Interactive Reading Tools and Teachers’ Perceptions of Pupils’ Comprehension Skills in Early Childhood Education
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aim: Reading comprehension remains a persistent concern in early childhood education, particularly in the Philippines, where literacy assessments continue to report low reading performance among young learners. Interactive reading tools, including digital storybooks, e-books, and game-based reading applications, have been introduced to support literacy instruction through engaging and technology-assisted learning experiences. This study examined the degree of implementation of interactive reading tools and their association with teachers’ perceptions of pupils’ comprehension-related skills in early childhood education.
Materials and Methods: The study employed a quantitative descriptive-correlational research design involving 14 Early Childhood Education teachers. Data were collected through a researcher-made survey questionnaire consisting of indicators on the implementation of interactive reading tools and teachers’ perceptions of pupils’ decoding skills and vocabulary knowledge. A pilot test involving 14 respondents established instrument reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation, were used to determine levels of implementation and perceived comprehension-related skills, while Spearman’s rho tested the relationship between the variables.
Results: Results showed a very high level of implementation of interactive reading tools in terms of multisensory engagement (M = 4.73, SD = 0.694), adaptive learning (M = 4.73, SD = 0.420), and narrative interactivity (M = 4.52, SD = 0.551). Teachers likewise reported very high perceptions of pupils’ decoding skills (M = 4.46, SD = 0.793) and vocabulary knowledge (M = 4.25, SD = 0.901). Statistical analysis revealed a very strong positive relationship between the implementation of interactive reading tools and perceived comprehension-related skills (Spearman’s rho = 0.967, p < 0.001). However, the unusually high correlation may indicate possible overlap in measurement constructs or shared respondent bias, as both variables were assessed using teacher perceptions.
Conclusion: The findings suggest that teachers perceive interactive reading tools as widely implemented and potentially supportive of pupils’ early literacy development, particularly in decoding and vocabulary acquisition. However, because the study relied solely on teacher-reported perceptions rather than direct assessment of pupils’ reading performance, the results should be interpreted with caution and should not be taken as evidence of causal improvement in comprehension skills. Future studies may incorporate standardized reading assessments and multiple data sources to provide a more objective evaluation of the effectiveness of interactive reading tools in early childhood education.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright and License
Copyright of all articles published in the Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR) is retained by the author(s).
All articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Users may read, download, copy, distribute, and share the content for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution.
Modification, adaptation, or commercial use of the content is not permitted.
License details: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
References
Alrawashdeh, G. S., Fyffe, S., Azevedo, R. F. L., & Castillo, N. M. (2024). Exploring the impact of personalized and adaptive learning technologies on reading literacy: A global meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 42, 100587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100587
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Biancarosa, G., & Griffiths, G. G. (2012). Technology tools to support reading in the digital age. The Future of Children, 22(2), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2012.0014
Chuang, C., & Jamiat, N. (2023). A systematic review on the effectiveness of children’s interactive reading applications for promoting their emergent literacy in the multimedia context. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), ep412. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12941
Department of Education. (2020, December 3). DepEd sets learning recovery plan following PISA 2018 results. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/12/03/deped-sets-learning-recovery-plan/
Department of Education. (2022). DepEd Order No. 47, s. 2022: Promotion of professional development for teachers and school leaders. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2022/10/05/october-5-2022-do-047-s-2022-promotion-of-professional-development-for-teachers-and-school-leaders/
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). International Reading Association.
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393
Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2020). Engagement and motivation in reading. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 77–87). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429455886
Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2006). The knowledge gap: Implications of leveling the playing field for low-income and middle-income children. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(2), 176–201. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.2.2
Neuman, S. B., & Kaefer, T. (2013). Enhancing the intensity of vocabulary instruction for preschoolers at risk. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 589–608. https://doi.org/10.1086/670274
Neumann, M. M. (2018). Using tablets and apps to enhance emergent literacy skills in young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.10.006
OECD. (2021). 21st-century readers: Developing literacy skills in a digital world. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Shams, L., & Seitz, A. R. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.006
Snow, C. E. (2010). Reading comprehension: Reading for learning. International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd ed., pp. 413–418). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.01286-0
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
