The ID Project — LEAP INTO READING: Learn, Engage, Achieve, Progress

This project involved designing, developing, piloting, observing, and evaluating a Science-of-Reading (SoR)–based reading intervention booklet, LEAP INTO READING, for struggling incoming Grade 2–3 learners (ages 6–8) at Lead Christian School, Aplaya, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Implementation was carried out in partnership with the school’s faculty head and facilitator, Tr. Arlyn Mae S. De Belen, who taught the lessons and validated the materials while I coordinated, observed, collected data, and guided iterative revisions. The work followed the ADDIE cycle with Backward Design embedded in the Design phase so that assessments, objectives, and lesson content remained aligned (see Appendices II, V, VIII; eJournal Entries 3–6). 

Analysis

— what happened (needs analysis & baseline) and decisions made 

To ground the intervention in actual learner needs, I began with consultations with Grade-level advisers, Tr. Roselle Bolima and Tr. Grace Avila (April 10, 2025). They confirmed that several incoming Grade 2 and 3 learners were still reading below grade level. Their insights aligned with my informal assessment (April 16, 2025), which revealed persistent gaps in phoneme blending, CVC decoding, and reading confidence (see Appendix I; eJournal Entry #2).

A more structured diagnostic was administered on May 19, 2025, covering letter-sound knowledge, CVC decoding, sight words, fluency, and literal comprehension. The results confirmed the gaps in decoding, phonemic awareness, sight-word automaticity, and fluency (see Appendix II: Reading Diagnostic Test; Appendix III: Overall Diagnostic Test Result; eJournal Entry #3).

These analyses shaped my decision to focus the intervention on short vowels, blends, digraphs, and Magic-E patterns as foundational areas, while leaving vowel teams for follow-up after the pilot due to time constraints. The process reflected Tyler’s (1949) principle of aligning objectives with assessment and content, ensuring systematic progression from diagnosis to intervention.

(Evidence: Appendix I–III; E-Journal Entries 1–3; Project Log Week 2–4.)

Design (Backward Design within ADDIE) 

The design of the reading intervention was anchored on the findings of the informal and formal pre-assessments conducted in April and May 2025, which revealed persistent difficulties in phonemic awareness, decoding, and fluency (see Appendices I–III). These results became the starting point for the design process, consistent with the principle of Backward Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998), which begins with identifying the desired results and determining acceptable evidence before planning instructional activities. In this case, the desired results were measurable improvements in decoding accuracy and reading fluency, while the diagnostic data provided the evidence that clarified the specific gaps that needed to be addressed (E-Journal Entry 3; Project Log, Week 2).

With these targets established, I prepared six detailed lesson plans that progressed from phoneme blending and decoding tasks to connected-text fluency practice. Each plan specified clear objectives, sequenced activities, and formative assessments to ensure that instruction was systematically aligned with the learners’ needs (see Appendix V). Alongside the lesson plans, I designed instructional resources such as phoneme blending flashcards, word family charts, and leveled passages adapted from children’s literature, all scaffolded to match the learners’ gradual skill development (Appendix VIII). Assessment tools, including oral reading checklists and sight-word mastery trackers, were also created to provide regular feedback on learner progress and to guide instructional adjustments during implementation (Appendix VI).

The outcome of this phase was a cohesive intervention package: a structured six-session sequence with corresponding instructional materials and embedded assessments. This result reflected the systematic alignment of Backward Design and Tyler’s (1949) curriculum alignment model, while also drawing on Bruner’s scaffolding approach (1966) and Biggs and Tang’s (2011) concept of constructive alignment. Together, these ensured that the design was not only evidence-based but also theoretically grounded, with objectives, activities, and assessments carefully interconnected.

(Evidence: Appendices I–III, V–VI, VIII; E-Journal Entry 4; Project Logs, Weeks 3–5)

Sequence of Everyday Activities and Lessons

Implementation and Evaluation Stage (Pilot — observation & coordination role)

The implementation of the program took place from May 20 to June 10, 2025, during the Summer Enrichment Classes at the school. Each session followed the sequence established in the design and development phases: (1) a brief motivation and review, (2) explicit instruction of phonics or decoding strategies, (3) guided practice using the LEAP INTO READING booklet, and (4) independent or paired reading activities. Learners were engaged in short, structured lessons that emphasized blending, segmenting, and fluency practice, while games and interactive drills were used to maintain motivation and reduce reading anxiety.

Throughout the sessions, I observed the importance of flexibility in implementation. While the plan was carefully designed, adjustments had to be made depending on the learners’ responsiveness on a given day. For instance, when several learners continued to struggle with consonant blends after the second week, I reallocated more time for targeted drills rather than proceeding too quickly to vowel teams. This reflected Gagné’s principle of ensuring mastery of prerequisite skills before advancing to more complex tasks.

I also learned the value of formative assessment in action. Daily observation checklists and anecdotal notes allowed me to track small but important signs of progress, such as fewer decoding errors or greater confidence in attempting unfamiliar words. These immediate insights helped me refine instructional pacing and provided reassurance that even modest gains were significant steps forward for learners who began with very low literacy levels.

Another insight gained during implementation was the role of socio-emotional support in literacy learning. Several learners initially expressed embarrassment about reading aloud, but when lessons incorporated peer collaboration and positive reinforcement, they began participating more actively. This experience deepened my appreciation of Vygotsky’s theory of learning as a social process—progress was not only about skill acquisition but also about fostering a safe, encouraging learning environment.

On my part as a teacher, I learned that implementing an intervention requires balancing fidelity to the instructional design with responsiveness to real classroom dynamics. While the structured plan provided stability, the learners’ needs often required real-time modifications. This reminded me that curriculum and instruction, while guided by theory, must remain flexible in practice to serve learners effectively.

(Evidence: Appendices IV–VI; Project Log, Weeks 3–5; E-Journal Entries 4–6)

• Key takeaways from the results of the evaluation:

(See  Appendix VI: Assessment Result) 

After analyzing the post-assessment data (Appendix VI: Assessment Results), I observed consistent and measurable gains in decoding, sight-word recognition, fluency, and basic comprehension among the learners after completing Lessons 1–11 of the pilot. I noticed that improvements in fluency, measured in words per minute, were particularly significant. These gains also seemed to boost learners’ confidence during oral reading tasks, which I observed firsthand in the sessions.

However, some challenges remained. Mastery of vowel teams in Lessons 12 and 13, as well as the more complex digraph contrasts introduced in Lesson 8, required additional practice and time beyond the pilot’s duration. I learned from this that while structured progression helps build foundational skills, certain concepts need extended reinforcement, especially for struggling readers.

During the pilot, I regularly consulted with the facilitator and gatekeeper, Teacher Arlyn De Belen. She validated the practicality of the LEAP INTO READING booklet and confirmed that the pacing of lessons was appropriate for small-group instruction. Her feedback also highlighted the need for more explicit teacher guidance when introducing vowel teams and encouraged adding more group reading tasks to foster engagement and peer support. Reflecting on this, I realized that teacher scaffolding and clear guidance are just as critical as the lesson content itself in promoting learner success.

Through this stage, I personally learned the value of iterative feedback, observation, and reflection. Adjusting instructional materials based on real classroom interactions reinforced my understanding of the Science of Reading principles, constructivist scaffolding, and the importance of formative assessment in shaping effective literacy instruction. These insights will inform how I approach lesson planning and material design in future projects.

Evidence: Appendix VI — Assessment Results; Project Log Week 4; E-Journal Entry 6.

Gatekeeper’s Evaluation Summary

Using the Rubric for Evaluating Reading/Language Arts Instructional Materials for Kindergarten to Grade 5 (Foorman, Smith, & Kosanovich, 2017), Teacher Arlyn assessed the Leap Into Reading booklets after the pilot run. The tool, which covers five main domains—Foundational Skills, Text Quality & Complexity, Instructional Support, Assessment, and Design/Usability—was adapted to suit the school context.

The instructional materials received a total rating of 90.4% (226/250), interpreted as Exemplary.

Breakdown of Results:

Foundational Skills (88%)
The sequence from short vowels to digraphs, Magic E, and vowel teams was well-structured and developmentally appropriate. Learners demonstrated increased mastery in decoding and phonemic awareness, though Tr. Arlyn noted that additional fluency drills could further strengthen automaticity.

Text Quality & Complexity (92%)
The stories and passages used in the booklets matched the learners’ reading level and reflected familiar cultural and moral contexts, which sustained engagement. Minor adjustments were suggested to increase text variety and gradually introduce slightly more challenging passages.

Instructional Support (93%)
The booklets incorporated guided practice, scaffolding, and independent tasks. Tr. Arlyn appreciated the integration of phonics games, sentence-building tasks, and comprehension checks. She recommended embedding more explicit reflection prompts for learners.

Assessment (89%)
Both formative checks (exit slips, oral reading tasks) and summative post-tests aligned with lesson objectives. However, rubrics for fluency and comprehension could be made more explicit for consistent teacher use.

Design & Usability (90%)
Layout was clear, visuals supported understanding, and activities were easy to follow. A few icons and clipart were slightly distracting, but overall the design promoted learner focus and motivation.

(Evidence: Appendix IX)

Culmination, Reflection, Self- Evaluation

The culmination of my project took place on June 12, 2025, when the post-test was administered and the final instructional booklets, LEAP INTO READING: Learn, Engage, Achieve, Progress, were turned over to Lead Christian School. The post-test results showed a significant improvement in learners’ reading scores, with an average gain of +30 percentage points. This confirmed that the instructional design, grounded in the ADDIE framework and Backward Design principles, effectively addressed the learners’ reading gaps. Tr. Arlyn De Belen, the faculty head and gatekeeper, noted that the booklets could serve as a model material for lower grades because they were structured, adaptable, and low-tech, ensuring usability even in resource-limited contexts. This moment reflected the integration of theory and practice: the materials were not only grounded in research but also shaped by iterative classroom experience (Evidence: Appendix VI — Assessment Results; Project Log Week 7; E-Journal Entry 6).

Through implementing the program, I learned that mastery of phonics alone does not automatically produce fluent reading. Fluency requires sustained practice, modeling, and guided feedback. Applying the Science of Reading (SoR) principles, I focused on the five pillars—phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension—which guided both lesson sequencing and assessment design. For example, blending drills and decodable texts helped strengthen phonemic awareness and decoding accuracy, while repeated oral readings and teacher modeling supported fluency gains.

The project allowed me to directly apply theories and principles from my BES courses. Vygotsky’s Scaffolding informed the gradual release of responsibility in each lesson, where learners first practiced under guided support and later performed independently. Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction structured lesson flow from attention-getting warm-ups to eliciting performance and providing immediate feedback. Backward Design (Wiggins & McTighe) ensured alignment of objectives, instructional strategies, and assessments, while insights from EDS 103 (Theories of Learning) and EDS 113 (Principles and Methods of Assessment) reinforced the importance of evidence-based planning and formative evaluation.

Designing and facilitating lessons revealed both strengths and limitations in my practice. I was able to adapt materials creatively to the learners’ cultural and contextual realities, maintain engagement through multisensory supports, and respond flexibly to learner needs during sessions. However, certain aspects did not work as well as intended. Despite scaffolded support, some learners struggled to transfer decoding skills to fluent reading in connected texts, indicating that more intensive modeling and practice were required. The shortened summer schedule prevented completion of vowel-team lessons and full mastery of more complex digraphs. Irregular attendance further disrupted pacing, requiring repeated reteaching that limited time for comprehension exercises. Additionally, while the Science of Reading recommends explicit phonics instruction with decodable text, some learners still “guessed” words, highlighting that fluency and comprehension needed additional reinforcement beyond the scope of the pilot.

Tr. Arlyn’s feedback reinforced these observations. She validated the booklet’s structure and pacing for small-group instruction but recommended more explicit guidance for vowel teams and increased opportunities for group reading. These suggestions, along with my own reflections, highlighted the need for stronger transfer of decoding skills to fluent reading and better learner engagement in comprehension tasks.

Performance and Outputs: I successfully designed and implemented a structured reading intervention program, producing learner-centered booklets with measurable impact on reading fluency and comprehension. The improvement in learner performance and the gatekeeper’s evaluation confirmed their effectiveness.

Assumptions and Beliefs: Initially, I believed that mastery of phonics would automatically translate into fluency. Field experience taught me that fluency requires sustained practice and modeling, not only decoding drills. This reshaped my future planning for literacy interventions.

Strengths: Creativity in designing materials with cultural and contextual relevance; flexibility in adjusting lessons based on learners’ progress; and the ability to synthesize theory with practice (e.g., scaffolding, Gagné’s events, Piaget’s cognitive development).

Weaknesses: Time management during intensive weeks (balancing diagnostic testing, piloting, and revisions); limited integration of multimedia resources due to schedule constraints.

Challenges: Irregular attendance of learners, requiring repeated reteaching; balancing the planned weekly pacing with learners’ actual mastery; ensuring assessments were consistently applied across learners.

Application of Theories: Theories such as Scaffolding (Vygotsky), Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction, and Backward Design (Wiggins & McTighe) guided my sequencing of lessons and structuring of assessments. They ensured the project was both theoretically sound and practically feasible.

(Evidence: Appendix I–IX; Project Log Weeks 2–7; E-Journal Entries 1–6)

Finally, I would incorporate learner feedback mechanisms to strengthen the cycle of design, use, and revision. Listening to learners’ experiences during sessions highlighted aspects that worked well, such as multisensory activities, and areas that needed additional support, like complex digraphs and vowel teams. By systematically gathering their input, future versions of the program could become even more responsive to learners’ needs.

Overall, moving forward with Leap Into Reading 2.0 means not only refining instructional materials but also strengthening the integration of assessment, reflection, and feedback within the learning process. This ensures that the project continues to be grounded in theory, evidence-based practices, and the realities of learners’ classroom experiences, while supporting my growth as an educator and instructional designer.