Contextual Variables Affecting Frustration Level in Reading: An Integral Inquiry

This study employs a sequential explanatory mixed method. Quantitatively it investigated the profile of grade VII students. Qualitatively, the prevailing contextual variables that affect their frustration-level were sought based on their perspective and that of their parents and teachers. These students were categorized as frustration-level in reading based on the data on word list of the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI). The researcher-made reading factor instrument translated to local dialect (Hiligaynon) was subjected to cross-cultural translation to address content, semantic, technical, criterion, or conceptual equivalence, the open-ended questions, and one unstructured interview was utilized. In the profile of the 26 participants, the 12 males are categorized as grade II and grade III frustration-levels. The prevailing contextual variables are personal-“having no interest in reading”, “being ashamed and fear of having to read in front of others” for extremely high frustration level; social environmental-“having no regular reading schedule at home” for very high frustration level and personal- “having no interest in reading” for high frustration level. Kendall Tau inferential statistical tool was used to test the significant relationship in the prevailing contextual variables that affect frustration-level readers when grouped according to perspective. Result showed that significant relationship exists between students-parents perspectives; however, there is no significant relationship between students’ and teachers’, and parents’ and teachers’ perspectives. The themes in the narratives of the participants on frustration-level readers are existence of speech defects, undesirable attitude, insufficient amount of reading materials, lack of close supervision from parents, and losing time and focus on task. Intervention was designed.

• Mae C. Pavilario

• Contextual variables
• frustration-level readers
• perspective
• inquiry.

[1] Alexander & Filler, G. Partin (2002) The relationship between positive adolescent attitudes toward reading and home literary environment. Reterieved 2013.
[2] Bailey, L. B. (2006). Examining gifted students who are economically at-risk to determine factors that influence their early reading success. Early Childhood Education Journal. 33, 307-315.
[3] Bluman, A. G. (2012). Elementary statistics a step by step approach 8th Edition. USA: McGrawHill.
[4] Cassel, J. S. (n.d.). Qualitative organization research. Retrieved from www.Sagepublications com. Retrieved December 2013.
[5] Cerner, A. J., & United States Department of Labor, 2. (2008). The utility of the individual reading evaluation and diagnostic (iRead Inventory), a specific reading skills assessment, for treatment design implementation".
[6] Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research 2nd Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Educ.
[7] Creswell, J.(2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.
[8] DepED Memo 324, s.2004. (n.d.).
[9] DepEd Memorandum 143,s.2012. (n.d.).
[10] Flaherty JA, G. F. (1988;retrived November 4,2013). Developing instruments for cross-cultural psychiatric research. Journal of Nervous Mental Disease., 176(5):257–263.
[11] Gela, J. (2010). Resilience of the Returning Dropouts: Benchmark for Intervention.
[12] Hamilton, S. S. (2006, December 15). Evaluation of children with reading difficulties. AAP 2006 Annual clinical focus on caring for children and adult (ACF), pp. 1-6.
[13] http://www.sightwordworksheets.com/sight-word-recognition/. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2013.
[14] Https:/www.google.com.ph/_ret=ctr&ei=JEKJU5i4HQb3mAXI_IOICg&gws_rd, Calmorin, 2. e. (n.d.). Retrieved 2013.
[15] Leslie, L. & Caldwell,J.20011). (n.d.). Qualitative Reading Inventory. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
[16] Litchman, M. (2010). Qualitative Research in Eduation. A User’s Guide. Ed.2. USA: Sage Publishing.
[17] Macky & Gass. (2005). Second Language Research, Methodology and Design. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
[18] Merriam, S. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1?: Issues of validity and reliability of qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 51–60.
[19] Moustakas, Clark (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks California, retrieved 2012.
[20] Mulkana, A, J., Hopper, P.F., and Jayroe, T. (2010). School Success for At-Risk Students, V1, N1, National Forum.
[21] National Assessment of Education (NAEP)(National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2005& 2007b.
[22] Pagani, L. S., Jalbert, J., & Girard, A. (2006). Does preschool enrichment of precursors to arithmetic influence intuitive knowledge of number in low income children? Early Childhood Education Journal, 34, 133-136.
[23] Partin, K., Hendricks, C. G. (2002) The Relationship Between Positive Adolescent Attitudes Toward Reading and Home Literary Environment, Bowling Green State University.
[24] Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. (3rd ed.) CA: Sage. Thousand Oaks.
[25] Ronda, B. R. (September 20, 2012 - 12:00am). DepEd: National reading skills assessment to continue this year. The Philippine Star).
[26] Rupley, W. H., & Nichols, W. D. (2005). Vocabulary instruction for the struggling reader. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 239-260.
[27] Spiegel, D. (1994). A portrait of parents of successful readers. ERIC Document, Reproduction Service No. ED353548.