Content uploaded by Noor Aini Ahmad
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Noor Aini Ahmad on May 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Psychological Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 07, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
7432
Need Analysis on Improving Reading Skills
Using Interactive Kit Media Among Low
Achievers
Noor Aini Ahmad
1
,Khoo Yin Yin
Abstract: This feasibility study intend to develop an interactive kit media to help low achievers in reading activites.
Interactive kit media tools will be an appropriate learning tools to enhance reading skills among low achievers. 46
participants who teach reading skills to low achievers were selected through random sampling technique to answer the
feasibility questionnaire. Findings show that there were no significant difference in requirements to develop interactive
kit media for low achievers based on participants' education levels with a value of [t = 2.64, p = .749 (p> .05)]. Ho1
indicates that low achievers need interactive kit media to learn reading skills. Findings also show that there were no
significant difference in the content of interactive kit media by education levels with [t = -1.00, p = .752 (p> .05)]. This
means that graduate and non-graduate teachers have the same opinion on the proposed interactive kit media and Ho2
was accepted. MANOVA results revealed a significant difference between participants' education level with low
achievers [F(1) = 6.98, p= 0.01(p< 0.05)] and interactive kit media [F (1) = 1.00, p = .323 (p> 0.05)], Pillai’s Trace
[F(2, 43.0)=5.95, p<0.5]. In conclusion, there is a strong need to develop an interactive kit media learning tools to
enhance reading skills among low achievers. This study recommends that low achievers need a better environment to
learn reading skills and interactive kit media which consist of interactive games, augmented reality cards and e-book
has a significant impact to improve their ability in accordance with Education 4.0.
Keywords: low achievers, reading skills, interactive kit media
I. INTRODUCTION
Successful remediation depends on specific terms used to describe their weaknesses or strength (Lancheros-Cuesta,
Carrillo-Ramos & Pavlich-Mariscal, 2019). Their needs can be identified and fulfilled by providing appropriate teaching and
learning materials according to their cognitive levels (Siti Barokah, Hasnah & Anuar, 2012). Struggling readers demonstrates
early reading problems due to lack of basic reading skills and obviously they are poor readers too (Young and Shin, 2019).
Abdul Rashid & Rashidah (2012) found that teaching aids had a significant impact in improving children achievement
especially in reading skills. According to Ahmad, Anis Fatima & Jeffry (2016); Ahmad, 2017). Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) accelerate children in learning reading skills and is suitable for daily teaching and learning.
Therefore, it is important to find out what are their needs and how teachers can assist them to improve their reading skills.
One type of support to assist low achievers to get involve in reading activities is interactive kit media.
II. BACKGROUND OF STUDY
1
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
*noor.aini@fpm.upsi.edu.my
International Journal of Psychological Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 07, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
7433
It is less known about the extent to which reading skills are implemented in classrooms (Walker & Stevens, 2017). Many
children experience difficulties in reading and writing (Kang, McKenna, Arden, & Ciullo, 2016). Children with learning
disabilities are heterogeneous with different diversity (Brina, Rampoldi, Rossetti, Penge, & Averna, 2018) and needs. They
typically manifest problems in reading skills (Kim, Bryant, Bryant, & Park, 2017) and they need individual screening (Ashraf
& Najam, 2014). Low achievers show difficulties and weaknesses in one or more of these distinct skills (Avitia, Pagirsky,
Courville, DeBiase, Knupp, & Ottone-Cross, 2017). Low achievers usually unable to think about the sound structure of words.
Thus, they need more opportunities in academic success and most of the time it closely related with having a well prepared
teachers who understand their strengths and welcome individual limitations they bring along to the classroom.
III. PROBLEM OF STATEMENT
Social studies instruction includes complex literacy skills and it requires teachers attention to support children in learning
(Ciullo & Dimino, 2017). Well trained teachers develop academic skills of students with reading difficulties (Lerkkanen,
Holopainen, Eklund & Aro, 2018). Teachers too need support to use a variety of pedagogical models as they are moving to
the direction of adopting student-centered approaches (Keskitalo, 2011). Teachers can use dynamic or interactive test to assess
children knowledge in a specific area by using scaffolding techniques or guided assistance (Wormald, Rogers & Vialle,
2015). They need to show passion and empathy for the children and make the teaching environment fun (Goh, 2019). Thus,
learning to read will be awaited by children if they are able to connect words they are trying to read with their real life
experiences. This can be accomplish with interactive kit media. It will be more enjoyable if teachers and parents can be with
them to learn and to explore the world of technology. The current study sought the answer to the following question: Does
low achievers needs interactive kit media in learning reading skills?
IV. LITERATURE REVIEW
Reading difficulties
Reading disability also preferred as dyslexia in recent years which refers to children who are having difficulty in acquiring
literacy skills (Shalaby, Khalil, Elkabariti, Mahmoud, Nada and Khattab, 2017). Reading is an important skill and remains
controversial on how reading skills or reading difficulties develop (Noor Z. Al Dahhan, Kirby & Munoz, 2016). Children
with reading difficulties encounter memory deficit and processing disorder that need intervention in both auditory and visual
modalities (Giménez, Ortiz, López-Zamora,Sánchez & Luque, 2017). Deficit in reading performance will lead them to be a
passive learner. Therefore, we need to develop more interactive kit media to attract and motivate them to get involved in
variety of cognitive and linguistic activities. A better understanding on the children needs and ability will be helpful towards
identification and remediation in reading.
Interactive Kit Media
In our daily life, many barriers still exist even with the use of ICT and due to this, some students are not able to participate
in learning activities (Ting-Fang Wu, Cheng-Ming Chen, Hui-Shan Lo, Yao-Ming Yeh & Ming-Chung Chen (2018). To
improve student outcomes in reading skills, they need to read with interest and attention (Hitchens & Tulloch, 2018; Ahmad
& Khoo, 2019). Many parents and teachers believe computer games can hold children’s attention (Ronimus, Kujala, Tolvanen
& Lyytinen, 2014). Gamification or interactive games obviously attract and improve children engagement in reading (Zeng,
Tang & Wang, 2017). It include graphics, audio clips, virtual items and artificial characters (Tang & Zhang, 2018) and
interactive multimedia also includes graphics, video, text, virtual reality, animation and many others (Ahmad, 2018; Ahmad,
& Rosmanizam, 2017)). The 21st century education is becoming more open-ended whereby children are being exposed to
more alternatives ways in learning (Chachila, Engkamatb, Sarkawic & Awang Rozaimi, 2015). As reading activities is a
International Journal of Psychological Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 07, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
7434
complex process and deficits in any cognitive ability will lead children to deficits in reading performance. Children that
demonstrate reading difficulties need more chances to be engage in reading activities using interactive kit media. Among the
limitations of this study is the number of words that need to be included in the application development as each student is
different in terms of their abilities. Words selection also need to be clarify and carefully selected for daily use purposes.
V. METHODOLOGY
46 Special Education teachers were selected randomly as participants to answer online questionnaire via Google forms.
All participants teach reading skills and low achievers in primary schools. This study employed survey as its research method.
The questionnaire has three parts and it uses Likert five rating scales. Content and face validity of the questionnaire showed
a strong value and high in quality. Data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance test (MANOVA). Before
performing the MANOVA, linearity, multivariate normality and homogeneity of variances were tested and it showed that
there are no serious violation of the assumptions. Thus, the MANOVA was performed.`
VI. FINDINGS
Table 1: Need Analysis Result on Requirements to Develop Interactive Kit Media for Low
Achievers based on Participants' Education Levels
Education levels
n
mean
SD
t-value
p
Graduate
43
4.27
.492
2.64
.749
Non graduate
3
3.50
.440
P<.05
Table 1 shows that there was no significant difference in requirements to develop interactive kit media for low achievers
based on participants' education levels with a value of [t = 2.64, p = .749 (p> .05)]. Thus, Ho1: there is no significant difference
between the requirements to develop interactive kit media for low achievers based on education level was accepted. This
indicates that low achievers need interactive kit media to learn reading skills.
Table 2: Need Analysis Result on Content of the Interactive Kit Media based on Participants’ Education
Levels
Education levels
n
mean
SD
t-value
p
Graduate
43
4.12
.509
-1.00
.752
Non graduate
3
4.42
.490
P<.05
Table 2 shows that there was no significant difference in the content of interactive kit media by education levels with [t =
-1.00, p = .752 (p> .05)]. This means that graduate and non-graduate teachers have the same opinion on the content of the
interactive kit media. Thus, Ho2: there was no significant difference in the content of the interactive kit media based on the
service group was accepted.
Ho3 There were no significant differences in mean of low achievers and interactive learning tools according to
participants' education level
Table 3: Box’s M Test Result for Low Achievers and Interactive Kit Media based on
Participants' Education Level
International Journal of Psychological Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 07, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
7435
Independent Variable
Box’s
M
F
df 1
df 2
p
Education level
3.501
.720
3
139.9
.542
P<.05
Table 3 shows the results of the Box’s M test on participants' education level. Findings found no significant differences
and covariance between low achievers and interactive kit media with participants' education level (F = .720, p = .542, p>
0.05). This means that low achievers and interactive kit media are homogeneous across participants' education level. Box's M
test showed insignificant results (p> 05). This indicates that the data comply with the covariance condition of the MANOVA
test, that the variance of the two dependent variables across independent variables is similar to the population.
Table 4: Levene Test Result for Low Achievers and Interactive Kit Media based on Participants Education
Level
Independent variable
Dependent variable
F
df 1
df 2
p
Participants education
level
Low achievers
.103
1
44
.749
Interactive kit media
.101
1
44
.752
P<.05
Table 4 shows the Levene test of variants and covariates for low achievers, p = .749 (p> 0.05) and interactive learning
tools, p = .752 (p> 0.05). Based on these results, there is a similar effect of education level with low achievers and interactive
kit media. It shows all variables met the assumptions that the MANOVA test can be perform (Pallant 2005).
Table 5: MANOVA Analysis of Differences in Low Achievers and Interactive Kit Media based
on Participants' Education Level
Effect
Pillai’s
Trace
F
Hypothesis df
Error df
p
Participants'
education level
.217
5.95
2
43.0
.005
P<.05
Table 5 shows the results of the MANOVA test conducted to determine whether there are differences in low achievers
and interactive kit media based on participants' education level. The findings show that there are significant differences in
overall low achievers and interactive kit media based on participants' education level differences. Values of these differences
were expressed using Pillai’s Trace = .217, F = 5.95 and p = .005, p <0.05. This indicates that the null hypothesis is rejected.
This means that there are significant differences in low achievers and interactive kit media based on participants level of
education.
VII. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
MANOVA results showed a significant difference between participants' education level with low achievers needs and
interactive media kit. Successful reading among low achievers requires language processing skills and also identification of
International Journal of Psychological Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 07, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
7436
words that assemble into messages. These findings correspond to Ting-Fang Wu, Cheng-Ming Chen, Hui-Shan Lo, Yao-Ming
Yeh & Ming-Chung Chen (2018). If they do not show outstanding in academic performance because of their reading
difficulties, a suitable intervention with interactive kit media need to be plan. These findings are in line with Ahmad (2019)
and Chachila, Engkamat, Sarkawic & Awang Rozaimi (2015). Low achievers who fail to acquire reading skills in their early
grades are more likely to struggle as they continue their schooling path.
VIII. CONCLUSION
To facilitate learning among low achievers, various ways in ICT can be integrate to stimulate learning and academic
improvement. Children need to employ different types of activities and knowledge while enjoying their reading activities.
Low achievers must gain information and get involved in learning by watching, listening and reading. This article coincides
with the aspirations of the education demands that ensure holistic and sustainable development.
Acknowledgements
This grant work was supported by The Malaysia Ministry of Higher Education, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI),
the Research Management and Innovation Centre of UPSI and the Faculty of Human Development, UPSI (through GPUBP
1/2019: 2019-0076-107-01 and FRGS/1/2019/SS04/UPSI/02/1)
IX. REFERENCES
1 Abdul Rasid Jamian, & Rashidah Baharom. (2012). The application of teaching aids and school supportive
factors in learning reading skill among the remedial students in under enrolment schools. Social and Behavioral
Sciences,35,187-194.
[1]. Ahmad, N. A., & Khoo, Y.Y. (2019). Using interactive media to support reading skills among
underachiever children. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 8(7), 81-88.
[2]. Ahmad, N. A., & Rosmanizam, S.C.L. (2017). Interactive multimedia activities using augmented reality
to promote reading and writing skills amongst young children. Journal of Teaching and Education, 6(2), 193-198.
[3]. Ahmad, N. A., Savugathali, A. F., & Jeffry, Y. (2018). Engaging and facilitating learning language skills
via multimedia systems amongst at-risk students. Journal of Teaching and Education, 5(2), 87-94.
[4]. Ahmad, N.A. (2017). Engaging and facilitating language skills using augmented reality as a medium of
learning and teaching. Journal of Teaching and Education, 06(02), 133-138.
[5]. Ahmad, N.A. (2018). Learning literacy using augmented reality (LitAR): an application of learning
through expository, social and technical-scientific using augmented reality as learning strategy. International Journal
of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(11), 1772-1778.
[6]. Ashraf, F., & Najam, N. (2014). Validation of learning disabilities checklist in public sector
schools of pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 29(2), 223-244.
[7]. Avitia, M., Pagirsky, M., Courville, T., DeBiase, E., Knupp, T., & Ottone-Cross, K. (2017).
Differences in errors between students with language and reading disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 35(1-2), 149 –154.
[8]. Brina, D.C., Rampoldi, P., Rossetti, S., Penge, R., & Averna, R. (2018). Reading and writing skills
in children with specific learning disabilities with and without developmental coordination disorder. Motor Control,
22(4), 391–405.
International Journal of Psychological Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 07, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
7437
[9]. Chachil, K., Engkamat, A., Sarkawi, A., & Awang Rozaimi Awang Shuib. Interactive multimedia-
based mobile application for learning Iban language (I-MMAPS for learning Iban language). Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 167, 267-273.
[10]. Ciullo, S., & Dimino, J. A. (2017). The strategic use of scaffolded instruction in social studies
interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3), 155–165.
[11]. Giménez, A, Ortiz, A, López-Zamora, M, Sánchez, A., & Luque. J.L. (2017). Parents' reading
history as an indicator of risk for reading difficulties. Annal of Dyslexia, 67(3), 259-280.
[12]. Goh, P.S.C. (2019). Preschool teachers’ perspectives on using english language to teach. GEMA
online Journal of Language Studies, 19(4), 346-362.
[13]. Hitchens, M., & Tulloch, R. (2018). A gamification design for the classroom. Interactive
Technology and Smart Education, 15(1), 28-45.
[14]. Keskitalo, T. (2011). Teachers’ conceptions and their approaches to teaching in virtual reality and
simulation‐based learning environments. Teachers, Teaching Theory And Practice, 17(1), 131-147.
[15]. Kang, E.Y., McKenna, J.W., Arden, S., & Ciullo, S. (2016). Integrated reading and writing interventions
for students with learning disabilities: a review of the literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(1),
22–33.
[16]. Kim, M. K., Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., & Park, Y. (2017). A synthesis of interventions for improving
oral reading fluency of elementary students with learning disabilities. Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 61(2), 116-125.
[17]. Lancheros-Cuesta, D. J., Pontificia, A.C., & Lancheros-Cuesta, M. (2019). Evaluation of content
adaptation Case study with NeuroSky MindWave in children with learning difficulties. International Journal of Web
Information Systems, 15(4), 474-488.
[18]. Lerkkanen, M., K., Holopainen, L., Eklund, K., & Aro, M. (2018). Teachers’ ability to identify children at
early risk for reading difficulties in Grade 1. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(5), 497-509.
[19]. Noor Z. Al Dahhan, Kirby J.R., & Munoz, D.P. (2016). Understanding reading and reading difficulties
through naming speed tasks: bridging the gaps among neuroscience, cognition and education. AERA Open October-
December 2016, 2(4), 1-15.
[20]. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows.
3rd Edition. McGraw Hill Open University Press, New York.
[21]. Ronimus, M., Kujala, J., Tolvanen, A., & Lyytinen, H. (2014). Children’s engagement during digital game-
based learning of reading: the effects of time, rewards, and challenge. Computers & Education, 71, 237-246.
[22]. Shalaby Amani, Khalil Lobna, Elkabariti Rasha, Mahmoud Salma, Nada Maha, & Khattab Ahmed.
(2017). Reading difficulty in children: auditory and visual modalities’ affection. The Egyptian Journal of
Otolaryngology, 33(1), 89-93.
[23]. Siti Barokah Kasran, Hasnah Toran, & Anuar Md Amin. (2012). Issues and trends in remedial education:
what do the teachers say? Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1597-1604.
[24]. Tang, J., & Zhang, P. (2018). Exploring the relationships between gamification and motivational
needs in technology design, International Journal of Crowd Science, 3(1), 87-103.
International Journal of Psychological Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 07, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
7438
[25]. Wu, T. F., Chen, C. Ming., Lo, H. Shan., Yeh, Y. Ming., & Chen, M. C. (2018). Factors related to ICT
competencies for students with learning disabilities. Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 76-88.
[26]. Walker, M. A., & Stevens, E.A. (2017). Reading instruction for students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(1), 17-28.
[27]. Wormald, C., Rogers, K. B., & Vialle, W. (2015). A case study of giftedness and specific learning
disabilities: Bridging the two exceptionalities. Roeper Review, 37 (3), 124-138.
[28]. Young, K, E., & Shin, M. (2019). The contributions of reading fluency and decoding to reading
comprehension for struggling readers in fourth Grade. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35(3), 179-192.
[29]. Zeng, Z., Tang, J., & Wang, T. (2017). Motivation mechanism of gamification in crowdsourcing
projects. International Journal of Crowd Science, 1(1), 71-82.
