Introduction to the Special Project

Objectives

The primary objective of this special project was to design and implement a Science of Reading-based intervention program for incoming Grade 2 and 3 learners at Lead Christian School. My focus was on addressing the gaps in decoding, fluency, and comprehension revealed by pre-assessments, so that learners could enter the next grade level with stronger foundational literacy skills.

Another important objective was to develop my professional competence by applying the knowledge and skills I had gained from my BES courses. From EDS 103 (Theories of Learning), I learned how Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and Bruner’s spiral curriculum can shape instruction that is both scaffolded and revisited for mastery. From EDUC 103 (Principles and Processes in Curriculum Development), I gained an understanding of the importance of designing materials and lessons with clear alignment between objectives, content, and assessments. Finally, from EDS 113 (Principles and Methods of Assessment), I applied the principle that effective teaching is always informed by evidence, which guided my use of diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments throughout the program. This project was not only intended to support learners but also to demonstrate how theory and practice can be meaningfully connected.

Project Plan

To ground the intervention in actual learner needs, I first conducted informal and formal pre-assessments. The informal assessment on April 16, 2025, revealed persistent gaps in phoneme blending and decoding (see Appendix I). A formal diagnostic test was then administered on May 19, 2025, using a tool I designed for this purpose (sample provided in Appendix II). The consolidated results (see Appendix III) confirmed these difficulties and highlighted fluency as an additional area of concern. These findings guided the instructional priorities of the program.

Tr. Roselle and Tr. Grace (former advisers of Grade 1 and 2 learners)

To deepen my understanding of the learners’ literacy challenges, I also consulted the former advisers of Grade 1 and Grade 2 learners, Teacher Roselle Bolima and Teacher Grace Avila. They shared observations that several incoming Grade 2 and 3 students were still reading below grade level, with common struggles in decoding, phonemic awareness, and fluency. Their insights aligned with the results of my pre-assessments and reinforced the urgency of designing a systematic intervention.

In addition, I coordinated with Teacher Arlyn De Belen, the faculty head and gatekeeper of the summer enrichment program. She confirmed the need to broaden the intervention to include children aged 6 to 8 so that the program could support a wider range of learners within the limited summer schedule. Her recommendation shaped the scope of the project and ensured institutional support throughout its implementation.

with Tr. Arlyn (faculty head and gatekeeper)

Project Plan

In designing this program, I was guided foremost by Vygotsky’s (1978) Constructivist Learning Theory, which emphasizes that learners construct knowledge through meaningful social interactions and scaffolded support. This perspective led me to design reading activities that placed children within their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), where guided practice and peer interaction could gradually build independence in decoding and fluency.

I also drew from Bruner’s (1960) concept of the spiral curriculum and discovery learning, which reinforced the importance of structuring reading tasks in progressive layers of difficulty. By returning to key literacy skills—phonemic awareness, blending, and fluency—in increasingly complex ways, I sought to give learners repeated but deepening opportunities to master core skills.

Equally important were the principles of curriculum development I studied in EDUC 103. The frameworks of Tyler (1949) and Taba (1962) reminded me that objectives, content, and assessment must be carefully aligned. This alignment ensured that every reading session directly addressed the specific gaps identified in the diagnostic results (see Appendix III) while also preparing learners for more advanced literacy tasks.

I also relied on Gagné’s (1985) Nine Events of Instruction, which provided a practical sequence for lesson delivery. By gaining learners’ attention through engaging activities, presenting clear objectives, providing guided practice, offering feedback, and assessing performance, I was able to structure each session in a way that maximized both attention and retention. This model ensured that the instructional flow was logical and supportive of the specific reading skills being taught.

From EDS 113, I applied principles of educational assessment, particularly Biggs and Tang’s (2011) idea of constructive alignment. I used formative assessments not just to measure progress but also as feedback loops, adjusting instruction to respond to learner needs in real time. This constant interplay between teaching and assessment made the program dynamic and responsive.

Altogether, these theories and principles did not remain abstract ideas. They became the backbone of my instructional design, shaping how I developed materials, structured lessons, and implemented strategies. By grounding my approach in both general learning theories and the Science of Reading, I was able to design an intervention that was evidence-based, systematic, and pedagogically sound, while still attentive to the lived realities of the learners I served.

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODEL

ADDIE Model with Backward Design

(within the DESIGN phase of ADDIE)

Backward Design Integration

The instructional book was developed using the ADDIE model, a structured framework consisting of five phases: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation.

Within the Design phase, Backward Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) was applied to ensure the process remained focused on the end goal: enabling learners to read. After identifying a clear need—Grade 2 and 3 students struggling with decoding and fluency—Backward Design guided the planning by starting with the desired outcomes and working backward to shape assessments and instructional content.

ADDIE provided the structure; Backward Design gave the project its purpose.

ANALYSIS

This phase focused on identifying the instructional need and laying the foundation for a structured literacy intervention. A diagnostic assessment and curriculum review revealed that many Grade 2 and 3 learners struggled with decoding, phonemic awareness, and reading fluency. These findings clarified the direction of the project and confirmed the need for targeted support aligned with the Science of Reading.

Implementation began during the summer enrichment program, with instructional sessions already underway. Early coordination with the reading facilitator—who also serves as faculty head and admin assistant—provided strong institutional support. She recommended expanding the target group to include children aged 6 to 8, ensuring broader reach within the limited summer schedule.

Additional input from the Grade Level Adviser, Tr. Grace, affirmed the urgency of intervention. She noted that several learners had not yet met foundational benchmarks in decoding and phonemic awareness, reinforcing the need for differentiated instruction and early support.

An informal diagnostic conducted on April 16 with 10 incoming Grade 2 learners revealed:

5 learners showed partial mastery of Grade 1 reading skills
5 learners struggled significantly with phoneme blending and decoding of CVC words
Several learners exhibited low confidence and hesitancy during oral reading tasks
One-on-one engagement and visual supports improved responsiveness (See Appendix I for detailed learner profiles and observations.)

A formal diagnostic assessment (See Appendix II for the diagnostic test sample) was conducted on May 19, confirming the same patterns observed earlier. Learners continued to show gaps in decoding and phonemic awareness, validating the instructional adjustments made during planning and reinforcing the need for targeted, scaffolded support. (See Appendix III for the overall diagnostic test results)

The April 16 assessment took place during a recognition ceremony rehearsal, introducing distractions that may have influenced learner performance. Despite this, the session yielded valuable insights into literacy levels and behavioral patterns.

Instructional planning was refined to include:

Multisensory strategies
Differentiated instruction based on learner profiles
Grouping by proficiency level for targeted support
Weekly review sessions with the facilitator to monitor progress and adjust instruction

Instructional materials developed using Science of Reading principles and loosely guided by the UFLI scope and sequence were positively reviewed by the facilitator. These resources were simplified and adapted to match learners’ developmental levels. (See Appendix II for sample instructional materials and feedback summary.)

DESIGN

In this phase, Backward Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) was embedded to ensure the instructional book was goal-driven. The process began by identifying the desired outcome—learners becoming fluent readers. From there, assessments were planned to measure progress, and instructional content was designed to support that goal. To ensure alignment with this objective, the design was informed by the Science of Reading and loosely guided by the structured scope and sequence developed by the University of Florida Literacy Institute (UFLI). While UFLI served as a foundational reference, the content was not copied; instead, it was significantly simplified and carefully broken down to match the learners’ reading levels. Each concept was tailored to be developmentally appropriate, making the material more accessible while still grounded in research-based practices.

Butson, E. (n.d.). FREE UFLI Scope and Sequence Printable, UFLI Word Lists, UFLI Heart Word Lists [Teaching resource]. Teachers Pay Teachers. https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/FREE-UFLI-Scope-and-Sequence-Printable-UFLI-Word-Lists-UFLI-Heart-Word-Lists-11897584

reference from the book itself: LEAP INTO READING: LEARN, ENGAGE, ACHIEVE, PROGRESS

DEVELOPMENT

Based on the design plan, the instructional book was developed in a simplified format to suit learners’ reading levels. It was created using elements from the Science of Reading and loosely based on the scope and sequence of UFLI, but adapted rather than copied. . However, it wasn’t copied directly. Instead, the material was simplified step by step to match the learners’ reading levels.

IMPLEMENTATION

The book was piloted during summer enrichment classes at Lead Christian School. Lessons were delivered to Grade 2 and 3 learners, and their engagement and progress were closely monitored. This phase tested the practicality and effectiveness of the materials in a real classroom setting.

EVALUATION

Feedback was collected from the teacher/gatekeeper. Formative and summative assessments were used to measure reading growth. The evaluation phase provided insights into what worked well and what could be improved, guiding future revisions of the instructional book.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse