle with phonetics transcription.

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Phonetics Frequency 01 02 02 04 01 10 1.22 3.20

Transcription Percentage 10 20 20 40 10 100

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.9.

According to the findings, 40 % of respondents agreed that the students face difficulty in

phonetics transcription, 10 % strongly agreed, twenty percent were undecided, twenty

percent disagreed, and 10 % strongly disagreed with the statement. The majority of

interviewees agreed that phonetics transcription is difficult for students. A mean score of

3.20 and a standard deviation of 1.22 backed up the claim.

Table 4.10 Students know homographs (same spelling but different pronunciation)

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Homographs Frequency 01 02 02 04 01 10 1.22 3.20

Percentage 10 20 20 40 10 100

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.10.

According to the findings, 40 % of respondents agreed that the students know

homographs, 10 % strongly agreed, 20 % were undecided, twenty percent disagreed, and

10 % strongly disagreed with the assertion. The majority of those present agreed that the

78
students are familiar with homographs. A mean score of 3.20 and a standard deviation of

1.22 backed up the claim.

Table 4.11 Students know homophone (same pronunciation but different spelling)

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Homophone Frequency 01 07 02 10 .816 4.00

Percentage 10 70 20 100

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.11.

According to the findings, 70 % of respondents agreed that the students know

homophone, 20 % strongly agreed, 10 % disagreed with the statement. The majority of

participants agreed that the students know homophone. A mean score of 4.00 and a

standard deviation of.816 backed up the claim.

Table 4.12 Students felt difficulty in decoding words

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Decoding Frequency 04 04 02 10 1.26 3.40

Words Percentage 40 40 20 100

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.12.

According to the findings, 40 % of respondents agreed that the students felt difficulty in

decoding words, 20 % strongly agreed, 40 % disagreed with the statement. The majority

79
of participants agreed that the students felt difficulty in decoding words. A mean score of

3.40 and a standard deviation of 1.26 backed up the claim.

Table 4.13 Students are familiar with the phonics chart

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Phonics Frequency 02 05 01 02 10 1.05 2.30

Chart Percentage 20 50 10 20 100

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.10.

According to the findings, 50 % of respondents disagreed that the students are familiar

with the phonics chart, 20 % agreed, 10 % were undecided about the statement, 20% of

those polled were adamantly opposed. The majority of participants disagreed that the

pupils understand the phonics chart. A mean score of 2.30 and a standard deviation of

1.05 backed up the claim.

Table 4.14 Students are familiar to compound words

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Compound Frequency 01 01 08 10 1.08 3.50

Words Percentage 10 10 80 100

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.14.

According to the findings, 80 % of respondents agreed that the students are familiar to

compound words, 10 % disagreed the statement, 10 % strongly disagreed. The majority

80
of participants agreed that the students are familiar to compound words. A mean score of

3.50 and a standard deviation of 1.08 backed up the claim.

Table 4.15 Students work on sound drilling and repetition

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Drilling Frequency 01 02 06 01 10 .823 3.70

and Percentage 10 20 60 10 100

Repetition

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.15.

According to the findings, 60 % of respondents agreed that the students work on sound

drilling and repetition, 10 % strongly agreed the statement, 10 % of respondents

disagreed with the statement, while 20% were indecisive. The pupils work on sound

drilling and repetition, according to the majority of participants. A mean score of 3.70

and a standard deviation of.823 backed up the claim.

Table 4.16 Silent letters are known by students

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Silent Frequency 01 01 01 06 01 10 1.17 3.50

letters Percentage 10 10 10 60 10 100

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.16.

According to the findings, 60 % of respondents agreed that the silent letters are known by

81
students, 10 % strongly agreed the statement, 10 % of respondents strongly disagreed, 10

% strongly disagreed, and 10% were undecided about the statement. The majority of

participants believed that students are familiar with the silent letters. A mean score of

3.50 and a standard deviation of 1.17 backed up the claim.

Factor No. 3 Vocabulary

Table 4.17 Students understand the meaning of the word

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Meaning Frequency 01 01 06 02 10 1.13 3.80

of word Percentage 10 10 60 20 100

Factor number 3 vocabulary among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.17. According to the findings, 60 % of respondents agreed that the pupils grasp the

definition of the word, 20 % strongly agreed with the assertion, 10 % strongly disagreed,

and 10 % were undecided. The majority of participants stated that the students are aware

of the word's meaning. A mean score of 3.80 and a standard deviation of 1.13 backed up

the claim.

Table 4.18 Students look for synonyms in the text

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Synonyms Frequency 02 04 04 10 1.15 4.00

Percentage 20 40 40 100

82
 Factor number 3 vocabulary among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.18. According to the findings, 40 % of respondents agreed that the students look for

synonyms in the text, The statement was strongly agreed upon by 40 % of those polled,

while the statement was strongly disagreed upon by 20 % of those polled. The majority of

participants agreed that pupils search the text for synonyms. A mean score of 4.40 and a

standard deviation of 1.15 backed up the claim.

Table 4.19 Students receive assistance from the teacher in determining the meaning of

words

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Teacher Frequency 01 01 04 04 10 .994 4.10

Assistance Percentage 10 10 40 40 100

Factor number 3 vocabulary among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.19. According to the findings, 40 % of respondents agreed that the students receive

assistance from the teacher in determining the meaning of words, 40 % strongly agreed

with the statement, 10 % strongly disagreed with the statement, and 10% were undecided

about the statement. The majority of the participants believed that the teacher assists

students in determining the meaning of words. A mean score of 4.10 and a standard

deviation of.994 backed up the claim.

83
Table 4.20 Students look for antonyms in the text

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Antonyms Frequency 02 02 04 02 10 1.07 3.60

Percentage 20 20 40 20 100

Factor number 3 vocabulary among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.20. According to the findings, 40 % of respondents agreed that the students look for

antonyms in the text, 20 % strongly agreed the statement, 20 % disagreed with the

statement, while another 20 % were indecisive. Students hunt for antonyms in the text,

according to the majority of participants. A mean score of 3.60 and a standard deviation

of 1.07 backed up the claim.

Table 4.21 Students look up difficult words in dictionaries

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Dictionaries Frequency 01 01 02 05 01 10 1.17 3.40

Percentage 10 10 20 50 10 100

Factor number 3 vocabulary among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.21. According to the findings, 50 % of respondents agreed that the students look up

difficult words in dictionaries, 10 % strongly agreed with the statement, 10 % strongly

disagreed with the statement, 10 % strongly disagreed with the statement, and 20% were

84
undecided. The majority of participants agreed that students use dictionaries to seek up

difficult terms. A mean score of 3.40 and a standard deviation of 1.17 backed up the

claim.

Factor 4 Comprehension

Table 4.22 Students read the text carefully and comprehend it.

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Read and Frequency 01 03 01 04 01 10 1.28 3.10

Comprehend Percentage 10 30 10 40 10 100

Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.22. According to the findings, 40 % of respondents agreed that the students read the

text carefully and comprehend it, 10 % strongly agreed the statement, 30 % said they

disagreed with the statement, 10 % said they strongly disagreed, and 10% said they were

undecided. The majority of participants agreed that the pupils should read and absorb the

content attentively. A mean score of 3.10 and a standard deviation of 1.28 backed up the

claim.

Table 4.23 Students comprehend text better than their peers.

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Comparison Frequency 01 03 05 01 10 1.08 3.50

with peers Percentage 10 30 50 10 100

85
Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.23.

According to the findings, 50 % of respondents agreed that the students comprehend text

better than their peers, 10 % strongly agreed the statement, 30 % of respondents

disagreed with the statement, and 10 % strongly disagreed. The majority of interviewees

thought that kids understand text better than their classmates. A mean score of 3.50 and a

standard deviation of 1.08 backed up the claim.

Table 4.24 Students can write a summary of the text.

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Summary Frequency 01 03 01 04 02 10 1.28 3.10

Percentage 10 30 10 40 20 100

Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.24. According to the findings, 40 % of respondents agreed that the students can write a

summary of the text, 20 % strongly agreed the statement, 30 % disagreed with the

statement, and 10 % strongly disagreed with the statement. The students can produce a

summary of the material, according to the majority of participants. A mean score of 3.10

and a standard deviation of 1.28 backed up the claim.

86
Table 4.25 students carefully studied the text.

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Careful Frequency 01 02 05 02 10 .918 3.80

Reading Percentage 30 20 50 20 100

Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.25. According to the findings, 50 % of respondents agreed that the students carefully

studied the text, 20 % strongly agreed the statement, 30 % disagreed the statement, 20

% were uncertain about the statement, The majority of the participants agreed that the

pupils read the text thoroughly. A mean score of 3.80 and a standard deviation of.918

backed up the claim.

Table 4.26 Students have a good command of the English language and learning

grammar

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Command Frequency 01 06 01 02 10 1.41 2.70

Percentage 10 60 10 20 100

Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.26. According to the findings, 60 % of respondents disagreed that kids had a good grasp

of the English language and learning grammar, while 10 % agreed, 20 % strongly agreed,

87
and 10% strongly disagreed with the assertion. The majority of responders disagreed that

the kids have a strong grasp of the English language and are proficient in grammar. A

mean score of 2.70 and a standard deviation of 1.41 backed up the claim.

Table 4.27 Students find out the theme of a text

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Theme of Frequency 02 02 04 02 10 1.54 3.20

text Percentage 20 20 40 20 100

Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.27. According to the findings, 40 % of respondents agreed that pupils should figure out

a text's theme, 20% strongly agreed, 20 % strongly disagreed, and 20 % disagreed with

the statement. The majority of participants believed that pupils should figure out what a

text's theme is. A mean score of 3.20 and a standard deviation of 1.54 backed up the

claim.

Table 4.28 during reading students identify words

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Identify Frequency 02 06 02 10 .666 4.00

Words Percentage 20 60 20 100

Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.28. According to the findings, 60 % of respondents agreed that during reading students

88
identify words, 20 % strongly agreed, and 20 % were undecided about the statement. The

majority of participants agreed that during reading students identify words. A mean score

of 4.00 and a standard deviation of.666 backed up the claim.

Table 4.29 Students make guess the meaning of difficult words

Topic Responses

Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Guess Frequency 08 02 10 .421 4.20

Meanings Percentage 80 20 100

Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.29. According to the findings, 80 % of respondents agreed that the students make guess

the meaning of difficult words, 20 % strongly agreed the statement. The majority of

participants agreed that students make guess the meaning of difficult words. A mean

score of 4.20 and a standard deviation of.421 backed up the claim.

Table 4.30 Students understand the context of a text

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Context of Frequency 01 09 10 .632 3.80

Text Percentage 10 90 100

Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.30. According to the findings, 90 % of respondents agreed that the students understand

the context of a text, 10 % disagreed the statement. The majority of participants agreed

89
that students understand the context of a text. A mean score of 3.80 and a standard

deviation of.632 backed up the claim.

Table 4.31 Student’s response answer questions in English

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Response Frequency 01 02 01 05 01 10 1.25 3.30

in English Percentage 10 20 10 50 10 100

Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.31. According to the findings, 90 % of respondents agreed that the students understand

the context of a text, 10 % disagreed the statement. The majority of participants agreed

that students understand the context of a text. A mean score of 3.80 and a standard

deviation of.632 backed up the claim.

Table 4.32 Students are aware about their reading difficulties

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Reading Frequency 02 02 05 01 10 .971 3.50

Difficulties Percentage 20 20 50 10 100

Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.32. According to the findings, 50 % of respondents agreed that the students are aware

about their reading difficulties, 10 % strongly agreed the statement, 20 % disagreed the

statement, 20 % were uncertain about the statement, and 20 % were undecided about the

90
statement. The majority of interviewees stated that students are aware of their difficulties

with reading. A mean score of 3.50 and a standard deviation of.971 backed up the claim.

Table 4.33 Students organize the sentences efficiently

Topic Responses

Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Organization Frequency 01 03 01 04 01 10 1.28 3.10

Percentage 10 30 10 40 10 100

Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.33. According to the findings, 40 % of respondents agreed that the students organize

the sentences efficiently, 10 % strongly agreed the statement, 30 % disagreed the

statement, and 10 % strongly disagreed with the statement, while the remaining 10 %

were indecisive. The majority of the participants believed that the kids did a good job

organizing the phrases. A mean score of 3.10 and a standard deviation of 1.28 backed up

the claim.

Table 4.34 Students read English text fluently

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Fluently Frequency 03 03 04 10 .875 3.10

Reading Percentage 30 30 40 100

91
 Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.34. According to the findings, 40 % of respondents agreed that the students read

English text fluently 30 % disagreed with the statement, while the remaining 30 % were

undecided. The students read English text fluently, according to the majority of

participants. A mean score of 3.10 and a standard deviation of.875 backed up the claim.

Table 4.35 Students try to finish reading in time

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Time Frequency 01 01 02 06 10 1.05 3.30

Management Percentage 10 10 20 60 100

Factor number 4 comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.35. According to the findings, 60 % of respondents agreed that the students try to finish

reading in time, 10 % strongly disagreed with the statement, 10 % disagreed with the

statement, and 20 % were indecisive. The majority of participants believed that students

should make every effort to complete their reading assignments on time. A mean score of

1.05 and a standard deviation of 1.05 backed up the claim.

92
Factor 5 Fluency

Table 4.36 Students read a substantial amount of material.

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Large Frequency 01 04 01 04 10 1.13 2.80

Passage Percentage 10 40 10 40 100

Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.36.

According to the findings, 40 % of respondents agreed that the students read a large

amount of passage, 10 % strongly disagreed and 40 % of the respondents disagreed with

the statement, while 10 % were indecisive. The majority of participants did not agree that

the pupils read a substantial amount of material. A mean score of 2.80 and a standard

deviation of 1.13 backed up the claim.

Table 4.37 Students ask questions in English fluently

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Questions Frequency 01 06 01 02 10 .966 2.40

in English Percentage 10 60 10 20 100

Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.37.

According to the findings, 60 % of respondents disagreed that the students ask questions

in English fluently, 10 % strongly disagreed, 20 % agreed with the statement, while 20 %

were undecided. The majority of participants disagreed that the pupils are fluent in

93
English when they ask inquiries. A mean score of 2.40 and a standard deviation of.966

backed up the claim.

Table 4.38 Students read the text with interest

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Interest Frequency 01 02 06 01 10 1.26 3.40

Percentage 10 20 60 10 100

Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.38.

According to the findings, 60 % of respondents agreed that the students read the text with

interest, 10 % strongly agreed, 10% strongly disagreed, and 20 % strongly disagreed with

the message. The pupils read the book with interest, according to the majority of

participants. A mean score of 3.40 and a standard deviation of 1.26 backed up the claim.

Table 4.39 Students read additional material, stories, novels, magazines etc

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Additional Frequency 02 02 02 04 10 1.22 2.80

Material Percentage 20 20 20 40 100

Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.39.

According to the findings, 40 % of respondents agreed that the students read additional

material, stories, novels, magazines etc, and Twenty percent strongly disagreed with the

statement, 20 % disagreed with the statement, and 20 % were indecisive. The majority of

94
the participants felt that students should read more material, such as stories, novels, and

magazines. A mean score of 2.80 and a standard deviation of 1.22 backed up the claim.

Table 4.40 Students participate in reading activities

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Participation Frequency 02 01 06 01 10 .471 4.00

in Reading Percentage 20 10 60 10 100

Activities

Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.40.

According to the findings, 60 % of respondents agreed that the students participate in

reading activities, 10 % of respondents strongly agreed, 20 % disagreed, and 10 % were

undecided about the statement. Students participate in reading activities, according to the

majority of participants. A mean score of 4.00 and a standard deviation of.471 backed up

the claim.

Table 4.41 Students read graphics, charts, maps, and tables

Responses

Topic Level of SDA DA UD A SA Total SD Mean

agreement

Graph , Frequency 02 01 06 01 10 .966 3.60

Charts, Percentage 20 10 60 10 100

Maps

95
Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.40.

According to the findings, 60 % of respondents agreed that the students read graphics,

charts, maps, and tables, 10 % strongly agreed, 20 % of respondents disagreed, and 10 %

were undecided. Students interpret images, charts, maps, and tables, according to the

majority of participants. A mean score of 3.60 and a standard deviation of.966 backed up

the claim.

4.2 Student’s Observation sheet

Table 4.42 English letters are recognized by students.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Recognition Frequency 04 11 37 58 40 150 1.00 3.79

of letters Percentage 2.7 7.3 24.7 38.7 26.7 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.42. According to the findings, 38.7 % of students very often recognize English

letters, 26.7 % always, and 7.3 % rarely and 2.7 % never. 24.7 % of those respondents

sometimes recognize letters. The majority of participants very often recognize English

letters. A mean score of 3.79 and a standard deviation of 1.00 backed up the claim.

96
 Table 4.43 Students are familiar with English phonemes.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Phonemes Frequency 06 38 62 34 10 150 1.03 3.31

Percentage 4.0 25.3 41.3 22.7 6.7 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.43. According to the findings, 41.3 % of respondents were sometimes familiar

with English phonemes, 22.7 % very often and 6.7 % were always familiar with the

statement, and 25.3 % rarely and 4.0 were never. The majority of participants were

sometimes familiar with English phonemes. A mean score of 3.31 and a standard

deviation of 1.03 backed up the claim.

Table 4.44 Consonant sounds are a challenge for students.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Consonant Frequency 07 28 41 59 15 150 .955 3.02

Sounds Percentage 4.7 18.7 27.3 39.3 10.0 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.44. According to the findings, 39.3 % students sometimes faced difficulty in

consonants sounds of English, 10.0 % always, 18.7 % rarely and 4.7 % were never, and

27.3 % felt difficulty. The majority of participants agreed that consonant sounds are a

97
 challenge for students. A mean score of 3.02 and a standard deviation of.955 backed up

the claim.

Table 4.45 Students struggle with vowel sounds.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Vowel Frequency 07 22 30 73 18 150 1.03 3.48

Sounds Percentage 4.7 14.7 20.0 48.7 12.0 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.45. According to the findings, 48.7 % of respondents Very often faced difficulty

in vowels sounds, 12.0 % always, 14.7 % rarely and 4.7 % never, and 20.0 % sometimes

felt difficulty. The majority of participants agreed that the students struggle with vowel

sounds. A mean score of 3.48 and a standard deviation of 1.03 backed up the claim.

Table 4.46 Short vowels provide a challenge for students.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Short Frequency 06 21 38 74 11 150 .957 3.42

Vowels Percentage 4.0 14.0 25.3 49.3 7.3 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.46. According to the findings, 49.3 % of respondents Very often faced difficulty

in short vowels, 7.3 % always, 14.0 % rarely and 4.0% percent never, and 25.3 %

98
 sometimes felt difficulty. The majority of participants very often felt difficulty in short

vowels. A mean score of 3.42 and a standard deviation of.957 backed up the claim.

Table 4.47 Students are able to distinguish one word from another.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Distinguish Frequency 06 13 30 61 40 150 1.06 3.77

Words Percentage 4.0 8.7 20.0 40.7 26.7 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.47. According to the findings, 40.7 % of respondents were very often able to

distinguish one word from another, 26.7 % always, 8.7 % rarely and 4.0 % were never,

and 20.0 % were sometimes able to distinguish one word from another. The majority of

participants are very often able to distinguish one word from another. A mean score of

3.77 and a standard deviation of 1.06 backed up the claim.

Table 4.48 Rhyme words are familiar to students.

Responses

Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

Theme often

Rhyme Frequency 06 43 26 50 25 150 1.16 3.30

Words Percentage 4.0 28.7 17.3 33.3 16.7 100

Factor number 1Phonemic Awareness among Elementary students is depicted in

Table 4.48. According to the findings, 33.3 % of students very often knew about rhyme

words, 16.7 % always, 28.7 % rarely and 4.0 percent were never, and 17.3 % were

99
 sometimes knew about rhyme words. The majority of participants very often knew about

rhyme words. A mean score of 3.30 and a standard deviation of 1.16 backed up the claim.

Table 4.49 Students are aware of rhyme intonation

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Rhyme Frequency 06 51 47 32 14 150 1.04 2.98

Intonation Percentage 4.0 34.0 31.3 21.3 9.3 100

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.49.

According to the findings, 21.3 % of respondents very often knew about rhyme

intonation, 9.3 % were always, 34.0 % rarely and 4.0 % were never, and 31.3 % were

sometimes knew about rhyme intonation. The majority of participants rarely knew about

rhyme intonation. A mean score of 2.98 and a standard deviation of 1.04 backed up the

claim.

Table 4.50 Students face difficulty in phonetics transcription

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Phonetic Frequency 07 19 37 76 11 150 .965 3.43

Transcription Percentage 4.7 12.7 24.7 50.7 7.3 100

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.50.

According to the findings, 50.7 % of respondents very often faced difficulty in phonetics

transcription, 7.3 % always, 12.7 % rarely and 4.7 % never, and 27.7 % sometimes faced

100
 difficulty in phonetics transcription. The majority of participants very often faced

difficulty in phonetics transcription, 7.3 % always. A mean score of 3.43 and a standard

deviation of.965 backed up the claim.

Table 4.51 Students know homograph (same spelling but different pronunciation)

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Homograph Frequency 15 28 30 62 15 150 1.16 3.22

Percentage 10.0 18.7 20.0 41.3 10.0 100

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.51.

According to the findings, 41.3 % of respondents very often knew homograph (same

spelling but different pronunciation), 10.0 % were always, 18.7 % rarely and 10.0 %

never, and 20.0 % sometimes knew homograph. The majority of participants very often

knew homograph (same spelling but different pronunciation). A mean score of 3.22 and a

standard deviation of 1.16 backed up the claim.

Table 4.52 Students know homophone (same pronunciation but different spelling)

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Homophone Frequency 07 37 26 64 16 150 1.09 3.30

Percentage 4.7 24.7 17.3 42.7 10.7 100

101
 Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.52.

According to the findings, 42.7 % of respondents very often knew homophone (same

pronunciation but different spelling), 10.7 % always, 24.7 % rarely and 4.7 % never, and

17.3 % sometimes knew homophone. The majority of participants very often knew

homophone. A mean score of 3.30 and a standard deviation of 1.09 backed up the claim.

Table 4.53 Students felt difficulty in Decoding words

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Decoding Frequency 10 52 27 53 08 150 1.08 2.98

Words Percentage 6.7 34.7 18.0 35.3 5.3 100

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.53.

According to the findings, 35.3 % of respondents very often felt difficulty in decoding,

5.3 % always, 34.7 % rarely and 6.7 % never, and 18.0 % sometimes felt difficulty in

decoding. The majority of participants very often felt difficulty in decoding. A mean

score of 2.98 and a standard deviation of 1.08 backed up the claim.

Table 4.54 Students are familiar with the phonics chart.

Responses

Theme Formula never Rarely sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Phonics Frequency 77 42 12 17 02 150 1.07 1.83

Chart Percentage 51.3 28.0 8.0 11.3 1.3 100

102
 Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.54.

According to the findings, 11.3 % of students never knew how to use phonics chart, 1.3

% always, 28.0 % rarely and 51.3 % never, and 8.0 % sometimes knew how to use

phonics chart. The majority of participant’s students never knew how to use phonics

chart. A mean score of 1.83 and a standard deviation of 1.07 backed up the claim.

Table 4.55 Students are familiar to compound words.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Compound Frequency 17 52 21 49 11 150 1.19 2.90

Words Percentage 11.3 34.7 14.0 32.7 7.3 100

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.55.

According to the findings, 32.7 % students very often knew compound words, 7.3 %

always, 34.7 % rarely and 11.3 % never, and 14.0 % sometimes knew compound words.

The majority of students rarely knew compound words. A mean score of 2.90 and a

standard deviation of 1.19 backed up the claim.

Table 4.56 Students work on sound drilling and repetition.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Drilling Frequency 08 47 38 36 21 150 1.15 3.10

and Percentage 5.3 31.3 25.3 24.0 14.0 100

Repetition

103
 Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.56.

According to the findings, 24.0 % of students very often practiced drilling and repetition

of sounds, 14.0 % always, 31.3 % rarely and 5.3 % never, and 25.3 % sometimes

practiced drilling and repetition of sounds. The majority of participants rarely practiced

drilling and repetition of sounds. The statement was supported by a mean score of 3.10

and a standard deviation of 1.15

Table 4.57 Silent letter are known by students

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Silent Frequency 08 21 44 57 10 150 .980 3.33

Letters Percentage 5.3 14.0 29.3 44.7 6.7 100

Factor number 2 Phonics among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.57.

According to the findings, 44.7 % of students very often knew about silent letter, 6.7 %

always, 14.0 % rarely and 5.3 % never, and 29.3 % were sometimes knew about silent

letter. The majority of participants very often knew about silent letter. A mean score of

3.33 and a standard deviation of.980 backed up the claim.

Table 4.58 Students understand the meaning of the word.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Understand Frequency 05 37 37 65 06 150 .969 3.20

Meaning Percentage 3.3 24.7 24.7 43.3 4.0 100

104
 Factor number 3 Vocabulary among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.58. According to the findings 43.3 % of respondents comprehend the meaning of the

word very often, 4.0 % always, 24.7 % rarely and 3.3 % never, and 24.7 % occasionally

grasp the meaning of the phrase. The majority of participants usually have a good

understanding of what the word means. A mean score of 3.20 and a standard deviation

of.969 backed up the claim.

Table 4.59 Students look for synonyms in the text.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Synonyms Frequency 08 54 56 24 08 150 .955 2.80

Percentage 5.3 36.0 37.3 16.0 5.3 100

Factor number 3 Vocabulary among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.59. According to the findings, 16.0 % of respondents very often look for synonyms in

the text, 5.3 % always, 36.0 % rarely and 5.3 % never, and 37.3 % sometimes look for

synonyms in the text. The majority of participants rarely look for synonyms in the text. A

mean score of 2.80 and a standard deviation of.955 backed up the claim.

105
 Table 4.60 Students receive assistance from the teacher in determining the meaning of

words.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Assistance Frequency 02 23 19 69 37 150 1.03 3.77

from Percentage 1.3 15.3 12.7 46.0 24.7 100

Teacher

Factor number 3 Vocabulary among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.60. According to the findings, 46.0 % of respondents very often receive assistance from

the teacher in determining the meaning of words, 27.7 % were always, 15.3 % rarely and

1.3 % never, and 12.7 % sometimes receive assistance from the teacher in determining

the meaning of words. The majority of participants very often receive assistance from the

teacher in determining the meaning of words. A mean score of 3.77 and a standard

deviation of 1.03 backed up the claim.

Table 4.61 Students look for antonyms in a text.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Antonyms Frequency 08 62 48 21 11 150 1.00 2.76

Percentage 5.3 41.3 32.0 14.0 7.3 100

106
 Factor number 3 Vocabulary among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.61. According to the findings, 14.0 % of respondents very often look for antonyms in a

text, 7.3 % always, 41.3 % rarely and 5.3 % never, and 32.0 % sometimes look for

antonyms in a text. The majority of participants rarely look for antonyms in a text. A

mean score of 2.76 and a standard deviation of 1.00 backed up the claim.

Table 4.62 Students look up difficult terms in dictionaries.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Dictionaries Frequency 21 83 17 21 08 150 1.06 2.41

Percentage 14.0 55.3 11.3 14.0 5.3 100

Factor number 3 Vocabulary among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.62. According to the findings, 14.0 % of respondents very often look up difficult terms

in dictionaries, 5.3 % always, 55.3 % rarely and 14.0 % never, and 11.3 % sometimes

look up difficult terms in dictionaries. The majority of participants rarely look up difficult

terms in dictionaries. A mean score of 2.41 and a standard deviation of 1.06 backed up

the claim.

Table 4.63 Students studied the content carefully and comprehended it.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Comprehend Frequency 07 53 20 59 11 150 1.10 3.09

Percentage 4.7 35.3 13.3 39.3 7.3 100

107
 Factor number 4 Comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.63. According to the findings, 39.3 % of respondents very often studied the content

carefully and comprehended it, 7.3 % always, 35.3 % rarely and 4.7 % never, and 13.3 %

sometimes studied the content carefully and comprehended it. The majority of

participants very often studied the content carefully and comprehended it. A mean score

of 3.90 and a standard deviation of 1.10 backed up the claim.

Table 4.64 Students comprehend text better than their peers.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Comparison Frequency 06 49 26 58 11 150 1.07 3.12

with peers Percentage 4.0 32.7 17.3 38.7 7.3 100

Factor number 4 Comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.64. According to the findings, 38.7 % of respondents very often comprehend text better

than their peers, 7.3 % were always, 32.7 % rarely and 4.0 % never, and 17.3 %

sometimes comprehend text better than their peers. The majority of participants very

often comprehend text better than their peers. A mean score of 3.12 and a standard

deviation of 1.07 backed up the claim.

108
 Table 4.65 Students write a summary of the text.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Summary Frequency 07 35 48 58 02 150 .926 3.08

Percentage 4.7 23.3 32.0 38.7 1.3 100

Factor number 4 Comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.65. According to the findings, 38.7 % of respondents very often write a summary of the

text, 1.3 % always, 23.3 % rarely and 4.7 % never, and 32.0 % sometimes write a

summary of the text. The majority of participants very often write a summary of the text.

A mean score of 3.08 and a standard deviation of.926 backed up the claim.

Table 4.66 Students carefully studied the text.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Careful Frequency 08 30 43 64 05 150 .972 3.18

Reading Percentage 5.3 20.0 28.7 42.7 3.3 100

Factor number 4 Comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.65. According to the findings, 38.7 percent of respondents studied the text carefully, 3.3

percent always, 20.0 percent rarely and 4.7 percent never, and 32.0 percent sometimes

studied the text carefully. The majority of participants studied the text carefully. A mean

score of 3.18 and a standard deviation of.972 backed up the claim.

109
 Table 4.67 Students have a good command on the English language and learning

grammar.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Command Frequency 08 56 48 34 04 150 .941 2.80

Percentage 5.3 37.3 32.0 22.7 2.7 100

Factor number 4 Comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.67. According to the findings, 22.7 % of respondents had a good command on the

English language and learning grammar on a regular basis, 2.7 % always, 5.3 % never,

37.3 % seldom, and 32.0 % occasionally have a good command of the English language

and learning grammar. The bulks of participants have just a rudimentary grasp on the

English language and have no interest in mastering grammar. A mean score of 2.80 and a

standard deviation of.941 backed up the claim.

Table 4.68 Students find out the theme of a text.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Theme Frequency 08 56 40 38 08 150 1.02 2.88

of Percentage 5.3 37.3 26.7 25.3 5.3 100

Text

Factor number 4 Comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.68. According to the findings, 25.3 % of respondents very often find out the theme of a

110
text, 5.3 % always, 37.3 % rarely and 5.3 % never, and 26.7 % sometimes find out the

theme of a text. The majority of participants rarely find out the theme of a text. A mean

score of 2.88 and a standard deviation of 1.02 backed up the claim.

Table 4.69 during reading, students identify words

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Identify Frequency 04 47 25 64 10 150 1.04 3.19

Words Percentage 2.7 31.3 16.7 42.7 6.7 100

Factor number 4 Comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.69. According to the findings, 42.7 % of respondents very often identify words during

reading, 6.7 % always, 31.3 % rarely and 2.7 % never, and 16.7 % sometimes identify

words during reading. The majority of participants very often identify words during

reading. A mean score of 3.19 and a standard deviation of 1.04 backed up the claim.

Table 4.70 Students make guess the meaning of difficult words.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Guess Frequency 05 48 23 65 09 150 1.05 3.16

meaning Percentage 3.3 32.0 15.3 43.3 6.0 100

Factor number 4 Comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.70. According to the findings, 43.3 % of respondents very often made guess the

meaning of difficult words, 6.0 % always, 32.0 % rarely and 3.3 % never, and 15.3 % of

111
 the time, they made educated guesses about the meaning of difficult words. The vast

majority of participants frequently made educated guesses about the meanings of difficult

words. A mean score of 3.16 and a standard deviation of 1.05. backed up the claim.

Table 4.71 Students understand the context of text.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Context Frequency 04 33 64 43 06 150 .877 3.09

of Text Percentage 2.7 22.0 42.7 28.7 4.0 100

Factor number 4 Comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.71. According to the findings, 28.7 % of respondents very often understand the context

of text, 4.0 % always, 22.0 % rarely and 2.7 % never, and 42.7 % sometimes understand

the context of text. The majority of participants sometimes understand the context of text.

A mean score of 3.09 and a standard deviation of.877 backed up the claim.

Table 4.72 Student’s response answer questions in English.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Response Frequency 12 26 74 28 10 150 .976 2.98

in Percentage 8.0 17.3 49.3 18.7 6.7 100

English

112
 Factor number 4 Comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.72. According to the findings, 18.7 % of respondents very often response answer

questions in English, 6.7 % always, 17.3 % rarely and 8.0 % never, and 49.3 %

sometimes answer questions in English. The majority of participants sometimes answer

questions in English. A mean score of 2.98 and a standard deviation of.976 backed up the

claim.

Table 4.73 Students are aware about their reading difficulties.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Reading Frequency 08 45 31 61 05 150 1.02 3.06

Difficulties Percentage 5.3 30.0 20.7 40.7 3.3 100

Factor number 4 Comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.73. According to the findings, 40.7 % of respondents very often aware about their

reading difficulties, 3.3 % always, 30.0 % rarely and 5.3 % never, and 20.7 % sometimes

aware about their reading difficulties. The majority of participants very often aware about

their reading difficulties. A mean score of 3.06 and a standard deviation of 1.02 backed

up the claim.

113
 Table 4.74 Students organize the sentence efficiently.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Organization Frequency 12 69 31 31 07 150 1.03 2.68

Percentage 8.0 46.0 20.7 20.7 4.7 100

Factor number 4 Comprehension among Elementary students is depicted in Table

4.74. According to the findings, 20.7 % of respondents very often organize the sentence

efficiently, 4.7 % always, 46.0 % rarely and 8.0 % never, and 20.7 % sometimes organize

the sentence efficiently. The majority of participants rarely organize the sentence

efficiently. A mean score of 2.68 and a standard deviation of 1.03 backed up the claim.

Table 4.75 Students read English text fluently.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Read Frequency 13 31 45 54 07 150 1.04 3.07

Fluently Percentage 8.7 20.7 30.0 36.0 4.7 100

Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.75.

According to the findings, 36.0 % of respondents very often read English text fluently,

4.7 % always, 20.7 % rarely and 8.7 % never, and 30.0 % sometimes read English text

fluently. The majority of participants very often read English text fluently. A mean score

of 3.07 and a standard deviation of 1.04 backed up the claim.

114
 Table 4.76 Students try to finish reading in time.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Time Frequency 10 52 28 54 06 150 1.06 2.96

Management Percentage 6.7 34.7 18.7 36.0 4.0 100

Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.76.

According to the findings, 36.0 % of respondents very often try to finish reading in time,

4.0 % always, 34.7 % rarely and 6.7 % never, and 18.7 % sometimes try to finish reading

in time. The majority of participants rarely try to finish reading in time. A mean score of

2.96 and a standard deviation of 1.06 backed up the claim.

Table 4.77 Students read a large amount of passage.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Large Frequency 14 42 24 61 09 150 1.14 3.06

Passage Percentage 9.3 28.0 16.0 40.7 6.0 100

Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.77.

According to the findings, 40.7 % of respondents very often read a large amount of

passage, 6.0 % always, 28.0 % rarely and 9.3 % never, and 16.0 % of the time, they read

a long piece. The majority of participants read a substantial amount of text. A mean score

of 3.06 and a standard deviation of 1.14 backed up the claim.

115
 Table 4.78 Students ask questions in English fluently.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Fluent Frequency 31 37 40 37 05 150 1.15 2.65

Questions Percentage 20.7 24.7 36.7 24.7 3.3 100

Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.78.

According to the findings, 24.7 % of respondents very often questions in English fluently,

3.3 % always, 24.7 % rarely and 20.7 % never, and 36.7 % sometimes questions in

English fluently. The majority of participants rarely ask questions in English fluently. A

mean score of 2.65 and a standard deviation of 1.15 backed up the claim.

Table 4.79 Students read the text with interest.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Interest Frequency 32 33 49 30 06 150 1.14 2.63

Percentage 21.3 22.0 32.7 20.0 4.0 100

Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.79.

According to the findings, 20.0 % of respondents very often read the text with interest,

4.0 % always, 22.0 % rarely and 21.3 % never, and 32.7 % of people read the content

with interest on occasion. The bulk of participants are not interested in reading the

content. A mean score of 2.63 and a standard deviation of 1.14 backed up the claim.

116
 Table 4.80 Students read additional materials; stories, novels, magazines etc.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Additional Frequency 41 26 57 21 05 150 1.13 2.48

Material Percentage 27.3 17.3 38.0 14.0 3.3 100

Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.80.

According to the findings, 14.0 % of respondents very often read additional materials;

stories, novels, magazines etc, 3.3 % always, 27.3 % never and 17.3 % rarely, and 38.0 %

of people read other things on occasion, such as stories, novels, and magazines. The vast

majority of participants never read any more resources, such as short stories, novels, or

magazines. A mean score of 2.48 and a standard deviation of 1.13 backed up the claim.

Table 4.81 Students participate in reading activities.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Participation Frequency 46 42 36 18 08 150 1.18 2.33

in Reading Percentage 30.7 28.0 24.0 12.0 5.3 100

Activities

Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.81.

According to the findings, 12.0 % of respondents very often participate in reading

activities, 5.3 % always, 28.0 % rarely and 30.7 % never, and 24.0 % sometimes

117
participate in reading activities. The majority of participants never participate in reading

activities. A mean score of 2.33 and a standard deviation of 1.18 backed up the claim.

Table 4.82 Students read graphics, charts, maps and tables.

Responses

Theme Formula Never Rarely Sometimes Very Always Total SD Mean

often

Graph, Frequency 50 35 38 20 07 150 1.20 2.32

Charts, Percentage 33.3 23.3 25.3 13.3 4.7 100

maps

Factor number 5 Fluency among Elementary students is depicted in Table 4.82.

According to the findings, 13.3 % of respondents very often read graphics, charts, maps

and tables, 4.7 % always, 23.3 % rarely and 33.3 % never, and 25.3 % sometimes read

graphics, charts, maps and tables. The majority of participants never read graphics,

charts, maps and tables. A mean score of 2.32 and a standard deviation of 1.20 backed up

the claim.

118
 CHAPTER 05

CONCLUSION, SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter contains a summary of the study, its results and findings, as well as

the researcher's conclusions and suggestions based on the findings and conclusions.

5.1 Summary

"Learning Difficulties in Reading English at Elementary Level," according to the

study, the goal of this research is to look into the difficulties students have when learning

to read English at the elementary level. Students in Khanpur's elementary schools are

attempting to overcome current barriers in the English language. The study's main

objectives were to evaluate and investigate the factors that influence English teaching and

reading. Conducting a literature review, exploring factors in English language reading at

the elementary level, analyzing reading difficulties in English at the elementary level,

identifying factors affecting reading English at the elementary level, and recommending

practical solutions and strategies were the study's specific objectives. The study was

descriptive and a mixed-method including qualitative and quantitative approach was

adopted for the study. The study's population consisted of all Ten (10) Elementary school

teachers and all one hundred and fifty (150) Elementary class students from GGHSS 1/p.

Data was collected by using a convenient sampling technique. Questionnaires and

competency checklists were used to collect data, which were interpreted through using

SPSS.

5.2 Findings

The following are the findings in relation to the objectives discussed in Chapter 1:

119
5.2.1 Phonemic Awareness

 50 percent of respondents agreed that the students can recognize English letters, 20

percent strongly agreed, and 20 percent disagreed. 10% of teachers were undecided.

The most of the participants stated that English letters are recognized by students. A

mean score of 3.70 and a standard deviation of 1.059 backed up the claim. (Table 4.1)

 50 percent of respondents were undecided, 30 percent agreed that the Students are

familiar with English phonemes, and 20 percent disagreed. The majority of

participants were undecided the Students are familiar with English phonemes. A

mean score of 3.10 and a standard deviation of.737 backed up the claim.(Table 4.2)

 50 percent of respondents agreed that the consonant sounds are a challenge for

students, 10% strongly agreed, while 20% strongly disagreed. 10% of respondents

strongly disagreed with the statement, while 10% were indecisive. Consonant sounds

are a challenge for students, according to the majority of participants. A mean score

of 3.10 and a standard deviation of 1.25 backed up the claim. (Table 4.3)

 40% of respondents agreed that kids have difficulty with vowel sounds, 20% strongly

agreed, and 20% disagreed. 10% of respondents strongly disagreed with the

statement, while 10% were indecisive. The majority of the participants believed that

vowel sounds are a challenge for the children. A mean score of 3.40 and a standard

deviation of 1.34 backed up the claim. (Table 4.4)

 50 percent of respondents agreed that the short vowels provide a challenge for

students, 30 percent strongly agreed, and 20 percent disagreed. The majority of

participants agreed that the short vowels provide a challenge for students. A mean

score of 3.90 and a standard deviation of 1.10 backed up the claim. (Table 4.5)

120
 50% of respondents agreed that students can identify one word from another, 30%

strongly agreed, and 20% were hesitant about the assertion. The majority of

interviewees agreed that students can distinguish between different words. A mean

score of 4.10 and a standard deviation of.737 backed up the claim. (Table 4.6)

 50 percent of respondents agreed that the rhyme words are familiar to students, 30%

strongly agreed, 10% strongly disagreed, and 10% were undecided about the

statement. The majority of participants stated that students are familiar with the

rhyme words. A mean score of 4.00 and a standard deviation of.942 backed up the

claim. (Table 4.7)

 40 percent of respondents disagreed that the Students are aware of rhyme intonation,

30 percent agreed and 30 percent strongly agreed the statement. The majority of

participants agreed that the students are aware of rhyme intonation. The statement

was supported by a mean score of 3.50 and a standard deviation of 1.35 (Table 4.8)

5.2.2 Phonics

 40 percent of respondents agreed that the students face difficulty in phonetics

transcription, 10 percent strongly agreed, twenty percent were undecided, twenty

percent disagreed, and ten percent strongly disagreed with the statement. The

majority of interviewees agreed that phonetics transcription is difficult for

students. A mean score of 3.20 and a standard deviation of 1.22 backed up the

claim. (Table 4.9)

 40 percent of respondents agreed that the students know homographs, 10 percent

strongly agreed, Twenty percent were undecided, twenty percent disagreed, and

ten percent strongly disagreed with the assertion. The majority of those present

121
 agreed that the students are familiar with homographs. A mean score of 3.20 and a

standard deviation of 1.22 backed up the claim. (Table 4.10)

 70 percent of respondents agreed that the students know homophone, 20 percent

strongly agreed, 10 percent disagreed with the statement. The majority of

participants agreed that the students know homophone. A mean score of 4.00 and

a standard deviation of.816 backed up the claim. (Table 4.11)

 40 percent of respondents agreed that the students felt difficulty in decoding

words, 20 percent strongly agreed, 40 percent disagreed with the statement. The

majority of participants agreed that the students felt difficulty in decoding words.

A mean score of 3.40 and a standard deviation of 1.26 backed up the claim (Table

4.12)

 50 percent of respondents disagreed that the students are familiar with the phonics

chart, 20 percent agreed, 10 percent were undecided about the statement, 20% of

those polled were adamantly opposed. The majority of participants disagreed that

the pupils understand the phonics chart. A mean score of 2.30 and a standard

deviation of 1.05 backed up the claim. (Table 4.13)

 80 percent of respondents agreed that the students are familiar to compound

words, 10 percent disagreed the statement, 10 percent strongly disagreed. The

majority of participants agreed that the students are familiar to compound words.

A mean score of 3.50 and a standard deviation of 1.08 backed up the claim.

(Table 4.14)

 60 percent of respondents agreed that the students work on sound drilling and

repetition, 10 percent strongly agreed the statement, 10% of respondents

122
 disagreed with the statement, while 20% were indecisive. The pupils work on

sound drilling and repetition, according to the majority of participants. A mean

score of 3.70 and a standard deviation of.823 backed up the claim. (Table 4.15)

 60 percent of respondents agreed that the silent letters are known by students, 10

percent strongly agreed the statement, 10% of respondents strongly disagreed,

10% strongly disagreed, and 10% were undecided about the statement. The

majority of participants believed that students are familiar with the silent letters.

A mean score of 3.50 and a standard deviation of 1.17 backed up the claim.

(Table 4.16)

5.2.3 Vocabulary

 60% of respondents agreed that the pupils grasp the definition of the word, 20%

strongly agreed with the assertion, 10% strongly disagreed, and 10% were

undecided. The majority of participants stated that the students are aware of the

word's meaning. A mean score of 3.80 and a standard deviation of 1.13 backed up

the claim. (Table 4.17)

 40 percent of respondents agreed that the students look for synonyms in the text,

the statement was strongly agreed upon by 40% of those polled, while the

statement was strongly disagreed upon by 20% of those polled. The majority of

participants agreed that pupils search the text for synonyms. A mean score of 4.40

and a standard deviation of 1.15 backed up the claim. (Table 4.18)

 40 percent of respondents agreed that the students receive assistance from the

teacher in determining the meaning of words, 40% strongly agreed with the

statement, 10% strongly disagreed with the statement, and 10% were undecided

123
 about the statement. The majority of the participants believed that the teacher

assists students in determining the meaning of words. A mean score of 4.10 and a

standard deviation of.994 backed up the claim. (Table 4.19)

 40 percent of respondents agreed that the students look for antonyms in the text,

20 percent strongly agreed the statement; Twenty percent disagreed with the

statement, while another twenty percent were indecisive. Students hunt for

antonyms in the text, according to the majority of participants. A mean score of

3.60 and a standard deviation of 1.07 backed up the claim.(Table 4.20)

 50 percent of respondents agreed that the students look up difficult words in

dictionaries, 10% strongly agreed with the statement, 10% strongly disagreed with

the statement, 10% strongly disagreed with the statement, and 20% were

undecided. The majority of participants agreed that students use dictionaries to

seek up difficult terms. A mean score of 3.40 and a standard deviation of 1.17

backed up the claim. (Table 4.21)

5.2.4 Comprehension

 40 percent of respondents agreed that the students read the text carefully and

comprehend it, 10 percent strongly agreed the statement, 30% said they disagreed

with the statement, 10% said they strongly disagreed, and 10% said they were

undecided. The majority of participants agreed that the pupils should read and

absorb the content attentively. A mean score of 3.10 and a standard deviation of

1.28 backed up the claim. (Table 4.22)

 50 percent of respondents agreed that the students comprehend text better than

their peers, 10 percent strongly agreed the statement, 30% of respondents

124
 disagreed with the statement, and 10% strongly disagreed. The majority of

interviewees thought that kids understand text better than their classmates. A

mean score of 3.50 and a standard deviation of 1.08 backed up the claim. (Table

4.23)

 40 percent of respondents agreed that the students can write a summary of the

text, 20 percent strongly agreed the statement, 30% disagreed with the statement,

and 10% strongly disagreed with the statement. The students can produce a

summary of the material, according to the majority of participants. A mean score

of 3.10 and a standard deviation of 1.28 backed up the claim. (Table 4.24)

 50 percent of respondents agreed that the students carefully studied the text, 20

percent strongly agreed the statement, 30 percent disagreed the statement, 20 per

cent were uncertain about the statement, the majority of the participants agreed

that the pupils read the text thoroughly. A mean score of 3.80 and a standard

deviation of.918 backed up the claim. (Table 4.25)

 60% of respondents disagreed that kids had a good grasp of the English language

and learning grammar, while 10% agreed, 20% strongly agreed, and 10% strongly

disagreed with the assertion. The majority of responders disagreed that the kids

have a strong grasp of the English language and are proficient in grammar. A

mean score of 2.70 and a standard deviation of 1.41 backed up the claim. (Table

4.26)

 40% of respondents agreed that pupils should figure out a text's theme, 20%

strongly agreed, 20% strongly disagreed, and 20% disagreed with the statement.

The majority of participants believed that pupils should figure out what a text's

125
 theme is. A mean score of 3.20 and a standard deviation of 1.54 backed up the

claim. (Table 4.27)

 60 percent of respondents agreed that during reading students identify words, 20

percent strongly agreed, and 20 percent were undecided about the statement. The

majority of participants agreed that during reading students identify words. A

mean score of 4.00 and a standard deviation of.666 backed up the claim. (Table

4.28)

 80 percent of respondents agreed that the students make guess the meaning of

difficult words, 20 percent strongly agreed the statement. The majority of

participants agreed that students make guess the meaning of difficult words. A

mean score of 4.20 and a standard deviation of.421 backed up the claim (Table

4.29)

 90 percent of respondents agreed that the students understand the context of a

text, 10 percent disagreed the statement. The majority of participants agreed that

students understand the context of a text. A mean score of 3.80 and a standard

deviation of.632 backed up the claim. (Table 4.30)

 90 percent of respondents agreed that the students understand the context of a

text, 10 percent disagreed the statement. The majority of participants agreed that

students understand the context of a text. A mean score of 3.80 and a standard

deviation of.632 backed up the claim. (Table 4.31)

 50 percent of respondents agreed that the students are aware about their reading

difficulties, 10 percent strongly agreed the statement, 20 percent disagreed the

statement, 20 percent were uncertain about the statement, and 20 percent were

126
 undecided about the statement. The majority of interviewees stated that students

are aware of their difficulties with reading. A mean score of 3.50 and a standard

deviation of.971 backed up the claim. (Table 4.32)

 40 percent of respondents agreed that the students organize the sentences

efficiently, 10 percent strongly agreed the statement, 30 percent disagreed the

statement, and 10% strongly disagreed with the statement, while the remaining

10% were indecisive. The majority of the participants believed that the kids did a

good job organizing the phrases. A mean score of 3.10 and a standard deviation of

1.28 backed up the claim. (Table 4.33)

 40 percent of respondents agreed that the students read English text fluently30

percent disagreed with the statement, while the remaining 30 percent were

undecided. The students read English text fluently, according to the majority of

participants. A mean score of 3.10 and a standard deviation of.875 backed up the

claim. (Table 4.34)

 60 percent of respondents agreed that the students try to finish reading in time,

Ten percent strongly disagreed with the statement, ten percent disagreed with the

statement, and twenty percent were indecisive. The majority of participants

believed that students should make every effort to complete their reading

assignments on time. A mean score of 1.05 and a standard deviation of 1.05

backed up the claim. (Table 4.35)

5.2.5 Fluency

 40 percent of respondents agreed that the students read a large amount of passage,

10 percent strongly disagreed and 40% of the respondents disagreed with the

127
 statement, while 10% were indecisive. The majority of participants did not agree

that the pupils read a substantial amount of material. A mean score of 2.80 and a

standard deviation of 1.13 backed up the claim. (Table 4.36)

 60 percent of respondents disagreed that the students ask questions in English

fluently, 10 percent strongly disagreed, Twenty percent agreed with the statement,

while ten percent were undecided. The majority of participants disagreed that the

pupils are fluent in English when they ask inquiries. A mean score of 2.40 and a

standard deviation of.966 backed up the claim. (Table 4.37)

 60 percent of respondents agreed that the students read the text with interest, 10%

strongly agreed, 10% strongly disagreed, and 20% strongly disagreed with the

message. The pupils read the book with interest, according to the majority of

participants. A mean score of 3.40 and a standard deviation of 1.26 backed up the

claim. (Table 4.38)

 40 percent of respondents agreed that the students read additional material,

stories, novels, magazines etc, and Twenty percent strongly disagreed with the

statement, twenty percent disagreed with the statement, and twenty percent were

indecisive. The majority of the participants felt that students should read more

material, such as stories, novels, and magazines. A mean score of 2.80 and a

standard deviation of 1.22 backed up the claim. (Table 4.39)

 60 percent of respondents agreed that the students participate in reading activities,

10% of respondents strongly agreed, 20% disagreed, and 10% were undecided

about the statement. Students participate in reading activities, according to the

128
 majority of participants. A mean score of 4.00 and a standard deviation of.471

backed up the claim. (Table 4.40)

 60 percent of respondents agreed that the students read graphics, charts, maps,

and tables, 10 percent strongly agreed, Twenty percent of respondents disagreed,

and ten percent were undecided. Students interpret images, charts, maps, and

tables, according to the majority of participants. A mean score of 3.60 and a

standard deviation of.966 backed up the claim. (Table 4.41)

5.3 Part 2 (student’s Proficiency Check List

 38.7 percent of students very often recognize English letters, 26.7 percent always,

and 7.3 percent rarely and 2.7 percent never. 24.7% of those respondents

sometimes recognize letters. The majority of participants very often recognize

English letters. A mean score of 3.79 and a standard deviation of 1.00 backed up

the claim. (Table 4.42)

 41.3 percent of respondents were sometimes familiar with English phonemes,

22.7 percent very often and 6.7 percent were always familiar with the statement,

and 25.3 percent rarely and 4.0 were never. The majority of participants were

sometimes familiar with English phonemes. A mean score of 3.31 and a standard

deviation of 1.03 backed up the claim. (Table 4.43)

 39.3 students sometimes faced difficulty in consonants sounds of English, 10.0

percent always, 18.7 percent rarely and 4.7 percent were never, and 27.3 percent

felt difficulty. The majority of participants agreed that consonant sounds are a

challenge for students. A mean score of 3.02 and a standard deviation of.955

backed up the claim.(Table 4.44)

129
 48.7 percent of respondents Very often faced difficulty in vowels sounds,, 12.0

percent always, 14.7 percent rarely and 4.7 percent never, and 20.0 percent

sometimes felt difficulty. The majority of participants agreed that the students

struggle with vowel sounds. A mean score of 3.48 and a standard deviation of

1.03 backed up the claim. (Table 4.45)

 49.3 percent of respondents Very often faced difficulty in short vowels, 7.3

always, 14.0 rarely and 4.0 percent never, and 25.3 percent sometimes felt

difficulty. The majority of participants very often felt difficulty in short vowels. A

mean score of 3.42 and a standard deviation of.957 backed up the claim. (Table

4.46)

 40.7 percent of respondents were very often able to distinguish one word from

another, 26.7 percent always, 8.7 percent rarely and 4.0 percent were never, and

20.0 percent were sometimes able to distinguish one word from another. The

majority of participants are very often able to distinguish one word from another.

A mean score of 3.77 and a standard deviation of 1.06 backed up the claim.

(Table 4.47)

 33.3 percent of students very often knew about rhyme words, 16.7 percent always,

28.7 percent rarely and 4.0 percent were never, and 17.3 percent were sometimes

knew about rhyme words. The majority of participants very often knew about

rhyme words. A mean score of 3.30 and a standard deviation of 1.16 backed up

the claim. (Table 4.48)

 21.3 percent of respondents very often knew about rhyme intonation, 9.3 percent

were always, 34.0 percent rarely and 4.0 percent were never, and 31.3 percent

130
 were sometimes knew about rhyme intonation. The majority of participants rarely

knew about rhyme intonation. A mean score of 2.98 and a standard deviation of

1.04 backed up the claim. (Table 4.49)

 50.7 percent of respondents very often faced difficulty in phonetics transcription,

7.3 percent always, 12.7 percent rarely and 4.7 percent never, and 27.7 percent

sometimes faced difficulty in phonetics transcription. The majority of participants

very often faced difficulty in phonetics transcription, 7.3 percent always. A mean

score of 3.43 and a standard deviation of.965 backed up the claim. (Table 4.50)

 41.3 percent of respondents very often knew homograph (same spelling but

different pronunciation), 10.0 percent were always, 18.7 percent rarely and 10.0

percent never, and 20.0 percent sometimes knew homograph. The majority of

participants very often knew homograph (same spelling but different

pronunciation). A mean score of 3.22 and a standard deviation of 1.16 backed up

the claim. (Table 4.51)

 42.7 percent of respondents very often knew homophone (same pronunciation but

different spelling), 10.7 percent always, 24.7 percent rarely and 4.7 percent never,

and 17.3 percent sometimes knew homophone. The majority of participants very

often knew homophone. A mean score of 3.30 and a standard deviation of 1.09

backed up the claim. (Table 4.52)

 35.3 percent of respondents very often felt difficulty in decoding, 5.3 percent

always, 34.7 percent rarely and 6.7 percent never, and 18.0 percent sometimes felt

difficulty in decoding. The majority of participants very often felt difficulty in

131
 decoding. A mean score of 2.98 and a standard deviation of 1.08 backed up the

claim. (Table 4.53)

 11.3 percent of students never knew how to use phonics chart, 1.3 percent always,

28.0 percent rarely and 51.3 percent never, and 8.0 percent sometimes knew how

to use phonics chart. The majority of participant’s students never knew how to use

phonics chart. A mean score of 1.83 and a standard deviation of 1.07 backed up

the claim. (Table 4.54)

 32.7 percent students very often knew compound words, 7.3 percent always, 34.7

percent rarely and 11.3 percent never, and 14.0 percent sometimes knew

compound words. The majority of students rarely knew compound words. A

mean score of 2.90 and a standard deviation of 1.19 backed up the claim (Table

4.55)

 24.0 percent of students very often practiced drilling and repetition of sounds,

14.0 percent always, 31.3 percent rarely and 5.3 percent never, and 25.3 percent

sometimes practiced drilling and repetition of sounds. The majority of participants

rarely practiced drilling and repetition of sounds. The statement was supported by

a mean score of 3.10 and a standard deviation of 1.15. (Table 4.56)

 44.7 percent of students very often knew about silent letter, 6.7 percent always,

14.0 percent rarely and 5.3 percent never, and 29.3 percent were sometimes knew

about silent letter. The majority of participants very often knew about silent letter.

A mean score of 3.33 and a standard deviation of.980 backed up the claim. (Table

4.57)

132
 43.3 percent of respondents comprehend the meaning of the word very often, 4.0

percent always, 24.7 percent rarely and 3.3 percent never, and 24.7 percent

occasionally grasp the meaning of the phrase. The majority of participants usually

have a good understanding of what the word means. A mean score of 3.20 and a

standard deviation of.969 backed up the claim. (Table 4.58)

 16.0 percent of respondents very often look for synonyms in the text, 5.3 percent

always, 36.0 percent rarely and 5.3 percent never, and 37.3 percent sometimes

look for synonyms in the text. The majority of participants rarely look for

synonyms in the text. A mean score of 2.80 and a standard deviation of.955

backed up the claim.(Table 4.59)

 46.0 percent of respondents very often receive assistance from the teacher in

determining the meaning of words, 27.7 percent were always, 15.3 percent rarely

and 1.3 percent never, and 12.7 percent sometimes receive assistance from the

teacher in determining the meaning of words. The majority of participants very

often receive assistance from the teacher in determining the meaning of words. A

mean score of 3.77 and a standard deviation of 1.03 backed up the claim. (Table

4.60)

 14.0 percent of respondents very often look for antonyms in a text, 7.3 percent

always, 41.3 percent rarely and 5.3 percent never, and 32.0 percent sometimes

look for antonyms in a text. The majority of participants rarely look for antonyms

in a text. A mean score of 2.76 and a standard deviation of 1.00 backed up the

claim. (Table 4.61)

133
 14.0 percent of respondents very often look up difficult terms in dictionaries, 5.3

percent always, 55.3 percent rarely and 14.0 percent never, and 11.3 percent

sometimes look up difficult terms in dictionaries. The majority of participants

rarely look up difficult terms in dictionaries. A mean score of 2.41 and a standard

deviation of 1.06 backed up the claim. (Table 4.62)

 39.3 percent of respondents very often studied the content carefully and

comprehended it, 7.3 percent always, 35.3 percent rarely and 4.7 percent never,

and 13.3 percent sometimes studied the content carefully and comprehended it.

The majority of participants very often studied the content carefully and

comprehended it. A mean score of 3.90 and a standard deviation of 1.10 backed

up the claim. (Table 4.63)

 38.7 percent of respondents very often comprehend text better than their peers,

7.3 percent were always, 32.7 percent rarely and 4.0 percent never, and 17.3

percent sometimes comprehend text better than their peers. The majority of

participants very often comprehend text better than their peers. A mean score of

3.12 and a standard deviation of 1.07 backed up the claim. (Table 4.64)

 38.7 percent of respondents very often write a summary of the text, 1.3 percent

always, 23.3 percent rarely and 4.7 percent never, and 32.0 percent sometimes

write a summary of the text. The majority of participants very often write a

summary of the text. A mean score of 3.08 and a standard deviation of.926

backed up the claim. (Table 4.65)

 38.7 percent of respondents studied the text carefully, 3.3 percent always, 20.0

percent rarely and 4.7 percent never, and 32.0 percent sometimes studied the text

134
 carefully. The majority of participants studied the text carefully. A mean score of

3.18 and a standard deviation of.972 backed up the claim. (Table 4.66)

 22.7 percent of respondents had a good command of the English language and

learning grammar on a regular basis, 2.7 percent always, 5.3 percent never, 37.3

percent seldom, and 32.0 percent occasionally have a good command of the

English language and learning grammar. The bulks of participants have just a

rudimentary grasp of the English language and have no interest in mastering

grammar. A mean score of 2.80 and a standard deviation of.941 backed up the

claim. (Table 4.67)

 25.3 percent of respondents very often find out the theme of a text, 5.3 percent

always, 37.3 percent rarely and 5.3 percent never, and 26.7 percent sometimes

find out the theme of a text. The majority of participants rarely find out the theme

of a text. A mean score of 2.88 and a standard deviation of 1.02 backed up the

claim. (Table 4.68)

 42.7 percent of respondents very often identify words during reading, 6.7 percent

always, 31.3 percent rarely and 2.7 percent never, and 16.7 percent sometimes

identify words during reading. The majority of participants very often identify

words during reading. A mean score of 3.19 and a standard deviation of 1.04

backed up the claim.(Table 4.69)

 43.3 percent of respondents very often made guess the meaning of difficult words,

6.0 percent always, 32.0 percent rarely and 3.3 percent never, and 15.3 percent of

the time, they made educated guesses about the meaning of difficult words. The

vast majority of participants frequently made educated guesses about the

135
 meanings of difficult words. A mean score of 3.16 and a standard deviation of

1.05 backed up the claim. (Table 4.70)

 28.7 percent of respondents very often understand the context of text, 4.0 percent

always, 22.0 percent rarely and 2.7 percent never, and 42.7 percent sometimes

understand the context of text. The majority of participants sometimes understand

the context of text. A mean score of 3.09 and a standard deviation of.877 backed

up the claim. (Table 4.71)

 18.7 percent of respondents very often response answer questions in English, 6.7

percent always, 17.3 percent rarely and 8.0 percent never, and 49.3 percent

sometimes answer questions in English. The majority of participants sometimes

answer questions in English. A mean score of 2.98 and a standard deviation

of.976 backed up the claim. (Table 4.72)

 40.7 percent of respondents very often aware about their reading difficulties, 3.3

percent always, 30.0 percent rarely and 5.3 percent never, and 20.7 percent

sometimes aware about their reading difficulties. The majority of participants

very often aware about their reading difficulties. A mean score of 3.06 and a

standard deviation of 1.02 backed up the claim. (Table 4.73)

 20.7 percent of respondents very often organize the sentence efficiently, 4.7

percent always, 46.0 percent rarely and 8.0 percent never, and 20.7 percent

sometimes organize the sentence efficiently. The majority of participants rarely

organize the sentence efficiently. A mean score of 2.68 and a standard deviation

of 1.03 backed up the claim. (Table 4.74)

136
 36.0 percent of respondents very often read English text fluently, 4.7 percent

always, 20.7 percent rarely and 8.7 percent never, and 30.0 percent sometimes

read English text fluently. The majority of participants very often read English

text fluently. A mean score of 3.07 and a standard deviation of 1.04 backed up the

claim. (Table 4.75)

 36.0 percent of respondents very often try to finish reading in time, 4.0 percent

always, 34.7 percent rarely and 6.7 percent never, and 18.7 percent sometimes try

to finish reading in time. The majority of participants rarely try to finish reading

in time. A mean score of 2.96 and a standard deviation of 1.06 backed up the

claim. (Table 4.76)

 40.7 percent of respondents very often read a large amount of passage, 6.0 percent

always, 28.0 percent rarely and 9.3 percent never, and 16.0 percent of the time,

they read a long piece. The majority of participants read a substantial amount of

text. A mean score of 3.06 and a standard deviation of 1.14 backed up the claim.

(Table 4.77)

 24.7 percent of respondents very often questions in English fluently, 3.3 percent

always, 24.7 percent rarely and 20.7 percent never, and 36.7 percent sometimes

questions in English fluently. The majority of participants rarely ask questions in

English fluently. A mean score of 2.65 and a standard deviation of 1.15 backed up

the claim. (Table 4.78)

 20.0 percent of respondents very often read the text with interest, 4.0 percent

always, 22.0 percent rarely and 21.3 percent never, and 32.7 percent of people

read the content with interest on occasion. The bulk of participants are not

137
 interested in reading the content. A mean score of 2.63 and a standard deviation of

1.14 backed up the claim. (Table 4.79)

 14.0 percent of respondents very often read additional materials; stories, novels,

magazines etc, 3.3 percent always, 27.3 percent never and 17.3 rarely, and 38.0

percent of people read other things on occasion, such as stories, novels, and

magazines. The vast majority of participants never read any more resources, such

as short stories, novels, or magazines. A mean score of 2.48 and a standard

deviation of 1.13 backed up the claim. (Table 4.80)

 12.0 percent of respondents very often participate in reading activities, 5.3 percent

always, 28.0 percent rarely and 30.7 percent never, and 24.0 percent sometimes

participate in reading activities. The majority of participants never participate in

reading activities. A mean score of 2.33 and a standard deviation of 1.18 backed

up the claim. (Table 4.81)

 13.3 percent of respondents very often read graphics, charts, maps and tables, 4.7

percent always, 23.3 percent rarely and 33.3 percent never, and 25.3 percent

sometimes read graphics, charts, maps and tables. The majority of participants

never read graphics, charts, maps and tables. A mean score of 2.32 and a standard

deviation of 1.20 backed up the claim.(Table 4.82)

5.4 Conclusion

The intention of this research was to study the English reading challenges that

elementary school students confront in the subject of English at the elementary level. The

study's primary conclusions were described based on the research objectives and research

questions. The subsequent are the study's conclusions based on research findings:

138
 The study's first key component was phonemic awareness. The majority of

teachers agreed that pupils knew English letters, whereas a few respondents strongly

disagreed, and a few others were undecided. The vast majority of respondents recognized

English letters. The majority of teachers agreed that the students know English

phonemes. Whereas the result claimed that students sometimes know about English

phonemes.

It was discovered that while the majority of respondents claimed that the students

were familiar with consonant and vowel sounds, some disagreed. The vast majority of

respondents believed that they were familiar with the English sounds.

The majority of respondents agreed that the students had difficulty with English

vowels sounds and short vowels. The vast majority of respondents acknowledged that

they struggled with English vowel sounds and short vowels especially.

The majority of teachers agreed that the students can differentiate one word from

another in English. The result shows that majority of the student’s differentiate one word

from another.

The majority of respondents agreed that the students knew about rhyme terms in

English, while a few disagreed and only a few were undecided about the statement.

Whereas the results showed that a few students were familiar with rhyme words.

The majority of respondents denied that the students knew about rhyme intonation

in English; the vast majority of students were not aware of English rhyme intonation.

The study's second component was phonics. It was shown that the majority of

respondents agreed that phonetics transcription in English was challenging. The results

139
show that the vast majority of respondents agreed that phonetics transcription in English

was challenging.

According to the results, one-third of respondents agreed that the students knew

homographs (same spelling but different pronunciation) in English, but the observation

sheet claimed that the majority of students were not aware of homophones.

Most of the participants denied that the students know of English, according to the

results the vast majority of respondents weren’t familiar with homophones (words that

have the same pronunciation but are spelt differently) in English.

The majority of respondents strongly agreed that decoding in English was

challenging for students. The vast majority of responders very often felt difficulty in

decoding in English.

It was revealed that the majority of teachers disagreed that the students know the

use phonics chart. The vast majority of students denied knowing how to use a phonics

chart in English.

Most of the participants agreed that the students know compound words,

according to the study some of the responses were adamantly in agreement. Results

showed that the vast majority of students indicated that they were familiar with English

compound words.

The majority of respondents were undecided that the students performed drilling

and repetition of English sounds, Drilling and repetition of English sounds were

undertaken by the vast majority of responders.

140
 The majority of respondents acknowledged that the students were aware of the

silent letter in English; nevertheless, some respondents disagreed. The vast majority of

respondents indicated that they were aware of the English silent letter.

The study's third factor was vocabulary. The majority of respondents were

undecided about whether or not they recognized the meaning of the word. According to

the results, the vast majority of respondents were unsure whether or not they understood

the meaning of the word.

The majority of respondents disagreed that the students searched for synonyms

from text, while others disagreed. The vast majority of respondents stated that they

looked for synonyms in the text.

It was discovered that the majority of respondents believed that the teacher helped

their students to understand words, while only a few disagreed. The vast majority of

respondents agreed that their teachers assisted them in understanding words.

The majority of respondents disagreed that the students searched for antonyms

from text, the vast majority of respondents stated that they looked for antonyms in text.

The majority of respondents disagreed that the students looked up difficult words

in dictionaries. The vast majority of respondents stated that they don’t look up difficult

words in dictionaries.

The study's fourth factor was comprehension. It was found that the majority of

respondents were undecided about whether the students read the text with

comprehension, results showed that the vast majority of responders were undecided about

whether or not they read the text with comprehension.

141
 Most of the participants disagreed that the students comprehended English text

better than other pupils. The vast majority of students disagreed that they had a better

perceptive of the text than other students.

The majority of respondents disagreed that the students summarized the material,

while a small percentage of respondents were undecided. Results claimed that the

majority of respondents were not able to summarize the material.

The majority of respondents disagreed that the students read the text thoroughly,

some agreed, and a few were undecided, according to the results. The vast majority of

responders disagreed that they had read the text thoroughly.

Most of the participants were undecided about the students knew language

learning grammar, while some disagreed and a few were indecisive. Results show that the

vast majority of respondents disagreed that they were familiar with language learning

grammar.

The majority of respondents disagreed that the students discovered the topic of a

text, while some agreed and a small percentage of respondents were undecided. The vast

majority of respondents were not able to discover a text's topic.

It was discovered that the majority of respondents denied that the students

recognized words while reading, while some agreed and a few were undecided. Whereas

the results showed that the vast majority of those polled were able to recognize words

when reading.

The majority of respondents agreed that the students guessed the meaning of

difficult terms. The results showed that the majority of respondents guessed the meaning

of difficult words in general.

142
 Most of the participants denied that the students grasped the content of the text,

while some agreed. The majority of respondents disagreed that they comprehended the

context of the material as a whole.

It was discovered that the majority of respondents were extremely opposed that

students to answering questions in English, while others agreed. In general, the majority

of respondents didn't answer questions in English.

Most of the participants strongly disagreed that the students were aware of

reading difficulties in English. Results showed that the majority of respondents were

aware of English reading difficulties.

Results show that half of the teachers disagreed on students knowing how to

organize the sentence in English; According to the results, the majority of responders

were not able to organize a sentence accurately.

The study's fifth component was to look into fluency. It was discovered that the

majority of respondents denied that the students could read English text fluently. The vast

majority of the respondent could not read English text fluently.

The majority of respondents disagreed that the students sought to finish reading in

English in a timely manner, the vast majority of respondents tried to finish reading in

English on time.

It was discovered that the majority of respondents denied that the students read a

considerable amount of passages in English, but results showed that the vast majority of

respondents read a significant amount of English-language material.

143
 The majority of teachers disagreed that the pupils asked questions fluently in

English, while only a handful agreed. The vast majority of students were uncertain that

they could ask inquiries fluently in English.

Most of the participants disagreed that the students read the text with interest,

while some agreed with the statement and a small percentage were undecided. The vast

majority of responders disagreed that they were interested in reading the content.

The majority of teachers disagreed that the students could read graphics, charts,

maps, and tables, and a small number of respondents were indecisive. The vast majority

of respondents said they did not read graphics, charts, maps, or tables.

5.5 Recommendations

According to the findings the following suggestions and recommendation were

made to overcome the problem of English reading.

 English reading activities can improve the reading skills so innovative

activities should be adopted to enhance reading skills.

 Subject specialist teachers should teach English.

 New techniques should be adopted for better English reading and writing

 There should be special emphasis on Dictionary consultation to improve

vocabulary.

 There should be activities for students to learn comprehension

 There should special emphasis on spoken English so that students can

speak English without hesitation.

 The medium of instruction of English subject should be English

 Teachers should encourage students to speak English to improve fluency

144
 Grammar Translation Method should be adopted.

 There should be proper sessions to aware students about sounds and

syllables

 Government should conduct Seminars on English.

 There should be an English hour and time specified for English speaking

to improve fluency.

 Teachers and parents should promote English newspapers reading.

 Teachers should promote pocket dictionaries.

 Books should be in English from HSC up to masters.

 Teacher should use teaching resources for AV aids for effective teaching.

 Students mimic so the teacher should read and speak better English.

 Teachers should conduct English dialogue for students to learn better

communication skills in English.

 Teachers should praise students who speak better English to motivate

other students to read and speak better English.

145
 References

Abbot, G. & Wingard, P. (1981). The teaching of English as an international language: A

practical guide. London: Collins.

Adams, M. J., & Collins, A. (1977). A schema-theoretic view of reading.In Center for the Study

of Reading: Technical Report (Vol. 32). Cambridge, MA: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.

and community connections on student achievement. Southwest Educational London:

Longman.

Adnan Ali Adikata, Mumtaz A. Anwar, (2006) "Student library use: a study of faculty

perceptions in a Malaysian university", Library Review, Vol. 55 Issue: 2, pp.106-

119, https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530610649602

Ameyaw, S. K. and S. K. Anto (2018). "Read or perish: Reading habits among students and its

effect on academic performance: A case study of Eastbank senior high school-Accra."

Library Philosophy and Practice: 0_1-23.

Anderson, Neil J. (2005). Fluency in L2 Reading and Speaking. TESOL

Armbruster, B.B., Lehr, F., & Osborne, J.M. (2001). Put reading first: The research building

blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC:

Awais, S., & Ameen, K. (2013). The reading preferences of primary school children _in_Lahore

Bashir and Mattoo, (2012)Reading Habits Among Students and its Effecton Academic

Performance: A Study of Students of Koforidua Polytechnic

Blachman, B. A. (2000). Phonological awareness. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Rosenthal, P. D.Pearson,

and R. Barr (eds.), Handbook of reading research, 3, pp. 483-502. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

146
Block, E. L. (1992). See how they Read: Comprehension Monitoring of L1 and L2

Readers. TESOL Quarterly 26, 2:319-43.

Briggs, C., & Elkind, D. (1977). Characteristics of early readers. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 44, 1231-1237. doi:10.2466/pms.1977.44.3c.1231

Broek PJ, et al. (1994) Identification of the maltose transport protein of Saccharomyces

cerevisiae. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 200(1):45-51

Brown, H. D. (2007) Principles of language learning and teaching (5 th ed.).USA:

Sanfrancisco state University.

Business Dictionary.com. (2014). Retrieved on 22 April 2014 from http:// Quran

(chapter: 30, Surah Al-Alaq verses 1-3)

Carrell, P. L., & Grabe, W. (2010). Reading'in Schmitt, N. An introduction to applied

linguistics, 215-231.

Carver, R. (1992). Reading rate: Theory, research, and practical implications. Journal of

Reading. 36, 84-95.

Chambers, E. A., & Schreiber, J. B. (2004). Girls’ academic achievement: Varying associations

of extracurricular activities. Gender and Education, 16(3), 327-346.

Chang, Y.P. (2010). A Study of EFL college students’ self handicapping and English

performance. Procedia- Social and Behavorial Sciences, 2(2), 2006-2010.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.272

147
chman, B. A. (1995). Identifying the core linguistic deficits and the critical conditions for early

intervention with children with reading disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting

of the Learning Disabilities Association, Orlando, FL, March 1995.

Clark, Christina; & Rumbold, Kate. (2006). Reading for pleasure: A research overview.

National Literacy Trust. Retrieved 5 November 2012 from

Clark, K., & Graves, M. (2004). Scaffolding students’ comprehension of text. International

Reading Association,

Collins Block, C., & Pressley, M. (2001). Comprehension instruction: Research-based Best

comprehension exercises. Cambridge University Press.

Dadzie, P. S. (2008) Reading for Education: The roles of Libraries. Ghana Library

Journal Vol. 20. No. 1. pp. 1-14Development Lab., Austin, TX...

Flippo, R. F (2004). Readers Researchers in Search of Common Ground, Oklahama:

Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association.

Foertsch (1998) Second Language Learning. North Central Regional Educational

Laboratory, Learning Point Associates.

Gay, L.R., Mills. & Airasian. P, (2009) Educational Research (9th Edition) Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A socio cognitive perspective. Journal of

Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44, 714-725.

148
Goswami (2005) Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across

languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory.

Gough, P. B. (1972). Theoretical models and processes of reading. In J.F. Kavanagh &

I.G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by Ear and by Eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, (pp. 661-685).

Greenall, S. and Swan, M. 1986. Effective Reading: Reading Skills for Advanced Students.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grellet, F. 1996. Developing Reading Skills: A practical guide to reading comprehension

exercises. Cambridge University Press.

Hashemi, M. (2011). Language stress and anxiety among the English language learners.

Procedia- Social And Behavioral Sciences, 30(0), 1811-1816.

http://dx.doiorg/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.349

Hashmi, S. A. (2006). Teaching of English, Multan: M/S Aamir and Asim Publications,

Holy_in_Lahore

Hedge, T. 1985. Using Readers in Language Teaching. Macmillan. Heineman Educational.

Hussain, I. & Munshi, P. (2011).Identifying reading preferences of secondary school

students. Scientific Research. Vol. 2 No. 5 (pg. 429-434)

John, L., & Ehow, C. (2011). Factors affecting the quality of English language Teaching

and Learning. Retrieved 5/10/12 fromhttp://www.ehow.com/info_8040040_factors-english-

language-teaching learning.html

Johnson, J. C. (2005). What makes a “good” reader? Asking students to define “good”

readers.Reading Teacher, 58, 766-770.

149
Keleş, Ö. (2006). İlköğretim 4. ve 5. Sınıf öğrencilerinde kitap okuma alışkanlığının

KEMBOI JULIUS, K. (2012). Use Of Role Play Technique In Teaching Language In Secondary

Schools Of Wareng District-UASIN Gishu County, Kenya, MOI UNIVERSITY.

Khurshid, A (1975). What children read: A survey. National book council of Pakistan

Krashen, S. (1989). "We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the

input hypothesis." The modern language journal73(4): 440-464.

Kroll, B. (1990). Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lahore. Pakistan Journal of Library and Information Science, 14: 38‐43. Retrieved on

Lance, W. (2005). Teaching Writing: The Elementary years. Retrieved from

http://www.iched.org/cms/scripts/page.php

Lane, H. B., and P. C. Pullen. (2004). A sound beginning: Phonological awareness assessment

and instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon..

Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (in press). Socio cultural theory and the genesis of second language

development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McDonnell, W. 1983. “Quarterly for Teaching of English as a Second Language”.

Mehta, P. D., Foorman, B. R., Branum-Martin, L., & Taylor, W. P. (2005). Literacy as a

unidimensional construct: Validation, sources of influence and implications in a

longitudinal study in grades 1–4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), pp. 85–116.

MHshmi S.A.(2006) Teaching of English. Multan M/S Amir and Asim. Publications,

150
Holy Quran (Chapter: 30 Surah Al-Alaf verses 1-3)

Murray, D. E. & Christison, M. A. (2010). What English Language Teachers Need To Know:

Understanding Learning. Taylor & Francis.

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

scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading

instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development.

Nunan, D. (1991a). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESO

Quarterly 25/2, 279-295.

Nuttall, C. 1982. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London:

Piaget, J (2000). "Commentary on Vygotsky's criticisms of Language and Thought of theChild

and Judgment and Reasoning in the Child (L. Smith, Trans.)". New Ideas in

Psychology. 18 (2–3): 241–259. doi:10.1016/s0732-118x(00)00012-x. (Original work

published 1962.) practices. New York: Guilford Press.

Pugh, A.K. 1978. Silent Reading. London: Heinemann Educational.

Rayner, K. and Pollatsek, A. 1989. The Psychology of Reading. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Rivers, W. (1981). Teaching Foreign Language skills. Chicago :University of Chicago Press.

Sadiku, G. (2019). "Factors that influence the level of the academic performance of the

students." Journal of Social Studies Education Research10(3): 17-38.

Sangkaeo, Somsong. (1999). Reading habit promotion of ASEAN libraries. Paper

151
presented at the 65th IFLA Council and General Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, August 20-28.

Retrieved 5 November 2012 from:

http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla65/papers/091-114e.htm

Sánchez-Suzuki Colegrove, K. and C. E. Zúñiga (2018). "Finding and enacting agency: An

elementary ESL teacher’s perceptions of teaching and learning in the era of standardized

testing." International Multilingual Research Journal12(3): 188-202.

Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2011). Evidence-based interventions for reading and language

difficulties: Creating a virtuous circle. Educational Psychology, 81(1), 1-23.

Stein, M. K., J. Remillard, et al. (2007). "How curriculum influences student learning." Second

handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning1(1): 319-370.

Steinert, Y., K. Mann, et al. (2006). "A systematic review of faculty development initiatives

designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8."

Medical teacher28(6): 497-526.

Strong, L. A. G. 1945. “Reading for Pleasure” cited in Higher Secondary English

Wren, P. C. and marten, H. (200). High School English Grammar and Composition, New Delhi:

S. Chand and Company Limited.

152
 Appendix-A

Department of Humanities & Social Sciences

Khawja Fareed University of Engineering& Information Technology Rahim Yar

Khan, Pakistan

Dated: 20.11.2021

To Whom It May Concern

It is certified that Ms.Tahreem Akhtar student of PhD Education, Department of

Humanities & Social Sciences, khawaja Fareed University of Engineering and

Information Technology Rahim Yar Khan Pakistan, intends to collect data from your

prestigious institute for research purpose. Her research topic is “Learning Difficulties in

Reading English at Elementary Level”. The collected data will be used only for

research purpose. Kindly allow student to collect data from your school/institution.

Dr. Jam Muhammad Zafar

Supervisor

Assistant Professor

153
 APPENDIX-B

Questionnaire for Teacher

Section-I (Demographic)

Your assistance and support will be greatly welcomed in evaluating "Reading Difficulties

Faced by Elementary School Students in the Subject of English in District Rahim Yar

Khan." The information you provide will be kept private and used solely for research

purposes.

•Name (Optional):

• School: GGHSS 1/P Jetha Bhutta khanpur district Rahim Yar Khan.

• Age: 20-30 years, 30-40 years, 40-50 years, 50-60 years

• Gender: Female

• Academic Qualification:

Matric FA BA M.A M.Phil Ph.D

• Professional Qualification

B.Ed M .Ed

Section –II Close Ended

Responses: 1.Strongly disagrees, 2. Disagree 3.Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly

agree

No. Statements 1 2 3 4 5

Phonemic Awareness

1 English letters are recognized by students.

154
2 Students are familiar with English phonemes.

3 Consonant sounds are a challenge for students.

4 Students struggle with vowel sounds.

5 Short vowels provide a challenge for students.

6 Students are able to distinguish one word from

another.

7 Rhyme words are familiar to students.

8 Students are aware of rhyme intonation

Phonics

9 Students face difficulty in phonetics transcription.

10 Students know homograph(same spelling but

different pronunciation)

11 Students know homophone ( same pronunciation

but different spelling)

12 Students felt difficulty in Decoding words

13 Students are familiar with the phonics chart.

14 Students are familiar to compound words.

15 Students work on sound drilling and repetition.

16 Silent letter are known by students

Vocabulary

17 Students understand the meaning of the word.

18 Students look for synonyms in the text.

19 Students receive assistance from the teacher in

155
 determining the meaning of words.

20 Students look for antonyms in a text.

21 Students look up difficult terms in dictionaries.

Comprehension

22 Students studied the content carefully and

comprehended it.

23 Students comprehend text better than their peers.

24 Students write a summary of the text.

25 Students carefully studied the text.

26 Students have a good command of the English

language and learning grammar.

27 Students find out the theme of a text.

28 During reading, students identify words

29 Students make guess the meaning of difficult

words.

30 Students understand the context of text.

31 Student’s response answer questions in English.

32 Students are aware about their reading

difficulties.

33 Students organize the sentence efficiently.

Fluency

36 Students read English text fluently.

37 Students try to finish reading in time.

156
38 Students read a large amount of passage.

39 Students ask questions in English fluently.

40 Students read the text with interest.

41 Students read additional materials; stories, novels,

magazines etc.

42 Students participate in reading activities.

43 Students read graphics, charts, maps and tables.

Section-III Open Ended

44. Kindly suggest necessary guide line how English reading practices may be more

innovative.

………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………

157
 APPENDIX-C

Proficiency Check List

“Reading Difficulties faced by Elementary School Students in the Subject of

English in District Rahim Yar Khan”

 Name school (Optional):

Section I–Close Ended

Responses: 1. Never 2.Rarely 3.Sometimes 4.Very often 5. Always

No. Statements 1 2 3 4 5

Phonemic Awareness

1 Student recognizes letters of English.

2 Student knows phonemes of English.

3 Student faces difficulty in consonants sounds.

4 Student faces difficulty in vowels sounds.

5 Student faces difficulty in short vowels.

6 Student distinguishes one word from another.

7 Student knows about rhyme words.

8 Student knows about rhyme intonation.

Phonics

9 Student faces difficulty in phonetics transcription.

10 Student knows homograph.(same spelling but different

pronunciation).

11 Student knows homophone.( same pronunciation but different

158
 spelling).

12 Student feels difficulty in decoding.

13 Student knows how to use phonics chart.

14 Student knows compound words.

15 Student practices drilling and repetition of sounds.

16 Student knows about silent letter.

Vocabulary

17 Student recognizes the sense of word.

18 Student searches synonyms from text.

19 Student gets help from teacher for meaning of words.

20 Student searches antonyms from text.

21 Student consults dictionary for difficult words.

Comprehension

22 Student reads the text with understanding.

23 Student understands text more than other students.

24 Student summarizes the text.

25 Student reads the text deeply.

26 Student knows language learning grammar.

27 Student finds out the topic of a text.

28 Student identifies words during reading.

29 Student guesses the meaning of difficult words.

30 Student understands nature of text.

31 Student answers questions in English.

159
32 Student knows about reading difficulties.

33 Student understands English language more than other students.

34 Student gives title to a reading passage.

35 Student organizes the sentence.

Fluency

36 Student reads English text fluently.

37 Student tries to finish reading in time.

38 Student reads a large amount of passage.

39 Student asks questions in English fluently.

40 Student reads the text with interest.

41 Student reads additional materials; stories, novels, magazines

etc.

42 Student participates in reading activities.

43 Student reads graphics, charts, maps and tables.

Section-II Open Ended

44. Kindly suggest necessary guide line how English reading practices may be more

innovative.

………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………

160
 APPENDIX-D

Reading Text

“Reading Difficulties faced by Elementary School Students in the Subject of English in

District Rahim Yar Khan.”

Read the paragraph carefully and answer

Bees are insects. Bees are special insects because they can fly! They can move

through the air like an airplane! Bees can fly because they have wings. They use their

wings to fly. Bees can fly fast. Bees can also fly slowly. They can fly up and they can fly

down. They need to fly to get to the flowers! Bees can have three colors. They can be

yellow, red, and orange. All bees are black in some places. Bees have three main parts.

They have a head. They have a body. And, they have a stinger. The stinger is used to

defend against enemies. They also have six legs. They use their legs to stand and climb.

They also use their legs to eat and collect pollen. Bees live in many places. They live in

Africa, Australia, Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. The only continent

that bees do not live on is Antarctica! I understand why they don’t live in Antarctica. It’s

too cold! Most of the time, bees are nice to humans. If you do not bother them, they will

not bother you. Have fun watching the bees this summer!

Answer the following questions:-

Q. 01 what are bees?

A. Mammals B. Birds C. Reptiles D. Insects

Q. 02 how do bees fly?

A. They use their legs. B. They use their head.

C. They use their wings. D. None of the above.

161
Q. 03 how many legs do bees have?

A. Two B Four C. Six D. Eight

Q. 04 what is the stinger used for?

A. To eat food. B. To defend against enemies.

C. Both A and B. D. None of the above.

Q. 05where do bees live?

A. North America B. Asia C. Antarctica D. Both A and

Answers

1. D 2.C 3.C 4.B 5.D

162