decoding skills vs. reading fluency in korean high school...

123

English Teaching, Vol. 69, No. 4, Winter 2014

DOI: 10.15858/engtea.69.4.201412.123

Decoding Skills vs. Reading Fluency in Korean High School EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension

Yusun Kang*

(Korea University)

Younjee Huh

(Korea University)

Boram Moon

(Korea University)

Yeoeun Park

(Korea University)

Kang, Yusun, Huh, Younjee, Moon, Boram, & Park, Yeoeun. (2014). Decoding

skills vs. reading fluency in Korean high school EFL learners’ reading

comprehension. English Teaching, 69(4), 123-143.

Despite the general understanding of the prominent role of basic reading sub-skills,

such as decoding abilities and reading fluency, in the reading comprehension of

younger and proficient first and second language readers, little is known about the role

of these skills in older and less skilled readers in foreign language contexts. The present

study was designed to investigate how decoding skills and reading fluency relate to the

reading comprehension of such readers, and to identify the relative strengths between

the two. Two hundred twenty two Korean high school students participated, and their

performance on decoding, reading fluency, and reading comprehension tasks was

analyzed. The results showed that both decoding skills and reading fluency were

strongly correlated to reading comprehension. Moreover, between the two fundamental

reading sub-skills, decoding skills outperformed reading fluency in explaining reading

comprehension, making a unique contribution beyond the effects of reading fluency.

These findings suggest that a basic skill like word decoding still deserves instructional

attention even at the secondary schools in EFL contexts.

Key words: decoding skills, reading fluency, reading comprehension, Korean EFL

learners

*

Yusun Kang: First author; Younjee Huh, Boram Moon, Yeoeun Park: Co-authors

Book Centre교보문고 KYOBO

124 Yusun Kang · Younjee Huh · Boram Moon · Yeoeun Park

1. INTRODUCTION

Since the seventh National Curriculum, which highlighted the use of English as basic

interpersonal communicative skills (BICS), was enacted in 2001, communicative

approaches mainly focusing on both speaking and listening skills have been widely

accepted for English education in Korean elementary schools (Ko, 2010). In this context,

reading instruction has been relatively limited to teaching how to differentiate and

articulate words correctly while reading. Though included in the national curriculum, an

effort to develop students’ decoding ability or to provide explicit phonics instruction has

been scarce or, if any, has targeted only younger learners for a very short period of time

(Ko, 2012). Without sufficient instruction or training on basic reading skills such as

decoding abilities in elementary schools, reading instruction in secondary schools in Korea

has largely focused on understanding the grammatical elements and word meanings

embedded in the texts or answering comprehension questions, which requires more higher

level cognitive skills such as inferencing, discerning cohesive ties, or identifying main

ideas (Kim & Shin, 2008). In other words, the fundamental reading sub-skills that are

prerequisite for successful reading comprehension, such as decoding abilities and reading

fluency, are seemingly expected to have somehow developed by the time students attend

secondary schools. However, contrary to this assumption, some high school learners may

still have difficulty in reading at the word-level (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1991). Thus,

there is a great need for research focused on these fundamental but largely overlooked

reading sub-skills, and for investigating how they may relate to the reading abilities of

Korean secondary school students who may not have had sufficient exposure and practice

in developing automaticity in these fundamental skills at earlier stages.

In general, it has been demonstrated that decoding skills play a relatively greater role in

younger, or less-proficient readers’ reading comprehension, unlike reading fluency, which

gradually takes over the role of decoding skills and plays a bigger role in older and more

proficient readers’ reading comprehension (Adlof, Catts, & Little, 2006). Then the question

still remains as to whether this general assumption is also applicable to Korean English as a

foreign language (EFL) students who have received little formal instruction in these two

sets of skills at school and who have little language and literacy input outside school,

unlike those in second language contexts. Thus, it is worth reconsidering whether the basic

reading skills such as decoding abilities and reading fluency are still significant

contributors to Korean secondary school students’ reading comprehension, and what role

they each play with respect to each other. This study attempts to explore the role of

decoding skills and reading fluency in accounting for reading comprehension abilities of

Korean high school EFL learners, and also to confirm which of the two fundamental skills

plays a relatively stronger role for this particular population, who is relatively older but less


Decoding Skills vs. Reading Fluency in Korean High School EFL Learners’ Reading ... 125

proficient in the target language compared to those in previous studies (García & Cain,

2014; Gough, Hoover, & Peterson, 1996; Keenan, Betjemann, & Olson, 2008; Kendeou,

van den Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009; Rupley & Wilson, 1997).

2. RELEVANT LITERATURE

2.1. Decoding Skills in Reading Comprehension

Decoding skill is the ability to transform printed words into phonetic codes and to read

them accurately (Perfetti, 1985; Stanovich, 1986). Given that accurate word reading is

crucial for accurate comprehension, the effects of readers’ decoding skills on their reading

comprehension have been the focus of research in both first language (L1) and second

language (L2) contexts.

In L1 contexts, there is a consensus that decoding skills make a larger contribution to

reading comprehension for younger or less-skilled readers, compared to older or skilled

readers (Bell & Perfetti, 1994; Curtis, 1980). Thus, researchers have indicated that

decoding ability is a significant predictor of reading comprehension for those in lower

grade levels, whose language and literacy abilities have supposedly developed relatively

less than those in upper grades. Gough et al. (1996) performed a meta-analysis of 17

previous studies and categorized them into four groups according to the participants’ age:

grades 1-2 (Group 1), grades 3-4 (Group 2), grades 5-6 (Group 3), and college (Group 4).

The findings of this meta-analysis revealed that significant between-group effects did exist.

Although the average correlations between decoding skills and reading comprehension

abilities were significantly positive for all four groups, the strength of the relationship

decreased with increasing age. In a similar vein, Rupley and Wilson (1997) examined the

relationships between word recognition skills and reading comprehension abilities of 8-12

year-old English monolingual children, and showed that the degree to which decoding

skills contribute to reading comprehension abilities decreased as children grew older. In

addition to the aforementioned studies revealing the importance of decoding skills among

younger readers, other studies have shown that decoding skills make a bigger contribution

to less-skilled readers’ performance in reading comprehension compared to skilled ones

(Bell & Perfetti, 1994; Curtis, 1980). For example, Curtis (1980) examined reading

comprehension abilities of both skilled and less-skilled English monolingual readers in

second, third, and fifth grades. The findings indicated that decoding skills accounted for

more variance in the less-skilled readers’ reading comprehension than for the skilled

readers. In short, the majority of the studies of relationships between decoding skills and

reading comprehension abilities in L1 contexts have suggested that decoding skills are a



strong contributor to reading comprehension, especially for younger and less-skilled

readers who have not yet developed automaticity in word reading skills.

In L2 contexts, on the other hand, little research has been conducted on the effects of

decoding skills on reading comprehension abilities, and thus there exists little agreement

on the primary role that decoding skills may play specifically in the reading comprehension

of lower level L2 learners. While some studies indicated decoding skills as a significant

predictor in the reading comprehension of younger students in L2 contexts, as in the case

of L1 speakers (Nakamoto, Lindsey, & Manis, 2007), others support the efficacy of

decoding skills in older L2 learners’ reading performance (Pasquarella, Gottardo, & Grant,

2012; Rydland, Aukrust, & Fulland, 2012). For example, Nakamoto et al. (2007) studied

the growth pattern of decoding skills and reading comprehension with 261 Spanish-

speaking English language learners from first to sixth grade longitudinally. They showed

that in first and second grade, both decoding skills and reading abilities made remarkable

progresses, while in third grade, their reading comprehension began to lag behind that of

native English speakers , despite the similarity between the decoding scores of the two

groups. Their study also provided evidence that higher-level reading skills rather than

decoding skills were required for L2 learners for successful reading comprehension, as for

L1 learners, and that L2 reading comprehension was dependent upon decoding skills only

at very young age. Pasquarella et al. (2012), on the other hand, showed that decoding skills

were a significant predictor for adolescent L2 learners’ reading comprehension, whereas

neither vocabulary knowledge nor decoding skills was a significant predictor for L1

adolescent students’ reading comprehension. Similarly, Jeon (2011) demonstrated that a

significant role of decoding skills was observed in explaining Korean high school EFL

learners’ reading comprehension, accounting for as much as 12% of the unique variance in

their reading abilities. This indicates decoding skills as an important contributor to reading

comprehension of L2 learners in foreign language contexts as well.

Given the complexity of language and literacy development in L2 contexts itself, age

may not be the only major factor in determining the efficacy of decoding skills in reading

comprehension of L2 learners. Thus, unlike research conducted in L1 contexts, decoding

skills may turn out to be an important predictor of L2 learners’ reading comprehension,

irrespective of their age. That is, there may be more than the “age” factor that relates to the

changing role of decoding skills in L2 learners’ reading comprehension abilities. One

possible explanation might be that L2 learners generally have relatively poor English

abilities than L1 learners of the same age. The ability to read written words accurately and

efficiently may thus play a significant role in even older L2 learners’ reading

comprehension, compensating for its relative weakness in oral language abilities including

vocabulary knowledge. However, further research is needed to gain a clearer and more

accurate picture of the role decoding skills play in L2 learners’ reading abilities, especially



in foreign language (FL) contexts, since the majority of the research with L2 learners has

been conducted in second language (SL) contexts.

2.2. Reading Fluency in Reading Comprehension

Reading fluency has been defined in various ways. While some simply regard reading

fluency as rapid reading of words or a passage with accuracy (Jenkins, Fuchs, van den

Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003; Kim, Park, & Wagner, 2014), others expand the concept of

reading fluency to include the ability to read the text rapidly, accurately, and with prosody

or simultaneous comprehension (Grabe, 2010; Rasinski, Samuels, Hiebert, Petscher, &

Feller, 2011). According to the latter perspective, reading quickly and accurately without

understanding the read materials is meaningless. Most studies on reading fluency in both

L1 and L2 contexts, however, have adopted a limited view of reading fluency and have

used reading fluency measures that assess only speed and accuracy of oral reading, and

have not considered the comprehension element. As Kang (2011) argues that “reading

fluency is more than reading with speed and accuracy, as it also includes the

‘comprehension’ component at the word- and sentence-level, albeit not at the discourse

level” (p. 88), the expanded definition of reading fluency including reading accuracy, speed,

and comprehension is adopted in this study. In addition, the present study focuses on

reading fluency at the text level as opposed to the word level, in order to consider reading

fluency that is distinct and independent from decoding skills as much as possible.

In general, reading fluency has been identified as one of prerequisite skills for successful

reading comprehension of L1 readers of many different languages, including English

(Jenkins et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2014; Klauda & Guthrie, 2008; Paleologos & Brabham,

2011; Spear-Swerling, 2006). Klauda and Guthrie (2008), for example, demonstrated that

reading fluency had significant predictive power in reading comprehension of English-

speaking fifth graders. In an attempt to conduct a comprehensive examination of the role of

reading fluency, they assessed reading fluency at three different levels: word, syntactic, and

passage. The measure of reading fluency at the passage level also assessed the students’

ability to read with appropriate prosody. Their results illustrated that each fluency measure

was significantly correlated to reading comprehension, implying a close relationship

between overall reading fluency, measured from various perspectives, and reading

comprehension. Among studies conducted with speakers of languages other than English,

Kim et al. (2014) investigated to what extent L1 Korean kindergartners’ Korean text

reading fluency was interrelated with their reading comprehension, and identified a unique

contribution of text reading fluency to reading comprehension in Korean as well.

Interestingly, they accounted for language-specific properties of Korean and measured

reading fluency at both word- and syllable-level, and obtained identical results.



Although relatively less research attention has been paid to the role of reading fluency in

reading comprehension in L2 contexts, the few available studies have commonly identified

reading fluency as a major contributor to L2 reading comprehension as well (Gorsuch &

Taguchi, 2010; Jeon, 2012; Jiang, Sawaki, & Sabatini, 2012; Kieffer, Biancarosa, &

Mancilla-Martinez, 2013; Saiegh-Haddad, 2003; Taguchi, Gorsuch, & Sasamoto, 2006;

van Gelderen, Schoonen, Stoel, de Glopper, & Hulstijn, 2007). For instance, Kieffer et al.

(2013) found a strong correlation between passage reading fluency and reading

comprehension in an experiment with kindergarten to eighth grade Spanish-speaking

English L2 (English as a second language: ESL) learners in the US. In a foreign language

context, in contrast to second language learning contexts, van Gelderen et al. (2007)

conducted a study with Dutch students from eighth to tenth grade, exploring both L1

(Dutch) and L2 (EFL) reading comprehension, and showed that L2 reading fluency as

measured by sentence verification task, significantly accounted for L2 reading

comprehension. Similarly, Jeon (2012) investigated the role of reading fluency with

Korean high school EFL learners, and demonstrated that their oral passage reading fluency

contributed significantly to reading comprehension in English. However, given the paucity

of research on the relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension with

L2 learners in general, and Korean EFL learners in particular (Jiang et al., 2012; Taguchi et

al., 2006), further studies are needed in order to gain more insights into the potential

facilitative role reading fluency plays in the reading development of L2 learners.

2.3. Decoding Skills vs. Reading Fluency in Reading Comprehension

Although both decoding skills and reading fluency are considered necessary for

successful reading comprehension, there exists little consensus on the relative importance

between the two. Some studies have shown that decoding skill is a relatively stronger

predictor of reading comprehension (Adlof et al., 2006; Goldberg, Eason, Ryan, & Cutting,

2010; Padeliadu & Antoniou, 2014). For instance, Adlof et al. (2006) showed that decoding

skill was the strongest contributor to reading comprehension of English-speaking students

in lower grade levels while its predictive power gradually became weaker as students

moved to higher grades. Reading fluency, on the other hand, remained a weaker predictor

compared to decoding skills regardless of the students’ grades. Similarly, Padeliadu and

Antoniou (2014) demonstrated that decoding skills had stronger predictive power than

reading fluency in lower grade levels in explaining reading comprehension of Greek

monolingual students, but showed discrepant findings, in that this pattern changed from the

fifth grade. That is, reading fluency gradually became a relatively stronger contributor to

reading comprehension in the upper grades. On the other hand, several other studies have

shown that reading fluency outperforms decoding skills in its predictive power for reading



comprehension (Jenkins et al., 2003; Shinn, Good, Knutson, Tilly, & Collins, 1992) or

explained additional variance in reading comprehension beyond the effects of decoding

skills (Tilstra, McMaster, van den Broek, Kendeou, & Rapp, 2009). For example, Tilstra et

al. (2009) revealed that reading fluency contributed additional unique variance in English

L1 fourth, seventh, and ninth graders’ reading comprehension after controlling for the

effects of decoding skills, listening comprehension, and verbal proficiency.

As such, previous studies have yielded inconclusive results regarding the relative

importance of decoding skills and reading fluency in relation to reading comprehension

abilities, leading to various hypotheses about these discrepancies in different studies. One

such hypothesis is that the discrepancies are related to learners’ age or language proficiency

(Crosson & Lesaux, 2010; Riedel, 2007; Wiley & Deno, 2005). That is, as learners grow

older and develop their language proficiency, reading fluency comes to play a more

significant role in reading comprehension, whereas the role of decoding skills gradually

decreases. However, some studies do not support this explanation (Adlof et al., 2006;

Tilstra et al., 2009), as only age or language proficiency does not seem to fully explain this

divergence. These differences in research findings, though, could be accounted for by a

number of methodological differences in the previous studies. In fact, researchers have

contended that readers’ performance varies depending on how reading comprehension is

measured (Cutting & Scarborough, 2006; Nation & Snowling, 1997; Spear-Swerling,

2004). For example, Cutting and Scarborough (2006) explained that decoding skill was

more strongly related to a cloze-type reading comprehension test than to a multiple-choice

type of test, while reading fluency showed a weaker unique contribution to a cloze-type

test than to a multiple-choice comprehension test. Most studies in L1 contexts have

administered multiple-choice tests in assessing learners’ comprehension, except for Adlof

et al. (2006), who adopted both types of tests.

Most previous studies on the relative predictive power between decoding skills and

reading fluency for reading comprehension have focused on L1 readers, and relatively less

research attention has been paid to L2 readers. Some studies in L2 contexts, albeit limited,

have demonstrated that reading fluency is a stronger predictor of reading comprehension

than decoding skills (Crosson & Lesaux, 2010; Geva & Farnia, 2012; Jiang et al., 2012;

Kim, 2012). For instance, Crosson and Lesaux (2010), in their study with Spanish-

speaking ESL fifth graders, showed that reading fluency remained as a significant

contributor to reading comprehension, even when the effects of word decoding skill were

controlled for. Similar patterns have been observed with EFL learners in China (Jiang et al.,

2012) and Korea (Kim, 2012). Kim (2012), for instance, demonstrated that decoding skill

was not a statistically significant contributor to English reading comprehension abilities of

Korean EFL learners, while oral reading fluency was. On the other hand, Proctor, Carlo,

August, and Snow (2005) showed that decoding skill affected reading comprehension of



Spanish-speaking fourth grade ESL students, while reading fluency did not. However,

reading fluency, in their study, was measured only at the discrete word level. Thus, there is

not sufficient research evidence for the relative importance of decoding skills and sentence-

or text- level fluency in L2 reading comprehension.

In general, further studies regarding the relationship among decoding skills, reading

fluency, and reading comprehension of L2 learners, especially those in foreign language

contexts and in upper grades, are in great need in order to develop a more conclusive

picture of reading development in L2. Thus, this study aims to investigate the relationship

among (1) decoding skills; (2) reading fluency, considering not only reading speed and

accuracy at text-level but also simultaneous comprehension of read material; and (3)

reading comprehension among Korean high school EFL students. In doing so, the relative

role decoding skills and reading fluency play in their English reading comprehension will

also be examined. More specifically, this study focuses on the following research

questions:

1. How do English decoding skills and reading fluency relate to reading

comprehension abilities of Korean high school EFL students?

2. Between English decoding skills and reading fluency, which is a stronger

predictor of Korean high school EFL students’ reading comprehension?

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Participants

Two hundred twenty two Korean EFL learners in their second year of high school (11th

grade) participated in the study. Data were gathered from two different school sites. Of the

222 participants, 129 students were enrolled in a boys’ high school located in Kyeonggi-do,

and the other 93 students were attending a girls’ high school in Gwangju, Jeollanam-do.

Although all participants were in the same grade and had been learning English for three

hours per week in their respective schools, there was a great difference in their English

proficiency according to the schools they attended. The Preliminary Korean Scholastic

Aptitude Test (PKSAT) scores of the participants from the boys’ high school ranged from

the top 4th percentile to the 96th percentile, while those from the girls’ high school ranged

from the top 4th percentile to the 17th percentile. There was also a large gap in the mean

PKSAT raw scores between the two schools: 44.91 and 88.29 for the boys’ and girls’ high

school, respectively. However, since this study does not aim to investigate group

differences between different schools, areas, or genders, but rather, to detect a general trend



in the reading comprehension of EFL learners in Korea, the diversity and variance in the

participants’ English language proficiency ensured sufficient variation in the reading

measures, which in turn enabled a comprehensive analysis of their reading abilities.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Reading fluency test

English reading fluency was measured with the Reading Fluency subtest of the

standardized Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJIII, Woodcock,

Mather, & Schrank, 2004). On this test, students were asked to read given sentences

quickly and accurately and to verify the veracity of the sentences by circling “yes” or “no.”

For example, for the sentence, “A mouse can fly,” the correct answer is “no.” The

sentences were ordered in terms of increasing complexity and length. There were 98 test

items in total with a three-minute time constraint. Total scores were calculated by counting

the number of correct answers. The test-retest reliability of .88 was reported by Woodcock,

Mather, and Schrank (2004).

3.2.2. Decoding test

The Word Decoding subtest of the standardized Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT;

MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria, & Dreyer, 2000) was utilized to measure the decoding

ability of the students. There were 43 test items on the test and each correct answer

received one point, with a possible range of score from zero to 43. Students were told to

choose one correct word that matches the picture from four answer choices, e.g., for a

picture of a peach, the students were to select one correct answer among four choices of

“perch,” “peace,” “peak,” and “peach.” The reliability coefficient (Kuder-Richardson) was

reported as .94 (MacGinitie et al., 2000).

3.2.3. Reading comprehension test

In order to measure the students’ general reading comprehension abilities, the Reading

Comprehension subtest of the standardized Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised

(WRMT-R, Woodcock, 1998) was administered. Fifty-three questions were administered

in total, and one point was credited for each correct answer, and a possible score range

from zero to 53. The test employed a form of a cloze test, and the students were instructed

to read a sentence or a passage and write the proper words in the blank to complete the

unfinished sentences. The reported split-half reliability (Woodcock, 1998) was .92.



3.2.4. PKSAT (Preliminary Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test)

In measuring the students’ general reading proficiency in English, the Preliminary

Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test (PKSAT) was used. The raw score of the participants’

PKSAT was taken into account as a control variable in this study, in controlling for their

general reading proficiency.

3.2.5. Oral comprehension test

A test of the participants’ general oral language abilities in English was included to serve

as a control variable. General oral comprehension abilities are considered one of the

primary components of reading, and its strong contribution to L1 and L2 reading has been

widely acknowledged (Adlof et al., 2006; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough,

1990; Proctor et al., 2005). Thus, in order to examine the unique predictive role decoding

skills and reading fluency play in explaining reading comprehension beyond the effects of

oral comprehension abilities, this variable was included in the present study as a control

variable along with the aforementioned PKSAT score. The Oral Comprehension subtest of

the standardized Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJIII, Woodcock et

al., 2004) was used to assess students’ oral comprehension. On this test, the students

listened to tape-recorded passages in order of increasing difficulty. Each passage had one

missing word, and the students were asked to provide an appropriate response. For instance,

for the cloze, “Candy tastes ______,” the correct answer is “good” or “sweet.” The total

number of questions was 34, and each correct response scored one point. The reported test-

retest reliability is .88 (Woodcock et al., 2004).

3.3. Procedures

Each of the tests was administered during regular class times under the teachers’

supervision. Before each test, the teachers provided full explanations as to how it would

proceed, with a couple of practice items. Students were required to complete all tests

within given time limits. The testing time ranged from 10 to 20 minutes, depending on the

requirements outlined by each test publisher.



4. RESULTS

The means and standard deviations for scores on each measure (reading comprehension,

decoding, reading fluency, Preliminary Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test, and oral

comprehension) are reported in Table 1. The average score on the reading proportion of the

PKSAT is 63.08. The students correctly answered 26 items out of 53 questions, on average,

on the reading comprehension test, correctly answered 35.59 out of 43 questions on

average on the decoding test, and scored 61 out of the possible 98, on average, on the

reading fluency test. There was a large variation (SD = 26.03) in the reading fluency test.

That is, unlike the measures of reading comprehension and decoding skills on which most

of the participants seemed to do uniformly well, a relatively large distribution in the of

reading fluency scores was detected.

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics for the Variables Examined

Min. Max. M SD

Reading Comprehension 0 47 26.00 7.64 Decoding 14 43 35.59 5.90 Reading Fluency 13 98 61.11 26.03 PKSAT 2 100 63.08 26.17 Oral Comprehension 0 17 6.94 3.89

Note. N = 222. PKSAT = Preliminary Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test.

In order to discern any potential relationships among the variables, correlation analyses

were conducted. As can be seen in Table 2, all variables (oral comprehension, decoding,

reading fluency, and the PKSAT scores) were significantly and positively correlated to

reading comprehension. Among them, the two variables, oral comprehension and PKSAT,

were more strongly correlated to reading comprehension than the others (r = .54 and .52,

respectively). The correlations of the two remaining variables, English decoding skill and

reading fluency, to reading comprehension were comparable, (r = .46 and .47, respectively).

In addition, it is worth noting that all the variables were significantly and positively

correlated with one another, suggesting that all English skills measured in the present study

were closely interrelated.



TABLE 2

Correlations Among Tested Variables

1 2 3 4 5

1. Oral Comprehension 1 2. Reading Comprehension .543** 1 3. Decoding .468** .463** 1 4. Reading Fluency .278** .471** .541** 1 5. PKSAT .321** .519** .596** .854** 1

Note. PKSAT = Preliminary Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test. **p < .01

In examining the relative predictive power of decoding skills and reading fluency on

reading comprehension, when controlling for the participants’ general English proficiency

and oral comprehension abilities, two sets of hierarchical regression analyses were

conducted. As seen in Table 3, PKSAT and oral comprehension test scores were entered in

the first step, as control variables. When decoding skills and reading fluency were entered

in Step 2 and 3, respectively, decoding skills accounted for an additional 1.8% (p < 0.01) of

reading comprehension. On the other hand, reading fluency (p = .240) was not a significant

predictor of reading comprehension, when controlling for decoding skills as well as their

general English proficiency. In other words, reading fluency did not contribute any

additional unique variance to reading comprehension once the effects of decoding skills

were accounted for.

Then, in order to examine whether decoding abilities account for any additional variance

in reading comprehension on top of reading fluency, another hierarchical regression

analysis was conducted with the order of entry at Step 2 and 3 reversed (see the bottom

panel of Table 3). The result indicates that decoding skills still make a unique contribution,

explaining an additional 1.7% (p < 0.05) of the variance in reading comprehension, beyond

the effects of reading fluency. The contribution of reading fluency (p = .189) was not

statistically significant even when the effects of decoding skills were not controlled for. In

other words, reading fluency did not turn out to be a significant predictor of the Korean

high school EFL students’ reading comprehension, irrespective of their decoding skills.

In short, about 34% of the variance in reading comprehension was explained by PKSAT

scores, oral comprehension abilities, decoding skills, and reading fluency in English. Both

English decoding skills and reading fluency were significantly correlated to reading

comprehension, and reading fluency seemed to have stronger correlations to reading

comprehension, compared to decoding skills. However, only decoding skills turned out to

be a significant predictor of Korean high school EFL learners’ reading comprehension,

when their general English proficiency was controlled for, whereas reading fluency did not.

This indicates that English decoding skill is a better predictor of successful reading

comprehension than reading fluency for Korean high school EFL learners. Thus, in general,



those who were good decoders of English words, for example, were more likely to perform

better on reading comprehension in English.

TABLE 3

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Reading Comprehension

Steps Variables R2 ΔR

2 ΔF Sig.

1 PKSAT & Oral Comprehension .410 .410 76.172*** .000 2 Decoding .428 .018 6.754** .009 3 Reading Fluency .432 .004 1.388 .240

2 Reading Fluency .415 .005 1.735 .189 3 Decoding .432 .017 6.376* .012

Note. PKSAT = Preliminary Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

This study was designed to investigate the relationship among the key sub-components

of reading abilities, namely decoding skills, reading fluency, and reading comprehension of

Korean high school EFL students, and to discern the relative importance of decoding skills

and reading fluency, in predicting their reading comprehension abilities when their general

English proficiency is taken into consideration. The findings from this study indicated that

decoding skills and reading fluency both significantly correlated with the students’

performance on reading comprehension. Yet, with respect to the second research question,

decoding skill was identified as having more significant predictive power than reading

fluency in explaining their reading comprehension outcomes.

The significant relationship found for both decoding skills and reading fluency with

reading comprehension is in a similar vein with previous research findings with both L1

and L2 readers (Jeon, 2012; Kieffer et al., 2013; Padeliadu & Antoniou, 2014; Quirk &

Beem, 2012; Silverman, Speece, Harring, & Ritchey, 2013). However, the relatively

greater significant role of decoding skills compared to reading fluency in predicting

reading comprehension abilities of the Korean EFL learners is not in accordance with most

of the previous studies conducted with either L1 or L2 readers (Crosson & Lesaux, 2010;

Geva & Farnia, 2012; Jenkins et al., 2003; Jiang et al., 2012; Kim, 2012; Shinn et al, 1992).

While other previous studies have mostly identified the prominent contribution of reading

fluency to reading comprehension for students in higher grades or for relatively advanced

readers’, the present study with Korean high school EFL students, who are relatively older

and less proficient in English compared to the participants in the previous studies, showed

that it was decoding skills that played a more prominent role in their reading

comprehension performance in English.



This particular finding, then, could be in accordance with another body of previous

research which has attributed L2 readers’ overreliance on decoding skills to their relatively

less developed English proficiency (Nakamoto et al., 2007; Pasquarella et al., 2012).

According to this perspective, L2 readers with under-developed language proficiency,

compared to L1 readers who have supposedly developed their language skills from infancy,

tend to rely more on word reading skills, since they do not have sufficient oral language

resources to support spontaneous comprehension of the read materials, or because they

have not yet developed automaticity in decoding skill to the extent that it does not interfere

with their reading process. For instance, Pasquarella et al. (2012) compared L1

adolescents’ reading comprehension to that of L2 adolescent learners’, and showed that it

was decoding skills that explained individual differences in L2 readers’ reading

comprehension, while this was not to the case for L1 readers. The researchers explained

this group difference in terms of the degree to which each group of readers had developed

decoding skills. For the L2 learners in their study, their decoding skills were neither as

accurate nor as fluent as for the L1 readers. Thus, unlike L1 readers, a greater role for

decoding skills was required in L2 readers’ reading comprehension to compensate both for

their relatively limited English language proficiency and for their relatively less accurate

and efficient word reading abilities. This hypothesis may apply to the similar results found

in the present study with Korean high school EFL learners whose English proficiency may

not have sufficiently developed to the extent that it ensures efficient reading

comprehension.

On the other hand, the present study also indicated that even upper-level L2 readers,

who have supposedly already acquired basic L2 reading skills, were largely dependent on

decoding skills in their reading comprehension, when reading comprehension was

measured with a cloze-type test. Since previous studies have shown that the relationship

between readers’ performance on various reading sub-skills and reading comprehension is

dependent upon the types of reading comprehension tests (Cutting & Scarborough, 2006;

Nation & Snowling, 1997; Spear-Swerling, 2004), further studies are warranted in order to

arrive at a firm conclusion regarding L2 readers’ reliance on particular reading skills, such

as decoding skills as in the case of present study.

In addition, another methodological difference in this study, compared to others, is the

reading fluency measurement. Most previous studies measured reading fluency only in

terms of reading speed and accuracy, and did not consider simultaneous comprehension of

efficiently read materials, or prosody, while this study did. This difference in the fluency

measurement might have led to these differences in the research findings. Generally

speaking, reading fluency refers to the ability to read texts quickly and accurately. However,

if a reader can read rapidly and accurately, but fails to comprehend the meaning of the texts

s/he reads at the same time, s/he cannot be regarded as a fluent reader, but is simply a



“word caller” (Hamilton & Shinn, 2003). Thus, this study further highlights the importance

of capturing the full meaning of reading fluency in assessing its role in the readers’ overall

reading comprehension processes.

The discrepancies found between the present study and the previous research, which can

be largely explained by the language proficiency of the readers and the differences in the

measurement of relevant reading sub-skills, point to the need of further studies in order to

reach a more precise understanding of the patterns of L2 learners’ reading comprehension

development. Moreover, in order to examine not only the direct effects of reading sub-

skills on reading comprehension, but also their indirect effects, further studies using other

analytic approaches such as a structural equation modeling seem to be in need (Silverman

et al., 2013). Nonetheless, this study has provided important information regarding the role

of decoding skills and reading fluency in the reading comprehension of even older L2

learners in foreign language contexts, and further highlights the need to develop both their

decoding skills to facilitate efficient reading comprehension, and at the same time language

proficiency in general to promote reading fluency. In addition, given that the efficiency of

decoding instruction was proven in L2 contexts for relatively older learners as well (Dai &

Liu, 2012; Fukkink, Hulstjn, & Simis, 2005), the findings of the present study also suggest

the need of extensive training on decoding skills for better reading instruction even within

secondary EFL curricula in Korea. In other words, it seems that a certain amount of time

needs to be set aside to teach decoding skills or to promote reading accuracy for secondary

school Korean EFL learners, irrespective of their English proficiency level, especially since

the primary focus of high school English classes is on developing students’ reading

comprehension abilities. For this purpose, widely implemented practices such as oral

language fluency (ORF) training and Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) at both

word- and text-level could be adopted, as is already the case in the US. In doing so,

however, considerations for students’ reading proficiency should be taken into account, as

decoding accuracy and fluency at different levels (word- vs. text-level) have differential

effects on reading comprehension abilities depending on students’ reading abilities

(Crosson & Lesaux, 2010; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Jenkins et al., 2003). On

the whole, development in decoding skills should not be taken for granted either in

elementary or secondary schools in the Korean EFL context in promoting successful

reading comprehension abilities, and deserves much instructional and research attention.

REFERENCES

Adlof, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading

include a fluency component? Reading and Writing, 19(9), 933-958.



Bell, L. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1994). Reading skill: Some adult comparisons. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 86(2), 244-255.

Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1991). The reading crisis: Why poor students

fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Revisiting assumptions about the relationship of

fluent reading to comprehension: Spanish-speakers’ text-reading fluency in English.

Reading and Writing, 23(5), 475-494.

Curtis, M. E. (1980). Development of components of reading skill. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 72(5), 656-669.

Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension:

Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other

cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies

of Reading, 10(3), 277-299.

Dai, C., & Liu, L. (2012). The effectiveness of explicit instruction of certain decoding

skills in improving Chinese EFL listeners’ general comprehension performance.

Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 243-255.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an

indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis.

Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.

Fukkink, R. G., Hulstijn, J., & Simis, A. (2005). Does training in second-language word

recognition skills affect reading comprehension? An experimental study. The

Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 54-75.

García, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment

characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of

Educational Research, 84(1), 74-111.

Geva, E., & Farnia, F. (2012). Developmental changes in the nature of language

proficiency and reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading

comprehension in ELL and EL1. Reading and Writing, 25(8), 1819-1845.

Goldberg, L. F., Eason, S. H., Ryan, M., & Cutting, L. E. (2010, June). Combining the

simple view of reading with fluency, world knowledge, and reading strategies to

predict comprehensions. Poster session presented at the 8th American Academy of

Clinical Neuropsychology Conference, Chicago, IL.

Gorsuch, G., & Taguchi, E. (2010). Developing reading fluency and comprehension using

repeated reading: Evidence from longitudinal student reports. Language Teaching

Research, 14(1), 27-59.

Gough, P. B., Hoover, W. A., & Peterson, C. L. (1996). Some observations on a simple

view of reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension

difficulties (pp. 1-13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.



Gough, P. B. & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remeidal

and Special Education, 7, 6-10.

Grabe, W. (2010). Fluency in reading-thirty-five years later. Reading in a Foreign

Language, 22(1), 71-83.

Hamilton, C., & Shinn, M. R. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of

the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of reading comprehension and oral reading

skills. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 228-240.

Hoover, W. A. & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2,

127-160.

Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of

individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 95(4), 719-729.

Jeon, E. H. (2011). Contribution of morphological awareness to second-language reading

comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95(2), 217-235.

Jeon, E. H. (2012). Oral reading fluency in second language reading. Reading in a Foreign

Language, 24(2), 186-208.

Jiang, X., Sawaki, Y., & Sabatini, J. (2012). Word reading efficiency, text reading fluency,

and reading comprehension among Chinese learners of English. Reading

Psychology, 33(4), 323-349.

Kang, Y. (2011). Reading fluency vs. oral language comprehension in predicting reading

comprehension of Korean EFL learners. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics,

27(4), 81-102.

Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests

vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral

comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281-300.

Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading

comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral

language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 765-778.

Kieffer, M. J., Biancarosa, G., & Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2013). Roles of morphological

awareness in the reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking language minority

learners: Exploring partial mediation by vocabulary and reading fluency. Applied

Psycholinguistics, 34(4), 697-725.

Kim, H. (2012). The simple view of reading: Decoding or fluency? Korean Journal of

Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 209-230.

Kim, J. R., & Shin, J. Y. (2008). A study of inference skills instruction effects on L2

reading achievement of Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test (KSAT). Modern English

Education, 9(1), 188-213.

Kim, Y., Park, C. H., & Wagner, R. K. (2014). Is oral/text reading fluency a ‘bridge’ to



reading comprehension? Reading and Writing, 27(1), 79-99.

Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading

fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2),

310-321.

Ko, J. (2010). The realities of elementary English education in teaching methods, TEE,

native English teachers, and differentiated classes. Journal of the Korea English

Education Society, 9(3), 101-118.

Ko, Y. R. (2012). An analysis of phonics contents in elementary English fourth grade

textbooks as revised by the 2008 Revised National English Curriculum. Journal of

the Korea English Education Society, 11(2), 81-103.

MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-

MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K. A., & Manis, F. R. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of English

language learners’ word decoding and reading comprehension. Reading and

Writing, 20(7), 691-719.

Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility

of current measures of reading skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology,

67(3), 359-370.

Padeliadu, S., & Antoniou, F. (2014). The relationship between reading comprehension,

decoding, and fluency in Greek: A cross-sectional study. Reading & Writing

Quarterly, 30(1), 1-31.

Paleologos, T. M., & Brabham, E. G. (2011). The effectiveness of DIBELS oral reading

fluency for predicting reading comprehension of high- and low-income students.

Reading Psychology, 32(1), 54-74.

Pasquarella, A., Gottardo, A., & Grant, A. (2012). Comparing factors related to reading

comprehension in adolescents who speak English as a first (L1) or second (L2)

language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(6), 475-503.

Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.

Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children

reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 97(2), 246-256.

Quirk, M., & Beem, S. (2012). Examining the relations between reading fluency and

reading comprehension for English language learners. Psychology in the Schools,

49(6), 539-553.

Rasinski, T., Samuels, S. J., Hiebert, E., Petscher, Y., & Feller, K. (2011). The relationship

between a silent reading fluency instructional protocol on students' reading

comprehension and achievement in an urban school setting. Reading Psychology,

32(1), 75-97.



Riedel, B. W. (2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehension, and

vocabulary in urban first-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(4), 546-

567.

Rupley, W. H., & Willson, V. L. (1997). Relationship between comprehension and

components of word recognition: Support for developmental shifts. Journal of

Research and Development in Education, 30(4), 255-260.

Rydland, V., Aukrust, V. G., & Fulland, H. (2012). How word decoding, vocabulary and

prior topic knowledge predict reading comprehension. A study of language-

minority students in Norwegian fifth grade classrooms. Reading and Writing, 25(2),

465-482.

Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2003). Bilingual oral reading fluency and reading comprehension: The

case of Arabic/Hebrew (L1)-English (L2) readers. Reading and Writing, 16(8), 717-

736.

Shinn, M. R., Good, R. H., Knutson, N., Tilly, W. D., & Collins, V. L. (1992). Curriculum-

based measurement reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to

reading. School Psychology Review, 21(3), 459-479.

Silverman, R. D., Speece, D. L., Harring, J. R., & Ritchey, K. D. (2013). Fluency has a role

in the simple view of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(2), 108-133.

Spear-Swerling, L. (2004). Fourth graders' performance on a state-mandated assessment

involving two different measures of reading comprehension. Reading Psychology,

25(2), 121-148.

Spear-Swerling, L. (2006). Children's reading comprehension and oral reading fluency.

Reading and Writing, 19(2), 199-220.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual

differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-

407.

Taguchi, E., Gorsuch, G. J., & Sasamoto, E. (2006). Developing second and foreign

language reading fluency and its effect on comprehension: A missing link. The

Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 6(2), 1-18. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.oca.korea.ac.kr/docview/85656368?accountid= 14558

Tilstra, J., McMaster, K., van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Rapp, D. (2009). Simple but

complex: Components of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of

Research in Reading, 32(4), 383-401.

van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R. D., de Glopper, K., & Hulstijn, J. (2007).

Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and language 2:

A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 99(3), 477-491.

Wiley, H. I., & Deno, S. L. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of



success for English learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special

Education, 26(4), 207-214.

Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery tests–revised. Minneapolis, MN:

NCS Pearson.

Woodcock, R. W., Mather, N., & Schrank, F. A. (2004). Woodcock-Johnson III diagnostic

reading battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Applicable levels: Secondary

Yusun Kang

Department of English Education

Korea University

Anam-ro 145, Seongbuk-gu

Seoul 136-701, Korea

Phone: 02-3290-2354

Fax: 02-3290-2350

Email: [email protected]

Younjee Huh


Korea University



Phone: 02-3290-2350

Fax: 02-3290-2350


Boram Moon


Korea University



Phone: 02-3290-2350

Fax: 02-3290-2350


Yeoeun Park


Korea University





Phone: 02-3290-2350

Fax: 02-3290-2350


Received in September 2014

Reviewed in October 2014

Revised version received in November 2014


decoding skills vs. reading fluency in korean high school...

Documents