Abstract :

This study assessed the reading proficiency levels of Grade 1 students at St. Paul University Surigao using Scholastic Literacy Pro. The study employed a one-group pretest-posttest design to assess the impact of using Scholastic Literacy Pro, a program designed to support independent reading and provide teachers with data to personalize instruction. The researchers conducted pre-and post-tests to measure the student’s progress in reading proficiency, categorizing their scores into advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic levels. Results showed that proficiency levels were predominantly below basic, with only a small percentage reaching basic, proficient, or advanced levels. No significant differences were found when grouping by section, sex, previous school attended, or school type. However, a significant difference was found between pre-and post-test scores, indicating the instructional reading intervention had a positive impact. To further improve reading proficiency, the study recommends targeted instructional strategies addressing specific learning needs, ongoing teacher professional development on effective methodologies and progress monitoring, and enhancing teachers’ knowledge and skills to cater to diverse learner needs. By implementing these recommendations, the school can continue to raise reading proficiency levels among Grade 1 students.

---

Keywords :

one-group pretest-posttest design, Peading, Philippines., Proficiency level, Scholastic Literacy Pro.

---

References :

1. Arpilleda, A. J. (2021). Strategic intervention material: A tool in enhancing grade nine students’ mathematical performance. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2021.5051
2. Brophy (n.d.). Module 5b: Pre- and Post-testing for Student Learning. Assessment, University of Florida.
3. Cabardo, J. R. (2015). Reading Proficiency Level of Students: Basis for Reading Intervention Program. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2712237
4. Child Care and Early Education Research Connections. (n.d.). Pre-Experimental Designs | Research Connections. https://researchconnections.org/research-tools/study-design-and-analysis/pre-experimental-designs
5. Imus, J. K. R., & Resultay, R. G. (2019, December 25). Reading proficiency level of Grade 1 pupils using Text-to-Speech. https://www.paressu.org/online/index.php/aseanmrj/article/view/239
6. Langenberg, D.N. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.
7. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/smallbook
8. Paul, J., & Jefferson, F. (2019). A Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in an Online vs. Face-to-Face Environmental Science Course From 2009 to 2016. Frontiers in Computer Science, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007
9. Reardon, S. F., Kalogrides, D., & Shores, K. (2019). The geography of racial/ethnic test score gaps. American Journal of Sociology, 124(4), 1164-1221.
10. Sands, B. (2017, April 29). DRA Reading Assessment Levels. Study.com. https://study.com/academy/popular/dra-reading-assessment-levels.html
11. Scholastic Research & Validation. (2021). Scholastic Literacy Pro research foundation. New York: Scholastic.
12. SEAMEO INNOTECH. (2023, December 19). INNOTECH notes progress on the country’s PISA 2022 results. https://www.seameo-innotech.org/innotech-progress-pisa-2022/#:~:text=Philippines%2C%20while%20having%20a%20lower,the%202018%20edition%20of%20PISA.
13. Shivaraju, P. T., Manu, G., Vinaya, M., & Savkar, M. K. (2017). Evaluating the effectiveness of pre-and post-test model of learning in a medical school. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 7(9), 947.
14. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.002