REAL PROGRAM

(READING ENHANCEMENT ASSISTANCE TO LITERACY)

KEY CUSTOMERS: GRADE 9-ARIES

KEY PROCESS: READING IMPROVEMENT and LITERACY OF GRADE 9

STUDENTS
KEY INDICATOR: PERFORMANCE LEVEL
 STAGE 1

ASSESS
 The assess steps

Talk with Identify Priority

Get Walk the
your Improvement
Organized Process
customers Areas

 Brief Background  SIPOC  Focused Problem

 Project Selection  VOC  Deployment Statement
 Broad Problem  Affinity Diagram Chart with Storm  Data Collection
Statement Clouds  Line Chart
STEP 1

Get Organized
 C
LORELA A. AGNOTE DANIEL C. BORIDOR
I Process Observer
Principal
Team Leader

SIMEON TYCANGCO
MEMORIAL HIGH
T
SCHOOL
ELOISA M. VALENCIA
E RAQUEL M. LORENZANA
Documentation
Scribe

A
M
ALEXANDER O. MIRANO MANUELA B. LOBARBIO
Communication Member
School CI Team Charter
PROJECT TITLE REAL Program: Reading PROJECT CODE
Activity OUTPUT
TARGET
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Dissemination Present CI Full April
Enhancement Assistance to DATE
Literacy
PROJECT SCHEDULE Project slides 19
Oct.22-
during CI Presentat and
Assess 1. Get organized. CI CHARTER 24,2018                         Symposium ion 20,
Simeon Tycangco Memorial slides, 2018
SCHOOL NAME High School
briefer,
SCHOOL HEAD LORELA A. AGNOTE   fliers
2. Talk with AFFINITY Oct. 25-
TEAM   customers. DIAGRAM 26,2018                         tarpulin                        
COMPOSITION NAME ROLE SIPOC
Oct.29 -
  DANIEL C. BORIDOR Team Leader Nov.9,20
    3. Walk the process 18                        
RAQUEL M. LORENZANA Scribe
4. Identify Focused Prepared by:
  RAQUEL M. LORENZANA Communications Improvement Areas Problem
  ELOISA M. VALENCIA Documentation Statement
LORELA A. AGNOTE DANIEL C. BORIDOR
  ALEXANDER O. MIRANO Communications Nov.12 -
  16,2018                        
Process Observer/Principal Team Leader
  LORELA A. AGNOTE Principal/ Process Observer

MANUELA
  LOBARBIO   Other Members ELOISA M.
RAQUEL M. LORENZANA VALENCIA ELOISA
ALEXANDER O. MIRANO
M. VALENCIA
  MAY . CLARO     5. Do Root Cause WHY-WHY Nov.19-
  MICHAEL S. CLAVEL  
Analyze Analysis DIAGRAM 23,2018                         Scribe Documentation Documentation
Communication
VM, MP and PS
  MARIBEN D. BERJA Coach 6. Develop Nov.26,2
  solutions 018                        
KEY CUSTOMERS Grade 7 Students
Solution Ideas ALEXANDER O. MIRANO MANUELA B. LOBARBIO
KEY PROCESS Reading Communication Member
7. Finalize Dec.3 -
KPI being   Improvement Plans 7,2018                        
addressed Improving Literacy rate (100% of Grade 7 students will become readers) 8. Pilot Solution
OBJECTIVES 1. Attain 100% literacy rate.
  2. Enhance comprehension level. Finalized Dec.10-
Act Solution Ideas 21,2018                         Reviewed by:
  3. Increase promotion rate. 9. Roll Out Solution Jan to
Reading is one of the important factor in student's learing not only in language
MARIBEN D. BERJA,
BRIEF Mar 2018
BACKGROUND subjects bu to all subject areas, therefore if the tudents doesn't know how to read the Ph. D
teaching and learning process will be affected. Our school aims to promote 100% of Solution Ideas ESP - Araling
the students in the next grade level for the next school year. and
Panlipunan
  documention                        
10. Check Progress Dec to
The program considers different strategies in reading activities sessions such as March
reading performance of the grade 7 students was computed accordig to PHILIRI 2018
result. Out of 182 students only 66 or 36.26% able to get/ pass the test. Approved by:
Status report
on the
attainment of SUSAN S. COLLANO
REGULAR MEETING Wednesday 4:00 - 5:30 pm expected
SCHEDULE   output                         Assistant Schools Division Superintendent
 SCHOOL PROFILE

This School Profile shown actual list of students who took the Group Screening Test(GST) last
August 2018 and get the reading profile and comprehension of students to identify which they will
be categorize as INDEPENDENT, INSTRUCTIONAL and FRUSTRATION. This profile were exhibit as
Data 1Hawk), Data2 (Eagle), Data3 (Falcon)and Data 4(Phoenix) representing the four sections of
STMHS.
• Data 1(Hawk) are composed of 45 students and 45.45% were identified
under frustration based from their Oral Reading Profile while 54.54%
Instructional and 2.27% Independent while in their Comprehension Profile
51.11% are Independent, 13.33 % Instructional and 35.55% are Frustration .

Word Reading
Reading Rate Comprehension Comprehension Combined Oral Reading
Miscues Score (Words Score Profile Score Profile
FEMALE
1. Acon Alyn Delos Santos 1 99 133 80 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
2. Acuesta, Ella Resari 15 72 50 55 FRUSTRATION 64 Frustration
3. Angeles, Angela Maala 2 98 148 70 INSTRUCTIONAL 84 Frustration
4. Angeles, Marjorie Gata 3 96 110 76 INSTRUCTIONAL 86 Frustration
5. Año, Alexis Magadia 25 70 43 60 FRUSTRATION 65 Frustration
6. Benepayo, Vheyan Correa 3 96 115 84 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
7. Cano, Angeline 18 79 50 55 FRUSTRATION 67 Frustration
8. Dimarucot, Jayka Arby Lozano 4 95 129 85 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
9. Endaya,Lean Jane Sibulo 4 95 93 84 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
10. Enriquez, Bruxciel 4 95 153 86 INDEPENDENT 91 Instructional
11. Escobido, Ericka Jane 18 79 57 40 FRUSTRATION 60 Frustration
12. Estabaya, Almira Teñoso 4 95 123 85 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
13. Ferrer, Alyzza Vargas 7 92 115 76 INSTRUCTIONAL 84 Frustration
14. Joven, Derelyn Roldan 4 95 144 84 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
15. Joven, Trecia May 4 95 117 88 INDEPENDENT 92 Instructional
16. Loncop. April May Lita 10 88 57 93 FRUSTRATION 91 Instructional
17. Orbania, Luisa Consulta 4 95 120 86 INDEPENDENT 91 Instructional
18. Padre, Aira Habulin 9 89 107 93 FRUSTRATION 91 Instructional
19. Tenerife,Stephanie O. 18 79 115 45 FRUSTRATION 62 Frustration
MALE
1. Abanto, Leopoldo Lennon E. 15 75 80 76.00 INSTRUCTIONAL 76 Frustration
2. Baladad, Larry M. 13 85 80 80.00 INDEPENDENT 83 Frustration
3. Borabo, John Mark G. 17 84 84 80.00 INDEPENDENT 82 Frustration
4. Castuera, John Paul J. 20 70 85 45.00 FRUSTRATION 58 Frustration
5. Castuera, Johnnie Rick G. 12 77 83 55.00 INSTRUCTIONAL 66 Frustration
6. Clavel, Wilbert 2 98 136 85.00 INDEPENDENT 92 Instructional
7. Dela Cruz, Mark Loyd T. 24 71 88 35.00 FRUSTRATION 53 Frustration
8. Espadilla, Benjie B. 14 83 67 50.00 FRUSTRATION 67 Frustration
9. Español, Rodel L. 8 95 70 85.00 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
10. Gahis, Jessie Q. 10 88 75 93.00 INDEPENDENT 91 Instructional
11. Gallano, John Calo C. 8 90 110 90.00 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
12. Hernandez, Edzel E. 15 82 88 50.00 FRUSTRATION 66 Frustration
13. Kaligayahan, Jamille H. 8 90 68 90 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
14. Lomenario, Jordan G. 24 71 57 70 INSTRUCTIONAL 71 Frustration
15. Mayor, John Alvin C. 10 88 69 93 INDEPENDENT 91 Instructional
16. Misal, John August PJ. E. 6 93 87 88 INDEPENDENT 91 Instructional
17. Moneda, Sandy O. 6 93 87 87 FRUSTRATION 90 Instructional
18. Morales, Darius N. 11 78 85 56 FRUSTRATION 67 Frustration
19. Nakpil, John Paul B. 13 85 93 90 INDEPENDENT 88 Frustration
20. Nol, Jhon Paul E. 7 92 66 88 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
21. Peña, John Benedict K. 1 99 126 87 INDEPENDENT 93 Instructional
22. Quinol Patrict Jonas E. 3 96 84 100 INDEPENDENT 98 Independent
23. Valdez, John Emmanuel L. 12 86 92 94 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
24. Vargas, Christian 84 0 0 0 FRUSTRATION 0 Frustration
25. Venuza, Mac Arthur N. 8 90 99 91 FRUSTRATION 91 Instructional
Data 2 ( Eagle with 45 students )
Oral Reading Profile: 0% Independent, 31.11% Instructional and 68.88% are Frustration while in
Comprehension Profile 28.88% independent, 28.88% Instructional and 42.22% Frustration.
Reading
Word Rate
Comprehension Comprehension Combined Oral Reading
Miscues Reading (Words
Score Profile Score Profile
Score per
minute)
MALE
1. Abellada, Niño 17 80 84 65 INSTRUCTIONAL 73 Frustration
2. Acuesta, Adriane 18 79 76 75 INSTRUCTIONAL 77 Frustration
3. Allende, Mark 17 80 84 65 INSTRUCTIONAL 73 Frustration
4. Allende, Rainier 30 65 85 35 FRUSTRATION 50 Frustration
5. Angeles, Andrei 12 86 140 94 INDEPENDENT 90 INSTRUCTIONAL
6. Bermejo, John Mark 22 74 91 70 INSTRUCTIONAL 72 Frustration
7. Blazo, John carlo 5 94 123 90 INDEPENDENT 92 INSTRUCTIONAL
8. Borondia, Diexter 4 95 126 85 INDEPENDENT 90 INSTRUCTIONAL
9. Cardaño, Jonh Richmond 6 93 76 93 INDEPENDENT 93 INSTRUCTIONAL
10. Cordero, John reniel 16 81 71 55 FRUSTRATION 68 Frustration
11. Delos Santos, Johnpaul 12 86 107 94 FRUSTRATION 90 INSTRUCTIONAL
12. Delumen, Armando 21 75 59 50 FRUSTRATION 63 Frustration
13. Dos dos, dary l 16 81 102 50 FRUSTRATION 66 Frustration
14. Ella, John Rey 12 86 107 35 FRUSTRATION 61 Frustration
15. Engo, Kyle Andrei 20 76 54 20 FRUSTRATION 48 Frustration
16. Espadilla Jonnel 19 77 60 55 FRUSTRATION 66 Frustration
17. Habala, Justine 21 76 60 55 FRUSTRATION 66 Frustration
18. Iqual, Edzel 19 77 105 25 FRUSTRATION 51 Frustration
19. Japon, Kreschan 12 86 107 35 FRUSTRATION 61 Frustration
20. Sarit, Gian Chistian 20.00 76 106 65 INSTRUCTIONAL 71 Frustration
21. Blanza, Rickson 15 82 88 10 FRUSTRATION 46 Frustration
22. Lomba, Chris Jericho 46 46 19 40 FRUSTRATION 43 Frustration
23. Avocado, Wilson 18 79 65 55 FRUSTRATION 67 Frustration
24. Serdan, Justine Joe 6 93 123 89 INDEPENDENT 91 INSTRUCTIONAL
25. Yu, Wisley 3 96 115 86 INDEPENDENT 91 INSTRUCTIONAL
FEMALE
1. Abog, Noemi 1 99 115 80 INDEPENDENT 90 INSTRUCTIONAL
2. Alano, Lejanie 11 87 103 70 INSTRUCTIONAL 79 Frustration
3. Ano, Angela 10 88 133 55 FRUSTRATION 72 Frustration
4. Blanza, Leizel 10 88 107 95 INDEPENDENT 92 INSTRUCTIONAL
5. Boridor, Andrea 9 89 120 92 INDEPENDENT 91 INSTRUCTIONAL
6. Cardaño, Janneth 2 98 87 85 INDEPENDENT 92 INSTRUCTIONAL
7. Cielo, Kathleen 23 73 84 55 FRUSTRATION 64 Frustration
8. Condeñera, Regilyn 10 88 133 70 FRUSTRATION 79 Frustration
9. Deleon, Jedelyn 12 86 87 70 INSTRUCTIONAL 78 Frustration
10. Espadilla, Agnes 24 72 89 75 INSTRUCTIONAL 74 Frustration
11. Espadilla, Dianne 17 80 94 50 FRUSTRATION 65 Frustration
12. Magtibay, Angelika 18 79 109 60 INSTRUCTIONAL 70 Frustration
13. Magtibay, Jinky shin 24 72 89 75 INSTRUCTIONAL 74 Frustration
14. Maigue, Princess 14 84 86 75 INSTRUCTIONAL 80 Frustration
15. Osiana, Richel 9 89 107 90 INDEPENDENT 90 INSTRUCTIONAL
16. Pontejos, Aleah Claire 9 89 123 92 INDEPENDENT 91 INSTRUCTIONAL
17. Principe, Ginalyn 25 70 60 60 INSTRUCTIONAL 65 Frustration
18. Sto Domingo, Rose Ann 49 42 66 30 FRUSTRATION 36 Frustration
19. Taylaran, Ma. Loisa 9 95 92 60 INSTRUCTIONAL 78 Frustration
20. Villa, Angela 10 88 138 92 INDEPENDENT 90 INSTRUCTIONAL
Data 3 ( Falcon with 43 students)
Oral Reading Profile 0% Independent, 27.90 % Instructional and 68.88% under Frustration whereas,
Comprehension Profile 30.23% Independent, 18.60% Instructional and 51.16 % under Frustration Level.
Reading
Word Rate
Miscues Reading (Words Comprehension Comprehension Combined Oral Reading
Score per Score Profile Score Profile
MALE
1. ABARQUEZ, KRENT JOSEFF 3 96 153 70 FRUSTRATION 83 Frustration
2. ACOPRA, MARK JAY 16 81 69 55 FRUSTRATION 68 Frustration
3. AGULLANO, ALDREN 11 87 95 93 FRUSTRATION 90 Instructional
4. BEDIS, REYNALDS 6 93 129 87 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
5. BORROMEO, KENJI 16 81 69 55 FRUSTRATION 68 Frustration
6. CODINERA,ROGINE 15 80 94 55 FRUSTRATION 68 Frustration
7. COLINARES, MARK KENNETH 13 85 93 30 FRUSTRATION 58 Frustration
8. COROD, EDGARDO II 6 93 103 20 FRUSTRATION 57 Frustration
9. COROD, JOELITO 10 86 93 55 FRUSTRATION 71 Frustration
10. CORTEZ, MARK ARCHILLES 3 96 144 90 INDEPENDENT 93 Instructional
11. ENTICO, CEDREX 12 86 103 65 INSTRUCTIONAL 76 Frustration
12. HERNANDEZ, EDRIAN 10 88 105 85 INDEPENDENT 87 Frustration
13. MOLENILLA, IAN JOSHUA 22 72 42 55 FRUSTRATION 64 Frustration
14. OBA♣A, JERICHO 20 76 65 50 FRUSTRATION 63 Frustration
15. PADILLA, SAM MILBY 2 98 120 85 INDEPENDENT 92 Instructional
16. PADRE, ANGELO 10 88 105 80 INDEPENDENT 84 Frustration
17. PADUA, MARK 8 91 93 75 INSTRUCTIONAL 83 Frustration
18. PAET, MARK ANGELO 20 77 66 55 FRUSTRATION 66 Frustration
19. PEÑA, JAMES WILSON 4 95 105 85 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
20. PERRERA, BRINT ALAIN 4 95 129 85 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
21. ROSARE, AL CHRISTIAN 12 86 110 70 FRUSTRATION 78 Frustration
22. SAN MIGUEL, RUSSEL 9 89 99 93 INDEPENDENT 91 Instructional
FEMALE
1. ANGELES, SALVE 5 94 103 35.00 FRUSTRATION 65 Frustration
2. BANDOY, ANGEL MAIKO 16 81 48 65.00 INSTRUCTIONAL 73 Frustration
3. BONANZA, DONNABEL 2 98 140 70.00 FRUSTRATION 84 Frustration
4. CANDELARIA, JONALYN 3 96 148 30.00 FRUSTRATION 63 Frustration
5. DALIVA, SHIELA MAY 6 93 150 88.00 INDEPENDENT 91 Instructional
6. DELA CRUZ, MIRA P. 7 92 120 87.00 INDEPENDENT 90 Instructional
7. ESTABELLO, CHELSY 100 163 85.00 INDEPENDENT 93 Instructional
8. GIDA, MARY JOY 6 93 111 90.00 INDEPENDENT 92 Instructional
9. IGUAL, JENNY 21 75 51 40.00 FRUSTRATION 58 Frustration
10. LORESTO, RENALYN 3 96 124 75.00 INSTRUCTIONAL 86 Frustration
11. MADROGABA, MAY 12 86 121 30.00 FRUSTRATION 58 Frustration
12. MORALES, NADINE 1 83 85 60.00 INSTRUCTIONAL 72 Frustration
13. OBAL, ELAVIL 3 96 144 95.00 INDEPENDENT 96 Instructional
14. OFFEMARIA, JUVY ANN 20 76 85 40 FRUSTRATION 58 Frustration
15. ORTEGA, PAULINE 7 92 83 70 INSTRUCTIONAL 81 Frustration
16. PONDARE, JENNY ROSE 17 80 84 30 FRUSTRATION 55 Frustration
17. REGOLLANO, MIRRAQUEL 20 76 116 70 INSTRUCTIONAL 73 Frustration
18. SIATREZ, SHEILA MAY 15 82 21 40 FRUSTRATION 61 Frustration
19. TAYLARAN, MARIA MAE 5 94 107 50 FRUSTRATION 72 Frustration
20. VILLA, ANGELINE 16 81 54 65 INSTRUCTIONAL 73 Frustration
21. TORRES, KYLA 9 89 64 25 FRUSTRATION 57 Frustration
• Data 4 ( Phoenix ) Based from their Oral Reading Profile, 28 or 59.57% of 47 students were
identified under frustration, 19 students or 40.42% under Instructional and 0% Independent
while in Comprehension Profile, 20 or 42.55% are Frustration, 18 or 38.29% Instructional
and 9 or 19.14% Independent.
Reading
Word Rate
Comprehension Comprehension Combined Oral Reading
Miscues Reading (Words
Score Profile Score Profile
Score per
minute)
FEMALE
1. ANGUSTIA 21 66 68 60.00 INSTRUCTIONAL 63 Frustration
2. BARCIA 13 85 100 95.00 INDEPENDENT 90 INSTRUCTIONAL
4. BORIDOR 3 96 121 88.00 INDEPENDENT 92 INSTRUCTIONAL
5. BORONDIA 5 94 134 95.00 INDEPENDENT 95 INSTRUCTIONAL
6. CARPO 2 98 128 70.00 INSTRUCTIONAL 84 INSTRUCTIONAL
7. CUETO 22 74 70 40.00 FRUSTRATION 57 Frustration
8. DE LEON 5 94 124 88.00 INDEPENDENT 91 INSTRUCTIONAL
9. DELA CRUZ CM. C 8 91 142 90 FRUSTRATION 91 INSTRUCTIONAL
10. ELA 15 82 85 75 INSTRUCTIONAL 79 Frustration
11. ENTICO 33 61 64 60 INSTRUCTIONAL 61 Frustration
12. GONZALES 19 78 106 55 FRUSTRATION 67 Frustration
13. HIPOLITO 13 85 111 95 INDEPENDENT 90 INSTRUCTIONAL
14. IGUAL 15 82 84 76 INSTRUCTIONAL 79 Frustration
15. LLORENTE 19 78 109 60 INSTRUCTIONAL 69 Frustration
16. MANALO 19 78 128 50 FRUSTRATION 64 Frustration
17. MENDEZ 31 64 84 60 INSTRUCTIONAL 62 Frustration
18. PACLETA 2 98 142 85 INDEPENDENT 92 INSTRUCTIONAL
19. TIPAY 14 84 109 95 INDEPENDENT 90 INSTRUCTIONAL
20. TORENO 13 85 100 95 FRUSTRATION 90 INSTRUCTIONAL
 Reading
Word Rate
Comprehension Comprehension Combined Oral Reading
Miscues Reading (Words
Score Profile Score Profile
Score per
minute)
MALE
1. AGUSTIN 31 64 80 35 FRUSTRATION 50 Frustration
2. ALMONTE 11 87 113 92 INDEPENDENT 90 INSTRUCTIONAL
3. ANDAL 8 90 107 90 INDEPENDENT 90 INSTRUCTIONAL
4. ANZANO 9 89 65 92 INDEPENDENT 91 INSTRUCTIONAL
5. AVILA 20 76 89 65 INSTRUCTIONAL 71 Frustration
6. BLANZA 5 94 93 85 INDEPENDENT 90 INSTRUCTIONAL
7. BUBAN 8 91 80 90 FRUSTRATION 91 INSTRUCTIONAL
8. CABIO 18 79 66 90 INDEPENDENT 85 Frustration
9. CARPO 31 63 62 35 FRUSTRATION 49 Frustration
10. CELOS 15 82 68 55 FRUSTRATION 69 Frustration
11. COROD 14 82 87 12 FRUSTRATION 47 Frustration
12. DELA TORRE 9 89 106 92 INDEPENDENT 91 INSTRUCTIONAL
13. DENIDO 10 89 78 93 FRUSTRATION 91 INSTRUCTIONAL
14. ELA 31 64 81 35 FRUSTRATION 50 Frustration
15. ESCANILLA 20 76 74 90 INDEPENDENT 83 Frustration
16. ESTABAYA 27 68 100 85 INDEPENDENT 77 Frustration
17. IGUAL 48 44 56 55 FRUSTRATION 50 Frustration
18. MAIGUE 15 82 88 10 FRUSTRATION 46 Frustration
19. MERCADO 46 46 19 40 FRUSTRATION 43 Frustration
20. MERCIALES 18 79 65 55 FRUSTRATION 67 Frustration
21. NAVARRO 20 75 75 89 INDEPENDENT 82 Frustration
22. OCAMPO 28 67 84 45 FRUSTRATION 56 Frustration
23. PRESNILLA 20 76 81 45 FRUSTRATION 61 Frustration
24. RAMOS 28 67 94 55.00 FRUSTRATION 61 Frustration
25. RONES 6 93 104 89.00 INDEPENDENT 91 INSTRUCTIONAL
26. SANCHEZ 6 93 109 88.00 INDEPENDENT 91 INSTRUCTIONAL
27. VERANA 24 72 50 60.00 INSTRUCTIONAL 66 Frustration
 PROJECT BACKGROUND

Reading is one of the important factor in student’s learning not only in language

subjects but to all subject areas, therefore if the students doesn’t know how to read the

teaching and learning process will be affected. Our school aims to promote 100% of

the students in the next grade level for theo next school year.

The program considers different strategies in reading activities sessions such as

reading performance of the grade 7 students was computed according to PHILIRI

result. Out of 182 grade 7 students only 66 or 36.26% able to get/pass the test.
 PROJECT SELECTION
NAME S U G
OF Availability of Result % =No. of TOTAL RANK
PROJECT Data Students
affected

Literacy rate 761 89% 11% 4 1

2 1 1
Absenteeism of STMHS 2
Students 761 91% 9% 6
2 2 2
Promotion Rate of 761 95% 5% 8 3
students 2 3 3
 REAL PROGRAM
(READING ENHANCEMENT ASSISTANCE TO LITERACY)

SIMEON TYCANGCO
MEMORIAL HIGH
SCHOOL

ADMINISTRATIV CI TEAM TEACHERS

E STAFF SCHOOL HEAD
TEAM LEADER
SCRIBE
DOCUMENTATION
COMMUNICATION
SUPPORT PROCESS STUDENTS
PERSONNEL OBSERVER

STAKEHOLDERS

SYSTEM OVERVIEW
 NARRATIVE OF PROJECT SELECTION

Based on the consolidated data acquired in previous observation and survey taken,
our school had these issues: promotion rate with only 38 students are affected or 5% of
total population of 761 enrollees of STMHS, while absenteeism with 9 % and the problem
that stand out among the three is the literacy rate of the students with 11% that need to
be address through various interventions and strategies with the collaboration of all the
teachers. In connection with this, we come up to launch the project “BLAST” using the
different blended approach to achieve the goal of continuous improvement of our school.
 PROJECT RATIONALE

Learning to read is a sequential process; its new skill builds on the mastery of

previously learned skills. It is one of the most important foundations for success in

school and life. It is well documented that an individual literacy levels affect their

opportunities in life for education, employment, income and well- being.

In connection with this, the CI Team of Simeon Tycangco Memorial High School

will focus on Improving the Reading Skills of Grade 7 students and to attain 100%

independent readers.
 BROAD PROBLEM STATEMENT

In Simeon Tycangco Memorial High School, out of 761 students, only 645
were identified under instructional level and 116 are under slow/frustration
level which is below the planning standard of 100% by 89% this school year
2018 – 2019.
STEP 2

Talk With Your Customers

 VOICE OF THE CUSTOMERS
1. Ano ang pinakagusto mong ginagawa sa English? Bakit?
2. Ano naman ‘yong ayaw mong ginagawa? Bakit?
3. Ano ang dahilan kung bakit ka nahihirapan magbasa ng English?
4. Anong gusto mong gawin ng guro para hindi ka na mahirapan magbasa?
5. Ano ang dahilan kung bakit ka nahihirapan na unawain ang English?
6. Anong uri ng babasahin ang mas gusto mong basahin? Bakit?
7. Saan ka mas madaling nakakabasa, sa Filipino o sa English? Bakit?
8. Gusto mo ba na isalin sa wikang Filipino ng guro ang mga salitang hindi mo
naiintindihan?
 TABULATED RESPONSES TO QUESTION NO.1
ANO ANG PINAKAGUSTO MONG GINAGAWA SA ENGLISH?

SECTION

MOST LIKED ACTIVITES IN

PHOENIX EAGLE HAWK FALCON TOTAL
ENGLISH

WRITING 2 0 0 0 2
LISTENING 4 0 0 0 4
SPELLING 0 2 1 10 13
ORAL READING 22 4 9 11 46
CHORAL READING 0 3 0 3 6
GROUP ACTIVITY 2 7 11 9 29
ROLE PLAYING 0 2 0 0 2
REPORTING 0 1 1 2 4
RECITATION 1 6 0 0 7
BOARD DRILL EXERCISE 3 0 0 0 3
 MOST LIKED ACTIVITIES IN ENGLISH
Phoenix Eagle Hawk Falcon Total

46

29
22
13

11

11
10

9
7

7
6

6
4

3
2

2
1

1
1

1
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0

0
Wr iti ng L ist e ning Spelling Or a l R e a ding G r oup Ac ti vit y R ole Pla ying R e por ti ng R e c it a ti on B oa r d D r ill Chor a l R e a ding
 TABULATED RESPONSES TO QUESTION NO.2
ANO NAMAN ANG PINAKAAYAW MONG GINAGAWA ?BAKIT?

SECTION
MOST DISLIKED
PHOENIX EAGLE HAWK FALCON TOTAL
ACTIVITES IN ENGLISH
RECITATION 1 5 7 0 13
DISCUSSION 6 2 0 1 9
ORAL READING 4 4 3 0 11
WRITING 6 2 0 2 10
GROUP ACTIVITY 12 3 9 3 27
CHORAL READING 0 3 0 1 4
SPELLING 0 0 1 0 1
ROLE PLAYING 0 0 0 2 2
REPORTING 0 6 1 13 20
BOARD DRILL 2 0 1 8 11
POSTER MAKING 0 0 0 5 5
LISTENING 3 0 0 0 3
 Most disliked activities in english
Phoenix Eagle Hawk Falcon Total

27

13 20
13

12

11
11

10
9

8
7

6
5

5
4
34

4
3
3

3
3
012

2
2

2
2

012
1

01

01
01

1
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
on on g ng ty g g g ng ll ng ng
i di
n vi di
n n n ri
a ti ss i ti ti lli a yi r ti D ak
i
en
i
c it cu ea W
r
Ac ea Sp
e
Pl p o r d M st
Re
is R R
le Re oa r Li
D al up al B te
O
r
ro o r Ro s
G Ch Po
 TABULATED RESPONSES TO QUESTION NO.3
ANO ANG DAHILAN KUNG BAKIT KA NAHIHIRAPAN MAGBASA NG ENGLISH?

SECTION
Rea sons why the students
a re ha ving a ha rd time PHOENIX EAGLE HAWK FALCON TOTAL
rea ding in English
DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND 9 6 6 7 28
HARD TO PRONOUNCE 6 3 7 8 24
UNFAMILIAR WORDS 7 5 6 9 27
LACK OF INTEREST 8 2 2 0 12
LACK OF PRACTICE 5 0 0 6 11
INTIMIDATED 2 3 4 5 14
 Reasons why the students are having a hard ti me reading in english
Phoenix Eagle Hawk Falcon Total

28

27
24

14
12

11
9

9
8

8
7

7
6
6

6
5

5
4
3

3
2
2

2
0

0
0
D iffi c ult t o unde r st a nd H a r d t o Pr onounce U nfa milia r Wor ds L a c k of I nt e r e st L a c k of Pr a c ti c e I nti mida t e d
 NEEDS
• Kailangan ko ng sapat na oras para sa
pagbabasa ng English (15)
• Kailangan ko ng gabay ng aking guro at
magulang para sa pagbabasa (10)
• Kailangan kong maunawaan ang aking
binabasa (19)
• Kailangan ko ng diksyonaryo
• Kailangan ko ng tahimik at maayos na
lugar para sa pagbabasa ng English (8)
• Kailangan ko ng sariling aklat (11)
• Kailangan kong malaman kung papaano
ang tamang pagbabasa ng salita (17)
WANTS
• Gusto ko ng mabait na guro sa English
( 20)
• Gusto ko ng mga pangkatang gawain
(25)
• Gusto kong ipaliwanag nang mabuti
ng guro ang tekstong babasahin (9)
• Gusto kong isalin ng guro ang mga
salitang mahirap maintindihan ( 25)
• Gusto kong gumamit ng mga larawan
sa pagtuturo ang aking guro (27)
• Gusto kong ipaliwanag ng mabuti ng
guro ang aralin . (15)
 AFFINITY DIAGRAM
 Gusto kong ipaliwang nang
mabuti ng guro ang tekstong
babasahin (9)
 Gusto kong isalin ng guro ang
mga salitang mahirap
maintindihan ( 25)
 Gusto kong gumamit ng mga
larawan sa pagtuturo ang
aking guro (27)
 Gusto kong ipaliwanag ng
mabuti ng guro ang aralin .
(15)
 Kailangan ko ng sapat na oras
para sa pagbabasa ng English (15)
 Kailangan kong maunawaan ang
aking binabasa (19)
 Kailangan kong malaman kung
papaano ang tamang pagbabasa
ng salita (17)
 Kailangan ko ng gabay ng aking
guro at magulang para sa
pagbabasa (10)
 Gusto ko ng mabait na guro sa
English ( 20)
 Kailangan ko ng tahimik at
maayos na lugar para sa
pagbabasa ng English (8)
 Kailangan ko ng diksyonaryo
 Kailangan ko ng sariling aklat
(11)
 CHORAL READING WRITING OF POEM
ROLE PLAYING BOARDWORK
SRA ( STORY READING ACTIVITY) WORD GAMES

AFFINITY DIAGRAM
( DIFFERENTIATED
INSTRUCTIONS

FESTIVAL OF WORDS
POSTER MAKING
GARDEN OF WORDS
AUDIO - VISUAL
COPES PROJECT
STEP 3

Walk the Process

 S I P O C
SUPPLIER INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT CUSTOMER

Instructional 100% of
Grade 7 Materials or READING 182 will Grade 7
English devices in IMPROVEMENT
become Students
print and
Teachers audio - visual readers

PROCESS STEPS
• Unlocking of
words in print and
• Using context audio – visual Evaluation Assignment
clue
reading
 Deployment chart
STAGE 1
ROUTINARY STAGE 2
Stage 3 Stage 4
ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT OF THE LESSON EVALUATION ASSIGNMENT

Presentation of the Lesson

START
Get the imagery
Presentation of Objectives Record the speed
of the story
and rate in group
through poster
Reading
making
Opening Prayer Lesson Proper ( 2 mins)
( 30s)
(15s)
Direct
Instructio
Guided Generali
Activity Analysis Practice Application
n zation Get the types of
Checking of Miscues in
Class Dismissal
attendance (50 reading
s) Silent “WE DO” (2 mins)
Motivation reading of 1.Identi MAKE
(3 mins) the text fying the PLOT AS GROUP
“ I DO”
( 5 mins) 1.Reading elements FRAME READING
WORK ( 4 mins) Determine
of the text of the
Groupings ( 3 min) reader’s level in
Classroom Discussion 2.Presen- story
reading
( 1 min) tation of 2.Deco-
Management and (2 mins)
meta cards ding the
(33s) (Q and A)
Distribution ( 4 min) containing text/story
difficult 3Presentati
of hand out
(30s) words on of the END
( 10 mins). conflict
Lesson and the
Proper gist of the
(unlocking of story
difficulties ( 7 ( 12 mins)
mins)
 STORM CLOUDS: REAL PROGRAM

STAGE 1: ROUTINARY ACTIVITY

It took only 33 second to

conduct classroom
management
checking of
Opening Prayer attendance (50 Classroom Management Presentation of the lesson
START (15s) s) (33s) was conducted right away
after classroom
management
 STORM CLOUDS: REAL PROGRAM

STAGE 1 STAGE 2
ROUTINARY DEVELOPMENT OF THE LESSON
ACTIVITY
Presentation of the Lesson

Presentation of Objectives

Lesson Proper

Analysis
Activity
It took more than a minute
OVERPROCESSING
• Kailangan ko ng sapat na
intended for the activity
oras upang lubos na
Motivation Silent
maunawaan ang aking
(3 mins) WAITING binabasa
reading of
the text
15 students were ( 5 mins)
Groupings inactively participating
during the activity It took only 4 minutes
( 1 min) to process analysis of Discussion
DEFECT the activity and
Distribution Hand outs are not enough for (Q and A)
of hand out all the students Gusto kong isalin ng guro ( 4 min)
(30s) ang mga salitang mahirap
maintindihan ( 25)
Lesson
Proper Its difficult to feed the MOVEMENT
(unlocking of learnings in a short period if
difficulties ( 7 time
mins)
 STORM CLOUDS: REAL PROGRAM
STAGE 1 STAGE 2
ROUTINARY DEVELOPMENT OF THE LESSON
ACTIVITY
Presentation of the Lesson

Presentation of Objectives

Lesson Proper

Direct Instruction
WAITING Guided Practice

20 students per class were inactively

Only one strategy applied by
participating during the guide practice
the teacher especially during the question and
answer
“ I DO”
“WE DO”
1.Reading of the MOVEMENT WAITING 1.Identiifying the
text Gusto kong isalin ng guro ang
15 students per class were unable to elements of the story
2.Presentation of mga salitang mahirap
identify the elements of the story 2.Decoding the
meta cards maintindihan ( 25) text/story
containing difficult
3.Presentation of the
words
conflict and the gist
• Gusto kong gumamit ng mga of the story
( 10 mins). larawan sa pagtuturo ang
aking guro (27) ( 12 mins)
MOVEMENT
 STORM CLOUDS: REAL PROGRAM

STAGE 1 STAGE 2
ROUTINARY DEVELOPMENT OF THE LESSON
ACTIVITY
Presentation of the Lesson

Presentation of Objectives

Lesson Proper

Generalization Application

WAITING
20 students cannot really
understand the concept DEFECT
Kailangan ko ng tahimik at
maayos na lugar para sa
Gusto ko ng mga pangkatang pagbabasa ng English (8)
MAKE PLOT AS gawain (25) GROUP READING
FRAME WORK ( 4 mins)
( 3 min) Gusto kong ipaliwanag ng
Not all the groups are
participating
mabuti ng guro ang tekstong
babasahin (15)
MOVEMENT
 STORM CLOUDS: REAL PROGRAM

Stage 3 Stage 4
EVALUATION ASSIGNMENT
The teacher will rate
the students reading
speed using PHIL- IR
Record the speed I
Get the imagery of the story
and rate in
through poster making
reading Reading
( 30 mins)
( 2 mins)

Summarize the
Miscues in Class Dismissal
reading
(2 mins)

Determine
reader’s level in
reading
(2 mins) END
 STORM CLOUDS MUDA COMPONENT

Kailangan ko ng sapat na oras

upang lubos na maunawaan OVERPROCESSING Non – Value Adding Activities
ang aking binabasa

Gusto kong isalin ng guro ang

mga salitang mahirap MOVEMENT Non – Value Adding Activities
maintindihan
15 students were inactively
participating during the WAITING Non – Value Adding Activities
activity

Hand outs are not enough for

all the students DEFECT Non – Value Adding Activities
 STORM CLOUDS MUDA COMPONENT

Gusto kong gumamit ng mga larawan MOVEMENT Non – Value Adding Activities
sa pagtuturo ang aking guro
20 students per class were inactively
participating during the guide WAITING Non – Value Adding Activities
practice especially during the
question and answer

15 students per class were unable to

identify the elements of the story WAITING Non – Value Adding Activities

20 students cannot really

understand the concept WAITING Non – Value Adding Activities

Gusto kong ipaliwanag ng mabuti ng MOVEMENT Non – Value Adding Activities

guro ang tekstong babasahin
Kailangan ko ng tahimik at maayos na DEFECT Non – Value Adding Activities
lugar para sa pagbabasa ng English
STEP 4
Identify Priority Improvement
Areas
 FOCUSED PROBLEM STATEMENT

In STMHS, out of 182 G7 students, only 66 or 36.26 % of G7 students

were identified under instructional level this school year 2018 – 2019
 STAGE 2
ANALYZE
The analyze steps

Do Root Finalize
Develop
Cause Improvemen
Solutions
Analysis t Plans

 Proposed
 Why – Why Solution  Implementation
Diagram  Opportunity Planning
Flowchart
STEP 5

Do Root Cause Analysis

 WHY – WHY DIAGRAM: REAL PROGRAM

All students under frustration level

have difficulties in pronunciation, Lack of reading
omission and substitution of words in
reading.
materials

In STMHS,out of 182
G7 students, only 66
or 36.26% of G7
Only 100 students have difficulties in
students were insertion and repetition of words in
Poor study habit of
identified under reading students
instructional level
this school year 2018
- 2019

Only 22 students have difficulties in

transposition and reversal of words in
reading Lack of interest
 Root Cause Analysis 1

Lack of interest and practice and most

students have engaged themselves in all
forms of social media and online games
that sometimes over rule the proper
STUDENTS writings of the words because of wrong
contraction

All students DEFECT

under frustration
level have
100% Independent
difficulties in readers
pronunciation,
omission and
EXPECTATION
substitution of
words in reading.

Traditional way of
teaching

TEACHERS
DEFECT
 Sustainable interventions,
technique and style of
WAITING teaching
 Teachers should utilize more
lively motivations to get the
interest of the students
 Use multi- media as form of
teaching technique
 Root Cause Analysis 2 They don’t know how to pronounce the
next syllable and the different sounds of
alphabet

DEFECT
Only 100 students have
STUDENTS Students having difficulty
difficulties in insertion in sounding vowels
and repetition of words sound and consonants
in reading sound so they utter them
repeatedly

DEFECT

100% of the students under

frustration level with difficulties in TEACHERS
repetition and insertion will
improve reading skills through They think that they are being
various techniques and activities tease and feel intimidated so
provided by teachers they rattle in speakers

EXPECTATION  The teachers should give reading

materials DEFECT
WAITING  Propose reading activities to all
teachers like the following:
1. reading week
2. Oral Reading
3. Reading in Tandem
4. Group Reading
5. Speech Lesson
Root Cause Analysis 3
Students do swapping and interchange
places of words while reading

Only 22 students
DEFECT
have difficulties in
transposition and
reversal of words Students feel intimidated
in reading STUDENTS
and a bit nervous during
oral reading

DEFECT

100% of the students under

frustration level with difficulties in
transposition and reversal will
improve reading skills through
TEACHERS
various techniques and activities
Students disregard words
provided by teachers
because they read fast.

EXPECTATION
DEFECT
DEFECT Teachers overlooked
the discrepancies of
students reading
problems
 ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

TABLE FOR MISCUES

SECTION
MISCUES TOTAL
Phoenix Eagle Hawk Falcon

Mispronunciation 13 12 11 10 46

Omission 11 11 9 10 41

Substitution 9 6 6 8 29

Insertion 15 12 10 13 50

Repetition 18 15 10 7 50

Transposition 2 1 1 1 5

Reversal 6 2 3 6 17
STEP 6

Develop Solutions
 THE PROPOSED SOLUTION

PROJECT BLAST: Blended Learning Approach of STMHS

Preparation During Implementation

Process 3
Identified approaches :
Process 2  Lab Rotation
Process 1 Teacher will select various
All identified 116 students Blended learning
blended approach to be utilize  Flex Blended learning
under frustration level will be in classroom discussion and  Mastery Based Blended Learning
subject to Project BLAST intervention Approach

Implementation

Teacher will be using computer

Students will improve their
laboratory for the following
pronunciation through activities: Process 4
audio visual presentation  Practice pronunciation and Allowing students to rotate by the
and sounds of English mouth exercise for clear use of computer laboratory
provided and guided by speech using downloaded
the teacher videos placed in their
individual computer

To minimize omission/substitution
of words, teacher will used Flex
Blended Learning wherein teacher
and student will have face to face
encounter to monitor reading
ability of the students using the
summary of miscues
Guided Reading Strategies
 Small group differentiated instruction that
support students in developing reading
Teacher will show videos in proficiency
students’ computer about  Small groups are formed based on each
contraction of words and student’s reading level
students will follow  Groups are flexible. These activities will
exercises in the videos help the students to overcome fear in
reading and to be intimidated
VISUAL MANAGEMENT
GAME: YOUR WORD SOUNDS FAMILIAR!!!!
Act steps

Pilot Roll Out Check

Solution Solution Progress
STEP 8 and 9

Pilot and Roll Out Implementation

 CHANGE MANAGEMENT DURING CLASSROOM DISCUSSION

VALUE NON - VALUE

START DLL PREPARATION OPENING PRAYER

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
GREETINGS
MOTIVATION
PRESENTATION OF THE LESSON

ACTIVITY GROUPINGS

ANALYSIS
DIRECT INSTRUCTION
GUIDED PRACTICE
GENERALIZATION
APPLICATION
EVALUATION
ASSIGNMENT END
 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

PROJECT BLAST JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH PERSON IN-CHARGE BUDGET

  11 18 1 6 8 13 15 20 22 27 1 5 8    
LAB- ROTATION BLENDED LEARNING                              
Audio Visual                           CI Team , School Head  
Reading Online Passage                           CI Team  

Teach the students to read using computer                           CI Team  

Record miscues                           CI Team  
Review and Test material                           CI Team , School Head  
FLEX BLENDED APPROACH                              
Face to face activity with the student                           CI Team  
Oral Reading                           CI Team  
Reading in Tandem                           CI Team  
Group Reading                           CI Team  
Teacher will choose passage to include in reading
activity
                          CI Team  
Small Instruction                           CI Team  
Group Project                           CI Team  
Individual Tutoring                           CI Team  
MASTERY BASED LEARNING                              
Face to face learning                           CI Team , School Head  
Activities                           CI Team  
Assessment                           CI Team , School Head  
Project                           CI Team  
Quizzes                           CI Team  
Output                           CI Team  
Student's Record and Performances                           CI Team  
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
STEP 9

Roll Out Solution

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT BLAST

IN ACTION
 Results of the Pilot Intervention Conducted

READING PROFILE OF GRADE 7

With the three (3)
140
sections who undergo Project
120 BLAST or combined number of
116 students who was
100 identified under frustration
level. This graph shown data of
PHOENIX decreasing number of
80
EAGLE students under frustration
HAWK with 2.32% or 2 students as
60
FALCON per compared last July 2018
40 TOTAL with 63% or 116 students .
Therefore the implementation
20 of project BLAST has been
successful with increasing
0 number of independent
Frustration Instructional Independent reader and fewer number
under instructional level
 TABULATED RESPONSES FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT BLAST

QUESTIONS Highly Effective Effective Moderate Not Effective

1. Gaano ba kaepektibo ang 81 35 0 0
BLAST?
2. Nakatulong ba ang BLAST sa 73 43 0 0
madali mong pagkatuto sa
pagbabasa?

3. Nadagdagan ba iyong kaalaman 61 55 0 0

dahil sa BLAST?
4. Napaunlad ba ng BLAST ang 78 38 0 0
iyong kakayahan sa iba pang mga
asignatura?

5. Naging epektibo ba ang mga 81 35 0 0

ginamit na istilo at istratehiya ng
guro mula sa BLAST?

6. Napaunlad din ba ng BLAST ang 0 0

iyong mga kakayahan sa 74 42
pagsusulat, pag iisip at pag unawa
sa mga babasahin sa asignaturang
English?
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT BLAST

Highly Effective
Effective
Moderate
Not Effective
 LESSON LEARNED

Based on the implemented interventions, we’ve learned that the students were more
focused and attentive to the given activities with the use of computer. They were more
interested to learn while improving their reading ability.
The audio-visual activities reinforced the student’s eagerness to learn. They were more
interested and energetic while improving their reading ability as they perform the task. It
will help them improve not just with English subject but with the other subjects as well.
Improved reading leads to better comprehension that increases the student’s performance.