A Meta-Analysis of Literacy-Supportive Educational Delivery Models for Transferees, Returnees, and Irregular Students in Formal and Nonformal Settings

This research assesses the acceptability, flexibility, and issues of literacy-friendly models of instruction delivery among transferees, returnees, and irregular learners in formal and nonformal education. Through descriptive quantitative research, the researcher gathered data from interviews of senior high school students in Muntinlupa City to quantify the perceived impact of blended learning, instruction practices, and inclusive literacy interventions. Outcomes indicated that blended learning, especially the use of technology tools, was most valued in facilitating literacy acquisition (WM = 3.81). Remedial reading programs (WM = 3.93) and the use of multimedia tools (WM = 3.89) were also valued. Inclusive practices with an emphasis on cooperation among stakeholders (WM = 3.86) and differentiated instruction in the classroom were identified as viable and helpful to deal with learner diversity.
Despite these strengths, the research also demonstrated some implementation difficulties. Before these were finite school resources (WM = 4.04), a lack of individualized learning plans and inadequate teacher training in inclusive practice. These hindered the adoption of literacy-supportive approaches, particularly among interrupted educational histories. Nonetheless, there was consensus among participants regarding the overall acceptability of the professionally developed proposed professional development plan that recorded high ratings on clarity, feasibility, and sustainability as measured through average weighted means greater than 4.2.
Based on these findings, the research advises increased teacher training on differentiated and inclusive literacy strategies, organizational incorporation of personal learning plans, increased parent-teacher collaboration, and increased access to school materials. The findings validate that although existing literacy interventions are generally successful, these need to be strategically enhanced and sustained in order to address the needs of mobile and marginalized learners. The study offers useful lessons for school leaders, policymakers, and teachers who want to develop responsive and inclusive literacy strategies for the senior high school context in Muntinlupa City.

Blended learning, literacy intervention, transferees, inclusive education

1. Alvermann, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (2016). Content reading and literacy: Succeeding in today's diverse classrooms (7th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R., & Abrami, P. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9024-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2020). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2012). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of research on new literacies. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cruz, J. A., Mercado, L. G., & Santiago, M. R. (2022). Differentiated instruction and literacy development in alternative learning systems. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 12(1), 55–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. DepEd. (2025). National Literacy Framework: Strengthening access and equity in education. Department of Education Policy and Planning Office. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Dooly, M. (2008). Constructing knowledge together. Peter Lang Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Graham, C. R. (2020). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning (pp. 3–21). Pfeiffer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. International Literacy Association. (2018). The case for children’s rights to read. https://www.literacyworldwide.org/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Mayer, R. E. (2017). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. NIH Publication. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. OECD. (2020). Education responses to COVID-19: Embracing digital learning and online collaboration. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. UNESCO. (2021). Global education monitoring report: Non-formal pathways and inclusion. UNESCO Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. WestEd. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S. G., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390020401 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Martinek T, Holland B, Seo G. Understanding physical activity engagement in students: Skills, values, and hope. [Entender La Participación de la Actividad Física en los estudiantes: Conocimientos, valores y esperanza]. RICYDE Revista internacional de ciencias del deporte. 2019 Jan 1;15(55):88–101. doi:10.5232/ricyde2019.05506 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study