糖心原创

Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 23 no. 9 (2024)

Remediating Literacy Gaps of Grade 6 Learners in Science Instruction: A Contextualized Learning Kit

Maria Jonabel Bacalla

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

The study remediates the literacy gaps of the Grade 6 learners using the Contextualized Learning Kit (CLK) focusing the Word Recognition and Reading Comprehension to the selected public elementary schools in Cluster 1 of Carcar City Division during School Year 2023-2024. The study utilized the parallel research design employing the purposive sampling technique with forty (40) participants who were identified as Frustration and Instructional Level based on the Phil-IRI Group Screening Test. This research used the standardized Graded passage with 7-item test to assess the proficiency levels of the participants through pre-and post-assessment. The findings exhibited the following results, the Experimental Group have manifested the “improved” remark in word recognition with a weighted mean of 90.427, standard deviation of 5.792, and success rate of 55 percent and in reading comprehension with a weighted mean of 64.286, standard deviation of 13.513, and success rate of 50 percent, in contrary, the scores of Controlled Group have “remained” remark in word recognition with a weighted mean of 92.985, standard deviation of 1.673, and success rate of 25 percent and reading comprehension with a weighted mean of 78.571, standard deviation of 15.019, and success rate of 50 percent. The result recommended a thorough implementation of CLK in school since this is a great tool in developing the interest of the selected pupils while mastering the recognition and comprehension skills for the Phil-IRI assessment.



References:

  1. A5631571_Admin (2017, August 21). Reading comprehension: a challenge for students and teachers | observatory - institute for the future of education. observatory - institute for the future of education.
  2. Andreasen (1987). Creativity and mental illness: prevalence rates in writers and their first-degree relatives. ˜the american journal of psychiatry, 144(10), 1288–1292.
  3. Bautista & Gatcho (2019a). A literature review on remedial reading teachers: the gaps in the philippine context. Journal of english teaching, 5(2), 91.
  4. Bilbao et al. (2016). Level of reading comprehension of the education students. International journal of liberal arts, education, social sciences and philosophical studies, 4, 342-353.  - references - scientific research publishing. (n.d.).
  5. Cabardo (2015). Reading proficiency level of students: Basis for reading intervention program. social science research network.
  6. Capodieci et.al (2020). The use of new technologies for improving reading comprehension. Frontiers in psychology, 11.
  7. Catts (2018). The simple view of reading: Advancements and false impressions. Remedial and special education, 39(5), 317–323.
  8. Cervetti et.al (2015). Factors that influence the difficulty of science words. Journal of literacy research, 47(2), 153–185.
  9. Chourasia et.al (2013a). Effect of sitting or standing on touch screen performance and touch characteristics. Human factors, 55(4), 789–802.
  10. Conde et.al (2024). Is learning analytics applicable and applied to education of students with intellectual/developmental disabilities? A systematic literature reviews. Computers in human behavior, 155, 108184 
  11. Education at a Glance 2016. (n.d.).
  12. Effective reading strategies for increasing the reading comprehension level of third-grade students with learning disabilities. (n.d.). Google books.
  13. Elbro & Buch-Iversen (2013). Activation of background knowledge for inference making: Effects on reading comprehension. Scientific studies of reading, 17(6), 435–452.
  14. Elleman & Oslund (2019). Reading comprehension research: Implications for practice and policy. Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences, 6(1), 3–11.
  15. Floyd et.al (2003). Interpretation of the woodcock-johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. In elsevier eBooks (pp. 1–46).
  16. Galang et.al (2023). Reading comprehension level and academic performance of college students in their mathematics course. International mournal of multidisciplinary, 4(10), 3516–3520.
  17. Henderson & James (2018). Consolidating new words from repetitive versus multiple stories: Prior knowledge matters. Journal of experimental child psychology, 166, 465–484.
  18. Hennessy (2020). The reading comprehension blueprint. Paul h brookes publishing. Verification. (n.d.).
  19. Joseph et.al (2015). The effects of self-questioning on reading comprehension: A literature review. Reading & writing quarterly, 32(2), 152–173.
  20. Karademir & Uluç谋nar (2016). Examining the relationship between middle school students’ critical reading skills, science literacy skills and attitudes: A structural equation modeling. Journal of education in science, environment and health, 3(1), 29.
  21. Kendeou et.al (n.d.). Reading comprehension: Core components and processes.
  22. Labarrete (2019). Reading comprehension level and study skills competence of the alternative learning system (ALS) Clientele. Pupil: International journal of teaching, education and learning, 3(1), 220–229.
  23. Lemez & Jimenez (2022). Occupational therapy education and entry-level practice: A systematic review. Education sciences, 12(7), 431.
  24. Llorens-Esteve (2015, July 30). La comprensión lectora en educación primaria: importancia e influencia en los resultados académicos.
  25. Luiselli et.al (2013). Woodcock-Johnson cognitive and achievement batteries. In springer eBooks (pp. 3393–3399).
  26. McCormick (1987). Remedial and clinical reading instruction.
  27. Medina, & Villarreal (2020a). Reading promotion, behavior, and comprehension and its relationship to the educational achievement of Mexican high school students. Cogent education, 7(1).
  28. Mirandola et.al (2018). Metacognitive monitoring of text comprehension: An investigation on postdictive judgments in typically developing children and children with reading comprehension difficulties. frontiers in psychology, 9.
  29. Oakhill (2020). Four decades of research into children’s reading comprehension: A personal review. Discourse processes鈥�:/Discourse processes, 57(5–6), 402–419.
  30. Oecd (2019). Pisa 2018 results (Volume I) what students know and can do. OECD Publishing.
  31. (PDF) Impact of reading ability on academic performance at. (n.d.-a). acme.
  32. Pearson (2021). The science of reading comprehensioniInstruction. Berkeley.
  33. Peregrina (2017). Estado actual de la comprensión lectora en educación primaria.
  34. Ratminingsih et.al (2018). Self-assessment: The effect on students’ independence and writing competence. International journal of instruction, 11(3), 277–290.
  35. Rouf (2004). Oxford guide to behavioural experiments in cognitive therapy. OUP Oxford.
  36. Ruiz (2015). Behaviourisms: Radical behaviourism and critical inquiry. ResearchGate.
  37. Simbulas et.al  (2015). Reading comprehension and mathematical problem solving skills of university of the immaculate conception freshmen students.
  38. Szudarski & Miko艂ajczak (2022). Proficiency, language of assessment, and attention to meaning and form during L2 comprehension: Methodological considerations in L2 replication research. Studies in second language acquisition, 45(1), 276–288.
  39. Teaching reading comprehension to students with learning difficulties. (n.d.). Guilford Publications.
  40. Tenório et.al  (2018). Influence of gamification on  khan academy  in  brazillian high  school. PUPIL: International journal of teaching, Education and learning, 2(2), 51–65.
  41. The effect of three reading comprehension strategies on reading comprehension when reading digital informational texts. (n.d.). Google Books.
  42. Velasco et.al  (2016). Students’ reading attitudes:improving the motivation of the freshman students of Colegio de San Juan de Letran. /article.php?id=11453
  43. Willingham (2017). A mental model of the learner: Teaching the basic science of educational psychology to future teachers. Mind, brain, and education/mind, brain and education, 11(4), 166–175.
  44. Saro (2023). Challenges, difficulties, and effective enactment of remedial reading programs: A qualitative-phenomenological approach. Carsu.  

Tools


Copyright © 2026  糖心原创 Exclusively distributed by