kiribati early grade reading assessment - world...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
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)
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
CLPM – minus zero score students 448 45.2 21.9 1 107.1
Year 3 CLPM – overall 422 40.5 23.4 0 109.9
CLPM – minus zero score students 413 41.9 22.6 1 109.1
Gender
Girls CLPM – overall 691 40.3 24.1 0 109.9
CLPM – minus zero score students 679 41.9 23.2 1 109.9
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
CSPM – minus zero score students 436 31.2 15.7 1 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
CSPM – minus zero score students 657 30.4 16.3 1 85
Boys CSPM – overall 672 24.2 16.4 0 95.1
CSPM – minus zero score students 657 30.4 16.3 1 85
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
Central Linnux North South South
Tarawa
Year 1 28.7 24.3 22.9 20.8 20.6 Year 2 35.6 24.8 31.0 34.4 28.8 Year 3 27.5 27.1 24.7 27.9 28.9 Overall 30.6 25.4 26.2 27.9 26.0
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
Minus zero score students 379 4.4 1.9 1 100
Year 3 Overall 422 4.0 2.5 0 10
Minus zero score students 375 4.7 2.0 1 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
Minus zero score students 541 4.5 2.1 1 10
Boys Overall 672 3.0 2.4 0 9
Minus zero score students 492 4.1 1.8 1 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
Central Linnux North South South
Tarawa
Year 1 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.4 2.4 Year 2 3.3 4.3 3.7 3.7 3.6 Year 3 3.7 5.2 4.2 4.2 3.6 Overall 2.9 3.9 3.3 3.1 3.2
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
CFWPM – minus zero score students 428 25.3 17.2 1 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
CFWPM – minus zero score students 556 22.6 16.5 1 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)
Central Linnux North South South
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
CNWPM – minus zero score students 209 12.8 9.3 1 47
Year 2 CNWPM – overall 458 13.9 11.4 0 43
CNWPM – minus zero score students 354 18.3 9.5 1 43
Year 3 CNWPM – overall 422 21.9 12.4 0 49
CNWPM – minus zero score students 388 25.1 9.8 1 48
Gender
Girls CNWPM – overall 690 15.9 13.8 0 49
CNWPM – minus zero score students 512 21.7 11.7 1 49
Boys CNWPM – overall 672 10.9 11.2 0 45
CNWPM – minus zero score students 439 17.8 8.9 1 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)
Central Linnux North South South
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
CWPM – minus zero score students 410 49.6 24.8 1 128.6
Gender
Girls CWPM – overall 689 34.0 28.2 0 128.6
CWPM – minus zero score students 629 37.5 27.3 1 128.6
Boys CWPM – overall 669 23.1 20.7 0 102.9
CWPM – minus zero score students 570 26.8 19.9 1 102.9
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
Central Linnux North South South
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
Number of correct answer – minus zero
score students
78 1.8
1.1 1 5
Year 2
Number of correct answer – overall 458 1.5
1.4 0 5
Number of correct answer – minus zero
score students
310 2.3
1.2 1 5
Year 3
Number of correct answer – overall 422 2.4
1.5 0 5
Number of correct answer – minus zero
score students
369 2.9
1.2 1 5
Gender
Girls
Number of correct answer – overall 691 1.6 1.6 0 5
Number of correct answer – minus zero
score students
416 2.7 1.2 1 5
Boys
Number of correct answer – overall 672 1.1 1.4 0 5
Number of correct answer – minus zero
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
Central Linnux North South South
Tarawa
Year 1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 Year 2 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.3 Year 3 2.1 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.2 Overall 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.2
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
Percentage of correct answer – minus
zero score students
422 46.7% 23.4 20 100
Year 2
Percentage of correct answer – overall 458 46.9% 26.5 0 100
Percentage of correct answer – minus
zero score students
426 51.6% 23.1 20 100
Year 3
Percentage of correct answer – overall 422 53.4% 28.8 0 100
Percentage of correct answer – minus
zero score students
405 57.4% 25.7 20 100
Gender
Girls
Percentage of correct answer – overall 691 45.8% 27.9 0 100
Percentage of correct answer – minus
zero score students
633 51.0% 24.5 20 100
Boys
Percentage of correct answer – overall 672 46.7% 28.5 0 100
Percentage of correct answer – minus
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
Central Linnux North South South
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%
Average percent of correct answer –
minus zero score students
1,153 71.7% 25.0% 2.1% 100%
Year
Year 1
Average percent of correct answer –
overall
332 50.5% 27.5% 0% 100%
Average percent of correct answer –
minus zero score students
323 52.8% 25.9% 2.1% 100%
Year 2
Average percent of correct answer –
overall
425 76.2% 20.4% 0% 100%
Average percent of correct answer –
minus zero score students
424 76.3% 20.2% 4.2% 100%
Year 3
Average percent of correct answer –
overall
408 82.1% 20.8% 0% 100%
Average percent of correct answer –
minus zero score students
406 82.8% 19.3% 4.2% 100%
Gender
Girls
Average percent of correct answer –
overall
608 74.2% 25.7% 0% 100%
Average percent of correct answer –
minus zero score students
602 75.6% 23.8% 2.1% 100%
Boys
Average percent of correct answer –
overall
557 66.6% 26.7% 0% 100%
Average percent of correct answer –
minus zero score students
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)
Central Linnux North South South
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
Student receives help with homework from the
father
17% 1.5% 1361
Student receives help with homework from the
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
Student has books, newspapers or other things to
read at home in Kiribati
48% 1.3% 1361
Student has books, newspapers or other things to
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
Student receives help with homework from
father
2.31 1.71 0.39
Student receives help with homework from
sibling
-2.53 2.16 0.39
Someone asks student about what he/she did in
school
1.65 1.83 0.39
Student tells someone at home when he/she gets
good marks
0.21 1.45 0.39
Student has books, newspapers or other things to
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
Student has books, newspapers or other things to
read at home in Kiribati
1.60 0.93 0.39
Student has books, newspapers or other things to
read at home in English
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
Student reads on a computer or mobile device at
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
Sufficient classroom space for organized group
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:
http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/paperbacks/downloads/library.pdf
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.
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)
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
Minus zero score students 26.4 32.1
Year 2 Overall 41.0 47.1
Minus zero score students 41.9 48.5
Year 3 Overall 36.8 44.2
Minus zero score students 38.5 45.4
Girls Overall 37.6 43.1
Minus zero score students 39.5 44.3
Boys Overall 31.8 36.3
Minus zero score students 33.2 37.4
95 percent Confidence Interval for mean at Task 2: Letter Sound
Identification by Year and Gender
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
bound
Upper
Bound
Overall 25.2 27.8
Minus zero score students 26.9 29.6
Year 1 Overall 20.7 24.1
Minus zero score students 22.6 26.3
Year 2 Overall 27.9 31.5
Minus zero score students 29.3 33.1
Year 3 Overall 25.2 30.3
Minus zero score students 26.5 31.9
Girls Overall 26.5 31.0
Minus zero score students 24.7 27.4
Boys Overall 22.7 25.8
Minus zero score students 28.2 32.6
69
95 percent Confidence Interval for mean at Task 3: Initial Sound
Recognition by Year and Gender
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
bound
Upper
Bound
Overall 3.1 3.5
Minus zero score students 4.1 4.5
Year 1 Overall 2.0 2.5
Minus zero score students 3.4 3.9
Year 2 Overall 3.4 4.0
Minus zero score students 4.2 4.7
Year 3 Overall 3.6 4.4
Minus zero score students 4.4 5.0
Girls Overall 3.3 3.7
Minus zero score students 4.3 4.7
Boys Overall 2.8 3.2
Minus zero score students 3.9 4.3
95 percent Confidence Interval for mean at Task 4: Familiar Word
Reading by Year and Gender
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
bound
Upper
Bound
Overall 20.2 25.1
Minus zero score students 24.5 28.9
Year 1 Overall 6.7 10.4
Minus zero score students 10.4 14.4
Year 2 Overall 20.3 27.1
Minus zero score students 21.6 28.9
Year 3 Overall 32.9 41.1
Minus zero score students 37.0 42.7
Girls Overall 23.9 29.4
Minus zero score students 20.5 24.8
Boys Overall 16.1 21.1
Minus zero score students 27.4 33.3
70
95 percent Confidence Interval for mean at Task 5: NonWord Reading by
Year and Gender
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
bound
Upper
Bound
Overall 11.8 15.0
Minus zero score students 18.8 21.1
Year 1 Overall 3.9 6.5
Minus zero score students 11.4 14.1
Year 2 Overall 11.5 16.2
Minus zero score students 16.3 20.4
Year 3 Overall 19.9 24.0
Minus zero score students 23.9 26.2
Girls Overall 14.1 17.7
Minus zero score students 19.9 23.4
Boys Overall 9.4 12.4
Minus zero score students 16.8 18.9
95 percent Confidence Interval for mean at Task6a: Oral Passage Reading
by Year and Gender
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
bound
Upper
Bound
Overall 25.8 31.5
Minus zero score students 29.7 35.1
Year 1 Overall 8.8 13.1
Minus zero score students 11.8 16.6
Year 2 Overall 25.5 32.9
Minus zero score students 27.5 35.0
Year 3 Overall 42.4 52.1
Minus zero score students 45.9 53.3
Girls Overall 31.0 37.1
Minus zero score students 34.5 40.6
Boys Overall 20.2 26.0
Minus zero score students 23.9 29.8
95 percent Confidence Interval for mean of number of items answered correctly at
Task6b: Reading Comprehension by Year and Gender
71
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
bound
Upper
Bound
Overall 1.18 1.47
Minus zero score students 2.45 2.63
Year 1 Overall 0.17 0.32
Minus zero score students 1.47 2.06
Year 2 Overall 1.21 1.73
Minus zero score students 2.15 2.46
Year 3 Overall 2.12 2.61
Minus zero score students 2.75 3.00
Girls Overall 1.40 1.71
Minus zero score students 2.54 2.83
Boys Overall 0.92 1.27
Minus zero score students 2.23 2.46
95 percent Confidence Interval for mean percentage of correct answer at Task7: Listening
Comprehension by Year and Gender
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
bound
Upper
Bound
Overall 43.2 49.3
Minus zero score students 49.2 54.3
Year 1 Overall 35.5 42.6
Minus zero score students 43.6 49.7
Year 2 Overall 43.3 50.6
Minus zero score students 48.6 54.5
Year 3 Overall 49.5 57.3
Minus zero score students 53.8 60.9
Girls Overall 42.0 49.5
Minus zero score students 48.0 54.0
Boys Overall 43.1 50.3
Minus zero score students 50.0 55.6
95 percent Confidence Interval for mean at Task8: Dictation by Year and Gender
72
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
bound
Upper
Bound
Overall 67.8% 73.2%
Minus zero score students 69.2% 74.3%
Year 1 Overall 45.6% 55.4%
Minus zero score students 48.3% 57.3%
Year 2 Overall 73.1% 79.2%
Minus zero score students 73.2% 79.4%
Year 3 Overall 78.7% 85.4%
Minus zero score students 79.4% 86.2%
Girls Overall 71.9% 76.5%
Minus zero score students 73.7% 77.4%
Boys Overall 62.7% 70.5%
Minus zero score students 63.5% 71.7%
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
Student receives help with homework from the
mother
0.25* 0.10 0.34
Student receives help with homework from father 0.13 0.08 0.34
Student receives help with homework from
sibling
-0.03 0.14 0.34
Someone asks student about what he/she did in
school
0.08 0.11 0.34
Student tells someone at home when he/she gets
good marks
-0.05 0.08 0.34
Student has books, newspapers or other things to
read at home
-0.03 0.06 0.34
Student has books, newspapers or other things to
read at home in Kiribati
0.05 0.05 0.34
73
Student has books, newspapers or other things to
read at home in English
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
Student reads on a computer or mobile device at
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
Sufficient classroom space for organized group
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
77
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.
81
82
83
84
Early Grade Reading Assessment: Student Response Form MOD 5
E tikiraoi am kekeiaki! Ti a manga nakon are i mwiina.
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.
Ko a tauraoi? Ti nang waaki.
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
E tikiraoi am kekeiaki! Ti a manga nakon are i mwiina.
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.
Ko a tauraoi? Ti nang waaki.
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
Early Grade Reading Assessment: Student Response Form MOD 8
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
Early Grade Reading Assessment: Student Response Form MOD 9
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
Donotknow/Noresponse……………….88
12 Doesanyonehelpyoudoyourhomework?Iaiaeebuobuokikonkaraoiambwainreireini
mwengam?
No…………………………………………………….. 0Yes.…………………………………………………… 1
Donotknow/Noresponse……………….88
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