A Disclosure of Reading Rate and Its Effect on Comprehension in Second Language Learning Context

In reading, it is vital for readers recognized automatically. Once thi sense or meaning of the text. Th relationship with comprehension. Th terms of gender and academic seme universities in Malaysia. Data were Reading Comprehension Test. Jam College Readers were used to exam scored using the Statistical Packag that 106 respondents were Excelle Readers to Good General Readers. in reading rate and Semester 3 res correlation test indicated positive re


Introduction
Proficient readers have cer their recognition of words is a at least two interdependent tasks ers to develop decoding to the extent where this happens, they will have the necessary attention t his study investigated adult ESL learners' readin This study also examined possible differences in the ester.Its respondents were 210 Diploma students fr ere collected through Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) A meson's Reading Rate Formula and Levels of Rea mine respondents' reading rate.All data were coded a ge for the Social Science (SPSS) programme.This ent College Readers while the rest ranged from S It was also discovered that females performed bett spondents' reading rate was better than those in Se relationship between reading rate and comprehensio hension; Oral Reading Fluency (ORF); reading e for college readers Rawian, R., Mokhtar, A., & Yahaya, M. (2018) Disclosure of Reading Rate and Its Effect on Comprehension in Second Language Learning Context.JEES (Journal of English ad accurately, red to perform prises the text while simultaneously constructin expended on decoding, the less readers have enough attention to decoding to the extent where e they will have the necessary According to the automaticity from decoding accurately to de any skill that requires an indiv unified process, it is practice th Stahl, 2003).In terms of readi exposures to print.As letters, a learner, less attention needs level.This ability (to complete Samuel's (1974) criterion for a two components of fluent rea an explanation for automaticity's According to Stanovich's ( multiple sources can aid readers of development learners are p phonological, semantic and synt information from one source, that, until readers achieve auto more on alternative knowledge In other words, they a recognition and comprehensio as an aid to identifying wor learning new word meanings allows readers to concentrate Hence, automatic word recog constructing meaning, rather than The theory of automat decoding occurs when read automatic, accurate decoding 2002).At the automatic level to the activity of decoding.M 2004).They do not have to encounter; they simply recogni processing frees the reader's con the text.ng meaning.As such, the greater the amount o that is available for comprehension.In order t o understand texts adequately, it is vital for them each word is recognized automatically.Once attention to focus on the sense or meaning theorists, the best way to ensure transitio ecoding automatically) is through extensive prac vidual to coordinate a series of smaller action hat allows the learner to develop expertis ing, this practice consists primarily in providin and later words, become increasingly fam to be directed towards processing text at the a process without conscious attention) fulfills automaticity.The automaticity theory (AT) reading: accurate decoding at a sufficient rate.It s role in text comprehension (Kuhn & Stahl, 20 's (1980) interactive-compensatory model, infor rs in their construction of meaning.This is true presumed to make use of information from o ntactic sources.However, if a reader is less adep he may become over reliant on other source utomaticity in word recognition, they will necess sources to make sense of what is being read.are more likely to rely on context as an sion than fluent readers (this refers to the us rds in a child's lexicon, not to the use o s).Stanovich (1980) argues that automatic word on the meaning of text, rather than on identi gnition allows a learner to focus contextual an decoding (Adams, 1990).ticity in reading (AT) suggests that prof ders move beyond conscious, accurate g (LaBerge & Samuel, 1974;Stanovich, 19 l, readers 1999).Learners who read slowly often fail to complete their work, lose interest in school and seldom read for pleasure (Moats, 2001).
Effective reading rate results from the efficiency of decoding skills and comprehension (Greene, Kincade & Hays, 1994).decreased reading based on the assumption that word reading rate is a dependent variable.For example, it has been suggested that the level of word reading accuracy, the reader's age, the acquaintance with reading skills a accountable for decreased reading rate (Biemiller, 1978;Carver, 1990;Gough & Tunmer, 1986).
Reading researchers agree that fluent reading is based primarily on the quality and rate of identification and recognition of the symbols and sounds of single and multi units.In the regular development of reading fluency, research has clearly indicated a developmental trend in the speed at which letters and/or letter units are identified.The average time it takes to identify single letters in the English language is 3 seconds for kindergarten children, 800 ms at the beginning of the first grade, 600 ms at the end of the first grade, and about 100-200 ms less by the sixth grade (Stanovich, Nathan & Vala Sinatra & Royer, 1993;Compton & Carlisle, 1994).College students are able to identify letters within 50ms, which is about 500ms faster than children (Biemiller, 1978;Mason, 1982).

Methods
Quantitative and cross-Respondents' reading rates were quantified using a systematic approach and Semester 3 Diploma students were simultaneously examined.A total of 210 students were selected as the respondents of this the respondents based on gender and academic semester.1999).Learners who read slowly often fail to complete their work, lose interest in school and seldom read for pleasure (Moats, 2001).
Effective reading rate results from the efficiency of decoding skills and comprehension (Greene, Kincade & Hays, 1994).Several hypotheses have explained decreased reading based on the assumption that word reading rate is a dependent variable.For example, it has been suggested that the level of word reading accuracy, the reader's age, the acquaintance with reading skills and development of word reading automaticity are all accountable for decreased reading rate (Biemiller, 1978;Carver, 1990;Gough & Tunmer, Reading researchers agree that fluent reading is based primarily on the quality and d recognition of the symbols and sounds of single and multi units.In the regular development of reading fluency, research has clearly indicated a developmental trend in the speed at which letters and/or letter units are identified.The it takes to identify single letters in the English language is 3 seconds for kindergarten children, 800 ms at the beginning of the first grade, 600 ms at the end of the first 200 ms less by the sixth grade (Stanovich, Nathan & Vala Sinatra & Royer, 1993;Compton & Carlisle, 1994).College students are able to identify letters within 50ms, which is about 500ms faster than children (Biemiller, 1978;Mason, -sectional research approaches were used in this study.were quantified using a systematic approach and Semester 1 and Semester 3 Diploma students were simultaneously examined.A total of 210 students were selected as the respondents of this study.1999).Learners who read slowly often fail to complete their work, lose interest in Effective reading rate results from the efficiency of decoding skills and Several hypotheses have explained decreased reading based on the assumption that word reading rate is a dependent variable.For example, it has been suggested that the level of word reading accuracy, the reader's age, nd development of word reading automaticity are all accountable for decreased reading rate (Biemiller, 1978;Carver, 1990;Gough & Tunmer, Reading researchers agree that fluent reading is based primarily on the quality and d recognition of the symbols and sounds of single and multi-letter units.In the regular development of reading fluency, research has clearly indicated a developmental trend in the speed at which letters and/or letter units are identified.The it takes to identify single letters in the English language is 3 seconds for kindergarten children, 800 ms at the beginning of the first grade, 600 ms at the end of the first 200 ms less by the sixth grade (Stanovich, Nathan & Vala-Rossi, 1986;Sinatra & Royer, 1993;Compton & Carlisle, 1994).College students are able to identify letters within 50ms, which is about 500ms faster than children (Biemiller, 1978;Mason, approaches were used in this study. Semester 1 and Semester 3 Diploma students were simultaneously examined.A total of 210 Diploma study.In the oral reading protocol, assigned text as natural as they could for 10 minutes.Since each of the reading would be tape-recorded, the participants were also reminded to read clearly and loudly.timed each reading and at the 10 reading (if he or she was still reading the text).
After each reading, the researcher would listen to every recorded tape and evaluated the participant's reading by analyzing individual's reading errors as well as reading rate.Mispronunciations, Substitutions, Reversals, Omissions, Unknown Words, Dropped and Added Endings were recorded as reading errors.
Reading Comprehension Assessment was conducted directly after each participant had finished reading the assigned text.In this assessment, each respondent had to answer 20 multiple-choice questions pertaining to the assigned text.A reliability test for this assessment was .90.Thirty minutes were allocated for each participant to complete the test.
The length of the selected reading text used in this study was about 1080 text was ascertained using readability analysis university/college learners.The Dale Flesch Reading Ease Formula were used to ascertain the suitability of its selected rea according to academic level.The McAlpine EFLAW Formula is later used to determine the ease of the selected reading English text for ESL learners.The readability analysis revealed that the selected text is suitable for university/college student Jameison's (2005) Reading Rate Formula was used in examining the participants' reading rate (automaticity).The reading rate was calculated based on the following procedure: Total number of words read MINUS number of errors 10 (reading time is 10 minutes) WRC/WPM/WCPM was proven, in both theoretical and empirical research, to be an accurate and powerful indicator of overall reading competence, especially in its strong correlation with comprehension (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006).The validity and reliability of these two measures were well established in a body of research extending over the past 25 years (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp & Jenkins, 2001;Shinn, 1998) In the oral reading protocol, respondents were told that they were required to read an assigned text as natural as they could for 10 minutes.Since each of the reading would be recorded, the participants were also reminded to read clearly and loudly.The researcher timed each reading and at the 10 th minute, a participant would be told to stop his or her reading (if he or she was still reading the text).
After each reading, the researcher would listen to every recorded tape and evaluated the participant's reading by analyzing individual's reading errors as well as reading rate.Mispronunciations, Substitutions, Reversals, Omissions, Unknown Words, Dropped were recorded as reading errors.Reading Comprehension Assessment was conducted directly after each participant had finished reading the assigned text.In this assessment, each respondent had to answer 20 pertaining to the assigned text.A reliability test for this assessment was .90.Thirty minutes were allocated for each participant to complete the test.
ted reading text used in this study was about 1080 ined using readability analysis -to examine its suitability to be used for university/college learners.The Dale-Chall Readability Formula (the revised version) and the Flesch Reading Ease Formula were used to ascertain the suitability of its selected rea according to academic level.The McAlpine EFLAW Formula is later used to determine the ease of the selected reading English text for ESL learners.The readability analysis revealed that the selected text is suitable for university/college students.
Jameison's (2005) Reading Rate Formula was used in examining the participants' reading rate (automaticity).The reading rate was calculated based on the following Total number of words read MINUS number of errors 10 (reading time is 10 minutes) = WRC/WPM/WCPM WRC/WPM/WCPM was proven, in both theoretical and empirical research, to be an accurate and powerful indicator of overall reading competence, especially in its strong ion with comprehension (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006).The validity and reliability of these two measures were well established in a body of research extending over the past 25 years (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp & Jenkins, 2001;Shinn, 1998) based on Gender and Academic Semester were told that they were required to read an assigned text as natural as they could for 10 minutes.Since each of the reading would be The researcher minute, a participant would be told to stop his or her After each reading, the researcher would listen to every recorded tape and evaluated the participant's reading by analyzing individual's reading errors as well as reading rate.Mispronunciations, Substitutions, Reversals, Omissions, Unknown Words, Dropped Endings Reading Comprehension Assessment was conducted directly after each participant had finished reading the assigned text.In this assessment, each respondent had to answer 20 pertaining to the assigned text.A reliability test for this assessment ted reading text used in this study was about 1080 words.The to examine its suitability to be used for Chall Readability Formula (the revised version) and the Flesch Reading Ease Formula were used to ascertain the suitability of its selected reading text according to academic level.The McAlpine EFLAW Formula is later used to determine the ease of the selected reading English text for ESL learners.The readability analysis revealed Jameison's (2005) Reading Rate Formula was used in examining the participants' reading rate (automaticity).The reading rate was calculated based on the following = WRC/WPM/WCPM WRC/WPM/WCPM was proven, in both theoretical and empirical research, to be an accurate and powerful indicator of overall reading competence, especially in its strong ion with comprehension (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006).The validity and reliability of these two measures were well established in a body of research extending over the past 25 ance (WRC/WPM/WCPM) was analyzed and interpreted according to the adapted version of Jameison's (2005) Levels of Reading Rate for College Readers.The original version of Jameison's (2005) Levels of Reading Rate for College Readers consisted of 8 levels of until the rate level of 1000 WPM or more.This original scale was based on a reading text that had 10,000 words.The present study adapted Jameison's (2005) Levels of Reading Rate for College Readers by sustaining the 8 levels of reading rate of the original version with some modifications on the ranges of WPM since the length of each reading texts used in the study was approximately 1,100 words.
The first rate level (0-16 WPM) indicated a rea The second level (17-29 WPM) indicated a reader being insufficient.The third level (30 WPM) described a reader as being average general reader but the reader was considered as being too slow for college reading.T average college reader whereas the next level (56 general reader (the minimum rate for effective college WPM) categorized a reader as a good college reader and the next level (82 indicated a reader as a strong college reader.The last category (95 excellent college reader.Score sheets for reading rate were used to record the respondents' performances.

Findings and Discussion
The participants' reading rate was analyzed based on four levels that were Good General Reader, Good College Reader, Strong College Reader and Excellent Reader.It was found that 50.5% (106) participants were excellent co participants were strong college readers.Another 4.3% (9) participants were good college readers and only 1.4% (3) respondents were good general readers (Figure 1).Readers.The original version of Jameison's (2005) Levels of Reading Rate for College reading rate starting from the rate level of 160 WPM or less until the rate level of 1000 WPM or more.This original scale was based on a reading text that had 10,000 words.The present study adapted Jameison's (2005) Levels of Reading Rate for aders by sustaining the 8 levels of reading rate of the original version with some modifications on the ranges of WPM since the length of each reading texts used in the study was approximately 1,100 words.
16 WPM) indicated a reader as being very insufficient reader.29 WPM) indicated a reader being insufficient.The third level (30 WPM) described a reader as being average general reader but the reader was considered as being too slow for college reading.The fourth level (43-55 WPM) indicated a reader as being average college reader whereas the next level (56-68 WPM) described a reader as being good general reader (the minimum rate for effective college-reading).The following level (69 a reader as a good college reader and the next level (82 indicated a reader as a strong college reader.The last category (95-107 WPM) indicated an excellent college reader.Score sheets for reading rate were used to record the respondents' The participants' reading rate was analyzed based on four levels that were Good General Reader, Good College Reader, Strong College Reader and Excellent Reader.It was found that 50.5% (106) participants were excellent college readers while 43.8% (92) participants were strong college readers.Another 4.3% (9) participants were good college readers and only 1.4% (3) respondents were good general readers (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Levels of Participants' Reading Rate/Automaticity illustrated that 29 (13.9%)males and 77 (36.7%) females were identified to be excellent college readers while another 31 (14.8%)males and 61 (29%) females were The participants' reading rate was analyzed based on four levels that were Good General Reader, Good College Reader, Strong College Reader and Excellent Reader.It was llege readers while 43.8% (92) participants were strong college readers.Another 4.3% (9) participants were good college illustrated that 29 (13.9%)males and 77 (36.7%) females were identified to be excellent college readers while another 31 (14.8%)males and 61 (29%) females were recognized as strong college readers.The remaining 9 (4.2%) females) were good college readers and another 3 (1.4%)males were identified as good general readers.Table 2 illustrated that there was a significant difference in the mean scores of reading rate/automaticity between male and female groups, t(208) = descriptive statistics showed that the females obtained a higher mean score ( .77)than the males ( ̅ = 7.28, SD = .56).This finding revealed that the females had better reading rate than the males.As for the participants' performance according to their academic semester, Figure 3 showed that 45 (21.4%)Semester 1 participants and 61 (29%) Semester 3 participants were excellent college readers.However, the number of Semester 1 participants who were classified as strong college readers was greater than Semester 3 participants since 53 (25.2%)Semester 1 participants fell in this group compared to 39 (18.6%)Semester 3 participants.Besides that, 9 (4.3%) participants (6 Semester 1 participants and 3 S Journal of English Educators Society, 3 (1), ISSN 2503 Journal Homepage: http://ojs.umsida.ac.id/index.php/jeesDOI Link: https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v3i1.1274recognized as strong college readers.The remaining 9 (4.2%) participants (4 males and 5 females) were good college readers and another 3 (1.4%)males were identified as good Figure 2: Levels of Participants' Reading Rate by Gender test analyses were conducted in order to examine possible differences in the levels of reading rate in terms of gender.
Table 2 illustrated that there was a significant difference in the mean scores of reading rate/automaticity between male and female groups, t(208) = -2.31,p = .02(p <.05).However, atistics showed that the females obtained a higher mean score ( ̅ = 7.28, SD = .56).This finding revealed that the females had better As for the participants' performance according to their academic semester, Figure 3 showed that 45 (21.4%)Semester 1 participants and 61 (29%) Semester 3 participants were excellent college readers.However, the number of Semester 1 participants who were classified as strong college readers was greater than Semester 3 participants since 53 (25.2%)Semester 1 participants fell in this group compared to 39 (18.6%)Semester 3 participants.Besides that, 9 (4.3%) participants (6 Semester 1 participants and 3 Semester 3 participants) participants (4 males and 5 females) were good college readers and another 3 (1.4%)males were identified as good erences in the levels Table 2 illustrated that there was a significant difference in the mean scores of reading 2.31, p = .02(p <.05).However, ̅ = 7.50, SD = = 7.28, SD = .56).This finding revealed that the females had better Reading Rate by Gender Sig .02* As for the participants' performance according to their academic semester, Figure 3 showed that 45 (21.4%)Semester 1 participants and 61 (29%) Semester 3 participants were excellent college readers.However, the number of Semester 1 participants who were classified as strong college readers was greater than Semester 3 participants since 53 (25.2%)Semester 1 participants fell in this group compared to 39 (18.6%)Semester 3 participants.emester 3 participants) were identified as good college readers while the remaining 3 (1.5%)participants (1 Semester 1 participant and 2 Semester 3 participants) were good general readers.
Figure 3: Levels of Participants' Reading Rate by Academic Table 3 showed that there was no significant difference in the mean scores of reading rate between Semester 1 and Semester 3, revealed that Semester 3 participants had better reading rate than score for Semester 3 ( ̅ = 7.51, SD =.65) was higher than the mean score for the Semester 1 ( ̅ = 7.35, SD = .63). were identified as good college readers while the remaining 3 (1.5%)participants (1 Semester 1 participant and 2 Semester 3 participants) were good general readers.
Figure 3: Levels of Participants' Reading Rate by Academic Semester Table 3 showed that there was no significant difference in the mean scores of reading rate between Semester 1 and Semester 3, t(208) = .831,p = .07(p >.05).The analysis revealed that Semester 3 participants had better reading rate than Semester 1 since the mean = 7.51, SD =.65) was higher than the mean score for the Semester 1 were identified as good college readers while the remaining 3 (1.5%)participants (1 Semester Semester Table 3 showed that there was no significant difference in the mean scores of reading (208) = .831,p = .07(p >.05).The analysis Semester 1 since the mean = 7.51, SD =.65) was higher than the mean score for the Semester 1   1Generally, the range of the respondents' reading rate was between Good General Readers to Excellent College Readers.One possible reason is due to the participants' degree of sensitivity to word formation (morphological awareness).According to Rasinski, Blachowicz and Lems (2006), morphology is one of the major sources of information when a reader comes across new or unknown information in a text.Some words are identified by their morphological structure; that is, word formation processes have an impact word identification (Feldman, 1995).Snow et al. (1998) imply that morphology is essential, because it connects word forms and meanings within the structure of sentences.Research on the interface between reading and language development has s awareness is crucial for reading fluency development (Biemiller, 1999;Menyuk, 1999).
Participants' discourse and syntactic awareness was another contributive factor to their reading rate.Discourse and syntactic awareness a like text structure, and written conventions that provide a pattern of how information is organized in a text, as well as how sentences are formed (Allington, 2001;Biemiller, 1999).
The influence of discourse and s and Thompson (2006) who have investigated the influence of students' awareness of the structure of written language (syntactic awareness) on their ability to read fluently and to comprehend what they read.The results indicate that students' levels of syntactic awareness are significantly related to their reading fluency ( .816).These relationships suggest that lower levels of syntactic awareness can correspond to poor reading fluency and comprehension.
In addition, it was found that Semester 3 participants had better reading rate than Semester 1 participants.This might be due to more printed exposure received by Semester 3 participants compared to Semester 1 respon university.At tertiary level, readers are extensively exposed to variety and challenging reading materials and this extensive exposure helps greatly in enhancing readers' reading skills (Grabe, 2009).E-Reading material can be implemented (Hidayat, 2017) such as Text Structure Tasks (Rohman, 2017) studies that conclude differences in reading rate based on academic grades.Studies that are designed to verify differences in the speed of letter identification between good and poor readers indicate that poor readers are about 300 ms slower than good readers in the first Generally, the range of the respondents' reading rate was between Good General Readers to Excellent College Readers.One possible reason is due to the participants' degree of sensitivity to word formation (morphological awareness).According to Rasinski, lachowicz and Lems (2006), morphology is one of the major sources of information when a reader comes across new or unknown information in a text.Some words are identified by their morphological structure; that is, word formation processes have an impact word identification (Feldman, 1995).Snow et al. (1998) imply that morphology is essential, because it connects word forms and meanings within the structure of sentences.Research on the interface between reading and language development has shown that such metalinguistic awareness is crucial for reading fluency development (Biemiller, 1999;Menyuk, 1999).
Participants' discourse and syntactic awareness was another contributive factor to their reading rate.Discourse and syntactic awareness actually involves use of printed signals, like text structure, and written conventions that provide a pattern of how information is organized in a text, as well as how sentences are formed (Allington, 2001;Biemiller, 1999).
The influence of discourse and syntactic awareness was evidently proven by Mokhtari and Thompson (2006) who have investigated the influence of students' awareness of the structure of written language (syntactic awareness) on their ability to read fluently and to .The results indicate that students' levels of syntactic awareness are significantly related to their reading fluency (r = .625)and reading comprehension ( .816).These relationships suggest that lower levels of syntactic awareness can correspond to oor reading fluency and comprehension.In addition, it was found that Semester 3 participants had better reading rate than Semester 1 participants.This might be due to more printed exposure received by Semester 3 participants compared to Semester 1 respondents throughout their academic years in the university.At tertiary level, readers are extensively exposed to variety and challenging reading materials and this extensive exposure helps greatly in enhancing readers' reading g material can be implemented (Hidayat, 2017) or kind of tack such as Text Structure Tasks (Rohman, 2017).In addition, this finding is consistent with studies that conclude differences in reading rate based on academic grades.Studies that are verify differences in the speed of letter identification between good and poor readers indicate that poor readers are about 300 ms slower than good readers in the first __ 8 Generally, the range of the respondents' reading rate was between Good General Readers to Excellent College Readers.One possible reason is due to the participants' degree of sensitivity to word formation (morphological awareness).According to Rasinski, lachowicz and Lems (2006), morphology is one of the major sources of information when a reader comes across new or unknown information in a text.Some words are identified by their morphological structure; that is, word formation processes have an impact on printed word identification (Feldman, 1995).Snow et al. (1998) imply that morphology is essential, because it connects word forms and meanings within the structure of sentences.Research on hown that such metalinguistic awareness is crucial for reading fluency development (Biemiller, 1999;Menyuk, 1999).
Participants' discourse and syntactic awareness was another contributive factor to ctually involves use of printed signals, like text structure, and written conventions that provide a pattern of how information is organized in a text, as well as how sentences are formed (Allington, 2001;Biemiller, 1999).
yntactic awareness was evidently proven by Mokhtari and Thompson (2006) who have investigated the influence of students' awareness of the structure of written language (syntactic awareness) on their ability to read fluently and to .The results indicate that students' levels of syntactic awareness = .625)and reading comprehension (r = .816).These relationships suggest that lower levels of syntactic awareness can correspond to In addition, it was found that Semester 3 participants had better reading rate than Semester 1 participants.This might be due to more printed exposure received by Semester 3 dents throughout their academic years in the university.At tertiary level, readers are extensively exposed to variety and challenging reading materials and this extensive exposure helps greatly in enhancing readers' reading or kind of tack In addition, this finding is consistent with studies that conclude differences in reading rate based on academic grades.Studies that are verify differences in the speed of letter identification between good and poor readers indicate that poor readers are about 300 ms slower than good readers in the first grade, 200ms slower in grades three and four, 400ms slower in grades five and six, and 100ms slower at college level (Mackworth & Mackworth, 1974).Similar results are obtained in studies measuring multi-letter speed of processing (Biemiller, 1978;Doehring, 1976;Frederiksen, Warren & Rosebery, 1985;Greene et al, 1994).Large increa which one or more letters are identified to occur at the end of first grade.An asymptote in letter identification rate appears between the fifth and sixth grades.Differences between good and poor readers continue until college level ( Besides that, the significant correlation between reading rate and comprehension had evidently justified that reading rate did have some influence on the participants' comprehension.According to Samuel (2004Samuel ( , 2006) ) the recognition is central to the construct of fluency and comprehension.Researchers concur that (1) reading rate is an essential component of proficient reading and is significantly correlated with word accuracy (Rasinski, 2000), and (2) that reading fluency and comprehension are closely associated with one another (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003).Nathan & Stanovich (1991) have found a high correlation between the speed and effort with reader's process text and text comprehension.When a reader battles with reading rate, it can negatively affect comprehension and motivation to read (Stanovich, 1991).In other words, decreased reading rate in word recognition leads to dysfluency in reading and to an unrewarding reading experience, which reduces involvement in text (1983) carry out a factor analysis on the components of reading and linguistic processing skills.They have discovered that fluency measured by rate in decoding meaningful a meaningless words is a distinct factor, which is highly important for comprehension.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the condu ESL readers' reading rate.Th reading rate in terms of their educators could continue to up expertise especially in reading ar individuals' differences hold g of L2 teaching and learning pro grade, 200ms slower in grades three and four, 400ms slower in grades five and six, and 100ms slower at college level (Mackworth & Mackworth, 1974).Similar results are obtained letter speed of processing (Biemiller, 1978;Doehring, 1976;Frederiksen, Warren & Rosebery, 1985;Greene et al, 1994).Large increases in the speed at which one or more letters are identified to occur at the end of first grade.An asymptote in letter identification rate appears between the fifth and sixth grades.Differences between good and poor readers continue until college level (Breznitz, 2006;Greene et al, 1994).
Besides that, the significant correlation between reading rate and comprehension had evidently justified that reading rate did have some influence on the participants' comprehension.According to Samuel (2004Samuel ( , 2006) ) the role of reading rate or automatic word recognition is central to the construct of fluency and comprehension.Researchers concur that (1) reading rate is an essential component of proficient reading and is significantly correlated ski, 2000), and (2) that reading fluency and comprehension are closely associated with one another (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003).Nathan & Stanovich (1991) have found a high correlation between the speed and effort with reader's process text and text When a reader battles with reading rate, it can negatively affect comprehension and motivation to read (Stanovich, 1991).In other words, decreased reading rate in word recognition leads to dysfluency in reading and to an unrewarding reading hich reduces involvement in text-related activities.In their study, Soto and Soto (1983) carry out a factor analysis on the components of reading and linguistic processing skills.They have discovered that fluency measured by rate in decoding meaningful a meaningless words is a distinct factor, which is highly important for comprehension.
ducted study had highlighted valuable insights he present study has found some differences gender and academic semester.In short, it pdate and enhance ESL students' existing com g area.Additional studies that gather valuable in great promise in assisting educators to improv ocess.k supported by the University Grant awarded ia, under Grant No: 13486.grade, 200ms slower in grades three and four, 400ms slower in grades five and six, and about 100ms slower at college level (Mackworth & Mackworth, 1974).Similar results are obtained letter speed of processing (Biemiller, 1978;Doehring, 1976; ses in the speed at which one or more letters are identified to occur at the end of first grade.An asymptote in letter identification rate appears between the fifth and sixth grades.Differences between good Breznitz, 2006;Greene et al, 1994).Besides that, the significant correlation between reading rate and comprehension had evidently justified that reading rate did have some influence on the participants' role of reading rate or automatic word recognition is central to the construct of fluency and comprehension.Researchers concur that (1) reading rate is an essential component of proficient reading and is significantly correlated ski, 2000), and (2) that reading fluency and comprehension are closely associated with one another (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003).Nathan & Stanovich (1991) have found a high correlation between the speed and effort with reader's process text and text When a reader battles with reading rate, it can negatively affect comprehension and motivation to read (Stanovich, 1991).In other words, decreased reading rate in word recognition leads to dysfluency in reading and to an unrewarding reading related activities.In their study, Soto and Soto (1983) carry out a factor analysis on the components of reading and linguistic processing skills.They have discovered that fluency measured by rate in decoding meaningful and meaningless words is a distinct factor, which is highly important for comprehension.Thompson, B. (2006).The influence of syntactic awareness on fifth graders' , 85, 423-434.

Figure 1 :A
Figure 1: Levels of Participants' Reading

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: Levels of Participants' Reading Rate by Gender t-test analyses were conducted in order to examine possible diff of reading rate in terms of gender.Table2illustrated that there was a significant difference in the mean scores of reading rate/automaticity between male and female groups, t(208) = descriptive statistics showed that the females obtained a higher mean score ( .77)than the males ( ̅ = 7.28, SD = .56).This finding revealed that the females had better reading rate than the males.

__ 9 A
Disclosure of Reading Rate and Its Effect on Comprehension in Second Language Learning Context .F.& Mackworth, N.H. (1974).How children read: Matching by sight and

of Reading Rate and Its Effect on Comprehension in Second Language
. A Disclosure of Reading Rate and Its Effect on Comprehension in Second Language Learning Context.JEES (Journal of English 12. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21070/jees.v3i1.1274 __ 1 under A Disclosure

of Reading Rate and Its Effect on Comprehension in Second Language Learning Context
A Disclosure

A Disclosure of Reading Rate and Its Effect on Comprehension in Second Language Learning Context
Table 1 illustrated the distribution of

of Reading Rate and Its Effect on Comprehension in Second Language Learning Context Readers
. The original version ofJameison's (2005)Levels of Reading Rate for College reading rate starting from the rate level of 160 WPM or less until the rate level of 1000 WPM or more.This original scale was based on a reading text that had 10,000 words.The present study adapted Jameison's (2005) Levels of Reading Rate for aders by sustaining the 8 levels of reading rate of the original version with some modifications on the ranges of WPM since the length of each reading texts used in the study

Table 2 :
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of

Table 2 :
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Reading Rate by Gender Mean

Disclosure of Reading Rate and Its Effect on Comprehension in Second Language Learning Context Rafizah
Mohd Rawian; Ahmad Azman Mokhtar

Table 3 :
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Reading Rate by Academic Semester A Disclosure

of Reading Rate and Its Effect on Comprehension in Second Language Learning Context Ahmad
Azman Mokhtar; Mohamad Fadhili Yahaya

Table 3 :
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Reading Rate by Academic Semester

Table 3 :
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Reading Rate by Academic Semester

Table 4 :
Correlation Score between Reading Rate