Artikel Open Access CC BY 4.0

Evaluation of Project Recovery and Engagement of Struggling Readers Through Curriculum Updates and Explicit Instruction

Authors

  • Monica C. Dayao Tarlac State University Philippines
DOI 10.70211/sakaguru.v3i2.762
Article Integrity Crossmark: Check for updates
Article Metrics
17 Article Views 18 PDF Downloads

Abstract

Literacy recovery programs require evaluation of not only learner outcomes but also the needs they address, the resources that support them, the quality of implementation, and the conditions required for sustainability. This explanatory sequential mixed methods study evaluated Project RESCUE (Recovery and Engagement of Struggling Readers through Curriculum Updates and Explicit Instruction), the division-wide English reading intervention of the Schools Division of Tarlac City, using Stufflebeam’s Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) Evaluation Model. Quantitative evidence combined division reading-proficiency records across Key Stages 1-4 with survey responses from 216 program implementers and school heads; qualitative inquiry was used to explain implementation problems, enabling factors, and perceived outcomes. Context findings showed strong Key Stage 1 mastery in foundational skills but declining performance as tasks moved toward comprehension and sentence construction. Grade 3 and Key Stage 3 were the highest-priority risk points, and female learners had a higher independent-reading share than males. Program inputs were rated Very Adequate overall (M = 4.44, SD = 1.05), led by human resource capacity (M = 4.61); operational support was comparatively weaker (M = 4.15). Process implementation was rated Very Well Implemented overall (M = 4.41, SD = 0.95), with implementation fidelity highest (M = 4.52). Available school-year trend data indicated recurring gains toward instructional and independent reading levels, although diagnostic regression in Key Stages 2 and 3 showed that gains could weaken without continuous support. Qualitative findings identified documentation burden, time pressure, resource constraints, attendance, and home support as major challenges, while leadership, teacher commitment, collaboration, parental involvement, and technical assistance enabled implementation. Integration of the findings produced an Reading Improvement and Development Plan organized around five pillars for sustainable division-wide literacy development.

Keywords

CIPP Evaluation Learning Recovery Literacy Intervention Program Implementation Reading Improvement and Development Reading Proficiency RESCUE

References

1
[1] World Bank, The State of Global Learning Poverty: 2022 Update. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank, 2022. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/brief/learning-poverty
2
[2] OECD, PISA 2022 Results: Factsheets and Key Findings. Paris, France: OECD, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
3
[3] Department of Education - Schools Division Office of Tarlac City, Project RESCUE: Recovery and Engagement of Struggling Readers through Curriculum Updates and Explicit Instruction, R. Paguio, Ed., Program Manual. Tarlac City, Philippines: SDO Tarlac City, 2021.
4
[4] D. L. Stufflebeam and A. J. Shinkfield, Evaluation Theory, Models, and Applications. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass, 2007.
5
[5] D. L. Stufflebeam and G. Zhang, The CIPP Evaluation Model: How to Evaluate for Improvement and Accountability. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Publications, 2020.
6
[6] G. Zhang, N. Zeller, R. Griffith, D. Metcalf, J. Williams, C. Shea, and K. Misulis, “Using the CIPP model as a comprehensive framework to guide program evaluation,” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 57-84, 2021.
7
[7] J. W. Creswell and V. L. Plano Clark, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 2018.
8
[8] N. V. Ivankova, J. W. Creswell, and S. L. Stick, “Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice,” Field Methods, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 3-20, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
9
[9] D. M. Mertens, Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 2020.
10
[10] L. A. Palinkas, S. M. Horwitz, C. A. Green, J. P. Wisdom, N. Duan, and K. E. Hoagwood, “Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research,” Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, vol. 42, pp. 533-544, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
11
[11] M. M. Hennink, B. N. Kaiser, and V. C. Marconi, “Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough?” Qualitative Health Research, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 591-608, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344
12
[12] C. E. Snow, The Science of Reading: A Handbook. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2021.
13
[13] K. E. Stanovich, “Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy,” Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 360-407, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1
14
[14] R. V. Solis, “Sex-disaggregated performance in reading: Identifying the male literacy gap,” Region III Educational Research Journal, 2022.
15
[15] M. T. Alisangco, “Challenges in modular distance learning: A case study of literacy instruction,” Journal of Philippine Education, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 45-60, 2020.
16
[16] M. Fullan, The New Meaning of Educational Change, 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: Teachers College Press, 2021.
17
[17] R. D. Aquino, “Organizational support and teacher agency in division-wide reading programs,” SDO Tarlac City Research Journal, 2021.
18
[18] E. G. Manalo, Resource Adequacy and Pedagogical Agility in Public Schools. Manila, Philippines: University of Santo Tomas Press, 2020.
19
[19] J. Century, A. Cassata, M. Rudnick, and C. Freeman, “Measuring fidelity of implementation: A conceptual framework,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 199-218, 2010. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373710363834
20
[20] D. L. Fixsen, K. A. Blase, A. Metz, and M. Van Dyke, “Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs,” Exceptional Children, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 213-230, 2020.
21
[21] J. P. Santiago, “Triangulating growth: Mixed methods in program evaluation,” Central Luzon Graduate Research Journal, 2021.
22
[22] C. E. Coburn, “Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change,” Educational Researcher, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 3-12, 2003. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032006003
23
[23] T. G. Reyes, “Universal design for learning and the blended approach in literacy recovery,” Philippine Journal of Educational Technology, 2023.
24
[24] L. M. Santos, “Sustainability and budgetary frameworks for literacy programs,” Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 2020.
25
[25] K. J. Villanueva, “Priority needs assessment: A cluster-specific study of literacy in Central Luzon,” DepEd Research Portal, 2021.
26
[26] Department of Education, MATATAG Curriculum: K to 10 Curriculum of the K to 12 Program. Pasig City, Philippines: Department of Education, 2023.
27
[27] National Center on Intensive Intervention, Data-Based Individualization: A Framework for Intensive Intervention. Washington, DC, USA, 2021. https://intensiveintervention.org/
28
[28] A. Hargreaves and D. Fink, Sustainable Leadership. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass, 2021.

Author Biography

Monica C. Dayao

Tarlac State University Philippines

Tarlac State University

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Monica C. Dayao

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Download Article

Downloads

Article Information

Published

2026-08-25

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2026): November 2026 | SAKAGURU: Journal of Pedagogy and Creative Teacher

Article Tools

View Issue