HomeAcademic Frontiersvol. 2 no. 3 (2026)

Effectiveness of Reading Enhancement Achieving Progress (REAP) on Learners’ Reading Comprehension

Gemma E. Amarillo

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

All 19 respondents were female teachers, mostly aged 31–40 (9), with 11 married and 8 single. Eighteen were pursuing a Master’s degree, and one was a BSEEd graduate. In terms of teaching experience, eight had more than six years, while seven had one to three years. Seventeen received a “Very Satisfactory” rating. Most had attended trainings at the division (15) and district (10) levels, with fewer participating at the national (7) and regional (4) levels. In terms of the effectiveness of the Reading Enhancement Achieving Progress (REAP) program, it was rated as “Much Effective” in enhancing word recognition and decoding, improving fluency and accuracy, and developing reading comprehension, with a grand mean of 3.94. Regarding learners' reading performance based on the Comprehensive Reading and Language Assessment (CRLA), most were at the proficient (75) and basic (59) levels, while some were excellent (33), limited (22), or needed improvement (11). A significant relationship was found between the effectiveness of REAP and learners’ reading performance, with a chi-square value of 9.87 and a p-value of 0.029, indicating that REAP had a meaningful impact. In terms of issues and concerns, teachers highlighted challenges such as accurately assessing progress (15), addressing diverse learning needs (13), student engagement and motivation (11 each), sustainability and parental support (9 each), time constraints (7), and limited resources (5).



References:

  1. Anderson, P., Smith, L., & Zhao, Y. (2021, April 15). The importance of decoding and comprehension in primary learners' reading development. Reading Education Journal. Retrieved from https://www.readingedjournal.com
  2. Choi, K., & Lee, Y. (2022, May 5). Applying Vygotsky’s ZPD in the context of reading comprehension interventions: A case study . Journal of Educational Development. Retrieved from https://www.journalofedu.com
  3. Harris, M., & Ramalingam, A. (2023, January 10). Scaffolding reading comprehension through guided intervention programs. International Journal of Educational Research. Retrieved from https://www.ijerjournal.com
  4. Johnson, T., & Williams, J. (2021). Enhancing reading comprehension through interactive approaches in primary education. Literacy Learning Journal. Retrieved from https://www.literacylearningjournal.com
  5. Li, S., Zhang, Y., & Wang, L. (2021). The interactive nature of reading comprehension: A study on effective reading programs in primary education. Educational Research Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.edu-researchquarterly.com
  6. Miller, R., Lee, S., & Hughes, P. (2023, March 2). Integrating background knowledge with reading comprehension strategies in young learners. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.jceps.org
  7. Smith, J., Turner, G., & Brown, L. (2022, June 17). Cognitive interactions in the process of reading comprehension: The role of vocabulary and background knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research. Retrieved from https://www.journalofliteracyresearch.com
  8. Sullivan, C., & Huang, M. (2020, December 5). Decoding and comprehension in early reading programs: Evidence and best practices. Early Childhood Reading Education. Retrieved from https://www.earlychildhoodreadingedu.com
  9. Taylor, A., Hernandez, E., & Wong, J. (2020, February 8). Fostering active engagement in reading comprehension: The role of interactive strategies in primary education. Reading Research International. Retrieved from https://www.readingresearchintl.com
  10. Walker, D., & Johnson, L. (2023, June 24). Addressing decoding difficulties in primary learners to improve comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology . Retrieved from https://www .jeducpsychology .com