Main Article Content
Aims: Non-reading phenomenon among students is a worldwide problem. This problem continues to balloon despite the various governments’ program. This study was conducted to determine the positive and negative experiences met by the school managers during the implementation and evaluation of the reading program in their respective area.
Study Design: Qualitative- phenomenology.
Place and Duration of Study: Digos City, Davao del Sur, Philippines, School Year 2018-2019.
Methodology: Purposive; Focus-Group Discussions; Validated Researcher-made questionnaire.
Results: Nine themes surfaced from the data analysis; implementation of the program; appointment of reading coordinator; amelioration of reading teachers; initiative of school administration; availability of reading materials; involvement in SIP/AIP creation; variations on identified challenges; heartening situations; satisfaction with co-workers and DepEd personnel; and recommendations for improvement.
Conclusion: Contextualization of the reading program allows learners to connect and interact with the texts. School heads need to be consistent with their policies. They need to involve the teachers concern not only those chosen few because it creates partition and conflict. Teachers’ dedication and initiative to the program is essential; however, school managers need to provide relevant materials for its smooth implementation. Further, success of any program depends on the cooperation among the implementers. Unity and understanding among workers are essential in order to achieve the purpose of any endeavor.
Balfakeh SAD. Problems in reading comprehension skills among secondary school students in Yemen; 2009.
[Retrieved April 17, 2019]
Available:http://www.language in India.com
Seligman AL. The history of the poor in America (History 460-00); 2001.
Sgier L. Qualitative data analysis. An Initiat. Gebert Ruf Stift. 2012;19-21.
Rabiee F. Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the nutrition society. 2004;63(4):655-660.
San Jose AE, Bahket R, Ali Alsalhi H. Teach us the way we want: Teaching approach for special needs students. European Journal of Special Education. 2017;2(6).
Romana-Cruz NS. Asserting themselves: Children's book publishers in the Philippines. Bookbird: World of children's books. 1995;33(2):18-22.
Wasik BA. Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research Quarterly. 1998;33(3):266-291.
Lambson D. The availability of Spanish heritage language materials in public and school libraries. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2002;5(4):233-243.
San Jose AE, Mortos AR. Am I my brother’s keeper? Buddy approach in improving students’ attendance. International Journal of English Research. 2017;3(3):46-51.
Brinkmann S. Interview. Springer New York. 2014;1008-1010.
Campbell S. What is qualitative research? Clinical Laboratory Science. 2014;27(1):3.
Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2013.
Hammersley M. Routledge revivals: The dilemma of qualitative method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago Tradition. Routledge; 2018.
Vagle MD. Crafting phenomenological research. Routledge; 2016.
Hara SR, Burke DJ. Parent involvement: The key to improved student achievement. School Community Journal. 1998;8(2):9-19.
Jackson I. The phenomenology of spirit. London: Macat Library; 2017.
Visser-Wijnveen GJ, Stes A, Van Petegem P. Development and validation of a questionnaire measuring teachers’ motivations for teaching in higher education. Higher Education. 2012;64(3): 421-436.
Van Manen M. Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Routledge; 2016.
Jackson J, Durham A. Put your walls to work: Planning and using interactive word walls to support science and reading instruction. Science and Children. 2016;54(3):78.
Ortiz RW, Ordoñez‐Jasis R. Leyendo juntos (reading together): New directions for Latino parents' early literacy involvement. The Reading Teacher. 2005;59(2):110-121.
Stuckey HL. The second step in data analysis: Coding qualitative research data. Journal of Social Health and Diabetes. 2015;3(01):007-010.
Muchemwa S. Reading deficiencies among primary and secondary pupils: A case study of Zimbabwe. US-China Education Review. 2014;4:193-201.
Reilly WT, Talley NJ, Pemberton JH, Zinsmeister AR. Validation of a questionnaire to assess fecal incontinence and associated risk factors. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2000;43(2):146-153.
Birks M, Chapman Y, Francis K. Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing. 2008;13(1):68-75.
Morgan DL, Krueger RA, Scannell AU. Planning focus groups. Sage. 1998;2.
Wigfield A, Guthrie JT, Perencevich KC, Taboada A, Klauda SL, McRae A, Barbosa P. Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools. 2008;45(5):432-445.
Taguchi E, Gorsuch GJ, Sasamoto E. Developing second and foreign language reading fluency and its effect on comprehension: A missing link. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal. 2006;6(2).
Braun V, Clarke V. What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being. 2014;9.
Johnson DW, Johnson RT. Research shows the benefits of adult cooperation. Educational Leadership. 1987;45(3):27-30.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101.
Shippen ME, Houchins DE, Steventon C, Sartor D. A comparison of two direct instruction reading programs for urban middle school students. Remedial and Special Education. 2005;26(3):175-182.
Dearman CC, Alber SR. The changing face of education: Teachers cope with challenges through collaboration and reflective study. The Reading Teacher. 2005;58(7):634-640.
San Jose AE. We need your help: An evaluation of students’ tutorial experiences in mathematics and science. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Invention. 2019;1(1):1-7.
San Jose AE. We need your help: An evaluation of students’ tutorials experiences in mathematics and science. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Invention. 2019;1(1):1-7.
Hock MF, Brasseur-Hock IF, Deshler DD. Reading comprehension instruction for middle and high school students in English language arts: Research and evidence-based practices. In Improving reading comprehension of middle and high school students. Springer, Cham. 2015;99-118.
Singh K, Billingsley BS. Professional support and its effects on teachers' commitment. The Journal of Educational Research. 1998;91(4):229-239.
Carnine D, Silbert J, Kameenui EJ, Tarver SG. Direct instruction reading. Columbus, OH: Merrill; 1997.
Armbruster BB, Anderson TH, Meyer JL. Improving content-area reading using instructional graphics. Reading Research Quarterly. 1991;393-416.
Bean RM, Swan AL, Knaub R. Reading specialists in schools with exemplary reading programs: Functional, versatile, and prepared. The Reading Teacher. 2003;56(5):446-455.
Weitzman EA. Analyzing qualitative data with computer software. Health Services Research. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1241.
Cotton K, Wikelund KR. Parent involvement in education. School Improvement Research Series. 1989;6(3): 17-23.
Hartry A, Fitzgerald R, Porter K. Implementing a structured reading program in an afterschool setting: Problems and potential solutions. Harvard Educational Review. 2008;78(1):181- 210.
Paz SH, Jones L, Calderón JL, Hays RD. Readability and comprehension of the Geriatric Depression Scale and PROMIS® physical function items in older African Americans and Latinos. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2017;10(1):117-131.
Cheung A, Slavin RE. Effective reading programs for English language learners and other language-minority students. Bilingual Research Journal. 2005;29(2): 241-267.
Lewis CC. Cooperation and control in Japanese nursery schools. Comparative Education Review. 1984;28(1):69-84.
O-Nyumba T, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, Mukherjee N. The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2018;9(1):20-32.
Joffe H. Thematic analysis. Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners. 2012;1:210-223.
Woodward L. An examination of teachers' planning processes as they seek to integrate technology into literacy instruction; 2016.
Miles MB, Weitzman EA. The state of qualitative data analysis software: What do we need? Current Sociology. 1996;44(3): 206-224.
Guthrie JT, Wigfield A, Barbosa P, Perencevich KC, Taboada A, Davis, MH, Tonks S. Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2004;96(3):403.
Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W. An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008;337:a288.
Luz JM. Brigada Eskwela: Essays on Philippine education. Anvil Publishing, Incorporated via PublishDrive; 2017.
Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN, Rook DW. Analyzing focus group data. Focus groups: Theory and practice. 1990;102-121.
Black Jr WL. When teachers go viral: Balancing institutional efficacy against the first amendment rights of public educators in the age of Facebook. Mo. L. Rev. 2017;82:51.
San Jose AE. Linguistic experiences of adult dyslexic learners. UIC Research Journal. 2012;18(1):1-1.