literacy boost: membaca project - resource centre · in 2014, save the children began its literacy...

Literacy Boost:

MEMBACA Project

Endline Report

Kupang District

Indonesia Country Office

Sylvinus Jowi Pedor, Christine Jonason, Budhi Utama, and Marie de Fretes

September 2016

With special thanks to the MEMBACA staff and our team of assessors:

Agus Sulaeman, Rahmat Jaya Tarupay, Marie Miret, Deddy Loaloka, Pzalmine Benusu, Mervista Kadja, Yaner Sae, Vera Adoe, Yeni Sufaeni, Hengki Bessie, Yanders Lao, Marthin Liufeto, Gisela

Nappoe, Gisela Manu, Ofin Zadrak, and Icha Dethan

of 22

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3

Implementation History ................................................................................................................................ 4

II. Method ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

Sampling ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

Analysis.......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Measurement ................................................................................................................................................ 6

III. Children’s Background ............................................................................................................................. 7

IV. Children’s Home Literacy Environment .................................................................................................. 8

Differences in the Home Literacy Environment ........................................................................................... 8

V. Community Reading Activities ............................................................................................................... 10

VI. Children’s Reading Skills ........................................................................................................................ 11

Letter Identification .................................................................................................................................... 11

Word Recognition: Most Used Words ...................................................................................................... 12

Fluency and Accuracy ................................................................................................................................. 12

Comprehension .......................................................................................................................................... 14

VII. Literacy Boost Skill Profiles and Endline Benchmarks (MEMBACA vs Control Schools) ................... 14

VIII. Literacy boost participation ................................................................................................................. 16

IX. Low performing students ...................................................................................................................... 17

X. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 18

Appendix A: Inter-rater reliability .............................................................................................................. 20

Appendix B: Data Analysis Tables .............................................................................................................. 20

Table B1 Children Background by Sample Group .................................................................................. 20

Table B2 Home Literacy Environment by Sample Group ...................................................................... 21

Table B3 Socioeconomic Status by Sample Group ................................................................................. 21

Table B4 Regression Analysis ................................................................................................................. 22

of 22

I. Introduction In 2014, Save the Children began its Literacy Boost program in 15 schools in Kupang district on West Timor Island, implementing both teacher-focused and community interventions. This program is MEMBACA (Making Early Matter through Books and Community Action).

This report examines the result of a learner background survey and reading assessment conducted in April – May 2016 in Kupang. This survey and reading assessment covered 432 second grade students in 15 intervention schools located in 3 sub-districts and 15 comparison schools in 5 sub-districts in Kupang District. The MEMBACA program includes teacher training, community reading activities, and age-appropriate local language material creation to support emergent literacy skills among early-grade children. These skills include, letter awareness, single word reading of most used words, reading fluency, reading accuracy, and reading comprehension. As part of MEMBACA, learners are periodically assessed in each of these skills through an adaptable assessment tool to inform programming and estimate program impact. The data gathered from these schools is analyzed to present a snapshot of the emergent literacy skills of grade 2 learners in these schools and to inform the adaptation of SC’s MEMBACA program to this context.

The key research questions to be explored in this report include:

1. How comparable are students in MEMBACA schools versus comparison schools in terms of reading skills, background characteristics, and home literacy environment?

2. What can the Endline tell us about learners’ emergent reading skills? What does this mean for MEMBACA programming?

3. How do learners’ reading skills vary by student background, school environment, and home literacy environment? What does this mean for targeting MEMBACA’s two strands of intervention?

4. Do Literacy Boost students have significantly different reading skills from Comparison students after 3 years of Literacy Boost implementation?

At the Endline assessment, we are using the control schools as a comparison for the intervention schools. Determination of control schools was done by looking at the similarities between the characteristics such as geographical area, urban vs. rural, and socioeconomic status of the control schools and intervention schools. Control school is a school that does not receive similar interventions to MEMBACA schools. When the baseline study was conducted in September 2015, we only measured students from MEMBACA schools. We wish to compare students of MEMBACA schools and non MEMBACA schools, therefore, at the time of this endline study, we measured literacy skills of students in both groups. To investigate these questions, this report will first describe the research methods used; including sampling, measurement, and analysis. The report will then examine what are the literacy skills that are

of 22

already present in the sample, and what areas should MEMBACA focus on. Finally, the report will investigate any correlations with student background, school environment, or home literacy practices & environment variables using multilevel regression analysis.

Implementation History The Literacy Boost program involves the follow main components:

1. Module teacher training on explicit reading instruction; 2. Provision of community-based Book Banks 3. Establishing a Reading Buddy system in schools in which older children read to younger

children; 4. Conducting regular community reading awareness sessions with parents 5. Conducting weekly Reading Camps run by trained Reading Camp Leaders

At the time of this endline assessment in May 2016, Table 2 details the activities that had been implemented by Save the Children and the length of the intervention prior to the assessment.

Table 2. Literacy Boost Timeline Implementation: MEMBACA Program

No Date of intervention

Intervention Time to assessment (May 2016)

1 25 May – 4 June 2015

Literacy Assessment 12 months

2 23-Jun-15 Reading festival with lower grades students 11 months

3 July 2015 Distribution of children wall magazine for 15 primary schools

10 months

4 Aug-15 Books procurement for enriching the book bank content 9 months

5 14-28 September 2015

Sub district coordination meeting with stakeholders and volunteers and Quality Learning Environment (QLE) assessment

8 months

6 Oct-15 Distribution of children wall magazine for 15 primary schools

7 months

of 22

7 13-Nov-15 Training on disciplining children without violence for the teachers

6 months

8 16-21 Nov 2015 Training on disciplining children without violence for the communities

6 months

9 Dec-15 LB refresher training for project staff 5 months

10 Jan-16 Training teachers on disciplining children without violence

5 months

11 February 2016 Distribution of children wall magazine for 15 primary schools

4 months

12 1-6 February 2016

Village based training for parents on child rights and disciplining children without violence

4 months

13 16-25 February 2106

School based Focus Group Discussion for adults and children on establishing school code of conduct

4 months

14 3-10 march 2016

Joint monitoring to visit LB classrooms with master trainers in 15 school

3 months

15 17-Mar-16 Coordination meeting with district level stakeholders

3 months

16 3-10 March 2016

Distribution of material for reading camp in 15 sites

3 months

17 9-22 April 2016 Assessment of 30 selected schools for scaling up LB teacher training concepts to non-target schools

2 months

18 18-26 April 2016

Focus Group Discussion with schools and community on code of conduct to prevent violence against children both at school and at home

2 months

19 16-May Reading camp monitoring 1 months

of 22

II. Method

Sampling The sample for this Endline assessment encompasses 432 grade 2 students, divided between 15 schools that have been receiving the MEMBACA intervention (n of students = 221) and 15 comparison schools (n of students = 211). The 15 MEMBACA schools were selected as the targeted schools for the project implementation and 15 comparison schools were selected as comparison schools are the schools with the similar criteria with MEMBACA schools. The similarity criteria include geographic location. Comparison schools are not receiving interventions from Save the Children or other organizations that will affect the implementation of MEMBACA activities.

In both of schools where data was collected, 20 children in grade 2 were sampled. If there was more than one classroom of grade 2 at a given school, one classroom was randomly selected. Ten boys and ten girls were randomly selected where there were more than 20 learners in the classroom.

Analysis This analysis has two purposes. First, we will investigate the literacy skills of Literacy Boost learners and comparison learners in 2016. The second purpose is assess what skills the students currently have, and what areas and skills literacy boost should focus on.

To test the comparability of learners in the samples, this report will use comparison of means through two-tailed t-tests. Summary statistics will look to multilevel regression models to explore relationships between literacy skills and students’ background characteristics and home literacy environment.

Measurement For the student assessment, all learners in the sample were asked about their background characteristics (age, household possessions, household building materials, etc.). Learners also were asked about their family members and reading habits in their home (who they had seen reading in the week prior to the assessment, who had read to them, etc.). The final assessment is about their reading skills (five skills in literacy).

Table 1. MEMBACA Assessment Instruments Student background Examples General Sex, age, language spoken at home, chores School-related Attendance, repetition history

Socioeconomic status Type of home, household size, household amenities/possessions

of 22

Home Literacy Environment

Access to print Materials present in home, types of materials

Reading activities at home Presence and percentage of family members who children see read, and who engage in literacy activities with children

Reading Outcome Description Alphabet knowledge Number of letters/sounds known of 26 Single word reading Number of single words read correctly of 20 Fluency Number of words in a short story read correctly in a minute Accuracy Percentage of words in a short story read correctly

Comprehension Questions related to short story read aloud by student or assessor

After collecting this background data, all learners were also given an emergent literacy test composed of five components administered through four sub-tests: letter awareness, single word recognition (reading of most used words), reading fluency & accuracy (words per minute read correctly and total percentage of passage read correctly; both within the same sub-test), and a set of comprehension questions linked to the fluency & accuracy passage. The same set of comprehension questions were administered for both those learners who could read independently (reading comprehension). Instructions were given in Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Kupang and some in Bahasa Dawan and children were assessed on letter identification, most used words, reading fluency, reading accuracy, and reading comprehension in Bahasa Indonesia. Detail on inter-rater reliability is provided in Appendix A.

III. Children’s Background The students are about 7.78 years old on average, and students mostly speak Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Dawan as their native mother tongue. Children who speak Kupang language were more helped in understanding the reading text compared with children who speak other mother tongue. More than half of both students in MEMBACA and control schools attended early-childhood development (ECD) programs. On average, students live with five other family members and have three of six common amenities in the region (electricity, toilet, television, refrigerator, motorcycle, and computer). MEMBACA students have better socioeconomic status than control schools students. More than half of the students report living under a roof made of iron sheets, and the rest living under Lontar leaf roof, and reed roof. Finally, nearly all of the students doing chores at home. Significant differences between MEMBACA and control school were a quarter of MEMBACA students experienced grade one repeated, almost half of MEMBACA students speak Dawan and nearly quarter speak Kupang. In summary, students of both schools have quite similar characteristics to be compared with.

of 22

Table 3. Student characteristics and items owned by family in 2015 and 2016, by group

Baseline 2015 Endline 2016 Control Literacy

Boost Significant Difference

Control Literacy Boost

Significant Difference

Student Characteristic Age N/A 7.4 N/A 7.7 7.8 Attend ECCD N/A 52% N/A 69% 64% Repeat Grade 1 N/A 23% N/A 15% 25% * Repeat Grade 2 N/A 12% N/A 7% 8% Chores N/A 94% N/A 96% 97% Missed Schools N/A 72% N/A 54% 51% Speak Bahasa N/A 67% N/A 45% 46% Speak Dawan N/A 64% N/A 33% 48% * Speak Kupang N/A 26% N/A 44% 22% * Socioeconomic Status Have none of the possessions in the list

N/A 8% N/A 3% 4%

Electricity N/A 71% N/A 80% 70% * Latrine N/A 85% N/A 89% 92% TV N/A 38% N/A 61% 42% * Refrigerator N/A 10% N/A 28% 10% * Motorcycle N/A 40% N/A 49% 43% Computer N/A 2% N/A 8% 6%

Significance levels: * p<0.05

IV. Children’s Home Literacy Environment

Differences in the Home Literacy Environment An important aspect of reading development concerns the home literacy environment (HLE). How are children exposed to the printed word in the home? How much access do they have to books and print to practice their nascent reading skills? Many MEMBACA activities are centered on helping parents and communities to enhance the HLE. As such, it is important to measure where learners' HLEs begin, and how they change over the course of time.

Table 3. Reading materials and home literacy environment

Baseline 2015 Endline 2016 Control Literacy

Boost Significant Difference

Control Literacy Boost


Reading materials

of 22

Have 0 reading materials

N/A 2% N/A 2% 0%

Text books N/A 68% N/A 77% 80% Religious books N/A 96% N/A 96% 98% Magazines N/A 7% N/A 10% 14% Newspapers N/A 16% N/A 36% 30% Story books N/A 55% N/A 49% 73% * Home literacy environment (Activities in the last week) Average number of family members seen reading

N/A 2.55 N/A 3.82 5.55 *

Average number of family members who helped child study

N/A 2.72 N/A 4.22 4.05

Average number of family members who read to child

N/A 1.88 N/A 2.54 2.77 *

Average number of family members who told stories to child

N/A 2.22 N/A 2.31 2.43 *

Average number of family members who played a game

N/A 2.06 N/A 5.88 6.40


Table 3 displays the different types of printed materials that learners from MEMBACA and control schools may or may not have at home and literacy activities in the home. Nearly all learners have some type of reading materials at home. The most common reading material in students’ home is religious material. The least common reading materials are magazine. Children are often borrow books improve their reading comprehension. Although home literacy environment shows that printed materials available at home are mostly dominated by religious books and textbooks, therefore, we propose to use the available materials as resource to enrich students’ literacy experience. While also creating simple own-made materials for their children and there are several simple strategies to do so, like writing down certain text in a piece of paper and cutting piece of stories from newspaper or magazine and put in reading corners at home.

The HLE is not only about materials in the home, but how those materials are used to engage the child in reading and learning. Hess and Holloway (1984) identified five dimensions of the home literacy environment that are theoretically related to reading achievement in children. The first is value placed on literacy, which we operationalize by asking the learners whether they see anyone reading at home. The second is press for achievement, which we operationalize as individuals telling or helping the student to study. The third is the availability

of 22

and use of reading materials, which we operationalize as the amount of printed materials at home (see Table 2). The fourth dimension is reading with children, which we operationalize by asking the learners whether anyone reads to them at home. The last is opportunities for verbal interaction, which we operationalize as family members telling stories to learners. At the Endline, Literacy Boost students have participated in literacy activities with more family members, on average, than comparison students in the last week (and in the case of seen reading, being read to, and being told a story, the difference is statistically significant). Furthermore, although we cannot test this statistically, we see a positive trend from the baseline—there are more family members being active with Literacy Boost students at endline than there were at baseline.

V. Community Reading Activities As seen in Table 4, 67% children in literacy boost schools report attending community activities. Children are generally attending reading camps and meeting with their reading buddies once per week. About 55% of students report using a book bank during the previous week and only 45% report have reading buddy. Each student borrow books 2 times each week, on average, and meets their reading buddy and average of 1.5 days per week.

Table 4. Frequency of attendance at Literacy Boost activities in year 2 MEMBACA

Literacy Boost Activity Average (n=250) Used book bank during the previous week 55% Has a reading buddy 45% Name reading buddy 44% Frequency of meeting with reading buddy (days per week) 1.5 Frequency of reading ( 0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = always)

2.54

Frequency of borrow books (days per week) 2.2 Attending reading camp 67%

In addition, literacy boost team added questions that asked children how they think would be helped to read better. The most popular answer by far was more time to practice followed by more books to read. Children are often borrow books improve their reading comprehension.

Table 5. Students reported strategies for learning to read better in 2016

Activity Control Literacy Boost More time to practice 83% 80% More books to read 7% 4% More interesting books 0% 0% Teachers are more exciting 0% 0%

of 22

Help/ assistance when reading 1% 1%

VI. Children’s Reading Skills

Letter Identification The next sub-test examined learners’ letter awareness. Learners were shown a chart of 26 letters and asked to name the letter or pronounce the letter sound. On average, MEMBACA learners correctly identified 90 percent (23 letters out of a combined total of 13 uppercase and 13 lowercase letters) and comparison schools correctly identified 86 percent (22 out of a combined total of 13 uppercase and 13 lowercase letters). For MEMBACA and comparison schools students, there were similar three most difficult upper and lower case letters were: Q, v, and Z. Three most often named correctly were for MEMBACA students: A, t, and K. For comparison students, three most often named correctly were: A, r, K. The letters commonly known by students are also common in their local language (Bahasa Dawan, Bahasa Kupang, and Bahasa Indonesia). There is significant difference between intervention school and control school.


90%86%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

MEMBACA KONTROL

Figure 1 . % Letters Correct

of 22

Word Recognition: Most Used Words The most used words (MUW) sub-test consists of a chart of 20 words that the student is asked to read. These 20 words were identified as ‘most used’ by tabulating the number of times a word appeared in learners’ language arts textbooks.


Learners had the easiest time reading words that were two letters long. The words they had the most difficult with were those that contained three syllables and have double consonant such as mendeskripsikan and teks. There is significant difference between intervention school and control school.

Fluency and Accuracy Fluency (words per minute read correctly) and accuracy (percent of the passage read correctly) are presented together here because they are measured together in a single sub-test in which learners read a passage aloud. The number of words learners read correctly in a minute is tracked for fluency. As the student continues to read after the first minute, the total number of words read correctly from the passage as a whole, no matter how long it takes the student, is computed for accuracy. And by regression analysis we found that, the ability to read the most-used words, reading fluency and reading comprehension of children who come from higher socio-economic status is better than children from low socioeconomic status. There is significant difference between intervention school and control school.

76%

66%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

MEMBACA KONTROL

Figure 2. % MUW Correct

Average % MUW Correct

of 22



The average fluency rate for both schools, MEMBACA students was 34 words per minute and control schools was 25, and their accuracy for MEMBACA was 77% and control schools was 61%. And by regression analysis we found that Children who repeated second grade had knowledge of letter and fluency lower than children who never hold class. Girls are more fluent in reading when compared with boys. There is significant difference between intervention school and control school.

34

25

0

10

20

30

40

50

MEMBACA KONTROL

Figure 3. Average fluency (WCPM)

77%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Figure 4. Average accuracy (%)

Average accuracy (%)

of 22

Comprehension The final sub-test quizzed learners on a series of ten comprehension questions related to the reading passage. Students who could read two words in most used words were given the reading passage. Eighty five percent of MEMBACA students and sixty nine percent of control schools students could read the passage themselves. Children who could read on their own were tested on the same comprehension questions.

The easiest type of comprehension question to answer for all students were the factual questions, where students were asked to recall facts that were presented in the story. This type of question asked the students questions like "What was the name of the main character?" and "Where did the main character go?" The next hardest questions were both the inferential and the evaluative questions. Inferential questions ask students to use the information from the text to make inferences, while the evaluative questions ask student to state an opinion on a feature of the story and support that opinion with reasons for that opinion. On average, MEMBACA students correctly answered 50 percent of reading comprehension questions. Control schools students correctly answered 60 percent. Control schools had the highest average, but there was no significant difference with MEMBACA schools.

VII. Literacy Boost Skill Profiles and Endline Benchmarks (MEMBACA vs Control Schools) While Save the Children has used this approach to reading assessment and intervention in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burundi, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Kenya, Laos, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Rwanda, South Africa, Sri Lanka,

50%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 5. Average reading comprehension (%)-- All students

of 22

Uganda, and Zimbabwe, comparison across countries and languages is less helpful than more detailed contextual information for setting expectations of impact. For each measure used in these assessments, the upper end of the range of scores can be used to consider what is currently possible among these children.

Table 6. Comparison average MEMBACA with benchmark Indicator Literacy Boost

Benchmark MEMBACA Average (Endline)

Meet Benchmark?

Letter ID 80% 90% YES Common words 50% 76% YES Fluency 15 WCPM 34 WCPM YES Accuracy 75% 77% YES Reading comprehension 50% 50% YES

Refer to the result of literacy assessment, literacy boost students are reaching mastery all of five basic literacy skills. Children in literacy boost schools met benchmark set for letter ID, common words, fluency, accuracy, and reading comprehension. This data is only for MEMBACA students who were assessed in Endline literacy assessment.

Table 7. Comparison of MEMBACA and Control schools in literacy skills

Category Literacy Boost Benchmark

MEMBACA Average

Control Average


Letter ID 80% 90% 86% * Common words 50% 76% 66% * Fluency 15 WCPM 34 WCPM 25 WCPM * Accuracy 75% 77% 61% * Reading comprehension

50% 50% 60%


From Table 7, summarized that there is a significant difference between MEMBACA School and Control School in four categories of students' abilities, such as letter knowledge, the most used word, fluency and accuracy. As for the category of reading comprehension, control schools had the highest average, but there was no significant difference with MEMBACA schools. The achievement between these two categories of schools have surpassed benchmarks established by Save the Children.

of 22

VIII. Literacy boost participation The major different between Literacy boost students tends to be the frequency with which they attend out-of-school literacy activities. Across letter knowledge, MUW, fluency, accuracy, and reading comprehension, children who participate in more activities have stronger early reading skills. The literacy boost activities are attending reading camp, borrow books and have reading buddy.

34

25

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

MEMBACA KONTROL BENCHMARK

Figure 6. Literacy Skills (MEMBACA vs Control Schools vs Benchmark ‐ Average

fluency (WCPM)

90%

76% 77%

50%

86%

66%61% 60%

80%

50%

75%

50%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Average % LettersCorrect

Average % MUWCorrect

Average accuracy (%) Average readingcomprehension (%)

Figure 7. Literacy Skills (MEMBACA vs Control Schools)

MEMBACA KONTROL BENCHMARK

of 22

In the chart above, we can see that there are positive changes in the development of literacy skills of students who follow literacy boost activities in the community. In MEMBACA project, for students who take three consecutive literacy activities have letter knowledge (91%), most used words (81%), fluency (36.5), accuracy (85%) and reading comprehension (46%). Literacy activities in the community showing a progress for the development of literacy skills of students.

IX. Low performing students MEMBACA program includes an effort to focus on the lowest performing students, which we will refer to as “low beginners”, those students who could not read a single word from the list of 20 most common words and knew less than 21 of 26 upper and lowercase letters. Students who are in this category at baseline studies was 26% and was reduced to 6% at endline studies.

90% 75% 32.0 71% 36%

81% 64%27.8

62%32%

92% 82%27.1 83%

31%

91% 81% 36.5 85% 46%

Average of Letters % Average of MUW % Average of WCPM Average of Accuracy%

Average of Comp %

Attending Reading Camp Borrow Books Reading Buddy All Activities

of 22

X. Conclusion Both MEMBACA and control schools have similarities in some characteristics which allow the control group as valid comparison for MEMBACA. Students in MEMBACA schools showed significant improvement in letter knowledge, single word recognition, fluency and accuracy compared to students in control schools. Although students in control schools showed higher percentage in reading comprehension, the result wasn’t significantly difference compared to MEMBACA students. MEMBACA students also attained Literacy Boost benchmark set for this group previously in the baseline in all skills. These results showed program impact to students in MEMBACA schools.

Findings of this assessment also showed encouraging results in which students who participated in all community actions activities have higher average score in all skills compared to students who participated in only one or two activities. Thus this result suggested the continuation of community action activities for children because it is also contributed to improve children’s reading skills.

Although there are group of children who still struggling to read at the end of the year in second grade, the percentage was decreasing from 26% at baseline to 6% at endline. It is important for teachers to understand characteristics and needs of these children, so teacher can adapt reading instruction for them accordingly. It is also important for more family member involvement in literacy activities at home with children, provide varied prints from scraps such as food wrappers or create print materials on their own for their children, likewise peer’s accompany and child participation in different reading activities in the community. It was clear

26%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Baseline Endline

LowPerformingStudents

of 22

from findings of this assessment that these factors were contributing to the improvement of student’s reading skills.

of 22

Appendix A: Inter-rater reliability To test inter-rater reliability, 60 learners from 492 learners were assessed by two enumerators simultaneously. Table A presents the results below. Using Fleiss’ benchmarks for excellent (ICC>0.75), good or fair (0.75>=ICCA>0.4), and poor (0.4>=ICC); many of the literacy outcome variables exhibited excellent inter-rater reliability. Table 1 shows the percent of agreement between the raters.

Table A. Interrater Accuracy and Reliability Literacy Skill Sub-Test Inter-rater Reliability Rating

Letter Knowledge 0.932036646 Excellent Most Used Words 0.877449966 Excellent

WCPM 0.996235536 Excellent Accuracy 0.999510715 Excellent

Reading Comprehension 0.994943848 Excellent

There was excellent inter-rater reliability on every measure. Raters had near perfect agreement on the scoring of letter knowledge, and had excellent agreement on most used words, fluency, accuracy, and reading comprehension. In general, inter-rater reliability was very high, and we can be confident that the internal validity of the scores is excellent.

Appendix B: Data Analysis Tables Table B1 Children Background by Sample Group

MEMBACA

(N=251) KONTROL

(N=241) Average age 8 8 % of students who are female 51% 51%

% who attended ECD 64% 69% % who attended TPA 0% 0 % who attended TK 43% 55% % who attended RA 0% 0%

% who attended PAUD 21% 15%

% who repeated Grade 1 25% 15% % who repeated Grade 2 8% 7% % who speak Bahasa Indonesia at home 45% 46% % who speak Bahasa Dawan at home 48% 33%

of 22

% who speak Bahasa Kupang at home 22% 44%

Table B2 Home Literacy Environment by Sample Group

Home Literacy Environment MEMBACA (N=251)

KONTROL (N=241)

No Reading Materials in Home 0% 2%

Religious books 98% 96%

Newspaper 30% 36%

Textbooks 80% 77%

Magazine 14% 10%

Story books 73% 49%

% of Family Seen Reading 50% 48%

% of Family that Helps Student to Study 51% 53%

% of Family that Reads to the Student 35% 32%

% of Family that Tells the Student Stories 30% 29%

% of Family that Plays with the student 80% 74%

Table B3 Socioeconomic Status by Sample Group

Socioeconomic Status MEMBACA (N=251)

KONTROL (N=241)

No possessions (out of 6) in Home 4% 3%

Electricity 70% 80%

WC 92% 89%

TV 42% 61%

Refrigerator 10% 28%

Motorcycle 43% 49%

Computer 6% 8%

of 22

Table B4 Regression Analysis

Variables Letter ID MUW Fluency Reading Comp.

Readers

Age 0.181 (0.194)

0.408 (0.383)

0.818 (1.731)

-0.069 (0.229)

0.002 (0.025)

Sex 0.302 (0.3091)

0.373 (0.772)

12.977*** (3.490)

0.591 (0.462)

0.066 (0.050)

ECD Attend 0.490 (0.389)

0.478 (0.768)

-2.350 (3.475)

0.149 (0.462)

0.035 (0.050)

Grade 1 repeat 0.689 (0.476)

0.489 (0.939)

2.233 (4.247)

-0.185 (0.562)

0.067 (0.061)

Grade 2 repeat -2.532*** (0.692)

-4.456*** (1.365)

-13.306* (6.176)

-1.365 (0.817)

-0.233* (0.089)

Home language Indonesia

0.887 (0.564)

2.073 (1.111)

8.313 (5.028)

0.789 (0.665)

0.114 (0.073)

Home language Dawan

0.146 (0.545)

1.349 (1.075)

3.449 (4.864)

0.376 (0.643)

0.022 (0.070)

Home language Kupang

0.500 (0.528)

0.818 (1.041)

11.160* (4.709)

1.608* (0.623)

0.072 (0.068)

SES 0.108 (0.122)

0.493* (0.241)

2.535* (1.090)

0.600*** (0.144)

0.019 (0.016)

HLE 0.171 (0.156)

0.434 0.307

1.369 (1.388)

0.130 (0.184)

0.024 (0.020)

Borrow books 0.510 (0.483)

1.560 (0.953)

7.954 (4.311)

1.662 (0.570)

0.108 (0.062)

Attend reading camp

-0.228 0.515

-0.246 (1.016)

-7.156 4.598

-0.861 (0.608)

-0.065 (0.066)

Reading buddy 0.344 (0.378)

0.659 (0.745)

0.416 (3.371)

0.181 (0.446)

0.070 (0.049)

Constant 20.401*** (1,706)

7.428* (3.364)

7.668 (15.218)

1.283 (2.013)

0.595 (0.220)

Observation 221 221 221 221 221 R-squared 0.152 0.157 0.224 0.235 0.143

literacy boost: membaca project - resource centre · in 2014, save the children began its literacy...

Documents