Project READ (Responsible English Advocacy Development) Reaching Out to Scaffold Gaps Among Learners

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.67903/ijroms0602

Keywords:

Reading Intervention, Word Recognition, Decoding, Reading Comprehension, Struggling Readers

Abstract

This study examined Project READ (Responsible English Advocacy Development) as a reading intervention for struggling Grade 2–6 learners. It sought to describe learners’ reading performance and difficulties in word recognition, decoding, and reading comprehension; identify appropriate instructional approaches; and develop a reading intervention program. The research combined qualitative and quantitative methods and identified 68 struggling readers. The Philippine Informal Reading Inventory, a researcher-made questionnaire, observations, interviews, and focus group discussions formed part of the data-gathering procedures. Frequency counts, percentages, weighted means, and standard deviations were used to describe the findings. The reported reading inventories showed a reduction in non-readers from 16 before the intervention to 2 afterward, alongside movement toward instructional and independent reading levels. Teacher responses described the indicators for word recognition, decoding, and reading comprehension as highly observed. The study emphasized explicit instruction, modeling, supported practice, independent practice with feedback, and sustained cooperation between teachers and parents or guardians. Recommended activities included localized reading worksheets, regular reading remediation, home support, and face-to-face, telephone, or text-based follow-up. The proposed program organized these activities into pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation phases, including orientation, learner screening, scheduled reading activities, and post-test assessment. The study recommended continued reading remediation, stronger parental involvement, the development of learning materials, and replication with a larger sample. Despite existing school-based reading interventions, a significant research gap remains regarding the development and evaluation of structured, localized, and multi-component reading programs that simultaneously address word recognition, decoding, and reading comprehension among struggling elementary learners across multiple grade levels. Previous interventions often focus on isolated reading skills or short-term remediation, with limited attention to sustained home-school collaboration, localized learning materials, and systematic monitoring before, during, and after implementation. This gap provided the rationale for developing Project READ as a more comprehensive and context-responsive reading intervention.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ahmadi, M. R., & Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). Reciprocal teaching strategies and their impacts on English reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 2053–2060. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.10.2053-2060

Ahmadi, M. R., Ismail, H. N., & Abdullah, M. K. K. (2013). The importance of metacognitive reading strategy awareness in reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n10p235

Allington, R. L. (2013). What really matters when working with struggling readers. The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 520–530. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.1154

Carlson, S. E., Seipel, B., & McMaster, K. (2014). Development of a new reading comprehension assessment: Identifying comprehension differences among readers. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 40– 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.003

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271

Castro, M., Expósito-Casas, E., López-Martín, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E., & Gaviria, J. L. (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002

Clarke, P. J., Truelove, E., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2013). Developing reading comprehension. Wiley- Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118606711

Department of Education. (2018). Policy guidelines on the administration of the revised Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) (DepEd Order No. 14, s. 2018). https://www.deped.gov.ph/2018/03/26/do-14-s-2018-policy-guidelines-on-the-administration-of-the-revised-philippine-informal-reading-inventory/

Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the Simple View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393

Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/21/Published

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades (NCEE 2009-4045). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GOVPUB-ED1_600-PURL-LPS120047

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104

Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799

Kendeou, P., McMaster, K. L., & Christ, T. J. (2016). Reading comprehension: Core components and processes. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624707

Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–182. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2

McNamara, D. S. (2017). Self-explanation and reading strategy training (SERT) improves low-knowledge students’ science course performance. Discourse Processes, 54(7), 479–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1101328

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00- 4769). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/smallbook

Ness, M. (2011). Explicit reading comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms: Teacher use of reading comprehension strategies. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(1), 98–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2010.531076

Downloads

Published

2026-11-06

How to Cite

Maderazo, J. (2026). Project READ (Responsible English Advocacy Development) Reaching Out to Scaffold Gaps Among Learners. International Journal of Research on Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(10), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.67903/ijroms0602

Similar Articles

<< < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.