THE ACHIEVEMENT OF LEARNERS IN EARLY GRADE ... - … · 2 A publication of the Achievement of...
Transcript of THE ACHIEVEMENT OF LEARNERS IN EARLY GRADE ... - … · 2 A publication of the Achievement of...
THE ACHIEVEMENT OF LEARNERS IN EARLY GRADE READING IN SELECTED
DISTRICTS OF UGANDA: MIDLINE REPORT
NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS IN EDUCATION
UGANDA NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS BOARD
2017
1
Published by Uganda National Examinations Board
All rights reserved. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-
commercial purposes is allowed without prior permission from the copyright holder
provided the source is acknowledged.
Reproduction for re-sale or other commercial purposes is prohibited, unless prior
permission, in writing, is obtained from UNEB.
For further information, please refer to:
The Executive Secretary
Uganda National Examinations Board
P.O. Box 7066
KAMPALA
UGANDA
Telephone: 256 41 4 286173
256 41 4 286636
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.uneb.ac.ug
© 2016 Uganda National Examinations Board
2
A publication of the Achievement of Learners in Early Grade Reading in Selected
Districts of Uganda: Baseline Report, Uganda National Examinations Board.
Prepared by: Dan Kyagaba
Principal Examinations Officer
Amos Opaman
Senior Examinations Officer
Omala St Kizito (PhD)
Senior Examinations Officer
Jumanyol Kennedy
Examinations Officer
Sserunkuuma Lutalo Bbosa
Examinations Officer
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We give praise and honour to God for giving us the strength, wisdom, knowledge and
understanding to accomplish the EGRA activities.
Special consideration goes to the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) for the
financial support. Appreciation to the Ministry of Education and Sports, headed by
Honourable Mrs. Janet Kataha Museveni, for steering the UTSEP activities.
We also thank the Chairman, Professor Lutalo Bosa, and members of the NAPE
Advisory Committee for the continued guidance.
We are sincerely grateful to the various Education Development Partners and other
EGRA stakeholders such as SHRP, LARA, Mango Tree for the technical assistance
provided.
We immensely thank the learners, teachers, headteachers, CCTs, PTC tutors, PTC
Principals, District Education Officers and District Inspectors of School for participating
in the assessment in their various capacities.
Finally, we acknowledge the contribution of the rest of the NAPE staff: Ms Mariam
Namirimu, Mr. John Bwete, Ms. Solomy Namukwaya, Ms. Josephine Nassonko, Mrs.
Barbara K. Barigye and Mrs. Dorothy K. Ssettuba. This accomplishment would not
have been possible without you.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CC Coordinating Centre
CCT Coordinating Centre Tutors
DES Directorate of Education Standards
DQA Data Quality Assurance
EFA Education for All
EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment
EPPA Education Planning and Policy Analysis
GPE Global Partnership for Education
IRR Inter-rater Reliability
LARA Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity
LCs Language Coordinators
MoES Ministry of Education and Sports
NAPE National Assessment of Progress in Education
NCDC National Curriculum Development Centre
P 1 Primary One
P 2 Primary Two
P 3 Primary Three
RTI Research Triangle Institute
SHRP School Health and Reading Programme
TAs Tool Administrators (Assessors)
TDMS Teacher Development and Management System
TIET Teacher Instructor Education and Training
TLs Team Leaders
UNEB Uganda National Examinations Board
UTSEP Uganda Teacher and School Effectiveness Project
6
FOREWORD Monitoring of learners achievement is an indispensable activity in the learning process,
if the objectives of teaching are to be met and standards ensured. At the infant level
of education, regular monitoring of learners’ achievement through continuous
assessment, most especially at the class level, is considered a cornerstone of the Early
Grade Reading (EGR) approach.
With the inception of the Uganda Teacher and School Effectiveness Project (UTSEP)
in 2015, UNEB through NAPE was privileged to be assigned the task of assessing the
P 1, P 2 and P 3 learners reading skills under the EGR approach. This assessment is
the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA). This kind of assessment was already
going on in schools in some other districts by other players, notably School Health and
Reading Programme (SHRP). So, because of the existence of other kinds of EGRA by
some other stakeholders, EGRA by UNEB was named UNEB-EGRA.
UNEB conducted the first UNEB-EGRA survey in October, 2016 as a baseline survey.
The assessment was in 11 local languages and, then, English for all the learners
assessed. The findings of the baseline UNEB-EGRA were released and disseminated
to the stakeholders. For further detailed reading, the baseline report could be accessed
on the UNEB website:www.uneb.ac.ug
In October, 2017, UNEB conducted the midline UNEB-EGRA. The findings of the
midline UNEB-EGRA are presented in this report. The report provides information on
what learners in the infant classes (P 1, P 2 and P 3) know and can do in the basic
reading skills. Such information has a lot of implication to the teaching and learning
process of reading in particular and to all the supporting efforts to that process
especially early grade reading in general.
It is my sincere hope that all stakeholders will use the report to enrich their support
efforts toward improving reading among our learners.
Dan N. Odongo EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ministry of Education and Sports in Uganda is pre-occupied with improving the
quality of education in the country through improving the quality of learning obtaining
in the schools. One of the aspects in the learning process that has greatly attracted
the attention of the key education stakeholders in this endeavour is the level of
learners’ reading skills. The Ministry of Education and Sports has, of recent, adopted
the Early Grade Reading (EGR) model which focuses on exposure of the learners to
the basic reading skills. Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) helps to monitor the
progress of learners in reading skills acquisition in the early years of schooling. The
midline UNEB-EGRA was conducted in 11 local languages in September-October 2017.
This is a follow up of the baseline assessment in October 2016.
The same study design was implemented as at baseline. At baseline, a stratified two-
stage cluster sampling design was used. Data from Education Management
Information System (EMIS) 2015 provided the list of public primary schools and their
respective pupil enrolment figures for each class. Proportional number of schools were
randomly selected from each TDMS Coordinating Centre within selected districts
(Table 1.01, Page 3). The same schools were visited at midline. A simple, a random
sample of 20, 20 and 10 learners were respectively selected from pupils of each of P
1, P 2 and P 3 classes, present on the day of the survey. Survey weights for sampled
learners were accounted for in the analysis in order to obtain unbiased estimates of
the desired benchmarks (proportions and means).
A total of 189 Assessors and 12 Data Quality Assurance (DQA) officers were recruited
for this exercise. They underwent rigorous training which ensured that they became
familiar with the administration of an oral interview, as well as the specific
implementation and coding practices associated with EGRA. The assessment tools
were uploaded on Tangerine software. Since EGRA is individually administered by
assessors, an Inter-rater Reliability (IRR) was computed out twice to ensure
consistency of Assessors with the gold standard in the administration of the EGRA tool.
Piloting of EGRA instruments was also done before scale-up to full data collection, to
ensure: the instruments performed as expected, Assessors gained valuable hands-on
experience and trainers identified gaps in assessor understanding and skills.
Each sampled learner in P 1, P 2 and P 3 classes from 405 public primary schools was
assessed orally and individually both in the local language used as a medium of
instruction and in English. In addition, there were three (3) contextual instruments
administered, namely: Lesson observation, Pupil interview schedule and Headteacher
interview schedule. All these instruments were intended to establish the context in
which learners learn to read at school and at home.
8
Overall Level of Achievement of Learners
Letter Identification
The proportion of learners who were able to identify at least 4 out of 5 letters in all
the 11 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline.
The proportion of learners who were able to identify at least 4 out of 5 letters in Leb-
Lango, Lugbarati and Runyoro-Rutooro remained higher in the local languages than
in English at midline as it was at baseline.
However in Leb-Acoli, the proportion of P 3 learners who were able to identify at least
4 out of 5 letters was higher in English at midline.
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to identify at least 4 out of
5 letters in all the 11 local languages and English, was higher than that of P 2 learners
at baseline.
Telling Letter Sounds
The proportion of learners who were able to sound correctly one or more letters per
minute in all the 11 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline.
At both baseline and midline, the proportion of learners who were able to sound
correctly one or more letters per minute was higher in most of the local languages
than in English except in Lumasaaba and Runyoro-Rutooro.
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to sound correctly one or
more letters per minute in all the 11 local languages and English, was higher than that
of the P 2 learners at baseline.
The mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute was higher in Leb-Acoli,
Leb-Lango, Lhukonzo, Ngakarimojong and Lugbarati than in English at both baseline
and midline.
On the contrary, mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute was higher in
English than in Luganda, Lumasaaba, and Lusoga at both baseline and midline.
The mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute was higher in English than
in Ateso and Runyankore-Rukiga amongst P 2 learners at midline. This was true for
Runyankore-Rukiga at baseline. The reverse is true for Runyoro-Rutooro.
9
The mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute by the P 2 learners at
midline, in all the 11 local languages and English was higher than that of the P 2
learners at baseline.
VOCABULARY
At midline, the proportion of P 2 learners who were able to identify at least 3 out of 4
objects was higher in all the 11 local languages than in English.
The proportion of P 1 learners who were able to identify at least 3 out of 4 objects in
8 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline except in
Luganda, Runyankore-Rukiga and Runyoro-Rutooro.
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to identify at least 3 out of
4 objects in Lugbarati, Lukhonzo, Ngakarimojong, Leb-Acoli and Leb-Lango was higher
than that of the P 2 learners at baseline. However, the reverse was true for Runyoro-
Rutooro, Runyankore-Rukiga, Lusoga and Luganda.
The proportion of learners who were able to describe activities in at least 2 out of 3
pictures in 9 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline except
in Leb-Acoli and Runyoro-Rutooro.
At both baseline and midline, the proportion of learners who were able to describe
activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures was higher in all the 11 local languages than
in English.
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to describe activities in at
least 2 out of 3 pictures in Lugbarati, Ateso, Luganda, Leb-Lango, Lumasaaba and
English, was higher than that of the P 2 learners at baseline. However, the reverse
was true in Runyankore-Rukiga.
Listening Comprehension
The proportion of learners who were able to answer at least 3 out of 4 listening
comprehension questions in all the 11 local languages and English was higher at
midline than at baseline.
The proportion of learners who were able to answer at least 3 out of 4 listening
comprehension questions was higher in all the 11 local languages than in English at
both baseline and midline.
10
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to answer at least 3 listening
comprehension questions in most local languages and English was better than that of
the P 2 learners at baseline except in Lhukonzo, Lusoga, and Runyankore-Rukiga.
Oral Passage Reading
The proportion of learners who were able to read correctly one or more words per
minute in all the 11 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline.
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to read correctly one or more
words per minute in all the 11 local languages and English, was higher than that of
the P 2 learners at baseline.
The proportion of learners who were able to read correctly 20 or more words per
minute was higher in all the 11 local languages than in English at both baseline and
midline.
The proportion of the P 2 learners at midline, who were able to read correctly 20 or
more words per minute in most local languages and English, was higher than that of
the P 2 learners at baseline except in Runyankore-Rukiga.
Reading Comprehension
The proportion of learners who were able to answer correctly one or more
comprehension questions in both English and local language was higher at midline
than at baseline.
At both baseline and midline, the proportion of learners who were able to answer
correctly one or more comprehension questions was higher in local language than in
English, apart from Ateso, Runyoro-Rutooro and Ngakarimojong. However, at P 3 the
reverse is true in Ngakarimojong, Lusoga, Lumasaaba and Lhukonzo.
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to answer correctly one or
more comprehension questions in all the local languages and English was higher than
that of P 2 learners at baseline
Level of Adherence of Teachers to the EGR model
At midline, in almost 9 in 10 lessons observed, the P 2 teachers taught reading lessons
in the mother tongue, while 3 in 10 of the lessons observed had learners with
textbooks/printed materials in their hands (i.e. 1:1 learners to text book ratio).
However, in 91.2% of the lessons observed, learners were sharing the text books.
11
The proportion of learners who were able to read individually from printed materials
or books was higher at midline than at baseline.
Headteachers’ Role in Early Grade Reading
Generally, the proportions of the headteachers by their perceived role in promoting
Early Grade Reading were higher at midline than at baseline. Most headteachers, at
midline viewed supervisory, logistical support and sensitization as their main roles in
promoting Early Grade Reading. This was the same trend at baseline.
12
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Ministry of Education and Sports in Uganda is pre-occupied with improving the
quality of education in the country through improving the quality of learning obtaining
in the schools. One of the aspects in the learning process that has greatly attracted
the attention of the key education stakeholders in this endeavour is the level of
learners’ reading skills. The Ministry of Education has, of recent, adopted the Early
Grade Reading (EGR) model which focuses on exposure of the learners to the basic
reading skills.
Under the Uganda Teacher and School Effectiveness Project (UTSEP), the Ministry of
Education and Sports formally supports the EGR efforts. For example such support
has led to the training of teachers in the Early Grade Reading model and the provision
of instructional materials for EGR to schools, among others. The support started with
27 districts where EGR is implemented (see Table 1.01). The target classes for EGR
are P 1, P 2 and P 3. It is in line with that support, that Uganda National Examinations
Board (UNEB) through its National Assessment of Progress in Education (NAPE) was
requested to implement the EGR corresponding assessment, that is, Early Grade
Reading Assessment (EGRA) among P 1, P 2 and P 3 learners. UNEB conducted its
first EGRA (UNEB-EGRA) in October 2016 as a baseline survey. This was done in
selected schools in the 27 districts, in 11 local languages used as languages of
instruction in primary schools in those districts (see Table 1.01). The learners were
also assessed in English.
1.2 BASELINE SURVEY
The baseline survey was intended to explore and determine what learners know and
can do in terms of the key basic reading skills, as defined under the Early Grade
Reading model. The baseline survey also explored the level of adherance of the
learners’ teachers of reading to the EGR model. The assessment also sought the head
teachers and teachers views on selected aspects of teaching reading. Among the three
classes assessed, that is, P 1, P 2 and P 3, the main class of interest for the baseline
UNEB-EGRA was P 1.
The baseline findings were released in the report titled ‘The Achievement of Learners
in Early Grade Reading in Selected Districts in Uganda’. There were also reports
customized by each of the 11 local languages. These reports can be accessed on the
UNEB website www.uneb.ac.ug
13
1.3 MIDLINE SURVEY
From September to October 2017, UNEB conducted the second UNEB-EGRA. This was
the midline survey. The midline survey employed the same methodology as had been
applied during the baseline survey. The midline UNEB-EGRA was meant to assess
what the learners know and could do based on the baseline findings and in view of
the multiplicity of EGR interventions that have been carried out in all public primary
schools in the 27 districts. The assessment was conducted among P 1, P 2 and P 3
leaners, like was the case during the baseline survey. However, for the midline, the
main class of interest was P 2 and that is where emphasis in reporting is more focused.
The P 2 class of midline survey was the P 1 class during the baseline survey and the
main class of interest then. This is the class which has been at the centre of most of
the EGR interventions. So, the midline survey portrays what P 2 learners can do after
being subjected to the EGR intervention compared to what they could do during the
baseline before the EGR interventions.
The findings of the midline survey are presented in this report. The report is comprised
of eight chapters. Chapter 1: Introduction, Chapter 2: Survey Procedures, Chapter 3:
Letter Identification, Chapter 4: Telling Letter Sounds, Chapter 5: Vocabulary
Knowledge, Chapter 6: Listening Comprehension, Chapter 7: Oral Reading
Comprehension and Chapter 8: Level of Adherence to the EGR Model. Chapters 3, 4,
5, 6 and 7 present the results of the learners level of achievement in the specified
areas of early grade reading. Each of those chapters begin with an introduction,
followed with a description of how the respective skill area was assessed and then a
discussion of the findings as reflected in the figures by each of the 11 local languages
and English.
Each of the figures under these chapters presents the baseline findings on one side
and the midline findings on the other by local language and English. The year 2016
in each of the figures shows the achievement of the learners of the respective class
in the specified skill area in that year. Those very learners (cohort of learners)
progressed to their next class in 2017. So, the year 2017 in each figure shows the
achievement of the learners of the same cohort of the year 2016 when they are in
their next class in 2017.
14
Table 1.01: Local Languages Assessed by District
Local language District
Ateso Amuria, Bukedea, Soroti
Leb-Acoli Agago, Amuru, Lamwo, Nwoya
Leb-Lango Alebtong, Amolatar, Dokolo, Oyam
Lhukonzo Bundibugyo
Luganda Kyankwanzi and Mubende
Lugbarati Maracha
Lumasaaba Bududa and Bulambuli
Lusoga Bugiri, Buyende, Kaliro, Luuka, Mayuge, Namayingo and
Namutumba
Ngakarimojong Kotido
Runayankore-Rukiga Kamwenge
Runyoro-Rutooro Kibaale
15
Chapter 2
METHODOLOGY 2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a description of the instruments and procedures that were used
in selecting the sample (schools and learners), identifying and training the Assessors,
Language coordinators and Monitors. It also describes the process of pre-testing the
instruments, data collection, management and analysis.
2.2 Instruments
These consisted of oral tests and contextual instruments.
2.2.1 Oral Test
The oral test was developed in English and then later translated into all the 11 local
languages. The same test was administered to each individual sampled learner in P
1, P 2 and P 3 in both the local language and English. The oral test was developed
following the EGRA framework. The composition of the oral test is presented in Table
2.01.
Table 2.01: Composition of the Oral test
Components of Reading Competences Bench marks
ALPHABETIC PRINCIPLE
(Relating the letter name to its
symbol)
Identifies letters of the alphabet
(Knowledge of letter names)
Identifies at least 4 letters out of
5, i.e., 80% or more.
PHONEMIC AWARENESS Tells the sound of the letter Sounds correctly at least 1 letter
Mean number of letters sounded
correctly per minute.
FLUENCY
(Oral passage
reading and
Comprehensi
on)
Reading Reads texts with speed and
accuracy
Reads correctly at least 20 words
per minute
Reads correctly at least 1 word
per minute
Comprehension Reads the passage fluently with
comprehension
Answers correctly at least 1
question out of 4, i.e., 25% or
more.
VOCABULARY Demonstrates understanding of
vocabulary e.g. Identifying objects
Identifies correctly at least 3
objects out of 4 i.e., 75% or more
16
Components of Reading Competences Bench marks
(Knowledge and use of words
appropriately and creatively)
Describes the activities in the
pictures using the learnt
vocabulary.
Describes correctly at least 2
activities in the pictures out of 3,
i.e., 67% or more
COMPREHENSION
Listens to a story and derives
meaning from it
Answers correctly at least 3
questions out of 4, i.e., 75% or
more
2.2.2 Contextual instruments
There were three contextual instruments namely: Lesson observation guide, Pupil
interview schedule and Headteacher interview schedule. All the contextual instruments
were used to provide information on the context in which learners learn to read. At
midline, P 2 reading lessons were observed in 171 schools while at baseline, P 1
reading lessons were observed in 168 schools out of the 405 randomly selected public
schools.
2.2.3 Pre-testing Instruments
The instruments were pre-tested in all the 11 local languages. This was meant to
refine the tools and to make the Assessors more acquainted with the administration
of oral tests and use of the tablet (the mobile data collection device).
2.3 Survey Design
2.3.1 Survey Population
The target population consisted of learners in P 1, P 2 and P 3 in all the public primary
schools in the 27 districts under UTSEP.
2.3.2 Sampling Design
A stratified two-stage cluster sampling design was used. The first stage involved
selecting a random sample of schools, stratified by coordinating centres within the
district. Within each stratum, the number of schools selected was proportional to the
number of schools in the coordinating centres. A total of 15 schools were selected
from each district except in Agago (11 schools) and Namayingo (8 schools).
At the second stage, a random sample of 20, 20 and 10 learners were respectively
selected from pupils of each of P 1, P 2 and P 3 classes, present on the day of the
survey. Random selection of schools and learners was done to minimize selection
bias.
17
2.3.3 Selection of Schools
A list of public primary schools from the Education Management Information System
(EMIS) 2015, showing the pupil enrolment figures for P 1, P 2 and P 3 provided the
sampling frame for schools. It was prudent to select schools basing on P 3 enrolment,
because the number of learners in P 3 in a school is usually less than that of P 1 and
P 2. This, therefore, ensured that the number of learners in P 1 and P 2 in a school
was big enough to meet the minimum sample size.
2.3.4 Selection of Testees
A simple random sample of 20 learners was obtained from each of P 1 and P 2 classes
and 10 learners from P 3 class. A pre-prepared selection list (a matrix of class size
and random numbers) was used to select the learners (Appendix 1).
2.3.5 Sample Size
The distribution of sample size for the testees by local language and class is shown in
Table 2.02.
Table 2.02: Distribution of testees by local language and class
Local language Class
P 1 P 2 P 3
Ateso 902 900 452
Leb-Acoli 1,088 1,072 555
Leb-Lango 1,202 1,200 603
Lhukonzo 301 282 148
Luganda 582 559 306
Lugbarati 302 299 151
Lumasaaba 598 595 300
Lusoga 1,970 1,973 981
Ngakarimojong 313 258 149
Runyankore-Rukiga 309 304 150
Runyoro-Rutooro 311 307 151
Total 7,878 7,749 3,946
2.3.6 Sampling Weights
Sampling weights were computed to reflect the probability of learners sampled.
At the first stage, sampling weight, W1i, for each sampled school was computed, i.e.
the inverse of the probability of a school being selected from amongst the public
18
schools in the district (number of public schools in the district divided by 15, the
number of schools sampled).
At the second stage, sampling weight, W2j , for each learner was computed (Number
of learners present in the class per school at the time of selection of learners divided
by the number of learners sampled from the class, P 1 – 20, P 2 – 10, P 3 - 10).
At the last stage, the sampling weight, Wij, was computed by multiplying the weight
for each school, W1i , and weight for each learner, W2j, i.e. Wij = W1i X W2j; where, Wij
is the weight for the jth learner selected from the ith school.
2.4 Data Collection
2.4.1 Training of Assessors
The 189 Assessors and 12 Data Quality Assurance (DQA) officers were selected from
among NAPE scorers of Literacy, language panellists, language writers, other
practising teachers, retired educationists and UNEB staff. The Assessors were selected
through an interview during which their fluency in the local language and familiarity
with the mobile data collection device (tablets) was determined.
There was a rigorous 10-day training of the DQA officers and Assessors at Kyambogo
Primary School in Kampala. The training was conducted by officers from UNEB guided
by the UNEB-EGRA manual. The training was intended to make Assessors and DQA
officers become familiar with the administration of an oral test and with the specific
implementation and coding practices associated with EGRA.
Since EGRA is individually administered by Assessors, an Inter-rater Reliability (IRR)
was computed out twice to ensure consistency of Assessors with the gold standard1
in the administration of the EGRA tool. Piloting of EGRA instruments was also done
before scale-up to full data collection, to ensure the instruments performed as
expected, assessors gained valuable hands-on experience and trainers identified gaps
in assessor understanding and skills.
There were 27 teams each comprising 7 Assessors, one of whom was designated
Team Leader. The DQA officers or the Team leaders were also trained on how to
observe reading lessons as well.
The distribution of Assessors and DQA officers by local languages assessed is shown
in Table 2.03.
1 Pre-defined oral responses
19
Table 2.03: Distribution of Assessors and DQA officers according to Local
Languages
Local language Number
of Teams
DQAs Number of
Assessors
Ateso 3 1 21
Leb-Acoli 4 1 28
Leb-Lango 4 1 28
Lhukonzo 1 1 7
Luganda 2 1 14
Lugbarati 1 1 7
Lumasaaba 2 1 14
Lusoga 7 2 49
Ngakarimojong 1 1 7
Runyankore-Rukiga 1 1 7
Runyoro-Rutooro 1 1 7
Total 27 12 189
2.4.2 Field work
The field work lasted 21 days. For each language, the DQA officer(s) planned the
school(s) to be visited daily using the list of sampled schools provided. The data
collection exercise was guided by a field programme.
Data were collected using Samsung Galaxy Tab S28.0 on which data collection
software (Tangerine) had been installed. An assessor would guide the learner through
the assessment and then capture the responses on the tablet. Data were uploaded to
the cloud by DQA officers at the end of every day’s work. On a daily basis, the data
manager stationed at UNEB Headquarters checked the uploaded data for quality
assurance. The quality assurance report was sent to the respective DQA to inform the
next day’s debriefing with the assessors.
There was a team of Monitors comprising senior officers from UTSEP, TIET, Basic and
Secondary Education departments of Ministry of Education and Sports, retired
educationists and UNEB. These monitored the data collection process in all the 27
districts.
2.5 Statistical Data Analysis
The analysis was done using STATA (Version 13.0) statistical package. The results
were analyzed in terms of means and proportions in both local language and English.
20
The computation of the final proportion and mean took into consideration the complex
survey design (weighted cluster means within strata) and population finite correction.
Variances of the estimators that are smooth functions of the sample data: mean and
proportion were estimated using the Jackknife error estimation approach.
21
Chapter 3
LETTER IDENTIFICATION
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the achievement of learners in letter identification. A testee
was presented with a stimulus (a sheet of paper with 11 letters of the Local or English
Alphabet) depending on whether the assessment was in local or English. The assessor
read out 5 out of 11 letters. The 5 letters were chosen in advance. The testee was
asked to touch the letter that matched the name of the letter the assessor read out.
The testee was allowed 5 seconds to respond before the assessor proceeded to
another letter.
Table 3.01: Measure of Skill of Letter Identification
EGRA
Subtask
How It was
Measured
Foundational
Reading Skill
How Learner Demonstrates
the Skill
Letter
Identification
Identifies at least 4
letters out of 5
Knowledge of
letters
Learner touches the letter that
matches the letter name read
out by the assessor
3.2 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Letter Identification
The proportion of learners who were able to identify at least 4 out of 5 letters in all
the 11 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline.
The proportion of learners who were able to identify at least 4 out of 5 letters in Leb-
Lango, Lugbarati and Runyoro-Rutooro remained higher in the local languages than
in English at midline as it was at baseline.
However in Leb-Acoli, the proportion of P 3 learners who were able to identify at least
4 out of 5 letters was higher in English at midline.
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to identify at least 4 out of
5 letters in all the 11 local languages and English, was higher than that of P 2 learners
at baseline.
3.3 The Achievement of P1 and P 2 Learners in Letter Identification
The achievement of P 1 and P 2 learners in letter identification in the 11 Local
Languages and English Language is presented in Figures 3.01 to 3.11.
22
3.3.1 Letter Identification in Leb-Acoli and English
3.3.2 Letter Identification in Ateso and English
12.9%26.8%
9.0%17.6%
39.4%46.8%
25.8%
54.4%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Acoli English
Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Leb-Acoli and
English
Baseline Midline
13.2%21.6%
10.4%
30.8%41.5%
37.4% 39.2%
64.7%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ateso English
Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Ateso and English
Baseline Midline
23
3.3.3 Letter Identification in Ngakarimojong and English
3.3.4 Letter Identification in Leb-Lango and English
13.3%
31.0%
13.5%
33.0%
66.8%
85.0%
49.9%
81.4%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ngakarimojong English
Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Ngakarimojong and English
Baseline Midline
16.0%
34.2%
8.3%18.2%
46.5%
69.2%
29.3%
44.8%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Lango English
Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Leb- Lango and English
Baseline Midline
24
3.3.5 Letter Identification in Lhukonzo and English
3.3.6 Letter Identification in Luganda and English
5.3%18.5% 16.3%
40.5%
26.5% 26.5%
53.4%
73.9%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lhukonzo English
Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Lhukonzo and English
Baseline Midline
31.2%
51.3%
27.1%
57.3%68.6%
78.1%
58.0%
80.2%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Luganda English
Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Luganda and English
Baseline Midline
25
3.3.7 Letter Identification in Lugbarati and English
3.3.8 Letter Identification in Lumasaaba and English
40.7%
77.5%
2.3%15.6%
81.4%96.3%
25.5%
50.7%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lugbarati English
Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Lugbarati and English
Baseline Midline
9.7% 14.2% 13.6%
41.0%30.9% 32.3%
49.8%
78.1%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lumasaaba English
Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Lumasaaba and English
Baseline Midline
26
.3.9 Letter Identification in Lusoga and English
3.3.10 Letter Identification in Runyankore-Rukiga and English
11.0% 15.2% 13.5%
41.4%
29.2% 26.7%39.6%
67.9%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lusoga English
Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Lusoga and English
Baseline Midline
43.5%
62.8%
28.2%
67.0%73.1%
83.5%
69.7%
89.5%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyankore-Rukiga English
Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Runyankore-Rukiga and English
Baseline Midline
27
3.3.11 Letter Identification in Runyoro-Rutooro and English
13.2%
38.8%
8.5%
25.6%
44.4%
66.9%
25.9%
59.2%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyoro-Rutooro English
Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Runyoro-Rutooro and English
Baseline Midline
28
Chapter 4
LETTER SOUNDS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the achievement of P 1 and P 2 learners in telling letter sounds.
Letter sound knowledge is considered a prerequisite skill for beginning reading and
has been found to be a strong predictor of reading growth (Adams, 1990).One of the
main differences between successful readers and struggling readers is their ability to
use the letter-sound correspondences to decode new words they encounter in text
and to encode (spell) the words they write (Juel, 1991 and Ehri, 1998).
A learner was presented with a stimulus (sheet of paper) with 60capital and lowercase
letters of the Local or English alphabet, depending on whether the assessment was in
Local or English. The learner was asked to tell the sound associated with as many of
the letters as they could identify within one minute. This subtask was timed to take
no more than 60 seconds.
Table 4.01: Measure of Skill of Telling Letter Sounds
EGRA Subtask
How It was
Measured
Foundational
Reading Skill
How Learner
Demonstrates
Tell the sound
of the letter
Sounds correctly
one or more
letters per minute
Letter-sound
correspondence
Learner tells the sounds of
the letters presented to
her/him in both upper and
lower case in a random
order as fast as possible.
Mean number of
letters sounded
correctly per
minute
The achievement of learners in telling letter sounds is presented using two
benchmarks: the proportion of learners who sounded correctly one or more letters
(section 4.2) and mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute (section 4.4).
4.2 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Telling Letter Sounds
The proportion of learners who were able to sound correctly one or more letters per
minute in all the 11 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline.
At both baseline and midline, the proportion of learners who were able to sound
correctly one or more letters per minute was higher in most of the local languages
than in English except in Lumasaaba and Runyoro-Rutooro.
29
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to sound correctly one or
more letters per minute in all the 11 local languages and English, was higher than that
of the P 2 learners at baseline.
4.3 The Achievement of P 1 and P 2 Learners in Telling Letter Sounds
The percentages of P 1 and P 2 learners who sounded correctly one or more letters in
all the Local Languages and English Language is presented in Figures 4.01 – 4.11.
4.3.1 Telling Letter Sounds in Ateso and English
4.3.2 Telling Letter Sounds in Ngakarimojong and English
75.9% 79.1%
63.7% 68.8%
92.4% 91.6%83.5% 79.2%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ateso English
Learners able to sound correctly one or more letters
Baseline Midline
81.6% 84.2%77.3% 77.2%
98.6% 99.0% 96.0% 96.6%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ngakarimojong English
Learners able to sound correctly one or more letters
Baseline Midline
30
4.3.3 Telling Letter Sounds in Leb-Acoli and English
4.3.4 Telling Letter Sounds in Leb-Lango and English
59.5%74.4%
46.7%57.5%
81.9% 77.2%70.4%
61.0%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Acoli English
Learners able to sound correctly one or more letters
Baseline Midline
39.3%51.0%
34.2%
48.4%
75.8% 72.3% 73.7% 70.4%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Lango English
Learners able to sound correctly one or more letters per minute
Baseline Midline
31
4.3.5 Telling Letter Sounds in Lhukonzo and English
4.3.6 Telling Letter Sounds in Luganda and English
40.9%
71.0%
36.7%
55.6%
77.4%87.7%
67.9%74.5%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lhukonzo English
Learners able to sound correctly one or more letters per minute
Baseline Midline
69.0%
88.0%
60.1%
76.1%
93.3% 96.5%88.0 % 84.6%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Luganda English
Learners able to sound correctly one or more letters per minute
Baseline Midline
32
4.3.7 Telling Letter Sounds in Lugbarati and English
4.3.8 Telling Letter Sounds in Lumasaaba and English
76.3%
91.8%
76.5%87.9%92.4% 93.4% 88.3%
79.1%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lugbarati English
Learners able to sound correctly one or more letters per minute
Baseline Midline
44.8%53.2% 54.2%
65.6%78.9% 83.0% 83.9% 88.9%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lumasaaba English
Learners able to sound correctly one or more letters per minute
Baseline Midline
33
4.3.9 Telling Letter Sounds in Lusoga and English
4.3.10 Telling Letter Sounds in Runyankore-Rukiga and English
47.8%
65.4%
40.7%50.2%
77.5% 80.4%73.1%
65.1%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lusoga English
Learners able to sound correctly one or more letters per minute
Baseline Midline
81.2%91.0%
81.5% 87.1%96.0% 95.1%
89.0% 88.9%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyankore-Rukiga English
Learners able to sound correctly one or more letters per minute
Baseline Midline
34
4.3.11 Telling Letter Sounds in Runyoro-Rutooro and English
4.4 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute
The mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute was higher in
Ngakarimojong, Leb-acoli, Leb-lango, Lhukonzo and Lugbarati than in English at both
baseline and midline.
On the contrary, mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute was higher in
English than in Luganda, Lusoga and Lumasaaba at both baseline and midline.
The mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute was higher in English than
in Ateso and Runyankore-Rukiga at P 2 midline. This was true for Runyankore-Rukiga
at baseline. The reverse is true for Runyoro-Rutooro.
The mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute by the P 2 learners at
midline, in all the 11 local languages and English was higher than that of the P 2
learners at baseline.
41.5%
67.3%
46.7%
73.1%82.1%
92.1%82.8%
90.1%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyoro-Rutooro English
Learners able to sound correctly one or more letters per minute
Baseline Midline
35
4.4.1 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Ateso and English
4.4.2 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Ngakarimojong
and English
3.0 3.4 2.9 3.17.7 5.7 8.2
5.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ateso English
Mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute
Baseline Midline
5.48.0
4.7 5.7
16.0 16.3 13.1 13.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ngakarimojong English
Mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute
Baseline Midline
36
4.4.3 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Leb-Acoli and
English
4.4.4 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Leb-Lango and
English
2.1 3.2 1.7 2.25.2 4.7 4.2 2.90
10
20
30
40
50
60
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Acoli English
Mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute
Baseline Midline
1.73.5 1.3 3.1
7.2 7.9 6.9 6.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Lango English
Mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute
Baseline Midline
37
4.4.5 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Lhukonzo and
English
4.4.6 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Luganda and
English
2.3 4.41.6 2.6
7.1 6.1 5.4 3.60
10
20
30
40
50
60
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lhukonzo English
Mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute
Baseline Midline
2.8 3.3 3.0 3.8
11.85.2
12.75.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Luganda English
Mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute
Baseline Midline
38
4.4.7 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Lugbarati and
English
4.4.8 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Lumasaaba and
English
3.6 6.43.6 5.1
10.3 9.9 7.7 6.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lugbarati English
Mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute
Baseline Midline
1.1 1.3 2.0 2.55.1 3.87.5 6.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lumasaaba English
Mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute
Baseline Midline
39
4.4.9 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Lusoga and English
4.4.10 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Runyankore
- Rukiga and English
1.2 1.4 1.2 1.43.6 2.2 4.6 2.80
10
20
30
40
50
60
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lusoga English
Mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute
Baseline Midline
2.7 3.5 3.7 4.37.2 4.6 8.7
4.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyankore-Rukiga English
Mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute
Baseline Midline
40
4.4.11 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Runyoro –
Rutooro and English
1.0 2.8 1.6 3.57.1 6.9 6.3 7.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyoro-Rutooro English
Mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute
Baseline Midline
41
Chapter 5
VOCABULARY 5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the achievement of learners in Vocabulary. Vocabulary was
assessed using two tasks; identification of objects and description of activities in
pictures. Learners’ achievement in identification of objects is presented first, followed
by description of activities in pictures.
5.2 Vocabulary: Identification of Objects
A stimulus (a sheet of paper with 4 objects in the Local or English) depending on
whether the assessment was in Local or English was presented to the testee. The
assessor read out the words that matched the objects on the stimulus. The testee was
asked to touch the object that matched the word for the object the assessor read out.
The testee was allowed 5 seconds to respond before the assessor proceeded to
another object.
Table 5.01: Measure of Skill of Identification of Objects
EGRA
Subtask
How It was
Measured
Foundational
Reading Skill
How Learner Demonstrates
the Skill
Object
Identification
Identifies at least 3
objects out of 4
Knowledge of
vocabulary
Learner touches the object
that matches the word for the
object read out by the assessor
5.2.1 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Object Identification
The proportion of P 2 learners who were able to identify at least 3 out of 4 objects
was higher in all the 11 local languages than in English at midline.
The proportion of learners who were able to identify at least 3 out of 4 objects in 8
local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline except in Luganda,
Runyankore-Rukiga and Runyoro-Rutooro.
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to identify at least 3 out of
4 objects in Lugbarati, Lukhonzo, Ngakarimojong, Leb-Acoli and Leb-Lango was higher
than that of the P 2 learners at baseline. However, the reverse was true for Runyoro-
Rutooro, Runyankore-Rukiga, Lusoga and Luganda.
42
5.2.2 The Achievement of P 1 and P 2 Learners in Object Identification
The achievement of P 1 and P 2 learners in object identification in the 11 Local
Languages and English Language is presented in Figures 5.01 - 5.11.
5.2.2.1 Identification of Objects in Leb-Acoli and English
5.2.2.2 Identification of Objects in Ateso and English
99.4% 99.6%
71.8%
88.5%
99.9% 99.8%
90.2%95.7%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Acoli English
Learners identifying at least 3 out of 4 objects.
Baseline Midline
98.5% 99.4%
54.3%
80.5%
99.5% 98.8%
79.6%
91.2%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ateso English
Learners identifying at least 3 out of 4 objects.
Baseline Midline
43
5.2.2.3 Identification of Objects in Ngakarimojong and English
5.2.2.4 Identification of Objects in Leb-Lango and English
73.2%66.1%
75.7% 75.2%
99.2% 100.0%94.2% 100.0%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ngakarimojong English
Learners identifying at least 3 out of 4 objects
Baseline Midline
97.9% 99.2%
67.8%78.8%
99.4% 99.7%90.7% 92.1%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Lango English
Learners identifying at least 3 out of 4 objects
Baseline Midline
44
5.2.2.5 Identification of Objects in Lhukonzo and English
5.2.2.6 Identification of Objects in Luganda and English
97.8% 100.0%
82.4%94.8%
100.0% 99.5% 97.6% 98.3%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lhukonzo English
Learners identifying at least 3 out of 4 objects
Baseline Midline
99.6% 99.8%87.2%
98.7%99.4% 98.8% 96.8% 98.5%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Luganda English
Learners identifying at least 3 out of 4 objects.
Baseline Midline
45
5.2.2.7 Identification of Objects in Lugbarati and English
5.2.2.8 Identification of Objects in Lumasaaba and English
5.2.2.9 Identification of Objects in Lusoga and English
98.5% 98.7%
76.4%
89.9%100.0% 100.0%
90.7% 95.6%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lugbarati English
Learners identifying at least 3 out of 4 objects
Baseline Midline
95.5% 97.6%83.5%
98.9%98.4% 100.0% 98.3% 100.0%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lumasaaba English
Learners identifying at least 3 out of 4 objects.
Baseline Midline
46
5.2.2.10 Identification of Objects in Runyankore-Rukiga and English
97.9% 99.7%
73.3%
92.7%99.2% 99.1%
89.9%95.8%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lusoga English
Learners identifying at least 3 out of 4 objects
Baseline Midline
100.0% 100.0%88.6%
97.7%98.4% 100.0% 96.6% 98.8%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyankore-Rukiga English
Learners identifying at least 3 out of 4 objects.
Baseline Midline
47
5.2.2.11 Identification of Objects in Runyoro-Rutooro and English
5.3 Vocabulary: Description of Activities in Pictures
A stimuli (a card with a picture of a person doing an activity) was flashed at the
learner. The assessor instructed the testee to look at the card carefully and describe
the activity in the picture. The testee was allowed 5 seconds to respond before the
assessor proceeded to flash another card.
Table 5.02: Measure of Skill of Description of Activities in Pictures
EGRA
Subtask
How It was
Measured
Foundational
Reading Skill
How Learner
Demonstrates the Skill
Description
of activities
in the
pictures
Describes
activities in at
least 2 out of 3
pictures
Knowledge of
vocabulary
Learner describes the activity
in the picture on the card
flashed by the Assessor
5.3.1 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Description of Activities
in Pictures
The proportion of learners who were able to describe activities in at least 2 out of 3
pictures was higher in all the 11 local languages than in English at both baseline and
midline.
The proportion of learners who were able to describe activities in at least 2 out of 3
pictures in 9 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline except
in Leb-Acoli and Runyoro-Rutooro.
100.0% 100.0%
67.9%
92.4%96.4% 99.2%87.6%
95.7%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyoro-Rutooro English
Learners identifying at least 3 out of 4 objects.
Baseline Midline
48
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to describe activities in at
least 2 out of 3 pictures in Lugbarati, Ateso, Luganda, Leb-Lango, Lumasaaba and
English, was higher than that of the P 2 learners at baseline. However, the reverse
was true in Runyankore-Rukiga.
5.3.2 The Achievement of P 1 and P 2 Learners in Description of Activities
in Pictures
The achievement of P 1 and P 2 learners in description of pictures in the 11 Local
Languages and English Language is presented in Figures 5.12 – 5.22.
5.3.2.1 Description of Activities in Pictures in Leb-Acoli and English
5.3.2.2 Description of Activities in Pictures in Ateso and English
98.0% 99.5%
5.6% 10.2%
99.2% 99.3%
15.7%30.3%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Acoli English
Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures
Baseline Midline
93.3% 99.1%
13.5%28.9%
99.8% 99.8%
34.8%
62.6%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ateso English
Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures
Baseline Midline
49
5.3.2.3 Description of Activities in Pictures in Ngakarimojong and English
5.3.2.4 Description of Activities in Pictures in Leb-Lango and English
95.8% 94.9%
49.9%
76.8%
99.2% 100.0%
74.1%
91.1%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ngakarimojong English
Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures.
Baseline Midline
96.1% 99.0%
9.1%16.0%
99.8% 99.7%
22.4%35.0%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Lango English
Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures.
Baseline Midline
50
5.3.2.5 Description of Activities in Pictures in Lhukonzo and English
5.3.2.6 Description of Activities in Pictures in Luganda and English
97.7% 98.1%
11.8%
25.5%
99.5% 100.0%
38.6%
51.4%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lhukonzo English
Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures.
Baseline Midline
93.1%99.2%
11.5%18.8%
99.3% 99.5%
29.6%43.4%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Luganda English
Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures.
Baseline Midline
51
5.3.2.7 Description of Activities in Pictures in Lugbarati and English
5.3.2.8 Description of Activities in Pictures in Lumasaaba and English
98.5% 100.0%
18.1%24.2%
100.0% 100.0%
27.6%
42.2%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lugbarati English
Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures.
Baseline Midline
97.4% 99.8%
12.5%21.2%
100.0% 100.0%
33.3%
52.1%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lumasaaba English
Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures.
Baseline Midline
52
5.3.2.9 Description of Activities in Pictures in Lusoga and English
5.3.2.10 Description of Activities in Pictures in Runyankore-Rukiga and
English
93.7% 97.9%
5.6% 11.7%
99.3% 99.6%
15.3%31.5%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lusoga English
Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures.
Baseline Midline
97.5% 100.0%
17.3%
37.3%
99.6% 100.0%
37.0%
63.1%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyankore-Rukiga English
Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures.
Baseline Midline
53
5.3.2.11 Description of Activities in Pictures in Runyoro-Rutooro and English
92.8%100.0%
3.3%10.8%
97.6% 99.2%
13.1%
30.2%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyoro-Rutooro English
Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures.
Baseline Midline
54
Chapter 6
LISTENING COMPREHENSION
6.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the achievement of P 1 and P 2 learners in Listening
Comprehension.
A story was read to the testee. The testee was expected to listen to the story and
answer orally, four questions related to the text. Ten seconds were allowed for each
response. If the testee answered some of the questions or none, the Assessor would
read the story and the unanswered questions for a second time.
Table 6.01: Measure of Skill of Listening Comprehension
EGRA Subtask
How It was
Measured
Foundational
Reading Skill
How Learner
Demonstrates the Skill
Listening
Comprehension
Answers correctly
three or more
questions
Comprehension Learner responds correctly
to questions asked about
the story read to him/her
6.2 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Listening Comprehension
The proportion of learners who were able to answer at least 3 out of 4 listening
comprehension questions was higher in all the 11 local languages than in English at
both baseline and midline.
The proportion of learners who were able to answer at least 3 out of 4 listening
comprehension questions was higher in all the 11 local languages than in English at
both baseline and midline.
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to answer at least 3 listening
comprehension questions in most local languages and English was better than that of
the P 2 learners at baseline except in Lhukonzo, Lusoga, and Runyankore-Rukiga.
6.3 The Achievement of P 1 and P 2 Learners in Listening Comprehension
The percentages of P 1 and P 2 learners who answered correctly at least 3 questions
in Listening comprehension in all the Local Languages and English Language is
presented in Figures 6.01 - 6.11.
55
6.3.1 Listening Comprehension in Ateso and English
6.3.2 Listening Comprehension in Leb-Acoli and English
68.6%
87.0%
6.7%17.4%
89.4% 91.0%
25.2%
53.1%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ateso English
Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension questions of Ateso and English
Baseline Midline
85.4% 92.0%
1.2% 3.6%
92.6% 95.9%
5.7%20.4%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Acoli English
Learners answering at least 3 listening comprehension questions of Leb-Acoli and English
Baseline Midline
56
6.3.3 Listening Comprehension in Ngakarimojong and English
6.3.4 Listening Comprehension in Leb-Lango and English
72.7%
94.2%
26.4%
58.1%
96.8% 97.6%
72.5%
91.7%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ngakarimojong English
Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension questions of Ngakarimojong and English
Baseline Midline
82.7%91.2%
1.6% 4.3%
93.3% 96.6%
9.4%20.5%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Lango English
Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension questions of Leb-Lango and English
Baseline Midline
57
6.3.5 Listening Comprehension in Lhukonzo and English
6.3.6 Listening Comprehension in Luganda and English
70.0%
92.3%
3.0%
24.5%
91.2% 95.5%
34.1%
51.1%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lhukonzo English
Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension questions of Lhukonzo and English
Baseline Midline
91.0% 91.1%
2.1% 7.6%
96.6% 97.8%
17.1%
34.0%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Luganda English
Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension questions of Luganda and English
Baseline Midline
58
6.3.7 Listening Comprehension in Lugbarati and English
6.3.8 Listening Comprehension in Lumasaaba and English
88.5% 89.5%
0.8% 6.7%
92.3% 95.1%
7.5%
19.5%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lugbarati English
Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprhension questions of Lugbarati and English
Baseline Midline
66.7%75.1%
3.3%10.3%
88.4% 93.3%
20.0%
43.7%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lumasaaba English
Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension questions of Lumasaaba and English
Baseline Midline
59
6.3.9 Listening Comprehension in Lusoga and English
6.3.10 Listening Comprehension in Runyankore-Rukiga and English
84.1%91.3%
0.8% 4.7%
90.9% 96.4%
5.9%
25.0%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lusoga English
Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension Questions in Lusoga and English
Baseline Midline
83.9%95.1%
3.8%18.2%
90.8% 95.3%
22.3%
51.7%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyakore-Rukiga English
Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension Questions in Runyankore-Rukiga
Baseline Midline
60
6.3.11 Listening Comprehension in Runyoro-Rutooro and English
65.3%77.0%
0.5% 3.7%
86.4%96.0%
5.5%
22.9%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyoro-Rutooro English
Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension Questions in Runyankore-Rukiga
Baseline Midline
61
Chapter 7
ORAL PASSAGE READING AND COMPREHENSION
7.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the achievement of P 1 and P 2 learners in fluency and reading
comprehension. A testee was presented with a stimulus (a sheet of paper) with a
passage in Local or English, depending on whether the assessment was in Local or
English. The testee was expected to read the passage aloud, quickly and carefully in
60 seconds. After reading, the testee was asked some oral questions about the
passage up to where s/he had stopped.
Table 7.01: Measure of Fluency and Reading Comprehension
EGRA Subtask
How It was
Measured
Foundational
Reading Skill
How Learner Demonstrates
the Skill
Fluency Number of words
read per minute
Reading with
speed
Reads the passage with
speed and accuracy
Reading
Comprehension
Answering
correctly one
question out of
three
Reading the
passage with
understanding
Answers correctly the
questions asked about the
passage
7.2 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Fluency (one or more
words per minute)
The proportion of learners who were able to read correctly one or more words per
minute in all the 11 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline.
The proportion of learners who were able to read correctly one or more words per
minute was higher in Leb-acoli and Leb-lango than in English at both baseline and
midline. The reverse was true in Ateso and Lumasaaba.
The proportion of learners who were able to read correctly one or more words per
minute was higher in Runyoro-Rutooro and Runyankore-Rukiga than in English at
baseline. The reverse was true at midline.
At midline, the proportion of learners who were able to read correctly one or more
words per minute was higher in English than in Lhukonzo, Luganda and Lusoga.
At baseline, the proportion of P 2 learners who were able to read correctly one or
more words per minute was higher in English than in Lhukonzo, Luganda and Lusoga.
The reverse is true for P 1 learners.
62
At midline, the proportion of P 2 learners who were able to read correctly one or more
words per minute was higher in Ngakarimojong and Lugbarati than in English.
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to read correctly one or more
words per minute in all the 11 local languages and English, was higher than that of
the P 2 learners at baseline.
7.3 The Achievement of P 1 and P 2 Learners in Fluency
The percentages of P 1 and P 2 learners who could read correctly one or more words
per minute in the local language and English are presented in Figures 7.01 - 7.11.
7.3.1 Fluency in Ateso and English
7.3.2 Fluency in Leb-Acoli and English
5.6%11.5% 7.2%
18.9%23.0%30.3% 29.9%
55.6%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ateso English
Learners reading correclty one or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
20.7%28.6%
7.8%14.0%
55.4%47.5%
17.7%
43.2%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb - Acoli English
Learners reading correctly one or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
63
7.3.3 Fluency in Leb-Lango and English
7.3.4 Fluency in Runyoro-Rutooro and English
14.4%
26.1%
11.0%20.6%
30.7%
57.5%
24.4%
47.3%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Lango English
Learners reading correctly one or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
8.8%
25.5%
6.5%
21.9%32.7%
63.5%
33.8%
71.3%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyoro-Rutooro English
Learners reading correctly one or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
64
7.3.5 Fluency in Runyankore-Rukiga and English
7.3.6 Fluency in Lhukonzo and English
31.1%42.8%
24.8%
42.2%
63.6%76.1%
63.6%
79.7%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyakore-Rukiga English
Learners reading correctly one or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
6.3%
21.1%
5.8%
23.3%24.8%39.1%
29.7%
43.5%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lhukonzo English
Learners reading correctly one or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
65
7.3.7 Fluency in Lugbarati and English
7.3.8 Fluency in Lumasaaba and English
7.4%
19.8%
5.2%
19.8%
34.9%
59.9%
31.9%
68.6%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lugbarati English
Learners reading correctly one or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
3.6%12.8%
4.0%
17.9%18.2%27.2% 32.0%
59.5%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lumasaba English
Learners reading correctly one or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
66
7.3.9 Fluency in Lusoga and English
7.3.10 Fluency in Luganda and English
12.6%17.2%
10.6%
23.7%20.9%27.9% 23.4%
45.9%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lusoga English
Learners reading correctly one or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
13.8%
29.5%
12.7%
32.9%42.2%
56.7%
43.0%
59.2%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Luganda English
Learners reading correctly one or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
67
7.3.11 Fluency in Ngakarimojong and English
7.4 Overall Achievement of Learners in Fluency (20 or more words per
minute)
In all 11 local languages and English, not more than 30% of the P 2 learners at midline
were able to read correctly 20 or more words per minute.
At midline, the proportion of learners who were able to read correctly 20 or more
words per minute was higher in Luganda, Leb-lango, Runyoro-Rutooro than in English.
The reverse was true in Ateso, Ngakarimojong, Leb-acoli, Lumasaaba and
Runyankore-Rukiga.
The proportion of learners who were able to read correctly 20 or more words per
minute in local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline.
The proportion of the P 2 learners at midline, who were able to read correctly 20 or
more words per minute in most local languages and English, was higher than that of
the P 2 learners at baseline except in Runyankore-Rukiga.
7.5.1 Fluency in Ateso and English
19.4% 25.2% 26.1%
43.5%
68.6% 74.2%67.3%
86.1%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ngakarimojong English
Learners reading correctly one or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
68
7.5.2 Fluency in Leb-Acoli and English
0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 2.3%3.8% 4.1% 4.0%
17.7%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ateso English
Learners reading correctly 20 or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5%0.2% 0.7% 0.5%7.4%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Acoli English
Learners reading correctly 20 or more words per minute.
Baseline Midline
69
7.5.3 Fluency in Leb-Lango and English
7.5.4 Fluency in Luganda and English
0.4% 1.1% 0.1% 0.5%3.1%14.4%
1.2%7.0%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Lango English
Learners reading correctly 20 or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
1.3% 2.9% 0.6% 0.5%
22.0%30.9%
10.7%
27.5%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Luganda English
Learners reading correctly 20 or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
70
7.5.5 Fluency in Runyoro-Rutooro and English
7.5.6 Fluency in Runyankore-Rukiga and English
0.2% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0%11.6%
29.6%
4.0%13.3%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyoro-Rutooro English
Learners reading correctly 20 or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
0.2%8.8%
0.4%8.2%
2.2% 4.2%11.9%
43.6%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyakore-Rukiga English
Learners reading correctly 20 or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
71
7.5.7 Fluency in Lusoga and English
7.5.8 Fluency in Lugbarati and English
0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%2.6% 2.2% 2.0%8.9%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lusoga English
Learners reading correctly 20 or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 2.0%6.1%
24.8%
2.1%
26.2%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lugbarati English
Learners reading correctly 20 or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
72
7.5.9 Fluency in Ngakarimojong and English
7.5.10 Fluency in Lumasaaba and English
2.1%7.2% 3.3%
10.0%
28.0%
43.0%
28.9%
58.2%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ngakarimojong English
Learners reading correctly 20 or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%3.5% 3.7% 5.6%17.5%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lumasaba English
Learners reading correctly 20 or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
73
7.5.11 Fluency in Lhukonzo and English
7.6 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Reading Comprehension
Generally, there was an increase in the proportions of learners who were able to
answer correctly one or more questions in both English and local language at midline.
At both baseline and midline, the proportion of learners who were able to answer
correctly one or more comprehension questions was higher in local language than
English apart from Ateso, Runyoro-Rutoro and Ngakarimojong. However, at P 3 the
reverse is true in Ngakarimojong, Lusoga, Lumasaaba and Lhukonzo.
The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to answer correctly one or
more comprehension questions in all the local languages and English was higher than
that of P 2 learners at baseline.
7.7 The Achievement of P 1 and P 2 Learners in Reading Comprehension
The percentages of P 1 and P 2 learners who could answer correctly one or more
comprehension questions in the Local Languages and English Language are presented
in Figures 7.23 - 7.32.
0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 7.4%9.3% 13.0%7.6%
19.4%
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lhukonzo English
Learners reading correctly 20 or more words per minute
Baseline Midline
74
7.7.1 Reading Comprehension in Ateso and English
7.7.2 Reading Comprehension in Leb-Acoli and English
0.6% 0.8% 0.3% 2.9%5.4% 8.6% 7.2%21.4%
0
20
40
60
80
100
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ateso English
Learners answering correctly one or more comprehension questions
Baseline Midline
0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.7%5.7% 8.6% 1.2% 7.6%0
20
40
60
80
100
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Acoli English
Learners answering correctly one or more comprehension questions
Baseline Midline
75
7.7.3 Reading Comprehension in Leb-Lango and English
7.7.4 Reading Comprehension in Runyoro-Rutooro and English
0.7% 2.0% 0.2% 0.7%6.9%
23.2%
2.6%12.2%
0
20
40
60
80
100
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Leb-Lango English
Learners answering correctly one or more comprehension questions
Baseline Midline
0.3% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0%15.0%
34.4% 38.0%
15.4%
0
20
40
60
80
100
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyoro-Rutooro English
Learners answering correctly one or more comprehension questions
Baseline Midline
76
7.7.5 Reading Comprehension in Runyankore-Rukiga and English
7.7.6 Reading Comprehension in Lhukonzo and English
1.3%10.6%
0.9%7.5%
30.4%
49.4%
13.5%
45.3%
0
20
40
60
80
100
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Runyakore-Rukiga English
Learners answering correctly one or more comprehension questions
Baseline Midline
0.0% 2.5% 0.0%10.6%9.3% 13.0% 7.6%
19.4%
0
20
40
60
80
100
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lhukonzo English
Learners answering correctly one or more comprehension questions
Baseline Midline
77
7.7.7 Reading Comprehension in Lugbarati and English
7.7.8 Reading Comprehension in Lumasaaba and English
1.5% 1.1% 0.0% 2.7%9.0%
29.7%
2.5%
26.3%
0
20
40
60
80
100
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lugbarati English
Learners answering correctly one or more comprehension questions
Baseline Midline
1.0% 0.0% 0.3% 3.6%11.9% 13.7% 11.4%
28.8%
0
20
40
60
80
100
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lumasaba English
Learners answering correctly one or more comprehension questions
Baseline Midline
78
7.7.9 Reading Comprehension in Lusoga and Englis
7.7.10 Reading Comprehension in Luganda and English
1.1% 1.1% 0.2% 0.4%7.0% 7.0% 2.0%
12.2%
0
20
40
60
80
100
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Lusoga English
Learners answering correctly one or more comprehension questions
Baseline Midline
1.3% 4.2% 0.2% 0.2%
23.6% 27.1%
10.5%23.6%
0
20
40
60
80
100
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Luganda English
Learners answering correctly one or more comprehension questions
Baseline Midline
79
7.7.11 Reading Comprehension in Ngakarimojong and English
0.6% 3.8% 1.9% 9.6%
42.9%
57.8%
40.3%
68.0%
0
20
40
60
80
100
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
P12016
P22017
P22016
P32017
Ngakarimojong English
Learners answering correctly one or more comprehension questions
Baseline Midline
80
Chapter 8
LEVEL OF ADHERENCE OF TEACHERS TO THE EGR MODEL
8.1 Introduction
In this chapter, a presentation of the level of adherence EGR model in a reading lesson
is made. The EGR model entails the implementation of the 5Ts: Textbooks in the
hands of the learners, Teaching in the mother tongue, Testing, Teaching techniques
and Time on task. The P 2 teacher was observed while conducting a reading lesson
with P 2 learners.
8.2 The Level of Adherence of Teachers to the 5Ts
The level of adherence of teachers to the 5Ts is shown in Figure 8.01.
Table 8.01: Level of adherence (Percentage) to the 5Ts of Teaching Reading
5Ts Indicator n
Baseline
n
Midline
Percentag
e Baseline
Percentag
e Midline
Text books Text books/printed material in
the hands of the learners
168 171 11.2 25.7
Tongue Teachers taught Reading
lessons in the mother tongue
168 171 69.9 88.3
Testing Teachers have current
assessment records of learners
168 171 49.7 40.4
Teaching
Techniques
Teachers guide learners to:
Beat the word (clap, beat, tap,
or stamp the syllables of the
word)
168
171
60.4
14.6
Blend letter to form syllables
and words
168 171 38.7 21.6
Write a letter pattern in the air
(or traces on floor or desk)
168 171 47.8 9.4
Read (individually) words from
printed materials or book
168 171 51.0 60.8
Time
At midline, almost 9 in 10 lessons observed, the P 2 teachers taught reading lessons
in the mother tongue while 3 in 10 of the lessons observed had pupils with
textbooks/printed materials in their hands (i.e. 1.1 pupil to text book ratio). However,
91.2% of the lessons observed, pupils were sharing the text books.
There was an improvement in the proportion of learners who were able to read
individually from printed materials or books.
81
CHAPTER 9
VIEWS OF HEADTEACHERS AND TEACHERS ON THEIR ROLES IN PROMOTING EARLY GRADE READING
9.0 Introduction In this chapter, the midline views of head teachers and teachers on their perceived roles in promoting early Grade Reading the teachers having ever been trained to teach reading is presented. 9.1 Head teachers’ Role in Early Grade Reading Head teachers in the EGRA sampled schools were interviewed on their perceived roles in promoting Early Grade Reading. Figure 9.01 shows the percentage of head teachers by what they perceived to be their role in promoting EGRA at midline and baseline.
Generally, the proportions of the perceived roles of the head teachers in promoting early grade reading were higher at midline than at baseline. Most head teachers at midline viewed supervisory, logistical support and sensitization as their main roles in promoting Early Grade Reading. This was the same trend at baseline. Calling for CPDs, going to class to teach EGR in absence of teachers and emphasize the use of local language as the medium of instruction were among the others as a role performed by head teachers in promoting early grade reading. 9.2 Teachers supervised during Reading lessons At midline, teachers were interviewed on whether they had ever been supervised during the reading lessons. The percentage distribution of teachers by ever been supervised during the reading lesson at both midline and baseline is presented in figure 9.02.
89.9
69.9
43.836.0
30.120.3
8.9
94.782.7
50.2
37.832.0
17.310.0
Supervisory Logisticalsupport
Sensitization Leadership Coordination Trainingteachers
Others
Roles
Figure 9.01: Percentage of Headteachers, by reported roles in promoting Early Grade Reading
Baseline Midline
82
At midline, 9 in 10 teachers reported that they have ever been supervised during the reading lesson. A total of 320 teachers mentioned the category of officers who supervised them during the reading lessons. The percentage distribution of teachers by who supervised them during the reading lessons is shown in Table 9.01.
Category of Supervisor n
Baseline
n
Midline
Percentag
e Baseline
Percentag
e Midline
Headteachers 286 84.4 85.6
Centre Coordinating Tutors 167 49.3 37.5
Deputy Headteachers/Directors of Studies / Heads
of Department
82 24.2 26.6
Inspectors of School 38 11.2 15.6
Ministry officials 13 3.8 2.5
School Management Committee / Sub-county staff 7 2.1 2.5
Associate Assessors 6 1.8 2.8
NGOs (DED, Action Aid, VSO, etc.) 3 0.9 0.6
There was increase in the proportion of teachers who were supervised by head teachers at midline than at baseline. Similarly, the proportion of teachers who were supervised by deputy head teachers, Inspectors of Schools, School Management Committees and Associate Assessors increased at midline compared to baseline. It is worth noting that the proportion of teachers who were supervised by coordinating centre tutors dropped at midline compared to baseline.
86.8%
13.2%
91.9%
8.1%
Yes No
Figure 9.02: Percentage distribution of teachers, by ever been supervised during reading lessons
Baseline Midline
83
9.3 Teachers ever been trained to teach Reading Teachers were asked whether they ever attended training on how to teach reading at an early grade. The percentage distribution of those who have been trained is shown in figure 9.03.
At midline nearly all teachers reported that they were trained to teach reading. Apart from Moes/TIET, a number of other organizations have trained teachers to teach reading. They include RTI/SHRP, Mango Tree, Aga-Khan and the District Education Office. Many teachers (95.9%) reported that they applied what they learnt during their EGR training.
92.2%
7.8%
96.3%
3.8%
Yes No
Figure 9.03: Percentage distribution of teachers, by ever trained to teach Reading
Baseline Midline
84
RECOMMENDATIONS
SN Recommendation Responsibility Centre
1. Roll out the EGR Model to all districts of the country MoES, Basic Education
2. UNEB take the lead in training teachers in all teacher
training institutions
UNEB
3. Closely monitor the implementation of the model Basic Education /DES/DEOs/DISs/
Headteachers/SMCs/CCTs
4. Strengthen regular practice in oral reading: provide
more readers, integrate reading in and outside school
activities
Teachers / Parents
5. Provide continuous refresher courses to teachers /
district officials.
TIET, CCTs
6. Find out the systematic factors which support and
sustain EGR
UNEB research department
7. Advocate for a vote in the budget to sustain and
conduct EGRA annually
MoES (Basic Education)