CLASSROOM REMEDIAL READING PROGRAM (CRRP): IMPROVING

READING SKILLS OF GRADE IV PUPILS

I. CONTEXT AND RATIONALE

Every teacher ultimately has the same wish for their pupils; they want them to

not only succeed but to excel in all areas of life. One of the ways that can facilitate

this wish is to give the gift of literacy. In order to become literate, all children must

increase their comprehension of what is being read to them aloud or what they are

reading individually.

Reading is a complex process that is crucial to pupils’ academic success.

According to Sloat, Beswick, and Willms (2007), pupils who do not learn to read

during the primary grades will probably never read well. Furthermore, pupils with low

literacy skills have less access to the regular curriculum, and they are prone to poor

self-esteem, low motivation, behavioral difficulties, and academic underachievement

(Sloat et al., 2007)).

Reading teachers face a number of problems as they strive to implement

effective instruction. Henk, Moore, Marinak, and Tomasetti (2000) noted that school

professionals often experience difficulty as they attempt to work together toward the

identification of factors that affect reading skills. The classroom environment,

materials, and the teacher’s practices must support literacy development for pupils

representing a wide range of ability and background. Academic diversity creates

challenges for the general education teacher; some teachers avoid dealing with the

pupils who fall at the extremes of the range, teaching mainly to the middle group

(Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998).

When pupils’ learning needs are not met, gaps in reading achievement widen

as struggling readers lose confidence (Fuchs et al., 2001). Failing to experience

success when they engage in literacy activities, pupilss lack motivation to continue

reading. Pupils who experience lowered confidence and poor self-esteem often add

behavior concerns to the demands on teachers’ time (Ambe, 2007; Fuchs et al., 2001).

In order to teach reading, teachers must draw on knowledge of children, learning

styles, and the reading /learning process, combined with ongoing assessments, as they

make a series of complex decisions that influence and mediate literacy (Fountas &

Pinnell, 1996).

Unfortunately, teachers often lack the assessment skills necessary for proper

collection and organization of pupil data used as a means of reflecting on instructional

interventions (Conderman & Strobel, 2006). Additionally, teachers have inadequate

time to devote to analyzing pupils’ reading errors (Dewitz & Dewitz, 2003). Davidson

and Myhre (2000) reported that although teachers had access to many assessments to

determine how well a pupil is reading, many of these methods were teacher- or

district-developed; consequently the assessments were not tested for validity or

reliability.

Seven years later, Sloat et al. (2007) stated that while teachers still relied

extensively on informal assessments, “they expressed a desire to augment these

approaches with measures that provided empirically-derived learning benchmarks,

concrete data on children’s progress, and clear evidence of where children were

struggling”.

Early Literacy is essential according to Vaughn et al. (2001), the nation is

putting emphasis on early intervention with reading instruction so that pupils are

capable readers by the third grade. Due to pressure from educational and political

influences, younger pupils are expected to have their reading skills assessed (Paris,

2002). This movement is driven by evidence that pupils who do not acquire phonemic
awareness for successful reading achievement will not fully benefit from reading

instruction (Allor, Gansle, & Denny, 2006), and that low reading scores have been

linked to weaknesses in phonics and phonemic awareness skills (Fuchs & Fuchs,

1998; Vaughn, Hughes, Schumm, & Klinger, 1996). Consequently, K-3 instruction in

many schools has focused heavily on phonemic awareness, phonics, and word

recognition (Teale, Zolt, Yokota, Glasswell, & Gambrell, 2007).

All pupils learn comprehension at varying rates and need differing amounts of

guidance to increase comprehension. Some pupils need little to no help

comprehending while others struggle to attend long enough to accurately restate what

they have heard or read. Teachers strive to help individual pupils increase their reading

comprehension. Many pupils have difficulty comprehending what they read. All

schools need to have some sort of remedial reading program provided to help

struggling pupils.

Low reading skills affect both reading fluency and comprehension for

elementary school pupils. Reading skills are foundational building blocks at this age

and the earlier pupils with low reading skills receive interventions, the greater the

interventions will impact the pupils’ reading careers (Hausheer, Hansen, & Doumas,

2011). Knowing how to read words has ultimately little value if the pupil is unable to

construct meaning from the text (Klinger, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2007). If schools are

able to provide what the pupils need, there will be more success for everyone involved.

Pupils with low literacy skills have less access to the regular curriculum, are

prone to poor self-esteem, low motivation, behavioral problems, and academic

underachievement. According to Neumann, Ross, & Slaboch (2001), putting an

emphasis on early interventions with reading instruction so that pupils are capable
readers by the third grade is necessary because low reading scores have been linked

to weakness in phonics and phonemic awareness skills.

Research conducted by Klinger, Urbach, Golos, Brownell, & Menon (2010)

displayed that teachers of pupils with learning disabilities across several states and

classroom setting models had a tendency to focus on literacy skills related to

phonological awareness and decoding. It was noted that strategies related to

increasing comprehension were rarely observed and even less frequently explicitly

taught.

Struggling learners require more explicit instruction on specific

comprehension strategies that can be used to obtain both surface level information and

critical thinking information from text. Increasing fluency is a key way of increasing

a pupils’ comprehension skills. Teachers can use a variety of methods to increase

reading fluency. These include choral reading, echo reading, partner reading, reading

along silently as oral reading is being modeled, using poetry, and reader’s theatre.

These methods can be used in either small groups during reading, or as an intensive

intervention implemented three times a week in 20 minute intervals (Neumann, Ross,

& Slaboch, 2004).

Reading with accuracy and effective speed allows the reader to focus on the

meaning of the words (Neumann, Ross, & Slaboch, 2004). This again proves the

importance of fluency and speed that pupils need to be successful at comprehension.

Most teachers do some form of guided reading or small group instruction during their

literacy block. Working with smaller groups of pupils allows teachers to reach pupils

where their skills are at on individual levels. When this occurs, pupils have more gains

by getting more personalized attention and creating a bond with the instructor

(Hausheer et al., 2011). This allows pupils to gain confidence in their abilities.
“Guided reading is helpful for pupils who are fluent readers but lack comprehension

skills. It forces them to think about what they have read” (Caposey & Heider, 2003,

p. 19).

Reading literacy is defined as “understanding, using, and reflecting on written

texts, in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and

to participate in society” (Therrien, 2004).

According to Therrien, in order to achieve literacy there are five important

skills one must learn: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary instruction, text

comprehension strategies, and reading fluency. A review of the literature has shown

that literacy is not simply a basic skill but rather a goal and a functional means in

education and individual development, both within and outside school, today and later

in life, in further education, at work and in leisure activities. Reading literacy is not

only a foundation for basic learning, but also a prerequisite for successful participation

in most areas of youth or adult life (Linnakyla et al., 2004).

Research indicates at least one out of five pupils has significant difficulty in

reading acquisition (Therrien, 2004). Although reading fluency and comprehension

are important skills to acquire, as they are essential skills for success both in school

and eighth grade did not reach a basic literacy level when given a standardized test

(Calhoon, 2005). Problems with reading tend to begin at the onset of reading

instruction, persist, and become more severe with the passage of time (Graney, 2000).

Furthermore, most schools do not detect fluency or comprehension difficulties until

the second or third grade (McCardle, Scarborough, & Catts, 2001) because the reading

skills focused on until the fourth grade are phonemic, and not based on fluency and

comprehension.
 As pupils reach high school age, research shows fluency does not increase,

although comprehension does improve (Calhoon, 2005). Research also indicates

gender differences in the risk for difficulties in reading comprehension with male

pupils experiencing more difficulty than female pupils (Linnakyla et al., 2004). To

increase the reading fluency and comprehension of pupils who encounter such

problems, various strategies, such as assisted reading, reading while listening, and

paired reading have been implemented. Research addressing the effectiveness of these

strategies implemented individually, however, shows mixed results. In contrast,

programs incorporating the three previously mentioned strategies into one technique

increase reading fluency and comprehension (Therrien, 2004).

Additional factors that help improve reading skills include: appropriate

grouping practices, instructional strategy, extended practice opportunities with

feedback, and breaking down tasks into smaller components (Calhoon, 2005). In

addition to the aforementioned, successful instructional strategies contribute to the

improvement of reading skills. These strategies consist of the following components:

(a) small, interactive group instruction, (b) direct questioning and responses, (c)

breaking tasks into smaller component parts, (d) designating extended periods of time

focusing on reading, and (e) receiving feedback. Each component allows pupils to

receive more personalized and individual attention, increasing productivity (Calhoon,

2005).

Teale et al. stated that elementary school literacy programs have become

mechanized and test-driven rather than content- and meaning-driven because of an

overemphasis on the results on standardized testing to determine literacy progress.

Despite public and professional attention to the issue of implementing effective

reading instruction, Schmoker (2006) concluded that “current practice is very much
at odds with the best we know about helping pupils to become authentically literate”.

Schmoker (2006) stated that the current preoccupation with basic literacy prevents

students from acquiring the ability to read for meaning, which is the most important

and practical form of reading. Schmoker contended that while reading teachers are

required to spend time conducting lengthy, pupil-by-pupil reading assessments,

teachers seldom use assessment results to adjust or improve instruction. Instead,

assessments are used to group or regroup pupils. Schmoker also observed that

authentic literacy is neglected from the earliest grades.

Sloat et al. (2007) cited the need to respect empirical evidence of what

constitutes effective practice while at the same time taking into account the

involvement of pupils, parents, teachers, and administrators. Classroom teachers are

anxious to learn about appropriate interventions that will increase learning for their

pupils (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Vaughn, et al., 1998). Emphasis is placed on assessing

primary pupils’ phonics skills and phonemic awareness, but Fuchs (2005) presented

evidence that teaching phonological skills without connecting them to text is not the

best practice for increasing literacy skills (Hatcher et al., 1994). Taberski (2000)

asserted that meaning, structure, and graphophonics work best together as strategies.

Taberski described the complex set of attitudes, understandings, and behaviors

involved in learning to read, and concluded that children need to be active agents who

assume responsibility for their learning.

Reading instruction as described by Harvey and Goudvis (2000) develops

strategic readers who carry out self-monitoring in the form of an inner conversation

for the purpose of making sense of what they read . Recognizing that a possible reason

for lack of reading skills is the pupil’s failure to be an engaged reader and to use

strategies that have been taught (Malone & Mastropieri, 1991), reading teachers at all
levels face the challenge of implementing instruction that emphasizes the reader’s

construction of meaning. (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000) Teaching comprehension

strategies is difficult for many teachers (Fuchs, et al., 2001; Pressley, 1997). Gauthier

(2001) stated that although increasing students’ comprehension is a theme that

permeates all reading programs, not much effort has been made to form a joining

together of promising strategies to encourage reading comprehension.

The future success of children lies in the ability to read fluently and understand

what is read. Studies show that at least one out of five pupils has significant difficulty

in reading acquisition (Therrien, 2004). Providing remedial reading programs is

imperative to improve both reading fluency and reading comprehension, particularly

to elementary school pupils because fluency and comprehension are particularly

important at this stage of development and early intervention can impact the

progression of reading difficulties.

Additionally, research indicates the risk for difficulties in reading

comprehension is higher for males than females (Linnakyla, Malin, & Taube, 2004),

suggesting the importance of ensuring the availability of remedial reading programs

for male students. In addition to supporting pupils’ reading skills, it is also important

to provide evidence for the efficacy of these programs. Because it is not uncommon

for school counselors to be asked to assist with administrative duties, rather than

provide counseling programs to promote student success, establishing evidence-based

programs will support the continuation of these activities for school counselors.

Further, as resources for education decline, it becomes increasingly important

for school counselors to be able to demonstrate the impact of their programs on pupil

success by providing evidence from program evaluations to support programs. The

purpose of this study is to examine the efficacy of a remedial reading program

designed to improve reading fluency and comprehension skills among elementary

school pupils.

The remedial reading is a supplemental reading program that consists of

rereading unfamiliar text until a satisfactory level of fluency is reached. Remedial

reading is a strategy that implements assisted reading, reading while listening, and

paired reading. Literature has shown that remedial reading is an evidenced-based

strategy designed to increase reading fluency and comprehension (Therrien, 2004). It

has also indicated in order to achieve comprehension, students should read the

provided material three to four times, but reading the passage more than four times

does not increase comprehension (Therrien, 2004).

The remedial reading strategy is likely successful because it incorporates

feedback from the instructor to the pupil reader. According to Crowe (2005), studies

show feedback given during oral reading improves children’s word accuracy, reading

comprehension and fluency. Intervention programs involving comprehension-

building skills, like remedial reading, strengthen vocabulary (McCardle et al., 2001).

This method of practice increases language skills and builds general knowledge

setting a foundation for basic life skills.

In addition to the importance of proving remedial reading programs to support

students’ reading skills, it is also important to provide data to indicate that these

programs are effective. Because school counselors are asked to demonstrate the

importance of their programs, providing evidence demonstrating programs are

effective is imperative. Providing documentation of an increase in reading fluency and

comprehension for pupils participating in reading programs will support continuation

of these activities for schools in a time when schools are being asked to provide data

about the effectiveness of programs, including school counselor programs.

 Teachers who take the time to plan for their small group instruction are

benefiting all pupils involved. 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. From all this

research, the researcher decided to conduct a study to discover what effect a specific

reading strategy program will have on comprehension by elementary age learners.

The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of Classroom

Remedial Reading Program (CRRP) in improving reading fluency and

comprehension of Grade IV pupils of Nalubbunan Elementary School, Quezon,

Nueva Vizcaya.

II. ACTION RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study primarily aims at providing meaningful learning experiences in

reading among Grade IV pupils of Nalubbunan Elementary School, Quezon, Nueva

Vizcaya. These materials shall be organized to form part of the Classroom Remedial

Reading Program (CRRP) whose effectiveness shall be tested in this study.

Eventually, the CRRP shall be useful in improving the reading skills of the said

learners which shall proffer facility in learning other literacy skills like writing,

listening, speaking and even numeracy among others.

Specifically, this study shall seek answers to the following research questions:

1. What is the level of reading skills of the experimental group in the pretest

along:

1.1. fluency and

1.2. comprehension?
 2. What is the level of reading skills of the experimental group in the post-test

along:

2.1. fluency and

2.3. comprehension?

3.Is there a significant difference in the level of reading skills of the

experimental group in the pretest and post-test?

4. What is the effect size of the intervention?

III. PROPOSED INNOVATION, INTERVENTION AND STRATEGY

The study will be conducted over a six-week period. Therrien (2004)

determined the impact of remedial reading on students’ reading achievement requires

conducting studies of longer duration. The allotted time for this experiment shall

address Therrien’s concern for prolonged studies.

The procedures to be used in this study are based on procedures used by Scott

and colleagues (2010). The methodology and implementation practices used in this

remedial reading program shall follow the program design formulated by Read Right

Systems. Pupils will be assigned to a group based on their grade level and individual

reading level. Each group of grade level pupils shall attend the reading program during

the same 40-minute block of time each day, five days a week.

Once in the program, pupils in the experimental group will be assigned to a

teacher who had no less than two years of intense training, based on the students’

reading abilities. Interaction with peers with similar reading problems shall allow a

sense of normalcy in pupils’ own struggles. In addition, pupils shall be exposed to

teacher who shall serve the role of a mentor. Pupils shall be organized in small groups

with a no more than five students per group.

 During the 40-minute sessions, pupils will be coached individually and as a

group with one day dedicated to the critical thinking component. During the daily

practice time, teachers shall monitor pupils’ oral reading, provide feedback that will

direct prediction in reading, monitored behavior, and assess developmental fluency

and comprehension skills. Teachers shall use a specific manual that includes a

manuscript of verbatim feedback that helps guide students. The teacher, in a manner

that shall promote success over failure, shall encourage each pupil; pupils shall learn

and develop skills at their own pace in order to maintain a positive momentum without

discouragement.

After successful oral reading of a paragraph, pupils will be asked to summarize

the content of the reading. This determines the pupil’s comprehension of the text.

Pupils will judge whether their reading was excellent, assisted by the expertise of the

teacher. If the passage will be deemed an excellent read, the pupil shall progress to

the next passage. Each pupil, upon entrance into the program, will be placed in the

appropriate reading level according to skills. As the pupil progresses, he or she will

be monitored and assessed by the teacher. Pupils shall advance to the next reading

level when excellent reading shall have been achieved in no more than three cycles.

After careful evaluation, it will be determined whether or not to advance the pupil to

the next appropriate reading level.

Figure 1 displays the research paradigm which follows the Input-Process-

Output (IPO) model. At the beginning of the research process, the researcher shall be

identifying the focal learning competencies associated with reading at the level of

grade II pupils. After which, the Classroom Remedial Reading Program (CRRP) shall

be designed to hone reading skills of the subjects. The assessment tools shall be

identified to compose the pretest and post-test to be administered in the conduct of the
study to gather relevant information for comparison of reading performance of the

learners.

After the pretest shall have been administered, the conduct of planned

activities shall follow to establish improved reading skills along fluency and

comprehension. The post-test shall conclude the data gathering process whose data

shall be subjected to analysis to find out if the CRRP is effective in improving reading

skills of the research participants.

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

>Identification of
Focal Learning Conduct of
Competencies Activities P
P Relevant to the O Improved Reading
R REREAP along
>Designing and S Skills of Grade IV
E Development of
Validation of the T Pupils along
T Reading Skills
Classroom T Fluency,
E in terms of:
Remedial Reading E Vocabulary and
S
Program (CRRP) >Fluency S Comprehension
T
T
>Comprehension

>Preparation of
IV.
Assessment Tools

Figure 1. Research Paradigm

The output of this study is expected to be the learners with improved reading

skills along fluency, reading and comprehension. Thus, better literacy skills from

them are expected not only along reading but other related skills.

V. ACTION RESEARCH METHODS

 The study shall employ the descriptive method of research, utilizing the test

as the primary research tool for gathering the needed data. According to (Fox 1989),

the descriptive method is an approach that emphasizes the present status of a

phenomenon, describes a current situation, determines the nature of prevailing

conditions or practices and seeks accurate descriptions of activities, objects, persons

and processes.

In educational research, there are two conditions which occur together to

suggest and justify the descriptive survey: first, that there is an absence of information

about a problem of educational significance; and second, that the situation which

could generate the information does exist and is accessible.

According to Best (1989), the descriptive method of research is done to be

“fact-finding” or “information gathering” with analytical information. It is concerned

with condition or relationships that exist, practices that prevail, beliefs and processes

that are going on, effects that are being felt, or that are developing.

Best (2004) further characterizes the descriptive method with the following: It

involves hypothesis formulation and testing, it uses logical inductive methods to

arrive at generalization. It often employs method/randomization so that error may be

the estimated when referring to population characteristics from observations of

samples, the variables and procedures are described as accurately and completely as

possible so that the study can be replicated by other researchers.

Aguirre (1993) asserts that the descriptive method is something beyond just

data gathering. The true meaning of the data collected should be reported from the

point of view of the objectives and the basic assumptions of the study. Facts obtained

maybe accurate expressions of central tendency, deviation/correlation but the report

is not research unless discussions of the data are carried out up to top level of adequate
interpretation. The data must be subjected to the thinking process by means of ordered

reasoning.

Specifically, the experimental design will be used in this study as

experimental and control groups shall be utilized to test the effectiveness of the

Classroom Remedial Reading Program (CRRP) as a means of improving the reading

skills of the Grade IV pupils of Nalubbunan Elementary School, Quezon, Nueva

Vizcaya.

The experimental method is a problem-solving approach that focuses on the

study of “what will be?” There are certain variables, which are carefully controlled or

manipulated to effect a result. This method is most useful in the natural sciences such

as botany, zoology, biology, chemistry, physics, and also in other areas of learning

like mathematics, language and social sciences. Experimental method has distinct

limitations when used in the fields of education, psychology and sociology. Hence,

this study set the level of significance at 5% unlike scientific researches which use

1%.

This study shall use the one-group design. The performance of the group in the

pretest and post-test shall be compared, the latter serving to indicate changes due to

normal growth, or learning, during the period, without the experimental factor. This

design provides results that cannot be provided by other research methods; provided

exact and accurate results; and inspired researchers to be willing and eager to try

something new in order to see how it works.

A. PARTICIPANTS AND/OR OTHER SOURCES OF DATA AND

INFORMATION
 The respondents of this study will be the Grade IV pupils of Nalubbunan

Elementary School, Quezon. Since experimentation is facilitated through the use of

heterogeneous groups, the researcher included the participation of the science section

in the Grade IV level which is heteregenously grouped particularly according to

academic performance, age and gender. Thirty (30) pupils will be taken from the class

which will compose the experimental group. The number of subjects hurdles the

stipulations of Gay as cited by Cudia & Tallungan (2015) for experimental researches

which is at least 15 subjects per group.

The age group for the study will be chosen considering the following two

reasons: 1) the importance of fluency and comprehension at this stage of their

academic development and 2) early intervention can stop the progression of reading

difficulties.

B. DATA GATHERING METHODS

The researcher shall use the pretest and post-test as source of data which will

be analyzed, interpreted and subjected to statistical processes to be able to find

solutions to the research questions.

The test shall be divided into three parts:

Part I will test the fluency of the subjects. This specific reading competency

shall be tested orally and the pupils shall be evaluated according to accuracy, rate and

prosody.

Part II will test the comprehension of the subjects. This specific competency

shall be tested using a twenty-item reading comprehension examination.

The test shall be subjected to expert validation and reliability testing to ensure

its quality in gathering pertinent information from the subjects.

 C. DATA ANALYSIS PLAN

To score the pretest or post-test, a rubric and a key to correction will be used

and scores will bee presented in frequency and percentage distribution tables. Means

will be used with the following as equivalent descriptive or verbal interpretations:

Mean Range Level

17-20 Very High

13-16 High

9-12 Average

5-8 Low

0-4 Very Low

To come up with a reliable set of data that will answer the research questions

considered in this study the following statistical tools will be used:

1. To present data that will reveal the levels of reading skills of the

experimental group of samples before being subjected to the traditional method and

the Classroom Remedial Reading Program (CRRP) respectively, frequencies and

means will be used.

2. To present data that will reveal the levels of reading skills of the

experimental group of samples after being subjected to the traditional method and

the Classroom Remedial Reading Program (CRRP) respectively, frequencies and

means will be used.

3. To figure out if there is a significant difference in the pretest and post-test

mean scores of the experimental group, dependent t-test will be used.

4. To figure out the effect size, Etta Square shall be used.

All inferences shall be made using the 0.05 level of significance.

 D. ETHICAL ISSUES

Prior to the conduct of this study in Nalubbunan Elementary School, Quezon,

the researcher shall seek the permission of the Schools Division Superintendent of the

Division of Nueva Vizcaya. After attaining the approval, the researcher shall write to

the District Supervisor or the school manager regarding the administration of the

experimental study to the Grade IV pupils of the said central school.

The researcher then shall seek for the permission of the school principal as to

the conduct of the study and thereby request the cooperation of Grade IV teachers for

the implementation of the experiment. The researcher shall further coordinate with

the Grade IV teachers as to suggestions which reading activities will be considered

for the preparation of the reading program and a summative test which will be

patterned from the contents of the usual periodical examination. The summative test

which will focus on three areas of reading specifically fluency, vocabulary and

comprehension, will be used as the pretest and post-test material to be subjected to

content validation by language experts including the Grade IV teachers.

VI. ACTION RESEARCH WORK PLAN AND TIMELINES

Resources
Strategies Program Activities Tasks
Physic Materia Financi Tim
al l al eline
1. Determination Assessment 1. 1. Records Subjec Printed 115.00 Nov
of the pupils’ of the Formulation from 1st t Data emb
level of pupils’ and Quarter and Teach er
reading reading brainstorming 2nd Quarter er 2018
competency performance on the on the
based on the along competency Reading
previous class fluency and level of the Performance
records in 1st comprehensi pupils on of the Grade
and 2nd on. fluency and IV Pupils
Quarters comprehensio 2. Subjec Learner Nov
n. Identifying t s and emb
Strategy as Teach Teacher er
the Proposed er, s 2018
Intervention Depart Materia
in teaching- ment l in
learning Head, English
competency. Schoo IV
l
Princi
pal

3. Subjec Coupon Nov

Preparation t bond, 500.00 emb
of the Teach Ball er
Learning er, pen, 2018
Materials for Depart Pencil,
the Proposed ment Ink,
Intervention. Head, Folders
Schoo
l
Princi
pal
Nov
4. Prepare emb
Research Resear Folders 500.00 er
Proposal ch and 2018
based on the Propo Printing
Proposed nent
Intervention.
Resear Folders 500.00 Nov
5. Prepare ch and emb
and seek Propo Printing er
permit for nent 2018
approval.
2. Conduct 1. Submit Schoo Printed 800 Nov
investigation research l and Materia emb
and proposal to SDO- ls er
preparation of School and PAR 2018
document. SDO
Approval.

2. Data Coupon 1,000 Nov

Gathering – Resear bond emb
Pilot ch er to
 Testing; Propo Ball Dece
Simulation nent pen mbe
of Test; and Pencil r
Intervention 2018

3. Utilization 1. LAC Teachi Printed 1,000 Jan.

and Session ng Materia 2019
Disseminatio (School Staff ls
n Level) of
Nalub
bunan
E/S

2. L and D – Eleme Printed 2,500 Feb.

District ntary Materia 2019
Wide Teach ls
ers of
Quezo
n
TOTAL 10,315

VII. COST ESTIMATES

Activities Item Quantit Unit Total

Descriptio Cost Amoun
n y t

1. Preparation/encoding/printin Bond paper 5 reams 270 1,350

g of research Ball pens 1 box 5.00 120
materials/instruments, lesson Ink 1 piece 905 905
plan and other tools for Cartridge
gathering data. (Black –
2. Prepare research proposal Epson) 1 piece 1,30 1,300
and completed applied Ink 0
research. Cartridge 2 boxes 240
(Colored) 20 pcs. 5.00 120
Pencils 2 boxes 6.00 80
Folders 2 boxes 40 90
(long) 2 pcs 45 60
Fastener 2 pcs 30 100
Staple Wire 10 pcs 50 300
Scissors 3 pcs 30 2,100
Stapler 30x.50x3 150
Glue
Hard bound
Photocopy
 TOTAL 6.915

VIII. PLANS FOR DISSEMINATION AND UTILIZATION

Actions Target Group/People Involved Timeline

1. LAC Session (School Teaching Staff of Nalubbunan E/S January 2019

Level)
2. L and D (District Wide) Elementary Teachers of Quezon February 2019

3. Development of Strategic Research Proponent April-May

Intervention Material 2019

REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Al Otaiba, S., Rivera, M. O. (2006). Individualized guided oral reading fluency

instruction for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Intervention
in School & Clinic, 41(3), 144-134.

Alber-Morgan, S. R., Ramp, E. M., Anderson, L. L., Martin, C. M. (2007). Effects

of repeated readings, error correction, and performance feedback
 on the fluency and comprehension of middle school students with
behavior problems. The Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 17-30.

Allor, J. H., Gansle, K. A., & Denny, R. K. (2006). The stop and go phonemic
awareness game: Providing modeling, practice, and feedback.
Preventing School Failures, 50(4), 23-30.

Ambe, E. B. (2007). Inviting reluctant adolescent readers into the literacy club:
Some comprehension strategies to tutor individuals or small groups
of reluctant readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(8),
632-639.

Anderson, D. (2006). In or out: Surprises in reading comprehension instruction.

Intervention in School & Clinic, 41(3), 175-179.

Anderson, B. (1980). The missing ingredient: Fluent oral reading. The Elementary
School Journal, 81, 173-177.

Archer, J. (2004). Characteristics of an effective teacher of reading in an elementary

school setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.

Blickenstaff,J., Hallquist, E. & Kopel, K. (2013). The Effects of Reading Strategies

in Comprehension for Elementary Age Learners. St. Catherine University,
retrieved on October 28, 2018 at
https://sophia.stkate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=maed

Bolton, F. (2007, March). Top level structures. Teaching PreK-8, 46-47. Ceci, S. J.
(Ed.). (1987). Handbook of cognitive, social, and
neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2). Hillside,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Calhoon, M. B. ( 2005). Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill and reading

comprehension program on reading skill acquisition for middle school
students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 38,
424-433.

Caposey, T., & Heider, B. (2003). Improving reading comprehension through

cooperative learning. (Unpublished dissertation). St. Xavier University &
Pearson/Skylight, Chicago, IL.

Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective
interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35. 386-407.

Conderman, G., & Strobel, D. (2006). Problem solving with guided repeated oral
reading instruction. Intervention in School & Clinic, 42(1), 34-39.
Crowe, L. K. (2005). Comparison of two oral reading feedback strategies in
improving reading comprehension of school-age children with low
reading ability. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 32-42.

Cutler, A., & Isdard , S. (1980). The production of prosody. Language Production,
245- 270.

Dewitz, Peter, Dewitz, Pamela (2003). They can read the words, but they can’t
understand: Refining comprehension assessment: Comprehension problems
can be difficult to detect and treat. Here are some suggestions for catching
these problems and addressing students shortcomings. The Reading Teacher, 56(5),
422-429.

Dole, J., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from old to
new: Research in reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research,
61, 239- 264.

Dowhower, S. L. (1989). Repeated reading: Research into practice. The Reading

Teacher, 42, 502-507.

Dowhower, S. L. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluency’s unattended bedfellow.

Theory Into Practice, 30, 165-173. 69

Eme, E., Puustinen, M., & Coutelet, B., (2006). Individual and developmental
differences in reading monitoring: When and how do children evaluate their
comprehension? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(1),
91-115.

Fluency Training. (2004, May). NetNews, 4(5).

Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S.(1996). Guided reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fuchs, Douglas, & Lynn S. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Promoting word
recognition, fluency, and reading comprehension in young children.
The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 34-44.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). General educators’ instructional adaptation for
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 23-33.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-Assisted
Learning Strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American
Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A. Svenson, E., Yen, L., Al Otsiba, S., et al.
(2001). Peer- assisted learning strategies in reading. Remedial and Special
Education, 22(1), 15-25.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs D., & Hosp, M. K. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of
reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972), Attitudes and motivation in second-

language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gauthier, L. R. (2001). Coop-Dis-Q: A reading comprehension strategy. Intervention

in School & Clinic, 36(4), 217-219.

Glazer, S. M., (2007). Fluency mania. Teaching PreK-8, 37(5), 70.

Graney, S. B. (2000). The effects of student performance feedback on the reading

achievement and instructional programs of students at risk for learning
disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and
Social Sciences 60(8-A), 2797.

Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Logitudinal effects of

classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371-383.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work. York, ME: Stenhouse
Publishers.

Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable
assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-639.

Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure
by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The
phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41-57.

Hausheer, R., Hansen, A., & Doumas, D. (2011). Improving reading fluency and
comprehension among elementary students: Evaluation of a school remedial
reading program. Journal of School Counseling, 9(9), 1-20.

Henk, W., Moore, J., Marinak, B., & Tomasetti, B. (2000). A reading lesson
observation
framework for elementary teachers, principals, and literacy supervisors. The
Reading Teacher, 53(5), 358-369.

Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and
instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58, 702-714.

Klingner, J., Urbach, J., Golos, D., Brownell, M., & Menon, S. (2010). Teaching
reading in the 21st century: A glimpse at how special education teachers
promote reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 59-74.

Klinger, J., Vaughn, S., & Boardman, A. (2007). Teaching reading comprehension to
 students with learning difficulties. New York, NY: Library of Congress.

Kuhn, M. (2004). Helping students become accurate, expressive readers: Fluency

instruction for small groups: Repeated reading and wide-reading approaches
were evaluated for their usefulness in improving fluency. The Reading
Teacher, 58(4), 338-347.

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

Kuhn, M. R. (2000). A comparative study of small group fluency instruction.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.

Langdon, T. (2004). DIBELS: A teacher-friendly basic literacy accountability tool for

the primary classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(2), 54-58.

Linnakyla, P., Malin, A., Taube, K. (2004). Factors behind low reading literacy
achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Education Research, 48, 231-248.

Magliano, J., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during
comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615-630.

Malone, L. D., Mastropieri, M. A. (1991). Reading comprehension instruction:

summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(3), 270-281. 71

Mastropieri, M. A., Leinart, A. M., & Scruggs, T. E. (1999). Strategies to increase

reading fluency. Intervention in School & Clinic, 34, 278-285.

Mathes, P. G., & Fuchs. L. S. (1994). The efficacy of peer tutoring in reading for
students with mild disabilities: A best-evidence synthesis. School Psychology
Review, 23, 59-80.
McCardle, P., Scarborough, H. S., Catts, H. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and
preventing children’s reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 16, 230-239.

Miccinati, J. L. (1985). Using prosodic cues to teach oral reading fluency. The
Reading Teacher, 39, 206-211.

Moyer, S. B., (2001). Repeated reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15(10), 619-
623.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based

assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications
for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development.

Neumann, V., Ross, D., & Slaboch, A. (2008). Increasing reading comprehension of
 elementary students through fluency-based interventions. (Unpublished
dissertation). St. Xavier University & Pearson Achievement Solutions, Inc,
Chicago, IL. Appendix A 5 Finger Re-tell Data Collection-collect data 1x/w

Paris, S. G., & Carpenter, R. D. (2003). FAQs about IRIs. The Reading Teacher, 56,
2-4.
Pressley, M. (1997). Remarks on reading comprehension. Notes prepared for the
Chesapeake Institute, Washington, DC.

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

Rasinski, T. V. (1989). Fluency for everyone: Incorporating fluency instruction in the

classroom. The Reading Teacher, 42, 690-693.

Rasinski, T. V., (2003). The fluent reading: Oral reading strategies for building word
recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York, NY: Scholastic
Professional Books.

Rasinski, T. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 46-51.

Rasinski, T. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy,

automaticity, and prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 704-706.

Richards, M. (2000). Be a good detective: Solve the case of oral reading fluency.
Reading Teacher, 53(7).

Rinehart, S. D. (1999). “Don’t think for a minute that I’m getting up there”:
Opportunities for readers’ theater in a tutorial for children with reading
problems. Reading Psychology, 20(1), 71-89.

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of research.

Review of Educational Research, 64, 479-530.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Results NOW. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Scott, V. G., & Weishaar, M. K. (2003). Curriculum-based measurement for reading

progress. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(3), 153-158.

Scott, C., Nelsestuen, K., Autio, E., Deussen, T., Hanita, M. (2010). Evaluation of
Read Right in Omaha middle and high schools 2009-2010, Education Northwest.
Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/1077, i-52

Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Hodge, J. P., & Mathes, P. G. (1994).
Importance of instructional complexity and role reciprocity to Classwide Peer
Tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 203-212.
Sloat, E., Beswick, J., & Willms, J. (2007). Using early literacy monitoring to prevent
reading failure. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(7), 523-529. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S.,
&

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual

differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly,
21, 360- 406. Stauffer, R. (1975). Directing the reading-thinking
process. New York: Harper & Row.

Stevens, R. J., Madden, N.A., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1987). Cooperative
integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research
Quarterly, 22, 433- 454.

Taberski, S. (2000). On solid ground. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Tadlock, D. (2004). Interactive Constructivism and Reading: The nature of neural

networks challenges the phonological processing hypothesis. Retrieved from
http://www.readright.com/rrspecial/whitepapers/Monograph.pdf, 13-
29

Teale, W., Zolt, N., Yokota, J., Glasswell, K., & Gambrell, L. (2007). Getting children
in 2 books: Engagement in authentic reading, writing, and thinking. Phi
Delta Kappan, 88(7), 498-502.

Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of a combined repeated
reading and question generation intervention on reading achievement.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 89-97.

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of remedial

reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252-261.

Torgesen, J. (1997). Memorization processes in reading-disabled children. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 69(5), 571-578.

Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual difference in response to early intervention in

reading. The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities
research & Practice, 15, 55-64.

Van den Broek, P., Lynch, J., Naslund, J., Ievers-Landis, C., & Verduin, K. (2003).
The development of comprehension of main ideas in narratives: Evidence from the
selection of titles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 707-718.

Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2004). Research-based methods of reading

instruction grades K-3. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Vaughn, S., Klingner, J.K., Bryant, D. P. (2001). Collaborative strategic reading as a

means to enhance peer-mediated instruction for reading comprehension and
content-area learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22(2), 66-80.
Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., Schumm, J. S., & Klingner, J. K. (1998). A collaborative
effort to enhance reading and writing instruction in inclusion
classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 57-74.

Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B. E., & Schumm, J.S. (1996). The effects of inclusion on the
social functioning of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 29, 598-608.

Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (2001). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral
reading fluency. Theory into Practice, 30(3), 211-217.