Development of a reading comprehension module improves English skills in Malaysian schoolers, indicating effective pedagogical strategies.
Reading comprehension is a crucial aspect of English language education, particularly in multilingual contexts like Malaysia. Despite ongoing reforms, many Malaysian schoolers continue to struggle with this skill. This study developed an English Reading Comprehension Module that incorporates localized, authentic texts to improve reading proficiency among upper primary schoolers. The module was developed using the Design and Development Research (DDR) approach. Its theoretical framework integrates four theories: Schema Theory, Barrett’s Taxonomy, Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory, and Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory. These theories guided the selection of texts, the scaffolding of comprehension tasks, and the alignment of cognitive demand with students’ developmental stages. The module comprises 60 authentic reading passages suitable for A1 High, A2 Low, and A2 Mid readers, aligned with the Revised Malaysian English Language Curriculum and CEFR descriptors. Barrett’s Reading Comprehension Taxonomy informed the design of literal, reorganization, and inferential comprehension questions. Expert validation confirmed 99% content accuracy, while KR-20 reliability scores ranged from 0.820 to 0.918, indicating strong internal consistency. The module was trialed with 260 Year 5 students across three schools from both urban and rural contexts. Results showed a significant improvement in participants’ pre-test and post-test scores, indicating the effectiveness of the reading module in improving comprehension skills. Pedagogically, the study affirms the value of authentic, contextually relevant materials in fostering engagement and comprehension and supporting the CEFR-aligned direction of Malaysia’s English Language Education roadmap. Both print and online versions of the RCM are available to support self-paced learning and blended classroom instruction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kuek et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: