Abstract :

Reading is essential in education, equipping students with the skills to become proficient readers and holistic communicators. It involves decoding transcriptive symbols and sounds to activate meaning and prior knowledge, as well as recognizing structures to make information comprehensible. Despite the Philippines’ below-average reading score of 347 points in the 2023 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), there has been a 6.9% increase since 2018. National education policies and collective efforts are mirrored in these results, as emphasized by the Department of Education.

St. Paul University Surigao’s Basic Education Department has long promoted reading, partnering with Scholastic Literacy Pro to provide diverse reading materials and personalized instruction. This study assesses the reading proficiency of Grade 10 learners using this program, aiming to inform future instructional practices.

Using a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design, 216 Grade 10 students participated, with proficiency levels classified from Below Basic to Advanced. Results indicated minor improvements, with a slight decrease in students classified as Below Basic and an increase in those at the Advanced level. The study underscores the importance of continuous reading programs and strategic interventions in improving literacy.

Recommendations include enhancing reading programs, professional development for teachers, active parental involvement, regular progress monitoring, and further research into effective literacy strategies. These steps aim to address reading proficiency gaps and support students’ academic success and holistic development.

---

Keywords :

Educational Interventions, Literacy Development, PISA Assessment, Reading Proficiency, Scholastic Literacy Pro.

---

References :

1. Acido, J. V., & Caballes, D. G. (2024). Assessing educational progress: A comparative analysis of PISA results (2018 vs. 2022) and HDI correlation in the Philippines.
2. Arbis, G., I., Dumale, R. R., Galavia, M. D., Marbani, M. K. C., Navarro, M. M., Salvador, V. A., & Segura, J. S. M. A. (2023). Learning Gap Assessment in English 9. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8409219
3. Chi, C. (2023, December 9). Philippines still lags behind world in math, reading and science — PISA 2022. Philstar.com. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2023/12/06/2316732/philippines-still-lags-behind-world-math-reading-and-science-pisa-2022
4. Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25-S44.
5. Hyde, J. S. (2020). Gender similarities and differences in mathematics and science achievement: An analysis of PISA data. Educational Researcher, 49(6), 379-390. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20948046
6. PISA 2022 Results: Factsheets Philippines. (2023, December 5). OECD.org. Retrieved May 30, 2024, from https://www.oecd.org/publication/pisa-2022-results/country-notes/philippines-a0882a2d/
7. Guthrie, J. T., & Klauda, S. L. (2020). Engagement and motivation in reading. In Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. V, pp. 35-53). Routledge.
8. Lindberg, S. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2019). Gender similarities in mathematics and science. American Psychologist, 74(1), 54-65. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000352
9. Quigley, A., & Nyabero, C. (2021). The impact of literacy interventions on student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 33, 100399.
10. Robinson, C. D., Lee, M. G., & Kwiatkowski, C. F. (2019). Evaluating the impact of educational technology on student performance: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Educational Technology Research, 67(4), 595-612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09731-8
11. Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2020). The effect of taking a high school science course on students’ later success in college science courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(3), 375-393. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21623
12. Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I.-S., & Hayes, T. L. (2020). The efficacy of educational interventions: A meta-analytic review. Educational Researcher, 49(7), 477-490. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20938072
13. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2021). Specialized STEM high schools: Exploring the impact on student outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 163-201. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321994756
14. Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., & Fan, X. (2019). The impact of specialized science courses on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 493-511. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000300
15. Wong, V. C., Cook, T. D., & Steiner, P. M. (2021). Quality of implementation and its effects on educational outcomes: A comprehensive review. Review of Educational Research, 91(1), 1-42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320957457