THINK HIGH! STRATEGY AND METACOMPREHENSION SKILLS IN READING OF GRADE 10 STUDENTS OF JONES RURAL SCHOOL Juan S. dela Cruz Teacher III Proponent Jones Rural School Schools Division of Isabela I. RATIONALE A. Context Reading comprehension is a multifaceted process (Adams, 1990). For students to adequately comprehend text, they will need an awareness of print, which can be obtained through multiple channels to facilitate word recognition. Carlisle and Rice (2002) found that the lack of phonological sensitivity did impede reading, but other factors came into play as students progressed through the different levels of reading comprehension. These factors are evident because children who receive phonological awareness training do not necessarily become fluent readers (Scarborough, 2001). In addition to decoding skills, students need vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive skills so they can monitor their understanding and reflect on what has been read. Competent readers learn these components simultaneously and fluently. In addition, if either component is inadequate, comprehension can be impeded. Some teachers may assume that reading comprehension will develop naturally without any direct teaching of comprehension (Denton & Fletcher, 2003). This line of reasoning places reading in the same developmental progression as oral language development. Children are able to acquire speech without formal instruction if given enough exposure to it. This led many researchers to believe that given enough exposure to print the child would experience the same developmental pattern. Nevertheless, research has proven this line of reasoning to be faulty (Gough & Hillinger, 1980; Wren, 2002). Humans have been communicating through speech for thousands of years. We have used written communication for the masses for only several hundred years. This skill must be taught through formal education. Research evidence gathered over the last 20 years has shown that children need to learn phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and awareness of print, phonics, and fluency. Instruction of these components enables the child to decode unknown words. These components are the basics or prerequisites needed for reading. Learning to decode is a means to an end, and that end is to read and understand written communication created by others and to be able to write in order to communicate. In other words, reading instruction does not end when students can decode the words. They continue to need instruction that will support their understanding of what they are reading. In the Philippines, the K to 12 languages curriculum ensures that processes and products of learning actively foster and contribute to the achievement of the basic education program goals (K to 12 English Curriculum Guide, Department of Education, 2011). There are 14 integrated language arts domains aligned with the five substrands (listening, speaking, reading, writing and viewing) of the Language Arts and Multiliteracies Curriculum or LAMC. The said domains are oral language, phonological awareness, book and print knowledge, alphabet knowledge, phonics and word recognition, fluency, spelling, writing and composition, grammar awareness and structure, vocabulary development, listening comprehension, attitude towards language literacy & literature, study strategies, and reading comprehension consisting of schema and prior knowledge, strategies, narrative text and informational text. These domains are funneled across the K to 12 Basic Education Integrated Language Arts Curriculum, from Kindergarten to Grade 12, as shown in the table below. The funneling of the domains across grade levels makes certain that at the end of studying basic education, learners possess skills that make them functionally literate and communicative competent individuals, which is why as early as Kinder, skills in communicative competence and metacognition such as comprehension is taught to make sure that learners are not only taught to become good readers, listeners, writers and speakers but also good thinkers. In the study Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read, C.R. Adler says this of metacognition: “Metacognition can be defined as "thinking about thinking." Good readers use metacognitive strategies to think about and have control over their reading. Before reading, they might clarify their purpose for reading and preview the text. During reading, they might monitor their understanding, adjusting their reading speed to fit the difficulty of the text and "fixing" any comprehension problems they have. After reading, they check their understanding of what they read” (National Institute for Literacy, 2001). In addition to this definition, this study also adopted the definition offered by Kuhn (2000). Kuhn defined metacognition as, "Enhancing (a) metacognitive awareness of what one believes and how one knows and (b) metastrategic control in application of the strategies that process new information" (p. 178). This awareness is developmental and lies on a continuum. Proficient readers use one or more metacognitive strategies to comprehend text. The use of such strategies has developed over time as the reader learns which ones are best suited to aid in comprehension (Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Mistretta-Hampston, & Echevarria, 1998). Reading comprehension is the thinking process used to make meaning of what a person reads (Block, Gambrell, & Presley, 2002). Research has shown that teachers spend very little time teaching comprehension strategies. Instead, they focus on asking literal questions, assigning workbook pages, and giving directions (Block & Israel, 2005). According to Put Reading First developed by the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA), multiple research studies have indicated improved reading comprehension by implementing various reading strategies (Adler, 2001). Comprehension strategies which include modeling, the think aloud process, inferring, summarizing, making connections, questioning, and predicting should be implemented as early as kindergarten (Block & Israel 2005). “Metacognition is an awareness of and knowledge about strategies for planning, monitoring, and controlling one’s own learning” (Block, Gambrell, & Pressley, 2002, p. 327). Good readers use metacognitive strategies to think about and control their reading before, during, and after reading a selection. Students who do not use metacognitive skills are usually low-achievers in reading. These students quit trying because they believe their efforts will not pay off, or they fail to recognize when they no longer understand what they are reading. For students to achieve metacognition, teachers must make additions to their literacy program by teaching students to be thoughtful and aware of their own thinking (Block & Israel, 2005). Pressley et al. (1998) found that students' comprehension was not enhanced by merely reading more text. If the students used even one of the strategies, for example summarizing, comprehension was improved. If students were given a host of strategies that they could apply at their discretion, comprehension was greatly improved. Indeed, the researcher found out that reading comprehension remains to be one of the areas of difficulties encountered by students of Jones Rural School when he conducted a pre-test for the Fourth Quarter Period to determine the Grade 10 students’ English proficiency skills particularly in reading comprehension in their English 10 class. The pre-test, made up of 40 reading comprehension questions taken from Fourth Quarter lessons in English, is conducted to the five sections of Grade 10 namely Sections A,B,C,D, and E. The results of the pre-test show that Section Successful got the highest mean of 44.75% followed by Section Cheerful with 42.50%. Section C ranked third with a mean of 41.15% followed closely by Section B with its mean of 40.10%. Section E with 38.25% got the lowest mean. The figure also reflects that none of the sections achieved 75%, which is the passing rate for the reading comprehension competency. Moreover, the average mean of all Grade 10 sections is 41.35%, which is still far from the passing rate. This only shows that Grade 10 learners still have to strengthen their skills in reading comprehension, as well as metacognition. Also, as the English teacher of these Grade 10 students, the researcher had questioned if the scores were below the passing rate because the students’ higherorder thinking skills have not been developed or mastered. In the researcher’s experience as a classroom teacher for five years, reading comprehension is one of the problem areas that occur year after year in the Grade 10 level. The researcher observed how learners come to the tenth grade impressed with how well they read the words, but they do not transfer good fluency into a good understanding of what they read. In the pre-test conducted, the researcher found out that Grade 10 learners still have difficulty answering the “how” and “why” of what they have read. To show further evidence of a problem in reading comprehension, the teacher researcher surveyed the class that got the lowest mean, Grade 10-Courageous, using the Metacomprehension Strategy Index, which is adapted from a study of “A Questionnaire to Measure Children’s Awareness of Strategic Reading Processes” by M.C. Schmitt (The Reading Teacher, p. 43,454-4611990, see Appendix B), to measure each student’s awareness of the strategies used in the reading process. The Metacomprehension Strategy Index (MSI) had a total of 25 questions divided into three parts that asked about the strategies students used to help them better understand a story. Part one consisted of statements about the strategies used prior to reading a story. The teacher researcher then gathered the data from Part One of the MSI. The results indicated 37% of G10-Courageous students were able to correctly answer the predicting questions. Forty-six percent of the students were able to correctly answer the previewing questions. Twenty percent of the students were able to correctly answer purpose setting questions. Thirty-nine percent of the students correctly answered the questions for the category of self-questioning. Twenty-three percent of the students were able to correctly answer the drawing from background knowledge questions. Part two of the MSI consisted of statements about the strategies used while reading a story. The results showed that 27% of the students correctly answered predicting questions. Fifteen percent of the students correctly answered questions in the self-questioning category. There were 27% of the students with correct responses for drawing from background knowledge questions. In the summarizing category, 25% of the students answered the questions with correct responses. Part three of the MSI consisted of statements about the strategies used after reading a story. The results indicated 21% of the students correctly answered predicting questions. Thirty-three percent of the students correctly answered the purpose setting and the summarizing questions. Thirty-six percent of the students correctly answered the questions in the drawing from background knowledge category. From the survey, only 33% students use metacomprehension strategies before reading; 24% students use metacomprehension strategies while reading; and 30% students use metacomprehension strategies after reading. The result yields an average of 29% students who use metacomprehension strategies in reading. This means that 71% G10-Courageous students still need to learn how to utilize higherorder thinking skills and metacomprehension strategies to improve their comprehension skills before, during and after reading. Thus, the proponent came up with Think High! Strategy that would help students utilize higher-order thinking skills to improve their reading comprehension. By incorporating higher-order thinking skills, students would be able to transfer and make connections to reading as well as develop a more meaningful reading experience. The researcher’s intervention in this study will focus on the think-aloud process, modeling, coached practice, and metacognition activities namely visualizing, inferring, summarizing, making connections, predicting, and questioning. By learning the best comprehension strategies and how to best teach these strategies to the students, the researcher hopes to provide the solid foundation needed by students to succeed. B. Proposed Intervention “The goal of all readers should be to understand what they read” (Teele, 2004, p. 92). Research shows good readers are actively involved with the text, and they are aware of the processes they use to understand what they read. Teachers can help improve student comprehension through instruction of reading strategies. The objective of the study is to improve comprehension and metacognition, or “metacomprehension”, skills in reading of Grade 10 students of Cabarroguis National School of Arts and Trades as a result of the Think High! Strategy. The Think High! Strategy consists of the think-aloud process, modeling, coached practice, and metacognition activities namely predicting, making connections, visualizing, inferring, questioning, and summarizing. The metacognition activities in this strategy are shown by research to improve reading comprehension (Block & Israel, 2005). The Think High! Strategy is composed of the following activities: 1. Think-aloud Process: The Think-aloud Process is an activity that helps students learn to monitor their thinking as they read and improve their comprehension. It teaches students to re-read a sentence, read ahead to clarify, and/or look for context clues to make sense of what they read. It slows down the reading process and allows students to monitor their understanding of a text (J. Conner, 2004). The think-aloud strategy asks students to say out loud what they are thinking about when reading, solving math problems, or simply responding to questions posed by teachers or other students. Effective teachers think out loud on a regular basis to model this process for students. In this way, they demonstrate practical ways of approaching difficult problems while bringing to the surface the complex thinking processes that underlie reading comprehension, mathematical problem solving, and other cognitively demanding tasks. Thinking out loud is an excellent way to teach how to estimate the number of people in a crowd, revise a paper for a specific audience, predict the outcome of a scientific experiment, use a key to decipher a map, access prior knowledge before reading a new passage, monitor comprehension while reading a difficult textbook, and so on. Getting students into the habit of thinking out loud enriches classroom discourse and gives teachers an important assessment and diagnostic tool. By verbalizing their inner speech (silent dialogue) as they think their way through a problem, teachers model how expert thinkers solve problems. As teachers reflect on their learning processes, they discuss with students the problems learners face and how learners try to solve them. As students think out loud with teachers and with one another, they gradually internalize this dialogue; it becomes their inner speech, the means by which they direct their own behaviors and problem-solving processes (Tinzmann et al. 1990). Therefore, as students think out loud, they learn how to learn. They learn to think as authors, mathematicians, anthropologists, economists, historians, scientists, and artists. They develop into reflective, metacognitive, independent learners, an invaluable step in helping students understand that learning requires effort and often is difficult (Tinzmann et al. 1990). It lets students know that they are not alone in having to think their way through the problem-solving process. Think-alouds are used to model comprehension processes such as making predictions, creating images, linking information in text with prior knowledge, monitoring comprehension, and overcoming problems with word recognition or comprehension (Gunning 1996). 2. Modeling: By modeling for students the types of behaviors good readers are engaged in as they read, teachers are providing them with the opportunity to become aware of the many strategies and monitoring behaviors that good readers use (J. Conner, 2004). When good readers are reading relatively simple texts (according to their own reading abilities) these strategic behaviors are fairly automatic. Typically, good readers only become aware of their strategy use when they recognize that they are failing to comprehend. They then are cognizant of the need to reevaluate their strategy use in order to remedy their failure to comprehend. Furthermore, good readers are more likely to fall back on appropriate strategies when the need to change strategies becomes apparent. For most poor readers however, using a variety of strategies, using strategies appropriately, and monitoring strategies is not automatic. Therefore modeling strategic behaviors for struggling readers by thinking aloud for them while teachers read (and hence, allowing students to think along), is the first step in raising their awareness of what it means to be a strategic reader. An activity a teacher can do for modeling is to model thinking aloud for students with one of the texts. (Students should have a copy of this text in front of them) Have students keep of list of the different types of things you (the reader) are doing to help you better understand the text. When you're done, start a master list on a large piece of paper, writing down strategies students share with you – using their own words (J.D. Wilhelm, 2001). 3. Coached Practice: By engaging poor readers in coached practice in the thinkaloud method, teachers provide them with the opportunity and guidance they need to choose useful, appropriate strategies to enhance reading comprehension (R. Farr, 2004). We are encouraging them to think about why and when to use certain strategies and providing them with the tools they need to successfully monitor their own comprehension. With enough modeling and coached practice, students will be on their way to becoming independent users of strategies. Eventually they will become their own coaches. Ultimately, using the strategies will become more automatic for them, so that activities they have practiced will be happening automatically in their heads. 4. Metacognition Activities: a. Predicting: Good readers have a purpose for reading. One strategy for improving comprehension is predicting, which helps the reader set a purpose for their reading. This strategy also allows for more student interaction, which increases student interest and improves their understanding of the text (Oczkus, 2003). An important aspect in the prediction process is comparing the prediction to the outcome in the actual text. Without this aspect of the prediction process, it becomes meaningless to improving the student’s comprehension (Duke & Pearson, 2005). Some of the approaches for teaching predicting are teacher modeling, predicting throughout the text, with partners, with a graphic organizer, or using post-it notes throughout the text. Using the title, table of contents, pictures, and key words is one prediction strategy. Another key prediction strategy is to have students predict at specific points through the text, evaluate the prediction, and revise predictions if necessary (Teele, 2004). b. Making Connections: Research has shown that good readers use their experiences and knowledge to make predictions and formulate ideas as they read (Block & Israel, 2005). This strategy could be instructed by making comparisons, teacher modeling, using graphic organizers, think-pair-share, and teacher questioning. Students can make text-to-self connections through drawing, making a chart, or writing. Teachers might ask students if they have ever experienced anything like the events in the text. Students can make text-to-text connections through drawing, making a chart, writing, and graphic organizers. These text-to-text connections could be based upon how characters in the story relate to each other, or how story elements relate between stories. Students can make text-to-world connections through drawing, making a chart, writing, or graphic organizers. Text-to-world connections could be done by comparing characters in a story to characters today, or comparing the content of the text to the world today (Teele, 2004). c. Visualizing: Another strategy, good readers employ when comprehending text is visualization (Adler, 2001). Visualization requires the reader to construct an image of what is read. This image is stored in the reader’s memory as a representation of the reader’s interpretation of the text (National Reading Panel, 2000). Students can practice the visualization strategy by writing and drawing or drawing and writing. Teachers have students visualize settings, characters, and actions in a story. d. Inferring: Inferring refers to reading between the lines. Students need to use their own knowledge along with information from the text to draw their own conclusions (Serafini, 2004). Through inferring students will be able to draw conclusions, make predictions, identify underlying themes, use information to create meaning from text, and use pictures to create meaning (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000). Students can be taught to use illustrations, graphs, and titles from the text to make inferences. One method used for inferring is the double-entry notebook. Students can record ideas in one column and evidence from the text in the second column. e. Questioning: Questioning is a process readers use before, during, and after reading. The questioning process requires readers to ask questions of themselves to construct meaning, enhance understanding, find answers, solve problems, find information, and discover new information (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000). Teachers need to ask students questions during and after reading a passage. Students are asked to return to the text to find the answer to questions. The teachers model and the students practice to discriminate between questions that are literal, inferred, or based on the reader’s prior knowledge. Children are taught to generate questions during reading and evaluate questions as literal, inferential, or based on prior knowledge. By using the student generated questioning strategy, text segments are integrated and thereby improving reading comprehension (NRP, 2000). f. Summarizing: The process of summarization requires the reader to determine what is important when reading and to condense the information in the readers own words (Adler, 2001). Teacher modeling and student practice of the summarization process has proven effective for improving students’ ability to summarize text and to improve text comprehension. Students can be taught to identify main ideas, connect the main ideas, eliminate redundant and unnecessary information, and remember what they read with the summarization strategy. The Think High! Strategy will be used by the teacher researcher to improve reading comprehension and metacognition or “metacomprehension” skills of Grade 10 students, particularly of the experimental group, Grade 10 Courageous Class of Cabarroguis National School of Arts and Trades, for the school year 2016-2017 by modeling, using coached practice, employing the think-aloud process, group practice, partner practice, and independent use of the strategy. The researcher identified Grade 10-Courageous as the experimental group because it got the lowest mean in the reading comprehension pre-test and because they were administered the Metacomprehension Strategy Index. The control group would be Grade 10-Diligent because it ranked 4th among the Grade 10 classes in the conduct of the pre-test. The Think High! Strategy will be implemented during the period of January 2017 through March 2017, which covers the Fourth Quarter of the current school year, to the experimental group of Grade 10 learners of Cabarroguis National School of Arts and Trades by the researcher who is also their English teacher. The researcher will introduce one Think High! Strategy activity at a time. Following the teacher modeling, coached practice, and the think-aloud process, the researcher will have to make students practice the Think High! Strategy in a whole class setting. Researchers have also found that graphic organizers help students store information into long-term memory and give them a visual image of the story (Teele, 2004). The teacher researcher will introduce and model a graphic organizer for each metacomprehension activity. After each activity in the Think High! Strategy is modeled and practiced in a whole class setting, the students will practice in small groups and independently. The teacher researcher will also model the use of journaling to record the Think High! Strategy that will be used and how it can help give meaning to the text. Research shows students improve comprehension when they analyze which strategy they are using and how it helps bring meaning to the text. One tool to accomplish this task is journal writing (Block, Gambrell, & Presseley, 2002). Following the teacher modeling, the students will independently use the journal to record the comprehension strategy they will use, and how it can help give meaning to the text. II. RESEARCH QUESTIONS This research aims to improve reading comprehension and metacognition or “metacomprehension” skills of Grade 10 students of Cabarroguis National School of Arts and Trades as a result of Think High! Strategy which consists of teacher modeling, coached practice, the teacher think-aloud process, and students’ practice of the six metacognition activities namely predicting, making connections, visualizing, inferring, questioning, and summarizing. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What is the mean pre-test score of Grade 10-Courageous (experimental group) and Grade 10-Diligent (control group) in English Reading Comprehension before using the Think High! Strategy? 2. What is the mean pre-test score of Grade 10-Courageous (experimental group) and Grade 10-Diligent (control group) in English Reading Comprehension after using the Think High! Strategy? 3. Is there a significant difference in the mean pre-test score and mean post-test score of both groups when Think High Strategy is applied? 4. Is there a significant difference between the mean pre-test score and mean post-test score of each of the groups when Think High Strategy is applied? 5. What is the effect size of the Think High! Strategy on the respondents’ metacomprehension skills in reading? 6. How aware are students of the reading strategies they use before, during and after reading? III. METHODOLOGY A. Sources of Data The study will be conducted at Cabarroguis National School of Arts and Trades. Two groups will be used for the study— control and experimental groups. Grade 10Diligent class will be the control group who will not receive the proposed intervention and will be used as a benchmark to measure how the experimental group reacts to the intervention. The Grade 10-Courageous class will be the experimental group which will receive the Think High! Strategy proposed intervention as it recorded the lowest mean score in the reading comprehension pre-test in English 10. The researcher will use the universal technique, taking all learners of both experimental and control groups. G10-Courageous, which is the experimental group, has a total population of 30 while G10-Diligent, the control group, has a total population of 30 students. The total respondents of the study consist of 60 learners. B. Data Gathering Methods The researcher will follow the protocols set in the Basic Education Research Fund policy guidelines in conducting an action research. After gaining approval to conduct her study, the researcher will then administer the pre-test in English Reading Comprehension to the two groups. The pre-test is taken from the Fourth Quarter pretest in the English 10 Learners’ Materials used by the Department of Education. After recording the scores of the students in the pre-test, she will implement the Think High! Strategy to improve comprehension and metacognition, or “metacomprehension” skills in reading of Grade 10 students of Cabarroguis National School of Arts and Trades. The Think High! Strategy consists of the think-aloud process, modeling, coached practice, and metacognition activities namely predicting, making connections, visualizing, inferring, questioning, and summarizing. After implementing the proposed intervention, the researcher will administer a post-test which is similar to the pre-test to both the control and experimental groups. The pre-test mean scores of the respondents will be compared against their post-test mean scores to determine the significant difference of the Think High! Strategy in improving reading comprehension in English 10. The data to be gathered will be evaluated using the electronic statistical package SPSS 21, student version. Furthermore, the researcher plans to measure each student’s awareness of the strategies used in the reading process by using the Metacomprehension Strategy Index or MSI adapted from M.C. Schmitt before and after the implementation of the Think High! Strategy. The MSI contains 25 questions divided into three parts (before, during, and after reading) that asked about the strategies students used to help them better understand a story. C. ETHICAL ISSUES In conducting this proposed study, the researcher takes into consideration issues that have occurred and may arise. Prior to the researcher’s formulation of a proposed solution, she first conducted a pre-test which is a diagnostic assessment required in her English class for the Fourth Quarter. This is to determine how far the students are performing in terms of English proficiency in the language and multiliteracies curriculum. Upon noticing that the Grade 10 classes got low mean scores in their reading comprehension, she asked permission from the Related Subjects Department Head who is in-charge of the English Department to conduct a survey using the Metacomprehension Strategy Index. She then informed the parents and students of Grade 10-Courageous about the MSI survey and what the survey aims to accomplish. After a written agreement (see appendix A) safeguarding the confidentiality of the students’ responses and the proper handling of results and data of the study were signed by both respondents and parents, the researcher conducted the MSI survey. From the survey, the researcher prepared a proposal to address the low reading comprehension and metacognition skills of Grade 10 students. The researcher then submitted the said proposal to the Office of the School Head asking for permission to conduct the study to Grade 10-Courageous students, which aims to improve reading comprehension and metacognition or “metacomprehension” skills of the respondents by using the Think High! Strategy. .After gaining the approval of the school head, she then presented this action research proposal to the School Basic Education Research Committee for perusal, evaluation, and constructive criticism. With guidance from the School and Division Research Committees, she will then start the implementation of the study. D. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS 1. The study will make use of descriptive-experimental research design and descriptive-quantitative design. 2. This action research will employ the following statistical tools: mean, standard deviation, independent samples t-test, paired samples t- test and Eta- squared for the effect. 3. The researcher will use Mean and Standard Deviation to describe the pre-test and post-test scores of both control and experimental groups before and after using the proposed intervention. 4. The researcher will use Independent Samples t-test to compare the mean scores of the control and experimental groups in order to determine whether there is statistical evidence that the experimental groups’ mean scores are significantly different. 5. The researcher will also use Paired Samples t-test to determine whether the mean of the differences between two-paired samples differs from 0 or a target value. The paired samples t-test will be computed to get the significant difference between the mean pre-test and mean post-test scores of each two groups when Think High! Strategy is applied. 6. The researcher will analyze data through the help of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 21), student version. 7. Eta squared will be interpreted using Cohen’s guidelines: 0.20 – small effect 0.50 – moderate effect 0.80 and above – large effect 8. The researcher will also determine the awareness of the respondents about the reading strategies after using the Think High! Strategy through the Metacomprehension Strategy Index. The first MSI survey is conducted before using the proposed Think High! Strategy. The results of this survey will then be compared against the second MSI survey which will be given after the conduct of the Think High! Strategy. The researcher will use frequency and mean to determine how many respondents are using reading strategies before, during and after reading. IV. Work Plan and Timelines Strategies Improving metacognition and reading comprehension or “metacomprehensio n” skills of Grade 10-Courageous Learners of Cabarroguis National School of Arts and Trades Programs Think High! Strategy in Reading Activities Tasks Conduct diagnostic -Teacher researcher assessment to administers pre-test in Grade 10 students English Reading Comprehension to Grade 10 classes and scored tests Administer the Metacomprehension Survey Index (MSI) to the experimental group - Identify Grade 10 learners who got low mean scores in the pre-test - Conduct of the Metacomprehension Strategy Index survey to assess the level of awareness of students in reading comprehension strategies Evaluation of action -Follow set guidelines research proposal in writing an action by the school head research proposal Resources Cost Estimates Physical Material Financial Proponent, responders, school head, department heads Testing materials of the pre-test for the Fourth Quarter Lessons in English 10: -bond paper -HP cartridge ink Proponent, responders, school head, department heads Implementati on Date P2,915 December 9, 2016 P1,595 December 1213, 2016 P3,405 2nd and 3rd week of MSI survey questionnaires Proponent, responders, school head, and School Basic based on BERF Education Research Guidelines/Policies Fund Committee -Submit action research proposal to the school head and School Basic Education Research Committee for perusal and evaluation - Undergo draft revisions and editing of action research proposal to ensure that proposed strategy will accommodate needs of learners Implementation of -Daily use of the Think High! Strategy Think High! Strategy in improving to improve metacomprehension metacomprehension skills of Grade 10 skills of experimental students in reading group -Use of think-aloud process, modeling, coached practice and metacognition activities during English classes in the experimental group -Use of graphic organizers & journalrecording to track students’ practice of department heads -BERF December, 2016 -bond paper -HP cartridge ink -folder (long) -paper fastener -puncher -CD Proponent, responders, school head, department heads -graphic organizers -bond paper (long) -HP cartridge ink -activity sheets -stapler #35 -staple wire -ballpen -journal notebook P14,223 1st week of January 2017 to 2nd week of March 2017 metacognition activities - Monitor the use of the Think High! Strategy and students’ responses through a checklist Conduct of the post- - The teacher test on reading administers the postcomprehension in test on reading English 10 to the comprehension respondents similar to the structure of the pretest -The teacher determines whether there are significant changes in the posttest scores of the respondents after using the Think High! Strategy using electronic means (SPSS v.21) Administer the Conduct of the Metacomprehension Metacomprehension Strategy Index Strategy Index survey (MSI) Survey to the to assess the level of experimental group awareness of students in reading comprehension strategies after using Think High! Strategy -Comparison of MSI survey conducted Proponent, responders, school head, department heads P120 3rd week of March 2017 P240 3rd week of March 2017 Post-test testing materials (reproduction/xer ox copies) Proponent, responders, school head, department heads MSI survey questionnaires (reproduction/xer oxcopies) Presentation and Analysis of Results Completion & Submission of Action Research to the School & Division Basic Education Research Committee Results dissemination and utilization after the implementation of the Think High! Strategy -Teacher completes the analysis of data and presents this to the School Basic Education Research Committee for verification -The School Basic Education Research Committee helps the researcher finalize the results of the study -The action research undergoes revisions - The teacher, with the help of the School Basic Education Research Committee, forms action research’s conclusion and recommendation -The teacher finalizes action research for submission Dissemination of action research findings through the proponent, school head, Language Department head, Proponent, school head, department heads P599 April 2017 -bond paper -HP cartridge ink -binding expenses -CD P3,655 FebruaryMarch 2017 Proponent, school head, department heads, BERF Committee P1625 April-May 2017 -bond paper -folder (A4) -paper fastener -CD teachers and the School & Division BERF Committees TOTAL -bond paper -HP cartridge ink -CD P28,377 V. Cost Estimates Items/ Particulars Conduct diagnostic Testing materials: assessment to Grade 10 -bond paper students -HP cartridge ink Activities Number Cost per Unit Total Cost 2 1 reams (long) set (black & colored) P180 P2,555 P360 P2,555 P2,915 1 1 ream (short) set (black) P165 P1,430 2 1 20 1 1 3 reams (A4) set pcs box pc pcs P180 P2,555 P8 P35 P250 P15 reproduction (xerox) copies -reams P1.00 P165 P1,430 P1,595 P360 P2,555 P160 P35 P250 P45___ P3,405 P9,900 P180 P360 P1,125 P1.00 P1,125 P1,650 -P350 -P38 -P96 -P12 P350 P190 P288 P360__ P14,223 Administering of Metacomprehension Strategy Index Survey Testing materials: -bond paper -HP cartridge ink Making of action research proposal drafts -bond paper -HP cartridge ink -folder (long) -paper fastener -puncher -CD Daily use of graphic organizers and activity sheets to be utilized for the Think High! Strategy teaching-learning sessions (55 days) -graphic organizers 9,900 -bond paper (long) -HP cartridge ink -activity sheets 2 -stapler #35 -staple wire -ballpen -journal notebook Unit 1 1650 1 5 3 30 -set (colored/black) reproduction (xerox) copies -pc -boxes -boxes -pcs Administering post-test on reading comprehension in English 10 to respondents Administering of Metacomprehension Strategy Index Survey Making and presentation of drafts on presentation and analysis -Testing materials -bond paper -folder (A4) -paper fastener -CD Making of final paper (action research) for completion & submission -bond paper -HP cartridge ink -binding expenses -CD Dissemination of action research findings -Testing materials -bond paper -HP cartridge ink -CD 120 reproduction (xerox) copies P1.00 240 reproduction (xerox) copies P1.00 2 8 1 4 reams (A4) pcs box pcs P180 P8 P35 P35 1 1 4 reams (A4) set (black/colored) sets P180 P2,555 P150 4 pcs P35 1 1 4 reams (A4) set (black) pcs P180 P1125 P35 TOTAL P120 P240 P360 P64 P35 P140 _ P599 P360 P2,555 P600 P140 _ P3,655 P360 P1,125 P140 _ P1,625 P28,377 VI. Action Plan Strategies Improving metacognition and reading comprehension or “metacomprehension” skills of Grade 10- Programs Think High! Strategy in Reading Activities Results Dissemination Tasks Physical Disseminate Proponent, the result of Teachers, the action School research Heads, Department Resources Materials Financial bond P1625 paper HP cartridge ink Implementation Date April-May 2017 Courageous Learners of Cabarroguis National School of Arts and Trades heads, BERF -CD Committee LIST OF REFERENCES Adler, C. R. (Ed.). (2001). Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read. Jessup, MD: ED Pubs, 47-56. Retrieved from http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/reading_first1text.html. Adock, D. (2002). Test Ready Reading Longer Passages. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates, Inc. Barr, R., Sullivan, D., Blachowicz, C., & Buhle, R. (2004). The Illinois Snapshot of Early Literacy. Retrieved from, http://www.isbe.net/ils/ela/reading/html/ isel.htm Block, C., Gambrell, L., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2002). Improving Comprehension Instruction Rethinking Research, Theory, and Classroom Practice. San Francisco, JosseyBass. Block, C., & Israel, S. (2005). Reading First and Beyond: The Complete Guide for Teachers and Literacy Coaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., Joshi, R.M. (2007). Instruction of Metacognitive Strategies Enhances Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary Achievement of Third-Grade Students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), pp. 70-77. Conner, J. (2004). Using Think-Alouds to Improve Reading Comprehension. Davey, B. (1983). Think-aloud: Modeling the Cognitive Processes of Reading Comprehension. Journal of Reading, 27(1), 44-47. Department of Education (2011). K to 12 English Curriculum Guide. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (n.d.). Effective Practices for Developing Reading Comprehension. Retrieved from, http://www.ctap4.org/ infolit/trainers/comprehe_strategies.pdf Gold, J., & Gibson, A. (2001). Reading Aloud to Build Comprehension. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/using-think-alouds-improve-reading-comprehension Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that Work Teaching Comprehension to Enhance Understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. State Board of Education. (2005). State District Report Card. Retrieved from, http://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getReport.aspx?year =2005&code Interactive State Report Card. (2005). Interactive State School Report Card. Retrieved from, http://iirc.niu.edu/School.aspx?schoolID= 480720680022002&year=2005 National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The nation’s report card state reading 2005. Retrieved from, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/ stt2005/2006425IL4.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). Listening to children read aloud: Oral fluency, (1) 1, 1-5. National Reading Panel. (n.d.). Comprehension III teacher preparation and comprehension strategies instruction. (Chap. 4). Retrieved from, http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrplch4-111.pdf Oczkus, L. D. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work strategies for improving reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Olshavsky, J. E. (1977). Reading as problem-solving: An Investigation of Strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 12(4), 654-674. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning (2012) Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A Questionnaire to Measure Children’s Awareness of Strategic Reading Processes. The Reading Teacher, 43 (7), 454-461. School Improvement Plan. (2001).[Site A Handout] Serafini, F. (2004). Lessons in Comprehension Explicit Instruction in the Reading Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Teele, S. (2004). Overcoming Barricades to Reading a Multiple Intelligences Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Wilhelm, J. D. (2001). Improving Comprehension with Think-Aloud Strategies. New York: Scholastic Inc.
