JOURNAL EXAMPLE OF EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN (A

REVIEW)

The Effect of Assisted RR on Fluency and

Comprehension in Chinese FL Classrooms
Huifen Chen and Ding Ying
Nanjing University of Finance and Economics, China
( ASIAN EFL JOURNAL)

Created by

Eka Nur Fatmah (0203515025)

Indah Puji Lestari ( 0203515036)
I Gede Arga Anggara (0203515026)
Susandari (02033515043)

OUTLINE OF THE JOURNAL

ABSTRACT
Assisted Repeated Reading (ARR) has been found effective for enhancing
reading fluency in FL classrooms elsewhere outside China. The present of the
study attempts to look into the effectiveness of the newly introduced treatment in
improving the reading fluency and comprehension of Chinese College English
students. We compared the Assisted Repeated Reading treatment altered
according to the Chinese College English classroom background with the ER
( Extensive Reading ) treatment widely practiced in Chinese FL classroom on a
25-session-experiment basis. The results show it has significantly increased our
learners reading rate and comprehension.

Key word: Assisted Repeated Reading, extensive reading,

fluency, comprehension

INTRODUCTION
The important of fluency in reading
The background of the study :
- Many learners in Chinese FL classrooms read word slowly, so they fail in
achieving comprehension and interest in reading.
- The researchers tried to apply more efficient ways of improving learners
reading fluency need to be developed in Chinese FL classroom through
Assisted Repeated Reading (ARR) technique.
Objective of the study :
To find out whether and how an Assisted Repeated Reading enhances
Chinese College English learners reading fluency and consequently improve
their reading comprehension.

LITERATURE REVIEW
The important between automaticity, fluency, and comprehension on
reading
Strong and weak readers
The effectiveness of Assisted Repeated Reading :
- After ARR treatments, there are significant progress in reading speed for
the practiced text ( Carver & Hoffman, 1981 ; Oshea, Sindelar, and
OShea, 1985; Taguchi, 1997 )
- According to Taguchi, Takayasu-Maass and Gorsuch (2004) ARR is as
promising a method as Extensive Reading for enhancing second and
foreign language readers fluency and that it can potentially developed
weak ESL/EFL readers fluency and help them become independent
readers.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The researchers compared the Assisted Repeated Reading model with the
traditional extensive reading model, and they developed five questions :
1. Is ARR effective for developing reading fluency of Chinese college students?
2. Is ARR also effective for improving for improving reading comprehension of
Chinese college students?
3. Is ARR model more effective than the traditional extensive Reading model in
developing reading fluency and comprehension of Chinese college
students?
4. Is ARR model as helpful to the weaker readers as to the stronger readers?
5. How do Chinese college students perceive the effectiveness of ARR?

METHODOLOGY

PARTICIPANTS

Pretest
and WPM
Experimental
averages
group : G1
Control Group
: G3
G2 another
experimental
group

Material for treatment

RR program
Two books from
Graded College
English fast reading
textbook by Shanghai
Foreign Language
Education Press

ER program
Two books from
Graded College
English fast reading
textbook by Shanghai
Foreign Language
Education Press

Whole book 1
The 1st five units of
book 2

Whole book 1
The 1st five units of
book 2

Audiotape

Instrument
Pretest and Posttest
Section 1:
Reading comprehension,
vocabulary and structure,
and
cloze

Section 2:
One passage for fast
reading
Four passages for careful
reading comprehension

Procedure
All participants took a
pre-test (assess
reading ability &
reading speed)
After treatment,
participants did
posttest.

Finish other parts

Finish a passage for fast
reading (3 times,
marking recorded)
was adopted

Double and Blind

and key to answer clearly between the
markers so that marking reliability could be
guaranteed

Questionnaire
aim
To investigate the two
experimental groups
interest in the ER
method
How they had been
influenced by their
assigned reading
process.

Measurement
Likert Scale
Informal interview
Advantages
disadvantages

Statistical Method
SPSS 13.0
Independent Samples T Test
Paired Samples T Test

Procedures
Conducted from October 2005 to end of
May 2006 (twenty-five sessions)
One hour spent on the program for all
groups
Before treatment began, the researcher
introduced the program detailed.
Both of RR and ER programs were
carried out by the same teacher.

RR Treatment

Traditional ER treatment
Not required to repeat the passage or
to read along with the audio-tape or
record their reading time
Students read the first passage
silently and complete the related
comprehension questions
Students read the second and then
the third passage, (above process
was repeated)
Teacher checked and correlated the
students answer.

Results

ALLPPT.com _ Free PowerPoint Templates, Diagrams and Charts

1. Is RR effective for developing reading

fluency of Chinese college students ?
Table 2: Word Per Minutes of the 1st and 25th RRG1's
sessions
by
and G2s
Paired-samples
T tests
Word Per
Variables
Within-group
Mean
SD
t
p
G1(N=30)
G2(N=30)

1st session

117.92

36.34

25th session

164.6

44.02

1st session

112.29

29.35

134.25

21.6

th

25 session

-4.428

.000

-2.935

.007

Minutes gain is
significant at
p=0.000, 0.007
< .05.

Table 3: Comparison of Word Per Minutes between

Within-group
WPM

Paired
Differences
pretest and
posttest
within
each
group
Group 1

Mean

SD

Pretest

147.29

42.95

Post-test

206.77

47.90

Group 2

Mean

SD

Pre test

130.94

28.04

Post-test

176.77

45.22

Group 3

Mean

SD

Pretest

159.82

47.44

Post-test

174.67

56.13

Sig.(2-tailed)

6.552

.000

Sig.(2-tailed)

4.873

.000

Sig.(2-tailed)

1.311

.200

Increasing
reading rate

(p =.000.) shows
both RR groups
have achieved a
significant gain in
Word Per Minute
No the
significant
over
RR
difference
treatment.p= .200
>.05

2. Is RR effective for improving reading

comprehension of Chinese college students
Table 4: Comparison of the sub-reading comprehension
scores between pretest and post-test
The average
comprehension scores
Within-group Measures Mean SD
t
p
of the two RR groups
Pretest
56.53 11.14
G1 (N=30)
-2.4177 0.0221
have
increased
post-test 63.90 12.57
The
difference
G2 (N=30)

G3 (N=30)

Pretest

49.50 10.7

post-test

59.07 11.66

Pretest

56.80 14.55

post-test

60.23 10.92

-3.5949

0.0012

-1.3255

0.1954

between the pretest

and the post-test is
statistically significant
p = .0221; .0012< .05
respectively
Does
not seem to be
significantly
important at p=
0.1954 >0.05.

3. Is RR treatment more effective than the traditional ER

treatment in developing both reading fluency and
comprehension?
4. Is the RR model helpful to the weaker readers as to the
stronger

Table 5: readers?
Comparison of the Word Per Minutes averages on the pretest
and post-test between groups

Pretest

Mean

SD

G1 vs G3

30 vs 30

147.29 vs 159.82

42.95 vs 47.44

-1.072

.288

G2 vs G3

30 vs 30

130.94 vs 159.82

28.04 vs 47.44

-2.870

.006

G1 vs G2

30 vs 30

147.29 vs 130.94

42.95 vs 28.04

2.054

.059

no significant
difference
between G1
and G3 at p = .
288 >0.05.

In the pretest, students in both G1 and G3 achieved similar

Word Per Minutes averages. (refer to the table above

Post-test

Mean

SD

G1 vs G3

30 vs 30

206.77 vs 174.67

47.90 vs 56.13

2.405

0.017

their
difference is
G2 vs G3
30 vs 30 176.77 vs 174.67
45.22 vs 56.13
.160
.874
statistically
G1 vs G2
30 vs 30 206.77 vs 176.77
47.90 vs 45.22
2.383
.020
significant at
p= 0.017 < .
G1 are much faster than G3
05 G3 through
means G1 have achieved more fluency gains than
the RR treatment. (refer to the table above)

3. Is RR treatment more effective than the traditional ER

treatment in developing both reading fluency and
comprehension?
4. or whether the RR model is as helpful to the weaker
readers
asComparison
to the stronger
Table 5:
of the readers?
WPM averages on the pretest and
post-test between groups
Pretest

Mean

SD

G1 vs G3

30 vs 30

147.29 vs 159.82

42.95 vs 47.44

-1.072

.288

their
difference is
G2 vs G3
30 vs 30 130.94 vs 159.82 28.04 vs 47.44
-2.870
.006
G1 vs G2
30 vs 30 147.29 vs 130.94 42.95 vs 28.04
2.054
.059
statistically
significant at
G2s progress in fluency is greater than G3. While in the pretest,
p=.006 < .05
G3 are obviously faster than G2 (refer to the table above)

Post-test

Mean

SD

G1 vs G3

30 vs 30

206.77 vs 174.67

47.90 vs 56.13

2.405

0.017

G2 vs G3

30 vs 30

176.77 vs 174.67

45.22 vs 56.13

.160

.874

no significant
difference is
G1 vs G2
30 vs 30 206.77 vs 176.77
47.90 vs 45.22
2.383
.020
seen at p = .
874
>0.05
means G2 has caught up with G3 as far as reading
rate
is
concerned or G2 have achieved more fluency gains than G3 over
the different treatments. (refer to the table above

3. Is RR treatment more effective than the traditional ER

treatment in developing both reading fluency and
comprehension?
4. or whether the RR model is as helpful to the weaker
readers
to the stronger
readers?
Table 5:as
Comparison
of the WPM
averages on the pretest and posttest between groups
Pretest

Mean

SD

G1 vs G3

30 vs 30

147.29 vs 159.82

42.95 vs 47.44

-1.072

.288

G2 vs G3

30 vs 30

130.94 vs 159.82

28.04 vs 47.44

-2.870

.006

G1 vs G2

30 vs 30

147.29 vs 130.94

42.95 vs 28.04

2.054

.059

Post-test

Mean

SD

G1 vs G3

30 vs 30

206.77 vs 174.67

47.90 vs 56.13

2.405

0.017

the difference
between them in
the post-test
Word Per
Minutes average

suggest that the RR treatment helps the is

relatively
stronger
significant
at
p=.020
< .05
readers more than the relatively weaker readers
in gaining
reading

G2 vs G3

30 vs 30

176.77 vs 174.67

45.22 vs 56.13

.160

.874

G1 vs G2

30 vs 30

206.77 vs 176.77

47.90 vs 45.22

2.383

.020

fluency. (refer to the table above)

3. Is RR treatment more effective than the traditional ER

treatment in developing both reading fluency and
comprehension?
4. or whether the RR model is as helpful to the weaker

readers
to the stronger
readers? scores on the sub-reading tests
Table 6:as
a comparison
of comprehension
between
Pretest
N

groups
Mean

SD

G1 vs G3

30 vs 30 56.53 vs 56.80 11.14 vs 14.55

-.080

.937

G2 vs G3

30 vs 30 49.50 vs 56.80 10.70 vs 14.55

-2.494

.016

G1 vs G2

30 vs 30 56.53 vs 49.50 11.14 vs 10.70

2.214

.031

Post-test

G1 vs G3

Mean

SD

30 vs 30 63.90 vs 60.23 12.57 vs 10.92

1.206

.233

G2 vs G3

30 vs 30 59.07 vs 60.23 11.66 vs 10.92

-.400

.691

G1 vs G2

30 vs 30 63.90 vs 59.07 12.57 vs 11.66

1.544

.307

a significant
difference at
p= .031, .016
< .05

the difference is
no longer
G1 and G3 are not significantly different from each other
on both tests
statistically
though on pretest, G3 outperformed G1 slightly, while
on post-test, the
situation was just the opposite, which may indicate significant
that G1s progress
at
in comprehension is relatively greater than G3s (refer
to the .307
table
p=.691,
above)
>0.05.

G2s progress in comprehension is statistically important, because G2s

average comprehension scores on the pretest are much lower than G1
and G3s while on the post-test G2 did as well as G1 and G3 (refer to
the table above)

5. How do Chinese college students perceive the

effectiveness of RR treatment, students' perceptions of the
effectiveness of RR method?
Table 7: Frequency of students response to questionnaire
G1
G2
Frequency
items
Variables
Positive

Neutral

Negative

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Total

Q1

24

25

60

P=82 N1=15 N2=3

Q2

21

21

60

P=70 N1=27 N2=3

Q3

24

23

60

P=78 N1=10 N2=12

Q4

21

15

60

P=60 N1=18 N2=22

Q5

21

17

60

P=25 N1=63 N2=12

Q6

24

27

60

P=85 N1=10 N2=5

Q7

21

10

19

60

P=30 N1=67 N2=3

Q8

10

19

20

60

P=32 N1=65 N2=3

Q9

19

17

10

60

P=60 N1=8 N2=32

Q10

25

23

60

P=80 N1=18 N2=2

Q11

21

21

60

P=70 N1= 27 N2=3

Q12

24

23

60

P=78 N1=12 N2= 10

*P= Positive N1= Neutral N2= Negative

Continue..
The students response to :
1. Q1-3 shows that most students (P=82%, 70%, 78%) think RR
treatment is conducive to the improvement of their reading rate,
comprehension and motivation.
2. Q4-5 seems to tell us that most students (P=60%, N1=63%) think
that the reading materials are informative but not appropriate
enough in terms of length and difficulty.
3. Q6-8 (P=85%, N1=67%, 65%) shows most students consider
reading while listening to the audio-taped version to be highly
beneficial for reading comprehension, but it seems to have less
effect on enhancing their reading interest and reading rate.
4. Q9 shows while most of them (P=60%) believe that timing the
reading speed raises their awareness of speed and attention,
some students (N2=32%) are strongly against timing.
5. Q10-12 convinces us of the majority students (P=80%,70%,78%)
preference for the introduction of RR treatment into reading
classroom.

Discussion

ALLPPT.com _ Free PowerPoint Templates, Diagrams and Charts

1. Is RR effective for developing

reading fluency?
Table 2: WPM of the RR sessions
Variable
s

Withingroup

Mean

SD

1st session

117.9
2

36.34

G1
(N=30)
25th session

164.6

44.02

1st session

112.2
9

29.35

G2
(N=30)
25th session

134.2
5

21.6

-4.428

.000

-2.935

.007

Is RR effective for developing

reading fluency?
Table 3: WPM Pretest vs Posttest
WithinGroup

(WPM)

Group 1

Mean

SD

Pretest

147.29

42.95

Post-test

206.77

47.90

Group 2

Mean

SD

Pretest

130.94

28.04

Post-test

176.77

45.22

Group 3

Mean

SD

Pretest

159.82

47.44

Post-test

174.67

56.13

Paired Differences
t

Sig. (2tailed)

6.552

.000

Sig. (2tailed)

4.873

.000

Sig. (2tailed)

1.311

.200

Development of Reading Fluency

Effective or
not?
Repeated Reading (RR) is effective in developing reading
fluency.

Tagauchi, Takayasu-Maass & Gorsuch (2004)

2. Is RR effective for improving

reading comprehension?
Table 4: Comparison of the sub-reading
comprehension between pretest & post-test
Withingroup
G1 (N=30)
G2 (N=30)
G3 (N=30)

Measure
Mean
s

SD

Pretest

56.53

11.14

Post-test

63.90

12.57

Pretest

49.50

10.7

Post-test

59.07

11.66

Pretest

56.80

14.55

Post-test

60.23

10.92

-2.4177

0.0221

-3.5949

0.0012

-1.3255

0.1954

3. improvement of reading
comprehension

Effective or
not?
Repeated Reading (RR) is effective in improving reading
fluency.

LaBerge and Samuels (1974), Samuels (1994),

Reynolds (2000)
The readers with
automated word
recognition skills are
better at
comprehension.

RR treatment promotes
automatic word recognition
that can facilitate their
comprehension of new
information.

3. Is RR More Effective than the

Traditional ER Model?
Table 4: Comparison of the WPM averages on
the pretest & post-test between groups
Pretest

Mean

SD

G1 vs G3

30 vs 30

147.29 vs 159.82

42.95 vs 47.44

-1,072

.288

G2 vs G3

30 vs 30

130.94 vs 159.82

28.04 vs 47.44

-2.970

.006

G1 vs G2

30 vs 30

147.29 vs 130.94

42.95 vs 28.04

2.054

.059

Post-test

Mean

SD

G1 vs G3

30 vs 30

206.77 vs 174.67

47.90 vs 56.13

2.405

0.017

G2 vs G3

30 vs 30

176.77 vs 174.67

45.22 vs 56.13

.160

.874

G1 vs G2

30 vs 30

206.77 vs 176.77

47.90 vs 45.22

2.383

.020

Repeated Reading vs Traditional

Extensive Reading
Pretest G2 < G3
Post-test G2 < G3, but it is not
significant
Pretest G1 > G2
Post-test G1 < G2
Repeated Reading (RR) is more effective than Traditional
Expensive Reading in developing reading fluency and
comprehension.

4. Is RR Model as Helpful to the

Weaker Readers as the Stronger
Readers?
It is hard to decide how the effect of RR treatment on the
stringer readers is different from that on the weaker readers

Pretest G1 > G2
Post-test G1 < G2

G2s comprehension gains

slightly exceed G1s

5. Participantss View about RR

Treatment
Repetition

Audio Assistance

They believe that repetition enables them to read faster and

comprehend better.

They dont think that it is helpful for increasing reading speed.

Timing

Those who have positive attitude about the role of timing can
make use of timing to monitor their reading speed.

Input

The materials used for reading passage s deal with a variety of

topics and are fit for their English level and background
knowledge, but it is not quite interesting.

CONCLUSION
1. An RR model can play an effective role in developing learners reading fluency
and comprehension in Chinese FL classrooms.
2. The degree of the effectiveness of RR may be influenced by the elements involved
in the RR model such as the times of repetition and transfer to new passages, kind
of input, and the number of sessions.
3. The Assisted RR model is an efficient solution to our concern that many Chinese
College English students cannot read fluently mainly due to poor word
recognition.
4. The RR treatment is applicable because it is convenient for the teachers to design
and operate in class.
5. It is suggested that RR treatment is best suitable for first-year College English
students, who often complain about their reading speed.

Thank You
Do you have any
questions,
friends ?

ALLPPT.com _ Free PowerPoint Templates, Diagrams and Charts