ORAL READING ACHIEVEMENTS, STRATEGIES AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
NEW ZEALAND PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS READING BELOW NORMAL EXPECTATION.

RESULTS cont.

Comprehension
Self-correction Rate
Almost all students (90%) self-corrected fewer than 5% of text words, with students overall achieving a mean self-correction rate of 2.46%. This reading strategy was rarely used by the students and similar means were found for all subgroups
 
Strategy Rates
The use of a strategy led to a correct attempt, an error, or a self-correction and 66% of students paused to employ an observable strategy to work out fewer than 10% of text words read. Overall, students achieved a mean strategy rate of 9.59%, and similar means were found for reading level, year level and ethnicity. Statistically significant differences were revealed between the means for gender and text type groups. Boys (11.01%) paused to apply a strategy significantly more frequently than girls (7.56%), with only boys employing a strategy to work out more than one in every five text words read (t = 2.72; df = 88; p < .01). Students reading non-book texts used significantly more observable strategies than those reading fiction or non-fiction texts (F = 5.36; df = 2, 87; p < .01).

Table 4 presents a detailed analysis comparing the proportions of total strategies (9.59%) for 10 sub-types and 4 types of strategies, “context” (4.23%), “decoding” (2.45%), “coping” (1.52%) and “mixed” (1.39%). Students used a substantial amount of context-based strategies, achieving an overall mean rate of 4.23%. “Guessing” (1.67%) or “clarifying the meaning” of an unknown word (1.40%) were used more frequently than “reading on” (.82%) or “rereading” an unfamiliar word (.34%). Means were found to be similar for all subgroups and strategy sub-types except for text type. Students reading non-fiction texts paused to clarify the meaning of significantly more words (1.89%) than those reading fiction (1.08%) or non-book texts (1.15%).

Students used a moderate amount of decoding strategies, achieving an overall mean rate of 2.45%, They attempted to “sound out” an unknown word (2.36%), generally only the initial letter or blend, more frequently than they tried to “break up the word” into segments (.09%). Means were similar for reading level, year level and ethnicity subgroups, but the differences between the means for students across gender and text type groups were statistically significant. Boys (2.80%) attempted to “sound out” significantly more words than girls (1.74%) (t = 2.18; df = 88; p < .05), and students reading non-book texts (3.91%) also attempted to “sound out” significantly more words than did those reading non-fiction (2.07%) or fiction texts (1.29%) (F = 10.65; df = 2,87; p < .001).

Students utilised few coping strategies, achieving a mean rate of 1.52%, depending on making an “emotional response” (.71%), followed by making “no/masked attempt” (.61%), and “seeking help” (.20%). It must be noted, however, that students had been specifically instructed to work out the words on their own for this oral reading task. Similar means were found for gender, ethnicity and text type subgroups, but differences for reading and year level subgroups were found to be statistically significant. Students reading at band 0 (3.80%) utilised all subtypes of coping behaviours with significantly more words than those reading at bands 1 (.81%), 2 (.74%) and 3 (.94%) (F = 7.50; df = 3,86; p < .001). Year 4 students (1.01%) expressed an “emotional response” for significantly more words than those in year 8 (.41%) (t = 2.10; df = 88; p < .05).

Only limited use was made of mixed strategies, where students appeared to simultaneously use context, decoding and/or coping strategies. Significantly different means for age groups were found (t = -.3.19; df = 88; p < .01). Year 8 students (1.95%) utilised mixed strategies to deal with significantly more words than those in year 4 (.83%).
 
Table 4:Table of Means and Standard Deviations of Mean Strategy % Rates of Students by Reading Level, Year Level, Gender, Ethnicity & Text Type
Achievement Total
Reading Level
Year
Gender
Ethnic Group
Text Type
Band 0 Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 4 8 Male Female Pakeha Maori Pac. Isl. Fiction Non-Fiction Non-Book
Number 90 20 30 8 32 45 45 53 37 50 34 6 29 33 28
Total Strategies                 **           **
x 9.59 12.12 9.41 9.51 8.20 9.93 9.25 11.1 7.56 9.95 8.68 11.74 7.30 9.27 12.34
s 6.14 9.21 5.03 6.24 4.20 6.71 5.57 7.10 3.65 6.93 5.10 3.98 4.05 5.88 7.26
Context
                             
all                              
x 4.23 5.21 4.41 3.79 3.56 4.47 3.99 4.61 3.69 4.49 3.78 4.65 3.24 4.90 4.47
s 3.32 5.44 2.72 1.69 2.20 3.97 2.55 4.05 1.76 3.89 2.48 2.39 2.10 2.80 4.57
rereading
                          
x 0.34 0.10 0.48 0.36 0.36 0.33 0.36 0.29 0.42 0.38 0.29 0.35 0.35 0.48 0.19
s 0.665 0.47 0.86 0.57 0.50 0.77 0.51 0.71 0.55 0.75 0.42 0.85 0.53 0.88 0.37
reading on/rep.                              
x 0.82 0.45 0.88 1.02 0.95 0.71 0.94 0.74 0.94 1.00 0.57 0.72 0.89 0.86 0.71
s 0.97 0.99 1.12 0.74 0.81 1.09 0.89 0.99 0.94 1.03 0.84 0.87 0.92 0.90 1.10
guess                              
x 1.67 2.61 1.64 1.53 1.13 1.85 1.48 2.16 0.96 1.83 1.35 2.05 0.92 1.68 2.43
s
 2.87 5.19 2.25 1.28 1.10 3.60 1.91 3.62 0.78 3.60 1.59 1.42 0.98 2.21 4.38
clarify meaning                             *
x 1.40 2.05 1.40 0.88 1.12 1.58 1.21 1.42 1.37 1.27 1.56 1.53 1.08 1.89 1.15
s 1.40 2.33 1.03 0.73 0.86 1.73 0.94 1.56 1.14 1.11 1.73 1.61 1.35 1.59 1.05
Decoding
                              
all                 *           ***
x 2.45 2.43 2.68 2.42 2.26 2.45 2.45 2.88 1.85 2.41 2.23 4.03 1.44 2.10 3.91
s 2.39 3.70 1.93 2.35 1.77 2.78 1.94 2.62 1.88 2.50 2.07 2.96 1.36 1.98 2.96
sounding out                 *           ***
x 2.36 2.43 2.56 2.42 2.11 2.37 2.35 2.80 1.74 2.35 2.09 4.03 1.29 2.07 3.91
s 2.32 3.70 1.86 2.35 1.57 2.75 1.83 2.57 1.77 2.44 1.95 2.96 1.13 1.93 2.92
br. into segments                              
x 0.09 0 0.12 0 0.14 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.15 0 0.15 0.03 0.11
s
 0.31 0 0.39 0 0.34 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.36 0.24 0.40 0 0.41 0.18 0.30
Coping                              
all
         ***   *                
x
 1.52 3.80 0.81 0.74 0.94 2.18 0.85 1.95 0.90 1.74 1.27 1.02 1.63 0.84 2.20
s
 2.70  4.75 1.13 1.13 1.15 3.56 1.11 3.24 1.50 3.33 1.55 2.02 2.59 1.33 3.74
seeking help
                             
x
 0.20 0.64 0.05 0.24 0.05 0.32 0.80 0.30 0.06 0.24 0.18 0 0.11 0.15 0.35
s
 0.75 1.42 0.20 0.69 0.22 0.99 0.34 0.92 0.34 0.91 0.51 0 0.43 0.50 1.15
emot. react.
            *                
x
 0.71 1.73 0.43 0.34 0.42 1.01 0.41 0.82 0.55 0.84 0.58 0.39 0.89 0.41 0.88
s
 1.36 2.40 0.66 0.54 0.67 1.77 0.66 1.58 0.96 1.66 0.88 0.61 1.42 0.75 1.78
no/masking att.
                             
x
0.61 1.43 0.33 0.16 0.47 0.85 0.36 0.83 0.29 0.67 0.52 0.63 0.62 0.28 0.97
s
1.34 2.23 0.77 0.31 1.00 1.67 0.86 1.62 0.71 1.50 1.07 1.55 1.08 0.86 1.90
Mixed                              
all
             **                
x
 1.39 0.67 1.50 2.56 1.44 0.83 1.95 1.58 1.12 1.31 1.39 2.04 0.99 1.43 1.75
s
 1.75 1.15 2.18 2.10 1.37 1.18 2.04 1.91 1.48 1.89 1.50 2.08 1.04 2.15 1.79
* p < 0.05
 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001                  
ACHIEVEMENT DESCRIPTORS
Table 5 shows percentage frequency distributions, means and standard deviations of five achievement descriptors of students by reading level, year level, gender, ethnicity and text type. Expression, clarity of speech, clause structure, sentence structure and breath control measure separate aspects of oral reading presentation and fluency.
 
Oral Reading Expression
Most students read with “some expression” (54%), or “little/no expression” (40%), and only 6% read with “appropriate” expression. The overall mean fell close to “some expression” (x = 1.66), and all subgroups achieved a similar level.
 
Oral Reading Clarity
Equal proportions of students (45%) used “partly clear” and “mostly clear” speech. The overall mean fell close to “partly clear” (x = 2.37), and no students read with predominantly “clear” speech. Similar means were achieved for year level, gender, ethnicity and text type subgroups, but the differences between the means for the four reading level groups were statistically significant (F = 3.18; df = 3,88; p < .05). Students reading at band 0 read with significantly less clarity than those reading at bands 1 and 3.
 
Clause/Sentence Structure & Breath Control
Overall findings were similar for both clause and sentence structure, with the majority of the sample exhibiting “some control” over clause structure (67%) and “some control” over sentence structure (61%) when reading unseen text. Again, very few students read with “control” over clause (1%) and sentence structure (2%)

The mean achievement level for clause structure fell just under “some control” (x = 1.69), and subgroup means were similar for reading level, year level and ethnicity. The differences between the means across gender and text type groups were found to be statistically significant. Girls exhibited significantly more control over clause structure than boys (t = -3.49; df = 88; p < .001), and students reading non-book texts displayed significantly less control over clause structure than those reading fiction or non-fiction texts (F = 7.48; df = 2,87; p < .01).
 
Table 5: Table of Percentages, Means and Standard Deviations of Achievement Descriptors of Students by Reading Level, Year Level, Gender, Ethnicity & Text Type
Achievement Total
Reading Level
Year
Gender
Ethnic Group
Text Type
Band 0 Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 4 8 Male Female Pakeha Maori Pac. Isl. Fiction Non-Fiction Non-Book
Number 90 20 30 8 32 45 45 53 37 50 34 6 29 33 28
Expression                 **           **
little / no 9.59 12.12 9.41 9.51 8.20 9.93 9.25 11.1 7.56 9.95 8.68 11.74 7.30 9.27 12.34
some 6.14 9.21 5.03 6.24 4.20 6.71 5.57 7.10 3.65 6.93 5.10 3.98 4.05 5.88 7.26
appropriate
 6 5 7 12 3 7 4 2 11 4 9 0 7 9 0
x 1.66 1.65 1.67 1.75 1.62 1.67 1.64 1.57 1.78 1.62 1.71 1.67 1.72 1.70 1.54
s 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.71 0.55 0.60 0.57 0.54 0.63 0.57 0.63 0.52 0.59 0.64 0.51
Clarity of Speech
 		       *                    
unclear
 9 15 10 0 6 13 4 13 3 8 9 17 10 6 11
partly clear 45.5 70 27 63 44 42 49 46 46 48 41 50 42 39 57
mostly clear 45.5 15 63 37 50 45 47 51 51 44 50 33 48 55 32
clear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x 2.37 2.00 2.53 2.37 2.44 2.31 2.42 2.28 2.49 2.36 2.41 2.17 2.38 2.48 2.21
s 0.64 0.56 0.68 0.52 0.62 0.70 0.58 0.69 0.56 0.63 0.66 0.75 0.68 0.62 0.63
Clause Structure
              ***           **
little/no control 32 35 40 12.5 28 38 27 47 11 30 35 33 28 15 57
some control
67 65 60 75 72 62 71 51 89 68 65 67 72 82 43
control 1 0 0 12.5 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 0
x 1.69 1.65 1.60 2.00 1.72 1.62 1.76 1.55 1.89 1.72 1.65 1.67 1.72 1.88 1.43
s 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.53 0.46 0.49 0.49 0.54 0.31 0.50 0.48 0.52 0.45 0.41 0.50
Sentence Structure
      *   *   **           *
little/no control 37 45 50 25 22 47 27 49 19 32 41 50 28 27 57
some control 61 55 50 63 75 53 69 49 78 64 59 50 69 70 43
control 2 0 0 12 3 0 4 2 3 4 0 0 3 3 0
x 1.66 1.55 1.50 1.87 1.81 1.53 1.78 1.53 1.84 1.72 1.59 1.50 1.76 1.76 1.43
s 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.64 0.47 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.44 0.54 0.50 0.55 0.51 0.50 0.50
Breath control
                          *
little/no control 27 45 7 50 28 22 31 30 21 26 26 33 17 18 46
some control
70 50 93 38 69 76 65 66 76 70 71 67 76 79 54
control
 3 5 0 12 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 0 7 3 0
x
 1.77 1.60 1.93 1.62 1.75 1.80 1.73 1.74 1.81 1.78 1.76 1.67 1.90 1.85 1.54
s
 0.50 0.60 0.25 0.74 0.51 0.46 0.54 0.52 0.46 0.51 0.50 0.52 0.49 0.44 0.51
* p < 0.05
 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001                  

The mean achievement level in relation to sentence structure fell between “little/no control” and “some control”. Statistically significant differences in the means were revealed for reading and year level, gender and text type subgroups. Students reading at band 1 showed significantly less control over sentence structure than those reading at band 3 (F= 2.74; df = 3,86; p < .05). Year 4 students displayed less control over sentence structure than those in year 8 (t = -2.27; df = 88; p < .05), and boys showed less control over sentence structure than girls (t = -2.87; df = 88; p < .01). Students reading non-book texts demonstrated less control over sentence structure than those reading fiction or non-fiction texts (F = 4.10; df = 2,87; p < .05).

The majority of students (70%) showed “some control” over breathing and saliva flow while reading aloud. The mean achievement level in relation to breath control fell below “some control” (x = 1.77), and this was similar for reading and year level, gender and ethnicity subgroups. The differences between means for the three text type groups were revealed to be statistically significant (F = 4.82; df 2,87; p < .05), with students reading non-book texts displaying significantly less breath control than those reading fiction or non-fiction texts.

   
IMPRESSIONISTIC INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTORS
Table 6 shows the percentage frequency distributions of students across 17 impressionistic individual descriptors by reading and year level, gender, ethnicity and text type.
   
Speech Impediments and Accents
Physical impediments were discernable in the speech of only 10% of students who stuttered or incorrectly pronounced specific sounds, such as ‘th’ or ‘r’, due to such physical difficulties as protruding teeth. Frequencies observed across all subgroups reflected the overall distribution. Accents were discernable in 19% of students and, as anticipated, the frequencies across the three ethnic groups were significantly different (chi square = 9.75; df = 2; p < .01). A higher percentage of Pacific Island students (67%) spoke with a discernable accent, although it must be noted that only six students were included in the sample. Most of the Pakeha students who spoke with a discernable accent (16%) appeared to be Non-English Speaking Background (NESB) learners from Asia.
   
Table 6: Table of Percentages of Impressionistic Individual Descriptors of Students by Reading Level, Year Level, Gender, Ethnicity & Text Type
Achievement Total
Reading Level
Year
Gender
Ethnic Group
Text Type
Band 0 Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 4 8 Male Female Pakeha Maori Pac. Isl. Fiction Non-Fiction Non-Book
Number 90 20 30 8 32 45 45 53 37 50 34 6 29 33 28
Speech                       **      
Phys. imped. 10 5 13 12 9 11 9 8 14 16 3 0 17 12 0
accent 19 35 13 25 12 22 16 17 22 14 18 67 24 15 18
Vis/Sens. - distance
                            
moves further away 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
moves closer 47 50 50 38 44 51 42 45 49 44 47 67 45 52 43
accepts set up 53 50 50 62 56 49 58 55 51 56 53 33 55 48 57
Vis/Sens. - place
                            
keeps with finger 22 45 20 25 9.5 29 16 19 27 6 44 33 24 24 18
keeps with hand 15 20 20 0 9.5 20 9 13 16 18 9 17 17 15 11
keeps with eyes 63 35 60 75 81 51 75 68 57 76 47 50 59 61 71
Verbal commun.
 		                            
chatty 15.5 20 17 37.5 6 18 13 11.5 22 14 21 0 21 18 7
moderate 75.5 75 73 37.5 88 75 76 79 70 74 76 83 72 76 79
reticent 9 5 10 25 6 7 11 9.5 8 12 3 17 7 6 14
Sociability
                            
initiates 26 20 30 38 22 22 29 23 30 26 29 0 28 30 18
moderate 74 80 70 62 78 78 71 77 70 74 71 100 72 70 82
avoids 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reliance on the T.A.
                            
dependent 12 25 10 12 6 11 13 17 6 10 15 17 4 48 14
moderate 42 65 40 38 31 56 29 36 51 42 41 50 48 43 36
independent 46 10 50 50 63 33 58 47 43 48 44 33 48 39 50
Volume of Speech
                            
loud 9 10 17 0 3 15 2 10 8 6 15 0 7 15 3
moderate 54 70 53 63 44 58 51 60 46 50 62 50 41 61 61
quiet 37 20 30 37 53 27 47 30 46 44 23 50 52 24 36
Confidence
                            
over-confident 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0
moderate 70 60 77 75 69 71 69 64 78 70 74 50 72 76 61
under-confident 29 40 20 25 31 27 31 36 19 30 23 50 28 21 39
Risk-taking
                              
many wr. attempts 8 10 7 12.5 6 7 9 9.5 5.5 8 9 0 0 6 18
moderate 84 70 90 87.5 88 82 87 81 89 82 88 83 90 88 75
few/no attempts 8 20 3 0 6 11 4 9.5 5.5 10 3 17 10 6 7
Interest in task
                            

euthusiastic 15 30 16.5 12 6 24.5 7 11 22 14 21 0 21 24 0
moderate 78 50 77 88 94 64.5 91 81 73 74 79 100 76 70

89
unmotivatied 7 20 6.5 0 0 1 2 8 5 12 0 0 3 6 11
Effort/perseverance
                            
concentrated effort 62 20 70 75 78 49 76 68 54 62 59 83 69 55 64
moderated 38 80 30 25 22 51 24 32 46 38 41 17 31 45 36
little/no effort 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wakefulness
                            
alert 37 30 33 75 34 29 44 32 43 42 35 0 35 46 28
moderate 38 45 30 12.5 47 38 38 34 43 34 41 50 48 30 36
tired 25 25 37 12.5 19 33 18 34 14 24 24 50 17 24 36
Physical Well-being
                           
in good health 48 35 40 75 56 36 60 47 49 54 38 50 55 49 39
moderate 31 35 47 12.5 19 44 18 30 32 24 38 50 34.5 33 25
unwell 21 30 13 12.5 25 20 22 23 19 22 24 0 10.5 18 36
Physical Movement
                            
still 49 25 47 75 59 38 60 55 40 56 38 50 31 49 68
moderate 36 45 33 25 34 38 33 26 49 34 41 17 48 33 25
active 15 30 20 0 6 24 7 19 11 10 21 33 21 18 7
Emotional reaction
                           
frustrated 10 15 7 25 6 11 9 13 5 8 15 0 14 9 7
embrassed 14 20 13 12.5 12.5 12 16 17 11 18 9 17 14 9 22
using humour 14 15 17 12.5 12.5 18 11 11 19 14 17 0 20 15 7
tearful 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
moderated 61 50 63 50 69 58 64 59 65 60 59 83 52 67 64
Response to text
                            
active response 29 30 40 38 16 36 22 25 35 28 35 0 28 48 7
moderate 58 50 40 50 81 42 73 62 51 60 53 67 62 49 64
little/no response 13 20 20 12 3 22 5 13 14 12 12 33 10 3 29
Follows instructions
                           
successful 72 55 77 75 78 69 76 73 70 72 71 83 76 61 82
moderate success 26 40 20 25 22 27 24 25 27 26 26 17 24 36 14
little/no success 2 5 3 0 0 4 0 2 3 2 3 0 0 3 4
* p < 0.05
 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001                  

Visual/Sensory Motor Behaviours
Fifty-three percent of students accepted the distance of the desk set-up, but 47% decreased the distance by moving the book or their head closer (47%). The frequencies across the subgroups were not significantly different from those expected by chance. The majority of students (63%) generally kept their reading place through eye contact, although 22% kept their place by running a finger under each word. Frequencies observed for year level, gender and text type subgroups were similar, but those observed across reading level and ethnicity groups were found to be significantly different. More students reading at band 0 kept their place by running their finger under each word (45%), while most students reading at band 3 kept their reading place with their eyes (81%) (chi square = 14.31; df = 6; p < .05). A significantly lower percentage of Pakeha students (6%) kept their place by running their finger under words (chi square = 17.65; df = 4; p < .01).

Verbal Communication and Sociability
The majority of students exhibited “moderate” behaviours in regard to conversing (75.5%) or making social contact (74%) with the teacher-administrator, and frequencies observed across all subgroups reflected the overall distribution.
Reliance on Teacher-Administrator
Most students displayed “moderate” (42%) or “independent” (46%) reading behaviours. Frequencies for gender, ethnicity and text type subgroups were similar, but those observed for reading and year level were significantly different. A higher percentage of students reading at band 3 exhibited “independent” reading behaviours (63%) (chi square = 14.91; df = 6; p < .05), as did a similar percentage of Year 8 students (chi square = 6.83; df = 2; p < .05). This was anticipated as all students reading at band 3 were in year 8.

Volume of Speech
Most students spoke with a “moderate” (54%) or “quiet voice” (37%). Only those frequencies for the two year levels were found to be significantly different to those expected (chi square = 7.14; df = 2; p < .05). Significantly more year 8 students spoke with a “quiet voice” (47%) than did year 4 students (27%).

Confidence and Risk-Taking
Most students (70%) showed “moderate” levels of confidence, with a further 29% showing observable signs of being “under-confident”. Frequencies observed across all subgroups reflected the overall distribution. Similarly, most students were prepared to take “moderate” risks at working out unknown words (84%), and frequencies observed across all subgroups reflected the overall distribution. The only student to show signs of over-confidence, a year 4 girl, stopped the teacher-administrator from completing the task instructions and claimed it would be “easy-peasy”. Upon facing an unknown word only four words into the passage, however, she lost her poise momentarily before turning away from the T.A. and holding the book at an angle such that only she could see the words. She then continued to read in an ostensibly confident manner, simply substituting any unknown words.

Interest in Task and Effort
Most students (78%) exhibited “moderate” levels of interest in carrying out the oral reading task. Fifteen percent showed signs of “enthusiasm” and only 7% appeared “unmotivated”. One year 4 boy struggled through half of a text passage before announcing that he was “nearly finished”, after which he lapsed into silence and slouched back in his chair. The teacher-administrator asked if he could see the words and used her pen to point at the next word. The passage was completed slowly, with the child making an apathetic attempt at words only when the pointer was used. Only those frequency distributions for reading level and year level groups were significantly different to those expected. A higher percentage of students reading at band 0 exhibited observable signs of “enthusiasm” (30%) (chi square = 15.67; df = 6; p < .05), as did a similar proportion of year 4 students (chi square = 9.29; df = 2; p < .01). This finding was anticipated, as most students reading at band 0 were in year 4 and it supports general NEMP findings that year 8 students exhibit less enthusiasm across various curriculum areas.

The majority of students (62%) exhibited “concentrated effort” across time, with the rest showing a “moderate” level of focussed attention. This may reflect either the fact that students were required to read unseen text at a challenging level or the one-on-one interview setting. Only those frequency distributions for reading and year levels were found to be significantly different to those expected. A higher percentage of students at band 3 (78%) showed ‘concentrated effort” (chi square = 19.94; df = 3; p < .001). as did a similar percentage of year 8 students (chi square = 6.81; df = 1, p < .01). This finding may simply reflect that only year 8 students read at band 3 in this sample, and longer more difficult texts provided more opportunities to exhibit perseverance.

Physical Well-Being, Physical Movement and Wakefulness
While most students (79%) exhibited signs of being “in good health” or in “moderate” health, 21% exhibited signs of being “unwell”. Only the frequencies for the two year levels were revealed to be significantly different, in that more year 8 students exhibited observable signs of being “in good health” (chi square = 8.01; df = 2; p < .05). The frequencies of students exhibiting symptoms of being “unwell”, however, was similar for both year 4 and year 8 students. Similar percentages of students exhibited observable signs of “moderate” wakefulness, being “alert” or “tired”. Frequency distributions observed across all subgroups were also similar. Forty-nine percent of students remained predominantly “still”, with a further 36% exhibiting “moderate” movement throughout the reading task. Only the frequencies observed for the two year levels were found to be significantly different (chi square = 6.97; df = 2; p < .05). Significantly more year 8 students remained predominantly “still” (60%).

Emotional Reaction to Challenge
The majority of students (61%) exhibited “moderate” emotional reactions when working through difficulties. Similar percentages showed signs of being “frustrated”, “embarrassed” or “using humour”. The only child to become “tearful”, a year 4 boy, became increasingly agitated when faced with unknown words. A short burst of angry tears followed his pronouncement that he didn’t want to complete the task because it was too hard, “I don’t know them!”. Frequencies observed across all subgroups reflected the overall distribution.

Response to Text
Over half the students (58%) exhibited a “moderate” response to text message, theme or mood. A further 29% of students exhibited an “active response” by scanning illustrations to enhance their involvement with the text, sharing emotional responses with the teacher-administrator, or talking about a related life experience e.g. “we’ve been to a farm like that”. Frequency distributions observed for reading and year level and text type subgroups were revealed to be significantly different. A higher percentage of students reading at band 3 (81%) exhibited a “moderate” response to text (chi square = 12.60; df = 6; p < .05), as did a similar percentage of year 8 students (chi square = 10.49; df = 2; p < .01). A significantly lower percentage of students reading non-book texts (7%) made an “active response” (chi square = 17.48; df = 4; p < .01).

Following Instructions
Most students (72%) were “successful” at following general instructions concerning selection procedures and the starting place for reading, and only 2% of students had “little/no” success. Frequencies observed across all subgroups reflected the overall distribution.
   
CORRELATIONS

The interrelationships between the achievement scores and achievement descriptors are reported in Table 5. (n = 90 in all cases except for comprehension where n = 80)

The inter-correlation coefficients of the five achievement scores were almost all statistically significant. There were significant negative relationships between reading rate and three other achievement scores; strategy rate (r = -.68; p < .001), error rate (r = -.41; p < .001), and self-correction rate (r = -.33; p < .01). These correlations were anticipated, as were the significant positive relationships between the strategy rate and two other variables; error rate (r = .81; p < .001) and self-correction rate (r = .36; p < .001), as all these behaviours involve pausing to work out words. There was, however, no significant correlation between self-correction rate and two other variables, error rate (r = .04) and comprehension (r = .08). There was a significant negative correlation between error rate and comprehension (r = -.22; p < .05). It appears that students making more errors also applied more strategies, read more slowly and achieved a lower comprehension score. There was a significant positive relationship between reading rate and comprehension rate (r = .36; p < .01) with students reading more words per minute also gaining higher comprehension scores.

There were fewer significant relationships amongst achievement scores and achievement descriptors. No significant correlations existed between either comprehension or self-correction rate and any of the five achievement descriptors. There was no significant relationship between breath control and any of the five achievement scores, with correlation coefficients ranging from .05 to .17. There were significant negative relationships between strategy rate and four variables; expression (r = -.35; p < .001), clarity (r = -.22; p < .05), clause structure (r = -.55; p < .001) and sentence structure (r = -.50; p < .001). Students pausing to employ more strategies achieved lower levels of control over these aspects of oral performance. There was a significant positive correlation between reading rate and the same four achievement descriptors; expression (r = .26; p < .05), clarity (r = .25; p < .05), clause structure (r = .43; p < .001) and sentence structure ( r = .48; p < .001). Students achieving higher levels of control over these aspects of oral performance also read more words per minute. There were significant negative correlations between error rate and several oral performance descriptors; expression (r = -.25; p < .05), clause structure (r = -.46; p < .001) and sentence structure (r = -.38; p < .001). This was anticipated, given the significant positive correlation between strategy and error rate (r = .81).
 
Table 7: Correlation Coefficients between Achievement Scores and Achievement Descriptors
Correlation Coefficients between Achievement Scores: comprehension, reading rate, error rate, self-correction rate and strategy rate
Correlation Coefficient Reading Rate Error Rate Self-Correction Rate Strategy Rate
Comprehension Rate .36 **  -.22 *  .08 -.33 **  
Reading Rate (wpm)   -.41 ***  -.33 ** -.68 ***  
Error Rate     .04  .81 *** 
Self-Correction Rate       .36 *** 
Strategy Rate        
* p < .05 ** p < .01  *** < .001       
Correlation Coefficients between Achievement Scores (comprehension, reading rate, error rate, self-correction rate and strategy rate) and Achievement Descriptors (expression, clarity of speech, clause structure, sentence structure and breath control) 
Correlation Coefficient Expression Clarity of Speech Clause Structure Sentence Structure Breath Control
Comprehension 0.12 0.13 0.20 0.10 0.12
Reading Rate (wpm)  0.26 * 0.25 * 0.43 *** 0.48 *** 0.05
Error Rate  -0.25 * -0.16 -0.46 *** -0.38 *** -0.17
Self-Correction Rate  -0.09 0.11 -0.10 -0.10 0.14
Strategy Rate  -0.35 *** -0.22 * -0.55 *** -0.50 *** -0.14
* p < .05 ** p < .01  *** < .001          
Correlation Coefficients between Achievement Descriptors: expression, clarity of speech, clause structure, sentence structure and breath control
Correlation Coefficient Clarity of Speech Clause Structure Sentence Structure Breath Control
Expression 0.43 *** 0.37 *** 0.31 ** -0.05
Clartiy of Speech   0.44 *** 0.35 *** 0.34 **
Clause Structure     0.76 *** 0.21
Sentence Structure       0.29 **
Breath Control        
* p < .05 ** p < .01  *** < .001       
The achievement descriptors were specific measures of overall oral performance, so the preponderance of significant positive correlations was not surprising. There was a significant positive relationship between clarity of speech and expression (r = .43; p < .001), clause structure (r = .44; p < .001), sentence structure (r = .35; p < .001) and breath control (r = .34; p < .001) Students achieving higher levels of control over language structure also read more clearly. There were, however, no significant correlations between breath control and two other variables, expression (r = -.05) and clause structure (r = .21).
   
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Major findings regarding achievements, work habits and personal characteristics of New Zealand primary school students reading below normal expectations have been summarised

Achievements
•
 Students read at a “very slow” mean reading rate of 57.15 words per minute.
• Students achieved a mean error rate of 9.21% when reading at an instructionally appropriate level of difficulty. The most common error type was substitutions, followed by omissions and insertions.
• Students achieved a mean strategy rate of 9.59%. The most common strategy type was “context” strategies, especially “guessing” or “clarifying the meaning” of words, followed by “decoding”, “coping” and “mixed” strategies.
• Over half of the students were able to answer at least two of the three literal comprehension questions correctly.
• Self-corrections occurred only rarely (x = 2.46%) and almost all students self-corrected fewer than 1 in every 20 text words read.
• There were statistically significant correlations amongst achievement scores. Students who paused to employ more strategies also made more errors, self-corrected more words and read more slowly. Students reading more words per minute also made fewer errors and gained a higher literal comprehension score.
• Forty percent of students read with “little/no” expression, most used “partly clear” or “mostly clear” speech, and over half displayed “some” control over clause/sentence structure and breath control. Ninety percent of students showed no discernable physical speech impediments. About half spoke at a “moderate” volume level, and a further third used a “quiet” voice.
• There were statistically significant correlations amongst achievement descriptors. Students achieving higher levels of control over expression, clause/sentence structure and breath control also read more clearly. Students making more errors, or pausing to employ more strategies, achieved lower levels of control over expression, clarity, clause structure and sentence structure. Students achieving higher levels of control over these aspects of oral reading fluency also read more words per minute.
   
Work Habits
•
 Almost half the sample decreased the reading distance by moving either the book or their head closer. Although 63% of students kept their reading place through eye contact, nearly a quarter ran their finger under words.
•
 Approximately half the sample remained predominantly “still” throughout the oral reading task and exhibited “independent” reading behaviours.
•
 The majority of students were “successful” at following general instructions about selection procedures and starting places for reading, and applied “concentrated effort” to the task.
   
Personal Characteristics
• The majority of students exhibited “moderate” levels of “verbal communication”, “sociability”, “confidence”, “risk-taking” and “interest”. Half exhibited a “moderate” response to the text.
• Over half the students exhibited “moderate” emotional reactions to challenge. Similar percentages of those who did react displayed “embarrassment”, “humour” or “frustration”.
• Just under half showed signs of being “in good health”, and one in five students showed symptoms of being “unwell”, mostly signs of nasal congestion.
   
Differences for Reading and Year Level, Gender, Ethnicity and Text-type Subgroups
The number of statistically significant differences for both reading and year level groups were to be expected, as all students reading at reading level bands 2 and 3 were all in year 8, and only 10% of year 8 students read at bands 0 and 1. There were several significant differences for text type, but very few for ethnicity and gender.
• Students reading at the two highest bands read significantly more words per minute, but still read at a “slow” rate. More students reading at band 3 exhibited “independent” reading behaviours and “concentrated effort”. They kept their place with their eyes and made more insertion errors. Those reading at the lowest reading band made significantly more errors, but less “omissions”. These students exhibited less “clarity of speech”, relied more on keeping their place with their finger, employed more “coping” strategies, especially “emotional responses”. Students reading at band 0 showed more “enthusiasm” for the task, but less response to the text, and those reading at band 1 exhibited less control over sentence structure.
• Year 8 students utilised significantly more “mixed” strategies than year 4 students, and made more “alternate pronunciation” and undecipherable errors. They spoke “quietly”, and exhibited more observable signs of being “in good health”. Year 4 students were more active during the oral reading task.
• Students reading non-book texts exhibited less control over clause structure, sentence structure and breath control than those reading fiction and non-fiction texts, and more exhibited “little/no response” to the text. They paused to employ significantly more strategies, especially decoding strategies, by attempting to “sound out’ more words. Students reading non-fiction texts relied more on the context strategy of “clarifying the meaning” of unknown words.
• Almost all Pakeha students speaking with an accent appeared to be Asian immigrants from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds (NESB). The majority of Pakeha students kept their reading place using eye contact, and achieved significantly better comprehension scores than the Pacific Island students. Significantly more Pacific Islanders spoke with an accent.
• Boys paused to employ significantly more strategies than girls by attempting to “sound out” more words. Boys also displayed less control over clause and sentence structure.

prev page / next page
top of page    |    return to Probe Studies - INDEX   |    return to Probe Studies menu
For further information and contact details for the Author    |    Contact USEE