A Causal-Comparative Analysis on the Integration of Bionic Fonts in Science Reading Materials

Jason Laruap Sardido, Andrey Ibarbia Sanico, John Paul Lebosada Rubin, Althea Batuigas Villarino, Jesyl Aloba Cabahug, Jenalyn Carungay Heredia, Shahanie May Cabrillos, Aida Marie Bañares Lati, Marchee Tabotabo Picardal

Abstract


Abstract: A Causal-Comparative Analysis on the Integration of Bionic Fonts in Science Reading Materials. Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate the effect of Bionic fonts on reading speed and comprehension levels among Filipino 10th grade students. Methods: The study involved 490 Filipino 10th graders, utilizing Mann-Whitney U-tests for quantitative analysis and thematic analysis for student attitudes towards Bionic fonts. Findings: The study found comparable reading speed and comprehension levels in Bionic and Traditional font groups, with most participants categorized as "Slow Readers" with "Instructional" or "Frustration" levels. The Mann-Whitney U-tests also showed no significant differences in reading speed or comprehension. Conclusion: The findings called into question previous claims about the consistent benefits of Bionic Fonts, highlighting the necessity of tailored font designs for optimal reading experiences, especially in scientific contexts.

 

Keywords: bionic fonts, bionic reading, reading speed, reading comprehension, science educational materials.


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23960/jpp.v14.i1.202405


Full Text:

PDF

References


Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using

thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Beier, S., & Oderkerk, C. (2021). The

effect of age and font on reading ability. Visible Language, 53(3).

Bernard, J., Kumar, G., Junge, J., &

Chung, S. T. L. (2013). The effect of letter-stroke boldness on reading speed in central and peripheral vision. Vision Research, 84, 33–42.

Doyon, D. (2022a). Does bionic reading

actually work? Test for yourself! Readwise Blog.

Doyon, D. (2022). Does bionic reading

actually work? We timed over 2,000 readers and the results might surprise you. Readwise Blog.

Gencoglu, B., Helms-Lorenz, M.,

Maulana, R., & Jansen E.P.W.A. (2021). A conceptual framework for understanding variability in student perceptions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.

Johnson, R. B., de Waal, C., Stefurak, T.,

& Hildebrand, D. L. (2017). Understanding the philosophical positions of classical and neopragmatists for mixed methods research. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(S2), 63–86.

Kuster, S. M., van Weerdenburg, M.,

Gompel, M., & Bosman, A. M. T. (2018). Dyslexie font does not benefit reading in children with or without dyslexia. Annals of dyslexia, 68(1), 25–42.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume I): what students know and can do. PISA. OECD Publishing, Paris.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development (2023). PISA 2022 results (volume I): the state of learning and equity in education, PISA. OECD Publishing, Paris.

Palmén, H., Gilbert, M. D., & Crossland,

D. S. (2023). How bold can we be? The impact of adjusting font grade on readability in light and dark polarities. CHI ’23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Picardal, M. T., & Paño, J.D. (2018).

Facilitating instruction of central dogma of molecular biology through contextualization. Journal of Teacher Education and Research, 13(2), 118.

Picardal, M. T. (2019). Does conceptual

change process of instruction promote scientific understanding of biological evolution? Liceo Journal of Higher Education Research, 15(2).

Picardal, M. T., & Sanchez, J. M. P.

(2022). Effectiveness of contextualization in science instruction to enhance science literacy in the Philippines: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(1), 140–156.

Yu, X., & Khazanchi, D. (2017). Using

embedded mixed methods in studying is phenomenon: risks and practical remedies with an illustration. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 41, 18–42.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Copyright (c) 2024 Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


View My Stats

Creative Commons License
The copyright is reserved to The Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif that is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.