Reading fluency from grade 2-6

The first paragraph of the paper is ineffective because it identifies oral reading fluency as a primary component of reading comprehension, which is not indicated in the abstract, results, or discussion, implying its insignificance in the study. Furthermore, numerous research have been cited in favor of oral reading fluency as a factor in reading comprehension. There is, however, no single example that explains a study.

Jargons relevant to the topic are not defined in the paper.

Such include the definition of the main jargons such as reading comprehension and failure to describe Orthographic Transparency.

“Oral reading fluency is a principal component in the development of reading comprehension.”

“who learn to read in a less transparent orthography.”

The literature explored in the introduction raises irrelevant issues regarding reading comprehension that oral reading fluency:

Contributes to reading comprehension

Has been recognized as a predictor of current and future reading comprehension abilities

And

initial skill level and growth rate of reading fluency predict reading comprehension

This has shifted from the prior questions of the study, in which the first issue surrounds cognitive, literacy and linguistic measures that have not been covered in sufficient detail.

The present study does not adequately show both sides to the argument as all the supporting evidence and citations are in favor of the development approach on reading fluency. However, they have successfully paved a reason for the study by stating the limitations of previous studies thus acting as a future implication. This is seen in the study of working memory and reading comprehension. “However, the relationships between WM and fluency is not fully understood yet, let alone the role of WM in the developmental process of fluency.”

The researcher uses the same sample to conduct his experiment. Despite having a large population, to provide more accurate results, he could have used group differentials to come up with better findings. Secondly, the order effect is likely to have cropped in carrying out the experiment. Since the researcher was reading aloud the questions, it is probable that the students knew what was expected after the first questions. Expectations had already been set out before the data collection began. Thus, it would have been more appropriate if group differentials were used for more reliable data.

In the study, the research methodology is not well elaborated. The researcher goes on to apply a data analysis model which is not well identified and described. Moreover, he does not show how the resulting figures are generated. Also, the conversion of words to measurable values is not described, shown but implied. This drags an interested party to draw conclusions which are not verifiable. Despite the data being well presented, how the researcher comes up with the final data for analysis is not explained well creating a gap when drawing conclusions.

The correlation implies that literacy, cognitive, and linguistic skills positively influence reading fluency. However, given the correlation coefficient values, the relationship is not strong enough. Same as the correlation, the regression analysis shows a positive relationship between the assessment measures and word fluency. Reconciling these two sets of data is not possible. From the study, it is noted that there is a weak relationship between oral attack and word fluency. This is also same between RAN and word fluency. The ∆R2 is so insignificant to conclude the existence of an effect of the variables towards word fluency.

From the study carried out, the researcher is wrong to conclude on the importance of phonological decoding to word fluency. This is because he does not provide the necessary information that was used to come up with the conclusion. This finding is not supported by any research data, and since phonological decoding is not one of the cognitive measures studied, his conclusion is not backed up in the context of this study.

No, the results do not support researcher’s view. Given the negative correlation between the two variables, it means that they are inversely related and as such, it is wrong to say that Ran contributes to reading fluency. It hampers it. The negative relationship calls for an alternative evaluation or a repeat of the experiment to come up with the fair conclusion.

As the researcher earlier identified, syntactic awareness contributes towards predicting word fluency. However, this does not necessarily mean that it is important to all children when in the process of developing their word fluency. It is only important to some of them who are particularly developing at a slower pace. To those who are quick in gasping words, oral closes help in their grammar.

The study does not support the conclusion made regarding the rapid development of word fluency. In the research, there is no material evidence to show that there are rapid changes in word fluency. For the researcher to claim that the study yielded such conclusion, it is misleading since there is no research question or data analysis that focuses on the development of word study. Furthermore, there is no prior review nor statement made for the comparison against the progress achieved in the field of study. The conclusion is only made up from the findings of other researchers.

The study correctly predicts that there are other elements contributing towards word reading fluency. However, it does not indicate what they are. Given the different regression values, it is well noted that there is the possibility of other influences. However, the researcher does not predict these other forces that could be used to conduct another study.

In her research, she only looks at the effect of literacy, cognitive and linguistic skills as the core determinants of reading fluency. The recommendation that future studies consider more cognitive and literacy skills need is a fair review that is likely to shed light on this topic. As her findings reveal, there is a likelihood that some of these skills rather than improving, they inhibit the progress in fluent reading among the lower grade students.

Despite the abstract presenting the intended purpose of the paper, it is not sufficient since it does not categorically mention the methodology applied. It states the research questions and describes the findings without giving insight on how the results were attained. The methods of data collection and analysis are described when presenting results. This shortcoming makes the study seem complicated to interested individuals from different fields of study.

References

Solso, R. L. (1989). An Introduction to Experimental Design in Psychology. A Case Approach (4 ed.). New York: Harper & Row.