Contextual Variables Affecting Frustration Level in Reading: An Integral Inquiry
Authors: Mae C. Pavilario
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.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1316847Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 623
 Alexander & Filler, G. Partin (2002) The relationship between positive adolescent attitudes toward reading and home literary environment. Reterieved 2013.
 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.
 Bluman, A. G. (2012). Elementary statistics a step by step approach 8th Edition. USA: McGrawHill.
 Cassel, J. S. (n.d.). Qualitative organization research. Retrieved from www.Sagepublications com. Retrieved December 2013.
 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".
 Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research 2nd Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Educ.
 Creswell, J.(2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.
 DepED Memo 324, s.2004. (n.d.).
 DepEd Memorandum 143,s.2012. (n.d.).
 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.
 Gela, J. (2010). Resilience of the Returning Dropouts: Benchmark for Intervention.
 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.
 http://www.sightwordworksheets.com/sight-word-recognition/. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2013.
 Https:/www.google.com.ph/_ret=ctr&ei=JEKJU5i4HQb3mAXI_IOICg&gws_rd, Calmorin, 2. e. (n.d.). Retrieved 2013.
 Leslie, L. & Caldwell,J.20011). (n.d.). Qualitative Reading Inventory. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
 Litchman, M. (2010). Qualitative Research in Eduation. A User’s Guide. Ed.2. USA: Sage Publishing.
 Macky & Gass. (2005). Second Language Research, Methodology and Design. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
 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.
 Moustakas, Clark (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks California, retrieved 2012.
 Mulkana, A, J., Hopper, P.F., and Jayroe, T. (2010). School Success for At-Risk Students, V1, N1, National Forum.
 National Assessment of Education (NAEP)(National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2005& 2007b.
 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.
 Partin, K., Hendricks, C. G. (2002) The Relationship Between Positive Adolescent Attitudes Toward Reading and Home Literary Environment, Bowling Green State University.
 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. (3rd ed.) CA: Sage. Thousand Oaks.
 Ronda, B. R. (September 20, 2012 - 12:00am). DepEd: National reading skills assessment to continue this year. The Philippine Star).
 Rupley, W. H., & Nichols, W. D. (2005). Vocabulary instruction for the struggling reader. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 239-260.
 Spiegel, D. (1994). A portrait of parents of successful readers. ERIC Document, Reproduction Service No. ED353548.