literacy boost northern province, sri lanka · literacy boost northern province, sri lanka august...
TRANSCRIPT
Literacy Boost Northern Province,
Sri Lanka August 2013
Carolyn Alesbury, Sanzeir Mohamed, Lauren Pisani, Sivarasa Sasikaran,
Thavarasa Sobana and Sivasothy Shangar.
With special thanks to the team of assessors: Calistus Stanislaus, Sivapratheepan Nadarasa, Kunakaran Rasenthiran,
Kantharuby Logenthiran, Thanaransiny Kasenthirakumar, Shangeetha Rasenthiram, Shanthi Pirabakaran, Jasotha Vivegananthan, Sagayasubasine Francis Xavier, Vijayaruby
Kamalasireesvaran, Sachchithanantham Suthakar, Ahilah Navaneethan, Jeyakumary Kanthanithy, Antongeorge Jegathaginy, Mariyanayagam Suseela, Kamalaruban Kumuthiny,
Thanaladsumi Kusalakumar, Parththeepan Genganayaki, and Satkunarasa Juliat Vasanthakumary
© 2013 Save the Children
List of abbreviations used in report: LCAs Less Competency Achievers (Slow learners) LB Literacy Boost ECD Early Childhood Development HLE Home literacy environment SES Socioeconomic status CAP Concepts about Print DLC Desired Learning Competencies MUW Most Used words
1
Executive Summary This program includes 1,286 grade 2 students from 70 schools in Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu Districts of the Northern Province of Sri Lanka. The 70 schools are split into 40 primary schools designated to receive Save the Children's Literacy Boost program (20 with community activities beginning in 2013 and 20 with community activities beginning in early 2014), and 30 comparison primary schools receiving no intervention. The Literacy Boost program includes teacher training, tools and resources for assisting Less Competency Achievers (further will be notified as LCAs throughout the document), community reading activities, and age-appropriate local language material creation to support emergent literacy skills among early-grade children. In general, very few significant differences in background and demographics exist between groups, whether comparing LCAs and non-LCAs, Literacy Boost and comparison students, or boys versus girls. The students are about 7 years old on average, and nearly all students speak Tamil as their native tongue. Nearly all students (99 percent) have attended early-childhood development (ECD) programs and only four percent of students have repeated second grade. On average, students live with five other family members and have four of ten common amenities in the region (bicycle, electricity, refrigerator, toilet, computer, et al.). Finally, nearly all students do chores at home (94 percent), and report studying at home (97 percent). The most notable difference is that more boys than girls were identified as LCAs. Thirty-two percent of boys and 21 percent of girls who were randomly sampled within classrooms were identified as LCAs. Among the whole sample of students, 41 percent of boys and 28 percent of girls were identified as LCAs.
All students were asked whether they had various types of reading materials at home, and significant differences do exist between some groups. In general, students are starting off with a high level of print materials in their home. The most common type of material at home is textbooks, and more than 4 out of 5 students report have religious books at home. However, a smaller percentage of students report having newspapers, storybooks or comics at home, and significantly more non-LCA than LCAs report having newspapers, storybooks, and comics. There are no significant differences between the print materials in the homes of boys and girls in the Literacy Boost program.
In addition to reading materials, literacy-focused activities at home are also foundational to students’ learning trajectories, and in general are more common in Sri Lanka than other Literacy Boost countries. Over 85 percent of all students reported that someone at home was seen reading, helped the student to study, read to the student, and told the student stories in the past week. In addition, there are no significant differences between proportion of LCA and non-LCAs or boys and girls experiencing these home literacy activities.
Six reading skills were assessed with all students, and significant differences are found between some groups. Most prominently, there is a significant difference between LCAs and non-LCAs on all skills assessed. These differences indicate that LCAs struggle to learn the same foundational skills as their non-LCA peers, and also indicate that the definition provided to teachers for identifying LCAs was sufficient to successfully recognize these
2
students. In addition, overall girls consistently outperform boys in many of the skills tested, although the specific skills differ between LCA and non-LCAs.
Multivariate regressions, accounting for clustering of students within schools were used to investigate predictors of children’s literacy skills. In addition, because Literacy Boost aims to improve the foundational literacy skills of all students these analyses focused on how disadvantaged children are learning compared to their more advantaged peers within Literacy Boost schools at baseline. Due to the significant differences between the baseline skills possessed by non-LCA and LCA students, analyses were run separately for each group.
Controlling for numerous background and home literacy environment (HLE) factors, multivariate analyses find that for non-LCAs, girls outperformed boys at baseline in letter identification, single word reading, fluency and likelihood of being an independent reader. Similarly with LCAs, girls outperformed boys at baseline in CAP, letter identification, single word reading, fluency, accuracy and likelihood of being an independent reader.
Significant differences also exist between the literacy skills of students in relation to their socioeconomic status (SES). Specifically for non-LCAs, students with higher scores on the index of socioeconomic status score significantly higher than lower SES students in listening and reading comprehension. In addition, significant skill differences exist in relation to students’ mode of transportation to school, with students who walk to school scoring lower in letter identification, fluency and accuracy than those take more advanced modes of transportation (e.g. bicycle, motorcycle or 3-wheeler). Similarly, significant differences also exist between the literacy skills of LCAs in relation to their SES with higher SES students scoring significantly higher than lower SES students in CAP, letter identification, single word reading and listening comprehension.
In addition, at baseline, significant differences exist between the literacy skills of students in relation to their home literacy environment, with higher HLE students scoring higher than lower HLE students in all skill areas. For non-LCAs, having more types of reading materials at home is positively related to all literacy skills, except listening comprehension. In addition, compared to their more advantaged peers, multivariate analyses find that non-LCA learning boys with fewer types of reading materials at home have weaker letter identification and single word reading skills than boys with more reading materials at home.
HLE also has relationship with the literacy skills of LCAs. Children with more types of reading materials at home have more advanced letter identification and single word reading skills than students with fewer types reading materials at home. In addition, LCA students who report lending books to others in the community score higher than those who do not on the CAP subtest.
Finally, after controlling for other factors in multivariate analyses with non-LCA children, a consistent negative relationship appears between the amounts of time students spend doing chores in the morning and all skills, except listening comprehension. No significant relationships are found between time spent on chores and literacy skills for LCAs.
3
Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Context...................................................................................................................................................... 5
2 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 School Assignment ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Student Selection ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Instruments ................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.4 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
3 Student Background and Demographic Data .......................................................... 7 4 Individual Skill Analysis .............................................................................................. 8
4.1 A Note about Benchmarks ........................................................................................................................ 8 4.2 Concepts About Print (CAP)...................................................................................................................... 8 4.3 Letter Knowledge ....................................................................................................................................... 9 4.4 Single Word Reading .................................................................................................................................. 9 4.5 Fluency & Accuracy ................................................................................................................................ 10 4.6 Listening and Reading Comprehension ................................................................................................. 11 4.7 Summary: Group Differences .................................................................................................................. 13 4.8 Reading Skill Profile: Literacy Boost Students ...................................................................................... 14
5 Home Literacy Environment ................................................................................... 15 5.1 Materials at Home ............................................................................................................................... 16 5.2 Engagement with Print .......................................................................................................................... 16
6. Relationships between Skills and Home Literacy Environment ............................ 17 6.1 Gender ...................................................................................................................................................... 18 6.2 Poverty ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 6.3 Home Literacy Environment (HLE) ........................................................................................................ 19 6.4 Opportunity to Learn .............................................................................................................................. 19 6.5 Students with Multiple Risk Factors ....................................................................................................... 20
7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 21 Appendix A. Inter-rater Reliability ................................................................................ 22 Appendix B. Background Averages and Significant Differences between Groups .. 23 Appendix C. Home Literacy Environment Average and Significant Differences between Groups ............................................................................................................... 26 Appendix D: Multivariate Regression Results .............................................................. 29
4
1 Introduction This report examines the results of a learner background survey and reading assessment conducted from 16 May to 27 June 2013 as part of the Dubai Cares-funded Partnering to Improve Children’s Literacy in Sri Lanka project. The literacy baseline was also followed by a more in-depth collection of information on the specific learning challenges of children identified as LCAs. 1.1 Overview The survey and reading assessment covered 1286 grade 2 learners throughout 70 schools in Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu Districts of the Northern Province. The 70 schools are split into 40 primary schools designated to receive Save the Children's (SC) Literacy Boost program (20 with community activities rolling out in 2013 and 20 with community activities rolling out in early 2014), and 30 comparison primary schools receiving no intervention. The Literacy Boost program includes teacher training, tools and resources for assisting LCAs, community reading activities, and age-appropriate local language material creation to support emergent literacy skills among early-grade children. These skills include concepts about print, letter awareness, single word reading of most used words, reading fluency, reading accuracy, and reading comprehension. As part of Literacy Boost, learners are periodically assessed in each of these skills through an adaptable assessment tool to inform programming and estimate program impact. The data gathered from these schools is analyzed to present a snapshot of the emergent literacy skills of grade 2 learners in these schools and to inform the adaptation of SC’s Literacy Boost program to this context. The key research questions to be explored in this report include the following:
1. How comparable are learners in Literacy Boost schools versus comparison schools in terms of reading skills, background characteristics, home literacy environment, and school environment?
2. How comparable are LCAs compared to other, non-LCA students in terms of reading skills, background characteristics, home literacy environment, and school environment?
3. What can the baseline tell us about learners’ emergent reading skills? What does this mean for Literacy Boost programming?
4. How do learners’ reading skills vary by student background, school environment, and home literacy environment? What does this mean for targeting Literacy Boost’s two strands of intervention?
In addition to the standard Literacy Boost assessment wherein approximately 20 students are sampled from one classroom per school, the teacher identified which of the 20 randomly sampled students were LCAs, and then up to an additional 6 LCAs were purposefully sampled, as available in each grade 2 classrooms, to ensure there was adequate information on LCAs. The classification system of "Less Competency Achiever" was one already used by teachers in assessing/evaluating students. Save the children provided teachers with a narrower definition by which to identify students as LCAs: "a child who has trouble identifying letters and/or counting or those who struggle to reach the basic Desired Learning Competencies (DLC) in both Language and Mathematics.” For exact sample numbers, see section 2.2, below.
5
To investigate the questions above, this report will first describe the research methods used; including sampling, measurement, and analysis. Next, in order to see if groups are statistically similar, the comparability of scores of both the regular sample and the purposively selected sample of LCAs from Literacy Boost and comparison schools will be examined through clustered t-tests. The comparability of Literacy Boost and comparison learners’ scores for each of the emergent literacy skills, exploring learners’ strengths and weaknesses in each skill will also be examined. The report will then examine what are the literacy skills that are already present in the sample, and what areas should Literacy Boost focus on. The report will then investigate student backgrounds examined through clustered t-tests. Finally, the report will investigate any correlations with student background, school environment, or home literacy practices & environment variables using multilevel regression analysis. 1.2 Context 2 Methods A preliminary set of tools were developed/adapted by the Education Advisor in Tamil in advance of meeting the relevant Education officials. Then tools were gradually finalized with the input of SCI staff, primary ISAs, officials from the Zonal Department of Education, and the enumerators. Slight changes were brought in and the tools were adjusted accordingly and finalized once the pilot tests completed to improve efficiency and appropriateness. All baseline assessment tools have been officially approved in written by both of the Zonal Department of Education. All LB assessors participated in a three day training to finalize assessment tools, become acquainted with Tangerine, and practice assessment techniques/rules. This was followed by two days of pilot testing in schools unrelated to the project. Assessors were selected from a proposed list of volunteer teachers, and received full training on the tools and electronic data collection. On the first day of the training, participants from the Zonal DoE also attended to approve the tools as appropriate for grade 2. Despite assessors being quite nervous and unfamiliar with computers, they made astounding progress and are very comfortable using the tablets. Team leaders too (three of our POs) are very skilled at supporting the assessors, addressing concerns/glitches with Tangerine, and representing Save the Children at the school. 2.1 School Assignment The sample for this baseline assessment encompasses 640 grade 2 learners, divided between 40 schools set to receive the Literacy Boost intervention (n of learners = 315) and 30 comparison schools (N of learners = 325). Mullaitivu and Killinochchi Zonal Education Offices first selected all schools that meet the following criteria: Relatively same socio-economic status Similar level of the educational achievement More than 50 children attending the school (Government of Sri Lanka is providing
special scheme to the schools where there are fewer than 50 students) Once selected, two clusters were formulated based on the proximity. 2.2 Student Selection
6
Unlike Literacy Boost programs in other locations, a critical point of this particular Literacy Boost intervention was to see how to best support LCAs. As such both a random sample of students from Grade 2 were assessed in each of the 70 schools, as well as a purposive sample of LCAs. The sampling guidance called for a random sample of 20 learners, and a purposive sample of up to 6 LCAs. However, due to class size constraints, the total number of randomly sampled students ranges from 6 to 20, and the total number of LCAs assessed at each school ranges from 1 to 6. See Table 1 for a break down in total sample sizes Table 1: Sample Sizes Learner Type Selection Method Literacy Boost Comparison Total LCAs Purposively Sampled 301 141 442 Non-LCAs Randomly Sampled 509 335 844 TOTAL: 810 476 1286 2.3 Instruments Table 2 offers examples of background and home literacy indicators and offers a detailed description of reading indicators. Table 2: Data Collected Student background Examples General Sex, age, language spoken at home, work School-related Distance to walk to school, repetition history Socioeconomic status Type of home, household size, household amenities/possessions Home Literacy Environment Access to print Materials present in home, types of materials
Reading at home Presence and percentage of family members who children see read, and who read
Reading Outcome Description Concepts About Print Number of concepts demonstrated correctly of 12
Alphabet knowledge Number of letters/sounds known of 61
Vocabulary/Decoding Number of single words read correctly of 26 Fluency Number of words in a connected text read correctly in a minute Accuracy Percentage of words in a connected text read correctly
Listening Comprehension Number of 10 comprehension questions answered correctly after listening to a text read aloud by the assessor (only for non-readers)
Reading Comprehension Number of comprehension questions answered correctly of 10 after reading a text read aloud (only for readers)
These assessments were developed and pilot tested prior to baseline data collection using the Literacy Boost Toolkit Assessment Component and with input from the Kilinochchi and Mullaithivu Education Offices. In addition to the data specified above, school background information was collected, including resources present at the school, student attendance, and teacher-level data. 2.4 Data Collection Each assessment team visited one school per day over the course of six weeks in May and June 2013. Each team was composed of one team leader from Save the Children project
7
staff, and 5 assessors, who were un-assigned teachers. Team leaders collected school level data while a team of five assessors collected student background and reading skill data. For procedures concerning inter-rater reliability data collection, and for the inter-rater reliability results, refer to Appendix A. 2.5 Analysis This analysis has two purposes: first, to test whether the Literacy Boost learners and the comparison learners are equal in terms of background and skills. That is, do these learners possess the same resources and capabilities? This question is important so that at end-line, we can know how much Literacy Boost has, or has not, contributed to learners' accelerated reading development. The second purpose is to assess what skills the students currently have, and what areas and skills Literacy Boost should focus on. To test the comparability of learners in the samples, this report will use comparison of means through t-tests, with clustered standard errors to account for the grouping of student-level data within schools. When differences are expected (i.e. in the reading skills between LCAs and non-LCAs) a one-tailed t-test will be used to assess differences. Otherwise a two-tailed t-test will be used when no predictions exist of which group may be statistically significantly higher or lower in terms of background data or reading skill data. Summary statistics will be used to analyze learners’ performance in each of the reading sub-tests. Finally, this report will look to multilevel regression models to explore relationships between literacy skills and student background characteristics, school environment, and home literacy environment. Comparing several different groupings of learners are possible in this data. Of particular interest are the following groups: 1) LCAs versus non-LCAs 2) Literacy Boost versus comparison students 3) Girls versus boys Data in this report will be disaggregated by group only when the aforementioned clustered t-tests indicate statistically significant differences between groups. 3 Student Background and Demographic Data In general, very few significant differences in background and demographics exist between groups, whether comparing LCAs and non-LCAs, Literacy Boost and comparison students, or boys versus girls. The students are about 7 years old on average, and nearly all students speak Tamil as their native tongue. Nearly all students (99 percent) have attended early-childhood development (ECD) programs and only four percent of students have repeated second grade. On average, students live with five other family members and have four of ten common amenities in the region (bicycle, electricity, refrigerator, toilet, computer, et al.). Finally, nearly all students do chores at home (94 percent), and report studying at home (97 percent).
8
No significant differences exist between Literacy Boost and comparison students, but a few notable differences were found between boys and girls as well as between LCA and non-LCA readers. First, more boys than girls were identified as LCAs (32 versus and 21 percent of randomly sampled children and 41 versus 28 percent of all children). In addition, more girls than boys report studying at home and reading books with others in the community. In addition, more non-LCA readers report than LCAs report attending an ECCD program, study at home, getting extra class time, lending books to others and reading books with others. In addition, overall non-LCA children come from families with higher socioeconomic status than LCAs. For the exact background averages by group and all statistically significant differences, refer to Appendix B.
4 Individual Skill Analysis This section will review the individual reading skills that Literacy Boost assessed. Each sub-skill (concepts about print, letter knowledge, word identification, fluency, accuracy, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension) will be examined in depth, and significant differences between groups will be explored. Implications of these findings will be presented at the end of this section following a graphic that sums up student skills. For complete group averages and significant differences, if any, refer to Appendix C. 4.1 A Note about Benchmarks While Save the Children has used this approach to reading assessment and intervention in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe, comparison across countries and languages is less helpful than more detailed contextual information for setting expectations of impact. For each measure used in these assessments, the upper end of the range of scores can be used to consider what is currently possible among these children. We typically present the scores at the 75th percentile of each measure, and these scores will constitute the benchmarks which the Literacy Boost program will attempt to help learners achieve by the time of end-line assessment. However, due to the differences in baseline literacy skills displayed by LCA and non-LCAs, the 75th percentile is used for non-LCAs, and an higher benchmark is used for LCAs. It is our hope that all students, both LCAs and non-LCAs, will be high achieving, capable readers, and that the achievement gap between the two groups will be reduced. However, this may only be possible after several years of implementation. 4.2 Concepts About Print (CAP) The first sub-test of the reading assessment consisted of 12 ‘concepts about print’ (CAP) questions. These questions concern familiarity with books – where to start, which way to read, what is a letter, what is a word, etc. In general, Literacy Boost and comparison students knew over 7 out of 12 of their concepts about print, indicating a high familiarity with books.
In general, students had the easiest time opening the book and showing the direction to read in, indicating a familiarity with books and reading or seeing others read. The most difficult item had to do with pointing to words while they were read out loud by the assessor. On average, only 64 percent of students correctly completed this task.
Some significant differences were observed between groups, seen in Table 3. First, between the LCAs and the non-LCAs, there was an average difference of approximately 29 percentage points in the concepts about print score in favor of the non-LCAs (84 percent
9
versus 57 percent correct). This difference can be expected, as LCAs were purposively sampled as those struggling to learn. However, a score of 57 percent for LCAs is relatively low and programming should focus on providing access to printed materials for these students. Lastly, LCA girls also outperform LCA boys in this skill area (63 versus 53 percent correct).
Table 3. Concepts about Print Scores by Group Groups Significant Difference Comparison v. Literacy Boost Non-LCA v. LCA *** Non-LCA Girls v. Non-LCA Boys LCA Girls v. LCA Boys * *Indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001 4.3 Letter Knowledge The next sub-test examined learners’ letter awareness. Learners were shown a chart of 37 basic Tamil letters and 24 additional compound letters, and were asked to name the letter or pronounce the letter sound. On average, Literacy Boost and comparison learners correctly identified 70 percent out of a combined total of 61 letters. The most difficult letters for students to identify were ேபா and கீ, and the three most often named correctly were letters அ, இ, and ஆ. These findings correspond with standard curricula in Sri Lanka because அ, இ, and ஆ are the 1st three vowels of Tamil alphabet and are the first vowels taught to children during their pre-schooling. However, ேபா and கீ are more difficult letters for children since there are derived from the combination of vowels and basic non-vowels. These letters frequently appear in the most used words and also have been agreed and approved by the ISA s from Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu education zones.
There were no differences between Literacy Boost and comparison students on this skill. However, a significant difference did exist in the number or percent of letters correctly identified between LCAs and non-LCAs. On average, LCAs identified 42 percent of their letters correctly, while non-LCAs identified 84 percent of their letters correctly. In addition, significant differences were found between the proportion of letters identified by both LCA and non-LCA boys and girls in this sample. Table 4. Letter Identification Scores by Group Groups Significant Difference Comparison v. Literacy Boost Non-LCA v. LCA *** Non-LCA Girls v. Non-LCA Boys * LCA Girls v. LCA Boys * *Indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001 4.4 Single Word Reading The most used words (MUW) sub-test consists of a chart of 26 words that the student is asked to read. These 26 words were identified as ‘most used’ by tabulating the number of times a word appeared in learners’ language arts textbooks.
10
On average, learners in Literacy Boost and comparison schools were able to read 65 percent of the most used words. The most difficult words for students to read were ேபால
and ெதாைல கா சி, and the easiest were காக and ைன. Children are generally quite familiar with காக and ைன early in their schooling, even during their pre-school time. However, the word ேபால would have been a difficult word for children since it starts with the letter ேபா, which has been identified as one of the difficult letters in this assessment. Similarly, ெதாைல கா சி is the lengthiest and one of the most used words in the grade 2 text book which likely made it more difficult for children. Similar to letter identification, there is no statistically significant difference between Literacy Boost and comparison students, but significant differences were observed between LCAs and the non-LCAs as well as between LCA and non-LCA boys and girls. There was on average a difference of approximately 52 percentage points in the word recognition score in favor of the non-LCAs (81 percent) versus the LCAs (29 percent). Finally, there was an 11 point difference between the single word knowledge of LCA boys and girls and a nine point difference between scores for non-LCA boys and girls. Table 5. Single Word Reading Scores by Group Groups Significant Difference Comparison v. Literacy Boost Non-LCA v. LCA *** Non-LCA Girls v. Non-LCA Boys * LCA Girls v. LCA Boys * *Indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001 4.5 Fluency & Accuracy Fluency (words per minute read correctly) and accuracy (percent of the passage read correctly) are presented together here because they are measured together in a single sub-test in which learners read a passage aloud. Students who could correctly read at least 5 of the Most Used Words presented in the section within 30 seconds above were asked to read a passage given to them. Students were asked to read the passage and upon starting the task, a time was started. If the student could read at least 5 words correctly within the first 30 seconds, the student was marked as a reader and was allowed to continue reading the passage to the end. The number of words learners read correctly in a minute, calculated by doubling the number of words correct at 30 seconds, is tracked for fluency. As the student continues to read after the first 30 seconds, the total number of words read correctly from the passage as a whole, no matter how long it takes the student, is computed for accuracy. In the Sri Lanka Literacy Boost baseline, 686 out of 1,286 students, or 53 percent of learners, were able to read more than 5 words in the first 30 seconds and were labeled as 'readers'. The average fluency rate for all Literacy Boost and comparison students, not just those who were identified as readers, was 16 words per minute, and their accuracy was 45 percent of the passage read correctly. There were no significant differences between the overall fluency and accuracy skills of Literacy Boost and comparison students. The average fluency and accuracy scores for students who were identified as readers was 29 words per minute correct at 83 percent accuracy, and again there were no differences between Literacy Boost and comparison students. These averages are so different in part because
11
almost half of students were identified as non-readers who have 0 scores for the fluency and accuracy measures, and the students who have reached the threshold of being independent readers possess strong fluency and accuracy skills. This will be useful for teachers and program staff as classroom activities and the Reading Buddy program can encourage strong readers to help those who are not yet independent readers. However, there were statistically significant differences between LCA and non-LCAs, as well as between non-LCA boys and girls. Non-LCAs were able to read 22 words per minute with 64 percent accuracy, while LCAs were only able to 3 words per minute with 11 percent accuracy. On average, non-LCA learning girls were able to read 24 words per minute with 67 percent accuracy, while non-LCA learning boys were able to read 20 words per minutes with 59 percent accuracy. No gender differences were observed between the fluency and accuracy of LCA learning children but this may be because their fluency and accuracy scores were too low to show variability. Table 6 displays these differences using a two tailed t-test. Table 6. Fluency and Accuracy Scores by Group Groups Significant
Difference Fluency Comparison v. Literacy Boost
Non-LCA v. LCA *** Non-LCA Girls v. Non-LCA Boys * LCA Girls v. LCA Boys
Accuracy Comparison v. Literacy Boost Non-LCA v. LCA *** Non-LCA Girls v. Non-LCA Boys ~ LCA Girls v. LCA Boys
*Indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001 4.6 Listening and Reading Comprehension A reading passage was developed appropriate to grade 2 children and the northern context with the support of grade 2 Tamil medium teachers and ISAs from Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu education zones and assessors. A reading passage with average difficulty was selected for the tool through a pilot testing of 6 similar passages. The final sub-test assessed learners with a series of ten comprehension questions related to the reading passage. For those learners who were unable to read a single word from the passage, the assessor read the passage to the student before asking the comprehension questions. Fifty-three percent of Literacy Boost and comparison students could read the passage themselves. Children who could read on their own were not read to by the assessors, and tested on the same comprehension questions. There were no statistical differences in the proportion of Literacy Boost and comparison students who could read the passage independently. On average, Literacy Boost and comparison students answered 57 percent of reading comprehension questions correctly, or 41 percent of listening comprehension questions. Significant differences existed between the listening and reading comprehension of non-LCA and LCAs, but no differences existed between boys and girls in these areas.
12
For both the reading comprehension and the listening comprehension questions, the easiest type of question was the summary question, which asked students to retell the story in their own words. Students received 1 point on this question if they were able to accurately recount the most important parts of the story. The hardest questions were both the inferential and the evaluative questions. Inferential questions ask students to use the information from the text to make inferences, while the evaluative questions ask student to state an opinion on a feature of the story and support that opinion with reasons for that opinion. For average values, refer to Table 7. Table 7: Comprehension Question Averages
Comprehension Type N of Items
Readers: % of correct responses (N=436)
Listeners: % of correct responses (N=202)
Factual 5 66.9% 48.5% Inferential 2 49.2% 34.3% Evaluative 1 50.3% 35.0% Summative 1 87.3% 65.2% Diving deeper into reading comprehension, it should be noted that the Literacy Boost program classifies students into Emergent, Beginning, and Reading with Comprehension tiers based on their fluency, accuracy and comprehension skills. In this sample, we see that 50 percent of non-LCA students are classified as emergent readers – meaning they are either non-readers altogether or are readers with very low comprehension. Only 19 percent have reached the level of reading with comprehension (see Figure 1). LCAs were not included in this figure because only 14 percent were classified as readers, all of whom were classified as emergent readers.
Note: Emergent Readers correctly answers less than 40-50 percent of the comprehension questions; Beginning readers correctly answers between 40-50 and 75-80 percent of the questions correctly; Readers with Comprehension correctly answers more that 75-80 percent of the comprehension questions. Tier cut-offs were set in combination with associated fluency and accuracy levels in each language and country, vary based on the number of comprehension questions asked.
50.0% 31.0% 19.0% Baseline
Figure 1. 2013 Baseline Reading with Comprehension Tiers, Non-LCAs
Emergent Beginning Reading with Comprehension
13
4.7 Summary: Group Differences In this section we summarize graphically the difference between the three groups of interest: LCA and non-LCAs, Literacy Boost and comparison students, and boys and girls.
Note: All differences displayed are significant at the p<.05 level or lower. In Figure 2, there is a significant difference between LCAs and non-LCAs on all skills assessed. These differences indicate that LCAs struggle to learn the same foundational skills as their non-LCA peers, and also indicate that the definition provided to teachers for identifying LCAs was sufficient to successfully target these students.
Non-LCA Girl
Non-LCA Boy
Significant Difference
LCA Girl
LCA Boy
Significant Difference
CAP 87.3% 85.4% 62.5% 53.3% * Letter ID 86.9% 82.2% * 48.0% 38.0% * Single word reading 85.8% 79.4% * 36.2% 25.0% * Fluency 24.1 20.3 * 4.8 1.8 Accuracy 65.5% 58.9% * 15.6% 7.6% Listening Comprehension 47.3% 51.6% 33.8% 37.5%
Reading Comprehension 56.6% 60.6% 46.7% 40.7% *Indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001 Table 8 displays the significant differences between non-LCA and LCA boys and girls in this sample. Significant differences between LCA boys and girls are most pronounced in the lower order skills or concepts about print, letter identification and single word reading, and include the higher order skills of fluency and accuracy for non-LCAs. In addition, girls are significantly more likely than boys to be classified as a reader for both LCA and non-LCA
86.4% 84.7% 82.8%
22.3%
62.4% 49.6%
58.3% 56.9% 42.0%
29.4%
3.0% 10.8%
36.1% 44.1%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Figure 2. Significant Differences between Non-LCAs and LCAs
Non-LCA LCA
14
groups. Interestingly, within the sub-group of students who are classified as readers, boys and girls have equal fluency and accuracy scores. 4.8 Reading Skill Profile: Literacy Boost Students As the Literacy Boost project will be focusing on improving the skills of Literacy Boost students, Figures 3, 4 and 5 present the skills of both LCA and non-LCA students sampled from Literacy Boost schools. Figure 3 displays average baseline scores for LCA and non-LCA Literacy Boost students who were randomly sampled within classrooms, and excludes the extra LCAs who were oversampled. Therefore, this figure provides an estimate of the average literacy skills that teachers encounter within their classrooms.
Included in Figure 4 and 5 are also the benchmark goals of Literacy Boost, the levels at which Literacy Boost should aim to have all students reading after one year of programming. Over time Literacy Boost aims to encourage LCA and non-LCAs to achieve the same literacy skills, but given the significant differences observed across all skills at baseline, this is unlikely to occur after just one year of programming. However, benchmarks for LCA children are set above the 75 percent mark because the program specifically aims to close the gap between these students and non-LCAs. It should also be noted that a primary goal for LCAs is to enable all children to begin reading independently. At baseline, only 14 percent of LCAs could read more than 5 common words in 30 seconds. Finally, no benchmarks are included for listening comprehension because a primary goal of the program is to enable all children to read the passage independently.
77.3% 72.4% 66.4%
16.4
47.6% 41.7% 55.4%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Figure 3. Reading Skills Profile: LCA and Non-LCA Literacy Boost Students
15
5 Home Literacy Environment An important aspect of reading development concerns the home literacy environment (HLE). How are children exposed to the printed word in the home? How much access do they have to books and print to practice their nascent reading skills? Many Literacy Boost activities are centered on helping parents and communities to enhance the HLE. As such, it is important to measure where learners' HLEs begin, and how they change over the course of time. We break the home literacy environment down into two important domains: materials at home and engagement with print. Refer to Appendix C for complete statistics for all variables collected.
84.6% 83.6% 81.0%
21.5
61.7% 46.6% 56.4%
98% 95% 96%
34
90%
70%
Figure 4. Reading Skills Profile: Non-LCA Literacy Boost Students
56.9% 42.3%
28.5% 2.9 10.2%
37.3% 44.5%
90% 80%
70%
12
42%
60%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Figure 5. Reading Skills Profile: LCA Literacy Boost Students
16
5.1 Materials at Home All students were asked whether they had various types of reading materials at home, and there are significant differences between some groups. For instance, Literacy Boost students have on average 2.6 types of children's books at home, where as comparison students have on average 2.8 types of children's books at home. This difference, while significant, does not suggest any programming recommendations. However, within Literacy Boost students, the difference between the number of book types owed by non-LCA and LCAs is slightly larger (2.7 versus 2.3), and significantly more non-LCAs report having storybooks at home. While the average difference is not practically very large, it is statistically significant and given the skill deficits observed for LCAs program staff should give attention to ensuring that LCAs have the same access to Book Banks as non-LCAs. 5.2 Engagement with Print Reading materials alone do not make a home literacy environment. That is, the HLE is not only about materials in the home, but how those materials are used to engage the child in reading and learning. Hess and Halloway (1984) identified five dimensions of the home literacy environment that are theoretically related to reading achievement in children. The first is value placed on literacy, which we operationalize by asking the learners whether they see anyone reading at home. The second is press for achievement, which we operationalize as individuals telling or helping the student to study. The third is the availability and use of reading materials, which we operationalize as the amount of printed materials at home (see Figure 6). The fourth dimension is reading with children, which we operationalize by asking the learners whether anyone reads to them at home. The last is opportunities for verbal interaction, which we operationalize as family members telling stories to learners. Figure 4 displays the different types of printed materials and activities that Literacy Boost students may or may not have at home.
17
*Indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001
Figure 5 shows that students are starting off with a high level of print materials in their home. The most common type of material at home is textbooks, and more than 4 out of 5 students report have religious books at home. However, a smaller percentage of students report having newspapers, storybooks or comics at home, and significantly more non-LCA than LCAs report having newspapers, storybooks, and comics. There are no significant differences between the print materials in the homes of boys and girls in the Literacy Boost program. Providing more child-friendly material for learners to practice with is important, and Literacy Boost should also explore ways and techniques to capitalize on the existing print environment of the homes in these communities. What is also discernible from Figure 6 is that all students are already starting off with a relatively rich home literacy environment when compared to other countries in which Save the Children has collected data for Literacy Boost. Over 85 percent of all students reported that someone at home was seen reading, helped the student to study, read to the student, and told the student stories in the past week. In addition, there are no differences in the home literacy activities experienced by LCA and non-LCAs or boys and girls. As Literacy Boost is implemented, it is important to capitalize on the strong home literacy environment that exists in the homes already. Encourage parents and community members to participate in reading awareness workshops as a way to further bolster their skills in supporting their children to learn.
6. Relationships between Skills and Home Literacy Environment This final section explores the results of a series of multivariate regressions, accounting for clustering of students within schools. To arrive at the most relevant regression model, the significance of student background and home literacy environment variables were tested in
98% 90%
31% 37%***
16%*
90% 98% 95%
86% 97%
84%
19% 23%
9%
87% 98%
91% 85%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Figure 5. Percent of LB students who have materials and reading habits at home
Non-LCA LCA
18
both univariate and combined multivariate models, using reading skill sub-tests as the dependent variables. Appendix D presents the results of the final multivariate models for each literacy subtest. It should be noted that these relationships convey correlation rather than causation. To establish causation requires further research and/or endline analysis.
In addition, Literacy Boost aims to improve the foundational literacy skills of all students. Thus we perform analyses with the following questions in mind:
How do learning gains for at-risk children compare with more advantaged children within Literacy Boost schools?
How do key target groups benefit from Literacy Boost as compared to similar peers in comparison schools?
How do children with multiple risk characteristics benefit from Literacy Boost as compared to similar peers in comparison schools?
In order to adequately inform program implementers about the status of these relationships, and answer these questions in the endline report, we must consider with which skills students are entering the Literacy Boost program. Thus, this report investigates how disadvantaged children are learning compared to their more advantaged peers within Literacy Boost schools at baseline. Further, due to the significant differences between the baseline skills possessed by non-LCA and LCA readers, analyses were run separately for each group. 6.1 Gender As mentioned previously, overall girls outperformed boys at baseline in concepts about print, letter identification, single word reading, fluency and accuracy for both non-LCA and LCA students. For non-LCAs, these gender differences also appear significant in multivariate regressions for letter identification, single word reading, fluency and likelihood of being an independent reader.
Similar to trends with non-LCAs, LCA learning girls tended to outperform boys at baseline in CAP, letter identification, single word reading, fluency, accuracy and likelihood of being an independent reader.
6.2 Poverty Significant differences also exist between the literacy skills of students in relation to their socioeconomic status (SES). Specifically, students with higher scores on the index of socioeconomic status score significantly higher than lower SES students in listening and reading comprehension. In addition, significant skill differences exist based on students’ mode of transportation to school, with students who walk to school scoring lower in letter identification, fluency and accuracy than those take more advanced modes of transportation (e.g. bicycle, motorcycle or 3-wheeler).
In addition, significant differences are also found between the literacy skills of LCAs based on their socioeconomic status. Specifically, students with higher scores on the index of socioeconomic status score significantly higher than lower SES students in CAP, letter identification, single word reading and listening comprehension.
19
6.3 Home Literacy Environment (HLE) At baseline, significant differences exist between the literacy skills of students in relation to their home literacy environment (HLE), with higher HLE students scoring higher than lower HLE students in all skill areas. Specifically, students with higher scores on the HLE index read significantly more words per minute than students with weaker HLE. In addition, having more types of reading materials at home is positively related to all skill areas, except listening comprehension (see Figure 6). Finally, students who report lending reading materials to others in the community have significantly higher scores in CAP, fluency, accuracy and reading comprehension compared to students who do not.
HLE also has a relationship with the literacy skills of LCAs. On average, children with more types of reading materials at home show more advanced letter identification and single word reading skills than students with fewer types reading materials at home. In addition, LCA learning students who report lending books to others in the community score higher than those who do not on the CAP subtest.
6.4 Opportunity to Learn Using clustered t-tests, significant differences are observed between students’ literacy skills in relation to the amount of time they spend doing chores for non-LCA learning children. In addition, after controlling for other factors in multivariate analyses with non-LCA children, a consistent negative relationship appears between the amount of time students spend doing chores in the morning and all skills, except listening comprehension (see Figure 7). No significant relationships are found between time spent on chores and literacy skills for LCAs.
82%
93%
82% 88% 79%
89%
17 26
56% 70%
52% 65%
1 2 3 4 5N of types of reading materials at home
Figure 6. Baseline Literacy Skills for Non-LCAs, by Reading Materials at Home
CAP Letter ID Single word reading
Fluency Accuracy Reading comprehension
20
6.5 Students with Multiple Risk Factors
Digging deeper to investigate the relative skill level of students with multiple risk factors, compared to their more advantaged peers, multivariate analyses find that boys with fewer types of reading materials at home have weaker predicted letter identification and single word reading skills than boys with more reading materials at home (see Figure 8).
87% 81% 85% 80% 83% 76%
21
11
61%
43%
57% 47%
No time Some time A lot of time
Bas
elin
e Li
tera
cy S
kills
Time spent on chores in the morning
Figure 7. Baseline Literacy Skills for Non-LCAs, by Time Spent on Chores in the Morning
CAP Letter ID Single word reading
Fluency Accuracy Reading comprehension
77%
90% 86% 86%
68%
88% 83% 83%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5N of types of reading materials at home
Figure 8. Baseline Literacy Skills for Non-LCAs, by Gender and Reading Materials at Home
Letter ID - Boy Letter ID - Girl
Single word reading - Boy Single word reading - Girl
21
7 Conclusion Overall, very few significant differences exist between Literacy Boost and comparison students, indicating that these groups will be appropriate for comparing students’ literacy skill gains at endline. However, significant baseline skill differences do exist between other groups of interest in this community. In general, girls show stronger literacy skills than boys for both LCA and non-LCAs. Community literacy activities and teacher trainings should make an effort to identify why boys are falling behind girls in their literacy development and identify strategies for engaging them in classroom and community activities as much as their female peers. In addition, non-LCAs show significantly stronger literacy skills than LCAs. This is not surprising as teachers generally identified children who were having trouble learning basic literacy skills as “Less Competency Achievers”. However, digging deeper into why these students are having trouble learning will help teachers, parents and community members develop effective strategies for both teaching these children and keeping them engaged with reading.
Multivariate analyses find that students’ home literacy environments play an important role in their literacy development. Having a variety of reading materials at home is prominently related to literacy skills for both LCA and non-LCAs. Therefore, creating Book Banks with varied titles that are appropriate for all skill levels will be an important component of this program. In addition, with the finding that boys with fewer types of reading materials at home are additionally disadvantaged, Book Bank books, Reading Buddies and other activities would do well to incorporate titles are of interest to boys.
Finally, overall boys, students from poor families, and children with weak home learning environments are identified as the most disadvantaged students in this community. In and out of school trainings and interventions should take these circumstances into consideration for all students, but especially for LCAs, as they experience an extra layer of disadvantage compared to non-LCAs.
22
Appendix A. Inter-rater Reliability To test inter-rater reliability, nearly 12 percent of learners (137 out of 1149, or nearly 2 per every school) were assessed by two enumerators simultaneously. Long one-way ANOVA techniques were used to calculate the intra-class correlation within pairs of assessors for a measure of reliability. Table 1 presents the results below. Using Fleiss’ benchmarks for excellent (ICC>0.75), good or fair (0.75>=ICCA>0.4), and poor (0.4>=ICC); many of the literacy outcome variables exhibited excellent inter-rater reliability. Table A1 shows the percent of agreement between the raters. Table A1. Interrater Accuracy and Reliability Literacy Skill Sub-Test Inter-rater Reliability Rating Concepts about Print 0.99 Excellent Letter Knowledge 0.99 Excellent Most Used Words 0.99 Excellent Fluency 0.98 Excellent Accuracy 0.98 Excellent Listening Comprehension 0.99 Excellent Reading Comprehension 0.98 Excellent There was excellent inter-rater reliability on every measure. Raters had near perfect agreement on the scoring of all measures. In general, inter-rater reliability was very high, and we can be confident that the internal validity of the scores is good.
23
Appendix B. Background Averages and Significant Differences between Groups Table B1. 2013 Baseline Student Background Data by Intervention Group
Variable Non-LB (N=476)
LB (N=810)
Significant difference
LCA learner 29.6% 37.2%
Female 48.3% 48.9%
Age 7.0 7.0
Distance to school (1=very near, 3=very far) 2.0 2.0
How student gets to school (1=walk, 5=3-wheeler) 1.5 1.2
Attended ECD 98.1% 98.8%
Repeated Grade 2 3.4% 4.6%
Home language - Tamil 97.9% 98.4%
Home language - Sinhala 2.3% 3.0%
Home language - English 2.7% 2.3%
Does chores 92.2% 94.6%
Fetch water 80.4% 74.9%
Wash clothes 2.3% 2.5%
Wash dishes 17.1% 19.7%
Cook 11.4% 7.8%
Clean 85.8% 83.1%
Feed animals 5.5% 6.3%
Farming 4.3% 3.5%
Babysit 9.8% 10.9%
Firewood 81.5% 81.6%
Shopping 72.1% 73.4%
Chore time in the morning 0.9 0.9
Chore time in the afternoon 1.1 1.0
Chore time in the evening 1.1 1.1
Chore time on the weekend 1.5 1.5
Studies at home 97.9% 96.2%
Study time in the morning 1.0 1.0
Study time in the afternoon 1.0 0.9
Study time in the evening 1.6 1.5
Study time on the weekend 1.6 1.6
Extra class time 3.5 3.5
Missed school last week 76.4% 79.3%
Number of people in household 5.2 5.2 *Indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001
24
Table B2. 2013 Baseline Student Background Data by Learning Speed
Variable Non LCA (N=844)
LCA (N=442)
Significant difference
Literacy Boost 60.3% 68.1% Female 53.6% 39.4% *** Age 7.0 7.0 Distance to school (1=very near, 3=very far) 2.0 2.0 How student gets to school (1=walk, 5=3-wheeler) 1.5 1.1 Attended ECD 99.2% 97.3% ** Repeated Grade 2 3.2% 6.0% * Home language - Tamil 99.6% 95.5% *** Home language - Sinhala 2.6% 2.9% Home language - English 2.6% 2.3% Does chores 94.3% 92.5%
Fetch water 76.7% 77.3% Wash clothes 1.8% 3.7% Wash dishes 18.3% 19.6% * Cook 10.9% 5.6% Clean 85.3% 81.7% Feed animals 6.5% 4.9% Farming 3.3% 4.9% Babysit 10.0% 11.5% Firewood 81.6% 81.7% Shopping 69.8% 79.2% *
Chore time in the morning 0.9 0.9 Chore time in the afternoon 1.0 1.1 Chore time in the evening 1.1 1.2 * Chore time on the weekend 1.5 1.5 Studies at home 98.1% 94.3% ** Study time in the morning 1.0 0.9 Study time in the afternoon 1.0 0.9 Study time in the evening 1.6 1.4 ** Study time on the weekend 1.7 1.5 ** Extra class time 3.6 3.2 * Missed school last week 77.7% 79.3% Number of people in household 5.0 5.5 *** *Indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001
25
Table B3. 2013 Baseline Student Background Data by Gender
Variable Boys (N=660)
Girls (N=626)
Significant difference
Literacy Boost 62.7% 63.3%
LCA learner 40.6% 27.8%
Age 7.0 7.0
Distance to school (1=very near, 3=very far) 2.0 2.0
How student gets to school (1=walk, 5=3-wheeler) 1.3 1.3
Attended ECD 98.0% 99.0%
Repeated Grade 2 4.6% 3.7%
Home language - Tamil 97.4% 99.0%
Home language - Sinhala 1.5% 4.0% *
Home language - English 2.4% 2.6%
Does chores 93.2% 94.2%
Fetch water 75.6% 78.1%
Wash clothes 2.3% 2.5%
Wash dishes 11.7% 26.1% ***
Cook 7.1% 11.2%
Clean 78.7% 89.7% ***
Feed animals 6.8% 5.1%
Farming 5.4% 2.2% *
Babysit 9.1% 12.0%
Firewood 82.3% 80.8%
Shopping 75.8% 70.0%
Chore time in the morning 0.9 0.9
Chore time in the afternoon 1.0 1.1
Chore time in the evening 1.1 1.1
Chore time on the weekend 1.5 1.5
Studies at home 95.4% 98.2% **
Study time in the morning 0.9 1.0
Study time in the afternoon 0.9 1.0
Study time in the evening 1.5 1.5
Study time on the weekend 1.6 1.6
Extra class time 3.4 3.5
Missed school last week 78.0% 78.5%
Number of people in household 5.2 5.1 *Indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001
26
Appendix C. Home Literacy Environment Average and Significant Differences between Groups
Table C1. 2013 Baseline Student Background Data by Intervention Group
Variable Non-LB (N=476)
LB (N=810)
Significant difference
Textbook 97.1% 97.8% Religious 86.8% 87.5% Newspaper 33.8% 26.4% Storybook 41.8% 31.9% Comics 19.5% 13.2% Handouts 0.8% 1.0% Magazines 0.6% 0.6% E-books 0.0% 0.1% Number of people seen reading 2.4 2.2 Percent of household seen reading 45.0% 40.8% Number of people helping study 3.0 2.9 Percent household helping study 57.7% 54.9% Number of people reading to child 2.7 2.4 Percent of household reading to child 51.6% 45.4% Number of people telling stories to child 2.4 2.1 Percent of Household telling stories to child 45.9% 40.5% Someone reading 92.0% 88.8% Someone helps child study 98.1% 98.3% Someone reading to child 95.0% 93.2% Someone telling stories to child 89.9% 85.6% HLE Index 3.2 2.8 *Indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001
27
Table C2. 2013 Baseline Student Background Data by Learning Speed
Variable Non LCA (N=844)
LCA (N=442)
Significant difference
Textbook 0.979 0.968 Religious 0.893 0.833 Newspaper 0.334 0.21 ** Storybook 0.404 0.262 ** Comics 0.187 0.095 ** Handouts 0.012 0.005 Magazines 0.008 0.002 E-books 0.001 0 Number of people seen reading 2.186 2.337 Percent of household seen reading 0.429 0.415 Number of people helping study 2.834 3.057 * Percent household helping study 0.562 0.555 Number of people reading to child 2.466 2.493 Percent of household reading to child 0.49 0.452 * Number of people telling stories to child 2.174 2.314 Percent of Household telling stories to child 0.429 0.417 Someone reading 0.906 0.887 Someone helps child study 0.985 0.977 Someone reading to child 0.951 0.914 ** Someone telling stories to child 0.878 0.86 HLE Index 3.149 2.664 *** *Indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001
28
Table C3. 2013 Baseline Student Background Data by Gender
Variable Boys (N=660)
Girls (N=626)
Significant difference
Textbook 97.1% 97.9% Religious 85.9% 88.7% Newspaper 30.0% 28.3% Storybook 36.1% 35.0% Comics 15.5% 15.7% Handouts 0.9% 1.0% Magazines 0.8% 0.5% E-books 0.2% 0.0% Number of people seen reading 2.2 2.2 Percent of household seen reading 42.3% 42.5% Number of people helping study 2.9 2.9 Percent household helping study 55.6% 56.3% Number of people reading to child 2.5 2.5 Percent of household reading to child 47.6% 47.7% Number of people telling stories to child 2.2 2.2 Percent of Household telling stories to child 42.0% 43.0% Someone reading 90.6% 89.3% Someone helps child study 98.2% 98.2% Someone reading to child 93.8% 93.9% Someone telling stories to child 86.8% 87.5% HLE Index 3.0 3.0 *Indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001
29
App
endi
x D
: Mul
tiva
riat
e R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
Tab
le D
1. M
ultiv
aria
te M
odel
s fo
r N
on-L
CA
s
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
VA
RIA
BLES
C
AP
Lett
er ID
Sing
le
wor
d re
adin
g
Flue
ncy-
read
ers
only
Fl
uenc
y-al
l
Acc
urac
y-re
ader
s on
ly
Acc
urac
y-al
l Li
sten
ing
com
p.
Rea
ding
co
mp.
R
eade
r
Lite
racy
Boo
st?
-0.0
369*
(0
.015
4)
Boy*
N
read
ing
mat
eria
l ty
pes
0.02
96*
0.04
63*
(0.0
114)
(0
.018
3)
Boy
-0.1
21**
-0
.197
**
(0.0
382)
(0
.059
1)
Gir
l 3.
008*
0.
0519
0.
362*
(1
.276
) (0
.027
2)
(0.1
69)
Fam
ily s
ize
-0.0
064*
(0
.002
96)
How
stu
dent
get
s to
sch
ool
0.01
52**
1.
490*
* 0.
0283
**
0.14
4*
(0.0
045)
(0
.484
) (0
.009
76)
(0.0
675)
Q
uint
iles
of S
ES in
dex
0.01
12
0.03
75**
0.
0183
* 0.
109
(0.0
062)
(0
.012
9)
(0.0
0767
) (0
.062
5)
Qui
ntile
s of
HLE
inde
x 1.
131*
* (0
.419
) N
rea
ding
mat
eria
l typ
es
0.02
68**
* 0.
0010
5 0.
0027
8 2.
375*
**
0.03
48*
0.03
27**
0.
199*
(0
.006
5)
(0.0
060)
(0
.008
9)
(0.5
79)
(0.0
135)
(0
.010
8)
(0.0
916)
Le
nds
book
s to
oth
ers
0.03
46**
3.
927*
3.
999*
* 0.
0213
* 0.
0474
0.
0579
* (0
.012
1)
(1.5
59)
(1.4
62)
(0.0
0919
) (0
.024
5)
(0.0
228)
St
udy
time
in t
he w
eeke
nd
0.09
13**
(0
.029
8)
Stud
y tim
e in
the
eve
ning
0.
0396
* 0.
0292
**
(0.0
164)
(0
.010
0)
Stud
y tim
e in
the
afte
rnoo
n -2
.095
* -2
.005
* (1
.016
) (0
.900
) C
hore
s in
the
Mor
ning
-0
.025
6*
-0.0
238*
-0
.033
6*
-3.4
17*
-4.7
18**
* -0
.029
1**
-0.0
899*
**
-0.0
508*
-0
.418
**
(0.0
101)
(0
.011
2)
(0.0
150)
(1
.341
) (1
.291
) (0
.009
30)
(0.0
244)
(0
.023
1)
(0.1
59)
30
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
VA
RIA
BLES
C
AP
Lett
er ID
Sing
le
wor
d re
adin
g
Flue
ncy-
read
ers
only
Fl
uenc
y-al
l
Acc
urac
y-re
ader
s on
ly
Acc
urac
y-al
l Li
sten
ing
com
p.
Rea
ding
co
mp.
R
eade
r St
uden
t cl
eans
hou
se
0.04
47*
3.56
7 0.
504*
(0
.020
5)
(1.8
51)
(0.2
17)
Stud
ent
does
sho
ppin
g -4
.238
**
-3.3
02*
-0.0
30**
* (1
.475
) (1
.482
) (0
.008
71)
Stud
ent
fetc
hes
firew
ood
0.11
4*
(0.0
431)
C
onst
ant
0.82
3***
0.
824*
**
0.78
3***
32
.78*
**
15.6
0***
0.
867*
**
0.51
5***
0.
150*
0.
445*
**
-0.2
57
(0.0
275)
(0
.026
0)
(0.0
403)
(1
.907
) (3
.211
) (0
.022
7)
(0.0
596)
(0
.073
6)
(0.0
323)
(0
.434
)
Obs
erva
tions
79
4 79
4 72
1 57
9 78
4 58
0 79
4 18
4 54
2 73
0 R
-squ
ared
0.
067
0.06
2 0.
066
0.06
9 0.
105
0.06
8 0.
056
0.10
5 0.
081
0.04
3 A
djus
ted
R-s
quar
ed
0.06
18
0.05
44
0.05
78
0.06
09
0.09
60
0.06
02
0.04
97
0.09
04
0.07
45
NA
R
obus
t st
anda
rd e
rror
s in
par
enth
eses
**
* p<
0.00
1, *
* p<
0.01
, * p
<0.0
5
31
Tab
le D
2. M
ultiv
aria
te M
odel
s fo
r LC
As
(1
) (2
) (3
) (4
) (5
) (6
) (7
) (8
) (9
) (1
0)
VA
RIA
BLES
C
AP
Lett
er ID
Sing
le
wor
d re
adin
g
Flue
ncy-
read
ers
only
Fl
uenc
y-al
l
Acc
urac
y-re
ader
s on
ly
Acc
urac
y-al
l Li
sten
ing
com
p.
Rea
ding
co
mp.
R
eade
r Fe
mal
e 0.
0839
**
0.10
7**
0.13
1**
5.86
2*
3.53
0***
0.
0816
**
0.96
7***
(0
.031
3)
(0.0
391)
(0
.038
2)
(2.2
82)
(0.9
92)
(0.0
252)
(0
.280
) A
ge o
f stu
dent
-0
.890
(0
.744
) Fa
mily
siz
e -0
.031
**
-0.0
33**
-0
.795
* -0
.018
2*
-0.2
64*
(0.0
106)
(0
.010
1)
(0.3
94)
(0.0
0892
) (0
.112
) H
owst
uden
t ge
ts t
o sc
hool
0.
882*
* 0.
0227
* 0.
0216
**
0.26
8***
(0
.312
) (0
.010
2)
(0.0
0808
) (0
.074
8)
Qui
ntile
s of
SES
inde
x 0.
0259
**
0.04
3**
0.05
5***
0.
0319
***
0.09
25
(0.0
0810
) (0
.014
4)
(0.0
138)
(0
.008
65)
(0.0
976)
N
rea
ding
mat
eria
l typ
es
0.04
67**
0.
0445
* 0.
0250
0.
287
(0.0
155)
(0
.017
1)
(0.0
147)
(0
.165
) %
of h
hold
hel
p st
udy
0.15
9 (0
.081
1)
Lend
s bo
oks
to o
ther
s 0.
0559
* (0
.027
8)
Stud
y tim
e in
the
wee
kend
0.
0828
* (0
.033
8)
Stud
y tim
e in
the
mor
ning
0.
121*
* (0
.035
3)
Stud
y tim
e in
the
eve
ning
0.
0613
* 0.
0572
(0
.023
9)
(0.0
303)
C
hore
s on
the
Wee
kend
0.
0579
**
(0.0
216)
C
onst
ant
0.28
7***
0.
243*
* 0.
172*
17
.85*
**
11.8
9*
0.59
9***
0.
0931
0.
202*
**
0.33
6***
-2
.167
***
(0.0
520)
(0
.083
7)
(0.0
703)
(0
.994
) (5
.585
) (0
.062
9)
(0.0
510)
(0
.045
2)
(0.0
494)
(0
.623
) O
bser
vatio
ns
389
389
414
62
344
61
440
329
62
414
R-s
quar
ed
0.09
0 0.
116
0.11
9 0.
070
0.07
4 0.
191
0.05
5 0.
047
0.08
2 0.
091
Adj
uste
d R
-squ
ared
0.
0783
0.
105
0.11
0 0.
0546
0.
0627
0.
163
0.04
68
0.04
13
0.06
69
NA
R
obus
t st
anda
rd e
rror
s in
par
enth
eses
**
* p<
0.00
1, *
* p<
0.01
, * p
<0.0
5