THE EFFECT OF DIGITAL ASSESSMENT MODE (GAMIFIED VS CONVENTIONAL) ON EFL VOCATIONAL STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION ACHIEVEMENT

Sya'diah, Afifatus, 52206140006 and Lindawati, Rini, 0704078902 and Ganinda, Nurhayati, 0720018905 (2026) THE EFFECT OF DIGITAL ASSESSMENT MODE (GAMIFIED VS CONVENTIONAL) ON EFL VOCATIONAL STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION ACHIEVEMENT. Bachelor thesis, Universitas Islam Majapahit.

	Text ABSTRACK.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (592kB)
Preview	Text BAB 1.pdf Download (159kB) | Preview
	Text BAB 2.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (290kB)
	Text BAB 3.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (453kB)
	Text BAB 4.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (377kB)
Preview	Text BAB 5.pdf Download (120kB) | Preview
Preview	Text DAFTAR PUSTAKA.pdf Download (158kB) | Preview
	Text LAMPIRAN.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (3MB)

Abstract

This study investigated the difference in reading comprehension achievement improvement between tenth-grade vocational students assessed using a gamified digital assessment mode (Wayground) and those assessed using a conventional digital assessment mode (ProProfs). The research employed a quantitative quasi-experimental design involving two intact classes at SMKN 1 Mojokerto, with a final valid sample of 58 students (29 per group) after listwise exclusion of incomplete data. Reading comprehension was measured through a multiple-choice pre-test and post-test on descriptive texts, and each student’s improvement was calculated as a gain score (post-test minus pre-test). Because the gain score data violated the normality assumption, non-parametric tests were used: the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for within-group comparison and the Mann-Whitney U Test for between-group comparison of gain scores. The results showed that both the Wayground group (Z = -3.645, p < .001, r = 0.677) and the ProProfs group (Z = -4.026, p < .001, r = 0.748) experienced a statistically significant and practically large improvement in reading comprehension from pre-test to post-test. However, the between-group comparison of gain scores found no statistically significant difference (Z = -0.493, p = .622, r = 0.065, negligible effect). These findings indicate that although students in both assessment conditions demonstrated significant improvement in reading comprehension of descriptive texts, no significant difference was found in the magnitude of improvement between the two modes. The study suggests that teachers may select either assessment mode based on classroom context and student engagement preferences rather than expected differences in learning gains.

Actions (login required)

View Item