A Systematic Review of the ARGRA Model for Technology-Based Reading Diagnosis in Elementary Education
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Accurate reading assessment is fundamental to elementary school literacy development. The ARGRA model (Adaptive Reading Assessment, Readability Analysis, Gamification, and Android-Based Assessment) addressed the static nature and poor engagement of conventional testing. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic review was conducted across six databases (2009—2025). Out of 38 full-text articles assessed, 30 independent empirical studies (reported across 37 papers) met inclution criteria. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), categorizing 78% of studies as high quality. Results demonstrate a morderate to strong association between ARGRA components and reading diagnosis accuracy (r = 0.41, 95% CI [0.35, 0.47]). Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) yielded the highest unique effect (r = 0.52), followed by readability formulas (r = 0.44), gamification r = 0.38), and Android platforms (r = 0.35). gamification significantly elevated student engagement, although its direct effect on diagnostic score accuracy varied based on game mechanics. Furthermore, intervention trials showed a combined transfer effect size of Hedges g = 0.31. these findings confirm that integrating adaptive item selection, readability targeting, and mobile delivery establishes a scalable, evidence-based diagnostic framework for early literacy intervention.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Copyright on any article is retained by the author(s).
- The author grants the journal, the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
- The article and any associated published material is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
How to Cite
References
Bakhsh, A., Al-Ghamdi, N., & Al-Harbi, K. (2021). Gamification in reading assessment: Effects on engagement and teacher diagnostic accuracy. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 24(3), 112–127.
Cer, E. (2019). Digital reading assessment based on Bloom's taxonomy in primary school: Effects on comprehension and motivation. Turkish Journal of Education, 8(2), 89–108.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). What reading does for the mind. Journal of Direct Instruction, 1(2), 137–149.
Denton, C. A., Cirino, P. T., Barth, A. E., Romain, M., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., ... Fletcher, J. M. (2011). An experimental study of scheduling and duration of “Tier 2” first-grade reading intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(3), 208–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.530127
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Hamlett, C. L., & Wang, A. Y. (2014). Is word-problem solving a form of text comprehension? Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(3), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1005745
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2017). An update to compiled ORF norms (Technical Report No. 1702). Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
Kemdikbudristek. (2023). Laporan hasil Asesmen Nasional Berbasis Komputer 2023: Profil literasi membaca siswa sekolah dasar. Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi.
Kim, Y. S. G., Otaiba, S. A., Sidler, J. F., Gruelich, L., & Puranik, C. (2019). Evaluating the dimensionality of first-grade written composition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58(6), 1863–1877. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0152
Lestari, R. D., & Wahyuni, S. (2024). Diagnostic Reading Assessment berbasis Android: Efektivitas algoritma adaptif dalam diagnosis level membaca siswa SD. Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan Indonesia, 14(1), 45–62.
Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2010). Adding instructional features that promote learning in a game-like environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 241–265. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.42.3.a
Muijselaar, M. M. L., Kendeou, P., de Jong, P. F., & van den Broek, P. (2017). What does the CBM-maze test measure? Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(2), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1263994
Nurhadi, M., Supriatna, E., & Rahmat, A. (2022). Asesmen Kompetensi Minimum (AKM) berbasis keterbacaan: Sensitivitas dalam diagnosis literasi fungsional siswa SD Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar Indonesia, 7(2), 112–129.
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Prasetyo, A., Hidayat, R., & Kurniawan, A. (2022). Asesmen gamifikasi adaptif berbasis Android untuk siswa inklusi SD: Studi kelayakan dan efektivitas. Jurnal Pendidikan Inklusi, 6(1), 33–49.
Putnam, S. M., Rock, T. C., & Good, A. J. (2020). Using MAP Reading Fluency to screen for reading difficulties: Technical adequacy study. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36(6), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1715982
Serafini, F., & Youngs, S. (2013). Reading workshop 2.0: Children’s literature in the digital age. The Reading Teacher, 66(5), 401–404.
Setiawan, B., Nugroho, A. S., & Prabowo, H. (2023). Efektivitas aplikasi asesmen membaca berbasis Android dalam identifikasi level baca siswa SD Yogyakarta. Jurnal Inovasi Teknologi Pendidikan, 10(2), 201–218.
Toste, J. R., Didion, L., Peng, P., Filderman, M. J., & McClelland, A. M. (2020). A meta-analytic review of the relations between motivation and reading achievement for K–12 students. Review of Educational Research, 90(3), 420–456. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352
Tran, T. H., Nguyen, L. T., & Pham, V. B. (2022). Cross-cultural adaptation of readability formulas for Vietnamese elementary reading assessment. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(3), 389–402.
Wells, G. A., Shea, B., O’Connell, D., Peterson, J., Welch, V., Losos, M., & Tugwell, P. (2021). The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses [Manual]. University of Ottawa.
Widiasih, N. S., Kusuma, D., & Rizky, F. (2023). Pengembangan aplikasi Android asesmen membaca gamifikasi untuk siswa SD: Analisis kelayakan dan motivasi. Jurnal Teknologi dan Komunikasi Pendidikan, 11(1), 78–94.
Wijaya, T. T., & Sari, D. P. (2021). Validasi Formula Keterbacaan Fry dan analisis Rasch untuk klasifikasi level membaca siswa SD berbahasa Indonesia. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan, 21(3), 234–251.