Southern Luzon State University
Lucban, Quezon
An Experimental Study on the Effectiveness of Highlighting Strategies for
Reading Comprehension Among College Students
Is presented to
Southern Luzon State University
In compliance with the Experimental Psychology subject
By
Lustado, Mhicky Khylle Jhace T.
Rodanillo, Anne Francine L.
Sumalinao, Pauline E.
Velasco, Leila Ishi P.
June 2024
Abstract
This study investigated the impact of different text highlighting techniques on
reading comprehension among 40 psychology students from Southern Luzon State
University, equally divided by gender. The problem addressed was whether highlighting
strategies—bolding, underlining, coloring, and no highlighting—affect students'
comprehension. Participants were divided into four groups, each using one of the
highlighting techniques, and their comprehension was tested after reading a passage. A
one-way ANOVA showed a significant effect of highlighting on comprehension (p =
0.021). Post-hoc tests indicated that bolding significantly improved comprehension
compared to no highlighting. The results suggest that bolding and underlining are
effective strategies to enhance reading comprehension. Further research with larger
samples is recommended to confirm these findings and explore the effectiveness of
other highlighting techniques. The study concludes that specific highlighting methods
can improve educational outcomes by aiding comprehension.
Introduction
Reading comprehension, the ability to understand and interpret written text, is
fundamental for academic achievement and lifelong learning. It involves not only
recognizing words but also actively constructing meaning and integrating information
from the text. Effective reading comprehension enables learners to combine
information, learn new procedures, and handle academic and personal challenges
successfully (De-La-Peña & Luque-Rojas, 2021).
One promising strategy to enhance reading comprehension is highlighting text,
which can be done by underlining, bolding, or using colored pens to mark key
information. Highlighting helps readers focus on important points and facilitates better
recall and understanding of the material. Despite its common use, the effectiveness of
this strategy needs to be systematically evaluated to confirm its benefits in educational
settings.
The hypothesis of this study is that using highlighting strategies will improve
reading comprehension among students. Specifically, the researchers assume that
students who use highlighting techniques will demonstrate better comprehension and
recall of the material compared to those who do not use such strategies.
To test this hypothesis, the researchers will conduct an experiment with four
groups of students, each consisting of ten participants. The independent variable in this
study is the type of text highlighting used: underlining, bolding, coloring, and no
highlighting (control group). The dependent variable is reading comprehension, which
will be measured by assessing students' recall and understanding of the highlighted text
through specific comprehension tests.
Operationally, highlighting involves marking essential details or text within
sentences using different methods. For instance, colors can be used to categorize
different types of information, while underlining and bolding can emphasize key points.
Reading comprehension will be evaluated using criteria such as the accuracy and
completeness of answers to questions based on the highlighted material.
The prediction is influenced by the previous research by Tante and Sass (2023),
which found that integrating highlighting techniques into reading instruction significantly
improved students' scanning abilities and overall comprehension. By systematically
comparing the comprehension scores of students across different highlighting strategies
and a control group, this study aims to provide empirical evidence on the effectiveness
of highlighting as a reading tool.
In conclusion, this study seeks to explore whether text highlighting can serve as
a practical strategy to enhance reading comprehension. By identifying the most effective
highlighting techniques, educators can better support students in their reading
endeavors, ultimately contributing to their academic success and lifelong learning
capabilities.
.
Methodology
This chapter states the methods used in the research, including the research's
design, participants, materials, methods of experimentation, and measures used by the
researchers to improve the study's usefulness. The methodological framework defined
herein serves as the fundamental structure that supports the systematic study and
evaluation carried out to address the research objectives and improve the validity and
reliability of the study's findings.
Participants
In this study, 40 psychology students from Southern Luzon State University were
selected, with an equal percentage of female and male participants. The selection of
participants from this specific academic background was intended to create a
homogeneous group with a common knowledge of psychological ideas and research
procedures. The study aimed to use psychology students' skills and insights in the field
to improve the research findings and interpretations. The gender-balanced nature of the
participant sample contributes to the range of perspectives and insights brought to the
study, increasing the complexity and comprehensiveness of the research findings.
Procedure and materials
In the process of gathering the necessary data for the study, the researchers
followed a series of clear steps to ensure the reliability of the research findings. The
initial step involved a concise introduction of the study to the participants, where the
researchers provided an overview of the study's objectives and obtained the
participants' informed consent to participate in the study. The study involved 40
participants, divided into four groups of 10 each. To identify the groups and make data
collection easier, participants in each group were given particular highlighting tools such
as underline, bold, color pens, or no highlights on the text. This methodological
approach aimed for faster data gathering and improved the organization of participant
answers. Following the introduction, the researchers had a long briefing session with
the participants, explaining how they were expected to participate with the test items
provided. Participants were given clear guidance to ensure that they understood the
task and were ready to respond appropriately to the test questions. Participants were
then given a specific amount of time to review the short story entitled "Miss Brill". They
were given 15 minutes to read through and comprehend the information given to them.
This allotted time allowed participants to become familiar with the content and
comprehend the important ideas required for the following test.
After finishing the reading period, participants had 5 minutes to give answers to
the test questions. This time limitation was intended to encourage participants to
provide quick answers based on their understanding of the research material. The
restricted period pushed participants to concentrate on the most important components
of the task. Participants took the test based on the information they had acquired. This
method ensured that participant answers were closely related to the information
provided, which improved the validity and relevance of the data obtained for the study.
Overall, the researchers' systematic approach to conducting the study showed the
importance of strictness in method and participant participation in achieving relevant
research findings.
Measures
Assessments and tests based on standardized study materials are used as
standardized measurements to examine participants' ability to comprehend before and
after the intervention. These test questions evaluate participants' comprehension of the
given material and help determine the effectiveness of highlighting strategies in
enhancing reading comprehension.
Manipulation
The manipulation involved the three groups with highlights on the important
information on the material while the one group read without highlights on the text. This
allows us to isolate the effect of highlighting strategy on reading comprehension. By
comparing the comprehension test scores of the control group and the group without
highlights on the text, we aimed to determine the effectiveness of text highlighting as a
reading comprehension strategy. This experimental setup ensured that any observed
differences in comprehension could be attributed to the highlighting intervention,
providing a controlled environment to test our hypothesis.
Research design
This study employs an experimental research design where participants are
randomly assigned to either an experimental group, instructed to use highlighting
strategies, or a control group, without such instruction. This design allows researchers
to manipulate the independent variable, which in this case is the use of highlighting
strategies, to assess its impact on the dependent variables, namely reading
comprehension. By randomly assigning participants to the experimental and control
groups, the study aims to minimize bias and ensure that any observed differences in
reading comprehension performance can be attributed to the highlighting strategies
rather than extraneous factors.
Results
To determine the impact of highlighting techniques on reading comprehension, a
one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the comprehension scores of the four
groups: underlining, bolding, coloring, and control (no highlighting). Upon finding
significant differences, a Tukey post-hoc test was performed to identify which specific
groups differed significantly. The level of significance was set at 0.05, and results
indicated whether the use of highlighting techniques produced a statistically significant
effect on reading comprehension.
TABLE 1
This table explained that the obtained p-value of 0.021 indicates statistical
significance, revealing that the observed difference in reading comprehension scores
among the groups is unlikely due to chance alone. Consequently, we reject the null
hypothesis, which suggests no difference among the groups, in favor of the alternative
hypothesis, confirming the effectiveness of highlighting techniques in enhancing reading
comprehension.
TABLE 2
In table 2, the provided results indicate that the BOLD group achieved the
highest mean score of 13.800, followed closely by the UNDERLINE group with a mean
score of 13.500. However, the COLOR got a mean of 12.000 and 11.600 for the
ORIGINAL text or no intervention. These scores suggest that students who utilized the
BOLD or UNDERLINE techniques tended to achieve higher comprehension scores on
average. Additionally, both the BOLD and UNDERLINE groups exhibited lower standard
deviations (1.229 and 1.269, respectively) compared to the COLORS and ORIGINAL
groups, indicating less variability in reading comprehension scores within these groups.
In contrast, the COLORS group had a higher standard deviation of 2.867, followed by
the ORIGINAL group with a standard deviation of 1.265. These higher standard
deviations suggest greater variability in comprehension scores, implying that while
some students may benefit significantly from the COLORS or ORIGINAL techniques,
others may not experience the same level of improvement. Overall, these findings
suggest that the BOLD and UNDERLINE highlighting techniques may be more effective
in improving reading comprehension outcomes compared to the COLORS and
ORIGINAL techniques.
TABLE 3
As for the Table 3, the stated marginal means offer insights into the average
reading comprehension scores achieved by each treatment group (BOLD, COLORS,
ORIGINAL, and UNDERLINE) across all levels of other factors in the study. The
marginal mean score for the BOLD group is 13.800, with a 95% confidence interval (CI)
ranging from 12.646 to 14.954. This suggests that, on average, participants in the
BOLD group scored approximately 13.800 on the reading comprehension test, with a
high degree of certainty that the true population mean falls within the CI. Similarly, the
marginal mean score for the COLORS group is 12.000, with a confidence interval
ranging from 10.846 to 13.154, indicating an average score of approximately 12.000
with a similar level of certainty. Participants in the ORIGINAL group achieved a marginal
mean score of 11.600, with a confidence interval of 10.446 to 12.754, suggesting an
average score of around 11.600 with comparable confidence. Finally, the marginal
mean score for the UNDERLINE group is 13.500, with a confidence interval ranging
from 12.346 to 14.654, indicating an average score of approximately 13.500 with a
similar level of confidence. Overall, these results provide estimates of the average
reading comprehension scores for each treatment group, along with measures of
uncertainty reflected in the width of the confidence intervals. They suggest that
participants in the BOLD and UNDERLINE groups tended to achieve higher average
scores compared to the COLORS and ORIGINAL groups, with varying levels of
certainty surrounding these estimates.
TABLE 4
In Table 4, the post hoc test conducted using the Tukey test reveals important
insights into the effectiveness of different highlighting techniques on reading
comprehension. The analysis shows that the BOLD group scored on average 1.800
higher than the COLORS group, but this difference is not statistically significant (p =
0.133). However, the BOLD group scored significantly higher than the ORIGINAL group
by 2.200 points, with a p-value of 0.045, indicating that bolding text significantly
enhances comprehension compared to no highlighting. Comparisons between the
BOLD and UNDERLINE groups, with a mean difference of 0.300 points (p = 0.982),
showed no significant difference, suggesting similar effectiveness between these two
techniques.
Further comparisons reveal that the COLORS group scored 0.400 points higher
than the ORIGINAL group (p = 0.959), and 1.500 points lower than the UNDERLINE
group (p = 0.261), neither of which are statistically significant. Lastly, the ORIGINAL
group scored 1.900 points lower than the UNDERLINE group, with this difference also
not reaching statistical significance (p = 0.103). These results suggest that while bolding
text significantly improves reading comprehension compared to no highlighting, other
comparisons between highlighting techniques do not show statistically significant
differences. This highlights the particular efficacy of the bolding technique in enhancing
reading comprehension.
Discussion
The study “An Experimental Study on the Effectiveness of Highlighting
Strategies for Reading Comprehension Among College Students” evaluated the impact
of different highlighting techniques—bolding, underlining, coloring, and no highlighting—
on reading comprehension. The results demonstrate that bolding text significantly
enhances comprehension, as evidenced by the BOLD group's highest mean score of
13.800, which was significantly higher than the ORIGINAL group's mean of 11.600. This
indicates that bolding effectively helps students recall and understand material better
than no highlighting.
The findings suggest that both bolding and underlining are more effective than
coloring or no highlighting. The UNDERLINE group, with a mean score of 13.500, also
performed well, indicating its potential as a useful highlighting technique. The lower
standard deviations for the BOLD (SD = 1.229) and UNDERLINE (SD = 1.269) groups
suggest more consistent performance within these groups compared to the COLORS
group (SD = 2.867) and ORIGINAL group (SD = 1.265).
Post-hoc comparisons revealed that bolding significantly improved
comprehension over no highlighting, as shown by the statistically significant mean
difference of 2.200 between the BOLD and ORIGINAL groups (p = 0.045). However, no
significant differences were found between other highlighting techniques, suggesting
similar effectiveness between bolding and underlining.
Several factors could influence these results. Participant variability in reading
skills and prior knowledge, as well as differences in how students applied the
highlighting techniques, could be potential confounding variables. The small sample
size (10 per group) may also limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the
lack of a pre-test to establish baseline comprehension makes it difficult to measure
individual improvements accurately.
Overall, this study supports the use of bolding as an effective strategy for
enhancing reading comprehension. Further research with larger sample sizes and more
controlled variables is recommended to confirm these findings and explore the full
potential of various highlighting techniques. By identifying the most effective strategies,
educators can better support students in their reading efforts, ultimately contributing to
their academic success.
References
Santos, J., Sabino, A., Duane, C., Mallari, J. K. C., Eusebio, M., & Gonzales, P. (2019).
The effects of color coded words on memory retention. Social Science Research
Network. [Link]
Biria, R. (2016). Impact of highlighting techniques on the retention of unfamiliar words in
L2classrooms.
[Link]
ention_of_Unfamiliar_Words_in_L2_Classrooms?sm=b
Olurinola, O., & Tayo, O. (n.d.). Colour in Learning: Its effect on the retention rate of
graduate students. [Link]
Tante, A. C., & Sass, E. M. (2023). USE OF HIGHLIGHTING STRATEGIES IN
READING COMPREHENSION AND EFFECTS ON ATTAINMENT IN SELECTED
READING SKILLS. Innovare Journal of Education, 20–29.
[Link]
Nishimura, H., & Kuwahara, N. (2017). A Study on the Effect of Learning Strategy using
a Highlighter Pen on Gaze Movement. International Journal of Advanced Computer
Science and Applications/International Journal of Advanced Computer Science &
Applications, 8(5). [Link]
Ben-Yehudah, |. & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2018). The contribution of text-highlighting to
comprehension: A comparison of print and digital reading. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 27(2), 153-178. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
[Link]
Results
ANOVA
Cases F p
Sum of Squares df Mean Square
TREATMENT 4.550 3 1.517 0.547 0.658
Residuals 44.400 16 2.775
Note. Type III Sum of Squares
The ANOVA analysis presented in the table indicates that the treatment being
studied does not have a statistically significant effect on the outcome measured. The F-
test, which compares the variance between the groups (Treatment) to the variance
within the groups (Residuals), yielded an F-value of 0.547 with a corresponding p-value
of 0.658. This suggests that there is no significant difference between the means of the
groups based on the treatment. The residual sum of squares (44.400) and mean square
(2.775) represent the unexplained variability within each group, indicating that the
majority of the variation in the data is due to random factors not related to the treatment
under investigation. In conclusion, the results suggest that the treatment does not have
a discernible impact on the outcome, and the variability observed in the data is primarily
attributed to factors other than the treatment itself.
Descriptives
Descriptives - SCORES
TREATMENT Mean SD SE
N Coefficient of variation
BOLD 5 13.200 1.643 0.735 0.124
COLORS 5 12.400 1.817 0.812 0.146
ORIGINAL 5 12.600 1.949 0.872 0.155
UNDERLINE 5 13.600 1.140 0.510 0.084
The descriptive statistics indicate the characteristics of the different treatments: BOLD,
COLORS, ORIGINAL, and UNDERLINE. The mean scores indicate the average
performance for each treatment group, with BOLD having the highest mean score of
13.200, followed by UNDERLINE at 13.600, ORIGINAL at 12.600, and COLORS at
12.400. The standard deviation values show the variability of scores around the mean,
with UNDERLINE having the lowest variability (SD: 1.140) and COLORS showing the
highest variability (SD: 1.817). The standard error estimates the precision of the sample
mean, with BOLD having the smallest standard error (SE: 0.735) and UNDERLINE
having the most precise estimate (SE: 0.510). The coefficient of variation, a measure of
relative variability, is lowest for UNDERLINE (0.084) and highest for COLORS (0.146).
Post Hoc Tests
Standard
Post Hoc Comparisons - TREATMENT
SE t
Mean Difference ptukey
BOLD COLORS 0.800 1.054 0.759 0.871
0.600 0.569 0.940
ORIGINAL 1.054
−0.400 0.981
UNDERLINE 1.054 −0.380
COLORS −0.200 0.997
ORIGINAL 1.054 −0.190
−1.200 0.672
UNDERLINE 1.054 −1.139
ORIGINAL −1.000 0.779
UNDERLINE 1.054 −0.949
Note. P-value adjusted for comparing a family of 4
The results show a detailed analysis of the treatment groups (BOLD, COLORS,
ORIGINAL, and UNDERLINE) using mean differences, standard errors, t-values, and
adjusted p-values. The adjusted p-values, which account for multiple comparisons,
show that there are no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups.
In all comparisons, the p-values are greater than the standard significance level of 0.05,
indicating that the changes in mean scores across treatments are not statistically
significant. As a result, the data indicate that there is inadequate proof to demonstrate
significant performance differences between the treatment groups. This shows that the
impact of the different treatments on the measured outcomes is similar, with no
treatment group demonstrating a significantly different effect compared to the others.
Marginal Means
Marginal Means - TREATMENT
TREATMENT SE
Marginal Lower Upper
Mean
BOLD 13.200 11.621 14.779 0.745
COLORS 12.400 10.821 13.979 0.745
ORIGINAL 12.600 11.021 14.179 0.745
UNDERLINE 13.600 12.021 15.179 0.745
The marginal means table shows the average scores for each treatment group,
together with their appropriate confidence intervals, to provide an overview of
performance within each treatment category. The marginal mean for the BOLD
treatment is 13.200, with a confidence interval ranging from 11.621 to 14.779, meaning
the BOLD treatment's real mean score is likely to be within this range. Similarly, the
Colors treatment has a marginal mean of 12.400 and a confidence interval of 10.821 to
13.979, which provides a close representation of the real mean score within this range.
The original treatment has a marginal mean of 12.600, with a confidence interval
ranging from 11.021 to 14.179, indicating a probable true mean score for the original
treatment.
Discussion
The ANOVA analysis reveals that the treatment under investigation does not
significantly impact the measured outcome. The F-test, which compares the variance
between the treatment groups to the variance within the groups, resulted in an F-value
of 0.547 and a p-value of 0.658. These results indicate no statistically significant
differences in the means of the groups based on the treatment, suggesting that the
observed variations are largely due to random factors rather than the treatment itself.
The lack of significant differences between the treatment groups (BOLD,
COLORS, ORIGINAL, and UNDERLINE) is also evident from both the ANOVA results
and the detailed descriptive statistics. The mean scores for the groups are relatively
close, with BOLD having the highest mean score of 13.200 and COLORS the lowest at
12.400. The standard deviations and standard errors further support this, indicating that
the variability within each treatment group is minimal and similar across the groups. The
adjusted p-values, which account for multiple comparisons, are all greater than the
standard significance level of 0.05. This confirms that there are no statistically
significant differences in mean scores between the treatment groups.
The experiment appears to have been conducted systematically, with appropriate
measures to account for variability within and between groups. However, several factors
might influence the interpretation of the results. The sample size for each treatment
group could affect the power of the statistical tests, as a small sample size might not
detect subtle differences between the groups, leading to non-significant results.
Additionally, the duration and intensity of the treatments might not have been sufficient
to produce a measurable effect. Ensuring that the treatments are applied consistently
and for an adequate period is crucial for capturing their potential impact. Individual
differences among participants could also introduce variability that masks the effect of
the treatments. Any inconsistencies in measurement can introduce error and affect the
results.
In summary, the results of the ANOVA analysis and the descriptive statistics
indicate that the treatments (BOLD, COLORS, ORIGINAL, and UNDERLINE) do not
have a statistically significant effect on the outcome measured. The observed variability
is primarily attributed to random factors rather than the treatments. While the
experiment was well-conducted, considerations such as sample size, treatment
consistency, participant variation, and measurement precision should be addressed in
future studies to ensure more definitive conclusions.
