Pa ge 1 Pa ge 78 American Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Innovation (AJMRI) Cross-Sectioning the Literacy Status of the Schools Division of Calbayog City Erwin L. Purcia1*, Lourdes L. Matan1, Geraldine P. Sumbise1 Volume 2 Issue 2, Year 2023 ISSN: 2158-8155 (Online), 2832-4854 (Print) DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmri.v2i2.1354 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Article Information ABSTRACT Received: March 03, 2023 Accepted: March 21, 2023 Published: April 01, 2023 This study cross-sectionally assessed the literacy status among schools in the Schools Division of Calbayog City. It employed a descriptive cross-sectional research design utilizing the EGRA, CRLA and Phil-IRI reading tools fielded out, developed and adopted as principal research instruments in this study. Results revealed that most Grade level learners yielded a significant decrease in the number of learners that are in full refresher and frustration level from pre-assessment result to mid-assessment results. There was a significant decrease in the number of learners identified with frustration level from pre-assessment result to mid- assessment result. Grades 7-12 did not show significant differences between their pre- and mid-assessment results for PHIL-IRI Filipino and English. Therefore, it is recommended that intensification of these tools and orientation to teachers relative to the conduct of the assessment processes may be instituted in the entire division. Keywords Literacy Status, EGRA, CRLA, PHIL-IRI, Cross- Sectional Research INTRODUCTION Because it has such a significant impact on how an individual can function within a society, literacy can be viewed as empowering. Literacy is traditionally defined as the capacity to read and write (Purcia & Merida, 2021). Currently, it refers to a person’s competence in a particular field or discipline as well as their knowledge. A person’s capacity for reading, writing, speaking, listening, conceptualization, and innovation opens up many opportunities. “Literacy encompasses the knowledge and skills students need to access, understand, analyze, and evaluate information, make meaning, express thoughts and emotions, present ideas and opinions, interact with others, and participate in activities at school and in their lives beyond school,” according to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (n.d.), educators have been interested in literacy education problems, issues, and trends for a very long time. in 2016, Ewing, para. 3). Through surveys conducted by various experts in the field, the International Literacy Association (ILA) publishes a report on pressing issues pertaining to literacy education each year. According to Selangan (2015), these kinds of surveys are meant to “reveal wide gaps between what educators across the globe consider important topics in literacy education and those garnering the most attention.” 1). Issues in literacy education are categorized as “hot” (those that receive a lot of attention) and “not hot” (those that are not popular and don’t need a lot of attention) in accordance with the goal of ILA. In order to provide teachers, professors, researchers, administrators, and policymakers with information on issues that require immediate discussions and solutions, ILA has a tradition of presenting “hot” and “not hot” issues. According to Cassidy & Ortlieb (2011), educators’ interest in literacy education began in the 1990s when they observed significant gaps in the field’s understanding of its development. However, many important issues were left unresolved because there were not enough studies and data to spread literacy education (Purcia, Albuladura & Velarde, 2021). As a result, literacy experts came up with the idea of compiling a list of timely and pertinent issues related to the field in order to assist their fellow advocates in putting their academic endeavors into context. “This body of work would allow us, as literacy professionals, to learn from the past and in turn, refine our practices to suit the ever-changing needs of the educational community,” as stated by Cassidy & Ortlieb (2011). According to a report published in 2000 by the Department of Education (DepEd), the literacy rate among Filipinos is 96.6 percent. In addition, the United Nations Development Report (2009) asserts that the Philippines has a high literacy rate of 93.4% (Imam, 2016), and the literacy rate of children was 98.2% in 2015 (Balinas, Rodriguez, Santillan, & Villena, 2017). Since a number of studies have demonstrated the alarming decline in reading proficiency among Filipino students over the past few years (Bacal, 2005; Imam, 2016; Luz, 2007; Orencia, 2006; & Selangan, 2015). Contrarily, according to Cristobal (2015), 1.2 million Filipinos between the ages of five and fifteen are out of school and have limited literacy skills. Balinas, Rodriguez, Santillan, and Villena (2017) also show that remote Mindanao kindergarteners have consistently low reading scores. Luz’s (2007) claim that the Philippines is “a nation of non-readers” may become one of the country’s major challenges in the future if these numbers continue to rise. It is impossible to deny that the nation has encountered 1 Department of Education, Schools Division of Calbayog City, Philippines * Corresponding author’s e-mail: erwin.purcia@deped.gov.ph https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmri.v2i2.1354 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 79 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(2) 78-86, 2023 a number of difficulties, particularly with regard to the dissemination of its literacy education and its enhancement. Given that Imam (2016) stated that “without literacy, all other learning is impossible,” such issues cannot be ignored (para. 1). Nevertheless, he excludes poverty as the primary reason why many Filipinos struggle with literacy. Due to a lack of resources that will enable them to attend school and receive a decent education, many students cannot complete their education para. 4). Additionally, Graham & Perin (2007) emphasized that literacy is declining in the Philippines and that the three main causes are as follows: (1) corruption; (2) unqualified teachers and staff; and (3) the media that is hostile to intellectual thought. Despite the fact that a number of studies have identified some of the issues associated with literacy education in the Philippines, it is evident that these identified issues are limited and may not fully clarify literacy issues that require immediate or significant attention. As a result, the researcher sought to provide a “clearer image” of literacy status in the Schools Division of Calbayog as a representative sample of the vast literacy population in the region and the nation in general. Research Questions This study cross-sectionally assessed Literacy status in the Schools Division of Calbayog for the SY 2022-2023. Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions 1. What is the status of Literacy in the Schools Division of Calbayog City as assessed by teachers using EGRA, CRLA and Phil-IRI tools in terms of 1.1 pre-assessment; and 1.2 mid-assessment? 2. Is there a significant difference between the pre- assessment and mid-assessment results using the CRLA and Phil-IRI tools as assessed by teachers? 3. What problems do the teachers encounter in the process of assessment? 4. Based on the study’s findings, what program may be proposed to improve the assessment process? METHOD This study employed a descriptive cross-sectional research design which assessed the literacy status in the Schools Division of Calbayog City for the SY 2022-2023. The EGRA, CRLA and Phil-IRI tools fielded out and developed were utilized and adopted as principal research instruments in this study. A checklist for the problems encountered by the teachers in the assessment was also administered. Data were gathered based on Regional Memorandum No. 965, s. 2022 on the scheme of specific time span when pre- and mid- assessments were conducted. Further, data gathered were collated, tallied and analyzed based on identified research problems using SPSS version 28. A simple frequency count was used for both the pre- assessment and mid-assessment results. For the problems encountered, for the significant difference of the results for both pre and mid-assessments, paired sample t-test was used for both CRLA and Phil-IRI. Only the EGRA results were not subjected to inferential analysis due to the nature of the assessment tool which is developmental in context and that there is no available data yet for comparison since the post-assessment will still be undertaken. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The tables below show the data analysis on both pre and mid-assessment results. (Please see Excel data for the frequency count of pre and mid-assessment results). On the Significant Difference between the Pre and Mid- Assessment Results for both CRLA and Phil-IRI The tables below present the inferential analysis on the significant difference between the pre and mid-assessment results of both the CRLA and Phil-IRI. On the Significant Difference between the Pre and Mid- Assessment Results for both CRLA and Phil-IRI The tables below present the inferential analysis on the significant difference between the pre and mid-assessment results of both the CRLA and Phil-IRI. Table 1: CRLA Mother Tongue Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Pair 1 Grade 1 Pre-Assessment CRLA Mother Tongue Grade 1 Mid-Assessment CRLA Mother Tongue 198.75 12 142.052 41.007 108.92 12 64.814 18.710 Pair 2 Grade 2 Pre-Assessment CRLA Mother Tongue Grade 2 Mid-Assessment CRLA Mother Tongue 147.42 12 110.419 31.875 81.42 12 52.528 151.163 Pair 3 Grade 3 Pre-Assessment CRLA Mother Tongue Grade 3 Mid-Assessment CRLA Mother Tongue 114.42 12 71.327 20.590 77.92 12 44.449 12.831 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 80 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(2) 78-86, 2023 Table 2: Paired Samples Test Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 Grade 1 Pre-Assessment 89.833 111.175 32.094 19.196 160.471 2.799 11 0.017 CRLA Mother Tongue Grade 1 Mid-Assessment CRLA Mother Tongue Pair 2 Grade 2 Pre-Assessment CRLA Mother Tongue 66 73.108 21.104 19.55 112.45 3.127 11 0.01 Grade 2 Mid-Assessment CRLA Mother Tongue Pair 3 Grade 3 Pre-Assessment CRLA Mother Tongue 36.5 45.065 13.009 7.867 65.133 2.806 11 0.017 Grade 3 Mid-Assessment CRLA Mother Tongue Table 3: CRLA FILIPINO Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Pair 1 Grade 2 Pre-Assessment 142.25 12 107.833 31.129 CRLA Filipino Grade 2 Mid-Assessment 74.25 12 41.379 11.945 CRLA Filipino Pair 2 Grade 3 Pre-Assessment 114.83 12 80.753 23.311 CRLA Filipino Grade 3 Mid-Assessment 99.08 12 109.089 31.491 CRLA Filipino Grades 1,2,3 have significant differences between their pre- and mid assessment results for CRLA Mother Tongue. There was significant decrease in the number of learners that are in full refresher from pre-assessment result to mid-assessment result. Grade 2 pre- and mid assessment results have a significant difference for CRLA Filipino. Table 4: Paired Samples Test Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 Grade 2 Pre-Assessment 68 82.461 23.804 15.607 120.393 2.857 11 0.016 CRLA Filipino Grade 2 Mid-Assessment CRLA Filipino Pair 2 Grade 3 Pre-Assessment CRLA Filipino 15.75 73.33 21.169 -30.842 62.342 0.744 11 0.472 Grade 3 Mid-Assessment CRLA Filipino The number of learners who were in the full refresher decreased after the mid-assessment result. No significant difference was found in pre- and mid assessment results of Grade 3 for CRLA Filipino. https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 81 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(2) 78-86, 2023 Table 5: CRLA ENGLISH Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Pair 1 Grade 3 Pre-Assessment 98.67 12 52.574 15.177 CRLA English Grade 3 Mid-Assessment 61.25 12 32.1 9.266 CRLA English Table 6: Paired Samples Test Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 Grade 3 Pre-Assessment CRLA English 37.417 44.005 12.703 9.457 65.376 2.945 11 0.013 Grade 3 Mid-Assessment CRLA English Grade 3 pre- and mid assessment results have a significant difference for CRLA English. The number of learners who were in the full refresher decreased after the mid- assessment result in CRLA English. Table 7: GRADE 4-6 PHIL-IRI FILIPINO Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Pair 1 Grade 4 Pre-Assessment 107.58 12 47.368 13.674 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 4 Mid-Assessment 71.58 12 30.42 8.781 Phil-IRI Filipino Pair 2 Grade 5 Pre-Assessment 98 12 58.574 16.909 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 5 Mid-Assessment 54.5 12 36.567 10.556 Phil-IRI Filipino Pair 3 Grade 6 Pre-Assessment 73.17 12 49.023 14.152 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 6 Mid-Assessment 39.5 12 29.583 8.54 Phil-IRI Filipino Table 8: Paired Samples Test Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 Grade 4 Pre-Assessment 36 27.472 7.931 18.545 53.455 4.539 11 0.001 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 4 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI Filipino Pair 2 Grade 5 Pre-Assessment Phil-IRI Filipino 43.5 38.855 11.217 18.813 68.187 3.878 11 0.003 Grade 5 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI Filipino https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 82 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(2) 78-86, 2023 Pair 3 Grade 6 Pre-Assessment 33.667 38.306 11.058 9.328 58.005 3.045 11 0.011 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 6 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI Filipino Grades 4, 5, and 6 showed significant differences between their pre- and mid assessment results for PHIL-IRI Filipino. There was significant decrease in the number of learners identified in frustration level from pre- assessment result to mid-assessment result. Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 did not show significant differences between their pre- and mid assessment results for PHIL- IRI Filipino. Table 9: GRADE 7-10 PHIL-IRI FILIPINO, Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Pair 1 Grade 7 Pre-Assessment 80.583 12 67.4745 19.4782 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 7 Mid-Assessment 54.917 12 35.2664 10.1805 Phil-IRI Filipino Pair 2 Grade 8 Pre-Assessment 54.917 12 40.0374 11.5578 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 8 Mid-Assessment 39.083 12 29.6233 8.5515 Phil-IRI Filipino Pair 3 Grade 9 Pre-Assessment 62.833 12 62.7098 18.1028 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 9 Mid-Assessment 42.667 12 53.5729 15.4652 Phil-IRI Filipino Pair 4 Grade 10 Pre-Assessment 49.833 12 53.6891 15.4987 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 10 Mid-Assessment 29.917 12 27.1141 7.8272 Phil-IRI Filipino Table 10: Paired Samples Test Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 Grade 7 Pre-Assessment 25.6667 51.0104 14.7254 -6.7438 58.0771 1.743 11 0.109 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 7 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI Filipino Pair 2 Grade 8 Pre-Assessment 15.8333 39.863 11.5075 -9.4944 41.1611 1.376 11 0.196 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 8 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI Filipino Pair 3 Grade 9 Pre-Assessment 20.1667 69.5764 20.085 -24.0401 64.3734 1.004 11 0.337 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 9 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI Filipino Pair 4 Grade 10 Pre-Assessment 19.9167 37.597 10.8533 -3.9714 43.8047 1.835 11 0.094 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 10 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI Filipino https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 83 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(2) 78-86, 2023 Table 11: GRADE 11-12 PHIL-IRI FILIPINO, Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Pair 1 Grade 11 Pre-Assessment 24.750 12 25.2807 7.2979 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 11 Mid-Assessment 13.917 12 14.1322 4.0796 Phil-IRI Filipino Pair 2 Grade 12 Pre-Assessment 39.500 12 45.8287 13.2296 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 12 Mid-Assessment 19.083 12 19.1000 5.5137 Phil-IRI Filipino Table 12: Paired Samples Test Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 Grade 11 Pre-Assessment 10.8333 18.5660 5.3595 -.9630 22.6296 2.021 11 .068 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 11 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI Filipino Pair 2 Grade 12 Pre-Assessment 20.4167 32.6119 9.4143 -.3040 41.1373 2.169 11 .053 Phil-IRI Filipino Grade 12 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI Filipino Table 13: GRADE 4-6 PHIL-IRI ENGLISH, Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Pair 1 Grade 4 Pre-Assessment 116.67 12 50.694 14.634 Phil-IRI English Grade 4 Mid-Assessment 84.75 12 39.724 11.467 Phil-IRI English Pair 2 Grade 5 Pre-Assessment 120.25 12 53.997 15.588 Phil-IRI English Grade 5 Mid-Assessment 75.25 12 42.437 12.251 Phil-IRI English Pair 3 Grade 6 Pre-Assessment 97.417 12 66.1314 19.0905 Phil-IRI English Grade 6 Mid-Assessment 59 12 32.7136 9.4436 Phil-IRI English Grades 11 and 12 also did not show significant differences between their pre- and mid assessment results for PHIL- IRI Filipino Grades 4, 5, and 6 showed significant differences between their pre- and mid assessment results for PHIL-IRI English. There was significant decrease in the number of learners identified in frustration level from pre- assessment result to mid-assessment result. https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 84 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(2) 78-86, 2023 Table 14: Paired Samples Test Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 Grade 4 Pre-Assessment 31.917 29.172 8.421 13.382 50.452 3.79 11 0.003 Phil-IRI English Grade 4 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI English Pair 2 Grade 5 Pre-Assessment 45 28.54 8.239 26.866 63.134 5.462 11 0 Phil-IRI English Grade 5 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI English Pair 3 Grade 6 Pre-Assessment 38.4167 42.348 12.2248 11.51 65.3233 3.143 11 0.009 Phil-IRI English Grade 6 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI English Grades 7, 8, and 10 showed significant differences between their pre- and mid assessment results for PHIL- IRI English. There was significant decrease in the number of learners identified in frustration level from pre- assessment result to mid-assessment result in these grade levels. However, no significant difference was found for the pre- and mid assessment results of Grade 10 students in Phil-IRI English. Table 15: GRADE 7-10 PHIL-IRI ENGLISH, Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Pair 1 Grade 7 Pre-Assessment 107.583 12 74.4842 21.5017 Phil-IRI English Grade 7 Mid-Assessment 71.75 12 45.8121 13.2248 Phil-IRI English Pair 2 Grade 8 Pre-Assessment 87.083 12 59.7532 17.2493 Phil-IRI English Grade 8 Mid-Assessment 52.833 12 32.9596 9.5146 Phil-IRI English Pair 3 Grade 9 Pre-Assessment 102.667 12 74.6267 21.5429 Phil-IRI English Grade 9 Mid-Assessment 65.917 12 55.1435 15.9186 Phil-IRI English Pair 4 Grade 10 Pre-Assessment 87.833 12 68.8144 19.865 Phil-IRI English Grade 10 Mid-Assessment 47.25 12 36.4246 10.5149 Phil-IRI English Table 16: Paired Samples Test Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 Grade 7 Pre-Assessment 35.8333 54.4039 15.7051 1.2667 70.3999 2.282 11 0.043 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 85 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(2) 78-86, 2023 Phil-IRI English Grade 7 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI English Pair 2 Grade 8 Pre-Assessment 34.25 45.9469 13.2637 5.0568 63.4432 2.582 11 0.025 Phil-IRI English Grade 8 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI English Pair 3 Grade 9 Pre-Assessment 36.75 79.582 22.9733 -13.814 87.314 1.6 11 0.138 Phil-IRI English Grade 9 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI English Pair 4 Grade 10 Pre-Assessment 40.5833 58.1041 16.7732 3.6658 77.5009 2.42 11 0.034 Phil-IRI English Grade 10 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI English Table 17: GRADE 11-12 PHIL-IRI ENGLISH, Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Pair 1 Grade 11 Pre-Assessment 45.333 12 44.7931 12.9307 Phil-IRI English Grade 11 Mid-Assessment 29.75 12 29.6713 8.5654 Phil-IRI English Pair 2 Grade 12 Pre-Assessment 24.5 12 31.9218 9.215 Phil-IRI English Grade 12 Mid-Assessment 19.167 12 24.0297 6.9368 Phil-IRI English Table 18: Paired Samples Test Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 Grade 11 Pre-Assessment 15.5833 32.3151 9.3286 -4.9487 36.1154 1.67 11 0.123 Phil-IRI English Grade 11 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI English Pair 2 Grade 12 Pre-Assessment 5.3333 29.626 8.5523 -13.4901 24.1568 0.624 11 0.546 Phil-IRI English Grade 12 Mid-Assessment Phil-IRI English Grades 11 and 12 also did not show significant differences between their pre- and mid assessment results for PHIL- IRI English. On the Problems Encountered by the Teachers during Assessment Various problems relative to the assessment process confronted the teachers especially on the constraint on time and rigors. The table below presents the frequency and percentage distribution of these problems. https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 86 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(2) 78-86, 2023 Table 19: Problems Encountered by Teachers on the Assessment Process Problems Encountered Frequency (f) Percentage (%) Rank 1. The request to submit for immediate results wherein the process requires time 1,965 85.6% 1 2. Attendance of learners during the assessment 1,893 82.5% 2 3. Preparedness of the learners for the tools used in the assessment 1,523 66.4% 4 4. Learning/Reading Retention of learners 1,024 44.6% 6 5. Lack of parents’ support especially on the follow-ups of learning/ reading activities 1,846 80.4% 3 6. Time constraint on the assessment process 978 42.6% 7 7. Readiness and preparedness of teachers on the conduct of the assessments 1245 54.6% 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of the study, for CRLA Grades 1,2,3 results showed significant decrease in the number of learners that are in full refresher from pre-assessment result to mid-assessment result . No significant difference was found in pre-and mid assessment results of Grade 3 for CRLA Filipino. The number of learners who were in the full refresher decreased after the mid- assessment result in CRLA English for Grade 3. There was significant decrease in the number of learners identified in frustration level from pre-assessment result to mid-assessment result. Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 did not show significant differences between their pre- and mid assessment results for PHIL-IRI Filipino. Grades 11 and 12 also did not show significant differences between their pre- and mid assessment results for PHIL-IRI Filipino. There was significant decrease in the number of learners identified in frustration level from pre-assessment result to mid-assessment result for Grades 4, 5, and 6. For Grades 7, 8, and 10, there was significant decrease in the number of learners identified in frustration level from pre-assessment result to mid-assessment result in these grade levels. However, no significant difference was found for the pre- and mid assessment results of Grade 10 students in Phil-IRI English. Grades 11 and 12 also did not show significant differences between their pre- and mid assessment results for PHIL-IRI English. Consequently, intensifying the utilization of reading assessment tools and strengthened orientation to teachers relative to the conduct of the assessment processes may be instituted in the entire division. REFERENCES ACT. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author. Bacal, E. (2005). Improving the Oral Reading Ability of Pupils. Manila. Balinas, E., Santillan, J., Rodriguez, J., & Valencia, Y. (2017). Remedial Reading Program of AUF-CED: Best Practices and Impact. 4th Asia Pacific Education Conference (pp. 83-93). Purwokerto: Atlantis Press. Cassidy, J., Ortlieb, E., & Shettel, J. (2010/2011). What’s hot, what’s not for 2011. Reading Today, 28. Department of Education. (2000). Datasets. Retrieved from Department of Education: http://www.deped. gov.ph/resources/facts-and-figures/datasheets/ Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools-A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Imam, O. (2016). Effects of Reading Skills on Students’ Performance in Science and Mathematics in Public and Private Secondary Schools. Journal of Education and Learning, 10(2), 177-186. Luz, J. M. (2007). A nation of nonreaders. Quezon: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. Miguel, F. (1996). Metacognitive learning strategies in reading: Their effects on writing competence. Doctoral dissertation, University of the Philippines- Diliman. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2005). Reading to achieve: A governor’s guide to adolescent literacy. Washington, DC: Author. Orencia, M. A. (2006). Enhancing Pupils Reading Comprehension and Attitudes through a Whole Language-Inspired Literature-Based Reading Program. CELEA Journal, 29(3), 3-18. Purcia, E. L., & Merida, L. H. (2021). Faculty and Students’ Evaluation of K to 12 English Curriculum in a Philippine Countryside University. English philology, 21, 1045-1059. Purcia, E., Albuladura, A., & Velarde, A. (2021). Quality Management System (QMS) and Personnel Commitment: The Case of Calbayog City National High School. Selangan. (2015). The Reading Profile of Children in the Philippines. Retrieved from George Lucas Educational Foundation. http://www.edutopia.org/ discussion/reading-profile-children-philippines https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri