Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study compared the reading comprehension performance of Grade 4 learners using printed and digital English reading materials and examined their perceptions of both formats. A quantitative within-respondent comparative design was employed involving 60 Grade 4 learners from Tadyokong Elementary School, Ifugao, Philippines. Data were collected through Google Forms, comprising paired reading comprehension scores and eight perception statements rated on a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics, the Shapiro–Wilk normality test, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to analyze the data. Results showed that learners obtained a slightly higher mean comprehension score using digital materials (M = 7.18, SD = 1.58) than printed materials (M = 6.95, SD = 1.77), with a mean difference of 0.23 points. However, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed no statistically significant difference between the two formats (W = 510, p = .289). Learners expressed generally positive perceptions of both formats, with digital reading receiving the highest preference rating (M = 3.90, SD = 0.82). The findings indicated that neither format demonstrated a statistically significant advantage in reading comprehension among the participating learners, despite a slight descriptive difference favoring digital materials. The study suggests that both printed and digital reading resources can be incorporated into Grade 4 English instruction, with material selection guided by learners' needs, reading objectives, and demonstrated comprehension rather than format preference alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marife T. Gawi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: