PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
4.2 ANALYSIS OF THE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST
The first instrument employed was a criterion-referenced test, which aimed to determine the level of RC of the participants through a reading comprehension passage (See Appendix A). The test results are discussed below.
Table 4.1: Students’ CR Test scores
Mark out 25 Total number of students Percentages
2 1 8%
3 7 12%
4 3 16%
5 5 20%
6 8 24%
7 20 28%
8 4 32%
9 6 36%
10 6 40%
11 7 44%
12 5 48%
13 5 52%
15 3 60%
16 1 64%
80
Table 4.1 above indicates that the majority of students performed poorly because more than 55% of the students obtained between 0 – 29%. These are marks from 2 to 7 out 25. A further 12% achieved between 30 -37%, which are marked 8 and 9 out of 25.
Twenty-two percent (22%) obtained between 40 -49%, which are 10, 11 and 12 scores. Six percent obtained between 50-59%, that is, 13 marks. Only 5% received a score between 60 -69%, which is 15 and 16, respectively.
The types of questions that were asked included those that required students to make inferences and recall questions (also known as factual questions). Inferential questions are those that require students to use prior knowledge and what they read from the reading comprehension passage and gave answers by inferring. The answers are not necessarily within the reading passage itself. Examples of inferential questions were ‘How do you know that the number of homeless people appear to be rising?’ and
‘What do you think causes young people to migrate to neighbouring countries?’ More than 80% of the students failed to correctly answer these questions, with just fewer students whose attempts were correct. Recall questions included ‘According to the passage, what is the approximate number of homeless people?’ Since the answer was in the passage for this question, 100% of the students answered it correctly. However, there were still some recall questions that proved to be difficult to students as more than 50% could not provide the correct answers to questions such as, ‘Why is it difficult to obtain statistics on the number of homeless people?’ and ‘Why do migrants find it difficult to return home?’ The answers to these questions were contained in the passage, but most students (more than 50%) still performed poorly. This suggests that there is reading comprehension incompetency amongst first year students at HBUs.
The majority of students that obtained a score between 2 – 7 marks out of 25 relied on recall questions as they lacked understanding of how to answer inferential questions. Students should be taught different types of questions that can be asked based on a reading comprehension passage, and how they are expected to answer each type. This may improve how students answer reading comprehension passage questions and, will, in the process, enhance their reading comprehension.
Furthermore, the test scores were analysed using the Department of Basic Education (DoBE) grading system to categorise the students’ obtained test scores and to indicate
81
their achievement level. Therefore, Table 4.2 below was used to determine the reading levels.
Table 4.2: Students scores interpretation using Department of Basic Education Achievement level Achievement
Description
Marks %
7 Outstanding achievement 80 – 100
6 Meritorious achievement 70 – 79
5 (4 students) Substantial achievement 60 – 69 4 (5 students) Adequate achievement 50 – 59 3 (18 students) Moderate achievement 40 – 49 2 (10 students) Elementary achievement 30 – 39
1 (45 students) Not achieved 0 – 29
In total, 82 students from the sampled universities wrote the comprehension passage test. The breakdown of their performance is as follows:
o 55% of the students scored level 1, which ranges from 0% - 29%
o 12% of the students scored level 2, which ranges from 30% - 39%
o 22% of the students scored level 3, which ranges from 40% - 49%
o 6% of the students scored level 4, which ranges from 50% - 59%
o 5% of the students scored level 5, which ranges from 60% - 69%
The results indicate a poor achievement level of students who wrote the comprehension passage test on the reading comprehension competencies of first entering English language students at HBUs in South Africa. The results show that over 55% of the students scored a not achieved mark, and nearly 12% scored an elementary mark. This suggests that students enter the university with poor RC competency levels, and this immediately posts a threat to their academic performance.
A study conducted by Bharuthram (2017: 59) revealed that South African students enter higher education with lower levels of reading literacy. The study also indicated that the majority of participants lacked reading exposure that begins at home. As a result, the children go into the schooling system with very little exposure to books. This leads to students entering higher education with some literacy that is not well-
82
developed for higher education, thereby affecting their academic performance. Many scholars posit that developing a reading culture is a one way of boosting academic success (Ruterana, 2012: 19). Thus, a well-developed RC ability is the main goal that can lead to students’ educational success (Khoshsima & Rezaeian Tiyar, 2014: 134).
One of the contributors to the poor reading comprehension competency level is the inability by students to comprehend reading tasks. The analysis also found that five in 10 students struggle to comprehend reading tasks most of the time, which render them unable to answer the questions posed. Below is a summary table that shows the proportionality breakdown:
Table 4.3: Reading tasks comprehension I comprehend reading tasks 49%
I do not comprehend reading tasks 3%
I sometimes comprehend reading tasks 48%
These findings suggest that almost half (49%) of the surveyed students are certain and confident that they can understand what they read, and 48% said “they sometimes comprehend reading tasks”. This is not a good indication given that English is predominantly the medium of instruction in most HBUs. Poor vocabulary has also emerged as a contributor to the poor RC competency level. In lecturers’ interviews, it was found that students have a very limited word bank. One lecturer gave the response: “You find a student who's responding to a question, you see how they're struggling to find a word, to explain what they're trying to say. And you will even see how that sort of what disheartens them. It takes them down because they cannot continue with their train of thought. And you see it in their writing and the repetitiveness of certain word because it shows that they have a limited amount of words.” Lacking vocabulary poses a danger to students’ ability to understand what they read and to answer the questions correctly. A student that lacks vocabulary is likely not to express their ideas in a manner that one can comprehend.
Moreover, research indicates that vocabulary can have an influence on RC. Word comprehension has a direct impact on a student’s ability to read a passage timeously.
The students are able to understand the meaning of words quickly if they are familiar with the words and what they mean. As such, vocabulary development and
83
comprehension have a direct relationship with literacy when considering the speed and simplicity of being able to decode meaning (Moore, 2014: 7). This explains why the students performed poorly in the RC passage test because vocabulary and comprehension go hand-in-hand and the two cannot be separated. For a student to comprehend a larger text, he or she must have knowledge of smaller words that make up the whole text (Boyer, 2017: 1).