Socio-Economic Exploration of Teaching Recovery: A Phenomenological Study on Island Teachers Implementing Learning Recovery Programs & Projects

Socio-Economic Exploration of Teaching Recovery: A Phenomenological Study on Island Teachers Implementing Learning Recovery Programs & Projects

Jennylyn B. Bien

Bicol University Graduate School, Legazpi City Albay, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90600060

Received: 14 April 2025; Revised: 27 May 2025; Accepted: 30 May 2025; Published: 30 June 2025

ABSTRACT

This Phenomenological study discusses the lived experiences of island teachers teaching and school heads managing schools located at Cagraray Island of Malilipot, Albay Philippines.  The study explores the socioeconomic factors that the teachers and school heads encounter in implementing mandated and school-initiated Learning Recovery Programs and Projects (LRPPs). Because basic education plays an important role in shaping the workforce of any country, it is then important for educators to strive and strengthen basic knowledge and skills among its learners, most specifically literacy and numeracy. One of the most significant actions taken by the Department of Education (DepEd) would be the implementation of Learning Recovery Programs and Projects (LRPPs) cascaded and mandated to all public schools in the Philippines. This also includes school-initiated programs and projects that schools have innovated as part of the campaign. The study then aimed to present the lived experiences of teachers and school heads in implementing these LRPPs. Specifically, the socio-economic factors that influenced the status and implementation of the projects. The study used thematic analysis in analyzing the collected and transcribed interview responses from the three island teachers and two island principals. Results revealed that there are external and internal socioeconomic factors that influence the status and implementation of the projects. External socioeconomic factors included: (a) Availability of resources; (b) Number of Projects and Programs; and (c) Local Government Units (LGUs) Support. The internal socioeconomic factors included: (d) Workload balance of implementers; (e) Desire for Professional Growth; (f) Dedication to the Teaching Profession; and (g) Learners’ and Parents’ Participation. Data collected also revealed that the status of the LRPPs and their implementers could be reflected in the level of external and internal factors evident.

Keywords: Learning Recovery Programs & Projects (LRPPs), Socioeconomic Factors

INTRODUCTION

As literacy and numeracy deficiency among Filipino learners increase, the learning quality decreases. This is a fact that can be reflected in international assessment results, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022. But the problem of low performance in literacy and numeracy has glared at educators long before the surge of the COVId-19 pandemic. This is true not only in the Philippines but also in numerous other countries. To address this dilemma, many programs, projects, and activities have been implemented, mandated, and even innovated by Filipino educators. So, why is it that the problem of literacy and numeracy continues to grow? The problem can no longer be solved by educators alone. Hence, stakeholders’ involvement is now needed more than ever to resolve this problem. Especially for far flung schools where poor literacy and numeracy is very much evident among its learners.

Basic literacy and numeracy skills are considered essential for all learners to have not only as a requirement in school but also for everyday living as they function within the society. This can be attributed to the educational philosophy of essentialism, which believes that essential concepts and skills such as the 3Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic) should be mastered to become responsible and productive members of society. Thus, fulfilling the purpose of education that is to prepare individuals for their interrelated function in the society.

How effectively can you provide learning recovery when the teachers are also still recovering? This is a question I have been pondering while reflecting on the current literacy and numeracy performance of Filipino learners. Despite the use of different Learning Recovery programs and projects, the fight against addressing the learning gaps in literacy and numeracy is far from over. One angle we can look at is the state of our teachers themselves. Are teachers well-equipped, funded, and supported by stakeholders in addressing the learning gaps? It was also revealed from the study of Rashid, M. A. U. H., & Zaman, S. (2018), that teachers’ behavior has a significant relationship with learners’ academic performance. Hence, teachers’ behavior and attitudes toward implementing learning recovery programs and projects can also be considered crucial aspects for implementing LRPPs. Because educational change automatically follows social change (Boronski, T., & Hassan, N., 2020), every struggle and experience we face must be thoroughly explained and analyzed so the force igniting these changes can be better utilized toward educational goals.

At its core, these learning recovery initiatives have their teachers. Responsible for implementing, monitoring, and even investing resources in ensuring that learners recover from the learning losses. Different schools offer different types of learners, teachers, situations, and needs. Island schools, for example, experience a distinct type of educational practice that is anchored to the geographic location, community, and culture where the school is situated. With these are distinctive encounters of island teachers on the conduct of the different Learning Recovery Programs and Projects. Because aside from the mainstreamed problems on disaster risk management, island teachers and learners encounter pre-existing disadvantages such as lack of technological skills & equipment and geographic related difficulties that hinders the continuity of implementing literacy and numeracy programs and projects. Hence, the perception of island teachers towards implementing the LRPPs may be different of those teaching in the mainland where lack of technological skills & equipment, as well as geographic related difficulties are not issues, they encounter.

According to Nickerson (2023), the Symbolic Interactionism Theory states that people respond to the elements of their environments according to the subjective meanings they attach to those elements. Meanings are created and modified through social interaction with the involvement of symbolic interaction with others. This phenomenological study, therefore, aimed to present the different experiences island teachers of Malilipot, Albay encounter while implementing learning recovery programs and projects. A point of view not yet commonly heard or discussed in the academe. This study hopes to identify how the respondents view the LRP as a whole and what subjective meanings they have attached to its implementation, purpose, and future outcomes. The results may help educators identify why, despite the extensive efforts of the government, literacy and numeracy deficiency is still evident to our Filipino learners. The problem may not be in the mechanics of how the LRs should be conducted but the individual point of views of those implementing. The teacher’s attitudes and point of view of its importance, the need for it, and its urgency. All of which sees LRPPs in the micro level perspective of teachers.

Furthermore, according to the Symbolic Interactionism Theory, humans constantly engage in “mindful action” that constructs and negotiates the meaning of situations. The educational system’s functionality therefore is structured from the different interactions of its stakeholders, most specially the teachers. Their experiences and individual point of view therefore matters and should be heard and considered according to their different situations and needs.

The study therefore aimed to identify and analyze the sociocultural influences shaping the selection and implementation of learning recovery programs and projects in elementary and secondary schools of Malilipot, Albay, Philippines. As well as exploring the sociocultural struggles encountered by island teachers in implementing various learning recovery programs and projects, considering factors such as community dynamics, cultural norms, and resource limitations.

Specifically, the study aims to answer the research question:

1. What are the socioeconomic factors influencing the implementation of various learning recovery programs and projects in elementary and secondary schools on the island of Malilipot, Albay?

METHODOLOGY

The study used a qualitative research design that involved in-depth interviews with the respondents. Respondents for this study included one elementary teacher (labeled as respondent A) and two secondary teachers (labeled as respondent B and C) from Malilipot District. These teacher respondents are active implementers of Learning Recovery Projects at their respective schools and have been teaching in their schools for more than five years.  Additionally, the study included two school heads: one from an elementary school (labeled as respondent D) and one from a secondary school (labeled as respondent E). Currently, there are only three elementary schools and one secondary school located in Malilipot District. Because of the geographic limitations of the locale of the study, the researcher used convenient sampling and chose the respondents most accessible, had at least five years of teaching experience in the island school of Malilipot, and were active implementers of their school’s LRPPs. While the school heads were also conveniently sampled. Respondent E has only been assigned for three months in his station. Hence, was interviewed with reference to his former school located in the National Capital Region (NCR). Which provided data for the study to compare the sociocultural differences of conducting LRPPs in the rural and urban locations.

Interview responses of the respondents where summarized and interpreted using Thematic Analysis. Hence, the collected responses were organized and closely examined to identify common themes – topics, ideas, and patterns of meaning that were associated in answering the research question.

The instrument used are two sets of interview questions. One set of question was used to interview the elementary and secondary teachers implementing learning recovery programs and projects in their school. While the other set of interview questions were used to interview the two school heads involved in the study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There were three teacher respondents for the first interview labeled as respondents A, B, and C. Respondent A is an elementary teacher that has been teaching in the island school for 15 years. While respondent B is a secondary island teacher specializing in mathematics and has been teaching for 7 years. Lastly, respondent C is an English majored secondary teacher that has been teaching for 18 years.

Respondents from the conducted interview all mentioned that some of the DepEd Mandated LRPPs they have implemented are Catch-up Friday, National Learning Camp (NLC), and Drop Everything and Read (D.E.A.R). Responded C also included the conduct of RLA (Rapid Literacy Assessment) and the Phil-IRI (Philippine Informal Reading Inventory). While respondent B mentioned that there are also National Literacy and Numeracy programs that are mandated by the DepEd.

Different school-based programs and projects implemented by respondents A and B are the following: Project AiM (Assistance in Math), Project BaSICS (Building and Strengthening Innate Competencies and Skills) in Literacy and Numeracy, and Project RISE (Reading Intervention for Students Empowerment). Respondent C mentioned that part of their school-based LRPPs are Assessment procedures, Team Teaching, Reading Buddies, and Gamifications. All the respondents have stated that all the programs and projects mentioned are currently ongoing.

According to respondent A, learners are actively participating and are having meaningful learning experiences during the conduct of LRPPs most especially during the NLC. While respondent B stated that the learners are cooperating and participating accordingly. Meanwhile, respondent C shared that the learners from her school are engaged through an inclusive approach during the conduct of the different LRPPs. Hence, learners from the respondents’ respective schools are positively responding to the different LRPPs implemented. However, in terms of resources and materials, only respondents A and B said that resources and materials are available and provided by the school. Because according to respondent C, resources and materials needed to implement their projects are teacher-provided.

In terms of professional development, the conduct of the LRPPs has greatly benefited respondents A and B through the training conducted related to the LRPPs. Additionally, according to respondent B, implementing the LRPPs has greatly boosted her confidence in improving the learners’ numeracy skills. For respondent C, the conduct of the LRPPs has been an additional professional burden. Personally, these programs have not affected respondents A and B’s time for family and loved ones. However, according to respondent A, it has consumed her vacant time for preparation and implementing the LRPPs. For respondent C, the implementation of the LRPPs has compromised her time for family and loved ones.

With this, when asked if they were in favor of adding more LRPPs, respondents B and C answered no. According to them, one program is enough if it is highly focused on one goal which is for literacy and numeracy. Specifically, respondent C stated: “No, saka na lang pag nahilingan na so existing programs” (No, maybe we can consider adding more projects when existing projects have already been proven effective and beneficial). Meanwhile, respondent A, is in favor of adding more projects but should focus more on training for teachers in implementing the LRPPs, including the development of materials.

Nevertheless, all the respondents agreed that both the learners have greatly benefited from the LRPPs. Specifically, according to respondent A, the LRPPs have fixed the learning gap of the learners but not enough. For respondent B, the learners’ level is improving, including their study habits and academic performances. Also, according to respondent B, teachers can improve their strategic intervention, teaching pedagogy, and flexibility in accommodating different learners. Meanwhile, according to respondent C, to make sure that learners are motivated, teachers need to spend money on making their learning resources. Respondent C added : “Para mapaganda yung learning materials at malaminate para magamit pa ng matagal” (To ensure that the learning materials are attractive and can be used for a longer period, the materials need to be laminated).

In terms of significant experiences, the respondents have shared different stories about their learners’ progress and positive changes after and during the conduct of the LRPPs. Respondent A shared that during the NLC, she noticed that there was continuity of the skills being developed, hence the learners were properly guided in the learning process. Additionally, respondent A will never forget the involvement of her volunteer teachers who aided her in conducting the projects for literacy. Respondent B shared that her most rewarding experience was when a learner greatly showed improvement after their one-on-one tutorial sessions. She said that “Yung student na yun, nakakasabay na sa grade 10 class nila, and isa na siya sa nag totop sa klase nila” (That student is now able to compete in their class and is one of the top students). According to respondent B, she will never forget “Learners na walang wala talagang alam kahit sa basic concepts pero ngayon nakakasabay na sa high school” (Learners that almost have no mastery of the basic concepts but are now able to understand high school topics). For respondent C, the most rewarding incident of conducting the LRPPs is when parents show their appreciation for their children’s progress. Respondent C will also never forget that one incident when a pupil cried when she was about to pull the student out of the class for a reading session. Which was a negative implication for pulling out learners from regular classes to provide interventions.

When asked whether the respondents believe that the conduct of LRPPs will be able to mend the literacy and numeracy deficiency of the Philippines, two of the respondents (B and C) answered yes. Respondent B added that the LRPPs can mend the literacy and numeracy deficiency if there is proper monitoring and evaluation of the programs and projects. For respondent C, the LRPPs can also mend the literacy and numeracy deficiency, but not in a short period. Also, the conduct of the LRPPs will be most effective with enough provided materials. Meanwhile, for respondent A, she answered no. The LRPPs cannot mend the literacy and numeracy deficiency of the Philippines because of the different needs of the learners that require different approaches. Rather, the LRPPs can improve the learners’ performances, especially during one-on-one tutorial sessions.

Finally, the respondents shared that implementing the LRPPs is both a burden and necessary. According to respondent B: “Burden, pero necessary talaga para sa mga aki” (Burden but is necessary for the learners). While for respondent C: “Additional burden pero necessary, lalo na para sa mga aki sa isla. Sa mainland kasi yung mga LRPPs more of obligation sa kanila, for reports lang” (Additional burden but is necessary, especially for learners in island schools. In the mainland the LRPPs are just obligation for filing the needed reports).

For the second interview, respondent D (an elementary school head) and respondent E (a secondary school head) were interviewed. Both have been assigned to the island schools of Malilipot for less than a year.  When asked about the demographic profile of their school both respondents answered that their school is located at the farthest part of Malilipot. The mode of transportation is by boat but can also be accessed by land. While the internet connection is not available at the school but can be accessed at certain location within the community. For the following questions, only respondent D was able to answer because respondent E has only been operating his school for three months. Hence, respondent E was interviewed in reference to his previous school located at the National Capital Region (NCR) for interview questions 2-10.

The result of the interview presented is therefore the comparison of the sociocultural differences between learning recovery programs implemented at the island school of Malilipot and NCR. Results of the interview responses showed that in both schools all types of learning materials are available. The major difference is that in the urban area, the use of technology is very much evident and maximized. Hence, in terms of modality respondent E’s former school implements all types of modalities including the hybrid modality. While in respondent D’s school, the modalities are limited to face-to-face, modular, and for a few of their learners-online modality.

In terms of learning recovery projects, both schools implement assessment types of projects, the National Learning Camp (NLC), division-mandated projects, and school-innovated projects. But aside from these projects, respondent E’s former school also implemented the DepED TV. In fact, according to him, they were one of the very first schools to implement this innovation. When asked about the sociocultural struggles encountered when implementing their learning recovery projects, the two respondents had different answers. According to response D, the parents’ low family income was a major struggle because it limited the opportunity for the learners to be involved in the projects. This is because the parents preferred to spend their time working rather than assisting their children to attend such projects. For respondent E, the parents’ attendance during meetings for the projects was also one of the major struggles they faced in conducting the projects. While in terms of contextualizing, both respondents were not able to answer clearly. In terms of reproducing the materials, according to respondent D, if there were enough funds it would be easier to reproduce materials. For respondent E reproducing the needed materials was not a problem at all because everything was funded by the Local Government Unit (LGU).

Majority of the learners participating in the learning recovery projects in respondent D’s school were those with average to low-income families. The parents of these learners are also those with only one to three children. In respondent E’s former school, the learners participating in the learning recovery projects were all their learners hence, all the parents were also involved. Of all the learning recovery programs implemented, the most effective one for respondent D was the National Learning Camp (NLC) because according to her, the program involved many activities that captured learners’ interest and parents’ involvement. While for respondent E, it was the use of modules. Because according to him the modules are the heart of the learning recovery programs that are integrated by the teachers in using other modalities. It is also in distributing modules that their parents are most involved because they are the ones who volunteered to sort the modules.

Though the last question was not directly answered, the respondents were able to specifically identify sociocultural factors that influenced the success and failure of their learning recovery programs and projects. Specifically in terms of the parents’ involvement and funding of the materials needed for implementing the learning recovery programs and projects. The respondents therefore associated the success and failure of their projects with the involvement of their stakeholders and that the most effective ones will still be those that the parents and stakeholders are most involved.

This implies that in conducting learning recovery programs stakeholders’ involvement should be navigated and considered. Most especially the involvement of all the parents and LGUs. While island teachers showed vulnerability in implementing the different learning recovery programs and projects, they have also shown great resiliency and great efforts to overcome the disadvantages of their location especially the lack of internet connection. Additionally, implementing one project for them would be enough if sustained and properly implemented, monitored, and evaluated for improvements.

Based on the interview responses gathered, the socioeconomic factors influencing the implementation of Learning Recovery Plans (LRPPs) in the island schools of Malilipot are the following:

1. Availability of resources. Especially for the elementary teacher respondent, where she and her co-teachers provided the materials needed for the conduct of their LRPPs.
2. Number of Projects and Programs. Respondents stated that due to the overwhelming number of projects and programs mandated by the department including their expectations for schools to implement school-based projects and programs, both the teachers and learners are exhausted and out of focus. Resulting in low or no significant outcomes. Though necessary to have many options, the teacher respondents stated that one project could be enough to increase the literacy and numeracy level of learners. If implemented continuously with proper monitoring, evaluation, and annual improvements.
3. Local Government Units (LGUs) Support. According to the school heads interviewed, stakeholders’ support plays a vital role in keeping the LRPPs consistently operational.  That includes support from the private institutions and most significantly, the Local Government Units (LGUs).
4. Workload balance of implementers. Where the researcher, based on the teacher respondents’ interview data, observed that teachers at the secondary level still had time for their families but the elementary teacher respondents did not. One factor to consider could be the civil status and number of children of the respondents.
5. Desire for Professional Growth. Based on the teacher respondents’ data, the researcher observed that the elementary teacher showed no interest in continuing professional growth and practices. This was reflected by the level of burden she had towards implementing the LRPPs. While secondary teachers, still igniting with the desire to professionally grow showed less hostility and less level of burden in carrying out the LRPPs.
6. Dedication to the Teaching Profession. Based on the teachers’ responses, it is their dedication to the teaching profession that they continue to find ways to carry out LRPPs despite the lack of resources. Despite being burned out, they still would find it professionally fulfilling to see learners improve and evolve through the conduct of such projects and programs.
7. Learners’ and Parents’ Participation. Active participation of learners and parents in carrying out the LRPPs not only physically helps the implementers carry out the projects and programs but also boosts their morale. It is in the learners and parents’ participation, involvement, and appreciation that the implementers get a sense of professional fulfillment. Encouraging them to keep doing what is necessary despite the hardship and self-sacrifices that come with it.

The identified socioeconomic factors can be categorized as external and internal factors. External factors that included: (a) Availability of resources; (b) Number of Projects and Programs; and (c) Local Government Units (LGUs) Support. All which factors affected the consistency and operationality of implementing the LRPPs. While and internal factors included: (d) Workload balance of implementers; (e) Desire for Professional Growth; (f) Dedication to the Teaching Profession; and (g) Learners’ and Parents’ Participation. Factors that affected the status of the implementers while pursuing and implementing the LRPPs. How these external and internal factors affect the status of the LRPPs and implementers are shown below:

Table 1: Project and Implementer Status as Influenced by the Level of Socio-economic Factors

The table shows the status of the LRPPs and implementers according to the level of external and internal socioeconomic factors. “High” description indicates that the external and internal socioeconomic factors are evident and could be observed. “Low” description indicates that not very many external and internal socioeconomic factors are evident.

CONCLUSION

Results revealed that there are external and internal socioeconomic factors that influence the status of the project and its implementers. External socioeconomic factors included: (a) Availability of resources; (b) Number of Projects and Programs; and (c) Local Government Units (LGUs) Support. The internal socioeconomic factors included: (d) Workload balance of implementers; (e) Desire for Professional Growth; (f) Dedication to the Teaching Profession; and (g) Learners’ and Parents’ Participation. Data collected also revealed that the status of the LRPPs and their implementers could be reflected in the level of external and internal factors evident.

REFERENCES

1. Kgatla, M. E. (2014). Principals’ perceptions of their instructional leadership role in the improvement of numeracy and literacy in primary schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria).
2. Rashid, M. A. U. H., & Zaman, S. (2018, February). Effects of teacher’s behavior on academic performance of students. In 3rd International Conference on Research and Practices in Education (Vol. 1, p. 15).
3. Boronski, T., & Hassan, N. (2020). Sociology of education. Sage.
4. Nickerson, C. (2023, October 16). Symbolic Interactionism Theory & Examples. Simply Psychology. https://simplypsychology.org/symbolic-interaction- theory.html#:~:text=Symbolic %20 interactionism%20theory%20assumes%20that,symbolic% 20communication %20with%20 other%20 people.