000 06187nam a2201225Ia 4500
000 04020ntm a2200205 i 4500
001 70707
003 0
005 20250920174318.0
008 180122n 000 0 eng d
010 _z
_z
_o
_a
_b
015 _22
_a
016 _2
_2
_a
_z
020 _e
_e
_a
_b
_z
_c
_q
_x
022 _y
_y
_l
_a2
024 _2
_2
_d
_c
_a
_q
028 _a
_a
_b
029 _a
_a
_b
032 _a
_a
_b
035 _a
_a
_b
_z
_c
_q
037 _n
_n
_c
_a
_b
040 _e
_erda
_a
_d
_b
_c
041 _e
_e
_a
_b
_g
_h
_r
043 _a
_a
_b
045 _b
_b
_a
050 _a
_a
_d
_b2
_c0
051 _c
_c
_a
_b
055 _a
_a
_b
060 _a
_a
_b
070 _a
_a
_b
072 _2
_2
_d
_a
_x
082 _a
_a
_d
_b2
_c
084 _2
_2
_a
086 _2
_2
_a
090 _a
_a
_m
_b
_q
092 _f
_f
_a
_b
096 _a
_a
_b
097 _a
_a
_b
100 _e
_e
_aSelerio, Amelia Cabradilla.
_d
_b4
_u
_c0
_q16
110 _e
_e
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c
_k
111 _a
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c
130 _s
_s
_a
_p
_f
_l
_k
210 _a
_a
_b
222 _a
_a
_b
240 _s
_s
_a
_m
_g
_n
_f
_l
_o
_p
_k
245 0 _a
_aAssessment of the reading level of elementary school children exposed to the reading recovery program /
_d
_b
_n
_cAmelia Cabradilla Selerio.
_h6
_p
246 _a
_a
_b
_n
_i
_f6
_p
249 _i
_i
_a
250 _6
_6
_a
_b
260 _e
_e
_a
_b
_f
_c
_g
264 _3
_3
_a
_d
_b
_c46
300 _e
_e
_c28 cm.
_a75 pages
_b
310 _a
_a
_b
321 _a
_a
_b
336 _b
_atext
_2rdacontent
337 _3
_30
_b
_aunmediated
_2rdamedia
338 _3
_30
_b
_avolume
_2rdacarrier
340 _2
_20
_g
_n
344 _2
_2
_a0
_b
347 _2
_2
_a0
362 _a
_a
_b
385 _m
_m
_a2
410 _t
_t
_b
_a
_v
440 _p
_p
_a
_x
_v
490 _a
_a
_x
_v
500 _a
_aThesis (M.A.) -- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 1999.;A thesis presented to the faculty of Graduate School of Arts, Sciences and Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in School Principalship.
_d
_b
_c56
504 _a
_a
_x
505 _a
_a
_b
_t
_g
_r
506 _a
_a5
510 _a
_a
_x
520 _b
_b
_c
_aABSTRACT: The main purpose of the study was to find out the effect of the school's Reading Recovery Program on the reading level of the pupils exposed to such program. Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions: 1.) What is the profile of the pupil-respondents in terms of: a.) sex b.) age c.) grade level 2.) What is the reading level of the pupil-respondents before and after the Reading Recovery Program? 3.) Is there a significant difference in the reading level of the children before and after the program? The study made use of a pre-test given to 75 pupil-respondents upon enrollment in the recovery classes for remedial reading instruction. After the remedial instruction, they were given a post-test. The chi-square goodness of fit test was used to determine the significant difference between the pre-test and post-test results. Both manual and computer application on the computation of the statistical test were done to treat the test data. FINDINGS The statistical test performed on the hypothesis yielded the following result, that there was a significant difference in the reading level of the pupils before and after Reading Recovery Program. With the computed chi-square value of 23.480 and a critical value of 9.488 at .05 level of confidence, the null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, a significant difference exists between the pre-test and the post-test of the pupil-respondents. CONCLUSION In view of the above finding, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. Respondents were mostly Grade II male pupils whose reading levels were not congruent their grade levels . 2. The exposure to the Reading Recovery Program increased the reading level of the respondents. 3. The reading level of the pupils could be improved trough proper remediation. 4. The Reading Recovery Program is effective and beneficial to the children exposed to the said program RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the conclusions drawn, the following recommendations are given: 1. Congruency of the pupils grade level and reading level should be considered and important factor in promoting pupils. There should be proper screening reading ability and non-readers should undergo the Reading Recovery Program. 2. The Reading Recovery Program and other similar programs which are beneficial to pupils should be organized and made functional. 3. Additional Reading Recovery classes should be organized in the higher grades to assist non-readers. 4. Remedial instruction should not be signed to special English teachers only who are usually the Reading Recovery teachers, but also to subject area teachers. Subject area should also undergo training in remedial reading instruction. 5. The Reading Recovery Program should be evaluated periodically for possible improvement. 6. Educational leaders and school administrators should give more financial and moral support to such programs since the reading ability of the children is basic. 7. Further study on the Reading Recovery Program should be conducted.
_u
521 _a
_a
_b
533 _e
_e
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c
540 _c
_c
_a5
542 _g
_g
_f
546 _a
_a
_b
583 _5
_5
_k
_c
_a
_b
590 _a
_a
_b
600 _b
_b
_v
_t
_c2
_q
_a
_x0
_z
_d
_y
610 _b
_b
_v
_t2
_x
_a
_k0
_p
_z
_d6
_y
611 _a
_a
_d
_n2
_c0
_v
630 _x
_x
_a
_d
_p20
_v
648 _2
_2
_a
650 _x
_x
_a
_d
_b
_z
_y20
_v
651 _x
_x
_a
_y20
_v
_z
655 _0
_0
_a
_y2
_z
700 _i
_i
_t
_c
_b
_s1
_q
_f
_k40
_p
_d
_e
_a
_l
_n6
710 _b
_b
_t
_c
_e
_f
_k40
_p
_d5
_l
_n6
_a
711 _a
_a
_d
_b
_n
_t
_c
730 _s
_s
_a
_d
_n
_p
_f
_l
_k
740 _e
_e
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c6
753 _c
_c
_a
767 _t
_t
_w
770 _t
_t
_w
_x
773 _a
_a
_d
_g
_m
_t
_b
_v
_i
_p
775 _t
_t
_w
_x
776 _s
_s
_a
_d
_b
_z
_i
_t
_x
_h
_c
_w
780 _x
_x
_a
_g
_t
_w
785 _t
_t
_w
_a
_x
787 _x
_x
_d
_g
_i
_t
_w
800 _a
_a
_d
_l
_f
_t0
_q
_v
810 _a
_a
_b
_f
_t
_q
_v
830 _x
_x
_a
_p
_n
_l0
_v
942 _a
_alcc
_cBK
999 _c27712
_d27712