International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 5 (May 2025), Pages: 242-254

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Electronic differentiated instruction as a remedial strategy to enhance the reading skills of frustration-level readers

 Author(s): 

 Bon Eric A. Besonia 1, *, Julie Anne S. Arabia 1, Regine P. Babas 2, Aicee N. Luena 2, Rossandrew B. Villaruel 3, Carmelie Grace D. Daquin 3, Mary Ann L. Decrepito 3, Kaye C. Jardenil 1, Cristy Mae B. Baclagon 1, Shiela Mae H. Espora 1, Marieth Flor M. Bernardez 1, Vincent G. Nobleta 1, Myla Jane V. Besonia 4, John Michael G. Galagala 5

 Affiliation(s):

  1College of Education, Northern Iloilo State University, Iloilo, Philippines
  2Estancia National High School, Estancia, Philippines
  3College of Education, Arts and Sciences, Capiz State University, Capiz, Philippines
  4College of Information and Computing Studies, Northern Iloilo State University, Iloilo, Philippines
  5Bayabas Elementary School, Cagayan de Oro, Philippines

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8709-8359

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.05.023

 Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of electronic differentiated instruction as a support strategy to improve the reading skills of students who struggle with reading. An experimental design was used, involving 100 Grade 7 students identified as frustration-level readers using the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI). These students were randomly divided into a control group and an experimental group. The experimental group received electronic differentiated instruction, while the control group received traditional reading instruction. For two months, the intervention used digital tools such as mobile apps, interactive videos, and gamified presentations. Pre-test results showed that both groups were at the frustration level. After the intervention, both groups improved to the instructional level, but the experimental group achieved significantly higher and more consistent reading scores. The findings suggest that electronic differentiated instruction can provide personalized, interactive, and flexible learning experiences that meet individual student needs. The study recommends including this approach in literacy programs to improve reading skills and suggests combining it with traditional methods for better results. Future studies should examine its long-term effects, use in different settings, and the importance of teacher training for effective implementation.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Reading instruction, Differentiated learning, Electronic intervention, Student performance, Literacy development

 Article history

 Received 14 January 2025, Received in revised form 3 May 2025, Accepted 19 May 2025

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment. 

  Compliance with ethical standards

  Ethical considerations

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Permission was obtained from the school principal, LAN coordinators, and teachers. Informed consent was secured from parents or guardians, and assent was obtained from the student participants. Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality was maintained throughout. The study did not pose any harm to the participants, and their right to withdraw at any time was respected.

  Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Besonia BEA, Arabia JAS, Babas RP, Luena AN, Villaruel RB, Daquin CGD, Decrepito MAL, Jardenil KC, Baclagon CMB, Espora SMH, Bernardez MFM, Nobleta VG, Besonia MJV, and Galagala JMG (2025). Electronic differentiated instruction as a remedial strategy to enhance the reading skills of frustration-level readers. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(5): 242-254

  Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

  No Figure

 Tables

  Table 1  Table 2  Table 3

----------------------------------------------   

 References (111)

  1. Abbas J, Aman J, Nurunnabi M, and Bano S (2019). The impact of social media on learning behavior for sustainable education: Evidence of students from selected universities in Pakistan. Sustainability, 11(6): 1683.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061683    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmadi DMR (2018). The use of technology in English language learning: A literature review. International Journal of Research in English Education, 3(2): 115-125.  https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.3.2.115    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alamri H, Lowell V, Watson W, and Watson SL (2020). Using personalized learning as an instructional approach to motivate learners in online higher education: Learner self-determination and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3): 322-352.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1728449    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alamri HA, Watson S, and Watson W (2021). Learning technology models that support personalization within blended learning environments in higher education. TechTrends, 65(1): 62-78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00530-3    [Google Scholar]
  5. Alsuwat S and Young JR (2016). Meta-analysis of the effects of traditional versus technology-based instruction on reading comprehension of EFL students. EFL Journal, 1(3): 189-202.  https://doi.org/10.21462/eflj.v1i3.18    [Google Scholar]
  6. Amendum SJ, Conradi K, and Hiebert E (2018). Does text complexity matter in the elementary grades? A research synthesis of text difficulty and elementary students' reading fluency and comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 30: 121-151.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9398-2    [Google Scholar]
  7. Arguel A, Lockyer L, Lipp OV, Lodge JM, and Kennedy G (2017). Inside out: Detecting learners' confusion to improve interactive digital learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(4): 526-551.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116674732    [Google Scholar]
  8. Autio E, Mudambi R, and Yoo Y (2021). Digitalization and globalization in a turbulent world: Centrifugal and centripetal forces. Global Strategy Journal, 11(1): 3-16.  https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1396    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bao W (2020). COVID‐19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2): 113-115.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191    [Google Scholar] PMid:32510042 PMCid:PMC7262082
  10. Baron LS, Hogan TP, Schechter RL, Hook PE, and Brooke EC (2019). Can educational technology effectively differentiate instruction for reader profiles? Reading and Writing, 32(9): 2327-2352.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09949-4    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergdahl N (2022). Engagement and disengagement in online learning. Computers and Education, 188: 104561.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104561    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bingham AJ, Pane JF, Steiner ED, and Hamilton LS (2018). Ahead of the curve: Implementation challenges in personalized learning school models. Educational Policy, 32(3): 454-489.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904816637688    [Google Scholar]
  13. Boelens R, Voet M, and De Wever B (2018). The design of blended learning in response to student diversity in higher education: Instructors' views and use of differentiated instruction in blended learning. Computers and Education, 120: 197-212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.009    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bondie RS, Dahnke C, and Zusho A (2019). How does changing "one-size-fits-all" to differentiated instruction affect teaching? Review of Research in Education, 43(1): 336-362.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821130    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brevik LM (2019). Explicit reading strategy instruction or daily use of strategies? Studying the teaching of reading comprehension through naturalistic classroom observation in English L2. Reading and Writing, 32(9): 2281-2310.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09951-w    [Google Scholar]
  16. Brevik LM, Gunnulfsen AE, and Renzulli JS (2018). Student teachers' practice and experience with differentiated instruction for students with higher learning potential. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71: 34-45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.003    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chee KN, Yahaya N, and Ibrahim NH (2018). Factors of students' performance based on cognitive level in a mobile learning environment. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 12(2): 190-212.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2018.10010754    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen CM, Li MC, and Chen TC (2020). A web-based collaborative reading annotation system with gamification mechanisms to improve reading performance. Computers and Education, 144: 103697.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103697    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cheung AC and Slavin RE (2013). Effects of educational technology applications on reading outcomes for struggling readers: A best‐evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3): 277-299.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.50    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chodkiewicz AR and Boyle C (2017). Positive psychology school‐based interventions: A reflection on current success and future directions. Review of Education, 5(1): 60-86.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3080    [Google Scholar]
  21. Clapper TC (2015). Cooperative-based learning and the zone of proximal development. Simulation and Gaming, 46(2): 148-158.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878115569044    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cohen J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd Edition, Routledge, New York, USA.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587    [Google Scholar]
  23. Colicol FL and Sali-Latif FK (2023). Parental occupation, social class, and school choice in southern Philippines: Their implications to educational public-private partnership vis-à-vis the K-12 SHS voucher program. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(6): 345-369.  https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.6.19    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dack H (2018). Structuring teacher candidate learning about differentiated instruction through coursework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69: 62-74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.09.017    [Google Scholar]
  25. Delgado DA, Lambert BS, Boutris N, McCulloch PC, Robbins AB, Moreno MR, and Harris JD (2018). Validation of digital visual analog scale pain scoring with a traditional paper-based visual analog scale in adults. JAAOS Global Research and Reviews, 2(3): e088.  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-17-00088    [Google Scholar] PMid:30211382 PMCid:PMC6132313
  26. Dewan M, Murshed M, and Lin F (2019). Engagement detection in online learning: A review. Smart Learning Environments, 6: 1.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0080-z    [Google Scholar]
  27. Dobber M, Zwart R, Tanis M, and van Oers B (2017). Literature review: The role of the teacher in inquiry-based education. Educational Research Review, 22: 194-214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.002    [Google Scholar]
  28. El-Sabagh HA (2021). Adaptive e-learning environment based on learning styles and its impact on development students' engagement. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18: 53.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00289-4    [Google Scholar]
  29. Emir G and Yangın-Ekşi G (2024). The role of telecollaboration in English language teacher education: A systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 11: 3.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00290-0    [Google Scholar]
  30. Errabo DD, Dela Rosa A, and Gonzales LJM (2024). Optimizing differentiated podcasts to promote students' self-regulation and engagement, self-efficacy and performance in asynchronous learning. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching and Learning, 17(2): 368-390.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-02-2024-0039    [Google Scholar]
  31. Estaiteyeh M and DeCoito I (2024). Technology-enhanced differentiated instruction in STEM education: Teacher candidates' development and curation of learning resources. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 24(3): 291-312.  https://doi.org/10.70725/799249unduds    [Google Scholar]
  32. Flaugnacco E, Lopez L, Terribili C, Montico M, Zoia S, and Schön D (2015). Music training increases phonological awareness and reading skills in developmental dyslexia: A randomized control trial. PLOS ONE, 10(9): e0138715.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138715    [Google Scholar] PMid:26407242 PMCid:PMC4583182
  33. Förster N, Kawohl E, and Souvignier E (2018). Short-and long-term effects of assessment-based differentiated reading instruction in general education on reading fluency and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 56: 98-109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.04.009    [Google Scholar]
  34. Freiermuth MR and Ito M (2022). Battling with books: The gamification of an EFL extensive reading class. Simulation and Gaming, 53(1): 22-55.  https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781211061858    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gambrell LB (2015). Getting students hooked on the reading habit. The Reading Teacher, 69(3): 259-263.  https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1423    [Google Scholar]
  36. Geletu GM and Mihiretie DM (2024). The effects of primary school teachers' professional development activities on differentiated instructional practices and possibilities of elevating students' learning engagement. Education 3-13, 52(8): 1222-1237.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2022.2143722    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gilakjani AP and Sabouri NB (2016). How can students improve their reading comprehension skill. Journal of Studies in Education, 6(2): 229-240.  https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v6i2.9201    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gkofa P (2017). Promoting social justice and enhancing educational success: Suggestions from twenty educationally successful Roma in Greece. The Urban Review, 49(3): 443-462.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-016-0393-6    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gligorea I, Cioca M, Oancea R, Gorski AT, Gorski H, and Tudorache P (2023). Adaptive learning using artificial intelligence in e-learning: A literature review. Education Sciences, 13(12): 1216.  https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121216    [Google Scholar]
  40. Graham S, Liu X, Aitken A, Ng C, Bartlett B, Harris KR, and Holzapfel J (2018). Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: A meta‐analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3): 279-304.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.194    [Google Scholar]
  41. Haleem A, Javaid M, Qadri MA, and Suman R (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3: 275-285.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004    [Google Scholar]
  42. Halkiopoulos C and Gkintoni E (2024). Leveraging AI in e-learning: Personalized learning and adaptive assessment through cognitive neuropsychology: A systematic analysis. Electronics, 13(18): 3762.  https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13183762    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hall TE, Cohen N, Vue G, and Ganley P (2015). Addressing learning disabilities with UDL and technology: Strategic reader. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(2): 72-83.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714544375    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hameed M, Dilshad M, and Rasool T (2024). Use of differentiated instruction at special education schools: Teachers' perspective. Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 12(2): 2206-2217.  https://doi.org/10.52131/pjhss.2024.v12i2.2401    [Google Scholar]
  45. Haw JY, King RB, and Trinidad JER (2021). Need supportive teaching is associated with greater reading achievement: What the Philippines can learn from PISA 2018. International Journal of Educational Research, 110: 101864.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101864    [Google Scholar]
  46. Haymon C and Wilson A (2020). Differentiated reading instruction with technology for advanced middle school students' reading achievement. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 10(1): 70-89.  https://doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2020.10.1.05    [Google Scholar]
  47. Heilporn G, Lakhal S, and Bélisle M (2021). An examination of teachers' strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18: 25.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00260-3    [Google Scholar] PMid:34805484 PMCid:PMC8591686
  48. Henriksen D, Richardson C, and Mehta R (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking skills and Creativity, 26: 140-153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.10.001    [Google Scholar]
  49. Heyne D, Gren-Landell M, Melvin G, and Gentle-Genitty C (2019). Differentiation between school attendance problems: Why and how? Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 26(1): 8-34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.03.006    [Google Scholar]
  50. Hwang GJ, Chen MRA, Sung HY, and Lin MH (2019). Effects of integrating a concept mapping‐based summarization strategy into flipped learning on students' reading performances and perceptions in Chinese courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5): 2703-2719.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12708    [Google Scholar]
  51. Jaeger EL (2024). The potential for common core and response to intervention as intersecting initiatives: Supporting readers who struggle with high-level standards. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 40(2): 87-102.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2023.2172496    [Google Scholar]
  52. Jamshidifarsani H, Garbaya S, Lim T, Blazevic P, and Ritchie JM (2019). Technology-based reading intervention programs for elementary grades: An analytical review. Computers and Education, 128: 427-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.003    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kantar LD, Ezzeddine S, and Rizk U (2020). Rethinking clinical instruction through the zone of proximal development. Nurse Education Today, 95: 104595.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104595    [Google Scholar] PMid:33035910
  54. Karatza Z (2019). Information and communication technology (ICT) as a tool of differentiated instruction: An informative intervention and a comparative study on educators' views and extent of ICT use. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 9(1): 8-15.  https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2019.9.1.1165    [Google Scholar]
  55. Karst K, Bonefeld M, Dotzel S, Fehringer BC, and Steinwascher M (2022). Data-based differentiated instruction: The impact of standardized assessment and aligned teaching material on students' reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 79: 101597.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101597    [Google Scholar]
  56. Khalil MK and Elkhider IA (2016). Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective instruction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2): 147-156.  https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00138.2015    [Google Scholar] PMid:27068989
  57. Kim JS, Hemphill L, Troyer M, Thomson JM, Jones SM, LaRusso MD, and Donovan S (2017). Engaging struggling adolescent readers to improve reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(3): 357-382.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.171    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kótay-Nagy A (2022). Primary school EFL teachers' practices and views of technology-enhanced differentiated instruction: A pilot interview study. Working Papers in Language Pedagogy, 17: 45-65.  https://doi.org/10.61425/wplp.2022.17.45.65    [Google Scholar]
  59. Krishan IQ and Al-Rsa'i MS (2023). The effect of technology-oriented differentiated instruction on motivation to learn science. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1): 961-982.  https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16153a    [Google Scholar]
  60. Le HV, Nguyen TAND, Le DHN, Nguyen PU, and Nguyen TTA (2024). Unveiling critical reading strategies and challenges: A mixed-methods study among English major students in a Vietnamese higher education institution. Cogent Education, 11(1): 2326732.  https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2326732    [Google Scholar]
  61. Lee E and Hannafin MJ (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4): 707-734.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5    [Google Scholar]
  62. Lee G and Wallace A (2018). Flipped learning in the English as a foreign language classroom: Outcomes and perceptions. TESOL Quarterly: Quarterly Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal, 52(1): 62-84.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.372    [Google Scholar]
  63. Li X and Chu SKW (2021). Exploring the effects of gamification pedagogy on children's reading: A mixed‐method study on academic performance, reading‐related mentality and behaviors, and sustainability. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1): 160-178.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13057    [Google Scholar]
  64. Liew J, Erbeli F, Nyanamba JM, and Li D (2020). Pathways to reading competence: Emotional self-regulation, literacy contexts, and embodied learning processes. Reading Psychology, 41(7): 633-659.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1783145    [Google Scholar]
  65. Lindeblad E, Nilsson S, Gustafson S, and Svensson I (2017). Assistive technology as reading interventions for children with reading impairments with a one-year follow-up. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 12(7): 713-724.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2016.1253116    [Google Scholar] PMid:27924656
  66. Lindner KT, Alnahdi GH, Wahl S, and Schwab S (2019). Perceived differentiation and personalization teaching approaches in inclusive classrooms: Perspectives of students and teachers. Frontiers in Education, 4: 58.  https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00058    [Google Scholar]
  67. Liu S, Gao S, and Ji X (2023). Beyond borders: Exploring the impact of augmented reality on intercultural competence and L2 learning motivation in EFL learners. Frontiers in Psychology, 14: 1234905.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1234905    [Google Scholar] PMid:37860297 PMCid:PMC10582267
  68. Lonati S, Quiroga BF, Zehnder C, and Antonakis J (2018). On doing relevant and rigorous experiments: Review and recommendations. Journal of Operations Management, 64: 19-40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2018.10.003    [Google Scholar]
  69. Magableh IS and Abdullah A (2022). Differentiated instruction effectiveness on the secondary stage students' reading comprehension proficiency level in Jordan. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 11(1): 459-466.  https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i1.21971    [Google Scholar]
  70. Mahoney J and Hall C (2017). Using technology to differentiate and accommodate students with disabilities. E-Learning and Digital Media, 14(5): 291-303.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753017751517    [Google Scholar]
  71. Matuk CF, Linn MC, and Eylon BS (2015). Technology to support teachers using evidence from student work to customize technology-enhanced inquiry units. Instructional Science, 43: 229-257.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9338-1    [Google Scholar]
  72. McKnight K, O'Malley K, Ruzic R, Horsley MK, Franey JJ, and Bassett K (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3): 194-211.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856    [Google Scholar]
  73. Meng S (2023). Enhancing teaching and learning: Aligning instructional practices with education quality standards. Research and Advances in Education, 2(7): 17-31.  https://doi.org/10.56397/RAE.2023.07.04    [Google Scholar]
  74. Montgomery D (2022). Integrating technology with instructional frameworks to support all learners in inclusive classrooms. The Open/Technology in Education, Society, and Scholarship Association Journal, 2(2): 1-16.  https://doi.org/10.18357/otessaj.2022.2.2.31    [Google Scholar]
  75. Morgan H (2014). Maximizing student success with differentiated learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87(1): 34-38.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2013.832130    [Google Scholar]
  76. Mugendawala H and Muijs D (2020). Educational process factors for effective education in resource-constrained countries: A multilevel analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(3): 445-467.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2019.1702562    [Google Scholar]
  77. Najemi S, Ardiasih LS, and Sundari H (2024). The effectiveness of google sites in differentiated instruction to increase students' learning motivation and reading comprehension on English narrative texts. ELT-Lectura, 11(2): 110-122.  https://doi.org/10.31849/elt-lectura.v11i2.21768    [Google Scholar]
  78. Neitzel AJ, Lake C, Pellegrini M, and Slavin RE (2022). A synthesis of quantitative research on programs for struggling readers in elementary schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(1): 149-179.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.379    [Google Scholar]
  79. Nevo E, Brande S, and Shaul S (2016). The effects of two different reading acceleration training programs on improving reading skills of second graders. Reading Psychology, 37(4): 533-546.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2015.1066911    [Google Scholar]
  80. Nicholas M, Veresov N, and Clark JC (2021). Guided reading–Working within a child's zone of proximal development. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 30: 100530.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100530    [Google Scholar]
  81. Nordström T, Nilsson S, Gustafson S, and Svensson I (2018). Assistive technology applications for students with reading difficulties: Special education teacher’s experiences and perceptions. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 14(8): 798-808.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2018.1499142    [Google Scholar] PMid:30239256
  82. Peters MT, Hebbecker K, and Souvignier E (2022). Effects of providing teachers with tools for implementing assessment-based differentiated reading instruction in second grade. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 47(3): 157-169.  https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084211014926    [Google Scholar]
  83. Pozas M, Letzel V, and Schneider C (2020). Teachers and differentiated instruction: Exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20(3): 217-230.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12481    [Google Scholar]
  84. Putri RDF, Hadi MS, and Mutiarani M (2021). The efficacy of Instagram @Gurukumrd as the media in improving students’ reading skills. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 9(3): 350-355.  https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v9i3.3795    [Google Scholar]
  85. Puzio K, Colby GT, and Algeo-Nichols D (2020). Differentiated literacy instruction: Boondoggle or best practice? Review of Educational Research, 90(4): 459-498.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933536    [Google Scholar]
  86. Reid JM (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly: Quarterly Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal, 21(1): 87-111.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3586356    [Google Scholar]
  87. Roddy C, Amiet DL, Chung J, Holt C, Shaw L, McKenzie S, Garivaldis F, Lodge JM, and Mundy ME (2017). Applying best practice online learning, teaching, and support to intensive online environments: An integrative review. Frontiers in Education, 2: 59.  https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00059    [Google Scholar]
  88. Roskos K, Brueck J, and Lenhart L (2017). An analysis of e-book learning platforms: Affordances, architecture, functionality and analytics. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 12: 37-45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.01.003    [Google Scholar]
  89. Sabag-Shushan T and Katzir T (2024). Emotional understanding in reading comprehension at the text, task, and reader levels: a comparison of diverse struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 37(8): 1905-1929.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10447-x    [Google Scholar]
  90. Sabri SM, Ismail I, Annuar N, Rahman NRA, Abd Hamid NZ, and Abd Mutalib H (2024). A conceptual analysis of technology integration in classroom instruction towards enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes. Integration, 9(55): 750-769.  https://doi.org/10.35631/IJEPC.955051    [Google Scholar]
  91. Sajja R, Sermet Y, Cikmaz M, Cwiertny D, and Demir I (2024). Artificial intelligence-enabled intelligent assistant for personalized and adaptive learning in higher education. Information, 15(10): 596.  https://doi.org/10.3390/info15100596    [Google Scholar]
  92. Scammacca NK, Roberts GJ, Cho E, Williams KJ, Roberts G, Vaughn SR, and Carroll M (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86(3): 756-800.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316652942    [Google Scholar] PMid:28529386 PMCid:PMC5436613
  93. Shaunessy-Dedrick E, Evans L, Ferron J, and Lindo M (2015). Effects of differentiated reading on elementary students’ reading comprehension and attitudes toward reading. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(2): 91-107.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214568718    [Google Scholar]
  94. Silinskas G, Pakarinen E, Niemi P, Lerkkanen MK, Poikkeus AM, and Nurmi JE (2016). The effectiveness of increased support in reading and its relationship to teachers' affect and children's motivation. Learning and Individual Differences, 45: 53-64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.025    [Google Scholar]
  95. Smale-Jacobse AE, Meijer A, Helms-Lorenz M, and Maulana R (2019). Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 2366.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366    [Google Scholar] PMid:31824362 PMCid:PMC6883934
  96. Spear-Swerling L (2019). Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(3): 201-211.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917750160    [Google Scholar]
  97. Suggate SP (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1): 77-96.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414528540    [Google Scholar] PMid:24704662
  98. Suprayogi MN, Valcke M, and Godwin R (2017). Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67: 291-301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.020    [Google Scholar]
  99. Supriadi U, Supriyadi T, and Abdussalam A (2022). Al-Qur'an literacy: A strategy and learning steps in improving Al-Qur'an reading skills through action research. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(1): 323-339.  https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.1.18    [Google Scholar]
  100. Suryati I and Ratih K (2024). How can teachers tailor success? Innovative strategies for content, process, and product in EFL classrooms. Voices of English Language Education Society, 8(1): 150-162.  https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v8i1.24451    [Google Scholar]
  101. Tammelin-Laine T and Martin M (2015). The simultaneous development of receptive skills in an orthographically transparent second language. Writing Systems Research, 7(1): 39-57.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2014.943148    [Google Scholar]
  102. Taş E (2024). Data literacy education through university-industry collaboration. Information and Learning Sciences, 125(5/6): 389-405.  https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-06-2023-0077    [Google Scholar]
  103. Valiandes S (2015). Evaluating the impact of differentiated instruction on literacy and reading in mixed ability classrooms: Quality and equity dimensions of education effectiveness. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 45: 17-26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.02.005    [Google Scholar]
  104. Wang Y (2023). Enhancing English reading skills and self-regulated learning through online collaborative flipped classroom: A comparative study. Frontiers in Psychology, 14: 1255389.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1255389    [Google Scholar] PMid:37908818 PMCid:PMC10613993
  105. Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca N, Gatlin B, Walker MA, and Capin P (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28: 551-576.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7    [Google Scholar] PMid:27594774 PMCid:PMC5007082
  106. Wigfield A, Gladstone JR, and Turci L (2016). Beyond cognition: Reading motivation and reading comprehension. Child Development Perspectives, 10(3): 190-195.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12184    [Google Scholar] PMid:27617030 PMCid:PMC5014370
  107. Wulandari CE, Firdaus FA, and Saifulloh F (2024). Promoting inclusivity through technology: A literature review in educational settings. Journal of Learning and Technology, 3(1): 19-28.  https://doi.org/10.33830/jlt.v3i1.9731    [Google Scholar]
  108. Xia Y, Shin SY, and Kim JC (2024). Cross-cultural intelligent language learning system (CILS): Leveraging AI to facilitate language learning strategies in cross-cultural communication. Applied Sciences, 14: 5651.  https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135651    [Google Scholar]
  109. Yan D and Li G (2024). Students' internal driving force or environment external driving force? Configuring digital learning power heterogeneity in a smart education environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10): 6509-6533.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2266496    [Google Scholar]
  110. Yusnan M, Iye R, and Abbas A (2022). Demonstration methods to improve intensive reading skills in 3rd-grade students. International Journal of Learning Reformation in Elementary Education, 1(02): 61-69.  https://doi.org/10.56741/ijlree.v1i02.96    [Google Scholar]
  111. Zoski JL, Nellenbach KM, and Erickson KA (2018). Using morphological strategies to help adolescents decode, spell, and comprehend big words in science. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 40(1): 57-64.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740117752636    [Google Scholar]