Reading and Literacy Performance of Grade 2 Learners at Dugmanon Elementary School, Division of Surigao del Sur: A Descriptive Quantitative Approach as Basis for a Reading Enhancement Program
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22870151Keywords:
Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA), decoding and word recognition, Grade 2 learners, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, reading enhancement programAbstract
This descriptive quantitative study determined the reading and literacy performance of Grade 2 learners at Dugmanon Elementary School, Division of Surigao del Sur, using the Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) as basis for a Reading Enhancement Program. The analysis focused on decoding and word recognition, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, CRLA reading profiles, and priority instructional needs. The official CRLA results of 31 continuing Grade 2 learners were analyzed using frequency, percentage, and mean, following prescribed CRLA scoring and classification procedures. At the Beginning of the School Year (BOSY), 33 learners were initially assessed; two later transferred, so comparative BOSY-Middle of the School Year (MOSY) analyses used the 31 continuing learners. Decoding and word-recognition performance improved descriptively: the mean Part 1 score increased from 14.32 at BOSY to 21.03 at MOSY, while Grade Ready learners increased from 22.58% to 45.16%. At MOSY, 23 learners with recorded Part 2 results obtained a mean oral reading rate of 35.74 words per minute, mean reading accuracy of 73.43%, and mean comprehension score of 4.04 out of six. Low Emerging readers decreased from 51.61% at BOSY to 22.58% at MOSY; at MOSY, 29.03% were Developing, 35.48% Transitioning, and 12.90% Reading at Grade Level. The findings show encouraging progression but continuing heterogeneity in foundational word reading, fluency, accuracy, and comprehension. A differentiated CRLA-based Reading Enhancement Program was therefore developed around flexible grouping, targeted instruction, progress monitoring, and enrichment. The study concludes that CRLA evidence can guide responsive early-grade literacy instruction, while the descriptive design does not support causal attribution of observed changes.
Downloads
References
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Department of Education. (2025a). Implementing guidelines for the Academic Recovery and Accessible Learning Program in Reading for Key Stages 1 to 3 (DepEd Memorandum No. 064, s. 2025).
Department of Education. (2025b). Supplemental guidelines on the implementation of the Literacy Remediation Program (DepEd Memorandum No. 034, s. 2025).
Department of Education Regional Office XIII–Caraga. (2024). Virtual orientation on the administration of Comprehensive Literacy Assessment (CRLA) for Grades 1 to 3 for the beginning of the school year 2024–2025 (Regional Memorandum No. 0854, s. 2024).
Dubeck, M. M., & Gove, A. (2015). The early grade reading assessment (EGRA): Its theoretical foundation, purpose, and limitations. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 315–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.11.004
Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the Simple View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356
Foorman, B. R., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702–714. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.8.1
Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). U.S. Government Printing Office.
Philippine Health Research Ethics Board. (2022). National ethical guidelines for research involving human participants. Philippine Council for Health Research and Development.
Rasinski, T. V. (2004). Assessing reading fluency. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.
Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.
Siedlecki, S. L. (2020). Understanding descriptive research designs and methods. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 34(1), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000493
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND Corporation.
UNICEF, & Department of Education. (2021). SEA-PLM 2019 national report of the Philippines. United Nations Children’s Fund.
UNICEF, & Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization. (2020). SEA-PLM 2019 main regional report: Children’s learning in 6 Southeast Asian countries. UNICEF & SEAMEO–SEA-PLM Secretariat.
World Bank, UNESCO, UNICEF, Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, U.S. Agency for International Development, & Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2022). The state of global learning poverty: 2022 update. World Bank.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
