Email this article Enhancing Literary Literacy through Multimodal Representations: A Development Study of Folklore-Based Creative Puppetry
), Andri Wicaksono(2), Yulia Siska(3), Wayan Arya Murtika(4), Park Jin Ryeo(5)
| 
Country:
(1) Department of Elementary School Teacher Education, STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung, Indonesia
(2) Department of Elementary School Teacher Education, STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung, Indonesia
(3) Department of Elementary School Teacher Education, STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung, Indonesia
(4) Department of Elementary School Teacher Education, STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung, Indonesia
(5) Department of Indonesia-Malay, Busan University of Foreign Studies, Republic of Korea (South Korea)
Corresponding Author
This study aims to develop Radin Jambat Creative Puppetry as a culturally grounded instructional medium and to examine its feasibility, practicality, and potential influence on elementary school students’ literary literacy. Using the ADDIE development model, the media was validated by content, language, and design experts; tested for practicality with teachers and students; and examined using a one-group pretest–posttest design involving 62 fourth-grade students. Data included expert validation ratings, practicality questionnaires, and literary literacy test scores. Expert validation indicated high feasibility across content (92%), language (90%), and media design (94%). Teachers (93%) and students (91%) rated the medium as highly practical. Pretest–posttest comparisons showed an increase in students’ scores, and statistical analysis (t(61) = 14.27, p < .001) and the effect size (d = 1.21) indicated positive learning trends. However, causality cannot be inferred due to the research design. The Radin Jambat Creative Puppetry demonstrates promising potential as a culturally grounded, multimodal medium that may support improvements in students’ literary literacy. However, because no control group was included, the findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than conclusive. Further research using stronger experimental designs is recommended.
Keywords: literary literacy, creative puppetry, Radin Jambat, elementary school students.
Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
Bao, L. (2006). Theoretical comparisons of normalized gain calculations. American Journal of Physics, 74(9), 917–922. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2213632
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction (4th ed.). Wiley.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2015). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE.
Lacina, J., & Griffith, R. (2021). Hope. Read Teach, 74(6), 661–662. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2009
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using SPSS (5th ed.). SAGE.
Firmansyah, B.M. (2021). The effectiveness of multimodal approaches in learning, EDUTEC Journal of Education And Technology, 4(3):469-479, DOI: https://doi.org/10.29062/edu.v4i3.194
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. (2019). How to design and evaluate education research (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., Keller, J. M., & Russell, J. D. (2020). Principles of instructional design (6th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140440211
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2010). Applying educational research (6th ed.). Pearson.
Gkintoni, E., Antonopoulou, H., Sortwell, A., & Halkiopoulos, C. (2025). Challenging cognitive load theory: the role of educational neuroscience and artificial intelligence in redefining learning efficacy. Brain sciences, 15(2), 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15020203
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Kendeou, P., McMaster, K. L., & Christ, T. J. (2016). Reading comprehension: core components and processes: core components and processes. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624707
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2021). Culturally relevant pedagogy at 25. Harvard Educational Review April 2014, 84 (1) 74–84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 707–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5
Ribosa, J. & Duran, D. (2023). Students' feelings of social presence when creating learning-by-teaching educational videos for a potential audience. International Journal of Educational Research, 117, 2023, 102128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102128
Lupo, S. M., Tortorelli, L., Invernizzi, M., Ryoo, J. H., & Strong, J. Z. (2019). An exploration of text difficulty and knowledge support on adolescents' comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(4), 457–479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.247
Lwin, S.M. (2019). A multimodal perspective on applied storytelling performances: narrativity in context (1st ed.). routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351059992
Marschall, G. & Watson, S. (2022). Teacher self-efficacy as an aspect of narrative self-schemata. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, 103568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103568
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.). (2021). The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333
McKenney, S. & Mor, Y. (2015). Supporting teachers in data-informed design. Br J Educ Technol, 46: 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12262
Merrill, M. D. (2013). First principles of instruction: identifying and designing effective, efficient, and engaging instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42, 34–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4930420508
Oyserman, D. (2015). Pathways to success through identity-based motivation. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195341461.001.0001
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.
Perfetti, C., & Helder, A. (2022). Progress in reading science: Word identification, comprehension, and universal perspectives. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 5–35). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch1
Potgieter, E. & Van Der Walt, M. (2021). Puppetry as a pedagogy of play in the intermediate phase mathematics classroom: a case study. Perspectives in Education, 39, 121–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v39i3.5189 , https://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/pie/article/view/5189
Rahayu, B. M., Muhyidin, A., & Jamaludin, U. (2025). Cultural intelligence meets edtech: a systematic review on integrating local wisdom into digital teaching to foster learning engagement. Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif, 15(3), 1764-1784. DOI: 10.23960/jpp.v15i3.pp1764-1784
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2017). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. Pearson.
Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2014). Design and development research: methods, strategies, and issues. Taylor & Francis.
Snow, C. E. (2020). The science of reading and reading instruction. Harvard University Press.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. RAND Reading Study Group.
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Tompkins, G. E. (2021). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (8th ed.). Pearson.
Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher–student dialogue during classroom teaching: Does it really impact on student outcomes? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4-5), 462–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730
Webber, C., Wilkinson, K., Duncan, L. G., & McGeown, S. (2021). Reading and literacy interventions for improving reading and motivation in adolescence: a narrative review. Open Science Framework (OSF). https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/4mxvt
Yoedo, Y. C., & Mustofa, A. (2022). The use of indonesian folklore to develop young learners’ analytical and critical reasoning skills. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 10(2), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v10i2.5001
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
View My Stats