Navigating the Learning Gap: An Analysis of Curriculum

Simplification vs. Scaffolding for Frustration-Level Readers

in the Philippines

Introduction

The query posed by the user—how to effectively teach a Grade 7 student who reads
at a Grade 3 frustration level—is not an isolated classroom challenge. It is a direct
reflection of a profound and escalating learning crisis confronting the Republic of the
Philippines. The stakes of finding the correct pedagogical answer are exceptionally
high, as evidenced by a consistent stream of sobering national and international data.
The 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results placed the
Philippines 77th out of 81 participating countries in reading proficiency.1 This
performance is not an anomaly but a confirmation of systemic challenges, further
underscored by a World Bank study which found that a staggering 91 percent of
children in the Philippines are not proficient in reading by their late primary school
years.2 This situation, which experts term "learning poverty," signals a critical failure
to ensure that students can read and understand simple texts by age 10.3 The
ballooning number of students identified as struggling readers is, therefore, a
national concern that demands an evidence-based, decisive, and effective response
from educators at every level.

This report directly addresses the central pedagogical dilemma at the heart of the
user's query: a conflict between two fundamentally different approaches to
remediation. The first, curriculum simplification, is an intuitive response that
involves lowering the complexity of instructional materials to match a student's
current, deficient reading level. The goal is to reduce frustration and build confidence
by providing texts the student can manage. The second, comprehensive or
scaffolded instruction, takes a different path. It maintains the high expectations of
grade-level content but provides intensive, temporary support structures to help the
student build a bridge to that more complex material. This report will rigorously
evaluate these two approaches, moving beyond anecdotal evidence to provide a
data-driven analysis of their comparative effectiveness on student retention,
understanding, and the development of Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS). The
central question to be answered is whether simplifying the curriculum truly closes the
learning gap or if it merely manages its symptoms, inadvertently widening the chasm
over time by lowering expectations and denying students access to the rich, complex
content they need to grow.

To navigate this complex issue, the analysis will be guided by three foundational
theories from cognitive science and educational psychology. First, Lev Vygotsky's
concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) will serve as the theoretical
bedrock for scaffolding. The ZPD is the crucial space between what a learner can
achieve independently and what they can accomplish with guidance from a "more
knowledgeable other," such as a teacher or peer.4 This theory posits that true
learning happens not by staying within a student's comfort zone, but by challenging
them within this supported space. Second,

Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) will be used to analyze the mechanics of learning. CLT
explains that our working memory has a limited capacity to process new information;
effective instruction must manage this load to facilitate learning.6 This lens will be
used to examine both the potential benefits of simplification in reducing cognitive
strain and its significant risks. Third,

Robert Bjork's theory of Desirable Difficulties will provide a critical counter-

narrative to the logic of making learning easy. This theory demonstrates that
introducing certain challenges that require more effort from the learner can slow
down initial acquisition but dramatically improves long-term retention and the ability
to transfer knowledge to new contexts.8 This concept provides a powerful scientific
argument against the long-term use of over-simplified materials.

The primary objective of this report is to deliver a definitive, evidence-based

comparison of curriculum simplification and scaffolding, measured against the user's
specified metrics of retention, understanding, and HOTS. By integrating data from
Philippine national assessments like the Phil-IRI and the Functional Literacy,
Education and Mass Media Survey (FLEMMS), international benchmarks like PISA, and
a global body of academic research, this report will provide a clear verdict. It will
culminate in a set of actionable recommendations tailored to the unique context of
the Philippine education system, offering a clear path forward for educators, school
leaders, and policymakers grappling with the nation's literacy crisis.

Section 1: Profile of the Struggling Filipino Learner: From

Diagnosis to National Data

To effectively address the user's query, it is imperative to first establish a clear, data-
driven profile of the student in question. This involves understanding the diagnostic
tools used in the Philippine system, precisely defining the "frustration" level, and
connecting this individual diagnosis to the broader national landscape of literacy. This
section will demonstrate that the struggling Grade 7 learner is not an isolated case
but a manifestation of a systemic challenge quantified by both classroom-level and
national assessments.

1.1 The Phil-IRI as a Diagnostic Compass

The Philippine Department of Education (DepEd) provides teachers with a

standardized, classroom-based assessment tool designed to measure and describe a
learner's reading performance: the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-
IRI).10 As an initiative under the "Every Child A Reader Program," the Phil-IRI's primary
purpose is diagnostic. It is not a standardized test for comparing students against
each other, but an informal inventory to provide teachers with deep insights into an
individual student's reading abilities, including word recognition, comprehension, and
reading speed.12 The data gathered from the Phil-IRI is intended to be the foundation
upon which teachers design appropriate reading instruction and schools plan their
reading intervention programs.11

The Phil-IRI process is typically administered twice a year (pre-test and post-test)
and follows a two-stage process to identify and diagnose reading difficulties.14
1. Phil-IRI Group Screening Test (GST): This is the initial step, a group-
administered, 20-item reading comprehension test given to an entire class.11 The
GST serves as a filter. According to DepEd guidelines, students who score 14 or
above are considered to be reading at an appropriate level and do not require
 further testing. However, students who score 13 or below are flagged as needing
a more in-depth, individualized assessment.11 This initial screening ensures that
teacher resources are focused on the students most in need of support.
2. Individually Administered Phil-IRI Graded Passages: For students who do not
pass the GST, the teacher conducts an individual assessment using graded
passages. The Phil-IRI kit contains passages ranging from Kindergarten to Grade
7 level.11 The teacher asks the student to read a passage aloud while marking
miscues (e.g., mispronunciation, omission, substitution) and then asks a series of
comprehension questions.17 This one-on-one administration allows the teacher to
quantitatively measure the student's word recognition accuracy and
comprehension level, and qualitatively observe their reading behaviors.18 Based
on the results of this individual assessment, the student's functional reading level
is determined as
Independent, Instructional, or Frustration.16 This diagnostic process provides
the specific data—such as a Grade 7 student reading at a Grade 3 frustration
level—that forms the basis of the user's query.

1.2 Deconstructing the 'Frustration' Level

The term "frustration" is not a subjective label but a specific technical diagnosis
within the Phil-IRI framework. A student is classified as being at the frustration level
when their reading performance on a given graded passage breaks down to the point
where learning is no longer occurring. This level is characterized by significant
difficulty in both decoding words and understanding the text's meaning. Qualitatively,
a student at this level may exhibit signs of tension, read in a halting, word-by-word
manner, and show a clear lack of engagement or motivation, often wishing to stop
reading.5 As one resource aptly describes, this is the level that requires "extensive or
even moderate assistance from an educator," and forcing a child to read at this level
for most of their day can be detrimental to their progress and motivation.20

The Phil-IRI provides precise, quantitative criteria for this diagnosis, based on a
student's performance in two key areas: word recognition and comprehension. These
benchmarks, adapted from the work of Johnson, Kress, and Pikulski (1987), are the
standard used across the Philippine public school system.18
Table 1: Phil-IRI Oral Reading Profile Criteria

Reading Level Word Reading Score (in %) Comprehension Score (in %)

Independent 97% - 100% 80% - 100%

Instructional 90% - 96% 59% - 79%

Frustration 89% and below 58% and below

Source: Adapted from Phil-IRI Manuals and computation guides.18 Note: Some older or
varied documents may cite a comprehension score of 74% or below for Frustration
level 22; however, the 58% threshold is more commonly cited in recent and detailed
computation guides.

To illustrate, consider the student in the user's query: a Grade 7 learner identified as
being at the "frustration" level for Grade 3 material. This means that when asked to
read a passage designed for a third grader, the student correctly recognized 89% or
fewer of the words and/or answered 58% or fewer of the comprehension questions
correctly. This is a profound learning gap. The student is not just struggling with
grade-level material; they are struggling with material from four years prior. This
specific, data-driven diagnosis highlights the severity of the challenge and
underscores the urgency of selecting the correct intervention strategy.

1.3 The National Picture: A Chasm Between Basic and Functional Literacy

The case of the individual frustration-level reader, when multiplied across the nation,
reveals the full scale of the Philippine reading crisis. The most comprehensive data on
this issue comes from the 2024 Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media
Survey (FLEMMS), conducted by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). The final
results of this survey draw a critical distinction between two types of literacy, a
distinction that is paramount to understanding the problem.23
● Basic Literacy: Defined as the ability of a person to read and write a simple
message with understanding, and to perform basic mathematical computations.
 This is measured for individuals aged five and over.23
● Functional Literacy: Defined as the ability of a person to read, write, compute,
and comprehend. This higher-level skill includes the ability to integrate multiple
pieces of information and make inferences. It is measured for individuals aged 10
to 64.23

The 2024 FLEMMS found that the Philippines has a high basic literacy rate of
90.0% among those aged five and over.25 This suggests that nine out of ten Filipinos
can perform the fundamental tasks of decoding and simple calculation. However, the

functional literacy rate stands at only 70.8% for the population aged 10 to 64.26
This reveals a critical gap: a significant portion of the population possesses
foundational skills but lacks the crucial ability to comprehend and use information
effectively in daily life.

For the specific age group of 10 to 64 years, the data is even more telling: 93.1% have
basic literacy, while only 70.8% have functional literacy.28 This 22.3 percentage point
gap means that for every nine individuals who can technically read, write, and
compute, at least two struggle with comprehension.26 This figure represents millions
of Filipinos—including students in the basic education system—who can "read" but
cannot fully "understand." This is the essence of the national reading crisis. It is not
primarily a crisis of illiteracy in the traditional sense (inability to decode), but a crisis
of comprehension.

This national data provides the context for the individual Phil-IRI diagnosis. The
frustration-level reader, who struggles with comprehension far more than with word
recognition, is a perfect microcosm of this national gap between basic and functional
literacy. They can often pronounce the words on the page—demonstrating a degree
of basic literacy—but fail to construct meaning from them, thus lacking functional
literacy. This clarifies that the problem is not simply that students are "non-readers."
The more accurate and pressing issue is the ballooning number of "non-
comprehenders."

This distinction is not merely semantic; it is fundamental to designing effective

interventions. An approach that focuses solely on improving decoding skills by using
simplified texts may address a symptom but will fail to tackle the core disease, which
is a deficit in the ability to process, analyze, and synthesize complex information. The
ultimate goal of any reading intervention must be to move students from basic to
functional literacy, a journey that requires them to engage with and master the
complexities of language, not avoid them.

Section 2: The Simplification Approach: Lowering the

Instructional Floor

When faced with a student who is profoundly struggling, the impulse to simplify the
task is both understandable and widespread. The curriculum simplification or
modification approach is predicated on the idea of meeting students where they are.
It involves altering the core instructional materials—primarily the text—to a level that
aligns with the student's current, diagnosed reading ability. This section provides a
thorough analysis of this approach, examining its rationale, its basis in cognitive
science, and, most critically, its significant and often hidden costs to long-term
learning.

2.1 The Rationale for Curriculum Modification

The primary argument for simplifying the curriculum is rooted in the desire to create a
more positive and productive learning environment for a student at the frustration
level. When a student is constantly confronted with texts that are too difficult, they
experience failure, anxiety, and discouragement, which can lead them to disengage
from reading altogether.5 By providing materials at their independent or instructional
level, the simplification approach aims to achieve several key objectives:
● Reduce Frustration and Cognitive Overload: The most immediate goal is to
lower the cognitive burden on the student, making the act of reading less
intimidating and more manageable.20
● Build Confidence and Motivation: By working with texts they can successfully
read and understand, students can experience a sense of accomplishment. This
success is intended to build confidence and rekindle motivation for reading.30
● Match the Developmental Level: This approach operates on the principle of
meeting students at their current developmental stage. For a Grade 7 student
reading at a Grade 3 level, this means providing Grade 3 or Grade 4 texts and
 tasks.30

In practice, curriculum modification involves changing the content itself. This can take
many forms, such as substituting a grade-level text with one that has a lower
readability score, using simpler vocabulary, employing shorter and less complex
sentence structures, or reducing the number of steps in a task.30 The fundamental
action is to lower the instructional floor to a level the student can stand on without
assistance.

2.2 The Cognitive Science of Simplification: Managing Cognitive Load

The strongest theoretical justification for text simplification comes from Cognitive
Load Theory (CLT). CLT posits that human working memory—the mental workspace
where we process new information—is extremely limited.6 For learning to occur, the
cognitive load imposed by an instructional task must not overwhelm this limited
capacity. Cognitive load is generally understood to have three components:
● Intrinsic Load: The inherent difficulty of the material itself. For a struggling
reader, the act of decoding unfamiliar words and complex sentences creates a
very high intrinsic load.33
● Extraneous Load: The load generated by the way information is presented.
Poorly designed materials or unclear instructions can increase extraneous load,
hindering learning.33
● Germane Load: The "good" cognitive effort required to process information,
connect it to prior knowledge, and build mental models or schemas. This is the
load that directly contributes to deep learning.7

From a CLT perspective, a frustration-level reader is experiencing severe cognitive

overload. The intrinsic load of decoding a complex, grade-level text is so high that it
consumes all available working memory resources. As a result, there is no mental
capacity left for the germane load of comprehension—the student is so focused on
figuring out the words that they cannot think about what the words mean.7

Simplifying the text (e.g., from a Grade 7 to a Grade 4 level) is a direct attempt to
manage this overload by reducing the intrinsic load. By using more familiar vocabulary
and simpler sentence structures, the task of decoding becomes less demanding. In
theory, this frees up precious cognitive resources in working memory, allowing the
student to allocate that mental energy to the germane task of understanding the
text's meaning.6 This is the scientific rationale behind the simplification approach: by
making the text easier, you make comprehension possible.

2.3 Critical Analysis: The Hidden Costs of Oversimplification

While the logic of managing cognitive load is sound, a long-term strategy built on
simplification carries severe, often-unseen consequences that undermine the
ultimate goals of education: retention, understanding, and the development of
higher-order thinking.

Inhibiting Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)

A curriculum that consistently provides students with simplified texts systematically

starves them of the very material needed to develop HOTS. Critical thinking skills—
such as analysis, evaluation, synthesis, and inference—are not abstract abilities that
can be taught in isolation. They are skills that must be practiced on content that is
sufficiently complex to warrant their use.37 A simple text with a clear main idea and
explicitly stated facts offers nothing to analyze, no competing claims to evaluate, and
no nuances to infer. Students cannot learn to navigate textual complexity if they are
never allowed to encounter it. Research on textbooks has shown that many
assignments already fail to promote higher-order thinking, focusing instead on simple
recall of factual information.39 A strategy of simplification exacerbates this problem,
creating a learning environment devoid of the intellectual challenge necessary for
cognitive growth.

The Widening Achievement Gap (The "Matthew Effect")

The practice of giving struggling readers texts at their current reading level, while
well-intentioned, can inadvertently trap them in a cycle of low expectations, a
phenomenon often called the "Matthew Effect" in reading ("the rich get richer and the
poor get poorer"). Research shows that while students need to read texts with a high
degree of accuracy to make gains, consistently using texts at their current level may
ensure they never catch up to their grade-level peers.40 Students who only read easy
texts do not encounter the sophisticated vocabulary, complex syntax, and diverse
knowledge domains present in grade-level materials. Without this exposure, they
cannot build the linguistic and background knowledge necessary to close the
achievement gap. Over time, their peers who are engaging with complex texts
continue to grow, while the struggling reader stagnates, causing the gap to widen
into a chasm.40 Experts in the field explicitly warn against the "significant overuse of
text simplification," as it denies learners the opportunity to engage with rich, varied,
and grade-appropriate discourse, which is essential for academic success.41

The Illusion of Learning and Poor Retention

Perhaps the most insidious danger of oversimplification is that it can create an

"illusion of learning." This phenomenon is best explained by Bjork's theory of
Desirable Difficulties.8 The theory argues that learning conditions that make
performance easy during instruction often lead to poor long-term retention.
Conversely, conditions that introduce challenges and require more mental effort
—"desirable difficulties"—can slow down initial learning but result in more durable,
long-term memory and better transfer of skills.8

Simplified texts are easy to process. This ease of processing creates a feeling of
fluency and mastery in the student. However, this feeling is often misleading. A
landmark study from Harvard University demonstrated this effect clearly: students
who attended highly polished, easy-to-follow lectures felt that they learned more, but
they actually performed worse on subsequent tests than students who engaged in
more challenging "active learning" sessions.45 The study concluded that "actual
learning and feeling of learning were strongly anticorrelated" because the effort
involved in active learning can be misinterpreted as a sign of poor learning.45 A
curriculum based on simplification risks falling into this trap. It prioritizes immediate,
easy performance on simple tasks over the "productive struggle" that leads to deep,
lasting learning. The result is shallow encoding of information and, consequently, poor
long-term retention.
The choice to simplify a curriculum is a trade-off between managing the intrinsic
cognitive load of a task and providing the necessary germane cognitive load for deep
learning. While simplification effectively reduces the former, making the task less
difficult, it simultaneously and dangerously eliminates the latter. Germane load is the
productive mental effort students must exert to build and connect schemas, which is
the very essence of understanding and developing higher-order thinking.33 By
removing the complexity from the text, one also removes the opportunity for the
student to engage in the germane cognitive work required to understand that
complexity. This explains precisely why a simplification-only approach is destined to
fail on the user's key metrics of retention and HOTS.

Ultimately, a long-term pedagogical strategy centered on simplification teaches

students a damaging lesson: that learning should be easy and that difficult texts are
obstacles to be avoided rather than challenges to be overcome with strategy and
support. This approach cultivates a passive mindset, where students become
consumers of pre-digested information rather than active constructors of knowledge.
When these students are inevitably faced with an authentically complex, grade-level
text in a higher grade, in university, or in the workplace, they will lack not only the
skills and vocabulary to tackle it but also the cognitive endurance and intellectual
resilience required to even begin. This learned dependency perpetuates the cycle of
failure that the intervention was meant to break.

Section 3: The Scaffolding Approach: Building a Bridge to Grade-

Level Content

In stark contrast to lowering the curriculum to meet the student, the scaffolding
approach maintains high, grade-level expectations and builds a strong, temporary
support system to help the student rise to meet them. This methodology is not about
making the work easier; it is about making the student more capable. Grounded in
robust educational theory and supported by a wealth of empirical evidence, including
studies from the Philippines, scaffolding represents a more effective, equitable, and
ultimately more respectful approach to teaching struggling readers.
3.1 Theoretical Bedrock: Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

The intellectual foundation of scaffolding is Lev Vygotsky's seminal concept of the

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Vygotsky theorized that learning is a social
process and that the most effective instruction targets the ZPD—the conceptual
space between what a learner can already do independently and what they can
achieve with the guidance and support of a "more knowledgeable other," such as a
teacher or a more capable peer.4

This theory directly addresses the user's scenario. The Grade 7 student is currently
unable to read and comprehend the Grade 7 text independently. This task is outside
their current ability. However, it may lie within their ZPD. Scaffolding provides the
structured interaction and temporary support needed to bridge this gap, allowing the
student to successfully engage with grade-level material that would otherwise be
inaccessible.5 The term "scaffolding" itself is a metaphor: just as scaffolds on a
building provide temporary support for workers to construct something they could
not reach on their own, instructional scaffolds provide temporary support for learners
to build understanding they could not construct alone.5 A key feature of this support
is that it is designed to be gradually withdrawn as the learner's competence and
independence grow.5

3.2 Scaffolding vs. Simplification: A Crucial Distinction

It is critical to distinguish scaffolding from simplification or differentiation, as the

terms are often used incorrectly. The two approaches are fundamentally different in
their goals and methods.
● Scaffolding maintains the integrity of the grade-level learning goal and the
complexity of the core text. It modifies the support system around the task to
ensure the student can access it. The expectation remains high; the support is
what changes.48
● Simplification (or Modification) fundamentally alters and lowers the learning
goal by changing the text or task itself to a less complex version. It lowers the
expectation to match the student's current level.30
The decision between these two is a decision between holding students to high
standards with high support, versus lowering standards to reduce the need for
support. The following table provides a clear comparative framework.

Table 2: A Comparative Framework of Instructional Approaches

Feature Curriculum Simplification / Scaffolding Grade-Level

Modification Content

Primary Goal Reduce frustration and make Maintain high expectations

content accessible by and make grade-level content
lowering the difficulty of the accessible by providing
material itself. temporary, structured
support.

Text Complexity The text is changed to a lower The text remains at grade-
reading level (e.g., simpler level complexity. All students
vocabulary, shorter engage with the same core
sentences). text.

Typical Student Task Reading a simplified text; Engaging with complex text
answering literal through chunking, discussion,
comprehension questions; and analysis; using graphic
completing worksheets at a organizers; participating in
lower grade level. Often collaborative dialogues (e.g.,
isolated work. CSR, Reciprocal Teaching).

Teacher's Role To select or create simplified To design and provide a

materials that match the system of supports (e.g.,
student's current reading modeling, pre-teaching,
level. think-alouds) and then
gradually remove them as the
student gains independence.

Impact on Retention Poor. Ease of processing Strong. "Desirable difficulty"

leads to shallow encoding and and active engagement
an "illusion of learning." promote deeper processing
and more durable memory
formation.

Impact on HOTS Negative. Removes the textual Positive. Preserves the

complexity required to complex material necessary
practice analysis, inference, for students to engage in and
 and evaluation. develop higher-order
thinking.

Source: Synthesized from research on differentiated instruction, scaffolding, and

cognitive science.8

3.3 A Toolkit for Scaffolding Complex Text

Scaffolding is not a single strategy but a flexible and powerful toolkit of instructional
techniques that can be combined and adapted to meet diverse learner needs.
Effective scaffolding typically occurs before, during, and after reading.

Pre-Reading Scaffolds

The goal of pre-reading scaffolds is to prepare the student for a successful

encounter with the text.
● Activate or Build Background Knowledge: A student's prior knowledge is a
primary determinant of their ability to comprehend a text.51 If a text is about a
topic entirely foreign to students, a teacher can build essential background
knowledge by showing a short video, discussing key concepts, or looking at
related images. If students have some existing knowledge, a K-W-L (Know, Want
to Know, Learned) chart can activate it.48
● Pre-teach Critical Vocabulary and Concepts: Instead of simplifying all
vocabulary, the teacher identifies a small number of essential, high-leverage
words or concepts that are critical to understanding the text and teaches them
directly before reading begins.31
● Preview Text Structure: The teacher can guide students to look at headings,
subheadings, pictures, and graphs to predict what the text will be about and how
it is organized. This helps students create a mental map before they start
reading.54
During-Reading Scaffolds

These supports are provided in real-time as students engage with the text.
● Chunking the Text: Long or dense texts are broken down into smaller, more
manageable paragraphs or sections. Students read one chunk at a time, pausing
to discuss, clarify, and check for understanding before moving on. This prevents
cognitive overload and encourages close reading.49
● Active Reading Engagement: Instead of silent, independent reading (which
provides no support), teachers use interactive strategies. Choral Reading
(reading aloud in unison), Echo Reading (students echoing the teacher's read-
aloud), and Partner Reading (pairing a stronger reader with a struggling reader)
all provide real-time models of fluent, expressive reading and support with
decoding.48
● Modeling and Think-Alouds: This is one of the most powerful scaffolds. The
teacher reads a difficult passage aloud and verbalizes their own thought process:
"Hmm, I don't know this word, but I see a clue in the sentence...", "This part
seems to contradict what I read earlier, I wonder why...", "I'm making a picture in
my mind of what's happening here." This makes the invisible mental processes of
skilled reading visible to the struggling reader.40
● Tiered Graphic Organizers: All students read the same grade-level text, but
they might receive different versions of a graphic organizer to complete. For a
student needing significant support, the organizer might include sentence
starters, pre-filled examples, or a word bank to help them identify and structure
key information. This tiers the task, not the text, allowing all students to work
toward the same learning target with varied levels of support.50

Post-Reading Scaffolds and Collaborative Learning Models

These strategies help students consolidate, synthesize, and deepen their

understanding after reading.
● Reciprocal Teaching: This research-based, cooperative learning model
structures a dialogue around the text. In small groups, students take on four
rotating roles: the Summarizer states the main ideas, the Questioner poses
 questions about the content, the Clarifier addresses confusing parts, and the
Predictor anticipates what might come next.59 This approach has been shown to
be highly effective in improving comprehension, especially for students with
learning disabilities, because it teaches them to be active, strategic, and
metacognitive readers.60
● Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR): Similar to Reciprocal Teaching, CSR is
a cooperative learning routine that combines four key strategies: Preview
(before reading), Click and Clunk (monitoring comprehension during reading),
Get the Gist (summarizing main ideas), and Wrap Up (questioning and reviewing
after reading).55 Research has demonstrated CSR's effectiveness in improving
reading comprehension for a wide range of students, including those with
learning disabilities and English language learners, by enhancing their active
involvement and confidence.55

3.4 Evidence from the Field: Scaffolding's Efficacy in the Philippines

Crucially, the effectiveness of scaffolding is not just a theoretical proposition from

international research; it has been validated within the Philippine educational context.
● A descriptive-experimental study conducted at Morong National High School
specifically targeted Grade 7 frustration-level readers identified through the Phil-
IRI. The study found that after being exposed to scaffolding strategies, the
students' performance showed a statistically significant increase across various
reading competencies. Both teachers and learners responded positively, noting
that the strategies were engaging and greatly aided comprehension.5
● Another study at Nabalawag High School in the BARMM region examined the
impact of the "5Bs Program" on Grade 7 frustrated readers. The program, which
utilized scaffolding techniques like tutorial sessions, peer tutoring, and modeled
reading, resulted in significant improvements in the students' reading grade
levels.65

These local studies are vital because they demonstrate that scaffolding principles can
be successfully applied to address the exact problem identified by the user—
improving the performance of secondary students who are at the frustration level
according to the Phil-IRI.
The power of scaffolding lies not just in its cognitive support but also in its social and
affective dimensions. Strategies like CSR and Reciprocal Teaching are inherently
collaborative, creating a classroom culture where intellectual struggle is a shared,
normalized, and supported activity.66 This contrasts sharply with the often isolating
experience of a student working alone on a simplified worksheet. This collaborative
environment provides peer support, reduces the stigma of needing help, and builds
the very confidence and motivation that simplification purports to address, but in a
more authentic and empowering way.

This approach aligns perfectly with the principles of Universal Design for Learning
(UDL), a framework for creating inclusive classrooms that proactively plan for learner
variability.68 Instead of creating separate, simplified paths for struggling learners, UDL
advocates for designing a single, rich, grade-level curriculum with multiple, flexible
means of engagement, representation, and expression built in for everyone.70
Scaffolding is the practical application of UDL. Pre-teaching vocabulary offers
multiple means of

representation. Tiered graphic organizers offer multiple means of action and

expression. Collaborative dialogues offer multiple means of engagement. Adopting a
scaffolding approach, therefore, is not just about using a few techniques; it is a
systemic shift towards a more equitable and effective educational philosophy that
honors high standards for all learners.

Section 4: Comparative Analysis: Retention, Understanding, and

HOTS

Having examined the theoretical underpinnings and practical applications of both

curriculum simplification and scaffolding, this section provides a direct comparative
analysis. It adjudicates the contest between the two approaches by measuring them
against the user's three critical metrics: long-term retention, deep understanding,
and the cultivation of Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS). The evidence converges to
deliver a clear and decisive verdict.
4.1 Impact on Long-Term Retention and Deep Understanding

For learning to be meaningful, it must be retained over the long term. On this metric,
scaffolding is demonstrably superior to simplification. This conclusion is strongly
supported by the principle of Desirable Difficulties. As outlined by cognitive
scientist Robert Bjork, learning strategies that introduce challenges and require
significant mental effort from the learner, while seeming less efficient in the short
term, are far more effective for building durable, long-term memory.8 The "productive
struggle" involved in making sense of a complex, grade-level text with the aid of
scaffolds—such as activating prior knowledge, grappling with new vocabulary, and
discussing ideas with peers—forces deeper cognitive processing. This effortful
retrieval and encoding process strengthens the neural pathways associated with the
new knowledge, leading to robust retention.8

Curriculum simplification, conversely, falls prey to what researchers call the "illusion
of learning".45 The ease with which a student can process a simplified text creates a
feeling of mastery, a "perceptual fluency" that is often mistaken for genuine
understanding.44 However, because the task requires minimal cognitive effort, the
information is encoded shallowly and is quickly forgotten. The Harvard study on active
learning versus passive lectures provides compelling evidence for this: students felt
they learned more from the easy lecture but retained more from the difficult, active-
learning session.45 Simplification mimics the passive lecture, while scaffolding
embodies active learning.

Furthermore, comprehensive reading programs that integrate direct instruction with

strategy instruction—a structured form of scaffolding—have been shown to produce
large and statistically significant effects on the reading achievement of middle school
students with disabilities.72 A quasi-experimental study on the

Fusion Reading program, for example, found effect sizes ranging from Hedges's
g=1.66 to g=1.04 on standardized reading measures, indicating a very strong positive
impact.72 This contrasts with approaches that simply provide easier materials, which
lack the strategic component necessary for building transferable skills and deep
understanding.

4.2 Cultivating Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)

The development of HOTS is arguably the most important goal of secondary and
higher education. Here, the comparison between the two approaches is even more
stark. Higher-order thinking is impossible to develop without engagement with
higher-order content.

Simplified texts, by their very design, strip out the elements that necessitate critical
thought. They tend to present information in a direct, unambiguous manner, with
clear topic sentences and explicit details. They lack the nuance, ambiguity, irony,
sophisticated argumentation, and conflicting perspectives that are the raw material
for analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.37 A student cannot learn to "read between the
lines" when there is nothing between the lines to read. A long-term diet of simplified
content does not just fail to develop HOTS; it actively prevents their development by
removing any opportunity for practice.

Scaffolding, on the other hand, preserves the complexity of the grade-level text,
thereby preserving the opportunities for higher-order thinking. It keeps the "desirable
difficulty" intact while providing the tools to navigate it. Collaborative models like
Reciprocal Teaching and CSR are particularly powerful in this regard because they
explicitly embed HOTS into the learning process. The "Questioner" role encourages
students to move beyond literal recall to ask inferential and evaluative questions. The
"Clarifier" role develops metacognitive awareness of comprehension breakdowns.
The "Summarizer" role requires the synthesis of information to identify the most
important ideas.59 These are not just reading strategies; they are thinking strategies.
The concern that teaching such skills must come at the expense of content is
unfounded. As educational thinkers have noted, one cannot think critically about a
subject one knows nothing about.37 Scaffolding is the mechanism that allows for the
simultaneous acquisition of complex content knowledge and the critical thinking skills
needed to process it.

4.3 The Verdict: Scaffolding as the Engine of Equity and Growth

Based on a thorough analysis of the evidence, the verdict is unequivocal. For

achieving the goals of long-term retention, deep understanding, and the
development of Higher-Order Thinking Skills in frustration-level readers, scaffolding
grade-level content is the scientifically supported and pedagogically superior
approach.

This does not mean that simplification has no place in education. It should be viewed
as a highly specialized, short-term, surgical tool. For a student with severe and
specific gaps in foundational skills (e.g., phonemic awareness or basic phonics), a
brief, intensive intervention using simplified, targeted materials may be necessary. For
example, a structured, explicit phonics program like Orton-Gillingham can be highly
effective for students with dyslexia.73 However, the overarching goal of such an
intervention must always be to remediate the specific skill deficit as quickly as
possible in order to return the student to a scaffolded, grade-level instructional
environment. Allowing simplification to become the student's long-term curriculum is
a recipe for academic stagnation and the permanent widening of the achievement
gap.40

The choice between simplification and scaffolding is not merely a choice between two
teaching techniques; it is a choice between two profoundly different educational
philosophies. Simplification, however well-intentioned, operates from a deficit-based
mindset. It defines the student by their current limitations ("This student reads at a
Grade 3 level, therefore they must receive Grade 3 work"). This approach risks
trapping the student by creating a curriculum that perpetually looks backward at their
weaknesses.

Scaffolding, in contrast, operates from a growth mindset. It begins with the high
standard as the non-negotiable goal ("The standard is Grade 7 content") and then
asks, "What supports does this student need to build a bridge to get there?" This
approach defines the student by their potential for growth and provides a clear
pathway toward achieving it. It is the very essence of educational equity: ensuring
that all students, regardless of their starting point, have access to the same rich,
challenging, and empowering curriculum as their peers.48 This redefines "access" not
as access to easy materials, but as access to grade-level ideas, complex discourse,
and the opportunity to become a powerful, critical thinker. For the Philippine
education system to truly address its literacy crisis, it must embrace this philosophy,
empowering its teachers to build bridges, not lower floors.

Section 5: Actionable Recommendations for Philippine Educators

and Policymakers

Translating the report's conclusive findings into practice requires a strategic, multi-
layered approach that addresses the needs of students, empowers teachers in the
classroom, and guides policy at the system level. The following recommendations
provide a concrete pathway for shifting from a reliance on curriculum simplification to
a robust implementation of scaffolding, with the ultimate goal of fostering functional
literacy and higher-order thinking for all Filipino learners.

5.1 A Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Framework for Reading

A one-size-fits-all approach is ineffective. The most effective way to address the

diverse needs of learners is through a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS), a
framework that provides varying levels of intervention based on student data. This
model allows for the strategic use of different instructional approaches, ensuring that
every student receives the right support at the right time.

Tier 1: High-Quality, Universally Designed Core Instruction (All Students)

The foundation of the MTSS framework is excellent core instruction for all students in
the general education classroom. This tier should be built on the principles of
Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which involves proactively designing lessons
with built-in flexibility and support to accommodate learner variability from the
outset.68 Instead of waiting for students to fail, UDL anticipates challenges and
provides multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression for
everyone.70 For reading instruction, this means:
● Consistent use of grade-level complex texts for all students.
● Proactive scaffolding as a standard part of lesson design: routinely activating
background knowledge, pre-teaching a few critical vocabulary words, using
graphic organizers, and incorporating structured talk time.49
● The recent implementation of the decongested MATATAG curriculum for K-10
 provides a crucial opportunity. With a reduced number of competencies,
teachers now have the instructional time necessary to move away from broad,
superficial coverage and engage in the deeper, more supportive teaching that
scaffolding requires.75

Tier 2: Targeted Small-Group Intervention (At-Risk Students)

For students identified by the Phil-IRI GST or other assessments as being at-risk (e.g.,
scoring below 14/20), Tier 2 provides additional, targeted support. This is not a pull-
out program with simplified materials, but rather small-group instruction focused on
the same grade-level content being taught in Tier 1.
● Flexible, Needs-Based Grouping: Use Phil-IRI data to form small, dynamic
groups based on specific skill needs (e.g., a group struggling with inference,
another with vocabulary). These groups should be fluid, not fixed tracks.52
● Intensified Scaffolding: In these small groups, teachers can provide more
intensive and personalized scaffolding using evidence-based collaborative
models like Reciprocal Teaching or Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR).60
This approach mirrors the small-group instruction with a low teacher-learner
ratio (1:12) that proved highly effective in DepEd's recent summer literacy
remediation programs.75

Tier 3: Intensive, Individualized Intervention (Students with Severe Gaps)

This tier is for the small percentage of students with the most significant learning
gaps, such as the Grade 7 student reading four or more years below grade level. This
is the only context where a form of simplification is appropriate, but it must be
diagnostic, intensive, and short-term.
● Targeted Foundational Skill Remediation: The student should work with a
reading specialist or a highly trained teacher on an explicit, systematic program
to address specific foundational skill deficits. For a student struggling with
decoding, this might involve an Orton-Gillingham-based phonics program.73
● Explicit Goal of Re-integration: The primary objective of Tier 3 intervention is
 not to create a permanent alternative curriculum. It is to close the foundational
gap as quickly as possible so the student can successfully transition back into the
Tier 2 scaffolded environment. The focus must always be on accelerating the
student's return to grade-level content to prevent the achievement gap from
becoming insurmountable.

5.2 Classroom Implementation: From Theory to Practice

● Leverage Phil-IRI Data for Grouping, Not Tracking: School leaders must guide
teachers to use Phil-IRI results as a tool for forming flexible, temporary groups to
work on specific skills. For example, a teacher might pull a small group for a 20-
minute mini-lesson on making inferences using a grade-level text, and then
dissolve that group the next day. This avoids the damaging practice of creating
permanent "low" reading groups that work with simplified materials all year.
● Design Tiered Assignments, Not Tiered Texts: A powerful way to implement
scaffolding is through tiered assignments. This practice maintains a common,
grade-level text for all students but varies the task to provide different levels of
support. For example, in a Grade 7 English class studying a complex short story:
○ All Students: Read the same grade-level short story.
○ Tier 1 Task (Advanced/Independent): Students write a paragraph analyzing
the protagonist's motivation, citing at least two pieces of textual evidence.
○ Tier 2 Task (On-Level/Some Support): Students complete a graphic
organizer that asks them to identify three key actions of the protagonist and
infer the motivation behind each action.
○ Tier 3 Task (Struggling/High Support): Students complete the same
graphic organizer, but it includes sentence starters (e.g., "When the
character did ____, I think they felt ____ because the text says ____.") to
structure their analysis.50

In this model, all students are engaged in the same core learning objective
(analyzing character motivation) using the same complex text, but the level of
support is adjusted to ensure everyone can access the task and experience a
productive level of challenge.
5.3 System-Level Recommendations for the Department of Education (DepEd)

To support this shift in classrooms, systemic changes are necessary at the policy and
resource level.
● Invest in Professional Development Focused on Scaffolding: Teacher training
must move beyond the mechanics of administering the Phil-IRI and focus on the
practical, "how-to" of scaffolding complex texts. DepEd should invest in
sustained, practice-based professional development that trains teachers in
specific, evidence-based routines like CSR, Reciprocal Teaching, and the
principles of UDL.66
● Align National Reading Programs with Scaffolding Principles: National
reading initiatives, including the "Bawat Bata Bumabasa" (3Bs) program and the
Academic Recovery and Accessible Learning (ARAL) Program, must be explicitly
designed and funded to prioritize the use of scaffolded, grade-level, content-rich
texts.67 Program guidelines and success metrics should reward schools for
holding high expectations and providing robust support, rather than for using
simplified materials. The proven success of targeted remediation programs with
small-group instruction should be scaled and integrated into year-round support
systems like ARAL.75
● Curate and Distribute High-Quality Materials: One of the greatest challenges
for teachers is finding sufficient high-quality, complex, and engaging texts.
DepEd can play a crucial role by creating and disseminating a national digital
library of culturally relevant and content-rich texts (both fiction and non-fiction)
for all grade levels. This library should be accompanied by model lesson plans
that demonstrate how to effectively scaffold these texts for diverse learners.

Conclusion

The challenge of teaching students who are years behind their peers in reading is one
of the most pressing issues facing the Philippine education system. The intuitive
response—to simplify the curriculum to match the student's current level—is a well-
intentioned strategy aimed at reducing frustration. However, as this report has
demonstrated through an exhaustive analysis of cognitive science, pedagogical
research, and national data, this approach is a pedagogical dead-end. While it may
provide a temporary reprieve, a long-term reliance on simplification inhibits the
development of deep understanding, hinders long-term retention, and actively
prevents the cultivation of the higher-order thinking skills that are essential for
academic and life success. It risks trapping students in a cycle of low expectations
from which they may never escape.

The evidence converges on a clear and powerful alternative: scaffolding grade-level

content. This approach, grounded in the work of Vygotsky and supported by modern
research on cognitive load and desirable difficulties, maintains high expectations for
all learners. It redefines the teacher's role not as a purveyor of simplified content, but
as an expert architect of support, building temporary bridges that allow every student
to access the rich, complex, and empowering world of grade-level ideas. Strategies
like Reciprocal Teaching, Collaborative Strategic Reading, and tiered assignments are
not just techniques; they are expressions of an equitable philosophy that all students
are capable of high-level learning when given the right support.

Therefore, this report concludes with a primary recommendation for a strategic,

tiered system of support (MTSS) where ambitious, scaffolded, grade-level instruction
is the default for all students. Simplification must be relegated to its proper role: a
temporary, surgical tool used only in intensive, short-term interventions to address
specific foundational deficits, with the explicit and urgent goal of returning the
student to the mainstream, scaffolded curriculum.

Addressing the Philippine reading crisis requires more than just new programs or
assessments. It requires a fundamental shift in mindset—away from defining students
by their deficits and toward a belief in their potential for growth. It is a call to action
for every educator and policymaker to embrace the productive struggle of learning,
to build the scaffolds that make high achievement possible, and to fulfill the ultimate
promise of education: to empower every Filipino child not just to read the words on a
page, but to understand, critique, and ultimately transform the world of ideas they
represent.

Works cited

1. Reading Comprehension Levels and Skills of Filipino Grade ... - IJFMR, accessed
July 15, 2025, https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/3/23232.pdf
2. Updated reading program addresses learning gap - GMA Network, accessed
July 15, 2025, https://www.gmanetwork.com/lifestyle/news/111173/updated-
 reading-program-addresses-learning-gap/story
3. Literacy important for PH development | Philippine News Agency, accessed July
15, 2025, https://www.pna.gov.ph/opinion/pieces/962-literacy-important-for-ph-
development
4. TEACHERS' INITIATIVES: SCAFFOLDED INTENSIVE READING IN FILIPINO
LEARNERS' COMPREHENSION - ijprems.com, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.ijprems.com/uploadedfiles/paper/issue_6_june_2024/34898/final/
fin_ijprems1718303979.pdf
5. The URSP Research Journal | Volume VII, No. 1 | JUNE 2021, accessed July 15,
2025, http://www.urs.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/publications/the-ursp-
research-journal/current-issue/12-Corcino.pdf
6. Cognitive Load Theory: An Applied Reintroduction for Special and General
Educators | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355838783_Cognitive_Load_Theory_A
n_Applied_Reintroduction_for_Special_and_General_Educators
7. Cognitive Load Theory and Reading Instruction - Phonics Hero, accessed July 15,
2025, https://phonicshero.com/cognitive-load-theory-phonics/
8. Pearls: Desirable Difficulty—Make Learning Harder on Purpose - PMC, accessed
July 15, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10723876/
9. 3.4 Creating Desirable Difficulties | The Learning Pit, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.learningpit.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/James-Nottinghams-
new-book-Desirable-Difficulties.pdf
10. Phil-IRI-Full-Package-v1-2018 (1).docxg6 | DOCX - SlideShare, accessed July 15,
2025, https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/phil-iri-full-package-v1-2018-1-
docxg6/272455524
11. DO_s2018_014.pdf - DepEd, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DO_s2018_014.pdf
12. phil-iri-manual.pdf - CocoDoc, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://cdn.cocodoc.com/cocodoc-form-pdf/pdf/phil-iri-manual.pdf
13. Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) - DepED Isabela, accessed July 15,
2025, https://deped-isabela.com.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/DM23-5.pdf
14. philippines - DepEd, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/DM_s2010_266.pdf
15. Conduct of GST & Pretest Manual | PDF | Career & Growth - Scribd, accessed
July 15, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/654360721/CONDUCT-OF-
GST-PRETEST-MANUAL
16. Phil-IRI-Full-Package-v1 (1).pdf - SlideShare, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/philirifullpackagev1-1pdf/256840971
17. PHIL IRI | PPT - SlideShare, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/phil-iri-edited-by-r-reyes-
80004076/80004076
18. Phil Iri Determiner of Oral Reading Level of Pupils | PDF - Scribd, accessed July 15,
2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/542322858/PHIL-IRI-DETERMINER-OF-
 ORAL-READING-LEVEL-OF-PUPILS-1
19. Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-Iri) | PDF - Scribd, accessed July 15,
2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/421056125/Philippine-Informal-
Reading-Inventory-Phil-iri
20. Reading Levels - University of Utah Reading Clinic (UURC), accessed July 15,
2025, https://uurc.utah.edu/General/ReadLevels.php
21. Phil Iri Computation | PDF | Reading Comprehension | Percentage - Scribd,
accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/617845681/Phil-Iri-
Computation
22. Phil Iri Sample Computation | PDF | Teaching Methods & Materials, accessed July
15, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/doc/200818955/Phil-Iri-Sample-Computation
23. Technical Notes – 2024 Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey -
Philippine Statistics Authority, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://psa.gov.ph/system/files/sdsd/Technical%20Notes
%202024%20FLEMMS_signed.pdf
24. EDITORIAL — Literacy crisis | Philstar.com, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2025/05/03/2440119/editorial-literacy-crisis
25. 9 in 10 Pinoys have basic literacy – PSA | Philstar.com, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://qa.philstar.com/headlines/2025/07/03/2455099/9-10-pinoys-have-basic-
literacy-psa
26. For every 10 Filipinos, 9 have Basic Literacy, While 7 have ..., accessed July 15,
2025, https://psa.gov.ph/system/files/sdsd/2024%20FLEMMS%20Press
%20Release%20Final%20Results_signed.pdf
27. Latest Releases | Philippine Statistics Authority | Republic of the Philippines,
accessed July 15, 2025,
https://psa.gov.ph/statistics/education-mass-media/index
28. For every 10 Filipinos, 9 have Basic Literacy, while 7 have Functional Literacy,
accessed July 15, 2025, https://psa.gov.ph/content/every-10-filipinos-9-have-
basic-literacy-while-7-have-functional-literacy
29. Curriculum Modifications | Illinois Early Learning Project, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://illinoisearlylearning.org/toolkits/curriculum-modifications/
30. The Best Ways to Modify Curriculum to Increase Classroom Inclusion - Simply B
Teaching, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.simplybteaching.com/how-to-
modify-curriculum/
31. How to Adapt Your Teaching Strategies to Student Needs - Reading Rockets,
accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.readingrockets.org/topics/differentiated-
instruction/articles/how-adapt-your-teaching-strategies-student-needs
32. Curriculum Modification - National Center on Accessible Educational Materials,
accessed July 15, 2025,
https://aem.cast.org/binaries/content/assets/common/publications/aem/ncac-
curriculum-modification-2014-12.docx
33. COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY - Dyslexia Evidence Based, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.deb.co.nz/education/school/what-is-cognitive-load-theory/
34. Cognitive Load Theory | LD OnLine, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.ldonline.org/ld-topics/teaching-instruction/cognitive-load-theory
35. Challenging Cognitive Load Theory: The Role of Educational Neuroscience and
Artificial Intelligence in Redefining Learning Efficacy - PMC - PubMed Central,
accessed July 15, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11852728/
36. Mastering Cognitive Load in Learning - Number Analytics, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-cognitive-load-learning-
disabilities
37. HOW CAN CRITICAL THINKING BE INTEGRATED INTO THE EDUCATION SYSTEM,
accessed July 15, 2025, https://rahuleducation.org/our-scribes/how-can-critical-
thinking-be-integrated-into-the-education-system/
38. (PDF) 21st Century Skills: The Challenges Ahead - ResearchGate, accessed July
15, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281549509_21st_Century_Skills_The_C
hallenges_Ahead
39. A Text Structure Analysis of Fourth and Sixth Grade Maltese Textbooks -
ResearchGate, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348745181_A_Text_Structure_Analysis
_of_Fourth_and_Sixth_Grade_Maltese_Textbooks
40. 5 Support Strategies for Students Reading Below Grade Level - Newsela,
accessed July 15, 2025, https://newsela.com/blog/read/grow-below-level-
readers
41. Next Generation ESL Project: Curriculum Resource Guide - the policy minute,
accessed July 15, 2025,
https://thepolicyminute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ResourceGuide.pdf
42. resource-guide-section6.docx - Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.doe.mass.edu/ele/guidance/resource-guide/resource-guide-
section6.docx
43. Desirable Difficulties Perspective on Learning Instructors and students alike are
susceptible to assuming that conditions of ins, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://bjorklab.psych.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2016/07/
RBjork_inpress.pdf
44. Bjork's Desirable Difficulties | Durrington Research School, accessed July 15,
2025, https://researchschool.org.uk/durrington/news/bjorks-desirable-difficulties
45. Study shows that students learn more when taking part in classrooms that
employ active-learning strategies - Harvard Gazette, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/09/study-shows-that-students-
learn-more-when-taking-part-in-classrooms-that-employ-active-learning-
strategies/
46. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature Reading
Comprehension Skills through Scaffolding Strategie - EAS Publisher, accessed
July 15, 2025, https://www.easpublisher.com/get-articles/3644
47. 7 Scaffolding Learning Strategies for the Classroom - University of San Diego
Professional & Continuing Ed, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://pce.sandiego.edu/scaffolding-in-education-examples/
48. Want Students to Read on Grade Level? These Strategies Can Help ..., accessed
July 15, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-want-
students-to-read-on-grade-level-these-strategies-can-help/2025/05
49. 6 Scaffolding Strategies to Use With Your Students - Edutopia, accessed July 15,
2025, https://www.edutopia.org/blog/scaffolding-lessons-six-strategies-
rebecca-alber
50. 5 Strategies for Differentiated Reading Instruction - HMH, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.hmhco.com/blog/differentiated-reading-instruction-strategies
51. Teachers' Reading Comprehension Strategies, Approaches and Challenges -
International Journal of Science and Management Studies (IJSMS), accessed July
15, 2025, https://ijsmsjournal.org/2024/volume-7%20issue-3/ijsms-v7i3p107.pdf
52. Differentiated Instruction for Reading | Reading Rockets, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.readingrockets.org/topics/differentiated-instruction/articles/
differentiated-instruction-reading
53. Using Scaffolding in Education to Help Struggling Secondary Readers, accessed
July 15, 2025,
https://www.savvas.com/resource-center/blogs-and-podcasts/savvas-insights/
2025/using-scaffolding-in-education-to-help-struggling-secondary-readers
54. (PDF) Scaffolding Strategies to Support English Language Learning in Reading
Comprehension: A Case Study - ResearchGate, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373413395_Scaffolding_Strategies_to_
Support_English_Language_Learning_in_Reading_Comprehension_A_Case_Stud
y
55. Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) Instruction and its Effects on Thai EAP
University Learners' Reading Comprehension acros - ERIC, accessed July 15,
2025, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1401062.pdf
56. Helping All Learners: Tiering - EL Education, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.eleducation.org/resources/helping-all-learners-tiering
57. EduTip 6: Try a tiered activity for simple differentiation. - Cult of Pedagogy,
accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/edutips/edutip6/
58. Tiered assignments are activities that are based on the same - Columbus State
University, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.columbusstate.edu/crmc/_docs/h.s._tiered_assignments_dr.hendric
ks.pdf
59. Reciprocal Teaching: Seeing is Believing | Training & Technical Assistance Center,
accessed July 15, 2025,
https://education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/resources/articles/teachtechnique/
reciprocalteaching/
60. Reciprocal Teaching | Reading Rockets, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.readingrockets.org/classroom/classroom-strategies/reciprocal-
 teaching
61. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Adolescent Literacy, Reciprocal
Teaching - Institute of Education Sciences, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_rec_teach_091410.
pdf
62. Reciprocal Teaching Abstract Reciprocal teaching is a research-based approach
that teachers utilize to model the four comprehen, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1439&context=sferc
63. Using Collaborative Strategic Reading | Reading Rockets, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.readingrockets.org/topics/comprehension/articles/using-
collaborative-strategic-reading
64. Collaborative Strategic Reading Project - The Meadows Center, accessed July 15,
2025, https://meadowscenter.org/project/collaborative-strategic-reading-
project/
65. 5Bs (Bawat Bata sa Bangsamoro ay Bumabasa at Bumibilang) Program: Its Impact
to the Reading Ability of the Frustrated Readers - SciMatic, accessed July 15,
2025, https://scimatic.org/storage/journals/11/pdfs/2228.pdf
66. Overcoming Challenges: Teacher Strategies for Assisting Struggling Readers in
Elementary Classrooms - ResearchGate, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393550958_Overcoming_Challenges_
Teacher_Strategies_for_Assisting_Struggling_Readers_in_Elementary_Classroom
s
67. implementation and challenges of reading intervention programs in face - Index
Copernicus, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/api/file/viewByFileId/1864608
68. How UDL Creates an Equitable Environment for Students - Edutopia, accessed
July 15, 2025, https://www.edutopia.org/article/universal-design-learning-
promotes-equity/
69. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in Diverse Classrooms - ResearchGate,
accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381216074_Universal_Design_for_Lear
ning_UDL_in_Diverse_Classrooms
70. Universal Design for Learning｜CAST, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.cast.org/what-we-do/universal-design-for-learning/
71. The UDL Guidelines, accessed July 15, 2025, https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
72. The Effects of a Comprehensive Reading Program on Reading Outcomes for
Middle School Students With Disabilities - ERIC, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1129864.pdf
73. The Reading Curriculum That Can Change Everything For Your Struggling
Homeschooler This Year! - Structured Literacy, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://pridereadingprogram.com/the-reading-curriculum-that-can-change-
everything-for-your-struggling-homeschooler-this-year/
74. Which homeschool curriculum and reading resources are best? - Sunnyseed,
 accessed July 15, 2025, https://sunnyseedco.com/blog/which-reading-
homeschool-curriculum-is-best
75. 96% of Grade 3 struggling readers show literacy gains through DepEd's summer
remediation program - Manila Bulletin, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://mb.com.ph/2025/07/07/96-of-grade-3-struggling-readers-show-
literacy-gains-through-depeds-summer-remediation-program
76. A Comparison of the Top 4 Orton-Gillingham Reading Programs for
Homeschoolers, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://homeschoolingwithdyslexia.com/comparison-orton-gillingham-reading-
programs/
77. DepEd targets K-3 learners to fix crisis | Philstar.com, accessed July 15, 2025,
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2025/06/22/2452381/deped-targets-k-3-
learners-fix-crisis