THINK HIGH!

STRATEGY AND METACOMPREHENSION SKILLS IN READING

OF GRADE 10 STUDENTS OF JONES RURAL SCHOOL

Juan S. dela Cruz

Teacher III
Proponent
Jones Rural School
Schools Division of Isabela

I. RATIONALE

A. Context

Reading comprehension is a multifaceted process (Adams, 1990). For students

to adequately comprehend text, they will need an awareness of print, which can be

obtained through multiple channels to facilitate word recognition. Carlisle and Rice

(2002) found that the lack of phonological sensitivity did impede reading, but other

factors came into play as students progressed through the different levels of reading

comprehension. These factors are evident because children who receive phonological

awareness training do not necessarily become fluent readers (Scarborough, 2001). In

addition to decoding skills, students need vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive

skills so they can monitor their understanding and reflect on what has been read.

Competent readers learn these components simultaneously and fluently. In addition, if

either component is inadequate, comprehension can be impeded.

Some teachers may assume that reading comprehension will develop naturally

without any direct teaching of comprehension (Denton & Fletcher, 2003). This line of

reasoning places reading in the same developmental progression as oral language

development. Children are able to acquire speech without formal instruction if given

enough exposure to it. This led many researchers to believe that given enough

exposure to print the child would experience the same developmental pattern.

Nevertheless, research has proven this line of reasoning to be faulty (Gough &

Hillinger, 1980; Wren, 2002). Humans have been communicating through speech for

thousands of years. We have used written communication for the masses for only
several hundred years. This skill must be taught through formal education. Research

evidence gathered over the last 20 years has shown that children need to learn

phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and awareness of print, phonics, and

fluency. Instruction of these components enables the child to decode unknown words.

These components are the basics or prerequisites needed for reading. Learning to

decode is a means to an end, and that end is to read and understand written

communication created by others and to be able to write in order to communicate. In

other words, reading instruction does not end when students can decode the words.

They continue to need instruction that will support their understanding of what they are

reading.

In the Philippines, the K to 12 languages curriculum ensures that processes

and products of learning actively foster and contribute to the achievement of the basic

education program goals (K to 12 English Curriculum Guide, Department of Education,

2011). There are 14 integrated language arts domains aligned with the five sub-

strands (listening, speaking, reading, writing and viewing) of the Language Arts and

Multiliteracies Curriculum or LAMC. The said domains are oral language, phonological

awareness, book and print knowledge, alphabet knowledge, phonics and word

recognition, fluency, spelling, writing and composition, grammar awareness and

structure, vocabulary development, listening comprehension, attitude towards

language literacy & literature, study strategies, and reading comprehension consisting

of schema and prior knowledge, strategies, narrative text and informational text.

These domains are funneled across the K to 12 Basic Education Integrated

Language Arts Curriculum, from Kindergarten to Grade 12, as shown in the table

below.

The funneling of the domains across grade levels makes certain that at the end

of studying basic education, learners possess skills that make them functionally literate

and communicative competent individuals, which is why as early as Kinder, skills in

communicative competence and metacognition such as comprehension is taught to

make sure that learners are not only taught to become good readers, listeners, writers

and speakers but also good thinkers.

In the study Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching

Children to Read, C.R. Adler says this of metacognition: “Metacognition can be defined

as "thinking about thinking." Good readers use metacognitive strategies to think about

and have control over their reading. Before reading, they might clarify their purpose for

reading and preview the text. During reading, they might monitor their understanding,

adjusting their reading speed to fit the difficulty of the text and "fixing" any

comprehension problems they have. After reading, they check their understanding of

what they read” (National Institute for Literacy, 2001).

In addition to this definition, this study also adopted the definition offered by

Kuhn (2000). Kuhn defined metacognition as, "Enhancing (a) metacognitive

awareness of what one believes and how one knows and (b) metastrategic control in

application of the strategies that process new information" (p. 178). This awareness is

developmental and lies on a continuum. Proficient readers use one or more

metacognitive strategies to comprehend text. The use of such strategies has

developed over time as the reader learns which ones are best suited to aid in

comprehension (Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Mistretta-Hampston, & Echevarria,

1998).

Reading comprehension is the thinking process used to make meaning of what

a person reads (Block, Gambrell, & Presley, 2002). Research has shown that teachers

spend very little time teaching comprehension strategies. Instead, they focus on asking

literal questions, assigning workbook pages, and giving directions (Block & Israel,

2005). According to Put Reading First developed by the Center for the Improvement

of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA), multiple research studies have indicated

improved reading comprehension by implementing various reading strategies (Adler,

2001). Comprehension strategies which include modeling, the think aloud process,
inferring, summarizing, making connections, questioning, and predicting should be

implemented as early as kindergarten (Block & Israel 2005).

“Metacognition is an awareness of and knowledge about strategies for

planning, monitoring, and controlling one’s own learning” (Block, Gambrell, & Pressley,

2002, p. 327). Good readers use metacognitive strategies to think about and control

their reading before, during, and after reading a selection. Students who do not use

metacognitive skills are usually low-achievers in reading. These students quit trying

because they believe their efforts will not pay off, or they fail to recognize when they

no longer understand what they are reading. For students to achieve metacognition,

teachers must make additions to their literacy program by teaching students to be

thoughtful and aware of their own thinking (Block & Israel, 2005).

Pressley et al. (1998) found that students' comprehension was not enhanced

by merely reading more text. If the students used even one of the strategies, for

example summarizing, comprehension was improved. If students were given a host of

strategies that they could apply at their discretion, comprehension was greatly

improved.

Indeed, the researcher found out that reading comprehension remains to be

one of the areas of difficulties encountered by students of Jones Rural School when

he conducted a pre-test for the Fourth Quarter Period to determine the Grade 10

students’ English proficiency skills particularly in reading comprehension in their

English 10 class. The pre-test, made up of 40 reading comprehension questions taken

from Fourth Quarter lessons in English, is conducted to the five sections of Grade 10

namely Sections A,B,C,D, and E.

The results of the pre-test show that Section Successful got the highest mean

of 44.75% followed by Section Cheerful with 42.50%. Section C ranked third with a

mean of 41.15% followed closely by Section B with its mean of 40.10%. Section E with

38.25% got the lowest mean. The figure also reflects that none of the sections

achieved 75%, which is the passing rate for the reading comprehension competency.
Moreover, the average mean of all Grade 10 sections is 41.35%, which is still far from

the passing rate. This only shows that Grade 10 learners still have to strengthen their

skills in reading comprehension, as well as metacognition.

Also, as the English teacher of these Grade 10 students, the researcher had

questioned if the scores were below the passing rate because the students’ higher-

order thinking skills have not been developed or mastered. In the researcher’s

experience as a classroom teacher for five years, reading comprehension is one of the

problem areas that occur year after year in the Grade 10 level.

The researcher observed how learners come to the tenth grade impressed with

how well they read the words, but they do not transfer good fluency into a good

understanding of what they read. In the pre-test conducted, the researcher found out

that Grade 10 learners still have difficulty answering the “how” and “why” of what they

have read.

To show further evidence of a problem in reading comprehension, the teacher

researcher surveyed the class that got the lowest mean, Grade 10-Courageous, using

the Metacomprehension Strategy Index, which is adapted from a study of “A

Questionnaire to Measure Children’s Awareness of Strategic Reading Processes” by

M.C. Schmitt (The Reading Teacher, p. 43,454-4611990, see Appendix B), to measure

each student’s awareness of the strategies used in the reading process.

The Metacomprehension Strategy Index (MSI) had a total of 25 questions

divided into three parts that asked about the strategies students used to help them

better understand a story.

Part one consisted of statements about the strategies used prior to reading a

story. The teacher researcher then gathered the data from Part One of the MSI. The

results indicated 37% of G10-Courageous students were able to correctly answer the

predicting questions. Forty-six percent of the students were able to correctly answer

the previewing questions. Twenty percent of the students were able to correctly answer

purpose setting questions. Thirty-nine percent of the students correctly answered the
questions for the category of self-questioning. Twenty-three percent of the students

were able to correctly answer the drawing from background knowledge questions.

Part two of the MSI consisted of statements about the strategies used while

reading a story. The results showed that 27% of the students correctly answered

predicting questions. Fifteen percent of the students correctly answered questions in

the self-questioning category. There were 27% of the students with correct responses

for drawing from background knowledge questions. In the summarizing category, 25%

of the students answered the questions with correct responses.

Part three of the MSI consisted of statements about the strategies used after

reading a story. The results indicated 21% of the students correctly answered

predicting questions. Thirty-three percent of the students correctly answered the

purpose setting and the summarizing questions. Thirty-six percent of the students

correctly answered the questions in the drawing from background knowledge category.

From the survey, only 33% students use metacomprehension strategies before

reading; 24% students use metacomprehension strategies while reading; and 30%

students use metacomprehension strategies after reading. The result yields an

average of 29% students who use metacomprehension strategies in reading. This

means that 71% G10-Courageous students still need to learn how to utilize higher-

order thinking skills and metacomprehension strategies to improve their

comprehension skills before, during and after reading.

Thus, the proponent came up with Think High! Strategy that would help

students utilize higher-order thinking skills to improve their reading comprehension. By

incorporating higher-order thinking skills, students would be able to transfer and make

connections to reading as well as develop a more meaningful reading experience.

The researcher’s intervention in this study will focus on the think-aloud process,

modeling, coached practice, and metacognition activities namely visualizing, inferring,

summarizing, making connections, predicting, and questioning.

 By learning the best comprehension strategies and how to best teach these

strategies to the students, the researcher hopes to provide the solid foundation needed

by students to succeed.

B. Proposed Intervention

“The goal of all readers should be to understand what they read” (Teele, 2004,

p. 92). Research shows good readers are actively involved with the text, and they are

aware of the processes they use to understand what they read. Teachers can help

improve student comprehension through instruction of reading strategies.

The objective of the study is to improve comprehension and metacognition, or

“metacomprehension”, skills in reading of Grade 10 students of Cabarroguis National

School of Arts and Trades as a result of the Think High! Strategy.

The Think High! Strategy consists of the think-aloud process, modeling,

coached practice, and metacognition activities namely predicting, making connections,

visualizing, inferring, questioning, and summarizing. The metacognition activities in

this strategy are shown by research to improve reading comprehension (Block & Israel,

2005).

The Think High! Strategy is composed of the following activities:

1. Think-aloud Process: The Think-aloud Process is an activity that helps

students learn to monitor their thinking as they read and improve their

comprehension. It teaches students to re-read a sentence, read ahead to

clarify, and/or look for context clues to make sense of what they read. It slows

down the reading process and allows students to monitor their understanding

of a text (J. Conner, 2004).

The think-aloud strategy asks students to say out loud what they are

thinking about when reading, solving math problems, or simply responding to

questions posed by teachers or other students. Effective teachers think out loud

on a regular basis to model this process for students. In this way, they

demonstrate practical ways of approaching difficult problems while bringing to

the surface the complex thinking processes that underlie reading

comprehension, mathematical problem solving, and other cognitively

demanding tasks.

Thinking out loud is an excellent way to teach how to estimate the

number of people in a crowd, revise a paper for a specific audience, predict the

outcome of a scientific experiment, use a key to decipher a map, access prior

knowledge before reading a new passage, monitor comprehension while

reading a difficult textbook, and so on.

Getting students into the habit of thinking out loud enriches classroom

discourse and gives teachers an important assessment and diagnostic tool.

By verbalizing their inner speech (silent dialogue) as they think their

way through a problem, teachers model how expert thinkers solve problems.

As teachers reflect on their learning processes, they discuss with students the

problems learners face and how learners try to solve them. As students think

out loud with teachers and with one another, they gradually internalize this

dialogue; it becomes their inner speech, the means by which they direct their

own behaviors and problem-solving processes (Tinzmann et al. 1990).

Therefore, as students think out loud, they learn how to learn. They learn to

think as authors, mathematicians, anthropologists, economists, historians,

scientists, and artists. They develop into reflective, metacognitive, independent

learners, an invaluable step in helping students understand that learning

requires effort and often is difficult (Tinzmann et al. 1990). It lets students know

that they are not alone in having to think their way through the problem-solving

process.

Think-alouds are used to model comprehension processes such as

making predictions, creating images, linking information in text with prior

knowledge, monitoring comprehension, and overcoming problems with word

recognition or comprehension (Gunning 1996).

2. Modeling: By modeling for students the types of behaviors good readers are

engaged in as they read, teachers are providing them with the opportunity to

become aware of the many strategies and monitoring behaviors that good

readers use (J. Conner, 2004).

When good readers are reading relatively simple texts (according to

their own reading abilities) these strategic behaviors are fairly automatic.

Typically, good readers only become aware of their strategy use when they

recognize that they are failing to comprehend. They then are cognizant of the

need to reevaluate their strategy use in order to remedy their failure to

comprehend. Furthermore, good readers are more likely to fall back on

appropriate strategies when the need to change strategies becomes apparent.

For most poor readers however, using a variety of strategies, using strategies

appropriately, and monitoring strategies is not automatic. Therefore modeling

strategic behaviors for struggling readers by thinking aloud for them while

teachers read (and hence, allowing students to think along), is the first step in

raising their awareness of what it means to be a strategic reader.

An activity a teacher can do for modeling is to model thinking aloud for

students with one of the texts. (Students should have a copy of this text in front

of them) Have students keep of list of the different types of things you (the

reader) are doing to help you better understand the text. When you're done,

start a master list on a large piece of paper, writing down strategies students

share with you – using their own words (J.D. Wilhelm, 2001).

3. Coached Practice: By engaging poor readers in coached practice in the think-

aloud method, teachers provide them with the opportunity and guidance they

need to choose useful, appropriate strategies to enhance reading

comprehension (R. Farr, 2004). We are encouraging them to think about why

and when to use certain strategies and providing them with the tools they need

to successfully monitor their own comprehension. With enough modeling and

 coached practice, students will be on their way to becoming independent users

of strategies. Eventually they will become their own coaches. Ultimately, using

the strategies will become more automatic for them, so that activities they have

practiced will be happening automatically in their heads.

4. Metacognition Activities:

a. Predicting: Good readers have a purpose for reading. One strategy for

improving comprehension is predicting, which helps the reader set a purpose for

their reading. This strategy also allows for more student interaction, which

increases student interest and improves their understanding of the text (Oczkus,

2003). An important aspect in the prediction process is comparing the prediction to

the outcome in the actual text. Without this aspect of the prediction process, it

becomes meaningless to improving the student’s comprehension (Duke &

Pearson, 2005). Some of the approaches for teaching predicting are teacher

modeling, predicting throughout the text, with partners, with a graphic organizer, or

using post-it notes throughout the text. Using the title, table of contents, pictures,

and key words is one prediction strategy. Another key prediction strategy is to have

students predict at specific points through the text, evaluate the prediction, and

revise predictions if necessary (Teele, 2004).

b. Making Connections: Research has shown that good readers use

their experiences and knowledge to make predictions and formulate ideas as they

read (Block & Israel, 2005). This strategy could be instructed by making

comparisons, teacher modeling, using graphic organizers, think-pair-share, and

teacher questioning. Students can make text-to-self connections through drawing,

making a chart, or writing. Teachers might ask students if they have ever

experienced anything like the events in the text. Students can make text-to-text

connections through drawing, making a chart, writing, and graphic organizers.

These text-to-text connections could be based upon how characters in the story

relate to each other, or how story elements relate between stories. Students can
make text-to-world connections through drawing, making a chart, writing, or

graphic organizers. Text-to-world connections could be done by comparing

characters in a story to characters today, or comparing the content of the text to

the world today (Teele, 2004).

c. Visualizing: Another strategy, good readers employ when

comprehending text is visualization (Adler, 2001). Visualization requires the reader

to construct an image of what is read. This image is stored in the reader’s memory

as a representation of the reader’s interpretation of the text (National Reading

Panel, 2000). Students can practice the visualization strategy by writing and

drawing or drawing and writing. Teachers have students visualize settings,

characters, and actions in a story.

d. Inferring: Inferring refers to reading between the lines. Students need

to use their own knowledge along with information from the text to draw their own

conclusions (Serafini, 2004). Through inferring students will be able to draw

conclusions, make predictions, identify underlying themes, use information to

create meaning from text, and use pictures to create meaning (Harvey & Goudvis,

2000). Students can be taught to use illustrations, graphs, and titles from the text

to make inferences. One method used for inferring is the double-entry notebook.

Students can record ideas in one column and evidence from the text in the second

column.

e. Questioning: Questioning is a process readers use before, during, and

after reading. The questioning process requires readers to ask questions of

themselves to construct meaning, enhance understanding, find answers, solve

problems, find information, and discover new information (Harvey & Goudvis,

2000). Teachers need to ask students questions during and after reading a

passage. Students are asked to return to the text to find the answer to questions.

The teachers model and the students practice to discriminate between questions

that are literal, inferred, or based on the reader’s prior knowledge. Children are
 taught to generate questions during reading and evaluate questions as literal,

inferential, or based on prior knowledge. By using the student generated

questioning strategy, text segments are integrated and thereby improving reading

comprehension (NRP, 2000).

f. Summarizing: The process of summarization requires the reader to

determine what is important when reading and to condense the information in the

readers own words (Adler, 2001). Teacher modeling and student practice of the

summarization process has proven effective for improving students’ ability to

summarize text and to improve text comprehension. Students can be taught to

identify main ideas, connect the main ideas, eliminate redundant and unnecessary

information, and remember what they read with the summarization strategy.

The Think High! Strategy will be used by the teacher researcher to improve

reading comprehension and metacognition or “metacomprehension” skills of Grade 10

students, particularly of the experimental group, Grade 10 Courageous Class of

Cabarroguis National School of Arts and Trades, for the school year 2016-2017 by

modeling, using coached practice, employing the think-aloud process, group practice,

partner practice, and independent use of the strategy.

The researcher identified Grade 10-Courageous as the experimental group

because it got the lowest mean in the reading comprehension pre-test and because

they were administered the Metacomprehension Strategy Index. The control group

would be Grade 10-Diligent because it ranked 4th among the Grade 10 classes in the

conduct of the pre-test.

The Think High! Strategy will be implemented during the period of January

2017 through March 2017, which covers the Fourth Quarter of the current school year,

to the experimental group of Grade 10 learners of Cabarroguis National School of Arts

and Trades by the researcher who is also their English teacher.

 The researcher will introduce one Think High! Strategy activity at a time.

Following the teacher modeling, coached practice, and the think-aloud process, the

researcher will have to make students practice the Think High! Strategy in a whole

class setting.

Researchers have also found that graphic organizers help students store

information into long-term memory and give them a visual image of the story (Teele,

2004). The teacher researcher will introduce and model a graphic organizer for each

metacomprehension activity. After each activity in the Think High! Strategy is modeled

and practiced in a whole class setting, the students will practice in small groups and

independently.

The teacher researcher will also model the use of journaling to record the Think

High! Strategy that will be used and how it can help give meaning to the text. Research

shows students improve comprehension when they analyze which strategy they are

using and how it helps bring meaning to the text. One tool to accomplish this task is

journal writing (Block, Gambrell, & Presseley, 2002). Following the teacher modeling,

the students will independently use the journal to record the comprehension strategy

they will use, and how it can help give meaning to the text.

II. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This research aims to improve reading comprehension and metacognition or

“metacomprehension” skills of Grade 10 students of Cabarroguis National School of

Arts and Trades as a result of Think High! Strategy which consists of teacher modeling,

coached practice, the teacher think-aloud process, and students’ practice of the six

metacognition activities namely predicting, making connections, visualizing, inferring,

questioning, and summarizing. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:

 1. What is the mean pre-test score of Grade 10-Courageous (experimental group)

and Grade 10-Diligent (control group) in English Reading Comprehension

before using the Think High! Strategy?

2. What is the mean pre-test score of Grade 10-Courageous (experimental group)

and Grade 10-Diligent (control group) in English Reading Comprehension after

using the Think High! Strategy?

3. Is there a significant difference in the mean pre-test score and mean post-test

score of both groups when Think High Strategy is applied?

4. Is there a significant difference between the mean pre-test score and mean

post-test score of each of the groups when Think High Strategy is applied?

5. What is the effect size of the Think High! Strategy on the respondents’

metacomprehension skills in reading?

6. How aware are students of the reading strategies they use before, during and

after reading?

III. METHODOLOGY

A. Sources of Data

The study will be conducted at Cabarroguis National School of Arts and Trades.

Two groups will be used for the study— control and experimental groups. Grade 10-

Diligent class will be the control group who will not receive the proposed intervention

and will be used as a benchmark to measure how the experimental group reacts to the

intervention. The Grade 10-Courageous class will be the experimental group which will
receive the Think High! Strategy proposed intervention as it recorded the lowest mean

score in the reading comprehension pre-test in English 10.

The researcher will use the universal technique, taking all learners of both

experimental and control groups. G10-Courageous, which is the experimental group,

has a total population of 30 while G10-Diligent, the control group, has a total population

of 30 students. The total respondents of the study consist of 60 learners.

B. Data Gathering Methods

The researcher will follow the protocols set in the Basic Education Research

Fund policy guidelines in conducting an action research. After gaining approval to

conduct her study, the researcher will then administer the pre-test in English Reading

Comprehension to the two groups. The pre-test is taken from the Fourth Quarter pre-

test in the English 10 Learners’ Materials used by the Department of Education. After

recording the scores of the students in the pre-test, she will implement the Think High!

Strategy to improve comprehension and metacognition, or “metacomprehension” skills

in reading of Grade 10 students of Cabarroguis National School of Arts and Trades.

The Think High! Strategy consists of the think-aloud process, modeling,

coached practice, and metacognition activities namely predicting, making connections,

visualizing, inferring, questioning, and summarizing.

After implementing the proposed intervention, the researcher will administer a

post-test which is similar to the pre-test to both the control and experimental groups.

The pre-test mean scores of the respondents will be compared against their

post-test mean scores to determine the significant difference of the Think High!

Strategy in improving reading comprehension in English 10.

The data to be gathered will be evaluated using the electronic statistical

package SPSS 21, student version.

Furthermore, the researcher plans to measure each student’s awareness of the

strategies used in the reading process by using the Metacomprehension Strategy

Index or MSI adapted from M.C. Schmitt before and after the implementation of the

Think High! Strategy. The MSI contains 25 questions divided into three parts (before,

during, and after reading) that asked about the strategies students used to help them

better understand a story.

C. ETHICAL ISSUES

In conducting this proposed study, the researcher takes into consideration

issues that have occurred and may arise.

Prior to the researcher’s formulation of a proposed solution, she first conducted

a pre-test which is a diagnostic assessment required in her English class for the Fourth

Quarter. This is to determine how far the students are performing in terms of English

proficiency in the language and multiliteracies curriculum. Upon noticing that the Grade

10 classes got low mean scores in their reading comprehension, she asked permission

from the Related Subjects Department Head who is in-charge of the English

Department to conduct a survey using the Metacomprehension Strategy Index. She

then informed the parents and students of Grade 10-Courageous about the MSI survey

and what the survey aims to accomplish. After a written agreement (see appendix A)

safeguarding the confidentiality of the students’ responses and the proper handling of

results and data of the study were signed by both respondents and parents, the

researcher conducted the MSI survey. From the survey, the researcher prepared a

proposal to address the low reading comprehension and metacognition skills of Grade

10 students.

The researcher then submitted the said proposal to the Office of the School

Head asking for permission to conduct the study to Grade 10-Courageous students,

which aims to improve reading comprehension and metacognition or

“metacomprehension” skills of the respondents by using the Think High! Strategy.

.After gaining the approval of the school head, she then presented this action

research proposal to the School Basic Education Research Committee for perusal,
evaluation, and constructive criticism. With guidance from the School and Division

Research Committees, she will then start the implementation of the study.

D. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS

1. The study will make use of descriptive-experimental research design and

descriptive-quantitative design.

2. This action research will employ the following statistical tools: mean, standard

deviation, independent samples t-test, paired samples t- test and Eta- squared

for the effect.

3. The researcher will use Mean and Standard Deviation to describe the pre-test

and post-test scores of both control and experimental groups before and after

using the proposed intervention.

4. The researcher will use Independent Samples t-test to compare the mean

scores of the control and experimental groups in order to determine whether

there is statistical evidence that the experimental groups’ mean scores are

significantly different.

5. The researcher will also use Paired Samples t-test to determine whether the

mean of the differences between two-paired samples differs from 0 or a target

value. The paired samples t-test will be computed to get the significant

difference between the mean pre-test and mean post-test scores of each two

groups when Think High! Strategy is applied.

6. The researcher will analyze data through the help of Statistical Package for

Social Sciences (SPSS 21), student version.

7. Eta squared will be interpreted using Cohen’s guidelines:

0.20 – small effect

0.50 – moderate effect

0.80 and above – large effect

8. The researcher will also determine the awareness of the respondents about the

reading strategies after using the Think High! Strategy through the

Metacomprehension Strategy Index. The first MSI survey is conducted before

using the proposed Think High! Strategy. The results of this survey will then be

compared against the second MSI survey which will be given after the conduct

of the Think High! Strategy. The researcher will use frequency and mean to

determine how many respondents are using reading strategies before, during

and after reading.

IV. Work Plan and Timelines

Resources Implementati
Physical Cost on Date
Strategies Programs Activities Tasks
Material Estimates
Financial
Improving Think High! Conduct diagnostic -Teacher researcher Proponent, P2,915 December 9,
metacognition and Strategy in assessment to administers pre-test in responders, 2016
reading Reading Grade 10 students English Reading school head,
comprehension or Comprehension to department
“metacomprehensio Grade 10 classes and heads
n” skills of Grade scored tests
10-Courageous
Learners of Testing materials
Cabarroguis of the pre-test for
National School of the Fourth
Arts and Trades Quarter Lessons
in English 10:
-bond paper
-HP cartridge ink
Administer the - Identify Grade 10 Proponent, P1,595 December 12-
Metacomprehension learners who got low responders, 13, 2016
Survey Index (MSI) mean scores in the school head,
to the experimental pre-test department
group - Conduct of the heads
Metacomprehension
Strategy Index survey
to assess the level of MSI survey
awareness of questionnaires
students in reading
comprehension
strategies
Evaluation of action -Follow set guidelines Proponent, P3,405 2nd and 3rd
research proposal in writing an action responders, week of
by the school head research proposal school head,
and School Basic based on BERF department December,
Education Research Guidelines/Policies heads 2016
Fund Committee -Submit action -BERF
research proposal to
the school head and -bond paper
School Basic -HP cartridge ink
Education Research -folder (long)
Committee for perusal -paper fastener
and evaluation -puncher
- Undergo draft -CD
revisions and editing
of action research
proposal to ensure
that proposed
strategy will
accommodate needs
of learners
Implementation of -Daily use of the Proponent, P14,223 1st week of
Think High! Strategy Think High! Strategy responders, January 2017
in improving to improve school head, to 2nd week of
metacomprehension metacomprehension department March 2017
skills of Grade 10 skills of experimental heads
students in reading group
-Use of think-aloud -graphic
process, modeling, organizers
coached practice and -bond paper
metacognition (long)
activities during -HP cartridge ink
English classes in the -activity sheets
experimental group -stapler #35
-Use of graphic -staple wire
organizers & journal- -ballpen
recording to track -journal
students’ practice of notebook
 metacognition
activities
- Monitor the use of
the Think High!
Strategy and
students’ responses
through a checklist
Conduct of the post- - The teacher Proponent, P120 3rd week of
test on reading administers the post- responders, March 2017
comprehension in test on reading school head,
English 10 to the comprehension department
respondents similar to the heads
structure of the pre-
test
-The teacher Post-test testing
determines whether materials
there are significant (reproduction/xer
changes in the post- ox copies)
test scores of the
respondents after
using the Think High!
Strategy using
electronic means
(SPSS v.21)
Administer the Conduct of the Proponent, P240 3rd week of
Metacomprehension Metacomprehension responders, March 2017
Strategy Index Strategy Index survey school head,
(MSI) Survey to the to assess the level of department
experimental group awareness of heads
students in reading
comprehension MSI survey
strategies after using questionnaires
Think High! Strategy (reproduction/xer
-Comparison of MSI oxcopies)
survey conducted
 after the
implementation of the
Think High! Strategy
Presentation and -Teacher completes Proponent, P599 April 2017
Analysis of Results the analysis of data school head,
and presents this to department
the School Basic heads
Education Research
Committee for
verification -bond paper
-The School Basic -folder (A4)
Education Research -paper fastener
Committee helps the -CD
researcher finalize
the results of the
study
-The action research
undergoes revisions
Completion & - The teacher, with -bond paper P3,655 February-
Submission of the help of the School -HP cartridge ink March 2017
Action Research Basic Education -binding
to the School & Research Committee, expenses
Division Basic forms action -CD
Education Research research’s
Committee conclusion and
recommendation
-The teacher finalizes
action research for
submission
Results Dissemination of Proponent, P1625 April-May
dissemination and action research school head, 2017
utilization findings through the department
proponent, school heads, BERF
head, Language Committee
Department head,
 teachers and the
School & Division -bond paper
BERF Committees -HP cartridge ink
-CD
TOTAL P28,377
V. Cost Estimates

Items/ Cost per

Activities Number Unit Total Cost
Particulars Unit
Conduct diagnostic Testing materials:
assessment to Grade 10 -bond paper
students -HP cartridge ink 2 reams (long) P180 P360
1 set (black & colored) P2,555 P2,555
P2,915
Administering of Testing materials:
Metacomprehension -bond paper
Strategy Index Survey -HP cartridge ink 1 ream (short) P165 P165
1 set (black) P1,430 P1,430
P1,595
Making of action research -bond paper 2 reams (A4) P180 P360
proposal drafts -HP cartridge ink 1 set P2,555 P2,555
-folder (long) 20 pcs P8 P160
-paper fastener 1 box P35 P35
-puncher 1 pc P250 P250
-CD 3 pcs P15 P45___
P3,405
Daily use of graphic -graphic organizers 9,900 reproduction (xerox) P1.00 P9,900
organizers and activity copies
sheets to be utilized for -bond paper (long) -reams
the Think High! Strategy -HP cartridge ink 2 P180 P360
teaching-learning sessions -activity sheets -set (colored/black)
(55 days) 1 reproduction (xerox) P1,125 P1,125
-stapler #35 1650 copies P1.00 P1,650
-staple wire -pc
-ballpen 1 -boxes -P350 P350
-journal notebook 5 -boxes -P38 P190
3 -pcs -P96 P288
30 -P12 P360__
P14,223
 Administering post-test on -Testing materials reproduction (xerox)
120 P1.00
reading comprehension in copies P120
English 10 to respondents
Administering of -Testing materials reproduction (xerox)
240 P1.00
Metacomprehension copies P240
Strategy Index Survey
Making and presentation -bond paper 2 reams (A4) P180 P360
of drafts on presentation -folder (A4) 8 pcs P8 P64
and analysis -paper fastener 1 box P35 P35
-CD 4 pcs P35 P140 _
P599
Making of final paper -bond paper 1 reams (A4) P180 P360
(action research) for -HP cartridge ink 1 set (black/colored) P2,555 P2,555
completion & submission -binding expenses 4 sets P150 P600
-CD
4 pcs P35 P140 _
P3,655
Dissemination of action -bond paper 1 reams (A4) P180 P360
research findings -HP cartridge ink 1 set (black) P1125 P1,125
-CD 4 pcs P35 P140 _
P1,625
TOTAL P28,377

VI. Action Plan

Strategies Programs Activities Tasks Resources Implementation

Physical Materials Financial Date
Improving metacognition Think High! Results Disseminate Proponent, bond P1625 April-May 2017
and reading Strategy in Dissemination the result of Teachers, paper
comprehension or Reading the action School HP
“metacomprehension” research Heads, cartridge
skills of Grade 10- Department ink
Courageous Learners of heads, BERF -CD
Cabarroguis National Committee
School of Arts and
Trades
 LIST OF REFERENCES

Adler, C. R. (Ed.). (2001). Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching
Children to Read. Jessup, MD: ED Pubs, 47-56. Retrieved from
http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/reading_first1text.html.

Adock, D. (2002). Test Ready Reading Longer Passages. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum
Associates, Inc.

Barr, R., Sullivan, D., Blachowicz, C., & Buhle, R. (2004). The Illinois Snapshot of Early
Literacy. Retrieved from, http://www.isbe.net/ils/ela/reading/html/ isel.htm

Block, C., Gambrell, L., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2002). Improving Comprehension Instruction
Rethinking Research, Theory, and Classroom Practice. San Francisco, JosseyBass.

Block, C., & Israel, S. (2005). Reading First and Beyond: The Complete Guide for Teachers
and Literacy Coaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., Joshi, R.M. (2007). Instruction of
Metacognitive Strategies Enhances Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary Achievement of
Third-Grade Students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), pp. 70-77.

Conner, J. (2004). Using Think-Alouds to Improve Reading Comprehension.

Davey, B. (1983). Think-aloud: Modeling the Cognitive Processes of Reading Comprehension.

Journal of Reading, 27(1), 44-47.

Department of Education (2011). K to 12 English Curriculum Guide.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (n.d.). Effective Practices for Developing Reading
Comprehension. Retrieved from, http://www.ctap4.org/
infolit/trainers/comprehe_strategies.pdf

Gold, J., & Gibson, A. (2001). Reading Aloud to Build Comprehension. Retrieved from
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/using-think-alouds-improve-reading-comprehension

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that Work Teaching Comprehension to Enhance
Understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

State Board of Education. (2005). State District Report Card. Retrieved from,
http://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getReport.aspx?year =2005&code

Interactive State Report Card. (2005). Interactive State School Report Card. Retrieved from,
http://iirc.niu.edu/School.aspx?schoolID= 480720680022002&year=2005

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The nation’s report card state reading 2005.
Retrieved from, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/ stt2005/2006425IL4.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). Listening to children read aloud: Oral fluency,
(1) 1, 1-5.

National Reading Panel. (n.d.). Comprehension III teacher preparation and comprehension
strategies instruction. (Chap. 4). Retrieved from,
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrplch4-111.pdf
Oczkus, L. D. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work strategies for improving reading
comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Olshavsky, J. E. (1977). Reading as problem-solving: An Investigation of Strategies. Reading

Research Quarterly, 12(4), 654-674.

Pacific Resources for Education and Learning (2012)

Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A Questionnaire to Measure Children’s Awareness of Strategic

Reading Processes. The Reading Teacher, 43 (7), 454-461.

School Improvement Plan. (2001).[Site A Handout]

Serafini, F. (2004). Lessons in Comprehension Explicit Instruction in the Reading Workshop.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Teele, S. (2004). Overcoming Barricades to Reading a Multiple Intelligences Approach.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Wilhelm, J. D. (2001). Improving Comprehension with Think-Aloud Strategies. New York:

Scholastic Inc.