Home⇛Global Journal of STEM Education & Management Research⇛vol. 2 no. 1 (2026)

Draft (Differentiated Reading Activities Formulated Through Tech Books-Technology And Books): A Tool For Reading Comprehension Intensification

Genebelle E. Oniego

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This research investigated the effectiveness of the DRAFT (Differentiated Reading Activities Formulated through Tech Books) program in improving the reading comprehension levels of Grade VI learners during the school year 2024–2025. The research addressed the persistent reading difficulties among elementary learners, particularly those performing below grade level. At baseline, all 22 participants (100%) were identified at the Frustration level based on a standardized reading inventory. Using a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design, the study analyzed changes in learners’ reading performance before and after the intervention. Quantitative data were gathered through pre- and post-tests using a standardized eight -item reading comprehension assessment, while qualitative insights were drawn from one-on-one interviews analyzed through thematic coding. Results showed a significant shift in reading levels, with all learners moving from the Frustration Level (58% and below) to the Independent Level (80–100%) after the intervention. Mean comprehension scores increased markedly from pre-test to post test, demonstrating significant gains in learners’ ability to understand, analyze, and respond to text. Qualitative findings confirmed these results, as learners reported heightened motivation to read, improved confidence, and a more positive attitude toward reading tasks. Taken as a whole, the findings indicate the differentiated and technology-enhanced reading instruction is highly effective in addressing reading comprehension gaps among elementary learners. The intervention not only improved measurable reading outcomes but also fostered sustainable reading habits and learners’ engagement. This study recommends the adoption of similar evidence-based reading interventions in comparable educational contexts and supports their integration into broader literacy initiatives aimed at strengthening foundational reading skills in public schools.



References:

  1. Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A content analysis of peer reviewed journals from 2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19295
  2. Alqahtani, S. S. (2024). A meta-analysis of technology-based interventions for elementary students with reading difficulties. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04159-y
  3. Almagro, R. E., Flores, L. C., Amora, M. V., & Bauyot, M. M. (2024). Implementation practices of reading programs in elementary education in Davao De Oro: A multiple case study. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(1), 779–794.
  4. Allington, R. L. (2012). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs (3rd ed.). Pearson.
  5. Banditvilai, C. (2020). Factors affecting reading comprehension: A review of the literature. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 221–229.
  6. Bernardo, A. B. I., Calleja, K. E., & Lin, H. J. (2021). Factors predicting reading proficiency among Filipino students: Insights from PISA 2018. Philippine Journal of Education, 100(1), 12–27.
  7. Bernardo, A. B., & Mante-Estacio, M. J. (2023). Metacognitive reading strategies and their relationship with Filipino high school students’ reading proficiency: Insights from the PISA 2018 data. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-019ed
  8. Cabural, A. B., & Infantado, E. J. S. (2023). The difficulty of reading comprehension and the proficiency of the Grade 10 students of Aloran Trade High School, Philippines. Journal of Tertiary Education and Learning, 1(2), 23–29.
  9. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley.
  10. Day, S. L., Hwang, J. K., Arner, T., McNamara, D. S., & Connor, C. M. (2025). Choose your own adventure: Interactive e-books to improve word knowledge and comprehension skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(2), Article e70023. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70023
  11. DepEd. (2019). Sulong EduKalidad: Improving the quality of basic education. Department of Education, Philippines.
  12. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  13. Gambrell, L. B. (2015). Getting students hooked on the reading habit. The Reading Teacher, 69(3), 259–263. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1321
  14. Gambrell, L. B. (2022). Creating classrooms where students love to read: Motivation and engagement in reading. The Reading Teacher, 75(2), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.02063
  15. Ghaith, G., & El-Sanyoura, H. (2019). Reading comprehension and reading engagement: Insights from the literature. International Education Studies, 12(9), 92–101.
  16. Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
  17. Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd ed.). ASCD.
  18. Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research (2nd ed.). Libraries Unlimited.
  19. Macaruso, P., Wilkes, S., & Prescott, J. E. (2020). An investigation of blended learning to support reading instruction in elementary schools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3205–3227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09785-2
  20. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  21. Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.1.1
  22. Nufus, H., & Anwar, F. (2023). The role of student motivation in developing reading comprehension: A case study. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 8(1), 75–84.
  23. Ocampo, D. M. (2018). Effectiveness of differentiated instruction in the reading comprehension level of Grade-11 senior high school students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 6(4), 1–10.
  24. Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. RAND Corporation.
  25. Snow, C. E. (2022). Developing reading comprehension in elementary learners: Revisiting the framework. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2052931
  26. Subaidi, M., & Aziz, A. N. (2020). Factors affecting reading proficiency among students in Southeast Asia. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(4), 2205–2213.
  27. Suson, R., Baratbate, C., Anoos, W., Ermac, E., Aranas, A. G., Malabago, N., Galamiton, N., & Capuyan, D. (2020). Differentiated instruction for basic reading comprehension in Philippine settings. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(9), 3814–3824. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080904
  28. Tadesse, T. (2017). Developing reading comprehension strategies: Practices and implications. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(12), 42–48.
  29. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.
  30. Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2020). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. ASCD.
  31. Yusmalinda, L., & Astuti, D. (2020). The role of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Indonesian EFL Journal, 6(2), 99–106.

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic