© 2014 Save the Children

Literacy Boost

Gampaha District

Sri Lanka Country Office

Endline Report – December 2014

Author: Pubudinie Wickramasekara, Subashini Navaratnam, and Jarret

Guajardo

Thank you to Chandima Liyanagamage, Helmalie Vitharana Charith Weerasinghe

for their excellent support during data collection

With special thanks to the team of assessors: Mr. M.P.R.K. Mapa Pathirana, Mr. K.T.D.S

Isurupala , Ms.R.A.N. Darshika , Ms. G.A. Madhavee Muthumali, Ms.W.L.U.R. Warnasuriya,

Ms. A.D.S.D Ranasinghe, Ms. L.U.E.I Bandara, Ms.R.K. S. Wickramarathne, Ms. M.P.D.S.

Dharmapriya, Mr. A.K.L.A.C Perera, Mr. J.P.A.G. Abekoon, Ms. U.G.S.M Senavirathne,

Ms. K.Y.S Jayathilaka, Ms. Kariyawasam, Ms. L.A.D.K. S. Liyanarachchi, Ms. M.K. Hettiarachchi,

and Ms. K.S. Dilrukshi

1

Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 2

1. Introduction, Context, and Implementation History ........................................................................ 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Context .................................................................................................................................................... 4

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

11. Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Sampling and Attrition Analysis............................................................................................................... 5

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

Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 7

111. Children’s Background ..................................................................................................................... 7

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

Comparability of Literacy Boost and comparison students at baseline .................................................. 9

V. Impact of Literacy Boost on Reading Skills ..................................................................................... 10

VI. Impact of Literacy Boost for Slow Learners and Children Who Screened Positive for Language

and Learning Challenges......................................................................................................................... 12

VII. Skill Gains of Boys and Girls ............................................................................................................ 14

VIII. Classroom and Home Literacy Environment .............................................................................. 14

IX. Participation in Community Action Activities ............................................................................... 16

X. Children’s Reading Skills .................................................................................................................... 17

Concepts About Print ............................................................................................................................ 17

Letter Identification ............................................................................................................................... 17

Word Recognition: Most Used Words ................................................................................................... 17

Proportion of Readers and Nonreaders ................................................................................................ 18

Fluency and Accuracy ............................................................................................................................ 18

Reading Comprehension........................................................................................................................ 19

Readers with Comprehension ................................................................................................................ 20

XI. Literacy Boost Skill Profile and Skill-Specific Recommendations ................................................ 21

XII. Summary of Findings and General Program Recommendations ............................................... 22

Appendix A: Implementation Timeline ................................................................................................ 24

Appendix B: Inter-rater reliability ......................................................................................................... 27

Appendix C: Full Background and Home Literacy Environment Statistics at Endline .................... 28

Appendix D. Regression Results ............................................................................................................ 30

2

Executive Summary Among 257 Literacy Boost (LB) students and 262 comparison students assessed during a

January/February 2013 baseline and September 2014 endline, impact analysis reveals that the LB

program significantly improved students’ reading fluency. This is especially true for students identified

as slow learners at baseline. LB programming also helped students who screened positive for language

& learning challenges catch up to their non-slow learner peers in almost every reading skill. However,

all students still need help to improve their reading comprehension.

LB programing also appears to have helped teachers better utilize formative assessment to monitor

student achievement and target support for smaller groups of students, and to use songs and games to

develop students’ phonologic skills. For home literacy environment (HLE), LB children reported a

larger gain in the percent of household members reading to them and telling them stories in the past

week. Overall, slow learners were able to participate equally or more so than non-slow learners in

most LB community activities.

As SC’s involvement in the project comes to a close, it will be up to government and

community stakeholders to ensure the continuation of the LB program and to pursue its

enhancement through the set of recommendations in bold type throughout this report.

3

1. Introduction, Context, and Implementation History

Introduction

This report examines the results of a learner background survey and reading assessment conducted in

September 2014 as the endline evaluation of the USAID All Children Reading (ACR) Grand Challenge in

Sri Lanka. The survey and reading assessment was administered to as many of the same children

assessed during the January/February 2013 baseline as could be found. The endline survey and reading

assessment covered 519 grade 3 learners throughout 30 schools in three Education Divisions. The 30

schools are split into 15 primary schools which received the Literacy Boost intervention and 15

comparison primary schools which did not receive the Literacy Boost intervention. The Literacy Boost

program includes teacher training, community reading activities, and age-appropriate local language

material creation to support emergent literacy skills among early-grade children. These skills include

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 3 learners in these schools and to estimate the impact of the

Literacy Boost program.

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

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. What can the endline tell us about learners’ reading skills in grade 3? What does this mean for

future Literacy Boost programming should the Sri Lankan government continue the program?

3. What can we estimate about the impact of the Literacy Boost program? If impact exists, how

did impact vary by student background, home literacy environment, and other dimensions of

equity?

4. What role did Literacy Boost play in the reading skills improvement of students considered

‘slow learners’ versus their non-slow peers?

To investigate these questions, 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 Literacy Boost and comparison schools will be examined through t-tests. The report

will then compare Literacy Boost and comparison learners’ scores for each of the emergent literacy

skills, exploring learners’ strengths and weaknesses in each skill. Next, the report will examine 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 t-tests. Finally, the report will

investigate any correlations with student background, school environment, or home literacy practices

& environment variables using multilevel regression analysis.

4

As SC’s involvement in the project comes to a close, it will be up to government and

community stakeholders to ensure the continuation of the LB program and to pursue its

enhancement through the set of recommendations in bold type throughout this report.

Context

Gampaha district is located approximately 35km north of the greater Colombo area and Minuwangoda

is one of the 4 education zones that belong to Gampaha district. Though there exist some small Tamil

and Muslim communities in the project area, the vast majority are Sinhala speaking children. Because of

the nature of semi-urban setting, the socio-economic status of the people residing in this district is

generally better than those residing in rural areas. According to the Primary Director of Ministry of

Education, the district’s average score of the Grade 5 scholarship examination, an annual nationwide

examination carried out at the end of the primary education, is higher than the average for districts in

the entire country. Nonetheless, the results in Minuwangoda area show that there is some room for

improvement.

In Sri Lanka, primary education lasts 5 years beginning from Grade 1 to Grade 5, which are further

divided into 3 key stages; Key Stage 1 consisting of Grade 1 and 2, Key Stage 2 consisting of Grade 3

and 4, and Key Stage 3 solely consisting of Grade 5. Throughout each key stage, students are taught by

the same teacher. For instance, a teacher teaching Grade 1 students in a given year will be teaching

Grade 2 in the following year as the students go on to Grade 2; likewise, a teacher teaching Grade 2 in

a given year will be teaching Grade 1 in the subsequent year. At the end of Grade 5, students may elect

to take the national scholarship exam. Since the students who mark exceptional scores can seek

advance study at the recognized schools, most of the parents are eager to send their children to after-

school tuition classes.

Implementation History

The project has two major components: a teacher training component at school level and a community

level component with activities targeting 40 villages surrounding the 15 intervention schools. The

project was implemented in collaboration with the Provincial Ministry of Education - Western

Province. The National Ministry of Education provided guidance to SC for designing and conduction

teacher trainings with In-Service Advisors (ISAs). Teacher training modules were adapted to the Sri

Lankan context through a series of adaptation workshops led by ISAs. Subsequently, teacher training

programmes were conducted for selected primary school teachers. This was a very successful

programme except for some delays in conducting the adaptation workshops due to the unavailability of

ISAs during the particular period. It was recommended to incorporate the modules to regular pre-

service training programme for primary teachers.

An implementing partner, a local NGO, Siddhartha Foundation was selected to deliver community

level activities. Forty community volunteers were appointed to lead reading activities at the community

5

level. In this way, the relevant education authorities focused on the school-level component only and

Siddhartha Foundation focused on the community-level component only.

One implementation challenge encountered was a delay in conducting the vision and hearing screening

portion of the learning challenges screening assessment, as the required process and entry points were

initially not cleared to SC. This was due to lack of proper coordination mechanisms between the

Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education. A detailed timeline of intervention activities can be found

in Appendix A

11. Methods

Sampling and Attrition Analysis

The sample for this endline assessment encompasses 519 grade 3 learners, divided between 15 schools

which received the Literacy Boost intervention (n of learners =257) and 15 comparison schools (n of

learners = 262). Schools were selected based on meeting following criteria:

Similar 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)

As Minuwangoda Educational Zone consists of three educational divisions, namely Divulapitiya,

Meerigama and, Minuwangoda, ten schools that meet the aforementioned criteria were randomly

selected from each division. Once selected, two clusters were formulated based on the proximity. If it

was found that any particular schools is close enough from any one of the schools in the another

cluster, the school was omitted from the cluster and another randomly selected school was added.

This process continued until all schools in one cluster are far enough from the other cluster. After the

completion of this process, one cluster was assigned as the LB schools and the other as comparison

schools. Literacy Boost and comparison schools are not receiving additional interventions from SC or

other organizations that may have affected the implementation of Literacy Boost activities.

In each of the 30 schools, as many of the students sampled at baseline as could be found were

assessed. The baseline sampling guidance had called for a random sample of 20 learners and a

purposive sample of up to 6 slow learners. However due to class size constraints, at baseline the total

number of randomly sampled students ranged from 6 to 20, and the total number of slow learners

assessed at each school ranged from 1 to 6.

Of the 640 children assessed at baseline, 519 were found and assessed at endline. The attrition rate

of 19% did not differ significantly between LB and comparison schools. Of the students who could

6

not be found, two-thirds had transferred to another school and one-third were absent from school

on the day of assessment. No children had dropped out of school.

Measurement

Table 1 offers examples of background and home literacy indicators and offers a detailed description of

reading indicators.

Table 1: 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 to children Teacher Practices and Student Participation in Community Activities

Teacher practices How teacher reads to class, how teacher teaches letters, words,

etc., help offered to students

Student participation in

community activities

Frequency of reading camp attendance, frequency of book bank

borrowing, frequency of reading with reading buddy

Reading Outcome Description

Concepts About Print N of concepts demonstrated correctly of 10

Alphabet knowledge N of letters/sounds known of 61

Vocabulary/Decoding N of single words read correctly of 20

Fluency N of words in a connected text read correctly in a minute

Accuracy Percentage of words in a connected text read correctly

Listening

Comprehension

N of 9 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 9 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. All questions were asked to students in

Sinhala. For information on inter-rater reliability, please see Appendix B.

In addition to the data specified above, teacher interview information was collected, including which

trainings the teacher had attended, their feedback on the usefulness of the trainings, how often they

use certain active learning strategies in their class, and how strongly they believe in statements such as

7

‘With the right support, students are capable of reading, understanding, and summarizing a short story

by the end of grade 2.’ Due to teacher absence, this information was collected from 28 of the 30 grade

3 teachers.

Analysis

The critical purpose of this analysis is twofold: first, to test whether the students in the Literacy Boost

intervention schools and their comparison counterparts are equal in terms of background and skills.

That is, at baseline do these students possess the same resources and capabilities? Second, given the

findings about comparability between intervention and comparison students, this analysis will estimate

the impact of the Literacy Boost intervention controlling for any significant differences between groups.

In addition, this report will present a profile of grade 3 student’s reading skills, as well as an in-depth

analysis of each skill. Summary statistics will be used to analyze students’ performance in each of the

reading sub-tests. The purpose of this is to provide useful information for government and community

stakeholders to continue and expand the Literacy Boost program, given the learning gaps that exist

among grade 3 students in this area.

To test the comparability of learners in the Literacy Boost and comparison samples, this report will use

comparison of means through t-tests assuming unequal variance between the two samples. Summary

statistics, accompanied by t-tests, will be used to analyze learners’ performance in each of the reading

sub-tests. The impact analysis will be conducted through a ‘difference in difference’ multilevel

regression analysis. This means that the learning gains over time among comparison students will be

statistically compared to the learning gains over time among Literacy Boost students, controlling for

any variables what were found to statistically differ between the two groups during the comparability

analysis. Finally, this report will look to multilevel regression models to explore relationships between

literacy skill gains and student background characteristics, school environment, and home literacy

environment.

111. Children’s Background

The students are about eight years old on average, and all students speak Sinhala as their native tongue.

On average, students live with four other family members and have three of five common amenities in

the region (bike, electricity, refrigerator, toilet with water facility, and computer). Finally, almost all

children (96 percent) do chores, 23 percent do chores less than 3 days per week and 36 percent do

chores more than 3 days per week. Another 36 percent have to do chores every day. Girls and boys

report doing chores with equal frequency.

On average, students spend more than two hours studying out of school each day. Seventy-seven

percent of the students attend tuition classes. Most students attend tuition classes 2 days per week.

8

However only 30 percent spend time studying at home. More than 95 percent from both Literacy

Boost and comparison schools have attended early-childhood development (ECD) programs.

IV. Children’s 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. Figure 1 displays the different types of printed materials

that learners may or may not have at home.

Nearly all learners have some type of reading materials at home. The most common reading material in

students’ homes is text books. The least common reading materials are comics and booklet. No

statistically significant differences exist between Literacy Boost and comparison groups. Further analysis

discovered more than 80 percent of students have at least 4 types of books at home. The

prevalence of print, especially storybooks, is a strong foundation for home support of

literacy learning. However, the situation could be improved even further by diversifying

the types of reading materials available to students – especially child-friendly types of

reading materials such as comics.

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.

97%

78%

91% 94%

44% 48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f st

ud

en

ts r

ep

ort

ing

pri

nt

in h

om

e

Figure 1: Presence of Reading Materials in the Household

9

The second is press for achievement, which we operationalize as individuals telling the student to study.

The third is the availability of reading and print materials, which we operationalize as the amount of

printed materials at home (see Figure 1). 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 2

shows how students measure up in terms of engagement in these four home literacy environment

activities.

Students report seeing almost 90 percent of their household members read in the past week. Further,

almost all student report that their household members have encouraged them to study in past week.

On average, 82 percent of their household have read to them, or told them a story in past week. No

statistically significant differences exist between Literacy Boost and comparison groups.

Comparability of Literacy Boost and comparison students at baseline

Literacy Boost and comparison students differ significantly on 8 of 33 baseline attributes. Some

differences favor the children in comparison schools: at baseline, they had more types of books in the

home, a greater proportion of household members read or told stories to them, more read to others

in the community, and their teachers had a few more years of experience on average. However, other

differences favor the LB group: LB students reported lower chore frequency and more study time,

their class size is slightly smaller, and their schools are closer to the district center on average. Despite

these background dissimilarities, there are no significant differences in children’s baseline reading skills

between the two groups. Thus, of the remaining sample of children assessed at endline, the

two groups were similar at baseline but differ in some important ways. Therefore, all of

these variables are controlled for during impact analysis.

91% 99%

81% 84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

seen reading Encouraging child tostudy

Reading to child Telling story to child

% o

f h

ou

seh

old

mem

ber

s

Figure 2: In the past week, % of household members reported to be...

10

V. Impact of Literacy Boost on Reading Skills

To estimate the impact of the Literacy Boost program, a series of difference-in-difference regressions

were run to compare the learning gains of LB students with the learning gains of comparison students,

controlling for all baseline characteristics found to differ between the two groups. Standard errors

were clustered to represent the fact that students are clustered within schools. The output of these

regressions can be seen in Appendix D.

As shown in Figure 3 below, LB students gained significantly more words correct per minute (a

measure of fluency) between baseline and endline than did comparison students. The additional six

words correct per minute gain over time is equivalent to an additional 1.6 months of learning (0.35

effect size). However, the endline scores and gains in all other skills were equal between LB and

comparison students. Thus, from the data collected at baseline and endline assessments we

are able to conclude that LB programming accelerated the development of students’

fluency skills.

Denotes significant difference at * p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Figure 4 below displays the proportion of students who qualify as ‘emergent,’ ‘beginner,’ or ‘readers

with comprehension.’ Emergent students either cannot read or can read but can answer less than

three of the five literal comprehension questions asked after reading the story. Beginner students can

answer three of the five literal comprehension questions, and readers with comprehension can answer

four or five literal questions correctly. In addition, beginners and readers with comprehension must

also have a minimum level of fluency or accuracy.

92 90 86 87 82 82

16 18

63 66 47 49

5 7 10 9 11 11

41 35

27 23

21 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LB Control LB Control LB Control LB Control LB Control LB Control

Concepts about

Print

Letters Familiar Words Fluency** Accuracy Reading

Comprehension% ite

ms

co

rrect

(or

wo

rds

co

rrect

per

min

ute

fo

r fl

uen

cy)

Figure 3: Reading Skills Baseline Scores and Gain Scores by Sample

Group

Gain

Baseline

11

In addition to the literal comprehension questions, students were also asked one summary, two

inferential, and one evaluative comprehension question. Figure 5 shows the relative baseline scores and

gain scores of LB and comparison students in terms of their advanced reading comprehension skills.

This is likely due to the fact that the baseline inferential questions tested basic inference (all clues

contained within the story yield only one plausible answer) while the endline tested advanced inference

(student must draw on their own knowledge to infer one of multiple plausible answers.)

Denotes significant difference at * p<0.05

LB students had a statistically significant higher gain in correctly answering the evaluative

question (0.13 effect size). Thus, LB may be helping students improve their evaluation

reading comprehension skills. However, children’s advanced comprehension skills still lag

their literal comprehension skills, and more work remains to be done to improve all types

of comprehension.

14%

11%

42%

46%

12%

11%

19%

12%

74%

78%

39%

42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Control

LB

Control

LB

End

line

Bas

elin

e

Figure 4: Reader with Comprehension Tiers by Sample Group

Emergent Beginner Reader with Comprehension

33% 31% -10% -18% 25% 13%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

LB Control LB Control LB Control

Summary Inferential Evaluative*

Fre

qu

en

cy o

f co

rre

ct r

esp

on

ses

Figure 5: Advanced Comprehension Baseline Scores and Gain Scores

Gain Baseline

12

15 17

46 35

010203040506070

LB Control

Wo

rds

co

rrect

per

min

ute

Significant at p<0.05

Figure 6: Fluency Baseline Scores

and Gain Scores for Slow Learners

Gain

Baseline

VI. Impact of Literacy Boost for Slow Learners and Children Who Screened

Positive for Language and Learning Challenges

The classification system of ‘slow learner’ is one already used by teachers in assessing/evaluating

students. Save the Children provided teachers with a narrower definition by which to identify up to 6

slow learners per classroom at baseline: "a child who has trouble identifying letters and/or who cannot

count up to 20.” Students designated as slow learners at baseline appear to have benefitted even more

than the average LB learner in terms of fluency. Figure 6 shows baseline scores and gains for LB and

comparison slow learners.

Relative to comparison slow learners, LB

slow learners improved their fluency by

an additional 11 words correct per

minute. This improvement is the

equivalent of nearly an additional three

months of schooling for slow learners

(0.53 effect size). Other than fluency, within

both LB and comparison schools slow learners

improved their skills at the same rate as non-

slow learners. Figure 7 below displays the gains

of non-slow and slow learners in LB schools.

This finding may be explained in part by the

fact that slow learners with lower baseline reading scores were much more likely to have

transferred schools and thus could not be found at endline. For this reason it is difficult to

estimate the impact of LB on the neediest of the slow learners.

7 8 9 12 10 15

40 43

27 26

22 18

0102030405060708090

100

No

n-S

low

Slo

w

No

n-S

low

Slo

w

No

n-S

low

Slo

w

No

n-S

low

Slo

w

No

n-S

low

Slo

w

No

n-S

low

Slo

w

Concepts aboutPrint

Letters Familiar Workds Fluency Accuracy ReadingComprehension%

of

corr

ect

ite

ms

(or

wo

rds

corr

ect

pe

r m

inu

te f

or

flu

en

cy)

Figure 7: Reading Skills Baseline Scores and Gain Scores by LB Non-Slow and LB Slow Learners

Gain

Baseline

13

At endline, teachers were again asked to identify the slow learners among the assessed students.

Interestingly, the correlation between baseline and endline designation is almost zero, meaning that

children who were considered slow learners at baseline were not considered slow learners at endline,

and those considered slow learners at endline had been considered non-slow at baseline. No

statistically significant difference was found in the change in number of slow learners over time

between LB and comparison schools. Students identified as slow learners at endline show significantly

lower baseline and endline scores than students without this endline designation, and the learning gap

between them and their non-slow peers actually widened over time. Among this group of endline slow

learners, LB slow learners did not learn significantly more than comparison slow learners over time.

All of the baseline slow learners were screened for various types of learning challenges. The largest

number of students screened positive for background-related challenges (76 students, equal to 15% of

the sample) and language & learning challenges (15 students, equal to 3% of the sample).1 Both types of

challenges were strongly associated with much lower literacy skills at baseline. No evidence could be

found that LB helped students with background-related challenges. In both LB and comparison schools,

students with background-related challenges continued to learn less over time than students without

these challenges.

However, LB appears to have considerably supported the learning of students with possible language

and learning challenges. Figure 8 below displays the much larger gains in Concepts about Print, Letters,

Fluency, and Accuracy among LB students with language & learning challenges versus comparison

students with these challenges. Except in the case of fluency, these gains were enough for LB

students to make notable progress closing the learning gap with their non-slow peers.

Strikingly, 66% of LB students with language & learning challenges became readers by

endline versus only 22% of comparison students with the same challenges. While these are

promising indications, it should however be kept in mind that the sample size was extremely small –

only six LB students and nine comparison students screened positive for language & learning challenges.

1 It should be noted that this screening is not equivalent to a medical diagnosis.

14

14 20 45 52 34

42 21 14

0

20

40

60

80

100

Boys Girls Boys Girls

Fluency* ReadingComprehension~

Wo

rds

corr

ect

pe

r m

inu

te

(flu

en

cy)

or

% o

f w

ord

s co

rre

ct

(acc

ura

cy)

Figure 9: Fluency and Accuracy Baseline Scores and Gain Scores by Sex

Gain Baseline

Denotes significant difference at ~p<0.1, * p<0.05

VII. Skill Gains of Boys and Girls

When examining student skill gains between boys

and girls, girls tended to score higher in many

skills at baseline (especially in the LB group). By

endline, boys had improved their skills slightly

more than girls in all skills except fluency, and

thus the two groups are equal in most skills at

endline. This trend occurred in both LB and

comparison schools, and is represented by the

Reading Comprehension scores in Figure 9.

Denotes significant difference at ~p<0.1, * p<0.05

Fluency did not fit this trend. Although girls again scored higher than boys at baseline, girls also

improved their fluency skills more than boys over time and thus girls have much higher average fluency

at endline. This occurred equally in LB and comparison schools.

VIII. Classroom and Home Literacy Environment

Differences between LB and comparison students in terms of student-reported classroom and home

literacy environment were tested. In terms of classroom environment, while some insignificant

student-reported indications exist that LB teachers may be more likely to ask students questions while

20 18

45 33 45

45

17 8

58

28 37 16

0

20

40

60

80

100

LB Control LB Control LB Control LB Control LB Control LB Control

Concepts aboutPrint~

Letters* Familiar Words Fluency* Accuracy* ReadingComprehension%

co

rre

ct it

em

s (o

r w

ord

s co

rre

ct p

er

min

ute

fo

r fl

ue

ncy

) Figure 8: Baseline and Gain Scores for Slow Learners who Screened Positive for

Language and Learning Challenge

Gain

Baseline

15

in the middle of reading a story and read newspapers to children, these require additional research to

verify as the sample size of this study may be too small to confirm these sample differences.

Grade 3 teachers from the classroom of assessed students were also given a survey about their

practices and beliefs. LB teachers are more likely to use formative assessment to monitor student

achievement and target support to smaller groups of students, but comparison teachers are more likely

to use it to revisit topics the class is struggling. Regarding the responsibility for helping slow learners,

LB teachers are less likely to state that it is the responsibility of the slow student him/herself or the

student’s parents to help, but LB teachers are more likely to state that it is the responsibility of other

students to help. Nearly all LB and comparison teachers stated that the responsibility also falls on the

teacher.

LB teachers report using “activities such as singing the alphabet song, playing letter games and reciting

rhymes to develop my students’ phonologic skill” with much greater frequency than comparison

teachers. LB teachers are less likely to agree that “It is more important to treat students as individual

learners rather than as a group.” There are indications that LB teachers more frequently ask specific

questions about the story when the teacher reads to students and more frequently schedule time for

students to read their own material, although these differences are not statistically significant and

require a larger sample size to confirm or refute.

Thus, the clearest impact of LB is on how teachers use formative assessment to monitor

student achievement and target support for smaller groups of students, and how teachers

use songs and games to develop students’ phonologic skills.

However, more work needs to be done to enhance teachers’ beliefs and practices where there is

room for improvement among both LB and comparison teachers. In terms of beliefs, LB programming

should help impress upon teachers the importance of treating students as individuals, of reading to

students on a daily basis, of differential instruction, of the proper way to correct incorrect student

answers, and of believing that all students are equally capable of learning although some need more

help than others. In terms of practices, LB programming should help teachers more frequently talk with

parents about how they can support their child’s learning and decorate their classroom with students’

work.

For home literacy environment (HLE), LB children reported a larger gain in the percent

of household members reading to them (marginally insignificant) and telling them stories

(significant) in the past week. Figure 10 below illustrates this finding. Despite these gains, 13% of

LB students come from households in which at least one person was seen reading in the past week,

but in which the student was not read to in the past week. Parents need to be continuously

encouraged to read to their children on a regular basis.

16

Denotes significant difference at ~p<0.1, * p<0.05

IX. Participation in Community Action Activities

Table 3 displays the self-reported rates of participation in LB Community Action activities by LB

students. Non-slow learners are more likely than slow learners to have met with a Reading Buddy in

the past week. However, slow learners are more likely to have attended a Reading Camp in the past

two weeks, to have used Make and Take materials at home, and to have participated in a Read-a-thon.

The LB program seems to be reaching slow learners in most activities.

Table 2: Participation in Community Action Activities

among LB Students by Learning Status

Community Action Activity Non-Slow Learner Slow Learner Overall

Borrowed book from Book Bank in past two weeks 63% 57% 62%

Borrowed book from Book Bank in past two weeks

and can name Book Bank 34% 30% 33%

Has had a problem borrowing from Book Bank 19% 20% 19%

Has a Reading Buddy and met with him/her last week 53% 43% 50%

Has attended a Reading Camp and did so in past two

weeks 24% 32% 26%

Used Make and Take materials at home 16% 24% 18%

Participated in a Read-a-thon 26% 34% 28%

In an attempt to verify student self-reporting of visiting the Book Bank, students were asked to name

their local Book Bank. Once this is factored in, the proportion of students verified to be visiting the

Book Bank drops by nearly half. However, it is possible that not all students know the name of their

Book Bank. In any case, efforts should be made to increase access and participation in LB

40 47

40 47

17 8 19 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LB Control LB Control

Reading to child~ Telling story to child*% o

f h

ou

seh

old

mem

bers

Figure 10: In the Past Week, Percent of

Household Members ...

Gain Baseline

17

community activities among children, and reports of problems using the Book Bank more

closely investigated.

X. Children’s Reading Skills

This section presents a profile of grade 3 students’ reading skills, as well as an in-depth analysis of each

skill. The purpose of this is to provide useful information for government and community stakeholders

to continue and expand the Literacy Boost program, given the learning gaps that exist among grade 3

students in this area.

Concepts About Print

This report will not analyze the Concepts about Print subtest, as children have mastered this skill (96

percent correct).

Letter Identification

The letter identification subtest examined learners’ letter awareness. Learners were shown a chart of

basic & compound letters and asked to name the letter or pronounce the letter sound. On average,

Literacy Boost and comparison learners correctly identified 95 percent (58 letters) out of a combined

total of 37 basic and 24 compound letters. There was no statistically significant difference between LB

and comparison students.

Except for one letter which was difficult for many students, all the other basic letters were correctly

identified by more than 90 percent of students. The difficult basic letter was ‘ළු’, which 79 percent of

students were able to identify.

In terms of compound letters, students had difficulty reading (ද්) and (ව ෝ) compound letters. Eighty-

one percent of students were able to identify those difficult letters on average. Other compound

letters were identified by above 90 percent of students.

It is clear that the letters that were most commonly known are some of the most

commonly used in Sinhala. They are found in names and many other words commonly

used and related to everyday life.

Word Recognition: Most Used Words

The most used words (MUW) sub-test consists of a chart of 20 words that the student is asked to

read. These 20 words were identified as ‘most used’ by tabulating the number of times a word

appeared in learners’ language arts textbooks.

On average, learners in Literacy Boost and comparison schools were able to read 93 percent of MUW.

There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups, meaning that we cannot

determine whether learners in Literacy Boost schools as a whole would be able to read more MUW

than learners in comparison schools.

18

Learners had the easiest time reading words that were two letters long and words that refer to family

members. These words have been correctly identified by more than 95 percent students. Only three

words out of 20 were correctly read by only 83 percent students. Two out of these three words were

confused by the learners due to the availability of other words with same sound which are commonly

used. The other word which on which students scored low contained six consonants in a row.

As Figure 11 below shows, the distribution of most used word scores is clustered around the average

(93 percent correct).

Proportion of Readers and Nonreaders

After the most used words sub-test, students were then asked to read aloud a passage of connected

text of 112 words in length. This passage was created with the support of In – Service Advisors from

Zonal Education Department in age appropriate basis. At this point in the assessment, assessors classify

students as either ‘readers’ or ‘nonreaders.’ Readers are defined as students who were able to read at

least 5 words correctly in the first 30 seconds of reading. At endline, 94 percent of students read at least 5 words correctly in 30 seconds and thus were classified as readers. All other students were

classified as nonreaders, and were read the passage by assessors. There were no significant differences

between the Readers and Nonreaders of Literacy Boost and comparison students.

Fluency and Accuracy

Fluency (words per minute read correctly) and accuracy (percent of the passage read correctly) are

presented together here because they are measured together in a single sub-test in which learners

read a passage aloud. The number of words learners read correctly in a minute is tracked for fluency.

As the student continues to read after the first minute, the total number of words read correctly from

the passage as a whole, no matter how long it takes the student, is computed for accuracy. This section

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 5 10 15 20 25

% o

f sa

mp

le

# of most used words correct

Figure 11: Distribution of Most Used Word Score

19

presents this data for readers only2 in order to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of

students who can read a degree of connected text.

The average endline fluency rate for Literacy Boost and comparison readers was 58 words correct per

minute and their accuracy was 94 percent. Although the learning gain in fluency was significantly larger

for LB student overall, among endline readers there were no significant differences between the

fluency and accuracy skills of LB and comparison readers. As the Figure 12 histogram below shows, the

distribution of accuracy scores was clustered at or above the average. The highest frequency of

readers read with 100 percent accuracy / read all 112 words correctly. The distribution of fluency

scores was also clustered close to the average of 94 percent correct (106 out of 112 words).

Figure 12

Reading Comprehension

The final sub-test quizzed students who qualified as readers on a series of nine comprehension

questions related to the reading passage. This section presents this data for readers only3 in order to

better understand the strengths and weaknesses of students who can read a degree of connected text.

On average, both Literacy Boost and comparison students who could read correctly answered 70

percent of reading comprehension questions. There was no significant difference between the scores

of Literacy Boost and comparison students.

2 As opposed to including the zero scores of the nonreaders, which would lower the average scores for this data.

3 As opposed to including the zero scores of the nonreaders, which would lower the average scores for this data.

20

The easiest type of comprehension question to answer for all students were the factual questions,

where students were asked to recall facts that were presented in the story. This type of question

asked the students questions like "Whose is that monkey?" and "Did which fruit Udara show to the

monkey?” The hardest questions were the inferential questions. Inferential questions ask students to

use the information from the text to make inferences. The summary question, which asked students to

retell the story in their own words, was not much harder to the students when compared to the

factual questions. Students received 1 point on this question if they were able to accurately recount

four of the six most important parts of the story. Students scored similarly well on the evaluative

question, which asks student to state an opinion on a feature of the story and support that opinion

with reasons from the story. Figure 13 shows how students who qualified as readers performed on

each comprehension question.

Readers with Comprehension

Students reading with comprehension is the ultimate goal of Literacy Boost. As such, a new composite

measure to focus attention on this goal as well as to track progress in terms of equity, in terms of all

children reading with comprehension, is displayed in Figure 14 below. The Literacy Boost program

classifies students into Emergent, Beginning, and Reading with Comprehension tiers based on their

comprehension skills. Emergent students either cannot read or can read but can answer less than three

of the five literal comprehension questions asked after reading the story. Beginner students can answer

three of the five literal comprehension questions, and readers with comprehension can answer four or

five literal questions correctly. In addition, beginners and readers with comprehension must also have a

minimum level of fluency or accuracy.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% o

f sa

mp

le

Figure 13: Average Scores on Each Comprehension Question among Readers

LB Comp

21

In this sample, 13 percent of LB and comparison students are classified as being Emergent readers.

Eleven percent of students fall under the Beginner category, and most of the students qualify as

Readers with Comprehension (76 percent). While three-fourths of Literacy Boost and comparison

students have achieved the ultimate goal of Reading with Comprehension, one-fourth of children still

have not. There were no significant differences between Literacy Boost and comparison students on

this measure.

XI. Literacy Boost Skill Profile and Skill-Specific Recommendations

14%

11%

42%

46%

12%

11%

19%

12%

74%

78%

39%

42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Control

LB

Control

LB

End

line

Bas

elin

e

Figure 14: Reader with Comprehension Tiers by Sample Group

Emergent Beginner Reader with Comprehension

84.2

77.9 72.8

14.7

55.0

75.6

90.9

85.1 79.1

35.0

90.0

60.5

89.8 86.8 83.1

16.3

64.8 68.6

97.6 97.0 96.0

64.1

95.4

73.1

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

CAP ( % correct ) Letter ID ( % correct ) Familiar words ( %correct )

Fluency ( Words perminute)

Accuracy ( % Readcorrect )

ReadingComprehension

Literacy Skill Profile, Literacy Boost Students Only

Slow learnerBaseline

Slow learnerEndline

Non slow learnerBaseline

Non slow learnerEndline

22

Table 3. Program Recommendations by Skill

Skill Program implications

Letter identification Letter knowledge is the ability to identify the names of letters of the Sinhala

alphabet. Familiarity with the letters of the alphabet is a powerful predictor of

early reading success. When children can quickly recognize letters, they can

begin to appreciate that all words are made of sequences and patterns of

letters. Letter games using low cost materials, letters songs and group

activities can be used to increased letter knowledge.

Reading Single

Words- familiar

words

More than half of the assessed students at the endline have been able to read

the familiar words. Fifty six percent (56%) of children can read 20 words

correctly. It is recommended to create more opportunities for reading

through book banks, daily reading activities in schools and continued

encouragement of children.

Fluency (words per

minute)

The students have significantly improved their reading fluency. This project

was implemented in the semi urban area but we cannot expect the same level

of fluency among students in the remote area. Fluency develops over time and

through substantial practice. Teachers can support students to improve their

fluency by giving opportunities to read aloud in the class room and providing

dedicated time to read story books. In the community level, children should

be encouraged more to practice their reading with reading buddies and

participate in other community level reading activities such as read-a-thons and

readings camps.

Accuracy At the school level, reading with children – e.g. choral reading and echo

reading – would improve accuracy. At the community level, reading camp

leaders and parents should continue to support children on reading with

accuracy.

Reading

Comprehension

Reading comprehension, or being able to understand, interpret and use

information derived from text, is the main objective of reading. Even though

activities were conducted by focusing on comprehension, the end line value

for reading compression is 70%, which is quite low compared to other reading

skills. Teachers, reading camp leaders and parents need to be encouraged on

asking questions focusing on literal and inferential comprehension questions.

Story time is an opportunity for improving comprehension by asking questions.

XII. Summary of Findings and General Program Recommendations

LB programming accelerated the development of reading fluency skills, especially among slow

learners.

LB programming may have enhanced students’ advanced comprehension skills, however much

more work is needed to build students’ comprehension by integrating this with other skills at all

grade levels.

23

LB programming helped students who screened positive for language & learning challenges catch up

to their peers in almost every skill.

LB programming helped teachers improve their use of formative assessment, songs, and games.

However, more work is needed on teachers’ beliefs and practices where there is room for

improvement.

LB is making a positive impact on household literacy practices. Furthermore, slow learners are

reporting equal or greater access to LB community activities. However, community action

participation can be increased.

This promising data should be used to advocate for the LB model of supporting school and

communities to help children to read.

24

Appendix A: Implementation Timeline

Intervention Dates

I. Literacy Boost Teacher Training

Orientation of the LB programme for Education authorities December 2012

First Training of trainer (ToT) workshop to Primary ISAs (In Service advisors) (9

ISAs) and adopted to the 1st training module according to the Sri Lankan context.

May 2013

Pilot workshop session conducted by 9 ISAS to primary teachers represent from

another school and ISAs got confident to do the session in future - 28 primary

teachers and 04 directors in the Zone

31-5-2013

First Teacher Training: Introduction to Development and Instruction for

Children and Letter Knowledge

Three parallel trainings were conducted in Minuwangoda, Diulapitiya and

Meerigama division

68 (55 females & 13 males) grade two and four -primary teachers and ISAS

10,11/ 6/ 2013

Second ToT and adaptation session with Primary ISAs (In Service advisors ) ( 9

ISAs) : Struggling learners - SNAP (Special Need Action Pack ),

Formative assessment

27/30 /7/2013

Second Teacher Training on Struggling learners - SNAP (Special Need

Action Pack ), Formative assessment

Three parallel trainings were conducted in Minuwangoda, Diulapitiya and

Meerigama division - 43 grade two and four -primary teachers and 9 ISAs

07,09/10/13

Third TOT and adaptation session with Primary ISAs (In Service advisors ) (9

ISAs and 2 directors) : Phonemic Awareness and : Reading Fluency

05/11/2013

Third Teacher Training on Phonemic Awareness and Reading Fluency

30 (26 females & 4males) grade two teachers conduced as three parallel sessions

conducted in Meerigama, Minuwangoda and Diulapitiya.

04, 06/11/2013

Refresher training programmer for 44 Primary teachers on letter knowledge,

SNAP, Phonemic awareness and fluency.

01/02/ 2013

Fourth ToT and adaptation session with Primary ISAs (In Service advisors) (9 ISAS

and 1 director): Vocabulary.

05,07/02/2013

Fourth Teacher Training: Vocabulary

27 grade two and three primary teachers attended conducted as three parallel

workshops in Meerigama, Minuwangoda and Diulapitiya.

19/2/2013

Fifth ToT and adaptation session with Primary ISAs (In Service advisors ) (9 ISAs

and 1 director) : Comprehension

09/05/2013

25

1.1 SNAP (Special Need Action Pack )

Peers support meeting with teachers to discuss the progress of catch up classes and

application of the SNAP in the class rooms – 43 primary teachers, 9 ISAs and 2

directors.

Feb, March May, July

2013

Three Screening tests were conducted by doctors for providing spectacles and

hearing aids to children in Minuwangoda, Diulapitiya and Meerigama

2/14 , 01/14 , /2/14

Provision of hearing and visual aids for identified children - came form 15 schools 27/3/14

2.Community activities

2.1 Enhancing the Literacy Environment

Introduce Literacy boost programme to government officials-Discussion with Non

formal project officers to identify the catchment areas of the project, identifying the

community leaders. (13 participants)

20 /3/14

Discussion with the ISAs on activities in the community action module (14

participants)

17/5/13

Aware the community action module for 38 community leaders – conducted by

three ISAs in Marapola Maha Vidyalaya

29/30 /6 13

Training programmer for 40 community leaders, and 28 camp leaders to discuss

the community action module – conducted by four ISAS

15, 16/8/14

Distributed books to book banks – 74 books were given at the beginning totally

148 books were distributed to each book bank

29/8/13

Training on 40 community leaders – functioning of the book bank, leveling the

book, lending and borrowing the books.

7,8//9/13

Work shop for camp leaders (54) ,community volunteer (40) and reading buddies

(266) on preparation of low cost materials for book banks facilitated by 3 ISAs and

10 primary teachers

27/28/12/13

A total of 2869 children (Male) 1370 (Female) 1499 attending. Book banks and

facilitated by 40 community leaders- 2 days per month

From August 13 to date

2.2 Community reading activities

Workshop for Reading buddies , camp leaders, community leaders to discuss the

role of reading buddies , camp leaders –facilitated by the non-formal project officer

and 2 ISAs

16/17/11/13

Training for 291 reading buddies– role of the reading buddies, effective

communication related to reading stories, how to guide younger children to

inculcate reading habits. Facilitated by staff in room to read and three Non formal

officers

28,29/ 6/14

Training for the 40 camp leaders and 40 community leaders – how to conduct

reading camp activities, leadership skills – facilitated by partner staff

28,29/ 6/14

Workshop for 40 community leaders, 270 reading buddies, 40 camp leaders

focusing in reading methods , enjoining with reading activities

Resource person – Ramya Nawarathne

15/16/2/14

26

Reading buddies

pairs form across 40 reading camps 333 elder children read for 950 younger

children to books - twice a month ( first day on 3rd week Second day on 4th

week )

From November 2013 up

to date

Reading camps

78 Reading camps facilitated by 40 Reading Camp Volunteers and supervised by

community leaders , social mobilizers of the partner organization .Total number of

1979 children 913 (Male) 1066 (Female )attending to the reading camps

Typical activities: Open play, Song, Story including Reading for Children, Activity

based learning, Make and Take, Journaling (Drawing, Writing), conducting - 2 days

per month

From October 2013 up

to date

Community- Read -A- Thon

Reading festival celebrated in 40 book banks. Reading completion and reading

festival were conducted involving -1492 children, 161 parents.

From September 2013 up

to date

Story time

Two days per month - the elderly members from the community were invited to

tell traditional oral stories to 1463 children in 40 Reading Camps.

From September 2013 to

date

40 community leaders participated to cluster meeting conducted in three places

to discuss the progress of the community activities – (Minuwangoda, Meerigama

and Diulapitiya )

Once a month

2.3.Reading awareness workshops

Local resource group(15) formed ( selected 15 out of 40 community leaders ) and

trained on parents awareness sessions

17/12/13

Awareness programme for 32 community leaders about the content of the

reading awareness workshops – Minuwandoga Pradesheya Shaba

26/1/14

36 parents awareness workshop for Mothers (684) Fathers (72) conducted by 15

local resource group.

Feb –May -2014

Discussion with 28 community leaders in terms of the application of the parents

awareness session - Venue Udugampolaa Pradeshiya Shaba

15/3/14

Phasing out of the community action component with over 1500 participants

representing of children, parents, community leaders, Provincial and Zonal

education authorities, representatives of the Chief Minister, Siddhartha foundation

staff and SCI. Certificates of appreciation were awarded to Reading buddies,

Community facilitators, reading camp leaders and other key active participants in

the community

27/9/14

27

Appendix B: Inter-rater reliability To test inter-rater reliability, 12 percent of learners (60 out of 519) 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 A presents the results below.

Using Fleiss’ benchmarks for excellent (ICC>0.75), good or fair (0.75>=ICCA>0.4), and poor

(0.4>=ICC).

Table A. Interrater Accuracy and Reliability

Literacy Skill Sub-Test Inter-rater Reliability Rating

Concepts about Print 0.98 Excellent

Letter Knowledge 0.99 Excellent

Most Used Words 0.99 Excellent

Reader or Nonreader? 1.0 Excellent

Fluency 0.99 Excellent

Accuracy 0.97 Excellent

Reading Comprehension 0.98 Excellent

There was excellent inter-rater reliability on every measure. This means that assessors had near-

perfect agreement on the scoring of every subtest. Because inter-rater reliability was very high,

we can be confident that the internal validity of the scores is good.

28

Appendix C: Full Background and Home Literacy Environment Statistics at

Endline

Table B1: Background Characteristics at Endline, by Sample Group

Child Background Characteristics Comparison

(N=262) Literacy Boost

(N=257) Significant difference

Age 7.9 7.9

% female 48% 45%

% have attended ECD program 97% 98%

Number of family members in household 5 5

Number of amenities (of 5) 3 3

% who do chores at home 96% 95%

time spent studying (in minutes) 145 136 0.046

Height in centimeters 125 124

Weight in kilograms 23 22

Body Mass Index 14.40 14.23

29

Table B2. Home Literacy Environment at Endline, by Sample Group

Home Literacy Environment

Comparison (N=262)

Literacy Boost (N=257)

Significant

Difference

Reading Materials in Home 100% 100%

Religious books 78% 77%

Newspaper 92% 91%

Textbooks 97% 97%

Comics 43% 46%

Story books 95% 92%

Booklet 47% 48%

See people read at home 93% 89%

People at home read to you 81% 81%

Total people in home 856 861

Total people seen reading at home 573 590

Total people read to you at home 461 495

% of Family Seen Reading 93% 95%

% of Family that Helps Student to Study 99% 99%

% of Family that Reads to the Student 81% 81%

% of Family that Tells the Student Stories 84% 84%

30

Appendix D. Regression Results

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Gain Scores # CAP Qs #

Letters #

MUWs %

Readers #

WCPM Accuracy

(%) # Reading

Comprehension Qs % RWC

LB student screened positive for language challenge (interaction) 1.324~ 9.355* 2.965 0.479~ 7.580 0.431* 2.084 0.0763 Student screened positive for language challenge -1.169~ -5.537 -2.221 -0.519** -27.8*** -0.490*** -2.998** -0.56***

Student attends LB school -0.0626 -0.204 -0.140 -0.00699 6.043** -0.00394 0.320 0.0161

Female 0.0446 0.395 0.256 0.0159 7.978*** 0.0274~ -0.139 -0.062~

SES quintiles 0.0266 0.0963 0.0658 0.0129* 1.162 0.0132* 0.145* 0.032**

Log total reading material 0.0682 -0.231 -0.139 0.0192 1.445 0.00446 0.0378 -0.0116

% of household reading to child -0.211 0.140 -0.195 -0.0189 -0.535 -0.00235 0.813~ 0.0224

% of household telling story to child 0.127 0.666 0.152 0.0413 -0.497 0.0402 -0.0231 0.0858

Quintiles of chore intensity -0.0215 -0.0075 -0.0267 -0.0144* 0.775 -0.0121* 0.0613 0.0254*

Log of chore frequencies 0.135 1.092 0.132 -0.00557 -1.332 0.00285 0.0407 -0.0267

Attended nursery school 0.190 2.539 0.468 0.136 1.414 0.124 1.063 0.213

Age in years -0.0694 -3.825** -1.97*** -0.092*** -3.432 -0.0816** -0.430* -0.0392

Quintiles of study intensity 0.0331~ -0.0261 0.0274 0.00736~ 0.105 0.00430 0.0926 0.0116

Reads books to others -0.0410 0.694 0.639~ 0.0415 0.397 0.0335 0.0907 0.0459

Lends books to others 0.0283 -0.187 0.112 -0.00946 -0.487 -0.00763 -0.205 -0.0525

Family size including child -0.0336 0.0925 0.143~ 0.00346 -0.190 0.00226 0.00543 -0.0061

BMI -0.00536 -0.008 -0.0710 -0.00736 -1.000~ -0.00925* -0.147** -0.025*

Distance to district center in km -0.00170 -0.0342 -0.0022 -0.00079 -0.0194 -0.00116 -0.00543 -0.0017

# of students in assessed classroom -0.00303 -0.035~ -0.0156 -0.00043 -0.0575 -0.000588 -0.00893 -7.7e-05

Baseline teacher yrs of experience -0.000662 -0.006 0.00033 -0.00023 0.118 -0.000195 0.00935 0.00361~

Baseline score -0.854*** -0.72*** -0.73*** -0.882*** -0.0112 -0.813*** -0.737*** -0.733***

Constant 8.639*** 63.56*** 25.78*** 1.314*** 59.21** 1.232*** 7.249*** 0.875**

Observations 491 491 491 491 490 491 491 491

R-squared 0.747 0.812 0.751 0.806 0.152 0.782 0.638 0.497

Robust standard errors in parentheses, *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, ~ p<0.1