DO GOOD READERS MAKE GOOD
READING TEACHERS?
A Marikina City Division - Wide Project for the
Improvement of Teaching Reading
BACKGROUND

The 2010 – 2011 National Achievement Test
(NAT) Results show the following data:
1. For Grade 3, there is an overall decrease
of 6.47 in the mean averages in all six
subject tested
English, Reading – 9.18
Math
8.86
Science
8.71
English,Grammar 6.97
Filipino,Grammar 4.59
Filipino,Reading 1.02

2. For Grade 6, there are increases in the mean
averages for 3 subjects and decreases for 2
subjects; however, there is overall increase 0f
0.44.
Increases: Filipino - 6.86
Math
7.87
Hekasi
5.49
Decreases:
English
Science
3.53
3.30

3. For Second Year High School, there is in
overall increase of 2.82 in the mean average.
Increases in AP - 13.97
Math 2.64
Filipino 0.85
Decreases in Science - 3.67
English 1.24
CONCLUSIONS


1. Except for Filipino in the Elementary Grades
and all subjects in Second Year High School, all
mean averages cluster around 30s and 40s.
If there are 100 items in the NAT, the results
suggest that very few students reach 50 or
higher. If this is so, the scores do not auger well
for the whole Division.
2. From the detailed report of mean scores per
subject, we can see that the 2nd Yr. Science High
School students made a dramatic jump from
52.67 to 74.01 mean average in Araling
Panlipunan. Altho the Science High School is
part of the Division, its students undergo
selective admission and therefore the big increase
could be considered atypical of 2nd year students
in general.
 Can we attribute the increase of the mean
average of the Second Year in Araling
Panlipunan?


3. There is a general decline in the performance
of students at the three levels in English and
Science.
Have these results been compared to previous
NAT Results to identify a pattern or trend? If
there is a pattern, shouldn’t this be worth looking
into by all the school officials and teachers of the
Division ?
HYPOTHESIZING

What could be the causes of the problems we
have unearthed?
Students
-Not serious enough in studying?
-No time for studying; more time spent for
computer games?
Teachers
- Inadequate preparation?
- Insufficient in-service training?
- Lack of commitment to their job?
- Too many other demands of their job?
Materials
- Poorly written materials?
- Lack of books?
- Library not functional?
DepEd
- Overcrowded classrooms?
- Irrelevant curriculum?
- Very low teachers’ compensation ?
- Test items not consistent with curriculum?
SOLUTIONS?





Proposed solutions should be:
addressing the problem(s) directly;
be within our available resources – time,
materials, manpower;
affordable and
doable.
PROJECT PROPOSAL



We need to have a solution that is more
sustainable - NOT just a knee –jerk answer to
the current problem;
We need to standardize the training in the whole
division- meaning a group will train all the
teachers in a school directly;
We need to have just one group a DIVISION
READING TEAM which will be responsible for
the upgrading of the teaching of reading.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
READING TEAM
DIVISION
1.Preparation of a Division Reading Program
which will be the road map in teaching reading in
the whole division of Marikina City;
2. Training teachers by schools for the proper
implementation of the Division Reading Program
3. Monitoring the implementation of the Reading
Program in their everyday work;
4. Establishing and maintaining a culture of
reading in the division
STEPS IN IMPLEMENTING THE
PROPOSAL

1. Preparation of the Project Proposal
Title: Do Good Readers Make Good Reading
Teachers?
Goals:
-To raise the performance level of the
Marikina City students in the National
Achievement Test from hereon;
-To encourage teachers and students to read
as a lifelong habit.
Objectives:

- To organize a Division Reading Team who shall
take charge of developing and implementing the
division reading team;

- To help advance the teachers’ professional skills in
teaching reading;

- To establish and maintain a reading culture in the
Division of Marikina City.

Methodology
- Preparing data gathering instruments:
A test for Teacher as Reader
A test for Reader as Teacher
An Observation Guide
-
Administering the test, Teacher as
Reader, as basis for choosing the members
of the Division Reading Team
-
Intensive training of the members of the
Division Reading Team
- Monitoring the teaching of the Team Members
- Administering the Test, Reader as Teacher to
members of the Team
- Getting the coefficient correlation of the scores of
two tests
- Analyzing the data
- Formulating conclusions and recommendations
- Reporting the results of the research




2. Orientation of Division Officials and other
stakeholders
3. Administration of the test, Teacher as Reader
4. Choosing the Members of the Division
Reading Team
5. Intensive Training the Members of the Team



6. Monitoring Team to observe the Division
Reading Team in action (Announced
Observation)
7. Monitoring Team to observe the Division
Reading Team in action (unannounced visit)
8. Administration of the test, Reader as Teacher

9. Establishing the coefficient correlation between the

10. Analyzing data.

11. Making conclusions and recommendations and
implications.

12. Reporting the results of the research
mean scores in the First Test and those in the second test.
TIMETABLE

September
- Preparation of proposal;
- Looking for standardized test for Teacher as Reader
- Writing test items for Reader as Teacher
October
- Administration of the test to all teachers
- Checking and scoring
` - Choosing members of the Division Reading Team

November

- Observation of classes of the members of the Team
December
- Administration of the test, Reader as Teacher
- Analysis of data
- Writing out conclusions and recommendations and
implications
- Reporting the results
THANK YOU SO MUCH AND MAY THE
ALMIGHTY BE WITH US AS WE VENTURE
ON THIS PROJECT!
