Republic of the Philippines

Department of Education
Region XI
Division of Davao del Sur
Digos City
ACTION RESEARCH

A. Basic Information

1. Research/Project Title

Effect of the Implementation of “SAR (Stop and Read) and REKDA

(Reading Everyday Keeps Dullness Away)” APPROACHES A School based
Reading Program on the Reading Comprehension Levels of Grade 7
Students

2. Proponent & Institution

Renato P. Roque, Jr.
Inawayan National High- Tibolo Extension

3. Implementing Agency/Agencies
 Department of Education - Davao del Sur Division

4. Research/Project Components

a) Program Thrust: Item No.5 of PNOY’s 10 Agenda

“Every Child should be a Reader”

5. Project Duration

(One grading quarter SY 2018-2019)

6. Total Budget Requested

5,000.00 Php
7. Overview:
Given the number of students who struggle with becoming proficient readers, with
the following data: 10 % independent readers, 20% instructional readers, 70% frustration
readers; efficiency in the provision of initial teaching and subsequent support becomes very
important for the educational system.
Ideally, the National standard stipulates that the target should be 75% of the class
must be independent readers, however, authentic data points out that we are far behind the
target.
Cognizant of these, the Malipayon Secondary School in the Division of Davao del Sur
will delve deeper and identify the students’ at risk, give appropriate intervention, and provide
assistance to these identified students. The findings will then be correlated to the students’
oral reading comprehension level.
 8. General Objective:

The main objective in conducting this study is to determine the effectiveness of

“SAR (Stop and Read) and REKDA (Reading Everyday Keeps Dullness Away)” APPROACHES A

School based Reading Program on the Reading Comprehension Levels of Grade 7 Students

9. Statement of the Problem:

The researcher will delve deeper and find answers to this queries:
1. What is the pretest mean score rating in reading comprehension of the Grade 7
students in the experimental and the control group?
2. What is the posttest mean score rating in reading comprehension of the Grade 7
students in the experimental and the control group?
3. What is the mean gain score rating in reading comprehension of the Grade 7
students in the experimental and the control group?
4. Is there a significant difference on the pretest mean score rating in reading
comprehension of the Grade 7 students in the experimental and the control
group?
5. Is there a significant difference on the posttest mean score rating in reading
comprehension of the Grade 7 students in the experimental and the control
group?
6. Is there a significant difference on the mean gain score rating in reading
comprehension of the Grade 7 students in the experimental and the control
group?

10. Significance of the Study:

– School heads and Teachers will be able to find initiatives to improve the reading
comprehension level of students at the school base; make possible remediation for
the identified non readers as well as those who belong to the frustration level and
enhancement lessons for the identified instructional and independent readers as
based on the Pre Test Result.

11. Research Instrument:

 30 Items test on Reading Comprehension with TOS
 E- Reading Passages suited for the Grade Level

12. A Statiscal Analysis:

Subproblems Number 1,2 and 3 shall be described in terms of average weights and
standard deviation
 Data on Subproblem 4,5 & 6 shall be subjected to ANOVA.

13. FINDINGS

14. CONCLUSIONS

15. RECOMMENDATIONS

Gantt Chart
4TH QUARTER
Schedule of Activities JAN. FEB. MAR.
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2
Preparation of Action Research Paper *

Submission of Action Research *

Proposal to the Division Office
Present the Manuscript for further *
notations
Conduct the processes mentioned in * * * * *
the proposal
Conduct Statistical Analysis/Findings *
Submit the Accomplishment DATA *

Submitted by:

_______________________________
Bibliography/Literature Cited:

16.Brady, Ben. (2005) Reading Comprehension Skills Development Guide.

Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Nevada.

17.Clay, Marie. (2001) Reading Recovery Program. Auckland, New Zealand.

18.Heinemann,S. (2000) Concepts About Print: What Have Children Learned About
the Way We Print Language?”. Auckland, New Zealand.

19.Hornby, Susan. (2008) Reader Development in Practice. Facet Publishing. UK.

20.Manguel, Alberto. (2008) Reading Development. Amazon Publishing House, New

York.

21.Morrison, Andrew. (2005) Reading First Program Guide. Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Nevada.

22.Shanahan, Timothy. (2005) Reading Practices that Works. UIC Center for
Literacy. Chicago, Illinois.

23.Spufford, Francis. (2008) The Child that Books Built. Graywolf Press. UK.

24. Templeton, Shane. (2005) Children's Literacy: Contexts for Meaningful Learning.
Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Nevada

25.Zemelman, Steven. (2001) Effective Remedial Reading. Chicago Press. USA.

Project Proponents :
 Mario C. Mondejar, EdD
Education Program Supervisor

Alicia I. Ayuste, PhD

Education Program Supervisor

Joy A. Bariquit, PhD

Education Program Supervisor

LOGFRAME
Research Project Title:

Effect of the School Based Reading Intervention Program

as Based on the PHILIRI Diagnostic Test Result and
Students’ Oral Reading Proficiency Level:
Basis for Teacher Training

Project Duration : SY 2012- 2013

Project Proponents : Mario C. Mondejar, EdD

Education Program Supervisor

Alicia I. Ayuste, PhD

Education Program Supervisor

Joy A. Bariquit, PhD

Education Program Supervisor

Proposed Budget: Ph 20,000.00

Narrative Summary Verifiable Means of Important

Indicators Verification Assumption
Goal:

This study will try to find out the extent of the utilization of the Result of the Phil IRI- Phil IRI Form I data on Implementation of
PHIL IRI Diagnostic Pre Test Result, the level of the PRE TEST Individual Pupil the reading
Reading Inventory remediation program
implementation of the school based reading program; their
does not suit
relationship to the Proficiency Reading Levels of Grade Three
individual learner’s
Pupils. The findings will serve as basis for Teachers’ Training in reading problem.
Remedial Reading Instruction.
Purpose:

To examine how the result of the PHIL IRI is being Reading Lists of pupils who It is presumed that
utilized, what appropriate intervention is being done at Intervention are identified to be the oral reading
Program at the “At-Risk” proficiency level of
the school base and what is its relationship to the
School-base pupils will be
students’ oral proficiency level. improved after the
school-based
remedial reading
instruction program
was conducted.

Outputs:
-Primary Tool: The Result of the Survey The oral reading
This study will employ both qualitative and quantitative National Survey Questionnaires proficiency level of
Questionnaire by Dr. pupils shall have
research methodologies. In the quantitative aspect,
improved.
descriptive correlational research will be used through Levi Espinosa on the
establishing relationship and predictive power of the Extent of Utilization
of the PHIL IRI
independent variables to the dependent variables.
Diagnostic test
Qualitative data will be gathered through focus group
Result
discussion and interview. - The secondary
data: result of the
Grade Three Phil IRI
Pre and Post Test
Data to be taken
this SY 2012-2013
from the Phil IRI
Post Test

ACTIVTIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN:

 Preparation of Action Research Paper

 Submission of Action Research Proposal to the
Regional Office
 Present the Manuscript to the Committee for
Constructive Criticism
 Presentation of Action Research Proposal
 Writing the SDS, for permission to conduct the study.
 Informing the SDS, PSDS, Principals for permission to
conduct the study
 Once approved, conduct the survey questionnaire and
retrieval of the questionnaires to the different districts
as scheduled
 Obtain, analyze, tabulate and interpret results
 Give appropriate intervention as based on the result
Prepared and Submitted by:
(to be filled out by the Project Leader) Reviewed and Endorsed by:

Signature
Printed Name Mario C. Mondejar, EdD ENRICO P. SUPANGCO
Education Program Supervisor
CHED-UPLB ZRC Director

Date Submitted June 11, 2012

Approved by:

JEAN C. TAYAG
Director IV, CHED-OPPRI
 PROFILE OF THE PROPONENT

1. Name: MARIO C. MONDEJAR

2. Current Position: Education Program Supervisor

3. Institution: DepEd

4. Educational Attainment: BSED/Ed.D

Degree(s) Obtained & Area(s) of Year

Name of School/University
Specialization Graduated

5. Research Conducted (last 5 years)

6. Recent Publications