The impact of integrating Jolly Phonics Lessons application into English literacy lessons on UAE preschoolers’ phonics skills

Abstract views: 805 / PDF downloads: 486




Jolly phonics lessons application, Letter-sound identification, Letter formation, Phoneme blending, Phoneme segmenting


The Jolly Phonics Lessons application is a digital tool that is designed to enhance the preschoolers’ reading and writing skills through synthetic phonics approach. This study examined the impact of integrating Jolly Phonics Lessons application into literacy lessons on the emergent reading and writing skills among kindergarten students, ages 4-6, in the United Arab Emirates through a comparative study between pupils (Group-A), whose literacy classes were integrated with the application, and pupils (Group-B) who were taught using the traditional method of teaching literacy. Mixed methods research design was followed to analyze the effects of integrating the application. The Phonemic Awareness Assessment Inventory (PAAI) tool, field notes, and artifacts were utilized to measure the development of students’ letter-sound identification, letter formation, phoneme blending and segmenting abilities. In addition, the paper compared the growth on phonics skills between students in Groups A and B. The results showed that students in Group-A outperformed pupils who received literacy instruction through traditional methods. The findings from the PAAI scores exhibited dramatic growth in letter-sound recognition and letter formation, and substantial increase in phoneme blending and segmenting abilities of Group-A. The T-statistic for differences between two means at 95% confidence revealed that there is a significant difference between the performance of students in Groups-A and B. Implications from this study highlight the positive impact of incorporating Jolly Phonics Lessons application into literacy classes on low-achieving students. On this bases, future research of Jolly Phonics Lesson application to support mixed-ability classes or students with dyslexia.


Al-Awidi, H. M., & Ismail, S. A. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of the use of computer assisted language learning to develop children’s reading skills in English as a second language in the United Arab Emirates. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(1), 29-37. DOI:

Aleven, V., McLaughlin, E. A., Glenn, R. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2016). Instruction based on adaptive learning technologies. In R. E. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (2nd ed., pp. 522-560). Routledge.

Alqahtani, S. S. (2020). Technology-based interventions for children with reading difficulties: A literature review from 2010 to 2020. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3495-3525. DOI:

Ariati, N. P., Padmadewi, N. N., & Suarnajaya, I. W. (2018). Jolly Phonics: Effective strategy for enhancing children’s English literacy. SHS Web of Conferences, 42, 00032. DOI:

Bdeir, M., Bahous, R., & Nabhani, M. (2022). Improving reading readiness in kindergarten children through early phonological awareness interventions. Education 3-13, 50(3), 348-360. DOI:

Billups, F. (2019). Qualitative data collection tools: Design, development, and applications (qualitative research methods). SAGE Publishing.

Brau, B. (2020). Constructivism. In R. Kimmons & S. Caskurlu (Eds.), The students' guide to learning design and research. Edtechbooks.

Butler, C., Pimenta, R., Tommerdahl, J., Fuchs, C. T., & Caçola, P. (2019). Using a handwriting app leads to improvement in manual dexterity in kindergarten children. Research in Learning Technology, 27, 1-10. DOI:

Cameron, C. E., Cottone, E. A., Murrah, W. M., & Grissmer, D. W. (2016). How are motor skills linked to children's school performance and academic achievement?. Child Development Perspectives, 10(2), 93-98. DOI:

Caravolas, M., Lervåg, A., Mousikou, P., Efrim, C., Litavský, M., Onochie-Quintanilla, E., Salas, N., Schöffelová, M., Defior, S., Mikulajová, M., Seidlová-Málková, G., & Hulme, C. (2012). Common patterns of prediction of literacy development in different alphabetic orthographies. Psychological Science, 23(6), 678-686. DOI:

Chmiliar, L. (2017). Improving learning outcomes: The iPad and preschool children with disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-11. DOI:

Coccia, M., & Benati, I. (2018). Comparative studies. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global Encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance (pp. 1-7). Springer. DOI:

Cotter, J. (2012). Understanding the relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension: Fluency strategies as a focus for instruction [Master’s thesis]. St. John Fisher University.

Crim, C., Hawkins, J., Thornton, J., Rosof, H.B., Copley, J., & Thomas, E. (2008). Early childhood educators’ knowledge of early literacy development. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(14), 72-73.

Culatta, B. E., Setzer, L. A., & Hall-Kenyon, K. M. (2022). Incorporating digital literacy materials in early childhood programs: Understanding children's engagement and interactions. In C.-A. Lane (Ed.), Handbook of research on acquiring 21st century literacy skills through game-based learning (pp. 671-696). IGI Global. DOI:

Diamond, J., Grob, B., & Reitzes, F. (2015). Teaching kindergarten: Learner-centered classrooms for the 21st century. Teachers College Press.

Eckert, P., & Labov, W. (2017). Phonetics, phonology and social meaning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21, 467-496. DOI:

Ehri, L. C. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 107-143). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. DOI:

Emmel, N. (2013). Purposeful sampling. In Sampling and choosing cases in qualitative research: A realist approach (pp. 33-45). SAGE Publishing. DOI:

Gass, S. M. (2017). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Routledge. DOI:

Gee, J. P. (2018). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (pp. 105-117). Routledge.

Genc, B., & Buyukkarci, K. (2013). An assessment of pre-service language teachers' practicum observation forms: Descriptive observation vs. critical observation. Educational Research eJournal, 2(2), 83-91. DOI:

Griffith, S. F., Hagan, M. B., Heymann, P., Heflin, B. H., & Bagner, D. M. (2020). Apps as learning tools: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 145(1), 15-16. DOI:

Gronlund, N., & Linn, R. (1990). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. Macmillan Publishers.

Halcomb, E., & Hickman, L. (2014). Mixed methods research.Nursing Standard, 29(32), 41-47. DOI:

Hania, I., Fauzi, M. S. D., Pangestu, E. S., & Rosyada, M. F. (2022). The phonics method in Aṣwat learning and its influence on the reading ability of Ibtidaiyyah Madrasah Students. Al Mahāra: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Arab, 8(2), 231-247. DOI:

Haywood, K. M., & Getchell, N. (2021). Life span motor development. Human Kinetics.

Heggerty, M. (2020). Phonological and phonemic awareness. Literacy Resources.

Ihmeideh, F. (2009). The role of computer technology in teaching reading and writing: Preschool teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24(1), 60-79. DOI:

Jones, C. D., Clark, S. K., & Reutzel, D. (2013). Enhancing alphabet knowledge instruction: Research implications and practical strategies for early childhood educators. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(2), 81-89. DOI:

Killeen, E. (2013). A framework for using iPad to build early literacy skills. The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 531-537. DOI:

Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223-233. DOI:

Lonigan, C. J., Purpura, D. J., Wilson, S. B., Walker, P. M., & Clancy-Menchetti, J. (2013). Evaluating the components of an emergent literacy intervention for preschool children at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(1), 111-130. DOI:

Maruyama, T., & Inoue, M. (2016). Continuous quality improvement of leadership education program through PDCA cycle. China-USA Business Review, 15(1), 42-49. DOI:

Metsala, J. L., & Ehri, L. C. (2013). Word recognition in beginning literacy. Routledge. DOI:

Mkandawire, S. B. (2019). Selected common methods and tools for data collection in research. Marvel Book Publishers.

Mohammed, I., & Amponsah, O. (2018). Predominant factors contributing to low reading abilities of pupils at Elsie Lund Basic School in the Tamale Metropolis, Ghana. African Educational Research Journal, 6(4), 273-278. DOI:

Nazare, J., Woolf, A., Sysoev, I., Ballinger, S., Saveski, M., Walker, M., & Roy, D. (2022). Technology-assisted coaching can increase engagement with learning technology at home and caregivers’ awareness of it. Computers & Education, 188, 104565. DOI:

Neumann, M. M. (2018). Using tablets and apps to enhance emergent literacy skills in young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 239-246. DOI:

Ohaka, E. (2022, July 14). How ‘jolly phonics’ can fix learning imbalance in Nigeria. Business Day (Nigeria).

Paige, D. D., Rupley, W. H., Smith, G. S., Olinger, C., & Leslie, M. (2018). Acquisition of letter naming knowledge, phonological awareness, and spelling knowledge of kindergarten children at risk for learning to read. Child Development Research, 2018, 2142894. DOI:

Pietrzak, M., & Paliszkiewicz, J. (2015). Framework of strategic learning: The PDCA Cycle. Management, 10(2), 149-161.

Ploog, B. O., Scharf, A., Nelson, D., & Brooks, P. J. (2013). Use of computer-assisted technologies (CAT) to enhance social, communicative, and language development in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(2), 301-322. DOI:

Reichert, M., & Mouza, C. (2018). Teacher practices during year 4 of a one‐to‐one mobile learning initiative. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 762-774. DOI:

Rousse, B. S., & Dreyfus, S. E. (2021). Teaching and learning for adult skill acquisition: Applying the Dreyfus and Dreyfus model in different fields.Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Scheper, J. (2023). Zine pedagogies: Students as critical makers. Radical Teacher, 125(2023), 20-32. DOI:

Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th Edition). Pearson.

Slater, T., & Beckett, G. (2019). Integrating language, content, technology, and skills development through project-based language learning: Blending frameworks for successful unit planning. TESOL Journal, 43(1), 1-14.

Smagorinsky, P. (2018). Deconflating the ZPD and instructional scaffolding: Retranslating and reconceiving the zone of proximal development as the zone of next development. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 16, 70-75.‏ DOI:

Sun, W. (2019). The effects of group early childhood scaffolding and cognitive load in technology-supported learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 13-24. DOI:

Suri, H. (2012). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63-75. DOI:

Swanson, H. L., Orosco, M. J., & Lussier, C. M. (2015). Growth in literacy, cognition, and working memory in English language learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 132, 155-188. DOI:

Teixeira, J., & Santos, M. E. (2018). Language skills in children with benign childhood epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes: A systematic review. Epilepsy & Behavior, 84, 15-21. DOI:

Treiman, R., & Zukowski, A. (2013). Levels of phonological awareness. In Phonological processes in literacy (pp. 95-112). Routledge.

Tyler, E. J., Hughes, J. C., Beverley, M., & Hastings, R. P. (2015). Improving early reading skills for beginning readers using an online programme as supplementary instruction. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(3), 281-294.‏ DOI:

Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2014). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 786-803. DOI:

Vanden Bempt, F., Economou, M., Van Herck, S., Vanderauwera, J., Glatz, T., Vandermosten, M., Wouters, J., & Ghesquière, P. (2021). Digital game-based phonics instruction promotes print knowledge in pre-readers at cognitive risk for dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 720548. DOI:

Vega, M. (2016). ICT and Jolly Phonics. A comparative study between England and Spain [Unpublished doctorate thesis]. National University of Distance Education.

Vision 2021. (2018). First-rate education system.

Wei, C. W., Kao, H. Y., Lu, H. H., & Liu, Y. C. (2018). The effects of competitive gaming scenarios and personalized assistance strategies on English vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 146-158.

Wolsey, T. D., Lenski, S., & Grisham, D. L. (2020). Assessment literacy: An educator's guide to understanding assessment, K-12. Guilford Publications.

Zugarramurdi, C., Assis, M. S., & Valle-Lisboa, J. (2022). Technology on our side: Using technology for transferring cognitive science to education. In M. V. Alves, R. Ekuni, M. J. Hermida, & J. Valle-Lisboa (Eds.), Cognitive sciences and education in non-weird populations: A Latin American perspective (pp. 287-303). Springer. DOI:




How to Cite

Almansoori, N., Ogdol, R., & Alteneiji, A. (2024). The impact of integrating Jolly Phonics Lessons application into English literacy lessons on UAE preschoolers’ phonics skills. Journal of Childhood, Education & Society, 5(1), 41–60.