Project FIRE: A Continuous Improvement Program For Mabato Elementary School Pupils Under Frustration Level

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The 21st-century pupils are engaged with activities that are not intended for learning. Their attention is diverted to different games on gadgets. Modern technologies have disadvantages towards learning. Specifically, pupils tend to lessen their time in reading because of these stuffs. Hence, their interest in reading fades. Because of this, the researchers came up with a project dubbed as Fire, a continuous improvement program to help the pupils improve their reading skills.

METHODS

Project Fire Program was conducted using the Read Aloud method and the Direct Reading Approach. First, the pupils were given a pre-test using the Philippine-Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) materials in assessing the level of reading proficiency. The data were statistically analyzed. After the analysis of the pre-test, the pupils under the frustration level undergone to Project Fire Program from August to January. Pupils were given a selection or passage to read. While students are reading, the teacher does a running record that will help gain information about the student's reading strategies. Then, the Direct Reading Approach was also conducted, wherein the teacher activates the pupil's prior knowledge and teaches the pupil to monitor their understanding of the text as they're. At the end of the program, the post-test was given to the pupils under the frustration level to measure the improvement in reading.

RESULTS

The result of the pre-test shows that out of 60 pupils in Oral reading, 45 were in frustration level, 10 were instructional level, 2 were independent level and 3 were non-readers. In Silent reading, out of 60 pupils, 42 were in frustration level, 18 were instructional, 6 were independent and 3 were non-readers. The pupils atthe frustration level in oral and silent reading have undergone the program. The result of the post-test shows that out of 60 pupils in Oral reading, 3 were in frustration level, 45 were instructional level, 11 were independent level and 1 were non-readers. In Silent reading, out of 60 pupils, 3 were in frustration level, 43 were instructional, 13 were independent and 1 was non-reader.

DISCUSSIONS

The results revealed that the majority of the pupils belong to the instructional level of reading proficiency in both silent and oral reading. There is a lesser number of pupils who are poor in reading and comprehension or a lesser number of pupils in the Frustration Level. There is a significant difference in the level of reading proficiency of students in silent and oral reading.