Lived Experiences of Untrained Public Elementary School Teachers on the Implementation of Multi- Factored Assessment Tool (MFAT) in Teaching Learners: A Qualitative Inquiry

Abstract

This study aimed to explore and understand the lived experiences of untrained Grade 1 teachers on the implementation of Multi-Factored Assessment Tool (MFAT) in Tagum City Division. It used qualitative research design employing phenomenological approach. It comprised of fourteen ( 14) untrained grade 1 teachers: seven (7) teachers for online in-depth interview (IDI) and seven (7) teachers for online focus group discussion (FGD). This study was limited to describing and understanding the lived experiences of the participants and the data were taken from the result of IDI and FGD. For data analysis, this study employed coding and thematic analysis. On their experiences, the findings revealed that they met learners with learning and special needs; they lacked information and training on the nature of assessment; encountered in-denial and uncooperative parents; had time constraints; and difficulties in preparing the location and materials. However, to cope their problems, they had set flexible schedules; became resourceful; provided with coordination and support; and established open communication with their parents. Apart from that, their insights were: MFAT as a valuable tool to cater learners' needs; intensification of parent cooperation; provision of financial support and tools and proper time allocation; and a call for psychological and medical assessment or treatment to SPED children. The results implied that the implementation of MFAT must be improved as well as the support from the colleagues, Heads, DepEd officials, and parents. Also, the study gives awareness, insights, and suggestions that may be useful for the improvement of MFAT and giving interventions.

Social Media as a Supplemental Tool in Blended Learning

“…For qualitative studies, reaching 12 participants is necessary to reach saturation of data [12]. Other qualitative studies conformed with this consideration [13][14][15]. From the 15 participants, seven belonged to the in-depth interview while eight belonged to the focus group.…”