AN EVALUATION OF THE NATURE AND WORTH

OF A REMEDIAL READING PROGRAM

FOR FRESHMEN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
OF SAN VICENTE – SAN FRANSISCO HIGH SCHOOL,
MACABEBE PAMPANGA

Alfonso, Ernesto C., Capili, Miguel A., Lopez, Marvin A.,

Matreo, Edline Q., Reyes, Anne Katryne Kiyomi N.
BSED 2B – English

Mr. ANGELO VINCENT T. DEL ROSARIO

Instructor, ENGL 213d Eng: Remedial Instruction in English
INTRODUCTION 2

Teachers, undeniably, experience a need for a special

reading program as a result of meeting with failure in instructing
certain students by conventional methods. During the past
several years, there has been a nationwide effort on improving
education, especially in terms of reading skills.
Educators are faced with the task of figuring out how to
guarantee that every student gets beyond the basic, elementary
literacy levels and is able to move to more challenging literacy
at the secondary level.
 3

Approx. 8 million
young people between fourth and twelfth grade struggle to read
at grade level (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004).

An alarming 4.8 million

of dropouts have been reported in the Philippines since 2012
(Porcalla, 2017).
INTRODUCTION 4

Part of the struggle to make ends meet of struggling readers at

the secondary level is that these students experience a wide range
of perplexing texts that require an equally wide range of reading
interventions.
Some adolescents still have struggle basically reading words
correctly, but the majority of struggling readers, unfortunately, do
not even grasp what they read. A predominant reason for this
reading gap is that they do not yet read words with enough fluency
to enable comprehension and lack the knowledge of reading
strategies to diminish this gap.
STUDY SITE, POPULATION, & SAMPLE 5
San Vicente – San Fransisco National High School is a DepEd
managed secondary public high school specifically located in
Macabebe, Pampanga, approximately 27 kilometers south of the
province’s capital, San Fernando.
The population for this study comprises of all the male and
female students of the San Vicente – San Fransisco National High
School currently enrolled in seventh grade of school year 2018-
2019.
The sample for this study consists of 67 students, 36 male and
31 female students, who are currently enrolled to the remedial
reading program for seventh grade students for school year 2018-
2019.
LIMITATIONS/DELIMITATIONS 6

Participants in this study were restricted only to students and

instructors in the remedial reading classroom and the students’
English/language arts teachers. Only those students qualifying for
the program based on pre-assessment and English/language arts
teacher recommendations were included in the program. The scope
of this study only includes those targeted students at one high
school, not other middle schools in the district where the study took
place.
PURPOSE 7

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and

implementation of a remedial reading program employed with
underprepared students at the secondary school linked with this
study in the seventh grade during the 2018-2019 school year, and
to approach it with the intent of providing a basis in developing an
effective and inexpensive approach in dealing with reading
problems of high school students who are at risk of being or are
currently included in a remedial reading program.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 8
The research questions were organized and developed around the four
evaluation types contained in the CIPP model (Stufflebeam, 2003):

a. To what extent will the reading comprehension and vocabulary

strategies taught in the remedial reading program impact a student’s reading
comprehension level as measured by in-class, quarterly progress monitoring, pre
and post-assessment reading exams?
b. To what extent did year-long participation in the remedial reading
program increase student reading motivation and student perception of the value
of reading, as measured by the Adolescent Motivation to Read Profile (AMRP)
Survey?
c. To what extent will remedial reading and seventh grade
English/language arts teachers perceive a possible change in student reading
comprehension and vocabulary development as measured by the Teacher
Survey and Content?
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY 9

In this study, the researchers evaluated the influence of the remedial

reading program employed to improve the reading skills of seventh grade
students not performing at grade level at a high school in the southwestern
region of Pampanga. Data were obtained through the use of seventh grade
reading test performance, pre and post-assessments as administered by the
teachers, quarterly reading comprehension/fluency testing data, teacher
perception data on the strategic implementation of the program as related to
student reading achievement, and student reading motivation data based on
participation in the remedial program. Reading teachers and other support
personnel provide more intensive instruction through additional learning
experiences in a pullout program or through the offering of a separate
course.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY 10

After going through various program evaluation models, the researchers

decided Stufflebeam’s (2003) context, input, process, and product (CIPP)
model would be suitable to guide this study.
Stufflebeam (2003) defined the CIPP model as a systematic
comprehensive framework for guiding formative and summative evaluations
of projects, programs, personnel, products, institutions, and systems.
 11
Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model for Formative and Summative Evaluation Guidance
Characteristics Formative Guidance
Prospective use of model to assist decision
Role
making and quality assurance
Identifying needed interventions
Context Choosing and ranking goals based on needs,
problems, assets, and opportunities
Choosing a program or strategy based on
assessment of alternate strategies and
Input
resources
Examination of the work plan
Implementing the work plan based on
Process monitoring and judging activities and
evaluative feedback
Continuing, modifying, adopting, or
Product discontinuing the project based on outcomes
and side effects
Note. CIPP=context, input, process, and product.
Summative Guidance
Retrospective use of model to summarize
merit, worth, and significance
Comparison of goals and priorities to needs,
problems, assets, and opportunities that were
assessed
Comparison of strategy, design, and budget of
chosen program to competitors and to the
needs of the target recipients
Full description of process
Record of costs
Comparison of actual product to design
Comparison of outcomes and effects to needs
and to competitive programs
Interpretation of results
INSTRUMENTATION 12

Remedial Reading Teacher Survey and CERT survey

This survey was adapted from the Striving Readers Grant Model
of Change conducted by the Education Alliance at Brown University
in 2007. The Remedial Reading Teacher Survey contains questions
about the teacher’s background, satisfaction with Remedial
Reading materials and professional development, implementation
of Remedial Reading, as well as teacher perceptions of the
program’s impact on students.
INSTRUMENTATION 13

AMRP Survey
The Researchers adapted from the AMRP (Gambrell, Palmer,
Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996). The questions are modified for
adolescents as they were originally designed for younger children.
The survey asks students 20 questions with 10 questions relating to
assessing self-concept as a reader and 10 questions relating to
their attitude toward the value of reading. This reading survey
compares student perceptions after one semester of Remedial
Reading instruction and then again at the end of the second
semester of Remedial Reading instruction.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION (RESEARCH QUESTION 1) 14

Results of Paired Samples t Test for Remedial Reading Students and 1 st and 2nd Assessment
1st Assessment 2nd Assessment 95% Confidence
Outcome n Interval Mean t df r
M SD M SD
Difference

-3.87 2.88 -4.42 3.00 67 -4.859 -3.424 -11.550 66 0.000*

A statistically significant difference was found in reading loss/gain as

measured by the TOSCRF score between the first and second test
administration. The t value was -11.550 and p = .000. The group’s mean
pre-test score increased from 3.87 to 4.42. One can conclude that there is a
statistically significant difference (beyond the .001 level) between the mean
scores of the pre-test given in the participation in the remedial reading
program.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION (RESEARCH QUESTION 2) 15

Results of Paired Samples t Test for Remedial Reading Students and AMRP Survey
1st Assessment 2nd Assessment 95% Confidence
Outcome n Interval Mean t df r
M SD M SD
Difference

69.03 10.52 71.17 9.38 66 -4.19 -0.086 -2.01 65 0.041*

The data show the group’s mean AMRP Survey score increased 2.14 points
from the first to second AMRP Survey administration. The t value for the
AMRP Survey was -2.01 showing a statistical significance at the p ≤ the .05
level, specifically a p (significance)=.041. One can determine that there is a
statistical significance between the mean scores of the AMRP Survey
scores due to the participation in the remedial reading program.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION (RESEARCH QUESTION 3) 16

AMRP Survey
The Researchers adapted from the AMRP (Gambrell, Palmer,
Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996). The questions are modified for
adolescents as they were originally designed for younger children.
The survey asks students 20 questions with 10 questions relating to
assessing self-concept as a reader and 10 questions relating to
their attitude toward the value of reading. This reading survey
compares student perceptions after one semester of Remedial
Reading instruction and then again at the end of the second
semester of Remedial Reading instruction.
 17

9 of 12 (75%)
agree to strongly agree that most of their students are improving their overall reading
skills because of remedial reading

10 of 12 (83.33%)
agree to strongly agree that their students reading comprehension and reading aloud
skills improved because of remedial reading

12 of 12 (100%)
agree to strongly agree that most of their students were benefiting from the remedial
reading strategies
CONCLUSION 18
» There was a significant increase in reading achievement between the pre and
post-administrations for all of the assessments. The students in the sample group
increase their mean scores among all four assessments between the pre and post-
administrations used to determine academic learning gain or loss.

» The students showed a gain in mean scores on the overall survey from the first to
second administration. This suggests that students show a higher motivation to
read as well as a significant gain in student value of reading after participating in
the remedial reading program.

» The score from the CERT Survey helped determine if there is a teacher perception
in the gains of reading performance of their students after enrollment in the
remedial reading program. Overall, this reveals that all teachers participating in the
survey perceive that the remedial reading program is beneficial for their students in
their classes.
 REFERENCES
Ayers, J., & Miller, M. (2009). Informing Adolescent Literacy Policy and Practice: Lessons Learned from the Striving Readers Program.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading Next—A Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy:A Report to. New
York: Carnegie Corporation.
Boatman, A., & Long, B. T. (2010). Does Remediation Work for All Students? How the Effects of Postsecondary Remedial and Developmental
Courses Vary by Level of Academic Preparation. An NCPR Working Paper. National Center for Postsecondary Research.
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (3rd ed.).
Michigan: Pearson.
Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing Motivation to Read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518-533.
Moje, E. B. (2002). Re‐framing adolescent literacy research for new times: Studying youth as a resource. Reading Research and Instruction,
41(3), 211-228. doi:10.1080/19388070209558367
Nedeveld, M. (1967). The Effective Remedial Reading Program. Reading Horizons, 2.
Nichols, S. S. (2014). An Evaluation of a Remedial Reading Program for Middle-Grade Students in a Southeastern State Public School.
Education Dissertations and Projects, 19.
Polit., D., & Hungler, B. (1999). Nursing Research: Principles and Methods (6th ed.). Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.
Porcalla, D. (2017, June 25). Number of elementary, high school dropouts rising – lawmaker. The Philippine Star.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. International handbook of educational evaluation, 31-62.
Torraco, R. J. (2014). Remedial Education: An Area in Need of Scholar-Practitioner Collaboration. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 38, 1198-1202.
Vacca, R., & Vacca, J. (2008). Content area reading: Literary and learning across the curriculum. Boston: Pearson.
Villar, M. (2010, July). No Filipino Child Left Behind Act of 2010. Retrieved from Senate of the Philippines:
https://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/74976053!.pdf

Objectives Activities / Strategies
PRE-ASSESSMENT
Teacher Training
Identify Remedial Training and/or seminar
Reading Program Staff about remediation
Profiling
Identify reading level / Conduct Phil-IRI Pre-Test
difficulties (Oral and Silent Reading)
Administration of
Remedial Reading
Administer survey for pre-
Teacher Survey and
assessment
CERT Survey and AMRP
Survey
Write letters to parents
Conduct meetings with informing the student’s
parents of children current status and inviting
included in the program them to a meeting about the
program
Expected Output /
Persons Involved Time Frame
Success Indicator
Competitive and trained
Principal and teachers One – two weeks
remedial reading staff
Identified reading level for
Principal, Teacher, students and students for
One week (upon enrollment in
Reading teacher, remediation
Grade 7)
Students and parents Report on Reading
Progress
Teacher, Reading
One day Results of Survey
teacher, and Students
Principal, Teacher,
Two – three days (inclusion of
Reading teacher, Minutes of the meeting
RVSP from the parents)
Students and parents
IMPLEMENTATION
Providing Remedial Reading Materials
Monitoring and Evaluation
Prepare different reading
Develop the reading skills materials Teacher, Reading Reading materials
One week
of the students Conduct reading teacher, and Students Xtreme Reading | SIM
remediation activities
Prepare enhancement
Enhance Higher Order
activities Teacher, Reading Instructional materials
Thinking Skills (HOTS) of Three weeks
Employ ICT-based teacher, and Students Xtreme Reading | SIM
students
instruction

Prepare request to Teacher, Reading

May vary depending on class
Conduct home visitation conduct home visitation teacher, Students and Documentation
size
Home visits Parents

Conduct meeting with Teacher, Reading

(Optional) Tap donors for parents and other target teacher, Students, Two – three days (inclusion of Minute of the meeting
the program person Parents and other RVSP from the parents) Request letters
Float request letters target persons
POST-ASSESSMENT

Prepare assessment
tools
Evaluate the reading Reading teacher,
Conduct Phil-IRI Post- One week Assessment Tools
skills of students Students and parents
Test (Oral and Silent
Reading)

Assess students’ HOTS Reading teacher,

Administer Post-Test One week Summative Test
levels Students and parents

Principal, Teacher,
Report students’ Conduct meeting with Two – three days (inclusion
Reading teacher, Minute of the meeting
performance to parents parents of RVSP from the parents)
Students and parents

Administration of
Remedial Reading Teacher, Reading
Administer survey for
Teacher Survey and teacher, and One day Results of Survey
post-assessment
CERT Survey and AMRP Students
Survey