Sample Action Research Proposal

IMPROVING READING COMPREHENSION

THROUGH THE USE OF HIGHER ORDER THINKING ACTIVITIES

I - Proponent:
Noel R. Dauran
Master Teacher - I
Baya Elementary School
Ragay, Camarines Sur

II - Background of the Study:

The area of focus for my project is improving Reading Comprehension Through the Use of
Higher Order Thinking Skill Activities. Without the solid foundation of reading skill the researcher feels
the children will be struggle hard throughout their schooling and adult life. By learning the best
comprehension strategies and how to best teach these strategies to the pupils, the researcher hopes
to provide the solid foundation needed to succeed . Although the school's NAT result has meet or
exceed its expectation, still the researcher has a thought of a way to improve it. In reading class, the
grade three pupils scored84%, but the scores dropped in the 4th grade. So the researcher concludes
that the pupils score decreases because of the pupils have very poor higher - order thinking skills to
increase reading test scores and develop meaningful reading experience to the pupils.

III - Statement of the Problem:

As the researcher of this research, I have found out that many of my pupils in grade III are able
to read fluently, but still have difficulty in answering the "how" and "why" questions. I am hoping that by
incorporating higher order thinking skills my pupils would be able to transfer and make connections to
reading. This is important in order for a child to be successful. I feel that incorporating reading strategies
and showing students how to reflect about what they have read, would improve their reading
comprehension and to become life-long learners. I am looking forward to working on this area of concern,
and sharing my findings with my co-teachers.

IV- Significance of the Study:

The study will be deemed important for the proper recognition of the improving Reading
Comprehension Through the use of higher - order thinking activities on the academic Performance of
the grade III pupils, Likewise, the findings of this research may prove useful to the following, to wit;

Pupils. Having a clearer view and firsthand experience of the teacher's performance, this
will further enhance pupil's knowledge of the importance of mastering the basic skills of their
competencies so they will make an effort to do best. This may lead to better enthusiasm and develop
good study habit.

Teachers. This study may heighten their awareness in identifying the learning tasks
that are well developed as well as the least. This may further be a motivating factor to adapt measures
and new strategies for the improvement of instructions in reading.

Parents. The result of this study will serve as bird's eye view of the parent to know the
needs of their children with regards to improving their reading comprehension.

School Administrator and Supervisors. Results of this investigation may encourage

administrators and supervisors help their teachers upgrade their teaching performance in
improving reading comprehension through closer supervision and faculty development and training
programs.

Department of Education Camarines Sur Specially Ragay District. With the use of
the results of the study, any educational upliftment will benefit the municipality of Ragay as it may
improve the quality of working force of the municipality or the quality of life of their respective
constituents.
 Curriculum Planners. The findings of this study may assists the planners in the proper
selection of methods, techniques, and strategies that need to be reinforced.

Community.The result of this study may benefit the community in as much they know
that the teachers of their children are equipped with the necessary tools and competence in teaching
them.

Researcher Himself. This may serve as inspiration in teaching his pupils above and
beyond his capacity.

Future Researcher. The information and insights that will be gained from this study
may serve as guide for other researcher in framing their conceptual framework and design and at the
same time encourage them to conduct lateral studies within their area of preferences.

V- Scope of the Study

The general focus of the present study was on the Improving Reading Comprehension
Through the use of Higher Order Thinking Skills Activities of the grade III pupils in Baya Elementary
School, District of Ragay, Division Of Camarines Sur.The study covered the PHIL-IRI assessment result
of the school year 2011-2012 utilizing the post -test. The aspect s in Improving Reading Comprehension
that the present study will look into the different reading strategies. Predicting, making connections,
visualizing, Inferring, questioning, and summarizing are shown on this research to improve reading
comprehension.

VI - Research Design

A. Methodology
This study employ the pre-Experimental one shot case study. According to De
Jesus
the pre experimental one shot case study is a design in which a single group is only studied
once, subsequent to a treatment is the instruction of reading strategies . It is important to
teach
the strategies by naming the strategy and how it should be used, modelling trough think
aloud
process, group practice, partner practice and independent use of the strategy.
The second tool used was the Phil-Iri test administered to the pupils in the grade
III
pupils in the first week of July, 2011. This tool used to determine student growth in reading
comprehension.
The teacher observation checklist was used by the researcher to gather data
throughout the intervention. This tool provides information of changes on how well his
pupils
understand and use reading comprehension strategies over time.

B. Sampling Design
Purposive sampling was employed in selecting pupils - respondent of the study.
The
pupils who were selected were enrolled in the third grade class for the school year 2011-
2012.

C. Description of Instrument Data and Gathering Form.

The Metacomprehension Strategy Index had a total of 25 questions divided into three parts
that asked about the strategies pupils used to help them better understand the story. Part I of MSI is
consist of statement about the strategies used prior to reading a story, Part II of the MSI consist of
statement about the strategies used while reading a story, and the part III of the MSI consist of statement
about the strategies used after reading the story.
VI - Work Plan

Pre - Implementation

Date Activities
_______________ _________________
_______________ _________________

During Implimentation
_______________ _________________
_______________ _________________

Post - Implementation
_______________ ________________
_______________ ________________

Proposed Budget:

Expected Expenses Proposed Budget

* Computer's Ink Php. 1, 606.00
* Bond paper Php. 108.00

Prepared by:

_________________
Teacher- I

Noted:
_______________________
School Head

Recommending Approval:
______________________ ___________________
Public Schools District Supervisor ES - I English

Approved:
___________________________________
Asst. Schools Division Superintendent
 AN ACTION RESEARCH ON THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENTIATED
INSTRUCTION IN TEACH ING ENGLISH FOR
GRADE FOUR CLASSES
By

Mary Joy V. Olicia

Researcher

I. INTRODUCTION
Like Science and Math, English is a difficult but an important subject because the
curriculum considers it as a tool subject needed to understand the different content
subjects. Basically, it is concerned with developing competencies in listening, speaking,
reading, writing, and viewing. Speaking includes skills in using the language expressions
and grammatical structures correctly in oral communication while writing skill includes
readiness skills, mechanics in guided writing, functional and creative writing (K to 12
Curriculum Guide for Grade 4).

The K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum aims to help learners understand that English
language is involved in the dynamic social process which responds to and reflects changing
social conditions. It is also inextricably involved with values, beliefs and ways of th inking
about the person and the world people dwell. The curriculum aims that pupils are given an
opportunity to build upon their prior knowledge while utilizing their own skills, interests,
styles, and talents.

However, teachers find difficulties in teaching different kinds of pupils with different
intellectual capacities, talent or skills, interest, and learning styles especially in
heterogeneous groupings of pupils. This situation calls for teachers to create lessons for all
pupils based upon their readiness, interests, and background knowledge. Anderson (2007)
noted that it is imperative not to exclude any child in a classroom, so a differentiated
learning environment must be provided by a teacher.

Differentiated instruction is based on the concept that the teacher is a facilitator of

information, while students take the primary role of expanding their knowledge by making
sense of their ability to learn differently (Robinson, Maldonado, & Whaley, 2014).
Wilson (2009) argued that differentiated instruction is the development of the simple to the
complex tasks, and a difference between individuals that are otherwise similar in certain
respects such as age or grade are given consideration. Additionally, Butt and Kusar (2010)
stated that it is an approach to planning, so that one lesson may be taught to the entire
class while meeting the individual needs of each child.

According to Tomlinson (2009), DI as a philosophy of teaching is based on the premise that

students learn best when their teachers accommodate the differences in their readiness
levels, interests, and learning profiles. It sees the learning experience as social and
collaborative. The responsibility of what happens in the classroom is first to teacher, but
also to the learner (Subban, 2006). Additionally, DI presents an effective means to address
learner’s variance which avoids the pitfalls of the one-size-fits-all curriculum. Stronge
(2004) and Tomlinson (2004b) claimed that addressing student differences and interest
enhance their motivation to learn and make them to remain committed and to stay positive
as well.

Stravroula (2011) conducted a study in investigating the impact of DI in mixed ability

classrooms and found out that the implementation of differentiation had made a big step in
facing the negative effects of socio-economic factors on students’ achievement by
managing diversity effectively, providing learning opportunities for all students. The positive
change in students’ achievement had shown that differentiation can be considered as an
effective teaching approach in mixed ability classrooms.

Furthermore, Servilio (cited by Robinson, 2014) studied the effectiveness of using DI to

motivate students to read and found out that an average of 83.4% of the students’ grades
improved in reading, 12.5% remained the same, and 41% of the grades decreased.

As educator, the teacher-researcher was motivated to conduct this action research on the
effectiveness of DI in teaching English on Grade Four pupils for a week -long lesson. She
also she wanted to know the effect of this method on the academic performance of the
pupils from results of the diagnostic and achievement test.

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study determined the effectiveness of conducting DI to Grade Four English class.
Specifically, it answered the following.

1. What is the performance of the two groups of respondents in the pretest?

1.1. Control group

1.2. Experimental group

2. What is the performance of the two groups of respondents in the posttest?

1.1. Control group

1.2. Experimental group

3. Is there a significant difference between the pretest scores of the control and
experimental group?

4. Is there a significant difference between the posttest scores of the control and
experimental group?

5. Is there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the control
and experimental group?

III. HYPOTHESES
The following null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance.

1. There is no significant difference between the pretest result of the experimental and
control group.

2. There is no significant difference between the posttest result of the experimental and
control group.

3. There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest result of the
experimental and control group.

IV. METHODOLOGY
This action research utilized the experimental design since its main purpose was to
determine the effectiveness of DI and its possible effect to the mean gain scores on
achievement of pupils on a one-week lesson in Grade 4 English.

Two groups were taught the same lessons for one week. The control group was taught
using the single teaching with similar activities approach while the experimental group was
taught using DI with three sets of activities and three sets of evaluation and facilitation for
the three groupings of pupils for the one-week duration. Two regular sections were included
in the study out of the five Grade 4 sections that the school have.

Both groups were given the diagnostic test on Friday, September 25, 2015 to identify the
classification of pupils whether they belong to the above average group, average group,
and below average group. The achievement test was administered on Monday, October 5,
2015 the following week using parallel teacher-made tests. The number of pupils was again
identified to know whether there was change in their classification. The results of the
pretest and the posttest were compared to determine whether using DI is effective or not.

Data Gathering

After seeking the approval from the principal, the teacher-researcher started the experiment
for a week.

The scores of both the pretest and the posttest were taken and these data were coded,
tallied, and were statistically treated using the mean, standard deviation, and t -test of
significant difference.

The mean and the standard deviation were used to determine the level of performance of
control and experimental groups and the classification of pupils, while the t-test was
employed to determine the significant difference of the mean scores on pretest and posttest
of both groups.

V. RESULTS AND DISCU SSIONS

The following are the results and the analysis done from the data.

A. Performance of the Two Groups of Respondents in the Diagnostic Test (Pretest)

The result of the pretest of the two class groups is presented in Table 1.

Diagnostic scores reveal that the control group has a mean of 11.76 (Sd=4.06) while the
experimental group reported a mean score of 12.07 (sd=3.56) which is a little higher.

Table 1

Pretest Results of the Control and the Experimental

Groups Prior to the Experiment

Groups N Mean Standard Deviation

Control Group 49 11.76 4.06

Experimental Group 51 12.07 3.56

The variance results of 4.06 and 3.56 are not that big which signify that both classes are
heterogeneous; meaning the pupils were of differing level of intelligence. This is indeed a
good baseline since the results suggest that the two sections included in the study are
almost the same in the manner that the scores are scattered. This means that the pupil’s
grouping are mixed as to their abilities.

Tomlinson (2009) claimed that pupil’s differences should be addressed and the two groups
became an ideal grouping for which the experiment was conducted concerning DI.

B. Performance of the Two Groups of Respondents in the Achievement Test

(Posttest)

Table 2

Pretest Results of the Control and the Experimental

Groups Prior to the Experiment

Groups N Mean Standard Deviation

Control Group 49 13.82 3.53

Experimental Group 51 16.45 2.34

The level of performance of the two groups in the posttest is presented in Table 2.

The experimental group of pupils who were exposed to DI obtains a mean score of 16.45
(Sd=2.34) while the control group who were taught using the traditional method obtain a
mean score of 13.82 (Sd=3.53).

The result showed that the posttest scores of the experimental groups taught with DI is
remarkably better as compared to those which were taught the traditional approach.
Looking at the standard deviation scores, it signifies that the variance of the experimental
group was smaller than that of the control group which suggest that the pupils’ intellectual
ability were not scattered unlike in the pretest result.

The finding is supported by Stravroula’s (2011) study on DI where was able to prove that DI
is effective as it positively effects the diverse pupils characteristics. Stronge’ s (2004)
contention that DI can enhance motivation and performance also supports the result.

C. Classification of Pupils in the Control and Experimental Group Based on the

Pretest and Posttest Scores Results

Table 3
 Classification of Pupils Before and After the Differentiated Instruction

Table 3 presents the grouping of the pupils both in the control and in the experimental
group As per classification of students based on the mean and standard deviation results, a
majority of the pupils were on the average group for the control and experimental group
prior to the treatment. However, after the experiment, there was a big increase in number of
pupils for the average group for the control group and a larger number now belongs to the
above average group. There were no pupils reported to be in the below average group for
both the control and the experimental group.

Data suggest that both approach in teaching increased the achievement but remarkable
increase was noted in the group taught with DI.

D. Classification of Pupils in the Control and Experimental Group Based on the

Pretest and Posttest Scores Results

Table 3.1

Classification of Pupils Before and After the Differentiated Instruction

Table 3.1 shows that as per classification of students based on the mean and standard
deviation results, a majority of the pupils were on the average group for the control and
experimental group prior to the treatment of using DI to the experimental group.
It could be noticed that the percentages of classification are not far from each other. The
idea presented by Tomlinson (2009) that differences of pupils should be addressed by the
teacher in the classroom is good and according to Robinson, et.al, the teachers are the
best facilitators of learning for pupils of diverse background and abilities.

Table 3.2

Classification of Pupils After the Differentiated Instruction

Table 3.2 presents that after the experiment, there was a big increase in number of pupils
for the average group for the control group and a larger number now bel ongs to the above
average group. There were no pupils reported to be in the below average group for both the
control and the experimental group.

Data suggest that both approach in teaching increased the achievement but remarkable
increase was noted in the group taught with DI. This improvement in the classification or
grouping of pupils in both groups assumes the principle that both groups who are taught by
the same teacher with the same lesson could normally have a change in aptitude especially
if the teacher has addressed the differences as averred by Anderson (2007). However, the
notable changes in the experimental group is surely brought about by the DI exposed to
them as supported by Stravroula (2011), Subban (2006), and Stronge (2004). With the DI,
the teacher’s approach to the teaching and the activities may have affected very well the
acquisition of the learning competencies as was mentioned by Wilson (2009). Specifically
however, in English, the contentions of Sevillano (cited by Robinson et al, 2014 ) directly
supports the result.

READ: Research Paper Writing Service

E. Results of Significant Difference Between the Pretest Scores of the Control and
Experimental Group

Table 4

Significant Difference Between the Pretest Scores of the Control Group and
Experimental Group
Table 4 presents the significant difference in the pretest scores of the two groups.

The computed t-ratio of 0.8109 is lesser than the tabular of 1.9845 at 98 degrees of
freedom. Hence the hypothesis of no significant difference is accepted. There is no
significant difference in the pretest scores of the class groups.

This result is good since the baseline data prior to the use of DI suggest that the pupils
have similar intellectual abilities which will be very crucial for trying out the experiment in
the teaching approach. The data suggest that the groups are very ideal for the experiment
since they possess similarities prior to the experiment.

F. Significant Difference Between the Posttest Scores of the Control and

Experimental Group

Table 5 presents the significant difference of the posttest scores between the control and
the experimental group.

Table 5

Results of Post-test the Control and Experimental Group

From the data, it is very clear that the difference in scores in the achievement favor the
experimental group which was taught using DI. Hence, it is safe to say that DI is effective
based on the data generated.
G. Significant Difference Between the Pre-test and Post-test Scores of the Control
and Experimental Group

Table 6

Significant Difference Between the Pretest and Posttest Scores of the Control and
Experimental Group

Table 6 presents the comparison of the pretest and post test scores of the control and the
control groups.

Clearly, for the control, there is no significant difference as signified by the computed t
coefficient of 0.09 which is lesser than the tabular value of 1.9850 using 96 degrees of
freedom. However, for the control group, it is very obvious that the calcul ated t-ratio of 1.02
is greater than the tabular value of 1.9840. Hence, the hypothesis of no significant
difference between the pretest and posttest scores for the control group is accepted but is
rejected for the experimental group.

The results are very significant since the group exposed without DI did not report difference
in score unlike in the group taught using DI which showed significant difference. This then
makes it safe to conclude that DI is effective in teaching English.

VI. FINDINGS
The following are the findings of this action research.

1. The mean scores of both control (11.76, Sd=4.06) and the experimental (12.07,
Sd=3.56) groups do not significantly differ based on the t-coefficient result of 0.8109
which is lesser than the tabular of 1.9845 at 98 degrees of freedom.

2. The mean scores of the control (16.45, Sd=2.34) and the experimental (13.82,
Sd=3.53) significantly differ which favor the use of DI from the t -ratio of 3.423 is
 greater than the tabular value of 1.9845 at 0.05 level of significanc e using 98 degrees
of freedom.

3. During the pretest, majority of the pupils are average (control group, 35 or 71.43% and
37 or 72.55%). After the treatment, however, majority of the pupils in the control group
became average (34 or 69.39%) and above average (35 or 68.63%).

4. There is no significant difference between the control group’s pretest and posttest
scores based on the computed t coefficient of 0.09 which is lesser than the tabular
value of 1.9850 using 96 degrees of freedom but significant difference e xists for the
experimental group as signified by the calculated t-ratio of 1.02 is greater than the
tabular value of 1.9840 using 98 degrees of freedom.

VII. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings, the following are the conclusions.

1. The pretest scores of the control and the experimental group do not differ significantly.

2. The posttest scores of the groups significantly differ resulting to higher scores for the
experimental group.

3. No significant difference exists in the pretest and posttest scores of the control group,