2014 final evaluation report: teachers’ literacy knowledge,...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
2014finalevaluationreport:Teachers’literacyknowledge,instructionalpractices,andtheirstudents’readingperformanceinPAQUED-supportedschoolsintheDemocraticRepublicofCongo
September,2014
SubmittedbyEducationDevelopmentCenter,Inc.Agreement#:AID-623-A-09-00010
![Page 2: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
ExecutiveSummaryTheProjectd’AméliorationdelaQualitédel’Education(PAQUED),fundedbytheUnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment(USAID)andledbyEducationDevelopmentCenter(EDC),isafive-yearprogramspanning2009-2014focusedonimprovingthequalityofbasiceducationin3,000schoolsintheDemocraticRepublicofCongo(DRC).Initsinitialstages,theprojectcenteredaroundthreeobjectives:improvingthequalityofteachingandteachers’masteryofcontent,improvingstudentmasteryofsubjectcontent,andimprovingtheschoollearningenvironment.Theproject’sinterventionsincludedtheintroductionofover600InteractiveAudioInstruction(IAI)programsforreadingandmath,whichmirroredthenationalcurriculum;thetrainingofover30,000teachersinFrenchandMathcontent;theproductionanddistributionofcluster-directedprofessionaldevelopmentmodules;therehabilitationandconstructionoftrainingcenters;thedistributionofteachingandlearningkits;andthetrainingof3,000communitiesonschoolgovernanceandonimprovingtheschoollearningenvironment.InresponsetoUSAID’snewstrategy(launchedin2012withagoalof100millionchildrendemonstratingimprovementsinreadingby2015)andtoexternalmidtermreviewfindingsthatrevealedprojectactivitiestobespreadtoothinlygiventhelargeterrainandnumbersofschoolsoutlinedintheinitialprojectdesign.PAQUEDrealignedinJanuary2013tofocusprimarilyonimprovingstudentreadingoutcomes.CertaincomponentsofthePAQUEDprogramlikeIAI,self-directedtraining,communitysupport,andkitdistributionwerecontinued,andarobustexperimentalreadingprogramwasintroducedin45PAQUEDschools.Thisreadingprogramcombinedintensetraining,coaching,andtheproductionofteachingandlearningmaterials,aswellascommunitymobilizationactivitiescenteredonreading.Thisreportpresentstheresultsofacomparativeevaluationstudythatwasconductedpost-realignment,betweenMarch2013andMay2014.Thestudyfocusedonthreegroupsofteachersingrade1to6:experimentalschoolteachers,IAI-onlyteachers,andcontrolteachers.ItendeavoredtounderstandhowteacherswereusingthevariousPAQUEDinterventionsavailabletothemandhowtheirknowledgeofteachingreadingandtheirliteracyinstructionalpracticesmayhavechangedasaresultoftheseinterventions.Finally,thestudyalsosoughttounderstandwhethertherewasanydifferenceinhowgrade1and2studentsperformedinreadingasaresultoftheirteachers’participationintheinterventionsandacquisitionofliteracyknowledgeandpractice.Insummary,thefindingsfromthisstudyshowthatexperimentalteachers’knowledgeofhowtoteachreadingandwritingismorecloselyalignedwithsoundliteracyinstructionthantheirIAI-onlyandcontrolcounterparts.Experimentalteachers’practicealsochangedsignificantlywithinayearofusingthereadingprogram.Asaresult,theperformanceofthestudentsoftheseexperimentalteachersinkeyreadingskillslikeletteridentificationandfluencyshowed
![Page 3: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
dramaticdifferencesincomparisontotheircontrolcounterparts.Linearregressionanalysisconductedestablishessignificantlinksbetweenteachers’applicationofPAQUEDinterventionsandstudentperformance.Specifically,experimentalteachers’IAIusage,theirfidelityofimplementationofthereadingprogram,andtheirparticipationincontinuingprofessionalactivitiesandvisitsfromcoacheswereshowntocontributetochangesinteacherpractice,teacherknowledgeofliteracyinstruction,andstudentperformance.ManyofthesefindingsaresupportedbytheseparatePAQUED2014EndlineReportofEGRAandEGMAproducedbyResearchTriangleInstitute(RTI).
![Page 4: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Tableofcontents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY..........................................................................................................................2
FIGURESANDTABLES...........................................................................................................................6
ACRONYMS..........................................................................................................................................8
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................9
STUDYPARTICIPANTS.........................................................................................................................11
CHAPTER1:GRADE1AND2STUDENTANDTEACHERRESULTS..........................................................15GRADE2STUDENTREADINGPERFORMANCE....................................................................................................16
StudentperformanceandPAQUEDinterventions..............................................................................21Studentperformanceandteacherpractices:.....................................................................................23Studentperformanceandteacherknowledge...................................................................................25
GRADE1AND2TEACHERS’KNOWLEDGEOFLITERACYINSTRUCTION....................................................................30Phonemic,phonologicalandalphabeticawareness:.........................................................................34Fluency:..............................................................................................................................................34Vocabulary:........................................................................................................................................35Comprehension:..................................................................................................................................37Writing:..............................................................................................................................................38
GRADE1AND2TEACHERPRACTICERESULTS...................................................................................................40Phonemic,phonologicalandalphabeticawareness:.........................................................................45Fluency:..............................................................................................................................................46Vocabulary:........................................................................................................................................49Comprehension:..................................................................................................................................49Generalclassroomandliteracypractices:..........................................................................................51
CHAPTER2:GRADE3TO6TEACHERRESULTS.....................................................................................53TEACHERKNOWLEDGEOFLITERACYINSTRUCTIONFINDINGS:GRADE3,4,5&6TEACHERS....................................53
Phonemicandphonologicalawareness:............................................................................................56Fluency:..............................................................................................................................................57Vocabulary:........................................................................................................................................58Comprehension:..................................................................................................................................58Writing:..............................................................................................................................................60
GRADE3TO6TEACHERPRACTICEFINDINGS....................................................................................................62Phonemicandphonologicalawareness:............................................................................................68Fluency:..............................................................................................................................................69Vocabulary:........................................................................................................................................70Comprehension:..................................................................................................................................70Generalinstructionalandliteracypractices:......................................................................................70
RECOMMENDATIONSFORPOLICYANDPRACTICE:.............................................................................72Trainingmodalities.............................................................................................................................72
![Page 5: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Materialsdevelopment:.....................................................................................................................74Communitymobilization....................................................................................................................75Researchandevaluation....................................................................................................................75InstitutionalCapacityBuilding:..........................................................................................................76
ANNEXA.METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................78Observation(practice)andinterview(knowledge)tools:...................................................................78Readingassessment:..........................................................................................................................80
DATAANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................................81STUDYLIMITATIONS:...................................................................................................................................81
ANNEXB.TOOLS................................................................................................................................82READINGASSESSMENT:................................................................................................................................82OBSERVATION(PRACTICE)TOOLS...................................................................................................................83
Grade1and2observationtool..........................................................................................................83Grade3and4observationtool..........................................................................................................87Grade5and6observationtool..........................................................................................................91
TEACHERINTERVIEW(KNOWLEDGE)TOOLS:....................................................................................................95Grade1and2interviewtool:.............................................................................................................95Grade3and4interviewtool:...........................................................................................................104Grade5and6interviewtool............................................................................................................112
![Page 6: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
FiguresandTablesTable1.Frequenciesofsampledgrade1and2teachersbyprovinceandstatusatendline..............................12Table2.Frequenciesofsampledgrade3and4teachersbyprovinceandstatus................................................12Table3.Frequenciesofsampledgrade5and6teachersbyprovinceandstatus................................................12Table4.Frequenciesofsampledgrade1and2teachersbysexandstatus.........................................................12Table5.Frequenciesofsampledgrade3and4teachersbysexandstatus.........................................................12Table6.Frequenciesofsampledgrade5and6teachersbysexandstatus.........................................................12Table7.Meanclasssizedisaggregatedbysexpergrade1and2teachersampledbystatus..............................13Table8.Meannumberofstudentsdisaggregatedbysexpergrade3and4teachersampledbystatus............13Table9.Meannumberofstudentsdisaggregatedbysexpergrade5and6teachersampledbystatus............13Table10.Numberofschoolssampledbysub-division..........................................................................................13Table11.Summarydescriptivestatisticsofgrade2studentperformanceinreadingsub-testsbystatus………..17Figure1.Percentageofstudentswithzeroscoresbystatus...................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.Table12.Summarydescriptivestatisticsofgrade2studentperformanceinreadingsub-testsbystatusomittingzeroscores.....................................................................................................................................................................18Table13.Summarydescriptivestatisticsofgrade2studentperformanceinreadingsub-testssub-testsbyprovinceandstatus..............................................................................................................................................................18Figure2.Meanscores,byprovinceandstatus.....................................................................................................20Figure3.StudentsperformanceinWCPMagainstnationalbenchmarkssetfor3rdgrade.................................21Table14.Fidelityofimplementationdataforgrade1and2teachersbyschooltreatmentstatus.....................21Figure4.Teachers’fidelityofimplementation(FOI)ofthereadingprogramandtheirstudents’meanperformanceinnumberofwordsreadcorrectly............................................................................................................................28Figure5.Teachers’fidelityofimplementation(FOI)ofthereadingprogramandtheirstudents’WCPM...........28Figures6.Experimentalteachers’applicationofyocabularypracticesatendlineandtheirstudents’WCPM....24Figure7.Experimentalteachers’applicationofP4atendlineandtheirstudents’WCPM..................................25Figure8.Experimentalteachers’totalmeanknowledgeofliteracyinstructionandtheirstudents’meanWCPM26Figure9.Experimentalteachers’totalmeanknowledgeofliteracyinstructionandtheirstudents’meanWCPM26Figure10.Experimentalteachers’responsestoQuestion3.1andtheirstudents’meanreadingaccuracy.........27Figure11.Experimentalteachers’totalmeanknowledgeofteachingwritingandtheirstudents’meanWCPM27Figures12.Correlationsbetweenteachers’responsestoQuestion1.3andstudentperformance.....................28Figure13.Experimentalteachers’responsestoQuestion5.2andtheirrstudents’meanreadingaccuracy.......29Figure14.Experimentalteachers’responsestoQuestion5.2andtheirrstudents’meanWCPM.......................30Figure15.Experimentalteachers’fidelityofimplementation(FOI)ofthereadingprogramandtheirtotalmeanknowledgeofliteracyinstructionatendline.........................................................................................................31Table15.Summaryofthegrade1and2teacherknowledgeresultsofcomparisonofmeansatendlinebetweengroups(higherpercentagesconvey“sound”knowledge).....................................................................................32Figure16.Teachers’meanknowledgeofteachingreadingbycomponentskill,atendline.................................32Table16.Itemanalysisofthegrade1and2teacherendlineknowledgeresults(means)comparisonbygroups(percentagesreflectagreement)...........................................................................................................................33Figure17.Experimentalteachers’fidelityofimplementation(FOI)ofthereadingprogramandtheirtotalmeanknowledgeofteachingfluency,atendline............................................................................................................41
![Page 7: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Figure18.Experimentalteachers’fidelityofimplementation(FOI)ofthereadingprogramandtheirresponsestoQuestion2.1,atendline........................................................................................................................................41Table17.Summaryofthegrade1and2teacherpracticeresultsofcomparisonofmeansbetweenthebaselineandtheendlinedisaggregatedbystatus..................................................................................................................4141Table18.Itemanalysisofthegrade1and2teacherpracticeresultsofcomparisonofmeansbetweenthebaselineandtheendlinedisaggregatedbystatus......................................................................................................................41Figure19.Grade1and2teachers’changeinliteracyinstructionalpracticesfrombaselinetoendline..............42Table19.Summaryresultsoflinearregressionforthegrade1and2teacherchangeofinstructionalpracticesusingadherencetoteachersparticipationinCPDandIAIdosageaspredictors............................................................44Table20.Itemanalysisresultsoflinearregressionforthegrade1and2teachers’changeofinstructionalpracticesusingadherencetoteachersparticipationinCPDandIAIdosageaspredictors..................................................44Figure20.IAI-onlyteachers’IAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice4.....................................................................48Figure21.IAI-onlyteachers’IAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice22...................................................................48Figure22.Experimentalteachers’IAIusageandtheirgainsinfluency-buildingpractices...................................48Figure23.Experimentalteachers’IAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice9............................................................48Figure24.Experimentalteachers’IAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice10..........................................................48Figures25.IAI-onlyteachers’IAIusageandtheirgainsininstructionalpractice.................................................48Figure26.Experimentalteachers’IAIusageandtheirgainsinvocabularybuildingpractices.............................48Figure27.Experimentalteachers’IAIusageandtheirgainsincomprehensionbuildingpractices......................51Figure28.Experimentalteachers’participationinCPDandtheirgainsinPractice20..........................................52Figure29.Experimentalteachers'IAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice20(supportingstudents)......................52Table21.Summaryofthegrade3and4teacherknowledgeresultsofcomparisonofmeansatendline..........54Table22.Itemanalysisofthegrade3and4teacherknowledgeresultsofcomparisonofmeansatendlinedisaggregatedbystatus.........................................................................................................................................55Table23.Summaryofthegrade5and6teacherknowledgeresultsofcomparisonofmeansatendlinedisaggregatedbystatus...............................................................................................................................................................55Table24.Itemanalysisofthegrade5and6teacherknowledgeresultsofcomparisonofmeansatendlinedisaggregatedbystatus........................................................................................................................................56Table25.Summaryofthegrade3and4teacherpracticeresultsofcomparisonofmeansbetweenthebaselineandtheendlinedisaggregatedbystatus.....................................................................................................................63Table26.Itemanalysisofthegrade3and4teacherpracticeresultsofcomparisonofmeansbetweenthebaselineandtheendlinedisaggregatedbystatus......................................................................................................................63Figure30.Grade3and4teachers’changeinliteracyinstructionalpracticesfrombaselinetoendline..............64Table27.Summaryofthegrade5and6teacherpracticeresultsofcomparisonofmeansbetweenthebaselineandtheendlinedisaggregatedbystatus......................................................................................................................65Table28.Itemanalysisofthegrade5and6teacherpracticeresultsofcomparisonofmeansbetweenthebaselineandtheendlinedisaggregatedbystatus......................................................................................................................65Figure31.Grade5and6teachers’changeinliteracyinstructionalpracticesfrombaselinetoendline..............65Table29.Summaryresultsoflinearregressionforthegrade5and6changeinpracticeusingIAIdosageasapredictor 68Table31.Itemanalysisresultsoflinearregressionforthegrade5and6teacherobservationofinstructionalpracticesusingIAIdosageasapredictor..............................................................................................................................68Figure32.Experimentalteachers’IAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice1...........................................................65Figure33.Experimentalteachers’IAIusageandtheirgainsingeneralliteracypractices....................................71
![Page 8: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
AcronymsCPD ContinuingProfessionalDevelopmentCRS CatholicReliefServicesCTB CooperationTechniqueBelge(BelgianTechnicalCooperation)CWPM CorrectWordsperMinuteEDC EducationDevelopmentCenterEGRA EarlyGradeReadingAssessmentIAI InteractiveAudioInstructionMEPSP MinistèredeL’EnseignementPrimaire,SecondaireetProfessionelPAQUED Projetd’AmeliorationdelaQualitédeL’EducationRTI ResearchTriangleInstituteUSAID UnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment
![Page 9: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
IntroductionIn2014,theDRCMinistryofEducation(MinistèredeL’EnseignementPrimaire,SecondaireetProfessionel,MEPSP)launchednewpolicyinitiativesintendedtoimprovethequalityofliteracyteachingandlearning.InFebruary2012,theNationalReadingCommission,establishedbytheDRCMinistryofEducation,proposednewperformancestandardsforreadingandwritingforallsixprimaryschoolgradesinFrenchandnationallanguage.Thenewperformancestandardswerepartofa“roadmap”(feuillederoute,inFrench)ofkeytaskstodevelop,implementandeffectivelymonitorprogresstowardachievingthegoalofimprovingthestateofliteracyeducationinthecountry.Thereadingroadmapincludesthedevelopmentofanewreadingcurriculumandpedagogicaltoolstosupportimplementation.Thefive-yearUSAID-fundedProjetd’AmeliorationdelaQualitédeL’Education(PAQUED)projectalignedwiththesenationalinitiativesbydevelopingandimplementingaresearch-basedreadinginstructionalapproachforGrades1and2inselectedprojectschools.Theexperimentalreadingprogramaimedtoprovideaplatformfortestingkeyinputsfromtheroadmap.Theseinputsincludethecontentstandards,anevidencebasedinstructionalsequence,andtext-levelingcriteriaandguidelines,whichtheReadingCommissionhasdevelopedaspartoftheproposednewnationalreadingcurriculum.Thetrainingapproachdesignedfortheexperimentalprogramprovidedmultipleopportunitiesforteacherstolearnandreflectuponthenewapproaches.PIEQbegantheprocessofdevelopingandtestingthenewprogrambyidentifying45experimentalschoolsinthethreeprovinceswheretheprojectoperates.16schoolswereidentifiedinBandundu,16inEquateur,and13inOrientale.Grade1and2teachersintheseschoolsbenefitedfromongoingtraining,coaching,adetaileddailylessonstructureandaccompanyingactivityguide,andleveledreadingmaterials.Theleveledreadingmaterials,developedforbothclassroomandstudentuse,drewuponthemesandcontentwithintheofficialDRClanguagecurricula(bothfornationallanguagesandforFrench).Thesetextsweredevelopedaccordingtoprovisionalbenchmarksandtext-levelingcriteriadevelopedandadoptedbytheNationalReadingCommission,whichwasestablishedlatein2012bytheMinistryofEducation.ClassroomactivitiesandstrategiesoutlinedinthesematerialsmirrortheMinistry-validatedstudentlearningstandards.ExperimentalschoolteachersalsocontinuedtobenefitfromPAQUED’sInteractiveAudioInstruction(IAI)andotherprojectinputs(e.g.,videotrainingmodules).618additionalPAQUEDprojectschools(referredtoastheIAI-onlyschools)benefitedfromIAI,projecttrainingonIAI,FrenchandMathcontentknowledge,andself-directedlearningmodulesforprofessionaldevelopment,occasionalvisitsfromaPAQUEDprojectteammember,andmaterialslikestudentkits,classroommaterials(chalk,rulers,mathkits),mp3radios,andteacherguides,butdidnotreceivetheothersupportsassociatedwiththereadingprogram.Theremaining2,382PAQUEDprojectschoolswereprovidedwithIAIprograms,training,andkitmaterialsbutwerelesslikelytoreceivevisitsfroma
![Page 10: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
PAQUEDagent,astheywerelargelyinaccessibleduetodistance,security,andlimitedtransportoptions.These2,382schoolswerenotincludedinthestudydescribedinthisdocument,sincetheproject’srealignedfocushadshiftedtotheexperimentalandIAI-onlyschools.AcomprehensivestudywasundertakentoidentifyhowteachersintheexperimentalandIAI-onlyschoolsevolvedoverthecourseoftheprogramintermsoftheirclassroompractices,knowledgeaboutliteracyinstruction,dispositions(i.e.,attitudes)towardliteracyandliteracyinstruction,andchangesinstudentperformance.Initialfindingsshowmarkedimprovementinteachers’knowledgeandskillsoverbaseline,aswellasimprovedstudentperformanceonletter-sound,vocabulary,andfluencymeasures.Datacollectedviaindividualinterviews,classroomobservations,andfocusgroupinterviewsofGrade1and2teachersshowimprovementsintheirknowledgeandpracticefordevelopingarangeofstudentskills,includingletter-soundknowledge,decoding/encoding,vocabulary,fluencyandcomprehension.Theseresultssuggestthatthereadingprogram,includingtheintegrateduseofIAIinstruction,positivelyimpactedteacherknowledgeandpracticeinsupportofthedevelopmentofstudents’literacyskills.Thisreportpresentstheresultsofthestudyandhighlightskeyelementsofthereadingprograminterventionthatarebelievedtohavecontributedtoresults.First,wedescribethestudysampleandthetheoryofchangeonwhichthisstudywasbased.Thereafter,thediscussionisdividedintotwosections:thefirstfocusingontheresultsforgrade1and2studentsandteachers,whoweretheprimarytargetsofthereadingprogram,andthesecondfocusingongrade3to6teachers,whoseexposuretotheprogramcamethroughclustertrainingwithgrade1and2peersandIAIliteracymaterialsforgrades3-6.Chapter1ispresentedintotwoparts:Thefirstpartpresentsstudentreadingperformancedataandthepossiblelinkagestostudents’exposuretoPAQUEDinterventionandthechangesintheirteachers’practiceandknowledge.Thesecondpartdivesdeeperintothefindingsrelatedtoteacherknowledgeofhowtoteachreadingandwritingandchangesinteachers’literacyinstructionalpracticesfrombaselinetoendline.TheseresultsarelinkedtothevariousPAQUEDinterventionsmadeavailabletoteachers.Chapter2exploresgrade3to6teachers’knowledgeofreadingandwritingandtheirchangeinpracticefrombaselinetoendline,linkingtheseresultstoPAQUEDinterventions.ThereportconcludeswithadiscussionofrecommendationsandlessonslearnedforfutureprojectsandpoliciesderivedfromadataandresultsworkshopattendedbytheDRCMinistry’sNationalReadingCommissioninAugust2014.
![Page 11: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
StudyparticipantsThisstudyexamined3distinctgroupsofteachers:teacherswhobenefitedfromPAQUED’sintensivedailyreadingprogram(experimentalschoolteachers)plusInteractiveAudioInstruction(IAI);teacherswhobenefitedonlyfromPAQUED’sIAIprogramming(thisgrouprepresents98%ofPAQUEDinterventionschools);andteacherswhodidnotbenefitfromthePAQUEDprogramatall(controlschoolteachers).Thestudywasdesignedasamatchedpairstudy(seeAnnexA)topermitbothlongitudinalandcross-sectionalanalysis.TeacherswithineachschoolwereselectedrandomlyfromthePAQUEDteacherdatabaseatbaselineinFebruary2012.Atbaseline,thestudyparticipantsamplesizewaspre-determinedbasedonamatched-pairdesignusingaonetail,.5effectsize(α=.025,β=.8)providingthefollowingbreakdownofteacherstobesurveyedandobserved:Takingintoaccountgeneralattrition,teachermobilityacrossgrade-levels,andsubsequentreplacementteachersselectedtoparticipateinthestudy,thedistributionschangedoverthecourseofendlineandbaseline.Thetablesandfiguresbelowprovideanoverviewofoursampledpopulationofteachersdisaggregatedbygradeleveltaught,statusandprovince,andtheiraverageclassroomsizes.ThedistributionofteachersbyprovinceandstatuswerefairlyevenlydistributedwiththeexceptionofOrientalwhereIAI-onlyteachersrepresentagreaterpercentageofthesampleacrossgradelevels.
TEACHERS Experimental IAI-only Control grade1-2 35 35 35 grade3-4 35 35 35 grade5-6 35 35 35 total 105 105 105 315
![Page 12: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
TeacherSamplebyprovinceandgrade
Intermsofgenderdifferencesinteacherssampled,itisinterestingtonotethedrop-offoffemaleteachersingrade5and6forIAI-onlyandcontrolschools.ThisisconsistentwiththeDRC-basedstereotypemaleteacherforolderstudents.Forexperimentalschoolsthough,thistrendwasn’taspronounced.
TeacherSamplebysexandgrade
Table1.Frequenciesofsampledgrade1and2teachersbyprovinceandstatusatendline
Status Province N
ControlBandundu 34Equateur 38Orientale 53
ExperimentalBandundu 29Equateur 30Orientale 25
IAI-onlyBandundu 30Equateur 43Orientale 56
Table2.Frequenciesofsampledgrade3and4teachersbyprovinceandstatus
Status Province N
ControlBandundu 42Equateur 30Orientale 36
ExperimentalBandundu 30Equateur 30Orientale 28
IAI-onlyBandundu 33Equateur 46Orientale 62
Table3.Frequenciesofsampledgrade5and6teachersbyprovinceandstatus
Status Province N
ControlBandundu 39Equateur 32Orientale 26
ExperimentalBandundu 26Equateur 27Orientale 23
IAI-onlyBandundu 29Equateur 29Orientale 53
Table4.Frequenciesofsampledgrade1and2teachersbysexandstatus
Status Sex N
ControlF 36M 53
ExperimentalF 54M 15
IAI-onlyF 66M 32
Table5.Frequenciesofsampledgrade3and4teachersbysexandstatus
Status Sex N
ControlF 21M 53
ExperimentalF 29M 38
IAI-onlyF 59M 46
Table6.Frequenciesofsampledgrade5and6teachersbysexandstatus
Status Sex N
ControlF 8M 53
ExperimentalF 18M 21
IAI-onlyF 21M 46
![Page 13: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Inadditiontoteacherdemographics,itisalsoimportanttoconsiderteachers’meanclasssizesbecauselargerclasssizesareoftencorrelatedwithteacherandstudentperformance.Interestingly,thesamplerevealedslightlybiggermeanclasssizesinexperimentalschoolsversusIRI-onlyandcontrolschools.However,thisdoesnotmeanthatexperimentalschoolsnecessarilyhadhigherenrollmentrates.Thismeasurewascapturedatthebeginningofeveryclassroomobservation,whentheenumeratorwoulddrawamapoftheclassandcountthenumberofboysandgirls.Therefore,thissuggeststhatstudentattendancemaybebetterinexperimentalschoolsoverIAI-onlyandcontrolschools.
Meanclasssizebystatusandgender
Grade1to6teachersweresampledfromthe3PAQUEDinterventionprovinces.Withintheseprovinces,datawascollectedfromrandomlyselectedschoolsinthesub-divisionsasfollows:Table10.Numberofschoolssampledbysub-divisionBandundu Orientale EquateurKikwit(N=13) Kisangani(N=17) Mbandaka(N=14)Bandundu-ville(N=5) Bunia(N=9) Boende(N=5)Gungu(N=5) Isiro(N=4) Gemena(N=4)Masi-Manimba(N=5) Zongo(N=3)Kenge(N=4) Gbadolite(N=5)ApproximatelyhalfofthesamplewasdrawnfromRTI’smidlineevaluationschoolsinordertopermittriangulationofresultsbetweenstudentperformanceandteacherpracticeandknowledge.Theremaininghalfofthesamplewasselectedbasedonschoolclusterdivisions;thatis,ifanexperimentalschoolwasselectedintheRTImidlinesample,thoseschoolsthatwerealreadydesignatedas“clustered”withthoseschoolswerealsoselectedtobeexperimental.ThisisconsistentwithPAQUED’sObjective2theoryofchange,whichposits:
Qualityofteachingimprovedinreading
IncreaseinthenumberofstudentsinDRCwithimprovedreadingskills
Table7.Meanclasssizedisaggregatedbysexpergrade1and2teachersampledbystatus
Status Sex Mean Totalmean
ControlGirls 14
30Boys 16
ExperimentalGirls 19
37Boys 18
IAI-onlyGirls 17
35Boys 18
Table8.Meannumberofstudentsdisaggregatedbysexpergrade3and4teachersampledbystatus
Status Sex Mean Totalmean
ControlGirls 14
27Boys 13
ExperimentalGirls 25
44Boys 19
IAI-onlyGirls 19
39Boys 20
Table9.Meannumberofstudentsdisaggregatedbysexpergrade5and6teachersampledbystatus
Status Sex Mean TotalMean
ControlGirls 12
26Boys 14
Experimental Girls 25 40Boys 15
IAI-only Girls 16 34Boys 18
![Page 14: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
ThistheoryofchangeisbaseduponteacheruseandapplicationofPAQUEDtoolsandresourcesprovided.Morespecifically,under“qualityofteachingimproved”PAQUEDendeavoredtoexplorewhattypeofapproachwouldfosterthisimprovedqualityofteachingandbeyondthis,howtodiscernthepotentialofthisapproachforsustainedandinternalizedimprovementinteachingbeyondthelengthoftheprogram.
Thisstudysearchestoconfirmortodisconfirmthistheoryofchangeandexploresthefollowingquestions:
1. Howaregrade2studentsincontrolandexperimentalschoolsperforminginreadingattheendofschoolyear2013/14?
2. HowareteachersapplyingthePAQUEDinterventionsavailabletothem?3. Howdoteachers’classroompracticeslinktotheirstudents’performanceinreading?*4. Howdoteachers’understandingofeffectivereadinginstructionlinktotheirstudents’
performanceinreading?*5. Howdoteachers’useofthePAQUEDinterventionslinktotheirstudents’performancein
reading?*6. Howdidteachers’classroompracticeschangeover1.5schoolyearsANDarethesechanges
linkedtotheiruseofthePAQUEDinterventionsavailabletothem?7. WhatdoteachersunderstandabouteffectivereadinginstructionANDisthisknowledgelinked
totheiruseofthePAQUEDinterventionsavailabletothem?*Thisquestionislimitedtograde2studentsandteachersonly
Thefirstfivequestionswillbeaddressedinthefirstsectionongrade2studentreadingperformance.Thefollowingtwoquestionswillbeaddressedinthesectionsonteachers’practicesandteachers’knowledge.Forchapter2ongrade3to6teachers,onlyquestions2,6,and7willbeansweredgiventhisstudydidnotcollectreadingperformancedataforgrades3to6students.
ImprovingqualityofteachinginreadingIfwegiveteachersanexplicitreadingprogramtofollowintheirclassroomsANDWegivethemopportunitiesforlearningandreflection(includingcollectivereflection/exchangewiththeirpeers)THENTeacherswillgainanunderstandingofliteracylearningneedsandprocessesamongtheirstudentsANDwillappropriatelyapplyinstructionaltechniquesandstrategiesintheclassroom.ANDwillchangetheirdispositionsvisavisreadingandwritinginstruction
![Page 15: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Chapter1:Grade1and2studentandteacherresultsPAQUEDreadingprogram:
Thereadingprogramwasdesignedtoprovidestakeholders(mostimportantly,theMinistry)witharobustmodelfortransformingteachers’instructionalpracticesandknowledgeofhowtoteachreading;therebyimprovingstudentperformance.Theprogramincludedthefollowingcomponents:
• Government-validatedStandardsandbenchmarksfromwhichallmaterialsweredesigned• Comprehensiveface-to-faceteacher-trainingoneffectivereadingstrategiesandontheuseof
instructionalmaterials• Teacheractivityguidekeyedtocurriculum,teachingstrategies,andmaterials,presentedsimple
language(French)accessibletotheteachers• Teacherread-aloudbooks(1/weekperclass)• Decodable/Leveledtexts(1/weekperclass)• 30-minuteIAIlessonsfocusedondevelopingreadingskills(1/weekperclass)• Monthlyin-classCoaching/Mentoringbyacoachtrainedinreading• Adequate,dedicateddailyteachingtimefocusedonreading• Teacher-ledweeklymeetingsinaschool-basedlearningcirclefocusedonreading.• Teacher-ledmonthlymeetingswithpeersinamultiple-schoollearningcirclefocusedonreading.• Communitysupport/participationthroughreadingclubsorEspaceCommunautaired’Eveilen
Lecture(ECEL).ThetrainingwasdesignedtolaunchwithinthePAQUEDproject’sfinalyearofoperations.Therefore,itaimedtoquicklyrespondtograde1and2teachers’needsforknowledgeandskills(i.e.,practice)developmentinthreeareas:subjectmatter(literacy),pedagogy(i.e.,thelearningprocess)andinstructionalpracticeinreadingandwriting.Thescopeanddepthofteachers’identifiedneedsatbaselinepresentedachallenge:howcouldtheprogramdevelopteachers’knowledgeandskillsquickly,followingacomprehensive,research-basedpedagogicalapproach,whileatthesametimesupportingrapidimprovementoflearners’skillsinreadingandwriting?PAQUEDaddressedthisproblembydevelopingaseriesofstructuredclassroomteachingandlearningactivitieswhichrepeatedthemselvesweekly,tohelpteachersmasterstrategiesandcontinuetopracticethem.Theseactivitiessharedabasiclessonstructure,beginningwiththedevelopmentoflearners’knowledgeoflettersandsoundsandhowtoapplythisknowledgetodecodeandencodenewwords.Theprogramfacilitatedrapidteachermasteryofinstructionalstrategiesbyrepeatingcertaininstructionalactivitiesseveraltimesduringtheweek.Thisapproachaimedtopromotethedevelopmentofteachers’understandingofliteracylearningneedsandprocessesamongearlygradelearners,ontheonehand,andtheirabilitytoeffectivelyapplyappropriateinstructionaltechniquesandstrategies,ontheotherhand.Thispractice-basedapproachdesignedtofosterteacherchangeviaongoingapplicationandreflection1wasvitaltotheprogram’ssuccess.
1TheapproachisbaseduponSchon’s(1987)“knowledge-in-action”,inwhichteachersdeveloptheknowledgeandskillsforeffectivereadingandwritinginstructionwhileapplyingresearch-basedinstructionalstrategiesintheclassroom.
![Page 16: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Thetrainingcomponentoftheprogramentailedtwotrainingworkshops,regularmentoringsupportandteacherlearning(i.e.,discussion)forums/learningcircles.Inaninitialweeklongface-to-facetraining,participatingteacherslearnedthebasicstepstocorrectlyexecuteliteracylessonactivitiesvialessondemonstrationsandgroupdiscussion.Theprojectthenreinforcedteachers’skilldevelopmentthroughregularmentoringor“coaching”classroomvisitsandteacher-leddiscussionforums.Atthebeginningofeveryweek,teachersalsoparticipatedinpeer-to-peercoachingandlessonpreparation,tofurtherenhancetheircapacitytocorrectlyexecuteactivitiesandapplytechniquesandstrategiesfordevelopinglearners’skills.Asecondfive-dayfacetofacetrainingworkshopwasgivenmidwaythroughtheyeartohelpteachersbetterunderstand,improveon,andaddtotheactivitiestheyhadbecomecomfortableimplementing.Overall,thesetrainingsandongoingteachersupportcontributedtoteachers’motivationandconfidenceinimplementingthestructuredprogramintheirclassroomsandprovidedthemwithforumsforsharingtheirstudents’progressandcontinuingdifficulties.ThesectionthatfollowspresentsresultsofGrade2studentperformanceafterbenefitingfromoneyearofthereadingprogramintervention.
Grade2studentreadingperformanceAlthoughstudentreadingperformancewascapturedinRTI’sPAQUED2014EndlineofEGRAandEGMAperformance,theGrade2readingdatalargelyfocusedonpre-readingskilltesting,skillsthatwerechosenbyaMinistrycommitteeattestadaptionin2009.Inordertocapturemoreadvancedreadingskillstargetedinthegrade1and2readingprogram,ashortreadingassessmenttoolwasdevelopedbyEDCtomeasurefluency(accuracyandautomaticity)andalphabeticawareness.Thesub-testsemployedwereletteridentification,highfrequencywords,andconnected-textsubtestsadaptedfromexistingEGRAtoolsfromMali.Studentstestedwererandomly+whoparticipatedinthestudy(seesamplingandmethodologyinAnnexA).Thiswastooffertheopportunitytotriangulateteacherpractice,knowledge,andfidelityofimplementationwithstudentperformanceresults.Unfortunately,insufficientnumbersofIAI-onlystudentsweretestedinthisstudy,whichexplainstheiromissionfromthissectionofthediscussionandanalysis.Itshouldalsobenotedthatthenumberofstudentsparticipatinginthispartofthestudyremainslow.However,RTI’smoreextensivePAQUED2014EndlineofEGRAandEGMAperformancealsoshowspositivetrendsindifferentreadingsub-testsforgrade2experimentalschoolstudents.Forexample,grade2experimentalschoolstudentsprogressedsignificantlyintheiridentificationofgraphemesfrombaselinetoendline.Belowisasummaryofstudentresultsdisaggregatedbystatus(experimentalandcontrol)anddisaggregatedbyprovinceandstatus.
![Page 17: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Table11.Summarydescriptivestatisticsofgrade2studentperformanceinreadingsub-testsbystatus
Sub-task Status Mean SD p-value Cohen’sD Effectsize
Numberoflettersread(outof26)
Experimental(N=169) 20.96 5.4 .000 -2.11 0.73
Control(N=82) 10.2 6.71
Numberofhighfrequencywordsread(outof8)
Experimental(N=169) 4.39 2.63 .000 -1.46 0.59
Control(N=82) 1.21 2.005
Numberofwordsreadinatext(outof26)
Experimental(N=169) 11.24 9.25 .000 -1.27 0.54
Control(N=82) 2.22 5.014
WordsCorrectlyreadPerMinute
Experimental(N=169) 9.8 13.73 .000 -1.03 0.46
Control(N=82) 1.22 3.69
Thetableaboverevealthatgrade2studentsinexperimentalschoolsperformedsignificantlybetterthantheircontrolandcounterpartsinallsub-tasks(p=.000)atendlineinMay2014.Thegraphbelowillustratesthedifferencesinzeroscoresacrosssubtests,thatis,studentswhocouldnotidentifyorreadasingleletterorword.Fornumberoflettersread,allgrade2experimentalstudentswereabletoidentifyatleastoneormoreletterswhereas1.2%ofcontrolstudentswerenotabletoidentifyasingleletter.Forhighfrequencywordreading,only7.7%ofgrade2experimentalstudentswereunabletoreadasinglewordoutofeightwhereas53.7%ofcontrolstudentswereunabletodoso.Intermsofpercentaccuracyinreadingaconnectedtext,only17.2%ofgrade2experimentalstudentswereunabletoreadasinglewordoutofeightwhereasalmost59%ofcontrolstudentscouldnotreadoneword.Figure1.Percentageofstudentswithzeroscoresbystatus
Cont
rol
Cont
rol
Cont
rol
Cont
rol
Expe
rimen
tal
Expe
rimen
tal
Expe
rimen
tal
Expe
rimen
tal
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Number of letters read (out of 26)
Number of high frequency words read (out of 8)
Number of words read in a text (out of
26)
Words Correctly read Per Minute
1.2%
0% 7.7%
58.5%53.7%17.2%
55%
15.2%
![Page 18: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Giventhelargenumbersofzeroscores,itisusefultolookatresultsomittingnon-reader’sscoresinordertocapturearealisticviewofreader’sperformance.Thetablebelowsummarizesresultsomittingthezeroscores.Overall,omittingthesescoresdrivesupmeanscoresslightlyineachsubtestwiththeexceptionofnumbersoflettersreadforexperimentalschoolstudentsforwhomnonehadzeroscoresinthatsubtest.Despiteomittingzeroscores,experimentalstudentsstillsignificantlyoutperformedtheircontrolcounterpartsacrosssubtests(p=.000).Table12.Summarydescriptivestatisticsofgrade2studentperformanceinreadingsub-testsbystatusomittingzeroscores
Sub-task Status Mean SD p-value Cohen’sD Effectsize
Numberoflettersread(outof26)
Experimental(N=169) 20.96 5.4 .000 -1.71 0.71
Control(N=81) 10.32 6.65
Numberofhighfrequencywordsread(outof8)
Experimental(N=156) 4.75 2.4 .000 -1.36 0.56
Control(N=38) 2.61 2.25
Numberofwordsreadinatext(outof
26)
Experimental(N=140) 13.57 8.45 .000 -1.55 0.61
Control(N=34) 5.35 6.66
WordsCorrectlyreadPerMinute
Experimental(N=117) 11.56 14.22 .000 -.99 0.44
Control(N=27) 2.72 5.17
StudentperformancebyprovinceGrade2experimentalschoolstudentperformanceinvariedsignificantlyfromprovincetoprovince.Thetablebelowshowsasummaryofscoresacrossallsubtestsforeachprovince.Table13.Summarydescriptivestatisticsofgrade2studentperformanceinreadingsub-testsbyprovinceandstatus
Province Sub-task Status Mean SD p-value Cohen’sD Effectsize
BANDUNDU (N= 107)
Numberoflettersread(outof26)
Experimental(N=81) 19.26 6.23 .000 -1.69 0.65*
Control(N=26) 11.77 5.631
Numberofhighfrequencywordsread(outof8)
Experimental(N=81) 3.9 2.9 .000 -1.29 0.54*
Control(N=26) 1.31 2.478
Numberofwordsreadinatext(out
of26)
Experimental(N=81) 7.67 8.6 .002 -0.78 0.36
Control(N=26) 3.04 5.67
WordsCorrectly Experimental 4.75 8.6 .001 -0.75 0.35
![Page 19: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
readPerMinute (N=78)Control(N=17) 1.04 1.5
EQUATEUR (N=55)
Numberoflettersread(outof26)
Experimental(N=32) 20.69 .403 .000 -2.51 0.78*
Control(N=23) 9.61 6.31
Numberofhighfrequencywordsread(outof8)
Experimental(N=32) 4.31 1.91 .000 -1.97 0.7*
Control(N=23) 1.26 1.3
Numberofwordsreadinatext(out
of26)
Experimental(N=32) 12.28 7.78 .000 -2.7 0.8**
Control(N=23) 1.04 1.64
WordsCorrectlyreadPerMinute
Experimental(N=19) 5.77 3.51 .000 -3.14 0.84**
Control(N=18) 0.33 0.35
ORIENTALE (N=89)
Numberoflettersread(outof26)
Experimental(N=56) 23.57 3.42 .000 -3.2 0.84**
Control(N=33) 9.36 7.67
Numberofhighfrequencywordsread(outof8)
Experimental(N=56) 5.14 2.44 .000 -1.91 0.68*
Control(N=33) 1.09 2.07
Numberofwordsreadinatext(out
of26)
Experimental(N=56) 15.82 8.85 .000 -1.85 0.67*
Control(N=33) 2.39 5.9
WordsCorrectlyreadPerMinute
Experimental(N=41) 21.27 17.47 .000 -1.82 0.67*
Control(N=25) 1.99 5.54
*effectsizeismedium**effectsizeislargeFortheletterreadingandhighfrequencywordssub-testvariationbetweenprovincesremainedstable.However,forconnectedtextreading,inexperimentalschoolsinOrientale,studentssignificantlyoutperformednotonlytheircontrolcounterpartsinthatprovincebutalsotheirexperimentalcounterpartsinBandunduandEquateurintheirpercentaccuracyandintheirnumberofwordsreadperminute(p=.000).Thiscanbeexplainedbyseveralfactorsthatwerefoundtopositivelyandsignificantlycorrelatewithstudentresults.Theseareteachers’fidelityofimplementationofthereadingprogramandteachers’knowledgeandclassroompractices.Thesewillbediscussedfurtherbelow.
![Page 20: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Figure2.Meanscores,byprovinceandstatus
*performanceforOrientaleexperimentalschoolsforWCPMisp=.000
StudentperformancerelativetobenchmarkTheDRCgovernmentsetprovisionalbenchmarksfordifferentreadingcompetenciesinFebruary2012forbothnationallanguageandFrench.Becausestudentsingrade1and2areintendedtolearntoreadinnationallanguages,nobenchmarksweresetforreadingfluencyinFrenchforgrade2.However,benchmarksweresetforgrade3.Thefigurebelowshowstheproportionofexperimentalandcontrolschoolswhoarebelowthebenchmark,atbenchmark,andabovethebenchmark.12%ofgrade2experimentalstudentsreadabovefluencybenchmarkforFrenchsetforgrade3,9%readatbenchmarkand78%readbelowthebenchmark.Incontrasttothis,only2%ofgrade2controlstudentsshowedtoreadatbenchmarkforfluencyand98%readbelowbenchmark.
10.52
14.5616.41
6.5 5.78
21.27
6.6
2
7.9
20.5
7.1
0
5
10
15
20
25Num
bero
fwords
Experimental
Control
Numberofwordsreadcorrectlyinaconnectedtext(outof26)
Numberofwordsreadcorrectlyperminute
![Page 21: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Figure3.Students’performanceinWCPMagainstnationalbenchmarkssetfor3rdgrade
StudentperformanceandPAQUEDinterventions:Asmentionedearlier,analysisrevealedstudentperformancetobepositivelyandsignificantlylinkedtoseveralfactorstoteachers’fidelityofimplementationofthereadingprogram,teachers’knowledgeandteachers’classroompractices.Thedataspecificallyrevealedthatstudentperformancewassignificantlylinkedtotwofactors:ratesofIAIlistenershipandtheirteachers’fidelityofapplicationofthereadingprogram.BelowisanoutlineofthedegreetowhichteachersappliedorparticipatedincertainPAQUEDinterventionsavailabletothem.Table14.Fidelityofimplementationdataforgrade1and2teachersbyschooltreatmentstatus
ExperimentalN=69
IAI-onlyN=96
Fidelityofimplementationofreadingprogramrate
ParticipationinCPD2 IAIlistenership IAIlistenership
Mean St.Dev. Mean St.Dev. Mean St.Dev. Mean St.Dev..88 .13 .71 .15 .86 .067 .51 .28
Overall,experimentalteachersusedand/orfollowedthevariouselementsofthePAQUEDinterventionasdesigned.Despitethis,experimentalteachers’employmentofonlyoneoftheseinterventionscorrelatedsignificantlywithstudentperformance:fidelityofimplementationofthereadingprogram.Linearregressionshowedthat21%ofthevariationinmeanstudentperformanceinconnectedtextreadingcorrelatedpositivelyandsignificantly(p=.016,d=1.01,ES=0.45)withtheirteachers’fidelityofimplementationofthereadingprogram.
2CPD=Continuingprofessionaldevelopment.Thisisacompositescoresincludingratesofteacherparticipationinschool-basedandclusterbasedmeetingsavailabletothemandnumberofmonthlycoachingvisitsfromfacilitatorsorPAQUEDstaff.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Studentsreading<15WCPM
Studentsreading16to29WCPM
Studentsreadingabove29WCPM
Experimental
Control
21%ofstudentsattheendof2ndgradeinexperimentalschoolsattainedorsurpasedtheWCPMbenchmarkssetforFrenchreadingin3rdgradecomparedto2%ofstudentsincontrolschools.
78%
98%
9%
2%
12%
0%
![Page 22: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Inadditiontothis,23.8%ofthevariationinstudent’smeanwordscorrectperminutecanbeexplainedbyteachers’followingthereadingprogramthewayitwasdesigned(p=.021,d=1.09,ES=0.479).
Thiscorrelationpointstotheimportanceofteachersfollowingaprogramasitisdesigned.Onaverage,teachersinexperimentalschoolsfollowed88%ofthereadingprogramactivitiesastheyweredevised.ThiswashigherforOrientaleandEquateurprovinceswhereteachersshowedtoapplymorethan90%ofthereadingprogramappropriately.Duetolownumbersofteachersasmatchedwithstudentstested,correlationsoffidelityofimplementationofthereadingprogramandmeanstudentperformancecannotbepresentedbyprovince.
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91
0 5 10 15 20 25Meanpe
rcen
tageofreading
program
FOI
Students'meannumberofwordsreadcorrectly
Figure4.Teacher’sfidelityofimplementation(FOI)ofthereadingprogramandtheirstudents'meanperformanceinnumberofwordsreadcorrectly
R2=.21sig=.016
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91
0 10 20 30 40Meanpe
rcen
tageofreading
program
FOI
Students'meanWCPM
Figure5.Teacher’sfidelityofimplementation(FOI)ofreadingprogramandtheirstudents'meanWCPM
R2=.238sig=.021
![Page 23: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
OtherPAQUEDinterventionssuchasIAIlistenershipwereassumedtohaveanimpactonstudentperformanceinreading.Thisisbecausetheprogramswerebroadcastdirectlyintotheclassroomandweredesignedtoengagethestudentsjustasmuchastheyweretoprovidecontinuoustrainingtotheteachers.Unfortunately,linearregressionanalysisfoundnosignificantcorrelationbetweenIAIusageandstudentperformance.Apossibleexplanationforthislackofsignificantcorrelationistwofold:thelackofdataonstudentabsenteeismandtimeontask,andtheverylowexposuretoIAIprogrammingthatwascalledforingrade1and2.StudentabsenteeismisalsoamajorissueintheDRCbecauseattendanceisdirectlylinkedtothestudent’spaymentoffees(examfees,enrollmentfees,etc).Whenstudentsarenotabletopaythesefees,theyarebarredfromattendingschool.Therefore,evenifteachersarepresenttolistentotheIAI,itisnotcertainthateverystudentbenefitedequally.Secondly,ingrade1and2,onlyone30-minuteprogramwasprovidedforreadingperweek.Onaverage,teachersinexperimentalschoolsshowedtousemoreoftheIAIprogramsavailabletothemthantheirIAI-onlycounterpartsand,variationofusageforthesetwogroupsofteacherswasalsomuchlowerforexperimentalschoolteachers.ThisislikelyduetoIAI’sintegrationinthereadingprogramweeklyactivitycalendar.Still,giventhelowdosageofIAIprogrammingperweek,itislittlesurprisethatIAIlistenershipwasnotsignificantlycorrelatedwithstudentreadingperformance.
However,becausethissamplesizeisfairlysmall,conclusionsaredifficulttodraw.The2014PAQUEDEGRA/EGMAreportproducedbyRTI,alargerscalestudy,establishestherelationshipbetweenstudentperformanceonthegraphemerecognitionsubtaskandPAQUEDinterventions.Thisreportshowedthatteacherparticipationincontinuingprofessionaldevelopment(CPD)activitieswasfoundtohavesubstantialimpactonstudentperformanceinthissub-task(p=0.0387).Thiscorrelationisconsistentwithteachers’assertionsinfocusgroups,whichrevealedthattheybelievedIAItobeausefultoolfororallanguagedevelopmentandengagingstudentsinnumerouspre-readingactivitieslikestretchingoutwordstohearindividualsounds,cuttingupwordsbysyllable,etc.Takingthisalltogether,thissuggeststhatIAIwhenusedregularlyandinthecontextofarobustreadingprogram,canbearpositiveresultsandprovidesoundmodelsofteachingreading.ThissuggestionisconsistentwithconclusionsdrawnbytheMinistryReadingCommission’sanalysesofdatacollectedfromvarioussources(EDC,RTI,andMukendi,2014).
Studentperformanceandteacherpractices:Inadditiontoteachers’applicationofPAQUEDinterventions,itisalsointerestingtobetterunderstandhowteachers’practiceandtheirknowledgeofteachingreadinglinkstostudentreadingperformance.AccordingtoPAQUED’stheoryofchange,improvementinteacherclassroompracticesconcerningliteracywillinfluencestudentperformance.Researchsuggeststhatteachers’explicitmodelingandinstructionofthecomponentskillsofreadingandwritingwillbenefitstudents’readingacquisition.Inthereadingprogram,activitiesofteninvolvedacombinationofreadingandwritingtodevelopskillslikephonologicalandalphabeticawareness,fluency,vocabularybuildingandcomprehension.However,linearregressionanalysisindicatedthatonlyteachers’applicationofvocabularyactivitieswasstronglycorrelatedwithstudents’readingperformanceoncertainsub-tests.Thegraphbelowshowsthat25.1%ofthevarianceinstudents’meanfluency(WPCM)canbeexplainedbyateachers’applicationofvocabularyactivitiesintheclassroom(p=0.021,d=1.13,ES=0.49).
![Page 24: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Whilevocabularyactivitiesmaynotseemdirectlylinkedtoimprovingreadingfluency,thespecifictypesofvocabularyactivitiesthatcorrelatedsignificantlywithstudentperformanceexposestudentstotexttherebyprovidingopportunitiesforstudentstodevelopfamiliaritywithsightwordvocabulary.Forexample,ateacher’sapplicationofpre-readingactivitieslikemakingpredictionsanddiscussingillustrationsandnewvocabularyembeddedwithinatextexplained20.1%ofthevarianceinstudent’sfluency(WCPM)(p=.021,d=0.978,ES=0.44).Suchactivitiesinevitablyengagestudentswiththereadingofnewwords,whichcanbelinkedtodevelopingdecodingskillsnecessaryforbuildingfluency.
Studentperformanceinreadingaconnectedtextwasalsosignificantlycorrelatedwiththeirteacher’sapplicationofengagingstudentsincorrectingtheirspelling.Forexample,thegraphbelowdemonstratesthatexperimentalteachersengaginginthepracticeofaskingstudentstoengageincorrectingtheirinventedspellingscanexplain30.9%ofthevariationinstudents’meanWCPM(p=.009,d=1.3,ES=0.55).Inthereadingprogram,studentsareaskedencodewordsthatcontainaphonicspatternstudiedthatweek.Thisistohelpthemapplytheirknowledgeofletter-soundrelationships.Whenteachersaskstudentstocorrecttheirspellings,thissuggeststhatstudentsarebroughttoreinforcetheseletter-soundrelationshipsthatwillhelpthemdecodewordsthatcontainthosesamepatterns.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10 20 30 40
Meanpe
rcen
tageoftim
eallocatedto
vocabu
laryactivities
Students'meanWCPM
Figure6.Experimentalteacher’sapplicationofvocabularypracticesatendlineandtheirstudents'meanWCPM
R2=.251sig=.021
![Page 25: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Generally,itwasexpectedthatanalysiswouldhaverevealedmoresignificantlinksbetweenteacherpracticeobservedatendlineandmeanstudentperformance.Thismaybeduetothelimitednumberofreadingskillstested.Still,thoselinksthatemergedfromthedatapointtotheimportanceofpre-readingactivitiesandtostudentsengagingincorrectingtheirownwriting.
Studentperformanceandteacherknowledge:PAQUED’stheoryofchangealsohypothesizesthatteachers’knowledgeofteachingreadingandwritingplayjustasimportantofaroleinpredictingstudentreadingoutcomesasclassroompracticedoes.Inthiscase,teachers’knowledgearemeasuredbyteachers’answerstoquestionsaboutspecificpracticesandtheirutilityandsuitabilityforteachingreadingandwritingtograde1and2students.ThisisconsistentwiththeteacherresultsinthefollowingsectionthatshowdirectlinksbetweenthePAQUEDinterventionsandteachers’understandingabouthowstudentslearntoread.Therefore,itisinterestingtoseewhatpredictorsofteacherknowledgeanddispositionsseemedtoexplainthevariationinstudentreadingoutcomes.
Overall,experimentalteachers’totaldemonstratedknowledgeintheendlineinterviewwereshowntobesignificantlyandpositivelycorrelatedwiththeirstudent’sperformanceinreadingofaconnectedtext(p=.045,d=1.096,ES=0.48)andtheirfluencyindoingso(p=.024,d=1.166,ES=0.5).Thisisdemonstratedinthegraphbelowshowingthat31.3%ofthevariationinstudents’meanWCPMisexplainedbytheirteachers’overallknowledgeofteachingreading.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 10 20 30 40
Meanpe
rcen
tageoftim
eallocatedtoP4
Students'meanWCPM
Figure 7.Experimentalteachers'applicationofP4atendlineandtheirstudents'meanWCPM
R2=.309sig=.009
![Page 26: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Analyzingteachers’knowledgeofteachingvariouscomponentskillsofreadingandwritingitwasfirstfoundthatteachers’knowledgeofteachingfluencycorrelatedsignificantlywithstudents’meanreadinghighfrequencywords(p=.032,d=1.1,ES=0.48),connectedtext(p=.019,d=1.22,ES=0.52)andtheirfluency(p=.000,d=2.25,ES=0.75).Thegraphbelowshowsthat57.4%ofthevariationsinstudents’meanWCPMispredictedbytheirteachers’knowledgeofhowtoteachfluency.
Thisissupportedbyitemanalysiswhichshowsexperimentalteachers’responsetoQuestion3.1(seebelow)“isitalwaysimportanttoreadforstudentssotheycanlearntoread”,wasnegativelyandsignificantlycorrelatedwithstudent’sreadingofhighfrequencywords(p=.028,d=1.09,ES=0.48)andthemeanpercentageofwordscorrectlyreadinatext(p=.019,d=1.18,ES=0.51).Thisispositiveasitdenotesthatteachers’allowanceoftheirstudentstoreadontheirowndoescorrelatewithstudents’readingperformance.Thesefindingalsosuggeststhatteachersarepassingthebatontostudents,
0102030405060708090100
0 10 20 30 40Meanpe
rcen
tageofk
nowledg
eof
literacyinstruction
Students'meanWCPM
Figure8.Experimentalteacher’stotalmeanknowledge ofliteracyinstruction andtheirstudents'meanWCPM
R2=.313sig=.024
0102030405060708090100
0 10 20 30 40Meanpe
rcen
tageofk
nowledg
eof
teaching
flue
ncy
Students'WCPM
Figure9.Experimentalteacher’stotalmeanknowledge ofteachingfluencyandtheirstudents'meanWCPM
R2=.574sig=.000
![Page 27: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
incorporatingthegradualreleasemodellaidoutinthereadingprogram,andallowingstudentstotakeresponsibilityfortheirownlearning.Thisisfurthersupportedbythefocusgroupfindings,whichpointtoteachers’higherexpectationsoflearners’readingcapabilitiesespeciallytoperformdecodingandotherreadingandwritingtasksindependently.
Teachers’knowledgeofteachingwritingandintegratingwritingintotheirreadinglessonswasalsopositivelyandsignificantlycorrelatedwithstudentabilitiestoreadaconnectedtext(p=.027,d=1.07,ES=0.47)andtheirWCPM(p=.015,d=1.28,ES=0.75).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Yes No
Percentageofwordsreadcorrectly
R2=.268sig=.019
Freq
uencyofte
ache
rs'respo
nses
Meanpercentageofw
ordsreadcorrectlyFigure10.Experimentalteachers'responsestoQuestion3.1andtheirstudents'mean
readingaccuracy(percentageofwordsreadcorrectlyinatext)
0102030405060708090100
0 10 20 30 40Meanpe
rcen
tageofk
nowledg
eof
teaching
writing
Students'meanWCPM
Figure 11.Experimentalteacher’stotalmeanknowledge ofteachingwritingandtheirstudents'meanWCPM
R2=.302sig=.015
![Page 28: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Thisfindingisconsistentwithseveralkeyreadingprogramactivitiesthatencouragestudentstopracticewritingusingthephonicspatternsthey’velearnedordrawingandwritingtheirreactionstoaread-aloudtext.Researchalsodenotestheimportanceofstudentshavingopportunitiestoengagewithwritingasitsimultaneouslyaidsinsolidifyingtheletter-soundrelationshipsandspellingpatternsstudiedinadditiontoaidingincomprehensionofatextread.
Thislinkbetweenteachers’knowledgeofintegratingreadingandwritingintotheirlessonsissupportedbytheirresponsetoQuestion1.3.(seebelow)Itisbettertoteachreadingandwritinginthesamelessonratherthaninseparatelessons,whichwasfoundtobesignificantlycorrelatedwithstudentperformanceonallsub-tests.Forexample,thegraphbelowshowsthat33.3%ofthevariationinstudents’meanabilitytoidentifyletters(p=.006,d=1.38,ES=0.57)and39.9%ofthevariationinstudents’meanWCPM(p=.004,d=1.58,ES=0.62)ispredictedbyteachers’responsestoQuestion1.3onintegratingreadingandwriting.
Figures12.Correlationsbetweenteachers’responsestoQuestion1.3andstudentperformance
Relatedtoteachers’knowledgeofwriting,teachers’expectationsoftheirstudents’writingcapabilitiesalsorevealedtobesignificantlycorrelatedwithstudentreadingperformance.Inexperimentalschools,36.6%ofthevariationintheirstudents’readingofaconnectedtextwasexplainedbyteachers’negativeresponsetoQuestion5.2“mystudentshaveahardtimelearningtowrite.”(p=.004,d=1.48,ES=0.6).Thisrelationshipisdemonstratedinthegraphbelow.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Yes No
Numberoflettersread
R2=.333sig=.006
Freq
uencyofte
ache
rs'respo
nses
Meanlettersread
Experimentalteachers'responsestoQuestion1.3andtheirstudents'meanletterreading
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Yes No
WCPM
R2=.399sig=.004
Freq
uencyofte
ache
rs'respo
nses
MeanW
CPM
Experimentalteachers'responsestoQuestion1.3andtheirstudents'meanWCPM
![Page 29: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
ThisfindingissupportedbyextensiveeducationresearchbyStronge(2010),whichpointstoteacherexpectationsoftheirstudentsastheprimarypredictorofstudentperformance.Thefindingsabovearealsosupportedbyfocusgroupandextensionquestionresponsesinthatexperimentalteachersexhibitedbetterunderstandingoftheimportanceofintegratingreadingandwritingactivitiescitingthedirectrelationshipbetweenencodinganddecodingandhowallowingstudentstoexperimentwithwritinghelpdevelopstudentcapacitytoreadandwriteeffectivelyandindependently.Inaclassicallyauthoritarianeducationenvironment,thisisbothprofoundandexciting.
Lastly,experimentalteachers’opinionsofthelanguageinwhichtheirstudentslearntoreadbetteralsocorrelatedsignificantlywithstudentresults.However,theycorrelatedinawaythatdoesnotcorroboratewiththeresearchasmoreexperimentalteachersassertedthattheirstudentslearntoreadmoreeasilyinFrench(asecondlanguage)ratherthanintheirmothertongueovertheirIAI-onlyandcontrolpeers.Thisisdemonstratedinthegraphbelowwhichshowsthat31.2%ofstudents’meanWCPMisexplainedbytheirteachers’negativeresponsetothequestionItiseasierformystudentstolearntoreadinFrenchratherthaninmothertongue(p=.013,d=-1.31,ES=0.55).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Yes No
Numberofwordread
R2=.366sig=.004
Freq
uencyofte
ache
rs'respo
nses M
eanwordsreadinatext
Figure13.Experimentalteachers'responsestoQuestion5.2andtheirstudents'meanreadingaccuracy
![Page 30: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
ItisspeculatedthatthereasonwhymoreexperimentalteachersrespondedinwaytheydidmaybeattributedthereadingprogrambeingconductedinFrench.Becausetheirstudentsbecamebetterreadersasaresultoftheprogram,teachersmaybelinkingtheirstudent’sprogressinreadingtothelanguagetheyarelearningtoreadin(theywerenotaskedtoteachinmothertonguesodonothaveapointofreferenceforstudents’abilitytodoso)..
Grade1and2Teachers’knowledgeofliteracyinstructionInadditiontolinkingteacherknowledgeandpracticetostudentperformance,thisstudyalsoendeavoredtobetterunderstandhowteachers’knowledgeofteachingreadingmightbelinkedtotheiruseofthevariouselementsofthePAQUEDinterventionsavailabletothem.Inthissection,teachers’knowledgeofreadingindifferentgroups(experimental,IAI-only,andcontrol)willbediscussedusingdatafromanextensiveface-to-faceinterviewconductedatendlineinadditiontofocusgroupdata.Theinterviewincludedquestionsonspecificreadingandwritinginstructionalpracticesandtheirutilityandsuitabilityforteachingreadingandwritingtograde1and2students.Certain“extension”questionsaskedthatteachersprovidejustificationsandaself-livedclassroomexampletosupporttheiranswer.Thiswaspartiallyusedforensuringreliabilityofteachers’answersbutalsotoobtainfurtherinsightintoteachers’responses.TheinterviewtoolscanbefoundinAnnexB.Focusgroupdatawasderivedfromaseriesoffocusgroupsconductedafterdatacollectiononteacherknowledge,practice,andstudentperformance.Focusgroupquestionsaskedexperimentalteacherstodiscusshowtheywouldintroduceanewtextorguidetheirstudentsinhowtodecodeanewword.Teachers’examplesprovidedrichinformationonhowdeeplypracticesandstrategiesembeddedwithinreadingprogramemergedfromtheirclassroomexamples.Thetablesandfiguressummarizethestatusofteachers’knowledgeatendlinegroupedbycomponentskillandpulloutspecificitemsrelativetotheteachingofcomponentskills.Theresultspresentedbycomponentskillrepresentthemeanpercentageofagreementtoagroupofquestionsclassifiedbycomponentskill.ThecompositionofquestionsbycomponentskillscanbefoundinAnnexB.Asevery
024681012141618
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Yes No
WCPM
R2=.312sig=.013
Freq
uencyofte
ache
rs'respo
nses
MeanW
CPM
Figure14.Experimentalteachers'responsestoQuestion1.2andtheirstudents'meanWCPM
![Page 31: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
questionsposedcouldbeansweredas“yes”or“no”,themeanswerecalculatedbasedontheseresponses.Forexample,experimentalteachers’frequencyofagreementtoquestionsonhowtoteachvocabularyamountedto89%meanagreementascomparedto74%forIAI-onlyandcontrolteachers.TheresultsoftheindividualquestionsoutlinedinTable17representthepercentageofagreementforeachquestionacrossdifferentteachergroups.Thedecisiontopresentteachers’knowledgedatabycomponentskillwasdeliberate,sothatfindingsforthissectionwouldbeorganizedinthesamewayastheteacherpracticeandstudentperformanceresults.However,itshouldbenotedthatthisdivisionbycomponentskillisnotnecessarilyconsistentwithhowteachersthinkaboutteachingreadingandwriting.Thatis,teachersmaynotthinkaboutteachingvocabularyandcomprehensionseparatelynormaytheythinkaboutteachingalphabeticawarenessandphonemicawarenessseparately.Rather,focusgroupdatasuggestthattheyarecomingtothinkaboutteachingreadingandwritingastheuseofspecificactivitiesthatbuildseveralcomponentskillsinreading.Forexample,thewordstudyactivitynotonlydevelopsastudent’sabilitytodifferentiatespellingpatternsbysoundandorthographybutalsobuildstheirvocabularyastheylearnthenewwords.Overall,thefindingsbelowgenerallyrevealthatteachersinexperimentalschoolsexhibitknowledgethatisconsistentwithevidence-basedresearchonhowtoteachreadingandwritingeffectively.Inaddition,14.3%ofteachers’overallknowledgeofteachingreadingwasfoundtobepredictedbyexperimentalteachers’fidelityofapplicationofthereadingprogram(p=.047,d=0.8,ES=0.37).
Mostofthemeandifferencesinteachers’knowledgeacrossexperimentalandcontrolgroupswerealsofoundtobesignificant.Unfortunately,IAI-onlyteachersdidnotseemtodifferentiatesignificantlyintheirknowledgeofteachingcomponentskillsofreadingascomparedtotheircontrolteachercounterparts.Thesedifferencesorlackthereofarefurtherexploredinthediscussionfollowingthe
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachersF
OI
Teachers'meanpercentagesofknowledge
Figure15.Experimentalteachers'fidelityofimplementation(FOI)ofreadingprogramandtheirtotalmeanknowledge ofliteracyinstructionatendline
R2=.143sig=.047
![Page 32: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
tablesandlinkstoteachers’knowledgeandvariousPAQUEDinterventionswillbeestablishedusingfidelityofimplementationdata.Table15belowprovidesasummaryoverviewofteachers’knowledgeofdifferentdomainsofreadinginstructionandindicateswhetherthedifferenceinknowledgeissignificantincomparisontothecontrolgroup.Overall,experimentalteachersseemtohavesignificantlymoreknowledgeabouthowtobestteachcertainreadingdomainsnotablyfluency,vocabulary,andcomprehensionincomparisontotheircontrolcounterparts.
Table15.Summaryofthegrade1and2teacherknowledgeresultsofcomparisonofmeansatendlinebetweengroups(higherpercentagesconvey“sound”knowledge) PAQUED
CONTROL(n=61) Experimental(n=37) IAI(n=64)Phonemic/PhonologicalandAlphabeticawareness
94% 88% 91%
Fluency 85%*** 76% 76%Vocabulary 89%** 74% 74%Comprehension 96%*** 88% 84%Writing 71% 66% 65%Total 88%*** 78% 79%**ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.01***ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.001Presenteddifferently,thefigurebelowillustratesthedifferencesinknowledgeofreadinginstructionacrossgroups.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Experimental(n=37)
IAI(n=64)
CONTROL(n=61)
Figure16.Teachers'meanknowledgeofteaching readingbycomponentskill,atendline
percen
tage
ofmeankn
owledg
e
![Page 33: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Table16belowpullsoutspecificquestionsfromtheinterviewtoolwhichproducedsignificantlydifferentresponsesbetweengroups.Forexample,experimentalteachers’responsestoquestion1.1onexpectations:Mostofmystudentshaveaneasytimelearningtoread,werefoundtobestatisticallydifferentfromtheircontrolcounterparts.Table16.Itemanalysisofthegrade1and2teacherendlineknowledgeresults(means)comparisonbygroups(percentagesreflectagreement) PAQUED
CONTROL(n=61) Experimental(n=37) IAI(n=64)1.1Mostofmystudentshaveaneasytimelearningtoread
51%agree*** 30%agree 18%agree
1.2.MystudentslearntoreadmoreeasilyinmothertonguethaninFrench.
65%* 81% 85%*
2.1Beforereadinganewtext,itisusefultohaveadiscussionwiththewholeclasstodiscusswhatyourstudentsalreadyknowaboutthetext’stheme?
97% 85% 88%
2.2Itisusefultodiscussnewvocabularywithmystudentsbeforetheyreadatext.
78%** 52% 47%
3.1Itisimportanttoalwaysreadbeforemystudentssotheycanlearntoread.
63.9%*** 91% 96.8%
4.1Itisimportanttoallowstudentstotalkamongsteachotheronwhattheyhavereadtohelpthemunderstandatext.
89%* 78% 72%
4.2Afterhavingreadatext,itisimportanttoaskstudentstoexplainwhatthey’veread.
97%*** 82% 75%
4.4Itisimportanttoaskstudentsquestionsafterhavingreadatext.
100%* 92% 91%
4.5Studentsarecapableofsayingwhattheylikedordislikedaboutatextread.
91%* 82% 75%
5.2.Mystudentshavealotofdifficultylearningtowrite.
35%*** 61%* 79%
*ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.05**ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.01***ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.001Theresultspresentedintheabovetablesandfiguresarediscussedbydomainofreadinginstructionbelow.Attemptstoconnectteachers’knowledgeofreadinginstructiontotheiruseofthePAQUEDinterventionsavailabletothemwillalsobediscussed.Finally,teachers’responsestoextensionquestionswillalsobepresentedsoastoprovideamoreconcretevisionastohowteachersthinkabouthowtobestteachtheirstudentstoread.
![Page 34: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Phonemic,phonologicalandalphabeticawareness:ThePAQUEDreadingprogramandIAIgrade1and2programplacedemphasisonthedevelopmentofphonemic,phonologicalandalphabeticawarenessinthelowergrades.Thisemphasiswasselectedtoaddressthefindingsoftheproject’sbaselineandmidlineEarlyGradeReadingAssessments,whichrevealedthatstudentsingrade2hadgreatdifficultieswithprovidinginitialsoundsinspokenwordsandwithcorrectlyidentifyingletters,skillsthatareessentialprecursorstolearninghowtodecodethewrittenword.
Experimentalschoolteachers’knowledgeofphonemicawareness,phonologicalandalphabeticawarenessatendlinedidnotdiffersignificantlyfromtheirIAI-onlyorcontrolcounterparts,andnoneofthePAQUEDinterventionswerefoundtocorrelatesignificantlywiththeseendlineteacherknowledgedata.Tobetterunderstandwhatteachersmeanwhentheyrespondto“yes”or“no”questionsontheimportanceforstudentstodeveloptheirphonemic,alphabeticandphonologicalawareness,teachers’responsestoanopen-endedfollow-upquestionarealsopresented.Whenaskedtoprovideconcreteclassroomexamplesofhowtheyhelpedtheirstudentsbuildthesecomponentskills,teachersreflectedmanyoftheactivitiesoutlinedinPAQUEDtools.Theexamplescitedincludedalphabeticawarenessactivities:
“mystudentsrecitetheletter-song(lacomptinedeslettres)whileIpoint”(N=5)“Ishowmystudentshowtodecodenewwordsbytyingtheindividualletterstotheirsounds(letter-by-letterreading)”(N=6)“Iremindmystudentstorememberthelettersoundstohelpthemreadanewword”(N=2)
andphonemicawarenessactivities:
“FromasoundthatIgive,studentscanfindotherwordsthatcontainthatsound.”(N=5)“IhelpmystudentstretchoutwordssotheycanhearallofthesoundsinthewordorIdoitbysyllable.”(N=13)
Teachersalsopointedtophonologicalawarenessactivitiesashelpfultohelpingtheirstudentswrite:
“Ifastudentknowsasoundthatalettermakes,theycanalsowriteit.Intheword‘mbenza’,ifthestudentsknowthatthebeginningsoundismadeupofm-b,theycanwriteit.”(N=3)
Theseexamplesdirectlyrelatetothetypeofactivities(suchaswordstudyandletter-soundstudy)andstrategies(suchaswordstretching)coveredintheIAIprogramsaswellasinthereadingprogramguidethatwasfollowedbyexperimentalschoolteachersonadailybasis.Suchfindingsareencouraging,astheyindicatethatteachersarebeginningtointernalizeandexplainwhattheteachingofthesebuildingblockskillslookslikeintheclassroom.Fluency:AnotherkeycomponentskillthereadingprogramandIAIprogramsaimedtodevelopisfluency.Fluencyisdefinedbyone’sabilitytoreadwithaccuracy,automaticity,andproperintonation.Fluentreadersmovebeyondletter-by-letterorsyllable-by-syllabledecoding(whichtakefocusandconcentration)torecognizechunksoftextandhencereadmorequicklyandaccurately.Researchpointstotheimportanceofdevelopingfluencyinorderforthereadertobeabletofocusmoreoncomprehendingwhats/hereadsandlessonthemechanicsofdecodingto(Rasinki,2006).Thereare
![Page 35: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
severalinstructionalstrategiesthatteacherscanemploytodevelopthisskill.SomethatareoutlinedinthePAQUEDreadingprogramactivitiesandIAIprogramsincludeteacherspointingtowordstohelpmovestudent’seyesfasterfromwordtoword;teachersdoingflashcardactivitieswithhighfrequencyandpreviouslystudiedwords;andteacherssimplyprovidingmoreopportunitiesforstudentstopracticereading.
Afterapplyingthesefluencyactivitiesandstrategiesintheclassroom,whatdidteachersretainas“sound”practicefordevelopingthisimportantskill?Table16summarizesthatteachers’knowledgeofdevelopingfluencywassignificantlygreaterthantheirIAI-onlyandcontrolcounterparts(p=.001,d=-0.95,ES=0.43).Thisispositiveandwasconsistentinthediscussionsundertakenwithexperimentalschoolteachers:
“Itseemslikestudentsneedmoretimetopracticereadinginordertoreadfasterandbetter.”(N=14)
Thisshowsthatteachersarebeginningtorecognizetheimportanceofpracticeforstudentstobecomebetterreaders.AlsointerestingtonoteishowPAQUEDinterventionsmayhavepredictedteachers’knowledgeofteachingfluency.Linearregressionanalysisshowedthatexperimentalteachers’adherencetothereadingprogramactivitiesexplained12.6%ofthevarianceinteachers’responsestofluencyquestions(p=.046,d=0.75,ES=0.35).
Thissignificantcorrelationsuggeststhattheexplicitfluency-buildingactivitiesinthereadingprogrammayhavecontributedtodevelopingteachers’understandingoftheimportanceofapplyingsuchactivitiestobuildtheirstudent’sreadingskills.Thisisconsistentwiththestudentperformanceresultsdiscussedabove,whichlinkteachers’knowledgeofteachingfluencytostudentreadingfluencyofaconnectedtext(p=.000,d=2.25,ES=0.75).
Vocabulary:Vocabulary(particularlyFrenchvocabularydevelopment)wasalsoakeycomponentofthereadingprogramandIAIprograms.Vocabularydevelopmentisespeciallyimportantinthecontextofsecondlanguagelearning,asisthecaseintheDRC.AsonePAQUEDIAI-onlyteacherstates:“Astudent
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachersF
OI
Teachers'meanpercentageofknowledgeonteachingfluency
Figure 17.Experimentalteachers'fidelityofimplementation(FOI)ofreadingprogramandtheirtotalmeanknowledge ofteachingfluencyatendline
R2=.126sig=.046
![Page 36: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
canreadthewordsbutmaynotknowwhatthey’rereading.(N=2)”Inotherwords,onecanbeafluentreader,butifs/hedoesnothaveorallanguageskillsorvocabularyknowledgeinthelanguagebeingread,s/hewillcomprehendlittle.Consequently,masteringfluencyaloneisinsufficienttobecomingagoodreader.Toensurethatstudentsdevelopedthenecessaryvocabulary,thePAQUEDprograminterventionsallprovidedsignificantamountsoftimeforvocabularydevelopmentinFrenchthroughbrainstormingactivities(collectedesidées)aroundstorythemes;gameswithmovementsand/orillustrationstoexplainnewvocabularyrelevanttoastory;orhavingstudentsusenewvocabularylearnedinasentencetheycomposedorallyorinwriting.
Sowhatwasteachers’knowledgeonteachingvocabularyatendlineafterhavingengagedinthesevocabulary-buildingactivitieswiththeirstudents?Table16showsthatexperimentalteachers’knowledgeofhowtobestteachvocabularydifferedsignificantlyfromtheirIAI-onlyandcontrolcounterparts(p=.002,d=-1.13,ES=0.49).Thisisalsosupportedbyexperimentalteachers’responsestoQuestion2.2thatstatestheimportanceofexplainingnewvocabularybeforereadinganewtext(p=.025,t=0.48,ES=0.24)andQuestion2.1affirmingtheimportanceofdiscussingwhatstudentsknowaboutathemeisalsorelatedtovocabularydevelopment(p=.002,d=0.7,ES=0.33).Thisisnotsurprisinggiventhatthepre-readingactivityoutlinedinthereadingprogramexplicitlyinvitestheteachertodiscussthethemeofthestorywithhis/herstudentsandexplainthenewvocabularyassociatedwiththeread-aloudtextoftheweek.LinearregressionsupportsthislinkbetweenQuestion2.1andteachers’applicationofthereadingprograminthat14.4%ofthevarianceinteachers’responsetoQuestion2.1canbeexplainedbytheirapplicationofthereadingprogram(p=0.39,d=-0.8,ES=0.37).
Tofurthersupportthislinkbetweenreadingprogramapplicationandknowledgeofteachingvocabulary,theconcreteclassroomexamplesofvocabularyinstructionderivedfromtheinterviewwithexperimentalteachersallowsustobetterunderstandhowteachersareactuallyputtingthesestatementsintoclassroompractice:
0102030405060708090
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Yes No
FOI
R2=.144sig=.039
Freq
uencyofte
ache
rs'respo
nses
Mean%
FOI
Figure18.Experimentalteachers'fidelityofimplementation(FOI)ofreadingprogramandtheir
responsesto Question2.1
![Page 37: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
“withthehelpofillustrations,Iaskquestionsthathavetodowiththethemeofthetexttobringoutthenewvocabulary,”(N=7)
”Idoabrainstormingwithmystudentsaroundthethemeandthenewvocabulary.Then,Ireadthetexttothem.”(N=6)
Bothoftheaboveexamplesareconsistentwiththestep-by-stepsequenceofhowvocabularyinstructionispresentedforthepre-readingexerciseinthereadingprogramguide.
Incontrasttotheexperimentalteachers,controlteachers’responsesandexamplesregardingvocabularyinstructionintheirclassroomsincludedsuchstatementsas:
“they[students]don’tdovocabularyatthisgradelevel,”(N=12)
“studentswillonlyunderstandthenewwordsafterthereadingofthetext.”(N=12)
Experimentalteachers’statementsareduallyreinforcedbytheirexpectationsrelatedtothelanguageinwhichstudentslearntoreadandwritemoreeasily.ExperimentalteacherssignificantlydifferedintheiropinionsofQuestion1.2,mystudentslearntoreadmoreeasilyinmothertonguethaninFrench(p=.033,d=0.56,ES=0.27).67%ofexperimentalteachersfeltthisstatementwastruewhereasalargerproportionofIAI-onlyteachers(81%)andcontrolteachers(85%)agreedwiththisstatement.Incomparisontotheircounterparts,itcanbesuggestedthatmoreexperimentalteachersmayhavedisagreedwiththisstatementbecausethereadingprogramisgiveninFrench.Hence,theymayhavefeltthatgiventherightstrategies,theirstudentscouldlearntoreadjustaseasilyinasecondlanguage.
Comprehension:Comprehensionistheultimategoalwhenreading.Ifastudentcandecodefluently,understandssufficientvocabularyinthelanguagebeingread,andisequippedwithcomprehensionstrategies,s/heiswellequippedtocomprehendatexts/hereads.Unfortunately,comprehensionisthemostdifficultskilltoacquire,becauseitrequiresthatthestudenthasacquiredthefoundationalskillslistedabove.Comprehensionisalsonotusuallythemainfocusofearlygradereadingprogramsbecausesomuchattentionisneededtohelpingstudentslearntocrackthealphabeticcodeandtodecodewithaccuracyandfluency.ThePAQUEDreadingprogramandIAIprogramsrepeatedlymodeledcomprehensionstrategiesforteacherstoapplyintheirclassrooms.Theseactivitiesincludedaskingstudentstoreflectonwhattheyalreadyknowaboutasubject;posingliteralquestions(i.e.Who?What?When?Where?Why?)aboutatexttheyhadread;askingstudentstojustifytheanswerstheygive;andshowingteachershowtoemploygraphicorganizerstostructurethinkingandinformationderivedfromatext.Comprehensionstrategiesalsoencouragedstudentstoillustrateorwritetheirreactionstotextstheyhadread;conceiveanalternativeendingtoastory;orcreatetheirownpoems,stories,orletters.
HowdidteachersinthePAQUEDinterventionschoolsdemonstratetheirknowledgeofhowtoteachcomprehensionatendline?Table16showsthatatendline,experimentalteachers’knowledgeofhowtobestteachcomprehensiondifferedsignificantlyfromtheirIAI-onlyandcontrolcounterparts(p=.000,d=0.92,ES=0.42).Thisisconsistentwithitemanalysisfor4.1,4.2and4.4,inwhichasignificantproportionofexperimentalteachersrespondedpositivelyovertheirIAI-onlyandcontrolcounterparts.
![Page 38: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Statements4.1,4.2and4.4allasserthowimportantitistoaskstudentsquestionsortoexplainwhatwasreadandtoallowstudentstodiscussinformationtheyretainedfromatextwiththeirpeers.
Interviewswithexperimentalschoolteachersfurtherexplainedhowtheyorchestratereadingcomprehensionactivitiesintheirclassrooms.Theseexamplessupportteachers’responsestoquestionsontheirknowledgeofteachingreadingcomprehensionwhilealsomirroringtheapproachesoutlinedinthePAQUEDreadingprogramandIAIprograms.
“Afterreadingatext,Ialwaysaskcomprehensionquestions—sometimesinmothertongue—onthestory,”(N=17)
“Iaskmystudentstoexplainalltheysawandwhathappenedinthetext—thecharacters,theimportantevents,”(N=11)
“Iusetheillustrationstohelpstudentsanswerquestionsonthetextjustread,”(N=11)
“Iaskmystudentstotellmewhattheylikedinthetextandwhy.”(N=5)
ThesestatementsspecificallyrelatetoreadingprogramandIAIprogramactivitieswhichaskteacherstoposebothliteralandinferentialcomprehensionquestionsonthestoryread.Thisexplanation,however,wasnotconfirmedbylinearregressionanalysis,whichindicatednosignificantcorrelationsbetweenspecificPAQUEDinterventionsandateacher’sknowledgeofhowtoteachcomprehension.
Incontrast,examplesandjustificationprovidedbycontrolteachersareconsistentwiththeirresponsestothe‘knowledgeofteachingcomprehension’questions:
“Iaskmystudentstorepeattheexplanationofwhatwereadafterme.”(N=2)
“studyingatextingrade1and2istoodifficult,”(N=8)
“itismoreusefultoexplaindifficultwordsinthetextratherthanaskingstudentstosaywhattheylearned.”(N=4)
Theseexamplessuggestthatcontrolteachersarehesitanttohelptheirstudentsdevelopcomprehensionskillsormaynotknowhowtobestdevelopastudent’scomprehensionskillsbeyondroterepetition.Likelyexplanationsfortheseteacherstatementsincludeteachers’unwillingnesstoallowchildrentomakemistakesorthinkforthemselves,andperhapsalso,theirlowexpectationsoftheirstudents’abilities.
Writing:TheintegrationofwritingwasastrongcomponentofPAQUEDinstructionalmaterials,drawingontheresearchpointingtowritingasusefulfordevelopingreadingskills.Forexample,studentsconnecttheirphonemicandalphabeticawarenessskillswhentheyattempttospellwords.Likewise,astudentworkstheircomprehensionskillswhentheyareaskedtoreacttoatextinwriting,payingattentiontosentencestructure,useofvocabulary,spelling,andpunctuation.Becausewritingisaprocessthatpullstogetherseveralcomponentsskillsofreading,itallowsastudenttopracticeutilizingtheseskillstocommunicate.Itisalsoanempoweringtoolbecauseitisavisualproductionofwhatastudentifcapableofdoing.TheIAIprogramsandaccompanyingteacherguideplaceemphasisongettingstudentstoexperimentwithwritingandillustrations.Similarly,thereadingprogrampost-readingactivitiesandwordstudyactivitiesbothhavewritingcomponentsthatenablestudentstoexpresstheirideasandpreferencesbyanswering“onmyown”extensionquestionsonthestorythey
![Page 39: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
heardaswellasbypracticingtheirphonicsskillsthroughspelling.Convincingteacherstoallowforfreewritinglikeinventedspellingisabigstep.
ThisisbecauseatthebeginningofthePAQUEDproject,stakeholderresearchrevealedthatteachersalwaystaughtreadingandwritingseparatelybecauseitwasprescribedinthecurriculumastwoseparatesub-branches(sous-branche)andshouldthereforebetaughtindifferentlessons.Teachersalsoassertedthatstudentsshouldnotbeallowedtomakespellingmistakesandthatwritingshouldbelimitedtocopyingontheboarduntilstudentswere‘capable’ofexpressingthemselvesproperlyinwriting,askilloftenexpectedforchildreningrade4andbeyond.Basedonthesefindings,askingteacherstoallowtheirstudentstoengageinwritingactivitiesduringreadinglessonswasexpectedtobeachallenge.Endlinedataindicatingthatteachershavebeguntoallowfreewritingandinventedspellingareasignificantindicatorofprogresstowardsclassroompracticesthataredocumentedtosupportstudentachievement.
Summaryresultsonateachers’knowledgeofintegratingwritingintotheirlessonsshowedthatteachersacrossgroupsdidnotdiffersignificantly.Thewritingcompositeincludesteachers’toleranceofinventedspelling;theirperceivedimportanceofintegratingreadingandwritingintoasamelesson;andtheirperceivedimportanceofstudentshavingopportunitiestopracticewriting.However,experimentalteachers’classroomexamplesofhowtheyorchestratewritingactivitiesdoprovideevidencethat,despitethelackofdifferenceintheirknowledgeaboutteachingwriting,theyareintegratingwritingintotheirlessons:
“wepracticewritinghighfrequencywordsandfamiliarwords—theirnames,wordsinmothertongue,mom,dad,under,over,etc.”(N=10)
“WhenIteachanewletter,Iaskthestudentstofindanotherwordwiththatletterintheirbooksorintheclassroomandtowriteitontheboard,”(N=3)
“Iletthemwriteareactiontoatextandthenwecorrectitinpairs,”(N=8)
“Iaskstudentstowritetheirownsentenceswithnewwordswejustlearned.”(N=2)Teachersalsocitedusingwritingactivitiesto“motivate[their]studentstolearn,”speakingtothepowerofwritingforstudentempowermentmentionedabove.SometeachersinexperimentalandIAI-onlyschoolsstillindicatedatendlinethat:“Idowritingbywayofspellingtestsorcopyingofftheboard.”(N=16)Thisisnotsurprisinggivenhowdifficultitistoaskteacherswhooriginallyprofessedtheirlackoftoleranceforspellingmistakestoshifttheirpractices.Thispositionisechoedinassertionsbyseveralteachersincontrolschools,suchas:
“itisnotappropriateforchildrentowriteinsecondgrade”(N=7)
“Students’lackexperience.Therefore,readingandwritingmustalwaysbetaughtseparately.”(N=3)
Relativetothisdiscussionisteachers’knowledgethatintegratingreadingandwritingintothesamelessonisuseful.Althoughnosignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweengroupsonteachers’opinionofthisitem,interviewdatashowedthatthosecontrolteacherswhothoughttheyshouldnotbetaughtinthesamelessonjustifiedtheiranswersinsaying:“studentsriskmixingreadingandwriting”(N=2)andthat“readingshouldprecedewriting”(N=4).However,thoseexperimentalteacherswhoacknowledged
![Page 40: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
theimportanceofintegratingreadingandwritingintothesamelessonjustifiedtheiranswersinawaythatprovidesevidenceoftheuseofthereadingprogram:
“ifastudentknowshowtowritewords,theycaneasilyreadthemandviceversa.”(N=5)“ForeachletterthatIteach,welearntheletter(grapheme),thesoundandhowtowriteit.Then,welearntoreadandwritewordswiththatletter.”(N=4)“Idospellingtestsofwordsthey[mystudents]studiedorthatcontainlettersstudied.”(N=16)
Thisshowsthatteachersseemedtodevelopanunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweendecodingandencoding,onekeytopicpresentedintheinitialreadingprogramtrainingforexperimentalteachers.Thislinkisconsistentwithlinearregressionanalysiswhichshowedthat12.1%ofthevarianceinexperimentalteachers’knowledgeofwritingcanbeexplainedbytheirapplicationofthereadingprogram(p=0.048,d=0.72,ES=0.34).
Finally,teachers’expectationsoftheirstudents’abilitiestolearntowritewerefoundtobesignificantlydifferentacrossgroups.ExperimentalteachersrespondednegativelytoQuestion5.2,mystudentshavealotofdifficultylearningtowrite(p=001,d=-078,ES=0.36).Aswritingwasmuchpracticedinthecontextofthereadingprogram,thismaysuggestthatexperimentalteachers’expectationsoftheirstudents’abilitiesmayhaveshifted.
Grade1and2TeacherpracticeresultsInadditiontounderstandingteachers’knowledgeaboutteachingreadingandwriting,itisalsoimportanttounderstandhowthesechangesmayhavetranslatedintopractice.Tomeasurechangesinteacherpractice,anobservationtoolwasadministeredingrade1and2experimental,IAI-only,andcontrolteachers’classroomsatbaselineinMarch2013andatendlineinMay2014.Sampledteacherswereaskedtoteachalessonintroducinganewletterorletter-soundrelationshiptostudentsatbothpoints,inordertoensureadegreeofcomparabilityoftheresults.Theobservationtoolcontainedarangeofspecificandobservablepracticesgroupedbythecomponentskillstheyaimedtobuild(seeAnnexBfortool).Thesepracticeswerechosentoreflectthoseoutlinedinthereadingprogram,inthenationalreadingstandards,andthoseobservedinnumerousclassroomobservationsconductedthroughouttheproject.Eachitemizedpracticewasallotted9five-minutetranchesoftime,whichcoversanaveragelessonspan.Iftheenumeratorwitnessedapractice,heorshewouldcheckofthepracticeintheappropriatetimeperiod.Thiswastoprovideasnapshotofthelessonasitprogressedandtoquantifyteachers’implementationofcertainpracticesoverothers.Itshouldbenotedthatevenifapracticewasobservedtwiceinaperiodoffiveminutes,onlyonecheckwasallowedperfive-minutetranche.Thisisapossiblelimitationofthetoolasithindersabilitytodetectsubtlechangesinteacherpractice.Still,theresultsderivedfromthetoolprovideinterestinginformationonteachers’practiceandwerefoundtobestatisticallyreliable(seeAnnexB).Anotherlimitationofthetoolisitsinabilitytoseehowteachersactuallyconductedapractice.Thougheachpracticeoutlinedisconcretelyobservable,detailsliketeachersdispositionswerenotcaptured.Forexample,foravocabularybuildingpracticewhichasksstudentstoexplainnewvocabularybeforetheyreadanewtext,thepracticeoutlinedinthetooldoesnotsayexactlyhowtheteachersgoesaboutguidingstudentsinthisactivity.
![Page 41: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Table17providesanoverviewofteachers’practiceresultsgroupedbycomponentskillfromthebaselineandtotheendline,andindicateswhetherornotthesechangeswereshowntobestatisticallysignificantwithinthegroups(longitudinally)andacrossgroups(cross-sectional).Table17.Summaryofthegrade1and2teacherpracticeresultsofcomparisonofmeansbetweenthebaselineandtheendlinedisaggregatedbystatus3
PAQUEDCONTROL(n=60)
Experimental(n=57) IAI(n=78)Baseline Endline Gainscore Baseline Endline Gainscore Baseline Endline Gainscore
Phonemic/PhonologicalandAlphabeticawareness 9.79% 8.9% -0.89% 7.25% 7.73% 0.49% 6.87% 7.45% 0.58%
Fluency 13.26% 19.68% 6.42%*** 20.39% 19.77% -.62% 18.24% 19.88% 1.64%Vocabulary 11.11% 12.86% 1.75% 6.7% 7.06% .36% 5.83% 7.5% 1.67%Comprehension 13.32% 18.91% 5.59%** 5.65% 10.82% 5.17%** 8.51% 8.39% -0.12%Generalinstructionalandliteracypractices 15.94% 14.26% -1.68% 16.61% 20.34% 3.73%* 14.96% 13.22% -1.74%
Total 15.37% 14.25% -1.12% 13.27% 15.34% 2.07%* 13.11% 12.74% -0.37%*Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.05**Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.01***Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.001
Thefollowingtablethatfollowspullsoutsomespecificpracticeitemsthatwereshowntochangesignificantlyacrossbaselineandendline.Thepercentagesrepresentthetotalnumberoftimesthepracticewaswitnessedoverthetotallessontime.Forexample,ifateacheraskedstudentstotrytoidentifyaspecificsoundinawordoverthreetranchesoffive-minutetimeperiodsofa40-minutelesson,theteacherwouldbeconsideredtohaveexhibitedthispracticeforapproximately37.5%oftotalinstructionaltime(3outof8).
Table18.Itemanalysisofthegrade1and2teacherpracticeresultsofcomparisonofmeansbetweenthebaselineandtheendlinedisaggregatedbystatus
Theteacher…
PAQUED CONTROL(n=60)Experimental(n=57) IAI-only(n=78)Baseline Endline Gainscore Baseline Endline Gainscore Baseline Endline Gainscore
P15.Asksstudentstogivetheirpredictionsonthecontentofatextbyusingclues(title,illustrations,etc)
9.1% 15.13% 6.03%* 5.6% 7.93% 2.33% 6.9% 4.49% -2.41%
P16.Asksquestionsonatextread(ex.who?What?Where?How?...)
17.9% 29.14% 11.24%* 7.33% 13.71% 6.38%** 12.16% 11.74% -0.42%
P17.Solicitsideasandexperiencesfromtheirstudentsonwhattheyalreadyknowaboutasubject.
9.25% 12.24% 2.99% 6.01%* 10.77% 4.76%*** 6.31% 6.99% 0.68%
P18.Integratesreadingandwritingactivitiesintothesamelesson.
7.71% 15.94% 8.23%** 9.98% 13.94% 3.96%* 9.23% 10.86% 1.63%
P23.Encouragesstudentsinapositivemannerwhentheymakeaneffort.
42.44% 38.49% -3.95% 31.39% 35.83% 4.44%* 32.16% 33.58% 1.42%
*Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.05**Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.01***Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.001
3Percentageindicatestimeallocatedtotheseskillsrelativetothelesson’sentirety.
![Page 42: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
___=significantacrossgroups(cross-sectional)Figure19visuallyshowsthegainsinpracticethatteachersinthedifferentgroupsmadeacrossbaselineandendline.
Figure19.Grade1and2teachers’changeinliteracyinstructionalpracticesfrombaselinetoendline.
Experimental(N=57)IAI-only(N=78)Control(N=60)
-0.890.490.58
6.43-0.62
1.64
1.750.361.67
5.595.18
-0.12
-1.683.73
-1.74
-1.122.07
-0.37
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Phonological, phonemic
and alphabetic awareness
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
General
Total
Gainscore (pct)
Negative gainscore (pct)
![Page 43: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
Incontrarytoteachers’knowledgeofteachingreading,grade1and2IAI-onlyteachersimprovedsignificantlyoverbaselineandendlineinthetotalliteracypracticescombined(p=.017,d=0.56,ES=0.27)andintheirapplicationofcomprehensionactivities(p=.000,d=0.87,ES=0.4)andgeneralclassroompractices(p=.003,d=0.7,ES=0.33).However,experimentalteachersimprovedsignificantlyintheinstructionofsomecomponentskills(fluencyandcomprehension)butdidnotimproveassignificantlyastheydidintheirknowledgeaboutteachingreading.Noneofthegroupsimprovedsignificantlyintheirapplicationofvocabulary-buildingandphonologicalandalphabeticawarenessactivities.
Thislackof“improvedpractice”doesnotnecessarilymeanthatteachersdidnotapplyactivitiesassociatedwiththesecomponentskillsintheendlinereadinglessonsobserved.Videosoftheseobservationsrevealthatteachersdidapplycertainpracticesthatwerenotcitedinthetool.Thetoolalsodidnotcaptureexactlyhoweffectivelyteachersappliedcertainpractices.Lastly,theabsenceofsignificantchangemayalsoberelatedtoalimitationinthetool,whichrequirestheenumeratortoonlycheckonceiftheyseethepracticewithineachfive-minutetrancheofthelesson.Becauseofthisstructure,iftheteacherhadconductedtheactivitytwiceormorewithinthatfive-minuteperiodoftime,thetoolwouldnotcaptureit.Asaresult,ateacher’sgainintermsofdemonstratedinstructionalacrossbaselineandendlinemaynotbethoroughlycapturedbythetool.Ontheotherhand,beingabletoinventoryeverytimeateacherappliesacertainpracticecanbeoverwhelmingforadatacollectoranddoingsowouldhaverequiredamorelimitedlistofpracticestoobserve.
Thefinaltwotables,below,indicatehowPAQUEDinterventionsmayhavepredictedsomeofthesechangesinteachers’practice.Interestingly,unliketeachers’knowledge,fidelityofimplementationofthereadingprogramdidnotcorrelatesignificantlywiththeirchangesinpractice.Thisisinterestingbecauseonewouldassumethatifateacherconsistentlyshowedtoapplycertainpracticesassociatedwiththereadingprogram,thatthiswouldlogicallytranslateintotheirliteracy–specificinstructionalpractices.However,experimentalteachers’listenershipofIAIdidcorrelatesignificantlywiththeirinstructionalpracticesassociatedwithallcomponentskillsexceptforphonemic,phonologicalandalphabeticawareness.Inadditiontothis,Table19revealthatexperimentalteachers’participationincontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentactivitieswassignificantlycorrelatedwiththeirapplicationofgeneralinstructionalpracticeslikewalkingaroundaclassroomtohelpstudentsinneed,askingstudentstoworkingroups,orcongratulatingstudentswhenstudentsmakeaneffort.Table20breaksdownthecorrelationsbetweenspecificpracticesappliedandIAI-onlyandexperimentalteachers’IAIlistenership.Forexperimentalteachersonly,itprovidesthecorrelationsbetweenteachers’participationinCPDandtheirapplicationofspecificinstructionalpractices.
![Page 44: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
Table19.Summaryresultsoflinearregressionforthegrade1and2teacherchangeofinstructionalpracticesusingadherencetoteachers’participationinCPDandIAIdosageaspredictors Experimental
IAIschools:IAIdosage ParticipationinCPD IAIdosage R2 Sig. R2 Sig. R2 Sig.Phonemic/PhonologicalandAlphabeticawareness
- - - - - -
Fluency - - .129 .007 - -Vocabulary - - .074 .043 - -Comprehension - - .083 .031 - -Generalinstructionalandliteracypractices
.183 .012 .07 .048 - -
TOTAL - - .142 .004 - -
Table20.Itemanalysisresultsoflinearregressionforthegrade1and2teachers’changeofinstructionalpracticesusingadherencetoteachersparticipationinCPDandIAIdosageaspredictors Experimental
IAIschools:IAIdosage ParticipationinCPD IAIdosage R2 Sig. R2 Sig. R2 Sig.P4.Asksstudentstocorrectbadlyspelledwordsintheirownwritingorinwritingsontheboard.
- - - - .108 .004
P9.Pointstoletters,syllables,orwordswhilehe/shereadsortoguidestudentsintheirreading.
- - .132 .006 - -
P10.Attractsattentiontopunctuationwhilestudentsread.
- - .083 .031 - -
P11A.Asksstudentstoreadaloudalone. - - - - .061 .031P11C.Asksstudentstoreadtogether - - - - .063 .028P13.Explainsorasksstudentstoexplainnewvocabularypriortoreadinganewtext.
- - .105 .015 - -
P15.Asksstudentstogivetheirpredictionsonthecontentofatextbyusingclues(title,illustrations,etc)
- - .078 .038 .068 .022
P20.Walkaroundtohelpstudentswhentheyareworkingindividuallyoringroups.
.172 .015 - - - -
P21B.Asksstudentstoworkinpairsorgroups.
- - .084 .03 - -
P22.Asksstudentstocategorizegroupsofwordsbyacharacteristic(samesound,sameletter,sametheme)
- - .086 .01 - -
P23.Encouragesstudentsinapositivemannerwhentheymakeaneffort.
- - .109 .013 - -
Thediscussionbelowfurtherexpandsonteachers’gainsininstructionalpracticesrelativetoreadingandfurtherelaboratesonthelinksbetweenthesegainsandPAQUEDinterventions.Itisbrokendownbycomponentskilltoreflecthowtheyareorganizedintheobservationtool.
![Page 45: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
Phonemic,phonologicalandalphabeticawareness:Asstatedearlier,thePAQUEDreadingprograminexperimentalschoolsandIAIprogramsfocusedheavilyondevelopingphonemic,phonological,andalphabeticawarenessskillsbecausetheyaretheessentialbuildingblocksfordecodinganddevelopingconceptofword.Duetothisemphasis,didteachers’tendtousemorepracticesassociatedwithbuildingphonological,phonemic,andalphabeticawareness?Whileteachersacrossgroupswereobservedapplyingseveralactivitiesassociatedwiththesecomponentskillsatendline,therewasnostatistically-significantchangeobservedinthesepracticeareas.Onaverage,experimentalteachersspentaround10%ofinstructionaltimeonexplicitlyteachingthesecomponentskills.IAI-onlyspent8%ofinstructionaltimeandcontrolteachersspent7.5%.Forthosepracticesmorecloselyassociatedwithreadingprogramactivities(i.e.helpingstudentstoidentifyletternamesandsounds),experimentalteachersspentanaverageof18%ofinstructionaltimewhereasIAI-onlyandcontrolteachersspentlesstimedoingso.Forexperimentalteachers,nospecificpracticesoutlinedinthetoolcorrelatedsignificantlywiththeiruseofPAQUEDinterventions.ForIAI-onlyteachers,10.8%ofthevarianceinteachers’changeintheirapplicationofPractice4,asksstudentstocorrectbadlyspelledwordsintheirownwritingorinwritingsontheboard,couldbeexplainedbytheirIAIusage(p=.004,d=0.69,ES=0.33),asshownbelow.
Inadditiontothis,8.6%ofIAI-onlyteachers’changeinapplicationofP22,askingstudentstocategorizegroupsofwordsbyacharacteristicwasexplainedbyIAI-listenership(p=.01,d=0.61,ES=0.29).
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachersIAI-usage
IAI-onlyteachers'meanpercentageofgainsinP4
Figure20.IAI-onlyteacher’sIAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice4
R2=.108sig=.004
![Page 46: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
Thiscorrelationissurprising,asthisactivitywasmoreprevalentinthereadingprogramactivitiesguidethanintheIAIprograms,andtheIAI-onlyteachersdidnotreceivetheprogramactivitiesguide.However,althoughexperimentalteachersdidnotseemtoallocatemoreinstructionaltimetothisparticularpracticeacrossbaselineandendline,atendline,experimentalschoolteachersspent48%ofinstructionaltimeonthispracticewhileIAI-onlyteachersspent31%andcontrolteachersspent20%.Thisfindingisconsistentwithapplicationofreadingprogramactivitiesthatallocatesignificanttimetowordstudyandvocabularydevelopment.
Fluency:Practicesassociatedwithbuildingstudentfluencywerepartofthedailysequenceofactivitiesoutlinedinthereadingprogram.Theseactivitiesinvolvedstudentsquickreadingofhighfrequencywordsandwordsstudied;havingteacherspointtowordsforstudentstodevelopaconceptofwordandtomodelfluentreading;andallowingstudentstohavein-classtimetopracticereadingaloudinpairsorthroughchoralreading.AsaresultofPAQUEDinterventions,didteachersapplymorefluency-relatedactivitiesfrombaselinetoendline?Thecompositescoreassociatedwithfluencypracticeshownintheabovetableshowsexperimentalteachersimprovedsignificantlymoreintermsofallocatinginstructionaltimetofluencypracticesfrombaselinetoendline(p=.000,d=1.42,ES=0.58),longitudinallyandincomparisonwiththeirIAI-onlyandcontrolcounterparts.Thisissupportedbyitemanalysisshowingthatexperimentalschoolteacherssignificantlyincreasedtheirclassroomtimeallocatedtoallowingstudentstoreadinpairsoralone(p=000,d=1.43,ES=0.58).Linearregressionalsofoundthat12.9%ofthevarianceingainonthesepracticescanbeexplainedbyateacher’srateofIAIlistenership(p=.007,d=0.76,ES=0.36).
0102030405060708090100
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachersIAI-usage
IAI-onlyteachers'meanpercentageofgainsinP22
Figure21.IAI-onlyteacher’sIAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice22
R2=.086sig=.01
![Page 47: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
ThisshowsthatIAImayhavecontributedtoexperimentalteachers’increaseinapplicationoffluency-buildingactivities.Linearregressioninitemanalysisalsoshowedthat13.2%ofthevariationinexperimentalteachers’increasedapplicationofpointingtoletters,syllables,andwordstohelpguidestudentswhiletheyreadcanbeexplainedbyIAIlistenership(p=.006,d=0.77,ES=0.36).
Likewise,8.3%ofthevariationinexperimentalteachers’increasedapplicationofdrawingattentiontopunctuationtohelpstudentsreadwithintonationcanbeexplainedbyIAIlistenership(p=.031,d=0.6,ES=0.29).
0102030405060708090100
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachersIAI-usage
Experimentalteachers'meanpercentageofgainsinfluencypractices
Figure22.Experimentalteachers'IAIusageandtheirgainsinfluencybuildingpractices
R2=.108sig=.004
0102030405060708090100
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachersIAI-usage
Experimentalteachers'meanpercentageofgainsinP9
Figure23.Experimentalteachers'IAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice9
R2=.132sig=.006
![Page 48: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
Still,itisimportanttonotethatdespiteIAI-onlyandcontrolteachersshowingnosignificantimprovementinapplyingfluencypracticesfrombaselinetoendline,theseteachersatendlinestillspendmoreinstructionaltimeonfluencythandotheirexperimentalteachercounterparts.ThisisperhapsbecausethereadingprogramasksteacherstofocusondevelopingseveralcomponentskillsintheirstudentswhileIAI-onlyandcontrolteachersmayonlybefocusingondevelopingtheirstudents’fluency.IAIprogramsalsofocusedheavilyondevelopingfluency.Thisisconsistentwithlinearregressionanalysiswhichfoundthat6.1%ofthevariationinthechangeofIAI-onlyteachers’gainsinaskingstudentstoreadalone(p=.031,d=0.5,ES=0.25)and6.3%ofthevariationintheirgainsinaskingstudentstoreadtogether(p=.028,d=0.52,ES=0.25)canbeexplainedbyatheirrateofIAI-listenership.Thesecorrelationsareshowninthefiguresbelow.Figures25.IAI-onlyteachers’IAIusageandtheirgainsininstructionalpractice
Duetothisfinding,itisinterestingtounderstandthepercentageoftimeteachersallocatedtobuildingfluencyskills,onaverageandacrossgroups.Teachersacrossallgroupsspentaround19to20%of
0102030405060708090100
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachersIAI-usage
Experimentalteachers'meanpercentageofgainsinP10
Figure 24.Experimentalteachers'IAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice10
R2=.083sig=.031
0102030405060708090
100
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachers'
IAI-u
sage
IAI-onlyteachers'meanpercentageofgainsinP11A
IAI-onlyteachers'IAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice11A(askingstudentstoreadaloudalone)
R2=.061sig=.031
0102030405060708090
100
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachers'
IAI-u
sage
IAI-onlyteachers'meanpercentageofgainsinP11C
IAI-onlyteachers'IAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice11C(askingstudentstoreadaloudalone)
R2=.063sig=.028
![Page 49: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49
instructionaltimemodelingorallowingtheirstudentstopracticetheirfluency.Thosepracticesthatshowedtobemostprevalentwereteacherspointingtowordstoguidetheirstudents’reading(24%ofinstructionaltimeforexperimentalteachers,28%forIAIonly,and31%forcontrolteachers),allowingstudentstoreadaloudontheirown(16%forexperimental,25%forIAIonly,and30%forcontrolteachers)andhavingstudentsengageinchoralreading(26%ofinstructionaltimeforexperimentalteachers,25%forIAIonly,and30%forcontrolteachers).However,itshouldbenotedthatthelattertwoitemsdonotspecifywhetherornotstudentsarerepeatingaftertheteacheroriftheygenuinelyreadontheirown.Iftheyarerepeatingaftertheteacher,whichisthetraditionalinstructionalmodelinDRC,thismayexplainwhyIAI-onlyandcontrolteacherswerefoundtoexhibitthesepracticesasfrequentlyastheirexperimentalteachercounterparts.Vocabulary:Muchofday1oftheweeklyreadingprogramandtheIAIprogramswerededicatedtovocabularydevelopment,throughbrainstormingactivities,discussionofnewvocabulary,andvocabularygames.Giventhisfocus,wereteachersobservedtobeapplyingmorevocabularybuildingactivitiesatendline?Interestingly,teachers’applicationofvocabulary-buildingactivitiesintheclassroomwasnotshowntosignificantlychangefrombaselinetoendlineandacrossgroups.Still,experimentalteachersallocatedaround13%ofinstructionaltimetovocabularybuildingactivities,ascomparedtotheirIAI-only(7%)andcontrol(7.5%)counterparts.Linearregressionexplainsthisdifferenceshowingthat7.4%ofthevarianceinexperimentalteachers’applicationofvocabularyactivitiescanbeexplainedbytheirIAIlistenership(p=0.043,d=0.56,ES=0.27).
LinearregressionofspecificpracticeslikeP13showsthat10.5%ofteachers’changeinapplicationofexplainingoraskingstudentstoexplainnewvocabularypriortoreadinganewtextispredictedbyIAI-listenership(p=0.015,d=0.68,0.32).ThisfindingmakessenseasIAIprogramsmodelstrategiesforvocabularydevelopment.Comprehension:Asdiscussedearlier,instructionalpracticesaimedatbuildingstudents’readingcomprehensionarecentraltothereadingprogramsequenceofactivitiesandtheIAIprograms.
0102030405060708090100
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachersIAI-usage
Experimental teachers'meanpercentageofgainsinvocabularypractices
Figure26.Experimentalteachers'IAIusageandtheirgainsinvocabularybuildingpractices
R2=.074sig=.043
![Page 50: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
Interactivevocabularybuildingactivities,regularquestioningtocheckforstudentunderstanding,askingstudentstomakepredictionsusingcontextualandvisualclues,andsolicitingideasfromstudent’slifeexperiencesoastorelatetheinformationinthetexttotheirliveswereinstructionalapproachesincludedinthereadingprogramwhichsupportincreasedcomprehension.Studentreactionsinwritingtostoriesheardorread(whicharealsoconsideredcomprehensionactivities)werealsopromotedbytheprogram.GiventhePAQUEDinterventions’focusoncomprehension,didteachersspendmoreinstructionaltimeatendlineonsuchactivitiesthantheydidatbaseline?Table18abovedemonstratesthatexperimentalschoolandIAI-onlyteachersspendmoretimeengagedinreadingcomprehensionactivitieswiththeirstudentsacrossbaselineandendline(p=.005,d=0.78,ES=0.36).Fromacross-sectionalperspective,significantdifferencesbetweenexperimentalschoolandcontrolteachersandIAI-onlyandcontrolteacherswerealsofoundforthesepractices(p=.011,d=-0.53,ES=0.26).IAI-onlyteachersalsosignificantlyincreasedoverbaselineandendlineintheirapplicationofcomprehensionactivities(p=.000,d=0.87,ES=0.4).ThisisfurthersupportedbytheindividualpracticeanalysiswhichshowedexperimentalschoolteachersandIAI-onlyteacherstosignificantlyshowmoreapplicationofP17—solicitingideasorexperiencesfromstudentsonwhattheyalreadyknowaboutasubjectpriortoreading(p<.01)andaccountedforanaverageof12%ofinstructionaltimeforexperimentalteachers.Thisparticularpracticewasakeycomponentofthepre-readingactivityoutlinedinthereadingprogramandintheIAIprograms.ForP15—askingstudentstogiventheirpredictionsonthecontentofatextbyusingclues,itemanalysisshowssignificantdifferencesbetweenexperimentalandcontrolteachersandbetweenIAI-onlyandcontrolteachers(p<.05).IAI-onlyteacherstendedtomorefrequentlyaskquestionsoftheirstudentsacrossbaselineandendline(p<.01)yetoverall,experimentalschoolteachersspentthemostinstructionaltimeallocatedtoaskingquestions(29%).ThismirrorsthedesignoftheIAIprogramsinwhichcharacterscontinuouslyaskstudentsquestionstokeepthemactivelyengaged.ThisdifferencewasalsofoundtobesignificantbetweenIAI-onlyandcontrolteachers.
ThesefindingsareinterestingastheysuggestthatthepresenceofIAImayberelatedtoteachersapplyingcomprehensionactivities.Thisisconsistentwithlinearregressionshowingthat8.3%ofexperimentalteachers’changeinapplicationofcomprehensionactivitiescanbeexplainedbyIAIlistenership(p=.031,d=0.6,ES=0.29).
![Page 51: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
IAIlistenershipalsoexplained7.8%ofthevarianceinexperimentalteachers’applicationofP15,askingstudentstogivetheirpredictionsonthecontentofatextbyusingclues(title,illustrations,etc)(p=.038,d=0.57,ES=0.28).Generalclassroomandliteracypractices:Thepracticescontainedinthe“generalclassroomandliteracypractices”compositeincludetheincorporationofgroupwork,teachermonitoringofstudentwork,andthepresenceofpositivestudentencouragement.So,howdidteacherschangeintheirpracticesbetweenthebaselineandtheendline?IAI-onlyteachersimprovedsignificantlyacrossbaselineandendlineintheiroverallgeneralliteracyandclassroompractices(p=.003,d=0.7,ES=0.33).
IndividualpracticeanalysisshowedsomesignificantdifferencesinspecificpracticesforbothIAI-onlyandexperimentalteachers.Forexample,experimentalschoolandIAIteachersbothincreasedoverbaselineandendlineintheintegrationofreadingandwritingactivitieswithinthesamelesson,anotheroverarchingelementofthereadingprogramandtheIAIprogram(p=006,d=0.75,ES=0.35andp=.003,d=0.69,ES=0.33respectively).Thoughthispracticewasnotallocatedtoaspecificcompositepracticescore,itisinterestingtoseehowitcoincideswiththeteachers’knowledgefindingsindicatingexperimentalteachers’overallpositiveattitudestowardstheintegrationofreadingandwritingintheirlessons(43%ofexperimentalteachersagreedwiththisstatement).IAI-onlyteacherswerealsofoundtoprovidemorepositiveencouragementtotheirstudents(p=.022,d=0.53,ES=0.26)overbaselineandendline.Experimentalteachers’changeinthisparticularpracticecorrelatedsignificantlywithbothIAI-listenershipandteachers’participationincontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesandcoachingvisits(p=.013,d=0.69,ES=0.33andp=.043,d=0.73,ES=0.34).OtheritemswerealsofoundtobesignificantlycorrelatedwithPAQUEDinterventions.Forexample,17.2%ofexperimentalteachers’changeinP20,walkingaroundtohelpstudentswhentheyareworkingindividuallyoringroupswasexplainedbyteachers’participationincontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesandcoachingvisits(p=0.15,d=0.9,ES=0.41).
0102030405060708090100
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachers
IAI-u
sage
Experimental teachers'meanpercentageofgainsincomprehensionpractices
Figure27.Experimentalteachers'IAIusageandtheirgainsincomprehensionbuildingpractices
R2=.083sig=.031
![Page 52: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
FinallyIAI-listenershipexplained8.4%ofthevariationinteachers’changeinaskingstudentstoworkinpairs(p=.03,d=0.6,ES=0.29),astrategyheavilyencouragedintheIAIprograms.
0102030405060708090100
-35 -25 -15 -5 5 15 25 35
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachers
participationinCPD
Experimentalteachers'meanpercentageofgainsinP20
Figure28.Experimentalteachers'participation inCPDandtheirgainsinPractice20(supporting students)
R2=.172sig=.015
0102030405060708090100
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachers
IAI-u
sage
Experimentalteachers'meanpercentageofgainsinP20
Figure29.Experimentalteachers'IAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice20(supporting students)
R2=.084sig=.30
![Page 53: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
Chapter2:Grade3to6teacherresultsThischapterpresentstheresultsofthestudyfromtheperspectiveofgrade3,4,5,and6teachers,whowereservedbyPAQUEDthroughthedistributionofIAIprograms(100lessonsperclass),accesstocontentknowledgetrainingsonFrenchandMath,thedistributionofclassroomkits,andthedistributionofaudio-videomodulestofacilitatetheirteacherlearningcircles(forumd’échange).Asthestudyaimedtofocusonreading,theresultspresentedbelowprovideinsightintoteachers’knowledgereadingandwritinginstructionandhowtheirliteracy-specificclassroompracticesmayhavechangedoverthecourseof1.5yearsfromMarch2013toMay2014.Theseresultshaveimportantimplicationsforthedevelopmentoffutureteachertrainingprogramdesign.Theseimplicationsincludetheneedforrobustreadinginterventionsatallgradesandunderstandingwhatisrequiredforthistobeeffectivelyimplemented.
ItshouldbereiteratedherethatthePAQUEDinterventioningrade3to6teacherswasnotasintenseasitwasforgrade1and2teachers.Experimentalgrade3to6teacherswerenotspecificallytargetedintheearlygradereadingprogramso,althoughtheymayhaveparticipatedinsomeschool-basedmeetings,theywerenotprovidedwiththesameintenselevelofinputsastheirgrade1and2counterparts.Furthermore,theIAIprogramsweredistributedtoteachersgraduallyoverthecourseoftheprojectastheywereproduced.Asaresult,grade1and2teachersreceivedthematthebeginningofyear2oftheprojectwhereasgrade3and4teachersreceivedtheminyear3andgrade5and6teachersreceivedtheminyear4.
Teacherknowledgeofliteracyinstructionfindings:Grade3,4,5&6teachersAtendline,thestudyaskedteachersingrade3,4,5,and6toprovideinformationabouttheirknowledgeaboutteachingreading.ThoughdisaggregatedbyexperimentalandIAI-only,manyoftheexperimentalschoolsinthispartofthesamplebenefitedfromaboutthesamelevelofinterventionastheIAI-onlyteachers.Thisisbecausethereadingprograminexperimentalschoolswasmainlytargetedatgrades1and2.Still,itwasdecidedtokeepthemasaseparategroup,asvisitstoschoolsbycoachestograde1and2teachersandparticipationbygrade3-6teachersinschool-basedteacherlearningcircles(forumd’échange)mayhaveinfluencedteachers’knowledgeoutcomes.Thisassumptionofeffectissupportedbytheresults,whichshowthatexperimentalteacherstohavemoreknowledgeontheteachingofcertaincomponentskillsovertheirIAI-onlyandcontrolcounterparts.Thetablesbelowsummarizethechangeingrade3and4andgrade5and6teacherknowledgegroupedbycompositeacrossthebaselineandtheendlineandTables21through24pulloutspecificitemsthatwereshowntobesignificantrelativetothecompositeskills.
Theresultspresentedbycomponentskillbelowrepresentthemeanpercentageofagreementtoagroupofquestionsclassifiedbycomponentskill.ThecompositionofquestionsbycomponentskillscanbefoundinAnnexB.Aseveryquestionposedcouldbeansweredas“yes”or“no”,themeanswerecalculatedbasedontheseresponses.Forexample,experimentalteachers’frequencyofagreementtoquestionsonhowtoteachfluencyamountedto83.83%meanagreement,comparedtoaround80%for
![Page 54: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
54
IAI-onlyand72%forcontrolteachers.Theresultsoftheindividualquestionsoutlinedintables22and24representthepercentageofagreementforeachquestionacrossdifferentteachergroups.
Thefindingsbelowrepresentteacherswhoparticipatedintheendlineknowledgeinterview.Overall,IAI-onlyandexperimentalteachershadmoreknowledgeabouthowtoteachreadingandwritingatendlinethandidtheircontrolcounterparts.However,thesetotaldifferenceswerenotfoundtobesignificant.Theresultsforknowledgewerealsocorrelatedwithteachers’useoftheIAIprogramsmadeavailabletothem4.Nosignificantcorrelationswerefoundbetweengrade3to6experimentalandIAI-onlyteachers’knowledgeandtheiruseofIAIprograms.Thismaybeduetotwofactors:theoveralllowmeanIAIlistenership5fortheseteacherswhichforbothexperimentalandIAI-onlyteachers,didnotexceed34%ofprogramslistenedto.Anotherreasonforlacknosignificantcorrelationsfoundmayalsobeattributedtohowknowledgewasmeasuredthroughteachers’dichotomous“yes”or“no”answers,contributingtoalackofvariabilityinresponses.Therefore,theknowledgeresultspresentedbelowwillbediscussedbycomponentskillsbutnoregressionresultswillaccompanythem.
Table21.Summaryofthegrade3and4teacherknowledgeresultsofcomparisonofmeansatendline(percentagesindicateagreement) PAQUED
CONTROL(n=54) Experimental(n=36) IAI(n=73)
PhonemicandPhonologicalawareness
94.4%*agree 89%agree 81.48%agree
Fluency 83.83%** 80.01% 72.24%
Vocabulary 72.79% 70.42% 67.59%
Comprehension 92.85% 91.67% 87.5%
Writing 77.3% 74.24% 71.6%
Integratingreadingandwriting
42% 33% 31%
Total 83.6% 81.08% 78.7%
*ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.05**ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.01***ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.001
Overall,grade3and4experimentalandIAI-onlyteachersshowedtoexhibitmoreknowledgeabouttheeffectiveteachingofreadingthantheircontrolcounterparts.Thetablebelowdemonstratesthespecificquestionstowhichexperimentalteachers’answersweresignificantlydifferentfromtheircontrolcounterparts.
4Othertrainingattendance(summerinstituteparticipation)was98%acrosstheteacherpopulation.Thelackofvariabilityinattendancemakesitdifficulttolinktochangeinpracticeorendlineknowledge.5MeanIAIlistenershipforgrade3and4experimentalteacherswas39%whereasIAI-onlyteacherslistenedto32%oftheprogram.Grade5and6experimentalteachers’IAIlistenershipratewas35%andIAI-onlyteacherslistenedto32%oftheprograms.
![Page 55: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
55
Table22.Itemanalysisofthegrade3and4teacherknowledgeresultsofcomparisonofmeansatendlinedisaggregatedbystatus(percentagesindicateagreement)
PAQUEDCONTROL(n=54) Experimental(n=36) IAI(n=73)
1.4Tohelpstudentseasilyreadandwritewords,itisusefultoaskthemtocategorizewordsbycommonsounds,commonthemesorcommonendings
94%*agree 89%agree 81%agree
2.2Itisusefultotalkaboutnewvocabularywithstudentbeforereadingatext.
77%*** 50% 41%
2.4Itisbetterforstudentstolearnnewvocabularythroughastoryratherthaninlistform.
75%** 47% 47%
4.2Afterreadingatext,itisimportanttoaskstudentstoexplainwhattheyread.
92%* 86% 74%
5.1Itisokifstudentsmakespellingmistakeswhentheywriteanewwordforthefirsttime.
2.7%*** 16% 27.8%
*ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.05**ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.01***ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.001
Thetablebelowprovidesasummaryofgrade5and6teachers’knowledgeofteachingreading.Followingthesametrendasgrade3and4teachers,experimentalandIAI-onlyteachersshowedtoknowagreewithstatementsaboutteachingliteracythatwereinlinewitheffectivereadinginstruction.Table23.Summaryofthegrade5and6teacherknowledgeresultsofcomparisonofmeansatendlinedisaggregatedbystatus(percentagesindicateagreement) PAQUED
CONTROL(n=61) Experimental(n=39) IAI(n=67)
PhonemicandPhonologicalawareness
91.03%agree 84.6% 89%
Fluency 80.51% 76.61% 75.6%
Vocabulary 79.47% 77.93% 77%
Comprehension 93.88% 93.67% 89%
Writing 69.91% 69.77% 66%
Integratingreadingandwriting
50% 44.9% 44.7%
Total 82.89% 80.92% 79%
*ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.05**ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.01***ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.001
Table24pullsoutthosespecificquestionsthatwerefoundtowhichexperimentalteachersrespondedinasignificantlydifferentwaythantheircontrolcounterparts.
![Page 56: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
56
Table24.Itemanalysisofthegrade5and6teacherknowledgeresultsofcomparisonofmeansatendlinedisaggregatedbystatus(percentagesindicateagreement) PAQUED
CONTROL(n=61) Experimental(n=39) IAI(n=67)
2.1Tohelpstudentslearntoread,itisimportanttohavethemrepeatthereadingofatextafteryou.
76.92%*agree 86.57% 93.4%
3.1Beforeaskingstudentstoreadanewtext,itisusefultohaveadiscussionwiththeclasstobringoutwhattheyalreadyknowaboutthetheme.
92%* 88% 78%
3.2Itisusefultotalkaboutnewvocabularywithstudentbeforereadingatext.
74%* 52% 51%
*ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.05**ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.01***ThedifferenceinendlinemeansbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.001
Thedataoutlinedinthefourtablesabovewillbediscussedbycomponentskillinthefollowingsections.
Phonemicandphonologicalawareness:PAQUEDinterventionsforgrades3-6didnotfocusasintenselyondevelopingbasicdecodingskills(letter-soundrelationships,etc)astheydidforgrade1and2students.Thisisbecausestudentsingrade3,4,5,and6shouldalreadyhavedevelopedmanyoftheskillsassociatedwithlearninghowtodecodenewwords.WhileEGRAresultsdonotrevealthistoactuallybethecaseinDRC,thenationalcurriculumobjectivesassumestudentsarealreadystrongdecodersbygrade3,andtheMinistrymandatesthatdonor-fundedinterventionsalignwiththecurriculum.Therefore,itisnosurprisethatgrade5and6experimentalandIAI-onlyteachers’knowledgeaboutteachingphonemic,phonologicalandalphabeticawarenessdidnotdiffersignificantlyfromtheircontrolcounterparts.
Nevertheless,amonggrade3and4teachers,experimentalteacherstendedtoexhibitsignificantlymoreknowledgeonteachingthiscomponentskillincomparisontotheircontrolcounterparts(p=.052,d=.21,ES=.21).Thismaybeexplainedbyteachersattendingtheschoolbasedforumd’échangeandexchangingwiththeirgrade1and2experimentalcounterpartsaroundteachingtheseskills.Thisexplanationissupportedbyitemanalysisshowingexperimentalteachersingrade3and4agreedsignificantlymorewithQuestion1.4.(tohelpstudentseasilyreadandwritewords,itisusefultoaskthemtocategorizewordsbycommonsounds,commonthemesorcommonendings)(p=.052,d=.21,ES=.21)thantheircontrolcounterparts.Experimentalteachers’hightendencytorespondpositivelytothisparticularquestionisinterestingbecauseitrelatestoakeywordstudyactivityinthereadingprogramwhichwasreportedtobehighlydiscussedinschoolbasedlearningcircles(forumd’échange).
Thoughnosignificantdifferenceswerefoundacrossgroupsforthequestiononwhetherornotitwasusefulforstudentstolearntochunksofwordstoreadmorequickly,92%ofgrade3to6experimentalteachersagreedthatthiswasimportant.Someoftheclassroomexamplesteachersprovidedtosupportthisanswerwereasfollows:
![Page 57: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
57
Igiveawordtomystudentsandmystudentcutthemintosyllablesandthenreadthemquickly(N=74).Idrawmystudents’attentiontothewordfamily(root)weareworkingwith.Fromthere,theyknowthemeaningandcanreadtheword(N=9).
Othersgrade3to6teacherswhoagreedthatitisvaluabletoteachstudentstochunkwordsprovidedthefollowingjustifications:
Thedivisionofwordsintosyllableshelpsdrawoutthesoundsinthewordswhichassistsstudentsinbothreadingandwriting(N=4).Chunkingwordshelpsinstudent’sgoodpronunciationoftheword(N=5).Cuttingwordsupintosyllablesorsoundshelpsstudentsdecodedifficultwords(N=7).Ifstudentsknowthatwordsaredividedupintosyllables,theywillmoreeasilybeabletoreadit(N=8).
Experimentalgrade5and6teachers’responsesalsoreflectsomeinfluencefromthegrade1and2readingprogramstrategies,asinthisclassroomexample:
Afterareadinglesson,Ihavemystudentswriteawordthatcontainstheletterorspellingpatterntheystudied.
Grade3to6teacherswhodidnotagreethatchunkingwasusefultohelpstudentsreadquicklyjustifiedtheirresponsesinthefollowingway:
Onemustalwaysreadthewholewordwithoutcuttingitup(N=8).Grade5and6studentsdon’tneedtocutupwordstoreadthem(N=3).Notallwordshaveroots,andsyllablesareonlyusefulforslowdecoding(N=3).
Overall,theseresponsesshowthatthemajorityofinterviewedteachersseemtoplaceimportanceonsyllable-by-syllablereadingtohelpstudentsreadmorequickly.ForlearningtoreadinFrenchlanguage,thisisanappropriatestrategyandisonethatisexplicitlymodeledinthePAQUEDIAIprogramsaswellasinothertrainingsprovidedbyIFADEM.Fluency:FluencyisaskillthatPAQUEDinterventions,notablyIAI,soughttobuild.Strategiestobuildfluencyinvolvedaskingtheteachertodragtheirfingerquicklyunderwordstomovetheirstudents’eyesmorequicklyfromwordtowordorhavingstudentspracticereadingwordsinagivensentenceinorderandoutoforder.Otherstrategieswerelinkedtophonologicalawareness,likerecognitionofwordrootstohelpstudentsmorequicklychunkwordstoreadthemwhilesimultaneouslyassistingintheircomprehensionofthesewords.Finally,theIAIstoriesstrovetopresentagoodmodeloffluencyforteacherandstudentsalikeintheirread-alouds,attendingtofluidintonationandexpression.
Giventhisemphasis,whatwasteachers’knowledgeofteachingfluencyteatendline?OnlyGrade3and4experimentalteachersshowedsignificantdifferencesintheirknowledgeofteachingfluencyatendline(p=.002,d=-0.72,ES=.34)incomparisontotheircontrolcounterparts.Grade5and6experimentalandIAI-onlyteachersknewmoreaboutteachingfluencybutthedifferenceswerenotsignificant.
![Page 58: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
58
Vocabulary:BoththeIAIprogramsandtheFrenchsummerinstitutemodeledstrategiesforvocabularybuildingforteachers.Suchstrategiesincludedhavingteacherscollectideasfromstudentsaroundagiventheme,usemovementsandinstructionalmaterialsupport(illustrations,concreteobjects)todefinenewvocabulary,orhavingstudentsusenewvocabularyinsentencesorallyorbywriting.Becausestudentsarelearninginasecondlanguage,vocabularydevelopmentisvitaltoensuringreadingandlisteningcomprehension.Grade3to6experimentalandIAI-onlyteachersdidnotexhibitanysignificantdifferencesintheirknowledgeaboutteachingvocabularyatendline.However,specificquestionanalysisrevealedthatgrade3to6teachersdiddiffersignificantlyintheirresponsestocertainquestions.Forexample,75%ofGrade3and4experimentalteachersfeltisbetterforstudentstolearnnewvocabularythroughastoryratherthaninlistform(p=.005,d=.63,ES=.3).
Grade3to6teachersalsosignificantlydifferedintheiranswertothequestion:itisusefultoteachnewvocabularybeforethereadingofatextincomparisontotheircontrolcounterparts(p=.000,d=-0.82,ES=.38andp=.017,d=-0.52,ES=.25).Teachers’justificationsfortheirpositiveresponsestotheirquestionarepertinenttoexplicitstrategiesmodeledinPAQUEDinterventions:
Astudentwillbetterbeabletounderstandwhathereadsifheunderstandsthenewvocabulary.(N=43)
Suchjustificationpointstothefactthatteachersmayseethelinkbetweenvocabularyknowledgeandcomprehension.Alongthesesamelines,teachersassertedthatstudentswillbemorecuriousandattentiveintheirreadingiftheyunderstandthevocabulary.(N=9)
Teachersalsopointedtotheuseof“brainstorming”(collectedesidées)tohelpthembringoutnewvocabulary(N=14).ThisparticularactivitywasexplicitlymodeledintheFrenchsummerinstituteswhich98%ofPAQUEDteachersattended.Otherscitedtheusefulnessofaskingstudentsquestionsonthethemeofthetextinordertodeveloptheirvocabulary(N=13)whileotherindicatedthatillustrationswerehelpfulinexplainingnewvocabularypriortoreading(N=12).
Aboutaquarterofgrade3-6teachershowever,assertedthatitwasn’tusefultoteachnewvocabularybeforereadingatext.Thereasonsandexamplescitedinclude:
IalwaysstartwithreadingthetextfirstandthenIaskstudentstobringoutthedifficultwords(N=56).
“Newwordsshouldbetaughtduringthereadingofthetextandnotbefore;otherwise,thewordswillbetaughtabstractly”(N=10)
ThoughPAQUEDencouragedteacherstoteachvocabularypriortoreadinganewtext,themajorityofconcreteclassroomexamplesgivenshowedtohighlighttheimportanceofteachingofnewvocabulary.Thisispositivebecauseitmeansteachersdovaluetheteachingofnewvocabulary.
Comprehension:Asitistheultimategoaloflearningtoread,activitiesrelatedtobuildingreadingcomprehensionwerekeytothePAQUEDinterventiondesign.Theseactivitiesincludethe“questions”activitywherestudentsarealwaysaskedtoanswer“Who?What?When?Where?How?Why?”
![Page 59: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
59
(QQQOP)questionsfollowingthereadingofatext.SeveralIAIprogramswerededicatedtoshowingstudentshowtofindanswerstocertainquestionsusinglanguageandcontextclues.Attheendofeveryprogram,studentswerealwaysaskedwhattheylikedaboutthestoryorhowtheycouldrelatethestorytotheirownlives.Grade3to6experimentalandIAI-onlyteachersdidnotshowsignificantdifferencesintermsoftheirknowledgeofteachingcomprehensionascomparedtotheircontrolcounterparts.However,specificquestionanalysisrevealsthatgrade3and4experimentalteachersdifferedsignificantlyintheirresponsetoQuestion4.2afterreadingatext,itisimportanttoaskstudentstoexplainwhattheyreadortoanswercomprehensionquestions(p=.021,d=-0.51,ES=.24)incomparisontotheircontrolcounterparts.Grade5and6experimentalteachersdifferedsignificantlyintheirresponsetoQuestion3.1ontheimportanceofpre-readingactivities(p=.45,d=-0.41,ES=.2).Grade3and4teachersgaveclassroomexamplesandjustificationforwhyaskingstudentstoexplainwhattheyreadafterreadingatextwasimportantornot.Thosewhoagreedthiswasimportantcitedthattheyaskedstudentstogivethemainideaofatext(N=10).Otherssaidtheyaskedstudentscomprehensionquestions(N=21)becauseithelpedthemidentifywhetherornottheirstudentsunderstoodthetext(N=14).Teachersalsopointedtotheimportanceofaskingstudentstoexplainwhattheyreadbecauseithelpedsolidifytheinformationinthestudent’smemory(N=5).Finally,inlinewiththosewhobelievevocabularywasbesttaughtafterthereadingofatext,teachersexamplesincludedthedefinitionofnewvocabularyafterthereadingofatexttohelpstudentsexplainwhattheyread(N=10).However,somegrade3and4teachersdidnotfeelthatitwasimportanttoaskstudentstoexplainwhattheyread.Reasonsprovidedinclude:
Itisme(theteacher)whoshouldexplainthetextandthewordsread.Thestudentscanrepeatafterme.(N=9)
Studentsarenotcapableofexplainingwhattheyread.(N=5)Similarresponseswerefoundforgrade5and6teacherswhowereaskedwhetherornottheythoughtitisimportantforaskstudentstoreacttoatextorallyorinwriting.Thosewhoassertedthatitwasimportantgavethefollowingjustificationsthatpointtosomeinterestingfindings,includingteachersrecognizingstudentpreferencesandhowthey(students)liketolearn: Iaskmystudentstoreacttoatextorallyorinwritingbecauseitmotivatesthem(N=5).
Anotherexplanationshowsthatteachersvaluetextreactionbecauseithelpsthemtoevaluatestudentlearning:
Askingmystudentstoreacttoatextletsmeknowwhetherornottheyhaveunderstoodthetext(N=15)
Someteachersfeltitwasimportanttoaskstudentstoreacttoatextbecauseitwouldbringstudentstoformulatetheirpointofviewonagivensituation(N=8).
![Page 60: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
60
Thosegrade5&6controlteacherswhodisagreedwiththisstatementsaidtheydidn’tthinkstudentswerematureenoughtoanswercomprehensionquestions(N=3).Itwasalsointerestingtomentionhowthoseteacherswhoagreedwiththisstatementsaidtheyenactedthisstatementintheirclassrooms. Iaskmystudentstoreactbygivingmethemainideaofthetext(N=8). Iaskmystudentstotellmethemoralorthelessontheytookfromthestory(N=5).
Iposecomprehensionquestionstomystudentsandtheyanswerorallyorinwriting(N=21).Theseresponsesareconsistentwiththecomprehension-specificactivitiesembeddedwithintheIAIprograms.However,nocorrelationscanbeestablishedbetweenteachers’useofIAIandtheirresponsestothesequestions.Writing:WritingwasacorecomponentofthePAQUEDinterventionsdesignedforteachersandstudentsingrade3to6.Writingactivitiesinvolvedallowingstudentstoexperimentwithwritingbeyondsimplecopying,andtoengageinpair-reviewofdrafts.Forexample,everyIAIunitingrade3to6lessonscalledforstudentproductionsofparticulartextgenres(e.g.poem,letter,fable)modeledinthatunit.TheFrenchsummerinstitutesalsoincludedwritingactivities,whichmayhaveservedtoinfluenceteacherknowledgeofwritinginstruction.
Overall,grade3to6experimentalandIAI-onlyteachersdidnotshowsignificantdifferencesintheirknowledgeofteachingwritingincomparisontotheircontrolcounterparts.Still,itemanalysisrevealsthatexperimentalteachersingrade3and4didsignificantlydifferontheirtoleranceofinventedspelling:Itisokifstudentsmakespellingmistakeswhentheywriteanewwordforthefirsttime(p=.000,d=-0.87,ES=.4)incomparisontothegrade3and4controlteachers.Approximately50%ofGrade3to6experimentalteachersagreedthatitisappropriatetoteachreadingandwritinginthesamelesson,ascomparedtoapproximately40%ofcontrolteacherswhothoughtthiswasappropriate.Thoughthedifferenceacrossgroupsisnotsignificant,thereadingprogramforgrade1and2teachersdidintegratereadingandwritingintensively.Giventhis,itispossiblethatexperimentalgrade3to6teachersmayhavebeeninfluencedbytheirgrade1and2counterpartsinansweringthisquestion.
Anextensionquestiononteachers’perceivedimportanceofgivingstudentsopportunitiestowritewordsorsentencesthattheyproduceontheirownelicitedseveralinterestingresponsesthatmayshedlightonhowteachersarecomingtothinkaboutwritinginstruction.Classroomexamplesrangedfrommoreteacher-drivenactivitiestostudent-drivenactivities.Thoseexamplesprovidedforteacher-drivenactivitiesinclude:
Idospellingtests(N=27).Iaskmystudentscomprehensionquestionsonatextandtheyanswerinwriting(N=8).Studentswritewordstheysawinatextwejustread(N=26).Studentscopythetextofftheboard.(N=4).
Otherexamplesthatdemonstratedmorestudent-drivenproductionsincluded: Mystudentswritepersonalletters.(N=6)
Iaskmystudentstowritedownanywordtheyknowaroundagiventhemeorthathasaparticularspellingpattern(N=18).
![Page 61: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
61
Isendmystudentstotheboardtowritetheirideasonatext.Then,wecorrectittogether.(N=6).Usingillustrationsortheirowndrawings,studentscaneasilywritewhattheysee(N=4).
Grade3to6teacherjustificationsforprovidingwritingopportunitiesalsoemergedfromtheresponses.Inadditiontospellingtests,teachersexplainedthatwritingwasimportanttohelpthemevaluatetheirstudent’scomprehensionorlevel(N=5).Somealsosaiditfacilitatescomprehensionofthesubjectmatter(N=6)andhelpsastudentimprovetheirspelling(N=4).Writingwasalsolinkedtopromotingastudent’sinitiativeandwasconsideredtobeusefultotheirdailylives:convertingyouroralwordstothewrittenwordisneededinlife(N=9).Lastly,teacherexpectationsalsosurfacedfromgrade3to6teacherswhobothagreedanddisagreedthatprovidingopportunitiesforwritingisimportant.Forthosewhodidagree,teachersassertedthatonlythoseintelligentstudentswerecapableofwritingeventhoughtherewerestillmanyerrors(N=3).Forthosewhodidnotagreethatprovidingtheirstudentswithopportunitiestowriteisimportant,theyciteditwasbecausestudentsarenotcapableofwritinganythingthatcomesfromthem(N=6)andrather,studentshouldfirstseewhattheteacherwritesontheboardandcopy(N=2).Overall,thedataderivedfromquestionsaroundallowingstudentstopracticewriting,tomakemistakes,andtodowritingactivitieswithinthecontextofareadinglessonshowsthatteachersacrossgroupstakevariedstancesonwhatitmeanstoteachwriting.Giventhis,itisdifficulttodrawconclusionsonhowPAQUEDinterventionsmayhaveinfluencedteachers’knowledgearoundteachingwritingortheimportanceofallowingstudentstopracticewriting.
![Page 62: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
62
Grade3to6teacherpracticefindingsInadditiontoteachers’shiftsinknowledgeaboutteachingreading,itisalsoimportanttounderstandhowthesechangesmayhavetranslatedintopractice.Tomeasurechangesinteacherpractice,anobservationtoolsimilarlystructuredtothatemployedwithgrade1and2wasadministeredingrade3to6experimental,IAI-only,andcontrolteachers’classroomsatbaselineinMarch2013andatendlineinMay2014.Observationtoolsdifferedslightlybetweengrade3and4andgrade5and6teachersduetotheinevitabledifferencesinliteracypracticesassociatedwiththeselevels.
Sampledgrade3to6teacherswereaskedtoteachalessonwheretheyintroduceanewtexttostudentsatbothbaselineandendlinedatacollectioninordertoensureadegreeofcomparabilityofthelessons.Theobservationtoolcontainedarangeofspecificandobservablepracticesgroupedbythecomponentskillstheyaimedtobuild.Theseare:phonemic,phonologicalandalphabeticawareness,fluency,vocabulary,comprehension,andgeneralinstructionalpractices(seeAnnexBfortool).Thesepracticeswerechosenbasedonthoseoutlinedinthenationalstandardsandthosecommonlyobservedinnumerousclassroomobservationsconductedthroughouttheproject.Eachitemizedpracticewasallotted9five-minutetranchesoftime,whichcoversanaveragelessonspan.Iftheenumeratorwitnessedapractice,heorshewouldcheckofthepracticeintheappropriatetimeperiod.Thiswastoprovideasnapshotofthelessonasitprogressedandtoquantifyteachers’implementationofcertainpracticesoverothers.Itshouldbenotedthatevenifapracticewasobservedtwiceinaperiodoffiveminutes,onlyonecheckwasallowedperfive-minutetranche.Thisisapossiblelimitationofthetoolasithindersone’sabilitytodetectthesubtlechangesinteacherpractice.Still,theresultsderivedfromthetoolprovideinterestinginformationonteachers’practiceandwerefoundtobestatisticallyreliable(seeAnnexB).Thesummarytablesdescribethechangeingrade3and4and5and6teacherpracticesgroupedbycomponentskillacrossthebaselineandtheendline.Thetablesthatfolloweachsummarytablepresentspecificpracticesthatwereshowntochangesignificantlyovertime.Thepercentagesrepresentthetotalnumberoftimesthepracticewaswitnessedoverthetotallessontime.Forexample,ifateacheraskedcomprehensionquestionsovertwotranchesoffive-minutetimeperiodsofa35-minutelesson,theteacherwouldbeconsideredtohaveexhibitedthispracticeapproximately29%oftotalinstructionaltime(2outof7).ThelasttableshowstheresultsoflinearregressionanalysislinkingteacherchangesinpracticetotheiruseofIAIprograms.Unliketeachers’knowledge,someteachers’practicesweresignificantlycorrelatedwiththeiruseofIAIprograms.Overall,experimentalteachersimprovedsignificantlyintheinstructionofallcomponentskillsexceptforvocabularyovertime(longitudinally).Someoftheseimprovementswerefoundtobesignificantlydifferentincomparisontotheircontrolcounterparts.Inaddition,14.8%ofthevarianceingrade5and6experimentalteachers’totalchangeinpracticecanbeexplainedbytheirIAI-listenership(p=.005,d=.83,ES=.38).Finally,IAI-onlyteachersingrade5and6significantlyimprovedontheirtotalpracticesovertime(p=.009,d=.65,ES=.31).Thissectionwilldiscusstheseresults,breakingthemdownbyteachers’applicationofcomponentskills.Theanalysiswillprovidesomeinsightastowhyteachersmayhaveimprovedintheteachingofcertainskillsoverothers.
![Page 63: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
63
Table25belowprovidesasummaryofgrade3and4teachers’meanobservedliteracy-buildinginstructionalpracticesgroupedbycomponentskillcomposite.Italsoshowsthemeangainsteachersshowedtomakeoverbaselineandendlineineachcomponentskillandindicateswhenthesegainsarestatisticallysignificantbothlongitudinallyandacrossgroups.
Table25.Summaryofthegrade3and4teacherpracticeresultsofcomparisonofmeansbetweenthebaselineandtheendlinedisaggregatedbystatus(percentageofinstructionaltimeallocated)
PAQUED CONTROL(n=46)Experimental(n=48) IAI-only(n=72)Baseline Endline Gainscore Baseline Endline Gainscore Baseline Endline Gainscore
PhonemicandPhonologicalawareness
1.12% 3.9%2.78%***
1.39% 1.26%-0.13%
0.52% 0.89%0.37%
Fluency 13.19% 17.22% 4.03%** 19.22% 19.64% 0.42% 17.35% 17.59% 0.24%Vocabulary 5.4% 7.41% 2.01% 6.12% 7.36% 1.24% 6.2% 5.56% -0.64%Comprehension 8.47% 11.2% 2.73%** 7.56% 9.44% 1.88% 7.05% 8.31% 1.26%Generalinstructionalandliteracypractices 10.5% 13.24% 2.73%* 12.8% 13.05% 0.25% 9.76% 11.79% 2.03%Total 8.55% 9.79% 1.24%* 9.5% 10.06% 0.56% 8.18% 8.83% 0.65%
*Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.05**Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.01***Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.001___=significantacrossgroups(cross-sectional)
Thetablebelowpullsoutspecificpracticesoutlinedtheobservationtoolwheregrade3and4teachersshowedtomakesignificantgainsacrossbaselineandendline.Forexample,experimentalteacherstendedtointegratereadingandwritingintotheirlessons(P19)muchmoreatendlinethantheydidatbaseline.Table26.Itemanalysisofthegrade3and4teacherpracticeresultsofcomparisonofmeansbetweenthebaselineandtheendlinedisaggregatedbystatus
PAQUEDCONTROL(n=46)
Experimental(n=48) IAI-only(n=72)Baseline Endline Gainscore Baseline Endline Gainscore Baseline Endline Gainscore
P1.Asksstudentstodecodewordsontheirownusingsound-letterassociations.
3.24% 5.09% 1.85% 1.38% 3.24% 1.85%* 1.69% 1.93% 0.24%
P4.Asksstudentstocorrectbadlyspelledwordsintheirownwritingorinwritingsontheboard.
0.23% 11.34% 11.11%*** 2.93% 1.85% -1.08% .96% 1.44% 0.48%
P13.Asksstudenttocompleteasentencewithamissingwordorallyorinwriting.
0.46% 3.24% 2.77%* 1.38% 1.7% 0.31% 1.69% 2.41% 0.72%
P18.Asksquestionsonatextread(ex.who?What?Where?How?Why?...)
20.13% 27.31% 7.17%* 16.82% 20.98% 4.17% 18.6% 21.5% 2.89%
P19.Integratesreadingandwritingactivitiesintothesamelesson. 2.31% 14.35% 12.04*** 3.54% 3.54% 0% 1.2% 3.1% 1.93%
P22A.Asksstudentstoworkindividuallyattheirdesks. 10.42% 19.21% 14.35%** 11.73% 14.97% 3.24% 7.48% 12.08% 4.58%
*Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.05**Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.01***Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.001___=significantacrossgroups(cross-sectional)
![Page 64: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
64
Figure30isavisualrepresentationofhowteachersspentinstructionaltimeatbaseline,endlineandtheirgainsoverbaselineandendline.Thisshowsthatgrade3and4experimentalteachersmadethelargestgainsacrossbaselineandendlineacrossmostcomponentskillsascomparedtotheirIAI-onlyandcontrolcounterparts.
Figure30.Grade3and4teachers’changeinliteracyinstructionalpracticesfrombaselinetoendline.
Experimental(N=48)IAI-only(N=72)
(N=78)Control(N=46)(N=60)
2.78-0.13
037
4.030.42
0.24
2.011.24-0.64
2.731.88
1.26
2.730.25
2.03
1.240.56
0.65
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Phonological, phonemic
and alphabetic awareness
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
General
Total
Gainscore (pct)
Negative gainscore (pct)
![Page 65: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
65
Table27belowprovidesasummaryofgrade5and6teachers’meanobservedliteracy-buildinginstructionalpracticeacrossbaselineandendlineandtheirgainsineachcomponentskillcomposites.Thistablerevealsthatgrade5and6experimentalteachers’gainswerenotassignificantasthosemadebytheirgrade3and4counterparts.However,IAI-onlygrade5and6teachersdidshowtomakesignificantgainsintheirapplicationofphonologicalawarenessactivitieslikewordstudy.
Table27.Summaryofthegrade5and6teacherpracticeresultsofcomparisonofmeansbetweenthebaselineandtheendlinedisaggregatedbystatus(percentageofinstructionaltimeallocated)
PAQUED CONTROL(n=58)Experimental(n=53) IAI-only(n=69)Baseline Endline Gainscore Baseline Endline Gainscore Baseline Endline Gainscore
PhonemicandPhonologicalawareness
3.77% 6.92% 3.14%* 2.41% 5.56% 3.14%** 1.72% 2.3% .57%
Fluency 10.4 14.04% 3.64%*** 14.23% 15.57% 1.35% 13.55% 14.61% 1.05%Vocabulary 4.65% 8.35% 3.70%*** 6.09% 7.46% 1.37% 5.36% 7.09% 1.73%*Comprehension 12.0% 13.15% 1.15% 7.93% 12.0% 4.7% 7.71% 9.0% 1.29%Generalinstructionalandliteracypractices 11.7% 13.54% 1.84% 13.4% 13.62% 0.19% 7.85% 8.2% 0.35%TOTAL 9.23% 10.47% 1.24% 9.09% 10.57% 1.48% 7.45% 8.03% 0.58%
*Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.05**Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.01***Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.001___=significantacrossgroups(cross-sectional)
Thetablebelowpullsoutspecificinstructionalpracticesoutlinedintheobservationtoolwheregrade5and6teachersmadethemostsignificantgainsoverbaselineandendline.Forexample,grade5and6experimentalteachersseemedtointegratemoreofP2intotheirlessonswhenaskingstudentstocorrectbadlyspelledwordsusingtheCAPOT,arevisionstrategyexplicitlyproposedintheIAIprograms.Likewise,experimentalteachersalsoshowedtointegratesignificantlymorereadingandwritingactivitiesoverbaselineandendline.Table28.Itemanalysisofthegrade5and6teacherpracticeresultsofcomparisonofmeansbetweenthebaselineandtheendlinedisaggregatedbystatus
PAQUED CONTROL(n=58)Experimental(n=53) IAI-only(n=69)Baseline Endline Gainscore Baseline Endline Gainscore Baseline Endline Gainscore
P1.Asksstudentstodecodewordsusingpartsofwordsalreadylearned(wordroots)
1.15% 2.64% 1.49% 1.46% 4.94% 3.48%*** 0.84% 1.9% 1.06%
P2.Asksstudentstocorrectbadlyspelledwordsontheboardorintheirclassmate’swritingsusingCAPOT—conjugation,accord,punctuation,andspelling.
5.56% 11.46% 5.90%* 3.9% 5.61% 1.71% 2.81% 2.34% -0.47%
P8.Asksstudentstospellhighfrequencywordsorwordsthey’vealreadystudied.
1.18% 4.59% 3.41%* 2.07% 2.37% 0.30% 1.69% 0.29% -1.40%
P11.Asksstudenttocompleteasentencewithamissingwordorallyorinwriting.
1.34% 4.4% 3.06%* 1.34% 2% 0.66% 0.98% 0.73% -0.25%
![Page 66: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
66
P12.Doesapre-readingactivitybeforereadingatext(ex.explainnewvocabulary,makepredictions)
8.92% 12.87% 3.95%* 10.98% 14.6% 3.62% 8.43% 8.91% 0.48%
P13.Asksstudentstofindsynonymsorotherwordstheyknowonagiventheme.
3.03% 10.23% 7.20%*** 5.49% 7.36% 1.87% 4.92% 9.06% 4.14%
P14.Solicitsideasandexperiencesfromtheirstudentsonwhattheyalreadyknowaboutasubject
11.44% 11.29% -0.15% 9.52% 13.1% 3.58%* 7.73% 8.18% 0.45%
P16.Asksstudentstoorderandexplainimportanteventsorinformationinatextusingagraphicorganizer.
6.5% 4% -2.5% 1% 3.1% 2.1%* 2% 2.8% .08%
P17.Guidesstudentstoformcompletesentences(orallyorinwriting)
5.89% 8.82% 2.93% 5.74% 9.36% 3.62%* 3.79% 4.82% 1.03%
P18.Integratesreadingandwritingactivitiesintothesamelesson.
2.02% 13.4% 11.38%*** 3.41% 6.86% 3.45%* 1.13% 3.07% 1.94%*
P22.Asksstudentstocategorizegroupsofwordsbyacharacteristic(samesound,sameletter,sametheme)
0.16% 1.59% 1.43%* 0.48% 1.99% 1.51% 0% 1.17% 1.17%
*Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.05**Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.01***Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.001___=significantacrossgroups(cross-sectional)
![Page 67: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
67
Figure31showshowgrade5and6teachersspentinstructionaltimeatbaseline,endlineandtheirgainsinthesecomponentskillcomposites.Acrossbaselineandendline,allgrade5and6teachersshowedtointegratethedirectinstructionofliteracy-specificcomponentskills.Still,meangainsweregreaterforgrade5and6experimentalteachersacrosscomponentskills.Figure31.Grade5and6teachers’changeinliteracyinstructionalpracticesfrombaselinetoendline.
ThetwofinaltablesbelowshowthesignificantcorrelationsidentifiedbetweenIAI-listenershipandteachersgainsintheapplicationofcertaincomponentskillscomposites.Table30showsthatgrade5and6experimentalteachers’gainsintheapplicationofphonologicalawarenessandgeneralinstructionalpracticeswerepositivelyandsignificantlycorrelatedwiththeiruseofIAIprograms.Forgrade5and6experimentalteachers,theonlyspecificpracticethatcorrelatedsignificantlywithIAIlistenershiprateswasP1,askingstudentstodecodewordsusingwordroots.Thispracticewasincludedinthephonologicalawarenesscomponentskillcomposite.
Experimental(N=53)
IAI-only(N=69)Control(N=58)
3.143.14
0.57
3.641.35
1.05
3.71.35
1.72
1.154.07
1.29
1.840.19
0.34
1.241.48
0.58
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%
Phonological, phonemic
and alphabetic awareness
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
General
Total
Gainscore (pct)
Negative gainscore (pct)
![Page 68: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
68
Itshouldbenotedthatthesetableswerenotprovidedforgrade3and4teachersasnosignificantcorrelationsbetweenIAIusageandteacherspracticesemergedfromtheanalysis.Table29.Summaryresultsoflinearregressionforthegrade5and6changeinpracticeusingIAIdosageasapredictor Experimental
IAIdosageIAI–onlyIAIdosage
R2 Sig. R2 Sig.PhonemicandPhonologicalawareness
.102 .023 - -
Fluency - - - -Vocabulary - - - -Comprehension - - - -Generalinstructionalandliteracypractices
.112 .017 - -
Total .148 .005 - -Table30.Itemanalysisresultsoflinearregressionforthegrade5and6teacherobservationofinstructionalpracticesusingIAIdosageasapredictor Experimental
IAIdosageIAI–onlyIAIdosage
R2 Sig. R2 Sig.P1.Asksstudentstodecodewordsusingpartsofwordsalreadylearned(wordroots)
.117 .014 - -
*Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.05**Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.01***Thedifferenceinbaseline/endlinegainsbetweenPAQUEDandControlgroupteachersisstatisticallysignificantatp<.001
Thefollowingdiscussionwillfurtherexplorethedataoutlinedthetablesandfiguresaboveinordertocontextualizeteachers’gainsincertaininstructionalpracticesaroundthePAQUEDintervention.Foreaseofinterpretation,thediscussionwillbebrokendownbycomponentskillcomposites.
Phonemicandphonologicalawareness:Asmentionedpreviously,PAQUEDinterventionsdemonstratedphonologicalawarenessbuildingactivitiesinsofarastheyassistedstudentstoreadmorequicklyandefficiently.Thisisbecauseintheprimarycurriculum,itispresumedthatstudentsingrade3to6shouldhavealreadymasteredthebasicmechanicsofreading.Phonologicalawarenessactivitiesforgrades3-6includedwordanalysisforwordroots,identifyinghomonymsandhomographs,correctingspellingofwordsusingknowledgeofgrapheme-soundassociationsandgrammar,andcategorizingwordsbycommonendingand/orsound.
Acrossbaselineandendline,experimentalgrade3and4teachersimprovedsignificantlyintheirapplicationofphonologicalawarenessactivitiesintheclassroom(p=.000,d=1.26,ES=.53).Thischangewasalsosignificantlydifferentfromtheircontrolteachercounterpartswhoseemedtoshownosignificantchangeintheirapplicationofthesepractices(p=.001,d=-0.83,ES=.38).ExperimentalandIAI-onlygrade5and6teachersalsoincreasedtheirteachingofthisskillacrossbaselineandendline(p=.015,d=.7,ES=.33andp=.002,d=.79,ES=.38,respectively).Linearregressionanalysisalsoshowedthat10.2%ofgrade5and6experimentalteachers’gainsinthiscomponentskillcompositecanbe
![Page 69: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
69
explainedbytheiruseofIAIprograms(p=.023,d=.72,ES=.34).Thisisconsistentwithspecificpracticeanalysisshowingthatgrade5and6IAI-onlyteacherstoasktheirstudentstodecodewordsusingpartsofwordsalreadylearned(wordroots)(P1).11.7%ofexperimentalteachers’changeinapplicationofthispracticecanbeexplainedbytheirIAIusage(p=0.014,d=.72,ES=.34),asshownbelow.
Thoughnosignificantcorrelationswerefoundforgrade3and4teachers,IAI-onlyteacherswereshowntoapplyP1moreoftenoverbaselineandendlinebyaskingtheirstudentstodecodewordsontheirownusingsound-letterassociations(p=.022,d=.55,ES=.27).Grade3and4experimentalteachersgreatlyincreasedinP4,askingstudentstocorrectbadlyspelledwordsintheirownwritingorinwritingsontheboard(p=000,d=1.49,ES=.6).Similarly,grade5and6experimentalteachersdemonstratedanincreaseinP2,askingstudentstocorrectbadlyspelledwordsontheboardorintheirclassmate’swritingsusingCAPOT—conjugation,accord,punctuation,andspelling(p=.011,d=.73,ES=.34).Thegainscoreforthesetwoitemsforgrade3-6teacherswerealsofoundtobestatisticallydifferentfromtheircontrolcounterparts.Still,despitethissignificantincreaseintheirphonologicalawarenesspractices,bothIAI-onlyandexperimentalschoolsallocatedlessthan6%ofinstructionaltimetotheseactivitiesatendline.
Fluency:Fluencyactivitiesandinstructionalstrategiesforgrades3-6thatwereexplicitlymodeledintheIAIandtheFrenchsummerinstituteincludedhavingteachersdragtheirfingerunderwordstomovestudentseyesmorequicklyfromwordtoword,drawingstudentsattentiontovocalpausesandexaggerationswhenencounteringdifferentpunctuation,modelingfluentreading,holdingsilentreadingsessionsintheclassroom,andhavingstudentslearntoreadandwritehighfrequencywordsinFrench.Grade3to6experimentalteacherswereshowntosignificantlyincreasetheirapplicationoffluency-buildingactivitiesintheclassroom(p=.009,d=.8,ES=.37andp=.000,d=1.08,ES.48).Thesedifferencesingainswerealsostatisticallysignificantincomparisontotheircontrolcounterparts(p=.036,d=.45,ES=.22andp=.041,d=.4,ES=.19).Still,theirmeanapplicationoffluencypracticesintheclassroomremainedfairatendline,rangingfrom14to17%ofinstructionaltimeallocatedtofluency-buildingactivities.
0102030405060708090100
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachers
IAI-u
sage
Experimental teachers'meanpercentageofgainsinP1
Figure32.Experimentalteachers'IAIusageandtheirgainsinPractice1(asktheirstudentstodecodewordsusingwordroots)
R2=.117sig=.014
![Page 70: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
70
Vocabulary:PAQUEDinterventionsfocusedonbuildingstudent’svocabularyknowledgeinFrenchthroughanarrayofpre-readingandwordstudyactivities.Morespecifically,activitiesentailedbrainstormingofwordsassociatedwithagiventheme;usingmovements,illustrationsormothertonguetodefinenewwords;employingclozetodevelopstudent’sattentiontocontextfordefiningnewwords;anddrawingattentiontosynonyms,homonyms,andhomographswhenreading.Vocabularypracticesdidnotseemtoshiftsignificantlyacrossbaselineandendlineformostteachersexceptforgrade5and6experimentalteachers,whoincreasedtheirdemonstrateduseofvocabularybuildingactivitiesintheirclassrooms(p=.000,d=1.11,ES=.49).Thisisconsistentwithspecificpracticeanalysiswhichdemonstratesthatgrade5and6experimentalteacherssignificantlyincreasedtheirapplicationofP11askingtheirstudenttocompleteasentencewithamissingwordorallyorinwriting(p=.022,d=.65,ES=.31).Otherpracticesgrade5and6experimentalteacherssignificantlyaugmentedwereP12--orchestratingpre-readingactivitybeforereadingatext(p=.017,d=.68,ES=.32)--andP13--engaginginmorewordstudyactivitiesonsynonymsordoingbrainstormingofotherwordstheyknowaroundagiventheme(p=.000,d=1.07,ES=.47).Whenlookingattimeallocatedtopracticeslikepre-readingactivities,itwasshownthatgrade3to6experimentalteachersspentanaverageof11%ofinstructionaltimeontheseactivitiesandIAI-onlyteachersspentanaverageof10%.Grade3to6controlteachersspentonly3%ofinstructionaltimeonpre-readingactivities.
Comprehension:ComprehensionstrategieswereembeddedinPAQUEDIAIandtheFrenchsummerinstitute.Activitiesforgrade3-6teacherssurroundingcomprehensionincludedteachershelpingstudentsconnecttheirpriorknowledgetonewinformationfoundinatext,askingdifferentlevelsofcomprehensionquestions,askingstudentstoorganizeinformationfoundinatexttohelpthemmakesenseofit,andaskingstudentstomakepredictionsonthecontentofatextbasedonclues.Overall,grade3and4experimentalteachersdemonstratedsignificantgainsintheapplicationofcomprehensionactivitiesintheclassroomacrossbaselineandendline(p=.007,d=.82,ES=.38)whereasIAI-onlygrade5and6teacherssignificantlyincreasedintheirapplicationofcomprehensionactivities(p=.001,d=.84,ES=.39).Specificpracticeanalysissupportsthisbyshowingthatgrade3and4experimentalteachersappliedP18moreatendline,askingtheirstudentsmorequestionsonatextread(p=.027,d=.82,ES=.38).Theseteachersspentapproximately30%ofinstructionaltimeaskingtheirstudentscomprehensionquestions.Grade5and6IAI-onlyteachersshowedmoreapplicationofP14,solicitingideasandexperiencesfromtheirstudentsonwhattheyalreadyknowaboutasubject(p=.022,d=.57,ES=,27);P16,askingstudentstoorderandexplainimportanteventsorinformationinatextusingagraphicorganizer(p=.015,d=,61,ES=.29);andP17,guidingstudentstoformcompletesentences(p=.027,d=.55,ES=.26).However,linearregressionanalysisfoundnostatisticallysignificantcorrelationsbetweenthesegainsandteachers’IAIusage.
Generalinstructionalandliteracypractices:Thepracticescontainedinthe“generalclassroomandliteracypractices”compositeincludetheincorporationofgroupwork,teachermonitoringofstudentwork,thepresenceofpositivestudentencouragement,andtheintegrationofreadingandwritingintothesamelesson.Grade3and4teachersinexperimentalschoolsimprovedsignificantlyontheirgeneralliteracyandinstructionalpracticesacrossbaselineandendline(p=.014,d=1.26,ES=.35).However,grade5and6teachersdidnotchangesignificantlyintheirapplicationofthesepractices.Still,forthesegrade
![Page 71: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
71
5and6experimentalteachers,11.2%oftheirgainsinthiscompositecouldbeexplainedbytheirIAIlistenership(p=.017,d=.7,ES=.33).
Asthe“general”compositeisfairlyvague,itisusefultoidentifywhichitemsrevealedthegreatestchangeovertime.Grade3and4experimentalteachersappliedmoreP19--integrationofreadingandwritingintothesamelesson(p=.000,d=1.52,ES=.6)--andP22A--askingstudentstoworkindividuallyattheirdesks(p=.006,d=.84,ES=.39).Grade5and6experimental,IAI-onlyandcontrolteachersalsotendedtoshiftlongitudinallytointegratereadingandwritingintothesamelesson(p=.000,d=1.26,ES=.53andp=.016,d=.6,ES=.29).Grade3-6experimentalteacherstendedtointegratereadingandwritingin13%ofthelesson,whereascontrolteachersonlyappliedwritingactivitiesin3%ofthelesson.Grade5and6teachersinexperimentalschoolsalsoshowedsignificantlymoreapplicationofwordcategorizationbycharacteristic(sound,theme,spellingpattern),andmeanapplicationtimeofthisitemintheclassroommovedfrom0%applicationto2%applicationofthispractice.Relatedtoteachers’generalpractices,itwasspecificallynotedintheobservationsthatgrade3to6teachersusedexamplesdirectlyembeddedwithinthenewmanualsdistributedbytheBelgianCooperation(CTB)in2011.Thissuggeststheyusethesemanualsintheirclassroomexamplesindicatesthattheyareusingthereadingmaterialsthatareattheirdisposal.
0102030405060708090100
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Meanpe
rcen
tageofteachers
IAI-u
sage
Experimentalteachers'meanpercentageofgainsinGeneralLiteracypractices
Figure33.Experimentalteachers'IAIusageandtheirgainsinGeneralLiteracypractices
R2=.112sig=.017
![Page 72: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
72
Recommendationsforpolicyandpractice:TheresultsofthisstudyandRTI’s2014EGRAresultswerepresentedtotheDRC’sNationalReadingCommissioninAugust2014toarriveatcollectiverecommendationsforpolicyandawayforwardinreadingfortheDRCprimarygrades.Fortunately,thenewreadingandwritingstandardsandaccompanyingbenchmarkshavealreadybeendevelopedandharmonizedacrossorganizationsandvalidatedbytheMinistryofEducationinthispastyear,andthePAQUEDprogramreflectedthoseagreements.Therefore,therecommendationsreflectnotonlytheambitionsofthegovernment,butalsoexperiencefromaninitialefforttoimplementprogrammingalignedwiththosegoals.Groundedinrigorousdata,theyrepresentsoundandconstructivesuggestionsforwaystostrengthenreadingatscaleinthespecificcontextoftheDRC.
Theprimaryrecommendationderivedfromtheanalysisofthisstudyistheneedfornationalizedimplementationofarobustreadingprogramencompassingthefollowingaspects:
- Amulti-channeledteachertrainingprogramwhichincludessufficientinitialorientationandtrainingonhowtoimplementthenewreadingcurriculum;regularvisitsfromcoachesorfacilitators;andweeklyschool-based,teacher-ledmeetingsonreading.
- Appropriateandsufficientmaterialstosupporttheimplementationofthenewcurriculumincludingateacherreadingactivityguideandexamplelessonsplans;aweeklystructureforimplementation;ascopeandsequenceoutliningthetheme,newvocabulary,andphonicspatterns;accompanyingread-alouds;andappropriatelyleveledstudenttextsanddecodables.
- Acommunitytrainingcomponentthatensuresparentsandcommunitiesareinvolvedinimprovingtheirchildren’sreadingoutcomes.
Thediscussionbelowexpandsonconsiderationsnecessaryforadoptingsuchaprogram,includingtrainingmodalities,materialsdevelopment,communitymobilization,researchandevaluation,andtheneedforcontinuedinstitutionalcapacitybuilding.
Trainingmodalities:
- Continuewiththeteacher“forumd’échange”system.Asregressionanalysisshowedabove,teachers’participationincontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesattheclusterandschoolbasedlevelcanleadtobetterteachingand,asaresult,betterstudentperformance.Thecontentdiscussedduringthesemeetingsshouldcontinuetorevolvearoundreadingandwritinginstructionandtheactivelearningstrategiesnecessaryforteacherstoactivelyengagestudentsintheirlearning.Focusgroupdatashowsthatteachers’participationintheseforumd’échangemeetingshelpedthemtofeelsupported;facilitatedtheirteachingmethodsanduseofmaterials;andallowedthemthetimetheyneededtoreflectontheirpractices,challenges,andtheirstudents’progress.
- Continuewiththecoachingmodelwhichservestoaccompanyandsupportteachersintheirapplicationofnewreadingandwritinginstructionalstrategiesandactivities.Intheexperimentalschoolexperience,coachingwasfoundtohelpteachersbuildconfidencein
![Page 73: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
73
applyingstrategiesandtomotivatethemtousethesestrategiesregularlyandsystematically.Overtime,teachersbecamelessdependentoncoachesformotivationbutcontinuedtorelyonthemtogainanunderstandingofhowtobetterapplystrategies.Thiscoachinghelpedteachersimprovetheirclassroompracticeandgainsoundknowledgeofhowtoteachreadingandwriting.Concretely,theCommissionsuggestedthatcoachesbeappointedas“trainers”intheofficialtrainingsystem.Thoughthismaybepossibleinthelonger-term,currently,‘itinerant’inspectorswhoseresponsibilitiescurrentlieinprovidingteacherspedagogicalsupportarelikelybestplacedtocarryoutthisrole.
- Reinforcethecapacityofthesystemtosupportteachers.Thoughthisdidnotcomedirectlyfromthedatapresentedabove,thereinforcementofinspectors’capacitiestosupportteachersintheapplicationofsoundteachingisessentialtoensureprogramsustainability,especiallybecauseinspectorsandschooldirectorswillultimatelyplaythe“coaching”rolepost-PAQUED.
- Usevideotoensurequalitytrainingonreadingandwritingactivities.Acascademodeloftraininginevitablyresultsinalteringtheendmessageteachersreceive.TheCommissionpointedtotheusefulnessofvideoforthoseteacherswhohaddifficultyorchestratingdifferentreadingandwritingactivitiesintheirclassroom..PAQUEDutilizedvideostohelpteachersvisualizewhatitistheyneedtodointheclassroomandshowthemhowtomakeanduselocallyfoundlowcost,no-costinstructionalmaterialsfortheirliteracyandmathlessons.Focusgroupdatarevealsthatthesevideoswereextremelyusefulforteachers,whenthetechnologyworked6.Therefore,itisrecommendedthatvideobeincorporatedintothereadingtrainingpackagetocomplementcoaching,materials,andcontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentactivities.
- Structureandsystematizethereadingprogramtodirectlyimpactimprovementinteachingpractice,knowledge,andstudentperformance.Inthedatapresentedabove,fidelityofimplementationofasystematicandstructuredweeklyreadingprogramservedtobethemostsignificantpredictorofteachers’knowledgeofteachingreadingandwritingandstudentperformance.Focusgroupdatashowedthat,duetotherepetitivenatureofactivities,teacherscametofeelmoreconfidentintheirapplicationandcouldfocusbeyondjustsimpleimplementation.Forcontinuingprofessionaldevelopment,thisisessential:reflectingonone’spracticeisshowntoleadtoimprovementonthatpractice.Furthermore,aweeklystructureprovidesaroutineforstudentsthatestablishesclearexpectationsand,especiallyinpost-conflictcontextsliketheDRC,leadstostudentwellbeing(IRC,2013).Studentsbeingabletoexpectthenextstepinalessonbuildconfidenceandgainasenseofnormalcywhichtheyrarelyexperienceoutsideoftheclassroom.TheNationalCommissionrecommendedthatthestructureofthereadingprogrambesustainedanddistributed
6Duetodelaysinthereleaseofthevideoplayersincustoms,severalvideoplayerbatteriesdiedandsubsequentlyaffecteduseofthevideoplayersinthefield.Severalbatteriesbutnotallbatterieswerereplaced.Thus,videoswerefoundtobeusefulwhenthebatterieswerefunctional.
![Page 74: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
74
beyondexperimentalschools.Thisisespeciallytimesensitiveasthenewreadingandwritingcurriculumbecomesmandatedthisschoolyear.Establishingaprogramwhichshowsteachershowtogoaboutteachingtothesenewstandardsinawaythatisnottoooverwhelmingwillbeakeyelementforthesuccessfuladoptionofthenewcurriculuminschools.
- Ensuremultipledeliverychannelstosupportteachersintheimplementationofliteracyinstructionalpractices.ThePAQUEDreadingprogramwassuccessfulbecauseitprovidedmultiplechannelsforbuildingteachers’knowledgeofteachingreading;helpingthemimplementliteracypracticesandstrategiesintheclassroom;providingthemwithaccompanyingtrainingandinstructionalmaterialsdirectlylinkedtothesestrategies;supplyingthemwithcoachingvisits,andencouragingpeer-to-peerexchangesaroundteachingreadinginbothschool-basedandschool-clusterforums.Inaddition,theprogrammirroredthenationalteachertrainingstrategy.Toensureteachers’successfuluseandapplicationofthenewreadingcurriculumintheDRC,itisthereforehighlyrecommendedthatthesemultiplechannelscontinuetobeexploited.
Materialsdevelopment:
- Makeavailablesufficientandappropriatelyleveledreadingmaterials,bothinclassroomsandforstudentstotakehometocontinuepracticingtheirreadingskills.Currently,themajorityofthebooksavailableinclassroomsarenotappropriatelyleveled,makingitdifficultforstudentstopracticereadingandforteacherstousetextsthatareatstudents’instructionallevels.ThePAQUEDreadingprogrammaterialsweredesignedtorespectthebenchmarksandlevelingcriteriadevelopedandvalidatedbytheMinistryofEducationin2013.Therefore,itwassuggestedthat,althoughthesematerialsarewritteninFrench,theycanstillserveasappropriatelyleveledreadingmaterialsforstudentstotransitionintoFrenchingrade3andshouldbewidelydistributed.Itwasalsorecommendedthattextsinnationallanguageshouldbedevelopedassoonaspossibleandappropriatelyleveledtextsforgrade3to6inFrenchshouldalsobedevelopedanddistributed.
- EnsureregularuseofIAIwithappropriatetechnologytoprovideusefulinstructionandtraining.ThePAQUEDprojectfacedsignificantchallengeswiththetechnologyselectedforthedeliveryofitsIAIprograms7.However,whenthetechnologyworkedandwhenteachersusedtheIAIprogramsregularly,datashowthattheydidcontributetoimprovementsinteachers’pedagogicalknowledgeandpractice,directlycontributingtostudentperformance.IAIprovidesauniformqualityofcontinuoustrainingandinstructiontoeveryone,whichisaparticularadvantageinavastanddiversecountryliketheDRC.
7ThedeliverymechanismselectedforIAIwasextensivelytestedatthebeginningoftheproject.Followingtesting,afinalproductwasselectedforlarge-scaleprocurement.Deliveredradiosexperiencedseveredelaysintheirreleasefromcustomswhichresultedinbatteryfailures.Thiswasonlyrealizedafterdistributionhadoccurred.Somebatterieswereimportedtoreplacethenon-functioningones.However,someradiobatteriescontinuedtofunction.Hence,whenradiosworked,theprogramswerefoundtobeusefulbyteachers.
![Page 75: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
75
Therefore,itwasrecommendedthatamarketstudybeundertakentoidentifycontext-appropriatetechnology(i.e.mobilephoneswithsolarpanels)andthatthosedevicesbeusedtodistributeIAIatalargerscaleandinsufficientnumberstomaximizeteacherandstudentuse.
Communitymobilization
- Clarifyandactivatetheroleofcommunitiesinsupportingimprovedreadingoutcomes.CommunitieshavelongbeenthebackbonetoeducationdevelopmentandpreservationintheDRC.Therefore,communityinvolvementisvitaltostudentsuccessinschooland,byextension,toreading.ItisrecommendedthatcommunityrolesandresponsibilitiesundertheCOPAsandCOGESstructuresbedefinedsothattheycancontributetoholdingtheschoolaccountableforprovidingtheeducationtheirchildrendeserveandneed.
- Trainparentsandcommunitiesinreading.Communitiesoftendon’tknowhowtheycanbesthelpimproveliteracyratesortheymaynotthinktheyhavetheresourcesormeans(financialandhumancapital)tosupportliteracy.Therefore,itisrecommendedthatcommunitiesbeprovidedwithtrainingandinformationonhowtheycancontributetobetteringtheirstudent’sliteracyrates.Trainingscanincludein-schoolandoutofschoolsupportliketheestablishmentofreadingclubs;providingparentsandsiblingswithsimpleliteracy-buildingactivitiestodowiththeirchildrenathome;orhelpingtocreateinstructionalmaterialsforliteracy(lettercards,wordcards,etc).
Researchandevaluation
- Conductresearchandevaluationtotrackprogressandkeepallactorsaccountable.Itwasrecommendedthatsufficientfinancialresourcesbeallocatedtoresearchandevaluationwithinthenationalreadingprogram.Itwasalsosuggestedthatstandardevaluationtoolstomirrornationalstandardsandbenchmarksbedevelopedandemployedtoevaluatestudentprogress.Teacherevaluationsbasedonteacherpedagogicalpracticestandardsshouldalsobedevelopedandshouldmirrorstudentevaluationssothatteachers’practicescanbealignedwithstudentlearningobjectives.Finally,theCommissionrecommendedthatastandardtoolbedevelopedtotrackcommunityactivities,astheyarecentraltoensuringstudentsuccessandattendanceinschool.
- Continuetoconductstudiessuchasthese,toinformpolicyandsupportthecontinuousimprovementoftrainingmodels.Inworkingthroughthedatapresentedinthisreport,theNationalReadingCommissioncametoappreciatethevalueofthistypeofinformationinunderstandinghowteachersteachandhowstudentsareaffectedbeteacherknowledgeandpractice.Therefore,futureresearchinitiativesareencouragedtocontinueinordertocontinuouslyinformthecommunityofpractice.
- Identifyandfurtherexplorethetrendsemergingfromexistingdataandfuturestudies.Inalldata,interestingandpertinenttrendstendtoemerge.Forexample,inRTI’s2014EndlineEGRAandEGMAreport,itemergedthatchildrenwhoseteachershad5yearsorlessofteachingexperiencesperformedbetteracrossallgroups(experimental,IAI-only,andcontrol).Sucha
![Page 76: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
76
trendbegsfurtherquestioningtobetterunderstandwhymorethanfiveyearsofteacherexperiencemaycontributetostudentsnotperformingaswell.SAsstudiesareundertakenanddeveloped,theyshouldstrivetoanswerthequestionsarisingfrompreviousresearchandevaluation.Thisalsorequiresthatstudyresultsareappropriatelyandwidelydisseminatedtolocalandinternationalstakeholders.
InstitutionalCapacityBuilding:
- Definetherolesandresponsibilitiesofallactorsinthesystem.Inorderforareadingprogramtobesuccessfullyimplemented,allactorsneedtounderstandwhattheirrolesandresponsibilitiesareandhowtheyareexpectedtocontributetoensuringitssuccess.IntheDRC,assistanceprogramsareoftencateredtothehigherpolicyechelonsoftheeducationsystemorattheschoollevel.Rarelyhaveprogramsaddressedthesystemasawhole.Therefore,itisrecommendedthatroles,responsibilities,andtrainingneedsinordertoeffectivelyexecutetheseresponsibilitiesbeputintoplaceforeveryactorfromthecentralMinistryleveltotheschooldirectorbespelledout.Forexample,thisstudyrevealedhowimportantcoacheswereinteachers’successfulapplicationandunderstandingofreadinginstruction.Sincethecoachingroleisnotcurrentlypartoftheeducationsystem,itissuggestedthatspecificrolesofinspectorsorclusterfacilitatorsincludethefunctionofareadingcoachforteachers.Thisroleneedstobedefinedindetailandtrainingandsupporthastobeprovidedtothem.Likewise,training,monitoring,andevaluationtools.Readingactivities,materials,andtrainingsalsoneedtobeharmonizedacrossexistingprojectssothatMinistryactorsacrossthesystemunderstandhowtheyfitintotheadvancementofacommongoal.
Conclusion:
Thisstudyconfirmsthatteachers’knowledgeandexpectationsofhowtoteachreadingandwritingcontributesubstantiallytostudents’readingperformance.Simplyaskingteacherstochangetheirpractices,whetherthroughgeneralinstructionsorhighlyscriptedlessonplans,ignorestheimportanceofhelpingthemunderstandthepedagogicalfoundationsofthepracticestheyareaskedtoadopt.Thereforeindesigningateachertrainingprogramonreading,itisessentialtoembedfrequentopportunitiesforteacherstoreflectinadditiontoensuringtheprogramitselfisaccessibleenoughtoallowforreflectionratherthanfrustration.
Howdoteachersimprovetheirknowledge?Thisstudysuggeststhattheylearnfromengaginginprofessionaldevelopmentactivities,includingexchangeswiththeirpeers,periodictraining,andcoaching.PAQUEDofferedarangeofprofessionaldevelopmentpathways,includingintensiveworkshops,peer-to-peercoachingandlessonpreparation,monthlyin-classcoachingandlearningcirclesformedamongneighboringschools.Furtherresearchmightexplorethecost-effectivenessoftheseandotherstrategiesforhelpingteachersimprovetheirknowledgeofreadinginstruction,astheseinvestmentsmaynotonlyhaveanimmediateimpactonstudentperformancebutmaycreatelong-termpositiveeffects,aswell.Thelessonslearnedalsocallforfurtherexperimentation,whichisalreadyatoppriorityfortheMinistryofEducationpriortothenationalroll-outofareadingprogram.
![Page 77: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
77
FurtherstudiesalsoneedtoconsiderthechallengesofconductingresearchinvastandfragilecountriesliketheDRC.Theseincludenotonlylogisticalandsecurityconsiderationsbutalsothehighratesofteacherattrition,whichmakeitdifficulttoconductlongitudinalstudies,andofstudentabsenteeism,whichputsintoquestionhowmanyofthestudentssampledwereactuallypresentformostlessons.Withthesevariablesinmind,futurestudieslikethisoneshouldsearchcaptureandcontrolforthistypeofdata.ThisisitisstillessentialtocontinuetoinformtheexcitingpolicyfrontintheDRC,decisionmakingandthedevelopmentofmaterialsandtoolsthatrespondtotheneedsandrealitiesoftheeducationsystem.
![Page 78: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
78
AnnexA.Methodology
Observation(practice)andinterview(knowledge)tools:
Toolwritingandadaptation:TheobservationtoolwasdesignedtoassesswhetherornotteacherswereusingspecificpracticesoutlinedintheexperimentalreadingprogramandembeddedwithintheIAIprograms.ThetoolwasusedadaptedfromexistingobservationinventoriesutilizedbyEDC.Timetranchesoffiveminuteswereintegratedinordertocapturetheextenttowhichpracticeswereusedandwhen.ThetoolwaspilotedintwoKinshasaschoolsbyateamoffivePAQUEDtechnicalteammembers.Post-pilot,thepracticestatementsonthetoolwererevisitedtoclarifycertainitemsthatremainedunclear,toremovethosewhichoverlapped,andtoaddessentialpracticeitemswhichappearedintheclassroombutwerenotoriginallycapturedinthetool.
TheknowledgetoolwasadaptedfromEDC’sBeliefsandInstructionalPracticesInventory(BIPI),whichwasdesignedtocaptureteachers’knowledgeandexpectationsoftheirstudentsinthedomainsofreadingandwriting.TheoriginalBIPIquestionnairewasconvertedtobeadministeredasaface-to-faceinterviewandselecteditemswereinterposedwithextensionquestionstoprovideadditionalvalidityandtoenrichteachers’simpleyesornoanswerswithjustificationsandclassroomexamples.ThetoolwaspilotedinaKinshasaschoolbyateamoffivePAQUEDtechnicalteammembers.Afterpiloting,thetoolwasadaptedtoclarifyquestionsthatwereconsideredproblematicandaddorremovequestions.
Training:Ateamoften“supervisors”weretrainedinKinshasaontooladministration.Asahigh-inferencetool,theobservationinstrumentrequiredahighdegreeofinter-raterreliability.Eachpracticeenumeratedinthetoolwasexplainedandconcreteclassroomexampleswereprovidedtotrainees.Thereafter,theywereshownmultiple15-minutevideoclipsofrealCongoleseclassroomsandgivenopportunitiestousetheobservationtooltocheckoffthepracticestheywitnessedineachfive-minutetranche.Followingeachvideoclipviewing,pairsofobserversexchangedtheirratingsofthepracticestheysaw,andwheretherewasdisagreementinwhatwasobserved,theywouldjustifytheirratingsuntilaconsensuswasreached.Asimilarprocessofconsensus-buildingwasthenappliedinaplenarysessioninwhicheachpairpresentedtheirresults.Ifotherpairsdidnotsharesimilarmarks,justificationswereprovidedandconsensuswasreachedofwhatcertainpractices“lookedlike”.Thisprocesswasrepeateduntilconsensuswasachievedamongstdatacollectors.Forthetrainingontheknowledgeinterviewtool,eachquestioninthetoolwasreadaloudandclarificationsonthequestionwereprovided.Trainingwasalsoprovidedonestablishingrapportwiththeinterviewees,emphasizingtheneedtomaketheinterviewenvironmentcalm,distantfromdistractionsandpotentialinfluenceslikeateachers’superiororpeer,andtokeeptheinterviewer’sreactionstoresponsesnon-judgmental.Trainingonhowtowritesummariesofclassroomexampleswithoutmisrepresentingteachers’opinionswasalsoprovided.Enumeratorsthenpairedoffandeachtookturnsadministeringtheinterviewforallthree“degré”levels.
38enumeratorswereselectedandtrainedonboththeobservationandinterviewtoolbythesupervisorsusingacoachingguidebasedoffthetrainingtheyhadreceivedthemselves.Followingthistraining,enumeratorswerepairedbytheirsupervisorsandsenttoschoolstobegintooladministration.Duringeachobservation,everyenumeratorwasinstructedtofillintheirobservationtoolindividually
![Page 79: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
79
accordingtowhattheysaw.Aftereachobservation,thepairswouldgettogetherandcomparetheirtools.Wheretheirobservationsdiffered,enumeratorswouldengageinthesameprocessofjustificationperformedintraining.Whenconsensuswasreached,thepairwouldfillinaconsensusobservationtoolandstapleittotheirindividualtools.Atbaselineandendlineanalysis,theseconsensustoolsandindividualtoolswerecompared.Inadditiontothis,10%ofobservationswerefilmed,scoredseparatelybytheoriginaltrainer,andcomparedtothescoresofthefieldenumerators,tomaximizeinter-raterreliability.However,nointer-raterreliabilitystudywasconducted.
Forinterviews,eachenumeratoradministeredthesameinterviewtoolface-to-faceandone-on-onewiththeteacher.Extensionquestionresponsesweresummarizedfollowingaprocessofrepeatingbacktotheteacherverbatimtheexampleprovidedandthensummarizingit.Iftheteacheragreedwiththesummary,thedatacollectorwouldnotethissummary.Ifagreementwasnotreached,theteacherwouldbeaskedtoprovideasummaryofwhattheyintendedtosayandthiswouldberecorded.
Teacherselection:Atbaseline,schoolswererandomlyselectedfromschoolsidentifiedinRTI’s“accessibleschool”samplefromtheXXXXEGRA.Classsectionswithintheseschoolswerealsorandomlyassignedbygrade-levelandbystatus(experimental,IAI-only,andcontrol).Enumeratorsweregivenalistofclasssectionstovisitineachschool.Teachers’nameswererecordedaftertheywereobservedandretainedinadatabasesothattheycouldbesimilarlyobservedattheendline.
Atendline,twoteacherswhotookpartintheobservationfromeachgrade-levelwererandomlyselectedforinterviews.
Reliabilityanalysis:Astatisticalanalysisoftestreliabilitywasusedtodescribeaninternalconsistencyofeachtool,andisbasedonthecorrelationsbetweendifferentitems(subtests).InternalconsistencyofthetestwasmeasuredwithCronbach’salphawhichistheresultofpairwisecorrelationsbetweenitems.Cronbach’salpharangesfromzeroto1,wherezerodenotesanabsenceofanycorrelationacrossitemsonthetest,and1denotesaperfectcorrelationacrossitems.AtypicalandacceptablerangeforCronbach’salphaisabove.8.Agoodinternalconsistencyofanobservationtoolmeansthatateacherwhoshowstoexhibitoneparticularfluency-buildingpracticewouldalsodemonstrateothertypesoffluency-buildingpracticesoutlinedintheobservationtool.
Atestofinternalconsistencyoftheobservationtoolsfordifferentgradefoundthattheoveralltoolreliabilitywashigh,especiallyforthegrade1and2tool(Cronbach’salpha=0.81forgrade1and2,0.7forgrade3and4and0.71forthegrade5and6tool).Theitemlevelanalysisforbothgrade3and4and5and6observationtoolsshowedthatphonologicalawarenesspracticesdidnotcorrelatewellwithotheritems.Ifweremoveitfromthetest,theCronbach’salphawillgoupto0.75.
Fortheinterview(knowledge)tool,asimilartestofinternalconsistencyfoundtheoverallreliabilitytobeaverage(Cronbach’salpha=0.62forgrade1and2,0.56forgrade3and4and0.51forthegrade5and6tool).Thisonlyincludesitemsthatrequiredyesornoanswersasextensionquestionresponsescouldnotbecapturedbytheanalysis.Therefore,whenjudgingthereliabilitymeasureonthistool,itshouldbeconsideredthatadditionalinformationbeyondthedichotomousyesornoanswersisobtainedfromthistooltherebyallowingforadegreeofvalidationtotheanswersteachersprovided.
![Page 80: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
80
Readingassessment:
Thereadingassessmentwasdesignedtoprovideasnapshotofstudent’sreadingcapabilities.Becausethegrade2EGRAadministeredbyRTIdidnotincludeafluencyassessment,itwasalsodeemednecessarytoincludeoneinthePAQUEDstudy.Thisassessmenttookanaverageof5minutestoadministerandincludedthefollowingsub-tests:
- Randomalphabetletterreadingsubtestassessedstudents’knowledgeofletternamesintheFrenchalphabet.Studentswerepresentedwith26lowercaselettersplacedoutoforderandaskedtoidentifythenamesofeachlettertheysaw.Inadditiontoletternames,lettersoundswerealsoacceptedascorrectanswers.Thesubtestwasuntimedthoughstudentsweregivenonly3secondstoidentifyeachletter.
- Highfrequency/familiarwordreadingsubtestassessedstudents’sightvocabularyknowledgeofhighfrequencyFrenchwords.Recognizingfamiliarwordsiscriticalfordevelopingreadingaccuracyandautomaticity.Inthissubtest,studentswereaskedtoidentify8wordsthatwererandomlygeneratedfromalistof580mostcommonwordsintheFrenchlanguage.Studentswereaskedtoreadeveryword.Thesubtestwasuntimedthoughstudentsweregivenonly3secondstoidentifyeachletter.
- Readingofaconnectedtextsubtestassessedstudents’readingaccuracyandautomaticityinreadinga26wordpassagealoud.Thesubtestwastimedbutnotcappedat60seconds,allowingforthestudenttoreaduntiltheend.Thisyieldedascoreofcorrectwordsperminute.
AgroupofadministratorsdrawnfromthePAQUEDtechnicalteamfromKinshasaandafewfieldagentsweretrainedontestadministrationfollowingaspecificprotocol(seeannexX).Thetestwaspilotedtoassesstheconnectedtext-levelwitharandomlyselectedgroupofgrade2classesinMbandaka,KisanganiandKikwit.Overall,90studentswerepartofthepilot.Followingthispilot,thetextwasadjustedandappropriatelyleveledinordertocapturereadingresultsfromamajorityofstudentsandtoavoidlargenumbersofzeroscores.
Sampling:InJune2014,testadministratorsreceivedrefreshertrainingandwereinstructedtoadministerthetestandrandomlysample6students(3girlsand3boys)fromeachteacherinterviewedattheendline.Studentswererandomlyselectedfromtheteachers’classlisttoassess.ResultswerethenenteredelectronicallyusingSurveyToGoinordertominimizedataentryerrors.
Reliabilityanalysis:Astatisticalanalysisoftestreliabilityisusedtodescribeaninternalconsistencyofthereadingassessment.Thetestofinternalconsistencyofthereadingassessmentfoundthattheoveralltestreliabilitywashigh(Cronbach’salpha=.871).
Reading Assessment Reliability
Subtests Item-TotalCorrelation
Cronbach'sAlphaifItemDeleted
1. alphabetletterreading .732 .8312. familiarwordreading .823 .7983. Connectedtextreading .881 .766
![Page 81: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
81
DataAnalysisAllcollecteddatawerecleanedbyEDCM&Estaffandanalyzedusingstandardstatisticaltechniques,suchasunivariateandbivariatestatistics,asneededfordifferentanalyticalpurposes.Theresultsweredisaggregatedbysexandprovince,asappropriate.Centraltendencyanalysis(e.g.mean,median)wereconductedforcontinuousdemographicvariables.Comparisonofmeansstatisticaltests(pairedandindependentsamplest-test)wereconductedtoestimatedifferencesbetweengroupssuchasprovinceandsex,whereappropriate.Bivariatestatisticalanalyses(e.g.,correlations)wereconductedtoexaminetherelationshipbetweendifferentvariables.
StudyLimitations:Thestudypresentedafewlimitationswhichmayhaveimpactedtheresultsofthestudy.First,thesamplesizeforthereadingassessmentwasquitesmalltherefore,differencesacrossgroupsweremoredifficulttodetect.Anotherpieceofdatawhichwouldhavebeenusefulinexplainingstudentperformanceresultsisstudentattendancedatainschool.Itisdifficulttoextrapolatethedegreetowhichteachers’practices,knowledge,andfidelityofimplementationofvariousPAQUEDinterventionshadimpactonstudentperformancewhenthereislackofinformationonhowoftenstudentattendedschooltobenefitfromthesefactors.Infutureresearchstudies,dataforthisvariableshouldberoutinelycollected.Secondly,teacherattritionacrossbaselineandendlinewashighacrossgradelevels(41%forgrade1and2,35%forgrade3and4and24%forgrade5and6teachers)forameanof33.7%attritionforallteacherssampled.Thoughteacherswhowerenotretrainedwerereplaced,thisreductionofmatchedsamplesizereducedthestatisticalpossibilityofdetectingdifferencesinchangeinteacherperformanceovertime.Finally,thoughinter-raterreliabilitywasaccountedforintooladministrationthroughconsensusreaching,nointer-raterreliabilitystudywasundertakenwithenumerators.
![Page 82: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
82
AnnexB.ToolsReadingassessment:
Instrumentd’appréciationdeperformanceenlectureaudegréélémentaire
Classede2èmeannéeprimaire Dated’administration:___/___/______
A. Questionàposeràl’enfant.a. Âgedel’enfant…………………..Annéescolaire…………………………………b. Classe(ex.2A)…………………………………….Ecole………………………………..
Nomdel’enseignantdel’enfant:…………………………………………..c. Est-cequesonenseignantutiliseunlivreavecdesimagesaumomentoùilleurraconteou
leurlisedeshistoires/contes?OUI NONd. Est-cequesonenseignantleurdonnedespetitslivresavecimagespourqu’ilslisentseuls?
OUINONB. Test/Appréciationdel’acquisdel’alphabet.
Consigne:combiendelettresl’enfantpeut-ilidentifiercorrectement?• Sil’enfantprendplusdetroissecondespouridentifierunelettre,demandez-luide
passeràlaprochainelettre.• L’enfantlitligneparlignedegaucheàdroite.• Acceptezlesonoulenomdelalettre.• Surcettefichederéponses,encerclezleslettresincorrectes.• Danslacaseendessous,mettezlenombredelettrescorrectementidentifiées.
k d x h r i u j b z m c sɡ o q e t ɑ n v y l w f p
C. Suivezlamêmeméthodepourl’exercicesuivant.L’enfantdoitlirerapidementcesmotsfréquemmentutilisésdanslalanguefrançaise.
le ɑvec un de moi cɑr pour est
D. Lecturedetexte:Soulignezlesmotslusincorrectement.Sil’enfantprendplusdecinqsecondesàlireunmot,demandez-luidepasseraumotsuivant.Chronométrerletempsqu’ilprendpourlelireetenregistrerletempsci-dessousensecondes.
Mon petit chat joue dans le jardin. Il a vu une souris. Il se cache. La souris est là. Il saute et il mange la souris.
/26
/8
/26
sTempsdelecture(ensecondes):
![Page 83: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
83
Observation(practice)tools
Grade1and2observationtool
Diagnosticdelaclasse:Nomdel’observateur:___________________________________ Date:______________
Classe(ex.1eC)1e___2e___ Nometprénomdel’enseignant_____________________________________
Sexedel’enseignant(encerclez):FM
Nombredefille______
Nomdel’école__________________________
L’heurede_____à_____
Nombredegarçon_____
Sousdivision____________________________________
Sujet:________________
Dessindelaclasse(fille= garçon= )
PRATIQUES DE CLASSE L’enseignant(e)…
Appliquée? (mettez un X si vous observez la pratique)
![Page 84: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
84
0 à
5 mns
5 à 10
mns
11 à 15
mns
16 à 20
mns
21 à 25
mns
26 à 30
mns
31 à 35
mns
36 à 40
mns
N/A
CONSCIENCE PHONÉMIQUE/PHONOLOGIQUE 1. Demande aux élèves d’identifier
et de compter les sons/syllabes dans un mot.
2. Demande aux élèves de dire ce qui est pareil (rime, son, prononciation) dans une liste de mots.
3. Demande aux élèves de citer tous les mots qu’ils connaissent et qui commencent par un son précis ou qui riment avec un autre.
4. Demande aux élèves de corriger des mots mal orthographiés dans ses propres écrits ou dans les écrits au tableau.
5. Demande aux élèves de remplacer le son du début d’un mot par un autre son pour former un nouveau mot (ex : mère/père).
6. Demande aux élèves d’identifier le ou les sons au début et à la fin d’un mot.
7. Montre aux élèves comment écrire les lettres de l’alphabet, les diphtongues, ou les syllabes.
8. Aide les élèves à apprendre/identifier les noms et les sons de différentes lettres.
FLUIDITÉ 9. Pointe les lettres, les syllabes ou
les mots pendant qu’il lit ou pour guider les élèves à lire.
10. Attire l’attention des élèves à la ponctuation (point, point d’interrogation…) lorsqu’ils lisent.
11. Demande aux élèves de lire à haute voix ….
tout seul
Par paire ou par banc
![Page 85: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
85
tous ensemble
12. Fait lire rapidement aux élèves des lettres, des syllabes, ou des mots fréquents au tableau ou sous forme de cartes éclairs.
VOCABULAIRE 13. Explique ou demande aux élèves
d’expliquer du nouveau vocabulaire avant la lecture d’un nouveau texte.
14. Demande aux élèves de donner le sens d’un mot avec des gestes, des dessins ou à l’aide des matériels didactiques.
COMPRÉHENSION 15. Demande aux élèves de donner
leur prédiction sur le contenu d’un texte en se servant des indices (page couverture, images, titre, contexte).
16. Pose des questions aux élèves sur un texte lu. (Ex. Qui, Quoi, Où…)
17. Sollicite les idées et expériences de ses élèves (accéder à la connaissance antérieure et faire le lien avec la vie des élèves ou d’autres matières)
GENERALES
18. Intègre des activités de lecture et d’écriture dans la même leçon (ex. les élèves écrivent le son qu’ils entendent/apprennent)
19. Veille sur la participation des élèves. (COMPTEZ ET METTEZ LE NOMBRE D’ELEVES QUI NE PARTICIPENT PAS!! Ex. 9/55 élèves)
20. Lorsque les élèves sont en groupe, en paire ou travaillent individuellement, l’enseignant circule pour aider les élèves.
21. Demande aux élèves de travailler…
![Page 86: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
86
tout seul
en groupe ou en paire
En plénière
22. Demande aux élèves de former des groupes de mots selon une même caractéristique (même son, même lettre, même thème...)
23. Encourage les élèves de manière positive lorsqu’ils fournissent un effort.
![Page 87: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
87
Grade3and4observationtool
Diagnosticdelaclasse:
Nomdel’observateur:_________________________________________ Date:______________
Classe(ex.3eB)3e___4e___ Nometprénomdel’enseignant_____________________________________
Sexedel’enseignant(encerclez):FM
Nombredefille______
Nomdel’école__________________________ L’heurede_____à_____
Nombredegarçon_____
Sousdivision________________________________________
Sujet:________________
Dessindelaclasse(fille= garçon= )
![Page 88: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
88
PRATIQUES DE CLASSE
L’enseignant(e)…
Appliquée? (mettez un X à chaque fois que vous observez la pratique) 0
à 5 mns
5 à 10
mns
11 à 15
mns
16 à 20
mns
21 à 25
mns
26 à 30
mns
31 à 35
mns
36 à 40
mns
N/A
CONSCIENCE PHONÉMIQUE/PHONOLOGIQUE
1. Demande aux élèves de décoder des mots en utilisant les associations son/lettres.
2. Demande aux élèves de dire ce qui est pareil (rime, son, prononciation) dans une liste de mots.
3. Demande aux élèves de citer tous les mots qu’ils connaissent et qui commencent par un son précis ou qui riment avec un autre.
4. Demande aux élèves de corriger des mots mal orthographiés dans ses propres écrits ou dans les écrits au tableau.
5. Demande aux élèves de remplacer le son du début d’un mot par un autre son pour former un nouveau mot (ex : mèreàpère).
FLUIDITÉ
6. Pointe les mots pendant qu’il lit ou pour guider les élèves à lire.
7. Attire l’attention des élèves à la ponctuation (point d’interrogation, exclamation, point, virgule) lorsqu’ils lisent.
8. Demande aux élèves de lire à haute voix…
tout seul
en paire ou par banc
tout ensemble
![Page 89: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
89
9. Fait un modèle de lecture avant que les élèves lisent.
10. Fait lire rapidement aux élèves des mots fréquents ou des tranches de phrases fréquentes au tableau ou sous forme de carte éclair.
VOCABULAIRE
11. Explique ou demande aux élèves d’expliquer du nouveau vocabulaire avant la lecture d’un nouveau texte.
12. Demande aux élèves de donner le sens d’un mot avec des gestes, des dessins, ou en l’utilisant dans une phrase.
13. Demande aux élèves de compléter une phrase par un mot manquant à l’oral et à l’écrit.
COMPRÉHENSION
14. Demande aux élèves de donner leurs prédictions sur le contenu d’un texte en se servant des indices (page couverture, images, titre, contexte).
15. Demande aux élèves d’ordonner des phrases (début, milieu, fin).
16. Sollicite les idées et expériences de ses élèves (accéder à la connaissance antérieure et faire le lien avec la vie des élèves)
17. Guide les élèves à former des phrases complètes (à l’oral ou à l’écrit).
18. Pose des questions aux élèves sur
![Page 90: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
90
un texte lu. (Ex. Qui, Quoi, Où, Pourquoi ?)
GENERALE
19. Intègre des activités de lecture et d’écriture dans la même leçon (ex. les élèves écrivent le mot qu’ils entendent/apprennent)
20. Veille sur la participation des élèves. (COMPTEZ ET METTEZ LE NOMBRE D’ELEVES QUI NE PARTICIPENT PAS!! Ex. 9/55 élèves)
21. Lorsque les élèves sont en groupe, en paire ou travail individuellement, l’enseignant circule pour aider les élèves.
22. L’enseignant demande aux élèves de travailler….
Tout seul
en groupe ou en paire
En plénière
23. Demande aux élèves de former des groupes de mots selon une même caractéristique (même son, même lettre, même thème, etc.)
24. Encourage les élèves de manière positive lorsqu’ils fournissent un effort.
![Page 91: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
91
Grade5and6observationtool
Diagnosticdelaclasse:
Nomdel’observateur:__________________________________ Date:______________
Classe(ex.6A)5e___6e____ Nometprénomdel’enseignant_____________________________________
Sexedel’enseignant(encerclez):FM
Nombredefille______
Nomdel’école__________________________ L’heurede_____à_____
Nombredegarçon_____
Sousdivision________________________________________
Sujet:________________
Dessindelaclasse(fille= garçon= )
PRATIQUES DE CLASSE L’enseignant(e)…
Appliquée? (mettez un X à chaque fois que vous observez la pratique)
![Page 92: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
92
PRATIQUES DE CLASSE L’enseignant(e)…
Appliquée? (mettez un X à chaque fois que vous observez la pratique)
0 à
5 mns
5 à 10
mns
11 à 15
mns
16 à 20
mns
21 à 25
mns
26 à 30
mns
31 à 35
mns
36 à 40
mns
N/A
CONSCIENCE PHONÉMIQUE/PHONOLOGIQUE
1. Demande aux élèves de décoder des mots en utilisant des parties de mot déjà acquis (racines).
2. Demande aux élèves de corriger des mots mal orthographiés (au tableau ou de leur ami en utilisant le CAPOT—conjugaison, accord, ponctuation, orthographe).
FLUIDITÉ
3. Attire l’attention des élèves à la ponctuation (point d’interrogation, exclamation, point, virgule, guillemets) pour aider les élèves à lire avec un bon débit et rythme.
4. Fait lire rapidement aux élèves des mots fréquents ou des tranches de phrases fréquentes au tableau ou sous forme de carte éclair.
5. Fait un modèle de lecture avant que les élèves lisent.
6. Demande aux élèves de lire à haute voix ….
tout seul
Par paire ou par banc
tous ensemble
7. Demandez aux élèves de lire silencieusement un texte.
8. Demande aux élèves d’orthographier des mots fréquents et des mots déjà vus.
![Page 93: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
93
VOCABULAIRE
9. Demande aux élèves de donner la définition d’un mot ou d’une expression avec des gestes ou en l’utilisant dans une phrase.
10. Fait des gestes ou définit de nouveaux mots ou expressions.
11. Demande aux élèves de compléter une phrase par un mot manquant à l’oral ou à l’écrit.
12. Mène des activités de pré lecture avant de lire un texte (expliquer du nouveau vocabulaire, faire des prédictions).
13. Demande aux élèves de trouver des synonymes ou d’autres mots qu’ils connaissent sur un thème.
COMPRÉHENSION
14. Sollicite les idées et expériences de ses élèves (accéder à la connaissance antérieure et faire le lien avec la vie des élèves)
15. Pose des questions aux élèves sur un texte lu. (Ex. Qui, Quoi, Où, Pourquoi ? Comment ?)
16. Demande aux élèves d’ordonner et d’expliquer les évènements importants dans un texte (début, milieu, fin, d’autres éléments du texte, problème, solution) à l’aide d’un schéma.
17. Guide les élèves à former des phrases complètes (à l’oral ou à l’écrit).
![Page 94: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
94
GENERALE
18. Intègre des activités de lecture et d’écriture dans la même leçon (ex. les élèves écrivent un mot pour compléter une phrase, les élèves écrivent une phrase qui résume un récit)
19. Veille sur la participation des élèves. (COMPTEZ ET METTEZ LE NOMBRE D’ELEVES QUI NE PARTICIPENT PAS!! Ex. 9/55 élèves)
20. Lorsque les élèves sont en groupe, en paire ou travail individuellement, l’enseignant circule pour aider les élèves.
21. L’enseignant demande aux élèves de travailler …
en groupe ou en paire
tout seul
En plénière
22. Demande aux élèves de former des groupes de mots selon une même caractéristique (même son, même lettre, même thème, etc.)
23. Encourage les élèves de manière positive lorsqu’ils fournissent un effort.
![Page 95: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
95
TeacherInterview(Knowledge)tools:
Grade1and2interviewtool:
Consentement:Jevaisvousposerquelquesquestionssurlalecture,l'écritureetd'autrespratiquesdeclasse.Jevouspriederépondrehonnêtementetselonvous.Iln'yapasdebonneoudemauvaiseréponse.Sivousn'avezpasd’avis,cen’estpasgrave.Sivousnecomprenezpasunequestion,s'ilvousplaîtfaiteslemoisavoir.Sivousnevoussentezpasàl'aise,vousn'avezpasàrépondre.Cen'estpasuneévaluationpourvous.Pouvons-nouscommencer? □Oui □Non
Date(jour/mois/année) |__|__|/|__|__|/|__|__|__|__|
Province(encerclez) BANDUNDUORIENTALEEQUATEURSous-Division(encerclez) KikwitKisanganiMbandaka
GunguIsiroGemenaKengeBuniaZongoMasi-ManimbaBoendeBandundu-villeGbadolite
NomdeL’Ecole
---------------------------------------------
Nomdel’enseignant ---------------------------------------------
Classeenseignée(encerclez) 1e2e
Sexedel’enseignant(encerclez) FM Nombred’année
enseigné-------------------
Nomdel’enquêteur ---------------------------------------------
Nomdusuperviseur ---------------------------------------------
Débutdel’entretien |__|__|:|__|__| H H M M
1. LalectureengénéraleCommençonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdelalectureengénérale.Sivousavezbesoind’uneexplicationsurunequestion,n’hésitezpasàmedemander.Allons-y!
1.1. A.Pensez-vousquelaplupartdevosélèvesontbeaucoupdedifficultésàapprendreàlire?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
1.2. Pensezvousquevosélèvespeuventplusfacilementapprendreàliredansleurlanguematernellequ’enfrançais?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
![Page 96: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
96
1.3. Est-cequ’ilestmieuxdemenerdesactivitésdelectureetd’écritureséparément,plutôtquedanslamêmeleçon?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.Discussion:Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
1.3.Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“est-cequ’ilestmieuxdemenerdesactivitésdelectureetd’écritureséparément,plutôtquedanslamêmeleçon”?a) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-LES)
1. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»2. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»3. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»4. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»5. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»6. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)888. Pasd’avis
b) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointdevue?
(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
c) Discutez-vousdevosleçonsdelectureetécritureavecvoscollègues?1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»4. «Non,jamais»
1.4. Est-ilimportantpourvousdedonnerdesoccasionsauxélèvesdelireàhautevoix(toutseul,avecunami,outousensembleaveclaclasse)?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
1.5. Pensez-vousque«pointerlesmotsautableaulorsquelesélèveslisent»lesaidesàlireplusrapidementetfacilement?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
1.6. Pouraiderlesélèvesafacilementlireetécriredesmots,est-ilutiledeleurdemanderdecatégoriserdesmotspardessons,lettresouterminaisonscommunes?
![Page 97: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
97
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
2. Lapré-lectureContinuonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdelapré-lecturec'est-à-dire,cequiestutileetimportantàfaireavantdecommencerlalectured’unnouveautexte.
2.1.Avantdedemanderauxélèvesdelireunnouveautexte,est-ilutilepourvousd’avoirunediscussionavectoutelaclassepourressortircequ’ilssaventdéjàduthème?
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
2.2. Pensez-vousqu’ilestutiledeparlerdunouveauvocabulaireavecélèvesavantdelireuntexte?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.Discussion:Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
2.2.Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantdeparlerdunouveauvocabulaireavecélèvesavantdelireuntexte”?a) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-
LES)1. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»2. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»3. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»4. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»5. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»6. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)888. Pasd’avis
b) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointdevue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
c) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignélenouveauvocabulaireavecvoscollègues?1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»4. «Non,jamais»
2.3. Pensez-vousqu’ilestutilequelesélèvesseserventdesimagesd’unlivrepourlesaideràcomprendrelenouveauvocabulaire?
![Page 98: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
98
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
3. LedécodageContinuonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdudécodage,c'est-à-direl’associationlettres-sonsqu’onabesoindefairepourlirelesmots.Sivousavezbesoind’uneexplicationsurunequestion,n’hésitezpasàmedemander.
3.1.Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantdetoujourslireavantlesélèvesafinqu’ilsapprennentalire?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
3.2. Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantquelesélèvesconnaissentle(s)son(s)quefaitchaquelettredansunmotpourlelire?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.Discussion:Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
3.2.Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantquelesélèvesconnaissentle(s)son(s)quefaitchaquelettredansunmotpourlelire”?a) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-LES)
1. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»2. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»3. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»4. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»5. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»6. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)888. Pasd’avis
b) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointdevue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
c) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignéledécodageavecvoscollègues?
1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»4. «Non,jamais»
3.3. Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantquelesélèvesapprennentàlirerapidementdesmotsfréquents(ex.est,ca,les,dans,sous,des,etc.)?
![Page 99: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
99
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
3.4. Est-ilnécessairequelesélèvesconnaissenttoutesleslettresdel’alphabetpourlireetécrire?
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
3.5. Pourapprendreàlireplusrapidementunmot,pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantquelesélèves
apprennentàreconnaitreautomatiquementungroupedelettre(ex.tim-bre—ladivisiondesmotsensyllabeouenmorceau)□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
![Page 100: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
100
4. LacompréhensionContinuonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdelacompréhensionc'est-à-dire,cequevouspensezestutileetimportantàfairepouraiderlesélèvesàcomprendrecequ’ilslisent.
4.1. Est-ilimportantdelaisserlesélèvesparlerentreeuxdecequ’ilsontluouécoutépourlesaideracomprendreuntexte?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
4.2. Aprèsavoirluuntexte,pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantdedemanderauxélèvesd’expliquercequ’ilsontlu?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.Discussion:Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
4.3. Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Aprèsavoirluuntexte,pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantdedemanderauxélèvesd’expliquercequ’ilsontlu”?
a) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-LES)
1. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»2. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»3. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»4. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»5. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»6. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)888. Pasd’avis
b) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointdevue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
c) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignélacompréhensionavecvoscollègues?1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»4. «Non,jamais»
4.4. Est-ilimportantdeposerdesquestionsauxélèvessuruntexteaprèsl’avoirlu?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
![Page 101: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
101
4.5. Pensez-vousqu’unélèvedevraitêtrecapablededirecequ’ilaaiméoupasaimédansuntextelu?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
5. L’écritureContinuonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdel’écriturec'est-à-dire,enseignerl’orthographe,lagrammaire,lacomposition,laconventiondestextes.Ici,nousneparlonspasdelacalligraphie.5.1. Est-cegravesiunélèvefaitdeserreursd’orthographelorsqu’ilécritpourlapremièrefoisun
nouveaumotqu’iln’apasétudiéenclasse?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
5.2. Est-cequevosélèvesontbeaucoupdedifficultésàapprendreàécrire?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
5.3. Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantquechaqueélèveaitdesoccasionspourécriredesmotsoudes
phrasesqu’ilentendouqu’ilconçoittoutseul?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.DiscussionPosezlesquestionssuivantes:
5.4.Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantquechaqueélèveaitdesoccasionspourécriredesmotsoudesphrasesqu’ilentendouqu’ilconçoittoutseul?”
a) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-LES)
1. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»2. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»3. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»4. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»5. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»6. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)888. Pasd’avis
b) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointdevue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
![Page 102: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
102
c) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignél’écritureavecvoscollègues?1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»4. «Non,jamais»
6. VosattentesTerminonsnotrediscussionenparlantdevosattentesparrapportauxcapacitésdevosdesélèves.
6.1. Quandpensez-vousquelesélèvespeuventdécoderdenouveauxmotssansl'aidedel’enseignantenfaisantl’associationlettre-son?(LISEZLESOPTIONSAL’ENSEIGNANT)
□Apartirdu1etrimestredela1eannée□Alafindela1eannée□Alafindela2eannée□Alafindela3eannée□Cecin’estpasunecompétenceimportante
B.Discussion:
Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“lesélèvespeuventdécoderdenouveauxmotssansl'aidedesenseignantsenfaisantl’associationlettre-sona(INSERERLAREPONSEQU’ILADONNE)»
a) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-LES)
1. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»2. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»3. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»4. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»5. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»6. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)888. Pasd’avis
b) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointdevue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommaireleurexemple.
c) Discutez-vousdecequevosélèvessontcapablesdefaireenlectureouenécritureavecvoscollègues?
1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»4. «Non,jamais»
![Page 103: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
103
6.2. Quandpensez-vouslesélèvespeuventcorrectementécriredesmotsfréquents?(LISEZLESOPTIONSAL’ENSEIGNANT)
□Apartirdu1etrimestredela1eannée□Alafindela1eannée□Alafindela2eannée□Alafindela3eannée□Cecin’estpasunecompétenceimportante
MERCIPOURVOTREPARTICIPATION!
Findel’entretien |__|__|:|__|__| H H M M
![Page 104: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
104
Grade3and4interviewtool:
Consentement:Jevaisvousposerquelquesquestionssurlalecture,l'écritureetd'autrespratiquesdeclasse.Jevouspriederépondrehonnêtementetselonvous.Iln'yapasdebonneoudemauvaiseréponse.Sivousn'avezpasd’avis,cen’estpasgrave.Sivousnecomprenezpasunequestion,s'ilvousplaîtfaiteslemoisavoir.Sivousnevoussentezpasàl'aise,vousn'avezpasàrépondre.Cen'estpasuneévaluationpourvous.Pouvons-nouscommencer? □Oui □Non
Date(jour/mois/année) |__|__|/|__|__|/|__|__|__|__|
Province(encerclez) BANDUNDUORIENTALEEQUATEURSous-Division(encerclez) KikwitKisanganiMbandaka
GunguIsiroGemenaKengeBuniaZongoMasi-ManimbaBoendeBandundu-villeGbadolite
NomdeL’Ecole
---------------------------------------------
Nomdel’enseignant ---------------------------------------------
Classeenseignée(encerclez) 3e4e
Sexedel’enseignant(encerclez) FM Nombred’année
enseigné-------------------
Nomdel’enquêteur ---------------------------------------------
Nomdusuperviseur ---------------------------------------------
Débutdel’entretien |__|__|:|__|__| H H M M
1. LalectureengénéraleCommençonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdelalectureengénérale.Sivousavezbesoind’uneexplicationsurunequestion,n’hésitezpasàmedemander.Allons-y!
1.1. Est-cequ’ilestmieuxdemenerdesactivitésdelectureetd’écritureséparément,plutôtquedanslamêmeleçon?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.Discussion:Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
1.2.Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Est-cequ’ilestmieuxdemenerdesactivitésdelectureetd’écritureséparément,plutôtquedanslemêmeleçon”?
a) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-LES)
7. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»
![Page 105: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
105
8. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»9. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»10. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»11. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»12. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)888. Pasd’avis
b) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointdevue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
c) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignélalectureavecvoscollègues?5. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)6. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)7. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»8. «Non,jamais»
1.3 Est-ilimportantpourvousdedonnerdesoccasionsauxélèvesdelireàhautevoix(toutseul,avecunami,outousensembleaveclaclasse)?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
1.4 Pensez-vousque«pointerlesmotsautableaulorsquelesélèveslisent»lesaidesàlireplus
rapidementetfacilement?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
1.5 Pouraiderlesélèvesafacilementlireetécriredesmots,est-ilutiledeleurdemanderde
catégoriserdesmotspardessons,lettresouterminaisonscommuns?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
3. Lapré-lectureContinuonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdelapré-lecturec'est-à-dire,cequevouspensezestutileetimportantàfaireavantdecommencerlalectured’unnouveautexte.
2.1. Avantdedemanderauxélèvesdelireunnouveautexte,est-ilutilepourvousd’avoirunediscussionavectoutelaclassepourressortircequ’ilssaventdéjàduthème?
![Page 106: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
106
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
2.2. Pensez-vousqu’ilestutiledeparlerdunouveauvocabulaireavecélèvesavantdelireuntexte?
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.Discussion:Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
2.2.Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantdeparlerdunouveauvocabulaireavecélèvesavantdelireuntexte”?d) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-
LES)7. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»8. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»9. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»10. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»11. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»12. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)889. Pasd’avis
e) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointde
vue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
f) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignélenouveauvocabulaireavecvoscollègues?
1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»4. «Non,jamais»
2.3. Pensez-vousqu’ilestutilequelesélèvesparcourentlesimagesetlisentletitred’unlivrepour
lesaideràcomprendrelenouveauvocabulaire?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
2.4. Pensez-vousqu’ilestmieuxd’enseignerlenouveauvocabulairesousformedelisteplutôtquedelesapprendreàl’aided’untexteoud’unehistoire?
![Page 107: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
107
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
3. LedécodageetlafluiditéContinuonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdudécodageetdelafluiditéenlecture,c'est-à-direl’associationlettres-sonsqu’onabesoindefairepourlirelesmotsetpuislafacilitéetrapiditédudécodagequ’ilfautpourdevenirunbonlecteur.Sivousavezbesoind’uneexplicationsurunequestion,n’hésitezpasàmedemander.
3.1. Pouraiderlesélèvesàapprendreàlire,est-ilimportantdefairerépéterlalecturedesmotsaprèsvous?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
3.2. Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantquelesélèvesapprennentàlirerapidementdesmotsfréquents(ex.est,ca,les,dans,sous,des,etc.)?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
3.3. Pouraiderlesélèvesàdevenirbonlecteur,pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantqu’ilss’entrainentà
liredesphrasesentièresrapidementetavecintonation?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
3.4. Pourapprendreàlireplusrapidementunmot,pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantquelesélèves
apprennentàreconnaitreautomatiquementungroupedelettre(ex.tim-bre—ladivisiondesmotsensyllabeouenmorceau)□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.Discussion:Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
3.2.Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Pourapprendreàlireplusrapidementunmot,pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantquelesélèvesapprennentàreconnaitreautomatiquementungroupedelettre”?d) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-
LES)7. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»8. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»9. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»10. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»11. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»12. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)
![Page 108: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
108
889. Pasd’avis
e) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointdevue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommairedequelquesexemplespartagé.
f) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignéledécodageavecvoscollègues?
1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»4. «Non,jamais»
4. LacompréhensionContinuonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdelacompréhensionc'est-à-dire,cequevouspensezestutileetimportantàfairepouraiderlesélèvesàcomprendrecequ’illise.
4.1 Est-ilimportantdelaisserlesélèvesparlerentreeuxdecequ’ilsontluouécoutépourlesaideracomprendreuntexte?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
4.2 Aprèsavoirluuntexte,pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantdedemanderauxélèvesd’expliquercequ’ilsontlu?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.Discussion:Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
4.2Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Aprèsavoirluuntexte,pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantdedemanderauxélèvesd’expliquercequ’ilsontlu”?
d) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-LES)
7. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»8. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»9. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»10. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»11. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»12. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)
![Page 109: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
109
889. Pasd’avis
e) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointdevue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
f) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignélacompréhensionavecvoscollègues?1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»4. «Non,jamais»
4.3 Est-ilimportantdeposerdesquestionsauxélèvessuruntexteaprèsl’avoirlu?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
4.4 Pensez-vousqu’unélèvedevraitêtrecapablederéagiràcequ’ilaapprisouaimédansuntextelu?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
5. L’écritureContinuonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdel’écriturec'est-à-dire,enseignerl’orthographe,lagrammaire,lacomposition,laconventiondestextes.Ici,nousneparlonspasdelacalligraphie.
5.1 Est-cegravesiunélèvefaitdeserreursd’orthographelorsqu’ilécritpourlapremièrefoisunnouveaumotqu’iln’apasétudiéenclasse?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
5.2 Est-cequevosélèvesontbeaucoupdedifficultésàapprendreàécrire?
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
5.3 Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantquechaqueélèvedevraitavoirdesoccasionspourécriredesmotsoudesphrasesqu’ilentendouqu’ilconçoittoutseul?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.Discussion1. Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
![Page 110: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
110
5.4.Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantquechaqueélèvedevraitavoirdesoccasionspourécriredesmotsoudesphrasesqu’ilentendouqu’ilconçoittoutseul?”
d) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-LES)7. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»8. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»9. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»10. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»11. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»12. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)889. Pasd’avis
e) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointde
vue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
f) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignél’écritureavecvoscollègues?1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»4. «Non,jamais»
6. VosattentesTerminonsnotrediscussionenparlantdevosattentesparrapportauxcapacitésdevosdesélèves.
6.1 Quandpensez-vousquelesélèvespeuventécrireleurspropresidées?(LISEZLESOPTIONSAL’ENSEIGNANT)□Apartirdela1eannée□Alafindela2eannée□Alafindela3eannée□Alafindela4eannée□Alafindela5eannée□Alafindela6eannée□Cecin’estpasunecompétenceimportante
6.2 Quandpensez-vousqu’unélèvepeutlireuntexteàsonniveauetcomprendrecequ’illitsansassistancedel’enseignant?(LISEZLESOPTIONSAL’ENSEIGNANT)□Apartirdela1eannée□Alafindela2eannée□Alafindela3eannée
![Page 111: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
111
□Alafindela4eannée□Alafindela5eannée□Alafindela6eannée□Cecin’estpasunecompétenceimportante
MERCIPOURVOTREPARTICIPATION!
Findel’entretien |__|__|:|__|__| H H M M
![Page 112: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
112
Grade5and6interviewtool
Consentement:Jevaisvousposerquelquesquestionssurlalecture,l'écritureetd'autrespratiquesdeclasse.Jevouspriederépondrehonnêtementetselonvous.Iln'yapasdebonneoudemauvaiseréponse.Sivousn'avezpasd’avis,cen’estpasgrave.Sivousnecomprenezpasunequestion,s'ilvousplaîtfaiteslemoisavoir.Sivousnevoussentezpasàl'aise,vousn'avezpasàrépondre.Cen'estpasuneévaluationpourvous.Pouvons-nouscommencer? □Oui □Non
Date(jour/mois/année) |__|__|/|__|__|/|__|__|__|__|
Province(encerclez) BANDUNDUORIENTALEEQUATEURSous-Division(encerclez) KikwitKisanganiMbandaka
GunguIsiroGemenaKengeBuniaZongoMasi-ManimbaBoendeBandundu-villeGbadolite
NomdeL’Ecole
---------------------------------------------
Nomdel’enseignant ---------------------------------------------
Classeenseignée(encerclez) 5e6e
Sexedel’enseignant(encerclez) FM Nombred’année
enseigné-------------------
Nomdel’enquêteur ---------------------------------------------
Nomdusuperviseur ---------------------------------------------
Débutdel’entretien |__|__|:|__|__| H H M M
1. LalectureengénéraleCommençonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdelalectureengénérale.Sivousavezbesoind’uneexplicationsurunequestion,n’hésitezpasàmedemander.Allons-y!
1.1 Est-cequ’ilestmieuxdemenerdesactivitésdelectureetd’écritureséparément,plutôtquedanslamêmeleçon?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.Discussion:Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
1.1.Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Est-cequ’ilestmieuxdemenerdesactivitésdelectureetd’écritureséparément,plutôtquedanslemêmeleçon”?
d) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-LES)
13. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»
![Page 113: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
113
14. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»15. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»16. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»17. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»18. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)888.Pasd’avis
e) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointdevue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
f) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignélalectureavecvoscollègues?
9. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)10. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)11. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»12. «Non,jamais»
1.2 Est-ilimportantpourvousdedonnerdesoccasionsauxélèvesdelireàhautevoix(toutseul,
avecunami,outousensembleaveclaclasse)?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
1.3 Pouraiderlesélèvesafacilementlireetécriredesmots,est-ilutiledeleurdemanderde
catégoriserdesmotspardessons,lettresouterminaisonscommunes?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
2. LedécodageetlafluiditéContinuonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdudécodageetdelafluiditéenlecture,c'est-à-direl’associationlettres-sonsqu’onabesoindefairepourlirelesmotsetpuislafacilitéetrapiditédudécodagequ’ilfautdevenirunbonlecteur.Sivousavezbesoind’uneexplicationsurunequestion,n’hésitezpasàmedemander.
2.1 Pouraiderlesélèvesàapprendrealire,est-ilimportantdefairerépéterlalecturedesmotsaprèsvous?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
2.2 Pensez-vousquepouraiderlesélèvesaplusrapidementlirelesmots,ilestutiledeleur
demanderd’apprendreàreconnaitrelesracinesoulessyllabesdesmots?
![Page 114: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
114
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
![Page 115: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
115
B.Discussion:Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
2.2.Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Pensez-vousquepouraiderlesélèvesaplusrapidementlirelesmots,ilestutiledeleurdemanderd’apprendreàreconnaitrelesracinesoulessyllabesdesmots”?g) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-
LES)13. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»14. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»15. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»16. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»17. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»18. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)890. Pasd’avis
h) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointdevue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
i) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignéledécodageavecvoscollègues?1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»4. «Non,jamais»
2.3 Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantdefairedesséancesdelecturesilencieuseenclasse?
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
2.4 Pouraiderlesélèvesàdevenirbonlecteur,pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantqu’ilss’entrainentàliredesphrasesentièresrapidementetavecintonation?
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
3. Lapré-lectureContinuonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdelapré-lecturec'est-à-dire,cequevouspensezestutileetimportantàfaireavantdecommencerlalectured’unnouveautexte.
3.1. Avantdedemanderauxélèvesdelireunnouveautexte,est-ilutilepourvousd’avoirunediscussionavectoutelaclassepourressortircequ’ilssaventdéjàduthème?
![Page 116: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
116
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
3.2. Pensez-vousqu’ilestutiledeparlerdunouveauvocabulaireavecélèvesavantdelireuntexte?
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.Discussion:Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
3.2.Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantdeparlerdunouveauvocabulaireavecélèvesavantdelireuntexte”?g) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-
LES)13. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»14. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»15. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»16. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»17. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»18. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)890. Pasd’avis
h) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointdevue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
i) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignélenouveauvocabulaireavecvoscollègues?1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»4. «Non,jamais»
3.3. Pensez-vousqu’ilestmieuxd’enseignerlenouveauvocabulairesousformedelisteplutôtquedelesapprendreàl’aided’untexteoud’unehistoire?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
3.4. Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantdedonnerdesoccasionsauxélèvesd’utiliserlesnouveauxmotsdevocabulaireouexpressionsdansdifférentesphrasesqu’ilsconçoivent?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
![Page 117: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
117
4. LacompréhensionContinuonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdelacompréhensionc'est-à-dire,cequevouspensezestutileetimportantàfairepouraiderlesélèvesàcomprendrecequ’illise.
4.1 Est-ilimportantdelaisserlesélèvesparlerentreeuxdecequ’ilsontluouécoutépourlesaideracomprendreuntexte?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
4.2 Est-ilimportantpourvousdeposerdesquestionsauxélèvessuruntexteaprèsl’avoirlu?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
4.3 Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantdedemandezauxélèvesderéagiràl’oraloual’écritsurcequ’ilaapprisouaimédansuntextelu?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.Discussion:Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
4.3Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantdedemandezauxélèvesderéagiràl’oraloual’écritsurcequ’ilaapprisouaimédansuntextelu”?
a. Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-LES)
13. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»14. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»15. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»16. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»17. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»18. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)890. Pasd’avis
g) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotre
pointdevue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE)
Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
h) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignélacompréhensionavecvoscollègues?1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»
![Page 118: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
118
4. «Non,jamais»
4.4 Pensez-vousquelesschémaspeuventaiderlesélèvesaplusfacilementreprendrelesévénementsouinformationsd’untexte?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
4.5 Pensez-vousqu’ilestutilequelesélèveslisentletitred’untexte,parcourentlesimagesetdedirecequ’ilspensentqu’ilsvontlireavantdelireafindelesaideràcomprendreletexte?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
5. L’écritureContinuonsàdiscutersurcequevouspensezdel’enseignementdel’écriturec'est-à-dire,enseignerl’orthographe,lagrammaire,lacomposition,laconventiondestextes.Ici,nousneparlonspasdelacalligraphie.
5.1 Est-cegravesiunélèvefaitdeserreursd’orthographelorsqu’ilécritpourlapremièrefoisunnouveaumotqu’iln’apasétudiéenclasse?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
5.2 Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantquechaqueélèvedevraitavoirdesoccasionspourécriredesmotsoudesphrasesqu’ilentendouqu’ilconçoittoutseul?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
B.Discussion
Posezlesquestionssuivantes:
5.2.Parlonsdevotreréponseàlaquestion—“Pensez-vousqu’ilestimportantquechaqueélèvedevraitavoirdesoccasionspourécriredesmotsoudesphrasesqu’ilentendouqu’ilconçoittoutseul?”
g) Expliquezpourquoivousavezréponducommeca.(ACCEPTEZPLUSD’UNEREPONSEETENCERCLEZ-LES)
13. «parcequec’estmonexpériencedanslasalledeclasse»14. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanslesformations»15. «parcequec’estcequelesenseignantsplusanciensm’ontdit»16. «parcequec’estcequemondirecteuroul’inspecteurm’adit»17. «parcequec’estcequej’aiapprisdanmoncoursdepédagogieal’école»18. Autre(spécifier:________________________________________)890. Pasd’avis
![Page 119: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/119.jpg)
119
h) S'ilvousplaîtdonnerunexempledevotreexpériencedeclassepoursoutenirvotrepointdevue?(GUIDEZ-LESDANSLEURREPONSEETREQUISITIONEZUNSEULEXEMPLE
Ecrivezunsommairedeleurexemple.
i) Discutez-vousdecommentvousenseignélal’écritureavecvoscollègues?1. «Oui,souvent»(1foisparsemaine)2. «Oui,parfois»(1foisparmoisoupartrimestre)3. «Seulementquandj’aiunproblème»4. «Non,jamais»
5.3 Est-cequ’ilestimportantdecorrigertouteserreursdanslesécritsdesélèves?
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
5.4 Pensez-vousqu’unélèvequiécritbiennefaitpasdefautesd’orthographeoudegrammaire?
□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
5.5 Pensez-vousquepouraiderunélèveàmieuxécrire,ilestutiledeluidemanderdecorrigerses
propresécritsoulesécritsd’unami?□Oui□Non□PasCertain/pasd’avis
6. VosattentesTerminonsnotrediscussionenparlantdevosattentesparrapportauxcapacitésdevosdesélèves.
6.1 Quandpensez-vousquelesélèvespeuventécrireleurspropresidées?(LISEZLESOPTIONSAL’ENSEIGNANT)□Apartirdela1eannée□Alafindela2eannée□Alafindela3eannée□Alafindela4eannée□Alafindela5eannée□Alafindela6eannée□Alafindela6eannée□Aprèsla6eannée□Cecin’estpasunecompétenceimportante
![Page 120: 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge, …idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/PAQUED final... · 2016-06-16 · 2014 final evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070913/5fb46f7325f561798a702a0f/html5/thumbnails/120.jpg)
120
6.2 Quandpensez-vousqu’unélèvepeutlireuntexteàsonniveauetcomprendrecequ’illitsansassistancedel’enseignant?(LISEZLESOPTIONSAL’ENSEIGNANT)□Apartirdela1eannée□Alafindela2eannée□Alafindela3eannée□Alafindela4eannée□Alafindela5eannée□Alafindela6eannée□Aprèsla6eannée□Cecin’estpasunecompétenceimportante
MERCIPOURVOTREPARTICIPATION!
Findel’entretien |__|__|:|__|__| H H M M