metadata: authors: 0: author: Abadzi,Helen
count: Burkina Faso
docna: 0: docna: Teaching adults to read better and faster :
            results from an experiment in Burkina Faso
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Educational Sciences,Educational Institutions & Facilities,Gender and Development,Effective Schools and Teachers,Inequality
teratopic: Education
abstracts: cdata!: Two cognitively oriented methods were
            tested in Burkina Faso to help illiterates learn to read
            more efficiently. These were (a) speeded reading of
            increasingly larger word units and (b) phonological
            awareness training to help connect letters to speech.
            Learners were given reading tests and a computerized
            reaction time test. Although the literacy courses were
            shortened by the arrival of rains and government delays, the
            piloted methods helped adults read better than those in the
            standard "control" classes. Learners enrolled in
            the experimental classes performed better on the outcome
            tests than did learners enrolled in control classes. Ninety
            percent of the possible comparisons between treatment
            classes and control classes favored classes receiving
            treatments, and 72 percent of the measurements in favor of
            treatments were statistically significant. The evidence
            suggests that phonological awareness training is
            particularly effective in situations where the training
            period was short, and that rapid reading was more
            advantageous in longer training situations. Overall, the
            results are indicative of the potential that scientifically
            backed methods have in making adult literacy instruction
            more effective. However, due to the short duration of the
            classes (3-4 months) learners apparently did not receive
            sufficient practice to consolidate skills. Literacy skills
            may still be prone to being forgotten if readers do not
            learn to read automatically and if opportunities to read are few.
geo_reg_key: 1927320,517191
repnme: repnme: Teaching adults to read better and faster :
            results from an experiment in Burkina Faso
display_title: Teaching adults to read better and
            faster : results from an experiment in Burkina Faso
listing_relative_url: /research/2003/05/2378822/teaching-adults-read-better-faster-results-experiment-burkina-faso
topicv3: Teachers Management m1326119 1523,Education, Skills Development and Labor
            Market m1326135 1484,Poverty m1326687 695,Education m1327048 470,Gender m1327621 615
publishtoextweb_dt: 2010-07-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Education
origu: Sector Evaluations (IEGSE)
no_of_pages: 32
author_keys: 0: author_key: 93113
model_extractions: POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER 3057

# Abstiract

Two cognitively oriented methods were tested in Burkina Faso to help illiterates learn to read more efficiently. These were (a) speeded reading of increasingly larger word units and (b) phonological awareness training to help connect letters to speech. Learners were given reading tests and a computerized reaction time test. Although the literacy courses were shortened by the arrival of rains and government delays, the piloted methods helped adults read better than those in the standard "control" classes. Learners enrolled in the experimental classes performed better on the outcome tests than did learners enrolled in control classes. Ninety percent of the possible comparisons between treatment classes and control classes favored classes receiving treatments, and 72 percent of the measurements in favor of treatments were statistically significant. The evidence suggests that phonological awareness training is particularly effective in situations where the training period was short, and that rapid reading was more advantageous in longer training situations. Overall, the results are indicative of the potential that scientifically backed methods have in making adult literacy instruction more effective. However, due to the short duration of the classes (3-4 months) learners apparently did not receive sufficient practice to consolidate skills. Literacy skills may still be prone to being forgotten if readers do not learn to read automatically and if opportunities to read are few.

This paper-a product of the Sector and Thematic Evaluation Division, Operations Evaluation Department-is part of a larger effort in the department to assess the effectiveness of adult literacy. Copies of the paper are available free from the World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433. Please contact HelenAbadzi, room H3-307, telephone 202-4580375, fax 202-522-3123, email address habadzi@worldbank.org. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The author may be contacted at habadzi@worldbank.org. May 2003. (19 pages) _The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the senes is to get the findings_ **_out_** _quickly, even_ **_if_** _the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should_ **_be_** _cited accordingly. The findtngs, interpretations, and conclusions expressed_ **_in this_** _paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessanly represent the view of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent._ Produced by Partnerships, Capacity Building, and Outreach
# Teaching Adults to Read<sup>Better and Faster:</sup> Results from an Experiment<sup>in Burkina Faso</sup>

Helen Abadzi, OEDST
|CAAS|Computer-basedAcademicAssessmentSystem|
|---|---|
|IDA|InternationalDevelopmentAssociation|
|INA|InstitutNationald'Alfab6tisation|
|msec|milliseconds|
|OSEO|OrganizationSuissed'EntraideOuvriere|
|UNESCO|UnitedNationsEducational, ScientificandCultural Organization|
# Contents

## **Executive Summary**

_1.............................1_

|_Introd u ction ..................................................................................._<br>_........_|
|---|
|_ResearchDesign......................_<br> <br>1|
|ResearchParticipants.................................<br>......<br>,<br>,<br>,<br>..<br> <br>|
|DevelopmentandPilot-Testing<sup>ofMaterials</sup><br>.2<br>|
|_A.BaselineMeasurements_<sup>_andComparisons_</sup><br>_.2_<br>|
|_B.DevelopingandPilot-Testing_<sup>_Literacy Interventions_</sup><br>_.4_<br> <br>_5_|
|DesigningtheIntervention<sup>andTrainingTeachers..........................................................</sup><br>,.<br>|
|_C.Implementing Instruction_<br>_.6_|
|Subjects.6<br> <br>|
|ClassroomObservations<sup>.........................................................</sup><br>,.7<br> <br>|
|EvaluatingtheImpactof<sup>theInstructionalInterventions-DataChallenges</sup><br>.8<br> <br>|
|ResultsoftheIntervention<sup>Efforts</sup><br>.8<br>|
|QuestionnaireResults.10|
|Discussion.1.<br>.|
|**Appendix1.Testsand**<sup>**Questionnaire.13**</sup>|
|**Appendix2.Supplemental**<sup>**Tables.15**</sup>|
|**References.19**|

## **Figures**

.3 Figure 1. Reaction speed<sup>and accuracyof U.S.and BurkinabeStudents</sup> Figure 2. Effect Sizes of<sup>VariousTreatmentCombinations .10</sup>

## **Tables**

Table 1. Research Design .6 Table 2. Learners' Demographic<sup>Information .................................,,,,,,7</sup>
# Executive Summary

The research carried out in Burkina Faso is a preliminary example of<sup>how a cognitive</sup> methods approach, supported by previous scientific work, helps improve literacy<sup>classoutcomes on</sup> those crucial skills of learning how to read and write. (See Abadzi<sup>2003a, 2003b for a review.)</sup> The research took place from May 2000 to August 2001. First, baseline<sup>measurements were</sup> taken and compared with U.S. norms. The comparisons indicated that<sup>studentscoresinbasic</sup> anthmetic additions and subtractions approximated U.S. scores of the<sup>appropriategrades.However,</sup> the Burkmabe adults completmg one phase of adult literacy training<sup>weregenerallyperformingat a</sup> level lower than that attained by 2nd grade students in both Burkina<sup>Faso and the UnitedStates.</sup> Learners in the process of completing two years of nonformal adolescent<sup>and adult classes read too</sup> slowly (about 2.2 seconds per word) and inefficiently (80-87 percent<sup>correct);giventhelimitations of</sup> human memory, they were probably not able to use reading extensively. Graduates<sup>of past years who</sup> became literacy teachers have become more efficient readers with<sup>time andapproximatedthespeed</sup> and accuracy of formally educated literacy teachers and of secondary rural school<sup>students.Some of</sup> the tested literacy teachers, however, had scores only slightly above<sup>thoseof their learners.</sup> Subsequently, the research team tested the alternative hypotheses that<sup>(a)speeded readingof</sup> increasingly larger word units would improve learners' readmg scores over<sup>thoseof a controlgroup</sup> and (b) phonological awareness traming would improve reading<sup>scoresover those of a control group.</sup> Two cognitively oriented instructional methods were implemented<sup>in15adult literacy centersof</sup> Burkina Faso comprising about 240 learners: phonological awareness<sup>and rapid readingof</sup> increasingly difficult words. The literacy centers were operated by a Swiss<sup>nongovernmental</sup> organization (Organisation Suisse d'Entraide Ouvriere - OSEO) and the<sup>governmentalNational</sup> Institute of Literacy (INA). One class was held in each center. Literacy<sup>centerswere assignedat</sup> random to receive phonological awareness, rapid readmg, a combination of<sup>the two, and no special</sup> treatment (control group). Learners were given reading tests and a computerized<sup>reactiontime test.</sup> Although the literacy courses were shortened by the arrival of rains<sup>and governmentdelays,</sup> the piloted methods helped adults read better than those in the standard,<sup>"control"classes.Learners</sup> enrolled in the experimental classes performed better on the outcome tests than<sup>did learners enrolled</sup> in control classes. Ninety percent of the possible comparisons between treatment<sup>classesandcontrol</sup> classes favored classes receiving treatments; and 72 percent of the measurements<sup>in favor of the</sup> treatments were statistically significant. The evidence suggests that phonological<sup>awarenesstraining</sup> is particularly effective in situations where the training period was short,<sup>and thatrapid readingwas</sup> more advantageous in longer training situations.

The findings indicate that even with the short literacy class<sup>durationandthe varioustest</sup> administration problems in the field, effects could be discerned for both cognitive<sup>methodsthat were</sup> tried out. However, due to the short duration of the classes (34 months) learners<sup>apparently did not</sup> receive sufficient practice to consolidate skills. A year after instruction<sup>wascompleted,informal</sup> observations indicated that a number of these rural neoliterates had forgotten<sup>the soundsassociated</sup> with some consonants. More exposure to print and better use of class time<sup>may be necessaryfor</sup> stable skills acquisition.
## **INTRODUCTION**

Skilled reading is dependent on the development of fast and accurate reading of small units: letters (or ideographs), syllables, and words.' The modest levels of performance in many adult<sup>literacy</sup> classes worldwide raise the possibility that learners may not reach the necessary proficiency<sup>in the</sup> low-level skills required to read these small units automatically. Another reason for low perfornance, aside from inaccurate reading, may be that learners have limited phonological awareness,<sup>that is,</sup> awareness of how words are structured. Instruction that moved from phonological awareness<sup>training</sup> to rapid processing of syllables, words, and sentences, and then to activities designed to foster<sup>reading</sup> comprehension would be particularly beneficial to adults. These techniques could be integrated<sup>into</sup> existing instructional methods. (See Abadzi 2003a, 2003b for a review of the Bank's experiences<sup>in</sup> literacy and the cognitive-neuropsychological research related to adult literacy.) An opportunity to understand better the reading processes of neoliterates arose when the Swiss Development Cooperation agreed to finance, through its World Bank Trust Fund, evaluative research of Swiss-supported programs **in** Burkina Faso. This country, which has a literacy rate of only about 20 percent,<sup>2</sup> was chosen because it has established a tradition of literacy activities,<sup>often</sup> onented toward income-generating groups. Literacy is taught by the governmental National<sup>Literacy</sup> Institute (INA) as well as by many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Notable among them is the Organization Suisse d' Entraide Ouvnere (OSEO), which pledged its help in carrying out the research. Because of weather patterns and agricultural work, literacy classes in rural areas are<sup>carried</sup> out only from January to June of every year.

The research took place from May 2000 to August 2001. The research involved: (a) baseline measurements and comparisons with U.S. norms, (b) designing interventions and assessment procedures, (c) implementing interventions, and (d) evaluating the outcomes. A follow-up phase, assessment of forgetting and relapse into illiteracy was to be carried out in the spring of 2002, but time permitted only informal observations.

## **RESEARCH DESIGN**

A research team was assembled, consisting of Dr. James M. Royer, educational psychologist at the University of Massachusetts - Amherst, and Burkinabe researcher Dr. Jules Kinda, professor of linguistics at University of Ouagadougou, along with three Burkinabe assistants<sup>3</sup> . The Burkinab6 research team was given background trainig on the literacy issues to be investigated and was trained in the use and administration of materials as well as on practical test development and data analysis.

# Research Participants

The participants in the research were learners and graduates of literacy classes in Manegdbzanga, a rural area located about 45 kilometers outside Ouagadougou. Area residents have become known for their dedication to group formation and adult literacy activities<sup>4</sup> where groups learned to read **in** the 1980s and 1990s in order to increase their agricultural and trading productivity. Representatives of the donor community frequently visit the villagers' association of Nomgana.<sup>In</sup> this area of limited formal education, literacy classes are well attended. In addition to adult literacy I Royer 1997.

2. UNESCO Statistical Yearbook 1999-2000.

3. Prof Pierre Magloubi and graduate students Laura Tahita and Sarata Dialo.

4. Easton 1998.
2 and income generation, OSEO has supported a successful Moore-French program in the local schools since about 1990. (The schools of Burkina Faso teach exclusively in French.) These children learned first to read in Moore. Several cohorts of them have completed primary school and gone on to French-speaking secondary schools. For literacy instruction and testing, it was decided to use the Moore language, which is spoken in Ouagadougou and its environs, includmg Manegdbzanga. The participants ranged in age from 7 to people in their 40s who did not know their exact age.

The researchers initially tested various groups of participants to establish baseline data. Then the reading methods were applied to 15 classes of about 250 learners, whose average age was 20. Seventy-eight percent of them had not been to school at all.

# Development and Pilot-Testing of Materials

Computer-assisted measuirements. Central to the measurement of reading performance was the Computer-based Academic Assessment System (CAAS). This system records the speed and accuracy of readers in letters, syllables, words, or sentences, and was originally developed for dyslexic children. A stimulus appears on the screen (such as a letter, word, or number) and the examinee responds into a microphone. The vocal response stops a clock in the computer and the examiner scores the data for accuracy. The speed and accuracy data, along with learner names and characteristics, are stored in a file on the computer and are later retrieved for statistical analysis. Measurements on speed and accuracy can be reported separately, or combined into an index.

Three notebook computers with extra batteries were purchased and carried to Ouagadougou for this purpose. Stimuli for the CAAS were prepared **in** Moore by the team of linguists. Tests were developed for letters, syllables, common words, simple sentences, numerals, simple additions, and simple subtractions. Each test consisted of 20 stimuli, and their development presented some challenges. Moore is a tonal language, which uses accents on many vowels as well as some letters taken from Greek; developing fonts for the computer displays required some work, as did the development of criteria regarding which responses would be considered acceptable, given the tonality of the language.

Paper and pencil achievement tests. Paper and pencil tests that measured letter identification, syllable identification, word identification, and understanding of sentences were developed in Moore. These were multiple-choice tests, where the learners were asked to circle the correct word. Sirmlarly, a multiple-choice test was developed for phonological awareness tasks. These were to be used as backup tests in case the electronics of CAAS failed and to double-check the CAAS results. (See details in Appendix 1.) The learners were not tested on reading aloud and listening comprehension because of the complexities involved in testing for readability of texts.

Quesfionnaire. A questionnaire was developed m Moore and was administered to participants orally to obtain data on demographic characteristics, including attendance in fornal or Koranic school, frequency of reading use, and reasons for taking the literacy course. (See details in Appendix 1).

## A. BASELINE MEASUREMENTS AND COMPARISONS

In this phase, the research team wanted to find out how well various groups of people read mn the area and to establish baselines. Comparisons were made with U.S. students, for whom data were available. Thus it would be possible to make comparisons between a literate country and a sample of Burkinabe school children and adult graduates of literacy courses. Also, the research team would thus evaluate the extent to which literacy class graduates were proficient in performing low-level reading
3

> skills. Another group of interest consisted of Burkinabe neoliterates who had become literacy teachers.

> In May 2000, the researchers tested groups of residents with the CAAS and obtained speed and accuracy data for basic reading and math tasks. Results were compared with children who were (a) students in grades 1-3 of the bilingual schools; (b) adolescents attending nonformal schools for adolescents, largely financed by UNICEF; (c) secondary school students, who had completed the bilingual education primary school program; (e) graduates of literacy classes; (f) graduates of literacy

> classes who had become literacy teachers; (g) literacy teachers with formal education; and (h) secondary school students. The results were compared with norms of U.S. students.

The comparisons indicated that the Burkinabe adults completing one phase of adult literacy training were generally performing at a level lower than that attained by 2nd grade students in both Burkina Faso and the United States (Figure 1). More specifically:

- Students at all levels tested (rural bilingual grades 2, 3, 8, adolescent and adult nonformal classes) read more slowly and less accurately than a sample of second grade students in the United States.

- Learners in the process of completing two years of nonformal adolescent and adult classes read too slowly (about 2.2 seconds per word) and inefficiently (80-87 percent correct); given the limitations of human memory, they were probably not able to use reading extensively.

- Graduates of past years who became literacy teachers have become more efficient readers with time and approximated the speed and accuracy of formally educated literacy teachers and of secondary rural school students. Some of the tested literacy teachers, however, had scores only slightly above those of their learners.

- Student scores in basic arithmetic additions and subtractions approximated U.S. scores of the appropriate grades.

These results supported the hypothesis that adult literacy training programs may not be developing adequate low-level reading skills. Suitable methods were sought to find out if it was possible to increase the speed and accuracy of the next cohorts of literacy learners.

# **Figure 1. Reaction speed and accuracy of U.S. and Burkinabe Students**

<!-- Start of picture text --> CAAS Speed (in seconds) of Burkinabe CAAS Accuracy (percent correct) of<br>and US Students on Word Recognition Burkinabe and US Students on Word<br>Task Recognition Task<br>3 ~ O 95 l O m<br>2 r > Omde 90> , | Ir~~~9 4<br>1 I L o D Aduh irAd 80 I Aduh Iad<br>Burkinabe U.S. Burkinabe U S.<br><!-- End of picture text -->
4 <!-- Start of picture text --> CAAS Accuracy (percent correct) on<br>CAAS Speed (in seconds) of Burklnabe Burkinabe and US Students on Sentence<br>and US Students on Sentence Recognition Task<br>Recognition Task<br>16_ 100<br>12 10- ~~~~~G4 ~ O Gr 3 80 1TTM = | E:lGr 3 OG4<br>108 = O [:]GAdult yr1 60I I _ uAyr4<br>6 62 - DAdul Grad 40 2 OAulGr<br>2- 20 -<br>Burkinabe U.S. Burkinabe U.S.<br><!-- End of picture text -->

# IB. DEVELOPING AND PILOT-TESTING<sup>LITERACYJENTERVIENTIONS</sup>

From October 2000 to February 2001, the Burkinabe<sup>researchteam operated a "literacy</sup> laboratory" at the Center for the Handicapped<sup>and Orphansof Sector28 in Ouagadougou. They</sup> invited illiterate or semi-literate area residents<sup>to comefor aftemoonclasses, in which various</sup> methods were tried and developed. About 30<sup>people attendedon a regular basis. The researchers</sup> pilot-tested various methods, observed and<sup>videotaped results,and asked the participantsfor their</sup> opinions regarding effectiveness. The following<sup>methodswere tried:</sup> Phonological awareness exercises. These teach<sup>illiteratesthe structureof the language and</sup> are related to reading effectiveness. Participants<sup>learnedto find the initialand finallettersof words,</sup> make rhymes, and determine the number of<sup>syllables in words.</sup> Speeded reading tasks of progressive diffineulty.<sup>This task was to help learnersread</sup> automatically as many common words as possible,<sup>so that theirworking memorywould not be</sup> overloaded with letter-by-letter reading. Learners<sup>received packsof 20 cards, each with one word,</sup> which they were asked to shuffle and read<sup>to each other as fast as possible.The task involved two</sup> people; one was reading, and the other was<sup>timing the reader with an inexpensiveplastic stopwatch.</sup> The learners were taught to read the results and<sup>place them every day on a graph paper.Every day,</sup> the readers read the pack a little faster. After<sup>the improvementhad leveled off,they weregiven packs</sup> with longer words. Learners went through a<sup>total of four packs that hadwords of three, four,or more</sup> letters.

Groupimg of similar letters and systematic<sup>pairingof consonantand vowel</sup> combinations. This technique was developed<sup>by the biostatisticianGoteti Bala Krishamurthy,who</sup> had applied it extensively in south India. Learners<sup>were asked which consonantslooked similar to</sup> them, and they learned these in groups of _4-5,_<sup>in hopes of learning to discriminateamongthem. To</sup> help learners deduce the reading strategy by<sup>themselves, eachof the consonants waspaired</sup> systematically with all vowels. After learning<sup>agroup of new letters,the learners weretold to search</sup> for them in a local newspaper.

The learners, many of whom had briefly attended<sup>schoolor other literacyclasses, found the</sup> activities attractive. Variability and work in<sup>small groupshelpedlearnersfocus on the material much</sup> of the time. It was gratifying to see (and capture<sup>on video) the reactionsof learners who through</sup> phonological exercises understood the structure<sup>of language.Speededtasks createdcompetitions,</sup> with learners reading as fast as possible while<sup>others measuredthem witha stopwatch.More potential</sup> learners dropped by the center every day. Sometimes<sup>they wereso excited,they did not want to leave</sup> at the end of the class.
_5_ However, problems were also noted. Many learners made errors when<sup>readingto eachother,</sup> and these could go uncorrected when a monitor was not available nearby. Though chronometers incited learners' interest, registration of reaction times on graph paper<sup>wasoften incorrect.Some</sup> people, particularly women, could not read them well. Readmg from cards was<sup>in some respects hard</sup> and time-consuming, since each pack had to be kept separate and not nmxed<sup>up with others. Reading</sup> from sheets of paper was simpler, but then the order of the words stayed the<sup>same,and readers could</sup> memorize it. Phrases that required filling in the blanks were tried, but learners<sup>could not perform</sup> effectively, possibly because their working memory was too short to<sup>keepall the material.It was</sup> found that reading individual letters was not useful, and the lowest units<sup>presentedto learnerswere</sup> syllables. Though wnting seemed necessary, **it** was not emphasized in this research<sup>study.</sup> After four months of working with the learners, the team developed<sup>appropnatetasks for</sup> phonological awareness in Moore and feasible tasks for timing and graphing progress<sup>of</sup> progressively harder speeded reading tasks. The Krishnamurty technique<sup>for Indian languagesdid not</sup> perform as expected with the Roman alphabet; learners were confused rather<sup>than helped by learning</sup> the b, d, p, and q together, and the researchers realized that they did not understand<sup>what degreeof</sup> similanty helps and what degree impedes learning. So, this method was<sup>set aside.</sup> In addition to these activities, the CAAS and questionnaire were administered<sup>to instructors</sup> and neoliterates of centers in Ouagadougou. The tests were used for practice,<sup>and data were analyzed</sup> for possible significant insights to the automaticity process. However, the<sup>performancelevelsof the</sup> participants were nearly 100 percent in accuracy, and they did not provide<sup>important information.</sup>

# **Designing the Intervention and Training Teachers**

To test the efficacy of the phonological awareness tasks and speeded reading,<sup>aquasi-</sup> expenmental design was developed. It involved four interventions: (a) phonological<sup>awareness</sup> training, (b) rapid reading training, (c) both phonological awareness and rapid reading,<sup>and(d) a</sup> control group involving only traditional teachmg techniques, that is, one person<sup>readingand the group</sup> repeating what was read. These were carried out in literacy centers in (a) Manegdbzanga,<sup>where</sup> OSEO finances implementation during the dry season every year (January<sup>to June)and (b)Windyam,</sup> also outside Ouagadougou, where the governmental National Literacy Institute<sup>isactive.Although the</sup> assignment of learners in classes was not random (due to geographic considerations),<sup>the15centers</sup> were randomly assigned to one of the four interventions. With nine centers sponsored<sup>by the</sup> government and nine by OSEO, 18 treatment combinations were created.<sup>It wasanticipated that each</sup> of the classrooms would enroll approximately 25 learners, making a total of<sup>250learners participating</sup> **in** the study.

The original design was to have every participant complete a questionnaire<sup>and the paper-</sup> and-pencil tests at the end of the study. Because CAAS is time-consumng<sup>and</sup> it<sup>was not possible to</sup> charge multiple batteries m rural areas without electncity, only a sample of<sup>learnerscould be tested</sup> with **it.** Thus, the plan was to randomly select five learners from each school<sup>to complete the CAAS</sup> tasks both pnor to beginning instruction and upon completion of the<sup>first phaseof schooling.This</sup> plan would result in CAAS assessments for 90 learners (Table 1).
6 Table i. lResearch Design

|_Approach_<br>|_Treatments_<br>|_Classes_<br>_Leamers_|_CAAS_|
|---|---|---|---|
|INA<br>|PhonologicalAwareness(PA)|2<br>50|10random|
|(Government)||(25perclass)|(5eachclass)|
||Rapid Reading(RR)|2<br>50<br>|10random<br>|
|||(25perclass)|(5**eachclass)**|
||RR**+**PA|2<br>50<br>|10random|
|||(25perclass)|(5each class)|
||Control|3<br>75<br>|15random|
|||(25per class)|(5eachclass)|
|OSIEO<br>|Phonological Awareness(PA)|2<br>50|10random|
|(SwissNGO)|a<br>|(25perclass)<br> <br>|(5each class)<br>|
||**RapidReading**(RR)|2<br>50|10random|
|||(25perclass)<br>|(5each class)|
||RR+PA|2<br>50<br>|10random|
|||(25perclass)|(5eachclass)|
||Control|3<br>75|15random|
|||(25perclass)|(5each class)|
|**Total**||18<br>250|90|

## **Total**

> Teacher training. The first challenge was to train 24 teachers in carrying out the methods. Training was done over four days (January 8-12, 2001) at the Manegdbzanga center of Nomgana. The teachers were paid an honorarium for their attendance as well as a small stipend for implementing the experimental methods. The rationale for all methods was explained, and videotapes

> were shown, which had been recorded during the operation of the "literacy laboratory." Then the

> teachers, many of them themselves graduates of literacy classes, were asked to perform the tasks.

> They found the training very interesting but also very brief. A refresher training would have been

> useful, but for logistical reasons, it was never carried out. It would have been helpful to measure teacher performance and use it as explanatory variable in the treatment and control groups, but time did not permit this procedure.

A random sample of learners was pretested through the CAAS. It was determiined that most could not read at all, although a few recognized a few letters. Eighty-one percent of them had not been to school at all, while most of the remaining 18 percent reported attending for one year. Thus, no pretest paper-and-pencil test was applied. Also, the assumption was made that experimental and control groups were similar at the beginning of treatment, allowing a comparison of the post-test results only. The number of years of school correlated only .09 with final reading scores. Because Burkina Faso has a literacy rate of only about 20 percent, it was unlikely for participants to learn reading outside formal or nonformal classrooms.

# C. IMPLEMENTING INSTRUCTION

# Subjects

> The subjects for the experimental part of the study were 425 participants of literacy classes.

> There were more females (295) than males (130) enrolled in the classes and there tended to be a wide

> range in ages with the youngest enrollee 7 years of age and the oldest reportedly 50 years of age. The mean reported age of the learners was 20. Forty-two percent of the learners were married and 32 percent were single. One hundred thirty five of the learners reported they had at least one child. The number of children the learners reported having ranged from 1 to 9. About 78 percent had never been

> to school, and about 22 percent of the learners had some previous formal schooling. The shortest time

> attendance penod was 1 year, and the longest was 3 years (Table 2). Twenty-eight learners reported
7 having gone to a Koranic school, and may have known some Arabic reading.<sup>Theircompetencyin</sup> Arabic was not tested.

Since literacy is a desirable activity in Burkina Faso and a form of<sup>social gatheringfor rural</sup> residents, more people attended than expected. The subjects were rural<sup>residents whofound out about</sup> the classes and decided to come and thus were self-selected. (No surveys<sup>were doneto determine</sup> which residents had decided not to come and for which reasons, therefore,<sup>the criteriafor self-</sup> selection are unknown.) All were from farming families, although their specific<sup>socioeconomicstatus</sup> was not known. Parental formal education was not known, but was probably non-existent.

**Table 2. Learners' Demographic Information**

|Gender:<br>|30male(30.5%295 female(69.5)<br>|
|---|---|
|Age:|20.07 years(SD=8.48);range7-50,mostlywere<br>11-21;mode15<br>|
|MaritalStatus:<br>|79married(42%),246single(58%)<br>|
|Numberofchildren:<br>|289(68%)hadnochildren; modalwas2,range<br>1-9|
|Primary schoolattendance:<br>||
|None<br>|326(78%)<br>|
|Oneyear<br>|93 (22%)<br>|
|Twoyears<br>|6(0.1%)<br>|
|Threeyears<br>|1(0.02%)<br>|
|Koranicschoolattendance<br>|28(6%) Modalageat attendancewas10(N=5)<br>|
|Othertypesoftraining|47(11%)|

# **Classroom Observations**

Subsequently, the researchers regularly observed and helped the<sup>teachers.Theclasseswere</sup> observed at least once a week by the research team. The teachers largely implemented<sup>the methods as</sup> expected and were given help when they did not. The researchers only corrected<sup>issues related to the</sup> implementation of the methods; they did not offer suggestions for the<sup>instructional improvementof</sup> the literacy class cumcula, although several examples were presented.<sup>For example,one teacher</sup> initially instructed learners to read slowly, although the goal of literacy<sup>classesshould be rapid,</sup> effortless reading.

The research team provided materials for the classes to carry<sup>out the twotreatments:(a) word</sup> lists for phonological awareness and sheets for learners to register what<sup>differencesthey heardin</sup> words; (b) stopwatches, graph sheets, packs of cards with words of varying<sup>difficultiesas wellas</sup> sheets with lists of words. These were printed and local print shops. Stopwatches<sup>(oneforevery two</sup> learners) were bought for 2000 CFAF (US$2.50) each at the local market.

Classes met for two hours daily, and learners practiced the experimental<sup>methodsfor about 30</sup> minutes in class each day. For the remaining time, learners practiced<sup>decodingskills and took turns</sup> reading aloud while other learners repeated. This methodology does not<sup>use class time well, but it is</sup> widely used, and the researchers did not intervene to change it.

Again, the researchers observed that the activity level required<sup>by progressivespeededtasks</sup> was a welcome departure from the usual read-and-repeat method. Generally,<sup>learnersbecameable to</sup> time their classmates, read stopwatches, and record time on simple graphs. The<sup>phonological</sup> awareness tasks also worked well, but they were time-consuming as presented,<sup>and the method</sup> needed more refinement.
8 Because the methods were applied in different villages that had some distance among them, it **is** highly unlikely that there were contamination effects from one classroom to another.

# EvaRuadtng the llmpact of the linstructioimal lInterventions-lData Challenges

Because of delays and administrative difficulties, only 15 centers could be used in the<sup>study,</sup> but the number of participants was much larger than the 250 planned (Appendix 2, Table<sup>1).Reading</sup> tests and a questionnaire were administered to a total of 425 learners. Of these, 199 were<sup>enrolledin</sup> classrooms conducted by OSEO staff and 227 were enrolled in classrooms conducted by<sup>INA staff.</sup> Field research in relatively remote rural areas inevitably runs into the unexpected. OSEO classes were underway in early February, but government-financed (INA) classes<sup>did not startuntil</sup> the end of March. The INA leamers received only three months of instruction by the time the rains arrived in June, while the OSEO leamers had five months of instruction.

Five leamers from each class were to be chosen at tested at random using CAAS. Although three batteries were provided for each notebook frequent electrical blackouts and perhaps<sup>the</sup><sup>**450**C</sup> heat in the villages (where there was no electricity) contributed to the deterioration of the batteries. Each would last 20 minutes or so, and they often ran out in the middle of a test, losing the<sup>results.</sup> Thus, researchers could not test the number of leamers expected. Overall, only 37 learners could be assessed through the CAAS in pre- and post-tests, and these were not distributed evenly in the various classes. Therefore, the analyses of these data were not included in this report.

Near the end of the course, learners answered a questionnaire that collected demographic information (see Table 2 for a summary), and they completed tests (in their native language) that measured their competence at identifying letters, syllables, words, and sentence length material. Obtaining demographic data from leamers also posed some problems. About 30 learners stated<sup>that</sup> they had never before attended literacy class or school, but displayed rudimentary reading<sup>skills</sup> during the pretest. Apparently literacy classes are a social function in the villages, and residents did not want to be excluded.

Because the experimental conditions were imperfect, the data were "noisy" with more error variance than expected. Efforts were made to understand the effects of the treatments and disentangle them from related variables. The observational data collected (including videotaped sessions) provided qualitative information to supplement the statistical analyses.

# Results of the linterventdon Efforts

Analyses of variance were carried out, comparing the various treatment groups in OSEO, INA, and control classes. Performance on the tests administered near the end of phase one<sup>training</sup> indicated that learners enrolled in courses sponsored by OSEO performed better than did learners enrolled in government-sponsored courses. Given that the government courses had lasted a shorter period, this result was not surprising.

The results on the paper-and-pencil tests also showed that the learners receiving any of the new instructional interventions tended to perform better on the tests than did the learners enrolled in the control classes. There were 20 possible comparnsons between treatment and control classes; the treatment groups scored higher than the control group in 18 of the 20. Moreover, in 13 of these 18 comparisons the advantage for the treatment group over the control group was statistically significant. In the two comparisons favoring the control group over the treatment group, the difference was not statistically significant. Specifically, analysis of variance results were:
9

- _Letter identification._ A two-way analysis of variance indicated that the advantage for the OSEO groups over the INA group was statistically significant, F(1,241) = 10.19, p < .01. The effect for treatment group was also significant, F(3,241) = 4.21, p < .01. The interaction between sponsor and treatment was not significant, F(3,241) = 2.35, N.S.

- _Syllable identification._ A two-way analysis of variance indicated that there was a statistically significant effect of sponsor, (F1,229) = 32.63, p < .01, and treatment type, F( 3, 229) = 4.66, p < .01. The Interaction between sponsor and treatment type was also significant, F(3, 229) = 3.85, p < .05.

- _Word identifi cation._ The two-way analysis of variance for the word identification test indicated that sponsor was a significant source of variance, F(1,207) = 24.89, p < .01. Treatment condition was also a significant source of variance, F(3, 207) = 5.99, p < .01. The phonological awareness treatment group in INA classrooms did not complete the word identification test because the test was too difficult for them. The test of the interaction is uninterpretable given the lack of data for the phonological awareness INA group

- _Sentence identification._ The statistical analysis for the sentence identification and understanding test was conducted only on the OSEO treatments. This analysis indicated that treatment group was not a significant source of variance, F(3,188) = 2.66, p < .05. The reader will note that all three of the treatment groups outperformed the control group on the sentence understanding test. Post hoc contrasts indicated that the rapid reading group and the PA + RR group performed significantly better that did the control group.

The impact of the treatment conditions differed according to the agency sponsoring the courses. Learners enrolled in government courses tended to benefit most from phonological awareness training, whereas learners enrolled in OSEO courses tended to benefit most from rapid reading or the combination training. The probable reason for this differential impact is that phonological awareness training is most likely to be useful early **in** instruction whereas rapid reading training is most likely to be beneficial _after_ some skill in phonological awareness has been acquired. The shorter governmentsponsored training allowed the benefits of phonological awareness to be felt before the benefits of rapid training became evident. In contrast, the longer OESO courses, brought out the benefits of<sup>rapid</sup> reading training.

_There were gender differences in performance._ Males tended to perforn better than females<sup>in</sup> the tests (Appendix 2, Table 10). However, there was no evidence that the different treatments affected the performance of the two sexes differently.

As mentioned earlier, some tests could not be completed. The phonological awareness tests were computerized, and when the computers failed, they could not be scored. Also results from the computer-based CAAS assessments were not interpretable, since they could be administered to only a small subset of the learner population; only 37 learners could be tested on a pre and post basis, and they were not randomly or evenly distributed among classes. Regression analyses were carried out, but the error variance due to the CAAS problems was large, and outcomes were confusing.

Differences may be statistically significant, but how practically useful are they in determining whether literacy courses should include phonological awareness and rapid reading? Educational research often uses _effect size,_ a measure of the differences between treatment and control groups in
10 standard deviation (z score) units.<sup>5</sup> Most effect sizes (shown<sup>**in**Appendix2,Tables 2-9,Figure 2)are</sup> moderate to large.

Figure 2. Effect Sizes of Various T1reatment Combinations <!-- Start of picture text --> Percent Correct on Syllable Identification:<br>Effect Sizes at Top of Bar, t At .05.<br>292-- 26D<br>S- 04-- |1<br>75'1X<br>45 _ |_ 1 0 - 2<br>PA RR PA+RR Control<br>85 197<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> Percent Correct on Word Identification:<br>Effect Sizes at Top of Bar, c" At .05.<br>337 397<br>5 124L -<br>75' , .. M =.9 _<br>4 5J' l l -<br>PA RR PA+RR Control<br>asi.<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Percent Correct on Letter Identfication:<br>Effect Sozes at Top of far, llAt.05.<br>ass. 369-- 323--<br>75'1 l,<br>PA RR PA+RR Contro<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Percent Correct on Sentpulaio enrtofication:<br>Effect Sizes at Top of Bar, At .05.<br>ss 391 472-- 603--<br>75<br>PA RR PA+RR Contrd[<br><!-- End of picture text -->

# **Q;uestionnaire Results**

The data fr7om the questionnaire provided a portrait of the<sup>population enrolling in the literacy</sup> programs. Some of the pertinent findings follow.

_Few questionnaire variables showed significant relationships with reading_<sup>_scores._The only</sup> learner characteristics significantly related to performance on the paper-and-pencil<sup>test were the</sup> number of years of prior schooling and the age at which some learners<sup>attended Koranicschool;those</sup> who had attended Koranic schools had better performance if they had attended at a younger<sup>age.</sup> However, only 6 percent of the learners had attended Koranic schools, and<sup>the correlationshould be</sup> interpreted with caution (Appendix 2, Table 12).

5. An effect size is the mean of the treatment group mnus the mean of the control<sup>groupdivided by thestandard deviationof</sup> the control group. Effect sizes may show how the average treatment group<sup>student wouldscore IF thestudent werein the</sup> control group. Sizes of 0.4-0.6 are considered small, 0.6-0.8 moderate,<sup>and above0.8large.For example,aneffectsize of</sup> 0.5, located at a statistical table of cumulative normal probabilities<sup>(area</sup> of<sup>the normal curveencompassedby various z</sup> score values), would be found to encompasses 69% of the normal distribution,<sup>hence theaveragetreatmentgroupstudent</sup> would score at the 69th percentile IF they were in the control group. An<sup>effectsize of 1.5means thatthe average treatment</sup> group student would score at the 93rd percentile of the control group.
11 _There was no relationship between self-ratings of learners and reading scores._ There was also no relationship between learners' evaluation of their own reading skills, reported reading frequency, and reading performance on the paper and pencil tests (Appendix 2, Table I1). It would have been expected for literates to have some insight about how well they were reading. This lack of relationship brings into question the validity of self-ratings of competence among literacy programs that use them, such as REFLECT. Similarly, a sample of learners tested in Bangladesh after course completion showed 92 percent pass, but a later retest showed only 32.3 percent of learners passing. Nevertheless, a tracer study of the same population using self-reports found that 85 percent of participants still wrote from time to time and 97 percent still read two years after program completion.<sup>6</sup>

> It was noted that learners who had attended the rapid reading courses tended to rate themselves as better readers. It is possible that the lively reading activities promoted by this method created **in** the minds of the participants illusions of competence or comprehension, which are known

> to happen when learners are exposed to dynamic teachers and challenging learming events.<sup>7</sup>

About 135 graduates were interviewed and retested in May 2002, but time and funding did not permit reliable research. Most had not had anything to read for the previous year. Several had forgotten individual consonants and could read with difficulty. They did remember numbers.and still could do phonological awareness exercises. Many expressed pleasure at the rapid reading and phonological exercises and some went again to the literacy class hoping that the new methods would be again applied. Given the informal observation conditions, it was not possible to estimate the incidence of relapse into illiteracy. Due to the short duration of the classes (34 months) learners apparently did not receive sufficient practice to consolidate skills for the long term.

# **Discussion**

The findings indicate that even with the short literacy class duration and the vanous test admmistration problems in the field, effects could be discerned for both cognitive methods that were tried out. The alternative hypotheses that these two methods improve reading scores above those of control classes using "traditional" method were accepted. The research team recommended to the National Literacy Institute that these methods be adopted, and teacher training videotapes were made available to the agency.

The results of the reported research are best viewed as a pilot effort that demonstrates the potential benefit of weaving aspects of modern reading instruction into the fabric of traditional adult literacy training in developing countries. The treatments evaluated in the project were mostly "addons" to traditional procedures rather than tightly integrated instructional methods. Even so, the learners receiving the supplemented instruction outperformed their control school counterparts.

Possibly some of the effects of rapid reading may be due to the increased engagement and time on task that this method requires. Instead of learners watching others read inactively, they were engaged in reading with their partners much of the time. If new methods were coupled with increased time on task, literacy outcomes might be even more beneficial. Future research should evaluate this expectation. It should also move beyond techniques targeted solely at low-level reading skills. It should evaluate reading comprehension methods that have proved effective **in** developed countries. Instruction that moves from phonological awareness training, to rapid processing of syllables, words, 6. Ahmad and Lohani 2001.

7. Bjork 1994, _1999._
12 and sentences, and then to activities<sup>designedto foster readingcomprehensionskill would be</sup> particularly beneficial to adults. These<sup>techniques could be integratedinto existing instructional</sup> methods, thereby maintaining the cultural<sup>relevanceof theinstructional procedures.</sup> To recommend that these methods become<sup>a routine part of literacy coursesin other countries,</sup> more tnals must be carried out in environments<sup>differentfrom those of rural BurkinaFaso. Issues to</sup> study further in future research and tryouts<sup>might be:</sup>

- A brief neuropsychological assessment should<sup>be carried out beforeand after the teaching</sup> program (digit span, verbal memory, workmng<sup>memory conceptualknowledge, visuospatial</sup> abilities), as shown by the Mexican Neuroalfa<sup>literacy program. Thus,it would be possible to</sup> find out the extent to which the cognitive<sup>processesof thegraduateshave improved.</sup>

- The phonological awareness exercises should<sup>be more extensiveandgraduallyincreasein</sup> complexity. They could include syllable matching<sup>and rhyme comparisonswith wordsand</sup> non-words. It is also important to do pair discriminations<sup>and manipulatethe phonemic</sup> distance between the consonants and the vowels.

- Improvements must be made in the low-level<sup>reading task logistics. Thereading packalways</sup> contained the same words, so even with<sup>shuffle, learnersmight havememonzedthe rangeof</sup> words contained therein, since there were only<sup>20, and these weresoundedout as a reader</sup> and as a reader-timer. Perhaps longer packs<sup>should be tned.</sup>

- O The amount of practice needed for the<sup>sound-letterlinkages to stabilizein the memoryof</sup> neoliterates must be assessed. Clearly, 3-<sup>and 4-monthcoursesare too short for rural</sup> populations with limited daily exposure to<sup>print.</sup>

With literacy software available to supplement<sup>the fast reading tasks, anexperimental use of</sup> computers could be applied in various centers.<sup>Reactiontimedatacould be collected.Additional</sup> software, if it becomes available, could<sup>offer practicein visualscanningtasks, discnminationtasks,</sup> reading, lexical decision tasks. Data would<sup>giveinformationabout learning processand development</sup> of automaticity. Neoliterate adults may achieve<sup>automatic readingonly after averylarge number of</sup> pairings of visual and auditory stimuli. Such<sup>alargenumber of trials is not feasible inclasses, but itis</sup> feasible through computers.
13

# **Appendix 1. Tests and Questionnaire**

The development of assessment procedures occurred in workshop dunng Dr. Royer's January 2001 **visit** to Burkina Faso. Because CAAS assessments were time-consuming and dependent on technology, it was decided that additional paper-and-pencil measures that could be group administered would need to be developed. All of the assessment instruments were developed in Moore. The instruments and their contents were:

- _Phonological awareness._ The test was administered by havinig the examiner read two words. In some cases the learner was asked to circle yes if the words rhymed and no if they did not. Other variations of the test were circling yes if the words started with the same sound and no if they did not, or to circle yes if the words ended with the same sound, and no if they **did** not.

- _Letter recognition._ This test was administered by having the examiner read a letter name. The leamer then selected one of four letters on the test page and circled it as the correct answer. The leamer was asked to identify 20 letters.

- _Syllable recognition._ This test was administered by having the examiner read a syllable and the leamer then selected one of four syllables on the test page and circled it as the correct answer. The leamer was asked to identify 20 syllables.

- _Word recognition._ Thls test was administered by having the examiner read a word and the leamer then selected one of four words on the test page and circled **it** as the correct answer. The leamer was asked to identify 20 words.

- _Sentence recognition._ This test was administered by having the examiner read a sentence and the leamer then selected one of four sentences on the test page and circled it as the correct answer. The leamer was asked to identify 20 sentences.

**Learner questionnaire.** A vanety of factors in addition to instructional effectiveness could influence the amount of skill acquired in adult literacy training, and the questionnaire identified some of the possible factors. The questionnaires were read to individual leamers in Moore, and the examiners coded the answers given by the leamers. The following information was requested:

- The leamer's gender

- The leamer's age

- Whether the leamer was single or married

- The number of children the leamer had

- The leamer's native language

- The language of reading instruction

- The number of years of previous schooling the learner had received

- Whether or not the learner attended formal school

- The age of the leamer when he/she first attended formal school

- The number of years the leamer attended formal school

- The level of instruction previously completed by the learner

- The number of years since the leamer had attended formal school

- Whether or not the leamer attended Koranic school

- The age of the leamer when he/she attended Koranic school

- Whether or not the leamer attended any other type of school, and if so, what kind
14

- The learner's evaluation of their own reading skills (e.g., very good =1, good = 2, fair = 3, poor=4, none=5)

- The number of days during the academic period that the learner was absent

- The learner's motivation for learning to read

- The learner's intended use for literacy skills

- How often does the learner read (coded with 1 the most frequent)

- What does the learner read

- How many days during the instructional period that the instructor was absent
15

# Appendix 2. Supplemental Tables

Table 1. Sites and Treatments Administered

|_Site_|_Agency_|_InstructionalTreatment_|_Numberoflearners_|
|---|---|---|---|
|Goey|OSEO|PhonologicalAwareness (PA)|17|
|<br>Sogpeelse|INA|PhonologicalAwareness|66|
|Zaongo|SEO|PhonologicalAwareness|27|
|<br>Godre|OSEO|<br>RapidReading(RR)|25|
|Kamsaooge|OSEO|RapidReading|18|
|<br>Nagreongo|INA|RapidReading|28|
|<br>Samande|INA|RapidReading|22|
|Koaada|OSEO|PA+RR|31|
|Koasenge|INA|PA+RR|28|
|<br>Kulkeka|_INA_|PA+RR|23|
|Waanvuus|OSEO|PA+RR|35|
|Kulkeka/jeunes|[NA|Control|33|
|<br>Nongstenga|OSEO|Control|17|
|<br>Tanlaorgo|OSEO|Control|28|
|<br>Wurgu|INA|Control|27|

Table 2. Effect Sizes for Letter Identification Test

|_Sponsor_|_Phonological_|_Rapid_|_PA+ RR_|
|---|---|---|---|
||_Awareness_|_Reading_||
|OSEO|025|369**|323**|
|INA|879**|439**|.726**|

Table 3. Percent Correct Means and Standard Deviations On the letter Identification Test for Treatment Groups and Sponsors

|_Sponsor_|_Phonological_<br>_Awareness_|_RapidReading_|_PA+ RR_|_Control_|_Totals_|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|OSEO|69.43|7976|7840|68.68|74.79|
||(31.55)|(24.03)|(26.56)|(3001)|(2803)|
|INA|7367|5875|6850|4380|60.14|
||(2755)|(3640)|(2945)|(3398)|(33 42)|
|Totals|7070|73 86|74.82|5814||
||(3019)|(29.29)|(2788)|(33.82)||

Table 4. Effect Sizes for Syllable Identification Test

|_Sponsor_|_Phonological_<br>_Awareness_|_RapidPA+R_<br>_Reading_|_PA+ RR_|
|---|---|---|---|
|OSEO|-197|292**|260|
|INA|I04**|851**|912**|
16 Table 5. Percent Correct Means and Standard DeviatAons

|On theSyflabi|lefIdentificatAonTe|stforTreatne|mtGiroupsaind|Sjponsoirs||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|_Sponsor_<br>**_SPonor_**<br>_°Awarenes_|_Phonological_<br>_s_|_Rapid_<br>**_Reading_**|_PA+M_|_Control_|_Totals_|
|OSEO|77.57|89.02|8827|82.19|8517|
||(2689)|(21.48)|(2300)|(2338)|(2392)|
|INA|74.00|67.65|6967|3962|61.14|
||(2989)|(29.64)|(28.22)|(3292)|(32 90)|
|Totals|7654|82.76|8171|5583||
||(27 54)|(2582)|(26 36)|(3604)||

Table 6. Effect Sizes for Word ]dentiffication Test

|_Sponsor_|_Phonological_<br>_Awareness_|_Rapid_<br>_Reading_|_PA+ M_|
|---|---|---|---|
|OSEO|-.124|337|397|
|INA|Xxx|.910°°|912°°|

Table 7. Percent Correct Means and Standcard DevD ations Onm the Woird Ji dentificationm Test foir Treatment Giroups Anmd Sjponsoirs

|_Sponsor_|_Phonological_<br>_Awareness_|_Rapid_<br>_Reading_|_PA+M_|_Control_|_Totals_|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|OSEO|76.03|8707|8852|79.00<br>|83 89<br>|
||(30.87)|(24.42)|(22.60)|(23 92)|(25.93)|
|INA|xxx|70.88|70.95|44.63|6114|
|||(3032)|(32.43)|(2885)|(32.90)|
|Totals|76 03|8233|8360|56 90||
||(3087)|(2705)|(26.71)|(3164)||

Table 8. Effect Sizes for Sentence Understamding Test

|_Sponsor_|_Phonological_<br>**_Awareness_**|_Rapid_<br>**_Reading_**|_PA+ M_<br>|
|---|---|---|---|
|OSEO|391|.472°°<br>|.608°°|
|INA|Xxx|Xxx|xx|

Table 9. Percent Correct Means and Standiard Deviatonms On the Sentence Understanding Test for TreatmentGrosips and<sup>Spomsors</sup>

|Sponsor|Phonological<br>Awareness|Rapid<br>Reading<br>|PA+RR<br>|Control<br>|Totals<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|OSEO|73 92<br>|75 98<br>|79 44<br>|6400<br>|75.51<br>|
||(23.49)|(20.80)<br>|(20.96)<br>|(2537)|(22.27)<br>|
|INA|xxx|57.19<br>|67.10<br>|xxx|6372<br>|
|||(23.87)<br>|(22.54)<br>||(2323)|
|Totals|73 92|70 70<br>|7494<br>|64.00<br>||
||(2349)|(2312)|(22.23)|(2537)||
17

**Table 10. Performance on the Literacy Tests as a Function of Gender and Treatment**

|ApproachandTreatment|Sex|Letter|Syllable|Word|Sentence|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|OSEO|Male|62.3|692|61 15|700|
|PhonologicalAwareness||11|12|13|12|
|||(297)|(30.4)|(375)|(26.6)|
||Female|727|816|835|758|
|||24|25|26|25|
|||(324)|(246)|(245)|(222)|
||Male|846|950|937|837|
|RapidReading||12|12|12|12|
|||(206)|(119)|(172)|(198)|
||Female|77.8|865|84.3|727|
|||29<br>|29|29|29|
|||(25.4)|(241)|(266)|(207)|
|PA+RR|Male|884|956|939|843|
|||22|23|23|22|
|||(148)|(104)|(136)|(201)|
||Female|713|830|845|76.1|
|||31|32|31|32|
|||(307)|(278)|(226)|(212)|
|Control|Male|95.0|100|100|70|
|||l|l|l|l|
||Female|679|810|775|636|
|||33|15|14|14|
|||(301)|(237)|(24.1)|(26.3)|
|INA|Male|<br>817|<br>800|||
|Phonological Awareness||6|6|||
|||(140)|(26.8)|||
||Female|<br>683|700|||
|||9|9|||
|||(335)|(327)|||
||Male|686|<br>714|821|614|
|RapidReading||7|7|7|7|
|||(420)|(342)|(28.8)|(261)|
||Female|511|650|630|539|
|||9|10|10|9|
|||(31.8)|(276)|(302)|(23.0)|
|PA+RR|Male|<br>883|<br>821|<br>90 0|762|
|||6|7|6|8|
|||(14 0)|(336)|(245)|(257)|
||Female|635|659|63.3|639|
|||24|23|15|23|
|||(304)|(261)|(32.7)|(210)|
|Control|Male|<br>55.5|<br>486|<br>523||
|||10|11|11||
|||(348)|(354)|(288)||
||Female|360<br>|330<br>|394<br>||
|||15|_15_|16||
|||(32.2)|(305)|(28.6)||

**Table 11. Learner Self-Perceptions of Reading Skills**

|_Evaluation_|_Sponsor_|_Awareness_|_Rapid_|_PA+ RR_|_Control_|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Good/verygood|OSEO<br>INA|69%<br>57%|81%<br>64%|53%<br>52%|77%<br>64%|
|Fair/bad/can't<br>read|OSEO|29%|19%|47%|21%|
||INA|42%|36%|48%|35%|
18 Tablbe 12. Coirrellallons B3etween Learneir<sup>ReadEing</sup> erfoirmnnaice and Learmer CbanrcteirMscs (Co¢rreRation, Signifecance, N)

||1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Reading Performance|1.0|||||||||
|(1)||||||||||
|LearnerAge(2)|.012<br>.874<br>170|10||||||||
|MantalStatus(3)|.048|-.644**|1.0|||||||
||.529<br>|.000<br>||||||||
||172|422||||||||
|NumberofChildren|-.127|.835*|-638**<br>|1.0||||||
|(4)|.098|.000<br>|.000<br>|||||||
||171|422|424<br>|||||||
|Agefirstattended|.277|-.017|-.142<br>|040<br>|1.0|||||
|Formnalschool(5)|.063|881<br>|195<br>|.715<br>||||||
||46|84|85|85||||||
|Years attended|.093|.145°°|-.096|.047<br>|.298<br>|1.0||||
|Formalschool(6)|.225|003<br>|.048<br>|.334<br>|.006<br>|||||
||171|418|421<br>|420<br>|84|||||
|Age attended Koranic|.-7312|132<br>|078<br>|.001<br>|-|-|1.0|||
|school|002|.513<br>|.699<br>|.995<br>|-|||||
||15|27|27<br>|27<br>|--<br>|--<br>||||
|OwnEval.Of|-121<br>|-.045<br>|011<br>|032<br>|-.161<br>|-.425*0<br>|-091<br>|10||
|Readingskill<br>(8)|.133|366|.827|515<br>|.147<br>|.000<br>|.665<br>|||
||157|406|408|407|82|82<br>|25<br>|||
|HowoftenLearner|-061<br>|-.014<br>|-.041<br>|.011<br>|-.147<br>|.050<br>|-.091<br>|092<br>|10|
|reads|438|.783|411<br>|824<br>|196<br>|314<br>|665<br>|.070<br>||
||165|403|406|405|79|405|25|391||