Deployment of Context-Input-Process-Product (CIPP) on Evaluating Project LIGHT: An Embedded Exploratory-Explanatory Analysis on the Development of Reading Comprehension Skills Among Junior High School Learners
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18765370Keywords:
CIPP Model, thematic analysis, Project LIGHT, reading comprehensionAbstract
This study evaluated Project LIGHT as a reading intervention for junior high school students at Eastern Bacoor National High School. Specifically, it addressed: (1) the initial state of students' reading comprehension; (2) the effectiveness of Project LIGHT based on the Context-Input-Process-Product (CIPP) model; and (3) the outcomes and impact of the program on reading development. Conducted from January 2024 to May 2025, the study involved 60 students at frustration and instructional reading levels, identified through Phil-IRI assessments, and four English teachers. Thematic analysis guided by the CIPP model (Stufflebeam & Zhang, 2017) was used. Findings revealed that over 70% of students were below independent reading levels before the intervention. Context analysis confirmed the urgent need for support. Project LIGHT proved effective by addressing academic and emotional reading challenges (Context), using quality materials and trained teachers (Input), implementing flexible and student-centered instruction (Process), and improving comprehension, vocabulary, and confidence (Product). Post-test scores and qualitative feedback indicated significant gains, although challenges persisted in Grade 7 and when session regularity declined. The study recommends institutionalizing structured reading programs like Project LIGHT, emphasizing early intervention, teacher training, consistent implementation, and family engagement. Continuous monitoring is essential to sustain progress. Longitudinal studies are suggested to assess long-term effects and scalability.
Downloads
References
Baker, L., & Beall, L. C. (2009). Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 373–388). Routledge.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Alliance for Excellent Education.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B. J., Schatschneider, C., & Underwood, P. (2014). Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction. Science, 345(6193), 1204–1208. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254980
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2012). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 205–242). International Reading Association.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
Erya, R., & Pustika, R. (2021). Students’ reading comprehension difficulties and strategies. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1–9.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2016). Critique of the National Evaluation of Response to Intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 82(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915626930
Gambrell, L. B. (2011). Seven rules of engagement: What’s most important to know about motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 65(3), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01024
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Guthrie, J. T., Klauda, S. L., & Ho, A. N. (2019). Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.035
Kintsch, W. (2013). The construction–integration model of text comprehension. Psychology Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84.
Lesaux, N. K., & Marietta, S. H. (2012). Adolescent literacy: Addressing the needs of students in grades 4–12. Future of Children, 22(2), 17–40.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218–253. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011
Perfetti, C. A., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Pressley, M., Afflerbach, P., Verducci, J., Lycett, M., & Echevarria, M. (2010). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Routledge.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479–530.
Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. A. (2012). Continuity and change in the home literacy environment as predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading. Child Development, 83(3), 1206–1221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01770.x
Shanahan, T., Shanahan, C., & Misischia, C. (2010). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(1), 44–71.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND Corporation.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2013). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 66–76.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
