Improving Students' Reading Comprehension through the Shared Reading Method: An Action Research at SDN 11 Ampang Padang

Aulia Rahman; An Fauzia Rozani Syafei

doi:10.24036/jelt.v14i2.134138

Improving Students' Reading Comprehension through the Shared Reading Method: An Action Research at SDN 11 Ampang Padang

Aulia Rahman⁽¹⁾, An Fauzia Rozani Syafei⁽²⁾,
(1) Universitas Negeri Padang

Indonesia
(2) Universitas Negeri Padang

Indonesia

Corresponding Author
Copyright (c) 2025 Aulia Rahman, An Fauzia Rozani Syafei

DOI : https://doi.org/10.24036/jelt.v14i2.134138

Full Text:

Language : en

Abstract

This study focuses on improving the reading comprehension of fifth-grade students at SD Negeri 11 Ampang Padang through the Shared Reading method, focusing on word recognition, reading fluency, and overall comprehension. Using a Classroom Action Research (CAR) design over two weeks with 14 participants, data were collected through pre-tests, post-tests, and classroom observations. The results show significant improvement in reading performance, with mean scores increasing from 41.1 to 91.43 in word recognition, 35.2 to 87.3 in reading fluency, and 46.8 to 94.0. Observations revealed that students pronounced words accurately, read fluently with proper pacing and expression, and answered explicit comprehension questions effectively, though some struggled with inferential comprehension. Additionally, students demonstrated increased confidence and greater engagement in reading activities. The teacher played a key role in this progress by effectively activating students’ prior knowledge, modelling fluent reading, using guiding questions, and fostering active participation through prediction and peer discussions. However, the need to enhance the use of inferential and evaluative questioning remains to further develop students’ higher-order thinking skills. These findings suggest that the Shared Reading Method is effective in enhancing reading skills by improving accuracy, fluency, and comprehension, while also fostering student motivation and creating an interactive learning.

Keywords

Shared reading, reading comprehension, word recognition, reading fluency, classroom action research.

References

Anderson, R. C. (1984). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 3, 372–384.

Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553–573.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945.

Dreher, M. J. (2011). Teaching reading in today's elementary schools. Cengage Learning.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. Journal of Education, 189(1/2), 107–122.

Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188.

Flavell, J. H. (1992). Cognitive development: Past, present, and future. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 998–1005.

Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.

Justice, L. M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words from storybooks: An efficacy study with at-risk kindergarteners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(1), 17–32.

Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3–21.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323.

Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 267–296.

Nation, P. (2008). Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques. Heinle ELT.

Neuman, S. B. (2009). Changing the odds for children at risk: Seven essential principles of educational programs that break the cycle of poverty. Teachers College Press.

Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.

Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). John Benjamins.

Pressley, M. (2000). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Routledge.

Rasinski, T. V. (2012). Why reading fluency should be hot! The Reading Teacher, 65(8), 516–522.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1985). Toward an interactive model of reading. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 722–750). International Reading Association.

Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151–218.

Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32–71.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Zucker, T. A., Justice, L. M., & Piasta, S. B. (2009). Prekindergarten teachers’ verbal references to print during classroom-based shared reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(3), 273–283.