PROJECT SAMABASA (SAMA-SAMANG MATUTONG BUMASA) FOR STRUGGLING READERS AT ROSARIO COMPLEX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA: ACTIVITIES DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT SAMABASA (SAMA-SAMANG MATUTONG BUMASA) FOR STRUGGLING READERS AT ROSARIO COMPLEX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA: ACTIVITIES DEVELOPMENT.

Introduction Reading is the ability to interpret written symbols, encompassing skills like phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. For the Key Stage 1 (Grades 1 to 3) it is crucial for laying the foundation for academic success and lifelong learning. Proficient reading enhances language skills, fosters critical thinking, and promotes social-emotional growth through diverse narratives. DepEd Memorandum No. 173, s. 2019, known as the "Hamon: Bawat Bata Bumabasa" (3Bs Initiative), is a crucial component of the K to 12 Basic Education Program aimed at developing reading skills among elementary students. The initiative stresses the urgent need to ensure that all children acquire essential reading skills with comprehension by the end of their grade level. This aligns with the overarching goal of the K to 12 program to equip students with foundational skills necessary for lifelong learning and active participation in society. In line with this national effort, Rosario Complex Elementary School has implemented this school-based intervention program known as Project SAMABASA (Sama-Samang Matutong Bumasa). Project SAMABASA is a school-based reading intervention program designed to help struggling readers in Grades 1-3. The program aims to provide support to improve students' reading skills through focused, structured 45-assessing students' progress to ensure consistent improvement..

background of the study. Rosario Complex Elementary School is one of the public elementary schools in the division of San Pedro City, located at Our Dolorosa Street, Rosario Complex City of San Pedro. It has a total enrolment of 770 from Kinder to Grade 6. Like other schools, Rosario Complex Elementary School identifies a number of struggling readers in all grade levels. The current PHIL-IRI reading assessment determined 113 struggling readers from Grades I to III, of which 55 is from Grade I, 26 from Grade II, and 32 from Grade III. As an intervention, the school launched a school-based reading intervention that aims to help struggling readers improve their reading skills. The project is known as Project SAMABASA (Sama-Samang Matutong Bumasa). The Project SAMABASA (Sama-Samang Matutong Bumasa) launched by Rosario Complex Elementary School aims to improve literacy among struggling readers in Grades 1-3 for the school year 2022-2023. The project focuses on personalized, 45-minute daily reading sessions from Tuesday to Friday, designed to accelerate students' reading progress. The program includes tailored interventions to help students build foundational literacy skills, such as decoding, comprehension, and fluency, through a structured approach of warm-up activities, guided reading, independent reading, post-reading discussions, and reflection. The use of diverse learning materials, including modules, charts, PowerPoint presentations, and audiovisual tools, enhances engagement and supports different learning needs. Regular assessments are conducted every grading period to monitor progress and adjust instruction accordingly. The program also encourages collaboration between teachers, parents, and school leaders.

statement of the problem. The study aims to assess the Project SAMABASA for struggling readers at Rosario Complex Elementary School, San Pedro, Laguna, towards the development of reading activities. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions: 1.What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of: 1.1. Teachers 1.1.1. Age 1.1.2. Sex 1.1.3. Educational Qualification 1.1.4. Length of Service 1.2. Pupils 1.2.1. Age 1.2.2. Sex 1.2.3. Grade Level 2. How is Project SAMBASA conducted in terms of the following: 2.1. Warm-up 2.2. Guided Reading 2.3. Independent Reading 2.4. Post Reading and Discussion 2.5. Wrap-Up and Reflection.

3. Is there a significant difference in the conduct of Project SAMABASA in terms of: 3.1. Warm-Up 3.2. Guided Reading 3.3. Independent Reading 3.4. Post Reading and Discussion 3.5. Wrap-Up and Discussion 4. Is there a significant relationship between the pupil’s demographic profile and the conduct of Project SAMABASA in terms of: 4.1. Warm-Up 4.2. Guided Reading 4.3. Independent Reading 4.4. Post Reading and Discussion 4.5. Wrap-Up and Reflection 5. What activities may be developed in terms of the following: 5.1. Warm-Up 5.2. Guided Reading 5.3 Post-Reading and Discussion 5.4 Wrap-Up and Reflection.

hypothesis1qqqqfdd. 1. Is there a significant difference in the conduct of Project SAMABASA in terms of: 1.1. Warm-Up 1.2. Guided Reading 1.3. Independent Reading 1.4. Post Reading and Discussion 1.5. Wrap-Up and Discussion 2. Is there a significant relationship between the pupil’s demographic profile and the conduct of Project SAMABASA in terms of: 2.1. Warm-Up 2.2. Guided Reading 2.3. Independent Reading 2.4. Post Reading and Discussion 2.5. Wrap-Up and Reflection 3. What activities may be developed in terms of the following: 3.1. Warm-Up 3.2. Guided Reading 3.3 Post-Reading and Discussion 5.4 Wrap-Up and Reflection.

scope and limitation. The study is focused on the conduct of Project SAMABASA during the third quarter period in terms of its structured reading sessions with five phases: Warm-Up, Guided Reading, Independent Reading, Post Reading and Discussion, and Wrap-Up and Reflection. It will involve Grade 1-3 struggling readers, composed of 113 identified from the PHIL-IRI reading assessment results, and 4 teachers, as study respondents. The outcome of the study is the development of various reading activities that correspond to the phases of the structured reading sessions, which will be useful for both teachers and students..

comceptual framework. INPUT Respondents' The Conduct of SAMABASA in terms of: 2.1. Warm-Up 22. Guided Reading 2.3. Independent Reading 2.4. Post Reading and Discussion 2.5. Wrap Up and Reflection PROCESS Construction of questionnaires Validation of questionnaire Conduct of Project Distribution of questionnaire Collection of data Retrieval Of questionnaire Organization of Analysis and interpretation of findings and OUTCOME READING ACTIVITIES FOR PROJECT SAMABASA.

Chapter 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA This chapter contains the presentation and analysis of the data gathered relative to the specific questions asked in the study. The first part presents the profile of the participants according to demographic variables. The second part deals with _________. Part 1 – Respondents’ Demographic Profile Table 1Teachers’ Demographic Profile 1.2.3. Grade Level.

Characteristics Age 31 -40 41 -50 Total Sex Male Female Total Educational Qualification BachelorS Degree With MA units Total Length of Experience 4 - 9 years 10-14 ears Total Specialized Certificationsl Trainings Literacy Program Child Psychology Courses Phonemic Awareness for Early Learning The Science of Reading Readi Intervention for St li Readers Total Fre uenc 4 5 5 5 2 3 5 2 3 5 2 2 3 2 2 11 Percenta e 80 20 100 100 100 60 100 60 100 18.18 18.18 27.27 18.18 18,18 100.

Characteristics Age 31 -40 41 -50 Total sex Male Female Total Educational Qualification Bachelor's Degree With MA units Total Length of Experience 4 - 9 years 10-14 ears Total Specialized Certifications/ Trainings Literacy Program Child Psychology Courses Phonemic Awareness for Early Learning The Science Of Reading Readi Intervention for St Ii Readers Total Fre uenc 4 5 5 5 2 3 5 2 3 5 2 2 3 2 2 11 Percenta e 80 20 100 100 100 40 60 100 40 60 100 18.18 18.18 27.27 18.1B 18.18 100.

Characteristics 6 years old 7 years old 8 years old 9 ears old and above Total Sex Male Female Total Pupils' Demographic Profile Grade I Grade 2 Grade 3 ununu 16 51<1 41 14 o I 56 22 34 56 7321 25 o 179 100 3929 6011 IOO 14 15 2 31 15 31 46.16 4819 645 100 409 100 o o 13 13 26 16 10 26 o o 50 50 IOO 61,54 38.46 100.

Table 2 Pupils' Demographic Profile Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 u—uøu Characteristics 6 years old 7 years old 8 years old 9 ears old and above Total Sex Male Female Total 41 14 o 22 34 7321 25 o 179 3929 14 15 2 16 15 0 409 645 100 5161 409 IOO 13 13 26 16 10 26 50 50 IOO 61,54 3846 100.

Part 2 – Mean Scores on the Conduct of Project SAMABASA.

Part 2 – Mean Scores on the Conduct of Project SAMABASA.

Table 4 Mean Score on the Conduct of Project SAMABA in terms of Guided Reading WM Intp. Teachers Grade I Grade 2 Grade 3 Indicators 1. teachers read together to model fluemy Teacher reads asentenceor paragraph, aM students repeat after the teacher 3. Pause during readng to explain comprehenson strateges like predicting, Infernng, or chnfyrq 4. Focus on dcwn WM 5 00 4 60 4 60 Imp. A A A WM 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 challergng words do syllables or 4.60 sound mts. Use"ed vstlonstoanalyze characters' trats and 460 whik read Intp. A A A A A WM 5.00 4.65 5 00 4 65 4.97 IMP. A A A A WM 500 500 500 500 500 Intp. A A A Average 5 00 481 4 90 4.81 4 89 Provdepoåers for students to aaaaaunaaa follow along readirg 7, Pat stronger readers Mh strugglirg ones to practice reading 4.60 collaborativdy 8. Stop after a paragraphtoask comprehensnn vsbons or make 460 predctms. 9. Hghllght diffidwords (firing readnganddscuss 460 context 10, Cut sentences fromthe text md guide 440 to forma tal seqtmce Grand Mean 4.73 4 93 A A 4 97 4 29 4 32 4.97 A A A A 5.00 5.00 4.15 5.00 A 4 83 471 4 43 471.

Table4 Mean Score on the Conduct of Project SAMABA in terms of Guided Reading WM Intp Teachers Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Indicators l. StudentsandteactHsread aloud together to model filmy 2 Teacher reads asentenceor paragraph, stidents repeat after teacter 3. Pause redngtoexplain compretmsm strateges like predlctlm, nfernrq, or cWifYlng 4. Focus on challergng words Ito syllables or sound units 5 Use gudedvstorsto analyze characters' trats and mtivatms while reading Provide ponters hrstudentsto follow along reading WM 5 00 4.60 4.60 Pair stronger readers mfr strugglirg ores to practice reading 4.60 collaboratively 8. comprehensnn vsbons or make 460 predictions 9. Highlight diffdwords fing reading and 460 in context 10 Cutsentencesfromthetextand guide arranging 440 to forma calsevnce Grand Mean Intp, A A A A A WM 5.00 5, 00 5.00 5, 00 4.73 4.93 4.66 Intp. A A A A A A A A A WM 500 4 65 5 00 4 97 4.97 4.29 4.32 Intp. A A A A A A A A A WM 5.00 5 00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.15 5.00 Intp A A A A A A Average 5 00 481 4 90 4.81 4.89 4.83 411 4 43 471 A.

Table 5 Mean Score on the Conduct of Project SAMABA in terms of Independent Reading Indicators I. Provde and comfortable space for stißents to read Indivdualy 2. Offerbooksdwyhglevelsto match students' reading ablties. 3. Gtvestl"ents bookmarks wth comprehension qtpstlors trey cm refect on readm 4. Alowstlßents umnterrupted tome to read at own pace. 5. Let stiients hghbght words or interesting phrases whik reading Teachers Grade 1 Grade2 Grade 3 Average WM Intp. WM Intp. WM Intp. WM Intp. WM Intp. 420 A 482 A 439 A 500 A 460 A 460 A 457 A 4.71 A 408 0 449 A 460 A -500 A 468 A 496 A 481 A 460 A 439 A 500 A 488 A 472 A 6. Ask students toptdownth018Yts or (Yaw the story na pumal t. Challemestl"ets toreada 4.20 A 4.13 A 4.97 A 4.92 A 4,71 A gwen 8. Pair st±tstosurnmarzeard discuss whd they read rdeper±ntly 9. Create mini-chdlenges, swhas firtrg a rewwordor 440 storys dea, 10 Letstlientschoosetheirowntext to encoae ergagement arui 4.60 autonomy A 391 384 O o 4.94 A A 4 97 5.00 A 4 56 4 55.

Table 5 Mean Score on the Conduct of Project SAMABA in terms of Independent Reading Indicators 1. Provdeaquet and comfortable space for students to read Indiviually 2 Offerbooksatvarylnglevelsto match students' readirg ablitles. Teachers Gradel Grade2 Grade3 Average WM Intp. WM Intp. WM Intp. WM Intp. WM Intp. 420 A 482 A 439 A 500 A 460 A 3. Glvest1Æents bookmarks wth comprehension questors theycan 460 reflect on whk reading Allow stidents unnterrupted tome toreäätrxownpace Letst1dentstVüght dficult words or interesting phrases reading Ask students to Jot down thoughts or draw about story na reading purnd 7. Chalerge stiderts to reada specific number of pages wihn a Par *Idents to summareeard discuss what tey read Independently 9. Create miniOlenges, swhas findrg a rew word or the qorys mÜl dea 10. Let stidents choose ttPlr own text to ermrage and autonomy 4 60 4 60 4.20 4.20 4.40 4.40 4.60 A A A A A A A 4.57 5.00 4 39 468 473 4.39 391 364 A A A 0 o 471 4 68 5 00 4.97 497 4.94 4.97 4 94 A A A A 408 4 96 4 88 408 4.92 4.11 4.91 5 00 0 A 0 0 A A 4.49 A 481 4.72 4.48 411 4.46 4 56 4.55.

Table 6 Mean Score on the Conduct of Project SAMABA in terms of Post.Reading & Discussion Teachers 2, 3 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Indicators Ask thought.provoklng qæstons about the text (eg. Why do you think the character mode thd ctme?) Create a vu representaton of the storys setting, characters, problems, md solution. Give stiderts sentne strps to arrange the story events n or±r Discuss how specific events i) the story kd to particular outcones Have students act out parts ofthe story to deepen understanding. WM Intp. A A A A A A Grade Grade2 Grade3 Average WM Intp. WM Intp, WM IMP. WM Intp. 500 A 465 A 496 A 480 A Enc04e sti±lts to wrte or share whatthey fink codd 460 happen rmt In the gory. Ask students to dentify recurnng words or phrases ard discuss their 4.60 significmce Let students argue dfferent perspectives about characters' 460 acbons or story odcomes Gude studfflts to wrte a cor•ctse 4.20 stmmary of the story. 4 50 4.20 4 69 4.01 4 69 4,58 A A A o A 4 94 497 497 4.91 A A A 408 408 4 88 4.96 250 4, 44 0 0 A 4 53 4 46 4.54 10. Ask students to draw, Mie poems, or crede posters based on the 440 stu Grand Mean 4, 48.

Table 6 Mean Score on the Conduct of Project SAMABA in terms of Post.Reading & Discussion 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. Indicators Ask questions about the text (eg. Whydo you think the character nzde that choice?) Create a viwal representation of the storys settng, characters, problems md solutiom Give stWents sentence strps to arrange the story everts n order Discuss how specific events In the story kd to particular outcomes Have students act out parts ofthe story to deepen lß&rstandng Encourage stiÆe1ts to wnte or share what trey think could rut in the qory Ask students to dentify recwnr,g Teachers Gradel Grade2 Grade 3 Average WM IMP. WM Intp. WM IMP. WM Intp. WM Intp. 460 A 500 A 465 A 496 A 480 A 420 A 466 A 497 A 496 A 470 A 4.60 words or phrases and discuss their 4.60 sqmficance Let students argue different perspectives about characters' 460 actions or story odcomes GIJI± students to wrte a concse sumary of the story. A A A A 4 50 4.20 4 69 4 69 4.58 A A A A A 4 94 4.97 497 4 97 4.91 A A A A 408 408 4 88 250 4.44 0 0 A 453 4 46 4 79 414 4.65 A 10. Ask students to draw, Mie poems, or crede posters based on the 4.40 stu Grand Mean 4.48.

Table 6 Mean Score on the Conduct of Project SAMABA in terms of Post.Reading & Discussion Indicators I. Ask ftught.provoklrg questions about the text (eg. Why do you think the character nude that choice?) 2 Create a vd representation of the story's settng, characters, problems, and solution Give stidentssenterwe strips to arrange the story events In order Dscuss fm specificeventsiltte story kd to partlC1/ar outcomes 5. Havestudents actoutparts ofthe story to deepen urderstandng 6. Encourage towrdeor share what they think couh happen nen in the ftry. 7. Ask students to words or phrases ard discuss ttEi sonificance 8. Let students argue different perspectives about characters' acions or story 011comes 9. Gudestudentstowrteacorctse sumary of the story. 10. Ask students to draw, Mie poems, or crede posters based on the stud Grand Mean Teachers Gradel Grade2 Grade 3 Average WM IMP. WM Intp. WM IMP. WM IMP. WM Intp. 460 A 500 A 497 A 500 A 489 A 460 A 500 A 465 A 496 A 480 A 420 A 466 A 497 A 496 A 470 A 4 40 4 60 4 60 4 60 4 40 4,48 A A A A 425 A 497 4 94 497 4.97 4 97 4.91 A A A A A 403 408 408 4 88 250 4.44 0 441 4.50 4 20 4 69 4.69 4,58 A A A 0 A 4, 53 4 46 4 79 4.65.

Mean Score on the Conduct of Proßct SAMABA in terms of Wrap.Up and Reflection Teachers Gradel Grade2 Grade3 Average Indicators 2. 3. 4. 7, Ask students one thim one 4 60 have, ard one favorte part Ofthe story Sunnarze key pants from the session fun ard Intaactlve 440 way (eg grolQ chantng) Let students share ther thughts about tesessnnnaromd.robn 440 Provdepronvtslike What did YOU 440 enjoy but todavs readm? Stiderts share free figs ttEY 440 to know ore abut Recogmze stuents' effort or mprovement wth stars or badges A A A A A A A 482 4 45 4.79 471 4 36 427 4.53 A 0 A A A A A A A 4 97 494 500 494 497 4 94 4 94 5 00 4.95 A 408 A 404 A 4.04 A 485 A 4.96 Discuss and set specifcreadjm 460 qoals forthe sessm 8 AlowstlÆentstoparupandshae 4 one key t*eawaywtha cssmde End wth a group cheer or postwe staterrert abod their readrg 460 acheven-erts 10. Have students wrie afea sentences abod what ttey 4 60 earrEd, ther chalen#S, or ttEir A A A 500 500 500 500 4.70 0 0 A A 0 0 o 0 next steps Grand Mean 4.52 4.38 4.76 4.75 480 4.82 4.72 4.68.

Table 7 Mean Score on the Conduct of Project SAMABA in terms of Wrap-Up and Reflection Teachers Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Indicators Ask students to write thing ttpy karned, qtestion have, and ore favorte ofttp Story, Surnrnarze key pants the session in a fm ard Interactive way (e g. group chanting). Let students share ther thoughts WM 4.60 440 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, 8, 9. Intp. A A A A WM 4.82 414 4.79 471 Intp. A O A A A WM 4.97 494 4.90 5.00 4.94 Intp. A A A A A WM 408 404 4.04 about the sessnn a round-robin 440 Provide prompts like What did you 4.40 enjoy most about todavs readnq?' Students share three things they Earned, irterestiu or want 440 to know rmre about Intp. O A A Average WM Intp. 438 4.76 4.75 Recognize students' effort or inprovement wth stars or badges Discuss and set spectfcreadlng A 464 A 497 A 500 0 480 A qoaS for the next session. Alow stiHents to par up and share one key takeaway wth a classmate Erd wih a group cheer or positive statement amut reading achevements. 10. Have students Mte a few sentences abott what ttEY barned, their chaknges, or A A 4.73 4.53 A A 4.94 5.00 4.95 A A A 500 500 4.70 o next steps Grand Mean 4.52 4.82 4.68.

Table 8 Surnrnary of Mean Scores on the Conduct of Project SAMABA Indicators Warm up Guided Reading Independent Reading Post-Readinq and Discussion Wra -U and Reflection Grand Mean Teachers WM Intp. 4 38 4.62 4 48 4 4.49 Grade 1 WM Intp. 4 50 4.88 481 4 58 53 4 4.60 Grade 2 WM Intp. 481 4.78 485 4 91 4 95 4.86 Grade 3 WM Intp. 4 94 4.92 4.70 4.44 4 70 4.74 Average WM Intp. 4 66 4_80 463 4 60 4 68 4.67.

Part 3 – Result Hypothesis Testing. Table Significant Difference on the Conduct of Project SAMABASA Indicators VVarrn up Guided Reading Independent Reading Post—Reading & Discussion VVrap—Up & Reflection C puted F-Va1ue 19.17 6.15 14.78 14.72 8.14 Critical Value 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 Ho Decision Rejected Rej ected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rernarks Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant.

Part 3 – Result Hypothesis Testing. The Warm Up phase had a computed F-value of 19.17, significantly higher than the critical value of 2.68. This indicates that the responses varied widely across groups, with Grade 3 showing the highest level of engagement (4.94) compared to Teachers (4.38). The significant difference suggests that younger students, especially in Grade 3, were more receptive to the warm-up activities, potentially due to their interactive and engaging nature. The Teachers’ lower score could imply that the activities might need to be adapted to better engage adults or be adjusted for different age groups. This highlights the need for varied warm-up strategies tailored to the age and needs of the participants. The Guided Reading phase also showed a significant difference with a computed F-value of 6.15. While all groups rated the activity positively, with Grade 3 (4.92) again leading, the variation in responses suggests that the level of engagement differed across groups. Teachers’ score (4.62) was lower compared to Grade 1 (4.88) and Grade 3 (4.92). This difference could indicate that younger students may benefit more from guided reading activities due to their need for structured support, whereas Teachers may have found the approach less effective in their own context, possibly due to different expectations or experiences in reading sessions. The significant difference implies the need to adjust the level of support and interaction based on the group involved..

The Independent Reading phase exhibited a significant difference, with a computed F-value of 14.78. Grade 2 (4.85) had the highest score, followed closely by Grade 1 (4.51) and Grade 3 (4.70), while Teachers gave the lowest score (4.44. This suggests that independent reading activities were particularly effective for Grade 2, but less so for Teachers, who may have seen challenges in supporting students during this phase. The significant variation implies that independent reading strategies should be adapted to meet the needs of different groups, with additional support for younger students and possible refinements for older students or teachers. The Post-Reading & Discussion phase also showed a significant difference with a computed F-value of 14.72. Grade 2 again scored the highest (4.91), while Grade 3 rated this activity the lowest (4.44). The differences in responses imply that post-reading discussions were particularly engaging for Grade 2, but less so for Grade 3. This could suggest that the nature of the discussion or the types of prompts used might not have resonated as well with Grade 3 students, indicating the need for more interactive or varied discussion formats to maintain engagement at different grade levels. Finally, the Wrap-Up & Reflection phase also showed a significant difference with a computed F-value of 8.14. Grade 2 scored the highest (4.95), while Grade 3 scored slightly lower (4.70). The significant difference in responses indicates that Grade 2 found the wrap-up and reflection activities particularly effective, while Grade 3 may have found them less engaging..

This variation suggests that reflection activities, which require deeper thinking and personal engagement, may be more effective for certain age groups, but might need modification for older students to maintain interest and involvement. The significant differences across all indicators highlight that different groups have varying levels of engagement with the different phases of the project. The results suggest that Project SAMABASA’s activities should be designed to meet the specific needs of each group to maximize effectiveness. For younger students, such as Grade 3, more interactive and engaging activities may be necessary, while Teachers may require more structured approaches with clearer expectations. Additionally, strategies that encourage reflection, discussion, and independent work should be adapted to the developmental levels of the students to ensure they are both meaningful and engaging across all age groups..

Table 10 Significant Relationship between Teachers' Profile and the Conduct of Project SAMABA Indicators Age Warm-up Guided Reading Independent Reading Post-Reading & Discussion Wrap-Up & Reflection Sex Warm-Up Guided Reading Independent Reading Post-Reading & Discussion Wrap-Up & Reflection Computed R-value 0.14 0.07 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.10 Intp. Negligible correlation Negligible correlation Negligible correlation Negligible correlation Negligible correlation No correlation Negligible correlation Negligible correlation Negligible correlation Negligible correlation Ho Decision Failed to reject Failed to reject Failed to reject Failed to reject Failed to reject Failed to reject Failed to reject Failed to reject Failed to reject Failed to reject Remarks Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant.

Table II Significant Relationship between the Grade I Pupils' Profile and the Conduct of Project SAMRA Computed R.VaIue Indicators Warm•Up Remarks Decision Negligible Rejected Significant.

This indicates that Age does not significantly influence pupils' engagement or performance in the initial and concluding phases of the program, suggesting that all pupils, regardless of age, can participate similarly in these activities. On the other hand, Sex has a more pronounced impact on the conduct of the program. The Guided Reading phase shows a high correlation (R = 0.77), suggesting that boys and girls might respond differently to the structure of these sessions. Similarly, Post-Reading & Discussion and Wrap-Up & Reflection also show high correlations (R = 0.72 and R = 0.83, respectively), indicating that Sex plays a significant role in how pupils engage in discussions and reflect on the session. Boys and girls may have different levels of participation or preference for certain activities, such as sharing thoughts or reflecting on the reading experience. In contrast, the Warm-Up phase shows a negligible correlation (R = 0.25), suggesting that sex does not strongly influence participation at the outset. The results imply that while Age appears to have limited influence on most stages, it is more relevant in the Independent Reading phase, where older pupils may be better able to read independently. Sex, however, has a more substantial effect, especially in the Guided Reading, Post-Reading & Discussion, and Wrap-Up & Reflection phases. These findings highlight the need for gender-responsive teaching strategies to ensure that both boys and girls are equally engaged and able to benefit from the program. Teachers may need to adapt their methods in specific stages to accommodate these differences, creating an inclusive and effective learning environment for all students..

Table 12 Significant Relationship between the Grade 2 Pupils’ Profile and the Conduct of Project SAMABABASA.

In the Warm-Up phase, older students might be better prepared or more engaged in the initial activities. Similarly, Independent Reading shows a moderate correlation, suggesting that age is an important factor in pupils' ability to read independently. The Post-Reading & Discussion stage, however, shows only a low correlation (R = 0.39), indicating a slight influence of age on how students engage in discussions or reflect on what they read. However, the Wrap-Up & Reflection stage has a negligible correlation (R = 0.05), meaning age does not significantly impact students’ participation in this final activity. The impact of Sex on the program’s stages is also notable but varies across different phases. In the Warm-Up and Independent Reading stages, low correlations of 0.50 indicate a moderate but significant relationship between pupils’ sex and their engagement in these activities. This suggests that boys and girls may exhibit different levels of involvement or response to these stages, with sex possibly influencing their readiness or willingness to participate..

However, in the Guided Reading, Post-Reading & Discussion, and Wrap-Up & Reflection stages, the correlations are lower, ranging from 0.05 to 0.36, indicating that sex has a lesser effect in these phases. Particularly, the Guided Reading and Wrap-Up & Reflection stages show negligible correlations, meaning that sex does not significantly influence pupils’ responses during these parts of the program. Data disclosed that age plays a stronger role in the Warm-Up and Independent Reading stages, while Sex appears to have a moderate influence in the Warm-Up and Independent Reading stages as well. These findings highlight that age and sex are important demographic factors that may affect pupils’ participation and performance in certain stages of the program, particularly in the beginning and reading-focused activities. The relatively weaker impact of Sex in later stages suggests that gender may have less of an effect on pupils' reflective or discussion-based activities. Therefore, the program may benefit from being designed to account for age and sex differences, particularly in the early and independent reading phases, to ensure that all pupils are equally supported and engaged throughout the learning process..

Table 13Significant Relationship between the Grade 3 Pupils’ Profile and the Conduct of Project SAMABASA.

The Age of Grade 3 pupils shows a significant impact, especially in the Warm-Up stage, where a high correlation (R = 0.74) is observed, suggesting that older students are likely to be more engaged or prepared for initial activities. Age also plays a notable role in the Post-Reading & Discussion phase, where a low correlation (R = 0.31) indicates a mild influence on how pupils engage in reflecting and sharing thoughts about the session. However, Age shows negligible correlations in Guided Reading, Independent Reading, and Wrap-Up & Reflection (R-values of 0.18, 0.20, and 0.21, respectively), meaning age does not significantly impact pupils’ performance or participation in these stages. As for Sex, the influence is more prominent in the Warm-Up phase, with a moderate correlation (R = 0.60), suggesting that gender differences may play a role in initial engagement. Girls and boys may respond differently to introductory activities, which may affect their level of involvement..

The Post-Reading & Discussion phase also shows a low correlation (R = 0.41), suggesting that sex may have a mild influence on how pupils engage in sharing their reflections and insights. However, in Guided Reading, Independent Reading, and Wrap-Up & Reflection, the correlations are negligible (R-values ranging from 0.18 to 0.29), indicating that sex has a limited effect on how pupils approach these activities. Data disclosed that age has a significant impact on Warm-Up activities, suggesting that older pupils are more likely to be prepared and engaged in the beginning stages of the program. Sex, on the other hand, plays a moderate role in the Warm-Up phase, indicating that gender may influence how pupils engage with the program initially. However, both Age and Sex show minimal correlations with Guided Reading, Independent Reading, and Wrap-Up & Reflection, implying that these stages of the program are more universally engaging for all pupils, regardless of their age or gender. The findings suggest that teachers may need to adjust the Warm-Up phase to account for the varying needs of different age groups and genders, while maintaining a more consistent approach in the later stages of the program, where age and gender differences have less impact..

Chapter 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study aimed to assess the Project SAMABASA for struggling readers at Rosario Complex Elementary School, San Pedro, Laguna, towards the development of reading activities. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions: What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of: 1.1. Teachers 1.1.1. Age 1.1.2. Sex 1.1.3. Educational Qualification 1.1.4. Length of Service 1.2. Pupils 1.2.1. Age 1.2.2. Sex 1.2.3. Grade Level.

2. How is Project SAMBASA conducted in terms of the following: 2.1. Warm-up 2.2. Guided Reading 2.3. Independent Reading 2.4. Post Reading and Discussion 2.5. Wrap-Up and Reflection 3. Is there a significant difference in the conduct of Project SAMABASA in terms of: 3.1. Warm-Up 3.2. Guided Reading 3.3. Independent Reading 3.4. Post Reading and Discussion 3.5. Wrap-Up and Discussion.

Hypothesis There is no significant difference in the conduct of Project SAMABASA in terms of: 1.1. Warm-Up 1.2. Guided Reading 1.3. Independent Reading 1.4. Post Reading and Discussion 1.5. Wrap-Up and Discussion 2. There is no significant relationship between the pupil’s demographic profile and the conduct of Project SAMABASA in terms of: 2.1. Warm-Up 2.2. Guided Reading 2.3. Independent Reading 2.4. Post Reading and Discussion 2.5. Wrap-Up and Reflection.

The study utilized the descriptive research method in assessing the Project SAMABASA for struggling readers. It involved 113 struggling readers and 4 teachers. A researcher-made survey questionnaire was used as data data-gathering instrument. Collected data were tallied and analyzed using statistical tools such as frequency and percentage distribution, weighted mean, One-way ANOVA, and Pearson’s r coefficient of correlation..

Pupils. There were three grade levels involved in the Project SAMABASA – Grade 1, 2, and 3. Out of 56 Grade 1 pupils, the majority were aged 6 years old (41 or 73.21%), and there were 1 or 1.79% pupils whose age was beyond the appropriate age for Grade 1. There were more female struggling readers in the grade level (34 or 60.71%), while the remaining males were 22 or 39.29%. In Grade 2, 31 struggling readers were identified, whose ages ranged from 7 years old (46.16%) and 8 years old (48.39%), and a nearly equal distribution of males (16 or 51.61%) and 15 (48.39%) female struggling readers. As for Grade 3, ages equally ranged from 8 to 9 years old (13 or 50%), with more male struggling readers (16 or 61.54), over females (10 or 38.46%)..

II. Conduct of Project SAMABASA Warm-Up. Data revealed varied responses from the participants. Teachers indicated that the reading intervention in SAMBASA consistently begins with a Warm-Up, which can be noted from the grand mean of 4.38. Teachers noted that they regularly “give quick statements about the story theme and let the students guess if they are true or false,” and “start with a central word or theme and ask students to suggest related words or ideas,” both rated 4.60, being the highest. The Grade 1 pupils noted that they “view a picture or object related to the story they are about to read and are asked to predict what the story might be about,” with a 5.00 mean rating being the highest. Grade 2 pupils, on the other hand, stated that they “write letters on the board, and being asked to race to form words using those letters,” and “give quick statements about the story theme, then guess if they are true or false,” being rated 5.00 as highest. Meanwhile, the Grade 3 pupils identified various warm-up activities such as “creating word wall with sight words and picking words and use it in a sentence,” “being shown pictures or objects related to the story and asked to guess its connection to the text,” “providing the title of the reading material and ask to predict what the story might be about,” “looking for words and writing them down as they can that start with a specific letter,”, “giving quick statements about the story theme,” “saying word related to the story,” and “figuring out the missing word out from a list,” all obtained 5.00 mean rating being the highest. Data disclosed that Grade 3 pupils gave the highest ratings among their counterparts..

Guided Reading. Data revealed variations in the responses of the participants. Teachers gave a grand mean of 4.52, indicating that guided reading is a regular component of the reading intervention. They asserted that they read with the students aloud to model fluency, with a 5.00 rating being the highest. The Grade 1 pupils obtained a grand mean of 4.88, and confirmed to have experienced more guided reading activities such as “reading aloud with teachers to model fluency,” “repeating sentences or paragraphs after the teacher,” “pausing during reading to explain comprehension strategies like predicting, inferring, or clarifying”, “breaking down challenging words into syllable or sound units,” “using guide questions to analyze character’s traits and motivations while reading,”, and “using pointer to follow along while reading,” all rated 5.00 as the highest. Meanwhile, Grade 2 pupils identified that their teachers read aloud with them to model fluency with a 5.00 mean rating. The Grade 3 pupils indicated many guided reading strategies such as “reading aloud with teachers,” “repeating sentences or paragraphs after the teacher,” “pausing during reading to explain comprehension strategies,” “breaking down challenging words into syllables or sound units,” “using guide questions to analyze character’s traits and motivations,” “using pointers to follow along while reading,” “pairing with stronger reading partners to practice reading collaboratively,” and “stopping after a paragraph to answer comprehension questions or make prediction,” all with rating of 5.00 being the highest. Data disclosed that all respondents agreed to reading aloud as the most common guided reading task..

Independent Reading. Data reflects still varied assessment ratings in the independent reading component of Project SAMABASA. Teachers indicated a grand mean of 4.44, asserting that independent reading is a consistent part of the reading intervention for struggling readers. They confirmed several independent reading tasks such as “offering books are varying levels to match students’ reading abilities,” “giving students bookmarks with comprehension questions they can reflect on while re4daing,” “allowing students uninterrupted time to read at their own pace,” “letting students highlight difficult words or interesting phrases while reading,” and “letting students choose their text to encourage engagement and autonomy,” all with rating of 4.60 being the highest. On the other hand, the Grade 1 pupils asserted that guided reading is also a constant part of their reading intervention experience with a grand mean of 4.51, denoting they frequently “read books at varying levels that match their reading ability,” and “undergo uninterrupted reading on their own pace,” both with 5.00 rating being the highest. The Grade 2 pupils, having a grand mean of 4.85, ascertained that they always “highlight difficult words or interesting phrases while reading, with a mean rating of 5.00 as the highest. Grade 3 pupils noted that independent reading is a regular component of the reading intervention, with a grand mean of 4.70. They noted that the regular “read in a quiet and comfortable space,” “read books at varying levels that match their reading abilities,” and “choose their text to encourage engagement and autonomy.” Reading books at varying levels that match the pupils’ reading ability is the most common guided reading task..

Post-Reading and Discussion. The data still disclosed varied assessments from the respondents. With a grand mean of 4.48, the teachers noted that they always conduct post-reading and discussion. Specifically, the post-reading and discussion tasks include “asking though-provoking questions about the text,” “creating a visual representation of the story’s setting, characters, problem, and solutions,” “discussing how specific events in the story led to particular outcomes,” “encouraging students to write and share what they thing could happen next story,” “ask students to identify recurring words or phrases and discuss their significance,” and “let the students argue different perspective about character’s action or sorry outcomes. The Grade 2 pupils showed 4.58 average mean, also indicating that they always experience post-reading and discussions. They highly rated “ask students to write a summary of the story,” with 5.00 being the highest. Grade 3 pupils with a grand mean of 4.91 stated that they always “answer thought-provoking questions about the text. All groups identified that asking thought-provoking questions about the text is the common post-reading and discussion task..

Wrap-Up and Reflection. Data showed varied ratings from the respondents. Teachers’ average mean of 4.52 indicated that wrap-up and reflection is a constant component of the reading intervention. They indicated several wrap-up and reflection tasks such as “asking students to write one thing they learned, one question they have, and one favorite part of the story,” “recognize students’ efforts or improvement with stars or badges,” “discuss and set specific reading goals for the next session,” “allowing students to pair up and share one key takeaway with a classmate,” “ending with. A group cheer or positive reinforcement,” and “having students write a few sentence about what they learned, their challenges, and their next steps,” all rated 4.60 being the highest. Grade 1 grand average mean 4.53, indicating that wrap-up and reflection are always conducted among them. They recognized that they are being provided prompts like “What did you enjoy most about today’s reading?” as a wrap-up and reflection task. The Grade 2 pupils, on the other hand, obtained a 4.95 grand mean, and noted that they “are provided with prompts to answer,” and “write a few sentences about what they learned, their challenges, or their next steps,” both rated 5.00 being the highest. Meanwhile, the Grade 3 pupils obtained a 4.70 grand mean, denoting constant wrap-up and reflection. They asserted that they perform various tasks such as “recognizing effort or improvement with stars or badges,” “discussing and setting specific reading goals for the next session,” “pairing up and share one key takeaway with a classmate,” “ ending with a group cheer or positive statement about their reading achievements,” and “writing a few sentences about what they have learned, their challenges, and their next steps,” all rated 5.00 being the highest. Discussing and setting a set of specific reading goals for the next session is the most common wrap-up and reflection task identified by all respondents. Data disclosed that teachers showed the lowest assessment of the reading intervention among the groups, while the Grade 2 pupils showed a consistent highest mean ratings..

III. Hypothesis Test Significant Difference. Data disclosed that computed F-values 19.17 for Warm-Up, 6.15 for Guided Reading, 14.78 for Independent Reading, 14.72 for Post-Reading and Discussion, and 8.14 for Wrap-Up and Reflection were all greater than the critical value 2.68, asserting the rejection of the null hypothesis. It denotes that there is a statistically significant difference in perceptions among the respondents on the conduct of Project SAMBASA. The significant difference suggests that younger students, especially in Grade 3, were more receptive to the warm-up activities, potentially due to their interactive and engaging nature. The Teachers’ lower score could imply that the activities might need to be adapted to better engage adults or adjusted for different age groups. This highlights the need for varied warm-up strategies tailored to the age and needs of the participants. In addition, younger students may benefit more from guided reading activities due to their need for structured support, whereas Teachers may have found the approach less effective in their context, possibly due to different expectations or experiences in reading sessions. Likewise, independent reading activities were particularly effective for Grade 2, but less so for Teachers, who may have seen challenges in supporting students during this phase..

The significant variation implies that independent reading strategies should be adapted to meet the needs of different groups, with additional support for younger students and possible refinements for older students or teachers. The nature of the discussion or the types of prompts used might not have resonated as well with Grade 3 students, indicating the need for more interactive or varied discussion formats to maintain engagement at different grade levels. The significant difference in responses indicates that Grade 2 found the wrap-up and reflection activities particularly effective, while Grade 3 may have found them less engaging. This variation suggests that reflection activities, which require deeper thinking and personal engagement, may be more effective for certain age groups, but might need modification for older students to maintain interest and involvement..