Reducing Learning Poverty through a Comprehensive Digital Literacy Program: Evidence from a School-Community Literacy Intervention in a Geographically Isolated Philippine Elementary School

Mercelita Jandayan-Labial^1,

¹Graduate School, Capitol University, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

Cite this paper:
Mercelita Jandayan-Labial. Reducing Learning Poverty through a Comprehensive Digital Literacy Program: Evidence from a School-Community Literacy Intervention in a Geographically Isolated Philippine Elementary School. Journal of Innovations in Teaching and Learning. 2026; 6(1):70-87. doi: 10.12691/jitl-6-1-10

Abstract

Learning poverty remains a major barrier to educational equity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where many children do not acquire the reading skills needed for continued learning. In the Philippines, results from both international and national assessments continue to highlight persistent challenges in foundational literacy, underscoring the need for interventions that respond to local educational realities. This study examined the effectiveness of the Alleviating Learning Poverty through a Comprehensive Digital Literacy Program implemented at a public integrated school in Talakag, Bukidnon. Using a mixed-methods intervention evaluation design, the study assessed changes in learners' reading proficiency through the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (PHIL-IRI) and explored the instructional and contextual factors that shaped literacy development. The ten-month program integrated the Reading A-Z digital platform, daily reading remediation, teacher professional development, technology-supported instruction, and active parent and community participation. Results showed marked improvements in learners' reading proficiency. The proportion of frustration-level readers declined from 38.22% to 13.38%, while the percentages of instructional- and independent-level readers increased over the course of the intervention. Classroom observations and teacher interviews suggested that differentiated instruction, consistent teacher support, access to leveled reading materials, and stronger home-school partnerships helped foster these gains. At the same time, persistent challenges such as chronic absenteeism, poverty-related responsibilities, and limited opportunities for reading beyond school continued to affect some learners. These findings suggest that improving foundational literacy requires more than access to digital resources alone. When technology is combined with effective teaching, structured reading support, and meaningful community involvement, schools can make substantial progress in reducing learning poverty, even in geographically isolated and resource-constrained settings. The study adds to the growing evidence that integrated school-community approaches can strengthen literacy outcomes and offers practical insights for educators, policymakers, and development organizations seeking sustainable strategies to improve early reading achievement.

Keywords:
learning poverty foundational literacy digital literacy Reading A-Z PHIL-IRI school-community partnership educational technology

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934-945.
[2]	World Bank, & UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2019). Ending learning poverty: What will it take? World Bank.
[3]	Azevedo, J. P. W. de, Crawford, M. F., Nayar, R., Rogers, F. H., Barron Rodriguez, M. R., Ding, E. Y. Z., Gutierrez Bernal, M., Dixon, A., Saavedra, J., & Arias Diaz, O. S. (2021). Ending learning poverty: What will it take? World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/395151571251399043
[4]	World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191-2194.
[5]	Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume II): Learning during—and from—disruption. OECD Publishing.
[6]	Second Congressional Commission on Education. (2025). Fixing the foundations: Year Two Report. https://edcom2.gov.ph/.
[7]	Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
[8]	Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2021). Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 33, Article 100387.
[9]	Fikrat-Wevers, S., van Steensel, R., & Arends, L. (2021). Effects of family literacy programs on the emergent literacy skills of children from low-SES families: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 577-613.
[10]	Furenes, M. I., Kucirkova, N., & Bus, A. G. (2021). A comparison of children's reading on paper versus screen: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 483-517.
[11]	Cartwright, K. B., Lee, S. A., Barber, A. T., DeWyngaert, L. U., Lane, A. B., & Singleton, T. (2020). Contributions of executive function and cognitive intrinsic motivation to university students’ reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, 345-369.
[12]	Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020). Toward a developmental, component-based model of reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), 9-28.
[13]	UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO.
[14]	Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
[15]	Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
[16]	Department of Education. (2024). Administration of the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) for Key Stages 2 and 3 for School Year 2024-2025 (DM-CT-2024-447). Department of Education.
[17]	Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel. Routledge.
[18]	Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
[19]	Duke, N. K., Ward, A. E., & Pearson, P. D. (2021). The science of reading comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 74(6), 663-672.
[20]	International Literacy Association. (2022). Children's rights to excellent literacy instruction. International Literacy Association.
[21]	UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? UNESCO.
[22]	Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD.
[23]	Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 203-212.
[24]	International Commission on the Futures of Education. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO.
[25]	Benner, G. J. (2022). The impact of supplemental word recognition strategies on students with reading difficulties. International Journal of Instruction, 15(1), 837-856.
[26]	Rush, T. R. (2024). Response to intervention for adolescents: Intensive interventions for students at-risk for reading failure (Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware). http://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/25028.
[27]	Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
[28]	United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https:// sdgs.un.org/ 2030agenda.
[29]	Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97-140.
[30]	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.
[31]	Goodwin, A. P., & Jiménez, R. T. (2021). The science of reading: Supports, critiques, and questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S7-S22.
[32]	Petscher, Y., Cabell, S. Q., Catts, H. W., Compton, D. L., Foorman, B. R., Hart, S. A., Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., Schatschneider, C., Steacy, L. M., Terry, N. P., & Wagner, R. K. (2021). How the science of reading informs 21st-century education. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S267-S282.
[33]	Sénéchal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy interventions on children's acquisition of reading from kindergarten to Grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 880-907.
[34]	World Bank, UNESCO, UNICEF, Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, United States Agency for International Development, & Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2022). The state of global learning poverty: 2022 update. World Bank.
[35]	Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(17), e2022376118.