Mechanisms and Strategies for Addressing Foundational Gaps in Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic

This study investigates the mechanisms and strategies employed by teachers and students to address learning gaps and losses in reading, writing, and arithmetic (3Rs), focusing on four domains critical to foundational learning: infrastructure availability, pedagogical approaches, teacher competencies, and teacher support. Drawing on quantitative data from 287 teachers and 381 students from 54 public elementary schools under the Division of Lanao del Sur I. The study reveals notable disparities between teacher-reported access to instructional resources and students’ actual experiences, particularly in technology availability and digital integration. While teachers generally indicated adequate access to instructional materials, conducive learning environments, and supportive administrative systems, students reported substantial limitations in device access, unstable internet connectivity, and insufficient training in educational technologies. Pedagogically, teachers and students both identified strengths in active learning strategies, real-life applications, and lesson organization; however, gaps persisted in differentiated instruction, consistency of feedback, and technology integration. Teacher competencies in curriculum understanding, instructional delivery, collaboration, and reflective practice were rated positively, though the need for ongoing professional development remains evident. The findings underscore the importance of systemic interventions to strengthen technological infrastructure, enhance teacher capacity-building, and improve pedagogical responsiveness in addressing learning recovery. Recommendations highlight the need for equitable resource distribution, targeted training programs, and strengthened support systems to ensure effective remediation of learning gaps in the foundational 3Rs.

learning gaps, learning losses, reading, writing, arithmetic (3Rs), pedagogical approaches, teacher competencies

1. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2019). Learning opportunities in preschool and early elementary classrooms. The Future of Children, 29(2), 49–69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Hattie, J. (2018). Visible learning: Feedback. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2020). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Education at a glance 2021: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2022). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. World Bank. (2019). Ending learning poverty: What will it take? World Bank Publications. [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