the achievement of learners in early grade ... - … · 2 a publication of the achievement of...

THE ACHIEVEMENT OF LEARNERS IN EARLY GRADE READING IN SELECTED

DISTRICTS OF UGANDA: MIDLINE REPORT

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS IN EDUCATION

UGANDA NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS BOARD

2017

1

Published by Uganda National Examinations Board

All rights reserved. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-

commercial purposes is allowed without prior permission from the copyright holder

provided the source is acknowledged.

Reproduction for re-sale or other commercial purposes is prohibited, unless prior

permission, in writing, is obtained from UNEB.

For further information, please refer to:

The Executive Secretary

Uganda National Examinations Board

P.O. Box 7066

KAMPALA

UGANDA

Telephone: 256 41 4 286173

256 41 4 286636

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.uneb.ac.ug

© 2016 Uganda National Examinations Board

http://www.uneb.ac.ug/

2

A publication of the Achievement of Learners in Early Grade Reading in Selected

Districts of Uganda: Baseline Report, Uganda National Examinations Board.

Prepared by: Dan Kyagaba

Principal Examinations Officer

Amos Opaman

Senior Examinations Officer

Omala St Kizito (PhD)

Senior Examinations Officer

Jumanyol Kennedy

Examinations Officer

Sserunkuuma Lutalo Bbosa

Examinations Officer

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We give praise and honour to God for giving us the strength, wisdom, knowledge and

understanding to accomplish the EGRA activities.

Special consideration goes to the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) for the

financial support. Appreciation to the Ministry of Education and Sports, headed by

Honourable Mrs. Janet Kataha Museveni, for steering the UTSEP activities.

We also thank the Chairman, Professor Lutalo Bosa, and members of the NAPE

Advisory Committee for the continued guidance.

We are sincerely grateful to the various Education Development Partners and other

EGRA stakeholders such as SHRP, LARA, Mango Tree for the technical assistance

provided.

We immensely thank the learners, teachers, headteachers, CCTs, PTC tutors, PTC

Principals, District Education Officers and District Inspectors of School for participating

in the assessment in their various capacities.

Finally, we acknowledge the contribution of the rest of the NAPE staff: Ms Mariam

Namirimu, Mr. John Bwete, Ms. Solomy Namukwaya, Ms. Josephine Nassonko, Mrs.

Barbara K. Barigye and Mrs. Dorothy K. Ssettuba. This accomplishment would not

have been possible without you.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CC Coordinating Centre

CCT Coordinating Centre Tutors

DES Directorate of Education Standards

DQA Data Quality Assurance

EFA Education for All

EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment

EPPA Education Planning and Policy Analysis

GPE Global Partnership for Education

IRR Inter-rater Reliability

LARA Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity

LCs Language Coordinators

MoES Ministry of Education and Sports

NAPE National Assessment of Progress in Education

NCDC National Curriculum Development Centre

P 1 Primary One

P 2 Primary Two

P 3 Primary Three

RTI Research Triangle Institute

SHRP School Health and Reading Programme

TAs Tool Administrators (Assessors)

TDMS Teacher Development and Management System

TIET Teacher Instructor Education and Training

TLs Team Leaders

UNEB Uganda National Examinations Board

UTSEP Uganda Teacher and School Effectiveness Project

6

FOREWORD Monitoring of learners achievement is an indispensable activity in the learning process,

if the objectives of teaching are to be met and standards ensured. At the infant level

of education, regular monitoring of learners’ achievement through continuous

assessment, most especially at the class level, is considered a cornerstone of the Early

Grade Reading (EGR) approach.

With the inception of the Uganda Teacher and School Effectiveness Project (UTSEP)

in 2015, UNEB through NAPE was privileged to be assigned the task of assessing the

P 1, P 2 and P 3 learners reading skills under the EGR approach. This assessment is

the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA). This kind of assessment was already

going on in schools in some other districts by other players, notably School Health and

Reading Programme (SHRP). So, because of the existence of other kinds of EGRA by

some other stakeholders, EGRA by UNEB was named UNEB-EGRA.

UNEB conducted the first UNEB-EGRA survey in October, 2016 as a baseline survey.

The assessment was in 11 local languages and, then, English for all the learners

assessed. The findings of the baseline UNEB-EGRA were released and disseminated

to the stakeholders. For further detailed reading, the baseline report could be accessed

on the UNEB website:www.uneb.ac.ug

In October, 2017, UNEB conducted the midline UNEB-EGRA. The findings of the

midline UNEB-EGRA are presented in this report. The report provides information on

what learners in the infant classes (P 1, P 2 and P 3) know and can do in the basic

reading skills. Such information has a lot of implication to the teaching and learning

process of reading in particular and to all the supporting efforts to that process

especially early grade reading in general.

It is my sincere hope that all stakeholders will use the report to enrich their support

efforts toward improving reading among our learners.

Dan N. Odongo EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Ministry of Education and Sports in Uganda is pre-occupied with improving the

quality of education in the country through improving the quality of learning obtaining

in the schools. One of the aspects in the learning process that has greatly attracted

the attention of the key education stakeholders in this endeavour is the level of

learners’ reading skills. The Ministry of Education and Sports has, of recent, adopted

the Early Grade Reading (EGR) model which focuses on exposure of the learners to

the basic reading skills. Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) helps to monitor the

progress of learners in reading skills acquisition in the early years of schooling. The

midline UNEB-EGRA was conducted in 11 local languages in September-October 2017.

This is a follow up of the baseline assessment in October 2016.

The same study design was implemented as at baseline. At baseline, a stratified two-

stage cluster sampling design was used. Data from Education Management

Information System (EMIS) 2015 provided the list of public primary schools and their

respective pupil enrolment figures for each class. Proportional number of schools were

randomly selected from each TDMS Coordinating Centre within selected districts

(Table 1.01, Page 3). The same schools were visited at midline. A simple, a random

sample of 20, 20 and 10 learners were respectively selected from pupils of each of P

1, P 2 and P 3 classes, present on the day of the survey. Survey weights for sampled

learners were accounted for in the analysis in order to obtain unbiased estimates of

the desired benchmarks (proportions and means).

A total of 189 Assessors and 12 Data Quality Assurance (DQA) officers were recruited

for this exercise. They underwent rigorous training which ensured that they became

familiar with the administration of an oral interview, as well as the specific

implementation and coding practices associated with EGRA. The assessment tools

were uploaded on Tangerine software. Since EGRA is individually administered by

assessors, an Inter-rater Reliability (IRR) was computed out twice to ensure

consistency of Assessors with the gold standard in the administration of the EGRA tool.

Piloting of EGRA instruments was also done before scale-up to full data collection, to

ensure: the instruments performed as expected, Assessors gained valuable hands-on

experience and trainers identified gaps in assessor understanding and skills.

Each sampled learner in P 1, P 2 and P 3 classes from 405 public primary schools was

assessed orally and individually both in the local language used as a medium of

instruction and in English. In addition, there were three (3) contextual instruments

administered, namely: Lesson observation, Pupil interview schedule and Headteacher

interview schedule. All these instruments were intended to establish the context in

which learners learn to read at school and at home.

8

Overall Level of Achievement of Learners

Letter Identification

The proportion of learners who were able to identify at least 4 out of 5 letters in all

the 11 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline.

The proportion of learners who were able to identify at least 4 out of 5 letters in Leb-

Lango, Lugbarati and Runyoro-Rutooro remained higher in the local languages than

in English at midline as it was at baseline.

However in Leb-Acoli, the proportion of P 3 learners who were able to identify at least

4 out of 5 letters was higher in English at midline.

The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to identify at least 4 out of

5 letters in all the 11 local languages and English, was higher than that of P 2 learners

at baseline.

Telling Letter Sounds

The proportion of learners who were able to sound correctly one or more letters per

minute in all the 11 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline.

At both baseline and midline, the proportion of learners who were able to sound

correctly one or more letters per minute was higher in most of the local languages

than in English except in Lumasaaba and Runyoro-Rutooro.

The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to sound correctly one or

more letters per minute in all the 11 local languages and English, was higher than that

of the P 2 learners at baseline.

The mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute was higher in Leb-Acoli,

Leb-Lango, Lhukonzo, Ngakarimojong and Lugbarati than in English at both baseline

and midline.

On the contrary, mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute was higher in

English than in Luganda, Lumasaaba, and Lusoga at both baseline and midline.

The mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute was higher in English than

in Ateso and Runyankore-Rukiga amongst P 2 learners at midline. This was true for

Runyankore-Rukiga at baseline. The reverse is true for Runyoro-Rutooro.

9

The mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute by the P 2 learners at

midline, in all the 11 local languages and English was higher than that of the P 2

learners at baseline.

VOCABULARY

At midline, the proportion of P 2 learners who were able to identify at least 3 out of 4

objects was higher in all the 11 local languages than in English.

The proportion of P 1 learners who were able to identify at least 3 out of 4 objects in

8 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline except in

Luganda, Runyankore-Rukiga and Runyoro-Rutooro.


4 objects in Lugbarati, Lukhonzo, Ngakarimojong, Leb-Acoli and Leb-Lango was higher

than that of the P 2 learners at baseline. However, the reverse was true for Runyoro-

Rutooro, Runyankore-Rukiga, Lusoga and Luganda.

The proportion of learners who were able to describe activities in at least 2 out of 3

pictures in 9 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline except

in Leb-Acoli and Runyoro-Rutooro.

At both baseline and midline, the proportion of learners who were able to describe

activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures was higher in all the 11 local languages than

in English.

The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to describe activities in at

least 2 out of 3 pictures in Lugbarati, Ateso, Luganda, Leb-Lango, Lumasaaba and

English, was higher than that of the P 2 learners at baseline. However, the reverse

was true in Runyankore-Rukiga.

Listening Comprehension

The proportion of learners who were able to answer at least 3 out of 4 listening

comprehension questions in all the 11 local languages and English was higher at

midline than at baseline.


comprehension questions was higher in all the 11 local languages than in English at

both baseline and midline.

10

The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to answer at least 3 listening

comprehension questions in most local languages and English was better than that of

the P 2 learners at baseline except in Lhukonzo, Lusoga, and Runyankore-Rukiga.

Oral Passage Reading

The proportion of learners who were able to read correctly one or more words per


The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to read correctly one or more

words per minute in all the 11 local languages and English, was higher than that of

the P 2 learners at baseline.

The proportion of learners who were able to read correctly 20 or more words per

minute was higher in all the 11 local languages than in English at both baseline and

midline.

The proportion of the P 2 learners at midline, who were able to read correctly 20 or

more words per minute in most local languages and English, was higher than that of

the P 2 learners at baseline except in Runyankore-Rukiga.

Reading Comprehension

The proportion of learners who were able to answer correctly one or more

comprehension questions in both English and local language was higher at midline

than at baseline.

At both baseline and midline, the proportion of learners who were able to answer

correctly one or more comprehension questions was higher in local language than in

English, apart from Ateso, Runyoro-Rutooro and Ngakarimojong. However, at P 3 the

reverse is true in Ngakarimojong, Lusoga, Lumasaaba and Lhukonzo.

The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to answer correctly one or

more comprehension questions in all the local languages and English was higher than

that of P 2 learners at baseline

Level of Adherence of Teachers to the EGR model

At midline, in almost 9 in 10 lessons observed, the P 2 teachers taught reading lessons

in the mother tongue, while 3 in 10 of the lessons observed had learners with

textbooks/printed materials in their hands (i.e. 1:1 learners to text book ratio).

However, in 91.2% of the lessons observed, learners were sharing the text books.

11

The proportion of learners who were able to read individually from printed materials

or books was higher at midline than at baseline.

Headteachers’ Role in Early Grade Reading

Generally, the proportions of the headteachers by their perceived role in promoting

Early Grade Reading were higher at midline than at baseline. Most headteachers, at

midline viewed supervisory, logistical support and sensitization as their main roles in

promoting Early Grade Reading. This was the same trend at baseline.

12

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Ministry of Education and Sports in Uganda is pre-occupied with improving the

quality of education in the country through improving the quality of learning obtaining

in the schools. One of the aspects in the learning process that has greatly attracted

the attention of the key education stakeholders in this endeavour is the level of

learners’ reading skills. The Ministry of Education has, of recent, adopted the Early

Grade Reading (EGR) model which focuses on exposure of the learners to the basic

reading skills.

Under the Uganda Teacher and School Effectiveness Project (UTSEP), the Ministry of

Education and Sports formally supports the EGR efforts. For example such support

has led to the training of teachers in the Early Grade Reading model and the provision

of instructional materials for EGR to schools, among others. The support started with

27 districts where EGR is implemented (see Table 1.01). The target classes for EGR

are P 1, P 2 and P 3. It is in line with that support, that Uganda National Examinations

Board (UNEB) through its National Assessment of Progress in Education (NAPE) was

requested to implement the EGR corresponding assessment, that is, Early Grade

Reading Assessment (EGRA) among P 1, P 2 and P 3 learners. UNEB conducted its

first EGRA (UNEB-EGRA) in October 2016 as a baseline survey. This was done in

selected schools in the 27 districts, in 11 local languages used as languages of

instruction in primary schools in those districts (see Table 1.01). The learners were

also assessed in English.

1.2 BASELINE SURVEY

The baseline survey was intended to explore and determine what learners know and

can do in terms of the key basic reading skills, as defined under the Early Grade

Reading model. The baseline survey also explored the level of adherance of the

learners’ teachers of reading to the EGR model. The assessment also sought the head

teachers and teachers views on selected aspects of teaching reading. Among the three

classes assessed, that is, P 1, P 2 and P 3, the main class of interest for the baseline

UNEB-EGRA was P 1.

The baseline findings were released in the report titled ‘The Achievement of Learners

in Early Grade Reading in Selected Districts in Uganda’. There were also reports

customized by each of the 11 local languages. These reports can be accessed on the

UNEB website www.uneb.ac.ug

http://www.uneb.ac.ug/

13

1.3 MIDLINE SURVEY

From September to October 2017, UNEB conducted the second UNEB-EGRA. This was

the midline survey. The midline survey employed the same methodology as had been

applied during the baseline survey. The midline UNEB-EGRA was meant to assess

what the learners know and could do based on the baseline findings and in view of

the multiplicity of EGR interventions that have been carried out in all public primary

schools in the 27 districts. The assessment was conducted among P 1, P 2 and P 3

leaners, like was the case during the baseline survey. However, for the midline, the

main class of interest was P 2 and that is where emphasis in reporting is more focused.

The P 2 class of midline survey was the P 1 class during the baseline survey and the

main class of interest then. This is the class which has been at the centre of most of

the EGR interventions. So, the midline survey portrays what P 2 learners can do after

being subjected to the EGR intervention compared to what they could do during the

baseline before the EGR interventions.

The findings of the midline survey are presented in this report. The report is comprised

of eight chapters. Chapter 1: Introduction, Chapter 2: Survey Procedures, Chapter 3:

Letter Identification, Chapter 4: Telling Letter Sounds, Chapter 5: Vocabulary

Knowledge, Chapter 6: Listening Comprehension, Chapter 7: Oral Reading

Comprehension and Chapter 8: Level of Adherence to the EGR Model. Chapters 3, 4,

5, 6 and 7 present the results of the learners level of achievement in the specified

areas of early grade reading. Each of those chapters begin with an introduction,

followed with a description of how the respective skill area was assessed and then a

discussion of the findings as reflected in the figures by each of the 11 local languages

and English.

Each of the figures under these chapters presents the baseline findings on one side

and the midline findings on the other by local language and English. The year 2016

in each of the figures shows the achievement of the learners of the respective class

in the specified skill area in that year. Those very learners (cohort of learners)

progressed to their next class in 2017. So, the year 2017 in each figure shows the

achievement of the learners of the same cohort of the year 2016 when they are in

their next class in 2017.

14

Table 1.01: Local Languages Assessed by District

Local language District

Ateso Amuria, Bukedea, Soroti

Leb-Acoli Agago, Amuru, Lamwo, Nwoya

Leb-Lango Alebtong, Amolatar, Dokolo, Oyam

Lhukonzo Bundibugyo

Luganda Kyankwanzi and Mubende

Lugbarati Maracha

Lumasaaba Bududa and Bulambuli

Lusoga Bugiri, Buyende, Kaliro, Luuka, Mayuge, Namayingo and

Namutumba

Ngakarimojong Kotido

Runayankore-Rukiga Kamwenge

Runyoro-Rutooro Kibaale

15

Chapter 2

METHODOLOGY 2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a description of the instruments and procedures that were used

in selecting the sample (schools and learners), identifying and training the Assessors,

Language coordinators and Monitors. It also describes the process of pre-testing the

instruments, data collection, management and analysis.

2.2 Instruments

These consisted of oral tests and contextual instruments.

2.2.1 Oral Test

The oral test was developed in English and then later translated into all the 11 local

languages. The same test was administered to each individual sampled learner in P

1, P 2 and P 3 in both the local language and English. The oral test was developed

following the EGRA framework. The composition of the oral test is presented in Table

2.01.

Table 2.01: Composition of the Oral test

Components of Reading Competences Bench marks

ALPHABETIC PRINCIPLE

(Relating the letter name to its

symbol)

Identifies letters of the alphabet

(Knowledge of letter names)

Identifies at least 4 letters out of

5, i.e., 80% or more.

PHONEMIC AWARENESS Tells the sound of the letter Sounds correctly at least 1 letter

Mean number of letters sounded

correctly per minute.

FLUENCY

(Oral passage

reading and

Comprehensi

on)

Reading Reads texts with speed and

accuracy

Reads correctly at least 20 words

per minute

Reads correctly at least 1 word

per minute

Comprehension Reads the passage fluently with

comprehension

Answers correctly at least 1

question out of 4, i.e., 25% or

more.

VOCABULARY Demonstrates understanding of

vocabulary e.g. Identifying objects

Identifies correctly at least 3

objects out of 4 i.e., 75% or more

16

Components of Reading Competences Bench marks

(Knowledge and use of words

appropriately and creatively)

Describes the activities in the

pictures using the learnt

vocabulary.

Describes correctly at least 2

activities in the pictures out of 3,

i.e., 67% or more

COMPREHENSION

Listens to a story and derives

meaning from it

Answers correctly at least 3

questions out of 4, i.e., 75% or

more

2.2.2 Contextual instruments

There were three contextual instruments namely: Lesson observation guide, Pupil

interview schedule and Headteacher interview schedule. All the contextual instruments

were used to provide information on the context in which learners learn to read. At

midline, P 2 reading lessons were observed in 171 schools while at baseline, P 1

reading lessons were observed in 168 schools out of the 405 randomly selected public

schools.

2.2.3 Pre-testing Instruments

The instruments were pre-tested in all the 11 local languages. This was meant to

refine the tools and to make the Assessors more acquainted with the administration

of oral tests and use of the tablet (the mobile data collection device).

2.3 Survey Design

2.3.1 Survey Population

The target population consisted of learners in P 1, P 2 and P 3 in all the public primary

schools in the 27 districts under UTSEP.

2.3.2 Sampling Design

A stratified two-stage cluster sampling design was used. The first stage involved

selecting a random sample of schools, stratified by coordinating centres within the

district. Within each stratum, the number of schools selected was proportional to the

number of schools in the coordinating centres. A total of 15 schools were selected

from each district except in Agago (11 schools) and Namayingo (8 schools).

At the second stage, a random sample of 20, 20 and 10 learners were respectively

selected from pupils of each of P 1, P 2 and P 3 classes, present on the day of the

survey. Random selection of schools and learners was done to minimize selection

bias.

17

2.3.3 Selection of Schools

A list of public primary schools from the Education Management Information System

(EMIS) 2015, showing the pupil enrolment figures for P 1, P 2 and P 3 provided the

sampling frame for schools. It was prudent to select schools basing on P 3 enrolment,

because the number of learners in P 3 in a school is usually less than that of P 1 and

P 2. This, therefore, ensured that the number of learners in P 1 and P 2 in a school

was big enough to meet the minimum sample size.

2.3.4 Selection of Testees

A simple random sample of 20 learners was obtained from each of P 1 and P 2 classes

and 10 learners from P 3 class. A pre-prepared selection list (a matrix of class size

and random numbers) was used to select the learners (Appendix 1).

2.3.5 Sample Size

The distribution of sample size for the testees by local language and class is shown in

Table 2.02.

Table 2.02: Distribution of testees by local language and class

Local language Class

P 1 P 2 P 3

Ateso 902 900 452

Leb-Acoli 1,088 1,072 555

Leb-Lango 1,202 1,200 603

Lhukonzo 301 282 148

Luganda 582 559 306

Lugbarati 302 299 151

Lumasaaba 598 595 300

Lusoga 1,970 1,973 981

Ngakarimojong 313 258 149

Runyankore-Rukiga 309 304 150

Runyoro-Rutooro 311 307 151

Total 7,878 7,749 3,946

2.3.6 Sampling Weights

Sampling weights were computed to reflect the probability of learners sampled.

At the first stage, sampling weight, W1i, for each sampled school was computed, i.e.

the inverse of the probability of a school being selected from amongst the public

18

schools in the district (number of public schools in the district divided by 15, the

number of schools sampled).

At the second stage, sampling weight, W2j , for each learner was computed (Number

of learners present in the class per school at the time of selection of learners divided

by the number of learners sampled from the class, P 1 – 20, P 2 – 10, P 3 - 10).

At the last stage, the sampling weight, Wij, was computed by multiplying the weight

for each school, W1i , and weight for each learner, W2j, i.e. Wij = W1i X W2j; where, Wij

is the weight for the jth learner selected from the ith school.

2.4 Data Collection

2.4.1 Training of Assessors

The 189 Assessors and 12 Data Quality Assurance (DQA) officers were selected from

among NAPE scorers of Literacy, language panellists, language writers, other

practising teachers, retired educationists and UNEB staff. The Assessors were selected

through an interview during which their fluency in the local language and familiarity

with the mobile data collection device (tablets) was determined.

There was a rigorous 10-day training of the DQA officers and Assessors at Kyambogo

Primary School in Kampala. The training was conducted by officers from UNEB guided

by the UNEB-EGRA manual. The training was intended to make Assessors and DQA

officers become familiar with the administration of an oral test and with the specific

implementation and coding practices associated with EGRA.

Since EGRA is individually administered by Assessors, an Inter-rater Reliability (IRR)

was computed out twice to ensure consistency of Assessors with the gold standard1

in the administration of the EGRA tool. Piloting of EGRA instruments was also done

before scale-up to full data collection, to ensure the instruments performed as

expected, assessors gained valuable hands-on experience and trainers identified gaps

in assessor understanding and skills.

There were 27 teams each comprising 7 Assessors, one of whom was designated

Team Leader. The DQA officers or the Team leaders were also trained on how to

observe reading lessons as well.

The distribution of Assessors and DQA officers by local languages assessed is shown

in Table 2.03.

1 Pre-defined oral responses

19

Table 2.03: Distribution of Assessors and DQA officers according to Local

Languages

Local language Number

of Teams

DQAs Number of

Assessors

Ateso 3 1 21

Leb-Acoli 4 1 28

Leb-Lango 4 1 28

Lhukonzo 1 1 7

Luganda 2 1 14

Lugbarati 1 1 7

Lumasaaba 2 1 14

Lusoga 7 2 49

Ngakarimojong 1 1 7

Runyankore-Rukiga 1 1 7

Runyoro-Rutooro 1 1 7

Total 27 12 189

2.4.2 Field work

The field work lasted 21 days. For each language, the DQA officer(s) planned the

school(s) to be visited daily using the list of sampled schools provided. The data

collection exercise was guided by a field programme.

Data were collected using Samsung Galaxy Tab S28.0 on which data collection

software (Tangerine) had been installed. An assessor would guide the learner through

the assessment and then capture the responses on the tablet. Data were uploaded to

the cloud by DQA officers at the end of every day’s work. On a daily basis, the data

manager stationed at UNEB Headquarters checked the uploaded data for quality

assurance. The quality assurance report was sent to the respective DQA to inform the

next day’s debriefing with the assessors.

There was a team of Monitors comprising senior officers from UTSEP, TIET, Basic and

Secondary Education departments of Ministry of Education and Sports, retired

educationists and UNEB. These monitored the data collection process in all the 27

districts.

2.5 Statistical Data Analysis

The analysis was done using STATA (Version 13.0) statistical package. The results

were analyzed in terms of means and proportions in both local language and English.

20

The computation of the final proportion and mean took into consideration the complex

survey design (weighted cluster means within strata) and population finite correction.

Variances of the estimators that are smooth functions of the sample data: mean and

proportion were estimated using the Jackknife error estimation approach.

21

Chapter 3

LETTER IDENTIFICATION

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the achievement of learners in letter identification. A testee

was presented with a stimulus (a sheet of paper with 11 letters of the Local or English

Alphabet) depending on whether the assessment was in local or English. The assessor

read out 5 out of 11 letters. The 5 letters were chosen in advance. The testee was

asked to touch the letter that matched the name of the letter the assessor read out.

The testee was allowed 5 seconds to respond before the assessor proceeded to

another letter.

Table 3.01: Measure of Skill of Letter Identification

EGRA

Subtask

How It was

Measured

Foundational

Reading Skill

How Learner Demonstrates

the Skill

Letter

Identification

Identifies at least 4

letters out of 5

Knowledge of

letters

Learner touches the letter that

matches the letter name read

out by the assessor

3.2 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Letter Identification

The proportion of learners who were able to identify at least 4 out of 5 letters in all

the 11 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline.

The proportion of learners who were able to identify at least 4 out of 5 letters in Leb-

Lango, Lugbarati and Runyoro-Rutooro remained higher in the local languages than

in English at midline as it was at baseline.

However in Leb-Acoli, the proportion of P 3 learners who were able to identify at least

4 out of 5 letters was higher in English at midline.


5 letters in all the 11 local languages and English, was higher than that of P 2 learners

at baseline.

3.3 The Achievement of P1 and P 2 Learners in Letter Identification

The achievement of P 1 and P 2 learners in letter identification in the 11 Local

Languages and English Language is presented in Figures 3.01 to 3.11.

22

3.3.1 Letter Identification in Leb-Acoli and English

3.3.2 Letter Identification in Ateso and English

12.9%26.8%

9.0%17.6%

39.4%46.8%

25.8%

54.4%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Acoli English

Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Leb-Acoli and

English

Baseline Midline

13.2%21.6%

10.4%

30.8%41.5%

37.4% 39.2%

64.7%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Ateso English

Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Ateso and English

Baseline Midline

23

3.3.3 Letter Identification in Ngakarimojong and English

3.3.4 Letter Identification in Leb-Lango and English

13.3%

31.0%

13.5%

33.0%

66.8%

85.0%

49.9%

81.4%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Ngakarimojong English

Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Ngakarimojong and English

Baseline Midline

16.0%

34.2%

8.3%18.2%

46.5%

69.2%

29.3%

44.8%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Lango English

Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Leb- Lango and English

Baseline Midline

24

3.3.5 Letter Identification in Lhukonzo and English

3.3.6 Letter Identification in Luganda and English

5.3%18.5% 16.3%

40.5%

26.5% 26.5%

53.4%

73.9%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lhukonzo English

Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Lhukonzo and English

Baseline Midline

31.2%

51.3%

27.1%

57.3%68.6%

78.1%

58.0%

80.2%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Luganda English

Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Luganda and English

Baseline Midline

25

3.3.7 Letter Identification in Lugbarati and English

3.3.8 Letter Identification in Lumasaaba and English

40.7%

77.5%

2.3%15.6%

81.4%96.3%

25.5%

50.7%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lugbarati English

Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Lugbarati and English

Baseline Midline

9.7% 14.2% 13.6%

41.0%30.9% 32.3%

49.8%

78.1%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lumasaaba English

Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Lumasaaba and English

Baseline Midline

26

.3.9 Letter Identification in Lusoga and English

3.3.10 Letter Identification in Runyankore-Rukiga and English

11.0% 15.2% 13.5%

41.4%

29.2% 26.7%39.6%

67.9%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lusoga English

Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Lusoga and English

Baseline Midline

43.5%

62.8%

28.2%

67.0%73.1%

83.5%

69.7%

89.5%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Runyankore-Rukiga English

Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Runyankore-Rukiga and English

Baseline Midline

27

3.3.11 Letter Identification in Runyoro-Rutooro and English

13.2%

38.8%

8.5%

25.6%

44.4%

66.9%

25.9%

59.2%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Runyoro-Rutooro English

Learners identifying at least 4 out of 5 letters in Runyoro-Rutooro and English

Baseline Midline

28

Chapter 4

LETTER SOUNDS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the achievement of P 1 and P 2 learners in telling letter sounds.

Letter sound knowledge is considered a prerequisite skill for beginning reading and

has been found to be a strong predictor of reading growth (Adams, 1990).One of the

main differences between successful readers and struggling readers is their ability to

use the letter-sound correspondences to decode new words they encounter in text

and to encode (spell) the words they write (Juel, 1991 and Ehri, 1998).

A learner was presented with a stimulus (sheet of paper) with 60capital and lowercase

letters of the Local or English alphabet, depending on whether the assessment was in

Local or English. The learner was asked to tell the sound associated with as many of

the letters as they could identify within one minute. This subtask was timed to take

no more than 60 seconds.

Table 4.01: Measure of Skill of Telling Letter Sounds

EGRA Subtask

How It was

Measured

Foundational

Reading Skill

How Learner

Demonstrates

Tell the sound

of the letter

Sounds correctly

one or more

letters per minute

Letter-sound

correspondence

Learner tells the sounds of

the letters presented to

her/him in both upper and

lower case in a random

order as fast as possible.

Mean number of

letters sounded

correctly per

minute

The achievement of learners in telling letter sounds is presented using two

benchmarks: the proportion of learners who sounded correctly one or more letters

(section 4.2) and mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute (section 4.4).

4.2 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Telling Letter Sounds

The proportion of learners who were able to sound correctly one or more letters per


At both baseline and midline, the proportion of learners who were able to sound

correctly one or more letters per minute was higher in most of the local languages

than in English except in Lumasaaba and Runyoro-Rutooro.

29

The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to sound correctly one or

more letters per minute in all the 11 local languages and English, was higher than that

of the P 2 learners at baseline.

4.3 The Achievement of P 1 and P 2 Learners in Telling Letter Sounds

The percentages of P 1 and P 2 learners who sounded correctly one or more letters in

all the Local Languages and English Language is presented in Figures 4.01 – 4.11.

4.3.1 Telling Letter Sounds in Ateso and English

4.3.2 Telling Letter Sounds in Ngakarimojong and English

75.9% 79.1%

63.7% 68.8%

92.4% 91.6%83.5% 79.2%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Ateso English

Learners able to sound correctly one or more letters

Baseline Midline

81.6% 84.2%77.3% 77.2%

98.6% 99.0% 96.0% 96.6%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

30

4.3.3 Telling Letter Sounds in Leb-Acoli and English

4.3.4 Telling Letter Sounds in Leb-Lango and English

59.5%74.4%

46.7%57.5%

81.9% 77.2%70.4%

61.0%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Acoli English


Baseline Midline

39.3%51.0%

34.2%

48.4%

75.8% 72.3% 73.7% 70.4%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Lango English

Learners able to sound correctly one or more letters per minute

Baseline Midline

31

4.3.5 Telling Letter Sounds in Lhukonzo and English

4.3.6 Telling Letter Sounds in Luganda and English

40.9%

71.0%

36.7%

55.6%

77.4%87.7%

67.9%74.5%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lhukonzo English


Baseline Midline

69.0%

88.0%

60.1%

76.1%

93.3% 96.5%88.0 % 84.6%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Luganda English


Baseline Midline

32

4.3.7 Telling Letter Sounds in Lugbarati and English

4.3.8 Telling Letter Sounds in Lumasaaba and English

76.3%

91.8%

76.5%87.9%92.4% 93.4% 88.3%

79.1%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lugbarati English


Baseline Midline

44.8%53.2% 54.2%

65.6%78.9% 83.0% 83.9% 88.9%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lumasaaba English


Baseline Midline

33

4.3.9 Telling Letter Sounds in Lusoga and English

4.3.10 Telling Letter Sounds in Runyankore-Rukiga and English

47.8%

65.4%

40.7%50.2%

77.5% 80.4%73.1%

65.1%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lusoga English


Baseline Midline

81.2%91.0%

81.5% 87.1%96.0% 95.1%

89.0% 88.9%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

34

4.3.11 Telling Letter Sounds in Runyoro-Rutooro and English

4.4 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute

The mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute was higher in

Ngakarimojong, Leb-acoli, Leb-lango, Lhukonzo and Lugbarati than in English at both

baseline and midline.

On the contrary, mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute was higher in

English than in Luganda, Lusoga and Lumasaaba at both baseline and midline.

The mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute was higher in English than

in Ateso and Runyankore-Rukiga at P 2 midline. This was true for Runyankore-Rukiga

at baseline. The reverse is true for Runyoro-Rutooro.

The mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute by the P 2 learners at

midline, in all the 11 local languages and English was higher than that of the P 2

learners at baseline.

41.5%

67.3%

46.7%

73.1%82.1%

92.1%82.8%

90.1%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

35

4.4.1 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Ateso and English

4.4.2 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Ngakarimojong

and English

3.0 3.4 2.9 3.17.7 5.7 8.2

5.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Ateso English

Mean number of letters sounded correctly per minute

Baseline Midline

5.48.0

4.7 5.7

16.0 16.3 13.1 13.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

36

4.4.3 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Leb-Acoli and

English

4.4.4 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Leb-Lango and

English

2.1 3.2 1.7 2.25.2 4.7 4.2 2.90

10

20

30

40

50

60

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Acoli English


Baseline Midline

1.73.5 1.3 3.1

7.2 7.9 6.9 6.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Lango English


Baseline Midline

37

4.4.5 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Lhukonzo and

English

4.4.6 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Luganda and

English

2.3 4.41.6 2.6

7.1 6.1 5.4 3.60

10

20

30

40

50

60

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lhukonzo English


Baseline Midline

2.8 3.3 3.0 3.8

11.85.2

12.75.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Luganda English


Baseline Midline

38

4.4.7 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Lugbarati and

English

4.4.8 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Lumasaaba and

English

3.6 6.43.6 5.1

10.3 9.9 7.7 6.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lugbarati English


Baseline Midline

1.1 1.3 2.0 2.55.1 3.87.5 6.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lumasaaba English


Baseline Midline

39

4.4.9 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Lusoga and English

4.4.10 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Runyankore

- Rukiga and English

1.2 1.4 1.2 1.43.6 2.2 4.6 2.80

10

20

30

40

50

60

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lusoga English


Baseline Midline

2.7 3.5 3.7 4.37.2 4.6 8.7

4.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

40

4.4.11 Mean number of Letters sounded correctly per minute in Runyoro –

Rutooro and English

1.0 2.8 1.6 3.57.1 6.9 6.3 7.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

41

Chapter 5

VOCABULARY 5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the achievement of learners in Vocabulary. Vocabulary was

assessed using two tasks; identification of objects and description of activities in

pictures. Learners’ achievement in identification of objects is presented first, followed

by description of activities in pictures.

5.2 Vocabulary: Identification of Objects

A stimulus (a sheet of paper with 4 objects in the Local or English) depending on

whether the assessment was in Local or English was presented to the testee. The

assessor read out the words that matched the objects on the stimulus. The testee was

asked to touch the object that matched the word for the object the assessor read out.

The testee was allowed 5 seconds to respond before the assessor proceeded to

another object.

Table 5.01: Measure of Skill of Identification of Objects

EGRA

Subtask

How It was

Measured

Foundational

Reading Skill


the Skill

Object

Identification

Identifies at least 3

objects out of 4

Knowledge of

vocabulary

Learner touches the object

that matches the word for the

object read out by the assessor

5.2.1 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Object Identification

The proportion of P 2 learners who were able to identify at least 3 out of 4 objects

was higher in all the 11 local languages than in English at midline.

The proportion of learners who were able to identify at least 3 out of 4 objects in 8

local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline except in Luganda,

Runyankore-Rukiga and Runyoro-Rutooro.


4 objects in Lugbarati, Lukhonzo, Ngakarimojong, Leb-Acoli and Leb-Lango was higher

than that of the P 2 learners at baseline. However, the reverse was true for Runyoro-

Rutooro, Runyankore-Rukiga, Lusoga and Luganda.

42

5.2.2 The Achievement of P 1 and P 2 Learners in Object Identification

The achievement of P 1 and P 2 learners in object identification in the 11 Local

Languages and English Language is presented in Figures 5.01 - 5.11.

5.2.2.1 Identification of Objects in Leb-Acoli and English

5.2.2.2 Identification of Objects in Ateso and English

99.4% 99.6%

71.8%

88.5%

99.9% 99.8%

90.2%95.7%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Acoli English

Learners identifying at least 3 out of 4 objects.

Baseline Midline

98.5% 99.4%

54.3%

80.5%

99.5% 98.8%

79.6%

91.2%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Ateso English


Baseline Midline

43

5.2.2.3 Identification of Objects in Ngakarimojong and English

5.2.2.4 Identification of Objects in Leb-Lango and English

73.2%66.1%

75.7% 75.2%

99.2% 100.0%94.2% 100.0%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017


Learners identifying at least 3 out of 4 objects

Baseline Midline

97.9% 99.2%

67.8%78.8%

99.4% 99.7%90.7% 92.1%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Lango English


Baseline Midline

44

5.2.2.5 Identification of Objects in Lhukonzo and English

5.2.2.6 Identification of Objects in Luganda and English

97.8% 100.0%

82.4%94.8%

100.0% 99.5% 97.6% 98.3%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lhukonzo English


Baseline Midline

99.6% 99.8%87.2%

98.7%99.4% 98.8% 96.8% 98.5%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Luganda English


Baseline Midline

45

5.2.2.7 Identification of Objects in Lugbarati and English

5.2.2.8 Identification of Objects in Lumasaaba and English

5.2.2.9 Identification of Objects in Lusoga and English

98.5% 98.7%

76.4%

89.9%100.0% 100.0%

90.7% 95.6%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lugbarati English


Baseline Midline

95.5% 97.6%83.5%

98.9%98.4% 100.0% 98.3% 100.0%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lumasaaba English


Baseline Midline

46

5.2.2.10 Identification of Objects in Runyankore-Rukiga and English

97.9% 99.7%

73.3%

92.7%99.2% 99.1%

89.9%95.8%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lusoga English


Baseline Midline

100.0% 100.0%88.6%

97.7%98.4% 100.0% 96.6% 98.8%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

47

5.2.2.11 Identification of Objects in Runyoro-Rutooro and English

5.3 Vocabulary: Description of Activities in Pictures

A stimuli (a card with a picture of a person doing an activity) was flashed at the

learner. The assessor instructed the testee to look at the card carefully and describe

the activity in the picture. The testee was allowed 5 seconds to respond before the

assessor proceeded to flash another card.

Table 5.02: Measure of Skill of Description of Activities in Pictures

EGRA

Subtask

How It was

Measured

Foundational

Reading Skill

How Learner

Demonstrates the Skill

Description

of activities

in the

pictures

Describes

activities in at

least 2 out of 3

pictures

Knowledge of

vocabulary

Learner describes the activity

in the picture on the card

flashed by the Assessor

5.3.1 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Description of Activities

in Pictures


pictures was higher in all the 11 local languages than in English at both baseline and

midline.


pictures in 9 local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline except

in Leb-Acoli and Runyoro-Rutooro.

100.0% 100.0%

67.9%

92.4%96.4% 99.2%87.6%

95.7%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

48

The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to describe activities in at

least 2 out of 3 pictures in Lugbarati, Ateso, Luganda, Leb-Lango, Lumasaaba and

English, was higher than that of the P 2 learners at baseline. However, the reverse

was true in Runyankore-Rukiga.

5.3.2 The Achievement of P 1 and P 2 Learners in Description of Activities

in Pictures

The achievement of P 1 and P 2 learners in description of pictures in the 11 Local

Languages and English Language is presented in Figures 5.12 – 5.22.

5.3.2.1 Description of Activities in Pictures in Leb-Acoli and English

5.3.2.2 Description of Activities in Pictures in Ateso and English

98.0% 99.5%

5.6% 10.2%

99.2% 99.3%

15.7%30.3%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Acoli English

Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures

Baseline Midline

93.3% 99.1%

13.5%28.9%

99.8% 99.8%

34.8%

62.6%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Ateso English

Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures

Baseline Midline

49

5.3.2.3 Description of Activities in Pictures in Ngakarimojong and English

5.3.2.4 Description of Activities in Pictures in Leb-Lango and English

95.8% 94.9%

49.9%

76.8%

99.2% 100.0%

74.1%

91.1%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017


Learners describing activities in at least 2 out of 3 pictures.

Baseline Midline

96.1% 99.0%

9.1%16.0%

99.8% 99.7%

22.4%35.0%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Lango English


Baseline Midline

50

5.3.2.5 Description of Activities in Pictures in Lhukonzo and English

5.3.2.6 Description of Activities in Pictures in Luganda and English

97.7% 98.1%

11.8%

25.5%

99.5% 100.0%

38.6%

51.4%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lhukonzo English


Baseline Midline

93.1%99.2%

11.5%18.8%

99.3% 99.5%

29.6%43.4%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Luganda English


Baseline Midline

51

5.3.2.7 Description of Activities in Pictures in Lugbarati and English

5.3.2.8 Description of Activities in Pictures in Lumasaaba and English

98.5% 100.0%

18.1%24.2%

100.0% 100.0%

27.6%

42.2%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lugbarati English


Baseline Midline

97.4% 99.8%

12.5%21.2%

100.0% 100.0%

33.3%

52.1%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lumasaaba English


Baseline Midline

52

5.3.2.9 Description of Activities in Pictures in Lusoga and English

5.3.2.10 Description of Activities in Pictures in Runyankore-Rukiga and

English

93.7% 97.9%

5.6% 11.7%

99.3% 99.6%

15.3%31.5%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lusoga English


Baseline Midline

97.5% 100.0%

17.3%

37.3%

99.6% 100.0%

37.0%

63.1%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

53

5.3.2.11 Description of Activities in Pictures in Runyoro-Rutooro and English

92.8%100.0%

3.3%10.8%

97.6% 99.2%

13.1%

30.2%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

54

Chapter 6

LISTENING COMPREHENSION

6.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the achievement of P 1 and P 2 learners in Listening

Comprehension.

A story was read to the testee. The testee was expected to listen to the story and

answer orally, four questions related to the text. Ten seconds were allowed for each

response. If the testee answered some of the questions or none, the Assessor would

read the story and the unanswered questions for a second time.

Table 6.01: Measure of Skill of Listening Comprehension

EGRA Subtask

How It was

Measured

Foundational

Reading Skill

How Learner

Demonstrates the Skill

Listening

Comprehension

Answers correctly

three or more

questions

Comprehension Learner responds correctly

to questions asked about

the story read to him/her

6.2 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Listening Comprehension







The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to answer at least 3 listening

comprehension questions in most local languages and English was better than that of

the P 2 learners at baseline except in Lhukonzo, Lusoga, and Runyankore-Rukiga.

6.3 The Achievement of P 1 and P 2 Learners in Listening Comprehension

The percentages of P 1 and P 2 learners who answered correctly at least 3 questions

in Listening comprehension in all the Local Languages and English Language is

presented in Figures 6.01 - 6.11.

55

6.3.1 Listening Comprehension in Ateso and English

6.3.2 Listening Comprehension in Leb-Acoli and English

68.6%

87.0%

6.7%17.4%

89.4% 91.0%

25.2%

53.1%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Ateso English

Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension questions of Ateso and English

Baseline Midline

85.4% 92.0%

1.2% 3.6%

92.6% 95.9%

5.7%20.4%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Acoli English

Learners answering at least 3 listening comprehension questions of Leb-Acoli and English

Baseline Midline

56

6.3.3 Listening Comprehension in Ngakarimojong and English

6.3.4 Listening Comprehension in Leb-Lango and English

72.7%

94.2%

26.4%

58.1%

96.8% 97.6%

72.5%

91.7%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017


Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension questions of Ngakarimojong and English

Baseline Midline

82.7%91.2%

1.6% 4.3%

93.3% 96.6%

9.4%20.5%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Lango English

Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension questions of Leb-Lango and English

Baseline Midline

57

6.3.5 Listening Comprehension in Lhukonzo and English

6.3.6 Listening Comprehension in Luganda and English

70.0%

92.3%

3.0%

24.5%

91.2% 95.5%

34.1%

51.1%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lhukonzo English

Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension questions of Lhukonzo and English

Baseline Midline

91.0% 91.1%

2.1% 7.6%

96.6% 97.8%

17.1%

34.0%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Luganda English

Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension questions of Luganda and English

Baseline Midline

58

6.3.7 Listening Comprehension in Lugbarati and English

6.3.8 Listening Comprehension in Lumasaaba and English

88.5% 89.5%

0.8% 6.7%

92.3% 95.1%

7.5%

19.5%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lugbarati English

Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprhension questions of Lugbarati and English

Baseline Midline

66.7%75.1%

3.3%10.3%

88.4% 93.3%

20.0%

43.7%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lumasaaba English

Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension questions of Lumasaaba and English

Baseline Midline

59

6.3.9 Listening Comprehension in Lusoga and English

6.3.10 Listening Comprehension in Runyankore-Rukiga and English

84.1%91.3%

0.8% 4.7%

90.9% 96.4%

5.9%

25.0%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lusoga English

Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension Questions in Lusoga and English

Baseline Midline

83.9%95.1%

3.8%18.2%

90.8% 95.3%

22.3%

51.7%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Runyakore-Rukiga English

Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension Questions in Runyankore-Rukiga

Baseline Midline

60

6.3.11 Listening Comprehension in Runyoro-Rutooro and English

65.3%77.0%

0.5% 3.7%

86.4%96.0%

5.5%

22.9%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017


Learners answering at least 3 Listening Comprehension Questions in Runyankore-Rukiga

Baseline Midline

61

Chapter 7

ORAL PASSAGE READING AND COMPREHENSION

7.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the achievement of P 1 and P 2 learners in fluency and reading

comprehension. A testee was presented with a stimulus (a sheet of paper) with a

passage in Local or English, depending on whether the assessment was in Local or

English. The testee was expected to read the passage aloud, quickly and carefully in

60 seconds. After reading, the testee was asked some oral questions about the

passage up to where s/he had stopped.

Table 7.01: Measure of Fluency and Reading Comprehension

EGRA Subtask

How It was

Measured

Foundational

Reading Skill


the Skill

Fluency Number of words

read per minute

Reading with

speed

Reads the passage with

speed and accuracy

Reading

Comprehension

Answering

correctly one

question out of

three

Reading the

passage with

understanding

Answers correctly the

questions asked about the

passage

7.2 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Fluency (one or more

words per minute)




minute was higher in Leb-acoli and Leb-lango than in English at both baseline and

midline. The reverse was true in Ateso and Lumasaaba.


minute was higher in Runyoro-Rutooro and Runyankore-Rukiga than in English at

baseline. The reverse was true at midline.

At midline, the proportion of learners who were able to read correctly one or more

words per minute was higher in English than in Lhukonzo, Luganda and Lusoga.

At baseline, the proportion of P 2 learners who were able to read correctly one or

more words per minute was higher in English than in Lhukonzo, Luganda and Lusoga.

The reverse is true for P 1 learners.

62

At midline, the proportion of P 2 learners who were able to read correctly one or more

words per minute was higher in Ngakarimojong and Lugbarati than in English.

The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to read correctly one or more

words per minute in all the 11 local languages and English, was higher than that of

the P 2 learners at baseline.

7.3 The Achievement of P 1 and P 2 Learners in Fluency

The percentages of P 1 and P 2 learners who could read correctly one or more words

per minute in the local language and English are presented in Figures 7.01 - 7.11.

7.3.1 Fluency in Ateso and English

7.3.2 Fluency in Leb-Acoli and English

5.6%11.5% 7.2%

18.9%23.0%30.3% 29.9%

55.6%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Ateso English

Learners reading correclty one or more words per minute

Baseline Midline

20.7%28.6%

7.8%14.0%

55.4%47.5%

17.7%

43.2%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb - Acoli English

Learners reading correctly one or more words per minute

Baseline Midline

63

7.3.3 Fluency in Leb-Lango and English

7.3.4 Fluency in Runyoro-Rutooro and English

14.4%

26.1%

11.0%20.6%

30.7%

57.5%

24.4%

47.3%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Lango English


Baseline Midline

8.8%

25.5%

6.5%

21.9%32.7%

63.5%

33.8%

71.3%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

64

7.3.5 Fluency in Runyankore-Rukiga and English

7.3.6 Fluency in Lhukonzo and English

31.1%42.8%

24.8%

42.2%

63.6%76.1%

63.6%

79.7%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

6.3%

21.1%

5.8%

23.3%24.8%39.1%

29.7%

43.5%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lhukonzo English


Baseline Midline

65

7.3.7 Fluency in Lugbarati and English

7.3.8 Fluency in Lumasaaba and English

7.4%

19.8%

5.2%

19.8%

34.9%

59.9%

31.9%

68.6%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lugbarati English


Baseline Midline

3.6%12.8%

4.0%

17.9%18.2%27.2% 32.0%

59.5%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lumasaba English


Baseline Midline

66

7.3.9 Fluency in Lusoga and English

7.3.10 Fluency in Luganda and English

12.6%17.2%

10.6%

23.7%20.9%27.9% 23.4%

45.9%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lusoga English


Baseline Midline

13.8%

29.5%

12.7%

32.9%42.2%

56.7%

43.0%

59.2%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Luganda English


Baseline Midline

67

7.3.11 Fluency in Ngakarimojong and English

7.4 Overall Achievement of Learners in Fluency (20 or more words per

minute)

In all 11 local languages and English, not more than 30% of the P 2 learners at midline

were able to read correctly 20 or more words per minute.

At midline, the proportion of learners who were able to read correctly 20 or more

words per minute was higher in Luganda, Leb-lango, Runyoro-Rutooro than in English.

The reverse was true in Ateso, Ngakarimojong, Leb-acoli, Lumasaaba and

Runyankore-Rukiga.

The proportion of learners who were able to read correctly 20 or more words per

minute in local languages and English was higher at midline than at baseline.

The proportion of the P 2 learners at midline, who were able to read correctly 20 or

more words per minute in most local languages and English, was higher than that of

the P 2 learners at baseline except in Runyankore-Rukiga.

7.5.1 Fluency in Ateso and English

19.4% 25.2% 26.1%

43.5%

68.6% 74.2%67.3%

86.1%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

68

7.5.2 Fluency in Leb-Acoli and English

0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 2.3%3.8% 4.1% 4.0%

17.7%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Ateso English

Learners reading correctly 20 or more words per minute

Baseline Midline

0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5%0.2% 0.7% 0.5%7.4%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Acoli English

Learners reading correctly 20 or more words per minute.

Baseline Midline

69

7.5.3 Fluency in Leb-Lango and English

7.5.4 Fluency in Luganda and English

0.4% 1.1% 0.1% 0.5%3.1%14.4%

1.2%7.0%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Lango English


Baseline Midline

1.3% 2.9% 0.6% 0.5%

22.0%30.9%

10.7%

27.5%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Luganda English


Baseline Midline

70

7.5.5 Fluency in Runyoro-Rutooro and English

7.5.6 Fluency in Runyankore-Rukiga and English

0.2% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0%11.6%

29.6%

4.0%13.3%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

0.2%8.8%

0.4%8.2%

2.2% 4.2%11.9%

43.6%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

71

7.5.7 Fluency in Lusoga and English

7.5.8 Fluency in Lugbarati and English

0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%2.6% 2.2% 2.0%8.9%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lusoga English


Baseline Midline

0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 2.0%6.1%

24.8%

2.1%

26.2%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lugbarati English


Baseline Midline

72

7.5.9 Fluency in Ngakarimojong and English

7.5.10 Fluency in Lumasaaba and English

2.1%7.2% 3.3%

10.0%

28.0%

43.0%

28.9%

58.2%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%3.5% 3.7% 5.6%17.5%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lumasaba English


Baseline Midline

73

7.5.11 Fluency in Lhukonzo and English

7.6 Overall Level of Achievement of Learners in Reading Comprehension

Generally, there was an increase in the proportions of learners who were able to

answer correctly one or more questions in both English and local language at midline.

At both baseline and midline, the proportion of learners who were able to answer

correctly one or more comprehension questions was higher in local language than

English apart from Ateso, Runyoro-Rutoro and Ngakarimojong. However, at P 3 the

reverse is true in Ngakarimojong, Lusoga, Lumasaaba and Lhukonzo.

The proportion of P 2 learners at midline, who were able to answer correctly one or

more comprehension questions in all the local languages and English was higher than

that of P 2 learners at baseline.

7.7 The Achievement of P 1 and P 2 Learners in Reading Comprehension

The percentages of P 1 and P 2 learners who could answer correctly one or more

comprehension questions in the Local Languages and English Language are presented

in Figures 7.23 - 7.32.

0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 7.4%9.3% 13.0%7.6%

19.4%

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lhukonzo English


Baseline Midline

74

7.7.1 Reading Comprehension in Ateso and English

7.7.2 Reading Comprehension in Leb-Acoli and English

0.6% 0.8% 0.3% 2.9%5.4% 8.6% 7.2%21.4%

0

20

40

60

80

100

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Ateso English

Learners answering correctly one or more comprehension questions

Baseline Midline

0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.7%5.7% 8.6% 1.2% 7.6%0

20

40

60

80

100

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Acoli English


Baseline Midline

75

7.7.3 Reading Comprehension in Leb-Lango and English

7.7.4 Reading Comprehension in Runyoro-Rutooro and English

0.7% 2.0% 0.2% 0.7%6.9%

23.2%

2.6%12.2%

0

20

40

60

80

100

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Leb-Lango English


Baseline Midline

0.3% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0%15.0%

34.4% 38.0%

15.4%

0

20

40

60

80

100

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

76

7.7.5 Reading Comprehension in Runyankore-Rukiga and English

7.7.6 Reading Comprehension in Lhukonzo and English

1.3%10.6%

0.9%7.5%

30.4%

49.4%

13.5%

45.3%

0

20

40

60

80

100

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

0.0% 2.5% 0.0%10.6%9.3% 13.0% 7.6%

19.4%

0

20

40

60

80

100

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lhukonzo English


Baseline Midline

77

7.7.7 Reading Comprehension in Lugbarati and English

7.7.8 Reading Comprehension in Lumasaaba and English

1.5% 1.1% 0.0% 2.7%9.0%

29.7%

2.5%

26.3%

0

20

40

60

80

100

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lugbarati English


Baseline Midline

1.0% 0.0% 0.3% 3.6%11.9% 13.7% 11.4%

28.8%

0

20

40

60

80

100

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lumasaba English


Baseline Midline

78

7.7.9 Reading Comprehension in Lusoga and Englis

7.7.10 Reading Comprehension in Luganda and English

1.1% 1.1% 0.2% 0.4%7.0% 7.0% 2.0%

12.2%

0

20

40

60

80

100

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Lusoga English


Baseline Midline

1.3% 4.2% 0.2% 0.2%

23.6% 27.1%

10.5%23.6%

0

20

40

60

80

100

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

Luganda English


Baseline Midline

79

7.7.11 Reading Comprehension in Ngakarimojong and English

0.6% 3.8% 1.9% 9.6%

42.9%

57.8%

40.3%

68.0%

0

20

40

60

80

100

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017

P12016

P22017

P22016

P32017



Baseline Midline

80

Chapter 8

LEVEL OF ADHERENCE OF TEACHERS TO THE EGR MODEL

8.1 Introduction

In this chapter, a presentation of the level of adherence EGR model in a reading lesson

is made. The EGR model entails the implementation of the 5Ts: Textbooks in the

hands of the learners, Teaching in the mother tongue, Testing, Teaching techniques

and Time on task. The P 2 teacher was observed while conducting a reading lesson

with P 2 learners.

8.2 The Level of Adherence of Teachers to the 5Ts

The level of adherence of teachers to the 5Ts is shown in Figure 8.01.

Table 8.01: Level of adherence (Percentage) to the 5Ts of Teaching Reading

5Ts Indicator n

Baseline

n

Midline

Percentag

e Baseline

Percentag

e Midline

Text books Text books/printed material in

the hands of the learners

168 171 11.2 25.7

Tongue Teachers taught Reading

lessons in the mother tongue

168 171 69.9 88.3

Testing Teachers have current

assessment records of learners

168 171 49.7 40.4

Teaching

Techniques

Teachers guide learners to:

Beat the word (clap, beat, tap,

or stamp the syllables of the

word)

168

171

60.4

14.6

Blend letter to form syllables

and words

168 171 38.7 21.6

Write a letter pattern in the air

(or traces on floor or desk)

168 171 47.8 9.4

Read (individually) words from

printed materials or book

168 171 51.0 60.8

Time

At midline, almost 9 in 10 lessons observed, the P 2 teachers taught reading lessons

in the mother tongue while 3 in 10 of the lessons observed had pupils with

textbooks/printed materials in their hands (i.e. 1.1 pupil to text book ratio). However,

91.2% of the lessons observed, pupils were sharing the text books.

There was an improvement in the proportion of learners who were able to read

individually from printed materials or books.

81

CHAPTER 9

VIEWS OF HEADTEACHERS AND TEACHERS ON THEIR ROLES IN PROMOTING EARLY GRADE READING

9.0 Introduction In this chapter, the midline views of head teachers and teachers on their perceived roles in promoting early Grade Reading the teachers having ever been trained to teach reading is presented. 9.1 Head teachers’ Role in Early Grade Reading Head teachers in the EGRA sampled schools were interviewed on their perceived roles in promoting Early Grade Reading. Figure 9.01 shows the percentage of head teachers by what they perceived to be their role in promoting EGRA at midline and baseline.

Generally, the proportions of the perceived roles of the head teachers in promoting early grade reading were higher at midline than at baseline. Most head teachers at midline viewed supervisory, logistical support and sensitization as their main roles in promoting Early Grade Reading. This was the same trend at baseline. Calling for CPDs, going to class to teach EGR in absence of teachers and emphasize the use of local language as the medium of instruction were among the others as a role performed by head teachers in promoting early grade reading. 9.2 Teachers supervised during Reading lessons At midline, teachers were interviewed on whether they had ever been supervised during the reading lessons. The percentage distribution of teachers by ever been supervised during the reading lesson at both midline and baseline is presented in figure 9.02.

89.9

69.9

43.836.0

30.120.3

8.9

94.782.7

50.2

37.832.0

17.310.0

Supervisory Logisticalsupport

Sensitization Leadership Coordination Trainingteachers

Others

Roles

Figure 9.01: Percentage of Headteachers, by reported roles in promoting Early Grade Reading

Baseline Midline

82

At midline, 9 in 10 teachers reported that they have ever been supervised during the reading lesson. A total of 320 teachers mentioned the category of officers who supervised them during the reading lessons. The percentage distribution of teachers by who supervised them during the reading lessons is shown in Table 9.01.

Category of Supervisor n

Baseline

n

Midline

Percentag

e Baseline

Percentag

e Midline

Headteachers 286 84.4 85.6

Centre Coordinating Tutors 167 49.3 37.5

Deputy Headteachers/Directors of Studies / Heads

of Department

82 24.2 26.6

Inspectors of School 38 11.2 15.6

Ministry officials 13 3.8 2.5

School Management Committee / Sub-county staff 7 2.1 2.5

Associate Assessors 6 1.8 2.8

NGOs (DED, Action Aid, VSO, etc.) 3 0.9 0.6

There was increase in the proportion of teachers who were supervised by head teachers at midline than at baseline. Similarly, the proportion of teachers who were supervised by deputy head teachers, Inspectors of Schools, School Management Committees and Associate Assessors increased at midline compared to baseline. It is worth noting that the proportion of teachers who were supervised by coordinating centre tutors dropped at midline compared to baseline.

86.8%

13.2%

91.9%

8.1%

Yes No

Figure 9.02: Percentage distribution of teachers, by ever been supervised during reading lessons

Baseline Midline

83

9.3 Teachers ever been trained to teach Reading Teachers were asked whether they ever attended training on how to teach reading at an early grade. The percentage distribution of those who have been trained is shown in figure 9.03.

At midline nearly all teachers reported that they were trained to teach reading. Apart from Moes/TIET, a number of other organizations have trained teachers to teach reading. They include RTI/SHRP, Mango Tree, Aga-Khan and the District Education Office. Many teachers (95.9%) reported that they applied what they learnt during their EGR training.

92.2%

7.8%

96.3%

3.8%

Yes No

Figure 9.03: Percentage distribution of teachers, by ever trained to teach Reading

Baseline Midline

84

RECOMMENDATIONS

SN Recommendation Responsibility Centre

1. Roll out the EGR Model to all districts of the country MoES, Basic Education

2. UNEB take the lead in training teachers in all teacher

training institutions

UNEB

3. Closely monitor the implementation of the model Basic Education /DES/DEOs/DISs/

Headteachers/SMCs/CCTs

4. Strengthen regular practice in oral reading: provide

more readers, integrate reading in and outside school

activities

Teachers / Parents

5. Provide continuous refresher courses to teachers /

district officials.

TIET, CCTs

6. Find out the systematic factors which support and

sustain EGR

UNEB research department

7. Advocate for a vote in the budget to sustain and

conduct EGRA annually

MoES (Basic Education)

the achievement of learners in early grade ... - … · 2 a publication of the achievement of...

Documents