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