International Journal of Social Science And Human Research

ISSN(print): 2644-0679, ISSN(online): 2644-0695

Volume 04 Issue 09 September 2021
DOI: 10.47191/ijsshr/v4-i9-09, Impact factor-5.586
Page No: 2333-2341

Level of Reading Comprehension Among Grade 11 Learners

Basis for Instructional Material Development
Jennymae T. Manggasang1, Ma.Fe B. Belasoto2
1
Division of Iloilo, Department of Education
2
Northern Iloilo Polytechnic State Colleges, Estancia, Iloilo

ABSTRACT: This descriptive study aimed to determine the level of reading comprehension among 323 randomly selected Grade
11 learners from the academic and TVL tracks of Estancia National High School, through the use of a researcher-made instrument
which had undergone validity and reliability test. Result revealed that when taken as an entire group, the females, the academic
track Grade 11 learners, those with post graduate parents were “good” in literal and interpretive levels while “fair” in evaluative
level. The males, the TVL track Grade 11 learners, those with elementary education parents were “fair” in the three levels. Those
with high school education parents were “good” in literal but fair in interpretive and evaluative levels. Those whose parents had
tertiary education were “good” in all three levels of reading comprehension. There was a significant difference in the three levels
of reading comprehension when Grade 11 learners were classified as to sex and track. There was a significant difference in literal
and evaluative levels when Grade 11 learners were classified as to parents’ highest educational attainment but no significant
difference in interpretive level. Among the three levels, it was in the evaluative level that the Grade 11 learners barely passed.
Based on the result of the study an instructional material was developed.
KEYWORDS: Reading Comprehension, Grade 11 Learners, Literal Level, Interpretive Level, Evaluative Level

INTRODUCTION
Reading comprehension as pointed out by Rutzler (2017) involves not only reading the words, but also deriving meaning from
them or is the capability to perceive and understand the meanings communicated by texts (Nemati et al., 2016). It is being able to
integrate reading with thinking and reasoning (Brooks, 2014), a complex process that requires the activation of numerous
cognitive skills (Yee, 2010), or involves many interactions between readers and what they bring to the text like previous
knowledge and strategy use as well as variables related to the text itself such as interest in text and understanding of text types
(Klingner, 2007). When readers read, they do not only use their eyes to receive information from written symbols but they also
make use of their intellectual acumen or cognitive prowess to deduce what those written symbols intend to meaningfully
communicate to them (Bernardo, 2015).
Reading comprehension according to Umali (2013) is a very important skill students must possess. It does not only
increase the pleasure and effectiveness of reading according to Brooks (2014), but strong reading comprehension he continued,
helps in all other subjects and in the personal lives. Students’ level of reading comprehension is the pivot to all other subjects, as it
directly affects student’s attainment in the entire academic process (Jude & Ajayi, 2012). A study by Chege (2012) also concluded
that reading comprehension is related to academic performance. Effective reading is an important avenue to effective learning. It
is interconnected with the total educational process ( Acheaw& Larson , 2014). After learning how to read effectively, students
will be able to learn effectively (Pardede, 2010). Reading comprehension is the fundamental way of learning new information and
it is the most significant skill required for the students’ success (Nemati et.al, 2016). Consequently, students who experience
difficulties in reading will be handicapped in acquiring knowledge and in succeeding academically (Bharuthram, 2012).
There are levels of reading comprehension (Smith, 1969; Westwood, 2003; Umali, 2013). First is the literal level, which
involves surface understanding only. Common questions used to elicit this type of thinking are who, what, when and where
questions. According to Bernardo (2013) these are the easiest to answer because the answer is expressed directly in the text.
Interpretive level is when the reader gleans what is implied or meant, rather than what is actually stated. This level involves
drawing inferences or reading between the lines. Readers tap into prior knowledge/experience and attach new learning to old
information. Evaluative or critical level is when readers read beyond the lines. The learners are able to synthesize information, to
question and to evaluate the author, to think critically and to form new, fresh ideas from the text (Ariong, 2013).

IJSSHR, Volume 04 Issue 09 September 2021 www.ijsshr.in Page 2333

Level of Reading Comprehension Among Grade 11 Learners Basis for Instructional Material Development
Catts and Kamhi (2017) pointed out that to make learners proficient in reading is one of the essential goals of the educational
system. The Department of Education (DepEd) has continuously aimed to improve the reading comprehension of public school
students, through the implementation of different projects. For instance, the implementation of the Every Child a Reader Program
can be observed in all public elementary schools in the country. It is a national program that addresses the thrust of DepED to
make every Filipino child a reader at his/her own level. However, despite all the efforts reading problem is still prevalent. In the
study of Bilbao, Donguilla and Vasay (2016) the overall reading comprehension of the education students in literal level,
interpretive level, and evaluative level was satisfactory with the descriptive level of moderate which illustrates that there is still a
need to provide a reading program for the education students to reach the maximum level of reading comprehension. While in the
study of Imam, Abas, Jamil, and Ismail (2014), the students performed at the level of near mastery in getting main idea and
making inference and low mastery in understanding vocabulary in context, noting details, predicting outcome, and drawing
conclusion. The majority of the students had low mastery level in reading comprehension skills with a mean percentage of 47.37
which is equivalent to a failing mark according to the DepEd grading system.
One of the difficulties faced by secondary school teachers today is that many students come into their classrooms
without the requisite knowledge, skills, or disposition to read and comprehend the materials placed before them (Lipka, 2010).
The phenomenon of poor reading comprehension performance in English is a great challenge for teachers, especially in the senior
high school. So this study was conducted to determine the reading comprehension in literal level, interpretive level and evaluative
level among Grade 11 learners of Estancia National High School. Moreover it sought to determine the significant difference in
literal, interpretive, and evaluative levels when learners were classified as to sex, track, and parents’ highest educational
attainment.

METHODOLOGY
A. Research Design
Descriptive research approach was utilized in the study. Descriptive research according to Prieto et al. (2017)is a means of
discussing new meanings, describing what exists, determining the frequency with which something occurs and categorizing
information. It involves the description, recording, analysis, and interpretation of the present nature, composition or processes of
phenomena. The focus is on prevailing conditions, or how a person, group, or thing behaves or functions at the time of the study.
It often involves some type of comparison or contrast.
B. Respondents of the Study
The respondents of this study were the three hundred twenty-three randomly selected Grade 11 learners of Estancia National High
School for the academic year 2017-2018. They were classified as to sex, track, and parents’ highest educational attainment.
C. Instrument
A researcher-made instrument was utilized in the study. A 105 item reading comprehension test in multiple choice, where each
level of reading comprehension had 35 items was submitted to the panel of experts for validation. The retained 103 items were
then administered for reliability testing to three national high schools in two neighboring towns. The KR-20 of 0.94 showed that
the instrument was reliable. After the reliability test, seven items were eliminated. The retained 96 item test was used to determine
the level of reading comprehension of Grade 11 learners. It has two parts: the personal information questionnaire to gather
information about the respondent’s sex, track, and parents’ highest educational attainment then the reading comprehension test in a
multiple choice form.
D. Data Gathering Procedure
As soon as the test was noted as valid and reliable, a letter of permission to conduct the study was secured from the school
Principal and the assistant school Principal of Estancia National High School to utilize the Grade 11 learners enrolled in academic
and TVL tracks for the academic year 2017-2018 as respondents of this study. The test was personally administered. After the
Grade 11 learners had answered, the test papers were then gathered and checked.
E. Treatment of Data
The data in this study were analysed using mean, standard deviation, t-test for independent sample, and one-way ANOVA.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Level of reading comprehension of Grade 11 learners when taken as an entire group and when classified as to sex,
track and parents’ highest educational attainment
When taken as an entire group, the reading comprehension of Grade 11 learners in literal level (M=11.11, SD=4.24) and
interpretive level (M=15.79,SD=6.57) was “good”. Thus this means that Grade 11 learners can answer basic information, follow
simple instruction, apply and analyze cognitive processes though not that high.

The Grade 11 learners in the evaluative level (M=10.56,SD=4.24) was “fair” which shows that they have the difficulty to
IJSSHR, Volume 04 Issue 09 September 2021 www.ijsshr.in Page 2334
Level of Reading Comprehension Among Grade 11 Learners Basis for Instructional Material Development
make judgments as they read.
This result is inconsistent with the findings of the study of Barasaba et al. (2012) in which for the score of 8 none of the
Grade 8 students mastered the literal and evaluative level of reading comprehension. For the score of 7 only 2 of the 60 students
were able to get a score in the literal level and none scored in the evaluative level, which means that only a small number have
nearing mastery in the literal level and none in the next levels of reading comprehension. So as with the study of Sari (2015) in
which literal level was very good, interpretive level was low, and critical (evaluative) level was failed.
When classified as to sex, the males’ reading comprehension in literal level(M=9.59,SD=3.98), interpretive level(M=
12.94;SD=5.78) and evaluative level (M=9.10,SD=3.95) was “fair”, while the females in literallevel(M=12.29;SD=4.06)and
interpretive level (M=18.00;SD=6.30)were “good”, and in evaluative level (M=11.69;SD=4.13)“fair”.
The result indicated that females outscored the males in the literal and interpretive levels. However, both males and females had
the same low performance in the evaluative level but looking into the mean scores the females scored higher than the males. This
result confirms the study of Tibus and Pobadora (2016) which shows that in the literal and interpretive levels the males were
considerably low than females. Even with the study conducted by Logan and Johnston (2009) where girls are better in reading
comprehension than boys.
When classified as to track, the reading comprehension of academic track Grade 11 learners in literal level(M=12.68,SD= 4.05)
and interpretive level(M=18.83, SD=6.41)was “good”, and in evaluative level(M=12.13 ,SD=4.64)was “fair”. This means that
learners in the academic track performed well in literal and interpretive level but hardly passed in the evaluative level. The TVL
learners in literal (M=10.10;SD=4.06),interpretive (M=13.83;SD=5.90), and evaluative level(M=9.54;SD=3.63)were “fair”. This
result means that TVL track learners find it hard to pass the three levels.
When classified as to parents’ highest educational attainment, the reading comprehension of Grade 11 learners with post graduate
parents was “good” in literal(M=11.45,SD=4.71)and interpretive levels (M=16.86,SD=6.53), and “fair” in evaluative
level(M=11.55,SD=3.49). This means that learners with post graduate parents were able to pass the literal and interpretive level
but were challenged in the evaluative level. Those with tertiary education parents were “good” in literal (M=13.02,SD=4.56),
interpretive (M=18.16,SD=6.30)and evaluative levels (M=13.09,SD=4.84). This means that learners with parents who have tertiary
education performed well in the three levels. This result is explained by the study of Chin and Ko (2008) which revealed that
mothers above high school have more positive reading attitudes and frequently read at home. They also took part in their
childrens’ reading activities since their children were young. With early and recent literacy experience children have better reading
achievement. Those with high school education parents were “good” in literal level (M=11.18,SD=4.17)and “fair” in interpretive
(M=15.45,SD=6.78), and evaluative levels(M=10.27,SD=4.07). This means that learners with high school parents did well only in
the literal level and were having difficulty in both interpretive and evaluative levels. Those with elementary education parents
were “fair” in literal (M=9.68,SD=3.59), interpretive (M=14.88,SD=5.96),and evaluative levels( M=9.43,SD=3.88).This means
that learners whose parents have elementary education found the three levels challenging.

Table 1. Level of Reading Comprehension of Grade 11 Learners when Taken as an Entire Group And when Classified as
to Sex, Track and Parents’ Highest Educational Attainment
Category N Mean SD
Description
Entire Group
Literal level 323 11.11 4.24
good
Interpretive level 323 15.79 6.57
good
Evaluative level 323 10.56 4.24
fair

Sex
Male
Literal level 141 9.59 3.98
fair
Interpretive level 141 12.94 5.78
fair

IJSSHR, Volume 04 Issue 09 September 2021 www.ijsshr.in Page 2335

Level of Reading Comprehension Among Grade 11 Learners Basis for Instructional Material Development
Evaluative level 141 9.10 3.95
fair

Female
Literal level 182 12.29 4.06
good
Interpretive level 182 18.00 6.30
good
Evaluative level 182 11.69 4.13
fair

Track Academic
Literal level 127 12.68 4.05
good
Interpretive level 127 18.83 6.41
good
Evaluative level 127 12.13 4.64
fair

TVL
Literal level 196 10.10 4.06
fair
Interpretive level 196 13.83 5.90
fair
Evaluative level 196 9.54 3.63
fair

Parents’ highest educational attainment

Post Graduate
Literal level 22 11.45 4.71
good
Interpretive level 22 16.86 6.53
good
Evaluative level 22 11.55 3.49
fair

Tertiary
Literal level 45 13.02 4.56
good
Interpretive level 45 18.16 6.30
good
Evaluative level 45 13.09 4.84
good

High School
Literal level good 182 11.18 4.17
Interpretive level Fair 182 15.45 6.78
Evaluative level fair 182 10.27 4.07

Elementary
Literal level fair 74 9.68 3.59
Interpretive level fair 74 14.88 5.96
Evaluative level fair 74 9.43 3.88
Note: Literal level (1.00-5.20 poor, 5.21-10.40 fair, 10.42-16.60 good, 16.61-20.80 very good, 20.81-26.00 excellent)

IJSSHR, Volume 04 Issue 09 September 2021 www.ijsshr.in Page 2336

Level of Reading Comprehension Among Grade 11 Learners Basis for Instructional Material Development
Interpretive level (0.00-7.80 poor, 7.81-15.60 fair, 15.61-23.40 good, 23.41-31.20 very good, 31.21-39.00 excellent)
Evaluative level (0.00-6.20 poor, 6.21-12.40 fair, 12.41-18.60 good, 18.61-24.80 very good, 24.81-31.00 excellent)
B. Difference on the level of reading comprehension of Grade 11 learners when classified as to sex
An independent sample t-test revealed a statistically significant difference in the literal level of reading comprehension of males
(M=9.59,SD=3.98) and females (M=12.29,SD=4.06);t(323)=-5.98,p=.001); in the interpretive level of males (M=12.94,SD=5.78)
and females (M=18.00,SD=6.30);t(323)=-7.41,p=.001;and in the evaluative level of males (M=9.10,SD=9.00)and females
(M=11.69,SD=4.13) ;t(323)=-5.70,p=.001. Thus the null hypothesis was rejected.
Through the result it can be inferred that there is a big difference in the level of reading comprehension between the female and
the male Grade 11 learners. By looking into the mean the females had higher reading comprehension in literal, interpretive, and
evaluative levels compared to the males.
This result confirms the study of Pagal, Miafuentes and Ypanto (2017) where there was a statistical difference in the literal and
evaluative levels between the male and the female Grade 8 students. However, it negates the study of Oda and Abdul-Kadhim
(2017) where there was no significant difference in the literal and inferential level between the male and female college students
but then it was consistent in the evaluative level where there was a significant difference between the male and the female. The
females being better in reading comprehension than the males is supported by the study of Arellano (2013) which revealed that
female students had higher level of reading comprehension in English. The female students got higher results in all the analysed
parameters related to reading comprehension in English. They obtain the highest differences in deducing meaning from the
context, 0,4991. This difference in achievement between males and females was significant. All of these students were aged 16.

Table 2. Difference on the Grade 11 Learners’ Level of Reading Comprehension when Classified as to Sex
Mean Mean Diff df t P

Literal -2.70 321 -5.98 .001

Male 9.59
Female 12.29

Interpretive -5.06 321 -7.42 .001

Male 12.94
Female 18.00

Evaluative
Male 9.10 -2.59 321 -5.70 .001
Female 11.69

B. Difference on the level of reading comprehension of Grade 11 learners when classified as to track
The difference in the level of reading comprehension of Grade 11 learners when they were classified as to track was
determined using an independent sample t-test.
Results revealed that there was a significant difference in the literal level of reading comprehension of the Grade 11
learners on the academic track (M=12.68,SD= 4.05) and TVL (M=10.10,SD=9.00);t(323)= 5.59,p=.001), interpretive level,
academic track M=18.83,SD=6.41)and TVL (M=13.83,SD=5.90) ;t(323)=7.19,p=.001);and evaluative level academic track
(M=12.13,SD=4.64)and TVL learners (M=9.54,SD=3.63); t(323)=-5.60,p=.001). Thus the null hypothesis was rejected.
The result implied that the academic track learners performed better in the three levels of reading comprehension based
on their mean scores compared to the TVL track learners. This maybe because the academic track focuses on soft skills which
include critical thinking, problem solving, and communication while TVL is more on practical or technical skills.

IJSSHR, Volume 04 Issue 09 September 2021 www.ijsshr.in Page 2337

Level of Reading Comprehension Among Grade 11 Learners Basis for Instructional Material Development
Table 3. Difference on the Grade 11 Learners’ Level of Reading Comprehension when Classified as to Track
Mean Mean Difference Df T P

Track
Academic 43.63
TVL 33.46

Literal 2.58 321 5.59 .001

Academic 12.68
TVL 10.10

Interpretive 5.00 321 7.19 .001

Academic 18.83
TVL 13.83

Evaluative 2.59 321 5.60 .001

Academic 12.13
TVL 9.54

C. Difference on the level of reading comprehension of Grade 11 learners when classified as to parents’ highest educational
attainment
To determine the difference of the level of reading comprehension of the Grade 11 learners when classified as to parents’ highest
educational attainment, a One-Way ANOVA was used. The respondents were divided into four groups according to their parents’
highest educational attainment (Group 1: Elementary; Group 2: High School; Group 3: Tertiary; Group 4: Post Graduate.
Result revealed that there was a statistically significant difference on the literal level of reading comprehension for the four groups
F(2,323)=6.23, p=.001. Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected.
Post-hoc comparison using the Scheffe test indicated that the mean score for Grp1, elementary (M=9.68,SD=3.59) was
significantly different from Grp3:Tertiary (M=13.02,SD=4.56).
The result goes to show that the literal level of reading comprehension of the respondents varies depending upon the educational
attainment of their parents and the evident difference was found between parents with elementary education and with tertiary
education. Respondents whose parents are with tertiary education performed better in literal level of reading comprehension
compared with those whose parents are with elementary education. This can be explained by Magnuson (2007) and Westerlund
and Lagerberg (2008) when they said that the level of parental education is a determining factor in children’s reading abilities and
achievement.
There was no statistically significant difference in the interpretive level of reading comprehension scores for the four groups
F(2,323)=2.83,p=.059. Therefore the null hypothesis was accepted.
Based on the result it can be inferred that whatever is the educational attainment of the parents of the respondents whether
elementary, high school, tertiary, or postgraduate the reading comprehension of the respondents in interpretive level does not vary.
There was a statistically significant difference in the evaluative level of reading comprehension for the four groups
F(2,323)=8.28,p=.001.
Post-hoc comparison using the Scheffe test indicated that the mean score for Grp1, elementary (M=9.43,SD=3.88)was
significantly different from Grp3:Tertiary (M=13.09,SD=4.84), Grp2:High School(M=10.27,SD=4.07),and post graduate
(M=11.55,SD=3.49). Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected.
The result implied that the respondents whose parents are with elementary education do not perform well in literal, interpretive,
and evaluative level in reading comprehension unlike those whose parents are with high school, tertiary, and post graduate
education who do well.

IJSSHR, Volume 04 Issue 09 September 2021 www.ijsshr.in Page 2338

Level of Reading Comprehension Among Grade 11 Learners Basis for Instructional Material Development
Table 4. Difference on the Level of Reading Comprehension of Grade 11 Learners when classified as to Parents’ Highest
Educational Attainment
Level M N Df F P

Literal 3 6.23 .001

Elementary 9.68 74
High School 11.18 182
Tertiary 13.02 45
Post 11.45 22
Graduate

Interpretive 3 2.83 0.59

Elementary 14.89 74
High School 15.45 182
Tertiary 18.16 45
Post 16.86 22
Graduate

Evaluative 3 8.28 .001

Elementary 9.43 74
High School 10.27 182
Tertiary 13.09 45
Post 11.55 22
Graduate

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the result it can be concluded that most of the Grade 11 learners were capable on answering the literal level of reading
comprehension while they found evaluative level challenging. This may be attributed to the fact that the questions of literal
comprehension can be answered directly and explicitly from the text. As for the evaluative comprehension the reader is required to
move beyond the text or critically analyze it. The result shows that the critical thinking skills of Grade 11 learners is not
developed, practiced and honed.
The result showed that the females have better reading comprehension than the males. Although this is already an old
issue but still it is proven in this study.
The academic track performed better in reading comprehension than the TVL track, which could be due to the fact that academic
track learners are being prepared for college courses such as engineering, sciences, business management so they give emphasis or
more focus on enhancing their reading to augment them academically. Unlike the TVL track which invests primarily on students
skills which they would be needing in their work space. TVL is for those students who wanted to work after graduation, because it
immediately prepares the students for their future job.
There is a big difference in the literal and evaluative level of reading comprehension between the learners whose parents are with
elementary education from those learners whose parents are with high school, tertiary, and post graduate education. In the
interpretive level whatever is the educational attainment of the parents the learners’ reading comprehension is the same.

REFERENCES
1. Arellano, M.D.C. (2013). Gender Differences in Reading Comprehension Achievement in English as a Foreign Language
in Compulsory Secondary Education. Tejuelo, 17(1), 67-84.Retrieved from
https://dialnet.uniroja.es/descarga/articulo/4353124
2. Ariong,J.(2013)in Teaching reading comprehension in primary classrooms: a case study of teachers’ instructional
practices to teaching reading comprehension to primarythree classrooms in uganda.Rerieved January 3,2018 from
bitstream/handle/10852/36634/MasterxthesisxJeanxFxArriongxFINALxVERSION.pdf?sequence=1
3. Barasaba, D., Alonzo, J., Tindal, G., Yovanoff, P. (2012) Examining the structure of reading comprehension: Do literal,
inferential, evaluative comprehension truly exist? DOI:10.1007/s11145-012-9372-9 Reading and Writing 26(3)
researchgate.net/publication/257643270
4. Bernardo, A. (2013). Developmental reading I. Manila: Rex Book Store

IJSSHR, Volume 04 Issue 09 September 2021 www.ijsshr.in Page 2339

Level of Reading Comprehension Among Grade 11 Learners Basis for Instructional Material Development
5. Bernardo, A. (2015). Developmental reading II. Manila: Rex Book Store
6. Bharuthram,S. (2012)in Making a case for the teaching of reading across the curriculum in higher education. South
African Journal of Education, 32(2), 205-212. Retrieved August 19, 2017 from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1136320.pd
Bilbao, M.E., Donguilla, C.L.S., Vasay, M.J.G. (2016). Level of reading comprehension of the Education Students.
International Journal of Library Arts, Education, Social Sciences and Philosophical Studies. Vol.4 Number 1. Retrieved
from https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=13762
7. Brooks, D. (2014). Importance of Comprehension. Retrieved from http://performancepyramid.miamioh.edu/node/385
8. Catts, H.W. and Kamhi, A.G. (2017). Prologue: Reading Comprehension Is not a single ability. Language Speech and
earing Services in Schools, 48(2), 73. doi: 10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16-0033.
9. Chege, E.W. (2012). Reading comprehension and its relationship with academic performance among standard eight
pupils in rural Machakos (Doctoral dissertation, Kenya University) Retrieved from
http://irlibrary.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/3722
10. Chin, C.H., and Ko, H.W. (2008). Parental factors related to children’s reading: Evidence from comparing transnational
marriage families and local families. Retrieved from https://www.iea.nl>files>IRC2008
11. Imam, O.A., Abas Mastura, M., Jamil, H. and Ismail, Z.(2014). Reading comprehension skills and performance in
science among high schoolstudents in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education Vol.29, 81-
94,2014Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/23137293
12. Jude, W.I. & Ajayi, O.B. (2012) Literal level of student's comprehension in Nigeria: a means for growing a new
generation African scholars. Journal of Education and Practice .3(7) 120127 Retrieved August 15,2017 from
www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JE article/download/ 1857/1812
13. Klingner, J.K. et al. (2007). Teaching Reading Comprehension to Students with Learning Difficulties. New York: The
GuilfordPress p.8
14. Logan, S. and Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where these
differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading 32:199-214.
15. Magnuson, K. (2007). Maternal education and children’s academic Achievement during middle childhood.
Developmental Psychology, 43, 1497-1512.
16. Nemati, N. et.al(2016)in Reading test-taking strategies: a study on Iranian EFL undergraduates. Retrieved August
21,2017 from http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mFiM zJhZ/NematiAzadeh.pdf
17. Owisu- Acheaw, M. and Larson, A.G. (2014) Reading Habits Among Students and its Effect onAcademic Performance: A
Study of Students of Koforidua Polytechnic. Retrieved: August 19, 2017 from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi? yahoo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2908&context=libphilprac
18. Oda, A.H. and Abdul-Kadhim, M.R. (2017). The relationship between gender and reading comprehension at college
level.Journal of Basrah research, The Humanities Sciences Vol.42-No.6-Yr.2017. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328266024
19. Pagal, C.L., Miafuentes, J.K.A. and Ypanto, Q.C. (2017). School age gender gap in reading comprehension. Journal of
Asian development ISSN 2377-9594 2017. Vol.3, No.2:78 DOI: 10,5296/jad.v3i2.i107
20. Pardede, P.(2006) in A Review on reading theories and its implication to the teaching of reading. Retrieved
August17,2017 from https://parlindunganpardede.com/ article s/language-teaching/a-review-on-reading-theories-and-its-
implication-to-the-teaching-of-reading
21. Prieto, N. et.al.(2017).Practical research I for Senior High School. Manila: LORIMAR Publishing Incorporated
22. Rutzler, S. (2017). Importance of Reading Comprehension. Retrieved March 13,2018 from
https://www.mathgenie.com/blog/importance-of-reading-comprehension
23. Sari, D.R. (2015). An analysis of students’reading comprehension based on the four levels of comprehension skills (a
study on the 2nd year students of SMAN 10 Bengkulu A.Y. 2014/2015) University of Bengkulu, Indonesia. Retrieved
fromhttps://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229572517.pdf
24. Smith, N.B. (1969). The many faces of reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher Vol.23 No.3 ’69 Convention
Soundings (Dec. 1969) pp 249-259,291(12 pages):Wileyand International Reading Association DOI:10.2307/20196295
Retrieved from https://www.jstorr.org/stable/2019629
25. Tibus,A. and Pobadora, R.(2013).Reading comprehension ability vis-à-vis demographics, reading materials and time
spent reading. Journal of Arts and Humanities. Vol.5 Issue 9, 2016. Retrieved March 28, 2018 from
https://www.hearts journal.org/ index.php/ site/ article/ view/1002
26. Umali, J. (2012-2013). Factors affecting the reading comprehension selected accs students of the university of Makati
school year 2012-2013. Unpublished Action Research, University of Makati

IJSSHR, Volume 04 Issue 09 September 2021 www.ijsshr.in Page 2340

Level of Reading Comprehension Among Grade 11 Learners Basis for Instructional Material Development
27. Westerlund, M. and Lagerberg, D. (2008). Expressive vocabulary in 18-month-old children in relation to demographic
factorsmother and child characteristics, communication style and shared reading. Child Care Health Development,
34.257-266
28. Westwood, P. (2003). Commonsense. Methods for Children with Special Educational Needs (4 th edition) Strategies for
the Regular Classroom. New York: Routledge Falmer
29. Yee, N.(2010) in Understanding reading comprehension: multiple and focused strategy interventions for struggling
adolescent readers. Thesis. Retrieved: August 19, 2017 from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55298535

IJSSHR, Volume 04 Issue 09 September 2021 www.ijsshr.in Page 2341