early reading intervention for selected ctl pupils with reading difficulties: the neu experience

1

EARLY READING INTERVENTION FOR SELECTED CTL PUPILS WITH

READING DIFFICULTIES: THE NEU EXPERIENCE

Proponents

Diaz, Maria Socorro Leonora R.

Salayo, Maria Heizel T.

Nuqui, Angelita F.

Cruz, Perla F.

Perez, Mevicar T.

Mata, Michelle Mae S.

Young,Rowena L.

Jaylo, Arlene M.

RESEARCH ABSTRACT

I. INTRODUCTION

One of the most important issues in Reading is how teaching this subject can be of

help to most students in their schooling/studies and in case there is failure of students to grasp

reading in its context, what then can be done to extend help to these children who are slow

readers or non readers at all. Thus, the teaching force of the College of Education-Center for

Teaching and Learning conceptualized this quasi-experimental research on early reading

intervention program.

This research discusses the vital elements of the early intervention in

reading. It focuses on the importance of the teacher’s role in uplifting the genuine

love for reading of those identified children-at-risk. Different stages of the reading

recovery program were shown through the following components: phonemic

awareness, decoding and structural analysis, print awareness, comprehension

strategies, fluency, and the motivation to read.

A group of faculty members from the College of Education-Center for

Teaching & Learning from New Era University engaged in this research to make a

difference in the lives of struggling readers. Thus, this is one way of making a global

contribution to the Reading Recovery Program.

2

According to Sensenbaugh(1994), in his article Reading Recovery, ERIC Digest

“Reading Recovery seems to offer the lowest-achieving first-grade children an effective

method of reading and writing instruction.”

For Clay (1985), a combination of teacher judgment and systematic evaluation

procedures identify those lowest-achieving children for whom Reading Recovery was

designed. The program's goal is to bring students up to the level of their peers and to give

students the assistance they need to develop independent reading strategies. Once students

are reading at a level equivalent to that of their peers, they are discontinued from the

program.

With this in mind, the researchers would like to continue extending its academic task of

being able to partake in the early reading intervention program through this research.

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This Early Reading Intervention Program attempts to improve the reading

performances of selected and identified children-at-risk at the CED-Center for Teaching and

Learning from Preparatory to Grade 3 level. Teachers from this laboratory school will conduct

the Reading Recovery (RR) program developed by Dr. Marie Clay and using the CTE

Handbook by Dr. Natividad A. Santos, a Handbook on Early Reading Intervention.

Specifically, the study aims to answer the following:

1. What are the problems encountered by the respondents in teaching pupils with

reading difficulties and how are these addressed?

2. What is the performance in reading of the sampled CTL pupils:

2.1 before the intervention

2.2 after the intervention

3. How can the findings be utilized to propose a Formal Early Reading Intervention

Program for NEU?

3

III. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

History of Reading Recovery

Before the 1980’s, it was a common educational practice to ignore the children who

are unable to read or those who have reading difficulties. These children when left behind fall

into a life of illiteracy.

The concept of Reading Recovery started when Dr. Marie Clay championed the idea

that “children who struggle to learn to read and write” can be helped through early

intervention. Thus, it came from her close observation that “what really happens when a

teacher and a child work together to make the child a reader and a writer”. Dr. Marie Clay

concluded that “however puzzling and illogical a child’s responses might be, they arise out of

some sort of internal logic, which every child develops to make a sense of the world and

language.” For Clay, she stated that “Flexibility is the key.” This is the moment when “teachers

observe, analyze, and interpret the moment-to-moment behavior of their pupils when

struggling to read and write and design individual programs to help them”. (From the article

“Professor bent on helping children overcome literacy problems” May 7, 2007)

Types of Early Reading Intervention Programs

According to Williams, K. (2009), there are several Reading Recovery Programs which

are as follows:

1. Reading Recovery – It originated in New Zealand which is an early intervention

program designed for young readers having difficulty responding to formal reading

instruction after the first year of schooling. It has a one-to-one tutoring reading

intervention for struggling grade one pupils. The pupils participate in a 30-minute

lesson each day for 12 to 20 weeks handled by a trained Reading Recovery teacher. If

the pupils meet the first grade expectations, they graduate from the program and

new pupils may be accommodated in the program.

2. Success for All – This program was first practiced in schools coming from low

socioeconomic status areas and backgrounds. The aim of the program is to put these

students into a heterogeneous group. They are grouped according to their Reading

level, even if students came from different grade levels are part of the small groups.

4

Each group may have 15-20 children with 90 minute meetings receiving direct reading

instruction and individual tutorials for those who needed added support.

3. Winston-Salem Project – It involved first and second grade reading and language arts

instruction to become interrelated. There were four 30-minute blocks of time. One was

used for teacher-directed group reading activities while others were devoted to word

learning activities, writing and self-selected reading. If the school served a large

population of at-risk students, it added a 45-minute block of time for a small group

activity.

4. Boulder Program – It started with a ratio of six students to a teacher, later on reduced

to three students per teacher. These small groups meet daily for 20 minutes. It is a pull-

out program supplementing the teacher’s classroom instruction. The teachers and

students integrate all the necessary skills needed in improving their reading and

writing.

5. Early Intervention in Reading Program – The ratio is one teacher to five to six students

with reading difficulties attending an additional 20 minutes a day of reading

intervention. The students are encouraged to read to a volunteer parent or an aide

during any additional time that is left during the language arts learning time.

Reading Recovery Teacher

The Reading Recovery teacher is the one in charge of facilitating the teaching

reading recovery program to the lowest attaining children in literacy, especially those who

are having reading difficulties or non readers at all. The primary role is to carry out a daily 30-

45 minutes individual reading tutorial sessions with the following work to do which are as

follows:

a) Works closely with the class teacher, and school team;

b) Writes and conceptualizes the lesson guide; and

c) Makes assessments and keeps tracking the child’s progress during and after the

reading recovery program.

5

The following are essential requirements to become a Reading Recovery teacher –

a) She must have a qualified teacher status

b) She must have evidence of extensive post qualification and recent experience of

successfully teaching children in the five to seven age ranges

c) She must have the evidence to manage and promote children’s early literacy

learning in the mainstream classroom.

Reading Recovery Lessons

The Reading Recovery Teacher will have a special training to be able to implement

and work with children who needs a personalized reading program. She will work on a one-

on-one lessons everyday that will help the child’s reading up to his/her average level. Thus,

the lessons will boost his/her confidence and enjoyment in learning and reading. The daily

plan involves the following format:

a) Learning how to read for pleasure and for meaning on books read by the child two

or three time

b) Learning how words work, how to use letter and sounds to build words

c) Learning how to compose a short story and how to write words in the sentence, and

spelling

d) Turning the writing into a reading puzzle, to help the child in making the reading

and writing links, and

e) Building a range of skills for working out how to read a new book everyday, this is

just a little harder than the book read before.

6

IV. METHODOLOGY

The researchers used the following methods/instruments:

A quasi-experimental research, with one group pretest/post test

design will be utilized.

Interviews

Questionnaires for the Reading teachers/parents

o Pre-testing

o Tutorial Sessions for identified CTL pupils with reading difficulties

o Post-testing

Detailed Reading Performance Reports of the Reading Teachers on their Subjects

In a period of 2 weeks, the sampled CTL pupils who are the children-at-risk will be given

ten (10) tutorials sessions by selected faculty members, who are properly trained to do

the reading recovery program.

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The following are the results in percentage difference from the pretest and

posttest scores in English.

1) Book and Print Orientation – The pretest score is 75.56% and the post test score is 93.33%

with a difference of 17.78%.

2) Letter Names - The pretest score is 94.23% and the post test score is 97.92 % with a

difference of 3.69%.

3) Letter Sounds -- The pretest score is 64.74 % and the post test score is 91.19 % with a

difference of 26.4% .

4) Matching - The pretest score is 96.80% and the post test score is 99.68 % with a difference

of 2.88%.

5) Writing Uppercase – The pretest score is 91.99% and the post test score is 99.3% with

a difference of 7.37%.

7

6) Writing Lowercase - The pretest score is 91.99% and the post test score is 99.36% with a


7) Phonemic Awareness – The pretest score is 61.00 % and the post test score is 86.83%


8) Syllable Tapping – The pretest score is 78.33 % and the post test score is 95.00 % with


9) Phoneme Tapping – The pretest score is 38.8 % and the post test score is 69.45 % with a


10) Word Reading – The pretest score is 59.17 % and the post test score is 80.83 % with a


11) Spelling – The pretest score is 46.67 % and the post test score is 80.00 % with a difference

of 33.33%.

12) Listening Comprehension – The pretest score is 66.67 % and the post test score is 83.33 %


13) Sentence Sense – The pretest score is 43.33 % and the post test score is 80.00 % with a

difference of 36.67%

14) Picture Story Arrangement -– The pretest score is 56.94 % and the post test score is

80.55% with a difference of 23.61%.

The following are the results in percentage difference from the pretest and posttest scores in

Filipino.

1) Letter Names – The pretest score is 91.52 % and the post test score is 97.77 % with a


2) Letter Sounds - The pretest score is 76.94 % and the post test score is 92.86% with a

difference of 15.92 % .

3) Matching -- The pretest score is 100 % and the post test score is 100 % with a difference

of 0% .

8

4) Writing Uppercase - The pretest score is 92.86 % and the post test score is 98.81 % with

a difference of 5.95 % .

5) Writing Lowercase – The pretest score is 93.75 % and the post test score is 97.62 % with

a difference of 3.87 % .

6) Phonemic Awareness - The pretest score is 71.00 % and the post test score is 89.67% with


7) Syllable Tapping – The pretest score is 84.17 % and the post test score is 94.17 % with a

difference of 10.00%

8) Phoneme Tapping – The pretest score is 59.72 % and the post test score is 83.33 % with


9) Word Reading – The pretest score is 44.58 % and the post test score is 65.83 % with a


10) Spelling – The pretest score is 54.17 % and the post test score is 76.67 % with a


11) Listening Comprehension – The pretest score is 74.17 % and the post test score is 86.67 %


12) Sentence Sense – The pretest score is 35.00 % and the post test score is 78.33 % with


The pretest and post tests scores for all subjects/tutees have increased significantly

attesting to the effectiveness and success of the Early Reading Intervention Program.

9

The following are the charts and tables for results/discussions:

PERCENTAGE RESULTS - ENGLISH

Pretest Posttest Difference

Book and Print Orientation 75.56 93.33 17.78

Letter Names 94.23 97.92 3.69

Letter Sounds 64.74 91.19 26.44

Matching 96.80 99.68 2.88

Writing Uppercase 91.99 99.36 7.37

Writing Lowercase 91.99 99.36 7.37

Phonemic Awareness 61.00 86.83 25.83

Syllable Tapping 78.33 95.00 16.67

Phoneme Tapping 38.89 69.45 30.56

Word Reading 59.17 80.83 21.67

Spelling 46.67 80.00 33.33

Listening Comprehension 66.67 83.33 16.67

Sentence Sense 43.33 80.00 36.67

Picture Story Arrangement 56.94 80.55 23.61

10

PERCENTAGE RESULTS - FILIPINO

Pretest Posttest Difference

Letter Names 91.52 97.77 6.25

Letter Sounds 76.94 92.86 15.92

Matching 100.00 100.00 0.00

Writing Uppercase 92.86 98.81 5.95

Writing Lowercase 93.75 97.62 3.87

Phonemic Awareness 71.00 89.67 18.67

Syllable Tapping 84.17 94.17 10.00

Phoneme Tapping 59.72 83.33 23.61

Word Reading 44.58 65.83 21.25

Spelling 54.17 76.67 22.50

Listening Comprehension 74.17 86.67 12.50

Sentence Sense 35.00 78.33 43.33

11

Child’s Name: Ivan Carl A. Pascual (Preparatory) Tutor: Teacher Erma F. Gariguez

English Pretest and Post Test Scores

TESTS *ENGLISH

PRETEST POST TEST

Book and Print Orientation 46.67 80

Letter Names 63.46 84.62

Letter Sounds 3.85 40.38

Matching 100 100

Writing Uppercase 76.92 96.15

Writing Lowercase 73.08 92.31

Phonemic Awareness 0 72

Syllable Tapping 0 70

Phoneme Tapping 16.67 66.67

Word Reading 0 30

Spelling 20 60

Listening Comprehension 72.73 100

Sentence Sense 0 80

Picture Story Arrangement 0 66.67

* Results in Percentage (English Pretest and Post Test)

P E R C E N T A G

E

TESTS

12

Child’s Name: Ivan Carl A. Pascual (Preparatory) Tutor: Teacher Erma F. Gariguez

Filipino Pretest and Post Test Scores

TESTS *FILIPINO

PRETEST POST TEST

Book and Print Orientation



Matching 100 100

Writing Uppercase 64.29 100





Word Reading 0 15

Spelling 0 60

Listening Comprehension 60 70

Sentence Sense 0 60

Picture Story Arrangement

* Results in Percentage (Filipino Pretest and Post Test)

T E S T S

PERCENTAGE

13

Child’s Name: Krizzalyn A. Rullan (Preparatory) Tutor: Teacher Angelita F. Nuqui


TESTS *ENGLISH

PRETEST POST TEST

Book and Print Orientation 80 93.33

Letter Names 100 100

Letter Sounds 86.54 100

Matching 100 100

Writing Uppercase 100 100

Writing Lowercase 100 100



Phoneme Tapping 50 66.67

Word Reading 70 95

Spelling 40 60

Listening Comprehension 63.64 90.91

Sentence Sense 60 80


*Results in Percentage (English Pretest and Post Test)

P E R C E N T A G

E

TESTS

14

Child’s Name: Krizzalyn A. Rullan (Preparatory) Tutor: Teacher Angelita F. Nuqui


TESTS *FILIPINO

PRETEST POST TEST


Letter Names 96.43 100

Letter Sounds 100 100

Matching 100 100






Word Reading 35 85

Spelling 60 80


Sentence Sense 0 80



P E R C E N T A G

E

TESTS

15

Child’s Name: Christine Fem L. Pateña (Preparatory) Tutor: Teacher Arlene M. Jaylo


TESTS *ENGLISH

PRETEST POST TEST

Book and Print Orientation 66.67 86.67



Matching 100 100


Writing Lowercase 96.15 100



Phoneme Tapping 33.33 50

Word Reading 0 30

Spelling 0 40



Picture Story Arrangement 66.67 83.33


P E R C E N T A G

E

TESTS

16

Child’s Name: Christine Fem L. Pateña (Preparatory) Tutor: Teacher Arlene M. Jaylo


TESTS *FILIPINO

PRETEST POST TEST




Matching 100 100






Word Reading 0 15

Spelling 0 40





T E S T S

PERCENTAGE

17

Child’s Name: Ellix Joshua C. Estandian (Preparatory) Tutor: Teacher Ministerio Favion I. Cabrales


TESTS *ENGLISH

PRETEST POST TEST




Matching 88.46 100





Phoneme Tapping 0 0

Word Reading 50 70

Spelling 40 40


Sentence Sense 0 40



P E R C E N T A G

E

TESTS

18

Child’s Name: Ellix Joshua C. Estandian (Preparatory) Tutor: Teacher Ministerio Favion I. Cabrales


TESTS *FILIPINO

PRETEST POST TEST




Matching 100 100






Word Reading 5 20

Spelling 0 20


Sentence Sense 0 20



T E S T S

PERCENTAGE

19

Child’s Name: Jermaine Carl P. Miranda (Grade 1) Tutor: Teacher Ma. Heizel T. Salayo


TESTS *ENGLISH

PRETEST POST TEST




Matching 84.62 100






Word Reading 95 100

Spelling 80 100





T E S T S

PERCENTAGE

20

Child’s Name: Jermaine Carl P. Miranda (Grade 1) Tutor: Teacher Maria Heizel T. Salayo


TESTS *FILIPINO

PRETEST POST TEST




Matching 100 100






Word Reading 70 100

Spelling 100 100





T E S T S

PERCENTAGE

21

Child’s Name: Kent Dustin A. Balino (Grade 2) Tutor: Teacher Isaias G. Jaylo, Jr.


TESTS *ENGLISH

PRETEST POST TEST

Book and Print Orientation 100 100



Matching 100 100






Word Reading 100 100

Spelling 80 100



Picture Story Arrangement 83.33 100


T E S T S

PERCENTAGE

22

Child’s Name: Kent Dustin A. Balino (Grade 2) Tutor: Teacher Isaias G. Jaylo, Jr.


TESTS *FILIPINO

PRETEST POST TEST




Matching 100 100






Word Reading 95 95

Spelling 50 80





P E R C E N T A G

E

TESTS

23

Child’s Name: Aysha Meera S. Salayo (Preparatory) Tutor: Teacher Jo Ann dM. Argente


TESTS *ENGLISH

PRETEST POST TEST




Matching 100 100






Word Reading 10 75

Spelling 20 80



Picture Story Arrangement 33.33 50


P E R C E N T A G E

TESTS

24

Child’s Name: Aysha Meera S. Salayo (Preparatory) Tutor: Teacher Jo Ann dM. Argente


TESTS *FILIPINO

PRETEST POST TEST




Matching 100 100






Word Reading 10 50

Spelling 0 100


Sentence Sense 0 60



P E R C E N T A G

E

TESTS

25

Child’s Name: Rozzwel Kim B. Austria (Grade 2) Tutor: Teacher Mevicar T. Perez


TESTS *ENGLISH

PRETEST POST TEST




Matching 100 100





Phoneme Tapping 50 100

Word Reading 90 100

Spelling 60 100



Picture Story Arrangement 50 100


P E R C E N T A G

E

TESTS

26

Child’s Name: Rozzwel Kim B. Austria (Grade 2) Tutor: Teacher Mevicar T. Perez


TESTS *FILIPINO

PRETEST POST TEST




Matching 100 100







Spelling 100 100





P E R C E N T A G

E

TESTS

27

Child’s Name: Angel May Ponferado (Preparatory) Tutor: Teacher Ma. Socorro R. Diaz


TESTS *ENGLISH

PRETEST POST TEST




Matching 96.15 100






Word Reading 10 75

Spelling 20 80





TESTS

P E R C E N T A G

E

28

Child’s Name: Angel May Ponferado (Preparatory) Tutor: Teacher Ma. Socorro R. Diaz


TESTS *FILIPINO

PRETEST POST TEST



Letter Sounds 89.29 100

Matching 100 100






Word Reading 5 35

Spelling 40 40





T E S T S

PERCENTAGE

29

Child’s Name: Chyle Franzine T. Conde (Grade 1) Tutor: Teacher Rowena L. Young


Tests *ENGLISH

Pretest Post Test

Book and Print Orientation 80 100

Mastery of the Alphabet

Letter names 96.15 100

Letter sounds 88.46 100

Matching 100 100

Writing upper case 100 100

Writing lower case 100 100



Word Reading 85 95

Spelling 40 100

Phoneme Awareness

Phoneme Awareness (S1) 88 100





30

Tests * FILIPINO

Pretest Post Test


Letter names 100 100

Letter sounds 100 100

Matching 100 100

Writing upper case 92.86 100

Writing lower case 96.43 100



Word Reading 55 100

Spelling 100 100

Phoneme Awareness





*Results in Percentage (Filipino Pretest and Post Test)

Child’s Name: Chyle Franzine T. Conde (Grade 1) Tutor: Teacher Rowena L. Young

31


Child’s Name: Adrianne Mae I. Tibong (Grade 2) Tutor: Teacher Perla B. Cruz

Tests *ENGLISH

Pretest Post Test




Letter sounds 100 100

Matching 92.31 96.15

Writing upper case 92.31 96.15

Writing lower case 92.31 100

Read Aloud Inventory




Spelling 80 100

Phoneme Awareness






32

Child’s Name: Adrianne Mae I. Tibong (Grade 2) Tutor: Teacher Perla B. Cruz

*Results in Percentage (Filipino Pretest and Post Test)

Tests *FILIPINO

Pretest Post Test


Letter names 92.86 100.00

Letter sounds 92.86 100.00

Matching 100.00 100.00

Writing upper case 100.00 100.00

Writing lower case 100.00 100.00

Syllable Tapping 80.00 90.00


Word Reading 65.00 75.00

Spelling 100.00 100.00

Phoneme Awareness

Phoneme Awareness (S1) 60.00 80.00

Phoneme Awareness (S2) 64.00 84.00


Sentence Sense 80.00 100.00

33

Tests *ENGLISH

Pretest Post Test

Book and Print Orientation 80 93.33




Matching 100 100

Writing upper case 96.15 100





Spelling 80 100

Phoneme Awareness







Child’s Name: Mat Gabriel M. Reyes (Grade 3) Tutor: Teacher Michelle Mae S. Mata

34

Child’s Name: Mat Gabriel M. Reyes (Grade 3) Tutor: Teacher Michelle Mae S. Mata

Tests *FILIPINO

Pretest Post Test




Matching 100 100

Writing upper case 100 100




Word Reading 95 100

Spelling 100 100

Phoneme Awareness






35

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. The subjects in the early reading intervention program have shown much

improvements on their post test results which are interpreted in percentage

computations. Most results showed more than 50% increase in their word reading,

syllable tapping, phonemic awareness, spelling, listening comprehension, sentence

sense, and picture story arrangement. Prior to the teacher’s recommendations for the

reading recovery program, these pupils have been showing behavior of timidity,

shyness, lack of confidence, uncertainty, and having low grades in most subject areas.

B. Through close supervision and monitoring of the subject using the CTE Handbook, the

tutors were able to make an individualized program suitable to their subjects needs.

During the reading intervention programs, the subjects have shown improvements in

their reading skills, showing enthusiasm to read new storybooks, and gaining more

strength in doing special tasks which includes fluency, decoding, spelling, listening

skills, and having the reading-writing connection. Thus, resulting to becoming

independent readers whose achievement can be at par with most of their classmates.

C. After the reading intervention, the tutors will be having parent consultations to present

their reading reports and portfolios. Recommendations on how the parents can help

their children to read will be given which may include proper instructions in reading

strategies appropriate for their child. The tutors are also encouraged to continue

monitoring the progress of their subjects/tutees through their teachers/advisers

regarding their school performance.

D. The CED-CTL faculty members, though a mixture of teachers with different

specialization handling elementary and high school levels can be properly trained as

Reading Recovery teachers. A series of lectures on all aspects of the program can be

lined up and implemented for further training and/or schooling which either can be a

part of the University’s continuing thrust on literacy programs. Special remunerations to

the faculty can be given either as recognitions, point system, or part of their outreach

programs.

36

E. As part of its recommendations, the researchers would like that this Early Reading

Intervention Program be a part of the NEU educational system. Through concretized

policy of implementing this reading recovery program in the Basic Education Policy,

promoting the No Child Left Behind System in Reading.

Written & Presented by:

Maria Socorro Leonora R. Diaz, Team Leader, Faculty – CED CTL

With CTL Faculty Members

New Era University, University Hall

3rd NEU Annual Research Week, March 8-11, 2011

*Individual Reading Reports/Portfolios & the Executive Summary of this Research are on

Exhibit at NEU Main Lobby

Acknowledgement:

Dr. Corazon A. Osorio, President, NEU

Dr. Eliza Valdez, Head, Research Department

Dr. Lydia L. Libunao, Dean, CED, NEU

Bro. Billy Dote, Head, CED CTL Department, NEU

Bro. Edmario Reyes, Head, Computer Department,NEU

Dr. Dina Ocampo-Cristobal, Dean, UP College of Education,

& Faculty, Reading Department, CED, UP Diliman

Ms. Lourdes R. Diaz, Former Researcher, Political Science Department, UP Diliman

Ms. Miriam Neria & Ms Dinah Aguillon, Head Librarians

Preschool/ Elementary Library, NEU

early reading intervention for selected ctl pupils with reading difficulties: the neu experience

Documents