Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Introduction

Reading is a skill that has always been used by humanity to

communicate and learn. It is a neurological process which allowed us to do

many things including language acquisition. Reading is always the key in

successfully understanding what is written. This skill is very helpful in

schools and teaching reading has been practiced by many teachers as it

aids very well in teaching. This strategy has been employed for a long time

and it was proven to be effective until technology came and evolved rapidly.

This is when the struggles of the teachers in maintaining the

student’s interest in reading arose. Choosing the correct instructional

materials has become even more challenging for teachers. Instructional

materials are paramount in teaching as it maintains students’ interest in

learning. Although there were many tasks that technology put an ease to,

there are also setbacks and several researches found out that there is a

decrease in reader competency. Several books in Educational Technology,

including the one that was written by Paz Lucida, PhD (2012) even started a

debate whether technology was a boon or a bane to learning. It was further

discussed that technology can inflict an adverse effect towards

 2

comprehension. The reason starts from any forms of distraction which

technology permits, up to the health hazards that could lead to

unsuccessful and unhealthy learning.

The expected benefit from this study is to help teachers in choosing

the correct material in teaching reading; whether printed texts or electronic

texts is more effective in achieving comprehension. If we can put a vivid line

to this, teachers will be able to give the correct instructional material in

learning without guilt and of course be absolutely sure about the steps she

is taking to achieve her student’s optimum learning.

In Tomas Cabili Central School, it can be observed that teachers make

a habit of giving reading materials in the form of both electronic and

traditional printed texts. While this is in line to the common teaching

strategy which is to integrate traditional and modern ways of teaching, the

effects are not clearly identified and its success in learning has not been

proven. Moreover, there is no clear basis and no specific instructions by the

higher ups to the teacher as to when to give printed or electronic texts. It is

very important to consider everything that we do in class and everything

should be guided.

Giving of printed texts to students will increase the success rate in

comprehension because they can see and touch the actual reading material.

This can be supported by the Sensory Stimulation Theory (Laird, 1985)

which states that learning occurs when the senses are stimulated.
 3

On the other hand, based on a study entitled Electronic Versus

Traditional Print Textbooks: A Comparison Study on the Influence of

University Students' Learning (2015), it was highlighted that those students

who chose e-readers had a higher perceived affective learning and

psychomotor learning compared to the opposed group.

To find out and prove which is better, this study will conduct an

assessment and intensive research on the subject matter during the whole

duration of this semester.

Theoretical Framework

This study is suggested mainly by Bloom’s Taxonomy’s three Domains

of Learning. In learning, he suggested that there are three categories namely

Cognitive Domain, Affective Domain, and Psychomotor Domain. These

domains can be thought of as the goals of a learning process. That is, at the

end of each lesson or learning episode, the learners should acquire a new

skill, knowledge, and attitude. According to a study entitled Electronic

Versus Traditional Print Textbooks: A Comparison Study on the Influence of

University Students' Learning (2015), there were apparent differences in the

acquired learning terms of affective and psychomotor learning among

students who opted to read non-printed texts or e-readers.

John B. Watsons’ Psychological Behaviorism suggests that learning is

essentially a conditioned response to a stimulus. In reading, the stimulus

 4

are the texts. In the present, learners have the option to choose these

stimuli. The difference in the printed texts and non-printed texts in this

study will be tested to know which is a better stimulus in reading to acquire

learning.

Reading words may take several forms. Readers may utilize decoding,

analogizing, or predicting to read unfamiliar words. Readers read familiar

words by accessing them in memory, called sight word reading. With

practice, all the words come to be read automatically by sight, which is the

most efficient, unobtrusive way to read words in text. One of the great

mysteries that has challenged researchers is how people learn to read and

comprehend text rapidly with ease. When people read text, the print fills

their minds with ideas. The route to these ideas begins with individual

printed words. Eye movement studies show that when readers read a text,

their eyes land on practically every word (Rayner&Pollatsek, 1989). Because

words are always spelled the same way, this makes them reliable units for

readers’ eyes to process.

Marcel Adam Just and Patricia A. Carpenter (JULY 1980|) “A Theory

of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension” presents a model of

reading comprehension that accounts for the allocation of eye fixations of

college students reading scientific passages. The model deals with

processing at the level of words, clauses, and text units. Readers make

longer pauses at points where processing loads are greater. Greater loads
 5

occur while readers are accessing infrequent words, integrating information

from important clauses, and making inferences at the ends of sentences.

The model accounts for the gaze duration on each word of text as a function

of the involvement of the various levels of processing.

Charles Perfetti and Joseph Stafura (2014) “Word Knowledge in a

Theory of Reading Comprehension” reintroduce a wide-angle view of reading

comprehension, the Reading Systems Framework, which places word

knowledge in the center of the picture, taking into account the progress

made in comprehension research and theory. Within this framework, word-

to-text integration processes can serve as a model for the study of local

comprehension processes, that is, those that make sense out of short

stretches of text. These processes require linkage between the word

identification system and the comprehension system, with the lexicon in the

linking role. Studies of these processes examine the influence of one

sentence on the reading of a single word in the second sentence, which

enables the integration of the word meaning into the reader’s mental model

of the text. The skilled comprehends more than the less skilled, show

immediate use of word meanings in the integration process. Other evidence

is also consistent with the assumption that word meaning processes are

causal components in comprehension skill.

John J. Pikulski David J. Chard (2003) “Fluency: The Bridge From

Decoding to Reading Comprehension “Advocates that a comprehension

 6

definition then would seem to relate the centrality of fluency to reading

comprehension and the established dimensions of the construct. They

propose the following definition “Reading fluency refers to rapid, efficient,

accurate word recognition skills that permit a reader to construct the

meaning of text. Fluency is also manifested in accurate, rapid, expressive

oral reading and is applied during, and makes possible, silent reading

comprehension.”

They pointed out that reading requires at least two activities. One is word

identification or decoding and two is comprehension or the construction of

the meaning of text. In order for reading to proceed efficiently and

effectively, the reader cannot focus attention on both of the processes. The

non-fluent reader can, as do many beginning readers who have not yet

developed automatic decoding skills, alternate attention between the two

processes.

Walter Kintsch& Douglas Vipond (2014) “Reading Comprehension and

readability in Educational Practice and Psychological Theory” advocates that

“Readability is of considerable practical significance to educators and

publishers of educational materials.” They discuss the traditional approach

with its successes and limitations. It is an empirical, theoretical approach

that deals well with certain aspects of the problem. They also emphasize the

importance of reading, quoting Chall (1958) “Readability is now the concern

of all those who depend upon communication through the printed word. “
 7

Bormuth (1975) makes the more intriguing point that literacy, a basic

human right, can be functionally increased either by improving literacy

skills or by improving the readability of written language.”

Daniella S. McNamara (2007) “Reading Comprehension Strategies:

Theories, Interventions and Technologies. This study provided an overview

of reading comprehension strategies and strategy interventions that have

been shown empirically to be effective in helping readers to overcome

comprehension challenges. This study differs from other books that might

be found on reading strategies in two important ways. First, there is a heavy

focus throughout on theories of reading comprehension about how well do

current models of reading comprehension account for the importance of

reading strategies. Most importantly, how do theories of reading

comprehension motivate and support reading comprehension interventions?

Second, there is a focus on the current technologies being an aid in helping

teachers to provide reading strategy training to their students. One-on-one

strategy training and even focused group training is challenging for many

teachers who are not specifically trained in reading and who don’t have time

to divert energy away from the teaching of critical content. New technologies

are described to be of great help to the teachers in being better prepared to

engage their students in reading strategies in the classroom. And,

computer-based tutoring technologies are described to have offered further

solutions to teacher’s challenges by providing students with strategy

 8

training that can interact with and engage the student and adapt to their

individual needs.

Piaget (1973) believed that the child plays an active role in the growth

of intelligence and learns by doing. He regarded the child as a philosopher

who perceives the world only as he has experienced it. Therefore, most of

Piaget’s inspiration in cognitive and intellectual development came from

observations of children. In fact, Piaget observed and studied his own three

children through each stage of their cognitive development.

The theory of cognitive development focuses on mental processes such

as perceiving, remembering, believing, and reasoning. Reasoning is the

essence of intelligence, and reasoning is what Piaget studied in order to

discover “how we come to know” (Singer & Revenson, 1997, p. 13). Piaget

believed that cognitive development is cumulative; that is, understanding a

new experience grows out of a previous learning experience. Piaget (1973)

developed a systematic study of cognitive development in children. His work

included a theory on cognitive development, detailed observational studies

of cognition in children, and a series of tests to reveal differing cognitive

abilities.

Through his work, Piaget (1973) showed that children think in

considerably different ways than adults do. This did not mean that children

thought at a less intelligent degree, or at a slower pace, they just thought

 9

differently when compared to adults. Piaget’s work showed that children are

born with a very basic genetically inherited mental structure that evolves

and is the foundation for all subsequent learning and knowledge. He saw

cognitive development as a progressive reorganization of mental processes

resulting from maturation and experience.

Piaget (1973) believed children will construct an understanding of the

world around them, and will then experience discrepancies between what

they already know and what they discover in their environment.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual frameworkis constructed from the discussed theories

in this study. In the status quo, innovations of technology arewidespread

and learners of today are the most affected population. In the earlier stages

of this study the researchers have observed that technology plays a great

role in teaching and learning and that it has the potential to be a boon or a

bane. The respondents’ level of technological influence is identified through

their perceptions about technology and the technological instruments they

have actually used. Reading comprehension in Figure 1 represents the

actual test scores when subjected to both types of material. This includes

the significant differences in the test scores upon subjecting the

respondents to the test materials. The output is the recommendations

proposed by the researchers.

 10

Preferred Reading
Material

Reading
Comprehension

Enabled Learning

Output

Figure 1. Research Paradigm of the Study

 11

Statement of the Problem

This study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the learners’ extent of preferred reading materials in terms of:

1.1 Printed

1.2 Non-Printed

2. What is the extent of the learners’ perceived advantages and

disadvantages of use of technology-enabled learning?

3. What is the test score of the respondents in reading comprehension using

non-printed and printed texts?

4. Is there a significant difference in the test scores of the learners when

subjected to printed and non-printed texts?

5. Is there a significant among the respondents’ extent of preferred reading

materials, perceived use of technology-enabled learning and their scores of

reading comprehension test using non-printed and printed texts?

 12

Null Hypotheses

From the foregoing statement of the problem, the following null

hypothesis was tested:

Ho1: There is a significant difference in comprehension rate success

between the two groups of readers.

Ho2: There is no significant difference in the test scores of the learners

when subjected to printed and non-printed texts.

 13

Significance of the Study

This study has been done with a desire to help in the field of

education specifically in learning Elementary English especially Reading

Comprehension. The findings of this study shall benefit the following

audience:

Teachers.Knowing the students’ needs will come a long way in teaching.

Giving the exact learning material tailor-fitted to the students learning

needs and styles will give students an increase in learning competencies

achievement.

Students. Being aware of the more effective way in reading will encourage

students to read more thus making learning a fun and enjoyable process.

Moreover, it will reinstate the decreasing reader competency.

School. Given that students reading competency shall improve, the School

shall merit a good rating.

Future Teachers. By reading this study, future teachers will have an

overview on how it is to teach reading. It will also hopefully develop a new

strategy which will come in handy when they reach the field.

Definition of Terms
 14

Level of Technological Influence.This means the frequency of the

respondent’s exposure to gadgets. It will include the average time they

spend in using gadgets at a specific period of time and the type of material

they use for recreational reading.

Boon. In this study, boon means pleasant or helpful to Education and

Learning.

Bane. In this study, bane means unhelpful and may sometimes be harmful

to education and learning.

Respondents. In this study, respondents mean the Grade 7 students who

will be the subject for this experimental research.

Scope and Delimitation

The sample involves 3 Grade 6 pupils of Tomas Cabili Central School. The

respondents will undergo e-reading and traditional reading comprehension

test from a standardized test taken from TOEFL. Two sets of comprehension

tests with the same level of difficulty will be given to the same students

through the use of different mediums (Google Forms & Printed on paper).

The same time limit of 30 minutes will be given for each test. This way of

comparison to find out the significant difference in non-printed and printed

text can be viewed as a restriction that limits the generalization of results.

 15

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the related literature and studies after the

thorough and in-depth search done by the researchers. This will also

present the synthesis of art, theoretical and conceptual framework to fully

understand the research to be done and lastly the definition of terms for

better comprehension of the study.

Related Literature

Times, as they say, are changing. The digital age is transforming

nearly every aspect of our culture, from business to education to social life.

Reading and books are no exception. Mobile devices, multimedia publishing,

and social technologies are having a major impact on the reading experience

both inside and outside the classroom. Instead of carrying backpacks full of

40-pound textbooks from class to class and trading paperbacks with their

friends, today’s young people are downloading and exchanging digital novels

and textbooks on their smartphones, e-book readers, and tablets. Besides

taking a load off our students’ backs, this development has turned on its

head the very idea of what it means to read a book. The story entitled The
 16

Pedlar Lady of Gushing Cross from Moving Tales, for example, contains text

and images, like a traditional book, but it also has digital animation and

audio. Given these new realities, it’s time to expand the meaning of the

phrase reading a book. First, let’s tackle the definition of reading. The things

involved in the reading activity is yet to be defined. Some materials involve

only text, or graphics, sounds, motion, and other kinds of symbols in

addition to or instead of the text.

According to the article of Ahmad Jawad (December 21, 2016) conflict

between Digital Reading and Traditional Reading: He discusses about the

balance of having both as a help terms of reading. However, most of his

statement favorably agreed the advantages of using digital rather than

traditional. Just like listening to books with headphones from Apple iBook’s

is a unique feature of learning whether you’re walking, sitting or traveling

no need to holding or stretching your hands or in a noisy surrounding. The

tablet can carry more than 100 books in a single tablet allowing you to read

books with a wide range on the move. Cost of a digital book on Kindle or

IBook is cheaper than a hard copy. Yet, the larger question remains. What

has the impact of the so-called digital age had on our want and ability to

read? Are physical books becoming obsolete?

James Jorner (December 20, 2017) in his blog “Traditional Reading: Is

It Still Relevant?” He discusses there that our society should not forget the

value of printed books, despite the fact that most people now prefer to use
 17

the digital books. He emphasizes its limitation just like not all readers are

tech savvy. Though users prefer multipurpose devices such as smartphones

and tablets over dedicated e-readers, any of these options will stop working

without power. There are also the possibilities of software failure, data

deletion, and password loss. He also claims that in printed word, our brain

develops focus, full attention to details like plot, and reading

comprehension.

Ziming LIU (January 2012) “Digital reading: An overview” advocates

that “Understanding reading behavior in the digital environment would help

develop more effective reading devices and empower readers in the online

environment.” The purpose of their study is to highlight that digital reading

is an important research in contemporary information science research.

They aim to provide a snapshot of major studies on digital reading over the

past few years. Their study begins by introducing the background in digital

reading, and then outlines major research findings. The theory

demonstrates the growth of interest in information science and other

disciplines in digital reading behavior. Five areas are highlighted: Digital

reading behavior, print vs. digital, preference for reading medium,

multitasking and learning, and technological advancement and traditional

attachment. They conducted their study in only major studies in the North

American and European countries. The theory represents a first attempt to

compare, evaluate, and synthesize recent studies on digital reading.

Implications for the changes in reading behavior are discussed, and

 18

directions for future research are suggested. In their conclusion, they

discuss that in an increasingly digital environment, readers (especially

younger readers) are likely to gradually develop the screen-based reading

behavior, and to increasingly use a variety of strategies (e.g., browsing and

key-word spotting) to cope with the information-abundant environment. On

the other hand, readers will continue to use print media for much of their

reading activities, especially in-depth reading. In-depth reading usually

involves annotating and highlighting. People’s preference for paper as a

medium of reading (especially in-depth reading) also implies that paper is

unlikely to disappear in the digital age. Rather than deprecating digital

technology as hurting our reading quality in the online environment, they

emphasize that we should embrace its potential and expect technological

advances will reduce the problems even further. They also emphasizes that

although many people do not see digital media as a source for concentrated

reading, we should keep in mind that technology is constantly improving

and reading practices themselves are evolving.

From the Metacognition theory of John H. Flavell (1980), the third

theory of reading was developed. It is called the Metacognitive Theory of

Reading or Interactive Reading model which proposed that reading is an

attempt to form a summary of what was read. Klein et al (1991) suggested

that Metacognition involves thinking about what one is doing while reading.

Moreover, Klein stated that strategic readers attempt the following while

reading: Identifying the purpose of the reading before reading, Identifying

 19

the form or type of the text before reading, Thinking about the general

character and features of the form or type of text. For instance, they try to

locate a topic sentence and supporting details toward a conclusion.

According to schema theory, Sir Frederick Bartlett (1932) comprehending a

text is an interactive process between the reader's background knowledge

and the text.

Linnea C. Ehri (2005) “Learning to Read Words: Theory, Findings, and

Issues” A theory of how children progress through different phases of

reading should be an asset both to reading researchers and teachers alike.

The present paper provides a brief review of Ehri's influential four phases of

reading development: pre‐alphabetic, partial alphabetic, full alphabetic and

consolidated alphabetic.

Related Studies

Lynne G. Duncan, Sarah P. McGeown, Yvonne M. Griffiths Susan E.

Stothard4 and Anna Dobai (22 April 2016 ) “Reading skill and engagement

with digital and traditional literacies as predictors of reading

comprehension” present study investigates the concurrent predictors of

adolescent reading comprehension (literal, inferential) for fiction and non-

fiction texts. Predictors were examined from the cognitive (word

identification, reading fluency), psychological (gender) and ecological (print

exposure) domains. Print exposure to traditional and digital texts was

 20

surveyed using a diary method of reading habits. A cross-sectional sample

of 312 students in early (11–13 years) or middle adolescence (14–15 years)

participated from a range of SES backgrounds. Word identification emerged

as a strong predictor of reading comprehension across adolescence and text

genres. Gender effects favoring female students were evident for reading

frequency but not reading skill itself. Reading habits also differed and

comprehension advantages were observed among females for fiction and

males for non-fiction. Age effects emerged for reading frequency, which was

lower in middle adolescence. Although more time was spent on digital than

traditional texts, traditional extended text reading was the only reading

habit to predict inference-making in comprehension and to distinguish

skilled from less-skilled comprehenders. The theoretical and educational

implications of these results are discussed. the results document the strong

contribution from the cognitive domain to adolescent reading

comprehension with the influence of word identification spanning

adolescent groups and text genres, consistent with the predictions.

Nevertheless, variables from the psychological domain (gender) and

ecological domain (print exposure) were found to have an additional impact,

reinforcing the need to extend the range of variables used to build models of

reading comprehension in adolescence.

Franziska Kretzschmar, Dominique Pleimling, Jana Hosemann,

Stephan Füssel, Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, and Matthias

Schlesewsky(February 6, 2013) “Subjective Impressions Do Not Mirror

 21

Online Reading Effort: Concurrent EEG-Eyetracking Evidence from the

Reading of Books and Digital Media” They discussed about in the rapidly

changing circumstances of our increasingly digital world, reading is also

becoming an increasingly digital experience: electronic books (e-books) are

now outselling print books in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Nevertheless, many readers still view e-books as less readable than print

books. The present study thus used combined EEG and eye tracking

measures in order to test whether reading from digital media requires

higher cognitive effort than reading conventional books. Young and elderly

adults read short texts on three different reading devices: a paper page, an

e-reader and a tablet computer and answered comprehension questions

about them while their eye movements and EEG were recorded. The results

of a debriefing questionnaire replicated previous findings in that

participants overwhelmingly chose the paper page over the two electronic

devices as their preferred reading medium. Online measures, by contrast,

showed shorter mean fixation durations and lower EEG theta band voltage

density – known to covary with memory encoding and retrieval – for the

older adults when reading from a tablet computer in comparison to the

other two devices. Young adults showed comparable fixation durations and

theta activity for all three devices. Comprehension accuracy did not differ

across the three media for either group. We argue that these results can be

explained in terms of the better text discriminability (higher contrast)

produced by the backlit display of the tablet computer. Contrast sensitivity

 22

decreases with age and degraded contrast conditions lead to longer reading

times, thus supporting the conclusion that older readers may benefit

particularly from the enhanced contrast of the tablet. Our findings thus

indicate that people's subjective evaluation of digital reading media must be

dissociated from the cognitive and neural effort expended in online

information processing while reading from such devices.

A research entitled “Identifying Reading Preferences of Secondary

School Students” claims that naturally, all individuals are different with

their respective potential to read and understand the information. The

adolescents’ interest in reading books and their contexts indicate the type

and process of acquiring information. Elliott (2006) conducted a meta-

analysis of studies on reading and found attitude of adolescents toward new

information to be on a continuum with childhood, and varied progress

exclusive of specific age group.

 23

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes discusses the methodology used in this

research. Research design, locale of the study where the research will be

conducted, respondents, sampling procedures, data gathering procedure,

instruments used and its validity, scoring system, and statistical treatment

of data used in the analyzation and interpretation of the pertinent data is

also presented.

Research Method

This Comparative Qualitative or Non-Experimental Research Design

was made to find out and assess the difference in the comprehension rate

success between printed and non-printed texts to the reading

comprehension of the respondent. The researchers did observation and

recording of the outcomes of each test without manipulation so as to

determine the differences in test scores when subjected to the

aforementioned type of test. Respondents test scores will be compared in

terms of their comprehension to read on each type of instructional material.

 24

Research Locale of the Study

The researchers conducted the study in Iligan City, Philippines, which

is located on the northwest coast of Mindanao facing Iligan Bay, about 795

km southeast of Manila. It is bounded by Iligan Bay and the provinces of

Lanao del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Bukidnon and Misamis Oriental. Iligan City

has a limited flat land along the coastline and the topography is rolling and

mountainous in the hinterlands. Iligan City has a total population of

273,004 as of the 1995 census (1998 projection -303,211), of which 31

percent reside within the urban center. The male to female ratio is almost

equal - 50.13 percent male and 48.87 percent female.

Tomas Cabili Central School is located at Prk. 11 Highway, Iligan City.

It is a DepED Managed Monograde Public Elementary School. The location

of the school was formerly known as Brgy. Tominobo. After the demise of a

noble man from the said location, the barangay was renamed after him. On

March 16, 1982, Brgy. Tominobo was renamed to Brgy. Tomas L. Cabili.
 25

Figure 1

Figure 2

Subject of the Study

The respondents of the study were the Grade 6 Section 1 pupils

enrolled in the academic school year 2019-2020 with a total of 39 persons

served as respondents.

Sampling Used
 26

The sampling strategy that the researchers used is the purposive

sampling since Grade 6 students are numerous and for the purpose of this

research to save relative cost and time required to be able to achieve the

desired sample size in a fast and inexpensive way. The selection was based

on their learning competencies and their age in which the principal has

characterized them as standard Grade 6 students, making them fit for the

TOEFL standardized test.

Data Gathering Procedures

The researchers asked permission from the office of the principal of

Tomas Cabili Central School, Iligan City by sending a letter signed by the

research Adviser and the College Dean, requesting for the conduct of the

study and the administration of the questionnaire. When the permission

was granted, the researchers personally distributed the 3 sets of

questionnaires to the (39) Grade 6-Section 1 pupils. The first questionnaire

was a survey on their perceptions about technologically and non-

technologically based reading materials. The second questionnaire was the

actual comprehension test which used printed texts. Then followed by

another test in the computer laboratory where they took the comprehension

test with the use of computers.

The respondents are given two different comprehension tests, one in

printed and other in digital copy. They were then given 30 mins to answer

the 20-item comprehension test.

 27

Research Instrumentation

There were 2 instruments used in gathering the data for this

research:

First, the researchers used an instrument with 26 statements to get

the respondent’s Perceptions of Use of Technology-Enabled Learning and

respondent’s Preferred Reading Material. This material is formulated from

the questionnaires “Learner use of Technology” published by the

Commonwealth of Learning, Canada and “Technology Survey Questions”

published by Questions Pro. The material was then validated through pilot

testing at NAPOCOR Elementary School. The options given to the

respondents as answers were Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and

Strongly Disagree.

The second instrument was from an international standard

comprehension questionnaire, TOEFL Junior aka Test of English as a

Foreign Language. The comprehension test is composed of three short

stories or texts selections, each followed by test items related to the

 28

selections/stories which sum is 20 items for the whole test. Since TOEFL is

a standardized test, the instrument was used as it is.

Scoring Procedure

The researchers used the standardized rubric to give points to the

respondent’s perception in terms of Perceptions of Use of Technology-

Enabled Learning and Preferred Reading Material, they are then interpreted

by an expert.

Scoring Rubric

The following shows the scoring rubric of the respondent’s perception

in the Use of Technology-Enabled Learning and Preferred Reading Material.

Score Scale Descriptor

5 4.50 – 5.00 Always

4 3.50 – 4.59 Often

3 2.50 – 3.49 Sometimes

2 1.50 – 2.49 Seldom

1 1.00 – 1.49 Never

Validity

The Perceptions of Use of Technology-Enabled Learning and

respondent’s Preferred Reading Material instrument was subjected for

validation in order fit the respondents’ views and perceptions. This was
 29

piloted using thirty-nine Grade 6 public school pupils in NAPOCOR

Elementary School to validate based on the level of competency of the

respondents using Cronbach Alpha for internal consistency. None of the

items were deleted as each item showed sufficient internal consistency

around .718 to .818 (see Appendix ). The following table is the result of

overall validity of each construct.

Perceptions of Use of Technology-Enabled Learning

Items Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if

Total Correlation Item Deleted

T1 .264 .710

T2 .268 .709

T3 .246 .712

T4 .301 .706

T5 .297 .707

P1 .390 .695

P2 .077 .729
 30

P3 .333 .703

P4 .579 .665

P5 .605 .663

P6 .452 .687

P7 .266 .714

P8 .328 .704

Cronbach's Alpha .718

Acceptable reliability
Interpretation

All items must be included in the final

Remarks
instrument to retain the above internal

consistency
 31

Preferred Reading Material

Items Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if

Total Correlation Item Deleted

Q1 .681 .786

Q2 .467 .805

Q3 .431 .808

Q4 .353 .813

Q5 .538 .800

Q7 .435 .807
 32

Q8 .379 .814

Q10 .453 .806

Q11 .453 .807

Q12 .344 .813

Q13 .535 .799

Q14 .451 .806

Q15 .422 .808

Cronbach's Alpha .818

Good reliability
Interpretation

Items Q6 and Q9 must be deleted in the

Remarks
final instrument to retain the above

internal consistency
 33

The second instrument used is a 20-item test from TOEFL Junior. TOEFL is

an international and standardized test that offers tests materials to be used

to measure English competencies of any non-native english speakers across

the Globe. In this research, we specifically extracted Comprehension Test for

Grade Six. Two 20-item tests were used; one was printed and one was

converted to a technologically influenced test material.

Statistical Treatment of Data

As soon as the researchers gathered the pertinent data, they were

compiled, sorted out, organized and tabulated. The data were subjected to

statistical treatment in order to answer the questions proposed in this

study.

The following data gathered from the respondents were then tabulated

and analyzed using the following statistical tools.

Statistical Tools

1. Mean and Standard Deviation. These basic descriptive statistical

tools were used to describe the respondents’ extent of preferred

reading materials, perceived advantages and disadvantages of the

use of technology-enabled learning, and the reading

comprehension scores in printed and non-printed texts.

 34

2. Paired t-test. This parametric inferential statistical tool was used

to test significant differences between the test scores of the

respondents in reading comprehension using non-printed and

printed texts. Further, this test was used since the variables

involved under these tests and the data set met the necessary

assumptions of the aforementioned inferential test.

3. Pearson-r Correlation. This parametric inferential statistical tool

was used to test significant among the respondents’ extent of

preferred reading materials, perceived use of technology-enabled

learning and their scores of reading comprehension test using non-

printed and printed texts. Further, this test was used since the

variables involved under these tests and the data set met the

necessary assumptions of the aforementioned inferential test.

 35

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Interpretation of the data is necessary in order to test the hypotheses

and answer the research questions. This chapter deals with the

presentation of gathered data in tabular form. Each variable is given

analysis and is interpreted together with drawing implication. Data and

interpretation are presented in accordance to the order of questions in the

statements of the problem. There is a total of 38 respondents in reading

comprehension using non-printed and printed texts.

Problem 1.What is the learners’ extent of preferred reading materials in

terms of printed text?

Table 1.1 Descriptive Equivalence in the Respondent’s Extent of

preference in Printed Text

Indicators Mean SD Descriptiv

Equivalent

1. Books are easier to read

3.32 .662 Sometimes
 36

2. I like to physically highlight

2.79 .704 Sometimes
selections from the book

3. Books are cheaper.

2.42 .919 Seldom

4. I prefer the formatting of

2.84 .679 Sometimes
physical books

5. Books are easier to navigate and

3.13 .777 Sometimes
bookmark

6. I like traditional books because it

3.11 .924 Sometimes
does not require internet access or

gadgets to read

7. Tablets or laptops are not

3.08 1.075 Sometimes
allowed in class

8. I like to write on the pages of

2.32 .873 Seldom
books while studying.

Over-all Mean
2.88 .522 Sometimes

Scale: 1.00 – 1.49 Never; 1.50 – 2.49 Seldom; 2.50 – 3.49 Sometimes; 3.50 –

4.49 Often; 4.50 – 5.00 Always

 37

Table 1.1 shows the extent of preferred reading materials in terms of

printed material. The ratings: Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often and Always

were based on their perception of printed material in terms of the indicators

on the table. Of all the respondents’ perceptions on printed material, “books

are easier to read” got the highest mean of (3.32), followed by “books are

easier to navigate and bookmark” (mean 3.13). Respondents also like to

use printed materials because it does not require internet access or buy

gadgets to read (mean 3.11), It is then followed that tablets or laptops are

not allowed in class (mean 3.08), they prefer the formatting of physical

books (mean 2.84), they like to like to physically highlight selections from

the book (mean 2.79) and book are cheaper (mean 2.42). Respondents who

prefer printed materials because they can write on the pages of books while

studying got the lowest mean of 2.32. The overall mean of 2.88 whihc

indicates that the respondents fairly prefer using printed materials such as

books.According to the study of researchers Guang Chen,Wei Cheng, Ting-

Wen Chang, Xiaoxia Zheng (2014)

” A Comparison of Reading Comprehension Across Paper, Computer

Screens, and Tablets” It was indicated that the paper group performed

significantly better than the computer-based reading on the shallow level

comprehension.

A recent study conducted across 15 schools with large populations of

low-income students is boasting that reading comprehension and

engagement can be boosted substantially by increasing the size of the

 38

typeface in classroom reading materials (Colin Wood 2019) The research

was conducted by Project Tomorrow, a nonprofit education organization

commissioned by Thorndike Press, a publisher of large-print books. The

findings include a broad range of benefits including reduced anxiety,

improved concentration, heightened enjoyment and higher levels of

information comprehension and retention.

Table 1.2 Descriptive Equivalence in the Respondent’s Extent of

preference in Non-Printed Texts

Indicators Mean SD Descriptiv

e
Equivalent

1. I prefer non-printed texts because 2.42 .793 Seldom

they are cheaper.

2. I prefer non-printed texts because 2.66 .708 Sometimes

they are lighter and portable.

3. I prefer non-printed texts because 2.61 .638 Sometimes

they don’t have to be returned.

4. I like non-printed texts because 3.00 .615 Sometimes

they are more environmentally
friendly than paper books.

5. I like non-printed texts because 2.66 .669 Sometimes

the font size and brightness is
adjustable.
 39

6. I like non-printed texts because they can 2.58 .552 Sometimes

be used with apps.

Over-all Mean 2.65 .406 Sometimes

Scale: 1.00 – 1.49 Never; 1.50 – 2.49 Seldom; 2.50 – 3.49 Sometimes; 3.50 –

4.49 Often; 4.50 – 5.00 Always

Table 1.2 shows the extent of preferred reading materials in terms of

non-printed material. The ratings: Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often and

Always were based on their perception of non-printed material in terms of

the indicators on the table. Respondents who like non-printed texts because

they are more environmentally friendly than paper books got the highest

mean of 3.00. It is then followed by those that prefer non-printed texts

because they were lighter and portable and because they were more

environmentally friendly than paper books which have the same mean of

2.66. They are then followed with perceptions that non-printed texts don’t

have to be returned (mean 2.61) and because non-printed texts can be used

with apps. Respondents who prefer non-printed texts because they are

cheaper got the lowest mean of 2.42. The overall mean of 2.65 indicates

that the respondents also fairly prefer using non-printed material. Both

preferences for printed and non-printed texts fall under the same
 40

descriptive equivalent -“Sometimes”. This shows that respondents both have

the same degree of preference for printed and non-printed reading

materials.

From the Chapter 2 of this research, it can be recalled that the

researchers from Pakistan on “Identifying Reading Preferences of Secondary

School Students” that learners have different reading preferences based on

the extent of their exposure to technologically influenced reading materials.

In connection to the results, we saw that our respondents of this research

demonstrated such claim. The distribution of the learners and their

preferences in terms of reading materials however, showed that technology

was not very extensive in this school.

Several studies had no clear difference between print-based texts and

e-texts where learner comprehension is concerned (Green et al. 2010;

Margolin et al. 2013; Norman and Furnes 2016; Porion et al. 2016). In

Scholastics' 2012 report (pdf, 350KB), kids say that eBooks are better than

print books when they do not want their friends to know what they are

reading, and when they are out and about/travelling. Print is better for

sharing with friends and reading at bedtime.

Naomi Baron (2016) compared how students read in print and on-

screen, and reports that participants 'praised digital reading on a number of

counts, including the ability to read in the dark, ease of finding material
 41

("plenty of quick information") saving paper and even the fact they could

multitask while reading.'

In Baron's 2017 article, Reading in a digital age, her review of related

research included a 2011 study by Ackerman and Goldsmith. This study

noted that when students have a choice, they spent less time on digital

reading, and had lower comprehension scores. Schugar et al (2011) also

found that participants reading on-screen used fewer study strategies such

as note-taking. More recent research (Kaufman and Flanagan, 2016) cited

by Baron found that students reading digitally did well on answering

concrete questions while those reading in print did better on abstract

questions needing inferential reasoning.

In Baron’s own study, with more than 400 university students from five

countries, 86% preferred reading longer texts in print and 78% when

reading for pleasure, with 92% saying it was easiest to concentrate when

reading print. 85% of the US students were more likely to multitask in an

online environment and only 26% when reading print.

 42

Problem 2. What is the extent of the learners’ perceived advantages

and disadvantages of the use of technology-enabled learning?

Table 2. Descriptive equivalence on the respondent’s perception about

the advantages and disadvantages of the use of technology-enabled
learning.

Indicators Mean SD Descriptiv

e
Equivalent

I want to use technology in my studies

because:

1. It will help me get better results 3.89 .894 Often

in my subjects

2. It will help me understand the 4.05 .695 Often

subject material more deeply

3. It makes completing work in my 3.95 .899 Often

subjects more convenient

4. It motivates me to explore many 4.16 .718 Often

topics I may not have seen before.

5. It allows me to collaborate with 3.74 .978 Often

others easily, both on and outside
of the campus
 43

6. I get more actively involved in 4.00 .838 Often

courses that use technology

7. I am more likely to skip classes 2.92 .587 Sometimes

when materials from course
lectures are available online

8. Technology makes me feel 3.95 1.089 Often

connected to what’s going on at the
school

9. Technology makes me feel 3.89 1.110 Often

connected to other students

10. Technology makes me feel 3.82 1.159 Often

connected to teachers

11. Technology interferes with my 3.53 1.084 Often

ability to concentrate and think
deeply about subjects I care about.

12. In-class use of mobile devices is 3.55 1.083 Often

distracting to me

13. Use of tablets/laptops in class 3.26 1.057 Sometimes

improves my engagement with the
content and class.

Over-all Mean 3.75 .328 Often

 44

Scale: 1.00 – 1.49 Never; 1.50 – 2.49 Seldom; 2.50 – 3.49 Sometimes; 3.50 –

4.49 Often; 4.50 – 5.00 Always

Table 2 showed the extent of the learners’ perceived advantages and

disadvantages of the use of technology-enabled learning. The result

displayed the advantages of the use of technology-enabled learning (Items 1-

6 and 8-10) it had a mean of 3.98 than the disadvantages of use of

technology-enabled learning (Items 7 and 11-13) which only had a mean of

3.32. This shows that there are more respondents who claim that the

advantages outweigh the disadvantages in using technology-enabled

learning. Overall, the extent of the learners’ perceived advantages and

disadvantages of the use of technology-enabled learning falls under the

descriptive equivalent “Sometimes” which has a mean of 3.75. The results of

the data gathered for Problem 2 is answered and supported by the article of

Ahmad Jawad (December 21, 2016) which was mentioned in an earlier

chapter of this research. The article implied that perceptions of students in

terms of the advantages and disadvantages of the two types of reading

materials favors the technologically influenced material. In Tomas Cabili, it

is evident that learners are not so far behind in perceiving and being aware

of the advantages and disadvantages of technology-enabled learning, a sign

that technology-enabled learning is becoming ubiquitous.

 45

Problem 3. What is the test score of the respondents in reading

comprehension using non-printed and printed texts?

Table 3. Comprehension Level of Respondents in both Printed and Non-

printed texts.

Scoring Using Printed Text Using Non-Printed Text

Scale

f % Mean DE f % Mean DE

11 - 15 17 44.7 13.5 Instruction 1 36.8 13.6 Instruction

al 4 al

0 - 10 21 55.3 7.5 Frustration 2 63.2 7.6 Frustration

4

Total 38 100.0 10.2 Frustration 3 100.0 9.8 Frustration

8

Table 3 presents the test scores of the respondents in reading and

comprehension using non-printed and printed texts. The scoring scale was

divided into two parts, the upper half are scores ranging from 11-15 while

the lower half ranges from 0 – 10. Using the printed text, 17 respondents

out of 38 scored within the range of 11-15 and have a mean score of 13.5.

This tells us that 44.7% of the respondents have attained the “Instructional”

comprehension level on the given printed text. On the other hand, for the

non-printed text, only 14 respondents have scored within the range of 11-15

and a mean score for 13.6, that is, 36.8% of the 38 respondents who took
 46

the test on non-printed material and achieved “Instructional”

comprehension level.

As for the lower half of the scores ranging from 0 - 10, we can see that

there were more respondents who used the non-printed text that didn’t

achieve “Instructional” comprehension level, and that is 63.2% of the

respondents out of 38, compared to those who used printed text which only

has 55.3% or 21 respondents out of 38, who fall under the “Frustration”

Comprehension Level or in other words, they are struggling in reading

comprehension.

Comparing the number of respondents who scored 11-15, we could

infer that the printed text gained the upper hand. It means that there were

more respondents who used the printed text and managed to attain greater

comprehension rather than those who used non-printed text.

Although non-printed texts were becoming favorable for the majority

of learners across the globe, some were still not accustomed to it. From the

research conducted by Kretzschmar, et al (February 6, 2013) Concurrent

EEG-Eye tracking Evidence from the Reading of Books and Digital Media,

they discussed that many readers still view e-books as less readable than

printed books. The present study thus used combined EEG and eye

tracking measures in order to test whether reading from digital media

requires higher cognitive effort than reading conventional books. Young and

elderly adults read short texts on three different reading devices: a paper
 47

page, an e-reader and a tablet computer and answered comprehension

questions about them while their eye movements and EEG were recorded.

The results of a debriefing questionnaire replicated previous findings in that

participants overwhelmingly chose the paper page over the two electronic

devices as their preferred reading medium.

In the actual employment of the non-printed TOEFL test in this

research, the researchers received varied concerns from the pupils including

unfamiliarity with the functions of the computer, eye discomfort while facing

the screen and problems with navigation and manipulation of the device.

These could be potential factors in the test scores of the learners.

However, if we take into consideration the total mean for both upper and

lower half of the scores, it shows that there is a greater degree of difficulty in

reading and comprehension whether it is using printed or non-printed texts.

The weighted average score for all respondents who used the printed text is

only 10.2 while for the non-printed text; it is 9.8, both of them falls under

the lower half of the scoring scale.

 48

Problem 4. Is there a significant difference in the test scores of the

learners when subjected to printed and non-printed texts?

Table 4. Significant Difference in the tests scores of the learners when

subjected to printed and non-printed texts

Reading Mean Comprehensio Mean t-value p-

n Level Differenc value
Comprehension Test e

Using Printed Text 10.2 Frustration .42 .932 .358

Using Non-Printed 9.8 Frustration

Text

Looking at the two variables means that the comprehension levels of

both Printed and Non-Printed text on Table 4 were we can initially conclude

that there was no significant difference in the test scores of the learners

when subjected to printed and non-printed texts. Furthermore, as we

examine the p-value which has a value of 0.358, it indicates weak evidence

against the null hypothesis since it is greater than 0.05; therefore, with

these results, we accept the null hypothesis which states that there is no

significant difference in the test scores of the learners when subjected to

printed and non-printed texts.

A research on comprehension differences between print and screen

reading by Szu-Yuan Sun et al, also reveals that there were no significant

differences between the levels of comprehension for print and screen

presentations. In this part of the research, we can see that the significant
 49

difference in the comprehension level of learners when subjected to the two

different materials is still inconclusive. There were no significant differences

as to the test scores for the total population of the respondents collectively.

However, the same study states that in-depth reading which requires actual

books yielded better comprehension scores in middle-aged respondents

while in adolescent respondents, screen reading has better test scores. It

implies therefore that the scores are significant to the preferred reading

material.

Also, based on these results, it shows that there is a significant need

to develop the reading and comprehension skills of the learners. As we can

see, a large number of respondents failed to achieve the upper half of the

scoring scale or the “Instructional” Comprehension Level which results in

dragging down the mean to the Comprehension Level of “Frustration”.

But the researchers believe that if the respondents will be able to

master their reading and comprehension skills, they will have a high chance

in increasing their scores up to the Upper half of the scoring scale or the

“Instructional” Comprehension level. The next best possible course of action

to be taken by the researchers after this is to conduct another research on

how to develop and master the respondents reading and comprehension

skills.
 50

Problem 5. Is there a significant correlation among the respondents’

extent of preferred reading materials, perceived use of technology-
enabled learning and their scores of reading comprehension test using
non-printed and printed texts?

Table 5. Correlation of Respondents’ extent of preferred reading

materials and their scores when subjected to their material of
preference.

Variables 1 2 3 4

1. Perceptions on technology-enabled
learning

2. Perceptions on printed material .071

3. Perceptions on non-printed .129 .375*

materials

4. Using printed text test score .130 .051 .260

5. Using non-printed text test score .183 .058 .272 .712**

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (Highly Significant).

Table 5 presents the correlation among the respondents’ extent of

preferred reading materials, perceived use of technology-enabled learning

and their scores of reading comprehension test using non-printed and

printed texts.
 51

Variables 5 and 4 has the highest correlation of .722 which makes the

two highly significant with each other. Variables 3 and 2 have the second

highest correlation value of .375. The correlation of the variables implies

that the test scores of the respondents is parallel to their preferred reading

material. That is, if one is technologically-oriented, then it is expected that

he will have better results when reading comprehension test is presented

technologically. Moreover, people who prefer the conventional way of reading

will have better comprehension test scores when subjected to traditional

printed texts. This implication further demonstrates the concept Bloom’s

Taxonomy of learning wherein learning styles differ among each learner.

Perceptions on printed material correlate to Perceptions on technology-

enabled learning with a correlation coefficient of .071.

Perceptions on non-printed materials correlate to Perceptions on

technology-enabled learning and Perceptions on printed material with a

correlation coefficient of .129 and .375 which is in a significant level.

Using printed text test score correlates to Perceptions on technology-enabled

learning with a 0.130 correlation coefficient. It also correlates to Perceptions

on printed material with a correlation coefficient of .051. and lastly it

correlates to Perceptions on non-printed materials with a .260 correlation

coefficient.
 52

Lastly, Using non-printed text test score also correlates to Perceptions on

technology-enabled learning, Perceptions on printed material, Perceptions

on non-printed materials and Using printed text test score

With a correlation coefficient of (.183), (.058), (.272), and (.712**)

respectively. Using non-printed text test score and using printed text test

score got the highest significance of correlation which means that these two

are almost equally preferred by the respondents and therefore affirms our

null hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference in the

test scores of the learners when subjected to printed and non-printed texts.
 53

Chapter 5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary and findings of the study as

presented in chapter four. Furthermore, this chapter shows the conclusions

and recommendations formulated based on the findings of this study.

Summary

This study went through a series of steps deliberately chosen in order

to get the pertinent data needed in comparing the comprehension rate

success of the respondents when subjected to Printed and Non-Printed

texts. This process is done in the quest of the researchers to identify which

type of instructional material is best suited for the Grade 6 level of Tomas

Cabili Central School. Purposive sampling was used in which learning

competencies for their level was a factor. Out of the respondents, 3 sets of

data were extracted. First is their perceptions in the aforementioned types of

instructional materials, second is their test scores using the printed texts,

and lastly, their test scores using the non-printed texts.

Findings

Based on the results of the data gathered, the following are the major

findings of the study.

 54

1. The respondents’ preferences for printed and non-printed texts fall

under the same descriptive equivalent “Sometimes”. This shows that all

respondents both have the same degree of preference for printed and non-

printed reading materials.

2. The respondents are significantly aware of the advantages and

disadvantages of technology-enabled learning; however, they still have a lot

to learn and explore on its other effects in their study as time goes on.

3. There is no significant difference in the test scores of the learners

when subjected to printed and non-printed texts. Furthermore, there is

weak evidence against the null hypothesis which leads us to conclude that

there is no significant difference in the test scores of the learners when

subjected to printed and non-printed texts.

4. Based on these results, it shows that there is a significant need to

develop the reading and comprehension skills of the learners. As there are a

large number of respondents who failed to achieve the upper half of the

scoring scale or the “Instructional” Comprehension Level.

Conclusion

In the light of the results and findings, this study concludes that

pupil’s preference in the instructional material is parallelly significant to her

test scores.
 55

Recommendations

In the view of the findings and conclusion of the study, the following

recommendations were drawn:

To the Teachers.

Conduct another research on how to develop and master the respondents

reading and comprehension skills and tailor fit it to the students learning

needs and styles to increase learning competency achievement.

To the Students.

The proposed English reading and comprehension program enhancement

should be implemented and adopted by the teachers to make students

aware on the ways to encourage students to read more thus making

learning fun and enjoyable process.

To the School.

Supplementary reading and comprehension activity materials should be

provided and as much as activities can possibly be conducted in their

homes as part of enhancement activities outside of the learning spaces in

school.
 56

To the Future Teachers.

Further studies should also be considered the development of more valid

test materials to determine their reading and comprehension skills. It can

also help in the development of new strategies which will come in handy in

the field of purpose.