Journal of Basic Education Research
Journal of Basic Education Research

an Open Access Journal

SINTA

0.0

Impact

Scholar

14

H-Index

Journal of Basic Education Research

an Open Access Journal

Reading Literacy Assessment in Philippine Basic Education: A Cross-Sectional, School-Based Phil-IRI Study

Aaron Funa ORCID
Sorsogon State University ROR
Philippines
funa.aaron@sorsu.edu.ph
Julie Ann Balisoro
Sorsogon State University ROR
Philippines
Renz Alvin Gabay ORCID
Sorsogon State University ROR
Philippines
Share

  • Purpose of the study: To examine whether age, sex, and grade level are associated with Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) performance in junior high school.

    Methodology: Cross-sectional, ex post facto analysis of n = 200 Grade 7–10 students (SY 2024–2025). Phil-IRI (Filipino) post-test scores were compared using Mann–Whitney U (sex) and Kruskal–Wallis H (age bands; grade levels), α = .05.

    Main Findings: Sex was associated with Phil-IRI scores: females outperformed males (Mdn = 26 vs 19; p < .001). No differences were found by age (p = .087) or grade (p = .513). Descriptives showed a small, lower-performing oldest age band and non-monotonic medians across grades, indicating variation occurs mainly within rather than between grades.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: Phil-IRI outcomes in this cohort relate to sex, not to age or grade. Schools should prioritize within-grade, profile-based supports using Phil-IRI decision levels and implement boy-responsive engagement, while monitoring older learners who remain below independence.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    “Reading Literacy Assessment in Philippine Basic Education: A Cross-Sectional, School-Based Phil-IRI Study”, J. Bs. Edu. R, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 461–469, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.37251/jber.v6i3.2102.

    More Citation Formats

  • 2506
    Abstract views
    407
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. T. Kheang, P. Chin, and S. Em, “Reading motivation to promote students’ reading comprehension: A review,” International Journal of Languages and Culture, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2024, doi: 10.51483/IJLC.4.1.2024.1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51483/IJLC.4.1.2024.1-8
    2. K. Mastrothanasis, M. Kladaki, and A. Andreou, “A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Readers’ Theatre impact on the development of reading skills,” International Journal of Educational Research Open, vol. 4, Art. no. 100243, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100243
    3. OECD, PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2019, doi: 10.1787/5f07c754-en. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
    4. OECD, PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2023, doi: 10.1787/83b2b81c-en.
    5. UNESCO Institute for Statistics, “UIS education data browser (minimum proficiency in reading),” Montreal, Canada: UIS, Sept. 2023 release.
    6. DepEd (Philippines), “Policy guidelines on the Administration of the Revised Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI),” Mar. 26, 2018. [Online]. Accessed: Aug. 15, 2025.
    7. DepEd (Philippines), Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) Manual, 2018 ed. Manila, Philippines: DepEd, 2018. [Online]. Accessed: Aug. 20, 2025.
    8. DepEd (Philippines), “DO 70, s. 2011 — guidelines on the utilization of funds for the every child a reader program (ECARP),” 2011. [Online]. Accessed: Aug. 12, 2025.
    9. DepEd (Philippines), “DM 143, s. 2012 — Administration of the philippine informal reading inventory (Phil-IRI) Assessment Tools,” 2012. [Online]. Accessed: Aug. 21, 2025.
    10. DepEd Region VIII (Eastern Visayas), “RM — Administration of the Phil-IRI for Key Stages 2 and 3, SY 2024–2025,” 2024. [Online]. Accessed: Aug. 22, 2025.
    11. Schools Division of Nueva Vizcaya, “DM-CT-2024-447 — Administration of the Philippine informal reading inventory (phil-iri) for key stages 2 and 3, SY 2024–2025,” Nov. 29, 2024.
    12. P. B. Gough and W. E. Tunmer, “Decoding, reading, and reading disability,” Remedial and Special Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 6–10, 1986, doi: 10.1177/074193258600700104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
    13. H. W. Catts, “The simple view of reading: Advancements and false impressions,” Remedial and Special Education, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 317–323, 2018, doi: 10.1177/0741932518767563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518767563
    14. H. S. Scarborough, “Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice,” in Handbook of Early Literacy Research, vol. 1, S. B. Neuman and D. K. Dickinson, Eds. New York, NY, USA: Guilford, 2001, pp. 97–110.
    15. C. A. Perfetti and J. Stafura, “Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension,” Scientific Studies of Reading, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 22–37, 2014, doi: 10.1080/10888438.2013.827687. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
    16. J. S. Eccles and A. Wigfield, “Motivational beliefs, values, and goals,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 53, pp. 109–132, 2002, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
    17. M. van Hek, C. Buchmann, and G. Kraaykamp, “Educational systems and gender differences in reading: A comparative multilevel analysis,” European Sociological Review, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 169–186, 2019, doi: 10.1093/esr/jcy054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcy054
    18. C. L. Pagal, J. K. A. Mirafuentes, and Q. C. Ypanto, “School age gender gap in reading comprehension,” Journal of Asian Development, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 78–102, 2017, doi: 10.5296/jad.v3i2.11079. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5296/jad.v3i2.11079
    19. J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE, 2018.
    20. K. A. Levin, “Study design III: Cross-sectional studies,” Evidence-Based Dentistry, vol. 7, pp. 24–25, 2006, doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375
    21. M. S. Setia, “Methodology series module 3: Cross-sectional studies,” Indian Journal of Dermatology, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 261–264, 2016, doi: 10.4103/0019-5154.182410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.182410
    22. F. N. Kerlinger and H. B. Lee, Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th ed. Fort Worth, TX, USA: Harcourt/Wadsworth (Thomson Learning), 2000.
    23. N. J. Salkind, Ed., Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE, 2010.
    24. E. von Elm et al., “The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 4, no. 10, e296, 2007, doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296
    25. J. H. McDonald, Handbook of Biological Statistics, 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD, USA: Sparky House Publishing, 2014.
    26. A. N. Spichtig, J. P. Pascoe, K. M. Gehsmann, F. Gu, and J. D. Ferrara, “The interaction of silent reading rate, academic vocabulary, and comprehension among students in grades 2–12,” Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 1003–1019, 2022, doi: 10.1002/rrq.457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.457
    27. A. A. Funa and R. A. E. Gabay, “Policy guidelines and recommendations on AI use in teaching and learning: A meta-synthesis study,” Social Sciences & Humanities Open, vol. 11, art. 101221, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101221
    28. A. A. Funa, R. A. E. Gabay, and J. D. Ricafort, “Gamification, gameplay, and genetics learning: A meta-analysis,” Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 462–473, 2021, doi: 10.15294/jpii.v10i4.32143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v10i4.32143
    29. A. A. Funa and R. A. E. Gabay, “Bridging the gap among knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward sustainable development through I-STEM-PBL-ESD,” International Journal on Studies in Education (IJonSE), vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 288–303, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.46328/ijonse.317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonse.317
    30. A. A. Funa and J. D. Ricafort, “Validation and effectiveness of computer-based gamified instructional material for teaching introductory physics,” International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 168–180, 2019.
    31. A. A. Funa, R. A. E. Gabay, K. L. Esdicul, and M. S. Prudente, “Secondary teachers’ and students’ perceptions of distance education in science: Focus on learner-centered, action-oriented, and transformative learning,” Dalat Univ. J. Sci., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 156–181, 2023, doi: 10.37569/DalatUniversity.13.3.1108.A. A. Funa, “Digital badges as rewards in science education: Students’ perceptions and experiences,” Dalat University Journal of Science, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 107–127, 2024. doi: 10.37569/DalatUniversity.14.2.1212(2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.37569/DalatUniversity.14.2.1212(2024)
    32. A. A. Funa, “Exploring clinical practice education for student midwives: Hospital and community opportunities and challenges,” Midwifery, vol. 139, p. 104186, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2024.104186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2024.104186
    33. A. A. Funa and R. A. E. Gabay, “Cultural adaptation of predictive processing measures: Insights from the Prediction-Related Experiences Questionnaire (PRE-Q) for the Philippine context,” Asian Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 112, p. 104681, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2025.104681. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2025.104681
    34. J. R. Toste, L. Didion, P. Peng, M. J. Filderman, and A. M. McClelland, “A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relations Between Motivation and Reading Achievement for K–12 Students,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 420–456, 2020. doi: 10.3102/0034654320919352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352
    35. N. K. Scammacca, G. Roberts, S. Vaughn, and K. K. Stuebing, “A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011,” Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 369–390, 2015. doi: 10.1177/0022219413504995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995
    36. D. Fuchs, L. S. Fuchs, and D. L. Compton, “Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention,” Exceptional Children, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 263–279, 2012. doi: 10.1177/001440291207800301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800301
    37. What Works Clearinghouse, Providing Reading Interventions for Students in Grades 4–9 (WWC 2022007), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of education, institute of education sciences, 2022. URL: ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide/29.
    38. J. M. Ramallosa, A. A. Funa, A. T. Geron, R. T. Ibardaloza, and M. S. Prudente, “Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of argument-based learning on students’ conceptual understanding,” in Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning (IC4E), Tokyo, Japan, Jan. 14–17, 2022, pp. 315–323, doi: 10.1145/3514262.3514305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3514262.3514305
    39. N. L. Mediana, Jr., A. A. Funa, and R. V. Dio, “Effectiveness of inquiry-based learning (IbL) on improving students’ conceptual understanding in science and mathematics: A meta-analysis,” International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 532–552, 2025, doi: 10.46328/ijemst.4769. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.4769