Reading Performance and Classroom Engagement of Key Stage 1 Learners: Implications for an Intervention Scheme

This study examined the reading performance and classroom engagement of Key Stage 1 learners in Palo I District as a basis for developing an intervention scheme. It described the teachers’ demographic profile, compared learners’ Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) results at the Beginning of the School Year (BOSY) and Middle of the School Year (MOSY), assessed their cognitive, affective, and behavioral engagement, and determined the relationship between reading performance and classroom engagement. The study employed a descriptive-comparative design with correlational analysis. Data were analyzed using frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, chi-square, and correlation analyses. Most respondents were female, aged 46–50 years, bachelor’s degree holders, and had 6–10 years of teaching experience. A significant difference was found between the BOSY and MOSY reading performance. The proportion of proficient learners increased from 35% to 62.5%, while fewer learners remained at the emergent and developing levels. However, learners at the transitioning level demonstrated comparatively limited progress. Cognitive engagement was rated very high, indicating that learners consistently participated in structured learning activities. Affective and behavioral engagement were rated high, suggesting that motivation, persistence, and independent learning behaviors still require further strengthening. Reading performance and classroom engagement had a very weak and statistically nonsignificant relationship. The findings indicate that although learners made considerable progress in reading and generally demonstrated positive classroom engagement, targeted support remains necessary, particularly for transitioning readers. An intervention scheme was therefore proposed to sustain reading gains and strengthen all dimensions of classroom engagement.

classroom engagement, Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment, Key Stage 1, reading intervention, reading performance

1. Aldrup, K., Carstensen, B., & Klusmann, U. (2022). Is empathy the key to effective teaching? A systematic review of its association with teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 34(3), 1177–1216. doi.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alqahtani, R. B. (2024). Reading engagement levels and enablers: Teacher guide for better reading instruction. Insights into Learning Disabilities, 21(2), 183–203. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. H. (2020). Reading to learn: Lessons from exemplary fourth-grade classrooms. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Avergonzado, R. M., & Polinar, C. C. (2025). Reading performance of Grade I learners through targeted early reading interventions. International Social Sciences and Education Journal (ISSEJ). https://doi.org/10.61424/issej [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barnuevo, J. B., & Lastrella, J. T. A. (2023). Learning gaps of Grade 1 learners on literacy: Basis for an intervention program. IRE Journals, 7(4), 396–402. https://irejournals.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Basali, L. P. (n.d.). Reading comprehension levels and skills of Filipino Grade 8 students: A basis for Catch-up Friday activities [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of the Cordilleras. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bagolong and Usop (2024). Reading Skills of Elementary Pupils as Basis for an Intervention [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Plan: The Case of Don E. Sero Elementary School, Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading science in the [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. classroom. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. doi.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Dela Cruz, M.-V. O. (2024). Improving the reading comprehension skills of the Grade 1 pupils [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. of Sabangan Elementary School through WordWall. International Journal of Research [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Studies in Education, 13(17), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2024.24762 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Denton et al. (2021). Often refers to foundational work on observation tools like the Non-Evaluative Snapshot of Literacy Instruction, used to code classroom reading activities, teacher practices, and instructional materials in one-minute intervals [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Department for Education. (2018). The reading framework: Teaching the foundations of literacy. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. HM Government. (Note: This typically refers to the UK Department for Education [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. framework, though you may need to adjust the specific title depending on whether you [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. are citing the UK, Australian, or a specific US state department). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Ehri, L. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S45–S60. doi.org. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2017). Guided reading: Responsive teaching across the grades (2nd ed.). Heinemann. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Goran, E. N., & Suparno, S. (2025). Improving reading comprehension skills of students with learning difficulties through the problem-based learning model in Grade 5 primary school. Journal of Innovation and Research in Primary Education, 4(3), 1403–1416. https://doi.org/10.56916/jirpe.v4i3.1602 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Hall et al. (2022). Frequently builds on these observational frameworks (such as the Skills-Focused Decoding Instruction [SDI] measure adapted from Denton et al.) to analyze and compare reading interventions across literacy domains and instructional formats. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Kilpatrick, D. A. (2016). Equipped for reading success: A reading professional's guide to word recognition difficulties and phonological awareness. Casey & Kirsch Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Khosa, M. (2024). Perceptions of students and lecturers on the use of Xitsonga as language of learning and communication in the University of Limpopo. Academy Publication. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kim et al. (2017). Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking component skills of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 310–333. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Köse, N., & Güneş, F. (2021). Undergraduate students’ use of metacognitive strategies while reading and the relationship between strategy use and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Education and Learning, 10(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v10n2p99 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. McLeod, S. (2025). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Simply Psychology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Osterman, K. E. (2000). Students’ Need for Belonging in the School Community. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323-367. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070003323 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Paciencia, M. T. (2017). Reading proficiency of Grade One pupils in the selected South District schools, Division of Guihulngan City. Melanio T. Vergara Elementary School. https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0373-9177 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Erlbaum [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Knapp, N. F. (2016). The psychology of reading: An introduction. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493–525. doi.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Zapanta, E. D. (2023). Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment: Bridging the gap towards [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. lifelong learning. Asian Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Researches, 3(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. https://msubuug.edu.ph/journal/vol3issue2/AJAMR082023010.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory into [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Practice, 41, 64-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]