kiribati early grade reading assessment - world...

1

Kiribati Early Grade Reading Assessment

(KiEGRA)

RESULTS REPORT

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

2

Table of Content

Table of Content ................................................................................................................. 2 List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 5

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 6 Summary of EGRA results and findings ........................................................................ 7 Factors contributing to greater fluency and comprehension in Kiribati ......................... 8 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 13

Chapter 2: Instrument Design and Implementation .......................................................... 15 2.1. KiEGRA Survey Implementation ..................................................................... 15

2.2. Sample Design .................................................................................................. 15 2.3. Development of the KiEGRA Instrument ......................................................... 15 2.4. Enumerator training .......................................................................................... 16 2.5. Data collection .................................................................................................. 16

2.6. Reliability of the Instrument ............................................................................. 16 Chapter 3: EGRA Results ................................................................................................. 18

3.1. Sub-test 1 – Letter Name Knowledge ............................................................... 18

3.2. Sub-test 2 – Letter Sound Knowledge .............................................................. 20 3.3. Sub-test 3 – Initial Sound Identification ........................................................... 22

3.4. Sub-test 4 – Familiar Word Reading ................................................................ 24 3.5. Sub-test 5 – Nonword Reading ......................................................................... 26 3.6. Sub-test 6 – Oral Passage Reading ................................................................... 28

3.7. Sub-test 7 – Reading Comprehension ............................................................... 30

3.8. Sub-test 8 – Listening Comprehension ............................................................. 35 3.9. Sub-test 9 – Dictation........................................................................................ 37 3.10. Summary of assessment results ........................................................................ 40

Chapter 4 – Performance in reading fluency and reading comprehension ....................... 44 Chapter 5- Analysis of Student and Teacher Factors Associated with Better Reading

Outcomes .......................................................................................................................... 49 5.1. Association of student characteristics to student reading outcomes ................. 49 5.2. Association of teacher characteristics to student reading performance ............ 51 5.3. Association of teacher expectations to student reading performance ............... 52

5.4. Association of teacher training and guides to student reading performance .... 54 5.5. Association of Classroom Environment to Student Performance .................... 54

5.6. Association of Reading Materials to Student Performance .............................. 56 5.7. Association of Teacher Instructional and Assessment Methods to Student

Performance .................................................................................................................. 56 Chapter 6 - Conclusions and Next Steps........................................................................... 61 ANNEX 1 / TABLES ....................................................................................................... 66

ANNEX 2 / INSTRUMENTS .......................................................................................... 78

3

List of Tables

Table 1: EGRA Sample by Region, Year and Gender...................................................... 15 Table 2: Reliability of the EGRA Sub-tests ...................................................................... 17 Table 3: Sub-test 1 Letter Name Knowledge: Results by Year and Gender .................... 19

Table 4: Letter Name Results by Region and Year .......................................................... 19 Table 5: Sub-test 2 Letter Sound Identification: Results by Year and Gender ................. 20 Table 6: Letter Sound Identification: Results by Region and Year .................................. 21 Table 7: Sub-test 3 Initial Sound Identification: Results by Year and Gender ................. 22 Table 8: Initial Sound Recognition: Results by Region and Year .................................... 24

Table 9: Sub-test 4 Familiar Word Reading: Results by Year and Gender ...................... 25

Table 10: Familiar Word Reading: Results by Region and Year (without zero scores) ... 25

Table 11: Sub-test 5 Nonword Reading: Results by Year and Gender ............................. 27 Table 12: Nonword Reading: Results by Region and Year (without zero scores) ........... 27

Table 13: Sub-test 6a Oral Passage Reading: Results by Year and Gender ..................... 29 Table 14: Oral Passage Reading: Results by Region and Year ........................................ 29

Table 15: Sub-test 6b Reading Comprehension: Results by Year and Gender ................ 31 Table 16: Correct Answers by Questions in sub-test 6b ................................................... 33 Table 17: Distribution of Correct Answers ....................................................................... 34

Table 18: Reading Comprehension: Results by Region and Year .................................... 34 Table 19: Sub-test 7 Listening Comprehension: Results by Year and Gender................. 35

Table 20: Listening Comprehension Percentage of Correct Answers by Question .......... 36 Table 21: Listening Comprehension Results by Region and Year ................................... 36

Table 22: Sub-test 9 Dictation: Results by Year and Gender ........................................... 38 Table 23: Dictation: Results by Region and Year (without zero scores) .......................... 40

Table 24: Distribution of percent correct scores for reading comprehension by sub-test per

year ............................................................................................................................ 44 Table 25: Percent of students reading with 80% or more comprehension by Year .......... 45

Table 26: ORF score by reading comprehension score .................................................... 46 Table 27: Distribution of ORF Scores for students meeting and not meeting the 80%

benchmark ................................................................................................................. 47 Table 28: Student background characteristics .................................................................. 49 Table 29: Association of student characteristics to Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) scores 50 Table 30: Profile of teachers in EGRA ............................................................................. 51

Table 31: Association of teachers' characteristics to Oral Reading Fluency Score (ORF)

................................................................................................................................... 52

Table 32: Association of teacher expectations to oral reading fluency (ORF) scores ...... 53 Table 33: Teacher training and guides .............................................................................. 54 Table 34: Association of training and guides to student oral reading fluency (ORF) scores

................................................................................................................................... 54 Table 35: Average Number of Classroom Displays and Materials Observed .................. 54

Table 36: Frequency and Type of Classroom Displays/Resources Available .................. 55 Table 37: Association of Classroom Environment to Student ORF Scores ..................... 55 Table 38:Average Number of Reading Materials and Books in Classroom ..................... 56

Table 39: Association of Reading Materials to Student ORF Scores ............................... 56

4

Table 40: Frequency of methods used during reading instruction .................................... 57

Table 41: Association of teacher instructional and assessment methods to student

performance .............................................................................................................. 57 Table 42: Impact of student characteristics on Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) scores ....... 72 Table 43: Effect of teachers' characteristics on Oral Reading Fluency Score (ORF) ....... 73 Table 44: Effect of teacher expectations on oral reading fluency (ORF) scores .............. 73 Table 45: Effect of training and guides on student oral reading fluency (ORF) scores ... 74

Table 46: Effect of Classroom Environment on Student ORF Scores.............................. 74 Table 47: Effect of Reading Instructional Resources on Student ORF Scores ................. 74 Table 48: Effect of teacher instructional and assessment methods on student performance

................................................................................................................................... 75

5

List of Figures

Figure 1: Letter Name Results by Region and Year ......................................................... 20 Figure 2: Letter Sound Identification: Results by Region and Year ................................. 22 Figure 3: Initial Sound Recognition: Results by Region and Year ................................... 24

Figure 4: Familiar Word Reading: Results by Region and Year (without zero scores) ... 26 Figure 5: Nonword Reading: Results by Region and Year (without zero scores) ............ 28 Figure 6: Oral Passage Reading: Results by Region and Year ......................................... 30 Figure 7: Reading Comprehension Results: Distribution of percentage of correct answers

by year ....................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 8: Reading Comprehension Results: Distribution of percentage of correct answers

by gender ................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 9: Reading Comprehension: Results by Region and Year .................................... 34 Figure 10: Listening Comprehension Results by Region and Year .................................. 37 Figure 11: Dictation Results: Percentage of Correct Answers by Item and Year ............ 39 Figure 12: Dictation Results: Distribution of correct answers by gender ......................... 39

Figure 13: Dictation: Results by Region and Year (without zero scores) ........................ 40 Figure 14: Summary Results: Number correct answers for timed sub-tests by year ........ 41 Figure 15: Summary Results: Percent correct for untimed sub-tests by year ................... 42

Figure 16: Summary Results: Percentage of Zero Scores by Sub-test and Year .............. 42 Figure 17: Summary Results: Percentage of Zero Scores by Sub-test and Gender .......... 43

Figure 18: ORF distribution by reading comprehension level.......................................... 45 Figure 19: Distribution of ORF scores for students reading with at least 80%

comprehension .......................................................................................................... 46

Figure 20: Distribution of ORF scores for students meeting and not meeting 80%

benchmark ................................................................................................................. 47

6

KIRIBATI EARLY GRADE READING ASSESSMENT Results Report

Executive Summary

This report summarizes the results of an Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA)

conducted in Kiribati from September 21 to October 27, 2016. With funding from the

Global Partnership for Education (GPE), the World Bank and Education Technology for

Development (Et4d) carried out the assessment in collaboration with the Kiribati Ministry

of Education (MOE).

The overall purpose of the EGRA was to inform education policymakers of students’ basic

reading skills in years 1-3 of primary school and to identify factors that contribute to

reading development in Kiribati. The findings are expected to assist policymakers with

designing effective early grade reading interventions to improve school performance and

literacy outcomes. This activity is part of the Pacific Early Age and Readiness Program

(PEARL), which was established to improve the school readiness and literacy outcomes of

children throughout the Pacific region.

The Kiribati EGRA (KiEGRA) was administered to a nationally representative sample of

students enrolled in Years 1, 2 and 3. A total of 1,363 students (691 girls and 672 boys)

participated in the assessment.

The EGRA tool consisted of six reading skills tests and two reading-related tests (listening

comprehension and dictation). Unlike most EGRAs, which primarily test reading and

listening skills, the KiEGRA included a short dictation exercise to assess early writing

skills. In addition, a teacher and student survey that collected information on characteristics

associated with reading outcomes was administered to identify factors contributing to

reading fluency. The assessors also carried out a classroom observation in each school

visited to assess the classroom environment and teaching resources available.

The analysis of KiEGRA data included descriptive statistics (means and standard

deviations) to measure average levels in basic reading skills; an analysis of variance to

determine statistical significance of gender and regional differences; and regression

analysis to estimate the association of a given teacher, student or classroom characteristic

and reading fluency outcomes.

The key findings, factors associated with reading performance, and recommendations are

presented below.

7

Summary of EGRA results and findings

• Students show significant gains in word reading skills from Years 1 to 3.

There was measurable progress between Years 1-3 across all sub-tests, especially

for the familiar word and oral reading fluency sub-tests. Scores on the familiar word

subtest increased by 15 words between Years 1-2 (from 9 to 24 words per minute),

and an additional 13 words between Years 2-3 to an average of 37 correct words

per minute. On the oral reading passage sub-test, students’ scores improved by 18

words between Years 1 and 2 (from 10.9 to 29) and an additional 18 words between

Years 2 and 3 (from 29 to 47). Thus, students in Year 3 are on the cusp of becoming

fluent readers.

• Students are not yet fluent readers: In order to understand a simple passage,

students must read fast enough to retain the words in short-term memory. Research1

suggests a minimum fluency rate of 45-60 words per minute, depending on the

complexity of the language. Overall, reading fluency scores averaged 29 correct

words per minute. While Year 3 students read an average of 47 words per minute,

only 20 percent could comprehend 80 percent of the text.

• Students’ struggle with decoding. To read text fluently, students must be able to

decode unfamiliar words by sounding out individual letters and syllables. Students

scored low across three sub-tests that measure these skills: letter sounds, initial

sounds, and nonwords. Overall, students identified an average of 27 letter sounds,

3 initial sounds, and 13 nonwords.

• Reading comprehension levels are below the recommended benchmark. Over

80 percent of students in Years 1 and one-third in Year 2 have zero reading

comprehension. In Year 3, comprehension improves where nearly half of students

could comprehend at least 60 percent of text. However, the majority of students in

Years 1-3 are reading below the recommended 80 percent comprehension

benchmark. Only 14 percent of all students tested met the benchmark and about

one-third of students in Year 3. The breakthrough point for reading fluency and

comprehension is likely much later than Year 3 for the majority of students. An

analysis of fluency scores falling in the 80 percent comprehension range revealed

that students must be able to read between 40-69 words per minute with accuracy.

• Girls have higher reading fluency and comprehension. Girls had a lower

percentage of zero scores and scored equal to or better than boys across all sub-

tests. The difference in girls’ and boys’ performance was statistically significant.

• Regional differences were not statistically significant. Students in the Linnux

regions performed better than other regions. Yet, the differences were insignificant.

1 Abadzi, H. (2011). Reading Fluency Measurements in EFA FTI Countries: Outcomes and Improvement

Prospects. Education for all Fast Track Initiative

8

Factors contributing to greater fluency and comprehension in Kiribati

The following factors 2 were positively associated with better oral reading fluency,

measured by the number of correct words read in the reading passage, per minute (cwpm):

Student characteristics:

• Student speaks Kiribati at home (+10 cwpm)

• Student likes to read (+8 cwpm)

• Student receives help with homework from mother (+5 cwpm)

• Student reads to himself/herself at home (+5 cwpm)

Teacher expectations:

• When teachers expect students to reach the competency later than the expected

grade level, students tend to have higher scores (+2-14 cwpm)

Classroom environment:

• Maintaining folder with student work and student info/student profile (+6 cwpm)

Teaching pedagogy and assessment:

• Teacher guided reading 1-2 days a week (+5 cwpm)

• Teaching reading comprehension (+2-5 cwpm)

• Child reading aloud or silently (+3-4 cwpm)

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are presented to

improve the quality of early grade reading instruction in Kiribati schools:

1. Set reading fluency and comprehension benchmarks to guide and support

teacher professional development to reach reading targets: Reading

benchmarks bring attention to the learning expectations both students and teachers

should be held accountable to support children in becoming readers. They serve a

useful function when they are coupled with strategies that will strengthen the

capacity of schools and teachers to help students reach them. Without benchmarks,

there is no pressure in the system to achieve learning outcomes and no fear of

failure. At the same time, simply setting standards and benchmarks without

evidence that schools and teachers are failing in their job and the support

mechanisms to improve, benchmarks will create fear and frustration among school

administrators, teachers and parents. Reading benchmarks should be established to

guide the development of basic reading skills in each of the early grades both in

terms of oral reading fluency and comprehension; and to guide the mechanisms that

are required for schools to succeed in achieving them. As a first step, stakeholders

should decide on the level of comprehension required to understand grade level text

2 Note that the average effects of the factors are not cumulative. In other words, students who possess more

than one characteristic do not have double the effect by adding the values of both factors.

9

(e.g., 60 percent, 80 percent) and then review the fluency scores that fall within that

range. Tonga, for instance, has set the reading fluency benchmark at 50 cwpm and

a reading comprehension of at least 75%. Students achieving these levels can be

considered to have learned to read well, have the basic reading skills needed to

develop their literacy skills, and have the ability to comprehend more complex text

in upper grades. If stakeholders agree with the 80 percent benchmark, then an

acceptable fluency range may be 60-64 cwpm. Given that the current mean ORF

score is 29 cwpm, that range may seem too high. Thus, policymakers may decide

to lower the benchmark to 60 percent and the fluency benchmark to 53 cwpm. Once

the benchmark is decided, the next step is to consider the targets. Currently, 14

percent of students are meeting the 80 percent reading comprehension benchmark.

How many should meet the benchmark in one year or five years? Once the targets

are set up, schools and educators should be supported to achieve these benchmarks.

The Kiribati MEYS should then conduct a national reading campaign to sensitize

all stakeholders of the new benchmarks and then monitor and report progress

towards achieving the targets at all levels (national/regional MEYS, school and

communities).

2. Conduct a follow-up study on teaching practices and assessment methods to

identify strengths and weaknesses. Although 56 percent of teachers were trained

on reading instruction in the past three years, teaching decoding skills and

assessment were associated with lower ORF scores. It is important to understand

why these interventions have an adverse relationship. It could be that teachers were

not adequately supported to master the new teaching methodologies or that training

is not aligned with best practices in reading instruction. Additionally, teachers may

not understand how to accurately assess students and utilize the results for

reflection and lesson planning. The analysis also showed that classrooms with

teachers who maintained a record of students’ work had higher ORF scores. A

follow-up study is recommended to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of

current assessment and teaching methods vis-à-vis the results observed in different

classrooms. It is also important to understand what types of information the teacher

records and whether it is related to tracking student progress.

3. Strengthen teacher training for reading instruction with a focus on

vocabulary, decoding skills and reading comprehension. Results indicate that

students are weak in recognizing letter sounds and unfamiliar words, and have low

reading comprehension skills. Hence, instruction in these areas should be

strengthened to increase overall reading scores. In the case of Kiribati, the large

shares of zero scores observed in various reading subtasks included in KiEGRA

suggest inadequate instructional time in the classroom due to student absenteeism,

school closures, or even inadequate use of instructional time -i.e. pedagogy or

content-- during regular school days. Additionally, training should incorporate

curriculum expectations and provide teachers with the specific methods, classroom

activities and assessment methods required to achieve results.

10

4. Increase the number of books in the classroom library/reading corner and the

use in teachers’ instruction. In Kiribati, 75 percent of classrooms have reading

corners, but only 1.97 books are used during classroom instruction. One possible

explanation is that there are not enough books in the classroom. The International

Reading Association (IRA) recommends that classroom libraries start with at least

seven books per child and purchase two additional new books per year. The optimal

number of books in a classroom library is 300-600, depending on the grade level

and number of copies3. The number of books teachers should expect children to

read during the school year is 100-125 picture books by the end of Year 1 and 50-

75 chapter books by the end of Year 2. There is strong evidence that reading skills

grow and develop to the extent that children get actual practice reading. This is

particularly difficult in countries with a modest literary tradition where the amount

of titles in the local language may be limited. Recent innovations in technology

now enable the production of reading materials in almost any language, provided

there are guidelines for avid writers to follow. Educators in Kiribati have experience

producing additional reading materials for children and their efforts should be

further supported to ensure beginning readers have a reasonable variety of stories

to practice and enjoy. With a corpus of reading large enough to provide sufficient

reading practice, a low-cost option is to provide e-readers in low-resource countries

where publishing may be expensive and there are high teacher-pupil ratios. E-

readers allow students and teachers to choose from a variety of genres, it is portable

so students can read from home or school, and its read aloud features provides

additional support for emergent readers45. In addition to provision of an increased

number of hard and soft copy books, teachers should be trained on how to better

integrate materials into their instruction and on how to develop attractive reading

corners6.

5. Increase time-spent reading. The more time children spend reading the better and

more fluent readers they become. In order to increase students’ reading fluency

skills, teachers should ensure that students are spending sufficient time reading

every day through teacher-led, parent-led or self-guided reading activities.

Research recommends that children read between 20-40 minutes per day. The

results also showed that bringing books home on a regular basis was associated

with lower ORF scores. It is important to engage parents in reading activities to

ensure that students and parents are spending the recommended time reading at

home.

6. Address the issue of non-readers in Years 1-2. Stakeholders should conduct

classroom level assessments to identify non-readers in Years 1 and 2, diagnose the

3 Neuman, S. (undated). The importance of the classroom library. Available at:

http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/paperbacks/downloads/library.pdf 4 Adams, A. & van der Gaag, J. (2011). First Step to Literacy: Getting Books in the Hands of Children

Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/research/first-step-to-literacy-getting-books-in-the-hands-of-

children/ 5 UNESCO (2014). Reading in the mobile era: A study of mobile reading in developing countries. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002274/227436E.pdf 6 Neuman, S. (undated). The importance of the classroom library.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/paperbacks/downloads/library.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/research/first-step-to-literacy-getting-books-in-the-hands-of-children/


http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002274/227436E.pdf

11

causes, and design specific activities to address deficiencies before children

complete Year 2. Teachers in Years 1 and 2 have the greatest responsibility in

ensuring children finish the first two grades of primary education with the necessary

skills to read and understand text. In this sense, identification of struggling readers

and knowledge of ways in which they need to be supported should make the core

material of in-service training for Year 1 and Year 2 teachers. For instance, teachers

may group students according to ability and provide remedial activities and

appropriately levelled text. This “catch-up approach” is being used by UNICEF in

Zambia based J-Pal’s research in India, which demonstrated that students grouped

by ability is more effective than mixed-ability grouping. UNICEF will assess

students in all grades and group them according to reading levels (non-readers,

those who can read letter sounds, syllables, words, passages, etc.). Grouping

students by level rather than grades has produced dramatic results in India, Kenya

and Ghana. Teachers and school administrators should further determine whether

non-readers have learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia) and design relevant

interventions for special needs students.

7. Teach students how to develop reading comprehension skills in the early

grades. Given only 14 percent of students are able to comprehend 80 percent or

more of grade level text, teachers should focus on increasing reading

comprehension levels for all years. Research shows that teachers are often the ones

to ask questions orally and that students are expected to respond, but rarely are

students asked to develop their own questions as they read (think aloud) or to make

predictions and then check their predictions. Students need to be empowered to

make meaning from text and to use an inquiry-based approach to reading. Teachers

could ask students to make predictions before, during and after reading, to retell

stories, or to identify problems within the story and provide possible solutions.

Teachers should use various strategies and frameworks to develop students’ reading

comprehension skills from as early as kindergarten or Year 17.

8. Develop activities that specifically focus on raising boys’ performance and

interest in reading. The results illustrated that boys consistently performed lower

than girls. There may be cultural or gender barriers that affect boys’ interest and

engagement in reading activities. In addition to designing strategies to address low

competencies of boys and girls, stakeholders at all levels should discuss the

potential challenges specific to boys and design strategies to improve boys’ reading

achievement. Successful strategies that have worked in other countries include

developing gender-sensitive materials that attract boys’ attention (such as sports,

7 Sample reading comprehension activities can be found in the following guides: Ontario Ministry of

Education. (2003). A Guide to Effective Instruction in Reading: Kindergarten to Grade 3 (Available at:

http://eworkshop.on.ca/edu/resources/guides/Reading_K_3_English.pdf) Institute of Education Sciences

(IES). (2010). Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten through 3rd Grade. What Works

Clearninghouse (Available at: https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Early-Learning/Third-

Grade-Reading-Guarantee/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee-Teacher-Resources/Improving-Reading-

Comprehension-in-Kindergarten-Through-3rd-Grade.pdf.aspx)

http://eworkshop.on.ca/edu/resources/guides/Reading_K_3_English.pdf

https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Early-Learning/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee-Teacher-Resources/Improving-Reading-Comprehension-in-Kindergarten-Through-3rd-Grade.pdf.aspx



12

science fiction, fantasy, comic books, digital text, and stories that are humorous)

and integrating reading into extracurricular activities (e.g., sports, health clubs,

student government).

13

Chapter 1: Introduction

Kiribati is a country consisting of 33 coral atolls in the Pacific Ocean located about halfway

between Hawaii and Australia. It is one of the smallest and most remote countries in the

world with a population of 106,925 (July 2016 est.)8. Education is free and compulsory

from age 6 to 14. Primary education consists of Years 1 to 6.9 Among the total official

school age population (6-14 years old), 96percent were enrolled in primary school in

201410. Including those over and under-age, the gross enrollment rate was 113percent11.

Despite high enrollments and alarmingly low literacy rates throughout the region, the

country has performed well on regional literacy assessments. According to the 2015 Pacific

Islands Literacy and Numeracy Assessment (PILNA), 93 percent of Year 4 students are

meeting or exceeding the expected level for literacy and 72 percent are performing at or

above the expected level in Year 6. This is a marked improvement from 2012 where 66

percent were meeting or exceeding the benchmark in Year 4 and 43 percent in Year 6.

The government of Kiribati has instituted a new curriculum and implemented curricular

reforms under the Kiribati Education Improvement Program (KEIP). The overarching goal

of the KEIP is that, by 2020, all Kiribati children achieve functional literacy and numeracy

after six years of basic education12. In order to achieve this goal, learning how to read in

the early grades is critical.

The Pacific Early Age and Readiness Program (PEARL) was established to improve the

school readiness and literacy outcomes of young children throughout the Pacific region.

The World Bank, in collaboration with the Kiribati government and local education

stakeholders, are collaborating in this joint effort to undertake an Early Grade Reading

Assessment and to design effective interventions to improve school readiness and reading

development in Kiribati. The Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) measures basic

reading skills in the first three grades of primary school. The EGRA tool has been

administered in over 100 languages in more than 60 countries around the world, including

the Pacific islands of Tonga, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and Timor Leste.

The EGRA tool was adapted to the Kiribati context and administered nationally from

September 21 to October 27, 2016. The Kiribati EGRA (KiEGRA) aimed to achieve three

objectives:

1. To develop survey of basic reading skills and temporary reference standards to

monitor reading performance in schools and system wide;

8 CIA World Factbook. (2016). Kiribati population. Available at

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kr.html 9 In the Kiribati education system, grade levels are called years. Year 1 is a synonym for Grade 1. 10 World Bank. (2014). Kiribati gross enrollment ratio, primary, both sexes. Available at

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.ENRR 11 Ibid. 12 Kiribati Education Improvement Program (KIEP) Evaluation Report. (2014). Commissioned through the

Australian government Education Resource Facility.

14

2. To build local capacity to replicate early grade reading assessments in the future;

and

3. To work with local education stakeholders to interpret EGRA findings and analyze

their policy and sector investment implications.

The overall purpose of the KiEGRA is to inform education stakeholders of reading skills

students are struggling with and to identify factors that appear to contribute to reading

development in Kiribati. The findings will help policymakers to design responsive

strategies to improve early grade reading instruction and assessment. In particular, the

EGRA results may assist Kiribati policymakers with building the capacity of teachers,

allocating budgetary and human resources, and with developing reading indicators and

benchmarks. The ultimate goal of the KiEGRA is to ensure that all children develop the

skills needed to become fluent readers.

Towards this aim, the assessment was designed to respond to the following questions:

1. What are the basic reading skills of students in Years 1, 2, and 3 in Kiribati?

2. What is the year in which students in Kiribati “break into” reading fluently with

comprehension?

3. How does student performance in Years 1, 2, and 3 compare to curriculum

expectations in Kiribati language for these grades?

4. What are the main skills students struggle with? What are the main skills students

have strengthened?

5. What are the differences in performance between boys and girls?

6. What are the student and teacher factors associated with strong and weak early

grade reading outcomes?

a. What are teacher expectations around when students should develop key

basic reading skills? How different are these from curricular expectations

in the early grades?

b. What are the resources available in classrooms to support the reading

development of children?

c. What are the pedagogical practices supporting reading that are prevalent in

the early grades in Kiribati classrooms?

The report is divided into six chapters beginning with this introductory section in Chapter

1. Chapter 2 will discuss the KiEGRA survey design and implementation. Chapter 3

presents overall results of the reading assessment per sub-test, gender and year as well as

a summary of the overall strengths and weaknesses responding to questions 1, 4 and 5. The

correlation between oral reading fluency and comprehension (question #2) is discussed in

Chapter 4. As there are no established standards for reading fluency, the report used 80

percent reading comprehension benchmark as the basis for determining fluency scores.

Chapter 5 provides an analysis of student and teacher factors associated with improved

reading outcomes, which corresponds with question #6 (6a, 6b, and 6c). Finally, the

conclusions and policy recommendations to improve literacy outcomes are presented in

Chapter 6.

15

Chapter 2: Instrument Design and Implementation

2.1. KiEGRA Survey Implementation

In order to build local capacity to replicate early grade reading assessments, Kiribati

Ministry of Education staff were directly involved in the EGRA design and

implementation. From August 31 to November 1, 2016, the World Bank provided in-

country support to selected Ministry staff to undertake all aspects of the assessment

including, sampling, adapting the KiEGRA instruments into the i-kiribati language,

facilitating the training of enumerators and supervisors, coordinating survey logistics

during the pilot and fieldwork, and administering the EGRA using Tangerine software.

2.2. Sample Design

With guidance from the World Bank, the Kiribati MOE chose a nationally representative

sample for students in Years 1, 2, and 3. The target population was defined as students

enrolled in Years 1 to 3 in primary schools implementing the official curriculum in Kiribati.

A sample of 49 schools was selected based on enrollment data from the Kiribati Education

Management Information System (KEMIS). To ensure all regions had an equal probability

of being selected despite their actual distribution in the country, a stratified random design

with proportional allocation was applied. The final sample consisted of 1,363 students, 691

girls and 672 boys (see Table 1).

Table 1: EGRA Sample by Region, Year and Gender

Region Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Total Girl Boy Total Girl Boy Total Girl Boy Total

Central 48 55 103 40 35 75 30 31 61 239

Linnux 29 30 59 32 25 57 31 27 58 174

North 85 68 153 72 75 147 73 65 138 438

South 32 29 61 32 41 73 29 33 62 196

South

Tarawa

54 53 107 54 52 106 50 53 103 316

Total 248 235 484 230 228 458 213 209 422 1363

All statistical analysis perform take the complex survey design into consideration. For

instance, all standard errors were adjusted using the Taylor series variance estimates

adjusted for the design effects resulting from the multi-stage cluster sampling. Sampling

weights were also computed to correct for the unequal probability selection resulting from

the multi-stage cluster sampling. Thus all results presented are weighted results.

2.3. Development of the KiEGRA Instrument

Due to differences in language, culture, and expectations about learning outcomes, the

EGRA tool was adapted to the Kiribati context and piloted. From August 31 to September

7, 2016, a team of language experts, curriculum officers and teachers attended an

adaptation workshop focused on learning the research foundations and structure of the

EGRA tool in order to the develop the KiEGRA instrument in the Kiribati language. Before

16

the workshop, a language analysis was carried out to gain a good understanding of what

orthography and language issues needed to be taken into account when developing the

EGRA tools. Also a letter frequency lists, word frequency list and possible non-word list

were developed. The letter names and letter sound grid had been drafted prior to the

workshop. During the workshop, participants worked in small groups to develop a number

of potential listening and reading texts with comprehension questions.

Participants also translated the instruments into Kiribati. Two versions of the instruments

were field-tested on September 5,2016. The results from the pre-test were shared and

feedback from workshop participants and ministry staff were incorporated into the

instrument. The revised instrument was piloted on September 7, 2016, and a few minor

changes were applied to some of the comprehension questions.

2.4. Enumerator training

The Enumerator Training Workshops for KiEGRA were held in Tarawa on September 26

to 30, 2016, and on Christmas Island on October 26 to 29, 2016. Pre-selected enumerators

and supervisors attended the training workshop to learn about the scope and purpose of the

survey and the manipulation of tablets for data collection. Assessors were trained three

days in a classroom environment, and they had the chance to administer a practice EGRA

in a nearby primary school, where the instruments had been previously piloted. An

Assessor Accuracy Measurement 13 (AAM) was conducted three times in order to

familiarize the enumerators with the process and examine their accuracy level. Results

were used to select 16 enumerators and 4 supervisors. All candidates' results were above

90 percent overall.

2.5. Data collection

Data collection took place in Kiribati between October 4 and November 9, 2016. Over a

period of six weeks, teams of enumerators and supervisors visited sample schools in the

country. Three teams based in Tarawa visited schools in the South, Central and North

districts, and one team focused on schools in Linnux district. The data was uploaded at

least once a week, and checked by the survey coordinators.

2.6. Reliability of the Instrument

Cronbach’s alpha was computed for every task of the EGRA instrument to estimate the

level of reliability of each sub-test. Results showed strong internal consistency for almost

every sub-test except Reading Comprehension and Listening Comprehension. As a rule of

thumb, an alpha coefficient of 0.80 is considered good while a 0.70 is the minimum

13 The AAM evaluates the degree of agreement among enumerators administering the same test at the same

time to the same student. This type of measurement determines the trainees’ ability to accurately administer

the EGRA. A script prepared beforehand, complete with deliberate errors, becomes the gold standard. After

a practice exercise, the enumerators’ responses are compared against the gold standard. The benchmark is

set at 90% agreement between the gold standard and the enumerator’s responses. Therefore, if the

enumerators’ responses are in agreement with at least 90% of the responses on the gold standard, the assessor

is considered qualified to administer the EGRA. The results are used to address any weaknesses identified

during the enumerator training.

17

acceptable result. The lower values of alpha coefficients for Reading and Listening

comprehension could be explained by a smaller number of items (five) in those sub-tests

since the number of items in a sub-test influences the value of the Cronbach’s alpha.

Table 2: Reliability of the EGRA Sub-tests

Sub-tests Number of items Number of

respondent

Alpha

Letter Name Knowledge 100 1,363 0.981

Initial Sound Identification 10 1,363 0.811

Letter Sound Knowledge 100 1,363 0.962

Familiar Word Reading 50 1,363 0.983

Non Word reading 50 1,363 0.968

Oral reading 60 1,363 0.988

Reading Comprehension 5 1,363 0.757

Listening Comprehension 5 1,363 0.606

Dictation 31 1,165 0.942

Correlations between tasks are presented in Annex.

18

Chapter 3: EGRA Results

This section reports the results of the EGRA per sub-test. There were eight sub-tests

comprised of the following:

1. Letter Name Knowledge

2. Letter Sound Knowledge

3. Initial Sound Identification

4. Familiar Word Reading

5. Nonword Reading

6. Oral Passage Reading

7. Reading Comprehension

8. Listening Comprehension

9. Dictation

The average scores of the above sub-tests are provided and disaggregated by year and

gender. Mean scores are presented for the entire sample as well as for the sample that was

able to read at least one item (minus zero scores). The overall results show the actual

reading performance of the entire population, including those who can and cannot read.

The results minus zero scores show the average score of the population who can read at

least one item, which addresses research concerns that the inclusion of a large percentage

of zero-scores could underestimate the result of the population who can read.

Results disaggregated by region are also provided at the end of each section to highlight

any regional differences in average reading performance.

3.1. Sub-test 1 – Letter Name Knowledge14

The test of letter name knowledge is the most basic assessment of reading skills. It

measures students’ ability to read the names of the letters of the alphabet with accuracy.

Automaticity and fluency of letter name knowledge is a predictive skill for later reading

success. During the EGRA, students were given a page of 100 randomly distributed upper-

and lowercase letters and asked to say the names of as many letters as possible within one

minute. The test included the full Kiribati alphabet and randomization was used to prevent

students from reciting a memorized alphabet. The test is scored by the number of letters

that students correctly name in one minute (correct letters per minute—clpm).

Table 3 shows overall scores for sub-test 1 by year, gender and minus zero scores. Overall,

students were able to identify 37 letters in one minute. Excluding the zero scores, the results

increase slightly to 39. Students identified 28 letters in Year 1, 44 letters in Year 2 and 41

in Year 3. The greatest improvement in letter recognition was in Year 2, where students

identified 16 additional letters. Students in Year 3 scored four points lower than students

in Year 2. However, assessors observed that Year 3 students were beginning to provide

letter names in English rather than Kiribati. Overall, girls scored higher than boys,

14 The sub-test descriptions are based on the Early Grade Reading Assessment Toolkit (RTI, 2009).

19

identifying 40.3 letters compared to 34.1 for boys. Some girls exceeded the maximum score

of 100 by nine points (109).

Table 3: Sub-test 1 Letter Name Knowledge: Results by Year and Gender

Sub-test 1 – Number of correct letter names

identified per minute (CLPM)

N Mean SD Min Max

CLPM – overall 1,363 37.2 23.2 0 109.1

CLPM – minus zero score students 1,318 38.6 22.5 1 109.1

Year

Year 1 CLPM – overall 483 27.8 20.2 0 102.4

CLPM – minus zero score students 457 29.2 19.7 1 102.4

Year 2

CLPM – overall 458 44.0 22.7 0 107.1


Year 3 CLPM – overall 422 40.5 23.4 0 109.9


Gender

Girls CLPM – overall 691 40.3 24.1 0 109.9


Boys CLPM – overall 672 34.1 21.8 0 100

CLPM – minus zero score students 648 35.3 21.2 2 100

The highest-ranking district for letter name scores was the Southern region. The Central,

Linnux and Northern regions performed similarly. The South Tarawa region had the lowest

overall mean score.

Table 4: Letter Name Results by Region and Year

Central Linnux North South South

Tarawa

Year 1 32.6 30.9 28.2 28.9 25.8 Year 2 48.8 44.2 48.6 52.7 40.6 Year 3 40.6 42.9 39.1 45.6 39.9 Overall 39.7 39.2 38.4 42.9 35.4

20

Figure 1: Letter Name Results by Region and Year

3.2. Sub-test 2 – Letter Sound Knowledge

In order to read fluently, students must understand the alphabetic principle (that words are

made up of sounds) and that letters (e.g., graphemes) are symbols that represent sounds.

Thus, knowledge of how letters correspond to sounds is a critical skill children must master

to become successful readers. The letter sound knowledge test is administered similarly to

the letter name knowledge subtest. Students were provided a page of 100 randomly

distributed upper- and lowercase letters of the Kiribati alphabet and asked to provide the

sounds (not the names) of as many letters as they could identify within a one-minute period.

The results of this sub-test by year, gender and with and without zero scores are shown in

Table 5. The overall results for the letter sound sub-test indicate that students had more

difficulty with identifying letter sounds than letter names. Students were able to identify

27 letter sounds on average (10 fewer than letter names). Year 1 students accurately

identified 22 letter sounds. Students in Year 2 could name an additional eight letter sounds,

for a total mean score of 30. Similar to the letter name sub-test, scores decreased by two

points in Year 3, from 30 letters in Year 2 to 28 in Year 3. Girls read four more letter

sounds than boys, but boys achieved a higher maximum score of 95 compared to 85 for

girls.

Table 5: Sub-test 2 Letter Sound Identification: Results by Year and Gender

Sub-test 2 – Number of correct letter sounds

identified per minute (CSPM)

N Mean SD Min Max

CSPM – overall 1,361 26.5 16.9 0 95.1

CSPM – minus zero score students 1,286 28.3 16.1 1 95.1

Year

Year 1 CSPM – overall 482 22.4 15.2 0 77

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Central

Linnux

North

South

South Tarawa

Number of correct letters per minute

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

21

CSPM – minus zero score students 443 24.4 14.3 1 77

Year 2 CSPM – overall 457 29.7 16.7 0 84


Year 3 CSPM – overall 422 27.7 18.2 0 95.1

CSPM – minus zero score students 407 29.2 17.4 1 95.1

Gender

Girls CSPM – overall 689 28.8 17.3 0 85


Boys CSPM – overall 672 24.2 16.4 0 95.1


Student performance on the letter sound sub-test was related to the type of the letter

presented. The percentage of correct answers for each of the letters tested showed that

students have a good knowledge of vowel sounds but are unable to correctly identify the

sounds of consonants. Sample students were able to correctly identify vowel sounds in over

80 percent of the cases. Meanwhile, performance decreased to 8 percent - 31 percent for

consonants, and was particularly low for the letters w, k, t, r and b. Nasal consonants (n,

m, ng) were easier to pronounce and were correctly identified in over 70 percent of the

cases presented.

The Central region scored 3-5 points higher than other regions. Linnux performed the

lowest averaging 25 correct letter sounds per minute (See Table 6).

Table 6: Letter Sound Identification: Results by Region and Year


Tarawa


22

Figure 2: Letter Sound Identification: Results by Region and Year

3.3. Sub-test 3 – Initial Sound Identification

Initial sound identification assesses phonemic awareness (the ability to hear, identify and

manipulate individual sounds –phonemes- in spoken words). In this test, the assessor read

aloud a word and then asked the student to identify the first sound, or phoneme, in the

word. The test is comprised of 10 words and is administered orally. The test is untimed and

is measured according to the number of items answered correctly.

Overall, students could identify 30 percent of initial sounds attempted (3 out of 10 items).

Excluding the zero score students, the average score increases to four. Identifying initial

sounds was a particularly difficult task for all students. Students identified an average of

2.3 initial sounds in Year 1, with a slight increase to 3.7 in Year 2, and practically no change

(4) in Year 3. There was no difference in performance for boys and girls.

Table 7: Sub-test 3 Initial Sound Identification: Results by Year and Gender

Sub-test 3 – Number of correct initial sounds

identified

N Mean SD Min Max

Overall 1,363 3.3 2.5 0 10

Minus zero score students 1.033 4.3 2.0 1 10

Year

Year 1 Overall 483 2.3 2.4 0 10

Minus zero score students 279 3.6 2.0 1 10

Year 2 Overall 458 3.7 2.4 0 10


Year 3 Overall 422 4.0 2.5 0 10


0 10 20 30 40

Central

Linnux

North

South

South Tarawa

Number of correct letters per minute

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

23

Gender

Girls Overall 691 3.5 2.6 0 10


Boys Overall 672 3.0 2.4 0 9


Based on the results by region in Table 8, there was very little variation in the performance

of students across regions. Linnux demonstrated the highest scores on initial letter sound

while the Central and Southern regions scored the lowest.

24

Table 8: Initial Sound Recognition: Results by Region and Year


Tarawa


Figure 3: Initial Sound Recognition: Results by Region and Year

3.4. Sub-test 4 – Familiar Word Reading

The familiar word sub-test measures students’ ability to read familiar words with fluency

and accuracy, both of which are necessary to become fluent readers. For the familiar-word

reading test, students were given a list of 50 familiar words (selected from readers available

in the classroom) with instructions to read as many as they could in one minute. Familiar-

word reading is a timed test scored by the number of correct words read per minute

(cfwpm).

Table 9 shows the results of the familiar word reading sub-test by year, gender and with

and without zero scores. The overall mean score was 23 correct words per minute and 27

excluding zero scores. The test was most difficult for Year 1 students who could only read

an average of 8.6 words correctly per minute. Performance improves by 15 points in Year

2, in which students read an average of 23.7 words per minute, and another 13 points in

Year 3 where the overall mean score was 37 words per minute. While these scores might

be too low to lead to reading comprehension, there is steady progress towards reading

fluency. Girls scored eight points above boys (27 compared to 19 words per minute for

boys). The maximum score for girls was nearly 20 points higher than boys (98 compared

to 78.9 respectively).

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Central

Linnux

North

South

South Tarawa

Number of correct sounds

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

25

Table 9: Sub-test 4 Familiar Word Reading: Results by Year and Gender

Sub-test 4 – Number of correct familiar words read

per minute (CFWPM)

N Mean SD Min Max

CFWPM – overall 1,362 22.7 20.9 0 98

CFWPM – minus zero score students 1,171 26.7 20.1 1 98

Year

Year 1 CFWPM – overall 482 8.6 11.9 0 88.2

CFWPM – minus zero score students 338 12.4 12.6 1 88.2

Year 2 CFWPM – overall 458 23.7 17.8 0 81.7


Year 3 CFWPM – overall 422 37.0 21.4 0 98

CFWPM – minus zero score students 405 39.8 19.5 1 98

Gender

Girls CFWPM – overall 690 26.6 23.2 0 98

CFWPM – minus zero score students 615 30.4 22.4 1 98

Boys CFWPM – overall 672 18.6 17.3 0 78.9


On the familiar word reading sub-test, regional averages were highest in the Linnux region

and lowest in the Central region (See Table 10).

Table 10: Familiar Word Reading: Results by Region and Year (without zero scores)


Tarawa

Year 1 10.9 13.6 8.7 5.2 7.2 Year 2 23.2 30.8 23.6 26.6 22 Year 3 35.9 41.8 38.9 44.1 34.8 Overall 20.9 28.6 23.2 25.5 21.2

26

Figure 4: Familiar Word Reading: Results by Region and Year (without zero scores)

3.5. Sub-test 5 – Nonword Reading

To be able to comprehend unfamiliar text, children must be able to decode new unfamiliar

words. Nonword reading measures students’ ability to decode words that follow the

linguistic rules of the Kiribati language but that do not exist in real life. Unlike familiar

word reading in which students can read from memory or sight recognition, on the nonword

reading sub-test students must sound out the words; thus, it is a purer measure of decoding

ability. Students were provided with a table of 50 made-up words and instructed to read as

many as they could within one-minute. The test is timed and is measured by the number of

correct nonwords read per minute (cwpm).

Overall, students read an average of 13 nonwords correctly in one minute (See Table 11).

When the zero scores are removed, the mean score jumps to 20 correct words per minute.

The difference in these scores indicates that there is a significant proportion on non-readers

on this sub-test, especially in Year 1. Year 1 readers could read an average of 13 nonwords,

but when zero scores are included the mean score drops to 5 correct nonwords per minute

(8 point difference). There was a 3-4 point difference between readers and non-readers in

Years 2 and 3; thus, the percentage of students able to decode nonwords increases with

each level. Overall mean scores do indicate progress from Years 1-3, with performance

improving from 5.2 correct words in Year 1 to 14 correct in Year 2 and 22 correct in Year

3. On average, girls read five more words than boys (15.9 and 10.9, respectively), which is

also evident in the higher maximum score for girls (49 versus 45).

0 10 20 30 40 50

Central

Linnux

North

South

South Tarawa

Number of correct words per minute

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

27

Table 11: Sub-test 5 Nonword Reading: Results by Year and Gender

Sub-test 5 – Number of correct nonwords read per

minute (CUWPM)

N Mean SD Min Max

CNWPM – overall 1,362 13.4 12.8 0 49

CNWPM – minus zero score students 951 19.9 10.7 1 49

Year

Year 1 CNWPM – overall 482 5.2 8.7 0 47






Gender

Girls CNWPM – overall 690 15.9 13.8 0 49


Boys CNWPM – overall 672 10.9 11.2 0 45


Based on Table 12 results by region, Linnux region scored the highest with a mean score

of 19.1 correct nonwords per minute and the Central region had the lowest average score

(11.5 correct nonwords per minute).

Table 12: Nonword Reading: Results by Region and Year (without zero scores)


Tarawa

Year 1 6.1 10.8 5 2.4 4.2 Year 2 13.2 20.3 13.8 16.1 12.4 Year 3 19.1 26.4 23.3 25.1 20.5 Overall 11.5 19.1 13.7 14.7 12.3

28

Figure 5: Nonword Reading: Results by Region and Year (without zero scores)

3.6. Sub-test 6 – Oral Passage Reading

The best single measure of a child’s reading proficiency in the primary grades is oral

reading fluency (ORF). Oral reading fluency measures students’ ability to read a short

passage with sufficient speed and accuracy. It encompasses all of the previous reading

skills plus the skills needed for comprehension -- the ability to translate letters into sounds,

unify sounds into words, process connections, relate text to meaning, and make

inferences. 15 ORF has been shown to be a powerful predictor of overall reading

competence and comprehension16.

The oral passage reading sub-test is a timed test. In order for students to understand a

simple passage, they must be able to read it fast enough to retain the words in short-term

memory. Research 17 suggests a minimum fluency rate of 45-60 words per minute,

depending on the complexity of the language. In this sub-test, students were asked to read

a very short story comprised of 60 words in one minute. After one minute, the assessor

stopped students and recorded the number of words read correctly (cwpm). If the child

could not read any words correctly in the first line, the assessor stopped the test early and

the child received a score of zero.

The overall mean score for this sub-test was 29 correct words per minute, well below the

45-60 cwpm standard. Among those who could read at least one word (excluding zero

scores), students read 32.4 words per minute (See Table 13). While the overall mean score

15 Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). “Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for

reading teachers.” The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636–644. 16 Ibid 17 Abadzi, H. (2011). Reading Fluency Measurements in EFA FTI Countries: Outcomes and Improvement

Prospects. Education for all Fast Track Initiative

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Central

Linnux

North

South

South Tarawa

Number of correct nonwords per minute

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

29

was quite low, the bulk of the low scores were in Year 1, where students read an average

of 10 correct words per minute. Students improved significantly as they progressed to Year

2, reading 29 words per minute, and Year 3, where students read an impressive 47 words

per minute. Students read an additional 18-19 words each year. Girls read 11 more words

than boys (34 compared to 23. The maximum score for girls were 129 words per minute

while boys read a maximum of 103 words per minute.

Table 13: Sub-test 6a Oral Passage Reading: Results by Year and Gender

Sub-test 6a – Number of correct words read per

minute (CWPM)

N Mean SD Min Max

CWPM – overall 1,358 28.6 25.4 0 128.6

CWPM – minus zero score students 1,199 32.4 24.6 1 128.6

Year

Year 1 CWPM – overall 478 10.9 13.6 0 100

CWPM – minus zero score students 361 14.2 14.0 1 100

Year 2 CWPM – overall 458 29.2 20.3 0 94.7

CWPM – minus zero score students 428 31.2 19.5 1 94.7

Year 3 CWPM – overall 422 47.2 26.4 0 128.6


Gender

Girls CWPM – overall 689 34.0 28.2 0 128.6


Boys CWPM – overall 669 23.1 20.7 0 102.9


Average results by region illustrated in Table 14 indicate that the Linnux region had the

highest fluency rates (35.7 cwpm) while the Central region (26 cwpm) and South Tarawa

region (27 cwpm) had the lowest.

Table 14: Oral Passage Reading: Results by Region and Year


Tarawa

Year 1 13.5 16.7 10.5 7.4 9.7 Year 2 30.1 38 29.6 33.2 26.7 Year 3 42.4 53 50.7 55.2 44.6 Overall 25.9 35.7 29.6 32.1 26.9

30

Figure 6: Oral Passage Reading: Results by Region and Year

3.7. Sub-test 7 – Reading Comprehension

The reading comprehension subtask measures the ability to answer several comprehension

questions based on the passage read. There are a total of five questions for this sub-test,

consisting of direct, fact-based questions and at least one question requiring inference from

the passage read. Students were asked questions only up to the point where they had

stopped reading. For instance, if the child read the first sentence (6 words), s/he was asked

one question. If s/he read half of the text (27 words), s/he was asked three questions; and,

if s/he read all five sentences (54 words), s/he was asked all five comprehension questions.

Similarly, if learners did not read any of the text, they were not asked any questions and

received a score of zero. This sub-test is scored by the number of questions answered

correctly. The scores are also calculated to determine the percentage of questions answered

correctly out of a total possible (five).

The overall results are shown in Table 15. On average, students could accurately respond

to 1.3 comprehension questions. Readers (excluding zero scores) comprehended the double

the text of non-readers achieving 50 percent correct (2.5 out of 5 questions asked). The

highest percentage of zero scores were in Year 1, where the overall mean score was 0.2.

Students showed significant gains from Years 1-3. Overall mean scores improved by 30

percent from Year 1 to Year 2 with mean scores increasing from 0.2 to 1.5. From Year 2

to Year 3, scores increased nearly 20 percent from 1.5 to 2.4. Among readers (minus zero

scores), scores increased an average of 11 percent each year.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Central

Linnux

North

South

South Tarawa

Number of correct words per minute

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

31

Table 15: Sub-test 6b Reading Comprehension: Results by Year and Gender

Sub-test 6b – Number of questions answered

correctly

N Mean SD Min Max

Number of correct answer – overall 1,363 1.3 1.5 0 5

Number of correct answer – minus zero

score students

757 2.5

1.2 1 5

Year

Year 1

Number of correct answer – overall 483 0.2

0.7 0 5


score students

78 1.8

1.1 1 5

Year 2


1.4 0 5


score students

310 2.3

1.2 1 5

Year 3


1.5 0 5


score students

369 2.9

1.2 1 5

Gender

Girls

Number of correct answer – overall 691 1.6 1.6 0 5


score students

416 2.7 1.2 1 5

Boys

Number of correct answer – overall 672 1.1 1.4 0 5


score students

341 2.3 1.2 1 5

Figure 7 below shows the percentage of correct answers by Year. About 85 percent of

students in Year 1 showed zero percent comprehension of the passage read. Only one

percent of Year 1 students could comprehend 60 percent or more of the text. The results

for Year 2 are better as the majority of the students comprehended some of the text and

nearly 30 percent scored 60 percent or above. Year 3 students had more distribution across

the higher percentage categories. Half of Year 3 students could comprehend 60 percent or

more of the text and 27 percent could comprehend at least 80 percent of the text. Overall,

the majority of students in Years 1 and 2, and half in Year 3 have reading comprehension

levels below 60-80 percent.

32

Figure 7: Reading Comprehension Results: Distribution of percentage of correct answers by year

Although girls read 11 more words in the passage than boys, the point difference between

boys and girls’ reading comprehension scores was trivial. Table 15 shows that girls on

average correctly responded to 0.5 more questions than boys (1.6 versus 1.1, respectively).

However, the distribution of responses by percentage of correct answers illustrated in

Figure 8 shows that girls had a higher percentage of correct answers in most categories and

a lower percentage of zero scores compared to boys.

Figure 8: Reading Comprehension Results: Distribution of percentage of correct answers by gender

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

%st

ud

en

ts

Reading comprehension (% correct responses)

Class1 Class2 Class3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

%st

ud

en

ts

Reading Comprehension (% correct responses)

Girls Boys

33

The average results by year and gender according to the type of question asked and the

order in which it was presented is provided in Table 16. All five questions were direct

factual questions; thus the answers were embedded in the text. The easiest question was

Question 1, in which 38 percent of students accurately responded. Questions 2-4 had fairly

equal levels of difficulty with correct answers averaging 30 percent. Question 5 was the

most difficult with only five percent of students who attempted the question able to answer

correctly.

Table 16: Correct Answers by Questions in sub-test 6b

Questions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Girl Boy Total Girl Boy Total Girl Boy Total Girl Boy Total

1. Who went

fishing with

Tooma?

12% 6% 9% 53% 41% 47% 67% 53% 60% 43% 33% 38%

2. Where did

Tooma and his

father put their

fishing line?

8% 6% 7% 43% 35% 39% 56% 48% 52% 35% 29% 32%

3. What kind of

fish was Tooma’s

catch?

6% 3% 4% 33% 22% 28% 68% 47% 57% 34% 23% 29%

4. How did Tooma

feel when he

hooked the catch?

6% 1% 3% 34% 26% 30% 72% 38% 55% 36% 21% 29%

5. How did

Tooma’s catch get

away?

1% 0% 1% 5% 1% 3% 16% 10% 13% 7% 3% 5%

The percentage and number of questions students answered correctly based on those

attempted are presented in Table 17. The first column shows number and percent correct

for the entire sample. Columns 0-5 show the number of questions that students attempted

and scored correctly. The results indicate that the more text students read, the more they

were able to comprehend. This is evident in the decreasing percentage of zero scores. Of

students who did not comprehend any of the text (196), 100 percent scored zero.

Meanwhile, of students who read enough to be asked two questions, nearly 50 percent

scored zero. Only 7 percent of all students attempted and correctly responded to four of the

questions, and 2.4 percent attempted and correctly responded to five questions.

34

Table 17: Distribution of Correct Answers

Number of

Questions

Correct

Total

correct

Number of questions attempted

# 0 1 2 3 4 5

0

606 44%

196 100%

184 93.4%

195 48.5%

13 14.6%

13 4.9%

5 2.4%

1 195 14%

13 6.6%

123 30.6%

19 21.4%

26 9.7%

14 6.6%

2 198 14%

84 20.9%

33 37.1%

52 19.5%

29 13.7%

3 181 13%

24 26.9%

94 35.2%

63 29.7%

4 144 10%

82 30.7%

62 29.3%

5 39 2%

39 18.4%

Total (N) 1,363 196 197 402 89 267 212

Scores were similarly low on this sub-test across all regions and years. The Linnux region

performed slightly better than the rest with a mean comprehension score of 1.7 and the

Central and South Tarawa regions had the lowest comprehension scores (1.2).

Table 18: Reading Comprehension: Results by Region and Year


Tarawa


Figure 9: Reading Comprehension: Results by Region and Year

0 1 2 3 4

Central

Linnux

North

South

South Tarawa

Number of questions answered correctly

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

35

3.8. Sub-test 8 – Listening Comprehension

The purpose of the listening comprehension assessment is to measure whether the student

can listen to a short passage being read aloud and then answer several questions correctly

with a word or a simple statement. Poor performance on a listening comprehension tool

would suggest that children simply do not have the basic vocabulary that the reading

materials expect, or that they have difficulty processing what they hear. The assessor read

a short fable to students and then asked five comprehension questions. Students had 15

seconds to respond to each question. As this was an untimed test, all students heard the

entire story and responded to all five questions. For this reason, scores are based on the

percentage of questions answered correctly.

The average mean score for listening comprehension was 46 percent correct and 52 percent

without zero scores (See Table 19). The results indicate progressive improvement in

listening comprehension levels by at least 6-7 percent with each Year. By the end of Year

1, students could comprehend about 40 percent of the passage read aloud. Year 2 students

understood 47 percent and Year 3 students comprehended 53 percent. Boys and girls had

relatively similar comprehension skills (46 percent for girls and 47 percent for boys).

Table 19: Sub-test 7 Listening Comprehension: Results by Year and Gender

Sub-test 7 – Percentage of overall listening

comprehension

N Mean SD Min Max

Percentage of correct answer – overall 1,363 46.2% 28.2 0 100

Percentage of correct answer – minus

zero score students

1,253 51.9% 24.5 20 100

Year

Year 1

Percentage of correct answer – overall 483 39.1% 27.5 0 100


zero score students

422 46.7% 23.4 20 100

Year 2



zero score students

426 51.6% 23.1 20 100

Year 3



zero score students

405 57.4% 25.7 20 100

Gender

Girls



zero score students

633 51.0% 24.5 20 100

Boys



zero score students

620 52.8% 24.4 20 100

36

Table 20 shows average performance per question type. All questions were fact-based

questions (answers can be found within the story). While all questions were of similar level

of difficulty, students performed highest on questions 1 and 3, and lowest on questions 4

and 5. It should be noted that students only heard the passage read aloud once.

Table 20: Listening Comprehension Percentage of Correct Answers by Question

Questions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Girl Boy Total Girl Boy Total Girl Boy Total Girl Boy Total

1. Who went

with her father

to get some fresh

air?

67% 72% 70% 82% 80% 81% 87% 84% 86% 79% 79% 79%

2. Where was a

bird perched?

39% 41% 40% 49% 49% 49% 48% 47% 47% 45% 46% 45%

3. Why did Anna

climb the tree?

51% 63% 57% 65% 61% 63% 71% 72% 71% 62% 65% 64%

4. What was

Anna warned by

her father about

birds?

14% 19% 16% 27% 20% 23% 32% 36% 34% 24% 25% 24%

5. Why then was

Anna happy?

13% 12% 13% 21% 16% 18% 26% 31% 28% 20% 19% 20%

In terms of regional performance, the highest scores were in the Linnux region where

students correctly responded to 3.3 questions and the lowest performance was in South

Tarawa where students accurately responded to 2 questions.

Table 21: Listening Comprehension Results by Region and Year


Tarawa

Year 1 2.2 2.8 2 1.6 1.7

Year 2 2.2 3.4 2.6 2.2 2.1 Year 3 3.1 3.7 2.7 2.8 2.4 Overall 2.4 3.3 2.4 2.2 2.0

37

Figure 10: Listening Comprehension Results by Region and Year

3.9. Sub-test 9 – Dictation

The dictation sub-test measures students’ alphabet knowledge and ability to hear and

distinguish individual letter sounds in words and to spell words correctly. For this sub-test,

the assessor read aloud a short sentence of 15 words and asked students to write down what

they had heard. The assessor read the sentence three times, once before students began

writing and twice while they were writing. The test was untimed and scored by the

percentage of items written correctly.

The dictation sub-test assessed four basic writing skills: spelling, spacing, capitalization

and punctuation (use of full stop). The dictation sentence contained 10 words, consisting

of a compound sentence that included a compound noun comprised of three morphemes.

In pilot testing, the sentence was found to provide a good discrimination of scores between

grades. The scores were calculated using weights to arrive at a maximum score of 100

percent. The spelling items received a weight of 60 percent while other components

(spacing, capitalization, comma and full stop) received a weight of 40 percent. Given the

focus of the EGRA is to assess reading ability, the spelling component received more

weight.

Students performed exceptionally well on this writing task. The maximum score was 100

percent for all three classes. The average score for the entire sample was 71 percent and 72

percent excluding zero scores. Students’ writing skills progressively increased from 51

percent in Year 1 to 76 percent in Year 2 to finally 82 percent in Year 3. Girls scored six

percentage points higher than boys (74 percent compared to 68 percent).

0 1 2 3 4

Central

Linnux

North

South

South Tarawa

Number of questions answered correctly

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

38

Table 22: Sub-test 9 Dictation: Results by Year and Gender

Sub-test 9 – Percentage of overall early writing

skills)

N Mean

Percent

Correct

SD Min Max

Average percent of correct answer –

overall

1,165 70.5% 26.4% 0% 100%


minus zero score students

1,153 71.7% 25.0% 2.1% 100%

Year

Year 1


overall

332 50.5% 27.5% 0% 100%



323 52.8% 25.9% 2.1% 100%

Year 2


overall

425 76.2% 20.4% 0% 100%



424 76.3% 20.2% 4.2% 100%

Year 3


overall

408 82.1% 20.8% 0% 100%



406 82.8% 19.3% 4.2% 100%

Gender

Girls


overall

608 74.2% 25.7% 0% 100%



602 75.6% 23.8% 2.1% 100%

Boys


overall

557 66.6% 26.7% 0% 100%



551 67.6% 25.6% 4.2% 100%

As presented in Figure 11 and mentioned above, the dictation test measured spelling,

spacing, capitalization and full stop. Students scored highest on spelling. The greatest

improvements were with use of the full stop between Years 1 and 2 (an increase of 26

percent). However, Year 3 students struggled the most with use of the full stop scoring zero

39

correct. Girls scored an average of 12 percent higher than boys across all writing categories

(Figure 12).

Figure 11: Dictation Results: Percentage of Correct Answers by Item and Year

Figure 12: Dictation Results: Distribution of correct answers by gender

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Spelling Spacing Capital Full stop

Per

cen

tage

of

corr

ect

answ

ers

Writing skills

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Spelling Spacing Capital Full stop

Girls Boys

40

Regional results for the dictation sub-test are presented in Table 23. Students fared well

across all regions with average scores between 71 percent and 77 percent correct. The

Southern region scored the highest with 78 percent correct. The lowest scoring region was

South Tarawa where students achieved 68 percent correct.

Table 23: Dictation: Results by Region and Year (without zero scores)


Tarawa

Year 1 59.5 46.4 56.3 52.9 48 Year 2 83.1 80.8 74.4 80.1 74.2 Year 3 85.5 85.6 85.3 89 78.9

Overall 74.5 71.4 74.2 77.7 67.8

Figure 13: Dictation: Results by Region and Year (without zero scores)

3.10. Summary of assessment results

The overall EGRA results show that there is significant progress from Years 1 to 3 and that

students have basic reading and writing skills. Students possess good letter recognition,

familiar word reading and oral passage reading skills. There was measurable progress

between Years 1-3 across all sub-tests, especially on the familiar word and oral reading

fluency sub-tests. Scores on the familiar word subtest increased by 15 cwpm between Years

1-2 (from 9 to 24 words per minute), and an additional 13 between Years 2-3 to an average

of 37 correct words per minute. On the oral reading passage sub-test, students’ scores

improved by 18 points between Years 1 and 2 (from 10.9 to 29) and Years 2 and 3 (from

29 to 47). Thus, students in Year 3 are on the cusp of becoming fluent readers. However,

students are still struggling with identifying letter sounds and decoding unfamiliar words.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Central

Linnux

North

South

South Tarawa

Dictation precent correct score

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

41

Listening comprehension skills were higher than reading comprehension for Years 1 and

3, but at similar levels for Year 3.

The reading comprehension sub-test had the highest percentage of zero scores across all

years as well as the lowest mean scores (See Figures 16 and 17). The highest percentage

of zero scores was in Year 1, where 84 percent of students could not accurately respond to

one comprehension question. Students did, however, show significant improvement as they

progressed throughout the levels. By Year 3, students read an average of 47 correct words

per minute and could accurately respond to 47 percent of the comprehension questions

asked (See Figures 14 and 15). With regards to gender, there were more female readers

than male readers, and girls read equal to or better than boys in all reading skills tested.

The Linnux region scored highest on six of eight reading sub-tests and lowest on Letter

Sound Knowledge. Conversely, the Central Region scored lowest across five sub-tests and

highest (along with the Southern region) on Letter Sound Knowledge.

Figure 14: Summary Results: Number correct answers for timed sub-tests by year

Letter NameKnowledge

LetterSound

Identification

FamiliarWord

Reading

NonwordReading

OralPassageReading

Year 1 27.8 22.4 8.6 5.2 10.9

Year 2 44 29.7 23.7 13.9 29.2

Year 3 40.5 27.7 37 21.9 47.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Nu

mb

er

of

corr

ect

an

swe

rs p

er

min

ute

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

42

Figure 15: Summary Results: Percent correct for untimed sub-tests by year

Figure 16: Summary Results: Percentage of Zero Scores by Sub-test and Year

Reading Comprehension Listening Comprehension

Year 1 5.0% 39.1%

Year 2 29.4% 46.9%

Year 3 47.3% 53.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%P

erc

en

tag

e o

f co

rre

ct a

nsw

er

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

LetterName

InitialSound

LetterSounds

FamiliarWord

NonwordOral

PassageReading

ReadingCompreh

ension

ListeningCompreh

ensionDictation

Year 1 5% 42% 8% 30% 57% 24% 84% 13% 3%

Year 2 2% 17% 5% 7% 23% 7% 32% 7% 0%

Year 3 2% 11% 4% 4% 8% 3% 13% 4% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Per

cen

t o

f Z

ero

Sco

res

43

Figure 17: Summary Results: Percentage of Zero Scores by Sub-test and Gender

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Letter Name

Initial Sound

Letter Sounds

Familiar Word

Nonword

Oral Passage Reading

Reading Comprehension

Listening Comprehension

Dictation

Boys Girls

44

Chapter 4 – Performance in reading fluency and reading comprehension According to the second edition of the EGRA toolkit18, there are two steps to identifying a

reading fluency benchmark. The first is to identify the level of reading comprehension that

is expected for the grade level. In most countries, this level is set at 80 percent or higher (4

correct answer out of 5 questions) for Years 1-3. This threshold will be used for the

purposes of this EGRA study. Once the reading comprehension benchmark is set, the

second step is to use EGRA data to show the range of ORF scores obtained by students

able to achieve the desired level of comprehension. Because students may be able to

achieve the 80 percent comprehension benchmark at different fluency rates, and there could

be a wide range of scores, we have added a third step to the analysis. The third step is to

identify the range of scores with the highest proportion of students meeting the

comprehension benchmark. With this information, then stakeholders may decide on the

value within the fluency range that should be put forward as the reading fluency

benchmark.

Table 24 shows the actual distribution of percent correct scores for reading comprehension.

Overall, 11 percent of students scored 80 percent correct and 3 percent achieved 100

percent. Thus, the total percentage of students achieving 80 percent or more reading

comprehension is 14 percent.

Table 24: Distribution of percent correct scores for reading comprehension by sub-test per year

Comp. Score Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Overall Mean

0% 84% 32% 13% 44%

20% 8% 21% 14% 14%

40% 5% 19% 21% 15%

60% 1% 15% 26% 13%

80% 1% 11% 20% 11%

100% 1% 1% 7% 3%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

As mentioned above, as a first step, we decided to set the level of comprehension at 80

percent as an indicator that students demonstrate full understanding of the text. Table 25

shows the percentage of students by year and gender that comprehended 80 percent or more

of the text read. The distribution of scores by Year is: 2 percent in Year 1, 12 percent in

Year 2 and 27 percent for Year 3 students. In terms of gender, 16 percent of female students

and 10 percent of male students reached the 80 percent benchmark in reading

comprehension.

18 RTI International. (2016). Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) Toolkit, Second Edition. Washington,

DC: United States Agency for International Development.

45

Table 25: Percent of students reading with 80% or more comprehension by Year

80% or more reading comprehension

Mean (%) SD (%) N

Overall 14% 34.1% 1363

Year 1 2% 13.6% 483

Year 2 13% 33.3% 458

Year 3 27% 44.7% 422

Female 16% 37.1% 691

Male 10% 30.3% 672

For the second step, we need to look at the distribution of fluency scores of students who

reached the threshold level in reading comprehension. Figure 18 shows the distribution of

ORF scores for each level of reading comprehension. Globally, we can see that an increase

in the level of reading comprehension is associated with an increase in ORF scores. Table

26 confirms that mean scores in ORF were higher when students had higher levels of

reading comprehension. However, it also shows that some students who did not reach the

80 percent reading comprehension benchmark achieved higher ORF scores than students

who did reach the benchmark. For example, students who have 80 percent in reading

comprehension could have a fluency score as low as 25 correct words per minute.

Meanwhile, some students who were unable to answer a single reading comprehension

question correctly could read up to 6519 correct words per minute.

Figure 18: ORF distribution by reading comprehension level

19 Note that ORF scores may exceed the total number of words in a passage since it is a timed test. If students

could read the entire passage within the 60 seconds allowed, the fluency score would take into account the

time remaining from the 60 seconds. This explains why some students present such high value as 129 correct

words per minute although the passage had only 60 words.

46

Table 26: ORF score by reading comprehension score

Reading

Comp.

Score

Mean Fluency

Score

SD Min Max Sample (n)

0% 11.9 8.8 1 65 442

20% 29.5 17.4 5 109 195

40% 39.5 18.7 9 129 198

60% 53.3 15.0 16 100 181

80% 59.9 16.6 25 120 144

100% 72.5 15.4 46 129 39

Distribution of ORF scores for students who reach 80 percent in reading

comprehension

Figure 19 shows the distribution of ORF scores for the 183 students who reached the level

of 80 percent correct in reading comprehension. The majority of the students who met the

benchmark read between 40 and 69 correct words per minute. However, scores ranged

between 40 and 129 words per minute. Scores above 60 indicate that students finished the

paragraph in less than one minute while scores below 60 imply that students who did not

finish the paragraph were able to infer enough to correctly respond to all questions.

Figure 19: Distribution of ORF scores for students reading with at least 80% comprehension

The histogram in Figure 20 compares the distribution of ORF scores for students who did

and did not meet the reading comprehension benchmark. As illustrated, the number of

47

students who reached the benchmark is quite small compared to those who did not and

there is overlap between the distributions of the two groups. The benchmark set for reading

fluency should ensure that a maximum number of students who did reach the 80 percent

level in reading comprehension would be identified as fluent readers but it should also

ensure not to include too many students who did not reach 80 percent in reading

comprehension. This means that setting the benchmark value for fluency at 45 correct

words per minute could include too many students who didn’t reach the 80 percent reading

comprehension level while setting it at 75 correct words per minute would exclude too

many students who reached the benchmark.

Figure 20: Distribution of ORF scores for students meeting and not meeting 80% benchmark

Table 27 shows that the fluency rate of 60 cwpm has a greater proportion of students

meeting rather than not meeting the benchmark. Policymakers may decide on an acceptable

range (e.g., 60-64 cwpm) that can be considered proficient or acceptable. If the benchmark

for reading comprehension were lowered to 60 percent, then the fluency scores would also

be lower (closer to 50 cwpm).

Table 27: Distribution of ORF Scores for students meeting and not meeting the 80% benchmark

Correct number of

words per minute

(ORF)

% meeting 80%

RC benchmark

% not meeting

80% RC

benchmark

45-49 36.7% 63.3%

48

50-54 27.9% 72.1%

55-59 43.1% 56.9%

60-64 57.4% 42.6%

65-69 47.1% 52.9%

70-74 36.8% 63.2%

75 and more 53.4% 46.6%

In summary, greater oral reading fluency is associated with higher levels of reading

comprehension with only 14 percent of students who are identified as being able to

comprehend 80 percent of what they read. More females than males reached that level of

comprehension. ORF scores for students achieving the benchmark shows great variability.

Stakeholders should discuss the number of correct words per minute that could qualify a

student as a fluent reader. The decision should be based on the distribution of scores for

students who reached the reading comprehension benchmark.

49

Chapter 5- Analysis of Student and Teacher Factors Associated with Better Reading Outcomes

This section reports the results of regression analyses conducted to explore the effect of

student and teacher factors (independent variables) on oral reading fluency scores

(dependent variable). The factors are organized into seven categories: 1) student

demographics; 2) teacher characteristics; 3) teacher expectations; 4) classroom

environment; 5) teacher training and guides; 6) reading materials; and, 7) teacher

instructional and assessment methods. The results of the analyses directly respond to

research question #7.

5.1. Association of student characteristics to student reading outcomes

General background characteristics and reading activities were collected in the student

questionnaire. The factors as shown in Table 28 include whether the student attended

preschool, ate breakfast before arriving to school, language spoken at home, parents’

literacy, whether students receive help with homework, availability of reading materials

and whether students read or are read to at home. Over 90 percent of students surveyed

attended pre-school, speak Kiribati at home, eat breakfast before arriving to school and

state that they like to read. Eighty-five percent of students read at home. About half of

students have reading materials in Kiribati.

Table 28: Student background characteristics

Student Characteristics % of cases SE* N

Student attends preschool before Year 1 94% 0.7% 1336

Student speaks Kiribati at home 96% 0.9% 1361

Student eats before arriving to school 92% 0.9% 1360

Student has someone who can read at home 82% 0.01% 1361

Student receives help with homework from the

mother

25% 1.8% 1361


father

17% 1.5% 1361


sibling

15.4% 1.1% 1361

Student receives help with homework from any

other person

5.5% 0.9% 1361

Someone asks student about what he/she did in

school

75% 1.3% 1316

Student tells someone at home when he/she gets

good marks

77% 1.5 % 1344

Student has books, newspapers or other things to

read at home

59% 2.2% 1335


read at home in Kiribati

48% 1.3% 1361


read at home in English

14% 0.9% 1361

50

Someone reads to student at home 59% 1.4% 1361

Student reads aloud to someone at home 42% 2.6% 1361

Student reads to himself/herself at home 85% 1.0% 1361

Student reads on a computer or mobile device at

home

69% 2.3% 731

Student likes to read 96% 0.6% 1348

*SE = Standard Error20

The two factors that had the greatest positive impact on ORF scores (with an increase of 7

to 10 correct words per minute) were: whether students speak Kiribati at home and whether

the student likes to read. Two additional factors that resulted in an increase of about 5

correct words per minute were: whether students received help with their homework from

the mother and whether students read to himself at home.

Parents’ literacy presented a positive association with ORF scores. When both parents are

literate, students read an additional 8.15 words per minute. Students who had a literate

father read almost twice as many words as those with a literate mother (3.86 more words

compared to 1.99 more words). However, students who received help with their homework

from their mother read 5 more words and the difference was statistically significant while

the help received from their father or sibling was not significant.

Table 29: Association of student characteristics to Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) scores

Student Characteristics Change in

ORF Score

(+/-)

SE Rsqr

Student attends preschool before Year 1 4.37 3.82 0.40

Student eats breakfast before arriving to school -1.11 2.92 0.39

Student speaks Kiribati at home 10.38* 2.26 0.39

Student has a literate mother 1.99 2.24 0.39

Student has a literate father 3.86 2.03 0.39

Student has both parents literate 8.15* 3.78 0.40

Student has a literate sibling 1.10 1..47 0.39

Student receives help with homework from

the mother

5.07* 2.36 0.40


father

2.31 1.71 0.39


sibling

-2.53 2.16 0.39


school

1.65 1.83 0.39


good marks

0.21 1.45 0.39


read at home

0.47 1.31 0.39

20 SE is a measure of uncertainty caused by sampling error. It is used to build a confidence interval around

the sample mean

51



1.60 0.93 0.39



3.84 2.25 0.39

Student reads aloud to someone at home -3.29 1.65 0.39

Student reads to himself/herself at home 4.93* 2.25 0.40

Someone reads to student at home -1.79 1.12 0.39


home

-0.94 1.25 0.39

Student likes to read 7.64* 2.86 0.40

5.2. Association of teacher characteristics to student reading performance

The association between teachers’ characteristics and student reading performance on the

ORF sub-test was explored using data collected in the teacher interview questionnaire.

Teacher profiles are presented in Table 30. Teachers in Kiribati have an average of 15 years

of experience. Half of their experience seems to be on the island they are currently teaching.

Nearly all primary school teachers (90 percent) are female and hold a primary school

teaching certificate. Seventy-seven percent of teachers have a reading corner in the

classroom and 74 percent have met with their students’ parents. Finally, less than half of

teachers have not been absent from school in the last term.

Table 30: Profile of teachers in EGRA

Teacher demographics Mean (sd) N

Age of the teacher 43.4 (9.5) 132

Number of years of teaching experience 15.4 (9.1) 132

Number of years spent teaching on the island 7.4 (7.7) 132

Number of minutes from home to school 8.8 (11.9) 132

Teacher characteristics % of cases N

Female 90% 132

Has a primary teaching certificate 98% 132

Has a reading corner in the classroom 77% 130

Has not been absent from school in the last term 43% 131

Has met with parents of his/her students 74% 132

In order to identify the teacher characteristics associated with better student reading

outcomes, separate regression analysis was conducted for each teacher characteristic (See

Table 31). The dependent variable was the average number of words read per minute in the

oral reading passage (scores from sub-test 6a) and the independent variables were the

teacher characteristics described above (Table 30). Gender and year level were considered

in the regression analysis to control for these two variables.

The results in Table 31 indicate that no factor had a statistically significant association with

ORF scores. Whether teachers held a primary school teaching certificate or had a reading

corner showed the greatest effect but those two factors are not statistically significant.

52

Table 31: Association of teachers' characteristics to Oral Reading Fluency Score (ORF)

Teacher Characteristics Change in

ORF Score

(+/-)

SE Rsqr

Has a primary teaching certificate 2.88 6.78 0.74

Has a reading corner in the classroom 3.41 1.94 0.74

Has not been absent from school in the last term 0.81 1.66 0.74

Has met with the parents of his/her students 1.04 1.74 0.74

Age of the teacher -0.08 0.09 0.74

Number of year of experience in teaching -0.01 0.10 0.74

Number of year of experience in teaching on

this island

0.03 0.11 0.74

Number of minute from home to school -0.11 0.07 0.74

5.3. Association of teacher expectations to student reading performance

Teachers were asked to report what grades they expected students to meet certain reading

competencies (e.g., recognize letters, understand stories read aloud). Table 32 provides

results of regression analyses that show the relationship of five indicators of teacher

expectations on student oral reading fluency scores (number of words read correctly per

minute). Each regression analysis included gender and year as control variables.

The reference level for each regression is the median expectation of all teachers for each

indicator. The dash (-) represents the expected year for that competency to be reached. For

example, Year 1 is the reference category in the first regression because the median

expectation of teachers for students to recognize and say letter names was by the end of

Year 1. The positive coefficient of 8.48 in Year 2 indicates that students whose teachers

expected them to recognize and say letter names by Year 2, a year later than the median

expected time, read 8.48 more words relative to students whose teachers expected them to

achieve the competency by Year 1. This pattern was also observed in the second regression.

Most teachers expected their students to understand stories read aloud by the teacher by

the end of Year 2. Teachers who expected their students to achieve this competency by the

end of Year 3 read 3.74 more words per minute, and for those with expectations for Year

4 students, the ORF score increased by 1.82 words per minute.

When teachers had higher expectations than the median teachers, reading performance

decreased. This was observed for the second indicator. Students were expected to read

aloud to the teacher by the end of Year 2. Teachers who expected students to achieve these

competencies by the end of Year 1 saw a decrease of 2.72 correct words per minute.

53

Table 32: Association of teacher expectations to oral reading fluency (ORF) scores

Teacher expectations of student

reading performance

Change in

ORF score

(+/-)

SE Rsqr

Grade students should recognize and say

letter names

Year 1 - - 0.77

Year 2 8.48* 1.96

Year 3 2.19 2.40

Year 4 3.91 4.12

Grade students should understand stories

read aloud by the teacher in the classroom

Year 1 -2.72 2.01 0.75

Year 2 - -

Year 3 3.74 2.10

Year 4 1.82 3.29

Grade students should sound out words

using phonics

Year 1 -0.56 1.72 0.78

Year 2 - -

Year 3 6.43* 2.14

Year 4 14.25* 4.13

Grade students should read aloud to

teacher and other students

Year 1 -3.61 2.72 0.76

Year 2 -0.47 2.08

Year 3 - -

Year 4 5.86* 2.40

Grade students should understand simple

texts that they read in class

Year 1 -4.40 2.60 0.75

Year 2 1.09 1.99

Year 3 - -

Year 4 4.00 2.69

Based on the results in Table 32, students whose teachers expected them to reach the

reading competency later than expected consistently read more words per minute than

students who met the competency as expected. The coefficient was statistically significant

when teacher expected students to recognize and say letter names in Year 2. In this

situation, students were able to read 8 more correct words per minute. It is also the case for

when students should sound out words using phonics or when students should read aloud

to teacher and other students. Teachers who expected students to sound out words using

phonics in Year 4 read 14 more cwpm, and teachers who expected students to read aloud

to teacher and students in Year 4 read 5.86 more cwpm. However, teachers who expected

students to reach the competency sooner than the expected grade level actually read fewer

correct words per minute. When teachers expected students to read aloud in Year 1,

students read 3.6 fewer cwpm. Furthermore, when teachers expected students to understand

simple texts they read in class in Year 1, they read 4.4 fewer cwpm.

54

5.4. Association of teacher training and guides to student reading performance

We also sought to explore the relationship between teaching materials and student reading

performance. Teachers were asked whether they had a teaching syllabus and whether they

had received any training on how to teach reading in the last three years. As shown in Table

33, over 60 percent of teachers had a syllabus. Eighty-nine percent of teachers reported

having a teacher guide. Finally, about half of teachers have received training on reading

instruction.

Table 33: Teacher training and guides

% of cases N

Teacher has a syllabus 64% 132

Teacher has a teacher guide 89% 132

Teacher have receive training on how to teach reading in the

last three years

56% 132

Results of the regression analysis for teaching resources and its relation to student reading

performance, measured by a change in ORF score are presented in Table 34. Whether the

teacher had a syllabus or a teacher guide did not have any effect on ORF scores. Training

also did not show statistically significant association with ORF scores.

Table 34: Association of training and guides to student oral reading fluency (ORF) scores

Change in

ORF score

SE Rsqr

Teacher have a syllabus -1.72 2.29 0.74

Teacher has a teacher guide -2.91 2.63 0.74

Teacher have receive training on how to teach

reading in the last three years

1.85 1.63 0.74

5.5. Association of Classroom Environment to Student Performance

Through classroom observations, we collected data on the classroom environment and

types of resources available in the classroom. Assessors recorded whether they observed

the following classroom displays: the alphabet, a calendar, days of the week, numbers and

the weather. Classrooms observed had an average of 3.58 classroom displays. The

observation also sought to determine the types of printed materials used in instruction, such

as newspapers, magazines, flashcards, food wrappers and packaging, prepaid cards, objects

in treasure boxes and any other materials. There was an average of 1.10 printed material

used in the classroom.

Table 35: Average Number of Classroom Displays and Materials Observed

Classroom environment Mean (sd) SE N

Classroom displays 3.58 0.10 155

Print materials used in instruction 1.10 0.09 155

55

As shown in Table 36, 67 percent of classrooms have spelling/vocabulary words displayed,

15 percent have songs/hymns/stories written on the blackboard and 54 percent have them

written on charts or posters, and 69 percent have student work displayed.

Additional factors related to the classroom environment that were observed included

whether there was sufficient space for organizing group activities, whether there was a

reading corner in the classroom, whether teachers maintained folders with students’ work

(student profiles) and the seating arrangement. The results showed that 75 percent of

classrooms have a reading corner, 81 percent have sufficient space for organizing group

work, 68 percent have student profiles and 77 percent of classroom students sit on the floor.

Table 36: Frequency and Type of Classroom Displays/Resources Available

Types of classroom displays/resources available % of classes SE N

Spelling/vocabulary displayed 67% 0.04 155

Song/hymns/stories displayed on blackboard 15% 0.03 155

Song/hymns/stories displayed on charts/posters 54% 0.04 155

Student work displayed 69% 0.04 155

Sufficient classroom space for organized group

activities

81% 0.03 155

Reading corner in the classroom 75% 0.03 155

Student profiles (folder with student work and student

info)

68% 0.04 155

Students sitting on floor 77% 0.04 155

Among the different classroom environment variables, the presence of student profiles had

the most positive relation with ORF scores. When teachers maintained student profiles, the

students read an average of 6.37 more words per minute. This relation is statistically

significant. On the other hand, having student work displayed was adversely related to ORF

scores. Classrooms where student work was displayed had lower overall ORF scores.

Table 37: Association of Classroom Environment to Student ORF Scores

Classroom Environment Change in

ORF Score

(+/-)

SE Rsqr

Classroom displays 0.38 0.54 0.75

Spelling/vocabulary displayed 1.10 1.56 0.75

Song/hymns/stories displayed on blackboard 3.51 2.04 0.75

Song/hymns/stories displayed on charts/posters 0.08 1.50 0.75

Student work displayed -3.28* 1.55 0.76

Print materials used in instruction 0.88 0.63 0.75


activities

-2.23 1.89 0.75

Reading corner in the classroom 2.92 1.71 0.76

Student profiles (folder with student work and

student info)

6.37* 1.53 0.78

Students sitting on floor 0.75 1.76

56

5.6. Association of Reading Materials to Student Performance

The classroom observation further aimed to identify teaching and learning aids used for

reading instruction. The instrument included 13 different reading instructional materials

that could be observed in the classroom (Instructional readers, big books, posters/charts

with poems, posters/charts with songs, posters/charts with phonics, A5 letter cards, small

cards, mathematics charts, community studies posters, environmental science posters,

healthy living charts, climate change story book, and any other reading materials). The

assessors reported a mean of 8.26 different instructional resources used in the classrooms.

Additionally, there was an average of 1.97 reading books observed during the lesson.

Table 38:Average Number of Reading Materials and Books in Classroom

Reading Materials Mean (sd) SE N

Reading instructional materials in classroom 8.26 (2.80) 0.23 152

Number of reading books used during the lesson 1.97 (17.5) 1.44 148

According to the regression results in Table 39, the relation between the number of reading

books used during the lesson and ORF scores of students is statistically significant. When

there are more books used in the classroom, the ORF scores were higher.

Table 39: Association of Reading Materials to Student ORF Scores

Change in

ORF Score

(+/-)

SE Rsqr

Reading materials in classroom 0.43 0.26 0.74

Number of reading books used during the

lesson

0.11* 0.04 0.74

5.7. Association of Teacher Instructional and Assessment Methods to Student Performance

The final set of regression analysis observed the relationship between instructional and

assessment methods and student performance in ORF. Table 41 presents results of

regressions analysis of the frequency in which students and teachers performed seventeen

instructional and assessment methods within the course of the week. The dependent

variable is the mean ORF score of the students and the independent variables are the

instructional methods. The mean ORF score of students who were never exposed to an

instructional or assessment method was compared to the mean ORF score of students who

were exposed 1-2 days, 3-4 days or 5 days a week. Results from those regression analyses

were analyzed to determine if being exposed to a specific method is associated with

increased or decreased ORF scores and if so, whether the effect is the same for all rates of

exposure (e.g., 1-2 days, daily, etc.). All regression models include gender and Year for

controlling for those two characteristics.

Table 40 shows the teaching methods used during reading instruction and the frequency in

which it is applied. The instructional methods used most frequently were teaching the

meaning of new words/vocabulary and listening comprehension. The most common

57

classroom activities were shared reading, reading comprehension activities, drawing or

writing sentences. Less than 10% of teachers evaluate students’ oral reading fluency on a

regular basis (3-5 days a week).

Table 40: Frequency of methods used during reading instruction

Never 1 – 2

days

3 – 4

days

5 days N

Teaching of Listening

Comprehension

5% 30% 19% 46% 132

Children Practice Letter Name 20% 11% 9% 61% 132

Children orally retell a story that

they have read

18% 42% 25% 15% 132

Children learn new letter sounds 18% 17% 15% 50% 132

Children sound out unfamiliar

words using knowledge of letter

sounds

52% 23% 11% 14% 132

Children learning meanings of new

words/vocabulary

11% 20% 33% 36% 132

Shared reading 7% 29% 39% 26% 132

Group Guided reading 19% 48% 20% 13% 132

Listening to a child read aloud 30% 45% 14% 11% 132

Students readings on their own

silently

27% 14% 7% 52% 132

Reading comprehension activities 12% 24% 30% 33% 132

Children take books home to read

with their parents

92% 4% 2% 2% 132

Evaluating student’s oral reading

with running records or any other

method

57% 36% 2% 5% 132

Teachers works on word building

with students

22% 23% 20% 35% 132

Students read and draw 13% 20% 31% 36% 132

Students working on spelling

words in exercise books

20% 32% 20% 28% 132

Students writing sentences 10% 24% 23% 43% 132

Table 41: Association of teacher instructional and assessment methods to student performance

Teaching instructional and assessment

methods

Change in

ORF score

SE Rsqr

Teaching of Listening Comprehension 0.74

1-2 days 3.52 3.86

3-4 days 4.57 3.99

5 days 2.87 3.74

Teaching Letter Names 0.75

1-2 days -2.12 3.08

3-4 days -5.62 3.36

58

5 days -6.44* 2.50

Asking children to orally retell a story

that they have read

0.74

1-2 days 0.74 2.29

3-4 days -1.97 2.52

5 days -0.85 2.82

Teaching new letter sounds 0.77

1-2 days -10.10* 2.68

3-4 days -10.16* 2.81

5 days -6.9* 2.36

Asking children to sound out

unfamiliar words using knowledge of

letter sounds

0.74

1-2 days -0.32 2.00

3-4 days 0.58 2.74

5 days -4.41 2.47

Teaching meaning of new vocabulary

words

0.74

1-2 days 0.27 3.08

3-4 days -1.27 2.82

5 days -0.88 2.78

Shared reading 0.74

1-2 days 2.57 3.48

3-4 days 2.61 3.39

Daily 3.01 3.59

Group Guided reading 0.74

1-2 days 5.20* 2.20

3-4 days 4.29 2.56

Daily 2.75 2.92

Listening to a child read aloud 0.74

1-2 days 3.94 1.88

3-4 days -0.31 2.71

Daily 3.55 2.83

Students readings on their own silently 0.74

1-2 days 2.35 2.65

3-4 days 4.36 3.46

Daily 3.69 1.93

Reading comprehension activities 0.74

1-2 days 5.10 2.83

3-4 days 4.71 2.74

Daily 2.62 2.70

59

Children take books home to read with

their parents

0.74

1-2 days -1.27 4.29

3-4 days -3.32 6.69

Daily 0.97 5.50

Evaluating student’s oral reading with

running records or any other method

0.74

1-2 days 0.66 1.74

3-4 days -4.24 5.51

Daily -1.57 3.76

Teacher works on word building with

students

0.74

1-2 days -2.25 2.41

3-4 days -3.75 2.54

Daily -3.36 2.30

Students read and draw 0.74

1-2 days -2.45 2.90

3-4 days -3.29 2.66

Daily -5.48* 2.63

Students work on spelling words in

exercise books

0.74

1-2 days 6.14* 2.25

3-4 days -0.01 2.48

Daily 1.31 2.33

Students writing sentences 0.74

1-2 days -0.83 3.09

3-4 days 2.19 3.10

Daily 0.14 2.87

Results of the regression analysis presented in Table 41 show that some instructional

methods used in reading classroom are associated with higher levels of ORF scores.

Reading comprehension activities were linked with higher scores between 2-5 words per

minute. When students do group guided reading 1-2 days a week, they were able to read

an average of 5.20 more words. Also, when students work on spelling words in exercise

books 1-2 days a week, they were able to read an average of 6.14 more words.

On the other hand, several teaching methods show a negative association in students’ ORF

scores. Students who learned new letters sounds 1-4 days a week read an average of 10

fewer words while students who were taught letter sounds on a daily basis read 6.9 fewer

words. Additionally, when students practiced letter names, read or drew 1-5 days week,

60

there were lower ORF scores. Evaluating students’ oral reading skills three or more days a

week showed lower scores compared to evaluating once or twice a week. This could be

because less time was spent on actual teaching.

61

Chapter 6 - Conclusions and Next Steps

The KiEGRA study shows that students are making significant gains in literacy between

Years 1-3, but more improvement is needed for them to become fluent readers. Results

indicate that while students have good letter recognition, familiar word reading and oral

passage reading skills, they struggle with identifying letter sounds and decoding unfamiliar

words. As a result, the majority of students are unable to read fluently with comprehension.

The majority of students in Year 1 and one-third in Year 2 have zero reading

comprehension skills. In Year 3, comprehension improves where nearly half of students

could comprehend at least 60 percent of text. However, the majority of students in Years

1-3 are reading below the 80 percent comprehension benchmark. Overall, 14 percent met

the benchmark. In Year 3, about 80 percent of students did not meet the benchmark.

An analysis of the relationship between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension

scores to determine fluency ranges and percentage of students reaching the 80 percent

reading comprehension benchmark found that greater oral reading fluency is associated

with higher levels of reading comprehension. However, there is great variability in fluency

ranges that fall within the 80 percent benchmark. Scores ranged from 25 to 129 words per

minute. Most students meeting the benchmark read 40-69 correct words per minute. Only

14 percent of students across all years were able to comprehend 80 percent of what they

read.

Across all sub-tests, girls tended to perform equal to or better than boys. More females than

males met the 80 percent reading comprehension benchmark. Students in the Linnux region

performed better than other regions.

The analysis identified a number of student characteristics, instructional methods,

resources and teacher expectations that are associated with better reading outcomes.

Students who speak Kiribati at home, have literate parents, and liked to read scored an

average of 7-10 more words on the ORF sub-test. Teaching reading comprehension seemed

to have a positive influence on students’ ORF scores. Guided reading was also found to be

very important for increasing students’ fluency rates. When teachers maintained records of

students’ work, ORF scores increased by 6 words per minute. Not surprisingly the

availability of reading materials in the classroom or used in teaching instruction was

positively related to ORF scores.

Interestingly, students tended to have higher ORF scores when teachers had low

expectations for achievement of reading competencies. This could be because teachers

provided more time for practice or reviewed lower-level skills with students. Teachers with

high expectations yielded a small decrease in ORF scores. This could be because they spent

less time reviewing lessons. In this analysis teacher expectations were measured according

to whether they were higher or lower than the median expectation of teachers. In the future,

teacher expectations should be measured against curricular standards.

Remarkably, teaching letter sounds and letter names and assessment methods were

negatively related to student ORF scores. One reason could be if teachers are not closely

62

following the teacher guide. Overemphasizing decoding skills or assessment and not

utilizing results to inform instruction can hamper student performance. More research is

necessary to identify the true cause behind these results.

Based on the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are presented to

improve the quality of early grade reading instruction in Kiribati schools:

1. Set reading fluency and comprehension benchmarks to guide and support

teacher professional development to reach reading targets: Reading

benchmarks bring attention to the learning expectations both students and teachers

should be held accountable to support children in becoming readers. They serve a

useful function when they are coupled with strategies that will strengthen the

capacity of schools and teachers to help students reach them. Without benchmarks,

there is no pressure in the system to achieve learning outcomes and no fear of

failure. At the same time, simply setting standards and benchmarks without

evidence that schools and teachers are failing in their job and the support

mechanisms to improve, benchmarks will create fear and frustration among school

administrators, teachers and parents. Reading benchmarks should be established to

guide the development of basic reading skills in each of the early grades both in

terms of oral reading fluency and comprehension; and to guide the mechanisms that

are required for schools to succeed in achieving them. As a first step, stakeholders

should decide on the level of comprehension required to understand grade level text

(e.g., 60 percent, 80 percent) and then review the fluency scores that fall within that

range. Tonga, for instance, has set the reading fluency benchmark at 50 cwpm and

a reading comprehension of at least 75%. Students achieving these levels can be

considered to have learned to read well, have the basic reading skills needed to

develop their literacy skills, and have the ability to comprehend more complex text

in upper grades. If stakeholders agree with the 80 percent benchmark, then an

acceptable fluency range may be 60-64 cwpm. Given that the current mean ORF

score is 29 cwpm, that range may seem too high. Thus, policymakers may decide

to lower the benchmark to 60 percent and the fluency benchmark to 53 cwpm. Once

the benchmark is decided, the next step is to consider the targets. Currently, 14

percent of students are meeting the 80 percent reading comprehension benchmark.

How many should meet the benchmark in one year or five years? Once the targets

are set up, schools and educators should be supported to achieve these benchmarks.

The Kiribati MEYS should then conduct a national reading campaign to sensitize

all stakeholders of the new benchmarks and then monitor and report progress

towards achieving the targets at all levels (national/regional MEYS, school and

communities).

2. Conduct a follow-up study on teaching practices and assessment methods to

identify strengths and weaknesses. Although 56 percent of teachers were trained

on reading instruction in the past three years, teaching decoding skills and

assessment were associated with lower ORF scores. It is important to understand

why these interventions have an adverse relationship. It could be that teachers were

not adequately supported to master the new teaching methodologies or that training

63

is not aligned with best practices in reading instruction. Additionally, teachers may

not understand how to accurately assess students and utilize the results for

reflection and lesson planning. The analysis also showed that classrooms with

teachers who maintained a record of students’ work had higher ORF scores. A

follow-up study is recommended to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of

current assessment and teaching methods vis-à-vis the results observed in different

classrooms. It is also important to understand what types of information the teacher

records and whether it is related to tracking student progress.

3. Strengthen teacher training for reading instruction with a focus on

vocabulary, decoding skills and reading comprehension. Results indicate that

students are weak in recognizing letter sounds and unfamiliar words, and have low

reading comprehension skills. Hence, instruction in these areas should be

strengthened to increase overall reading scores. In the case of Kiribati, the large

shares of zero scores observed in various reading subtasks included in KiEGRA

suggest inadequate instructional time in the classroom due to student absenteeism,

school closures, or even inadequate use of instructional time -i.e. pedagogy or

content-- during regular school days. Additionally, training should incorporate

curriculum expectations and provide teachers with the specific methods, classroom

activities and assessment methods required to achieve results.

4. Increase the number of books in the classroom library/reading corner and the

use in teachers’ instruction. In Kiribati, 75 percent of classrooms have reading

corners, but only 1.97 books are used during classroom instruction. One possible

explanation is that there are not enough books in the classroom. The International

Reading Association (IRA) recommends that classroom libraries start with at least

seven books per child and purchase two additional new books per year. The optimal

number of books in a classroom library is 300-600, depending on the grade level

and number of copies21. The number of books teachers should expect children to

read during the school year is 100-125 picture books by the end of Year 1 and 50-

75 chapter books by the end of Year 2. There is strong evidence that reading skills

grow and develop to the extent that children get actual practice reading. This is

particularly difficult in countries with a modest literary tradition where the amount

of titles in the local language may be limited. Recent innovations in technology

now enable the production of reading materials in almost any language, provided

there are guidelines for avid writers to follow. Educators in Kiribati have experience

producing additional reading materials for children and their efforts should be

further supported to ensure beginning readers have a reasonable variety of stories

to practice and enjoy. With a corpus of reading large enough to provide sufficient

reading practice, a low-cost option is to provide e-readers in low-resource countries

where publishing may be expensive and there are high teacher-pupil ratios. E-

readers allow students and teachers to choose from a variety of genres, it is portable

so students can read from home or school, and its read aloud features provides

21 Neuman, S. (undated). The importance of the classroom library. Available at:



64

additional support for emergent readers2223. In addition to provision of an increased

number of hard and soft copy books, teachers should be trained on how to better

integrate materials into their instruction and on how to develop attractive reading

corners24.

5. Increase time-spent reading. The more time children spend reading the better and

more fluent readers they become. In order to increase students’ reading fluency

skills, teachers should ensure that students are spending sufficient time reading

every day through teacher-led, parent-led or self-guided reading activities.

Research recommends that children read between 20-40 minutes per day. The

results also showed that bringing books home on a regular basis was associated

with lower ORF scores. It is important to engage parents in reading activities to

ensure that students and parents are spending the recommended time reading at

home.

6. Address the issue of non-readers in Years 1-2. Stakeholders should conduct

classroom level assessments to identify non-readers in Years 1 and 2, diagnose the

causes, and design specific activities to address deficiencies before children

complete Year 2. Teachers in Years 1 and 2 have the greatest responsibility in

ensuring children finish the first two grades of primary education with the necessary

skills to read and understand text. In this sense, identification of struggling readers

and knowledge of ways in which they need to be supported should make the core

material of in-service training for Year 1 and Year 2 teachers. For instance, teachers

may group students according to ability and provide remedial activities and

appropriately levelled text. This “catch-up approach” is being used by UNICEF in

Zambia based J-Pal’s research in India, which demonstrated that students grouped

by ability is more effective than mixed-ability grouping. UNICEF will assess

students in all grades and group them according to reading levels (non-readers,

those who can read letter sounds, syllables, words, passages, etc.). Grouping

students by level rather than grades has produced dramatic results in India, Kenya

and Ghana. Teachers and school administrators should further determine whether

non-readers have learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia) and design relevant

interventions for special needs students.

7. Teach students how to develop reading comprehension skills in the early

grades. Given only 14 percent of students are able to comprehend 80 percent or

more of grade level text, teachers should focus on increasing reading

comprehension levels for all years. Research shows that teachers are often the ones

to ask questions orally and that students are expected to respond, but rarely are

students asked to develop their own questions as they read (think aloud) or to make

22 Adams, A. & van der Gaag, J. (2011). First Step to Literacy: Getting Books in the Hands of Children

Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/research/first-step-to-literacy-getting-books-in-the-hands-of-

children/ 23 UNESCO (2014). Reading in the mobile era: A study of mobile reading in developing countries. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002274/227436E.pdf 24 Neuman, S. (undated). The importance of the classroom library.



http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002274/227436E.pdf

65

predictions and then check their predictions. Students need to be empowered to

make meaning from text and to use an inquiry-based approach to reading. Teachers

could ask students to make predictions before, during and after reading, to retell

stories, or to identify problems within the story and provide possible solutions.

Teachers should use various strategies and frameworks to develop students’ reading

comprehension skills from as early as kindergarten or Year 125.

8. Develop activities that specifically focus on raising boys’ performance and

interest in reading. The results illustrated that boys consistently performed lower

than girls. There may be cultural or gender barriers that affect boys’ interest and

engagement in reading activities. In addition to designing strategies to address low

competencies of boys and girls, stakeholders at all levels should discuss the

potential challenges specific to boys and design strategies to improve boys’ reading

achievement. Successful strategies that have worked in other countries include

developing gender-sensitive materials that attract boys’ attention (such as sports,

science fiction, fantasy, comic books, digital text, and stories that are humorous)

and integrating reading into extracurricular activities (e.g., sports, health clubs,

student government).

25 Sample reading comprehension activities can be found in the following guides: Ontario Ministry of

Education. (2003). A Guide to Effective Instruction in Reading: Kindergarten to Grade 3 (Available at:

http://eworkshop.on.ca/edu/resources/guides/Reading_K_3_English.pdf) Institute of Education Sciences

(IES). (2010). Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten through 3rd Grade. What Works

Clearninghouse (Available at: https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Early-Learning/Third-

Grade-Reading-Guarantee/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee-Teacher-Resources/Improving-Reading-

Comprehension-in-Kindergarten-Through-3rd-Grade.pdf.aspx)

http://eworkshop.on.ca/edu/resources/guides/Reading_K_3_English.pdf




66

ANNEX 1 / TABLES

Annex 1.A: Reading skills tested

Annex 1.B: Correlations between tasks

Annex 1.C: 95 percent Confidence interval for EGRA Task

Annex 1.D: Tuvalu Regression with Reading Comprehension as Outcome

Annex 1.A: Reading Skills Tested

Test Measured Timed

Letter Name Knowledge Ability to read alphabet letters with accuracy and

fluency

Y

Letter Sound Knowledge Phonics – the ability to identify sounds of letters with

accuracy and fluency

Y

Initial Sound

Identification

Phonemic awareness – the ability to identify sounds in

spoken words

N

Familiar Word Reading Ability to read familiar words with fluency and

accuracy

Y

Nonword Reading Ability to decode linguistically sound invented words Y

Oral Passage Reading Ability to read a short passage with fluency and

accuracy

Y

Reading Comprehension Ability to respond to several comprehension questions

based on passage

N

Listening Comprehension Ability to comprehend a short story read aloud N

Dictation Alphabet knowledge, listening and writing skills N

67

Annex 1.B: Correlations between tasks

Letters Correct Per Minute

(LCPM)

Phonemic awareness

(PA)

Sounds Correct Per Minute

(SCPM)

Correct words Per Minute

(CWPM)

Correct Invented Words

Per Minute

(CIWPM)

Oral Reading Fluency

(ORF)

Reading Comprehension

(RC)

Listening Comprehension

(LC)

Dictation (D)

LCPM 1

PA 0.483** 1

SCPM 0.688** 0.407** 1

CWPM 0.527** 0.572** 0.384** 1

CIWPM 0.477** 0.573** 0.355** 0.910** 1

ORF 0.508** 0.555** 0.359** 0.943** 0.896** 1

RC 0.455** 0.519** 0.294** 0.782** 0.735** 0.819** 1

LC 0.233** 0.331** 0.144** 0.333** 0.329** 0.306** 0.354** 1

D 0.427** 0.533** 0.306** 0.656** 0.636** 0.670** 0.607** 0.249** 1

68

Annex 1.C: 95 percent Confidence interval for EGRA Task

95 percent Confidence Interval for mean at Task 1: Letter Name

Knowledge by Year and Gender

95% Confidence Interval

Lower

bound

Upper

Bound

Overall 35.2 39.3

Minus zero score students 36.7 40.6

Year 1 Overall 24.9 30.7






Girls Overall 37.6 43.1


Boys Overall 31.8 36.3


95 percent Confidence Interval for mean at Task 2: Letter Sound

Identification by Year and Gender


Lower

bound

Upper

Bound

Overall 25.2 27.8












69

95 percent Confidence Interval for mean at Task 3: Initial Sound

Recognition by Year and Gender


Lower

bound

Upper

Bound

Overall 3.1 3.5












95 percent Confidence Interval for mean at Task 4: Familiar Word

Reading by Year and Gender


Lower

bound

Upper

Bound

Overall 20.2 25.1












70

95 percent Confidence Interval for mean at Task 5: NonWord Reading by

Year and Gender


Lower

bound

Upper

Bound

Overall 11.8 15.0












95 percent Confidence Interval for mean at Task6a: Oral Passage Reading

by Year and Gender


Lower

bound

Upper

Bound

Overall 25.8 31.5












95 percent Confidence Interval for mean of number of items answered correctly at

Task6b: Reading Comprehension by Year and Gender

71


Lower

bound

Upper

Bound

Overall 1.18 1.47












95 percent Confidence Interval for mean percentage of correct answer at Task7: Listening

Comprehension by Year and Gender


Lower

bound

Upper

Bound

Overall 43.2 49.3












95 percent Confidence Interval for mean at Task8: Dictation by Year and Gender

72


Lower

bound

Upper

Bound

Overall 67.8% 73.2%

Minus zero score students 69.2% 74.3%

Year 1 Overall 45.6% 55.4%






Girls Overall 71.9% 76.5%


Boys Overall 62.7% 70.5%


Annex 1.D: Tuvalu – Regression Analysis with Reading Comprehension as Outcome

Table 42: Impact of student characteristics on Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) scores

Student Characteristics Change in

RC score (+/-

)

SE Rsqr

Student attends preschool before Year 1 0.41* 0.10 0.36

Student eats breakfast before arriving to school -0.16 0.16 0.34

Student speaks Kiribati at home 0.71* 0.12 0.34

Student has a literate mother 0.18 0.13 0.34


mother

0.25* 0.10 0.34

Student receives help with homework from father 0.13 0.08 0.34


sibling

-0.03 0.14 0.34


school

0.08 0.11 0.34


good marks

-0.05 0.08 0.34


read at home

-0.03 0.06 0.34



0.05 0.05 0.34

73



0.26* 0.12 0.34

Student reads aloud to someone at home -0.21* 0.09 0.34

Student reads to himself/herself at home 0.38* 0.09 0.35

Someone reads to student at home -0.11 0.08 0.34


home

-0.07 0.07 0.34

Student likes to read 0.51* 0.15 0.35

Table 43: Effect of teachers' characteristics on Oral Reading Fluency Score (ORF)

Teacher Characteristics Change in

RC Score (+/-

)

SE Rsqr

Has a primary teaching certificate 0.34 0.47 0.65

Has a reading corner in the classroom 0.21 0.13 0.65

Has not been absent from school in the last term 0.09 0.11 0.65

Has met with the parents of his/her students 0.10 0.12 0.65

Age of the teacher -0.01 0.01 0.66

Number of year of experience in teaching -0.01 0.01 0.65

Number of year of experience in teaching on

this island

0.001 0.01 0.65

Number of minute from home to school -0.01 0.01 0.65

Table 44: Effect of teacher expectations on oral reading fluency (ORF) scores

Teacher expectations of student

reading performance

Change in

RC score (+/-

)

SE Rsqr

Grade students should recognize and say

letter names

Year 1 - - 0.68

Year 2 0.39* 0.14

Year 3 0.05 0.17

Year 4 0.09 0.30

Grade students should understand stories

read aloud by the teacher in the classroom

Year 1 -0.15 0.14 0.66

Year 2 - -

Year 3 -0.01 0.14

Year 4 0.14 0.23

Grade students should sound out words

using phonics

Year 1 -0.09 0.13 0.67

Year 2 - -

Year 3 0.21 0.16

Year 4 0.42 0.30

Grade students should read aloud to

teacher and other students

74

Year 1 -0.19 0.19 0.66

Year 2 0.06 0.15

Year 3 -

Year 4 0.19 0.17

Grade students should understand simple

texts that they read in class

Year 1 -0.25 0.18 0.67

Year 2 0.11 0.14

Year 3 - -

Year 4 -0.07 0.19

Table 45: Effect of training and guides on student oral reading fluency (ORF) scores

Change in RC

score

SE Rsqr

Teacher have a syllabus 0.18 0.23 0.65

Teacher has a teacher guide 0.03 0.18 0.65

Teacher have receive training on how to teach

reading in the last three years

0.31* 0.11 0.66

Table 46: Effect of Classroom Environment on Student ORF Scores

Classroom Environment Change in

RC Score (+/-

)

SE Rsqr

Classroom displays 0.04 0.04 0.71

Spelling/vocabulary displayed 0.01 0.06 0.71

Song/hymns/stories displayed on blackboard 0.15 0.10 0.71

Song/hymns/stories displayed on charts/posters 0.08 0.06 0.71

Student work displayed 0.02 0.06 0.71

Print materials used in instruction 0.02 0.13 0.71


activities

0.07 0.04 0.71

Reading corner in the classroom 0.21 0.11 0.71

Student profiles (folder with student work and

student info)

0.38* 0.10 0.73

Students sitting on floor 0.10 0.11 0.71

Table 47: Effect of Reading Instructional Resources on Student ORF Scores

Language use in classroom Change in RC

Score (+/-)

SE Rsqr

Reading materials in classroom 0.03 0.01 0.73

Number of reading books used during the

lesson

0.01 0.002 0.73

75

Table 48: Effect of teacher instructional and assessment methods on student performance

Teaching instructional and assessment

methods

Change in

RC score

SE Rsqr

Teaching of Listening Comprehension 0.66

1-2 days 0.07 0.27

3-4 days 0.22 0.28

5 days 0.10 0.26

Teaching Letter Names 0.66

1-2 days 0.18 0.22

3-4 days -0.04 0.24

5 days -0.10 0.18

Asking children to orally retell a story

that they have read

0.67

1-2 days -0.04 0.15

3-4 days -0.36* 0.17*

5 days -0.23 0.19

Teaching new letter sounds 0.67

1-2 days -0.44* 0.19*

3-4 days -0.46* 0.20*

5 days -0.24 0.16

Asking children to sound out

unfamiliar words using knowledge of

letter sounds

0.67

1-2 days -0.05 0.14

3-4 days 0.30 0.19

5 days -0.18 0.17

Teaching meaning of new vocabulary

words

0.66

1-2 days -0.12 0.21

3-4 days -0.24 0.19

5 days -0.17 0.19

Shared reading 0.67

1-2 days 0.11 0.24

3-4 days 0.27 0.23

Daily 0.36 0.24

Group Guided reading 0.67

1-2 days 0.28 0.15

3-4 days 0.16 0.18

Daily -0.0001 0.20

76

Listening to a child read aloud 0.67

1-2 days 0.20 0.13

3-4 days 0.44* 0.19

Daily 0.19 0.20

Students readings on their own silently 0.66

1-2 days -0.05 0.19

3-4 days 0.09 0.24

Daily 0.04 0.14

Reading comprehension activities 0.67

1-2 days 0.36 0.19

3-4 days 0.43* 0.19

Daily 0.23 0.19

Children take books home to read with

their parents

0.66

1-2 days 0.24 0.30

3-4 days -0.36 0.46

Daily 0.07 0.38

Evaluating student’s oral reading with

running records or any other method

0.66

1-2 days 0.12 0.12

3-4 days -0.32 0.38

Daily -0.20 0.26

Teacher works on word building with

students

0.66

1-2 days 0.12 0.12

3-4 days -0.32 0.38

Daily -0.20 0.26

Students read and draw 0.66

1-2 days -0.07 0.17

3-4 days -0.01 0.18

Daily -0.16 0.16

Students work on spelling words in

exercise books

0.68

1-2 days -0.31 0.20

3-4 days -0.20 0.18

Daily -0.36* 0.18

Students writing sentences 0.67

1-2 days 0.35* 0.16

3-4 days -0.02 0.17

Daily -0.003 0.16

78

ANNEX 2 / INSTRUMENTS

Annex 2.A: EGRA Instrument

Annex 2.B: Student Questionnaire

Annex 2.C: Head Teacher Questionnaire

Annex 2.D: Teacher Questionnaire

Annex 2.E: Classroom Observation

79

Annex 2.A: EGRA Instrument

Early Grade Reading Assessment: Student Response Form Administrator Instructions and Protocol

General Instructions

It is important to establish a playful and relaxed rapport with the children to be assessed, via some

simple initial conversation among topics of interest to the child (see example below). The child should perceive the following assessment almost as a game to be enjoyed rather than a severe

situation. It is important to read ONLY the sections in boxes aloud slowly and clearly.

Mauri n te ingaabong aei. Arau bon _____________ ao I maeka i _______________, ao n na

kabwarabwaraai riki teutana nakoim. [Taekin baika ko kan kaakaraoi n aron te nakonako, kanam,

ke am man ae ko taatangiria.] Ao ngkoe ko kona ni kabwarabwarako teutana nakoiu?

1. Teraa te bwai ae ko kan kaakaraoia ngkana ko aki reirei?

[Wait for response; if student is reluctant, ask question 2, but if they seem comfortable

continue to verbal consent].

2. Baikara am takaakaro aika e maamate nanom iai?

Verbal Consent

• Bukin menau n te tabo aei bwa I mwakuri ma te Botaki n Reirei. Ti rang kan karekeaootara n aron reken te wareware iroun te teei.

• Ti rang n tangira am ibuobuoki. Ma ngkana ko aki tauraoi ao akea te kaangaanga.

• Ti nang takaakaro ngkai i aon te wareware. N na butiiko bwa ko na wareki manin te

koroboki, taeka ao te karaki ae e uareereke ni kabuuburaa bwanaam.

• N na kabongana te ‘tablet’ aei n taua maanin am wareware.

• Tiaki te ukeuke aio ae e na rootaki iai am bwi n te reirei.

• Iai naba au titiraki ibukin am utuu, n aron te taetae are kam kakabonganaa ma kaain

am utuu, ao tabeua aia bwai aika iai irouia.

• N na kaokia riki, akea te kangaanga ngkana ko aki tauraoi ni ira te bwai ae e karaoaki.

Ngkana ti waaki ao iai te titiraki ae ko aki kan kaekaa ao akea naba te kaangaanga iai.

Iai riki am titiraki? Ko tauraoi ni waaki?

Check box if verbal consent is obtained: YES

(If verbal consent is not obtained, thank the child and move on to the next child, using this same form)

A. Date of assessment G. Which years/grades are in the class?

○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6

B. Enumerator’s name H. Student’s grade

○ 1st Grade ○ 2nd Grade ○ 3rd Grade

C. Name of school I. Student’s age

○ 6 ○ 7 ○ 8 ○ 9 ○ 10 ○ 11 ○ 12+D. Island of school J. Student’s gender

○ Female ○ Male

E. Unique School code K. Class name or section

F. Child first name L. Time Started:

_____ :_____ am / pm

80

Early Grade Reading Assessment: Student Response Form MOD 1

E tikiraoi am kekeiaki! Ti a manga nakon are i mwiina.

Module 1. Letter Name Knowledge Show the child the sheet of letters in the student stimuli booklet. Say:

Noora te beeba aio, e onrake ni manin ara Taetae ni Kiribati. N na butiiko bwa ko na tuangai

ARAIA maan aika ko kona ni warekii mai ikai. Tiaki TANGIIA maan bwa ARAIA.

Aio te katootoo, aran te man aei [Point to the first example letter] bon ‘m’.

Ti na kataneiai moa. Tuangai aran te man aei. [Point to the second example letter]

[If the child responds correctly] E tikiraoi, aran te ma aei bon ‘wi.’

[If the child responds incorrectly] Aran te man aei bon ‘wi’.

Ti na kataa riki teuana. Tuangai aran te man aei. [Point to the third example letter]

[If the child responds correctly] E tikiraoi, aran te ma aei bon ‘u’

[If the child responds incorrectly] Aran te man aei bon ‘u’.

Ngkana I kaangai, ‘e nako’ ao ko a moanna naba ikai [Point to the first letter in the table] ni karokoa banen tokin te rain n te taibora [Point to the last letter in the table]. Kotei taian man

teuana i mwiin teuana ao takaarua n tuangai araia. Wareware raoi ma ni kawitiiko. Ngkana ko roko n te man ae ko aki ataia ao manga nakon te man are i mwiina. Kotea te moan man n

tabonibaim.

Ko a tauraoi? Ti nang waaki.

Start the timer when the child reads the first letter. Follow along with your pencil and clearly mark

any incorrect letters with a slash ( / ). Count self-corrections as correct. If you’ve already marked the self-corrected letter as incorrect, circle the letter and go on. Stay quiet, except when providing

answers as follows: if the child hesitates for 3 seconds, provide the name of the letter, point to the

next letter and say “Please go on.” Mark the letter you provide to the child as incorrect. If the student gives you the letter sound, rather than the name, provide the letter name and say: [“Please

tell me the NAME of the letter”]. This prompt may be given only once during the exercise.

AFTER 60 SECONDS SAY, “stop.” Mark the final letter read with a bracket ( ] ).

Early stop rule: If the child does not give a single correct response on the first line, say “Thank you!”, discontinue this exercise, check the box at the bottom, and go on to the next exercise.

Example: m w U

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O k A I e n w U R b (10)

M T ng K a Ng i E B r (20)

t W N u O m T b e w (30)

k U R n M I o ng A E (40)

W m O t u Ng i N B a (50)

r K o w M T k e ng I (60)

U A R n b O E t a u (70)

Ng B K r N W i m B T (80)

m A I o ng E w n E u (90)

K t a k a r i A N i (100)

Time remaining on stopwatch at completion (number of SECONDS) :

Tick this box if the exercise was discontinued because the child had no correct answers in the first line.

84



Module 5. Invented Word Decoding

Show the child the sheet of invented words in the student stimuli booklet. Say:

Aikai tabeua taeka aika a karioaki n te Taetae ni Kiribati. Taiaoka ni wareki ake ko kona ni

wareki. Ko na AKI TIBEERINGIIA te taeka ma ko na WAREKIA. Te katootoo, aio te taeka ae e karioaki [point to the first example word] “tangu”.

Ti a karaoa moa te katootoo. Taiaoka ma wareka te taeka ae e karioaki aei. [Point to the second

example word]

[If the child responds correctly] E tikiraoi, te taeka ae karioaki aio bon “nire”.

[If the child does not respond correctly] Te taeka ae karioaki aio bon “nire”.

Ti a noora riki aio. Taiaoka ma wareka te kariotaeka aio. [Point to the third example word]

[If the child responds correctly] E tikiraoi, te taeka ae karioaki aio bon “keim”.

[If the child does not respond correctly] Te taeka ae karioaki aio bon “keim”.

Ngkana I kaangai, ‘e nako’ ao ko a moanna naba mai ikai [point to the first word] ao ko a

warekia nako naba [point to the last word]. Kotekotei taian taeka aikai ao ko warekii n takaarua.

Warekia raoi ni kawiitiiko are ko kona ni warekia. Ngkana arona bwa ko roko n te taeka ae ko aki ataia, ao wareka are i mwiina. Katokaa tabonibaim n te moan taeka.


Start the timer when the child reads the first word. Follow along with your pencil and clearly mark any incorrect words with a slash ( / ). Count self-corrections as correct. If you’ve already marked the

self-corrected word as incorrect, circle the word and go on. Stay quiet, except when providing answers as follows: if the child hesitates for 3 seconds, provide the word, point to the next word and

say “Please go on.” Mark the word you provide to the child as incorrect.

AFTER 60 SECONDS SAY, “stop.” Mark the final word read with a bracket ( ] ).

Early stop rule: If the child does not give a single correct response on the first line, say “Thank you!”, discontinue this exercise, check the box at the bottom, and go on to the next exercise.

Example: tangu nire keim

Time remaining on stopwatch at completion (number of SECONDS not used) :

Tick this box if the exercise was discontinued because the child had no correct answers in the first line.

1 2 3 4 5

toru ei ako kira imi (5)

naku tam om kin noro (10)

oroai urom eie araaka otamo (15)

nam miao ongu auri erero (20)

konka eoneke ngita bengam oie (25)

kei amaro bwarim noa mibu (30)

iobo ngoba koai onge mwei (35)

kari engai omwei tomo aema (40)

muou wima aria binanai natarei (45)

nomo mwaua kunati arong karaarito (50)

85

Early Grade Reading Assessment: Student Response Form MOD 6-7


Module 6. Oral Passage Reading

Show the child the story in the student stimuli booklet. Say:

Ko na wareka te karaki ae e uareereke aei nakoiu ni kabuubura bwanaam ma ni kawiitiitiiko. I mwiin am wareware ao N na titirakiniko

tabeua titiraki. Ngkana I kaangai, ‘E nako’ ao ko a wareka naba te

karaki anne. Ngkana ko kaaitibo ma te taeka ae ko aki ataia, ao nakon are i mwiina. Katokaa tabonibaim n te moan taeka.


Start the timer when the child reads the first word. Follow along with your pencil and clearly mark any incorrect words with a slash (/). Count self-

corrections as correct. Stay quiet, unless the child hesitates for 3 seconds, in which case provide the word, point to the next word and say “Please go on.”

Mark the word you provide to the child as incorrect.

AFTER 60 SECONDS SAY, “stop.” Mark the final word read with a bracket ( ] ).

Module 7. Oral Passage Comprehension

When 60 seconds are up or if the child finishes reading the passage in less

than 60 seconds, REMOVE the passage from in front of the child, and ask the first question below.

Give the child at most 15 seconds to answer the question, mark the child’s

response, and move to the next question.

Read the questions for each line up to the bracket showing where the child

stopped reading

Time remaining on stopwatch at completion (number of SECONDS) :

Check this box if the exercise was discontinued because the child had

no correct answers in the first line.

Early stop rule: If the child does not give a single correct response on the first line, say “Thank you!”, discontinue this exercise, check the box at the

bottom, and go on to the next exercise.

Ngkai N nang titirakiniko tabeua titiraki ibukin te karaki are ko a tia ni warekia.

Kataia kaekai titiraki aikai nakon am kabanea ni konaa. Ko kona ni kaekai titiraki aikai n am taetae are ko bon tangiria.

Correct Incorrect No Response

NtebongteuanaaoaiangoateakawaToomamatamana. (12) AntaiaeenakonakawamaTooma?

[Tamana; an papa; papana; daddy; ana karo]

Akabwakaawaaia,akatokaiaiabwainakawa (21) AkatikuiiaaaiabwainakawaToomamatamana?

[I aon te waa / i nanon te waa]

aoabweenako.InanonaiatainakawaaoeatekekonanToomateatiaeebuubura. (40)

TerakonanToomateikaaeeteke?

[Te ati ae e buubura / Te ati]

Erootiatekukurei (44) TeraananamakinToomangkeetekekonana?

[E kukurei]

aoekabaitiankatikia.Ekarinanmotianaao,aoeabirinakokonana. (60)

EkanganibwakakonanTooma?

[E moti ana ao.]

86


Module 8. Listening Comprehension

This is NOT a timed exercise and THERE IS NO STUDENT SHEET. Read the following passage

aloud to the child ONLY ONE TIME, slowly (about 1 word per second). Then allow 15 seconds for each question. Say:

N na wareka te karaki ae e uarereke aei nakoim ao I a manga titirakiniko tabeua titiraki. Taiaoka kakaauongo raoi ao ni kaekai titiraki ake ko kona ni

kaekai. Ko kona ni kaekai titiraki n am taetae are ko bon tangiria.

Ko a tauraoi? Ao ti a waaki.

NtebongteuanaaoanakonkaukiangAnnamatamananteatimwakoro.Anoorimannikibaaikaamwaitiiaontenaanmwaanganikai.EtamwarakeatearokaAnnabwaenaraweaanamanmaeakirekebwaekibanako.Etakutamana,“Anna,ebontaburorokoraweaiamaan.”EkukureiAnnabwaatiankamanoiamannikiba.

Antai ae e nako ni kaukiang ma

tamana? [Anna] ○

Correct

○ Incorrect

○ No

Response

A tiku iaa tenaan mannikiba? [I aon mwaangan kaai] ○ Correct

○ Incorrect

○ No

Response

Bukin tera e tamwarakea te aroka

Anna? [E na rawea ana mannikiba] ○

Correct

○ Incorrect

○ No

Response

Tera tuangakin Anna iroun tamana ibukiia mannikiba?

[E taburoroko ke e tabuaki raweakiia mannikiba.] ○

Correct

○ Incorrect

○ No

Response

Bukin tera ngkai e kukurei Anna? [Ibukina bwa e a tia ngaia ma tamana ni kawakiniia

ma ni kamanoia mannikiba.] ○ Correct

○ Incorrect

○ No

Response

87


Module 9. Dictation

Turn this student response form to the last, lined page for writing, and place it in front of the student.

Take the student stimulus sheet and turn to the last page, where you will find the same instructions as below. Say:

Kakaauongo raoi bwa N na wareka te kibuntaeka aei nakoim. N na warekia

teniua te tai. N na warekia moa teuana te tai. I mwiina N na manga warekia

riki te kauoua n tai ni kamwakorokoroa, teutana i mwiin teutana ao ko na kaewea are ko ongo. N na manga warekia te kateniua n tai bwa ko aonga n

noora mwiin are ko kaewea.

Ko oota n te bwai ae ko na karaoia?

The student will write the dictation sentence on the lined page of the response form. Read the

following sentence aloud ONCE at about 1 word per second.

A toka n te ka ataei bwa a na nako n te marae ni wanikiba.

Then give the child a pencil, and repeat a SECOND time, grouping the words. Wait 10 seconds after each group, allowing the student to write.

A toka - n te ka ataei - bwa a na nako - n te marae ni wanikiba (biriari)

Then repeat the sentence a THIRD time while the child is writing.

A toka n te ka ataei bwa a na nako n te marae ni wanikiba.

Give the child some time (up to around 15 seconds) to complete writing after the third reading.

88

Annex 2.B: Student Questionnaire

1

KiribatiStudentQuestionnaireTaiaoka!Kaekaititirakiaikainakonamkabaneantamaroa

Taioakamaroromateataeintearoaeenatamaroaaoniraorao.Taiaokakamronronaterekeare

enaanganikoteataeiaomanakianganiiaterekenaronakanaaotiiaontebeebanreke.

Uringatauamwiinanareketeteeiareeanganiko.

1 Whatgradewereyouinlastyear?Kokorakiirauanteririkiaeenako?

Didnotattendschool………………………. 0Year1……………………………………………… 1

Year2……………………………………………… 2Year3……………………………………………… 3Pre-school……………………………………………7Donotknow/Noresponse……………… 88

2 Didyougotoapre-school(center-based)?Koreireinaiareireiataeiimwaainrinimntemoanrinan?

No…………………………………………………….. 0Yes……………………………………………………. 1Donotknow/Noresponse………………. 88

3 Didyoueatanyfoodbeforeyouarrivedatschooltoday?Koaamarakeimwaainmanangamnakontereirei?

No……………………………………………………. 0Yes……………………………………………………. 1Donotknow/Noresponse……………….88

5 Whatlanguage(s)doyouspeakathome?Teratetaetaeaekamkabonganaanimwengami?Tickallresponsesgiven.

TuvaluanEnglishKiribati

FijianChineseOther

6 Whatlanguage(s)doesyourteacherspeakintheclassroom?Teratetaetaeaekabonganaaamtiareireinteumwanreirei?

Tickallresponsesgiven.

TuvaluanEnglishKiribati

FijianOther

7 Whatdoestheteachersayordowhensomeoneanswersaquestioncorrectlyinclass?

Teratetaeka/bwaiaekaraoiatetiareireingkanaeetianakaekateataei?Tickallresponsesgiven.

NeutralresponseTeachersaysordoesnothing……………. 0

PositiveresponsePraisestudents(goodjob/welldone)....1Teacheraskstheclasstoclap……………. 2Teacherishappy………………………………. 3Teachersmiles………………………………….. 4Other……………………………………………………7

Don’tknow/Noresponse………………… 88

8 Whatdoestheteachersayordowhensomeoneanswersaquestionincorrectlyinclass?

Teratetaeka/bwaiaekaraoiatetiareireingkanaebureanakaekateataei?Tickallresponsesgiven.

PositiveresponseTeachersaysgoodeffort/goodtry.………1

Teachercorrectsstudent.………………………2Explainsquestionagain/saystryagain….3NeutralresponseTeachersaysordoesnothing……………. 4Asksanotherstudent/saysgositdown..5

NegativeresponseTeacherhitsthestudent……………………. 6Teacherinsultsoryellsatstudent……… 7Teachersaysno……………………………………..8Punishesstudentinsomeotherway…. 9

Don’tknow/Noresponse………………… 88

89

2

9 Doesanyoneknowhowtoreadatyourhome?

Iaiaekoataiaaerabakauniwarewarenimwengam?

No.…………………………………………………… 0

Yes.……………………………………………………. 1Donotknow/Noresponse.…………….. 88

10 [Ifyestoquestion9]Whoisthat?

Ngkanaiaiaoantai?Tickallresponsesgiven.

Mother……………………………………………… 1

Father……………………………………………….. 2Sister…………………………………………………. 3Brother……………………………………………… 3Anyotherperson………………………………. 4Identifythatperson:_______________

Donotknow/Noresponse……………….88

11 Doestheteachergiveyouhomework?Iaiambwainreireiaeanganganikoamtiareireibwa

konakaraoianimwengam?

No…………………………………………………….. 0Yes……………………………………………………. 1


12 Doesanyonehelpyoudoyourhomework?Iaiaeebuobuokikonkaraoiambwainreireini

mwengam?

No…………………………………………………….. 0Yes.…………………………………………………… 1


13 [Ifyesto12,thenask:Whoisthat?Ngkanaengaoantai?Tickallresponsesgiven.

Mother……………………………………………… 1Father…………………………………………………2Sister…………………………………………………. 3

Brother………………………………………………..3Anyotherperson?Identifythatperson:_________________Donotknow/Noresponse.……………… 88

14 Whenyoucomehomefromschool,doessomeoneinthehomeaskaboutwhatyoudidatschool?Ngkanakookimantereirei,iaikaainmwengamaetitirakinikobwateraaekokaraoiantereirei?

No……………………………………………………. 0Yes.………………………………………………….. 1Donotknow/Noresponse.………………88

15 Whenyougetagoodmarkinschool,doyoutellsomeoneathome?Ngkanaetamaroaambwaintereirei,iaikaain

mwengamaekotuangnga?

No…………………………………………………….. 0Yes…………………….…..…………………………….1

16 Ifyesto#15,thenask:Whatdotheydo?

Ngkanaiai,aoteraaeakaraoia?

Theydonothing…..……………………………….1Theycongratulateorencourageme……..1

Theygivemeatreat……………………………1Other…….……………………………………………1Don’tknow/Noresponse.…………………88

17 Doyouhavetimetoreadbooksonyourowninyourclassroom?ErerekeamtainiwarewareIboniroumnamumwanreirei?

No……………………………………………………… 0Yes.…………………………………………………… 1Donotknow/Noresponse……………… 88

18 Doyouhaveaschoollibraryhere?.Pointitoutforme.Okay,Good.Iaiamitabontangoboki“library”ikai?Koteianakou.Etamaroa.

No….………………………………………………… 0Yes.…………………………………………………. 1Donotknow/Noresponse..……………. 88

19 Doyouhavetimetoreadbooksinyourschoollibrary?Ererekeamtainwarewarenanatabontangobokitereirei?

No..…………………………………………………… 0Yes..……………………………………………………1Donotknow/Noresponse.……………… 88

20 Doyoutakebookshomefromschooltoread?Kououotiirikaakibookimantereireiniwarewareiainimwengam?

No.……………………………………………………. 0Yes.…………………………………………………… 1Donotknow/Noresponse………………..88

90

3

21 Arethereotherbooks,newspapersorotherthingsto

readatyourhouse?Iairikibooki,bebanikaongorakebwaairikitabeuaakekokonanwarekiinamauti?

No……………………………………………………….0

Yes………………………………………………………1Donotknow/Noresponse…………………88

22 [Ifyesto#21,thenask:Whatlanguageisusedinthesebooks?Baikarataetaeaikaakabonganaakinibookiaikanne?

Kiribati…………………………………………………1English..……………………………………………….2Anyotherlanguage.……………………………3List:______________________________Donotknow/Noresponse……………… 88

23 Doyoureadaloudtosomeoneathome?Kowawarewarentakaruanakontemannanimwengam?

Yes………………………………………………….. 1No…………………………………………………… 0

24 Howoften?SometimesoreverydayIrauatetai?NTabetaikenikatoabong

Sometimes……………………………………….. 1Everyday…………………………………………… 2Don’tknow/Refuse……..…………………….88

25 Doyoureadjustbyyourselfandtoyourselfathome?KowawarewareIboniroumkebonnakoimnimwengam?

Yes………………………………………………….. 1No…………………………………………………… 0

26 Howoften?SometimesoreverydayIrauatetai?Ntabetaikenikatoabong

Sometimes.……………………………………….. 1Everyday…………………………………………… 2Don’tknow/Refuse…..……………………. 88

27 Doessomeonereadtoyouathome?Iaiaewawarewarenakoimnimwengam?

Yes………………………………………………….. 1No…………………………………………………… 0

28 Howoften?Sometimesoreveryday?Irauatetai?Ntabetaikenikatoabong?

Sometimes.……………………………………….. 1Everyday…………………………………………… 2Don’tknow/Refuse.…..…………………….88

29 Doyouhaveaccesstoacomputerormobiledevice?Iaiamtarebooon,kombintaketabletnmwengam?

Yes………………………………………………….. 1No…………………………………………………… 0

30 Ifyesto#29,thenask:Doyoureadonit?Kokabongananiwarewareiai?

Yes………………………………………………….. 1No…………………………………………………… 0

30b Ifyesto#was,thenask:HowoftenIrauatetai?

Sometimes.……………………………………….. 1Everyday…………………………………………… 2Don’tknow/Refuse.…..…………………….88

31 Doyoulikereading?Kotatangiratewareware?

No…………………………………………………….. 0Yes……………………………………………………. 1Donotknow/Noresponse………………. 88

Thankyouverymuchfortalkingwithme!

Kobwatinrabwaibukintemaroroo!

91

Annex 2.C: Head Teacher Questionnaire

Kiribati Ministry of Education

Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) Head Teacher Questionnaire

The Ministry of Education of Kiribati is conducting a study to better understand how children learn to read. We would like to ask you some questions about your school.

• The information obtained in this questionnaire will be used by the Ministry of Education to

help identify areas where additional support may be needed.

• The name of your school, the grade level and class you teach will be recorded, but only so

that we can correctly link school, class and student data in order to analyze relationships between children’s learning and the characteristics of the schools in which they learn. Your

school’s name will not be used in any report or presentation.

• I will read you the consent statement below and mark ‘X’ in the “Yes” box if you agree.

Please respond to the questions I ask you as completely and accurately as you can. It

should not take you more than 30 minutes for us to complete this questionnaire.

• You do not have to complete the questionnaire if you do not want to.

CONSENT STATEMENT: I understand and agree to participate in this reading study by

filling out this questionnaire with you as completely and accurately as possible.

YES

SECTION 1: YOUR SCHOOL FACILITY AND THE COMMUNITY

We would like your views on your school facility and the community’s role in your school.

Name of Island

Name of School

Age Years____________

Gender

Male…………………………………………......... 1

Female………………………………………........ 2

1

What is your highest level of

qualification?

None …………………………………………....... 0

JSC (Junior Secondary Certificate) (Form 3)... 11

KNC (Kiribati National Certificate) (Form 5). .. 12

KSSC (Kiribati Senior Secondary Certificate) . 13

(PSSC or Form 6)…………..………….…......... 2

SPFSC (South Pacific Form Seven Certificate) 4

USP Foundation (equivalent to Form 7)............. 1

FSLC (Fiji School Leaving Certificate)…............ 3

Certificate in Primary Teaching (KTC) .............. 5

92

Diploma in Primary Education (KTC)................. 6

Diploma in Primary Education Upgrading (KTC) 7

Bachelor’s degree in Education (primary)......... 8

Bachelor’s degree in Education (secondary)... 14

Master’s degree in Education….…..…............. 9

2.b Other (specify) ..……………………………. 10

2 What is your role? HT……………………….…………………......…… 1

Teacher ……………………….…………….......… 2

Other ……………………….……………….....…… 0

3 [IF HT]How many years have you

been a head teacher?

Years_______________

4 IF HT]How many years were you a

teacher before becoming a head

teacher? Years _______________

5 Is there a school committee at this

school made up of parents and

teachers?

No…………………………………………...........…. 0

Yes………………………………………….............. 1

Don’t know……………………………….........…… 2

6

How often did the school committee

meet in the past year?

Skip if #5= No or Don't know

Once a week………………………………....…….. 1

Once a month……………………………...………. 2

Once a term……………………………………....… 3

Once a year……………………………………...…. 4

Other……………………………………………...…. 5

Don’t know……………………………………....….. 6

6c Is there a school improvement plan

committee at this school made up of

parents and teachers?

No………………………………………….........…. 0

Yes……………………………………….........…... 1

Don’t know…………………………………..…….. 2

6d

How often did the school

improvement plan committee meet

in the past year?

Once a week………………………………...…….. 1

Once a month………………………………...……. 2

Once a term……………………………….…..…… 3

Once a year…………………………………..……. 4

Other………………………………………..………. 5

Don’t know…………………………………..…...… 6

7 Is there a kauntira member on the

school committees?

Skip if #5= No or Don't know

No………………………………………........……. 0

Yes………………………………………........…... 1

8 Is there a clean, safe water supply

available on the school premises?

No…………,,,,,………………………….……..…. 0

Yes…………..…………………………………..... 1

Sometimes………………………………….…….. 2

93

9

Does the school have electricity?

No…………,,,,,…………………………..….…..…. 0

Yes…………..……………………………..…..…... 1

Sometimes…………………………………...….… 2

10

Does the school have girls’ and

boys’ toilets?

No…………,,,,,…………………………..…….…... 0

Yes, separate toilets……………………..….…….. 1

Yes to toilet, but same toilet for girls and boys.… 2

11-

15

How many times during the last term

did a parent or member of the

community come to your school to

do any one of the following things.

[Please read each type of activity

and indicate the response of the

teacher.]

11. Parent or community member checking on

student attendance

Once a week………………………………..…….. 1

Once a month……………………………….……. 2

Once a term………………………………….…… 3

Once a year………………………………………. 4

Never………………………………………..…….. 5

Other………………………………………………. 6

12 Parent or community member visiting you to

resolve problems

Once a week………………………………..…….. 1

Once a month……………………………….……. 2

Once a term………………………………….…… 3

Once a year………………………………………. 4

Never………………………………………..…….. 5

Other………………………………………………. 6

13 Parent or community member helping you at the

school

Once a week………………………………..…….. 1

Once a month……………………………….……. 2

Once a term………………………………….…… 3

Once a year………………………………………. 4

Never………………………………………..…….. 5

Other………………………………………………. 6

14 Parent or community member being guest

speaker at your school

Once a week………………………………..…….. 1

Once a month……………………………….……. 2

Once a term………………………………….…… 3

Once a year………………………………………. 4

Never………………………………………..…….. 5

Other………………………………………………. 6

15 Parent or community helps clean up the school or

the school grounds……………………..

94

Once a week………………………………..…….. 1

Once a month……………………………….……. 2

Once a term………………………………….…… 3

Once a year………………………………………. 4

Never………………………………………..…….. 5

Other………………………………………………. 6

16 Did a parent or member of the

community come to your school to

do for any other reason?

No………………………………………….........……. 0

Yes…………………………………………............... 1

Don’t know/No response……………….....……. 99

16b if yes, specify

17

Which description is most

appropriate for your school?

Semi-permanent (concrete walls, thatch roof OR

iron roof, coconut walls)………………………… 1

Made from all local materials (coconut walls,

thatch roof)………………………………………. 2

Permanent (concrete walls, iron roof – all

imported materials)……………………………… 3

18-

19

How many teaching days

(instructional days in which teachers

were face to face with the students)

were there in the last term?

Please refer to the school calendar to

answer this question.

______ days in the last term

______ teaching days that actually occurred last

term (eliminate days such as sports, cultural, MAD,

exams, weather, and other days that were not

instructional days in which you were face to face with

students)

20 What are the most common reasons

for school to be closed (apart from

school holidays already announced

on the school calendar)? (Multiple

responses possible.)

Weather (cyclone, rain, tsunami, etc.)……........... 1

Official holidays………………………….......…..... 2

Village celebrations…………………….......…...... 3

Sports and cultural events……………............…. 4

No electricity/power outage……………...........… 5

No water…………………………………..........…. 6

Fire………………………………………...........…. 7

Other………………………………….....…......….. 8

School doesn’t close……………….....……...….. 9

95

Annex 2.D: Teacher Questionnaire

96

2

1e

What is your marital status?

Married……………………………………........… 1

Divorced……………………………………......... 2

Single (never married)…………………….......... 3

Widow/widower……………………………......... 4

2

What is your highest level of qualification?

None …………………………………………....... 0

JSC (Junior Secondary Certificate) (Form 3)... 11

KNC (Kiribati National Certificate) (Form 5). .. 12

KSSC (Kiribati Senior Secondary Certificate) . 13

(PSSC or Form 6)…………..………….…......... 2

SPFSC (South Pacific Form Seven Certificate) 4

USP Foundation (equivalent to Form 7)............. 1

FSLC (Fiji School Leaving Certificate)…............ 3

Certificate in Primary Teaching (KTC) .............. 5

Diploma in Primary Education (KTC)................. 6

Diploma in Primary Education Upgrading (KTC) 7

Bachelor’s degree in Education (primary)......... 8

Bachelor’s degree in Education (secondary)... 14

Master’s degree in Education….…..…............. 9

2.b Other (specify) ..……………………………. 10

How many years have you been

teaching?

Years_______________

4 How many years have you been teaching on this island? Years _______________

5 Normally, how long does it take

you to get from your home to

your school?

Record response:

(Answer in minutes - 0 to 120 minutes)

6 Does your school provide you

with housing?

No……………………………………………........ 0

Yes………………………………………….......... 1

7

Who provides your transport to

school?

Your school………………………………............ 1

The ministry of education of Kiribati…..........…. 2

Island council (kauntira)…………………........... 3

You pay transport for yourself……………......... 4

You walk or bike to school…………………........ 5

SECTION 2: LIBRARY, READING CORNERS AND RESOURCES

8 Does your school have a library that students can use?

No…………………………………………….….... 0

Yes…………………………………………....…... 1

8b Is the library accessible to

students?

No……………………………………………….…. 0

Yes…………………………………………….…... 1

8c If yes How often do you use the school library with your

students?

Every day……………………………………….… 1

Two or three times a week………………….…... 2

Once a week………………………………….….. 3

Less than once a week……………………….…. 4

97

3

Never…….…………………………………..……. 5

9 If yes, do you supervise your

students when they use the

library? Skip if #8 or #8a = No

No…………………………………………….……. 0

Yes…………………………………………...……. 1

Don’t know/No response………………………. 99

10 Do you have a reading corner

(or classroom library) in your

classroom?

No……………………………………….……….….0

Yes…………………………………………...……. 1

11

If yes, how often do your

students use the reading

corner? Skip if #10 = No

Every day…………………………………………. 1

Two or three times a week………………...……. 2

Once a week………………………………..……. 3

Less than once a week…………………........…. 4

Never…………………………………….......…… 5

12 What kind of reading books and

classroom reading resources in Kiribati language for students

do you have at your school (Can

be in a box or in use in the

classroom) [Tick ALL that apply]

(You can provide list of titles under each category to assessors).

Instructional readers……………..…………........ 1

Big Books ………………………….………......... 2

Posters/Charts with poems…………..……....... 3

Posters/Charts with songs…………………....... 4

Posters/Charts with phonics………………........ 5

A5 Letter Cards………………………….........… 6

Small cards – phonics cards for word building (sets of 3)……………………....................…..… 7

12b Others (specify) ……………………………. 8

How often do you use the following books and resources in Kiribati reading lessons?

Book or resource type Never Every 2 weeks

1 or 2 days a week

3 or 4 days a

week

Daily

13 Instructional readers 1 2 3 4 5

14 Big Books 1 2 3 4 5

15 Posters/Charts with poems 1 2 3 4 5

16 Posters/Charts with songs 1 2 3 4 5

17 Posters/Charts with phonics 1 2 3 4 5

18 A5 Letter Cards 1 2 3 4 5

19 Small cards – phonics cards

for word building (sets of 3)

1 2 3 4 5

19c

Use blackboard for reading lessons

1 2 3 4 5

20 Others (specify) 1 2 3 4 5

Comments:

98

4

SECTION 3: TEACHING AND LEARNING

I will ask you some questions about the activities you did with your students over the last five

days of school. Please tell me if you did each activity daily, 3 or 4 days a week, 1 or 2 days

a week, not in the past 5 days, but you do it sometimes, or never

Activity Never Not in the last 5

days, but sometimes

1 or 2

days a week

3 or 4

days a week

Daily

21 Listening comprehension (children listen to a story and answer questions)

1 2 3 4 5

22 Children practice letter names 1 2 3 4 5

23 Children orally retell a story that they have read

1 2 3 4 5

24 Children practice letter sounds 1 2 3 4 5

25 Children sound out unfamiliar words using knowledge of

letter sounds

1 2 3 4 5

26 Children learn meanings of new words/vocabulary

1 2 3 4 5

27 Shared reading (read as a whole class with the teacher)

1 2 3 4 5

28 Group guided reading (teacher listens to children read in small

groups)

1 2 3 4 5

29 Listening to a child read aloud

to you one on one

1 2 3 4 5

30 Students reading on their own

silently

1 2 3 4 5

31 Reading comprehension

activities (orally or in writing)

1 2 3 4 5

32 Children take books home to

read with their parents

1 2 3 4 5

33 Evaluating students’ oral

reading with running records or any other method

1 2 3 4 5

33c Teacher works on Word

building with students

1 2 3 4 5

33d Students do Read and draw 1 2 3 4 5

33e Students working on spelling

words in exercise books

1 2 3 4 5

33f Students writing sentences 1 2 3 4 5

34 Other activities (please describe):

1 2 3 4 5

99

5

SECTION 4: READING IN THE CURRICULUM

Listed below are five important early reading skills that students must learn. For each

reading skill, circle the class level when you think students are able to:

Reading skill Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Not

important

35 Recognize and say letter

names

1 2 3 4 5 0

36 Understand stories read aloud by the teacher in

the classroom

1 2 3 4 5 0

37 Sound out words using

phonics

1 2 3 4 5 0

38 Read aloud to teacher

and other students

1 2 3 4 5 0

39 Understand simple texts

that they read in class

1 2 3 4 5 0

Comments:

SECTION 5: IN-SERVICE TRAINING AND TEACHER SUPPORT MATERIALS

We would like your views on teacher support for reading.

40

Do you have a Year 1 and 2 syllabus

for Kiribati?

No………………………………………… 0

Yes, paper copy……………….…..….….. 1

Yes, copy on computer…………………… 2

Don’t know/no response…………….…… 3

40b If yes to Question 40, how useful do you find the syllabus?

Not very useful…………………………….. 1

Quite useful……………………………… 2

Very useful………………………………… 3

41 Do you have a Year 3 and 4 syllabus

for Kiribati?

No………………………………………….. 0 Yes, paper copy………………….……..... 1

Yes, copy on computer…………………... 2

Don’t know/no response……………….... 3

41b If yes to Question 41, how useful do you find the syllabus?

Not very useful……………………………. 1

Quite useful……………………………….. 2

Very useful………………………………… 3

42 Which Teacher Guides for Kiribati

Year 1, 2, or 3 do you have? (Tick all that apply).

None…………………………………......… 0 Year 1 Term 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 ......................... 1

Year 2 Term 1 - 2 - 3 - 4.......................... 2

Year 3/4 : Te- Kiribati……………............. 3

42b If yes to Question 42, how useful do

you find the teacher guides?

Not very useful……………………………. 1 Quite useful……………………………...... 2

Very useful………………………………… 3

44 Have you received any training on

how to teach reading in the last three

years?

No…………………………………………... 0

Yes………………………………………..... 1

45- If yes to Question 44, indicate the Name of training__________

100

6

46 name of the training and how many

hours of reading training you have received in total (approximately).

Total hours__________

47 If yes to Question 44, what was the most useful aspect of this training?

__________________________

SECTION 5: PARENTS AND THE COMMUNITY

We would like your views on the community’s role in your school.

48-

54

How many

times

during the last term

did a parent

or member of the

community

come to your class

to do any

one of the

following things.

[Please

read each type of

activity and

indicate the

response of the

teacher.]

48 Have a parent-teacher meeting with you

Once a week……………………………...................….……….. 1 Once a month………………………………….......................…. 2

Once a term………………………………...................….……… 3

Once a year………………………………...................….………. 4

Never…………………………………...................….……..…….. 5 Other……………………………………...................….…………. 6

49 Parent or community member checking on student attendance…….

Once a week……………………………...................….……….. 1

Once a month………………………………….......................…. 2

Once a term………………………………...................….……… 3 Once a year………………………………...................….………. 4

Never…………………………………...................….……..…….. 5

Other……………………………………...................….…………. 6

50 Parent or community member visiting classroom to resolve

problem Once a week……………………………...................….……….. 1

Once a month………………………………….......................…. 2

Once a term………………………………...................….……… 3

Once a year………………………………...................….………. 4 Never…………………………………...................….……..…….. 5

Other……………………………………...................….…………. 6

51 Parent or community member helping you in the classroom

Once a week……………………………...................….……….. 1

Once a month………………………………….......................…. 2

Once a term………………………………...................….……… 3 Once a year………………………………...................….………. 4

Never…………………………………...................….……..…….. 5

Other……………………………………...................….…………. 6

52 Parent or community member being guest speaker in your class

Once a week……………………………...................….……….. 1 Once a month………………………………….......................…. 2

Once a term………………………………...................….……… 3

Once a year………………………………...................….………. 4

Never…………………………………...................….……..…….. 5 Other……………………………………...................….…………. 6

101

7

53 Parent or community helps clean up the school or the school

grounds Once a week……………………………...................….……….. 1

Once a month………………………………….......................…. 2

Once a term………………………………...................….……… 3

Once a year………………………………...................….………. 4 Never…………………………………...................….……..…….. 5

Other……………………………………...................….…………. 6

54 Did a parent or member

of the

community come to

your school

to do for any other

reason?

No…………………………………………….….................……. 0 Yes……………………………………………....................……. 1

Don’t know/No response……………………...................……. 99

54b if yes,

specify

SECTION 5: TEACHER AND STUDENT ATTENDANCE

55 How many days were you absent

from school in the last term?

None……………………………………...... 1

1-5 days……………………………………. 2 6-10 days………………………………..… 3

Over 11 days……………………………… 4

Don’t remember…………………………... 5

56

What are the most common reasons

for you to be absent from school?

(Apart from official holidays)

Weather (cyclone, rain, tsunami, etc.)…. 1 You are sick ……………………………… 2

Caring for a sick relative………………… 3

Family functions (Funeral, Wedding, Birthdays)………………………………..... 4

Travel……………………………………… 5

Personal business………………………... 6

Other (specify)………….…………………. 7

56b If other, please specify

57-

60

Go to the attendance register for the

5th week of the term.

Record the average number of boys

and average number of girls who attended school on week 5 and record

the total number of boys and total

number of girls enrolled.

__________total # of boys enrolled in the class

_________average # of boys who attended in Week 5

__________total # of girls enrolled in the

class

__________average # of girls who attended

in Week 5

102

8

61 What are the most common reasons

for students to miss school? [Tick ALL that apply]

Weather (cyclone, rain, tsunami, etc.)… 1

Student sickness………………………… 2

Caring for siblings………………………. 3

Family problems………………………… 4

Family finances…………………………. 5

Family function (Funeral, Wedding, Birthdays)………………………………..… 6

Travel…………………………………..….. 7

No clean uniform……………………..…… 8

No lunch…………………………………... 9

No money for school materials………… 10

Internet addiction (went to Internet

café)……………………………………..... 11

Student didn’t want to go……………..… 12

Parent didn’t care………………..………. 13

Student scared of the teacher………..… 14

Haven’t done their homework………....… 15

Bullying……………………………………. 16

No transport/nobody brings them to

school……………………………………. 17

Other……………………………………... 18

62 Is there any other comment or

information you would like to

provide me?

________________________________

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this questionnaire with me!

103

Annex 2.E: Classroom Observation

1

Kiribati Early Grade Reading Assessment Classroom Observation

A. Date of observation:

B. District North - Central - South - Tarawa South - Linnux

C. Island

D. School name

E. School Code:

F. Observer Name

G. Year observed: If combined classes, indicate which classes have been combined

o 1 =

o 2 =

o 3 =

o 4 =

o 5 =

o 6 =

H. Subject observed

o 1 = Language (Reading)

o 2 = Language (Other)

o 3 = Other subject

I. Time observation started:

_____ : ____ (circle AM or PM) AM / PM

LJ Time observation finished:

____ : ___ (circle AM or PM) AM / PM

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Have the required number of observation guides on your clipboards before you travel to the

schools. 2. Sharpen two pencils and attach to your clipboard before you travel to the schools.

3. Carry a pencil sharpener at all times.

4. Observe a class that has a teacher present on the day of the classroom observation. 5. Make a point of introducing yourself to the teacher before the observation session.

6. Ask the teacher if you can observe a reading lesson. If this is not possible and this is the only classroom to observe, proceed with the observation.

7. The whole classroom observation should last one hour. Keep to this time allocation at all times. 8. Collect a random sample of 5 language exercise books to assess. Take about 10 minutes at the

end of the observation and return the books to the teacher before you leave.

9. Blend into the classroom environment during the observation sessions. 10. Please complete ALL sections of this form, including the comments section. It is important to

provide as much detail as possible.

11. Thank the teacher at the end of the lesson.

104

2

1. CLASS ENROLLMENT (You can get this at the close of the observation).

Write down the total number of students enrolled in the class observed (look in the roll book for this information). If combined classes, record the enrollment for each class.

Class Male Female Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

Comments:

2. ATTENDANCE (Count students when you sit down to begin the observation quietly from your seat).

Write down the number of students who are actually in class today (count the children in class). If combined classes, record the attendance for each class.

Class Male Female Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

Comments:

3. CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT

Tick the appropriate response to show what you can actually see in the classroom. Tick ALL sections.

Resources Yes No

1. Kiribati alphabet displayed in classroom

2. Classroom has Kiribati print in common teaching aids and wall displays

¨ calendar ¨ days of week

¨ alphabet ¨ numbers

¨ weather

105

3

3. List of Kiribati spelling/vocabulary words written on black board

4. List of Kiribati spelling/vocabulary words written on charts/posters

5. Kiribati stories written on the black board

6. Kiribati hymns/songs written on the black board

7. Kiribati stories written on charts

8. Kiribati hymns/songs/prayers written on charts

9. Recent students’ written work (from this school year) displayed around classroom

10. Student written work from previous terms displayed around classroom

11. Sufficient classroom space for organized group activities

12. Other print materials are used in instructional activities

¨ newspapers ¨ magazines

¨ flash cards

¨ food wrappers and packages (for example, sugar, biscuits, rice) ¨ prepaid cards

¨ objects in treasure boxes in classroom ¨ Other materials

¨ None

12b. Other, specify ______________________________________

13. Student reading corner in the classroom

14. Student Profiles (folder with student work and student information)

15. Students sitting on floor

16. Students sitting in desks or chairs

Comments:

4. TEACHING AND LEARNING

Tick the appropriate response to show what you actually see going on in the classroom. Include as much detail as

you can in the comments section.

Activity Yes No

17. Teacher having students practice letter sounds (for example: m, b, k, t, a, e, etc.)

18. Teacher having students practice syllable sounds (for example: ma, me, mi, mo, mu)

19. Students learning the meaning of new words/vocabulary

20. Students singing song with the teacher.

21. Teacher leading students in activity or song with letters and words in it and body movements that

go with it

22. Teacher reading story/text aloud to students

23. Students reading story/text aloud with teacher

24. Teacher asking comprehension questions when reading story/text

25 Students assisting peers to read (buddy reading)

26 Students reading to each other in groups

27. Students reading silently on their own

106

4

5. LANGUAGE USED BY TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN CLASSROOM Tick the boxes to show what you observed about the language used in the classroom.

Language Kiribati English Other

29. Language(s) of instruction used by teacher

30. Language(s) students use to communicate with each other during classroom activities

31. Language(s) students use to communicate with the teacher. 32. Language(s) written on the black board to teach content

33. Language(s) written on charts, posters, classroom displays and other teaching aids.

Comments:

6. TEACHER’S USE of KIRIBATI LANGUAGE (Tick the appropriate response.)

Activity Yes No

34. Does the teacher switch languages when teaching in Kiribati class? (Write examples in the Comments section below.)

35. Are there errors in the teacher’s written text in Kiribati on the blackboard? (Write examples in the Comments section below.)

36. Two different writing systems have been used for Kiribati.

One writing system uses the standard letters:

For example: a, e, i, o, u, f, g, aa, uu, oo, bwa, mwa, etc.

Does the teacher use this writing system when teaching or writing Kiribati on the blackboard?

37. Tick here the letters the teacher is teaching today:

¨ a

¨ e

¨ i

¨ o

¨ u ¨ k

¨ n

¨ w ¨ r

¨ b ¨ m

¨ t

¨ ng ¨ Not teaching letter

38. The other writing system includes other symbols like:

For example: ā, ū, b’a, m’a, etc.

Does the teacher use these additional symbols when teaching or writing Kiribati?

Comments:

28. Varied reading activities during lesson.

¨ Spelling

¨ Students reporting out about a story or text ¨ general discussions of teacher and students about a book or story

¨ building new words ¨ creating new sentences & stories

¨ Other

¨ None

28b Other activities, specify

Comments:

107

5

7. RESOURCES

Write the number of sets of different titles in the appropriate column to show what resources you actually see in the classroom. Please comment if there are books stored elsewhere and not in the classroom.

Resources in classroom None 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 20 or more

39. Instructional readers

40. Big Books

41. Posters/Charts with poems

41b. Posters/Charts with songs

41c. Posters/Charts with phonics

42. A5 Letter Cards

43. Small cards – phonics cards for word building (sets of 3)

44. Mathematics charts

45. Community studies posters

45b. Environmental science posters

45c. Climate change story book

45d. Healthy living charts

46. Others

Comments:

47. Count up all the reading books for students that you can see being used during the lesson. Write the

total in the box below:

8. DO THE FOLLOWING AT THE END OF THE OBSERVATION.

Ask the teachers for a sample of five students’ language exercise books.

Areas to take note of in students’ language exercise books (tick ALL sections):

Activity Ex book 1 Ex book 2 Ex book 3 Ex book 4 Ex book 5

48. Filling in missing words, sentence beginnings and endings, etc.

49. Short sentences

50. Short stories (2-5 sentences)

51. Reading comprehension activities

52. Labeling things or matching

54. Regular written work in students’

language exercise books

55. Exercises in students’ language books marked by the teacher regularly

56. Written corrections and feedback

given by teacher

108

5

7. RESOURCES

Write the number of sets of different titles in the appropriate column to show what resources you actually see in the classroom. Please comment if there are books stored elsewhere and not in the classroom.

Resources in classroom None 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 20 or more

39. Instructional readers

40. Big Books

41. Posters/Charts with poems

41b. Posters/Charts with songs

41c. Posters/Charts with phonics

42. A5 Letter Cards

43. Small cards – phonics cards for word building (sets of 3)

44. Mathematics charts

45. Community studies posters

45b. Environmental science posters

45c. Climate change story book

45d. Healthy living charts

46. Others

Comments:

47. Count up all the reading books for students that you can see being used during the lesson. Write the

total in the box below:

8. DO THE FOLLOWING AT THE END OF THE OBSERVATION.

Ask the teachers for a sample of five students’ language exercise books.

Areas to take note of in students’ language exercise books (tick ALL sections):

Activity Ex book 1 Ex book 2 Ex book 3 Ex book 4 Ex book 5

48. Filling in missing words, sentence beginnings and endings, etc.

49. Short sentences

50. Short stories (2-5 sentences)

51. Reading comprehension activities

52. Labeling things or matching

54. Regular written work in students’

language exercise books

55. Exercises in students’ language books marked by the teacher regularly

56. Written corrections and feedback

given by teacher

kiribati early grade reading assessment - world...

Documents