Improving the Reading Comprehension of Grade VI-Cariñosa Pupils using

Personal Reading Diary (PRD)

I. SITUATION

In a class of 44 grade 6 pupils of Tortugas Elementary School, Balanga City, only

1 pupil falls under the Instructional level and the rest were frustrations in oral reading
while all 44 pupils were under Frustration level in silent reading based on the result of the
PHIL-IRI Oral and Silent Reading Pre-Testin English administered by the teacher
researcher at the beginning of the S.Y 2014-2015.

Furthermore, the result shows that most students have very poor reading
comprehension, which largely affects their reading level. On the average, the students got
1.49 out of 7 correct responses in oral reading test and 2.31 out of 8 in silent reading test.

Thus, this study introduces a reading intervention program called Personal

Reading Diary (PRD) which seeks to address the current situation of the learners and
improve their reading level.

Furthermore, this study aims to prove the effectiveness of PRD in improving the
comprehension level of the students, whicheventually will improve their academic
performance particularly in English.

1
II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The study aims to improve the reading comprehension of Grade VI Cariñosa pupilsusing
a Personal Reading Diary.
Specifically, the study aims to:
 Increase the students reading comprehension by 2%
 Inculcate among the students the love for reading

III. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

To address the problems stated above, the researcher will devise a reading
intervention program herein referred to as Personal Reading Diary (PRD). PRD includes
the students’ individual diary and a manual of 30 different stories downloaded from the
Internet.

The reading intervention will start with group reading, to buddy reading to
individual reading,each of which will be conducted for two weeks at three days a week.
Each group/pupil will choose their preferred story from the 30 stories in the manual.

The manual has a table of contents and instructions for learners to guide them in
choosing their stories. Complex stories will be done by group wherein each of the four
members of the group will read parts of the story aloud until the whole story is read.
After the round-robin reading, each member will read the story silently and work on
his/her own personal reading diary. The same procedure will be followed for the buddy
reading except that stories for buddy reading are less complex than thatof group reading.
For individual reading, each student will choose the simplest stories from the manual and
read it silently before working on the personal reading diary.
At the end of every reading activity, each student will record his/her scores on the
“My Progress” chart to see whether he/she improves from day to day and from week to
week.

2
IV. ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN

OBJECTIVE ACTIVITY/ RESOURCES TIME FRAME

INTERVENTION NEEDED
Increase reading A. Produced the  Computer/laptop
comprehension of individual PRD and with Internet
pupils by 2% story manual connection
 Downloaded  Printer November 6, 2014
stories from the  A4 paper
internet  Folder/binders
 Created a PRD November 6, 2014
template
 Reproduced November 10-12,
the stories and 2014
PRD template
B.
 Conducted pre-  Photocopy of November 13, 2014
assessment test reading materials
in silent reading
and
comprehension

C. Administered  Personal Reading

the PRD Diary
intervention  Stories Manual
program
 Collaborative Week 1 – Week 2
reading of November 17-28,
groups of 4 2014
members
Week 3 – Week 4

3
  Buddy reading December 1-12,
2014
Week 5- Week 6
 Individual December 15-17,
reading 2014; January 5-7,
2015
2. Inculcate love A. Reflections MWF starting week
for reading among  Group sharing 1-6 at 4:00-4:30pm
learners about the
stories read
B. Role Play T-Th starting week
 Each group 1-6 at 4:00-4:30pm
chooses a story
and presents it
through a role-
play.

C. Conducted post- January 9, 2014

assessment test

V. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Descriptive qualitative research design was employed in this study. Moreover, the
researcher used averaging, mean (M), proficiency level (PL) and mean percentage score
(MPS) to find out if the reading comprehension of the pupils improved after the
intervention program.
The pre-assessment test and post-test will include the primary questions on the PRD
wherein the students will have to answer the following:
 Who is/are the character/s in the story?
 Where did the story happen?
 When did the story happen?

4
  How did the story ended?
 What lesson did you learn from the story?
In addition, some important details of the story will be noted as part of
comprehension questions.
The teacher checked the answers of the pupils and have them recorded their scores on
the “My Progress” chart. The following rubric was used in evaluating the pupils’
answers.

Questionnaires Maximum Performance Indicators

Points
 Who is/are the characters 2 pts. – the main and secondary
in the story? 2 character/s were correctly and
Main characters: completely identified
Secondary characters: 1 pt. – only the main character is
identified and/or the secondary
characters were not completely
identified
0 pt– the main and secondary
characters are wrongly identified
 Where did the story 1 pt. – the place where the story
happen? 1 happened is correctly identified
0 pt- the place where the story
happened is wrongly identified
 When did the story 1 pt. - the time when the story
happen? 1 happened is correctly identified
0 pt - the place where the story
happened is wrongly identified
 How did the story ended? 3 3 pts. – the ending of the story is stated
in their own words correctly
2 pts. – the ending of the story is
stated in their own words with minor

5
 errors
1 pt. - the ending of the story is
correctly identified and derived from
the story
0 pt – the ending of the story is not
identified
 What lesson did you learn 3 pts. – the lesson of the story is stated
from the story? 3 in their own words correctly
2 pts. – the lesson of the story is stated
in their own words with minor errors
1 pt. - the lesson of the story is
correctly identified and derived from
the story
0 pt – the ending of the story is not
identified
Total points: 10

The result of the pre-assessment teststhen compared to the post-teststo see

whether the students improved their reading level by the end of the intervention program.
In addition, the teacher researcher also included the students reflection and self-
evaluation as well as an observation journal wherein all observations, comments and
problems encountered during the conduct of the intervention was recorded and used for
further reference and recommendations.

VI. DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

6
 The data were gathered through written evaluation, checklist and result of the pre-
assessment and post-test. These data were presented, interpreted and analyzed in terms of
mean percentage and averaging. The findings are as follows:

Result of the Pre and Post Comprehension Test

TABLE 1

PRE-TEST POST-TEST

MEAN 5.11 6.86

PROFICIENCY LEVEL 51.14 68.64
MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORE 52.11 69.26

Figure 1

80
70
60
50
40
PRE-TEST
30
POST-TEST
20
10
0
MEAN PROFICIENCY LEVEL MEAN PERCENTAGE
SCORE

Table 1 and figure 1 shows a significant difference in the result of the pre and post
test administered to the students. Specifically, it shows a slight mean difference of 1.75
and an increase of 17.51 proficiency level and 17.15 mean percentage score.

Result of Written Evaluation for Group Reading

(Week 1 – Week 2)
Table 2

7
 WEEK 1 WEEK 2
MEAN 18.95 20.43
PROFICIENCY LEVEL 63.18 68.11
MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORE 63.92 68.74

Figure 2

80

70

60

50

40
WEEK 1
30 WEEK 2

20

10

0
MEAN PROFICIENCY LEVEL MEAN PERCENTAGE
SCORE

Table 2 and figure 2 shows the improved result of group reading from week 1 to
week 2. Mean was increased by 1.48 from week 1 to 2, proficiency level increased by
4.93 while the mean percentage score rise by 4.82.

Result of Written Evaluation for Buddy Reading

(Week 3 – Week 4)

Table 3

8
 WEEK 3 WEEK 4
MEAN 18.30 20.25
PROFICIENCY LEVEL 60.98 67.50
MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORE 61.77 68.15

Figure 3

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00
WEEK 3
30.00 WEEK 4

20.00

10.00

0.00
MEAN PROFICIENCY LEVEL MEAN PERCENTAGE
SCORE

Table 3 and figure 3 shows an increase of more than 6% proficiency level and
mean percentage score while the mean average increased by 1.95% in pair or buddy
reading.

Result of Written Evaluation for Individual Reading

(Week 5 – Week 6)
Table 4

WEEK 5 WEEK 6

9
MEAN 17.91 20.52
PROFICIENCY LEVEL 59.70 68.41
MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORE 60.50 69.04

Figure 4

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00
WEEK 5
30.00 WEEK 6

20.00

10.00

0.00
MEAN PROFICIENCY LEVEL MEAN PERCENTAGE
SCORE

Table 4 and figure 4, shows a significant increase of less than 9% MPS and
proficiency level in individual reading, and a 2.61 increase in mean.

Comparative Result of Group, Buddy and Individual Reading

Table 5
Group Reading Buddy Reading Individual

10