A Comparative Study of Sandpaper Letters and QR Code–Integrated Phonics Cards in Supporting Early English Phonics Learning Among Young Learners

Young English as a Second Language (ESL) learners in the rural Baram district of Sarawak have limited exposure to English beyond the classroom, which often hinders the development of grapheme–phoneme correspondence (GPC) skills. While sandpaper letters, commonly used in Montessori-inspired classrooms, provide tactile support for phonics learning, learners may still require repeated teacher-led instruction to achieve mastery.
This action research aimed to compare the effectiveness of traditional sandpaper letters and QR Code–Integrated Phonics Cards in supporting early English phonics acquisition among preschool learners. Specifically, the study examined whether integrating audio-visual scaffolding through QR codes could reduce the number of instructional cycles required for phonics mastery and promote greater learner autonomy.
A comparative within-subject design was employed involving five preschool learners (N = 5) from SJK(C) Kee Tee, Long Lama, Sarawak. The intervention was conducted over four weeks in two phases. Phase 1 utilised conventional sandpaper letters to teach the phonemes associated with the letters g and h, while Phase 2 introduced QR Code–Integrated Phonics Cards for the letters j and p. Data were collected through an Instructional Cycle Log to measure instructional efficiency and semi-structured observations to document learner engagement and autonomy.
The findings indicated a notable improvement in instructional efficiency following the introduction of the QR Code–Integrated Phonics Cards. The average number of instructional cycles required for mastery decreased from 4.8 cycles in Phase 1 to 2.4 cycles in Phase 2, representing an approximately 50% reduction in teacher-led interventions. Observational data further revealed a shift in learner behaviour from passive reliance on teacher guidance to more active engagement, self-correction, and independent learning.
The study demonstrates that QR Code–Integrated Phonics Cards can enhance the effectiveness of early phonics instruction in rural ESL contexts by combining tactile learning with accessible audio-visual support. As a form of frugal innovation, this low-cost and offline-accessible digital intervention offers a practical and scalable approach for rural educators seeking to strengthen early literacy instruction while minimising dependence on extensive technological infrastructure.
The findings suggest that integrating simple digital tools into phonics instruction can help bridge auditory language exposure gaps and foster greater learner autonomy in early English language learning.

Early Childhood Education, Phonics Instruction, Multisensory Learning, QR Code Technology, Grapheme–Phoneme Correspondence, Rural ESL Learners

1. Bahrick, L. E., Flom, R., & Lickliter, R. (2023). Touch to learn: Multisensory input supports word learning and processing in young children. Developmental Review, 69, 101087. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Cabell, S. Q., Zucker, T. A., DeCoster, J., & McGinty, A. S. (2024). A meta-analysis on the optimal cumulative dosage of early phonemic awareness instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 59(1), 45–68. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ehri, L. C. (2022). The science of learning to read words: The role of grapheme–phoneme connections and orthographic mapping. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(S1), S45–S58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Foorman, B. R., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., et al. (2023). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through Grade 3. Educational Researcher, 52(3), 145–157. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Jiang, Y., Gai, X., Wang, Z., & Thomson, J. (2024). The influence of segmental and suprasegmental phonological awareness on word and pseudoword reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116(2), 198–214. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Kilpatrick, D. A. (2022). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties (2nd ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Mangen, A., Schilhab, T., & Brønnick, K. (2023). Multisensory reading in early childhood: A systematic review. Human Development, 67(2), 89–112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Mokhtari, K., Reed, D. K., & Wang, J. (2024). Orthographic influences on phonological processing among children with and without reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 37(1), 85–107. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Mori, K., Takahashi, Y., & Sato, H. (2024). Multisensory learning with haptic reading plates and its impact on reading and writing skills. Japanese Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(3–4), 105–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. National Reading Panel. (2022). Teaching children to read: Evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Parkin, J. R., Hajovsky, D. B., & Alfonso, V. C. (2023). Evaluating phonemic awareness and orthographic mapping among beginning readers. Psychology in the Schools, 60(5), 1432–1447. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Petersen, D. B., Steacy, L. M., Spencer, T. D., & Hogan, T. P. (2023). The impact of explicit instruction using visual vowel hand-sign systems on reading and spelling outcomes. Annals of Dyslexia, 73(1), 56–79. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Piasta, S. B., Logan, J. A. R., Pelatti, C. Y., & Petrill, S. A. (2022). Supporting early literacy through multisensory instruction in preschool settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 60, 154–166. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Solichah, N., & Fardana, N. A. (2024). Exploring multisensory programs as early literacy interventions: A scoping review. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(2), 899–910. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2023). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models (4th ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Wang, Y., Li, X., & Chen, H. (2024). Associations among variables in technology-enhanced phonological awareness programmes: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 213, 105002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Yahaya, N. A., Mohd Noor, N. F., & Abdullah, M. (2025). Utilizing multisensory teaching aids to foster letter recognition and writing acquisition among preschool children. International Journal of Education, Psychology and Counselling, 10(56), 88–102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. H. (2022). Phonological awareness is child's play! (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Zhao, Y., & Wiburg, K. (2023). Digital learning tools and learner autonomy in early childhood education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(4), 1875–1894. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Zydney, J. M., & Warner, Z. (2024). Mobile learning and QR code technologies in early childhood education: Opportunities for engagement and independent learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 112–128. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study