A.

RESEARCH INFORMATION
RESERCH TITLE: Reading Skills of Kaytitinga Elementary School Thru
Project I Read
SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH
RESEARCH CATEGORY
o National
o Region
o Schools Division
o District
o School
(check only one)
o Action Research
o Basic Research
RESEARCH AGENDA CATEGORY
(check only one) main research
theme)
o Teaching and Learning
o Child Protection
o Human Resource Development
o Governance
(check up to one cross-cutting theme,
if
Applicable)
o DRMM
o Gender and Development
o Inclusive Education
o Others (please
specify):_________

FUND SOURCE (e.g. BERF, SEF, AMOUNT

Others)
MOOE PHP10,000.00

TOTAL AMOUNT PHP10,000.00

1
 A. PROPONENT INFORMATION
LEAD PROPONENT/INDIVIDUAL PROPONENT
LAST NAME: FIRST NAME: MIDDLE NAME:

GATDULA JOSEFA VARIAS

BIRTHDATE(MM/DD/YYYY) SEX: POSITION/DESIGNATION:

11/ 29/1975 FEMALE TEACHER III

REGION/DIVISION/SCHOOL (which is applicable)

Region IV-A, Division of Cavite, Kaytitinga Elementary School

CONTACT NUMBER 1: CONTACT NUMBER 2 EMAIL ADDRESS:

046-5220832 0939-6510765 gatdula_josefa@yahoo.com

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT TITLE OF THESIS/RELATED RESEARH PROJECT

(DEGREE TITLE)
Enumerate from bachelor’s
degree up to doctorate degree

Master of Art in Educational

Management –De La Salle
University, Dasmarinas, Cavite The Management Style and Procrastination
Tendencies of the School Administrators and Their
Effects on the Performance of Teachers in the
District of Alfonso
Bachelor in Business
Administration Major in Diagnosing Dyscalculia: Basis for Math Intervention
Marketing - Polytechnic Program
University of the Philippines,
Sta. Mesa, Manila

Master F4: An Evaluation on the Intervention

Teacher Certificate Program-
Cavite State University, Indang, Program in Mathematics
Cavite

SIGNATURE OF PROPONENT:

2
 IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR’S CONFORME

I hereby endorse the attached action research report. I certify that the proponents have implemented this
research study without compromising their office functions.

MILAGROS H. NORCIO
Name and Signature of Immediate Supervisor

Position / Designation; PSDS

REY M. GUANSING

Name and Signature of Immediate Supervisor

Position / Designation; PSDS

Date: 31 August 2018

3
II. Abstract

Research Title: Reading Skills of Kaytitinga Elementary School

Thru Project I Read

Proponents: Josefa V. Gatdula

Year: 2016-2018

School: Kaytitinga Elementary School

Principal: Brenda G. Alegre

The study attempted to evaluate the implementation of the Project I-Read,

an intervention program in English. The research was conducted at Kaytitinga Elementary

School, Kaytitinga 1, Alfonso, Cavite, 30 thirty pupils from Grade three have been

diagnosed under frustration level using the Phil-IRI.

This research was conducted to answer the following:

1. What is the reading level in comprehension of the pupil respondents

before the implementation of Project I Read?

Findings shows that most number of pupil respondents have

obtained the highest frequency of 28 (7%) fall under frustration level of 58%

reading comprehension and only 3 (7%) pupils got below 59-79% under

instructional level. Nobody has reached the independent level. The study

reveals the low reading comprehension of the pupils in English.

4
2. What is the reading level in comprehension of the pupils respondents after

the implementation of Project I Read?

Findings reveals that only 5 (16%) pupils remained under

frustration level; 17 (57%) respondents were able to reached the

instructional level; while 8 (26%) respondents have reached

independent level. Study shows that reading comprehension of

respondents in English was improved after the implementation of

Project I Read.

3. What is the result of the pupil respondents’ pre-test in Phil-IRI?

Five item comprehension oral pre-test in PHIL-IRI were given to

pupil respondents. In question number 1, it has obtained the highest

score with 12 (40%) pupil respondents got the correct response;

followed by question number 2 with 10 (33%) pupil respondents got

correct; question number 3 has the least correct response of 2 (6%)

while question number 4 and 5 got 7 (23%) and 6 (20%) respectively.

Research shows that the data obtained after the execution of Phil-IRI

pre-test, pupil respondents’ find it difficult to answer the questions what

is the event, problem and ending of the story. Phil-IRI pre-test pupil

respondents’ reading comprehension needs remediation.

4. What is the result of the pupil respondents’ post –test in Phil-IRI?

After the post test, question number one has the highest score of

28 (93%) correct response; followed by question number 2 with 27

(90%); while question numbers 4 and 5 have 26 (86%) and 25 (83%)

5
 respectively; and still question number 3 has the least number of correct

response of 24 (80%). Study reveals that the skill in reading

comprehension of pupil respondents’ in Phil-IRI improved.

5. Is there any significant difference between the reading comprehension of

pupil-respondents before and after the implementation of Project I Read?

Comparison between the reading comprehension of the

respondents before and after the implementation of Project I Read using the

paired simple t-test at 0.05 level of significance pre-test mean obtained was

7.4 while post-test was 25.8 with a t-value of -4.5 indicating that p-value

obtained is less than the level of significance, 0.05 indicating that there is a

significant difference between the comparison between the pre-test and post-

test result of the respondents before and after the implementation of Project I

Read, hence the decision is reject the null hypothesis.

6
 III. Acknowledgement

The proponents would like to express their deepest gratitude and appreciation to
the following significant persons who helped this research study possible.
To our Almighty God, who has been there to guide and look after them. For giving
them knowledge and strength to finish the study they had been working for and extending
His great and infinite blessing that led them to the success of their research work;
Kaytitinga Elementary School administrator Mrs. Brenda G. Alegre for her
immeasurable concern, kindness and understanding during the most important phase of
the research;
Kaytitinga Elementary School teachers, parents and pupil-respondents for this
research study for giving them permission to conduct this study in the school and their
cooperation;
Mrs. Milagros H. Norcio, district supervisor who never stops supporting the
proponents, served not only as an inspiration but also a mother in the educational field;
Mr. Rey M. Guansing, district supervisor who just recently arrived in the district of
Alfonso and have shown his support to the teachers of Alfonso;
Ms. Cherrylou D. De Mesa, OIC Schools Division Superintendent of Cavite, for
granting the researcher the permit to conduct the study to selected public elementary
schools in the municipality of Alfonso;
The panel of educator, Mr. Ivan Bryan Inductivo, for his helpful suggestions and
encouragement toward the improvement of this study.

The Proponent

7
 IV. Context and Rationale

Reading skills is a major concern of the Philippine educational system and

one of the problems that needs to be addressed (Philippine Education for All 2015). In

the year 2008, only 86.4% are functionally literate or those with basic reading, writing,

and computational skills (NSO, 2013). In public schools, reading skills of the pupils is

one of the problems. There are pupils who are having difficulty in reading and there are

those who can read but are having difficulty understanding what they are reading. These

pupils are characterized as struggling readers.

It is challenging for these pupils to encounter words they cannot read and

understand because it would be hard for the pupils to understand the lessons and what

the lessons are all about (McElvain, 2005). Eventually, because of the difficulty in reading

the pupils would not be able to cope up with their lessons and would lack interest towards

their subjects. This often leads to dropping out of school. One of the reasons for dropping

out is having difficulty coping up with school work (Orbeta 2010). The pupils are not

encouraged to go to school because of difficulty understanding the lessons which boil

down from difficulty in reading. Low quarterly test results, achievement tests and

diagnostic tests prove that there are pupils who have difficulty in reading.

This study seeks to find a way to help children with reading difficulties, improve

their reading skills through Project I-Read, a school based reading intervention program.

Noting details and making inference are important for a child to be proficient in reading

and it is useful in any other languages (Anthony & Francis, 2005). Likewise, it is said that

the most effective way of improving pupils’ learning is by using the mother tongue as the

language of instruction. It is in the basic premise of starting to learn where the learners

are and from what they already know (Nolasco 2009 as cited in Gallego & Zubiri, 2011).

8
As such, the pupils will be given reading intervention in Filipino. They should learn to

read and understand their first language first and eventually learn other to read and

understand their second language.

From this research, Project I-Read was conducted in each of the teacher’s

classroom to discover where their skills are at on individual levels. When this occurs,

pupils have more gains by getting more attention and creating a bond with the teacher.

(Hausher et al., 2011). The PHIL-IRI test is the preferred tool to measure overall reading abilities

for pupils of average ability level from grades one to six. When teachers work with small

groups, pupils can master comprehension skills through the use of repetition. They hear

the selection both from their own lips and others in the group including the teacher.

V. Innovation, Intervention, and Strategy

The conceptualization of this Project I Read originated from Continues

Improvement Plan which was conceptualized by Dr. Brenda G. Alegre and the proponents

in 2016 to cater the needs of Kaytitinga Elementary School pupils. The duration of this

program run form July to November 2016, a total coverage of 15 weeks. Time allotment

is during 11:00-11:30, 12:30-1:00 3:30 every remediation period. This project were given

to 30 grade three pupils respectively which has been diagnosed under the frustration

level of the Phil-IRI. They were given small groups sessions with their teachers to give

them remedial classes. Materials used in these remediation program are: Phil-IRI

reading materials, DOLC’s Basic Sight Words, text books, and localized modules. Each

pupil understudy were given remedial notebooks and stickers that will serve as their

attendance, no attendance no sticker for their puzzle, sign of completing the Project I-

Read remediation program. The approaches that can be considered are:

9
 Reinforce the idea of noting details and making inferences and increase in reading

comprehension. Long-term gains are expected in pupils to receive phoneme instruction,

bring grade three struggling readers to grade level and close the gap between their peers.

As of the present school year on its second year, starting June 4, 2018 Project I

Read is being adopted as one of the School Programs and Projects of the PPA’s after

careful planning and development of Priority Improvement Area Analysis (PIA)( See

Work Plan) . Last July 29, 2018 it was formally launched through a school program

together with the parents supporting their children wearing different costumes of their

favorite characters from the story and comic books parading inside the school ground.

(See program and pictures). Teachers are very supportive of the program in developing

a school culture genuine love for reading (See Accomplishment Report). Parents have

contributed so much in putting up of reading corners by contributing money and buying

books, floor mats, small chairs and tables, cabinets and decorations. (See Project I Read

Monthly Report pictures). Parents and pupils have been shown wide array of valuable

experiences while putting up the reading corners and utilizing them for the pupils. (See

pictures). Thru project I Read, several projects were born under it like Project ICC4 which

simply means I Care and Collaborate 4, 4 means it is composed of 4 members in the

group for reading activities where they will collaborate and care for their classmates who

are having hard time in reading. Nanay Ko, Guro ko is done during the pupils’ lunch

break where mothers are tutoring pupils to read; Project R2- Read and Read- pupils were

given remedial teaching where they will go to the different learning stations in the

classroom especially in the reading corners where they will read their favorite books

together with their tutor classmates. Parents were also invited to put up the Project I

Read – Reading Garden, where pupils can freely read books and spend spare time there.

10
VI. Action Research Questions

The researchers’ attention was caught by the following problems: pupils bring with

them difficulty in reading as they go to higher grade level, mispronounced simple English

words, cannot answer questions based on what they have read, difficulty answering

questions in English such as “Who are the characters in the story?”, “What is the setting

in the story?” “What is the problem in the story?” “What is the event in the story” and

“What is the ending of the story?” The pupils cannot answer in comprehension question

– who, what, where, when, and why and several pupils are still poor in reading basic sight

words; no teaching and learning materials that were used to assist and attract pupils in

having engage themselves in developing genuine love for reading.

This research was conducted to answer the following:

1. What is the reading level in comprehension of the pupil respondents

before the implementation of Project I Read?

2. What is the reading level in comprehension of the pupils respondents after

the implementation of Project I Read?

3. What is the result of the pupil respondents’ pre-test in Phil-IRI?

4. What is the result of the pupil respondents’ post –test in Phil-IRI?

5. Is there any significant difference between the reading comprehension of

pupil-respondents before and after the implementation of Project I Read?

11
 Hypothesis

1. There is no significant difference between the reading comprehension

of pupil-respondents before and after the implementation of Project I

Read.

2. There is no significant difference between the result of the pupil-

respondents’ pre test and post-test in Phi-IRI.

VII. Action Research Methods

A. Participant and/ or other Sources of Data and Information

The study covered the identification of the level of reading readiness

of pupils in grade three using the Phil-IRI. This study was limited only to

pupils with reading difficulty –in noting details and making inferences. The

problems described here were lifted from the transcripts of Phil-IRI results.

a. Participant and/or other Sources of Data and Informantion

The research was conducted at Kaytitinga Elementary School in July

2016, purposive sampling technique was used as a mode of selection of

participants for this study. The program has thirty pupils from grade three

who fell under frustration level. Research instrument used in this study was

the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (PHIL-IRI 2013).

PHIL-IRI Oral Test Criteria

Level Word Recognition(WR) Comprehension

Independent 97-100% and 80%-100%

Instructional 90-96% and 59-79%

12
Frustration 89%-below or 58%-below

b. Data Gathering Methods

Adhering to the standard operating procedures of the Department of

Education, Division of Cavite, researchers asked the permission from

the school principal, Dr. Brenda G. Alegre, the teachers in the primary

grades and together with the parents of the pupils for consent to let their

children become the understudy of this research. After the permission

was secured, the researchers personally administered the test to the

pupils. To measure the pupil’s reading comprehension. Phil-IRI was

utilized as a tool. Result in their pre-test and post-test was interpreted

using the scale below:

PHIL-IRI Oral Test Criteria

Level Word Recognition(WR) Comprehension

Independent 97-100% and 80%-100%

Instructional 90-96% and 59-79%

Frustration 89%-below or 58%-below

After which, test results generated were presented in tables and

figures. Raw data was treated and the researchers immediately

proceeded in the data analysis.

13
VII. Discussion of Results and Reflection

The following data answers to the specific questions of the

study:

1. What is the reading level in comprehension of the pupil

respondents before the implementation of Project I Read?

Table 1
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the
Respondents’ Reading Comprehension Before the
Implementation of Project I Read
Pre Test Descriptor Frequency Percentage(%)

80-100% Independent 0% 0%

Below 59-79% Instructional 2 7%

58% -below Frustration 28 93%

Total 30 100%

Table 1 indicates the frequency and percentage

distribution of pupils reading comprehension in English based on the

Phil-IRI before the implementation of Project I Read. Findings shows

that most number of pupil respondents have obtained the highest

frequency of 28 (7%) fall under frustration level of 58% reading

comprehension and only 3 (7%) pupils got below 59-79% under

instructional level. Nobody has reached the independent level. The

study reveals the low reading comprehension of the pupils in English.

14
2. What is the academic performance of the pupil respondents in Reading

comprehension after the implementation of Project I-Read?

Table 2

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents’

Reading Comprehension in English
After the Implementation of Project I Read

Pre Test Descriptor Frequency Percentage(%)

80-100% Independent 8 26%

59-79% Instructional 17 57%

58% -below Frustration 5 17%

Total 30 100%

Table 2 depicts the frequency and percentage distribution of

pupils’ reading comprehension in English after the implementation of

Project I Read. Findings reveals that only 5 (16%) pupils remained

under frustration level; 17 (57%) respondents were able to reached the

instructional level; while 8 (26%) respondents have reached

independent level. Study shows that reading comprehension of

respondents in English was improved after the implementation of

Project I Read.

15
3. What is the result of the pupil respondents’ pre-test in Phil-IRI?

Table 3
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents’
Pre-test in PHIL-IRI
5 Correct Answers

Questions (Frequency) Percentage

1. Who are characters in 12 40%

the story?
2. What is the setting in 10 33%
the story?
3. What is the problem in 2 6%
the story?
4. What is the event in the 7 23%
story?
5. What is the ending in 6 20%
the story?

Table 3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of

the respondents in 5 item comprehension oral pre-test in PHIL-IRI.

Question number 1 got the highest score with 12 (40%) pupil

respondents got the correct response; followed by question number 2

with 10 (33%) pupil respondents got correct; question number 3 has

the least correct response of 2 (6%) while question number 4 and 5 got

7 (23%) and 6 (20%) respectively. Research shows that the data

obtained after the execution of Phil-IRI pre-test, pupil respondents’ find

it difficult to answer the questions what is the event, problem and ending

of the story. Phil-IRI pre-test pupil respondents’ reading

comprehension needs remediation.

16
4. What is the result of the pupil respondents’ post –test in Phil-IRI?

Table 4
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents’
Post-test in PHIL-IRI
5 Correct Answers

Questions (Frequency) Percentage

1. Who are characters 28 93%

in the story?
2. What is the setting 27 90%
in the story?
3. What is the 24 80%
problem in the
story?
4. What is the event 26 86%
in the story?
5. What is the ending 25 83%
in the story?

Table 4 displays the frequency and percentage distribution of

respondents’ post test question number one has the highest score of

28 (93%) correct response; followed by question number 2 with 27

(90%); while question numbers 4 and 5 have 26 (86%) and 25 (83%)

respectively; and still question number 3 has the least number of correct

response of 24 (80%). Study reveals that the skill in reading

comprehension of pupil respondents’ in Phil-IRI improved.

17
5.Is there a significant difference between the reading comprehension of

pupil respondents’ before and after the implementation of Project I

Read?

Table 5
Paired Sample t-test: Comparison between the Reading
Comprehension of the Respondents Before and After
The Implementation of Project I Read

Reading Mean t-value p-value Decision Remarks

Comprehension
Pre-test 7.4 -4.5 0.000 Reject Ho Significant
Post-test 25.8
Note: If p value is less that the level of significance which is 0.05 reject the
null hypothesis otherwise accept.

Table 5 shows the comparison between the reading

comprehension of the respondents before and after the

implementation of Project I Read using the paired simple t-test at

0.05 level of significance pre-test mean obtained was 7.4 while

post-test was 25.8 with a t-value of -4.5 indicating that p-value

obtained is less than the level of significance, 0.05 indicating that

there is a significant difference between the comparison between

the pre-test and post-test result of the respondents before and

after the implementation of Project I Read, hence the decision is

reject the null hypothesis.

18
 BUDGET OF WORK FOR PHONEMIC AWARENESS AND READING
COMPREHENSION
Week Phonemic Awareness Alphabetic Principle/Multisensory Activity
Activity (oral) (hands on)
1 Listening to and Letter Image Sound
identifying sequence of
Sounds Matching objects with beginning sounds
Developing memory
attention to sequence of
Sound
2 Listening: awareness of Letter Image Sound
hearing expectations
Rhyme recognition Letter Formation with raised Letter cards
3 Rhyme Completion Letter Image Sound
(review recognition)
Concepts of Print- Vowel Focus-Sorting short vowel sounds
Identifying word lengths
4 Rhyme Production Sight word recognition (I, and , in, it, on, like)
RED word strategy for sight words (the, for, to,
(review recognition and you)
completion)
5 Review Rhymes Letter Formation with rice (a, e, f, m, n)
(recognition, completion, Sight word recognition (I, and, in, it, on, like, is, he)
RED word strategy for sight words (the, for, to,
and production) you,
Blending Onset & Rime she)
6 Syllable Blending Letter Image Sound
Tapping with chin Vowel Focus-Identifying short vowel sounds
Sight word recognition (I, and, in, it, on, like, is, he,
see, at, can, she )
RED word strategy for sight words (the, for, to,
you,
she, your, a, put, this, said, of)
7 Syllable Blending Letter Image Sound
Tapping with chin Blending Phonemes: LOGICO PRIMO CVC words
Clapping Sight word recognition (I, and, in, it, on, like, is, he,
Identifying Syllables up see, at, can, she )
RED word strategy for sight words (the, for, to,
to 3 you,
she, your, a, put, this, said, of)
8 Syllable Blending Letter Image Sound
Blending Phonemes: LOGICO PRIMO, CVC
Compound words words
NOT Compound words Sight word recognition (I, and, in, it, on, like, is, he,
see, at, can, she )
RED word strategy for sight words (the, for, to,
you,
she, your, a, put, this, said, of)

19
 9 Syllable Segmentation Letter Image Sound (long and short vowels, Q, Y)
Syllable Deletion ABC order
Sight word recognition (I, and, in, it, on, like, is, he,
see, at, can, she )
RED word strategy for sight words (the, for, to, you,
she, your, a, put, this, said, of, all)
10 Syllable Deletion Letter Image Sound (long and short vowels)
Phoneme Isolation of Sight word recognition (I, and, in, it, on, like, is, he,
Final Sound see, at, can, she, be )
RED word strategy for sight words (the, for, to, you,
she, your, a, put, this, said, of)
Dictation of sight words:
I can see all of the cats!
11 Think Sounds-Isolating Letter Image Sound (long and short vowels)
beginning and ending Sight word recognition (I, and, in, it, on, like, is, he,
sounds see, at, can, she, be, had )
RED word strategy for sight words (the, for, to, you,
she, your, a, put, this, said, of, have, all, )
Dictation Sentences
12 Phoneme Blending Sight word recognition (I, and, in, it, on, like, is, he,
Onset/Rime see, at, can, she, be, had )
RED word strategy for sight words (the, for, to, you,
she, your, a, put, this, said, of, have, all, are, with)
Dictation Sentences
13 Review Phoneme Sight word recognition (I, and, in, it, on, like, is, he,
Blending Onset/Rime see, at, can, she, be, had )
Phoneme Segmentation RED word strategy for sight words (the, for, to, you,
she, your, a, put, this, said, of, have, all, are, with,
what)
Dictation Sentences
14 Phoneme Deletion of Sight word recognition (I, and, in, it, on, like, is, he,
Initial Sound see, at, can, she, be, had )
RED word strategy for sight words (the, for, to, you,
she, your, a, put, this, said, of, have, all, are, with,
what)
Dictation Sentences
15 Phoneme Deletion of Sight word recognition (I, and, in, it, on, like, is, he,
Ending Sound see, at, can, she, be, had )
RED word strategy for sight words (the, for, to, you,
she, your, a, put, this, said, of, have, all, are, with,
what)
Dictation Sentences
Figure 1 (continued)

20
 Figure 2 shows the guide questions for pupils and teachers during pre-test
and post-test and expected answers of pupils and teacher concern.
Before-Pupil 1
Do you see yourself as a reader?
I’m learning to read. I’m learning
sight words. I’m sounding out.
What do you like/dislike about
reading? I like nothing really. I
don’t like sounding out and reading
is hard.
How do you feel about the reading
activities you do in class? The
Halloween party was fun, but that’s
it.
Do you have a good sight word
vocabulary? I think.
Before-Teacher of Student 1
What kind of reading students is
ID? She basically can’t read and
doesn’t try.
How is his/her attitude toward
reading? Indifferent.
How is her confidence or attitude
towards reading? She is not very
motivated to learn to read. She
really doesn’t pay attention when
we are doing reading.
What do you notice about her sight
word vocabulary? She has not
memorized sight words yet.
How is her/his comprehension? She
doesn’t read so she struggles to
comprehend anything
independently, and when I read to
her she generally struggles with
what is going on in the story.
Figure 2.Reading Attitude Inventory
After-Pupil 1
Do you see yourself as a reader? Yes. I can
read the words. I know sight words and I
sound out words.
What do you like/dislike about reading? I’m
doing good now.How? I can read better.
How do you feel about the reading activities
you do in class? I like my teacher reading to
me and helping me do stuff. I like to write
about stories. I like doing tests with Mrs. B.
Has your sight word vocabulary improved?
Yes. I know a lot now from doing it with you. I
know a, I, of, you, your, said, put. That’s all I
can remember.
After-Teacher of Student 1
What kind of reading students is ID? She is
still low but she is working on breaking down
letter sounds to decode. She is limited for
independent reading and is still at end of K
level.
What is her attitude toward reading? She has a
poor attitude when independent. She looks
around and does not want to do it on her own.
She enjoys working with me on decodable
readers.
Has her confidence or attitude towards reading
changed? More confident. Guessing less. If the
word ispig she used to say any p word but ow
she attends to word more.
What do you notice about her sight word
vocabulary? Not really using sight words as
much that I notice. I use decodables with her.
Do you feel his/her comprehension has
improved? Yes. With the weekly story she is
doing better on the tests, but I have to read
them to her.
21
 Cost Estimates

Cost estimates Intervention Plan for Project I Read

Activity Persons Time Source of Amount
Involved Fund
1. Planning Principal, 7 days MOOE, Php7,000.00
teachers, donations and
Resources made parents, national fund
available to use pupils
as appropriate
e.g. Letter Image
LOGICO PRIMO
Video presentations
Power point
presentations
Flashcards
Localized modules

Classroom Principal, 7 days MOOE, Php3,000.00

layout teachers, External
purposefully parents Stake holders
planned taking
into
consideration
factors such as:
• Style of
lesson
• Use of
buddies
• Use of
ICT
• Use of
minimum
distraction
areas

Teacher, 50 days MOOE Php2500.00

pupils

TOTAL Php10,000.00
AMOUNT

22
 Appendix A

Monitoring Tool for Project I-Read

Name of School: Kaytitinga Elementary School

Name of Monitoring Official:________________________________

Date: _____________________________________________

Direction: Check the appropriate column that will likely describe how you assess the implementation of
Project I-Read

CATEGORY EVIDENT NOT

EVIDENT
1. Learning materials are:
Utilized/used by the pupils.
a. 1:1 ratio
b. No missing pages
c. No printing problems
2. Schedule is properly followed
3. Pupils:
a. Sign the attendance
b. Observe eagerness and initiatives
c. Show improvement in performance based
on records of assessment

4. Teachers prepare the following

documents:
a. Attendance of pupils
b. Attendance of parents
c. Weekly assessments of records
d. Pictures of the activities of the program
5. Parents
a. Show initiative and cooperation
b. Follow schedule
c. Sign on the attendance sheet
d. Well informed on the program
e. Know their roles in the implementation of
the program

Problems observed by the Monitoring Official:

Comments and Suggestions:

____________________________________________ _____________
Signature Over Printed Name of Monitoring Official Date

23
 Appendix B

5 Point Comprehension Check Up

Name: ________________________ Grade:____________________

Date/Initials

Characters

Setting

Problem

Events

Ending

Score/5%

Date/Initials

Characters

Setting

Problem

Events

Ending

Score/5%

24
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blay, R. Mercado K., & Villacorta J.(2009). The relationship between

motivation and second language reading comprehension among
fourth grade Filipino students. Philippine ESL Journal vol. 2,
Feb.2009

Deped Official Gazette http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/18

Deped-to-assess-reading-skills-of-public-school-students

Lastrella, S. (2010). Reading difficulties of the first year students in the

University of Makati S. Y. 2010-2011, Unpublished doctoral
Dissertation, Philippine Normal University

Narag, E.C. (2006). Basic Statistics with Calculator and Computer

Application 161-163, Philippines: Rex Book Store

Factors affecting reading comprehension retrieved on August, 2016,

https://www.scribd.com/doc/59616125/Factors-Affecting-Reading-

comprehension-of-Grade-v-Pupils-in-Kitang-Elementary-School

Neuman, V., Ross, D.K., and Slabock, A., (2008). Increasing reading
Comprehension through fluency based interventions. Action
Research. Chicago, Illinois

Phil-irihttps://www.slideshare.net/mobile/michaelamuyano/philiri

Teaching reading, Retrieved on September 2016

https://ftp.learner.org/workshops/teachreading35/pdf/teachers_know_

T-test (Student’s T-Test):Definition @ www.statisticshowto.com/

Probability-and-statistics/t-test/

Workplan for Action Research 2016, Retrieved on September 2016,

https:/www.google.com.ph/search?q=action+research+work+plan
and+timeline&rlz=1C1MSIM_enPH756&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source
=univ&s

25
26
27