1

Chapter 3

RESULTS

This chapter presents the results of the study. They were presented based on

the problems raised in the previous chapter. The discussions are presented both in

textual and tabular forms.

Level of the Pretest Scores of the Control and Experimental Groups

Table 1: The level of pre-test scores of control and experimental groups before the
intervention.
Indicator Control Experimental
Mean Description Mean Description
Oral 33.62 Frustration 47.07 Instructional
Comprehension 28.57 Frustration 31.43 Frustration

Table 1 showed the data on the level of pre-test scores of the control group. It

could be gleaned that the mean of the oral reading of the control group was 33.62

with a descriptive equivalent of frustration, while the mean of the experimental group

was 47.07 with a descriptive equivalent of Instructional. The table showed also the

data on the level of the pretest reading comprehension of the control and

experimental group. It could be gleaned that the mean of the reading comprehension

of the control group is 28.57 with the descriptive equivalent of frustration. On the

other hand, the mean of the reading comprehension of the experimental group is

31.43 with the descriptive equivalent of frustration.

 2

Level of the Posttest Scores of the Control and Experimental Groups

Table 2: The level of posttest score of the control group and the experimental group
after the Intervention.

Indicator Control Experimental

Mean Description Mean Description
Oral 48.28 Instructional 72.24 Independent

Comprehension 44.29 Instructional 51.43 Instructional

Table 2 showed the data on the level of posttest scores of the control group

and the experimental group. It could be gleaned that the mean of the oral reading of

the control group is 48.28 with a descriptive equivalent of Instructional and the mean

of the experimental group was 72.24 with a descriptive equivalent of Independent.

The table showed also the data on the level of reading comprehension of the control

and experimental group. It could be gleaned that the mean of the reading

comprehension of the control group is 44.29 with the descriptive equivalent of

Instructional. On the other hand, the mean of the reading comprehension of the

experimental group is 51.43 with the descriptive equivalent of Instructional.

Significant difference Between the Pre-test and Posttest Scores of the Control
Group and Experimental group

Table 3: data on significant difference between the pre-test and post-test of the
control group and the experimental group

Indicator Control Experimental

T-value P-value T-value P-value
Oral reading -5.905 .0002** -3.753 .0045**

Comprehension -3.973 .0032** -3.772 .0044**

** Significant at ɑ=0.05
 3

Table 3 showed the data on significant difference between the pre-test and

post-test of the control group and the experimental group. It could be gleaned that

the t-value of the control group in oral reading both pre-test and post-test is -5.905

and respectively with p-value of .002** which is less than the level of significance at

0.05. Thus, there is significant difference between the pretest and posttest of the oral

reading of the control group. The t-value of the experimental group in oral reading in

both pre-test and post-test were -3.753 with p-value of .0045** which is less than the

level of significance at 0.05. Thus, there is significant difference between the pretest

and posttest of the experimental group in oral reading. In the same manner the data

show also the significant difference between pre-test and posttest of comprehension

level of control and experimental groups. The t-value of the control group in

comprehension in both pretest and posttest is -3.973 and respectively with p-value of

.0032** which is less than the level of significance at 0.05, thus there is significant

difference between the pre-test and posttest of control group in comprehension level.

The t-value of the experimental group in comprehension in both pretest and posttest

is -3.772 and respectively with p-value of .0044 which is less than the level of

significance at 0.05, thus there is a significant difference between the pretest and

posttest of the experimental group in comprehension level.

Level of the Mean Gain Scores of the Control and Experimental Group

Table 4: data on the main gain scores of the control and the experimental groups.

Indicator Control Experimental

Mean Description Mean Description
Oral 8.70 very low 14.90 low

Comprehension 1.10 very low 1.40 very low

 4

Table 4 showed the data of the mean gain scores of the control group and the

experimental group. It could be gleaned that the mean gain score of the control

group in oral reading was 8.70 with a descriptive equivalent of very low and the

mean gain score of the experimental group in oral reading was 14.90 with a

descriptive equivalent of low. In the same manner, It could be gleaned also that the

mean gain score of the control group in comprehension level is 1.10 with a

description equivalent of very low and the main gain score of the experimental group

in comprehension level is 1.40 with a description equivalent of very low.

Significant Difference of the Mean Gain Scores of the Control and

Experimental Group

Table 5: data showed no significant difference between the main gain scores of the
control and experimental groups.

Indicator Grade 4
t-value p-value
Oral reading -1.507 .1661*
Comprehension -0.896 .3938*
**: Significant at ɑ=0.05 *: Not significant at ɑ=0.05

Table 5 showed that there is no significant difference of the main gain scores

of control group and experimental groups in oral reading and comprehension. It

could be glean that the t –value of the main gain scores of the control and

experimental groups in oral reading is -1.507 and respectively with p-value of .1661*

which is more than the level of significance at 0.05. Thus, there is no significant

difference between the Mean Gain Scores of the control group and the experimental

groups in oral reading. In the same manner, the t-value of the main gain scores of

control and experimental groups in comprehension is -0.896 with p-value of .3938*

which was more than the level of significance at 0.05. Thus, there is no significant

difference between the Mean Gain Score of the control group and the experimental

group in comprehension.
 5

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the discussions, conclusions and recommendations

derived from the results of the study.

Level of the Pretest Scores of the Control and Experimental Groups

The level of the pre-test performance of the control was frustration and

experimental group was instructional in oral reading. The two groups posted different

mean in oral reading but has the same level of comprehension which is frustration.

Thus, based in the Phil-IRI as the inventory tool that assist in determining the reading

strengths and weaknesses of an individual learners. This means that even though

they have different level in oral reading but still they have the same level of

comprehension, both group are categorize in frustration level of learners. They had

same level of understanding in dealing with the program as shown in table 1 in

chapter 3. Thus, they were comparable.

The result agrees with the idea of JD Cooper, et al,(2006) the goal of every

elementary classroom teacher is to ensure that all students become the best reader

possible. Teachers in grade three and above often find themselves struggling to find

ways to help students who are not making progress in becoming proficient readers.

For many years, it was common practice to send the student reading below level to

some form of remedial reading instruction. However, evidence that has accumulated

over the last several decades has shown that most remedial programs have not

been effective in helping below-level readers achieve success. Student who appear

on those rosters year after year. Therefore, a different concept of instruction has

been developing in more recent years; this concept is known as intervention.

 6

Level of the Posttest Scores of the Control and Experimental Groups

The level of posttest scores of the control group was instructional and the

experimental group was independent. The highest mean was posted to the group of

pupils belong to the experimental group who were under treatment of having

Saturday classes with the usual intervention in I CARE reading program of the

school and the lowest mean was to the group of pupils belong to the control group

who were not exposed to the said treatment which is Saturday class but still undergo

the usual intervention in I CARE program. This means that the treatment given to the

pupils contributed a lot to achieve better learning in decoding words and enhances

learners’ comprehension level among pupils as shown in the table 2 in chapter 3.

This agrees with the finding of Hiebert & Taylor, (1994) and cited by Cooper ,

et.al, (2015) intervention is one that hinders or alters the action reading failure by

preventing it from occurring or stopping it if it has already started. Student who

participate in intervention program attain the goal of reading. The I CARE reading

program is implemented with Saturday Classes, positively affect the reading skills of

Experimental group of grade 4 pupils in Palma Gil Elementary School

Level of Significant difference between the Pre-test and Post-test

of the Control and Experimental groups

The level of difference between the pre-test and post-test score of the

control group and experimental group were both increasing, which means that there

was a significant difference on their pretest and posttest result.

The highest increase of mean was posted to the group of pupils belong to the

experimental group who were under treatment of having Saturday class and the

lowest increase of mean was to the group of pupils belong to the control group who
 7

were not exposed to the said treatment but still under the I CARE program of the

school. This means that the treatment given to both group of learners was effective

but experimental group with treatment of having Saturday class shows more growth

based on the result shown at the table3 in chapter 3.

This is supported by (Coyne, Zipoli, & Ruby, 2006) that positive result have

been shown by many studies on various reading interventions in the early

elementary level. A lot of support for intervention can be found in looking through

several peer-reviewed journal. No intervention in the studies show a negative impact

on students, In fact many interventions show a positive effect on all types of

students, especially those who are struggling readers. “It is easier to prevent reading

difficulties in early grades before they emerge than to try and remediate them after

they become entrenched and intractable”.

Level of the Mean Gain Scores of the Control and Experimental Group

The mean gain score between the control group and the experimental group

in oral reading were showed little improvement with equivalent description of very

low and low. The comprehension of control and experimental group also showed

almost the same result of improvement with the equivalent description of very low.

Though the result showed little improvement, but still it shows difference thus,

it means that both intervention used in control and experimental groups are still

effective in enhancing the reading skills of learners.

According to Bastug,(2016) Poor reading achievement of children in

elementary schools has been one of the major concerns in education. A reading

intervention was designed that targeted multiple areas of reading and aimed to

improve reading skills through the use of multiple strategies. This intervention is
 8

child- centered and includes visual aids, talking, dictating, reading and writing

stages.

Significant Difference of the Mean Gain Scores of the Control and

Experimental Group
There was no significant difference between the mean gain score of the

control group and the experimental group. It means that the improvement of the

experimental group is the same with the improvement of the control group. This

implies that both intervention are effective in enhancing the reading skills of learners,

however conducting Saturday class is not very necessary.

In the classroom, teaching reading is a way transferring knowledge from

teacher to students by using a certain technique of strategy and a certain material in

order to master reading itself. Teaching is a complex process it doesn’t only give the

information from the teacher to the students. Reading is one of ways to make the

students understanding in teaching – learning process. According to Harmer (2007)

teaching is not an easy job, but it is a necessary one and can be very rewarding

when we see our student’s progress and know that we have helped to make it

happen. It is true that some students can be difficult and stressful at times, but it is

also worth remembering that at its best teaching can also be extremely enjoyable.
 9

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of the study the following conclusions were drawn.

1. The two groups of respondents, the experimental and the control group had
equal reading abilities before the intervention based in Phil-IRI.
2. The experimental group and control group manifest improvement in their
Reading abilities, therefore both interventions are effective.
3. There was a significant difference between the pretest and post test scores of
the experimental group. This means Saturday class is an effective
intervention.
4. There was a significant difference between the pretest and post test scores of
the control group. This means that usual intervention utilized by the I CARE
program is also effective.
5. The mean gain score of control with a description of very low and the
experimental group with a description of low level of improvement.
6. There was no significant difference of mean gain score of experimental group
and control group. This can be further concluded that both intervention are
effective in enhancing the reading skills of learners, however the results of
both mean gain scores of the two groups had no significant difference. It
means that Saturday class is not very necessary to conduct since usual
intervention of I CARE reading program alone is effective.
7. The mean gain scores of both experimental and control group was not
significant, which signifies that there is no significant difference between the
two groups. Therefore the improvement of the group were the same.
 10

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the aforementioned findings and conclusions of this study, the

following recommendations were given.

1. Teachers should adopt the I CARE in improving the reading abilities of the

pupils. However extending it to Saturday class is not necessary.

2. School Head should support the I CARE program by providing appropriate

equipment’s and conducting seminar workshop in line with the utilization of I

CARE Program.

3. Strengthen the functionality of Reading Corner and the School Reading

Center.

4. A similar study may be conducted covering a bigger number of respondents in

another venue.

Source: Cabajar (2018)

11